How do you differentiate?

[Reformationist]

The word "world" is used in some 7 or 8 different ways in the Gospel. I regularly discuss the various uses of this word with many members of this MB. One of the most prominant verses brought up in these discussions is, of course, John 3:16. Before you bail on this thread let me assure you that this is not a discussion about the various views of John 3:16, not exactly anyway.

Let me then, for the sake of discussion, tell you what this thread is purposed to discuss. I am regularly informed that many Christians believe the word "world" in John 3:16 is a reference to "all people, everywhere, ever created, without exception." How, I regularly ask, did you come to this conclusion? I am often told "context." I too see the value of context in striving to understand passages. In fact, I often make use of contextual considerations when making my points.

With that in mind, I wondering whether anyone reads the word "world" in John 3:16 and interprets it as "all people, everywhere, ever created, without exception" and then reads the same word in John 12:19, a chapter in the same epistle, and interprets it differently. Or do you believe that, in fact, "all people, everywhere, ever created, without exception" have followed Him? Or even, do you believe that "all people, everywhere, currently alive, without exception" followed Christ?

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

John 12:19
The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, "You see that you are accomplishing nothing. Look, the world has gone after Him!"

In both verses the word "world" is the translation of the Greek word "kosmos." So, is it a contextual issue that leads you to different applications of the word or is there something else that helps you differentiate?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts,
God bless

 

[II Paradox II]

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

John 12:19
The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, "You see that you are accomplishing nothing. Look, the world has gone after Him!"

In both verses the word "world" is the translation of the Greek word "kosmos." So, is it a contextual issue that leads you to different applications of the word or is there something else that helps you differentiate?

hmm... a few thoughts...

1) I don't think this is the strongest argument to use here. There are occasions where I would not see "world" as being "all people, everywhere", but they are largely determined by immediate context. In the immediate context of John 3:16, the "world" seems to me to be most likely a universal reference, as the discussion is surrounding salvation, for all who believe on Christ (as the fulfillment of the serpent of moses). That being said, there is another possible meaning for "world" in this verse that the context could hold, that of "gentiles". By taking "world" to mean all people in opposition to just Jews I think could also be sustained here. The type of the snake was offered under the Old Covenant to Jews alone, so with Christ came one who would save not just the Jews when lifted up, but Jews and gentiles. In this case "world" would be a reference to the broadness of God's New Covenant across people groups, not to the broadness of God's love and offer of salvation to each and every person.

2) in the second case, you have a clear precedent for reading this as hyperbole because of the immediate context. We commonly talk this way when we use rhetoric or exagerrated forms of speech. In john 3:16, there is no similar strong reason to suspect a use of hyperbole.

ken

 

[Reformationist]

1) I don't think this is the strongest argument to use here. There are occasions where I would not see "world" as being "all people, everywhere", but they are largely determined by immediate context.

I never said that I always viewed "world" as meaning "all people, everywhere." What I'm asking is, what is the contextual difference, be it "immediate" or otherwise that helps some differentiate between the "world" in John 3:16 and John 12:19?

In the immediate context of John 3:16, the "world" seems to me to be most likely a universal reference, as the discussion is surrounding salvation, for all who believe on Christ (as the fulfillment of the serpent of moses).

You take it that salvation is a universal concern so the subject of God's love is universal?

That being said, there is another possible meaning for "world" in this verse that the context could hold, that of "gentiles". By taking "world" to mean all people in opposition to just Jews I think could also be sustained here. The type of the snake was offered under the Old Covenant to Jews alone, so with Christ came one who would save not just the Jews when lifted up, but Jews and gentiles. In this case "world" would be a reference to the broadness of God's New Covenant across people groups, not to the broadness of God's love and offer of salvation to each and every person.

As I mentioned, I recognize a rather extensive variance in the use of "world" in the Gospel but your comments make the point even more complicated. Now we must consider the possibility that "world" can mean "all people, everywhere, ever created," and "the Gentiles."

Maybe it would be wise to consider all the various understandings of the word. Anyone care to offer any suggestions? I personally believe the the word "world" in John 3:16 is a reference to only believers.

2) in the second case, you have a clear precedent for reading this as hyperbole because of the immediate context. We commonly talk this way when we use rhetoric or exagerrated forms of speech. In john 3:16, there is no similar strong reason to suspect a use of hyperbole.

ken

Can I then conclude that you believe "world" in John 3:16 to mean "Gentiles?"

