John 3:16 Study

[percho]

I have a real issue with this statement and believe it could be construed as an attack against the virgin birth of our savior, Jesus Christ. I can see the hand of the devil all over the translations that weakens this foundational doctrine of the Christian faith by attempting to redirect our thinking about it.

The very first prophesy in the scriptures concerning the coming of Jesus Christ as a man to redeem men from their sin is Gen 3:15.

Ge 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

John 3:16 is not speaking of the only son of God, obviously. He is not the only unique son because all sons of God are individuals and are unique. He is not the one and only son, because there are many sons of God noted in the scriptures. Adam was the son of God but he was created and was not begotten of the Father. All those in the church are sons of God but it is because they have been born again by the Spirit of God indwelling them (making them a trinity), having been born first by a human father.

Jesus Christ was and is THE ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of God as John 3:16 claims. Jesus is the Son of God by birth, receiving his humanity, body, from the virgin woman, and to reveal Jehovah as the Father. In chapter one John had already proven that Jesus is the eternal triune God. When he came into the world as a man he was the only triune man from his birth. He was and is the God Man.


11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 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.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Jesus Christ is not just the Son of God from the womb, who went upon that tree, but he is the ONLY begotten Son of God from the womb. If anyone thinks that is not true, then let him name another one.

Please do nothing to reduce his glory for what he did for us.

Totally agree.
John 3:16 YLT 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.
Gal 4:4 NKJV But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born[fn] [or, made] (out*) of a woman, born under the (I don't think, the, should have been put here) law, --- born/made under law. -- a virgin shall conceive and (a virgin) shall bring forth.

* I have said many, many times, I know, no Greek. Therefore I ask; From Gal 4:4 TR γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός Should not, ἐκ, not be translated, (out) with the following woman being in the genitive? Other wise would you not have, of of there?

Jesus Christ is and always will be, the only begotten out of woman, of God the Father. IMHO

And IMHO Gal 4:4 confirms that. that those under law he may redeem, that the adoption of sons we may receive;

 

[AustinC]

Non-germane response. The study is consistent with all scripture.

This is your opinion because you are biased with a false doctrine.

 

[George Antonios]

4) "Only begotten" is a mistranslation of "monogenes" and should be translated "one of a kind" or "uniquely divine." Jesus is not God's only Son, as Adam was also the son of God, and every born anew believer is also a child of God. However Jesus was one of a kind, uniquely divine, God incarnate.

The translation is just fine as only begotten - referencing his body. That is, Jesus is the only man whose body was born of the Holy Ghost, hence his sinless flesh.

"correct" that with "uniquely divine" and you take away a key verse about the sinless in-carn-(flesh)-ation of God.

 

[Van]

The word 'world' has nothing to do with 2 Peter 2:1.

Personal individuality is a fallacious argument.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The translation is just fine as only begotten - referencing his body. That is, Jesus is the only man whose body was born of the Holy Ghost, hence his sinless flesh.

"correct" that with "uniquely divine" and you take away a key verse about the sinless in-carn-(flesh)-ation of God.

George,
It's great to agree with you, if only on this one occasion..

 

[George Antonios]

George,
It's great to agree with you, if only on this one occasion..

Same, brother , although I think it's been a couple now.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The translation is just fine as only begotten - referencing his body. That is, Jesus is the only man whose body was born of the Holy Ghost, hence his sinless flesh.

"correct" that with "uniquely divine" and you take away a key verse about the sinless in-carn-(flesh)-ation of God.

Hmmm, “born of the Holy Ghost.” Is that how scripture describes the incarnation?

 

[AustinC]

Hmmm, “born of the Holy Ghost.” Is that how scripture describes the incarnation?

Scripture says this:

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
~ *Hebrews 1:1-4*

 

[Van]

Only begotten is a well known mistranslation, that is why modern translations render monogenes as unique or one of a kind.

 

[Van]

Here is the Net Bible footnote reflecting among others Dr. Dan Wallace.
37tn Although this word is often translated “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clement 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant. 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God (τέκνα θεοῦ, tekna qeou), Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18).

 

[Van]

Personal individuality is a fallacious argument.

I see I goofed again, this should read "Personal incredulity is a fallacious argument."

To restate the obvious, one side mistakenly interprets kosmos in John 3:16 to refer to just the elect, and the other side correctly interprets kosmos are referring to fallen humanity because they would perish without the benefits of the gift.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Scripture says this:

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
~ *Hebrews 1:1-4*

Which, evidently, is to say that, no, scripture does not say of Jesus that he was "born of the Holy Ghost," since it doesn't say it in that passage. Or perhaps you would like to try again?

 

[JD731]

There are <TWO> aspects of our Lord Jesus being begotten of God and fathered by him. Once in the physical and once in the spiritual. Once at Bethlehem and once at the tomb when Jesus was raised from the dead. John 3:16 is speaking in the context of his physical birth when he said to Nicodemas, "except A MAN be born again, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Most will agree that Jesus was born in the flesh so I will not go to any scriptures to prove that, but few believes he was born of the Spirit at his resurrection, although the scriptures plainly teaches it. I will give a couple examples and expand on it later.

Compare these passages;

Ps 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

What day was that? The answer is here highlighted.

Acts 13:26 Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.
27 For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.
28 And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.
29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took [him] down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.
30 But God raised him from the dead:
31 And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.
32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

All that receive the second birth are in the church BECAUSE Jesus is the beginning of the church, being the firstborn from the dead.
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Jesus is the ONLY Son of God in one birth and he is the firstborn Son of God in the second. There will be no more Sons of God born like Jesus at his first birth but there will be many sons of God in the likeness of his second birth.

