What's the meaning in John 3: 16?

[marco]

There are huge problems in the following:


“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.� John 3: 16


(a) In what way is LOVE shown by a father releasing a son to be tortured and killed?

(b) What is the meaning of "only begotten". It seems to be interpreted as "God's only son" with some emotion attached to the singularity. In what sense does God have a son, or beget one?

[Elijah John]

There are huge problems in the following:


“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.� John 3: 16


(a) In what way is LOVE shown by a father releasing a son to be tortured and killed?

It is appropriate that you have posted thid in the TD&D forum. You have clearly framed this passage in the RCC/Protestant tradition. The problem with this is that we are looking at a discussion with a member of the Sanhedrian. The RCC focuses on "The Passion", which constitutues little mor than two pages of the Scriptures and less than 24 hours of Yeshua's life. Apart from the reference to Moshe' liftig up the serpent in the wilderness, in verse 15, there is nothing else in the chapter that is close to referring to "The Passion". In addition, I also contend that it would be rather odd for that to refer to "The Passion". To properly understand the verse, one must set aside, RCC doctrine and look at the verse in it's proper historical, grammatical and cultural contexts.

I think your interpretation redeems the passage from notions of a heartless, Father YHVH indifferent to the sufferings of his beloved Yahshua. Seems the prevailing interpretation was that Jesus was born to die as an atonement for sin. As though that was the most important part of his mission, his teachings paling in comparison. But the giving of His son involves so much more, namely his teaching about the love and mercy of the Father, his example of a life of Torah observance and his calls to repentance and interior observance of YHVH's Torah, from the heart.

First grammatically, it is Adonai so loved the cosmos(creation), not the anthropoi(populous). Therefore, it was not for the sake of mankind that Yeshua came, but for the sake of His creation. Culturally, this is more in line with the Hebraic focus on one's place within Adonai's people, i.e. "whosoever believes". Historically, that remnant "will not perish" but endure on into eternity. He did not come to condemn the cosmos, but through Him the cosmos would be preserved.

Along the lines of the Jewish concept of "tikkun olam"? The repair of the world? If so, would agree. A RCC priest put it to me this way, when I was stumbling over Matthew 16.28. "Don't get too bogged down in the details, just remember that God created the world good, mankind messed it up, and Jesus somehow puts it right". He thought I was overthinking the discrepancies of Scripture, and was calling on me to focus more on the big picture.

(b) What is the meaning of "only begotten". It seems to be interpreted as "God's only son" with some emotion attached to the singularity. In what sense does God have a son, or beget one?

This is a much more complicated question. Of course, the RCC sees it as simply a reference to His birth and have developed a goodly amount of doctrine around that. However, from a Hebraic viewpoint, "only begotten" is a reference to Adonai's people. (Ps. 2:7) "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." Thus, Yeshua is saying that He is the embodyment of Israel. This brings us back to the second half of your first question. Yeshua undergoes suffering and death, because that is part of the experience of His people and the point of His embodiment was to provide us with an example of how His people should live, even unto death.

I too favor the Hebraic viewpoint on this. And perhaps that was John's actual intention, rather than the more Greek concept of the Logos. But I too see Jesus as the embodiment of Israel, and in fact that lends some support to the notion that if Jesus didn't actually exist, it may have been necessary to invent him. For me, I see him as a vessel, not just the embodiment of Israel, but of Judaism itself. More accessible vessel to convey Judaic ethical Monotheism to the masses.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 30 by Tell the Truth]

Moderator Intervention

For the benefit of new members (and others), kindly restrict comments to the TOPIC rather than the individual. Advising or suggesting 'honesty' is demeaning and is unacceptable.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[marco]

In addition, I also contend that it would be rather odd for that to refer to "The Passion". To properly understand the verse, one must set aside, RCC doctrine and look at the verse in it's proper historical, grammatical and cultural contexts.

This is not to obtain a proper understanding but to extract another interpretation. It is rather nonsensical that a book offering wisdom presents it in conundrums, in this case offering Moses and the snake as some oblique parallel. The truth is that we extract what we want, for things are written with sufficient obscurity that they tolerate widely different interpretations. As here.

First grammatically, it is Adonai so loved the cosmos(creation), not the anthropoi(populous). Therefore, it was not for the sake of mankind that Yeshua came, but for the sake of His creation.

This is interpretational as cosmos of course can relate to humanity through synecdoche.

He did not come to condemn the cosmos, but through Him the cosmos would be preserved.

I see no connection between Christ and the preservation of the cosmos.

However, from a Hebraic viewpoint, "only begotten" is a reference to Adonai's people. (Ps. 2:7) "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." Thus, Yeshua is saying that He is the embodyment of Israel.

The previous RC interpretation, however naïve, makes more sense. God sent the "embodiment" of Israel for some redemptive purpose?

This brings us back to the second half of your first question. Yeshua undergoes suffering and death, because that is part of the experience of His people and the point of His embodiment was to provide us with an example of how His people should live, even unto death

.

