Problems with John 3:16

[Guest]

Someone ask the following...

John 3:16 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.

Another translation I read was "For God thus loves the cosmos..." In other words, it is not "so" as in quantity, but "thus" as in like manner, making a comparison to what was already said. And it is not "loved" meaning a one time deal, but "loves" that is continual.

But my main points are these. Many christians understand this to mean that God gave His Son whom He loved so much to die on the cross for us in order to pay God for our sins.

From this interpretation I have several questions. One, what kind of father is he who gives his own son for a sacrifice to pay for the sins of others? If you did this to your own son, what would people think the kind of father you are? A good father?

Second, why does God require a sacrifice in order to forgive us? God explicitely forbade the children of Israel to sacrifice their sons to idols. Pagans believed that if they made their gods angry or sinned against them, they needed to sacrifice (many times a human) in order to appease their angry god. So if God did give His Son as a sacrifice in order for God to forgive us, how is He any different than the pagans?

But when reading the OT, God has forgiven many without a human sacrifice. He is known to be a God of mercy and grace who wants nothing that His people will humble themselves and turn from their wicked ways, and He will forgive them. That is all. Even Jonah understood God's mercy and grace would forgive the Ninivites. No paganistic human sacrifice was required.

So the interpretation of many christians regarding John 3:16 makes God a bad father who gives up his son for a sacrifice. And it also makes God an angry God who needs to be appeased with a human sacrifice. There is a debt and someone has to pay it. There is no other way.

Is that the kind of God we worship? A God who requires a human sacrifice in order for Him to even look at us and forgive us? How do you explain forgiveness when a price had to be paid to God? Is that how we should forgive others too? Pay us the price and then we will forgive you? If the price was paid to God, what is the purpose of forgiveness?

Or better yet, is this the correct interpretation of John 3:16? Is it really saying that God gave His Son to die on the cross as a human sacrifice in order to make an angry God happy? What is John 3:16 really saying?

[Guest]

*sighs*

If you want to get technical and specific, one of the abominations of the Canaanites was to literally sacrifice their children to the god Molech. They would do this in times of national distress, but they would also do this when building an important building - such as a temple. They would take the bones of the sacrificed child and place them under the foundation of the building, to "sanctify" it for sacred use.

Nasty.

The kind of thing that John 3:16 is talking about is a far cry from this, however. The concept is roughly the same, actually, but the meaning is quite different.

Consider Adam, the progenitor of all humanity. Adam placed the blame for his sin on God and on his wife (Gen. 3:12 - "THE WOMAN, whom YOU gave to be with me..."). So how is Adam's sin to be paid for?

Notice the context here in Genesis 3. As a result of Adam and Eve's sin, several things were to happen. Among these things, conception and childbirth were to become occasions of great pain. This is more than simply a physical consequence, however. It has multiple levels of meaning. Because sin damages the relationships between people, including and especially the relationships between parents and children, child-rearing in general was to become painful by virtue of Adam and Eve's sin. This emotional pain was symbolized by the physical pain of childbirth.

In Ezekiel 18, this parent-child dynamic has become a cynical proverb in the mouths of the Israelites. The children pay for the sins of the parents! (That's what the proverb, "the parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge" means.) But God declares that He hates this proverb. Why? Because the point isn't to sulk because we have "bad foundations" but rather to overcome!

How can a blameless, sinless Messianic figure, the "son of Adam" (see Luke 3:38 ) - elsewhere called the "son of Man" - be born of sinful parentage? THROUGH OVERCOMING. That was the whole point, and that's what Jesus came in the flesh to show us.

But more than that, as you correctly pointed out, Jesus came as an atoning sacrifice. Why?

All sin affects relationships, and causes damage. The only way that that damage can be repaired is through purification, through "sacrifice." Whether we're speaking of repentance on the part of the sinner and forgiveness on the part of the victim or some other form of "sacrifice," there's still sacrifice involved.

The Canaanite practice of child sacrifice literally symbolized that the children would pay for the sins of the parents so that the parents could go on sinning. Jesus' sacrifice, on the other hand, symbolized that the Messianic child would pay for the sins of all of humanity, figuratively seen as His parents, so that the parents could overcome their sins and be restored to a right relationship with Him and with the Father.

God the Father, as a loving Parent, allowed Jesus to sacrifice Himself for all of humanity, because the return on this "sacrifice" was colossal. Figuratively speaking, our sins, whether conscious or unconscious, cause God emotional pain. It's a sacrifice on His part to not cut us off from His presence forever, or worse, kill us.

By the way, I hope this way of seeing Jesus' sacrifice will serve as a wake-up call to how our sins affect others, especially our children, and how we can be a living sacrifice for the benefit of others, especially our parents. (Compare Malachi 4:6.)

Damon

[Guest]

I am glad you are beginning to question the idea that the supreme sacrifice of Christ on our behalf was for the purpose of "appeasing an angry God". I believe that appeasing gods by sacrifice has its origins in non-Judaistic (and therby non-Christian) religions. The idea of Jesus as our substitute ---- that he bore the punishment we deserved is a corollary of the same.

To give a single example, I quote from the Sumerians, an ancient people who lived in the same region as the later Babylonians.

Here is a quote was found on a liturgical tablet, and translated is as follows: "The lamb is the substitute for humanity; he hath given up a lamb for his life."

Here are some quotes that give the real reason for the death of Christ:

I Peter 2:24 He himself offered up our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

II Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

Titus 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.

Heb 9:26 ...he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

The sacrifice of Christ was not about the forgiveness of sins. It was about the forsaking of sins. You may find some Scripture containing an expression translated "the fogiveness of sin". But "aphesis" which has been translated as "forgiveness" has the root meaning of "leaving" or "departing". It was used in the book of Acts concerning a ship leaving the shore. It was used in I Cor 7, concerning a man leaving his wife, or a wife leaving her husband.

It is used in this verse:

Luke 4:18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed..."

Was Jesus going to proclaim "fogiveness" to the captives? Or was He going to proclaim release (or "departure" from the prison)?

The question I have had about John 3:16 is, "What does it mean to "believe into" Him? (often translated as "believe on"). Does it mean to "believe in the finished work of Christ" as some say?

I suggest that the word "pisteuO" sometimes means to entrust oneself to another. For example:

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs which he did; but Jesus did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man.

So perhaps in John 3:16, the meaning is that whoever will entrust himself to God's Son, will not perish but have eternal life. And to entrust oneself to Jesus implies discipleship. It implies that one has left behind all one's own ambitions to live one's life in submission to Him.

[Guest]

This isn't my question guys. I thought you would understand when I said, "Someone ask this."

If I was asking the question I would have said so.