John 3:16

== Analysis ==

=== Exegesis ===
<!-- {{Col-begin}}
{{Center|Comparison of John 3:15–17 (King James Version)<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203&version=KJV |title=John 3 |publisher=[[BibleGateway.com]] |access-date=12 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220130165036/https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203&version=KJV |archive-date=30 January 2022 |url-status=live }}</ref>}}
{{Col-3}}
<blockquote>"That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."<br />—John 3:15</blockquote>
{{Col-3}}
<blockquote>"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."<br />—John 3:16</blockquote>
{{Col-3}}
<blockquote>"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."<br />—John 3:17</blockquote>
{{Col-end}} -->
[[File:Piero di Cosimo (Piero di Lorenzo) - St. John the Evangelist, c. 1500.jpg|thumb|upright|[[John the Evangelist]] is thought to have written the verse himself]]
John 3:16 has been termed as "the golden text of the Bible",{{sfn|Butler|1961|p=111}} "the gospel in a nutshell",{{sfnm|1a1=Borthwick|1y=2020|1p=4|2a1=Lucado|2y=2007|2p=iv|3a1=Pawson|3y=2014|3p=6}} and "everyman's text".{{sfn|Butler|1961|p=111}} One of the verses pivotal to the [[Johannine theology]],{{sfn|Flanagan|1992|p=986}} it concerns God's motive for sending Jesus.{{sfnm|1a1=Borthwick|1y=2020|1pp=1–3|2a1=Lucado|2y=2007|2pp=87–88, 170, 214|3a1=Webber|3y=2003|3p=137}}  In Christianity, it is thought that believing in Jesus grants eternal life to the believer.{{sfnm|1a1=Borthwick|1y=2020|1pp=99–100|2a1=Kieffer|2y=2001|2p=966|3a1=Köstenberger|3y=2004|3pp=128–129}} Eternal life is a dominant theme throughout John's entire Gospel,{{sfn|Harris|2015|p=41}} and its first appearance in the Gospel is in this verse. Theologian [[Larry Hurtado]] sees the verse as reflecting Jesus' importance in Christianity.{{sfn|Hurtado|2005|p=363}} The [[Methodism|Methodist]] minister [[C. K. Barrett]] wrote, "Mention of ... the eternal life given ... to believers ... suggests ... the general setting of the work of Christ in the love and judgement of God."{{sfn|Barrett|1956|p=214}}

The verse (which has parallels with John 3:15{{efn|{{Bibleverse||John|3:15|KJV}}: "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life." ([[KJV]])}} and John 3:17{{efn|{{Bibleverse||John|3:17|KJV}}: For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. (KJV)}}){{sfnm|1a1=Bruce|1y=1983|1pp=89–91|2a1=Carson|2y=1991|2p=206|3a1=Harris|3y=2015|3pp=12–13|4a1=Kieffer|4y=2001|4p=966}} has been used by some to support [[Christian universalism]],{{sfnm|1a1=Borthwick|1y=2020|1p=4|2a1=Lucado|2y=2007|2p=7}} a view that all humans will eventually be saved by God or denies eternal suffering in [[Hell]].{{sfn|Harris|2003|p=494}} However, [[Anglicanism|Anglican]] bishop [[N. T. Wright]] has argued against this, saying that the "position is quite clear: God in His great love has made one way of salvation for all men without exception. Those who refuse this way have no alternative left to them. And accepting the way of salvation, for [[John the Apostle|John]] as for [[Paul the Apostle|Paul]], is bound up with faith in Jesus Christ."<ref>{{Cite journal |title=Towards a biblical view of universalism |last=Wright |first=N. T. |author-link=N. T. Wright |journal=[[Themelios]] |date=January 1979 |volume=4 |issue=2 |issn=0307-8388 |pages=54–58 }}</ref>

==== Purpose ====
Theologians have assumed the verse's purpose to be that of strengthening the faith of Christians rather than as an evangelical tool. This is because John 3:16 does not contain commands of vital [[sacrament]]s (such as [[Repentance in Christianity|repentance]] and [[Baptism in Christianity|baptism]]).{{sfnm|1a1=Borthwick|1y=2020|1pp=91, 93|2a1=Pawson|2y=2003|2p=880|3a1=Pawson|3y=2014|3p=40}} In the words of theologian [[David Pawson]], it is problematic to use a verse in evangelism that does not tell the hearers "how to respond in proper detail ... that you get a simple decision which is not enough for a real change in life ... It is not dealing with a gospel situation and outward evangelistic thrust".{{sfn|Pawson|2014|p=39}} Instead, the emphasis of the verse is toward continuing belief for Christians.{{sfn|Pawson|2014|p=39}}

