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.

[redeemed_by_His_blood]

Evidently you see love and hate as mutually exclusive.

Evidently you missed the context of the question at hand, which is that God loves everyone unconditionally without exception.

That is not what Scripture teaches.

[redeemed_by_His_blood]

Therefore, when I read that God hates Esau I remember that He also loves Esau...

Chapter and verse please.

[dangus]

Wee, now I was gonna say what a wondeful post it was, too, except now it looks like I'm justtrying to get in on the hugs :^)

[RnMomof7]

More than that. God is love

Love is only ONE of Gods attributes , and it . He is also Holy , and Righteous and Just and Mercy .

By limiting God to one attribute , you rob Him of all that redounds to His Glory . God is glorified in the vindication of His holiness.

God does not love all men ,. there are men that he hates. I know that is not a popular thought , but the bible tells us that .

[mdmathis6]

Well that is the point....when I take into account the entire scripture context several themes stand out...God calls many and few are chosen, God compels some inspite of them selves(ie Paul), God often reaps where he has not sewn(the sydonian greek woman), and finally the mysteries of Jesus' open invitation("who ever believes in me, I will in no like-wise cast out!")

You argue for the glass as half full, Mt Sinai with its gloom and fire...I argue for the glass as being filled to over flowing, Mt Zion as it were with grace and peace!(See Hebrews)

God "abhors evil men" as from the Psalms ...but the same Psalmist wrote "blessed is the man who sins are forgiven"...which means at some point that that God forsaken hated evil man became loved and accepted by God!

I look at the Bible and see God's over arching love and concern as well as his desire for purity and holiness! You seem to look at the Bible in terms of exclusion and I might add not much different from what the Muslims argue.(You lead the most Holy life but you must walk the sword's edge bridge to Paradise...if you fall off you tumble into hell no matter what your faith and holiness to Allah was!Unless you are a Muslim martyr of course!)

Many Christians including myself look at the Calvinist position of Predestination the same way...no matter what kind of faith you have even... bowing down and confessing Christ with the tongue and living a repentant life...if you are not of the "elect" pffft, you are going to be roasting on an open spit in Hell.

The Bible doesn't speak of the macro transtemporal predestination process of all human beings, it speaks of an individualized "PREDESTINATING" process. I argue that there is a difference in being individually PREDESTINATED as opposed to being PREDESTINED. At least as much as I understand the english...what the greek or latin says of these terms I have no knowledge. When I was unsaved,I was PREDESTINED for hell, but when I came to Christ I was then PREDESTINATED 'with or "placed into the way or possession of" Christ'. Another words, my life course and destination were individually altered!

[redeemed_by_His_blood]

All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." Luke 10:22 How on earth could anyone explain this sentence from a "Jesus died for everyone" perspective. (And, yes, by all means look at the context.)

Or, "No one can come to the Son unless the Father calls them."

Unconditional election is what Scripture teaches, not unconditional love with no exceptions.

[connectthedots]

Amen to that.

[RnMomof7]

I disagree with and completely reject the premise of this article. Christ died for all and all rejected him so God chose a few.

If Christ died for all men (was the propitiation for their sin ) , were all men saved at the cross or was no one saved at the cross. It can only be one or the other.

If Jesus dies for all men , the an arbitrary and capricious god was an indian giver and demanded that men pay again for something that was already a paid for and accepted payment

If no on was saved at the cross, then Jesus is not the saviour of men at all . Men save themselve

Christ died for all mankind - period. John 3:16 is not about election - it is first and foremost an expression of God's love for the crown of his creation. There are many references in the scripture that indicate God's love for mankind, 2 Peter 3:9 being one of them.

No that is not what 2 peter says at all.

I find that people read the Bible with little care , so they read over important points or the omit them because they are inconvenient

Please save me the argument against 2 Peter 3:9 because I have it up on my other screen even as I type -

Which only shows that you choose not to read it

I am going to post it for others that maY be interested in reading the word in context

Teaching on 2 peter

Who was the letter sent to? Who was the audience?

2Pe 3:1** This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in [both] which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance

The beloved are the saved

What is it's topic?

It is a teaching to the church on the end times. It is not a salvation teaching it is an end time teaching

What is the theme?

Judgment and destruction of the wicked

The passage in question begins with the remembrance of the first judgment on the world.

