The Bible’s Greatest Affirmation

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." - John 3:16 (KJV)

Is there any more well-known Bible verse than John 3:16? It is certainly the most recognized, memorized and repeated Bible verse of all time; at least, right up there with “The Lord’s Prayer” and “The 23rd Psalm”. And yet, in all it’s popularity it’s true message has evaded most of us, as it is very likely the least understood, and perhaps the most misinterpreted Scripture as well! Now that is a bold assertion to be sure but a simple examination will serve to explain.

Key Words

To discover what is really in this great verse it’s important to examine some “key” words. The first word we need to understand is God/god - "for God...". This word comes from the Greek theos meaning "the supreme divinity" or “general appellation for deities and divinities”. The word theos is used over 1300 times in the New Testament and virtually always refers to God the Father, the Almighty God - Yahweh. There are a few exceptions which we will discuss later.

According to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament,

"Whether Christ is called God must be determined from John 1:1; 20:28; 1 John 5:20; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8f, etc.; the matter is still in dispute among theologians" (emphasis mine)

1. Θεος is used of “whatever can in any respect be likened to God, or resembles him in any way”: Hebraistically, equivalent to “God’s representative or vice-regent,” of magistrates and judges, John 10:34f --Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.
2. the person or thing to which one is wholly devoted, for which alone he lives, Philippians 3:19  --Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.

            
It should be clear from reading the above that the exact meaning of “God/god” must be determined from context. It is important to see that both the Father and Jesus are referenced here, but only one is called God. It is a striking thought that those who subscribe to trinitarian dogma fail to recognize or question the fact that if the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Spirit is God, then to make reference to "God" must of necessity refer to all three persons equally and at the same time. This then would render this sentence illogical. To maintain the sense of the trinity it should read, "the Father" so loved the world that He gave "the Son". But again, this would  create another big problem because according to trinitarianism, there is perfect equality among the persons of the godhead. How is it then that only the Father loved the world and how can the “giving” of the Son be considered in any way equality? Without the hindrance of trinitarian doctrine, we are free to see that it is, in fact, God's love (the Fathers love) that is at the heart of the entire plan of salvation involving His Son. We will take up this subject later in this document.

The second key word is "so". This little word is generally overlooked but it carries a great deal of information. It is popularly understood quantitatively, ie: "this much". But "so" is translated from the Greek outos and although it can legitimately be understood quantitatively, it is better understood qualitatively, meaning "in this way, in this manner, like this"! It is beneficial to understand that the wording is NOT "God loved the world 'so much'", but rather, "God 'so loved' the world". This does not detract from the measure of God's love for the world, but places the emphasis where it should be, on the manner in which He demonstrates His love! In what way did God love the world? He loved the world in this way... "so"!!

This brings us to the next word for our study. The third key word to understand is "gave". When God loved he gave. Love is an active verb. But just how are we to understand the meaning of God giving His son? The word gave is edoken the 3rd person singular, indicative, aorist, active form of the verb didomi in the Greek text. This indicates the giving of a person for the benefit of others (Thayer's Greek Dictionary)

Again, the popular interpretation of God giving His son is that he was sent from heaven where he resided prior to becoming a human. In that sense of giving, God the Father sacrificed His son by allowing him to leave heaven, enter a woman's womb, get born, and become a man. This is the traditional, orthodox view of incarnation; ie. God the Son taking on human flesh yet never giving up deity.

There are numerous problems with interpreting the Bible narrative in this way; so much so, we cannot possibly address them all here. There is, however, a better way, one which does not lead to the many contradictions associated with the traditional view. The word “give” is related, especially in John’s gospel, to the word “sent”. God giving his Son and sending His Son are one and the same act. A thoughtful reader will readily comprehend that the one who sends is greater than the one being sent. It expresses the subordination of the one sent (given) to the one who sends (gave). When John said that God "gave" His only son he meant literally that the life of Jesus, the man, was God's gift to benefit the world. Consider the following arguments.

