The "World" of John 3:16 Does Not Mean "All Men Without Exception

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/calvinism/full.asp?ID=277 ^ | 6/15/04 | David J. Engelsma

[RnMomof7]

GOL | |
	The "World" of John 3:16 Does Not Mean "All Men Without Exception" - David J. Engelsma It is now common among Reformed people that, when one confesses God’s election of some persons to salvation, God’s particular love for the elect, and God’s exclusive desire to save the elect, his confession is immediately contested by an appeal to 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." Indeed, this is almost the rule. The one who thus appeals to John 3:16 intends to assert that God loves all men without exception and that God desires to save all men without exception. The basic assumption underlying this appeal to John 3:16, as an argument against election, is that the word, world, in John 3:16 means ‘all men without exception. We do here announce, declare, and proclaim that this assumption is false. It is unbiblical. It commits one to a teaching that deviates from the gospel, fundamentally. The word, world, in John 3:16 does not mean ‘all men without exception.’ We plead with our Reformed brothers and sisters who insist on understanding "world" in John 3:16 as ‘all men without exception’ and on using this text against the confession of God’s particular love for the elect to face up to the doctrinal position that they are taking. This, now, is their position: God loves all men without exception, with a love that gives His only begotten Son for their salvation, that is, with the (saving) love that desires their salvation from sin and their eternal life in heaven. God gave His only begotten Son for all men without exception, that is, Jesus died for all men without exception. Nevertheless, many people whom God loves, whom God desires to save, and for whom Jesus died perish in hell, unsaved. Therefore, 1) many persons are separated from the love of God; 2) God’s desire to save is frustrated in the case of many persons; and 3) the death of Jesus failed to save many for whom the Son of God, in fact, died. The reason for this sad state of affairs is that those persons refused to believe in Jesus, although they were able to do so by virtue of their free will. On the other hand, the reason why the others are saved is not that God loved them, desired their salvation, and gave His Son to die for them (for He also loved those who perish, desired their salvation, and gave His Son for them), but that they, by their free will, chose to believe. In conclusion, the damnation of the wicked is the defeat and disappointment of God, whereas the salvation of the believers is their own work. When the all-men-without-exception-people quote John 3:16, this is how they are reading it: "For God so loved all men without exception, that he gave his only begotten Son to die for all men without exception, with the desire that all men without exception be saved, so that whosoever believeth in him, of his own free will, should not perish, but have everlasting life." Whenever anyone challenges the confession of God’s particular, exclusive love for His elect by quoting John 3:16, we must regretfully conclude that he holds the doctrinal position set forth above and wishes to confess it publicly, in order thus to overthrow the Reformed doctrine of predestination, limited atonement, total depravity, effectual grace, and the preservation of saints (which is only an elaborate way of saying, salvation by grace alone — the gospel). The word, world, in the gospel of John does not mean ‘all men without exception.’ Proof: John 1:29: "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Did Christ by His death take away the sin of all men without exception? If He did, all men without exception shall be saved. John 6:33: "For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world." Does Jesus give life (not, ineffectually offer life, but, efficaciously give life) to all men without exception? If He does, all men without exception have eternal life. John 17:9: "I (Jesus) pray not for the world." Does Jesus refuse to pray for all men without exception? This last text points out that the word, world, in the gospel of John does not always have the same meaning. In John 3:16, the world is loved by God, with a love that gives the Son of God for its sake; in John 17:9, the Son of God refuses to pray for the world. The saints must not come to an understanding of the world of John 3:16 by a quick assumption, but by careful interpretation of the passage in the light of the rest of Scripture. What then is the truth about the world of John 3:16? Loved by God with Divine, almighty, effectual, faithful, eternal love, the world is saved. All of it! All of them! Redeemed by the precious, worthy, powerful, effectual death of the Son of God, the world is saved. All of it! All of them! The salvation of all the persons included in the world of John 3:16 is due solely to the effectual love of God and the redeeming death of Christ for them; whereas the persons who perish were never loved by God, nor redeemed by Christ, that is, they are not part of the world of John 3:16. The world of John 3:16 (Greek: kosmos, from which comes our English word, cosmos, referring to our "orderly, harmonious, systematic universe’s) is the creation made by God in the beginning, now disordered by sin, with the elect from all nations, now by nature children of wrath even as the others, as the core of it. As regards its people, the world of John 3:16 is the new humanity in Jesus Christ, the last Adam (I Corinthians 15:45). John calls this new human race "the world" in order to show, and emphasize, that it is not from the Jewish people alone, but from all nations and peoples (Revelation 7:9). The people who make up the world of John 3:16 are all those, and those only, who will become believers (whosoever believeth"); and it is the elect who believe (Acts 13:48). This explanation of John 3:16 is not some strange, new interpretation dreamed up by latter-day hyper-Calvinists, but the explanation that has been given in the past by defenders of the Faith we call Reformed, that is, by those who confessed the sovereign grace of God in the salvation of sinners. This was the explanation given by Frances Turretin, Reformed theologian in Geneva (1623-1687): The love treated of in John 3:16. .. cannot be universal towards all and every one, but special towards a few... because the end of that love which God intends is the