L Boettner Reformed Doctrine
When it is said that Christ died "not for our sins only but for the sins of the whole world," 1 John 2:2, or that He came to "save the world," John 12:47, the meaning is that not merely Jews but Gentiles also are included in His saving work; the world as a world or the race as a race is to be redeemed. When John the Baptist said, "Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world!" he was not giving a theological discourse to saints, but preaching to sinners; and the unnatural thing then would have been for him to have discussed Limited Atonement or any other doctrine which could have been misunderstood only by saints. We are told that John the Baptist "came for a witness, that he might bear witness of the light, that all might believe trough him," John 1:7. But to say the John's ministry afforded an opportunity for every human beingto have faith in Christ would be unreasonable. John never preached to the Gentiles. His mission was to make Christ "manifest to Israel," John 1:31; and in the nature of the case only a limited number of Jews could be brought to hear him.
Sometimes the term "world" is used when only a large part of the world is meant, as when it is said that the Devil is "the deceiver of the whole world," or that "the whole earth" wonders after the beast, Rev 13:3. If in 1 John 5:19, "We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in the evil one," the author meant every individual of mankind, then he and those to whom he wrote were also in the evil one, and he contradicted himself in saying that they were of God. Sometimes this term means only a relatively small part of the world, as when Paul wrote to the new Christian Church at Rome that their faith was "proclaimed throughout the whole world." Rom 1:8. None, but believers would praise those Romans for their faith in Christ, and in fact the world at large did not even know that such a Church existed in Rome. Hence Paul meant only the believing world or the Christian Church, which was a comparatively insignificant part of the real world. Shortly before Jesus was born, "There went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enroled,".... "and all went to enrol themselves," Luke 2:1,3; yet we know that the writer had in mind only that comparatively small part of the world which was controlled by Rome. When it was said that on the day of Pentecost, "there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven," Acts 2:5, only those nations which were immediately known to the Jews were intended, for verses 9-11 list those which were represented. Paul says that the Gospel was "preached in all creation under heaven." Col 1:23. The goddess Diana of the Ephesians, was said to have been worshipped by "all Asia and the world," Acts 19:27. We are told that the famine which came over Egypt in Joseph's time extended to "all the earth," and that "all countries came into Egypt to Joseph to buy grain," Gen 41:57.
In ordinary conversation we often speak of the business world, the educational world, the political world, etc., but we do not mean that every person in the world is a businessman, or educated, or a politician. When we say that a certain automobile manufacturer sells automobiles to everybody, we do not mean that he actually sells to every individual, but that he sells to every one who is willing to pay his price. We may say of one lone teacher of literature in a city that he teaches everybody, - not that everybody studies under him, but that all of those who study at all study under him. The Bible is written in plain language of the people and must be understood in that way.
Verses like John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have eternal life," give abundant proof that the redemption which the Jews though to monopolize is universal as to space. God so loved the world, not a little portion of it, but the world as a whole, which He gave His only begotten Son for its redemption. And not only the extensity, but the intensity of God's love is made plain by the little adverb "so," - God so loved the world, in spite of its wickedness, that He gave His only begotten Son to die for it. But where is the oft - boasted proof of its universality as to individuals? This verse is sometimes pressed to such an extreme that God is represented as too loving to punish anybody, and so full of mercy that He will not deal with men according to any rigid standard of justice regardless of their deserts. The attentive reader, by comparing this verse with other Scripture, will see that some restriction is to be placed on the word "world." One writer has asked, "Did God love Pharaoh? (Rom 9:17). Did He love the Amalekites? (Exo 17:14). Did He love the Canaanites, whom he commanded to be exterminated without mercy? (Deu 20:16). Did He love the Ammonites and Moabites whom He commanded not to be received into the congregation forever? (Deu 23:3). Does He love the workers of iniquity? (Psa 5:5). Does He love the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, which He endures with much long - suffering? (Rom 9:22). Did He love Esau? (Rom 9:13.)"
