|
Answer
John 3:16 is
certainly one of the most, if not "the most" well known verses of
Scripture; yet as your example
clearly demonstrates, the interpretation and meaning of this verse has often
been debated, and even found to be a point of disagreement among Christians.
There is no doubt but that the exact meaning of the word "world"
in this verse is difficult to determine according to it's most exact
definition; however, your question concerning the issue of election as it
pertains to this verse can be easily determined.
This in turn, helps us to narrow the possible references for the
meaning of the word "world."
First,
let's address why there has been disagreement among believers.
Typically, those who have debated this question in the past have come
to John 3:16 alone and argued this verse to support their own doctrinal
positions rather than looking to the text to find it's original and time
honoring meaning in order to form and/or support their doctrinal positions.
Additionally, there is also the danger anytime we deal with a word,
or phrase, or even a verse, even if it is as familiar as John 3:16,
particularly when there is controversy as to it's exact meaning, to use
the verse of Scripture (or portion of the verse) alone as a "silver
bullet" to determine a significant doctrine of the faith, particularly one
as significant as that involved with the issue and truth of election.
The most natural means of interpreting any word or verse of Scripture is to
look to it's original CONTEXT. Here
in John chapter 3, we find numerous details that support the doctrine of
election and limit the clear intent of John 3:16 to agree with the view of
election and atonement as communicated in the Reformed faith (here, the word
"world" does NOT refer to "100 % of the people who have ever
lived"). For example:
>
The chapter begins with a discussion of the need for
regeneration or being "born again."
In v. 3 we read "I tell you the truth, no one can see the
kingdom of God unless he is born again." This
thought is addressed further in v. 5 where Jesus states "... I tell you
the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water
and the Spirit." Again, the need for regeneration is addressed in v. 6 where
we find that "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to
spirit." In this setting,
it would be of no value for Jesus to refer to God's giving his son for the
"entire world", if indeed entering his kingdom and receiving the
benefits of his atoning sacrifice are to be experienced and enjoyed only by
those who are born "of the Spirit."
The argument is found to be even stronger in Jesus' statement in v.
7 where he says "You must be born again."
Since all (100% of humanity) is not born again, it would not make
sense for Jesus to then say that God gave his Son and demanded justice from
him for 100% of humanity.
>
In vv. 14-15, we read that "... the Son of Man must
be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have
eternal life." First, it refers to the provision that must be made in
order for man to be enabled to receive eternal life.
Then, it narrows the extent of those who will receive eternal life to
only those who believe in him (a requirement that is impossible apart from
regeneration, or being "born again")
Note: v. 15 does NOT
say: that the Son of Man must
be lifted up that "everyone" may have eternal life.
Rather, it says that "everyone who believes" may have eternal
life. The same truth is
communicated in John 3:16 where it too refers to God giving his one and only
Son, that "whoever believes in him" shall not perish but have eternal
life. The emphasis here is placed on the qualification, which the
context points out is only achievable thru regeneration.
Again, if regeneration is necessary for salvation, then it makes no
sense for Jesus to say that God loved "all of humanity" in the same
redemptive fashion, and in doing so gave his son to provide for their
salvation.
>
In v. 17 we find
that Jesus came into the world "not to condemn the world, but to
save the world..." Note:
the verb here does not refer to Jesus "making possible the
salvation of all humanity" but to his "actually accomplishing and
bringing about the salvation" of those who will in the end not be
condemned. As Mt 1:21 tells us
Jesus was given his name "because he will save his
people from their sins."
>
In v. 18, we read that "Whoever 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." Here,
the question must be asked: Is
the person who believes not condemned because he first believes, or does his
belief show that he has already been forgiven, and therefore is not
condemned?
>
In vv. 19-29, we read that though the "Light has come
into the world", "men loved darkness instead of
light because their deeds were evil. Everyone
who does evil hates the light, and will not come
into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed." Here,
we find that "everyone" who does evil hates the light.
Sinners, on their own cannot and willnot submit to the Spirit. So, again, it would not make sense for Jesus in Jn 3:16 to be
saying that God died for everyone who ever lived, because they will not
accept him and turn to him unless he first changes their hearts.
The point being that such a view
of Jn 3:16 that hold to the word "world" meaning "all
humanity" would result in inconsistency or imperfection in the Godhead,
for on one level God the Father would love the world to one extent and seek
to bring about the salvation of ALL, but the work of the Son and the Spirit
would not be in agreement or fulfillment with the Father's will.
Additionally, the Father would prove to be unjust in providing for
the salvation of "all" in the world and demanding justice of Christ for
the forgiveness of their sins, but then only accomplishing and providing the
benefits of Christ's atoning sacrifice to a portion of the world.
>
In v. 21, it is only those who "live by the truth"
that come into the light.
>
In v. 21, election is also found in the phrase "...so
that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done
through God."
The Larger Context as well (the entire Scripture) points to the same
conclusion. (see Forum Apologetica Questions on Limited Atonement, and
Predestination and Election) For
example:
>
In John 1:29, we read
"The next day John saw Jesus, coming toward him and said, 'Look, the
Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the WORLD! The question is:
Recognizing Jesus to be the Lamb of God, who is John referring to by the
term "world" John 1:31 clarifies that when it says "I myself
did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he
might be revealed TO ISRAEL." Certainly "world" CANNOT
refer to all humanity here, because the sins of some people are not taken
away (John 8:21).
If these reasons were not
enough, a more practical way of determining this is to try substituting the
phrase "100% of all those who ever lived" in the place of the
word "world" (This is the argument of those who hold an Arminian
view of John 3:16) It would
read "For God so loved 100% of all those who ever lived that he gave his
one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have
eternal life." It doesn't make sense!
If the word "world" refers to ALL the people, such that God so
loved ALL the people so much as to send his Son to die for them, then why
would he only provide salvation to SOME of them?
It doesn't fit. Therefore,
we know the word "world" MUST refer to something else!
Possible Meanings that have been suggested include:
>
All Mankind Regardless of Race/Ethnic Group - Not just the
Jews, but the Gentiles as well. (1 Jn 2:2
"He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours
but also for the sins of the whole world.")
>
The Created World
>
Fallen Humanity -The World in it's Totality, which belongs
to God, which was created good, but which has fallen due to Sin.
Seen as a whole, though salvation is accomplished for some of the
whole)
>
The world that hates God, his Word, & his Followers
Finally, though an Arminian argument may at first sound as if God
is more loving (because he "loved all humanity the same"); this view
actually detracts from the extent of God's true love, because here he does
not love any of them sufficiently to accomplish salvation for them.
In the Reformed view, however, two levels of love are addressed.
First, the love God has for all humanity.
Second, the redemptive love that God has for his people, a love which
actually brings about their salvation.
In this latter view, God does not love less, but more!
In summary, both the context and the passage itself clearly exclude
an Arminian message or doctrine being derived from this verse.
Further investigation into the Scripture itself, along with
discussion among believers along these lines, will be helpful in clearing up
many of the differences found among God's people.
Sola Scriptura!
|
