John 3:16

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Buckle your seats belts for this one. The words in John 3:16 are not Jesus' but John's. John's gospel is written as an explanation of what Jesus said and did. Therefore, John includes many explanations. The words in 3:16 are one such case. That verse is John's explanation of what Jesus did to fulfill what He had said in the previous verses. If a person reads this chapter with an open mind, and without seeing the red letters, then this becomes easily seen. Unfortunately the red letter Bible completely changes the meaning of this.

A few other examples of John's explanations are: John 1:14, John 1:38, John 4:2, John 4:54, John 20:16.

What must be remembered is that the red letters were added by man according to their opinion. John 3:16 is one of the reasons why I do not like red letter Bibles.

After reading and re-reading that chapter this morning, St. John 3:15 really stood out to me as another example of the Oneness of GOD.

With Jesus speaking, referring to the Son of Man being in Heaven, but Jesus (the Son of Man) is on the earth telling this to Nicodemus as He tells him of the Divine location of the Son of Man, lights were flashing and bells were ringing as I had completely missed this verse and the ramifications before.


So Tk Burk, Praxeas:

Who backs up your line of thinking concerning this?

To hear and read that Mt 28:19 was mistranslated or even changed, with supporting documentation, solidifies my already solid conviction of baptism in Jesus Name.


Maybe this knowledge will make solid other truths of God's Word that has been passed down to me-- WITHOUT having earthly resources to back up their Divinely-revealed truths.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

After reading and re-reading that chapter this morning, St. John 3:15 really stood out to me as another example of the Oneness of GOD.

With Jesus speaking, referring to the Son of Man being in Heaven, but Jesus (the Son of Man) is on the earth telling this to Nicodemus as He tells him of the Divine location of the Son of Man, lights were flashing and bells were ringing as I had completely missed this verse and the ramifications before.


So Tk Burk, Praxeas:

Who backs up your line of thinking concerning this?

To hear and read that Mt 28:19 was mistranslated or even changed, with supporting documentation, solidifies my already solid conviction of baptism in Jesus Name.


Maybe this knowledge will make solid other truths of God's Word that has been passed down to me-- WITHOUT having earthly resources to back up their Divinely-revealed truths.

I don't know what Mat 28:19 has to do with this, but the point needs to be made that we are NOT saying John 3:16 was added.

What we are saying is that John HIMSELF, as he was penning the gospel of John interjected this.

Realize that John is the author and that makes him the narrator. Narrators, just like prophets in the OT, wrote what God said verbatim and then wrote their own words.

For example: John wrote ALL the gospel of John.

John narrated this

Joh 3:1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.

he is quoting nobody. He is simply telling us events

Joh 3:2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him."

John wrote this. He narrates then quotes Nicodemus

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

John again wrote this. He narrates, then quotes Jesus.

And so on and on He is narrating and quoting Jesus.

Now, I am only saying this is very possibly John's interjection or explanation of what Jesus says. Who agrees?

A.T. Robertson
For so (houtōs gar). This use of gar is quite in John’s style in introducing his comments (Joh_2:25; Joh_4:8; Joh_5:13, etc.). This “Little Gospel” as it is often called, this “comfortable word” (the Anglican Liturgy), while not a quotation from Jesus is a just and marvellous interpretation of the mission and message of our Lord. In Joh_3:16-21John recapitulates in summary fashion the teaching of Jesus to Nicodemus.

John is an Apostle, so his words are inspired.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I don't know what Mat 28:19 has to do with this, but the point needs to be made that we are NOT saying John 3:16 was added.

What we are saying is that John HIMSELF, as he was penning the gospel of John interjected this.

Realize that John is the author and that makes him the narrator. Narrators, just like prophets in the OT, wrote what God said verbatim and then wrote their own words.

For example: John wrote ALL the gospel of John.

John narrated this

Joh 3:1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.

he is quoting nobody. He is simply telling us events

Joh 3:2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him."

John wrote this. He narrates then quotes Nicodemus

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

John again wrote this. He narrates, then quotes Jesus.

And so on and on He is narrating and quoting Jesus.

Now, I am only saying this is very possibly John's interjection or explanation of what Jesus says. Who agrees?

A.T. Robertson
For so (houtōs gar). This use of gar is quite in John’s style in introducing his comments (Joh_2:25; Joh_4:8; Joh_5:13, etc.). This “Little Gospel” as it is often called, this “comfortable word” (the Anglican Liturgy), while not a quotation from Jesus is a just and marvellous interpretation of the mission and message of our Lord. In Joh_3:16-21John recapitulates in summary fashion the teaching of Jesus to Nicodemus.

John is an Apostle, so his words are inspired.

Amen!! Very good!