Exposition of John 3:16
Dec 21, 2013 9:38:44 GMT
Post by Colossians on Dec 21, 2013 9:38:44 GMT
This material is for the teaching of the Body of Christ, however the author reserves copyright over it.
Forward
Because of the sheer expanse of Christendom – that which is perhaps best summed up in the proliferation of lip service given to Christ over the airwaves every December – the proclamative and seemingly-romantic style of wording in John 3:16 has resulted in its having become almost secular property, and accordingly that which is naturally quoted as supposed refutation of Calvinism’s doctrine of special election.
Below we show why such ‘understanding’ is completely errant.
______________________________________________
EXPOSITION OF JOHN 3:16 AND RELATED MATERIAL
[16] “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. [17] For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.”
Note: We have included v17 because of its relation to another NT passage used further down.
The language
“the world”
The first thing we note is that it says not that God loved “man” or “mankind”, but simply “the world”.
In fact the literal Greek here is translated “the system”, which, when we think about it, is quite significant: if Jesus had wanted to say that God loved everyone, He would have done so in no uncertain terms. But rather, the sense is as impersonal as it could possibly be, and conspicuously so.
The point is that, when it comes to love considered as an affection, God can be no different to anyone else: such love is of necessity on a personal basis, and the term “the world” is simply too remote to relate such an intimate notion.
“so”
Noted theologian Dr. Martin Lloyd Jones once gave a whole series of sermons on one single word: “but”.
Perhaps it would have been even more profitable if he had instead lectured on the word “so”, for such word in John 3:16 has been universally mistaken to be acting as an intensifier (as per the construction: “There was so much money there I couldn't believe it!”), when in fact it comes from the Greek houtos which means “after this manner”, or ‘thusly’ (as per the construction: "Place it on the table like so").
The word then is not being used as it is often in romantic contexts (“And I love you so”, “I so love her”) where it intensifies an implied “much” and for which the Greek tosoutos is (instead) used (see Mt 8:10), but rather and simply to introduce the manner in which God loves.
And in fact John again uses the same word (houtos) in similar context1 in his first epistle to the church, chapter 4 verse 11. Here it is (underlined):
[9] “In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. [10] Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. [11] Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.”
1 “Similar context”, we say, for although at the semantic level the passages from the gospel and the epistle are essentially identical, at the pragmatic level the epistle (as contrasted with evangelically-focussed John 3:16) is rather expressed from the perspective of those who have actually had such love (act) of God appropriated to them on an experiential level by the Spirit; else 4:11 were without force.
“loved”
What is coextensive with our analysis of “the world” and “so”, is the fact that the Greek instance of the word “loved” at John 3:16 (and indeed also at 1 John 4:11) is expressed with aorist aspect and indicative mood, the two (the aspect and the mood) combining to produce what is referred to in grammar as “past perfective”. That is, such love is not only positioned in the past, but also presented as (what is referred to in the literature as) an unanalysable whole (hence "perfective"), the ramification being that the love spoken of will be (by default) comprehensively instantiated by way of the immediate context. The love spoken of here then refers to the act that was the giving of His Son, rather than any would-be ‘feelings’ of love on God’s part.
Contrasting, note the following:
“Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved” John 13:23
: although the Greek instance of the same word here is again in the indicative mood, it is now with imperfect aspect (in the Greek) and is thus rather expressing a perpetuity: in contrast to John 3:16, the love here at John 13:23 consists rather of affection/emotion which of its very nature cannot be ‘snap-shotted’ in time so as to exhaust the word on the pragmatic axis.
Summary of the language issues in John 3:16
The best way to summarise what we have laid down thus far, is to state John 3:16 as follows:
“For God demonstrated to the world just what His love consists of, in the giving of His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
: Jesus is making a statement about God Himself rather than any would-be object of His love: He is not telling us who God loves, nor even how He loves, but how He has loved: He is speaking not of God’s love as an affection, but as a manifested act on the stage known as “the world”.
Although then we are only at the half-way point in this defence of Calvinism in John 3:16, we can already conclude that the verse does not, as many suppose from superficial reading, negate Calvinism, but is at least neutral in this regard.
However we now move to positively confirm Calvinism as the conceptual framework into which John 3:16 fits.
Subsuming John 3:16 under Calvinism
The birds, the bees, and evangelism
If each and every man in love were to propose to his beau with words along the lines of: “If you are the woman who is supposed to marry me, will you marry me?”, most would agree that the earth would soon be void of people: love can never propel itself analytically, but must be seen to take a risk and speak from the heart.
Similarly, if one attempts to concentrate on his heart-beat (not merely measuring his pulse in his wrist but actually focussing his mind on his heart), he will kill himself. (If you attempt such an experiment, the resulting anxiety will cause you to pull out of it quick smart.)
Equivalently but on a different level, if when a man is making love to his wife he begins to focus on just what he is doing and why he is doing it, all urge is immediately lost: what are known as the ‘higher faculties’ of man are actually counterproductive with regard to the production of life. (This accords with the fact that the law, which aligns with the mind, cannot produce spiritual life (Gal 3:21), which aligns with the heart.)
These few examples then not only suffice to show why John 3:16 includes no (necessarily-analytic) reference to the elect of God, but that it was in fact imperative that no such reference be included.
That is, if Jesus had said: “For God loved the elect in such a way as to give His Son for them”, such (analytic) statement would have in fact prevented the elect from being saved: the elect would have thwarted their own election for the wondering over whether or not they were elect!
Contrary then to the anti-Calvinist idea that John 3:16’s lack of reference to the elect is proof that Calvinism is false, it was in fact for the very elect’s sake that no such reference was included!
So it was absolutely imperative that the Courtier sing His song to all within earshot, knowing all the while that it would necessarily be only the Father’s daughter who would hear her Daddy’s voice in the Son.
For it is written:
“thine they were, and thou gavest them [to] me” John 17:6.
(See also John 10:27; 2 Tim 2:19.)
The epistle of 1 John, the ‘code breaker’ with regard to the application of Calvinism to John 3:16
That which stands out starkly in John’s epistle, is the fact that, whilst the verse in focus from his gospel speaks of a love without regard to any personal object thereof, his epistle commands us to love “the brethren”, and what is more, only the brethren: there is no command whatsoever to love those who are outside the church.2
So:
“We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death” 1 John 3:14.
And again:
“Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren” 1 John 3:16.
And just in case we might think that the many references to “brother” throughout the epistle (as per 3:14 above and as distinct from “brethren” or “the brethren”) might indicate mankind in general, we find also the following:
“If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it” 1 John 5:16
: we would never cease praying for the sin of the world’s sinners if such a “brother” were taken to mean “any man, anywhere”. Rather, John’s apostolic command accords with Paul’s command that we are to only excommunicate those who live in sin who also declare themselves our brothers (1 Cor 5:9-13): those outside the church are not our responsibility.
Returning then to 1 John 4:11 (which we cited earlier in our discussion on “so” and “loved”), and looking at the logic ...
“Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another”,
firstly we will remind ourselves that this phrase “one another” is invariably in reference to a predefined group: it is never indefinite. Specifically here, it refers to “the brethren”.
If then this “us” in the same verse were in reference to “everyone”, it would produce:
“Beloved, if God so loved everyone, we ought to love the brethren”, which of course wouldn’t follow: we should rather have in such case: “if God so loved everyone, we ought to love everyone”.
We therefore see that this “us” being constrained by this “one another” that is “the brethren”, it can only be in reference to the elect of God.
2 The love of which John speaks is not the passive kind which may be generally regarded as “loving behaviour”, but the proactive, comprehensive, sacrificial kind (1 John 3:17): it is that of which Paul speaks when he says we are to bear each other’s burdens and “so fulfil the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2). So this is not to deprecate the many references in the NT which command that we act toward the world in a manner befitting those who are under the authority of Christ, which verses are summed up by Paul at Gal 6:10 as: “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men”, but rather, it is to preserve the distinction that Paul also makes in the second half of the same verse: “especially unto them who are of the household of faith”. Peter sums it up well: “Honour all men. [but] Love the brotherhood” (1 Pe 2:17).
In concluding ...
We have not only shown that Calvinism is not abrogated by John 3:16, but by drawing on examples from life itself, and taking the gospel in tandem with the epistle of the same writer, actually confirmed Calvinism’s doctrine of special election.
It is therefore unfortunate that those who oppose Calvinism, do so on the basis of a lack of attention to detail and integration of the written Word. Such fast-food theologians are therefore found to not only oppose Calvinism, but themselves: they simply miss out on so much that is waiting for them.
