HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- Reading John 3:16 in New Testament Greek, discussing common misunderstandings of the passage.
Get your free language starterpack at www.biblicalma...
Check out what our courses offer at www.biblicalma...
Want a tour of my library? • Books that shaped my t...
Follow me:
Twitter: / darrylb
![Megan Thee Stallion - Neva Play (feat. RM) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TpYTyAaTRts/mqdefault.jpg)
I've always translated the 'Outos' as "This is how God loves the world" as I feel it captures the idea of Thus or thustly while making it sense of the modern language :)
When I've preached it, I've preached it as God's love looks like something, it gives (gave His only begotten son), it saves (whoever believes into Him), it preserves (Will not perish but have everlasting life).
And you are exactly right.
Thank you brother. Awesome video! God bless you!
Great video Darryl. Good to break it down into the three phrases. And also to remind us that it is referring to the sentences that came before this passage. This is not a stand-alone verse, as people often use it. This was very helpful.
Thanks Jamie!
i subscribed!! looking forward for more videos!! pls give us some tips how you manage your logos notes
how you organize your highlights
Thanks. Great video. I was thinking you might spend a moment looking at the wording in the 3rd clause being more "the believing ones" who receive life and not death, rather than the common English understanding of "whosoever".
Sorry if I missed this. The participle is often translated with a relative clause in English, and with πᾶς before it, it becomes "in order that everyone who trusts in Him might have eternal life." Of course you can render it "the believing ones," but this doesn't render πᾶς at all, which is why translations might choose not to go that way. Finally the use of πᾶς with the participle like this renders it as a gnomic (generic) present tense (very common in John's writing), so again the relative pronoun might do a better job of capturing this. I hope this helps!
The passage does not explain the means by which a person becomes a believer. It just explains what the benefit is to those who do become believers.
Jesus did explain the means to become a believer in verses 7 & 8.
Whether its showing his love or how he loves the 3rd clause says that whosoever. Whosoever means no one is excluded from Gods love.
It doesn’t say whoever in Greek
@@aletheia8054 what is Pas mean then?
@@swu11 it’s used as a synecdoche. Same way we use the word all in English.
You are correct. @@aletheia8054
Please don't eisegesis scripture by putting in your tradition or removing the context of the verse.
I would also add, the broader context (3:1-21) points to a Trinitarian emphasis, 3:1-8 on the Spirit, 3:9-15 on the Son, 3:16-21 on the Father. The conclusion of it all is when a person comes into the light it has been “a work carried out in God”, verse 21, or by Divine agency.
It’s so sad people in these comments hate true Biblical theology 😢
From thessaloniki Greece Europe with love.Every christian must study Greeks.
Great video! Thanks Darryl.
Thanks Daniel! I appreciate you taking the time to watch it!
@@bmauniversalists are 100% certain the word aonian or other forms of the word aion do not mean eternal, but mean "of the age." Would love it if you did a video on that.
I did a search looking for a good, short video that properly interrupts Jn. 3:16. This did and I'll be sharing it.
That said, I just wanted to offer something for the edification of others since the Passion Translation was mentioned. Before anyone even thinks about using it I recommend folks watch the series that Mike Winger (BibleThinker on YT) did on the subject. He interviewed several Bible Scholars and Translators and you can see for yourself what they have to say.
I think it is an excellent point about the fact that you have to have a Son to give a Son. That is right! This verse supports the doctrine of eternal sonship.
No, it does not.
If you want to hear John 3:16 with native Greek pronunciation, I recommend you watch "John 3:16 in Koine and Modern Greek".
Good video!
Thanks for watching!
@@bma my pleasure!
I'm a Calvinist, but I don't think there is really anything in the context that limits God's love for the world. Those who believe is limited, but God's love is for the whole world. Many Calvinists understand this and would argue for God's love for the non-elect (Mk. 10:21). Kosmos could be limited in scope depending on the context, but there is nothing the limits God’s love in Jn. 3:16.
God loves his plan and he only has one plan. God loves his creation the cosmos, but God does not love every individual so our teacher here is correct. There’s nothing in Scripture that says the rich young ruler was not later saved. In fact, Jesus just said with God all things are possible.
Thanks for your comment! I'm not sure I would extrapolate from Mark 10:21 that God loves all non-elect the same way that He has set His love on the elect. However, I see your point. I'm not sure I agree, but I appreciate your pushback. 😀
@@bma I definitely believe God has a special love for his church (but He also loves the world). Thanks for the reply.
I would argue that this passage does not focus on the incarnation but rather the giving of the Son while it includes the incarnation specifically is thinking about the giving of the Son to die on the cross. This can be seen by looking at the previous verse where Jesus is analogously compared to the serpent lifted up on a pole. I think the broader context where a passage is found is often more illuminative that focusing more narrowly on a set verse. Grace to you all!
Dust borne humans will allow God to be everything He reveals Himself to be, except be the God who chooses whom He saves. Being an arminian years ago I have come to realize that a man-centered understanding of redemption has always left out the covenants, its progression, and God's faithfulness to it. Specifically the intra-trinitarian covenant.
I’m enjoying the video. Can you recommend an Anki flash card set for the most used Koine Greek words?
Excellent!
Thanks for watching!
I think you are giving the impression that knowledge of Greek can solve most of the theological problems encountered in the text by providing flawless precision. As a teacher of Greek, I think you know better: every conjunction, participle, infinitive, etc. must itself be interpreted. And once you arrive at this level of interpretation, Greek will not help you, and further, your theological views plays a significant role. I say this after teaching Greek for more than 15 years! Please don't give the impression that Greek is magic.
the bible is hidden sacred geometry. if john 316 has not been explained to you as it relates to the circle, then you dont understand. 99% of todays world does not understand or SEE- or has been properly revealed to them- that the bible is math. hidden in the greek are clues to gematria and ancient hermmetic math priciplaes. mix that with greek myths and numbers, and you have a mishmosh that only That generation understood. we dont today. we think its all literal. shame on humanity
God showed us His love "in this manner" that He gave His only begotten Son
As far as I understand, John 3:16-17 should be translated as follows into English. Note the Greek word "kosmos" has three separate meanings, two of which are found here. The third meaning is "world system", such as I John says, "love not the world system".
"For God so loved the people, that he gave the only begotten son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the people, but that the people through him might be saved."
Me, a high church Anglican who leans toward a Scholastic Lutheran soteriology (albeit with a corporate rather than conditional view of election) informed by N.T. Wright’s work on Paul, watching the mild chaos that’s erupted here in the comments section. Though I’m neither a Calvinist nor Arminian, I believe grammatical analysis here was spot on. My view of the atonement leans closer to victory through vicarious satisfaction than penal substitution stated in Reformed categories, but that’s getting into weeds.
