the "World"

[Rippon]

What a bizzare (sic)thread. It went from a discussion of "whole world" to "world," and even the writer of the OP didn't notice. These words represent linguistically two different meanings.

What a bizarre comment. I have seen many more threads which qualify as being truly bizarre. This one doesn't even approach that level of absurdity.

I suspect the thread will continue with "world" and ignore the "whole world" passages...

Both will be addressed.

and it's already turned into a Cal/Arm discussion, ....

Well, of course. Historically it has always been about that debate. Why is that surprising? It's not like the words "world" and "whole world" have nothing to do with Arminianism and Calvinism.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Now there's what I mean. You've started talking about what people say about the Bible instead of what the Bible says.

The OP is the one who said he was interested in talking about "What the writers were trying to say by "World" or "Whole World"." Again, that's quoting him. I am not making that up. so when you say the topic changed from "whole world" to "world" it didn't.

The Bible says "world" in John 3:16. Of course there is going to be debate about what it means in that verse. You can't talk about what the Bible says without talking about what people say the Bible says.

The word "world" has a large range of meaning in both English and Greek (kosmos). My BAGD lexicon has three full columns for the Greek word. So the word "world" by itself must always be interpreted by context. But in any language, adding an adjective narrows the meaning of the noun. That's what adjectives do, that's what they are supposed to do.

I think that's exactly the point we should make. The fact that "world" or "whole world" is used doesn't mean much except that we have a starting place.

Context determines which meaning to take. The problem here is that people will follow their own presuppositions instead of taking the literal meaning as is, when the literal meaning is what is meant.

But even saying the "literal means is what is meant" is problemmatic in that you are bringing your presuppositions to the text.

Take for instance 1 John 2:2 and the "propitiation for the whole world." The argument goes like this: If "propitiation" means "satisfaction of wrath," then "whole world" cannot mean "every person without exception" because God's wrath was not satisfied for every person without exception. It is satisfied only for believers. The rest go to hell precisely because Christ did not propitiate the father.

Now I am not making that argument; I am pointing out that the meaning of "whole world" depends on the context and the meaning of "propitiation". So your point is very simplistic and simply doesn't work in the real world of translating (and surely you have done enough translating to know that).

 

[John of Japan]

But even saying the "literal means is what is meant" is problemmatic in that you are bringing your presuppositions to the text.

Take for instance 1 John 2:2 and the "propitiation for the whole world." The argument goes like this: If "propitiation" means "satisfaction of wrath," then "whole world" cannot mean "every person without exception" because God's wrath was not satisfied for every person without exception. It is satisfied only for believers. The rest go to hell precisely because Christ did not propitiate the father.

Now I am not making that argument; I am pointing out that the meaning of "whole world" depends on the context and the meaning of "propitiation". So your point is very simplistic and simply doesn't work in the real world of translating (and surely you have done enough translating to know that).

My presuppositions? My point? Where do you get this? I've not mentioned any presuppositions, I've made no point except a linguistic one, I've not exegeted any of the passages mentioned, I've not even said which passages I believe are hyperbole and which I believe are literal.

This is about how I thought this thread would turn out. I'm out of here. God bless all.

 

[Pastor Larry]

John,

You said, What is left are two possible meanings: the literal meaning of "whole world" as meaning everything and/or everybody, and the hyperbolic meaning. An hyperbole is an exaggeration used for literary effect. Context determines which meaning to take. The problem here is that people will follow their own presuppositions instead of taking the literal meaning as is, when the literal meaning is what is meant.

My point that even saying what the literal meaning is involves one's "own presuppositions." Linguistics is not presuppositionless. I realize you didn't offer any exegesis of any passage. I used 1 John 2:2 to illustrate that the "literal meaning" of "whole world" in 1 John 2:2 depends on what you think "propitiation" means. So when you say they will follow their own presuppositions instead of taking the literal meaning, you are saying something that is rather nonsensical in many ways.

Sorry to be confusing about that. I thought it was pretty clear. My bad.

 

[Allan]

Take for instance 1 John 2:2 and the "propitiation for the whole world." The argument goes like this: If "propitiation" means "satisfaction of wrath," then "whole world" cannot mean "every person without exception" because God's wrath was not satisfied for every person without exception. It is satisfied only for believers. The rest go to hell precisely because Christ did not propitiate the father.

Now I am not making that argument; I am pointing out that the meaning of "whole world" depends on the context and the meaning of "propitiation". So your point is very simplistic and simply doesn't work in the real world of translating (and surely you have done enough translating to know that).

Actaully Christ is in fact the propitiation both of our sins and the whole world. That is what the passage states and John is consistent with his usage of the phrase "whole World", even in the same letter/book.

The verse in question (1 John 2:2) is speaking specifically about the Jewish people first (the 'us' for whom Jesus was the propitiation). However what must be acknowledged here is that not all of the Jewish peaple were or would be saved, and yet John states He was 'their' propitiation. Then John states, not ours (the Jews) only but the sins of the whole world, which again speaks to those who were not and would not be saved either. Thus without question this means that Christ was the propitiation for every sinner, both of the Jews and the Gentiles. Therefore his usage of 'whole world' is specific of all those not called God's chosen people just as 'us' refers to all who were considered as such.

He has satisified God regarding sin however that propitiation procured is not applied to anyone except by faith (Rom 3:25).

