This exposition forms part of the Hillside Bible Commentary (HBC).
Proof-Texts and Cross-References
Prov. 3v12 [15]; Mal. 1v3; Jn. 1v29, 3v3 [11], v15-18 [15|26], 6v33, 10v11, v15, 11v3 [15], 12v19, 13v1 [15], v34 [15], 14v21 [15], v23 [15], 15v9 [15], v12-13 [15], v19, 17v6, v14-16; Rom. 5v5 [15], v8 [15], 6v23, 8v31, v35-39 [15], 9v10-13 [15]; 2 Cor. 5v14, 13v11 [15], v14 [15]; Ep. 2v4-6 [15], 3v19, 5v2 [15], v25 [15]; 1 Jn. 2v15 [15], 3v1-2 [15], v16 [15], 4v7-11 [15], v16-19 [15]
Significance
EMPLOYED BY ARMINIANS AGAINST CALVINISM
Arminians often sight John Chapter 3 Verse 16 as a ready defense against the doctrines of Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement, in favour of Conditional Election and Universal Atonement.
In the words of Ante Pavkovic a.k.a "Providential1611":
"But you know what, when the subject is the world, the whole lost world, you know what it says? That the only begotten Son was given by the Father, for God so loved THE WORLD, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever should believe in Him would not perish, but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into THE WORLD to condemn THE WORLD, but that THE WORLD through Him MIGHT be saved. All contingent. Nothing definite. Sorry Calvinists... First John 2:2 says Christ is the propitiation not only for our sin, the Church, the Elect Christians, but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD... Christ was not just a propitiation for our sins, but for the sin of the WHOLE WORLD. Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the elect? the sin of THE WORLD. Nowhere in Scripture can you show, that a reference to 'the world' means just the elect." [3]
In the words of Dr. Curtis Hutson (1934-1995):
"John 3:16 has often been called 'the heart of the Bible.' It has been called 'the Bible in miniature.' '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.' Jesus died for the whole world. He suffered Hell for every man who has ever lived or ever will live. And no man will look out of Hell and say, 'I wanted to be saved, but Jesus did not die for me.'" [2]
EMPLOYED BY CONDITIONALISTS AGAINST UNIVERSALISTS
Conditionalists often sight John Chapter 3 Verse 16 as a ready defence against the Doctrine of Universal Immortality, in favour of the Doctrine of Conditional Immortality.
Transliteration
Greek
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον ὥστε τὸν Υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς Αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον [24]
Afrikaans
"Want so lief [G25 agapaō] het God die wêreld [G2889 kosmos] gehad, dat Hy sy eniggebore Seun gegee het, sodat elkeen wat in Hom glo, nie verlore mag gaan nie, maar die ewige lewe kan hê." (Jn. 3v16, AOV, bl. 109)
English
"God so loved [G25 agapaō] the world [G2889 kosmos] that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him won’t perish but will have eternal life." (Jn. 3v16, CEB)
"For God so loved [G25 agapaō] the world [G2889 kosmos], that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." (Jn. 3v16, ESV)
"For God loved [G25 agapaō] the world [G2889 kosmos] in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life." (Jn. 3v16, HCSB)
"For God so loved [G25 agapaō] the world [G2889 kosmos], that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (Jn. 3v16, KJV) [24]
"For in this way God loved [G25 agapaō] the world [G2889 kosmos], so that He gave His one and only Son, in order that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but will have eternal life." (Jn. 3v16, LEB)
"For God so loved [G25 agapaō] the world [G2889 kosmos] that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." (Jn. 3v16, NIV)
"For God so loved [G25 agapaō] the world [G2889 kosmos] that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (Jn. 3v16, NKJV) [11]
"For God loved [G25 agapaō] the world [G2889 kosmos] so much that He gave His one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life." (Jn. 3v16, NLT)
Commentary
or, What Others Said
MATTHEW HENRY'S CONCISE COMMENTARY (MHCC)
by Matthew Henry (1662-1714)
"Here is God's love in giving His Son for the world. God so loved the world; so really, so richly. Behold and wonder, that the great God should love such a worthless world!" [6]
THE PEOPLE'S NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY (PNT)
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, etc. There is no sweeter verse in the Bible. It declares: (1) That God is love. (2) That He loved the world instead of hating it. (3) That He so loved that he gave his Son. The Son did not come to appease the Father's wrath, but the Father sent Him because He loved so well. (4) That He came to keep men from perishing." [8]
Exposition
or, What I Believe
THE ORIGINAL KOINE GREEK
Before we can even begin to examine John Chapter 3 Verse 16, we first have to review it's original koine Greek:
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον ὥστε τὸν Υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς Αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον [24]
In English, the above koine Greek literally reads:
"in order that every the one believing in Him, not to perish, but have everlasting life" [11]or
"For in this way God loved the world: that He gave the unique son, so that all the ones trusting in Him would not perish, but have eternal life." [24]
As you probably noticed, the word "whoever" does NOT appear in the original Greek.