The Flood

** 2Pe 3:5** For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
** * 2Pe 3:6** Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Here he is speaking of the judgment men by the flood.

The judgment theme continues ;

2Pe 3:7** But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

He speaks of the type of judgment to come. no longer from rain and flood, but from fire.

Now again Peter restates who these words stating who they are written to, the saved brethren

2Pe 3:8* * But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
It is a teaching for the elect . It is written TO THE BRETHREN NOT THE UNSAVED

Pe 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.

Now in the text in question who is He long suffering toward? He says it clearly .it is the audience that he is addressing ..The brethren..the elect..US-WARD

.God is long suffering . He will not rain down the punishment until all the elect are saved.

If we were to read the Arminian reading into the text the Lord could never return because there will never be a day when the entire creation of men will be saved. So Christ could never come..He would be stuck in heaven waiting for men to make up their mind.

*Back to a judgment text :

* 2Pe 3:10** But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Referring back to 3:6 &7

The reading of the text as a salvation teaching or promise in the center of a text in the center of an end time teaching breaks the flow and meaning of a text that tells how God intends to judge the reprobates in the last days .

Your reading gives this text an impossible rendering . Because it would be saying the judgment He has just taught could never occur ,because God is long suffering to ALL men That makes is an impossible rendering of the text .

I've heard it a million times before.

Perhaps without ears ??

[mdmathis6]

The way to Mt Zion goes by way of Mt Sinai...we are to stare at Sinai to learn our sins and learn of God's awesome glory...then at some point we must turn and travel straight ahead to Mt Zion(where there is peace and grace)...we must keep our eyes fixed straight ahead lest we fall off the path and gaze upon Sinai again and suffer its judgments.

Christians were never meant to stay at Sinai gazing at laws written on stone; we were meant for Zion with God's laws written on hearts of flesh, and regenerated by the Holy Spirit!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

Evidently you missed the context of the question at hand, which is that God loves everyone unconditionally without exception.

No, I didn't miss the context. God indeed does love everyone unconditionally without exception. He even loves His enemies. Christ told us to be perfect, like the Father is perfect, by loving our enemies too. (Matthew 5:43-48)

God's hate is His divine judgment. His mercy is the reason He is very slow to bring that judgment to fruition.

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. - 2 Peter 3:9

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt. - Daniel 12:2

The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, [saying], Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee. - Jeremiah 31:3

With regard to Esau, you asked for chapter and verse.

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

For this [is] the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. 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.

What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. - Romans 9:6-16

God choose Jacob over Esau for His mercy before he was born. Thus He says He loved Jacob and hated Esau. In truth, the judgment of eternal contempt was on the both of them (as with all men since Adam). And so was God's love on the both of them since they - like all Adamic men - are made in His image (Genesis 2). But God choose to be merciful to Jacob over Esau.

[RnMomof7]

Jhn 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Jhn 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.

The question is never the text, it says what it means, what it does not address is WHO will believe and Why.

As for John 2:2 and others - let's get something straight - all of creation groans under the weight of sin and waits for the redemption of the world. When Adam fell we died spiritually but the entrance of sin into God's creation was pervasive to all of creation.
Romans 8:19-21 - 19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that[9] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. Take some time to read your proof text

Rom 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected [the same] in hope,

Rom 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

Man was not the instigator of either the vanity or the DELIVERANCE . Both were acts preformed on them. Both greek words , subjected to and delivered from were in the passive voice.

5786 Voice - Passive
The passive voice represents the subject as being the recipient of the action. E.g., in the sentence, "The boy was hit by the ball," the boy receives the action.

There was no "choice" there

The whole of creation most certainly benefits from Christ's death upon the cross - it is we as humans, however, that have been called to choose based upon our particular dispensation of free will. This is where my belief in election comes in and understands that all have rejected (including the elect). All were given the opportunity to reject - how else could they reject something that was not offered to them in the first place?

Hopw much "free will "do you REALLY have? Or is your "free will limited to the choices available to you?

God's love indeed extends to all mankind.

God shows a love and kindness to all His creation dogs, cats , nice, trees , oceans and the reprobate man

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! Thank you so much for the encouragement! Hugs!!!

[redeemed_by_His_blood]

Funny that you choose to see that God loved Esau in the Romans passage when the passages does not say that.