==== Christian commentary ====
{{Quote box
 | quote  = "The reward for faith is beyond our comprehension ... For if the Father has given everything he has to the Son, and the Father has eternal life, then he has given to the Son to be eternal life ... Whoever believes in the Son has that toward which he tends, that is, the Son, in whom he believes. But the Son is eternal life; therefore, whoever believes in him has eternal life."
 | author =—[[Thomas Aquinas]], a Catholic philosopher{{sfn|Aquinas|2010|p=204}}
 | width  = 25em
 | align  = left
}}

John 3:16 has been popular for theology comments.<ref>{{Cite journal |title=Die liefde van god as aanknopingspunt vir 'n gesprek met moslems: Die rol van Joh. 3:16 |trans-title=The love of god as point of contact in the dialogue with muslims: The role of John 3:16 |last=Verster |first=P. |date=December 2009 |journal=[[Acta Theologica]] |volume=29 |issue=2 |issn=2309-9089 }}</ref> In evangelist [[Andreas J. Köstenberger]]'s opinion, the verse summarizes central teachings in [[Christianity]] that are to put beliefs in Jesus,{{sfn|Köstenberger|2020|p=383}} and "there is no middle ground: believing in the Son (resulting in eternal life) or refusing to believe (resulting in destruction) are the only options."{{sfn|Köstenberger|2004|pp=129–130}} Christian philosopher [[William Lane Craig]] said the verse denotes salvation through Jesus only.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/five-steps-to-atheism |title=Five Steps to Atheism |date=15 July 2016 |website=[[Reasonable Faith]] |access-date=9 March 2022 |last1=Harris |first1=Kevin |last2=Craig |first2=William Lane |author-link2=William Lane Craig |archive-date=9 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220309120923/https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/five-steps-to-atheism |url-status=live }}</ref> According to theologian Paul T. Butler: "God, motivated by infinite love, sent His only son ... not to condemn but to save everyone who believes in His Son ... This text shows God loving us, not for His sake alone, but for our sakes."{{sfn|Butler|1961|p=111}}

Biblical scholar [[F. F. Bruce]] interpreted John 3:16 that God has a limitless and universal love to all humans.{{sfn|Bruce|1983|p=90}} Barrett noted that the salvation would only be advantageous whenever there is a belief in Jesus.{{sfn|Barrett|1956|p=180}} [[Calvinism|Calvinist]] theologian [[D. A. Carson]] said the verse "makes it clear that, as applied to human beings, the love of God is not the consequence of their loveliness but of the sublime truth that 'God is love'."{{sfn|Carson|1991|p=205}} Theologian [[Robert E. Webber]] described it as "an invitation to embrace a sweeping story that encompassed the whole of history".{{sfn|Webber|2003|pp=137–138}} Bible commentator [[J. Ramsey Michaels]] wrote: "God's intent is a saving intent, and the scope of his salvation is worldwide. His love for the whole human race expressed itself in the giving of his only Son [who would] die on the cross."{{sfn|Michaels|1995|p=59}}

[[Bruce Vawter]], a [[Catholic Church|Catholic]] priest, stated: "The only explanation that we shall ever have of the gift of eternal life made possible for us in the redemption achieved in Christ is the incredible love of God for the world."{{sfn|Vawter|1968|p=430}} [[Anglicanism|Anglican]] priest [[Leon Morris]] compared the idea of God's universal love with [[Jews as the chosen people|God's exclusive love to Jews]],{{sfn|Morris|1971|p=229}} which is frequently mentioned in the [[Old Testament]].<ref>{{Cite journal |title=A Chosen People in a Pluralist Nation: Horace Kallen and the Jewish-American Experience |journal=[[Religion and American Culture]] |date=Summer 2006 |last=Greene |first=Daniel |doi=10.1525/rac.2006.16.2.161 |volume=16 |issue=2 |pages=161–194 |s2cid=143487935 }}</ref> He then concluded that "it is a distinctively Christian idea that God's love is wide enough to embrace all mankind. His love is not confined to any national group or any spiritual elite. It is a love which proceeds from the fact that He is love."{{sfn|Morris|1971|p=229}} [[Presbyterianism|Presbyterian]] pastor Lamar Williamson found that John 3:16 emphasises the significance of Jesus in Christianity as God the Son.{{sfn|Williamson|2004|p=37}} Catholic theologian Neal M. Flanagan said that the verse is pivotal to the [[Johannine theology]].{{sfn|Flanagan|1992|p=986}}

