John 3:16 - What Does It Mean? - Really

In the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism, John 3:16 is often tossed out by Arminians as sure evidence for two things: that the atonement isn’t limited and that free will is libertarian. Both issues revolve around a misunderstanding over the intended meaning of the passage. So here’s the passage in as close to a semi-transliterated Greek as I can find:

houtos gar agapaoen ho theos ton cosmon hoste ton huion autou* ton monogene didomen hina pas ho pisteuon eis auton me apollutai alla eco zoen aionion

Here’s a word-for-word translation without correcting for syntax and usage:

In this way / even / loved / this / God / his / world / that / his / son / himself* / his / only / gave over / in order that / any / that / trust / on / him / not / will die / but / have / life / eternal.

*In Byzantine but not Alexandrian texts. Could have been a copy error or an attempted usage update.

Here is the passage translated literally correcting for syntax and usage.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (ESV)

Regarding free will in this passage, Arminians claim that “whoever believes” (pas ho pisteuon) indicates that anyone can believe. This is based on the flawed notion that Calvinists believe that the elect are saved whether they believe in Christ or not and the equally flawed interpretation that “whoever” means that “everyone has the ability to” believe. Calvinists point out that a better translation of “pas ho pisteuon” is “the one believing”.

While a good point, it really doesn’t address the misconceptions of Arminians. The real debate here is cosmological, or whether God is absolutely the first cause or not. In other words, do the ones believing believe because they have been made alive to believe or not? This passage doesn’t address that issue. So it is sophomoric to read an answer to the cosmological debate in this passage.

Regarding the extent of the atonement, Arminians point to the word “world” (cosmon or cosmos) and say that this refers to absolutely everyone in the world. The fact that Arminians bring it up, even to the extent of naming an Arminian conference after John 3:16, means that they believe that this all-inclusinve meaning is explicit in the passage. Calvinists typically address this by observing that “world” refers to each ethnos, or “people group”, but not every person. Sometimes, Calvinists will correctly point out that the understanding of this meaning in the context of the debate must be understood through the study of other passages.

The problem is that the debate has been allowed to color our thinking on this verse. Another factor is the evangelistic flavor of the verse and its use in recent church history as such, especially in English-speaking Sunday School classrooms. The verse has not been well-treated as such. The meaning as passed on by many can be summed up as such:

“God loved everyone in the whole world so much [hold your hands up about chest-level, open up your hands, turn your palms out, and move your hands in circles to indicate the largeness of this statement] that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever will believe in him will not perish but have everlasting life.”

The meaning of the verse is distorted by a lack of understanding of the translation as well as a failure to take into account the context of the passage.

I’ve already addressed the “whosoever will” misconception. The word “will” doesn’t exist, even as part of an English future tense of the verb “to believe”.

I haven’t mentioned the word “so”. I cringe when I hear well-intentioned Sunday School teachers explain how this means that God loves us all a whole lot. The word “houtos” doesn’t indicate quantity. It indicates quality. The meaning is lost in modern English. Today, when showing someone how to do something we say, “Do it like this.” Once upon a time a demonstrative explanation would be accompanied by the phrase, “Do it like so.” The English word “so” originally meant “in this way”. It was an expression of manner or quality. Today when we use the word we often say things like, “That is so cool!” Here it’s an expression of magnitude or quantity. Usage has changed the typical meaning in modern American English and the difference has significant impact on our ability to understand this verse.

But I want to primarily discuss the term “cosmon” or “world”, because I have a possible “aha” insight. Actually it’s my wife’s insight. She’s not well versed in the Calvinist-Arminian debate, but I think God may have revealed something to her recently.

We were distributing Bibles on the streets of a large European city recently to a challenging people group. Part of the work is that team members will take turns praying while the rest are distributing. It was Lois’ turn to pray and as she prayed for the people passing by, she was impressed with John 3:16 and the meaning of word “world” applied to those sinners as such as God loves. The people passing by were these people. The “world” meant the “pattern of fallen creation” (my words).

When she shared this with me, two passages came to mind. One was Paul’s comment in Romans 5:8 “but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (ESV)

But the other was in John’s gospel itself. In chapter 15 John writes of Jesus discourse from the “I am the true vine” statement regarding the relationship of love between the Father and those who abide in him. All along he uses the Greek word “agape or “agapao” to indicate this love and defines it somewhat in verse 13 of chapter 15: “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.” (ESV)

But Jesus, as a matter of contrast, brings up the love of the “world”. John uses a different word, “phileo” to indicate the love of the world. A side point is that the disciples are not of the world, but that the world is a general terms for the pattern of God’s fallen creation.

