John 3:16

in a recent thread, John 3:16 was cited.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (NIV)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (ESV)

for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during. (Young’s Literal)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (KJV)

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (NASB)
​

I cannot comprehending anyone finding anything of this Scripture then what it states:

1) God loved all His Creation,
2) God gave His one and only natural born,
3) anyone believing in the Son
4) cannot be destroyed
5) posses eternal existence.

Am I missing something?

 

“Anyone” is consistent in the passage only if it is limited to any single person.

 

Perhaps you can show what manner of love is not suggested in the passage of John 3:16?

 

So, did John exaggerate, or was David using something of a varied definition, sort of like a manner of disgust.

For example in the sentence, “I might hate crispy tacos.” Doesn’t mean I consider them my enemy, rather they disgust me.

 

Agreed.
Or as Paul puts it, "God proved His love to us..."

 

Good question.


For example: We know that He promised not to destroy the world with water and ask Job if he could determine the gestation of animals.

"14“It shall come about, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow will be seen in the cloud, 15and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh.."​

He has eternal covenants such as He gave to Abraham:

6“I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings will come forth from you. 7“I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. 8“I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.”​

Does God ever love outside His covenant?

Another question may be:
Does God have covenants he has not disclosed in the Scriptures?

 

Hmmm.

Perhaps when I see the definitions of Kosmos, my eyes were deceitful?

kósmos (literally, "something ordered") – properly, an "ordered system" (like the universe, creation); the world. (Strong's Greek: 2889. κόσμος (kosmos) -- order, the world)​

I am not certain how Christ taking on the "seed of Abraham" (which is a lineage statement) has to do with the opening statement of John 3:16.

Not certain that is agreeable.

"Only" is significant in that it means the unique one, the single one, the one of a kind, of a class by itself.

"Begotten" is significant in that it means that which is offspring, gestated, natural born.

It is true that "Monogenes," as used in some people's thinking is put forth with the desire to diminish the natural birth aspects, and only choose to recognize the "unique" and "one of a kind" aspect of the use.

This (in my opinion) is a really foolish struggle among some of the Baptist seminary professors, who want to find "something new or unusual," for name recognition. (Deep in the Weeds on MONOGENES and Eternal Generation) But frankly, it is a toothless teaching and yet can through application do great damage to the understanding of the Christ.

The virgin birth is in itself "unique" and "one of a kind," a fulfillment of prophecy concerning the identification of this child from all others ever naturally born.

It recognizes that parentage of Christ being the only "natural born" in contrast to all other's who are born of the Spirit, from above - adopted.

The Nicene Creed folks got it right. They recognized the generational aspects of John 3:16 as well as the unique aspects - just as Matthew and Luke did. One should not attempt to separate the human generational from God. Such may be considered attempting to split the homeostatic union.

So, in the use of John 3:16, the "one and only natural born child" is accurate, and begotten is in fact synonymous with "natural born." For Christ was not some born as a chicken, or fish, but was born as all other humans - natural birth, not even cesarean. He did not appear "in the flesh" without being naturally born by a human mother.

"Only begotten" signifies both the unique love of God and the unique gift He gave in the flesh.

 

The 20th century push by some "professors" to diminish the "generation" aspect of John 3:16, in direct opposition to the understanding of the framers of the Nicene Creed, in my opinion, is just another sign of the ruinous established custom that name recognition, tenure, and department chairs are selected from those highly published.

Such a desire to publish can lead one to speculate and attempt to conform anything to a "new" and expect to be unchallenged because of their station and student esteem/adoration. Then after a few generations, the decay is so established, that the blight is infecting what was sound doctrine.

 

So, Luke was wrong in tracing the linage back through ADAM to God?

He should have stopped as Matthew did?