==== Status as Jesus' words ====
Beginning in John 3:21, the conversation becomes Jesus' monologue.{{sfnm|1a1=Brown|1y=1988|1p=33|2a1=Carson|2y=1991|2pp=198, 203|3a1=Harris|3y=2015|3pp=4, 6|4a1=Lewis|4y=2005|4p=22}} Because ancient Bible copies do not use quotation marks for dialogues,{{sfnm|1a1=Carson|1y=1991|1p=204|2a1=Knuth|2y=1991|2p=172|3a1=Morris|3y=1971|3p=228}} biblical scholars have disputed on where Jesus and Nicodemus' conversation ends.{{sfnm|1a1=Hurtado|1y=2005|1p=363|2a1=Vawter|2y=1968|2p=430}} Speculations that John 3:16 is the personal commentary of an evangelist (traditionally named [[John the Evangelist]]) have arisen,{{sfnm|1a1=Harris|1y=2015|1p=33|2a1=Palmer|2y=1978|2p=45|3a1=Tenney|3y=1995|3p=50}} but it remains controversial.{{sfnm|1a1=Köstenberger|1y=2020|1p=382|2a1=Perkins|2y=1990|2p=956|3a1=Vawter|3y=1968|3p=430}} Pawson said it is unusual for Jesus to speak from the third-person perspective,{{sfn|Pawson|2003|p=881}} or to repeat or expand on what he had said. Jesus never referred to himself as the "[[Only-begotten Son|only begotten Son]]"{{sfn|Pawson|2014|pp=34–35}} but as the "[[Son of man (Christianity)|Son of Man]]".{{sfnm|1a1=Borthwick|1y=2020|1p=21|2a1=Harris|2y=2015|2p=34}} The only begotten son is what the evangelist calls Jesus in [[John 1]].{{sfnm|1a1=Pawson|1y=2014|1p=35|2a1=Morris|2y=1971|2pp=228–229}} Theologian [[Robert E. Van Voorst]] has commented that it is not important to know if John 3:16 is Jesus's words, and that words not spoken by Jesus are no less true than those that are.{{sfn|Voorst|2017|pp=112–113}}

=== Wording ===
John 3:16's wording is deemed by Bible commentators to be straightforward,<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/fourth-sunday-in-lent-2/commentary-on-john-314-21 |title=Commentary on John 3:14–21 |date=18 March 2012 |website=[[Working Preacher]] |last=Salmon |first=Marilyn |access-date=15 March 2022 |archive-date=11 June 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210611162556/https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/fourth-sunday-in-lent-2/commentary-on-john-314-21 |url-status=live }}</ref> concise,{{sfn|Borthwick|2020|pp=3, 54}} and authoritative.{{sfn|Harris|2015|p=33}} The verse is only 25 words long in the King James Version.{{sfn|Harris|2015|p=27}} First, the verse begins with ''for'' to link with prior verse.{{sfnm|1a1=Harris|1y=2015|1p=8|2a1=Pawson|2y=2014|2p=24}} ''God'' here is understood to be [[God the Father]],{{sfnm|1a1=Harris|1y=2015|1p=9|2a1=Pawson|2y=2014|2p=7}} the first person in the [[Trinity]].<ref>{{Cite journal |title=The Word "Homoousios" from Hellenism to Christianity |last=Beatrice |first=Pier Franco |date=June 2002 |journal=[[Church History (journal)|Church History]] |volume=71 |issue=2 |doi=10.1017/S0009640700095688 |pages=243–272|s2cid=162605872 }}</ref> The word ''so''—similar to ''thus''—shows a comparison from John 3:15.{{sfn|Harris|2015|pp=10, 36}} This is not a quantity but was mistranslated as such in most modern translations (for instance, in the [[Amplified Bible]]).{{sfnm|1a1=Harris|1y=2015|1p=10|2a1=Pawson|2y=2014|2p=24}} Many scholars said the word should be placed near the beginning to keep the original meaning, as was in [[Koine Greek]], the original Bible language:{{sfn|Pawson|2014|pp=24–25}}