Hence, while some translations, like the English Standard Version (ESV), the New International Version (NIV), and the New King James Version (NJKV), renders it as "whoever believes", the more accurate literal rendering would be "every believing one" [11] or "everyone who believes" (CEB/HCSB/LEB/NLT).
In other words, the text "does not address the issue of who WILL believe or who CAN believe" [11], but only that those who DO believe, would not perish, but have eternal life.
THE NATURE OF GOD'S LOVE
"God so loved" (CEB/ESV/KJV/NIV/NKJV), "God loved" (HCSB/LEB/NLT), "so lief het God" (AOV)
Before we can determine the objects of God's Love in John Chapter 3 Verse 16, we first have to understand the Nature of God's Love.
Most of us understand the basics.
➢ One. We understand, that God IS a God OF love. (2 Cor. 13v11; 1 Jn. 4v7-8, v16)
➢ Two. We understand, that He loves us. (Jn. 3v16, 13v34, 15v9, v12-13; Rom. 5v5, v8, 8v35-39; 2 Cor. 13v14; Ep. 2v4, 5v2, v25; 1 Jn. 3v16, 4v9-11, v16)
➢ Three. We understand, that our love for God is nothing, but a grateful response to His first loving us.
"We love Him, BECAUSE HE FIRST LOVED US." (1 Jn. 4v19, KJV)
BUT, there is a number of things, which many of us do NOT seem to understand.
➢ One. We do NOT seem to understand, that to be loved by God, is to be saved by God. (Ep. 3v19; 1 Jn. 4v19) [15]
"Who shall separate US from the love of the Messiah? Shall pressure, or distress, or persecution, or scarcity of food, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it has been written, 'For Your sake we are killed all day long, we are reckoned as sheep of slaughter.' But in all this WE are more than overcomers through Him who loved US. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor messengers nor principalities nor powers, neither the present nor the future, nor height nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate US from the love of Elohim which is IN Messiah YHVH our Master." (Rom. 8v35-39, TS)
"Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon US, THAT WE SHOULD BE CALLED THE SONS OF GOD: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew Him not." (1 Jn. 3v1, KJV)
"In this was manifested the love of God toward US, because that God sent His only begotten Son into the world, THAT WE MIGHT LIVE THROUGH HIM. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that HE LOVED US, AND SENT HIS SON TO BE THE PROPITIATION FOR OUR SINS. Beloved, if God so loved US, we ought also to love one another." (1 Jn. 4v9-11, KJV)
In other words, God saves those He loves.
➢ Two. We do NOT seem to understand, that to be separated from God's Love, is to be lost.
"Who shall separate US from the love of the Messiah? Shall pressure, or distress, or persecution, or scarcity of food, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it has been written, 'For Your sake we are killed all day long, we are reckoned as sheep of slaughter.' But in all this we are more than overcomers through Him who loved US. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor messengers nor principalities nor powers, neither the present nor the future, nor height nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate US from the love of Elohim which is in Messiah YHVH our Master." (Rom. 8v35-39, TS)
THE OBJECTS OF GOD'S LOVE
"loved the world" (CEB/ESV/HCSB/KJV/LEB/NIV/NKJV/NLT), "so lief het God die wêreld" (AOV)
It is, therefore, abundantly clear, that when God loved, He "loved His own which were in the world" (Jn. 13v1).