L Berkhof Systematic Theology
There are passages, which teach that Christ died for the world, John 1:29; 3:16; 6:33,51; Rom 11:12,15; 2Co 5:19; Joh 2:2. The objection based on these passages proceeds on the unwarranted assumption that the word "world" as used in them means "all individuals that constitute the human race." If this were not so, the objection based on them would have no point. But it is perfectly evident from Scripture that the term "world" has a variety of meanings, as a mere reading of the following passages will prove conclusively, Luk 2:2; Joh 1:10; Act 11:28; 19:27; 24:5; Rom 1:8; Col 1:6. It also appears that, when it is used of men, it does not always include all men, Joh 7:4; 12:19; 14:22; 18:20; Rom 11:12,15; in some of these passages it cannot possibly denote all men. If it had that meaning in John 6:33,51, it would follow that Christ actually gives life to all men, that is, saves them all. This is more than the opponents themselves believe. In Rom 11:12,15 the word "world" cannot be all-inclusive, since the context clearly excludes Israel; and because on that supposition these passages too would prove more than is intended, namely, that the fruits of the atoning work of Christ are actually applied to all. We do find in these passages, however, an indication of the fact that the word "world" is sometimes used to indicate that the Old Testament particularism belongs to the past, and made way for New Testament universalism. The blessings of the gospel were extended to all nations, Mat 23:14; Mar 16:16; Rom 1:5; 10:18. This is probably the key to the interpretation of the word "world" in such passages as Joh 1:29; 6:33,51; 2Co 5:19; 1Jo 2:2. Dr. Shedd assumes that the word means "all nations" in such passages as Mat 26:13; Joh 3:16; 1Co 1:21; 2Co 5:19; and 1Jo 2:2; but holds that in other passages it denotes the world of believers, or the Church, Joh 6:33,51; Rom 4:13; 11:12,15. Kuyper and Van Andel also assume that this is the meaning of the word in some passages.
A Pink Sovereignty of God
The objector comes back to Joh 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. When the brethren of Christ said, "Shew thyself to the world" (Joh 7:4), did they mean show thyself to all mankind? When the Pharisees said, "Behold, the world is gone after him" (Joh 12:19), did they mean that "all the human family" were flocking after him? When the apostle wrote, "Your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world" (Rom 1:8), did he mean that the faith of the saints at Rome was the subject of conversation by every man, woman, and child on the earth? When Rev 13:3 informs us that "all the worldwondered after the beast", are we to understand that there will be no exceptions? What of the godly Jewish remnant, who will be slain (Rev 20:4) rather than submit? These, and other passages which might be quoted, show that the term "the world" often has a relative rather than an absolute force.
Now the first thing to note in connection with Joh 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 the term "world" is general rather than specific, relative rather than absolute. The term "world" in itself is not conclusive. To ascertain who are the objects of God's love other passages where his love is mentioned must be consulted.
In 2Pe 2:5 we read of "the world of the ungodly." If then, there is a world of the ungodly there must also be a world of the godly. It is the latter that are in view in the passages we shall now briefly consider. "For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world" (Joh 6:33). Now mark it well, Christ did not say, "offereth life unto the world", but "giveth". What is the difference between the two terms? This: a thing, which is "offered", may be refused, but a thing "given", necessarily implies its acceptance. If it is not accepted, it is not "given", it is simply proffered. Here, then, is a scripture that positively states Christ giveth life (spiritual, eternal life) "unto the world." Now he does not give eternal life to the "world of the ungodly" for they will not have it, they do not want it. Hence, we are obliged to understand the reference in Joh 6:33 as being to "the world of the godly", i.e., God's own people.
One more: in 2Co 5:19 we read, "To wit that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself". What it is meant by this is clearly defined in the words immediately following, "not imputing their trespasses unto them". Here again, "the world" cannot mean "the world of the ungodly", for their "trespasses" are "imputed" to them, as the judgment of the Great White Throne will yet show. But 2Co 5:19 plainly teaches there is a "world" which are "reconciled", reconciled unto God, because their trespasses are not reckoned to their account, having been borne by their substitute. Who then are they? Only one answer is fairly possible--the world of God's people!
In like manner, the "world" in Joh 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 Joh 3:16are precisely the same, as the objects of Christ's love in Joh 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 Joh 3:16 is no novel one invented by us, but one almost uniformly given by the Reformers and Puritans, and many others since them. It may appear to some of our readers that the exposition we have given above of John 3:16 is a forced and unnatural one, inasmuch as our definition of the term "world" seems to be out of harmony with the meaning and scope of this word in other passages, where, to supply the world of believers (God’s elect) as a definition of "world" would make no sense. Many have said to us, "Surely, ‘world’ means world, that is, you, me, and everybody." In reply we would say: We know from experience how difficult it is to set aside the "traditions of men" and come to a passage which we have heard explained in a certain way scores of times, and study it carefully for ourselves without bias. Nevertheless, this is essential if we would learn the mind of God.
Many people suppose they already know the simple meaning of John 3:16, and therefore they conclude that no diligent study is required of them to discover the precise teaching of this verse. Needless to say, such an attitude shuts out any further light, which they otherwise might obtain on the passage. Yet, if anyone will take a Concordance and read carefully the various passages in which the term "world" (as a translation of "kosmos") occurs, he will quickly perceive that to ascertain the precise meaning of, the word "world" in any given passage is not nearly so easy as is popularly supposed. The word "kosmos," and its English equivalent "world," is not used with a uniform significance in the New Testament. Very far from it. It is used in quite a number of different ways. Below we will refer to a few passages where this term occurs, suggesting a tentative definition in each case:
Thus it will be seen that "kosmos" has at least seven clearly defined different meanings in the New Testament. It may be asked: Has then God used a word thus to confuse and confound those who read the Scriptures? We answer, No! Nor has He written His Word for lazy people who are too dilatory, or too busy with the things of this world, or, like Martha, so much occupied with "serving," they have no time and no heart to "search" and "study" Holy Writ! Should it be asked further, But how is a searcher of the Scriptures to know which of the above meanings the term "world" has in any given passage? The answer is: This may be ascertained by a careful study of the context, by diligently noting what is predicated of "the world" in each passage, and by prayer fully consulting other parallel passages to the one being studied. The principal subject of John 3:16 is Christ as the Gift of God. The first clause tells us what moved God to "give" His only begotten Son, and that was His great "love;" the second clause informs us for whom God "gave" His Son, and that is for, "whosoever (or, better, ‘every one’) believeth;" while the last clause makes known why God "gave" His Son (His purpose), and that is, that everyone that believeth "should not perish but have everlasting life." That "the world" in John 3:16 refers to the world of believers (God’s elect), in contradistinction from "the world of the ungodly" (2Pe 2:5), is established and unequivocally established, by a comparison of the other passages which speak of God’s "love." "God commendeth His love toward US" i.e. the saints, Rom 5:8. "Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth"—every son, Heb 12:6. "We love Him, because He first loved US" i.e. believers, 1 John 4:19. The wicked God "pities" (see Mat 18:33). Unto the unthankful and evil God is "kind" (see Luke 6:35). The vessels of wrath He endures "with much long-suffering" (see Rom 9:22). But "His own" God "loves"!!
John OWEN Death of Death
The Universalists exceedingly boast; for which we are persuaded they have so little cause, that we doubt not but, with the Lord's assistance, to demonstrate that it is destructive to their whole defence: to which end I will give you, in brief, a double paraphrase of the words, the first containing their sense, the latter ours. Thus then, our adversaries explain these words:" 'God so loved,' had such a natural inclination, velleity, and propensity to the good of 'the world,' Adam, with all and every one of his posterity, of all ages, times, and conditions (whereof some were in heaven, some in hell long before), 'that he gave his only-begotten Son,' causing him to be incarnate in the fullness of time, to die, not with a purpose and resolution to save any, but 'that whosoever,' what persons soever of those which he had propensity unto, 'believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life,' should have this fruit and issue, that he should escape death and hell, and live eternally." In which explication of the sense of the place these things are to be observed:
First, What is that love which was the cause of the sending or giving of Christ; which they make to be a natural propensity to the good of all. Secondly, Who are the objects of this love; all and every man of all generations. Thirdly, Wherein this giving consists; of which I cannot find whether they mean by it the appointment of Christ to be a recoverer, or his actual exhibition in the flesh for the accomplishment of his ministration. Fourthly, Whosoever, they make distributive of the persons in the world, and so not restrictive in the intention to some. Fifthly, That life eternal is the fruit obtained by believers, but not the end intended by God.
