For God so loved the world...

I don't like to talk too much about the original languages of the Bible when I teach. I'll bring it up when I think it's helpful, but it's usually not all that helpful, really. It sounds impressive, it feels like we're learning something, it's interesting to a number of people, but let's be honest: sometimes an aorist is just an aorist - you know what I mean? (If not, then I've made my point.)

I do, however, try to study aspects of the original languages when I prepare a teaching. I try to do good homework, and make sure that what I teach is as accurate as possible. I need to do the work (and I should do more of it than I do!), but that doesn't mean that the details need to fill time in a sermon. More often than not, it improves preaching without becoming the content of preaching.

Then there are those times when it is necessary to spend a little, or a lot, of time describing the original languages. It's a tough call to know when it's helpful, and when it just strokes my own ego. ("Hey, look, I can't remember Hebrew grammar very well, but I can still pronounce it! Impressed?")

One of those cases where it is actually helpful is in perhaps the most recognizable verse in all the Bible - John 3:16. Most translations read something like, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son..." This is an accurate English translation of the original language. But there's a distinction that Greek makes that English can mask.

"God so loved the world." If you're like me, for a long time I took this to mean that God loved the world so much that look! He gave us something! His only Son! Wow! He sure loves us a lot.

The translation is accurate. The word translated "so" can mean "so much," but it can also mean "thusly." One is magnitude, the other is manner. It's the difference between "she is so smart" and "she carefully arranged the flowers just so."

If it's the second definition that applies, then the verse says, "For God thusly loved the world that He gave His only Son..." (the NET has "For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son...").

That's different. Not monumentally. Nothing in our theology is shaken because of this. But it's different.

Does this say that God loved us that much (so D.A. Carson), or does it say God loved us in that manner (so R.H. Gundry)? The second choice is the most common use of that word, but there are cases when it means the first choice. Some even argue for both meanings, since John is no stranger to intentionally picking a word to mean two things. Certainly, both statements are true. But what is this verse saying?

The Gospel of John uses that same Greek word 13 other times, and in every one of those cases, it means thusly. Therefore, I believe that it means thusly in 3:16. In what manner did God love us? By sacrificially sending His one and only Son to die on a cross so that we can have eternal life by faith. That's the manner in which He loved us.

Yes, He loved us that much, but He loved us in that manner - which is what I believe John 3:16 is telling us.

(By the way, the word "loved" is in the aorist tense - just in case you were wondering.)

How Do We Know We Have the Original Gospel?

A comment question I hear among skeptics (and among believers!) is, "How do we know that we have the original Gospel?" Often, that question is not worded in such open, kind, inquisitive terms - and more often it is a negative statement instead of a question. But the question is still there.

The answer to the question requires at least a book-length answer, but let me give you a few things to consider in response:

1. We have extremely early evidence that the Gospel we preach is what the apostles preached. For example, 1 Cor 15:1-5 explains the same basic core of what the Gospel is as what we believe - atonement for sin in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. 1 Corinthians is easily shown to be one of the earliest Christian documents, evidence that what we believe to be the core of the Gospel has been the core since very early in church history (before A.D. 50). But also consider that 1 Cor 15:1-5 appears to be quoting a common saying. If that's true, then the core of the Gospel shows up even earlier than 1 Corinthians. It takes a while for common sayings to become common!
2. There is terrific evidence that every book of the New Testament was written in the 1st Century, and they all agree on what the Gospel is. The book of Acts is particular good about boiling the Gospel down to it's primary content.
3. There is no other 1st Century evidence of any other gospel. (There are "other gospels" that appear in the 3rd Century, but nothing from the first.) So, the only evidence we have from the 1st Century is consistent on what the core of the Gospel is. Anyone who believes we don't have the original Gospel has to explain why all the 1st Century evidence points only in one direction. I've heard theories, but they require more faith and speculation than what we're accused of.
4. There are Roman and Jewish documents from the 1st Century that are hostile against Christianity, and yet they confirm that the main doctrine of Christians is that they believe in the resurrection of Christ. They don't agree with that belief, but they affirm that this is what Christians believed. These documents by no means want to promote Christianity - even hostile primary sources affirm the content of the Gospel!
5. The apostles preferred death over denying the resurrection of Christ. That's how core this belief has been from the beginning. 
6. Jesus wasn't killed for being a controversial religious figure, or for being a controversial teacher, or for being a political activist. He was killed for claiming to be equal to God. The very reason for killing Him (from the human perspective) affirms that His claims to divinity were core to His message. If He didn't claim to be equal to God, He likely would have lived to a ripe, old age.

The list goes on, but this gives you a taste of why we have a strong defense against any charge that we do not possess the original Gospel. Be emboldened by the facts - they are always on the side of Truth. In my experience, the more we dig, the more reasons we have to believe, not less.