When He sent Jesus to die, He sent Him to die for "us" (Rom. 5v8; Ep. 2v4; 1 Jn. 3v16, 4v10-11), namely "His church" (Ep. 5v25), "His friends" (Jn. 15v13), and "His sheep" (Jn. 10v11 and v15), because He "loved US" (Rom. 8v37; 1 Jn. 4v1, v10-11, v16, v19)
In other words, when the Apostle John said, that "God so loved THE WORLD", he was NOT referring to everyone, without exception. No! He was referring to "everyone who believes" (HCSB/NLT) or "whoever believes" (ESV/KJV/NIV/NKJV), namely "His own which were in the world" (Jn. 13v1 and also Jn. 8v23), but "not of the world" (Jn. 15v19, 17v14-16), since God have chosen them "out of the world" (Jn. 15v19), and gave them to Christ (Jn. 17v6).
THE REWARD OF FAITH
"shall not perish but have eternal life" (NIV), "should not perish but have eternal life" (ESV/KJV), "should not perish but have everlasting life" (NKJV), "will not perish but have eternal life" (HCSB/NLT), "will not perish, but will have eternal life" (LEB), "won’t perish but will have eternal life" (CEB), "nie verlore mag gaan nie, maar die ewige lewe kan hê" (AOV)
Finally we learn, that those who believe would "not perish" (ESV/HCSB/KJV/LEB/NIV/NKJV/NLT), but rather "have eternal life" (CEB/ESV/HCSB/KJV/LEB/NIV/NLT) or "have everlasting life" (NKJV).
It is clear, therefore, that those who believe will live forever, while those who don't won't.
"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom. 6v23, NIV)
Flipside
Let us assume, for the moment, that our Arminian friends are correct. Let us assume, that Jesus did, in fact, love and die for the whole world. What would that mean?
➢ One. It would mean, that Jesus loved those, He foreknew would never love Him back.
➢ Two. It would mean, that Jesus loved those, He hated?! (Rom. 9v10-13)
➢ Three. It would mean, that Jesus died for those, He foreknew would never choose Him.
Objections
THE OBJECTIONS OF ANTE PAVKOVIC
At the beginning of our study Ante Pavkovic a.k.a "Providential1611" said:
"But you know what, when the subject is the world, the whole lost world, you know what it says? That the only begotten Son was given by the Father, for God so loved THE WORLD, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever should believe in Him would not perish, but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into THE WORLD to condemn THE WORLD, but that THE WORLD through Him MIGHT be saved. All contingent. Nothing definite. Sorry Calvinists... First John 2:2 says Christ is the propitiation not only for our sin, the Church, the Elect Christians, but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD... Christ was not just a propitiation for our sins, but for the sin of the WHOLE WORLD. Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the elect? the sin of THE WORLD. Nowhere in Scripture can you show, that a reference to 'the world' means just the elect." [3]
➢ One. No, Ante, God loved and died for "the world", namely "whoever believes" (ESV/NIV/NKJV).
➢ Two. Not only CAN we show, that the English word "world" and it's Greek equivalent "kosmos", often DO refer to "believers only" (Jn. 1v29 and 6v33), but nor can you show from any Scripture, that references to the word "world" ALWAYS MEANS EVERYONE, WITHOUT EXCEPTION. [1]
THE OBJECTIONS OF DR. CURTIS HUTSON
At the beginning of our study Dr. Curtis Hutson (1934-1995) said:
"John 3:16 has often been called 'the heart of the Bible.' It has been called 'the Bible in miniature.' '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.' Jesus died for the whole world. He suffered Hell for every man who has ever lived or ever will live. And no man will look out of Hell and say, 'I wanted to be saved, but Jesus did not die for me.'" [2]
➢ One. No, Dr. Hutson, God loved and died for "the world", namely "whoever believes" (ESV/NIV/NKJV).
