A Biblical and Contextual Explanation of John 3:16, 2Peter 3:9 and 1Timothy 2:4.

[mikedsjr]

Twin1954, I would imagine, from your statements, you would reject John 3:16 of the NET saying, "For this is the way God loved the world...". Even if I grant you it expresses how much God loved the world, that doesn't even resolve your second point about the Pharisee. Show me in the Jewish law where God had not chosen the Jews above the rest of the world? At what point did the Jewish law cease to be valid? Yes, the Pharisees were the ones making laws on top of laws to keep them from breaking the laws of Moses, but its certainly understandable since their desire was to keep Jews obeying the law, though for the wrong reason, because if they didn't they would run back to the gods of the nations.

Am I off?

 

[DeaconDean]

"For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

7 The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:

8 But because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt."

-Deut. 7:6-8 (KJV)

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[MrJim]

This thread reminds me of PrincetonGuy and how he'd utterly destroy Calvinist arguments-wonder what he's up to?

And I wonder why you Calvinists waste your breath-either we're elect or not-your arguments will change nothing

 

[tall73]

Whether you agree with my explanations is not the point. You weren't expected to. The point was that to continue to throw the passages at us as though we have no answer or to just ignore that we can answer them is dishonest. What usually happens is that the passages are thrown out as though they are an end to all argument and settle the whole matter. Though you may think it is a twist it isn't. It is a reasonable and legitimate explanation of each of the passages like it or not. More than that it is in agreement with the teaching of the Scriptures as a whole.

Just as folks on the other side would say that they offer legitimate answers. Of course, you are not expected to agree with them.

I must wonder why though you chose to answer with a general response to all but one of them.

Because I was short on time. Major illness in the family and I am taking care of the kids, going to work, etc.

I will address them soon. I did mention however that I think the Peter passage has a lot more chance of the context offsetting it than the Timothy passage, because the context doesn't help you at all there.

Hence I said:

The only text you presented where the context argument could be brought to bear is 2 Peter 3. The other two it sounds like twisting.

By doing so I was acknowledging that the context could impact the effect of this text for my side of the argument. Which is what I thought you wanted to be acknowledged, though as you said, I still don't totally agree. But at least there could be a discussion there.

I don't think the context helps overly much in John 3, but then that is not a text I put as much weight on in the discussion in any case. There are other texts which are more clear, particularly the third text you referenced. Since I had limited time I answered that first.

 

[tall73]

I didn't suggest that the context changes the text I said it explains who is meant in the text. It wasn't necessary because it is speaking of the same people.

I will address the specific people mentioned shortly. In the meantime I think the thought that Jesus was the ransom for all is a rather important thing to leave out if your goal is to address the text.


And it is especially questionable to leave out the reference to Christ's role as mediator between God and men, as it makes it pretty plain that this is speaking of mankind in general, and makes it rather hard to limit.

 

[tall73]

To understand this to mean that He ransomed every body in the world is to deny the very words of the Lord when He said that He is the good Shepherd and the Good Shepard gives His life for the sheep. Also many other passages that clearly teach He made an atonement for a particular people. It makes the Scriptures contradict themselves. I will refrain from getting into the logical problems with universal redemption.

I thought the goal here was to examine it in its context. It turns out you already dismissed the possibility of it meaning exactly what it says from the outset.

The text says all men. It doesn't anywhere say only some men.

 

[tall73]

I am familiar with all of these texts but intentionally limited my comments to the ones most often used. It would take quite a few pages to explain all of these texts and far too much time just to appease a forum. We can take them up individually over time if you wish just start a thread on each one at reasonable intervals.

Might be fun. But as to appeasing a forum, no one forces you to post here. post what you want. If your view of will allows for it.

We can play verse tag all day and all night and accomplish nothing. I no longer debate in such a way. If you want to try and overwhelm with a slew of verses thrown out without a contextual explanation then go ahead. I just will not bother with that tactic. I am not trying to win a debate I am trying to show truth.

Yes, I can see you would never do that by your statement:

To interpret this 1Timothy 2:4 as though Paul intends to teach that God would have all men without exception to be saved is to deny the whole of the teaching of Paul in almost every other of his letters. Paul writes, by the inspiration of the Spirit, in almost all his letters against such a view. So how do we interpret and understand the verse?

And this statement:

To understand this to mean that He ransomed every body in the world is to deny the very words of the Lord when He said that He is the good Shepherd and the Good Shepard gives His life for the sheep. Also many other passages that clearly teach He made an atonement for a particular people. It makes the Scriptures contradict themselves.

The major part of your answer on I Tim. 2 WAS to refer to other verses without discussing the context, or in most cases, even citing the reference!

Now, we both agree that God knows our every thought, but you don't. So speculation about whether someone is just trying to win a debate is not helpful.

It is not just a debate to me. I have a view I have traditionally held, but can not make either view make sense from all the texts, as I already mentioned. And I am rather concerned that a lot of other scholars have not been able to either. It doesn't sit well with me that there appear to be almost two different views presented.

I already left the denomination I grew up in. I am currently in an American Baptist congregation. But I don't have any denomination to defend. I am just trying to figure it out. However, I don't intend to look at spin and have to call it legitimate when I don't think it is.

 

[tall73]

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.
(Joh 3:16)

Well let's look at that context:

Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
Joh 3:15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.


First He references the bronze serpent in the wilderness :

Num 21:8 And the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live."
Num 21:9 So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.

So the passage is in fact not only just a lesson about how much God loves, but the dynamics of God's plan to save people

The serpent was lifted up and those who looked to it were saved. Christ would be lifted up and whoever believes in Him will have eternal life.

Now that He has indicated that it is looking on the Son in belief that saves He shows the scope of this:

Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.


The terms whoever are not ambiguous. The term world does indeed take Nicodemus beyond his possible prejudices, to include not just gentiles, but even the lowly people he might consider sinners among the Israelites. That is the point....all the world. God loves them all. God offers the chance for all to look to His Son and be saved.

Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Now surely the Calvinist would agree He is speaking of the whole world when it talks about those who do not believe and are already condemned. Surely you believe that extended to every person. But it is the same world that is being offered salvation. The offer of salvation extends as far as the description of the already condemned.

No where did Christ limit who He was talking about here. The whole world started out condemned by sin, and the whole world was giving a choice to look to the Son and believe, and be saved.

Also, Jesus makes a subtle appeal to Nicodemus:

Joh 3:20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.
Joh 3:21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God."

Nicodemus came to Jesus at night. It was not until he saw Jesus lifted up that He came into the light and took his stand for Christ while even the disciples were running scared.

Apparently He thought that Nicodemus had a choice to make, because he was one of the people of the world.

 

[tall73]

The first thing I would point out to all honest folks is that the passage isn’t as much about who God loves as it is about how much He loves.

It is about both. The scope of it is seen in the extent of the problem. Everyone in the world was toast already. But God so loved the world He couldn't let that happen. He presented His Son as the snake was presented in the wilderness. The whole camp could look to it and be saved. The whole of the sin-sick world can look to Christ and believe and be saved.

The Lord Jesus Christ wasn’t teaching Nicodemus about who God loves (though that is part of what He was teaching) as much as He was teaching him how much God loves. God loves so very much that He has given His well beloved Son to stand under the wrath of a just and holy God as the sinners substitute. God’s darling Son loved us and gave Himself for us to redeem us from our sin and satisfy the justice and law of God, which was against us, nailing our sin to His cross, shedding His precious blood for us and dying in our place as a condemned sinner. This is the main point of Christ’s message to this Pharisee. To overlook this point is to misunderstand and misuse the passage.

Certainly God wanted Nicodemus to understand the cost. But keep in mind how this conversation started:

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'

Now He is explaining to Nicodemus what he, as Israel's teacher, did not know: How people are born again. And He also talks about the scope. Nicodemus recoiled at the thought that he needed to be born again. But the scope of the problem is clear. Everyone in the world needs it. Jesus presents the opportunity to all in the world, including Nicodemus. Nicodemus was even more shocked that he needed the remedy himself than he was that it was being offered to everyone else.

 

[tall73]

Secondly we must get the context of the passage to actually understand the passage.
The Lord Jesus Christ was not just talking to a common Jew but to a Pharisee. The Pharisees were the most outwardly holy and educated in the Scriptures of all the sects of the Jews. They would not defile themselves in any way if they could prevent it. They had added many traditions to the Law in order to appear more holy than all others. One of the things that they would do is to not be near a Gentile lest they be defiled by him. Their view was that God only loved Jews.
When the Lord Jesus told this Pharisee that God loved the world He was telling him that God doesn’t just love Jews. He wasn’t telling him that God loves every person in the world ,that would be against both the teaching of the Scriptures and the Jews understanding, but that He loves Gentiles as well as Jews. Nicodemus would have understood this.
To make the passage mean that the Lord was teaching that God loves every person in the world is to misunderstand the passage in its context and to misuse it in its teaching.

A. Do you really think Jesus was trying to make sure He fit in the Jew's understanding? Everything He said in this conversation was saying that Nicodemus, Israel's teacher, didn't know a hill of beans about spiritual things.

B. God not only loves Jews and Gentiles, but He loves the whole world. It says it right there. There is no reason to second guess what it says.

