Are there problems with John 3:16?

By

Dallas M. Roark, Ph.D.

In an article on John 3:16, Sami Zaatari does his best to raise some doubts and questions concerning the meaning of the verse. (See here.) He quotes the verse several times as follows from an article of mine in the attempt to mock God’s love. Sami forgot to mention a reference to the article I wrote and in which I quoted the verse. (I presume it is this one.) Here is the verse: "God loved the people of this world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who has faith in him will have eternal life and never really die." (John 3:16 CEV) However, Sami quotes the King James Version which is 400 years old rather than modern translations and he changes the translation deliberately as we shall see later.

Sami raises the question of truth in these words:

I am glad to agree with Sami on this statement. However, I cannot help but wonder what kind of evidence Sami presents for converting to Islam. What is the truth about Mohammed? Is the character of Mohammed free of all sin and crimes? What is the truth about ethics in Islam? What is the truth about the Qur’an in its many versions? Are these issues set forth to the prospective convert? What is the truth about jihad against non-Muslims? What is the truth about honor killings?

Sami begins:

Question: Are you from another world or planet? Are you not included in this world? The verse declares such a love for the world that whosoever believes – an act of personal commitment to Jesus Christ – will have eternal life. What is the difference between universal love and general love? Are there people who are in the world that are not included in the statement, “God loves the world.” What people are not included in “God loves the world”? If you admit that the verse is general, and not specific, who then is excluded? This makes no sense. If you want a specific application, the list would encompass the whole of mankind. Mankind and the world are synonymous.

The dictionary (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary) defines general as: “1, involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole, 2, involving, relating to, or applicable to every member of a class, kind, or group.” The term universal is defined as: “1. Including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception.” If you have a general declaration of love for all, you don’t need a specific declaration.

I suspect that real problem for Sami is that the God of the Bible loves the world. The deity of the Qur’an only loves the Muslims, the submitters. The fact that God loves and comes in the person of the Son is humiliating to the Muslim mind. The fact is that Allah does not love the world, but pronounces jihad against non-Muslims, either to submit to dhimmitude, or convert to Islam, or be killed. This seems to me to be the reason Sami wants a “specific” reference to the love of God – namely Allah loves only Muslims who are obedient. The forgiveness of sinners is a difficult concept for Muslims to grasp, but that is what John 3:16 is all about.

Sami is beating the air trying to come up with a limited definition for John 3:16.

For an example Sami related the following;

Sami gives an exception to his love of food, lasagna. But it is good to know that Sami is not God and the verse does not give exceptions. Sami wants to make exceptions in the text, but there are none. Over and over, the New Testament affirms God’s desire that all people come to Him.

There are no exceptions in which God rules out the possibility of their being loved by Him. The terrible thing is that humans reject His love and if His love is rejected there is no place for their future other than away from God, in hell.

Sami then turns to indictment:

Sami, you have not proven a lie! You have only presumed it. The World and Everyone in it are the same. You are trying to distort the passage to make it seem wrong. The words about God loving the World include everyone in it in all generations, even you!!! You have been distorting Christianity all along and you have been mocking it and fighting against it, and you do not understand it, and if you did you would have become a follower of Christ a long time ago.

You are trying to build a case on a foundation that does not exist. The so-called “lie” is in your mind, not in the Scripture verse.

Sami turns then to an interesting maneuver.

Sami, you are reasoning like a sausage. If the verse is general and not specific then Jesus was sent for everyone.

Surprisingly, Sami strays into theology,

Sami omits so much of the story we have to fill in some of the details. Let’s look first at the beginning of the Gospel of John:

The universal appeal of John’s gospel, both here in chapter one, and in chapter 3 is based on God’s love and man’s response. There is no limited atonement in these verses. The idea of a limited atonement is a construct coming from John Calvin and others following him. Moreover, the real issue is the response of people – will you believe and receive Christ as Lord of your life? There is no distinction between a general claim of God’s love and a specific claim of God’s love. God’s love is without qualifications to anyone who will receive it.

There is hope for you, Sami, as long as you are breathing. If you are damned it is your own doing, not God’s desire. His love for you continues even when you are rebelling against Him. “Whosoever will…” still includes you. Your problem is not a theological debate about predestination and free will, but that you are mocking the Gospel and actively distorting the meaning of simple and straight-forward statements in the Bible. The invitation of this verse includes you, and all Muslims, and all who seek to belittle it for whatever reason. It is only your own rejection of God’s offer by which you exclude yourself.

Sami then quotes a passage from Charles Spurgeon who declared that “all” does not mean all.

I don’t think quoting Spurgeon is helping you. For example, Sami quotes the use of the Greek word “pas” to show that it does not include “all.” One example is that “all” Judea and Jerusalem went out to hear John the Baptist. So it is concluded that really not all went, there were lots of people did not go.

Spurgeon is right in saying that not everyone went and it is a figure of speech used to imply a large number of people went, but many did not. In contrast, there is a word of Jesus in which all certainly means “all.” At the end of the gospel of Matthew we have these words:

“The people of all nations” leaves nobody out. Sami, you are not left out. The invitation to become a disciple of Christ is still here. The word “make” in the verse is teaching, enrolling, instructing, it is not a word of force or coercion.

The Gospel of Luke ends with a similar charge:

I think that the phrase, “all nations” is pretty revealing.