So I thought about this and wondered if “world” in John 3:16 might truly mean this. One problem I thought of is that if the disciples were not of the world and the same meaning is to be applied to John 3:16, then we are left wondering if God loves the world or the disciples. However, it actually makes sense. John 3 doesn’t negate the fact that God loves the disciples in john 15 since they came out of the world. The kind of love that the world is capable of is limited to a selfish affection, but God only loves with a perfect love. John 15 doesn’t negate John 3 if the meaning of “world” is the same.

But I have to consider that “world” as “the pattern of fallen creation” is a general term and has nothing at all to do with the scope of particular applications of love. I needed to investigate the context of John 3:16 to see if I was on the right track, or if my thinking was in vain on this point.

In John 3:1-21, Jesus is talking to Nicodemus who came to Jesus to discuss his teaching. Here’s the passage from the ESV:

1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

9 Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

The logic of the passage goes like this: Nicodemus visited Jesus at night so he could talk privately. He either didn’t want to be seen, or he didn’t want any distractions, or both. Nicodemus started with a statement that the Pharisees recognized that Jesus came from God because of the signs that he worked and that his teachings were likewise from God. This statement of Nicodemus’ characterizes the whole of Jesus’ response.

Jesus draws a dichotomy between the Kingdom of God (spirit) and the earth or world (flesh). He did this because Nicodemus recognized that Jesus came from God to the earth. Jesus was reinforcing his authority. The issue with the Pharisees was not that they didn’t believe Jesus was from God. They were full of sin and couldn’t understand the message. Jesus explained that he used earthly messages to elucidate spiritual truth, but Nicodemus and the Pharisees couldn’t even get past the earthly message to understand the spiritual truth. Only those who have been born of the spirit can understand and the Pharisees had not been born of the spirit.

Jesus then explains, in this vein, that they can at least recognize him because inasmuch as he bears the light of truth, the light reveals those who live in darkness. They can recognize that Jesus is of God because he reveals their sin, and it is to their condemnation. (So it was that Nicodemus came to visit Christ.)

In verse 16, the word “for” (gar) links this verse to the logic of the passage as an intermediate thought. It is at least partially based on previous statements and supports subsequent passages. “For God so loved the world” is a statement intended to continue the discourse on the dichotomy. “…sent his only Son” brings Jesus into it and is his explicit claim as the Messiah since the discourse is about Jesus coming to from God in Nicodemus’ statement. “…whoever believes in him” is contingent on being spiritually born again and while from and in the world, now belonging in the Kingdom of God.

Christ includes these believers as his disciples in the works that they do in the name of God that they will light to the darkness. He said in verse 11 “we speak” and later in verse 21, “whoever does what is true comes to the light so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

So this is the logic of which John 3:16 is a part. It is meant to explain to Nicodemus why he could understand that Jesus came from God, but couldn’t accept or understand his message - and also why others could understand enough to bear the message themselves. The word “world” is pretty clearly indicative of the dichotomy that Jesus uses and not particularly indicative of the scope of the atomement.

• Is there something of a spiritual nature that you desire to understand and cannot?
• Do you consider yourself "born again" "of the spirit" "of the light" but are not shining in the darkness?
• Perhaps you think you have the light but are just annoying rather than recognized as having the light of God.
• Are you submitting to and trusting God in all matters and coming to the light yourself?

The Freedom of the Law and Bondage of the Will

The Freedom of the Law and Bondage of the Will

Free will is an oxymoron in more than one way. Will is not free: it’s expensive. And in this sinful world that expense comes at the restriction of freedom. Let me explain. Last night my family read the following:

Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered a unauthorized fire before the Lord, which he had not commanded them. 2 And fire came out from before the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord. 3 Then Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the Lord has said, ‘Among those who are near me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified.’” And Aaron held his peace. Leviticus 10:1-3

Waw

41 Let your steadfast love come to me, O Lord,
your salvation according to your promise;
42 then shall I have an answer for him who taunts me,
for I trust in your word.
43 And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth,
for my hope is in your rules.
44 I will keep your law continually,
forever and ever,
45 and I shall walk in a wide place,
for I have sought your precepts.
46 I will also speak of your testimonies before kings
and shall not be put to shame,
47 for I find my delight in your commandments,
which I love.
48 I will lift up my hands toward your commandments, which I love,
and I will meditate on your statutes.

Psalm 119:41-48

As a sinner, whenever I have flexed my free will I have rebelled against God. The term in Psalm 119:45: “wide place” is the Hebrew “rachab” which literally means “roomy”. The sense here is that one who seeks God’s law walks in freedom or liberty.

However, the law appears to us to be restrictive. I asked my kids about this and they agreed. The law says “don’t do this” or “only do that” and we are restricted. I asked them if they could think of some rule or law that restricts their freedom. They offered up the rule, “Don’t jump on the bed.” Well, this is not part of the law of God that we’ve been reading in the Bible, but it was a perfect example. They said that without the rule they were allowed to jump on the bed. With the law, they were restricted from jumping on the bed.

What makes this a perfect example is that a few years ago my brother’s family went to beach. Not long after they were there their young son took to jumping on the bed. He fell off the bed and broke his leg in the thigh. That pretty much did it for the beach vacation. Not only was he restricted, the whole family had to give up the rest of the vacation and come home early. While a rule like “don’t jump on the bed” may seem restrictive, following such a rule would allow for the freedom of a nice vacation in the surf and the waves for the whole family.

While such an example is an outward and tangible example, God’s law operates on the same principle regarding our spiritual freedom. If, as it is argued, God created us with free will, then apart from God our will is not free. God’s law is a revelation of his will. Therefore, can we say that the law is restrictive? We must also say that God is restrictive.

The debate between those who argue that the will of man is sufficient for faith and those who argue that the will of man is subordinate to God’s sovereignty is merely academic if it is not realized that the theological tension is resolved in our reconciliation with God.

One thing that happens when God’s law is transgressed is that the transgressor is filled with internal confusion. God’s law perfectly followed never results in theological tension. After all, God is rational and he creates good reason. Once sin enters the relationship, our perception of God’s perfect will is distorted. We can see this in every story of romance. I love a romantic story as much as some women. What kind of romance stories would we have if there were no tension to be resolved because someone did something wrong or even just wanted something they shouldn’t? So people end up with all sorts of conflicted emotions and have a time trying to sort them out so the relationship can be healed.

So the first shall be last and the last shall be first. The result of the theological tension here should be mere theological weightlifting, but that I should deny my will and submit to God’s. If my will agrees with God’s will, then I don’t exult my will as though I came up with the right path on my own. How does that glorify God? If I say that God’s way was the right way all along and I was acting outside of His will, I don’t blame Him for making me do it. I accept the blame as an act of my will against God’s will and recognize that I am dead apart from my creator and am bound to sin by definition. Only by denying my will and submitting to His will in the power of the Holy Spirit, and by his grace in the provision of the atoning work of Jesus Christ, am I finally freed from my sin.

Solomon's Justice: Kill the Baby

1 Kings 3:16-28

We all know the story:

Solomon prays for wisdom. Then he has this case where two women are fighting over a baby. His solution is to cut the baby in half. One woman says to go ahead and do it. The other begs Solomon not to kill the baby, but she would give up the baby so he could live. So Solomon gives the baby to the woman who would give him up for his life.

What kind of man would propose killing a baby out of a spirit of fairness?

This actually isn't a post about Barak Obama's stated policies, although I could go there.

No. Rather, turn to Exodus 32.

[Edit: I added this summary of Exodus 32.]

The Israelites make a golden calf and worship it while Moses is on the mountain talking to God. God tells Moses to leave Him so He can wipe out the Israelites and start over with Moses. Moses argues that everything God did to glorify himself in Egypt would be for naught if that happened. So God refrains from killing the Israelites. Moses goes down the mountain, grinds up the calf into water and makes everyone drink it. Then he has the Levites go out and kill 3000 people. Moses then goes back up the mountain and begs God to forgive the Israelites and if He won't, then to judge Moses along with them. God condemns only those who have sinned and sends a plague on the Israelites.

The Creator of the universe can do with His creation what He wants. Some may have a problem with God wanting to destroy all His people and start over with Moses, but if you actually believe in a divine Creator, then how could you have a problem with it? Where most people stumble in this account is on verses 11-14 where Moses apparently causes God to change His mind. Open theists answer this by claiming that God really doesn't know everything. Other libertarian free-willers answer this different ways. For example, they may say that God does know everything, but that He "limits Himself." It brings into question God's immutability.

Did Solomon actually intend to kill the innocent baby in order to judge fairly between the women? No. That's silly. I supposed they believed he would actually do it, but you don't kill an innocent person in the spirit of fairness. For Solomon, he never intended to kill the baby. He intended to discover who the real mother was, or at least who would be a good mother to the baby.

Why do we read that God "repented"? To say that God "repented" is an anthropomorphism. Where there is ever an apparent choice to make, there can only be one choice made. God's anthropomorphic repentance is what Moses needed to embolden him to accomplish God's purpose. It was part of God's whole presentation to him. God is not so ignorant a Creator to fail to plan, or even merely know, the outcome. Why else would God threaten to kill the Israelites if He knew that He would "repent" of it?

God never intended to kill all the Israelites.

Did God lie when He threatened to kill the Israelites? Did Solomon lie when He threatened to kill the baby? Technically no. They both gave good laweresque statements.

Solomon: 24 And the king said, "Bring me a sword." So a sword was brought before the king. 25 And the king said, "Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one and half to the other."

God: 9 And the LORD said to Moses, "I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people. 10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them, in order that I may make a great nation of you."

Solomon's statement was an order that could be rescinded. It was not a statement of intent.

God's statement was conditional on Moses leaving Him alone.

Solomon's intent was to determine who the mother was.

God's intent was to teach Moses not to leave Him.

Solomon's tactic required that the true mother be willing to give of herself for another.

God's tactic eventually required Moses to offer himself up for judgment along with Israel. (v 32)

In both cases, the requirement was an act of constrained will against a previous desire. The mother desired to have the baby, but the baby's well-being was more important. Moses desired God's forgiveness, but not at the expense of God's righteous judgment and His glory.

Both Solomon and God achieved their goals.

God will achieve His goals in us. Praise Him to His glory.

There Are Chipmunks in the Pinball Machine

I once worked as an engineer in an area that was comprised of large built-in corner desks with the wings of the desks attached side-by side and end-to-end with one another. There were no dividers preventing us from talking easily with our neighbors. This was to enable us to collaborate. It was also a source of distraction. I enjoyed some conversation throughout the day as it could fill our need for human interaction and make the time we spent actually working more productive. However, too much chit-chat and nothing got done.

One neighbor I had in this work environment enjoyed extended conversation and would occasionally spend too much time distracting me. It's not that I didn't enjoy the conversation, but work was work. I learned that the best way to make him productive was to argue with him over whatever topic he happened to be rambling on about. If he was talking politics, for example – perhaps capitol punishment – and he was espousing a positive view, then I would make an insidiously fallacious argument (with a smile) that he couldn't sort out in short order. This would make him upset for a while. As such, he would get quiet and work for a while while he fumed about it. This would make us both more productive.

He never knew why I did what I did. It didn't matter. I was practicing a mild form of behavior modification through psychological manipulation. It's akin to practical hypnotism. Way back in high school, a friend and I worked out some simple methods for doing this and ran experiments for applying the same methods for sociological manipulation.

We all practice behavior modification to some degree simply by interacting with each other. However, I determined at the time that this was dangerous stuff and vowed not to use this knowledge in any significant way. There are people of questionable intent who have developed methods with this knowledge for the purposes of large-scale sociological manipulation and ideological indoctrination. Most of you who read what I write are Christians. Largely, the people who endeavor to control you are not. However, many of them purport to believe that ministers of the gospel are fellow practitioners of this subversive art.

If the subjects of this practice are unaware that their behavior is being modified; and if such manipulation is practiced by mere mortals; then how much more is our Creator capable of modifying our behavior? (The question my Arminian friends would ask is “would He?” I would ask, “How could He not, creating from the beginning and knowing the ends from the beginning?” Isaiah 46:10) I tell you, He manipulates not only our behavior, but our beliefs and capacity to understand as well.

There is more than one view of how God's sovereignty and our free will are compatible. One mistake is to think that the will of a human is somehow on par with God's. This mistake holds that either we are in control of our minds and behavior or God is in control of our minds and behavior, but not both. This is a false dichotomy. It presumes that reformed theologians believe that we do things that are against our will to do. My former coworker behaved according to his greatest inclination. He stopped talking and got to work because he wanted to. It suited him at the time because I changed the conditions of our immediate relationship by challenging his ideological considerations (such as were not necessary to do his job). I did not controvert his will. I merely offered a stimulus that I knew would cause his will to react naturally in a way that I desired.

The human will is not creative, it is reactive. Nothing we respond to is outside of God's created order. God's will is creative, not reactive. God cannot react to anything He created since He created it. There is nothing outside of God's creation for Him to react to since He created all things. (John 1:3) The question then is how can we say that man has any free will at all if God has ordained all things.

Christ told a couple of parables that seem to indicate that there is a creative difference between those who are God's people and those who are not. One is the wheat and the tares. The other is the sheep and the goats. Let me explain through an analogy. No analogy is perfect, but this should help give an idea.

Imagine a pinball machine. Pinballs are cued and shot into the field of play replete with active bumpers and flippers. The balls come to life as they bounce from bumper to bumper and are catapulted across the field by the flippers. However, tilt the machine and the balls fall to the bottom and come to rest. There is no real life in the balls; they merely respond to the outside forces acting on them.

Imagine now balls that are not balls. They are little chipmunks rolled up into balls. They are cued up and shot into the field of play. They come to life as they bounce off the bumpers and are shot across the field by the flippers. However, they're not balls. They may act like balls as long as they stayed balled up and don't exert their internal motivation. However, when they realize that they don't have to bounce whichever way the machine sends them, they are free to spread their legs and run about peculiarly, even if the machine tilts.

The internal motivation of the chipmunks is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in believers. Those who are not God's people are spiritually dead. Those who are God's people have been made alive and spend their time in this world learning how to live in Christ, which is peculiar to those who are dead. Even the will of God's people is reactive, but aside from external stimuli, God's people have the stronger internal stimulation of His Spirit.

Now that's freedom.