Jesus' meaning of "world" in Jn 6:51 and 7:7

[FreeGrace2]

John 6:51
“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”

John 7:7
“The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.

Here, we have 2 verses in which Jesus mentiones the 'world'. In the first one, He indicated that He is the bread that He gives for the life of the world. This clearly is a reference to the scope of His death.

In the second verse, Jesus notes that the world hates Him.

So, is there any context in either passage that limits the meaning of 'world' in one but not the other.

If Jesus meant by 'world' all of humanity in 6:51, it is clear that He would die for all of humanity.

If His meaning in 6:51 was only about those who will believe, how is that supported in context?

If His meaning in 7:7 is only those who will never believe, how is that supported in context.

Calvinists claim that until God regenerates a person, they hate God and want nothing to do with Him. It can easily be seen that Jn 7:7 supports the idea of all of humanity before there is regeneration.

So, what support is there for the meaning of 'world' in 6:51 to be less than all of humanity?

I believe that Jesus meant all of humanity in both verses. He would die for all of humanity, and all of humanity is enmity against God until one believes the gospel.

 

[sdowney717]

Same idea as in I john 2

2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

God includes the possibility of all the the world's people to be saved, not just the Jews. The Jews though God was only for them. So Jesus says no, it is for all the world's people everywhere.

This does not mean all are called to believe and be saved, even though God commands the gospel to be preached to all creatures (people) under heaven, and all to repent and believe. That is done so that no one is without excuse before God, they reject the gospel unless God gives them a heart to know Him.

Like a herd rushing off a cliff blind to the danger, headed to destruction, you call out to them to turn aside but unless deliberately blocked-prevented from proceeding over the cliff falling to their death, they wont pay any heed to you. That is the naturally blind leading the blind and both fall into the pit of hell.

 

[sdowney717]

1 Cor 1

23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

To the gentile world, the gospel is foolishness.

But to the called, the power and wisdom of God that saves them.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Same idea as in I john 2

God includes the possibility of all the the world's people to be saved, not just the Jews. The Jews though God was only for them. So Jesus says no, it is for all the world's people everywhere.

Correct. But since God includes the POSSIBILITY of everyone to be saved, that demands that Christ die for all of them, not just some of them.

This does not mean all are called to believe and be saved, even though God commands the gospel to be preached to all creatures (people) under heaven, and all to repent and believe.

This statement is internally conflicted and contradictory. If the gospel is to be preached to all people, that is a call to believe and be saved.

That is done so that no one is without excuse before God, they reject the gospel unless God gives them a heart to know Him.

Why would an excuse have any meaning for Calvinsts? In that system, God decides who will and who won't believe, and regenerates those He chose to believe. So where does an excuse fit in? It doesn't, so bringing up the idea that no one will have an excuse is irrelevant. It's all about who God has already chosen to save, right? So excuses have no place in RT theology.

otoh, excuses do have a place in non-Calvinist theology. By Christ's death for everyone, and God not only creating everyone to seek Him (Acts 17:27) but also revealing His divine power to everyone (Rom 1:19-20), no one does have an excuse.

Like a herd rushing off a cliff blind to the danger, headed to destruction, you call out to them to turn aside but unless deliberately blocked-prevented from proceeding over the cliff falling to their death, they wont pay any heed to you. That is the naturally blind leading the blind and both fall into the pit of hell.

All this is irrelevant to the subject. No connection at all.

 

[FreeGrace2]

1 Cor 1

To the gentile world, the gospel is foolishness.

But to the called, the power and wisdom of God that saves them.

Neither of your posts addressed the OP.

 

[OzSpen]

Correct. But since God includes the POSSIBILITY of everyone to be saved, that demands that Christ die for all of them, not just some of them.

That is exactly what 1 John 2:2 teaches, 'He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world' (ESV).

 

[Hammster]

John 6:51
“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”

John 7:7
“The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.

Here, we have 2 verses in which Jesus mentiones the 'world'. In the first one, He indicated that He is the bread that He gives for the life of the world. This clearly is a reference to the scope of His death.

In the second verse, Jesus notes that the world hates Him.

So, is there any context in either passage that limits the meaning of 'world' in one but not the other.

If Jesus meant by 'world' all of humanity in 6:51, it is clear that He would die for all of humanity.

If His meaning in 6:51 was only about those who will believe, how is that supported in context?

If His meaning in 7:7 is only those who will never believe, how is that supported in context.

Calvinists claim that until God regenerates a person, they hate God and want nothing to do with Him. It can easily be seen that Jn 7:7 supports the idea of all of humanity before there is regeneration.

So, what support is there for the meaning of 'world' in 6:51 to be less than all of humanity?

I believe that Jesus meant all of humanity in both verses. He would die for all of humanity, and all of humanity is enmity against God until one believes the gospel.

If Jesus meant all of humanity, then there would be no basis for sinners to be punished eternally in hell. So it's reasonable to understand that world in John 6 is referring to people groups, especially since his audience was Jewish.

 

[FreeGrace2]

If Jesus meant all of humanity, then there would be no basis for sinners to be punished eternally in hell. So it's reasonable to understand that world in John 6 is referring to people groups, especially since his audience was Jewish.

Actually, the basis for people in hell is because they do not possess eternal life, which is required to live with God eternally. Can this statement be refuted from Scripture? If not, then why not believe it?

There's nothing to suggest that "world" means "people groups", since Jesus didn't preface His remarks by noting certain groups. If He had, your point would be taken. But He didn't.

In fact, His use of 'world' was always in regards to unbelievers or everyone.

 

[Hammster]

Actually, the basis for people in hell is because they do not possess eternal life, which is required to live with God eternally. Can this statement be refuted from Scripture? If not, then why not believe it?

There's nothing to suggest that "world" means "people groups", since Jesus didn't preface His remarks by noting certain groups. If He had, your point would be taken. But He didn't.

In fact, His use of 'world' was always in regards to unbelievers or everyone.

He wouldn't need to preface His remarks. His audience would have understood what He meant.

As for eternal life, it might be necessary for heaven, but that doesn't mean people should be punished for not having it. If this is so, then not having it is a sin, and it would have to be argued that Jesus didn't die for all sin.

 

[FreeGrace2]

He wouldn't need to preface His remarks. His audience would have understood what He meant.

It seems everyone but Calvinists understood what Jesus meant.

As for eternal life, it might be necessary for heaven, but that doesn't mean people should be punished for not having it. If this is so, then not having it is a sin, and it would have to be argued that Jesus didn't die for all sin.

"might be"??? Of course possession of eternal life is a requirement for heaven.

And to think that not having eternal life is a sin is just…well, silly.

Here's the thing: God is pleased with faith: Heb 11:6 and 1 Cor 1:21.

It's just the opposite for lack of faith: wrath. Jn 3:36.

 

[Hammster]

It seems everyone but Calvinists understood what Jesus meant.


"might be"??? Of course possession of eternal life is a requirement for heaven.

And to think that not having eternal life is a sin is just…well, silly.

Here's the thing: God is pleased with faith: Heb 11:6 and 1 Cor 1:21.

It's just the opposite for lack of faith: wrath. Jn 3:36.

So God's wrath is displayed against something that isn't sin?

 

[FreeGrace2]

So God's wrath is displayed against something that isn't sin?

I just recalled Rom 14:23. My bad.

 

[FreeGrace2]

If Jesus meant all of humanity, then there would be no basis for sinners to be punished eternally in hell. So it's reasonable to understand that world in John 6 is referring to people groups, especially since his audience was Jewish.

On further thought, this idea is refuted by many OT Scriptures.

Gen 12:3, 22:18, 26:4, 28:14
Psa 2:8, 22:27, 86:9, 98:3
Isa 45:22, 49:6

All of these indicate that salvation is available to everyone, or all the ends of the earth. There is no reason at all to assume that Jesus' use of "world" was meant in any limiting manner. He meant everyone when He used "world", or He meant unbelievers, as we see in His prayer specifically for Himself, His disciples and future believers in John 17.

He never meant "the elect" or believers only when He used the word "world". Ever.