Now, look a little, in the second place, at what we conceive to be the mind of God in those words; whose aim we take to be the advancement and setting forth of the free love of God to lost sinners, in sending Christ to procure for them eternal redemption, as may appear in this following paraphrase:
" 'God' the Father 'so loved,' had such a peculiar, transcendent love, being an unchangeable purpose and act of his will concerning their salvation, towards 'the world,' miserable, sinful, lost men of all sorts, not only Jews but Gentiles also, which he peculiarly loved, 'that,' intending their salvation, as in the last words, for the praise of his glorious grace, 'he gave,' he prepared a way to prevent their everlasting destruction, by appointing and sending 'his only-begotten Son' to be an all-sufficient Saviour to all that look up unto him, 'that whosoever believeth in him,' all believers whatsoever, and only they, 'should not perish, but have everlasting life,' and so effectually be brought to the obtaining of those glorious things through him which the Lord in his free love had designed for them."
In which enlargement of the words, for the setting forth of what we conceive to be the mind of the Holy Ghost in them, these things are to be observed:
First, What we understand by the "love" of God, even that act of his will which was the cause of sending his Son Jesus Christ being the most eminent act of love and favour to the creature; for love is velle alicui bonum, "to will good to any." And never did God will greater good to the creature than in appointing his Son for their redemption. Notwithstanding, I would have it observed that I do not make the purpose of sending or giving Christ to be absolutely subordinate to God's love to his elect, as though that were the end of the other absolutely, but rather that they are both co-ordinate to the same supreme end, or the manifestation of God's glory by the way of mercy tempered with justice; but in respect of our apprehension, that is the relation wherein they stand one to another. Now, this love we say to be that, greater than which there is none.
Secondly, By the "world," we understand the elect of God only, though not considered in this place as such, but under such a notion as, being true of them, serves for the farther exaltation of God's love towards them, which is the end here designed; and this is, as they are poor, miserable, lost creatures in the world, of the world, scattered abroad in all places of the world, not tied to Jews or Greeks, but dispersed in any nation, kindred, and language under heaven.
Thirdly, "that every believer," is declarative of the intention of God in sending or giving his Son, containing no distribution of the world beloved, but a direction to the persons whose good was intended, that love being an unchangeable intention of the chiefest good.
Fourthly, "Should not perish, but have life everlasting", contains an expression of the particular aim and intention of God in this business; which is, the certain salvation of believes by Christ. And this in general, is the interpretation of the words which we adhere unto, which will yield us sundry arguments, sufficient each of them to evert the general ransom; which that they may be the better bottomed and the more dearly convincing, we will lay down and compare the several words and expressions of this place, about whose interpretation we differ, with the reason of our rejecting the one sense and embracing the other:
The first difference in the interpretation of this place is about the cause of sending Christ; called here love. The second, about the object of this love; called here the world. Thirdly, concerning the intention of God in sending his Son; said to be that believers might be saved.
For the First, By "love"- in this place all our adversaries agree that a natural affection and propensity in God to the good of the creature, lost under sin, in general, which moved him to take some way whereby it might possibly be remedied, is intended. We, on the contrary, say that by love here is not meant an inclination or propensity of his nature, but an act of his will (where we conceive his love to be seated), and eternal purpose to do good to man, being the most transcendent and eminent act of God's love to the creature.
That both these may be weighed, to see which is most agreeable to the mind of the Holy Ghost, I shall give you, first some of the reasons whereby we oppose the former interpretation; and, secondly, those whereby we confirm our own.
First, If no natural affection, whereby he should necessarily be carried to any thing without himself, can or ought to be ascribed unto God, then no such thing is here intended in the word love; for that cannot be here intended which is not in God at all. But now, that there neither is nor can be any such natural affection in God is most apparent, and may be evidenced by many demonstrations. I shall briefly recount a few of them:
Secondly A, It is the special love of God to his elect, as we affirm, and so, consequently, not any such thing as our adversaries suppose to be intended by it, - namely, a velleity or natural inclination to the good of all. For:
Secondly B, The second thing controverted is the object of this love, pressed by the word "world;" which our adversaries would have to signify all and every man; we, the elect of God scattered abroad in the world, with a tacit opposition to the nation of the Jews, who alone, excluding all other nations (some few proselytes excepted), before the actual exhibition of Christ in the flesh, had all the benefits of the promises appropriated to them, Rom 9:4; in which privilege now all nations were to have an equal share. To confirm the exposition of the word as used by the Universalists, nothing of weight that ever yet I could see, is brought forth, but only the word itself; for neither the love mentioned in the beginning, nor the design pointed at in the end verse, will possibly agree with the sense which they impose on that word in the middle. Besides, how weak and infirm an inference from the word world, by reason of its ambiguous and wonderful various acceptations, is, we have at large declared before.
