John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Question:
Does the word "world" in John 3:16 mean "the world of the elect" as Calvinists, such as A.W. Pink, have said? They argue that it unequivocally means this because other passages in the New Testament speak of God's love only towards believers and not towards unbelievers. Moreover, they assert that because the word "world" has many different meanings in the New Testament, it is difficult to ascertain the meaning within it. Specifically, the way John employs the word "world" leads them to interpret it to mean "the world of the elect" in this passage.
Answer:
The word "world" in John 3:16 clearly means what the natural reading begs: all humanity. And this is proven simply by looking at the immediate and near context of John but also at the wider context of the entire Bible.
The immediate context:
1) The model on which Jesus bases God's means of salvation (Moses holding up the bronze snake in the desert- John 3:14), was one of offering the salvation to a wider audience than actually believed and looked at the serpent. In the OT passage, the offer was clearly made to all the Israelites who were there and was intended for all of them. The limited response on the part of the Israelites does not diminish the intent on God's part, nor does it indicate a lack of power on God's part to save those who did not believe. He loved them all and intended for all to be saved, but not all accepted the offer by looking to the means of salvation. Never in the Bible does it suggest that God chose and empowered only certain Israelites to believe and others not to.
Furthermore, in v. 19, it says the "light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light …" This use of "world" cannot mean the elect, can it? It cannot because, if it did, it would be saying that the "world of the elect" loved darkness instead of light. Nobody would agree to this meaning. So why would Jesus have used "world" in v. 16 one way and then in a different way in v. 19?
2) The word "whoever" also in John 3:16, is a clear indication that the offer is open to anyone. Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines "whoever" to be "whatever person, no matter who". In Greek, the word is "pas", which, when appearing without a noun, means "every one; any one", which equally renders as "whoever" or "whosoever". In other words it is unqualified and means any one out of all humanity. What it does not say is "anyone of the elect". This undercuts the Calvinist argument. If Jesus had meant only anyone of the elect who believed, he could have said so. But because the word "pas" was unqualified, it shows the intention of the giving of God's Son was for all humanity, such that any of them who will believe would be given eternal life.
The way "pas" is used in the subsequent verses in John 3 further supports this interpretation. In v. 20 it says "everyone who does evil hates the light". Similar to this use are the words spoken in John 1:7, which says John the Baptist "came as a witness to testify concerning that light so that through him all men might believe." The word used here is a variant of "pas": "pantes". It is not exclusive of any person. This emphasizes the purpose of the light God was shining through his Son: to draw all men by this light to faith in his Son so they could be saved. The purpose was not to draw only some smaller number of people God had predetermined should be saved and intentionally omit the rest.
Continue reading in John 1 to verse 9, where it says this true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. The Calvinist says a study of how John uses the word "world" leads you to conclude in John 3:16 that God only loves the elect. Here we see Jesus was coming into the "world". Let's keep reading to see if this helps us arrive at the same conclusion as the Calvinist. In v.10 it says he was in the world and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He reiterates it in verse 11: "He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him." Here, "world" clearly does not signify the elect as Calvinists define "world" in John 3:16, since this "world" did not recognize Jesus to be the Christ. Perhaps they would argue that this is a case where John uses "world" to mean the non-elect. If so, this does not support the argument that he uses it to mean "elect" in John 3:16. It supports the argument that "world" means "all humanity". The next verse again displays God's intended recipients of his grace: "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God…" Out of all the men in the world—God wanted them all to believe-- in verse 7, to those who did believe, God made his children. Verse 13 is often confused by Calvinists to mean that God sovereignly elected them and that he gave them the faith he required. This is a failure to understand the essence of the gospel. The point in v. 13 is understood by what it is contrasting: works salvation—that is, the means of salvation pursued by the Jews: self-established righteousness through observing the Law, as Paul speaks of in Romans 2-4, wherein Paul says faith is the intended means by which the promise is fulfilled. For through faith, we become children of Abraham, a fulfillment of the promise God made to him in Gen 15, and are thus called "children of promise" in Gal 4:28.
Wider context:
3) If God does not love the entire world…then his love would be less than what he requires of us. In Mark 12:31 he says to "love your neighbor as yourself". In Matthew 5:44-48, he tells us to "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your Father is perfect." If the Calvinist says God only loves those whom he has chosen—and not all—then he would be guilty of doing only what pagans do and not what he requires of us. The Calvinist may answer, "God does love many who don't love him; he loves all the non-believing elect—those whom he has chosen but he hasn't regenerated yet." If that were true, it would mean he only causes his sun to rise on the elect rather than all humanity. No, in this statement in Matthew 5, by saying he causes his sun to shine on the evil and sends rain to them, he is proving the statement that God loves all humanity. And why wouldn’t he? He created each in his own image. Who would put their image on something and then reject it before it had done anything good or bad? Any parent can relate to this. Which of your children do you not love? Would you reject your infant and hate them? If so, even the world would think you a monster. How much more would God himself.
4) Hebrews 2:9b "…so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone." (pantos in Greek) The word "everyone" here is unqualified and must mean every person in all humanity. Sadly, a beloved professor of mine in seminary, taught this interpretation and yet maintained that Christ only died for the elect, although he admitted that this verse was troublesome for him. Romans 5:6-8 says the same thing in different words, when it says Christ died for his enemies. Ephesians 2:3b says the same: "Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath." Would God have wrath against one he has chosen? This would mean, according to Calvinist belief that God only loves the elect, that his wrath is stored up against those he loves. Clearly, his wrath is not against his elect, for he has not chosen us for wrath but for salvation. God is not a God of favoritism that would make him only love certain individuals and not others. (Romans 2:11)
5) 1 Timothy 2:3-4 God wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. Greek words are: "pantas anthropous" and in v. 5 it is "anthropon". In both cases, this refers to all men universally.
6) Acts 17:24-30, culminating with this: "God commands all people everywhere to repent". God commands all to repent because he desires that they all come to salvation.
7) The word "elect" is never actually used to refer to someone who is not already a believer. It always refers to those who currently are believing in Jesus. The only exception to this is the national election of Israel, who was chosen because of its father Abraham's faith. And yet, Romans 9 makes it clear that all Israel's people are not elect; only the believing Jews are. Stay tuned for an upcoming blog on this topic.
The Calvinist may feel the need to limit the meaning of "world" in John 3:16 to "the world of the elect" because he must reconcile it to his doctrine, and he knows that if God loved someone and yet did not choose them for salvation (election), then it compromises the character of God, specifically his love and faithfulness. Thus the Calvinist, in his attempt to reconcile his interpretation of other scriptural texts, ends up contorting scripture to fit the mold of his dogmatic hermeneutic. This is what I discovered I was guilty of while attending a seminary led by a mix of Calvinists and non-Calvinists. When we do this, we set up our systematic theology as the authority and Scripture has to bow to and be molded by it. Yet, thankfully, my heart's objection was not fully suppressed by it. In the honesty of my heart, I had to listen to my conscience and the Holy Spirit, who was impressing upon me the contradiction between the idea that God chooses only certain individuals for salvation and the belief that God is loving and faithful to his creatures, not showing favoritism to any. If you are reading this as a Calvinist, I beg you to listen to your heart's objection. Don't quench the Holy Spirit's voice, which helps us rightly divide the word of truth that He inspired.
Comments are welcome. I would love to hear your thoughts.
Comments are welcome. I would love to hear your thoughts.
No comments:
Post a Comment