Its not getting into weeds brother. It is the flower itself. The treatment of οὕτως is good here but ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν εἰς τὸν κόσμον because he loves all without reserve. Chrstologically conditioned election is supported in this passage not weakened. Have you read TFTorrance on this or a recent work on Evangelical Calvinism by Bobby Grow and Myk Haybets ? If not i recommend them. This last work sketches out this terrain. It's transforming stuff. NT Wright is helpful and i think a godly brother but i think ultimately on a bit of a tangent in some key places - most particularly in reconstructing the text through the particular historiographical lens he applies rather than allowing text to assist us in interpreting history. He is a giant intellectually but i think he has made this error which causes some fuzziness. Press on in the vicarious humanity of our Lord it is the jewel in the crown.
Oh, man, thanks for explaining this. I got part of it reading the Greek but part of it escaped me.
4:41 One should not confuse exegesis of Greek words with just regular exegesis. The term world in the Greek means world in the English. This can be interpreted differently. But one should not act as if the term world in Greek κοσμος has some kind of special meaning that the English word lacks.
ουτως being taken as in this way God loved the world can still have the idea of (so much). For example, if I say, "In this way God loved us, He sent his only Son!" This is most likely want are historic translations believed was the correct meaning.
👉👉👉👉Please do the HUGE CONTROVERSIAL Matthew 24:34!!! Is "this generation" the generation that sees the antecedent events? Or is this generation the generation when the apostles were alive? Could "generation" mean something else? Like "evil age"?
I've done a simple Greek study on "world" and most of the time it is translated "Kosmos" 2889 in the Greek. Which is broken down to mean "adorning world". All the important world verses in scripture uses Kosmos. Why do you do differently? John 3:16= adorning world. John 1:29 same and 1John 2:1-2 = literally whole world.
Well said, a less then fun reminder is it says, God loved Jacob but hated Esau, so assuming he loves all people the same is not the God of the bible.
so how can i know if God loves me or has chosen not to love me? how can i now if i am Jacob or Esau?
Have you considered that Esau was the ancestor of the nation of Edom and "Esau" in Malichi 1:3, which you quote, refers to the nation of Edom rather than Jacob's brother. More examples are Jerimiah 49:8,10 and Obadiah 1:6,8,9, and 18. Israel likewise is a nation that descended from Jacob whom God had renamed Israel.
@@wabs43 I like what Jesus said in John 10:27 "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me." If you listen and follow, he claims you as his own. Choose to set your mind on what the Spirit of God wants. See Romans 8:5-8. Thank him for his love and grace and live accordingly.
The problem I see is by saying God loves believers differently then you're implying God is not impartial. When Scripture tells us God is impartial?
you have just gave your opinion of the term "world", but did not gave evidence that it does not mean everybody or all individual based on the text
I tell you, he is the second guy with knowledge of Greek that completely dismisses the context.
The first one, was a pastor from one of the Master’s satellite churches, who took the same route, by dismissing verses 14 and 15.
Unbelievable!
For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
Great teaching but I think you missed a key point in describing 3:16......the word "so" meaning "in like manner or in this way" for describing how Yahuwah loved the world. Just as the serpent was lifted up "in like manner or in this way" the son of Yahuwah would be lifted up. You never really developed the comparisons.
That’s exactly it!! The context explains the manner in which God SO loved the world.
In Logos is there a way to highlight the English and have it highlight the Greek in Logos? Thank you
"Shall not perish". I've seen some bibles say "will not" and I've seen some say "should not". The word "should" is not so definitive. What does the greek say for that word. I looked it up and it is "may". "May" is also not a definitive word. Help me understand. Does this mean that still some people are not saved who believe?
Thank you. Mark 11:13 seems to be saying that Jesus cursed a tree before it was able to bear fruit. Is that what the verse is saying?
New King James Version
And seeing from afar a fig tree having leaves, He went to see if perhaps He would find something on it. When He came to it, He found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs.
I am enjoying your videos. I teach a Bible study class so your comments are valuable. Please let me know who the restrainer is in 2 Thessalonians 2:7? My study tells me the righteous church is the restrainer but some say the Greek says it is Holy Spirit.
2889 kósmos (literally, "something ordered") - properly, an "ordered system" (like the universe, creation); the world.
❤
Spot on Darryl. Quick question; since you prefer “only begotten” instead of “one and only”, how does this fit with John 1:18 where the earliest manuscripts say “monogenes theos” ?
The earliest manuscripts are not always the truest manuscripts. :)
@@davidmitchell5467 I would agree with that, but Dr.James White has done extensive work on this issue and I find his argument very persuasive in that it would make no sense for a scribe to change υιός to θεός . All of the evidence (including the earliest manuscripts) show that a scribe accidentally changed “God” to “son”. I take a critical text view instead of a majority text view.
I'm not familiar with Dr White's discussion on this, but I have no problems with μονογενὴς θεός standing, and it doesn't present any theological issues for this view of μονογενής - though I can see how considering it as an adjective modifying θεός might raise questions. It is fair to consider μονογενής as substantive and θεός as appositional (ala BDAG, D. A. Carson, etc), thus "the only begotten, namely God." This would consider "only begotten" as having the semantic sense of μονογενὴς υἱός. For more on this take a look at Murray Harris' Jesus as God (amzn.to/3LcAwhe) chapter 3 where he goes into detail on this verse.
@@bma Thanks !
gave his only BEGOTTEN son. Matt 1.18-23, Matt 2.2, Luke 1.20-35, Luke 2.4-7.
The way I came to this conclusion on my own, without knowing greek, is by looking at all occurences of outos in the interlinear KJV provided with eSword. I looked at how outos was translated in all the other verses, and almost always, it was translated in the sense of "in this manner", "in this way". There are some verses that could bear both meanings (so much or in this way), the translators having put the ambiguous english word "so". But NEVER, I found an unambiguous verse (a verse in which only 1 meaning transpired) where the meaning was "SO MUCH", except John 3:16. There are more than 100 usage of outos in the NT. And so, it was safe to assume that either 1) translators of "fresh" bible translations were not really doing a completely fresh translation of the manuscripts, and were starting with a skeleton text of another version, and just revising it... or 2) Translators lacked courage to fix the ambiguous nature of the most cherished verse of all christianity, in order to not displease. When I saw the HCSB had the courage to translate dulos as slave and John 3:16 correctly, it gained much respect in my heart.
I want to get imput from others who study the Greek New Testament. In the last part of John 1:1, we read, "θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος ." Most English Bibles consistently translate this as "the Word was God." Is there a reason why they do not translate it literally as "God was the Word." Or would it make any meaningful difference. Just curious. I can't really find any literature on this.
