The NKJV was not denigrated purposedly the Lord Jesus Christ at Acts 3:26, Acts 4:27, or Acts 4:30 when they accurately translated the Greek word any more than the KJV was at Matthew 12:18.
- "The powerful Scriptures showing that Jesus is the ‘Son’ are switched to ‘servant’ in the NKJV in Acts 3:13; "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath Glorified His Son Jesus; Whom ye delivered up, and denied Him in the presence of Pilate, when He was determined to let Him go"
- and in 26; "Unto you first God, having Raised Up His Son Jesus, Sent Him to Bless you, in Turning Away every one of you from his Iniquities."
- Again, the Doctrinal implications are obvious.
- His Sonship in Acts 3:13 is regarding God's Glorified Son and Acts 3:26 relates to the Incarnation when God Overshadowed Mary, making Jesus both God and man. A servant could be anyone."
- From: NKJV Affects Doctrine | Articles | kjbapsotolics.com
...
Why is this difference important in Acts 4:27 and 30 but unimportant in Matthew 12:18?
What's so important about editing out His Name, "His Son Jesus", for ANY REASON? That's sacrilegious if not blaspheme.
Someone needs to tell somebody this is God's Word. Not ours.
Here's one for you. Where did anyone ever get the idea that we are supposed to be allowed to chose what 'version' of the bible we like?
Has it ever occurred to anyone that God may be Consulted on that, for Him to be the One Who does the Choosing of our Bible version we use. Ever called on His Name and fasted a few days on your knees asking God about it?
I believe the problem with you and the diehard KJV-only crowd are the same, where you both A.) as individuals are always seeing yourselves as being superiors to any 'version' or manuscript you come across and B.) decide what your fancy is toward any given translation and enjoy calling all the shots, true or not, with regard to their content, as long as everyone understands that what God says is second, as far as you're concerned, to what you think.
Within the realm of Bible perspicuity
Matthew 12:18; "Behold My Servant, Whom I have Chosen; My Beloved, in Whom My Soul is Well Pleased: I Will Put My Spirit upon Him, and He shall shew Judgment to the Gentiles", is a Fulfillment of the Prophecy in Isaiah;
Isaiah 42:1;
“Here is My Servant, Whom I Uphold, My Chosen One, in Whom My soul delights. I Will Put My Spirit on Him, and He Will Bring Justice to the Nations."
In the context of both parallel scriptures, the "Servant" is Exalted as being as being Identified as "My Servant", God says, Who is not just any servant, but His Beloved, His Chosen One in Whom God's Soul is Pleased with Delights and Who it is that God goes onto say, I Will Put My Spirit on Him, and He Will Bring Justice to the Gentile Nations.
(As a side note, by way of a Divinely Interpreted Bible Definition, notice how those two verses equate the words "the Gentiles" with the words, "the Nations", as the Bible also does in Romans 11:12 "Now if the fall of them (the Jews) be the riches of the World, and the diminishing of them (the Jews) the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their (the Jews') fulness?"
When the Bible uses the word 'World', it is often referring to the Gentiles).
James D. Price explained that the real reason for this choice of rendering in the book of Acts in the NKJV is that the translators thought that in this context Peter was alluding to Isaiah 52:13, which identifies Christ as the Servant of the LORD (False Witness, p. 25).
I'm not buying it. The extremely urgent necessity (?) came from other influences, including his own biases, to dispose of
"His Son Jesus", and then only substitute, "Servant".
—Acts 3.26
"In the
Revised Version of 1881 and in many modern versions this is rendered
“His servant” or
“His Servant”, and the name
“Jesus” is omitted.
"The change from
“Son” to
“servant” does not arise from any variations in the Greek manuscripts, but from differences of opinion regarding the meaning of the Greek,
TON PAIDA AUTOU.
"The omission of
“Jesus” does arise from a corresponding variant in the Greek manuscripts, so the grounds for these two significant changes are quite different.
"The Greek
PAIS occurs in the singular or plural twenty-four times in the New Testament, and in the Authorized Version it is rendered
“child” in
Matthew 17.18; Luke 2.43; 9.42; Acts 4.27; 4.30.
"It is rendered
“children” in
Matt. 2.16; 21.15;
“servant” or
“servants”
in
Matt. 8.6, 13; 12.18; 14.2; Luke 1.54; 1.69; 7.7; 15.26; Acts 4.25;
“menservants” in
Luke 12.45;
“maiden” in
Luke 8.51;
“maid” in
Luke 8.54;
“young man” in
Acts 20.12;
and
“son” in
John 4.51; Acts 3.13; 3.26.
"The Greek
HUIOS occurs more than three hundred and fifty times and is rendered in the English translations as
“son” or
“child”,
“sons” or
“children”, and in
Matthew 21.5 “foal”.
"It is true to say that
PAIS in
Acts 3.26 may be quite correctly rendered
son,
servant or
child,
and it would be wrong to assume that the Authorized Version was at fault in rendering it “Son” in this verse.
"The words are all appropriate to the Son of God, and there are prophetic Scriptures in the Old Testament in which the Son is spoken of as the
Servant of the LORD.
"There are, however, good reasons for retaining
“Son” in Acts 3.26, and there are passages in which it is very clear that
HUIOS (son) is synonymous with
PAIS.
"In John 4.46 we read of “a certain nobleman, whose
son (HUIOS) was sick at Capernaum”.
"In verse 47 the nobleman besought Jesus that He would come down and heal his
son (HUIOS).
"In verse 49 the nobleman said, “Sir, come down ere my
child (PAIDION) die”, using a diminutive form of
PAIS to refer to his son.
"In verse 50 Jesus says of the same child, “Thy
son (HUIOS) liveth”.
"In verse 51 the
bond-servants (DOULOI) of the nobleman met him, and told him, saying, “Thy
son (PAIS) liveth”.
"It is quite clear that they were speaking of his son, whom they refer to as PAIS, which in this context cannot mean anything different from HUIOS, son. The person spoken of as PAIS was the son (HUIOS) of the nobleman.
"In Acts 3.26 the one spoken of as PAIS (TON PAID A AUTOU) is the Son of God, and here PAIS may be regarded as synonymous with HUIOS, and rendered Son or “child”, rather than as “servant”.
"Although the name of Jesus after
“His Son” is not found in Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and a few other ancient copies, it is found in Codex A, Codex P, cursives 1, 13,31 and many others."
From:
Son or Servant? - Trinitarian Bible Society
