Comments on: John 3.16: Whom does God love?

By: Jeff Meyers

Jeff Meyers — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 03:22:46 +0000

I argued for this understanding of “world” in my sermons on the Gospel of John, Mark. I think this is correct. But I also believe there’s a larger issue in many other texts that talk about Jesus being the Savior of the world. I believe Jesus did save the world from destruction in his death and resurrection. Had Jesus not died and rose again, the world would have been destroyed. There’s a real sense in which there would be no human history, no existence for the world and life (as a whole) had not Jesus did what he did in AD 30. I know you agree with this, but it may not be the precise reference in view in John 3:16.

By: mark

mark — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:08:15 +0000

Jesus & the Victory of God, starting with the section on the prodigal son.

By: Beyond Words

Beyond Words — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:30:43 +0000

Mark, yes, I need to tackle Wright’s big books–which of the more scholarly ones should I start with? I’ve read his smaller works:Siimply Christian, The Challenge of Jesus, Following Jesus, The Last Word and we have the “For Everyone” series–and I’ve read everything I can find online.

By: John 3:16 « Studium et Liturgica

John 3:16 « Studium et Liturgica — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:12:41 +0000

[...] Jump to Comments Mark Horne has an interesting, but helpful, angle on interpreting John 3:16. Many Calvinistsseem to be exegetical trapeze artists as they try to reconcile the “world” with the “elect”. Horne stays within Jesus’ own universe of discourse, like N.T. Wright does, and the text seems to come out fine. [...]

By: mark

mark — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:04:05 +0000

Timothy, I don’t think we have the same context in 1 John, so I would say not (I don’t think “world of elect” works either).

Kathy, you exegeted fine. Remember, the calling to Abram was so that all the families of the earth should be blessed in him (Gen 12.3). So God love Israel because he loved the whole world, not at their expense.

I agree with you about AD 70. The resurrection was show to a select few (well, over a hundred but still select). What happened to Jerusalem was public confirmation. (And I’m glad you’ve found Wright helpful–but I hope you’ll give his big fat books a try if you haven’t yet; they are very readable)

Great to hear from a professional writer, BTW

By: Gregory Soderberg

Gregory Soderberg — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:48:22 +0000

Thanks for posting this! I’ve never felt comfortable with equating kosmos with the elect. This angle makes much more sense.

By: Beyond Words

Beyond Words — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:27:07 +0000

Wish you would have posted this yesterday. :) I just finished a study of John for 14-16 year old girls and used N.T. Wright as my subversive commentary but I missed this point.

I explaned John 3:16 as God loving his creatures and creation toward new creation, not just for individual assurance of going to heaven–and explained believing as turning and following Jesus, and perishing as the consequence of wasting one’s life rejecting the Son.

Is it eisogesis to move the text forward that way, or is it better to keep it in the context of judgment on Israel?

I personally have come to believe that 70 A.D. is the second most important vindication of Jesus as Lord with the Resurrection being first–pardon my rough and probably inaccurate phrasing, but I hope you get what I mean.

Glad I found your site.

By: Timothy Edwards

Timothy Edwards — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:09:54 +0000

Thanks, Mark, Would that have any implications for how we read 1John 2:2?