➢ Two. No unbeliever ever 'wants to be saved' (Gen. 6v5; Job 14v4; Jer. 13v23; Rom. 3v10-19, 8v7-8; 1 Cor. 2v14; 2 Cor. 4v4) [9], unless God supernaturally and irresistibly intervene (Jn. 6v44, v65), to resurrect us from spiritual death (1 Cor. 15v21; Ep. 2v1).
➢ Three. And should any unbeliever ever look out of Hell and say, 'I want to be saved', it is NOT because he suddenly fell in love with Jesus, but simply because he recently fell out of love with Hell.
THE OBJECTIONS OF NELSON BANUCHI
On the 17th of August 2012, Nelson Banuchi left the following comment:
"You begin by saying, 'In defense of the Doctrine of Limited Atonement, Calvinists like myself, Dr. Joseph Henry Thayer (1828—1901) and Mark Kielar…' Of course there are nuances in the Greek word kosmos where it may not necessarily refer to everyone in the world without exception. Context determines what nuance the word takes. However, the question is not does kosmos mean 'everyone, without exception', but is kosmos, in John 3:16 defined as 'believers only' (or, 'the elect') and on what basis is such a definition demanded." [16]
AGREED and AGREED. "Of course there are nuances in the Greek word 'kosmos' where it may not necessarily refer to everyone in the world without exception" [16], AND, of course, the "context determines what nuance the word takes" [16].
That is exactly why I believe, that in John Chapter 3 Verse 16 the English word "world", and it's Greek equivalent "kosmos", refers to "believers only".
➢ One. It's immediate context refers to "whoever believes" (ESV) in verses 15 and 16 itself.
➢ Two. It's broader context, where the same John, writing the same book, makes use of the same English word "world", or rather it's Greek equivalent "kosmos", when referring to "believers only" in John Chapter 1 Verse 29 and John Chapter 6 Verse 33.
"Apparently, you have not taken serious thought of where the evidence weighs heaviest among Greek scholars on the meaning of kosmos on John 3:16. No reputable Greek scholar, as far as I am aware of when referring to my language resources, defines kosmos as "believers only" anywhere in the NT." [16]
➢ One. It may come as a surprise to you, but I don't base my Biblical understanding on the testimony of any Greek scholar.
➢ Two. The supposed absence of evidence among Greek scholars is NOT evidence of absence. The absence of a particular definition, from a particular Greek or Hebrew Lexicon, does NOT constitute evidence to the contrary. "Thayer spent 25 years working on his Lexicon" [17], during which he "made thousands of revisions from Grimm's Wilke's Clavis" [17]. "James Strong did not construct Strong's Concordance by himself; it was constructed with the effort of more than a hundred colleagues" [18]. Hence, Lexicons are virtually NEVER complete, or "exhaustive".
➢ Three. The purpose of a Concordance is "NOT to provide content or commentary about the Bible, but to provide an index to the Bible" [18].
➢ Four. There are also other considerations, when working with Greek Lexicons. The Strong's, for instance, "does not consider figures of speech, metaphors, idioms, common phrases, cultural references, references to historical events, or alternate meanings used by those of the time period to express their thoughts in their own language at the time" [18].
➢ Five. You seem to think of James Strong (1822-1894) and Henry Thayer (1828-1901) [17] as "reputable Greek scholars" [16]. Yet, neither of them seem to have any exceptional Greek schooling, beyond that of any modern Greek Scholar. Furthermore, Thayer was not only a Unitarian [19], but also "expressed disagreement with the position of Biblical inerrancy" [17], which led to his "change of attitude toward the Bible" [20].
➢ Six. It would, therefore, seem, that it is in fact you, who "have not taken serious thought of where the evidence weighs heaviest among Greek scholars" [16]. In fact, it is clear, that you haven't even weighed the Greek scholars themselves.
