1 John 4:9

Herein was the love of God manifested in us, that God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him.

The marginal reading "in our case" instead of "in us" appears as the true meaning, since it is God's sending his Son to die for the sins of the whole world, which is the manifestation spoken of, that not being something "in us" but "in our case," or on our behalf.

His only begotten Son ... This is a better rendition than that of making it read merely "only Son," because it is admitted by all scholars that "uniqueness" is an essential quality of meaning in this word.[30] "Only Son" would therefore mean that God has no other sons; yet all Christians are "sons of God." "Only begotten" conveys that essential meaning of "uniqueness," exactly in the sense of the word ([@monogenes]) as translated in Hebrews 11:17 where Isaac is called Abraham's "only begotten son," there being a uniqueness in Isaac's sonship not found in Abraham's many other sons. It is therefore a most happy and appropriate translation which reads "only begotten Son."

While mentioning Buechsel in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, who defended this translation (only begotten), as "practically the only modern scholar" to do so,[31] Roberts went on to reject it. But the old rendition may not be disposed of so easily.

W. E. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Marshall's rendition of the Nestle Greek Text, the translation in the Emphatic Diaglott, Frances E. Siewert in The Amplified New Testament, the New Catholic Bible, to say nothing of that great galaxy of New Testament scholars who produced the American Standard Version (still referred to by F. F. Bruce as the most accurate of modern versions), and also Kenneth S. Wuest - all translate the word as meaning "only begotten." The present day meaning of "only begotten" exactly fits the legitimate meaning. "Only begotten" carries the meaning of "uniqueness" without denying the sonship of Christians, making it superior to the RSV, etc.

The same word ([@monogenes]) was used of a man's son (Luke 9:38), of Jairus' daughter (Luke 8:42), and of the son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7:12). Roberts said, "It could hardly mean only begotten in that case (Luke 7:12), since begetting is a function of the male rather khan the female,"[32] apparently overlooking the fact that nothing is said about the widow's having done the begetting! Her son was the "only begotten" of whoever begot him, just as Jesus was Mary's son, despite his having been the "only begotten of the Father."

Admittedly, this is a disputed translation; and the purpose here is to affirm appreciation and preference for the one that has come down through the ages. We simply do not believe that the modern scholars have any more information regarding this than did the translators of KJV and ASV, nor that the recent ones are any more competent.

That we might live through him ... The great purpose of that visitation from the Dayspring from on High was that, through obedience to the Son of God, people might have the blessing of eternal life.

[30] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 115.

[31] Ibid., p. 113.

[32] Ibid.