If you search my channel for the verse reference you’ll find a video on this verse. 😃
Love is the interrelated opposite of fear in duality,all in duality is false and does not exist
The Son in the the old testament was the Angel of the Lord. He became the Son when formed in the womb of Mary.
Also in John 3:26 it actually reads"..whosoever believes " into"( eis) him..".
The Lord is not slow to fulfill His promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
What do you think all means? It seems a bit dumb to me that God is waiting to come back until every single human being reach repentance dont you think?
What do you think all means? It seems a bit dumb to me that God is waiting to come back until every single human being reach repentance dont you think?
Thank you. In Logos 10 how do you get the curser selection to show on both texts?
Click on the Visual Filters button (the three dots in a triangular arrangement) and make sure "Corresponding Selection" is ticked.
Is there a resource that helps folks learn which conjunction forms what kind of clause?
Technically οὕτως is an adverb, so you should be able to look it up in a lexicon. There is a list of adverbs on Mounce's Morphlogy of Biblical Greek on page 244 which you can use as a starting point to look them up. I'm not sure how helpful that will be but I hope that helps. 😉
What think about the p a I of agapao in this verse. Wallace seems to think it means persistent faith. The idea of perseverance. That one who has the gift of faith in Jesus does not walk away from Him.
Do you mean the participle? Generally participles in John's writings with πᾶς before them are best considered gnomic rather than durative. I would see the same thing here. There are far better texts that argue for perseverance, and I'm not convinced that this is the point John is trying to make here, nor that he would make it on the weight of a debatable present tense aktionsart alone. Further, if faith is trust, then is it proper to consider it durative? Wouldn't it be more of something we do repeatedly, in which case it would be an iterative idea? I'm open to debate that I guess, but I wouldn't hang perseverance on the present tense participle here, I think it is more generic than durative. I hope that helps!
@@bma Pariciple yes. BTW, your comments on houtos is spot on. If any major translation attempted to translate “in this way/this is how” most people would get upset because of the KJV president firmly fixed in the mind.
I agree that οὕτως in John 3:16 seems to mean "thus" or "in this way" (cf. BDAG, s.v. "οὕτως," §2). A few years ago, however, I noticed that BDAG lists 1 John 4:11 as an example of οὕτως as a "marker of a relatively high degree, _so_ ... Before a verb _so intensely_" (ibid., §3). The phrases in John 3:16 and 1 John 4:11 appear to be close to parallel. Do you have any idea why the lexicographers distinguished between the use(s) of οὕτως in John 3:16 and 1 John 4:11?
I can't say why people write what they do, but I appreciate you pointing this out here. This is one of the reasons knowing the language is helpful, we can't just assume that lexicographers get it right all the time. There is perhaps at times a fine line between "in this manner" and degree, and in cases like that of John 3:16, I think it is possible to argue that degree is implied, but I wouldn't go as far as to make the verse about degree - I think that is a mistake. The point of the verse is the incarnation, but there are significant implications of the incarnation which the gospel unpacks as it progresses. I hope this helps! Thanks again for you comment!
Both 1 John 4:11 and John 3:16 in the KJV use 'so' ('God so loved'). In the 17thC it was commonly understood to have a meaning of 'thus'/'in this way'. Language changes over time and 'so' only just about still carries that meaning but only in limited contexts. I think people when comparing Bibles compare well known verses to test if a Bible is reliable, I suspect for many it actually consists of 'is it how I remember it?' On that basis what publisher wanting mass acceptance (without wanting to attract negative publicity) for their new translation would 'mess' with the most well known verse (even if they know it's archaic language usage is now misleading)? Well done to the CSB for not being constrained by traditional in this verse.
A lot of bad translation here failure to maintain aspect everywhere. Failure to properly translate ὁ πιστεύων as a nominal the faithful (not all the believer as that would mean they were just persuaded, a different Greek word)
For in this way God did love the world’s order, so that He did give His same only begotten Son in order that all the faithful toward Him would not perish but would have life eternal. (Without any change in meaning ‘would’ could be translated ‘might’ or ‘should’)
Ishmael was also a legitimate son, according to the laws and norms of the times. Isaac was the "only" son as the only one who would receive the inheritance...but God recognized all of Abraham's sons. He promised blessings to the offspring of Hagar's and Keturah's sons.
The storyline is wrongly told by the writer John Jesus Christ is referring to Abraham and Eid Mubarak
Because John 3:16 says that whosoever believes in ( Gr. eis) him has eternal life and because salvation is also being born again, can "eis" be translated as believing "into" Christ ? If so then believing into Christ is speaking of faith as only being the beginning of a process with the end result being the new birth.
If so, just as physical birth is the end result of the woman recieving the " seed" of man then spiritual rebirth would be the end result of a process beginning with recieving the "seed" of the Word.
It doesn’t say whoever in Greek
I love that Kiwi accent
like the CSB/HCSB
Just read your Bibles people it simply says in Mark chapter 12 verse 24 to the end of the chapter 31 n32
I don't get it. How do you know houtos means 'in this way' and not 'how much'? I'm not sure I even get the difference. Seems pretty obscure to me.
It's an adverb indicating the manner in which the verb takes place. I can see how manner can also suggest extent, but it isn't the point of the adverb. Take a look at any lexicon.
When I’m lifted up I will draw all men!
All = pas which more often than not in the Greek means “all kinds of” not “all individuals.” If you understand that one of the biggest problems Jesus and Paul both had was getting Jews to think God would even save a gentile it helps understand what pas means here; when you put it in that context, and Paul says to the Jew, who believes God will not save a gentile, “Oh, no, you’re wrong. He will save all men.” …it doesn’t mean every individual. It means he’ll save Gentiles and Jews. All men-all kinds of men. This is what pas normally means. So no contradiction here.
@@davidmitchell5467 I understand that "all" can be used differently and that context matters. In verse 31 Now is the judgment of this “world" Now the prince of this "world" will be cast out- Then the "draw all" statement is used. So in context it would be all in the world. You can't make the all mean what you want.
God “granted” Jesus so πᾶς (all, any, every, the whole) who believe can be saved. Calvinism is a lens that distorts your view of scripture. Love your videos those!
Amen!
Sure. I'm not sure what the disagreement here is. Is it over "granted" vs "gave" or is it everyone who believes? Clearly the verse is arguing that God gave His Son so that whoever trust in Him may have eternal life. Can you help me understand?
@@bma Thanks for Responding. I do enjoy your videos. You start your video off with,"This verse is not about how much God loves individuals" which we know from the second part of the verse it does mean how much God loves individuals. You are fine translating it "gave" but I use the word "granted" because it is the root word used in John 6:65. So I use this verse to build my case that Jesus is talking about the Father granting the Bread of Life = Jesus and if he had not granted him no one would be able to come to him.