"You said, 'to be loved by God, is to be saved by God.' That assertion may presuppose a particular theological view, however, it is not the view of Biblical revelation. God's love, demonstrated at the Cross, extends to men as sinners, rebels, as enemies of God, cf. Rom 5:6-10. God proved his love for men as sinners by the Cross. Sinners, the unsaved, are loved by God. One may need to be saved to experience God's love, yet, man - as a sinner, as unsaved, unregenerate, and hostile - are unconditionally loved by God (although, not unconditionally saved); and such love was demonstreated at the Cross. Christ did not die on the Cross for men as saved but for men as sinners." [14]
➢ One. It is indeed the view of Biblical revelation. [15]
➢ Two. As for the assertion, that my "assertion may presuppose a particular theological view" [14]: so does your assertion, that God's love was unconditionally demonstrated and extended to everyone at the Cross, "presuppose a particular theological view" [14], namely that of Universal Atonement.
➢ Three. I know, that Christ died on the cross for sinners. Yet, in Biblical terms, "Christ died on OUR behalf while WE were still sinners" (Rom. 5v8, 20CNT) "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might BRING US to God" (1 Pt. 3v18, KJV)
"First, you reference an electronic resource that falsified and not what was in Thayer’s original lexicon on book format. However, this 'esword' lexicon apparently falsified Thayer’s (if it was his lexicon they were copying) actual definition of kosmos citing Jn 3:16. See: Thayer's Lexicon (Help) or, http://www.blueletterbible.org.... If you will note, there is no definition “#8b” (which the BLB properly removed after discovering that there is no valid grammatical basis for the definition in question). You will also note that John 3:16 is cited under the definition consisting of all men without exception, that is, 'the human race' (definition #5). In addition, in no place does Thayer use 'believers only' (or, 'the elect') as a nuanced meaning of kosmos. In passing, Thayer, if a Calvinist, seems to have held heretical views. However, he seems to have been an honest NT Greek scholar." [16]
➢ One. I quoted from "Thayer's Greek Definitions" (or TGD), which is the abridged version of Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1889). [13]
➢ Two. No Thayer was an Arminian, like yourself, who denied the Doctrine of Total Depravity [19]. He was also a Unitarian, who denied the Divinity of Christ [19] and, as a result, The Trinity [19].
➢ Three. Thayer was everything, but an honest New Testament Greek Scholar, as I have sufficiently demonstrated in my work on "Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament" [13].
"Second, you cite Kieler who fails to show any academic credentials that he is himself is expert in the Greek of the NT." [16]
➢ One. I often quote Mark Kielar, but I NEVER sighted him as a Greek expert.
➢ Two. As for his academic credentials: I do NOT support the unbiblical and pretentious misconception, that Theological Higher Education is a requirement for Christian ministry. Nor do I believe, that a Doctorate in Greek from any number of Theological Institutions, could guarantee infallibility.
"Third, you fail to reference any scholar or scholarly reference in support of your view." [16]
➢ One. That would be, because I normally first reference Scripture, before I run to "scholars or scholarly references" [16].
➢ Two. Keep an eye on the Bibliography below.
"Fourth, in consequence of my third point above, you are either unaware or willfully dismiss the scholarly opinions of other Calvinists who define kosmos in contradiction to Kielar, for example, Mounce's Expository Dictionary, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, and Calvinist scholar D.A. Carson, who stated that 'God’s love for the world cannot be collapsed into his love for the elect.'" [16]
➢ One. Again, it may come as a surprise to you, but I do NOT base my Biblical understanding on "the scholarly opinions of other Calvinists" [16]. Most "Calvinists" and Arminians I meet, are as confused as a cow on astroturf, or a fart in a perfume factor.
➢ Two. I am NOT unaware of the views expressed, by men like Barry Wallace [25], D.A. Carson, David Ponter [25], George Zeller [25], Mark Driscoll (1970-) and Matthew Ervin [25] - I simply willfully reject them, and will respond to them in due time.
➢ Three. There are many "other Calvinists", apart from Kielar, who DO define, the Greek word 'kosmos', as referring to "believers only" [or "the elect only"] in John Chapter 3 Verse 16, namely James White (1962-) [10], John Samson [11], myself, etc.
