# John 3:16



## SoldierOfTheRock

I have come to understand that John 3:16 does not mean exactly what it seems like. For one, the term &quot;world&quot; does not mean everyone. I also understand that &quot;begotten&quot; does not mean created.

I understand that many words have multiple meanings. How is it that I can know which deffinition the words use in a specific context? I have heard of &quot;Kittle's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament&quot; but is it worth investing in? 

Does anyone have any suggestions or any articles or anything else that would help me in learning how these words and others are used?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Probably a good initial investment would be simply a biblical Greek dictionary. The standard one still is Baur-Arndt-Gingrich or BAG for short. An older one, probably available for less money, is Thayer (still eminently useful). Buying Kittle is a HUGE expense because it is multivolume. Kittle is so huge because an attempt is made to cover virtually all the occasions a word is used in the NT. That's good, but it still will be some scholar's opinion on how that word was used in one or in dozens of places. And in some cases his theological bias will show. That could be good or bad, I guess, but it may make you question the expense you went to.

Whichever route you go, if you have no or little Greek experience, I would recommend buying an interlinear Bible (English words printed above Greek text). Now you would know the underlying term (such as 'kosmos' for 'world' or some other word). Greek terms had semantic range just like our English words do. 

(Colin Brown edited another 4 volume set that starts with English words and concepts and goes the other way--back to the greek terms behind them. But this is far less thorough an approach than Kittle.)

Now you'd be armed with the simple tools to know the word itself and all the possible meanings. But apart from a couple examples (which are the opinions of the dictionary editors) you won't know which one of those definitions fits the context of the verses you are now interested in. So, you are still left with the work of studying, using commentaries and the like, posting questions on the puritan board  , and asking your pastor, etc.

Nuff said for now. Hope this helps.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

This might help:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/McMahonExegesisOfJohn3_16.htm


----------



## fredtgreco

Matthew's article is good and helpful.

I would only add something brief by way of summary that seals the case for me. If we look at John 3:16 and wonder what &quot;world&quot; means, it would appear to me that we would need to look at &quot;world&quot; in 3:17. 

If we say that world means &quot;everyone without exception&quot; in 3:16, then we would be compelled (absent VERY strong evidence to the contrary) to take &quot;world&quot; in the same sense in 3:17. But that makes for universalism - everyone is eventually saved - which is clearly unbiblical.

That means that &quot;world&quot; must mean something different and less than &quot;everyone without exception&quot;


----------



## Preach

Fred,
I don't have my Bible in front of me, but what about Romans 5:11f? In that federal headship passage, how do you explain the fact that within the very same pericope, we have a comparison of Adam and his people and Christ and His people (but I think the language is the same). If the language is the same (regarding how many each represented) would it not follow that since Adam represented the entire race that the second Adam would represent the entire race too? Obviously, I don't think it does, but I'm curious how you handle it. Thanks brother.
&quot;In Christ&quot;,
Bobby


----------



## Optimus

Another way to look at the &quot;God so loved every single individual in the world&quot; is that he HATED Esau.

So you would have to affirm that God can (and does) HATE people

or

Deny his passage:

Romans 9
13Just as it is written: &quot;Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.&quot;

some people would say that God didnt really hate him, it just meant he a lessor love for him. but then you have to read these scripts:

Malachi 1
1 An oracle: The word of the LORD to Israel through Malachi. 
2 &quot;I have loved you,&quot; says the LORD . 
&quot;But you ask, 'How have you loved us?' 
&quot;Was not Esau Jacob's brother?&quot; the LORD says. &quot;Yet I have loved Jacob, 3 but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.&quot;

Hebrews 12
16See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son.

Obadiah 1
6 But how Esau will be ransacked, 
his hidden treasures pillaged! 

8 &quot;In that day,&quot; declares the LORD , 
&quot;will I not destroy the wise men of Edom, 
men of understanding in the mountains of Esau? 
9 Your warriors, O Teman, will be terrified, 
and everyone in Esau's mountains 
will be cut down in the slaughter. 
10 Because of the violence against your brother Jacob, 
you will be covered with shame; 
you will be destroyed forever. 

17 But on Mount Zion will be deliverance; 
it will be holy, 
and the house of Jacob 
will possess its inheritance. 
18 The house of Jacob will be a fire 
and the house of Joseph a flame; 
the house of Esau will be stubble, 
and they will set it on fire and consume it. 
There will be no survivors 
from the house of Esau.&quot; 
The LORD has spoken.

Jeremiah 48
8 Turn and flee, hide in deep caves, 
you who live in Dedan, 
for I will bring disaster on Esau 
at the time I punish him. 

10 But I will strip Esau bare; 
I will uncover his hiding places, 
so that he cannot conceal himself. 
His children, relatives and neighbors will perish, 
and he will be no more. 


If thats not hate, i dont know what is...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Bobby,

The very moment federal headship comes into play, the problem of the &quot;all&quot; &quot;all men&quot; &quot;everyone&quot; &quot;whole world&quot; totally disappears as an argument.

HEadship explicitely demonstrates a respresentative head over a group of people (in this case of the Bible). Adam is a representative of a group and Christ is a representative of a group. All those Adam represents, all of them, are imputed with sin. All those Christ represents, all of them, are imputed with His righteousness. The issues is a non-issue to say &quot;Because Romans 5 says Adma's is all, and we know &quot;all&quot; is all men for all time, then it woudl logically reason to say Christ's all is &quot;all for all time&quot; as well.&quot; This is a major blunder because that means nothing of the sort. Everyone who Adam represents, his &quot;all&quot;, is respective to him. Everyone that Christ represents, &quot;his &quot;all&quot;, is respective of him. 

There is no tension or problem here.

If we even vaguely understood 3/4ths of the bible, the OT, then this woudl not be a problem.


----------



## Scott Bushey

[quote:4bb1ec1ff5][i:4bb1ec1ff5]Originally posted by Preach[/i:4bb1ec1ff5]
Fred,
I don't have my Bible in front of me, but what about Romans 5:11f? In that federal headship passage, how do you explain the fact that within the very same pericope, we have a comparison of Adam and his people and Christ and His people (but I think the language is the same). If the language is the same (regarding how many each represented) would it not follow that since Adam represented the entire race that the second Adam would represent the entire race too? Obviously, I don't think it does, but I'm curious how you handle it. Thanks brother.
&quot;In Christ&quot;,
Bobby [/quote:4bb1ec1ff5]

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and [b:4bb1ec1ff5]so death passed upon all men[/b:4bb1ec1ff5], for that all have sinned: 
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 
Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded [b:4bb1ec1ff5]unto many[/b:4bb1ec1ff5]. 
Rom 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 
Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of [b:4bb1ec1ff5]one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life[/b:4bb1ec1ff5]. 
Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, [b:4bb1ec1ff5]so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous[/b:4bb1ec1ff5]. 
Rom 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 
Rom 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. 

Bobby,
I'm not saying that you believe this; I know you don't, so, I'm just throwing this thought out there as I have had to think this one through also.

Following the same vein, one would have to assume that since ALL fell in Adam, ALL men MUST be justified in Christ. This is bordering upon universalism.


----------



## fredtgreco

Apparently either Matt has riled up the wunderkinds at RefCat, or else someone like him. 

Quoth Matt in his (excellent) paper on John 3:16 (see above):


> he word in bold type is a verb which is a participle. It is the present active nominative masculine singular verb which determines our English rendering "œwhosoever believes". The problem here is the word "œwhosoever". There is no word "œwhosoever" in the Greek text. Literally the section reads "œthe believing ones into Him." God so loved the world that the ones who believed into Christ may not perish but have everlasting life. Oftentimes Pelagian and Arminian advocates stress the word "œwhosoever" where the word does not even exist.



And the usual suspect:


> Recently I heard a "Reformed" apologist commenting on John 3:16, and attempting to empty it of its transparent meaning in order to keep his brand of Calvinism intact. As he is fond of doing, this apologist appealed to "the Greek" in order to settle the dispute. (You see, if you could only read Greek like he supposedly can, then you too would be a "Calvinist.") Amazingly, this apologist seemed to make the rather outlandish claim that there is nothing in "the Greek" of John 3:16 which directly corresponds with the word "whosoever." Of course, that is ridiculous.
> 
> Hyper-Calvinists have to twist John 3:16 to fit their rigid system, and they often think they can use the original language as a club with which to beat their poor, outgunned Arminian opponent into submission. Unfortunately, what often happens is that the Calvinist only proves, by his clumsy handling of the original, that he himself is really rather incompetent when it comes to serious textual analysis. In fact, whenever an apologist tries to claim that an argument can be definitively settled by an appeal to the original language, as if one could not be competent in the language and come to another conclusion, that is a sure sign that you are dealing with an exegetical babe. Serious scholars usually have enough sobriety to understand that long-standing arguments are rarely settled simply by reading "the Greek."
> 
> So is there anything in "the Greek" of John 3:16 which corresponds to the word "whosoever"? Of course there is: pas ho. Any first year Greek student should be able to tell you that pas with the article means "everyone who." And that is just what "whosoever" means. Why is that important? Because this apologist would have you to believe that John 3:16 is not saying anything about a universal offer of the gospel to the entire world; it is simply saying that THE ELECT will have eternal life by believing in the Son. That most emphatically is not the point of John 3:16. It is a clear case of eisegesis, of reading Calvinist agendas into texts which are not speaking to those agendas.



Full "commentary" here:
http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/archives/000493.htm


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Pas ho. 

Pas ho-ver the text and miss the point completely with bad exegesis. 

"Everyone who" is not "whosoever."


----------



## fredtgreco

I guess you were right after all, Matt. Here is an excellent point made by one of my favorite bloggers and critics of RefCats:



> We may presently address Dr. Owen's claim concerning John Calvin and likewise conclusively demonstrate that his quote of the Reformer was misleading as to his actual beliefs. What is more damaging is that the refutation to Dr. Owen's mishandling of Calvin is found in the very next paragraph of the same commentary by Calvin. The salient section reads:
> 
> Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father -- that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ. (John Calvin, Commentary on John, volume 1 3:16, emphasis added)
> 
> Needless to say, this puts Calvin's actual position into far better light than Dr. Owen indicated. This isn't mere disagreement (I accept that Arminians are...well, Arminians), this is deception. What other conclusion may be drawn considering the content of Calvin's own commentary, in the very next paragraph of the same work quoted by Dr. Owen? Is incompetence more charitable? Yes, the Gospel is to be preached to all but it is only efficacious for those sovereignly predestined of God to be numbered among the elect. The atonement is not universal but particular, the Bible consistently teaches this, and the Reformers consistently taught and defended this fact.



http://www.semper-reformanda.org/journal/archives/000025.html


----------



## Ianterrell

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Pas ho.
> 
> Pas ho-ver the text and miss the point completely with bad exegesis.
> 
> "Everyone who" is not "whosoever."



He spent so much time degrading his opponent that the reader would come to RefCat's argument and nearly miss its absurdity.


----------



## fredtgreco

He taketh away with the right hand, and giveth with the left:

http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/archives/000494.htm


----------



## Scott Bushey




----------



## Puritanhead

My senior pastor pointed me to a word study by A.W. Pink on "kosmos" (i.e. world) and it's various connotations.... I highly recommend it. 

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/pinks_archive.htm


----------



## heywhatsup

one of the things i found interesting about this passage is that the word used for love in john 3:16 is the same word used for love in john 3:19-speaking of our love for darkness....we love darkness just as much as Christ loved us.....thus we will never turn to him unless our affections are changed...wow 

joy,
ryan


----------



## sastark

> _Originally posted by heywhatsup_
> one of the things i found interesting about this passage is that the word used for love in john 3:16 is the same word used for love in john 3:19-speaking of our love for darkness....we love darkness just as much as Christ loved us.....thus we will never turn to him unless our affections are changed...wow
> 
> joy,
> ryan



Wow. Thanks for sharing that, Ryan. Excellent point!


----------



## heywhatsup

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by heywhatsup_
> one of the things i found interesting about this passage is that the word used for love in john 3:16 is the same word used for love in john 3:19-speaking of our love for darkness....we love darkness just as much as Christ loved us.....thus we will never turn to him unless our affections are changed...wow
> 
> joy,
> ryan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Thanks for sharing that, Ryan. Excellent point!
Click to expand...


you are very welcome fine sir

[Edited on 12-23-2004 by heywhatsup]


----------