Your comment on the object of God's love already has nothing to do with Greek! And your comment on the cosmos as the "order" is based on an understanding of cosmos that goes back to the classical period of Greek, not the Hellenistic period. Cosmos does not primarily mean "order" during the Hellenistic period in which John was written. Just be honest and say that this is your interpretation, and that it comes from a particular theological tradition, namely, the Westminster Confession. It is possible that this is what the text may mean; but the Greek cannot solve that. Be honest!
John the revelator wasn't a calvinist
you follow me? the letter Kills but the Spirit Gives life? make sense?
The problem that arises interpreting solely by grammar is you miss the nuances and historic usage when these documents were made. To wit, the term kosmos does not necessarily mean the inhabited world here. Look, at the context. Jesus is revealing truth to a leader of the Jews who thought they were the Chosen of God. Here Jesus in my view, tells him that God so loved the Gentiles...this would through Nicodebbmus for a loop and sum up the OT prophecies that the Messiah would be a light to Jews and Gentiles! The first century Rabbi's used the term kosmos to refer to the Gentiles as did Paul in Romans 10-11.
Sounds like Nicodemus didn’t know his Old Testament prophets.
Or, he didn’t believe their message which states that God will turn to the Gentiles.
Anyway, what do you mean by “world” does not necessarily mean the inhabited world?
God cannot love someone one day then hate them the next therefore those who god loves cannot perish, all things work together for good for those who perish No. For those in heaven yes.
*WAY* too many words used to explain one verse. Our time is not unlimited. Please keep that in mind.
you are not just explaining the greek words,you are already making a theological biases
this falls apart in many ways , you are not letting the entire bible speak and give you the sense, Christ prayed not for the world but whom the fathr has given him...John 17:2,9
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men.
All men, who accept the death of Jesus as payment for their sins, and serve God.
In the culture of the time and before, the world is distinct from the earth. "The earth is the LORD's and the fullness thereof, the world and them that dwell therein." The earth seems to be composed of the elements and also the life contained therein. In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth (i.e. the world and all the life in the world). The world is a concept. I can be in love with a concept and hate the particulars. I love marriage but sometimes I hate my spouse. Being worldly is bad but being earthly can be good. The earthly sanctuary was a good thing but that's because it was not a worldly sanctuary.
You have made a hash of pas o pisteuwn.
It didn't get a lot of focus in the video, but take a look at some of the other comments I've left on this here in the comments.
Let's cut to the chase. Do you or don't you have any empirical evidence for the existense of the god you believe in?
I am knocking at the door and will be listening for your reply.
There is no direct empirical evidence. Nevertheless, you probably accept "mental health or illness" or sexual addiction as empirical facts, yet no autopsy of a human corpse can find empirical evidence to support these "facts". These pseudoscientific facts are merely a logical construction to explain human behaviors.
"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness" Moses did that for the nation of Israel. The world is the world of Israel. Isaiah 45:17 KJV. The whole Bible is about God! His son! And the nation of Israel. God never at anytime said he loves any other nation
look up John 3:16 deception
I'm somewhat confused and seriously concerned to learn that it doesn't mean God loves everyone, regardless of their faith. So logically if I accept Jesus yet God can tell me that he never loved me? How do I spread the Gospel to unbelievers and say God loves every one of them? That makes me a liar by a great chance.
Of course you are, because he left out the two verses ahead of 3:16, which they lay the foundation of what this manner of God loving the world means.
Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be save, you and your household.
You have COMPLETELY TOTALLY missed the MOST IMPORTANT WORD in the text,,,, YOu failed to interpret WORLD = Kosmos,, so what did/does God love so much about The Cosmos, what is The Cosmos, what is the Cosmos, who is past/present future Does it include life on other plaenst, etc etc etc. You have missed the most super duper critical word, WORLD,, Go back to school. as I said w/o gnosis a people will perish, Read the history of the jews. if you dont believe me
You are religious, religious folks can't understand the bible, Only God can reveal the hidden meanings.
God always gives me the meanings, 100% of the time
so make a video on the word cosmos. = Good luck to you
Gnostic Paul
New Orleans
If god really loved the world he would provide us with demonstrable evidence(AKA good evidence) that he actually exists.
Oh my, but I just got through holding my new grandbaby daughter in my arms. Proof enough!!! The big bang just lost its luster with the Webb telescope in the last few months but even if it were true, it can’t create love-only God can do that. It can’t even create her beautiful little blue eyes, they’re too complex-the eye would all have to have been created at once to work right, Even the tiniest cell would all have to exist completely at once because any part missing-it dies. You probably just haven’t thought through enough of this, but the evidence of God is everywhere, just as Romans chapter 1 says every man that looks at the creation knows God exists. I really hate the way this sounds, but to say you can look at a newborn baby, or look at the beautiful skies at night, and not know God is, my friend is to lie. God created a conscience within you that knows he’s there.
@@davidmitchell5467 Congradulation on your new grandbaby daughter, I am happy for you. However science has well explained how babies come into being so it's not magic, it's a biological process.
Actually the eye can funtion if it has missing parts. For example many people are missing the part of the eye that allows them to see colors, yet the eye still works.
I don't think you know what fallacious circular reasoning is. If you did then you wouldn't be quoting Bible verse to prove your conclusions(the Bible says we are created and we know this because the Bible says so. Well you can use this same type of fallacious circular reasonign with the Quran too, or any other gods holy books). You would 1st need to prove the Bible is true.
I hate to break it to you, but the Bible lied to you. See I don't see evidence for god when I look at the world, proving that Bible verse false. When I look at the world I don't see it as a creation of an all powerful and all loving god. Yes, there are many beautiful things in the world, but you are ignoring all the bad things. You know, natural disasters, diseases, poisonous insects, creepy crawling things, Etc. Of course if you look at the world as it actually is then it makes sense that it came through natural processes.
You seam to be only looking at how great your new born grandbaby daughter is, yes, it is great that she was born in a 1st world nation where she will have access to all the medical science has to offer. Yet you ignore the fact that if your god really exists he doesn't care about many children being born in 3rd world countries.
According to UNICEF about 29 000 children under the age of five die each day mainly from preventable causes. That's 21 dead children every minute. That's 10.6 million a year. That's the equivalent of a holocaust every year. More than 70 percent of these 10.6 million children deaths every year are attributable to six causes 1- diarrhea, 2 - malaria, 3 - neonatal infection, 4 -pneumonia, 5 - preterm delivery and 6 - lack of oxygen at Birth. Science's responses is to give them the things needed to prevent these deaths while religion's responses is those are part of God's plan. Really! What kind of plan is that? What kind of God who is all-powerful and all good would not stop that? I'm talking about innocent children who have no free will. They're not freely choosing to die. Why would an all powerful, all loving God allow that to happen? But if we live in a natural world it all makes sense. People that live in advanced 1st world nations have the best access to medical science and people in 3rd world countries not so much.
Peace.
No repent for Esau Hebrew 12:16 KJV
You must be born again in context, the depth of his love for the kosmos (lost system of satan) Jesus died for the elect :) aka Christians aka his sheep aka he actually saves :)
I would answers this in this way, if Jesus told the people the greatest commandment is to love the Lord with all your heart, souls and all your might as an individual and then to love your neighbour as yourself... wouldn't HE God, be able to Love all of mankind in John 3:16? What man can do, God is able to do, a trillion times over. So stop putting your human mind thinking upon the Word of God, which you form in your human thinking.
Again, I'm not saying God doesn't love all people, but that is not the point of this verse. I wouldn't say God loves all people the same way either, other passages make this clear.
@@bma Are we to fathom him in how he thinks? His thoughts are not our thoughts, his ways are not our ways. In the same way, His Love is beyond our human understanding, but if he said in John 3:16 that He Loves the World, I believe it as according to his word not man's conjectured words.
I don't disagree that God loves the world. I'm just saying that what you understand the "world" to mean and what I'm saying that it means are two different things. I don't mind if you disagree with me. But I don't think my reasons are simply conjecture either, and certainly no more than your reasons are. 😀
@@bma These following verses below has shown or implied the Love of God for us as a whole unit ( as in the World)...and I believe Jesus was not under stating when he said "For God so loved the World..." You are of course entitle to your own opinion, but shouldn't imposed on others your thoughts on Jn 3:16. Maybe our human mind still cannot fathom the depth and the purity of God's LOVE to be even understand how we can quantify to our human level of thinking as spoken by Paul in Rom 8:38-39: "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
======
Tit 3:4: "But after that the kindness and love of God our Savior toward man appeared,"
1Jn 4:9-10: "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. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."
Rom 5:8: "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
1Jn 4:19: "We love him, because he first loved us."
Ps 36:7: "How excellent is thy lovingkindness, O God! therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of thy wings."
Ps 40:10: "I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy lovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation."
Mat 7:11: "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?"
Rom 8:39: "Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
2Ths 2:16: "Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,"
Tit 1:2: "In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;"
1Jn 3:16: "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."
Eph 2:4: "But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,"
I do enjoy your teaching and insights into the Greek, but in this video, I can see your Calvinism baggage bending the word "love" to suit your presuppositions. The word or the context does not necessarily support your explanation of God loving only the elect. He loved the world. Check the context. God did not drag some people to go look at the serpent in the book of Numbers but all who looked, did not die. Similarly, all who look at Christ for saving grace, will receive it. I do not mean to be argumentative. I respect your opinion. I just expressed my view and we can agree to disagree. Love your work and effort brother and will continue to enjoy your valuable teachings.
Thanks for your gracious spirit. If we argue that God loved every human and therefore sent Christ, then we end up in a conundrum in verse 17 where we read that God sent Him to save the world through Him (John 3:17). If both these go to the level of each individual, then either every human is (or will be) saved, or God's purpose in sending Christ has failed. So I believe it is better to regard κόσμος in both cases as general. FWIW, this lines up with "tribe and tongue, and people and nation" in Revelation 5:9 and 7:9, which I think helps us make sense of what he means here. Thanks again for your comment!
@@bma And finally just to close out my thoughts on Calvinism. All OT saints, including Israel were "elected" to be a channel for the whole world to be saved. God does not "elect" people for salvation but when people respond to the cross by faith, they become "in him" (Eph 1:4). Why? For a purpose; to be holy. The purpose that those people "in him" should be holy was decided before the foundations of the earth. It is not the individual's salvation that was decided before the foundation of the world. How can one be "in him" before he was born. If you are born a sinner, then you are "not in him." Then when you are born again, you become "in him?" So, you were "in him" before the foundations of the world. Then you are "out of him" when you are born and then you again become "in him" when you are born again! That sounds far-fetched. Sorry to be verbose and I hope you see where I am coming from. You are seeing the "hare" and I am seeing the "rabbit." in all verses pertaining to election. We will agree to disagree and as I stated earlier. Love you brother and really appreciate your work. God has chosen to bless you to be a blessing to others like me so that we are all blessed by a God who choses to bless people who chose him.
THE WORLD
(John 17:9) I pray for THEM: I pray NOT for the "WORLD" , but for THEM which thou hast given me for they are thine
(God's word doesn't contradict itself)
(Romans 9:13) Jacob have I loved but
E. S. A. U. have I hated
(☝️1 gentile ethnicity eliminated so all are)
(Acts 2:21-22) And it shall come to pass, that WHOSOEVER shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved YE MEN OF ISRAEL, hear these word
(☝️the whosoever are those of Israel)
(**Isaiah 45:17**) But ISRAEL shall be saved in the Lord with an EVERLASTING SALVATION: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded "WORLD" without end
(☝️the world spoken of is Israel)
"Father forgive them ............"!!!???
@@wabs43
4give who??
@@habakkuk2510 I may not have misunderstood you but are you suggesting that Jesus did not pray for those who are not the elect of God? if that is not what you are saying then i am sorry for my confusion.
@@wabs43 Seems like it's worse than that, sounds like he's espousing Hebrew Israelite rhetoric.
@@wabs43
CHRIST
(Matthew 15:24) I am NOT sent but unto the Lost sheep of the house of ISRAEL
PAUL
(Romans 9:3-5) For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for MY BRETHREN, my kinsmen according to the "FLESH" who are ISRAELITES; to whom pertaineth the ADOPTION, and the GLORY, and the "COVENANTS" and the giving of the LAW, and the service of God, and the "PROMISES" whose are the fathers, and of WHOM AS CONCERNING THE "FLESH" CHRIST CAME
☝️Who did both Christ and apostle Paul say Christ's sacrifice was for??
The Lord hates Esau. No way around it Romans 9:13 KJV.
i clicked like because i like that your making the effort.although i disagree based on Jesus,his works and how he treated everyone.it conveys Father God it makes Him visible and i believe this is the explanation God loves everyone and is not willing that anyone should parish but if man or a woman does a solomon (flabt )than its a mark of the beast type of result ? this is what i am meditating on im not saying definatley but the evidence points in this direction
🧠 Jesus Christ is the one speaking this is referring to Abraham and his sacrifice of his son but John is often confused 🫤 obviously if Jesus Christ is talking then he’s not the son cuz of the past tense usage
Is this Greek English or English Greek?? I mean, use some punctuation for crying out loud!
This god doesn't love the world enough to clearly communicate his message if he exist.
How could it be possible for an all knowing/all loving god to be such an utter failure when it comes to communicating his message? The simplest answer is he doesn't exist. That would explain it.
Jesus clearly stated that he spoke in parables with the specific intent to hide their meaning from those to whom the parable was not intended to inform. The reason anyone does not proclaim he exists is because God chose not to reveal himself to them and left them dead in their sins. Either you don’t get the message because it is not time for you to get it or God ordained to let you continue to be a slave to sin and will destroy you at the judgement. It is not God’s fault if you don’t understand - it is his intent.
@@kenchilton It's absolutely God's fault I don't believe he exists. God is the one who is all knowing and all powerful, so if he wanted to have a relationship with me he could easily provide me with just one piece of evidence. Apparently either you don't have one so that is why you can't provide me with just one piece of demonstrable evidence. Or you actually have good demonstrable evidence but you want to see me destroyed at judgement day.
That's the difference between you and me. If I believed that this god existed and I had demonstrable evidence I would give it to you so you could be saved. Unless of course you don't have any good evidence to warrant belief in god, then I forgive you. Oh, and I can do something your god can't do, that is I can forgive you and I don't require a blood sacrifice.
Peace.
@@kenchilton Do you realize what you are saying? You are saying god doesn't want everyone to be saved, but wants to destroy most people at the judgement.
And god won't provide us with any good evidence that warrants belief that he exists. Instead he wants people who are gullible and will believe using bad evidence or even worse people using faith(I am talking about religious faith - you know as in belief without evidence - Hebrews 11:1).
Sorry, I form my beliefs using logic and reasoning based on good evidence. I mean you can believe anything using bad evidence. You know like believing someone can fly to the moon on a winged horse(Mohammand) or rise from the dead(Jesus- no good evidence this ever happened), or believe that snakes can talk(Adam & Eve story). We know snakes can't talk, that's impossible.
@@SalemK-ty4ti He did show lots of evidence. As he says in Romans, the creation is clear evidence. There are many apologetic arguments for the existence of God. The blind cannot see them. If you cannot explain why you see from your own eyes, hear with your own ears, began to exist at a specific point in time, then you are used to ignoring the evidence of even your own creation. Jesus told us that even one rising from the dead will not be enough to convince the lost, and his own resurrection fails to convince you. That should have been enough proof for anyone, and it is historically recorded. There is no sign to a wicked and perverse generation, except the sign of Jonah.
I don’t want to see you destroyed. I would like to see you saved. More than this, I want God to be glorified, either through his justice or through his mercy.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying - God created some vessels for dishonorable use. Read Romans 9:6ff as Paul explains why the Jewish people in his time could not believe.
@@kenchilton First of all nothing appears to be created. See complexity is not a hallmark of design. Simplicity is. The better the design is the simpler it is.
Let me first show you why complexity is not an exclusive attribute of design. Take the triangle, a musical instrument that has been around for centuries and during all these years the basic design of the triangle has never changed. Why is that? Because the design is so simple that it hardly needs improvement we can make it more complicated but then it wouldn't work.
Now I will show you that there are very complex physical constellations that are definitely not designed. I can take an enormous sheet of glass and break it with a hammer into a million pieces. When those pieces are lying on the ground right in front of you will you be able to memorize their pattern and then reproduce it in a drawing? Can you pick up those million pieces of glass and then put them back in the exact same order? Of course not, no one can because the pattern is too complicated for the human brain to reproduce but that doesn't mean that that complicated pattern of a million pieces of glass is designed. It's highly complicated yet totally random so design does not need to be complicated and complicated things don't need to be designed.
Now let us look at things that have order. For example if I throw a rock in a lake it will cause a sequence of perfect circles that will move in the same direction at the same speed. That is order but it's not designed. Now look at a bed of rocks at the bottom of a river that all have about the same size and shape and they're all kind of facing the same direction because these rocks have been lying there for thousands of years and billions of sand particles have collided with these rocks giving them similar shapes and sizes and the water forces those rocks in about the same direction. We see order and complexity but it was not designed. How about a tropical storm seen from space the storm circles around a central focal point that is about in the middle and all the parts of the storm move in the same direction. We see order and complexity but that storm was not designed.
All these examples show that order and complexity are not exclusive attributes of design. So if we see something that has order and complexity we cannot conclude that it is designed. So suggesting that things like trees or human organs have a very high level of complexity and therefore they must be designed is going to get us nowhere, it's nonsense. To the contrary the whole point of design is creating functionality and aesthetics with as little complexity as needed because complexity can compromise the design and make it useless. Simplicity is a hallmark of design good. Designers usually try to create as much functionality in the simplest way possible.
Peace
Great help with the Greek particularly the outos- but need to be a bit careful with the theology - God is angry with us and the world because he loves us and the world. There is not an angry God and a loving God. He is lovingly angry and he is angry because he loves. I don't think this is what you mean to say - but you sort of say it - We need to be careful not to read our Calvinism in to the text. Thanks again for help us read the bible in colour.
As a former Calvinist pastor for 20 years… Yeah, this is how they change the Scriptures and twist the Scriptures to fit their own presuppositions and doctrines. Typical Christian falsehoods.
As always, a Calvinistic presupposition will taint your view of a clear rendering of Scripture. To say that God doesn't love everyone and that he loves some in a special way is to do violence to the text and attribute to God a humanized capricious love, rather than the perfect love that John is clearly comunicating throughout the book.
What do you do with Romans 9, especially verse 13, (and Malachi 1:2-5 that the Apostle Paul is referencing)?
@Loads of Bacon I am specifically referring to this text where John clearly demonstrates God's perfect love. Context is king and is vital in understanding any text. Isolating Roman's 9 from Paul's argument from 8-11 while importing Augustinan presuppositions into the text will lead in a completely different direction. You start having many issues like, for example, does Paul have a greater love than God as he says in 9:3? Why would Paul be so troubled about God's plan of election that he would be willing to forfeit his own salvation? There is much more that can be said. In Malachi, the instrumental love referred to is an election with the purpose of blessing. He chose Israel not to solely love her but use her as a light to the world as it renders in Isaiah 49:3, 6. The love-hatred language is a hyperbolic comparison used exactly as Jesus did in Luke 14:26. Again, much more can be said.