So the model is we should have ourselves crucified? You have taken something vaguely obscure and rendered it utterly opaque. Your explanatory clause is no explanation at all. A man wanders around and is crucified because that's the way it is with Jews.


NO - God of the OT is a fierece, jealous God and does not hesitate to ask for the death of a son. We can call this "love" if we like for so much to do with Yahweh is paradoxical.

[Elijah John]

NO - God of the OT is a fierece, jealous God and does not hesitate to ask for the death of a son. We can call this "love" if we like for so much to do with Yahweh is paradoxical.

So, with this statement you are tacitly acknowledging that the God of the OT is in fact the very same as the God of the NT. But your negative focus does not allow for the primitive bias of the human element, and in fact projects the human barbarism onto the Divine. As though YHVH is entirely and accurately represented in the writings of the Ancients. No room for error?

We believers, (some of us anyway) believe that YHVH is far more than just a "storybook" God. And if He transcends even Scripture, it is perfectly valid to focus on the positive. Most believers draw strength from their faith, and they do experience YHVH and Jesus in a very positive manner. Only Fundamentalists believe the negative, barbaric things attributed to the Father by Scripture. And even they usually ignore those passages, or at least don't emphasize them, and seldom if ever, defend them. (except perhaps, on these boards. )

Yes, it is hard to see how John 3.16 conveys the love of God*, if we equate the "giving" of the Son, to the "blood" and the crucifixion. Perhaps we should focus more on the Nativity and on Jesus' life, teachings and ministry as more accurately representing the love of God. And maybe that's what John meant after all. I think Bluethread makes a good case along those lines.

Yes, John 3.16 is a troublesome passage if one wants to speak of the love of God. Perhaps a better representation of His love can be found in the Providential passages of the Sermon on the Mount, the encouragement of the Psalms, and the wisdom of the Prophets and the Proverbs.

----

(*though with convoluted theology, or unconsidered and unquestioning acceptance, many do.)

[marco]

[Replying to post 34 by Elijah John]

This is an eternal problem, EJ. A mum wants to overlook the nastiness in her son and her devotion makes her blind. We derive our notions about heaven and God and floods and famines and battles and bloodshed and mercy and sanctification from the Bible. We turn page by page and we learn. I have no idea why we should act as editor or censor to obtain a picture more in tune with our own humanity. Seek another god. Muhammad had that chance but he extracted the martial features of Yahweh because he needed a martial deity to lead his men to fight for him in his backyard setting. However, Muhammad had the sense to make Allah unique.

I find "God so loved the world" hard to reconcile with the biblical biography. Even the nicer reports do not add up to Love. Jesus mollified Yahweh by calling him "our Father" but as I have said many times, reported actions are more important than honorific titles.

[Elijah John]

I find "God so loved the world" hard to reconcile with the biblical biography. Even the nicer reports do not add up to Love. Jesus mollified Yahweh by calling him "our Father" but as I have said many times, reported actions are more important than honorific titles.

And what are those actions? Those reported in the nastier parts of the Bible? Or those that many believers experience as a benevolent reality. Those same believers form their picture of YHVH both from their experience, and from the benign, benevolent and more enlightened parts of the Bible. (Yes, there are many) Parts such as the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, the Psalms, the Proverbs and Prophets, such as Micah 6.6-6.8. Those uplifting passages rebuke and indict the others, such as the slave beating verses, (a violation of all of the laws of love), as well as, (as you well demonstrate), John 3.16. That is IF that passage is taken as many do, as a blood appeasement on their behalf.

Just remember, those who find peace with God draw strength and spiritual inspiration from the Scriptures as well as experience, at least from portions of the Scripture.

Yes, we do need to edit the Bible, each for ourselves. At the risk of sounding a bit preachy, that may well be what God is counting on, that we use our God-given gift of reason to sift through it's pages, mine the Scriptures, and draw inspiration where we find it.

And we "editors" are in good company. Jefferson did it before us, and in effect, all, or most believers do, whether or not they admit it.

After all, how many sermons are preached on Exodus 21.20-21? The slave beating passage.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 35 by marco]

Also, Marco my friend, you may want to consider this passage, from the book, The How-To Book of the Bible, by Karl A. Schultz. This book has the Imprimatur of the RCC.

When encountering culturally conditioned parts of the Bible, such as in the areas of sex, violence and rituals, contextualize the primitive elements...and seek the text's essential and timeless aspects. Humanizing the Bible means recognizing the imperfections and limitations that accompany it's human dimension, without diminishing it's enduring values and divine inspiration.

It's refreshing to encounter a RC author who agrees with me, on this.

Do you agree there's a (primitive) human dimension? What is remarkable about the Bible is not that there is so much ugliness contained therein, but that it also contains many enlightened and sublime passages. Not bad for an ancient and primitive people. Seems they had the help of a Divine hand, at least at times.