John 3:16
Universal Invitation or Promise to the Elect?
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
Problem: Although John 3:16 is arguably one of the most frequently quoted passages in the Bible, it is one of the most misapplied and misinterpreted passages in the NT. Basically, the problem is two-fold: 1- Coming to the text with the presupposition of universal atonement (i.e., Jesus’ atoning cross work was for every single person, but for no one in particular). Thus, many “traditionally” quote the KJV mistranslation of the Greek adjective pas (“all/every,” which the KJV renders as “whosoever”). 2- Along with pas, a universal meaning is also imposed on the term kosmos (“world”).
The following are some main features of John 3:16 and the surrounding context, which are key in attaining a correct understanding of the passage.
- Greek rendering. Houtōs gar ēgapēsen ho theos ton kosmon hōste ton huion ton monogenē edōken, hina pas ho pisteuōn eis auton mē apolētai all’ echē zōēn aiōnion – literal rendering: “To this extent, indeed, loved the God the world, that the Son, the one and only, He gave, in order that every one believing in Him not should perish, but shall have life eternal.”
- The context actually starts in vv. 14-15 dealing with the snake in the wilderness (cf. Num. 21:6-9) with which Nicodemus would have been familiar. The particularities of the event are contextually interrelated with John 3:15-16. Note a few contextual facts: I, the bronze serpent was the only means of healing/deliverance for “only” God’s people (the Israelites), which relates to trusting in the Son as the only means of salvation, II, verses 14-15 read, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; 15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.” Verse 15 contains the Greek conjunction hina (“that”) signifying a purpose and result clause. Thus, the purpose of the Son’s cross work (being “lifted up”) was for the result of every one believing in Him will have eternal life.
- The affirmation of God’s redemptive love to all/every one believing. The extent of God’s love is shown by His sending His Son into the world, to the ones believing, and give them eternal life.
- Houtōs. Although most translations translate the Greek adverb as “so,” a literal and more accurate translation would be, “in this way, in this manner, in such a condition, to this extent”—to express the actual result. Hence, the love of God is demonstrated in the giving of His Son in order to bring about the eternal life of believers.
- Kosmos (“world”). Due to the presupposition of autosoterism (self-salvation), chiefly promoted by Arminians, kosmos is presumed to mean every single person, thus embracing the “traditional” (not exegetical) view of a universal atonement. However, many who see kosmos in this way are unaware that in the NT, kosmos has over a half of dozen clearly defined meanings. It can denote every single person (cf. Rom. 3:19); non-believers (cf. John 1:10; 15:18); believers (cf. John 1:29; 6:33; 12:47; 1 Cor. 4:9); Gentiles, in contrast from Jews (cf. Rom. 11:12); the world system (cf. John 12:31); the earth (cf. John 13:1; Eph. 1:4); the universe as a whole (cf. Acts 17:24); the known world (i.e., not everyone inclusively [cf. John 12:9; Rom. 1:8; Col. 1:5-6])—the point is this: only context determines the meaning of kosmos. Although kosmos can have various meanings, rarely does it carry an all-inclusive “every single person” meaning. For example, we know that the “world” in verse 16 is not the same “world” that Jesus does not pray for in John 17:9; nor is it the “world” that John speaks of in 1 John 2:15, which we are not to love. In first century vernacular, the normal meaning of “world” was the “world” of Jews and Gentiles—as John’s audience would have understood (cf. John 12:17, 19). Contextually, then, in verses 16 and 17, kosmos (and the adjective pas, “all/every” as discussed below) is clearly comprised of all or every one believing, both Jews and Gentiles (same as John 1:29; 12:47; etc.).
Again, the Arminian universal understanding of “world” and “all” in verse 16 would make verse 17 endorse universalism (i.e., all of humanity [world] will be saved). It is true that God intends to save the “world” through His Son, but it is the “world” of the believing ones that He saves—namely, “those who are called, both Jews and Greeks” (1 Cor. 1:24; cf. Eph. 1:4-5); men “from every tribe, tongue, people and nation” (Rev. 5:9); “all that the Father gives” to the Son (John 6:37-40, 44); it is the world for whom the Son dies and “gives life” (John 6:33) and “takes away” their sin (John 1:29)—as the surrounding context (vv. 14-15 and vv. 17-19) indicates. It would be biblically untrue to read into kosmos a universal (all of humanity) meaning.
