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

[FreeGrace2]

It's probably confusing because you have a straw man view of what I believe (hence your response to post 7), and you will not accept what I say.

Or, the fact is that what you've posted is confusing, (hence my response to your post). I cannot accept what you've not made clear.

So you try to force what I say onto your false view, and that leads to confusion.

I force nothing. If my view of what your belief is is a strawman, please explain how it is. That's how one removes any straw man stuff.

Why not just save the time and correct what is seen as a false view of your beliefs, instead of just making the claim?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
I said this:
OK, lay out the argument, and present Scriptural support for your side. We'll see who's dodging what.

Where is the dodge, but with your post? I laid out a challenge, not a dodge, and your response clearly indicates that you'd rather dodge my challenge than face it.

So, I got it. There is no Scriptural support for your side.

The dodge is, instead of defending a view in your OP, you want to flip it and put me on the defensive. Your challenge is your avoidance of the implication of your position.

Still trying to dodge, huh. I asked that the argument be laid out and present support for you side. And all I got was DODGE.

I do put your view on the defensive, because there isn't any Scriptural defense of your view. And your posts continue to support my challenge, that there is no Scriptural defense of your view.

That's how debate goes. I've provided many verses that actually do SAY what I believe. You've not done that.

 

[Hammster]

Your posts are really confusing and conflicted. First the denial that your view is that "world" in Jn 3:16 refers to only believers, or the elect, or "people of God" or any other way to describe, and now your posts indicate that Christ came only for some, not everyone.

Please make up your mind before posting such confusion.

I'll try again. Why is this confusing? If I don't hold to "world" being only the elect in John 3:16, why is that in conflict with believing that Jesus didn't come for everyone?

 

[ob77]

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.

We are not of the world as Christ was not of the world. We were instructed to come out of the world and be a separate people unto God.
Christ said that He knows His sheep and they hear his voice and follow Him.
Therefore not all the world are His sheep, not now and not then.
Yes He paid the ultimate price, but in order to get the pearl, He bought in entire field that it was in.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I'll try again. Why is this confusing? If I don't hold to "world" being only the elect in John 3:16, why is that in conflict with believing that Jesus didn't come for everyone?

Here's what's confusing; your refusal to clearly state what "world" refers to in Jn 3:16. You've clearly indicated your 5 point orientation. So, given that, what does "world" refer to in Jn 3:16.

Answering this question will clear up any confusion. Are you willing to clear up the confusion? We'll see.

 

[FreeGrace2]

We are not of the world as Christ was not of the world. We were instructed to come out of the world and be a separate people unto God.
Christ said that He knows His sheep and they hear his voice and follow Him.
Therefore not all the world are His sheep, not now and not then.
Yes He paid the ultimate price, but in order to get the pearl, He bought in entire field that it was in.

Well said.

 

[Hammster]

Here's what's confusing; your refusal to clearly state what "world" refers to in Jn 3:16. You've clearly indicated your 5 point orientation. So, given that, what does "world" refer to in Jn 3:16.

Answering this question will clear up any confusion. Are you willing to clear up the confusion? We'll see.

It could mean every person who ever lived. That's not outside the realm of possibilities. But it would make the rest seem odd that God would love someone so much that He would send them to eternal torment for not believing. That doesn't seem like unconditional love.

It could also mean the elect, I suppose, but I don't think that makes sense, either, and it's not grammatically consistent, IMO.

Most likely, given how John uses it in 1 John 2:2, it refers to people groups. In other words, not just the Jews, but groups outside as well. The Jews thought Messiah was just for them. Jesus spent part of His ministry explaining that He had others, as well. So it's not just the Jews who believe that will receive eternal life, it's whoever believes will receive eternal life.

 

[Hammster]

We are not of the world as Christ was not of the world. We were instructed to come out of the world and be a separate people unto God.
Christ said that He knows His sheep and they hear his voice and follow Him.
Therefore not all the world are His sheep, not now and not then.
Yes He paid the ultimate price, but in order to get the pearl, He bought in entire field that it was in.

If all the world are His, what do you think it says about Him being a good shepherd and letting some get away?

 

[FreeGrace2]

It could mean every person who ever lived. That's not outside the realm of possibilities. But it would make the rest seem odd that God would love someone so much that He would send them to eternal torment for not believing. That doesn't seem like unconditional love.

It could also mean the elect, I suppose, but I don't think that makes sense, either, and it's not grammatically consistent, IMO.

Most likely, given how John uses it in 1 John 2:2, it refers to people groups. In other words, not just the Jews, but groups outside as well.

Thanks for the answer. But there is no contextual support for "people groups", because John noted "us", being believers, either Jew or Gentile, and then he included the "whole world", or everyone else(unbelievers). That makes perfect sense with the rest of Scripture. By the time John wrote his epistles (circa 86-95 AD), there was very little if any problem with Jews and Gentiles worshiping together. So when he wrote "us", he clearly meant believers, not a "Jewish group" from mankind.

The Jews thought Messiah was just for them.

That error was clearly eliminated early on, as seen in Acts 11. By the time John wrote his epistles, that was no longer any issue at all. And the OT didn't support that erroneous thought anyway.

Jesus spent part of His ministry explaining that He had others, as well. So it's not just the Jews who believe that will receive eternal life, it's whoever believes will receive eternal life.

No argument with this, but this isn't the issue of 1 Jn 2:2. The issue is that Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of the "whole world", not just "us", being believers. There is no other rational way to understand the verse. Especially given the time frame in which it was written.