salvation of those whom He pursues with such love.. . If therefore God sent Christ for that end, that through Him the world might be saved, He must either have failed of His end, or the world must necessarily be saved in fact. But it is certain that not the whole world, but only those chosen out of the world are saved; therefore, to them properly has this love reference... Why then should not the world here be taken not universally for individuals, but indefinitely for anyone, Jews as well as Gentiles, without distinction of nation, language and condition. that He may be said to have loved the human race, inasmuch as He was unwilling to destroy it entirely but decreed to save some certain persons Out of it, not only from one people as before, but from all indiscriminately, although the effects of that love should not be extended to each individual, but only to some certain ones, viz, those chosen out of the world? (Theological Institutes) About the word, world, in Scripture, Abraham Kuyper, the Dutch theologian (1837-1920) wrote: For if there is anything that is certain from a somewhat more attentive reading of Holy Scripture, and that may be held as firmly established, it is, really, the irrefutable fact, that the word, world, in Holy Scripture, means "all men" only as a very rare exception and almost always means something entirely different. In explanation, specifically, of the "world" of John 3:16, Kuyper went on to say that the reference is to the "proper kernal" of the creation, the elect people of God, "which Jesus snatches away from Satan." out of this kernal, out this congregation, out of this people, a "new world," a "new earth and new heaven," shall one day appear, by a wonder-work of God. The earth does not merely serve to allow the elect to be saved, in order then to disappear. No, the elect are men; these men form a whole, a collection, an organism; that organism is grounded in creation; and because now this creation is the reflection of God’s wisdom and the work of His hands, God’s administration of it may not come to nothing, but in the Great Day God’s will with this creation shall be perfectly realized. (Dat De Genade Particulier Is (That Grace is Particular). My translation of the Dutch.) Essentially the same is the interpretation of Arthur W. Pink (1886-1952): Turning now to John 3:16, it should be evident from the passages just quoted that this verse will not bear the construction usually put upon it. "God so loved the world." Many suppose that this means, The entire human race. But "the entire human race" includes all mankind from Adam till the close of earth’s history: it reaches backward as well as forward! Consider, then, the history of mankind before Christ was born. Unnumbered millions lived and died before the Savior came to the earth, lived here "having no hope and without God in the world," and therefore passed out into eternity of woe. If God "loved" them, where is the slightest proof thereof? Scripture declares "Who (God) in times past (from the tower of Babel till after Pentecost) suffered all nations to walk in their own ways" (Acts 14:16). Scripture declares that "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient" (Rom. 1:28). To Israel God said, "You only have I known of all the families of the earth" (Amos 3:2). In view of these plain passages who will be so foolish as to insist that God in the past loved all mankind! The same applies with equal force to the future . . . But the objector comes back to John 3:16 and says, "World means world. "True, but we have shown that "the world" does not mean the whole human family. The fact is that "the world" is used in a general way.. . Now the first thing to note in connection with John 3:16 is that our Lord was there speaking to Nicodemus, a man who believed that God’s mercies were confined to his own nation. Christ there announced that God’s love in giving His Son had a larger object in view, that it flowed beyond the boundary of Palestine, reaching out to "regions beyond." In other words, this was Christ’s announcement that God had a purpose of grace toward Gentiles as well as Jews. "God so loved the world," then, signifies, God’s love is international in its scope. But does this mean that God loves every individual among the Gentiles? Not necessarily, for as we have seen the term "world" is general rather than specific, relative rather than absolute. . . the "world" in John 3:16 must, in the final analysis refer to the world of God’s people. Must we say, for there is no other alternative solution. It cannot mean the whole human race, for one half of the race was already in hell when Christ came to earth. It is unfair to insist that it means every human being now living, for every other passage in the New Testament where God’s love is mentioned limits it to His own people — search and see! The objects of God’s love in John 3:16 are precisely the same as the objects of Christ’s love in John 13:1: "Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His time was come, that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end." We may admit that our interpretation of John 3:16 is no novel one invented by us, but one almost uniformly given by the Reformers and Puritans, and many others since them. (The Sovereignty of God) We can only marvel that Reformed men and women are so soon removed from the truth of God’s sovereign, particular, electing love in Jesus Christ, which truth has not only been confessed "by the Reformers and Puritans" before them, but has also been confessed by the Reformed church herself in her Creed, the Canons of Dordt. Who hath bewitched them? As for us, we are determined, out of love for the truth, to oppose the lie of a love of God in Jesus Christ for all men without exception; to try to rescue those who have been taken captive by this doctrine; and to preach and testify, near and far, in season and out of season, a love of God for the world that saves the world, a death of the Son of God that redeemed the world, a purpose of God for the saving of sinners that is accomplished, and a salvation of enslaved sinners by the sovereign power of the grace of God alone — for the comfort of every believer and the glory of God. ### This article was printed from Grace Online Library - www.graceonlinelibrary.org Please note that every attempt has been made to obtain the proper permission to use all of the material posted on our site. If you intend on reproducing this printed article, you may need to obtain the proper permission.