God bless

 

[II Paradox II]

just so you know, I am a calvinist by confession. So you can read my responses through that lens...

I never said that I always viewed "world" as meaning "all people, everywhere." What I'm asking is, what is the contextual difference, be it "immediate" or otherwise that helps some differentiate between the "world" in John 3:16 and John 12:19?

The contextual difference that I pointed out is that john 12:19 is pretty clearly a case where hyperbole would make sense. We talk in very similar ways when we want to emphasize a point. John 3:16 doesn't have a similar character.

You take it that salvation is a universal concern so the subject of God's love is universal?

That is one possible reading. I haven't studied it in-depth though so I'm not particularly wedded to it. It seems that vs. 17 and following would also indicate that "world" should be taken this way.

As I mentioned, I recognize a rather extensive variance in the use of "world" in the Gospel but your comments make the point even more complicated. Now we must consider the possibility that "world" can mean "all people, everywhere, ever created," and "the Gentiles."

I think it can mean that. John 4:42 is I think decent example of this. Jesus stayed with and saved many samaritans and on that basis one exclaimed, "Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard [him] ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world." In context of the despised status of the semi-Jewish samaritans this would seem to be a use of "kosmos" which indicates the broadness of the Jewish messiah such that he saves beyond just his Old Covenant people.

Maybe it would be wise to consider all the various understandings of the word. Anyone care to offer any suggestions? I personally believe the the word "world" in John 3:16 is a reference to only believers.

It could be, but just by glancing at the verse and it's context this doesn't seem the most likely.

ken

Can I then conclude that you believe "world" in John 3:16 to mean "Gentiles?"

 

[endure]

well i dont mean to be very simple but im not the most educated person, though i am not afraid. (i said that for me, not for others to feel confronted).


when the pharisees said the whole world was gone after him.
i dont think that word has to have a diffrent definition or that it has to prove that the word can be used diffrently, they were just being sarcastic.
the word still means what it generally would, the world, the earth and its contents, they were just using it sarcasticly.

 

[Reformationist]

just so you know, I am a calvinist by confession. So you can read my responses through that lens...

LOL! Yes, I know you're a Calvinist, and a very knowledgeable one at that.

The contextual difference that I pointed out is that john 12:19 is pretty clearly a case where hyperbole would make sense. We talk in very similar ways when we want to emphasize a point. John 3:16 doesn't have a similar character.

I see. So, John 12:19 was hyperbolic in nature whereas John 3:16 was not? In what sense was John 3:16 given, literally?

That is one possible reading. I haven't studied it in-depth though so I'm not particularly wedded to it. It seems that vs. 17 and following would also indicate that "world" should be taken this way.

I'm confused. Are you saying that the proper understanding of verse 17 is that Christ's purpose in coming was to save the world? If so, I must tell you that that is not a Calvinist view of verse 17.

I think it can mean that. John 4:42 is I think decent example of this. Jesus stayed with and saved many samaritans and on that basis one exclaimed, "Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard [him] ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world." In context of the despised status of the semi-Jewish samaritans this would seem to be a use of "kosmos" which indicates the broadness of the Jewish messiah such that he saves beyond just his Old Covenant people.

I completely agree that in John 4:42 the indication is made that Christ saves beyond just His old covenant people. However, I don't think we can afford to be even that circumspect when addressing Christ's purpose in coming. The minute we generalize Christ's purpose in coming, i.e., to save all of mankind, is the moment we attribute failure to Him, and cease to express reformed thought.

It could be, but just by glancing at the verse and it's context this doesn't seem the most likely.

Let me correct myself. I do not believe I could rightly state that the love of God in John 3:16 is limited to believers unless I qualified that by saying that "believers" is a reference to all who have, do, and will yet believe, in other words, His elect.

Can I then conclude that you believe "world" in John 3:16 to mean "Gentiles?"

Was this a question to me or did you just miss this question at the bottom of my post?

Thanks,
God bless

 

[Reformationist]

well i dont mean to be very simple but im not the most educated person, though i am not afraid. (i said that for me, not for others to feel confronted).


when the pharisees said the whole world was gone after him.
i dont think that word has to have a diffrent definition or that it has to prove that the word can be used diffrently, they were just being sarcastic.
the word still means what it generally would, the world, the earth and its contents, they were just using it sarcasticly.

Are you sure you mean "sarcastic" and not "exaggerating?"

Also, you say that they were being "sarcastic" in John 12:19, right? Does that mean that you think they were being sarcastic in verse 3:16 as well or do you think that God literally does love "the world, the earth and it's contents?"

God bless

 

[theseed]

According to Vol. 9 of the New Interpreter's Bible (Commentary by Gail R. Day) world (kos'mos) is John is most often used to mean people at odds with Jesus and God (1.10; 7.7; 15.18-19).

(I would also like to note that there is no middle ground, you believe and have eternal life or if you don't believe then you stay condemned.)

The world is all humanity, God sent his son to save humanity, but those who believe are born again, not of this world but from above. Everytime you read "born again" it means born from above. This is key, b/c John plays off this word and both meanings are true.

 

[Reformationist]

According to Vol. 9 of the New Interpreter's Bible (Commentary by Gail R. Day) world (kos'mos) is John is most often used to mean people at odds with Jesus and God (1.10; 7.7; 15.18-19).

Does Gail R. Day say what is meant by "people at odds with Jesus and God?"

The world is all humanity

Do you mean "the world" as it is used in John 3:16 or do you mean "the world" as it is used in every instance in the Bible?

God sent his son to save humanity, but those who believe are born again, not of this world but from above. Everytime you read "born again" it means born from above. This is key, b/c John plays off this word and both meanings are true.

Umm...thanks for that explanation of "born again" but this thread is about how people differentiate between the use of "kosmos" in John 3:16 and "kosmos" in other verses, like John 12:19.

Do you believe "kosmos" is a reference to "all humanity" in John 12:19?

God bless

 

[theseed]

No, in 12.19 is hyperbolic which seems obvious at face value. (12.19 should be read with the context of 11.50-53, the pharisees need to stop Jesus, but can't).

John 1

10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.

John 7
7The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that what it does is evil.


John 15


The World Hates the Disciples

18"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.

We see here that the World (humanity) does not except Christ, they hate him, this holds true in John 3.

John 3
15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.[5]
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[6] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[7] 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."[8]

I have hi-lited the words world and men to show that they include humanity, the words parellel each other.

Now how does "World" related to "born again/from above" or anonthen? Becasue those who believe in him are not of the world once they are born from above. This is a new life. This is why Jesus tells his disciples that they are not of the world in Jn 15.18-19

That is as simple as I can make it, the NIB commentary by O'Day is much more indepth, covering 400 pages or so on John's Gospel. Despite its simple greek, it is very complex and has to be taken as a whole because of the way John weaves certain themes together like world and salvation.

 

[theseed]

The word "world" occurs 57 times in the Gospel of John; and from what I read my understanding about the contrast between Jesus (and his followers) and the world holds up.



John 1:9

John 1:10

John 1:29

John 3:16

John 3:17

John 3:19

John 4:42

John 6:14

John 6:33

John 6:51

John 7:4

John 7:7

John 8:12

John 8:23

John 8:26

John 9:5

John 9:39

John 10:36

John 11:9

John 11:27

John 12:19

John 12:25

John 12:31

John 12:46

John 12:47

John 13:1

John 14:17

John 14:19

John 14:22

John 14:27

John 14:30

John 14:31

John 15:18

John 15:19

John 16:8

John 16:11

John 16:20

John 16:21

John 16:28

John 16:33

John 17:5

John 17:6

John 17:9

John 17:11

John 17:13

John 17:14

John 17:15

John 17:16

John 17:18

John 17:21

John 17:23

John 17:24

John 17:25

John 18:20

John 18:36

John 18:37

John 21:25

 

[II Paradox II]

LOL! Yes, I know you're a Calvinist, and a very knowledgeable one at that.

heh... ok, just thought I'd mention that...

I see. So, John 12:19 was hyperbolic in nature whereas John 3:16 was not? In what sense was John 3:16 given, literally?

John 3:16 at the very least shuoldn't be taken in the same sense as John 12:19. Jesus statement seems best to me to be taken as a declaration to people of his love for them and his desire for them to come in faith (in other words, primarily an exhortation). I'm not sure I'd want to take this verse in the technical sense we may take writings of Paul in Romans, for instance.