Ro 8:29 For whom he did foreknow (who were the physical seed of Abraham, Jacob/Israel in this context of Rom 8), he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures)
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

That is enough for now. One should meditate on this truth. If your religion does not line up with these words given in the scriptures, and the religion of many on this message board does not even get close, I suggest chucking your religion and believing the words.

Too much is at stake to believe and teach false religion.

 

[JD731]

The John 3:16 rendering in the OP and post #2 does nothing to reduce His glory.
We agree He is the uniquely divine Son of God.
Monogenes does not mean birthed.

Can you tell me what son of God is not divinely the son of God? You do not seem to have a clue what it takes or what it means to be a son of God.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Everyone believing into His translates God's inspired text.

 

[Van]

Can you tell me what son of God is not divinely the son of God? You do not seem to have a clue what it takes or what it means to be a son of God.

Hi JD31. I see you changed "uniquely divine" to "divinely the son." Not what I said. But your question, can you tell me what makes Jesus uniquely divine is a good one!

Monogenes literally means "one of a kind." What makes Jesus "one of a kind" when their are other sons of God such as Adam and every born anew believer?

Jesus is uniquely divine in these and other ways:

1) God incarnate -

John 1:14: And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us; and we saw His glory, glory as of the uniquely divine Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.​

2) God with us -

Matthew 1:23: "“BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN WILL CONCEIVE AND GIVE BIRTH TO A SON, AND THEY SHALL NAME HIM IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.” ​

3) Virgin birth -

Matthew 1:23:
“BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN WILL CONCEIVE AND GIVE BIRTH TO A SON, AND THEY SHALL NAME HIM IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.” ​

4) Holy One of God -

Mark 1:24: saying, “What ]business do you have with us, Jesus ]of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are: the Holy One of God!” ​

 

[Van]

1) Yes, John 3:16 addresses the way God loves.
2) World refers to all of fallen humanity, and not just to those who will be saved. See 2 Peter 2:1.
3) Uniquely Divine is not awkward. Only Son is false, as Adam was also the son of God.
4) "Everyone believing into Him" translates God's inspired text.
5) Yes, will not perish is better, thanks.

 

[Van]

Why have so many modern translations removed "only begotten" as a translation of monogenes?

First, the word does not mean "one origin" as that reflects misconstruing the spelling of the word. It means one kind or more idiomatically, "one of a kind." Here is a link to Mounce:
Was Jesus “Begotten” or "Unique"? (John 3:16) | billmounce.com

Second, Jesus is not the only begotten (birthed) son of God as every born anew believer fits that description.

Could monogenes be translated as uniquely virgin birthed? Yes but that is not the only uniquely divine aspect of His incarnation.

 

[AustinC]

1) Yes, John 3:16 addresses the way God loves.
2) World refers to all of fallen humanity, and not just to those who will be saved. See 2 Peter 2:1.
3) Uniquely Divine is not awkward. Only Son is false, as Adam was also the son of God.
4) "Everyone believing into Him" translates God's inspired text.
5) Yes, will not perish is better, thanks.

Read Malachi to see how God loves. It will help you all understand what "world" refers to.

*Malachi 1:2-5*
“I have loved you,” says the Lord. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.” If Edom says, “We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins,” the Lord of hosts says, “They may build, but I will tear down, and they will be called ‘the wicked country,’ and ‘the people with whom the Lord is angry forever.’” Your own eyes shall see this, and you shall say, “Great is the Lord beyond the border of Israel!”

Connect this to Romans 9 and see how Paul connects the Israel of God (the Church) to Malachi. Since God is the author of all scripture then all scripture must be considered when interpreting.

 

[percho]

Textus Receptus ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ

So that the Son of him, the one of a kind, he gave

Morphological GNT ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν

so that the Son, the one of a kind, he gave

One of a kind, unique, what? Son. What is a Son?

Why did Joseph, not know Mary his wife, until she brough forth the one they named Jesus?

Had he known her would the one brough forth have been holy, do you think he could have been named Jesus? I don't think he would have been holy or named Jehovah Saves.

and when the fulness of time did come, God sent forth His Son, come of a woman, come under law, that those under law he may redeem, that the adoption of sons we may receive; Gal 4:4,5

What law and why come of woman? What is that, :that," tying together? Did woman have anything to do with the need for redemption?

He saith to them -- 'Moses for your stiffness of heart did suffer you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it hath not been so. 'And I say to you, that, whoever may put away his wife, if not for whoredom, and may marry another, doth commit adultery; and he who did marry her that hath been put away, doth commit adultery.' Matt 19:8,9

and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.' Gen 2:17


And the woman seeth that the tree is good for food, and that it is pleasant to the eyes, and the tree is desirable to make one wise, and she taketh of its fruit and eateth, From Gen 3:6
Prov 30:20 So -- the way of an adulterous woman, She hath eaten and hath wiped her mouth, And hath said, 'I have not done iniquity.'

The rest of Gen 3:6 and giveth also to her husband with her, and he doth eat;

Was the unique, one of a kind, Son from the foundation of the world going to come of woman, a virgin?

Dose those thoughts above give meaning to the following verse?

Lo, in iniquity I have been brought forth, And in sin doth my mother conceive me. PS 51:5

Here is a thought. Should the first child, born into the world, have belonged to God? Was Cain of the devil because the woman was communing, listening to and obeying the devil yet Adam ate anyway? Was Abel of the devil? What about Seth?

Gen 4:25 And Adam again knoweth his wife, and she beareth a son, and calleth his name Seth, 'for God hath appointed for me another seed instead of Abel:' for Cain had slain him.

Luke 3:38 TR 3:38 τοῦ Ἐνὼς τοῦ Σὴθ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ τοῦ θεοῦ