Let us keep the verse as many understand it. God is 'so' loving. I do not disagree with the extent of his love. I disagree with its extension. Furthermore, let me demolish the idea of the world as necessarily including everyone rather than those who actually are, elect and believers, scattered across it. Now if I were to say that the world hates George W. Bush. Would I be wrong? No, even if there are people who still liked him. The problem is not the offer or description of the gospel. It is with extending the world to mean everyone without exception. This is hardly plausible. Not all are saved. Not everyone hates Bush.
Let us indulge ourselves in believing that 'so' demonstrates the extent of God's love. This kind of love can only come from the love that Christ has for his Church, new israel and his bride. To believe that this world in 3:16 is everyone without exception is to destroy the truth of the great love between Christ and the church. There is no greater love than laying down one's life for another. Does this apply to everyone. No, for this is to deny Ephesians clearly states that Christ died for the church. No, for the greatest love is symbolized by marriage. To say otherwise is to wed Christ's love to a harlot. It is to destroy Ephesians verses about marriage. For the love for his bride is not so great anymore. Everyone will consent that this absolute love has its rightful place between a husband and a wife only. Ephesians would be utterly meaningless and without force if this unique, exclusive, and absolute connection of love between Christ and the church is severed or extended to mean everyone by virtue of saying that he died for everyone.
To enforce the great extent of love over this verse by necessity 'the world' here must be represented by believers only, being of all tongues, tribes, and nations in God's eyes. To hold onto the word "so" is equally damaging to modern interpretation. If the extension held for christ dieing for everyone, How can someone with such a great love upon them be cast out from God or be damned? Such a God would be cruel and unloving by keeping 'world' (everyone without exception) under judgment. We must maintain that it is right for God to condemn the world, everyone without exception. We must more clearly see that it is gracious that does not damn all but saves many. It should be clear that people should jump toward accepting 'in this fashion' over 'to such an extent' in the use of 'so'. It destroys the very fabric of Christ on our behalf not to do so.
The last No comes from the fact that the word 'world' has many nuanced meanings. Yet, is this change justified? See part 3. Yes, Let us return to what the bible actually says. Let us return to what the language unequivocally allows.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Study of John 3:16, part II
Posted by Dave at 4:36 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment