The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum John 3:16: A Gospel Invitation?

Here's my lengthy 2 cents worth:

The author clearly states his presuppositional basis for interpreting the text. He brings to the text a pre-determined conclusion and then seeks to justify his conclusion with the above examples. He proposes that there is ‘an illocutionary intent’ to be seen in John 3:16. One definition of “illocution” is: the aim of a speaker in making an utterance as opposed to the meaning of the terms used. It is my opinion that the author has ignored one of the most basic principles of biblical interpretation, i.e., a proper understanding of Scripture is derived from the meaning of the inspired words used and not vice versa. This is one of the major differences held in the field of Bible translation: Formal Equivalence vs. Dynamic Equivalence. The former gives full recognition of the divine inspiration of every jot and tittle of Scripture as its primary principle in translation. The latter seeks to interpret Scripture and as translation without giving full recognition of the individual words themselves. Examples of the respective views are very well known, e.g., KJV, ASV, NASB, NKJ, ESV (former) – vs – NIV, NEB, LB, GNFMM, etc. In short, the author comes to the text with the notion that the passage is to be understood as being an evangelical call to believe on Christ. He then sets out to try and prove the premise.

One of the examples he uses is taken from Numbers 21 and repeated in John 3:14. He writes:
The passage in Num 21:8 says:
I don’t see a “rhetorical” inference in this passage. Rather, I read it as a statement of fact,; those who are bitten and look upon the fiery serpent will not die (as those who have already perished). This is a provisional statement. There is a provision made for life; the serpent. And, there is a provisional requirement; looking at the serpent. There is a true analogy to be understood from this passage to that in Jh 3:14ff. More on this below.

I have exegeted this text numerous times before on this board and elsewhere so I am not going to spend time repeating it in full. Here I want to deal with 1) loves the fallen human race, and 2) to such an extent.

1) I believe the view that is most faithful to the word “world” in this passage says that ‘all kinds of people of the world without exception’ are meant, i.e, Jew and Gentile. Yes, it is true that all are sinful, there is none righteous, no not one. John chapters 1 & 2 had already established the sinful condition of mankind and their need of redemption through Christ. Chapter 3 goes into more detail as to HOW this redemption is obtained. Thus the clandestine meeting with Nicodemus and the conversation that went on between him and Jesus. Therefore I maintain that the “world” in 3:16 is to be best understood in terms of the scope of redemption primarily rather than the condition of man.

2) Now, in regard to to such an extent, which the author maintains is to be understood as quantitative, i.e., God loved the world sooooooooo much; this much. This is supposed to be the motive behind God sending of the Christ. The author gives a couple of references of those who interpret ‘outws’ as accepting this meaning. Unfortunately, the author didn’t give an accurate (full) reference to William Hendriksen. Hendriksen actually wrote on this word, “The word so by reason of what follows must be interpreted as indicating: in such an infinite degree and in such a transcendently glorious manner.” However, I have to strongly disagree with that interpretation. My interpretation sees that word having a double meaning: 1) primarily ‘in this manner or way’ and 2) ‘qualitatively’, infinitely divine, similar to Hendriksen’s understanding. My reason for understanding its primary meaning as ‘in this manner’ is based on contextual terms, which even the author points out when he makes note of the “For” (Gk: gar) which begins the verse. Let me put it this way… Just as God showed compassion and made a provision for those who were bitten by poisonous snakes and who would surely die by raising a fiery serpent on a pole, in like manner God has made a provision for guilty sinners who will surely die in the sending of His Son who would be lifted up (set/hung/crucified on a cross). There is a clear analogy here between the two events. And the ‘manner’ displays the expression of God’s infinite love, i.e., in the provision of the sending of the Son. In short, the ACT of sending the Son is the visible demonstration of God’s infinite love to save a people for Himself out of the entire world which is even now under judgment.

I found this statement to be personally insulting and an insult to all students of Koine Greek. You do not have to be a Greek ‘scholar’ to understand the Greek NT. Basic Greek grammar applies to both novices and scholars. Notice how he first tries to eliminate any opposition from those who have studied Greek and then re-states his presupposition which I have already said is faulty to begin with. He says knowing Greek isn’t enough but rather one must add to this knowledge, “The interpreter must look for the rhetorical strategy behind the text.. Really!?? And from what Greek textbook did he grab that from, I wonder?

Here are the plain facts: 1) the phrase “whosoever believeth” (AV, et. al.) in the Greek is “pas o pisteuwn”. It is indeed a nominative singular masculine present participle of the verb “to believe”. Literally, it can be rendered as: ‘all the believing ones’, ‘all believers’, who express an enduring faith. There is no “whosoever” to be found in the text. This is an interpretation and not an accurate translation. Why ‘whosever’ appears in many English translations is a mystery to me. Further evidence supports the use of the literal rendering of the phrase. What immediately precedes ‘pas o pisteuwn’ is the word “iva” (hina) which most everywhere means, “in order that” or “for this purpose”, i.e., it was God’s infallible and efficacious intent that all the believing ones throughout the entire world would not perish due to their natural sinful state; an imputed guilt and an inherited corruption of nature. They, like those who had been bitten by poisonous snakes were as living physical dead, were spiritually dead and hell was their sure end. But, it was the giving of the eternal Son of God in the flesh and His perfect righteousness and perfect death that would reverse the effects of that spiritual death and guilt for those whom the Father gave Him and who would believe in Him. There is no “possibility salvation” to be found in this text, i.e., Jesus was given to everyone and secured their salvation through His death IF they would only believe. The Son came for the elect and them alone who were to be found in both Jews and Gentiles. It was for the ‘believing ones’, ultimately the elect, that Christ came to redeem.

Does this eliminate a promiscuous preaching of the Gospel? No! Does this Gospel restrict itself to only the elect, to those who first must ascertain their election and/or regeneration? No! For it is through the means of the Gospel that God calls forth Christ’s sheep; they will hear His voice and follow Him. But this text is NOT primarily a “Gospel invitation” to believe on Jesus. It is rather a grand statement of how God has purposed to save a people to Himself out of the entire race of fallen men. It further emphasizes the hopeless condition of the fallen race and the end which awaits it. And yes, it also shows that there are those who will not perish because God has purposed that they should have eternal life in His Son through belief in Him.