However and in line with Calvinism’s doctrine of predestination, perhaps it is not waiting for them after all.
Amen.
Forward
Because of the sheer expanse of Christendom – that which is perhaps best summed up in the proliferation of lip service given to Christ over the airwaves every December – the proclamative and seemingly-romantic style of wording in John 3:16 has resulted in its having become almost secular property, and accordingly that which is naturally quoted as supposed refutation of Calvinism’s doctrine of special election.
Below we show why such ‘understanding’ is completely errant.
______________________________________________
EXPOSITION OF JOHN 3:16 AND RELATED MATERIAL
[16] “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. [17] For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.”
Note: We have included v17 because of its relation to another NT passage used further down.
The language
“the world”
The first thing we note is that it says not that God loved “man” or “mankind”, but simply “the world”.
In fact the literal Greek here is translated “the system”, which, when we think about it, is quite significant: if Jesus had wanted to say that God loved everyone, He would have done so in no uncertain terms. But rather, the sense is as impersonal as it could possibly be, and conspicuously so.
The point is that, when it comes to love considered as an affection, God can be no different to anyone else: such love is of necessity on a personal basis, and the term “the world” is simply too remote to relate such an intimate notion.
“so”
Noted theologian Dr. Martin Lloyd Jones once gave a whole series of sermons on one single word: “but”.
Perhaps it would have been even more profitable if he had instead lectured on the word “so”, for such word in John 3:16 has been universally mistaken to be acting as an intensifier (as per the construction: “There was so much money there I couldn't believe it!”), when in fact it comes from the Greek houtos which means “after this manner”, or ‘thusly’ (as per the construction: "Place it on the table like so").
The word then is not being used as it is often in romantic contexts (“And I love you so”, “I so love her”) where it intensifies an implied “much” and for which the Greek tosoutos is (instead) used (see Mt 8:10), but rather and simply to introduce the manner in which God loves.
And in fact John again uses the same word (houtos) in similar context1 in his first epistle to the church, chapter 4 verse 11. Here it is (underlined):
[9] “In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. [10] Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. [11] Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.”
1 “Similar context”, we say, for although at the semantic level the passages from the gospel and the epistle are essentially identical, at the pragmatic level the epistle (as contrasted with evangelically-focussed John 3:16) is rather expressed from the perspective of those who have actually had such love (act) of God appropriated to them on an experiential level by the Spirit; else 4:11 were without force.
“loved”
What is coextensive with our analysis of “the world” and “so”, is the fact that the Greek instance of the word “loved” at John 3:16 (and indeed also at 1 John 4:11) is expressed with aorist aspect and indicative mood, the two (the aspect and the mood) combining to produce what is referred to in grammar as “past perfective”. That is, such love is not only positioned in the past, but also presented as (what is referred to in the literature as) an unanalysable whole (hence "perfective"), the ramification being that the love spoken of will be (by default) comprehensively instantiated by way of the immediate context. The love spoken of here then refers to the act that was the giving of His Son, rather than any would-be ‘feelings’ of love on God’s part.
Contrasting, note the following:
“Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved” John 13:23
: although the Greek instance of the same word here is again in the indicative mood, it is now with imperfect aspect (in the Greek) and is thus rather expressing a perpetuity: in contrast to John 3:16, the love here at John 13:23 consists rather of affection/emotion which of its very nature cannot be ‘snap-shotted’ in time so as to exhaust the word on the pragmatic axis.
Summary of the language issues in John 3:16
The best way to summarise what we have laid down thus far, is to state John 3:16 as follows:
“For God demonstrated to the world just what His love consists of, in the giving of His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
: Jesus is making a statement about God Himself rather than any would-be object of His love: He is not telling us who God loves, nor even how He loves, but how He has loved: He is speaking not of God’s love as an affection, but as a manifested act on the stage known as “the world”.
Although then we are only at the half-way point in this defence of Calvinism in John 3:16, we can already conclude that the verse does not, as many suppose from superficial reading, negate Calvinism, but is at least neutral in this regard.
However we now move to positively confirm Calvinism as the conceptual framework into which John 3:16 fits.
Subsuming John 3:16 under Calvinism
The birds, the bees, and evangelism
If each and every man in love were to propose to his beau with words along the lines of: “If you are the woman who is supposed to marry me, will you marry me?”, most would agree that the earth would soon be void of people: love can never propel itself analytically, but must be seen to take a risk and speak from the heart.