As a matter of fact, what that passage does say is that God loved Jacob before either were born or did anything.

You are reading into the passage words that are not there.

[redeemed_by_His_blood]

The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, [saying], Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee. - Jeremiah 31:3

That passage is proclaiming God's Eternal Love for the Elect, not for everyone.

[RnMomof7]

No, the objective isn't to avoid non-Calvinists. However, since you find God's Truth so distasteful to sugary sweet tastes, the Elect sister was simply advising you to save yourself some discomfort and seek easy believism and politically correct religion instead of the hard Truth.

Exactly, thanks

[P-Marlowe]

We are not discussing Hyper Calvinism . Please keep to the discussion of the opening post and don't bait a fight OK?

Of course we are. Your position on God's love is clearly within the definition of a hyper-Calvinist position. Per the definition of Philip Johnson, a well respected Classical Calvinist, anyone who says that God has absolutely no love for the non-elect is drifting into hyper-Calvinism. I would imagine that you disagree with Johnson's definition of a hyper-Calvinist. But then I have always disagreed with you when you accuse me of being an Arminian.

I can understand why you would be upset that I posted Johnson's definition. But a proper understanding of the position of Englesma is not possible without recognizing that even from a Calvinist standpoint, it is an extreme position to take. It may be the correct position or it may not, but no matter how you slice it, Englesma is out of the mainstream of Calvinism with this article.

You might think I'm baiting a fight. But I am no more baiting a fight by posting that definition that you would be baiting a fight when you accuse your fellow GRPL's of falling into Arminian error because they disagree with you and Englesma on the issue of God's love.

But I'm not here to argue doctrine. Believe what you want.

[RnMomof7]

Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God, and he who loves is born of God and knows God.
He who does not love does not know God; for God is love.
In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent His only Son into the world, so that we might live through Him.
In this is love, not that we loved God but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the expiation for our sins.
Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No man has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and His love is perfected in us.
By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His own Spirit.
And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent His Son as the Savior of the World. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.
So we know and believe the love God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.
In this is love perfected with us, that we may have confidence for the day of judgment because as He is so are we in this world.
There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and he who fears is not perfected in love.
We love, because He first loved us.

(I John 4:7-19)

< Do you know that you have misquoted this scripture to make it say what you want it to say?

It actually tells us that it is God that initiates our love for Him, we do not self generate it

1Jo 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.

(A good Calvinist proof text:>)

When you are reading the word there are several things that are important to remember . All texts are not to be applied generally as you are trying to do here.

This is a letter from John to a saved people. Probably to the church at Ephesus

It is not a call to love all men , even God does not love all men (provable in scripture)

It is a call for the Brethren to love one an other as I have tried to show with some highlighting .

[RnMomof7]

I love the picture , May I steal it?

[Alamo-Girl]

Funny that you choose to see that God loved Esau in the Romans passage when the passages does not say that. As a matter of fact, what that passage does say is that God loved Jacob before either were born or did anything. You are reading into the passage words that are not there.

Strange, I thought I was clear as a bell. One more time with feeling.

God's loves everyone, even His enemies (Matthew 5:43-48). That means Esau as well as Jacob.

Adamic man - all Adamic man - have the breath of God Himself (Genesis 2:7). God is love (1 John 4). Jacob and Esau were Adamic men, yet to be born at the time God said He would choose the younger for His mercy - thus "love" Jacob and "hate" Esau, i.e. making a distinction between them.

God is not unrighteous in choosing some for mercy (Romans 9:6-16)

IOW, both are loved (Matthew) but both deserved the Adamic judgment (Genesis) of everlasting contempt (Daniel 12) but God choose Jacob for His mercy (Romans 9).

It is not that one was lowered (hated), but that one was raised (loved). Everlasting contempt is what we all have coming were it not for the grace of God! (Romans 9)

That passage [Jeremiah 31:3] is proclaiming God's Eternal Love for the Elect, not for everyone.

The passage is proclaiming His mercy in drawing us to Him:

Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me. - John 12:31-32

[RnMomof7]

Calvinism is not the Gospel. If it were, there could be no Christian non-Calvinists, and anyone who rejected the 5 points would be rightly termed heretics.

I was talking about the rightly divided word of God ..what was Paul talking about to Timothy?