We also have to be careful not to impress our own sinful human desires into the clear reading of the text. Of course, God has perfect love, but God defines that perfect love for us - we do not define God's love and force our attribution and sinful understanding of love back on him. We cannot impress on the text a concept that God loves each individual where it does not say it. The text of John 3:16 does not say "everyone" in the sense of each and every individual, so forcing that meaning here is violence to the word of God. The word "Kosmos" was selected by John, not "Kathenos" or another word that would mean what you want it to mean -- to force an interpretation that the writer purposefully chose not to provide is doing violence to the text. God hates evildoers (Psalm 5:5) and God hates Esau (Malachi 1:2-3 - and not just Esau himself but poured out wrath on his whole heritage). He does not love each person individually. We definitely can say that God loves mankind as a whole, even if not each and every individual, based on John 3:16. If you desire to find God's love for each and every individual consistent with your desired theology, you will need to look elsewhere. I respectfully ask you to consider whether your hatred for brothers with other reasonable, historically-held theological conclusions is clouding your ability to fairly evaluate what is being taught in this video. Test all things; hold fast to what is true.
@@-the_dark_knight
THE WORLD 316
(John 17:9) I pray for THEM: I pray NOT for the "WORLD" , but for THEM which thou hast given me for they are thine
(God's word doesn't contradict itself)
(Romans 9:13) Jacob have I loved but
E. S. A. U. have I hated
(☝️1 gentile ethnicity eliminated so all are)
(Acts 2:21-22) And it shall come to pass, that WHOSOEVER shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved YE MEN OF ISRAEL, hear these word
(☝️the whosoever are those of Israel)
(**Isaiah 45:17**) But ISRAEL shall be saved in the Lord with an EVERLASTING SALVATION: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded "WORLD" without end
(☝️the world spoken of is Israel)
@@kenchilton
CHRIST'S RETURN 4 CAUCASIANS
(Isaiah 34:5-6) For my SWORD shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon ESAW and upon the people of my "CURSE" to judgment the SWORD of the LORD is FILLED with BLOOD, for the LORD hath a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a GREAT SLAUGHTER in the land of ESAW
I have many, many, reason why I don't believe the Bible. Yes, I have reasons, I don't just blindly dismiss it. Now what types of evidence is acceptable? For example hearsay evidence isn't accepted in courts. You know why? Because hearsay is unreliable method for finding the truth, that is why no courts allow it. But with the writings in the Gospels that is all we have, just hearsay and really poor hearsay at that. Jesus nor any of his disciples who witness Jesus during his life never wrote anything down what he said. It was through oral tradition(word of mouth) these stories were passed down for decades before being translated from Aramaic to Ancient Greek(translation problems are a real thing). Then these gospels where copied down over the centuries. So what we have are copies of copies of copies, etc. from the original writings(which we have none of the originals to compare accuracy) that came from oral stories(hearsay) being passed down for decades. Who knows how many times these stories were changed either intentionally(a very common practice in the times they were written) or by copying mistake(we know people make copying errors, it is a real thing you know) Then we also know people do make translation errors. As a matter of fact from early copies we see the story of Jesus saying about the adulteress woman who ever is without sin cast the 1st stone wasn't in the early copies - in other words this story was added on later. The very fact we have no original copies to compare how many changes were made over the centuries should make you question the reliability of the Bible. Yet you expect me to just take it on faith, without question the reliability of the Bible? Really.
Do you question manmade Global Climate Change? Do you accept the "reality" of schizophrenia or sexual addiction? Most of our learned "knowledge" is hearsay based on our trust of the source of the "knowledge"'. This hearsay objection as well as your other arguments are a smokescreen selectively applied to what MAY be truth that you may not wish to consider.
I'm not trying to convert you here. So no, I don't expect you to just take it on faith. Thanks for watching!
@@bma I am trying for 2 things here. Most importantly that Christians to understand that there is no good evidence to warrant belief in any gods, including the Christian god. 2nd, I am trying to open your mind to see that you have no good evidence to warrant your belief. Yes, I know you can believe anything using religious faith(believing without evidence - Hebrews 11:1). I mean that's one of the main reasons you believe in your stories. Now please understand that all religions use this type of faith such as Baha'i, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism, Etc. Etc. None of them have any good evidence to justify their beliefs. So at best only one could be true, if any. You don't see the problem here? They all use religious faith but religious faith is leading most if not all to a false belief. If just one of these religions actually had just one piece of demonstrable evidence then it would prove all other religions false. But that's not what we have here. What we actually have is billions and billions of people believing in false religions using the extremely poor and unreliable method called religious faith. That's not good.
Now if you were to use logic, reasoning and good evidence like me you would not believe in any of these gods.
You want to believe because you want to believe and you except very poor evidence and you ignore all the demonstrable evidence that proves Bible stories as false. Like if you go by the demonstrable evidence the Noah's flood story never happened, there's very good evidence that the Mose Exodus story never happened either. I can go on and on, but it's getting late.
Peace.
3:16 Now do I understand you correctly that you're really trying to downplay the greatness and preciousness of Jesus here?
Amazing to me how much people would cheat when having theological differences you know he’s not downplaying the greatness or the love of Jesus Christ that’s silly.
Thanks for your question! No. Not at all. I've created other videos defending the deity of Christ and talking about union with Christ as the only way of salvation. Christ is salvation. So no.
I enjoy these videos, but your theological background of being educated in conservative American circles has come through too strongly here. We should let the text speak for itself, particularly when we're thinking about generic concepts like τον κοσμον.
Greek doesn't change context bro all these Calvinist doing backflips to make God the author of evil,woe to those who call good evil and evil Good repent of the foolishness
Sounds like he is deriving his theology from the text…. Do you have a counter argument to his video beyond ‘context’…. That’s a parrot phrase that loses meaning when not backed up… what context isn’t covered? I think people’s biggest issues is that they don’t read linguistically but theologically
@@michaelborg5798 Not theologically, but with a theological bias: eisegetically. (Eisegesis = "A subjective method of interpretation by introducing one's own opinions into the original: opposed to exegesis." This especially common with "end times" material.)
If you want context read the following verses after verse 16. If you don’t see the depravity of man there, you’ll never see it. God never started with John 3.16 he started with Genesis and in Genesis after creation the next great doctrine is the depravity of man you have to understand that to understand God‘s plan of salvation, for totally depraved humans.
Thanks for watching! It sounds like you think I'm making a claim regarding the problem of evil here. That's not what I'm doing, nor am I making particularly Calivinistic claims about John 3:16. No Calvinist that I'm aware of believes that God is the author of evil, so perhaps you're chasing a straw man here?
Revelation 3:20 "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me." Well I have been knocking at the door for over a decade, listening & waiting to hear his voice yet the door never opens for me. So again, this is empirical evidence of another Bible verse is false using me as an example.
You do realize that you are saying that this god creates people with no choice(we can't choose are beliefs) but not to believe he exists, just so he can destroy them. That is not what a kind and loving and just god would do - fact. Sorry you don't like or you don't understand empirical evidence, for if you did you wouldn't believe either. Any god that would create sentient beings just to torture them without even giving them a chance is an Evil god.