- Pas ho pisteuōn (lit., “all/every one believing”). As mentioned, many use the mistranslation of the KJV (“whosoever”) to assert the view of a universal non-definite atonement. However, the phrase in Greek teaches no such thing. Rather, it is a promise of eternal life to all the ones doing the action of the verb, that is, the present active participle, pisteuōn, “believing”—“Every one now believing” has eternal life.
- The Greek adjective pas (as in pas ho pisteuōn) means “all/every.” First, there is no idea here that indicates a universal undefined invitation to salvation, as many assume. Second, it is incorrect to translate pas as equaling “whosoever”— as in “whosoever will believe,” rather than what is stated in the original: “all, everyone who/whoever is now believing.” In fact, most modern translations accurately render the phrase pas ho pisteuōn as “whoever believes” (NKJV, NASB, NIV); “everyone who believes” (NLT, Holman, NET); or, and most literal, “every one who is believing” (Young’s lit.).
- Pisteuōn (lit., “believing”). The verb here is a present active participle—denoting a present ongoing action—“believing.” In John’s literature, present active participles (on-going actions) are normally used in soteriological (salvation) contexts to denote the life of a true Christian (e.g., John 5:24; 6:35, 47, 54; 1 John 5:1, 5). Grammatically, the adjective pas (“all/every”) modifies the participial phrase ho pisteuōn (“the one believing”). As noted, both verses 15 and 16 contain the same participial phrase: pas ho pisteuōn (lit., “every one believing,” thus, “all the believing ones”).
Verse 17- Hina- (“that”). “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.” If one were to stay consistent in maintaining the notion that “world” in verse 16 refers to a universal “all” without exception, then he would have to accept a notion of universal salvation in verse 17.
Syntactically, the beginning of the sentence contains the postpositive conjunction (gar, “for”- “For God so loved the world”), which carries an explicative force to the continuation in the previous verse (hina, “so that”). The postpositive carries the meaning of “truly therefore, the fact is, indeed.” It is a “particle of affirmation and conclusion” (Thayer). Next, notice the adversative conjunction (alla, “but”) and a purpose and result conjunction (hina, “so that”). The adversative conjunction demonstrates a contrast (“but, rather”) or an opposing idea. The postpositive clearly conjoins the contextual meaning of “world” in verses 16 and 17—it cannot be semantically divided.
In fact, the postpositive (“for”), the adversative conjunction (“but”), and the purpose and result conjunction hina (“so that”- lit., “in order that”) appear in verse 16.[1] Hence, the literal rendering would be, “Therefore, the fact is, God did not send the Son into the world for the purpose of judgment (condemnation), rather, for the result of saving the world.”
In 1 John 4:7-10, John himself provides an excellent commentary of John 3:16:
Both (John 3:16 and 1 John 4:7-10) speak of God’s love, the sending of His Son, and how the sending of His Son is a manifestation of God’s love, specifically in verse 9:
- John 3:16: “For God so loved the world.”
- 1 John 4:9: “By this the love of God was manifested in us.”
- John 3:16: “He gave His only begotten Son.”
- 1 John 4:9: “God has sent His only begotten Son into the world.”
- John 3:16: “whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
- 1 John 4:9-10: “so that we might live through Him. . . . but that He loved us and sent His Son to bethe propitiation for our sins.”
As mentioned, the term “world” in 3:16 (meaning the world of Jews and Gentiles) is not a universal statement. 1 John 4:9 clearly affirms this meaning: “The love of God was manifested in us.” The “us” to John is identified in verse 7: “Beloved, let us love one another” – (Christians, both Jews and Gentiles).
Summary:
- The meaning of kosmos (“world”) in verses 16 and 17 is defined by the context: “all the ones” doing the action of the verb (“believing”)—i.e., both Jews and Gentiles. To suggest that “world” in verse 16 carries the meaning of “every single person,” would necessarily imply universalism or inclusivism in verse 17.
- The KJV rendering, “whosoever” is an inaccurate translation of the Greek phrase, pas ho pisteuōn (lit., every one believing”).
- The adjective pas (“all/every”) grammatically modifies the verb (“believing”), all, without limit, the ones believing. Thus, in biblical contrast to the Arminian traditional understanding of verse 16 (viz. a universal atonement), verses 15-17 is God’s infallible promise, through the cross work of His Son—to provide eternal life to all the ones believing in Him. To them alone, He manifests His love by saving them.
- The Arminian interpretation of John 3:16 is generally based on a traditional understanding and not an exegetical one.
Henve, the idea that Jesus atoned (died) for ALL the sins of ALL men inclusively is an inconsistent soteriology. In one sense, the Arminians argue that Jesus paid (died) for the all the sins of all men and removing their wrath due for sin. But yet in another sense, they do not see the Son’s propitiatory work as actual nor definite, rather hypothetical. For if it were actual and definite (as the Bible teaches) then all men regardless of belief, would have all their sins, including the sin of rejection, definitely and actually removed, and the wrath due for sin literally averted—and a not a grand soteric hypothesis.
Arminians cannot have it both ways- either Christ actually paid for all the sins of all men, or He did not (i.e., He did not pay for only some of the sins). Hence, the Arminian view of an ambiguous non-definite atonement, which paid for ALL the sins of ALL men lead to a universal notion. Contra, the biblical view – Christ literally and definitely removed ALL the sins from ALL the ones that the Father gave to the Son (John 6:37-39)– namely, a definite atonement.
John 3:16 is an infallible promise to all the ones for whom Christ died.
._______________________________________________________________________________________________
Notes
[1] “For [gar] God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that [hina] whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but [alla] have eternal life.”
Nelson Banuchi says:
//the Arminian universal understanding of “world” and “all” in verse 16 would make verse 17 endorse universalism (i.e., all of humanity [world] will be saved)//
Well, that is wholly inaccurate and ad hominem. Such an accusation can be made only under the Reformed Calvinist presupposition of irresistible grace, which Arminian deny. Arminians believe grace can be resisted (Acts 7:51; 18:6). Since, as Arminian teaches, one must turn to faith in Christ for salvation, it is easy to see that not all will be saved because not all will believe but will refuse the grace offered. More so does Calvinism lend to universal salvation with their concept of grace being irresistible.
//but it is the “world” of the believing ones that He saves//
This is clearly an example of eisegesis. That is not at all what the verse is even implying. There is no way that kosmos/world in any place in the NT refers to “believers only” (an argument Pink erroneously makes in a study that is widespread over the internet among Christian websites). Internet lexicons linked with blueletterbible.org and studylight. org, who both once had “believers only” in their respective lexicons, finally deleted it when I showed them it was and erroneous entry and after they had consulted with their NT Greek admins. biblehub.com does not have tat definition in their online lexicon. You will not find it in any reputable and respected book form lexicon, either.
I have included my brief study on the issue here: https://atdcross.blogspot.com/2012/10/swordfight-kosmos-in-john-316.html
I must admit, although your study here is fraught with inaccuracies and misrepresentations, it is creative eisegesis.
Edward Dalcour says:
You said, “The Arminian universal understanding of “world” and “all” in verse 16 would make verse 17 endorse universalism (i.e., all of humanity [world] will be saved)” Well, that is wholly inaccurate and ad hominem.”
No, – this is not a peroneal attack, rather an objective observation of the clear theological notion of classical (and general) Arminian doctrine—viz. the idea that the kosmos speaks of men universal = Christ death and God’s redemptive love was applied to every single person universally. Your inconsistency is glaring 1) You stated in the same breath, “Such an accusation can be made only under the Reformed Calvinist presupposition of irresistible grace- that not an ad hominem?- You commit the error you accuse others of having, and,
2) Your understanding of Calvinism is incorrect, in which causes you misrepresent it,—which is typical of most Arminians as I found. You also sated, “[this] accusation can be made only under the Reformed Calvinist presupposition of irresistible grace.” First, No it doesn’t. Christians who hold to the full sovereignty of God in all things, and thus including salvation, do NOT see man’s “mighty” so-called “free will” as the thing that determines his own eternal fate,—which God cannot penetrate. Contra the “man’s will rules” implication made by most Arminians, Scripture presents God is fully sovereign of and over all things, which would include man’s eternal destiny.
And second, most who hold to the doctrines of grace oppose the notion of universal “redemptive” love in v.16, not merely because of the biblical doctrine of effectual (irresistible) grace of God unto salvation (which you have not exegetically refuted nor affirmed, and only complained), rather due to all of the doctrines of grace within a soteriological context. However, based on your statements, it seems clear you lack a basic understanding of Calvinism and the doctrines of grace.
You accused me of “eisegesis,” however; you did not prove it, only asserted. But again, who is the one who provided an exegesis of the passage? Not you. Contra your long series of assertions of your personal views, you provided NOT one meaningful response to any of the exegesis of John 3:16 I provided (e.g., my comments on John’s repeated “πᾶς + ὁ participle” formula in his literature; the semantic of κόσμος in v. 17 and in 1 & 2 John; the syntactical significance of ἵνα and the double conjunction ἀλλά ἵνα in v. 17 et al.).
Yet you quoted me (a mere snippet only): “but it is the “world” of the believing ones that He saves.” Then you gave this “powerful” response: “This is clearly an example of eisegesis.” Really? A clear “example of “eisegesis”? How so? You seem to be a low-information people who merely throw that out assertions without any meaningful affirmation or proof,—which is not a response, but a complaint. Is this how you would proclaim the deity of Christ to JWs at the door? Just declare, “It’s clear eisegesis” and closed the door on them? Anyone can say, “eisegesis,” but proving it is a whole other thing.
You said, that this is “an argument Pink erroneously makes in a study that is widespread over the internet among Christian websites.” It seems to me, you have not read any academic Reformed sources at all. Erroneously? How so? Again, you just keep making these vacuous assertions without establishing a meaningful rejoinder, actually arguing a position—nothing.
But the most absurd and oddest thing you said, was regarding lexicons. You actually said: “Internet lexicons linked with blueletterbible.org and studylight. org, who both once had “believers only” in their respective lexicons, finally deleted it when I showed them it was and erroneous entry and after they had consulted with their NT Greek admins.”
There so many factual problems with your statement here, that I am even not sure how to response. I already don’t take you seriously.
But to make it simple, 1) I do not base theology on web blogs, 2) if you are really interested in an objective proper study of biblical texts utilizing and learning how to read lexicons, then GO to the primary sources and not secondary internet ones.
First, most if not all internet lexicons give tersely entries. Second, it seems to me you are not aware as to the function of lexicons and how to utilize them properly. Lexicons provide the various meanings (lexical-semantics and ranges) of terms in the original form and significance. They do not provide biblical commentary. That is not the function of a lexicon.
Your assertion that blueletterbible.org and studylight. Org had “believers only” but you got them to omit that” – is patently false. Both websites use Thayer. So your assertion would be saying that they actually changed an entry to lexical source. That simply is untrue. I do not believe you. Show me the evidence of this. In fact, most study bible websites such blueletterbible .org and studylight utilize Thayer (but in abridgment) – and none altered the actual content of Thayer (only some transliterate the Greek).
You then erroneously alleged (without any meaningful research at all) that in regards to definite atonement, “You will not find it in any reputable and respected book form lexicon, either.”
Really, — no “reputable and respected book”? You mean like from Chuck Smith, Greg Laurie, Hank Hanegraaff, or Layton Flowers et al? You are simply unread. Are you not aware that most “recognized” systematic theologies were written by Calvinists—who theologically disagree with Arminian soteriology? Are you not aware that most of the great biblical scholars, contemporaneously and historically were Calvinists (do the reading yourself). Are you not aware that all the great Confessions historically (e.g., Heidelberg, Belgic, London Baptist, WCF et al.) were Reformed? Not “reputable and respected”? According to whom?
In sum, you have a very inconsistent soteriology. Arminian thinkers as yourself, hold to the idea that Jesus atoned (died) for the sins of ALL men inclusively, which is an inconsistent soteriology.
In one sense, you assert that Jesus paid (died) for the ALL the sins of ALL men and removing their wrath due for sin. But yet in another sense, you do not see the Son’s propitiatory work as actual nor definite, rather hypothetical. For if it were actual (as the Bible teaches) then ALL men regardless of belief, would have ALL their sins, including the sin of rejection, definitely and actually removed, and the warth due for sin, literally averetd–and a not a grand soteric hypothesis.
Arminians cannot have it both ways, either Christ actually paid for ALL the sins of ALL men, or He did not (i.e., He did not pay for only some of the sins). Contra, the biblical view – Christ literally and definitely removed ALL the sins of ALL the ones the Father gave to the Son (John 6:37-39). The Arminian idea of a ambiguous non-definite atonement, which paid for ALL the sins of ALL men leads to a universal notion; an impotent God who does not have the power to save, without man’s almighty will. Your views are the result of your lack of engaging in a proper exegesis of John 3:16 and the entire content of the OT and NT on the issue of salvation and the sovereignty of God in “the all things”—viz., His ἐκλογὴν χάριτος (“election of grace”; Rom. 11:5).