Similarly, if one attempts to concentrate on his heart-beat (not merely measuring his pulse in his wrist but actually focussing his mind on his heart), he will kill himself. (If you attempt such an experiment, the resulting anxiety will cause you to pull out of it quick smart.)
Equivalently but on a different level, if when a man is making love to his wife he begins to focus on just what he is doing and why he is doing it, all urge is immediately lost: what are known as the ‘higher faculties’ of man are actually counterproductive with regard to the production of life. (This accords with the fact that the law, which aligns with the mind, cannot produce spiritual life (Gal 3:21), which aligns with the heart.)
These few examples then not only suffice to show why John 3:16 includes no (necessarily-analytic) reference to the elect of God, but that it was in fact imperative that no such reference be included.
That is, if Jesus had said: “For God loved the elect in such a way as to give His Son for them”, such (analytic) statement would have in fact prevented the elect from being saved: the elect would have thwarted their own election for the wondering over whether or not they were elect!
Contrary then to the anti-Calvinist idea that John 3:16’s lack of reference to the elect is proof that Calvinism is false, it was in fact for the very elect’s sake that no such reference was included!
So it was absolutely imperative that the Courtier sing His song to all within earshot, knowing all the while that it would necessarily be only the Father’s daughter who would hear her Daddy’s voice in the Son.
For it is written:
“thine they were, and thou gavest them [to] me” John 17:6.
(See also John 10:27; 2 Tim 2:19.)
The epistle of 1 John, the ‘code breaker’ with regard to the application of Calvinism to John 3:16
That which stands out starkly in John’s epistle, is the fact that, whilst the verse in focus from his gospel speaks of a love without regard to any personal object thereof, his epistle commands us to love “the brethren”, and what is more, only the brethren: there is no command whatsoever to love those who are outside the church.2
So:
“We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death” 1 John 3:14.
And again:
“Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren” 1 John 3:16.
And just in case we might think that the many references to “brother” throughout the epistle (as per 3:14 above and as distinct from “brethren” or “the brethren”) might indicate mankind in general, we find also the following:
“If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it” 1 John 5:16
: we would never cease praying for the sin of the world’s sinners if such a “brother” were taken to mean “any man, anywhere”. Rather, John’s apostolic command accords with Paul’s command that we are to only excommunicate those who live in sin who also declare themselves our brothers (1 Cor 5:9-13): those outside the church are not our responsibility.
Returning then to 1 John 4:11 (which we cited earlier in our discussion on “so” and “loved”), and looking at the logic ...
“Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another”,
firstly we will remind ourselves that this phrase “one another” is invariably in reference to a predefined group: it is never indefinite. Specifically here, it refers to “the brethren”.
If then this “us” in the same verse were in reference to “everyone”, it would produce:
“Beloved, if God so loved everyone, we ought to love the brethren”, which of course wouldn’t follow: we should rather have in such case: “if God so loved everyone, we ought to love everyone”.
We therefore see that this “us” being constrained by this “one another” that is “the brethren”, it can only be in reference to the elect of God.
2 The love of which John speaks is not the passive kind which may be generally regarded as “loving behaviour”, but the proactive, comprehensive, sacrificial kind (1 John 3:17): it is that of which Paul speaks when he says we are to bear each other’s burdens and “so fulfil the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2). So this is not to deprecate the many references in the NT which command that we act toward the world in a manner befitting those who are under the authority of Christ, which verses are summed up by Paul at Gal 6:10 as: “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men”, but rather, it is to preserve the distinction that Paul also makes in the second half of the same verse: “especially unto them who are of the household of faith”. Peter sums it up well: “Honour all men. [but] Love the brotherhood” (1 Pe 2:17).
In concluding ...
We have not only shown that Calvinism is not abrogated by John 3:16, but by drawing on examples from life itself, and taking the gospel in tandem with the epistle of the same writer, actually confirmed Calvinism’s doctrine of special election.
It is therefore unfortunate that those who oppose Calvinism, do so on the basis of a lack of attention to detail and integration of the written Word. Such fast-food theologians are therefore found to not only oppose Calvinism, but themselves: they simply miss out on so much that is waiting for them.
However and in line with Calvinism’s doctrine of predestination, perhaps it is not waiting for them after all.
Amen.