C. Nicodemus, that pharisee you spoke about, had a big problem personally, and it was not just that he thought the gentiles couldn't be saved. Nicodemus didn't think Nicodemus needed to be saved. Jesus set him straight. The default position of EVERYONE in the world is lost, Nicodemus included. The solution for any in the same world is to look to Christ in belief.

 

[tall73]

Every New Testament letter, with the possible exception of Hebrews, is written to believers not unbelievers.

I got a chuckle out of that.

Could you possibly think they may not be believers because there is so much talk about the possibility of them falling away from the faith?

 

[tall73]

2Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
(2Pe 3:9)

As I indicated I think the text could be read as you suggest on this one. No need to respond.

 

[tall73]

1Timothy 2:4

Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
(1Ti 2:4)

Once more context is key in understanding the verse given. Verses one through three give us that context.

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
(1Ti 2:1-3)

I fail to see how this context helps you. Prayers are to be made for ALL MEN. It does not say for all types of men. Paul could have said that if he wanted. We are to pray for all men.

Even in your own theology you don't know who the elect are so you still have to pray for all men if you want to be faithful. Well, the same all applies to those who God wants to be saved--all men.

It is the same in both instances.

To interpret this 1Timothy 2:4 as though Paul intends to teach that God would have all men without exception to be saved is to deny the whole of the teaching of Paul in almost every other of his letters. Paul writes, by the inspiration of the Spirit, in almost all his letters against such a view. So how do we interpret and understand the verse?

This is not dealing with the text in its context at all. In fact, there is nothing in the context that supports your view at all.

 

[tall73]

It is clear from verses one through three that Paul intends for us to understand that he means all kinds of men not all men without exception. He instructs us to pray for kings and all that are in authority. He is telling us to pray for high and low. He is in no way telling us that God desires the salvation of all men without exception.

It is not at all clear that he means all kinds of men. He could have said that if he wanted to. He said all men.

And since you don't know who the elect are, you apparently agree with him. Do you just pray generically for all TYPES of men when you pray?

Or do you pray for the PEOPLE you know, your leaders, etc. all men, without first trying to identify the elect?

Well then why would you change your definition when you get to the part about God desiring salvation for all men?

 

[tall73]

I will include the verses after, which you did not, as they are also part of the context:


1Ti 2:3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior,
1Ti 2:4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

It is good to pray for all men, pleasing in God's sight. Why? Because He desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

It does not say all types of men. And we don't pray for just types of men, but for actual men. All of them.



1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Notice how this statement is universal in scope, and confirms the meaning of all men. Is Jesus the mediator between God and "all kinds of men"?

He is the mediator between God and mankind. All of them. He is God who took on the appearance of a man, who was tempted in all ways like unto us, and who also is the ransom for all men.



1Ti 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.
1Ti 2:7 For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

Now notice that Jesus gave Himself a ransom for ALL. And Paul relates this fact to his mission, a testimony given at the proper time.

Paul preached to all men as the apostle to the gentiles. In fact he would often go to the Jews first, then the Greeks. He didn't speak only to the elect. Even you admit that preaching is to all men, as you can't know the elect.

So again if we pray for all men, and if Paul preached to all men, why do you want to change your definition when it says God desires all men be saved, and that Jesus is the ransom for all?

 

[tall73]

After looking at the context I see nothing to support your view in two of the three texts.

 

[Bluelion]

Just as folks on the other side would say that they offer legitimate answers. Of course, you are not expected to agree with them.


Because I was short on time. Major illness in the family and I am taking care of the kids, going to work, etc.

I will address them soon. I did mention however that I think the Peter passage has a lot more chance of the context offsetting it than the Timothy passage, because the context doesn't help you at all there.

Hence I said:

The only text you presented where the context argument could be brought to bear is 2 Peter 3. The other two it sounds like twisting.

By doing so I was acknowledging that the context could impact the effect of this text for my side of the argument. Which is what I thought you wanted to be acknowledged, though as you said, I still don't totally agree. But at least there could be a discussion there.

I don't think the context helps overly much in John 3, but then that is not a text I put as much weight on in the discussion in any case. There are other texts which are more clear, particularly the third text you referenced. Since I had limited time I answered that first.

Praying for you and fam tall.

 

[tall73]

Praying for you and fam tall.

Thank you Blue. Things are improving somewhat, at least she is no longer on death's door.

 

[twin1954]

After looking at the context I see nothing to support your view in two of the three texts.

You are a smart guy. I think you do see it but just can't admit it. You may not agree with it but you do see it.

BTW I am glad to hear your family is doing better.

 

[Skala]

Semantics. Yes it means how but it carries the connotation of how much in the context.

But thank you. I am always grateful for any help.

It's not semantics, it's the definition of the underlying Greek word.

The word "so" in John 3:16 is the word "houtos" which is defined as "in this manner" or "in this way", etc!