I'm confused. Are you saying that the proper understanding of verse 17 is that Christ's purpose in coming was to save the world? If so, I must tell you that that is not a Calvinist view of verse 17.

No, Christ's purpose was not to *actually* save the world, for that would be universalism.

The sense I was talking about is that God's love extends to all people and that He invites them in to life via faith in him. In other words, Christ's exhortation is not meant to state a theological truth about limited atonement, but to exhort men to repent in light of God's graciousness to them, to show them that they are not beyond God's mercy. I think this is close to what Calvin himself taught in his commentary on John about vs. 17.

"There is now no reason why any man should be in a state of hesitation, or of distressing anxiety, as to the manner in which he may escape death, when we believe that it was the purpose of God that Christ should deliver us from it. The word world is again repeated, that no man may think himself wholly excluded, if he only keep the road of faith."
http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol34/htm/ix.iii.htm

I completely agree that in John 4:42 the indication is made that Christ saves beyond just His old covenant people. However, I don't think we can afford to be even that circumspect when addressing Christ's purpose in coming. The minute we generalize Christ's purpose in coming, i.e., to save all of mankind, is the moment we attribute failure to Him, and cease to express reformed thought.

The issue for me is what the scriptures say in certain passages. I agree with reformed thought in general about these issues, but I don't think it's a wise idea to read a theological system into every verse we come to. There are other scriptures that are clear in this regard, so I don't see the need to questionably read in our theological principles into this verse. IMO - I think we need to be more concerned about expressing biblical thoughts than reformed ones, if it causes us to read things that aren't in the text itself.

If you haven't had the chance, you should read Calvin's commentary on John 3 that I linked, as I think he does a good job of showing this balance. His take on the verses in question is similar to mine in that he emphasizes the exhortational aspect of this verse, in that Christ is calling men to himself and showing them that they all can approach Him in faith (which, of course, we know is a gift given by God to some and not others).

ken

 

[theseed]

No, Christ's purpose was not to *actually* save the world, for that would be universalism

Actually, if you read John 3.16 in the greek (or KJV) you will find it written in the subjuctive, meaning that God sent his Son to save the world but it is contigent that the world beileves. (Look us subjuctive), God intends to save the whole world, but that salvation is contengant on believing.

 

[Jason1646]

Actually, if you read John 3.16 in the greek (or KJV) you will find it written in the subjuctive, meaning that God sent his Son to save the world but it is contigent that the world beileves. (Look us subjuctive), God intends to save the whole world, but that salvation is contengant on believing.

theseed,

What will we find written in the subjunctive, and how does it necessitate a contingency?

Regards,

~Jason

 

[II Paradox II]

Actually, if you read John 3.16 in the greek (or KJV) you will find it written in the subjuctive, meaning that God sent his Son to save the world but it is contigent that the world beileves. (Look us subjuctive), God intends to save the whole world, but that salvation is contengant on believing.

Not knowing greek, I don't really have an opinion (or at least an informed one) one way or the other whether this would be the case or not. My only point was that I wouldn't take the verse in a purely universalist sense.

ken

 

[theseed]

It's universalist in that God wants t save every body, if you read my other posts, you will see that the world includes all those against God. John 3.16 says God gave his Son so everbody would be saved, but everybody will not necesarily believe (should believe = might believe)

 

[Jason1646]

theseed,

What will we find written in the subjunctive, and how does it necessitate a contingency?

Regards,

~Jason

*bump*

 

[theseed]

theseed,

What will we find written in the subjunctive, and how does it necessitate a contingency?

Regards,

~Jason

"Should believe" is the subjunctive, one could say "might believe" by definition the subjuctive is a verb conjugation that puts one thing contingent on something else.

 

[Jason1646]

Which Greek text are you using? In all the ones I checked, pisteuo (believe) is a present active participle (ho pisteuwn), which has the literal force of "the ones who are believing". The word that occurs in the subjunctive case is apollumi (perish) within a hina clause, which denotes purpose. Hence, God gave His Son in order that believers should not perish (the elect), not for unbelievers. Literally: "..He gave His only begotten Son in order that all the ones who believe should not perish..."

Regards,

~Jason

 

[theseed]

Actually read my other posts about "world" the world is all those against God, and if your not of then world then your born from above or born again (anonthen)