John 3:16

=== 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