[DoorGunner]

All,

Here are some comments, which may be interesting:

 

John 1:29

Who taketh away the sin of the world.

He uses the word sin in the singular number, for any kind of iniquity; as if he had said, that every kind of unrighteousness which alienates men from God is taken away by Christ. And when he says, the sin Of The world, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race; that the Jews might not think that he had been sent to them alone. But hence we infer that the whole world is involved in the same condemnation; and that as all men without exception are guilty of unrighteousness before God, they need to be reconciled to him.

John the Baptist, therefore, by speaking generally of the sin of the world, intended to impress upon us the conviction of our own misery, and to exhort us to seek the remedy. Now our duty is, to embrace the benefit which is offered to all, that each of us may be convinced that there is nothing to hinder him from obtaining reconciliation in Christ, provided that he comes to him by the guidance of faith.

http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol34/htm/vii.vii.htm

 

John 3:

16. For God so loved the world.

Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish.

The word only-begotten is emphatic, to magnify the fervor of the love of God towards us. For as men are not easily convinced that God loves them, in order to remove all doubt, he has expressly stated that we are so very dear to God that, on our account, he did not even spare his only-begotten Son.

Since, therefore, God has most abundantly testified his love towards us, whoever is not satisfied with this testimony, and still remains in doubt, offers a high insult to Christ, as if he had been an ordinary man given up at random to death.

 

John 3:

17. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world.

The word world is again repeated, that no man may think himself wholly excluded, if he only keep the road of faith.

We ought not, therefore, to look at any thing else in Christ, than that God, out of his boundless goodness chose to extend his aid for saving us who were lost; and whenever our sins press us -- whenever Satan would drive us to despair -- we ought to hold out this shield, that God is unwilling that we should be overwhelmed with everlasting destruction, because he has appointed his Son to be the salvation of the world.

they who reject the grace offered in him deserve to find him the Judge and Avenger of contempt so unworthy and base.

The meaning amounts to this, that the Gospel is especially, and in the first instance, appointed for believers, that it may be salvation to them; but that afterwards believers will not escape unpunished who, despising the grace of Christ, chose to have him as the Author of death rather than of life.

http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol34/htm/ix.iii.htm

DG

 

[P-Marlowe]

Mr. Marlowe, have you actually read the work of Calvin where this is sourced or is this another famous second source citation?

John Calvin's Commentary on John Chapter 3

_{From the horse's mouth to yours.... yuucck.}

[DoorGunner]

"God chose Jacob for His mercy before either child was born
(Romans 9)"

It is useful to note that Romans 9 does NOT say that Esau was "hated," or "chosen to be hated," before he was born.

DG

p.s. I know you did not say this, but some do.

[D Edmund Joaquin]

- so He already knew Esau and Jacob.

Esau was a simple man, ruled by his senses. Jacob, a smooth man, a man of tents, of learning. Natural man and spiritual man, the old second son, new Adamic nature routine.

[P-Marlowe]

Are you with me here?

I am not going to argue with your doctrinal stand Pilgrim. Englesma may be right. For purposes of this discussion I could care less. But for purposes of this discussion I think it is important to note that Englesma's position is not one of Classical Calvinism, nor is it the position of Calvin himself. Englesma may be 100% correct and Calvin and the Classical Calvinists and the Arminians may all be damnable heretics for thinking that God has any kind of love for those who ultimately go to hell, but the point is that Englesma is the one who is out of the mainstream.

I did not call anyone a hyper calvinist. I just used Philip Johnson's chart to show that at least he thinks some of the positions taken by some of the posters here are out of the mainstream of Calvinism and are approaching what Philip Johnson considers "hyper-Calvinism". Its not a term I made up. Indeed, to an Arminian all Calvinists are hyper-Calvinists. The term was invented by Calvinists to separate themselves from the extremes of their theology. To an Arminian the whole Calvinist theology is hyper and extreme.