The Jews had no excuse for their exclusive thinking. The OT clearly taught that salvation was for everyone, not just Jews.

Your argument fails.

 

[Hammster]

I just recalled Rom 14:23. My bad.

But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. (Romans 14:23 ESV)

That really shoots your theology in the foot. Since unbelief is sin, and Christ died for all sin, unbelief is not a reason for hell, from your viewpoint.

 

[Hammster]

On further thought, this idea is refuted by many OT Scriptures.

Gen 12:3, 22:18, 26:4, 28:14
Psa 2:8, 22:27, 86:9, 98:3
Isa 45:22, 49:6

All of these indicate that salvation is available to everyone, or all the ends of the earth. There is no reason at all to assume that Jesus' use of "world" was meant in any limiting manner. He meant everyone when He used "world", or He meant unbelievers, as we see in His prayer specifically for Himself, His disciples and future believers in John 17.

He never meant "the elect" or believers only when He used the word "world". Ever.

The Jews had no excuse for their exclusive thinking. The OT clearly taught that salvation was for everyone, not just Jews.

Your argument fails.

You've countered an argument that I didn't make. I never said "world" meant "elect".

 

[FreeGrace2]

But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. (Romans 14:23 ESV)

That really shoots your theology in the foot. Since unbelief is sin, and Christ died for all sin, unbelief is not a reason for hell, from your viewpoint.

Not at all. The issue in whether one enters heaven or not is based on having eternal life. Maybe you forgot that part of Biblical theology. Rev 20:15.

Jesus PAID for ALL sin. But unless one has eternal life, they cannot enter heaven.

One may continue to focus on the wrong thing all he/she wants. But sin is not the issue. Possession of eternal life is the ONLY issue for entering heaven.

Those who have believed in Christ WILL enter heaven. Those who have not will NOT enter heaven.

So, go ahead and continue to focus on sin as the issue, which it is not. And no one from the RT side has proven that. Every human being has fallen short and sinned. Rom 3:9,23. That's not what gets one into hell. It's not having eternal life.

So, you've done no damage to my view of theology. I've consistently said that eternal life is the issue, not sin. So your claim doesn't matter.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You've countered an argument that I didn't make. I never said "world" meant "elect".

According to Calvinism, what does "world" refer to in Jn 3:16?

 

[Hammster]

Not at all. The issue in whether one enters heaven or not is based on having eternal life. Maybe you forgot that part of Biblical theology. Rev 20:15.

Jesus PAID for ALL sin. But unless one has eternal life, they cannot enter heaven.

One may continue to focus on the wrong thing all he/she wants. But sin is not the issue. Possession of eternal life is the ONLY issue for entering heaven.

Those who have believed in Christ WILL enter heaven. Those who have not will NOT enter heaven.

So, go ahead and continue to focus on sin as the issue, which it is not. And no one from the RT side has proven that. Every human being has fallen short and sinned. Rom 3:9,23. That's not what gets one into hell. It's not having eternal life.

So, you've done no damage to my view of theology. I've consistently said that eternal life is the issue, not sin. So your claim doesn't matter.

The only reason I focus on the sin issue is because that's why men are punished in hell. If it's not for sin, then you hold an unorthodox view that God punishes men for something other than sin.

 

[Hammster]

According to Calvinism, what does "world" refer to in Jn 3:16?

We aren't talking about John 3:16. So why bring that up?

 

[FreeGrace2]

The only reason I focus on the sin issue is because that's why men are punished in hell. If it's not for sin, then you hold an unorthodox view that God punishes men for something other than sin.

I've used Scripture to support my view, whereas you have not used Scripture to support your view.

You've appealed to some vague "orthodox view". Really? Based on what Scriptural evidence? That's been missing from your defense.

The point is that Scripture clearly states that Christ died for the sins of the world, meaning everyone, which entitles Him to be the "Savior of the world". This is beyond debate. By dying for all sin, all sin was paid for. So sin cannot be the reason people are in hell.

Scripture is not on your side in this debate. If it was, you'd have provided clear evidence to support your view, which you haven't.