Three poor shifts I find in the great champions of this course, to prove that the word world doth not signify the elect. Justly we might have expected some reasons to prove that it signified or implied all and every man in the world, which was their own assertion; but of this ye have a deep silence, being conscious, no doubt, of their disability for any such performance. Only, as I said, three pretended arguments they bring to disprove that which none went about to prove,--namely, that by the world is meant the elect as such; for though we conceive the persons here designed directly men in and of the world, to be all and only God's elect, yet we do not say that they are here so considered, but rather under another notion, as men scattered over all the world, in themselves subject to misery and sin. So that whosoever will oppose our exposition of this place must either, first, prove that by the world here must be necessarily understood all and every man in the world; or, secondly, that it cannot be taken indefinitely for men in the world which materially are elect, though not considered under that formality. So that all those vain flourishes which some men make with these words by putting the word elect into the room of the word world, and then coining absurd consequences, are quite beside the business in hand. Yet, farther, we deny that by a supply of the word elect into the text any absurdity or untruth will justly follow. Yea, and that flourish which is usually so made is but a bugbear to frighten weak ones; for, suppose we should read it thus, "God so loved the elect, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish;" what inconvenience will now follow? "Why," say they, "that some of the elect, whom God so loved as to send his Son for, may perish." Why, I pray? Is it because he sent his Son that they might not perish? or what other cause? "No; but because it is said, that whosoever of them believeth on him should not perish; which intimates that some of them might not believe." Very good! But where is any such intimation? God designs the salvation of all them in express words for whom he sends his Son; and certainly all that shall be saved shall believe. But it is in the word whosoever, which is distributive of the world into those that believe and those that believe not. Ans. First, If this word whosoever be distributive, then it is restrictive of the love of God to some, and not to others,--to one part of the distribution, and not to the other. And if it do not restrain the love of God, intending the salvation of some, then it is not distributive of the fore-mentioned object of it; and if it do restrain it, then all are not intended in the love which moved God to give his Son. Secondly, I deny that the word here is distributive of the object of God's love, but only declarative of his end and aim in giving Christ in the pursuit of that love,--to wit, that all believers might be saved. So that the sense is, "God so loved his elect throughout the world, that he gave his Son with this intention, that by him believers might be saved." And this is all that is by any (besides a few worthless cavils) objected from this place to disprove our interpretation; which we shall now confirm both positively and negatively:--
The Third difference about these words is, concerning the means whereby this love of the Father, whose object is said to be the world is made out unto them. Now, this is by believing, --"that whosoever believeth," or "that every believer." The intention of these words we take to be, the designing or manifesting of the way whereby the elect of God come to be partakers of the fruits of the love here set forth, --namely, by faith in Christ, God having appointed that for the only way whereby he will communicate unto us the life that is in his Son. To this something was said before, having proved that the term whosoever is not distributive of the object of the love of God; to which, also, we may add these following reasons:--
These words, then, whosoever believeth, containing a designation of the means whereby the Lord will bring us to a participation of life through his Son, whom he gave for us; and the following words, of having life everlasting, making out the whole counsel of God in this matter, subordinate to his own glory; it follows that God gave not his Son
Let now the reader take up the several parts of these opposite expositions, weigh all, try all things, especially that which is especially to be considered, the love of God, and so inquire seriously whether it be only a general affection, and a natural velleity to the good of all which may stand with the perishing of all and every one so beloved, or the peculiar, transcendent love of the Father to his elect as before laid down; and then determine whether a general ransom, fruitless in respect of the most for whom it was paid, or the effectual redemption of the elect only, have the firmest and strongest foundation in these words of our Saviour; withal remembering that they are produced as the strongest support of the adverse cause, with which, it is most apparent, both the cause of sending Christ and the end intended by the Lord in so doing, as they are here expressed, are altogether inconsistent.
https://www.albatrus.org/
| ||
Huwebes, Disyembre 21, 2017
The Meaning of WORLD kosmov kosmos in John 3:16
Mag-subscribe sa:
I-post ang Mga Komento (Atom)
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento