Does God So Love the World? (John MacArthur)

OnePlace.com ^ | July 21, 2005 | John MacArthur

[P-Marlowe]

Apologies! you were right. I was wrong. I was thinking of a different verse.

Carry on.

[RnMomof7]

Friend, the word for "world" in John 3:16 is not "Kosmos."

Yes it is

kosmos {kos'-mos} TDNT Reference Root Word TDNT - 3:868,459 probably from the base of 2865 Part of Speech n m

Outline of Biblical Usage

1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government 2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3 3) the world, the universe 4) the circle of the earth, the earth 5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family 6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ 7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly a) the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ 8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc) b) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19

greek Lexicon

Chapter 3 Read This Chapter 3:16 [ Greek Font Size: – / + | Toggle Font ] [ View in: BYZ / TR | Side-by-side | Greek Lexical Parser ] [ Personal Notes: Add ] For God so loved (5656) the world, that he gave (5656) his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth (5723) in him should not perish (5643) , but have (5725) everlasting life. Outwv gar hgaphsen (5656) o qeov ton kosmon, wste ton uion ton monogenh edwken, (5656) ina pav o pisteuwn (5723) eiv auton mh apolhtai (5643) all' exh (5725) zwhn aiwnion.

"Original Word Word Origin ko/smov probably from the base of (2865) Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling Kosmos kos'-mos Parts of Speech TDNT Noun Masculine 3:868,459"

The greek

[P-Marlowe]

see post 301

[RnMomof7]

Did not see it til after I posted

[PetroniusMaximus]

***Okay, what would you tell John MacArthur about the significance of that word in Mark 10?***

Well, after I asked for his autograph.... (kidding!) I would say that it was an example of some one that Jesus specifically loved and allowed to walk away.




***Do you believe that God loves "the world" in the same way as the five people you have mentioned? ***

We need to look at how God "loved" the world.

"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."

God's concrete act of loving is to give - give His Son. He did this for the "world" (large set) with the result that those who believe (subset) will not perish.

According to Paul, this is the ultimate act of loving - to lay down your life for your enemy (the world).

"...for scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

Is that the same kind of love He showed the 5? Yes, I believe it is. Is their experience of that love the same? No - definitely not. To paraphrase, the measure (of your heart) you give effects the measure (of enjoying the blessedness of God's love) you receive.

Your thoughts?

[P-Marlowe]

That'll teach me to post before opening my e-sword.

[RnMomof7]

Consider the definition of the word WORLD .

[RnMomof7]

LOL , We have had this discussion so many times it we should all have it memorized.

Your sword still does not have a Mac version ??

[P-Marlowe]

Your sword still does not have a Mac version ?

• Windows 95, 98, ME, NT4, 2000, or XP
• Pentium based PC (or equivalent)
• Best viewed in 800x600 or greater

[buckeyesrule]

****many think of God as little more than Santa Claus for grown-ups****

That's so true. I have a co-worker who one second is yapping about Jesus and then the next second is saying the most vainly selfish things.

[PetroniusMaximus]

***Consider the definition of the word WORLD . ***

What specifically do you mean RnMomof7?

(Always a pleasure to hear from you.)

[RnMomof7]

Yea no mac ....

I remember writing them years ago and they were just not interested in mac folks

[PetroniusMaximus]

***I remember writing them years ago and they were just not interested in mac folks***

No suprise there - (being that mac users are mainly heathen anyway).

[185JHP]

"Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated." A time will come when we can ask Him "How is it that you chose, yet we're still responsible!?" Being where we'll be, I doubt we'll care...

[blue-duncan]

"8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc) b) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor.5:19"

Each of those verses could be interpreted "5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family". In fact three verses in John 3 where the word world is used do not carry the same meaning. 3:19 says light came into the world and men loved darkness rather than light. This applies also to the Romans 11 verse.

Your statement "When the Jews spoke of the "world" they were usually speaking of the gentile nations around them. So the words that the Messiah was for "the world" was truly shocking to them. This was after all the JEWISH messiah they were looking for" is not quite accurate. Looking at the usage in the O.T. "world" is used for the created order or "world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly". When the writers were referring to man they usually used "inhabitants" of the world, nations of the world or gentiles. Both John and Paul are writing to predominately gentile Christians so that the word world would mean to them "inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family" or "world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly" depending on the context. If they meant believers they would have said so, not use an ambiguous term that would only cause confusion.

[jude24]

This is a cut-and-paste from an unknown source, that appears to use systematic theology to define Biblical vocabulary, rather than vice-versa. I don't know how conversant the authors were with the semantic domain of the term kosmox.

When the jews spoke of the "world" they were usually speaking of The gentile nations around them.

That's certainly not true. When they spoke of "the nations," that is true, but "world" was not used to show the non-Jew. kosmox was used in the LXX to represent "universe," "inhabited earth," and "humanity," 3 TDNT 867 at 882.

If Christ holds agape love for those he will condemn for an eternity of fire one might really be concerned what kind of love that is.

It might be theologically inconvenient, and not very neat, but it is what the text says, and as Protestants, we're supposed to subjugate our theology to the text, not vice versa. kosmos is never used to describe just the elect in any other verse; why would it be here?

[P-Marlowe]

That's so true. I have a co-worker who one second is yapping about Jesus and then the next second is saying the most vainly selfish things.

Kinda like the disciples, huh?

[connectthedots]

Actually I posted this just before I went to bed and I just got home from work. I can't remember a John MacArthur writing receiving almost 300 posts. WOW!!!

If a thread has anything to do with Calvinism/Arminianism, it will have lots of posts. It's been a while, so expect this thread to hit 500 by Friday, if not more.

Got to take back control of the first posts page from out RC brothers and sisters. ;-)

[PetroniusMaximus]

***To be precise, I would say "renewed" is the better terminology***

You are correct, "reborn" as opposed to "refurbished"!



***...to meditate on the wonders of the Godhead.***

Sometimes I think about the fact that God has given us eternal life because it will take an eternity to scratch the surface of all the wonders He contains within His person.

[HarleyD]

I never take anything from you as argumentative PM. I hope you don't misconstrued what I'm saying as argumentative. I think the verse of Jerusalem is an interesting text.

I assume you’re focusing in on “you were unwilling” (v37) which would seemingly imply the scribes and the Pharisees had a “choice” and they chose to ignore their choice. I would refer back to 2 Chronicles for a similar statement.

2Ch 36:15-16 The LORD, the God of their fathers, sent word to them again and again by His messengers, because He had compassion on His people and on His dwelling place; but they continually mocked the messengers of God, despised His words and scoffed at His prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against His people, until there was no remedy.

God gives people legitimate choices in life. But man, unless regenerated, will always choose the wrong path bringing forth God’s wrath. Simply because man cannot turn from his ways does not make the calls of God to repent any less sincere.

But why God doesn’t change the hearts of the scribes, Pharisees, and everyone for that matter to make everyone willing come to God is unknown. It is wrong to say that He doesn’t wish to intrude on their “free will” as some would implied in Matt 23:37. God hardened Pharaoh’s heart so that He could display His glory and 4,000 years later we still are talking about the Passover and Pharaoh’s destruction. Undoubtedly God hardened the scribes and Pharisees hearts so that He could accomplish His will at the cross.

The Pharisees and scribes were unwilling to turn to our Lord Jesus because that is man’s nature and God chose to leave them that way to accomplish His will. I see “you were unwilling” not so much as a condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees failure to repent but rather a statement of fact about their nature.