<blockquote>''{{Lang|el|Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.}}''<br />Thus for loved God the world that the Son the only begotten, He gave so that everyone believing in Him not should perish but should have life eternal.<ref>{{Cite web |title=John 3:16 |url=https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/3-16.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220213184548/https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/3-16.htm |archive-date=13 February 2022 |access-date=16 March 2022 |publisher=BibleHub.com}}</ref></blockquote>

The next word is ''loved'',{{sfnm|1a1=Harris|1y=2015|1p=11|2a1=Pawson|2y=2014|2pp=12–13}} known in Greek as ''[[agape]]''. This concept does not have an equal word in English,{{sfnm|1a1=Carson|1y=1991|1p=204|2a1=Harris|2y=2015|2p=35|3a1=Lucado|3y=2007|3p=29|4a1=Pawson|4y=2014|4p=14}} but it can be translated as the selfless, nonsexual love of God for human and of human for God.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0019.html |title=Love |last=Kreeft |first=Peter |author-link=Peter Kreeft |access-date=16 March 2022 |publisher=Catholic Educator's Resource Center |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010420005512/https://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0019.html |archive-date=20 April 2001 |url-status=dead }}</ref> While some theologians have argued that ''world'' refers to only Israel,<ref>{{Cite journal |title=For God did not so love the whole world — Only Israel! John 3:16 |date=January 2009 |journal=[[HTS Teologiese Studies]] |doi=10.4102/hts.v61i4.479 |issue=4 |volume=61 |last1=Botha |first1=J. E. |last2=Rousseau |first2=Pieter |pages=1149–1168 |doi-access=free }}</ref> other theologians have generally agreed that it means the entire human race,{{sfnm|1a1=Avent|1y=2010|1p=177|2a1=Thompson|2y=2015|2p=85|3a1=Williamson|3y=2004|3p=37}} showing God's unlimited and universal love{{sfnm|1a1=Borthwick|1y=2020|1p=12|2a1=Flanagan|2y=1992|2p=986|3a1=Köstenberger|3y=2004|3p=129|4a1=Lucado|4y=2007|4p=iv}} for both believers and unbelievers.<ref>{{Cite journal |title=Reason and the "More Excellent" Spirit: A Reformed Reflection on John 3:16 |last=Towne |first=Edgar A. |journal=Encountering |volume=66 |issue=3 |date=Summer 2005 |pages=233–253 }}</ref> Pawson suggested there should be a better alternative to ''world'', because he thought it connotes an immoral meaning.{{sfn|Pawson|2014|p=16}} Sharing similar sentiments, Harris remarked, "Often in this Gospel there are ominous, negative ideas attaching to the term. The world is evil and needs a saviour."{{sfn|Harris|2015|pp=12–13}} The verb ''gave'', in past tense, does not have a clear subject; Pawson assumed that the word refers to the prior ''world''.{{sfn|Pawson|2014|p=14}}

The word ''whosoever'' refers to believers, specified by "believeth in Him".{{sfnm|1a1=Harris|1y=2015|1p=19|2a1=Lucado|2y=2007|2pp=10–12}} Whether the objective pronoun ''Him'' refers to Jesus or God the Father is debated; general consensus among the analysts is more inclined to the former.{{sfnm|1a1=Knuth|1y=1991|1p=173|2a1=Pawson|2y=2014|2pp=14–15}} The word ''perish'' is interpreted by theologians as [[Annihilationism|annihilation]],{{sfnm|1a1=Bruce|1y=1983|1p=90|2a1=Carson|2y=1991|2p=206|3a1=Harris|3y=2015|3pp=22–23|4a1=Pawson|4y=2014|4p=16}} though it is unclear if the word refers the perishing of death or the [[Last Judgment#Christianity|Last Judgement]].{{sfnm|1a1=Lucado|1y=2007|1p=86|2a1=Lewis|2y=2005|2p=21}} Köstenberger stated ''perish'' meant living eternally in God's absence,{{sfnm|1a1=Harris|1y=2015|1p=22|2a1=Köstenberger|2y=2004|2p=129}} and Pawson stated it as "a state of ruin or utter uselessness".{{sfn|Pawson|2014|pp=18–19}} The meaning of ''everlasting'' has been controversial.{{sfn|Pawson|2014|p=17}} Theologian [[Marianne Thompson]] said it does not mean solely "unending: it is qualitatively different from mortal life in the present world, because it participates in the blessings of the coming age, including being with God, who is living and eternal ... such life is characterized by fullness and abundance";{{sfn|Thompson|2015|p=85}} though according to the New Testament professor [[Merrill C. Tenney]] the word refers to imperishability.{{sfn|Tenney|1995|p=50}}