"You said, 'I have already qualified, from 'strong information in the context', that the Greek word 'kosmos', as used in John Chapter 3 Verse 16, inescapable refers to 'believers only'. How you arrive at that conclusion is unclear. The context of John 3:16 is with respect to the 'world'. If, as you say, the context 'inescapabl[y]'refers to 'believers only',' then, to be consistent, the world must also refer to 'believers only' in vs.18, which suggests that there may be some of the world who will not believe and are condemned; vs.19, which states that the 'light has come into the world,' or to 'believers only', however, these 'men' (which must refer to those of the kosmos (i.e., 'believers only') 'loved darkness'; vs.20, suggests 'everyone' in the kosmos (i.e., 'believers only') hates the light... To say that the meaning of the word changes from after verse 16, I do not think you have any proper grounds in either Greek language usage or within the context of the Gospel statements in John 3. Such a change would be arbitrary and, as you can see, cause problems within the understanding of the text... The "strong information in the context" obviously argues for the reference for kosmos to be as Thayer defines it in #5. And, no, I don't believe that kosmos can have two contradictory meanings in the same sentence. I am quite surprised a qualified theologian would make such a nonsensical statement. John 3:16 mentions kosmos specifically and without any qualifications, thus the only meaning it can have is the whole inhabited earth, 'the human race' (Thayer, #5). Your explanation merely dances around with the language and makes no sense." [23]
➢ One. You claim, that for me to be consistent, the word 'world' "MUST also refer to 'believers only' in vs.18 ... v.19 [and] v.20" [23].
That is NOT true. Authors often use Homographs within the same context, sentence or paragraph. For example:
In Afrikaans we would say, "Die werkers moet leer om hul leer uniforms te dra wanneer hulle 'n leer gebruik", meaning: The workers should learn ['leer'] to use their leather ['leer'] uniforms, when using a ladder ['leer']. Three different applications of the same word ['leer'] in the same sentence.
However, IF, as you suggest, we MUST interpret all three instances of the same word 'leer' in the same way, to be consistent, we'd have no option but to conclude, that the author was saying: (i) The workers should learn to wear their learn uniforms when using a learn, or (ii) The workers should leather to wear their leather uniforms when using a leather, or (iii) The workers should ladder to wear their ladder uniforms when using a ladder?!
➢ Two. The word "world" does not appear in verse 18.
"The "strong information in the context" obviously argues for the reference for kosmos to be as Thayer defines it in #5." [23]
➢ One. No, I didn't refer to Thayer, since I couldn't care less what he had to say. However, IF I ever DID quote him in defence of my understanding, I would sight Definition 8 of Greek Reference 2889 from Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1889).
➢ Two. The context I was referring to is: (i) John's own reference to "everyone who believes" (HCSB/NLT) or "whoever believes" (ESV/NIV/NKJV) smack in the middle of verse 16 itself, and (ii) John's use of the English word "world", or it's Greek equivalent "kosmos", in John Chapter 1 Verse 29, John Chapter 6 Verse 33 and John Chapter 12 Verse 19, when referring to 'believers only'.
THE OBJECTIONS OF BRIAN ABASCIANO
On the 25th of August 2012 Nelson Banuchi sent me an email, quoting "Brian Abasciano" [22] of the Society of Evangelical Arminians (SEA), on the meaning of the English word "world", and it's Greek equivalent "kosmos", as used in John Chapter 3 Verse 16:
"The definition 'a collection of particulars' etc. is actually an impossible meaning for John 3:16-19 given what the standard Greek lexicons list as the meaning of such usage: 'sum total, totality' (so BDAG; Friberg). This usage indicates the idea of totality. The issue that may be confusing [to] an unsophisticated student is that it can be used of a totality of any collection of particulars, but it can only mean this when sufficiently qualified. That is why the usage must be qualified by a direct identification of what totality is in view by way of a genitive phrase, i.e., "of such and such", or I suppose by such strong information in the context that this meaning is inescapable. The impossibility of the definition can be seen by plugging in the actual meaning into the verses, while leaving the meaning world for the occurrences of kosmos the C[alvinist] would have to agree mean something like humaity or created order:" [21]
➢ One. As Brian himself confessed, "it CAN be used of a totality of any collection of particulars, but it can only mean this WHEN SUFFICIENTLY QUALIFIED." [21] I have already qualified, from "strong information in the context" [21], that the Greek word "kosmos", as used in John Chapter 3 Verse 16, inescapable refers to "believers only".