1. Luke 1:35 declares Jesus to be "born" (not transferred from heaven into the womb of Mary) as a result of the miracle power of God creating within Mary the seed of a human without physical relations with a man. Paul understood this well, and gave us the analogy of the "two Adams" in his letters to the Romans and the Corinthians, also referring to Jesus as the "indescribable gift" in 2Cor 9:15 (not all scholars agree that Paul refers to Jesus here), and the gift of grace in Rom 5:15 (the direct reference is to salvation, indirectly of Jesus since it comes by him).
2. This idea of the "giving" of a human being for the benefit of others is seen in Isa 9:6 where the prophet foretells of a child who would be born to a young woman (a virgin) - "unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given". Jesus makes this clear when he says unequivocally that he “did not come to be served, but to serve - and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Matt 20:28, Mark 10:45 And at the last supper in Luke 22:19 declaring the bread to be “my body, which is given for you.”
3. Another idea associated with the verb "gave" is the fact that Jesus in no way deserved death because he never sinned. Death came through sin, the result of the first Adams failure. The second Adam, Jesus, never sinned and therefore was not subject to death; yet God permitted or allowed (both words may be rightfully translated from didomi) his death on our behalf.
4. It should also be noted that Acts 13:21 uses the same construction where it says that Israel asked for a king so "God gave them Saul". Saul became God's anointed one - messiah - and was given as king for the benefit of the nation of Israel. No one would suggest that because God gave Saul that he was sent from heaven!

We could go on and on here, but let me encourage the reader to study this usage on his/her own to gain a thorough understanding.

One last point should be mentioned. Just as God gave Jesus to the world, Jesus’ wisdom, words, authority, and even his disciples, were all given to Him by God. Note especially Jesus words in John 17:2

“even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life.”

Certainly, this does not suggest that we Christians came down out of heaven! There is no valid reason to interpret the giving of God’s Son in a manner which assumes a literal, pre- existence of Jesus in heaven.

The next key word is a phrase in it's english translation, "only begotten son". This is the Greek word monogenes, a compound word from mono, meaning alone, only, unique, and genes which indicates kinship, one who is fathered, a son. So then, another way to translate monogenes is "uniquely sired human". It is imperative to know that the title “Son of God” has nothing to do with deity. Traditional orthodoxy regards Jesus as being of the same substance as the father. But this cannot be the case.

The very fact of being a son disqualifies Jesus from having the exact same substance because God is himself uncreated and eternal. This means He has no beginning. It is not a matter of later, so called, progressive revelation, it is clearly revealed in Scripture that God is an uncreated being with no equals. Therefore a son of God cannot, by mere conceptual estimation of the word son, be an eternal God! If he is a son, he must have a beginning!

This contradiction was recognized early in the history of the development of the doctrine of the trinity and the strange teaching was advanced that the Son was "eternally begotten". But this attempt to rectify a contradiction only leads to another! How can one be both eternal and begotten at the same time, since, to be begotten means to come into existence? The Bible nowhere sets forth such a mystical and confusing idea. We would do well to listen to the words of the late Eric H.H. Chang, who wrote in his book about the errors of the trinity:

“Trinitarians argue that they are "...monotheists not polytheists, because our faith is in one God in three persons. We closed our eyes (and ears) to the fact, which should have been perfectly obvious. If the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Spirit is God, and all three are co-equal and co-eternal, then the conclusion is inescapable that there are three Gods. So how did we manage to maintain that we still believe in one God? There was only one way: the definition of God had to be changed - from "Person" to a divine "Substance" (or Nature) in which the three persons share equally. The plain fact is, however, that the God of the Bible is undoubtedly a very personal Being and was never merely a "substance", no matter how wonderful that substance might be." --("The Only True God", Eric H.H. Chang, p30.)

As the Son of God, Jesus is the uniquely created human commissioned by God to fulfill His promise of redeeming the world and restoring man back to his original state as intended in the garden of Eden. It should not be overlooked that Paul clearly referred to Jesus’ activity as God working in and through him.

2 Corinthians 5:18-20 (HCSB)“Everything is from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: That is, in Christ, God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed the message of reconciliation to us. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, certain that God is appealing through us. We plead on Christ’s behalf, “Be reconciled to God.”

Again, it is significant that while modern Cristological terminology speaks of "God the Son", this phrase is simply not found anywhere in the pages of Scripture

Who is it that loved the world?

Under my first point I noted that the word God is used some 1300 times in the New Testament and always refers to "the Father". John 3:16 is no exception. We often refer to Jesus as being the one who loved us so much that he gave his life. While it is certainly true that Jesus loved the world we must apprehend that it was God's love for the world that caused Him to act on our behalf in commissioning Jesus. Jesus loved the world because He learned it from the Father; it is what He saw the Father doing. Note also the following Scriptures:

• Romans 5:8 (NASB) But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
• Ephesians 2:4 (NASB)  But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,...”
• Colossians 3:12 (GW)  As holy people whom God has chosen and loved, be sympathetic, kind, humble, gentle, and patient. 
• 1 Thessalonians 1:4 (GW) Brothers and sisters, we never forget this because we know that God loves you and has chosen you. 
• 2 Thessalonians 2:16 (NASB) Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace,
• 1 John 4:7-11 (NASB) In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
• Jude 1:1 (HCSB) Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ and a brother of James: To those who are the called, loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ.