==== "Only begotten" ====
The Gospel of John uses lexically and syntactically unsophisticated language, and has a significant number of theologically laden phrases that have become an important part of Christianity.<ref name="rise">{{Citation|last=Blumczyński |first=Piotr |title=The rise and fall of a translational compound: "the only begotten" in the English versions of the New Testament |work=New Voices in Translation Studies 2 |date=2006 |pages=1–8 }}</ref> John 3:16 also contains the designation for Jesus as the "only begotten", a key Christological title in the pre-modern versions of the English Bible, which has almost completely disappeared from most contemporary translations.<ref name="rise"/> The original word, ''monogens'', has a complex etymological analysis, and there is no consensus among scholars on its exact development and meaning. The phrase "only begotten" is traceable to the [[Latin]] translation made by the [[Church Fathers|Church Father]] [[Jerome]] in the late fourth century called the ''Biblia vulgata''. Jerome translated the Greek adjective ''monogens'' into the Latin cognate ''unigenitus'', which recurred in English translations as "only begotten" for almost six centuries.<ref name="rise" />

The "only begotten Son" shows a deep relationship between God the Father and God the Son (Jesus).{{sfnm|1a1=Harris|1y=2015|1p=11|2a1=Lucado|2y=2007|2p=44}} However, post-1950s translations changed it to "only Son"{{sfn|Solomon|2011|pp=138–140}} or "one and only Son";{{sfnm|1a1=Harris|1y=2015|1p=10|2a1=Lucado|2y=2007|2p=9}} this met criticism for setting aside the [[virgin birth of Jesus]]<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/lets-go-back-to-only-begotten/ |title=Let's Go Back to 'Only Begotten' |date=23 November 2016 |website=[[The Gospel Coalition]] |access-date=14 March 2022 |last=Irons |first=Charles Lee |archive-date=29 January 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220129111156/https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/lets-go-back-to-only-begotten/ |url-status=live }}</ref> to his mother [[Mary, mother of Jesus|Mary]].{{sfnm|1a1=Borthwick|1y=2020|1p=82|2a1=Köstenberger|2y=2020|2pp=36, 40–41|3a1=Rainbow|3y=2014|3pp=178, 353}} Dale Moody of the ''[[Journal of Biblical Literature]]'' offered two alternatives for John 3:16: "Only one of his kind" (from ''{{Lang|el|μονος}}'' [''monos'', one] and ''{{Lang|el|γένος}}'' [''genos'', kind]), or "his 'unique' son".<ref>{{Cite journal |title=God's Only Son: The Translation of John 3:16 in the Revised Standard Version |last=Moody |first=Dale |date=December 1953 |doi=10.2307/3261699 |journal=Journal of Biblical Literature |volume=72 |issue=4 |pages=213–219 |jstor=3261699 |s2cid=165378454 }}</ref> The author Paul Borthwick wrote "only begotten Son" signifies that Jesus possesses "every artibute of pure Godhood";{{sfnm|1a1=Borthwick|1y=2020|1p=12}} Pawson, however, argued that the phrase stated Jesus is not everlasting.{{sfn|Pawson|2014|p=13}}{{efn|In [[Christian theology]], Jesus holds the same position along with God the Father and [[God the Holy Spirit]].{{sfnm|1a1=Harris|1y=2015|1p=8|2a1=Pawson|2y=2014|2p=12|3a1=Rainbow|3y=2014|3pp=83, 249}} This concept is known as the Trinity,{{sfnm|1a1=Borthwick|1y=2020|1p=82|2a1=Köstenberger|2y=2020|2p=429|3a1=Rainbow|3y=2014|3p=154|4a1=Ralph|4y=2003|4pp=252, 259}} which states that [[Monotheism|God is one]] but exists co-equally, co-eternally, and [[Consubstantiality|co-substantial]]ly as the aforementioned three;<ref>{{Cite CCC|2.1|232–267}}</ref> each essence, however, is not same towards the other ones.{{sfnm|1a1=Lucado|1y=2007|1p=85|2a1=Rainbow|2y=2014|2p=160|3a1=Ralph|3y=2003|3p=291}} In John 3:16, the relationship between God the Father and Jesus, also referred to as God the Son, is shown.{{sfnm|1a1=Borthwick|1y=2020|1pp=74, 94|2a1=Hurtado|2y=2005|2p=363|3a1=Köstenberger|3y=2020|3p=127}} The addition of "begotten"—which purposely asserts that Jesus' life started after his virgin birth—is considered a contradiction of the doctrine,{{sfnm|1a1=Pawson|1y=2014|1p=13|2a1=Rainbow|2y=2014|2p=308}} since it does not affirm that Jesus is also [[Self-existence|self-existent]] together with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.<ref>{{Cite journal |title=The Idea of Pre-Existence in the Fourth Gospel |last=Strachan |first=R. H. |date=January 1914 |journal=[[The American Journal of Theology]] |doi=10.1086/479315 |pages=81–105 |volume=18 |issue=1 }}</ref>}} Theologian [[Pheme Perkins]] believed the phrase "He gave His only begotten Son" could be a reference to [[crucifixion of Jesus|his later crucifixion]],{{sfnm|1a1=Lucado|1y=2007|1pp=11, 87|2a1=Perkins|2y=1990|2p=956}} an opinion shared by [[Murray J. Harris]] and [[Robert E. Van Voorst]].{{sfnm|1a1=Harris|1y=2015|1p=33|2a1=Lucado|2y=2007|2p=45}}