Now if you will not agree with the definition of Philip Johnson, then what would you define as a hyper-Calvinist. Is there such a thing. Is it possible to be so extreme in your Calvinism that you would be considered a heretic by even classical Calvinists? Or is it the ones who hold to the Classic definitions of Calvinism that are just too lukewarm for people like you?

BTW do you agree with Englesma, or Calvin on this subject? I don't particularly care, I'd just like to know.

[California74]

The thinking of the article is so wrong. It is human thinking, not of the Holy Spirit.

Christ loves EVERYBODY and he died for EVERYBODY. He died for you, he died for me. He died for Bin Laden. He died for the WORLD, everyone EVER born.

The whole reason the non-believer is condemned is because they don't believe that Christ died on the cross for them! Because they REJECT Christ - the free gift to save their souls.

Jesus is Savior to all, Lord of Heaven and Earth.

[hopefulpilgrim]

Hi, RnMomof7!!! Long time no see!

What I think (just my honest opinion) is that where you stand (or what you believe) about Election as you walk this earth has little direct bearing on our duty as Christians, which is to intercede for the lost and help to lead the elect (whoever that is, and none of us know) to Christ (our Lord!!!)---- and, most especially, to GLORIFY GOD. (And the Westminster Catechism would add: "...and to enjoy Him forever.")

And what was it that Micah the prophet said about what the LORD requires of each and every one of us?

It's fun to discuss doctrines like this, which make us search the Word of God and really THINK... On the other hand, getting into ARGUMENTS about something like Election, which two Christians that are equally loved by the Father may not agree on, is a waste of time, and an obstacle in fulfilling our calling (duty).

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply! And thank you for the interesting excerpts above!

With regard to Jacob and Esau, here are the relevant passages for anyone interested:

And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If [it be] so, why [am] I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD. And the LORD said unto her, Two nations [are] in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and [the one] people shall be stronger than [the other] people; and the elder shall serve the younger. - Genesis 25:22-23

I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? [Was] not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. - Malachi 1:2-3

And not only [this]; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, [even] by our father Isaac; (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. - Romans 9:10-13

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the very engaging meditation!

[California74]

What you say is so true, hopefulpilgrim, and I really needed to hear it.

Bless you!

[P-Marlowe]

_AMEN!

[hopefulpilgrim]

Wow, I haven't gotten an "Amen" in a llllloooong time. : )

[P-Marlowe]

Evangelists and Bible Teachers and street preachers and on-fire new teenage converts do all the heavy lifting and spend all their time and spiritual energy in leading lost people to Christ and then all the crusty old theologians spend all their time and energy trying to figure out why they came.

[P-Marlowe]

The whole reason the non-believer is condemned is because they don't believe that Christ died on the cross for them! Because they REJECT Christ - the free gift to save their souls.

Wow. It seems you'd get an Amen from non other than John Calvin himself.

When Christ says, in other passages, that he is come to judgment, (John 9:39;) when he is called a stone of offense, (1 Peter 2:7;) when he is said to be set for the destruction of many, (Luke 2:34:) this may be regarded as accidental, or as arising from a different cause; for they who reject the grace offered in him deserve to find him the Judge and Avenger of contempt so unworthy and base. A striking instance of this may be seen in the Gospel; for though it is strictly the power of God for salvation to every one who believeth, (Romans 1:16,) the ingratitude of many causes it to become to them death.. Both have been well expressed by Paul, when he boasts of having vengeance at hand, by which he will punish all the adversaries of his doctrine after that the obedience of the godly shall have been fulfilled, (2 Corinthians 10:6) The meaning amounts to this, that the Gospel is especially, and in the first instance, appointed for believers, that it may be salvation to them; but that afterwards believers will not escape unpunished who, despising the grace of Christ, chose to have him as the Author of death rather than of life. [Emphasis added]

[D-fendr]

Why is it so important to you that God loves you more than another?

[hopefulpilgrim]

Hey, ya' got that right, P-Marlowe. I think what all we crusty old theologians are doing is RELISHING our salvation and and try to put the pieces of the puzzle together.

[hopefulpilgrim]

What's a koett?

[walden]

Interesting. I'm not a Calvinist, so am not familiar with his writings. Which work of his are you quoting?

It's reassuring, though, that apparently Calvin himself was not a postmodernist, and that he understood the plain words of scripture to mean what they appear to mean.

[HarleyD]

"And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her." – Luke 10:38-42

Actually Alamo-Girl, Jesus wasn't criticizing Martha for criticizing Mary. He was telling Martha that you can get so wrapped up in "serving" the Lord that you fail to sit at His feet to listen. Martha apparently got the message because when Lazarus died it was Martha who ran to the Lord while Mary waited in the house.

[Corin Stormhands]

Do ping me to the responses.