Also, Romans 9:6ff is more evidence against Christianity. See Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, yet not only did no Jewish authority believe he was the messiah, none ever bothered to write anything about Jesus during his life. I mean using logic and reasoning there is no better expert than the Jewish authorities to recognize who the messiah was, yet these experts didn't accept Jesus. Really, then how can you expect me to believe in Jesus if these experts didn't believe he was the messiah. That's a pretty big explanation you are going to have to tell yourself. Oh, I keep forgetting - nothing could change your mind because you are close minded and you are not honest with yourself. You only believe in bad evidence and reject good evidence that proves many of these Bible stories are not true. Like how science proves the Noah's flood never happened. There is evidence that the Exodus Moses story never happened. The evidence shows that there were nowhere close to the number of Hebrew slaves living in Egypt as the Exodus Moses story describes.
Because of his Calvinist doctrine which is appalling, I’m unsubscribing!
Because of his clear and careful handling of the text, I’m subscribing.
Sorry to see you go!
Great treatment of "οὕτως" as manner. He loved us in Christ the slain lamb from eternity. I think however the treatment of "τὸν κόσμον" is not supported by the same starting point and reveals a particular paradigm on election that grounds itself outside, or beyond, what the text offers. The self-giving of God (revealed in the manner of his giving) is shown to be totally poured out and the object of his love is not a select group but all humanity through and in his Son. His love is for "all", including even his enemies of which "τὸν κόσμον" is a description. God does not love the "created order." He certainly loves all that he has made and all humanity as it's purpose (redemptively in Christ - creation itself being the external ground for the covenant) but we can't draw out a selective love from this passage. In fact I would argue that we are bound to the opposite. This given John's particular use of this word to describe even (or perhaps particularly) the whole opposed and fallen world (eg. 1John 2:15 which ultimately is every person who has ever lived as we are all enemies of God). This poses a particular challenge for certain views of election but we can't let those views control the interpretation unless they are grounded in what we see in Christ. We have rather to let the text condition them. We need a controlling hermeneutic but the οὕτως (among other things) tells us that this hermeneutic must be "the lamb slain before the foundation of the world" (the pre-existent Son as is well observed). God acting οὕτως in time and space revealing his undifferentiated love in Christ from eternity. This is totally and completely for all and without reserve and the cross is the evidence. "Particular atonement" is ultimately a limitation of the love of God and not what we see in the totality of the giving of τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν . If however we condition our views of election Christologically then we can better see here the electing of humanity itself and God's love for everyone through the lens of his love. That is for his love for his one and only Son as the elect one and humanity as it participates in that love vicariously and objectively. If we do this we can more properly align with a theological paradigm that can assist in our interpretation of passages like this which should if rightly applied be consonant with a more satisfying resolution of grammar and context. My Greek is not that great but I think the above is a more representative treatment of "τὸν κόσμον" even simply grammatically from the way John uses and understands the word itself and the context and nature of God's self-giving. This may be a kind of criticism but i hope its also an encouragement.
A child can Understand and Believe the words of their Savior Jesus Christ and His Gospel John 3:16 and Be SAVED, but you NEVER WILL!
You are spiritually Blinded by Jesus and confused by satan to the Gospel because you don't BELIEVE IT.
Jesus said, for judgement, I come to give sight to the blind, and to blind those (prideful religious self righteous bible thumpers) who say we See!
I used to love singing The Old Rugged Cross, Nothing But the Blood and other greats like Amazing Grace.
Then it dawned on me that God's Name is Not Grace and Jesus' Name is Not Faith!
I don't care if Apostle Paul said it, Jesus did not!
We are Not SAVED by a Cross, Blood, our Works, Baptism, repenting of sins, or by GRACE through FAITH!
We are SAVED by GOD, by BELIEVING in HIS SON, JESUS CHRIST!
SALVATION 101 - The World is SAVED by GOD, by Doing His Will, and BELIEVING In His SON
Matthew 7:21 Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, But the one who Does the WILL Of My FATHER, who is in heaven
John 6:40 MY FATHER’S WILL is that everyone who looks to the Son and BELIEVES in HIM shall have eternal life
John 3:16 For GOD so Loved the World that HE Gave (Sacrificed to Die) HIS only SON so that Whoever BELIEVES in HIM, shall not perish, but have ever lasting Life.
God's Ways are not our ways, and we will never be able to fully understand and explain them!
We really should with the Faith of a Child just simply BELIEVE and PROCLAIM THEM!
Jesus left us a Masterpiece in John 3:16, and you should never Touch a MASTERPIECE!
The Biggest Problem God has is, self-righteous Prideful Religious People cannot simply BELIEVE In and Be SAVED and PROCLAIM HIS GOOD NEWS GOSPEL JOHN 3:16!
They think it’s God’s will to Understand, Explain and Share the GOSPEL with their corrupt minds and words. Then they begin to Doubt, Change, add to and Ruin IT with catchy little phrases like, “Saved by Grace through Faith.”
God, His miracles and the Gospel of Jesus Christ John 3:16 need no Explanation, and HE does not need to EXPLAIN HIMSELF.
With a childlike mind, you either BELIEVE Them, or you Don't.
Jesus told them to witness and share His Good News Gospel, but not to cast their pearls to the swine. If they do not believe and receive you, kick the dust off your shoes.
God told Moses.................Tell them..........I AM.
God told Moses.................Tell them..........LOOK at the SNAKE....and you will live.
Jesus told Nicodemus......Tell them..........BELIEVE in HIM...........and you will live.
What actually Saves us is our Offer and Acceptance CONTRACT with GOD in John 3:16, and we initiate the contract when we BELIEVE in the Son of GOD!
Jesus did not tell the world to Understand and Explain His Good News Gospel John 3:16! Jesus told the world to BELIEVE IT and PROCLAIM IT!
Your SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST Told you how to be BORN AGAIN and SAVED in only 3 THREE Words, by *BELIEVING IN HIM, in John 3:15 “That whosoever *BELIEVES in HIM, should not perish, but have eternal life.”
What part of BELIEVE can't you BELIEVE?
FASTEN YOUR SEATBELTS!
If the Captain pilot of a jet airliner announces, “fasten your seatbelts were about to make a crash landing!” What would you tell the passenger next to you who asks you, “what must I do to be Saved?”
Tell him to BELIEVE that GOD so Loved the World that HE Gave HIS only SON (Sacrificed to Die) so that Whoever BELIEVES in HIM, shall not perish, but have ever lasting Life, and you will be SAVED, and on your way to heaven!
If you tell him to Believe you are “Saved by Grace through Faith,” he’ll take that straight to hell.