===== Muslim commentary =====
The validity of Jesus' status as the "only begotten son" of God, as described in John 3:16, has been disputed by Muslim scholars especially,<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/february4/is-god-of-muhammad-father-of-jesus.html |title=Is the God of Muhammad the Father of Jesus? |last=George |first=Timothy |work=[[Christianity Today]] |access-date=3 May 2022 |date=4 February 2002 |archive-date=21 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220321205231/https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/february4/is-god-of-muhammad-father-of-jesus.html |url-status=live }}</ref> who deny the [[Islamic view of the Trinity|Trinity]] and consider such concepts as a denial of ''[[tawhid]]'' (oneness of God).<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/februaryweb-only/22.0.html |title=There Can Be No End to Jihad' |last=McRoy |first=Anthony |date=1 February 2005 |work=Christianity Today |access-date=3 May 2022 |archive-date=11 August 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210811001628/https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/februaryweb-only/22.0.html |url-status=live }}</ref> [[Gombe State University]]'s Yakubu Modibbo and [[University of Maiduguri]]'s Dani Mamman claimed other verses from the Bible that, they believed, are an affirmation of other "begotten sons" of God, and thus contradict Jesus' words or John's commentary; [[Book of Psalms|Psalms]] 2:7 for example, which reads, "I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, 'You are my Son; today I have begotten you'."<ref name="status" /> They added that, despite unambiguous, "Christians still regards all the biblical sons of God as adopted sons by God, through faith in Jesus."<ref name="status">{{Citation |url=https://www.academia.edu/40949959 |title=Scriptural Analysis on the Divine Sonship of Jesus from the Qur'an and the Bible |last1=Modibbo |first1=Yakubu |last2=Mamman |first2=Dani |publisher=[[Gombe State University]], [[University of Maiduguri]] |pages=6–7 |access-date=3 May 2022 |archive-date=3 May 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220503085834/https://www.academia.edu/40949959/SCRIPTURAL_ANALYSIS_ON_THE_DIVINE_SONSHIP_OF_JESUS_FROM_THE_QUR_AN_AND_BIBLE |url-status=live }}</ref> However, the Christian apologist A. Yousef Al-Katib wrote that it is actually a reference to the coming son of God, who in Christian theology is identified as Jesus; he also wrote of [[Acts of the Apostles|Acts]] 13:33 that quotes the verse to prove Jesus' divine sonship.{{sfn|Al-Katib|2014|p=57}}
Description	What you type	What you get
Italic	''Italic text''	Italic text
Bold	'''Bold text'''	Bold text
Bold & italic	'''''Bold & italic text'''''	*Bold & italic text*
Description	What you type	What you get
Reference	Page text.<ref>[https://www.example.org/ Link text], additional text.</ref>	Page text.^[1]
Named reference	Page text.<ref name="test">[https://www.example.org/ Link text]</ref>	Page text.^[2]
Additional use of the same reference	Page text.<ref name="test" />	Page text.^[2]
Display references	<references />	↑ Link text, additional text. ↑ Link text