The result of trinitarianism has unwittingly relegated God the Father (supposedly the 1st Person of the trinity) to a secondary place in the scheme of salvation, and elevated the Son (the 2nd Person) to the place of God Himself. This spinning and twisting of Scripture has gone on far too long and it’s time for the Church to awaken to it’s error.

Contrasting life and death

Every reasonable person must acknowledge that the word translated "perish" in no way means eternal punishment! The promise in this verse is to those who believe; ie. put their trust, in Jesus. The result of faith is the promise of life as opposed to the certainty of death. "Will not perish, but have everlasting life" draws a stark contrast between life and death. We call certain items "perishable" because unless steps are taken to preserve them they will surely waste away until there is nothing left, as though they have never been. This is what it means to perish. This is what it means to die! To relate perishing with an eternity in a place called hell which we understand as perpetual fire and torment, is not only a gross misinterpretation and misunderstanding of Scripture, it also reveals a vulgar concept of the nature and character of God!

Overwhelmingly, throughout the Bible, when the subject of judgement is addressed, it is within the context of destruction and/or extinction. Words and phrases are employed such as "ashes, return to dust, be as though they never were, smoke" and other similar concepts. Some little known versions translate this portion of John 3:16 as follows:

"may not be lost, TCNT...  shall not die, Norlie... not come to destruction, BB... need not be destroyed, Klingensmith." --Complete Biblical Library Various Versions - Complete Biblical Library – John.

For some reason, many people just don't think that death is enough punishment for sin, even though it is what God Himself prescribed! (Rom 6:23, Eze 18:4,20, Heb 9:27) Apparently, the same kind of morphing of definitions that changed God from a Person to a Substance also changed the definition and scope of death. There is no room to develop this thought further here, but for more information on the subject of death and the afterlife, you can refer to my earlier blog post here and/or this excellent article here.

Conclusion

John 3:16 is the Bible’s greatest affirmation of God’s love for the world, and His plan (in condensed form) for redeeming the world! A thoughtful reading of the Scripture should reveal

• that God the Father alone is God and that He is and has been intimately and personally involved in the affairs of mankind from the beginning (for God so loved the world);
• that it was His love for mankind that initiated His plan for the redemption of man to Himself by commissioning a unique human being (God so loved the world that He gave);
• that Jesus is not God Almighty or a second God, but the one of a kind, human son of God given with the intention that we should put our trust in him as God’s provision (He gave His only begotten son);
• and finally, that the result of that trust would be to gain immortality and escape the fate of permanent death (that whosoever believes in him would not perish but have everlasting life).

Could it be any simpler, any more wonderful, than that?   

The Only Begotten What?

I’ve been perusing the gospel of John recently to test a theory. Trinitarians turn to John’s gospel almost exclusively to support the orthodox doctrine that Jesus is both God and man. The number of verses in John used to prove Jesus’ Deity are really not all that substantial. I suggest that there are actually many more verses in John that disprove the doctrine of the trinity! Further, those texts purported to prove the trinity, when properly understood, falter miserably. John 1:18 is an example.

John 1:18 (NASB)18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in thebosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
John 1:18 (HCSB)18 No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son— the One who is at the Father’s side— He has revealed Him.

The different translations of this verse are the result of opposing Greek manuscripts. The HCSB, along with the KJV and others use the “textus receptus” (the received text) which reads “only begotten Son”. On the other hand, the translators of the NASB (and others - notably the NIV and ESV) favor a different, older, Greek document which has “only begotten God”. The oldest texts should typically be regarded as the most reliable, but in this case there is more to consider. For starters, how about the use of simple sense and reason.

If the documents are different it can only mean that somewhere along the way one was changed. It’s difficult to comprehend that a person, no matter how well-meaning, could wilfully alter the text of Scripture. But we know as a matter of historical fact that Biblical texts have at times been tampered with for various reasons. Most instances of textual corruption are the result of simple error in transmission and these are easily detected. Some changes however, reveal blatant partiality for a particular view. In this case the question is: was John 1:18 changed from “only begotten son” to “only begotten God” or the other way around? Since there are no older documents to compare, we can’t make that determination with absolute certainty. However, I propose that the easiest way to determine an acceptable answer is the use of sense and reason.