Frequently Asked Questions
➢ Did John Calvin himself Defend Universal Atonement?
Videos
IF you are reading this off-line, please visit us on-line to view the embedded videos.
Bibliography
1. EJ Hill. Defining the word 'World' (Hillside; 4 August 2012) ✔
2. Dr. Curtis Hutson. Why I Disagree With All 5 Points of Calvinism (Jesus Is Saviour; 4 August 2012)
3. VIDEO: Ante Pavkovic a.k.a "Providential1611". Limited Atonement (YouTube; 6 June 2009) ✔
4. EJ Hill. Mark Kielar (Hillside; 11 August 2012) ✔
5. Barry Wallace. Calvin, Carson, and Piper on John 3:16 (Who Am I; 19 May 2010)
6. Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary: Jn. 3:16 (eSword; 14 August 2012) ✔
7. EJ Hill. The Doctrine of Limited Atonement (Hillside; 14 August 2012) ✔
8. The People's New Testament Commentary: Jn. 3:16 (eSword; 14 August 2012) ✔
9. EJ Hill. The Doctrine of Total Depravity (Hillside; 14 August 2012) ✔
10. VIDEO: James White. Does John 3:16 Debunk Calvinism? (Alpha and Omega Ministries/YouTube; 21 June 2008)
11. Pastor John Samson. Understanding John 3:16 (Reformation Theology; 11 June 2006)
12. Arthur W. Pink. The Meaning of "KOSMOS" in John 3:16 (Providence Baptist Ministries; 18 August 2012)
13. EJ Hill. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Hillside; 18 August 2012) ✔
14. Nelson Banuchi. In Comment #621651271 to EJ Hill [screenshot] (Hillside; 17 August 2012) ✔
15. EJ Hill. The Love of God (Hillside; 25 August 2012) ✔
16. Nelson Banuchi. In Comment #621641093 to EJ Hill [screenshot] (Hillside; 17 August 2012) ✔
17. Joseph Henry Thayer (Wikipedia; 17 August 2012) ✔
18. Strong's Concordance (Wikipedia; 17 August 2012) ✔
19. Steve Rudd. Thayer, Joseph Henry: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (The Interactive Bible; 17 August 2012) ✔
20. Joseph Henry Thayer. The change of attitude toward the Bible (1891) ✔
21. Nelson Banuchi. In an Email to EJ Hill, entitled "Re: Clarification of my comment re: esword and theword relative to fraudulence" (25 August 2012)nbanuchi@gmail.com ✔
22. Nelson Banuchi. In an Email to EJ Hill, entitled "Re: Clarification of my comment re: esword and theword relative to fraudulence" (27 August 2012) nbanuchi@gmail.com ✔
23. Nelson Banuchi. In an Email to EJ Hill, entitled "Your Mention of Abasciano" (1 September 2012) nbanuchi@gmail.com ✔
24. John 3:16 (Wikipedia; 1 September 2012)
25. EJ Hill. Did John Calvin himself Defend Universal Atonement? (Hillside; 2 September 2012) ✔
26. Clifton A. Emahiser. John 3:16, What It Says and What It Doesn't (Clifton A. Emahiser’s Teaching Ministries, 1012 N. Vine Street, Fostoria, Ohio, 44830) caemahiser@sbcglobal.net
Revisions
04.08.2012 / 11.08.2012 / 14-15.08.2012 / 17-19.08.2012 / 25-27.08.2012 / 01-02.09.2012 / 08.01.2013
No comments:
Post a Comment