Moreover, the missionary did not lie to you. You merely picked up a particular theological expression and try to use it as a weapon rather than studying the New Testament to see if what is said was true. Moreover, you must put your trust in the New Testament, not anyone coming along saying this or that.

Next Sami raises the issue of God sending his Son…

First, we have to correct the limited assumption that God love some of us only. That is not faithful to the Scriptures. If you persist in this error you are headed for an unloving God, a biased being who chooses favorites and rejects others. This is more like Allah than the idea of God in the New Testament. In Islam no one knows what Allah is going to do. Not so here.

Second, you must realize what you are asking. You require God to come. If God came without the incarnation you and I would not live. God is holy and his holiness would kill us sinners. Moreover, the Infinite God would be so great that you could not comprehend Him. God’s love is expressed in a way that we can understand, being like us in a body, but being God in our presence.

Third, God did not come in his Infinity to keep the world from dying. He is not a coward.

Fourth, the Apostle Paul describes it as follows:

So, the bottom line is that God was in Christ in the most profound way even when we speak of the Son and the Father.

Perhaps you could ask the same question with reference to Allah and Mohammed? Why did not Allah come instead of sending a prophet? Is Allah a coward? Can Allah really reveal himself, not just commands?

Sami moves on to the issue of “begotten” in the verse.

There is an interesting twist that has taken place here. The translation that I used was the Contemporary English Version and my original quote was from it. (See here.)

However, Sami introduced a different version, probably the King James Version, to introduce the word “begotten” to suggest that God had a consort for the birth of Jesus. Most modern translations do not use the word “begotten” rather the phrase “unique” or “only” Son. The issue of “begotten” is a red herring for Muslims and they use it to mislead people, attempting to smear Christianity.

Although Sami can hardly be ignorant of the various articles on this issue that we have had on Answering Islam for many years (e.g, 1, 2), he is not interested in understanding the meaning of the verse but only in abusing the formulation in an outdated translation for polemical purposes.

It should be underlined that the Greek text has not changed, nor been corrupted as Muslim claim, but our understanding of the words have deepened and been clarified. There are

The reason that Jesus is unique, one of a kind, is his message: “I am the way, the truth, and the life!” Jesus answered. “Without me, no one can go to the Father.” (John 14:6 CEV) Whether Sami or you or I go to heaven or hell it is up to us. God has already acted and dealt with the humanly impenetrable barrier, our sin. The way is provided for all of us. If you ignore the way, or insult the provider what is there left to be said?

Sami draws out his misunderstanding of the issue:

Did the Son of God exist before the birth of Jesus? Absolutely! This involves the whole issue of the nature of God being Trinitarian. God the Father has been a father from eternity. The Son of God has been a son from eternity. Moreover, the Holy Spirit exists from eternity. So how did the birth of Jesus take place? If Sami would read the Bible, rather than Muslim propaganda, he would find the answer.

It is ironic that Muslims believe that Allah can say, “Be” and it happens, but in the case of Mary the word of the angel is rejected. The power of the Spirit coming over her has nothing to do with physical sex. It is the power of God in the virgin birth. It is strange that the Qur’an affirms the virgin birth of Jesus, but Sami insults the Qur’an and Christianity by implying God going to bed with Mary. The Qur’an affirms the Virgin Birth of Jesus.

Moving along Sami has some unusual reasoning:

The story goes around that Mark Twain was once reading the Bible and the reason for his reading was he was looking for loop holes. Sami seems to be looking for loop holes as well. But the answer to his question is found in the Gospel of John.

Sami would probably want to raise the usual Muslim reply that the Holy Spirit refers to Mohammed. However, the Holy Spirit was to be given to the disciples of Jesus and the record of Acts shows the reality of that promise. The Holy Spirit was not delayed for 600 years to the time of Mohammed. Such a conclusion is senseless.

So, in the words of a song, you can’t have one without the other. You can’t reject the Father and have the Son, nor can you reject the Son and have the Father.

In reality I wonder how many Muslim men think about Allah at all. The emphasis on martyrdom and the reward of 72 virgins raises questions about the real nature of Allah and really knowing him. Is there any regard for Allah at all? Is it a matter of doing what is thought to be his will in hopes of the virgins?

Sami concludes:

This is not a correct observation. Sami, you distorted the issue. And the mockery came only from your side. You quoted an old version of the verse creating a false objection. You created false distinctions between general and specific allowing that general does not cover all. You made a mockery of God by deliberately ignoring the Christian Gospels in your charges. You even mock the Qur’an in the process.

Your conclusion, “And Allah knows best!” reminds me of a phrase that occurs over again in The Life of Mohammed by Ibn Ishaq. A story is narrated and then there is a conclusion relating to its accuracy, “But God knows what the truth is.” In this case, Sami has raised questions and given his answers, but God knows what the truth is and it does not seem to be what Sami is proposing.

One last comment about God’s love. Love requires a response. If a man tells a woman he loves her he is anticipating a response, i.e. that she responds to his love. In their responses to each other there is a commitment to one another. God’s love also requires a response. God loves you, will you respond to Him?

John 3:16 is followed by some serious implications:

Nevertheless, Sami, I do pray for you almost daily. My prayer is that you have an experience with Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the beloved of the Father, that you know now his gift of everlasting life.