The word begotten in Greek is genos. It means “descendant, family”, and is from the root ginomai meaning  “to be made - to come into existence”. If God, by definition, is immortal, uncreated, then how does “begotten God” make any sense? How can one be both begotten and immortal - created, and uncreated? One of the early Church fathers tried to resolve this dilemma by coming up with the term “eternal generation”. The line of reasoning here is that since the Son is eternal as the Father is eternal, the begetting must also be eternal. Wow! Try and wrap your head around that one!! So, God the Son is always being born?? 

The Athanasian creed declares Jesus to be begotten and not made. Here is another statement that simply makes a muddle out of lanquage! There is no difference between begotten and being made in the context of birth. The Bible is full of genealogical records.  We readily understand the meaning when it says so and so begat (fathered) so and so. The begetting brought the child into existence; a baby was made. Why then should genos take on a different meaning when it comes to the birth of Jesus?

Angels are called “sons of God”, the nation of Israel is termed “God’s son”, and Christian believers are also “sons of God”. But Jesus is the unique, one of a kind, only “begotten” Son of God! What makes Him unique is that He was begotten in the womb of a young virgin girl. According to Luke 1:35, the angel of the Lord told Mary that the Holy Spirit would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her and for that reason (therefore), the child being born in her would be called “Son of God”. Did you get that? “For that reason”! Because the Spirit of God came upon Mary, the child “shall be called” the Son of God. That means that Jesus could not have been the ”Son of God” prior to his conception in Mary. Think about it! He is called Son of God because He was begotten - came into existence - by a miracle which God performed in Mary’s womb!

A second point to consider here is the use of the term God. We err when we attach 21st century meaning to a 1st century word. In Jesus day this word had a much wider meaning. When we refer to God in 21st century western culture, we almost always mean the all powerful and supreme creator. This was not the case in the age and culture of Jesus and the apostles. The word god could be used to describe anyone with authority to speak for Yahweh, such as a prophet or judge (John 10:34). In Exodus 4:16 God told Moses he would be “god” to Aaron. And, in 1 Cor 8:5 Paul makes reference to other “gods” and “lords” as secondary and inferior to the God of Christians, who is “The Father”. Additionally, Paul refers to Satan as “the ‘god’ of this present age”. With that understood, if only begotten god is in fact the correct and original reading,  then certainly John’s reference to  Jesus as “only begotten god” would have been understood in a secondary sense. This means Jesus could be called god because of His derived power and authority, just as in John 20:28 when Thomas confessed of Jesus, “my lord and my god”. There is no need to read into the text that He was God Almighty or an additional person of the Godhead. As God’s true and legitimate representative, he could be called god, and still be begotten!

One last argument in favor of the correct reading of John 1:18 as “only begotten Son”. The phrase in question comes from one Greek word - not just genos but monogenos. Mono means “only, one, unique” - monogenos then is the one and only descendant, unique son, only begotten son. This phrase is used only by John when referring to Jesus and we find it also in John 1:14; John 3:16 and 18, and 1 John 4:9. We do not, however, find any other occurrences of “begotten God” in Scripture, not in John’s gospel, not in any epistle. Nowhere! Not even in the oldest documents.

In my estimation these are compelling arguments that should be taken seriously by all who, like me, have accepted without question, the orthodox view of the trinity and the two natures of Christ. In their book, “The Doctrine of The Trinity: Christianity’s Self-inflicted Wound”, authors Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting perceptively write:

“Part of Christian growth is the willingness to admit we have been deceived, that we have not had sufficient information to make good decisions on Bibleissues.” (page 162)

When I made the leap from the trinitarian aberration to seeing what the Bible clearly teaches about God and His Son, it was, at first, both fearful and unsettling; but that quickly changed as the truth washed away the lies. I don’t profess perfect understanding of everything in the Bible but I know that my faith is stronger today than ever before because I have been enlightened to reality. I encourage and challenge readers to do your own research of this information with an open mind. What makes more sense?

1. God became a man but never stopped being God so He could explain Himself to man, subjected Himself to death (even though it’s impossible for God to die), then raised Himself from the dead and made Himself Lord.
   - OR -
2. God begat a man, a chosen Son, whose life revealed God perfectly, who gave himself up to death knowing that His Father would raise Him from death and bestow upon Him the highest honor!

It’s a pretty clear choice for me! How about you?