 

[FreeGrace2]

If all the world are His, what do you think it says about Him being a good shepherd and letting some get away?

The difference is that people have the freedom to "enter by the gate" or not. Those who do will be saved and are designated "His sheep". But He specifically said He would lay down His life for "the sheep".

The difference is clear, and refutes RT.

 

[Hammster]

The difference is that people have the freedom to "enter by the gate" or not. Those who do will be saved and are designated "His sheep". But He specifically said He would lay down His life for "the sheep".

The difference is clear, and refutes RT.

You've just destroyed any reason why scripture refers to men as sheep, and Jesus as a shepherd.

 

[Hammster]

Thanks for the answer. But there is no contextual support for "people groups", because John noted "us", being believers, either Jew or Gentile, and then he included the "whole world", or everyone else(unbelievers). That makes perfect sense with the rest of Scripture. By the time John wrote his epistles (circa 86-95 AD), there was very little if any problem with Jews and Gentiles worshiping together. So when he wrote "us", he clearly meant believers, not a "Jewish group" from mankind.


That error was clearly eliminated early on, as seen in Acts 11. By the time John wrote his epistles, that was no longer any issue at all. And the OT didn't support that erroneous thought anyway.


No argument with this, but this isn't the issue of 1 Jn 2:2. The issue is that Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of the "whole world", not just "us", being believers. There is no other rational way to understand the verse. Especially given the time frame in which it was written.

I didn't expect you to agree with me. But you still haven't addressed why God sends people to hell whom He loves SOOOOO much.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You've just destroyed any reason why scripture refers to men as sheep, and Jesus as a shepherd.

How would that claim be supported by evidence or even a coherent explanation?

I'm not at all interested in mere claims. If your charge is true, it should be fairly easy to demonstrate. As it is, I don't believe empty claims.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I didn't expect you to agree with me. But you still haven't addressed why God sends people to hell whom He loves SOOOOO much.

Well, as we all know, the phrase "so much" is better translated "in this way". It isn't the amount that you've insinuated, but the manner in which God's love is clearly demonstrated to all sinners.

Romans 5:6
For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.

All of humanity is born ungodly.

Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

From all the other verses, Paul's use of "us" here refers to him and his audience as human beings.

 

[EmSw]

If all the world are His, what do you think it says about Him being a good shepherd and letting some get away?

Jeremiah 10:21 - For the shepherds have become stupid And have not sought the Lord; Therefore they have not prospered, And all their flock is scattered.

Jeremiah 23:1 - “Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of My pasture!” declares the Lord.

Jeremiah 50:6 - My people have become lost sheep; their shepherds have led them astray. They have made them turn aside on the mountains; they have gone along from mountain to hill and have forgotten their resting place.

 

[Hammster]

How would that claim be supported by evidence or even a coherent explanation?

I'm not at all interested in mere claims. If your charge is true, it should be fairly easy to demonstrate. As it is, I don't believe empty claims.

A good shepherd will not lose sheep. Your view says Jesus loses sheep.

 

[Hammster]

Well, as we all know, the phrase "so much" is better translated "in this way". It isn't the amount that you've insinuated, but the manner in which God's love is clearly demonstrated to all sinners.

Romans 5:6
For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.

All of humanity is born ungodly.

Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

From all the other verses, Paul's use of "us" here refers to him and his audience as human beings.

None of those verses give any evidence of universal atonement. Paul's use of personal pronouns shows that the intent is limited. You have to use eisegesis to get it to say what you need it to say. If you stick to context (a letter written to a local church), it's clear he isn't making an argument for universal atonement. Context is difficult, though, when you look at scripture as a bunch of single verses.

 

[Hammster]

Jeremiah 10:21 - For the shepherds have become stupid And have not sought the Lord; Therefore they have not prospered, And all their flock is scattered.

Jeremiah 23:1 - “Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of My pasture!” declares the Lord.

Jeremiah 50:6 - My people have become lost sheep; their shepherds have led them astray. They have made them turn aside on the mountains; they have gone along from mountain to hill and have forgotten their resting place.

What does this have to do with Christ being the Good Shepherd?

 

[FreeGrace2]

A good shepherd will not lose sheep. Your view says Jesus loses sheep.

Where does my view say anything even close to that? He said that He would lay down His life for the sheep, and will save all who enter the sheep gate through Him.

Your view of my view is simply in error. Lots of it.

btw, what Scripture says that "a good shepherd will not lose sheep"? Those who enter by the gate will NOT be lost, for sure. OSAS.

Those who don't enter aren't His sheep.

 

[FreeGrace2]

None of those verses give any evidence of universal atonement. Paul's use of personal pronouns shows that the intent is limited.

Fallacious statement. There is nothing in the use of personal pronouns that shows any such thing. Again, your opinion needs support before anyone will accept it. People can refer to themselves as human beings all the time. So your opinion is in error.

You have to use eisegesis to get it to say what you need it to say.

Nope. With the whole of Scripture considered, it is clear that Paul was speaking as a man, a human being.

If you stick to context (a letter written to a local church), it's clear he isn't making an argument for universal atonement.

Why wouldn't he mention what Scripture actually teaches to local churches? Again, an opinion without a shred of support means nothing.

Context is difficult, though, when you look at scripture as a bunch of single verses.

The overwhelming number of "a bunch of single verses" refutes your view soundly.

The problem is that your view has NO verses that actually SAY what is claimed. That should be a clue.

Maybe even a wake-up call.