However this is not specifically aboujy the propitiation but what the phrase whole world means, more specifically in this passage

 

[~JM~]

1Jo 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

 

[Allan]

1Jo 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

Exactly my point. John maintains it's meaning,specifically with regard to 1 John; that being the "whole world" is specific to all the wicked and sinful men of the world - minus believers.

 

[zrs6v4]

Well this thread is interesting and I was wondering if someone can tell me a good cheap English to Greek lexicon to buy? I hope I can find out within 3 hours b/c Im leaving for Haiti. Anyway I appreciate all the responses and although this is out of nowhere the Haitians, my group, and I would all greatly appreciate your prayers.

-Zach

 

[Me4Him]

The Bible says "world" in John 3:16. Of course there is going to be debate about what it means in that verse. You can't talk about what the Bible says without talking about what people say the Bible says.

I think that's exactly the point we should make. The fact that "world" or "whole world" is used doesn't mean much except that we have a starting place.


Take for instance 1 John 2:2 and the "propitiation for the whole world." The argument goes like this: If "propitiation" means "satisfaction of wrath," then "whole world" cannot mean "every person without exception" because God's wrath was not satisfied for every person without exception. It is satisfied only for believers. The rest go to hell precisely because Christ did not propitiate the father.

Now I am not making that argument; I am pointing out that the meaning of "whole world" depends on the context and the meaning of "propitiation".

You're right, you can't determine what John 3:16 means unless it's put in context.

But first let's define what was the propitiation, the law requires a "death for sin", Jesus fufilled that law that the "WORLD" "MIGHT BE" saved without having to die for it's sins.

If sin had been taken away, all would be saved, no "Might be".

Jesus died for "Sinners", all sinners, because God is no respecter of persons, not willing any should perish,

And that's the context John 3:16 must be interpreted.

 

[Jarthur001]

Actaully Christ is in fact the propitiation both of our sins and the whole world. That is what the passage states and John is consistent with his usage of the phrase "whole World", even in the same letter/book.

snip....

However this is not specifically aboujy the propitiation but what the phrase whole world means, more specifically in this passage

In both cases you must read the full context and understand each word to get the meaning.

Who is "our" sins? Is "ours" 1) all believers ......or ....2) Jewish believers?..0r 3) the believers who John is writing this letter?

No matter how you see this we all will agree that "our sins" is believers.

I say it is to those he is addressing and the "whole world" is the other believers in the world.

Also..as Larry has said.....what does propitiation mean? That is another word in the context that we must look at.

Would you agree with this?

The Greek word hilasterion is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew kapporeth which refers to the Mercy Seat of the Ark. Hilasterion can be translated as either propitiation or expiation which then imply different functions of the Mercy Seat. Propitiation literally means to make favorable and specifically includes the idea of dealing with God’s wrath against sinners. Expiation literally means to make pious and implies either the removal or cleansing of sin.

Now if you believe this is true and we must deal with this action taking place in the context.

propitiation
Does it mean to remove Gods wrath as said above? as in....All that Christ died for are no longer under Gods wrath. Christ did it all. Its a done deal.
or
Does it mean that the possibility of the removal of Gods wrath can be placed into action by man if they want it?

The way you answer this, will lead to the meaning of "whole world". I see it as Gods wrath is removed.

But it seems like the argument is over "whole". What does "whole" mean in the context? The Context for the "whole" passage and even "whole" book is to believers.

John follows this verse with a long list of what believers should do.

John is telling the benifits of the believers salvation even when we sin. John says...Do not sin....but if you do sin...your sins are atoned.

Are you saying that John goes on to say.....But those that are not believers have their sins atoned as well? I'm sure you are not saying this. But you should understand why many do not believe this is view is the true meaning of the passage.

I just have a major problem with the view of two words carrying the context..."whole world" when all the other words are addressing believers. And if seen in this light, these two words are giving the non-believers the same atonement as believers, when the "whole" of the book is talking right to the believer. Scripture tells us that believers are the only ones that have their sin atoned.

 

[Jarthur001]

You're right, you can't determine what John 3:16 means unless it's put in context.

But first let's define what was the propitiation, the law requires a "death for sin", Jesus fufilled that law that the "WORLD" "MIGHT BE" saved without having to die for it's sins.

If sin had been taken away, all would be saved, no "Might be".

Jesus died for "Sinners", all sinners, because God is no respecter of persons, not willing any should perish,

And that's the context John 3:16 must be interpreted.

You seem to build your "whole" theology around ...."might be". I have showed in the past were this is a error to do so.

 

[John of Japan]

John,

You said, What is left are two possible meanings: the literal meaning of "whole world" as meaning everything and/or everybody, and the hyperbolic meaning. An hyperbole is an exaggeration used for literary effect. Context determines which meaning to take. The problem here is that people will follow their own presuppositions instead of taking the literal meaning as is, when the literal meaning is what is meant.

My point that even saying what the literal meaning is involves one's "own presuppositions." Linguistics is not presuppositionless. I realize you didn't offer any exegesis of any passage. I used 1 John 2:2 to illustrate that the "literal meaning" of "whole world" in 1 John 2:2 depends on what you think "propitiation" means. So when you say they will follow their own presuppositions instead of taking the literal meaning, you are saying something that is rather nonsensical in many ways.

If it is a linguistic presupposition that the literal meaning is primary, so be it. I don't think so, myself. It's just basic semantics whether you are a traditionalist in linguistics or more modern. Kind of like one plus one equals two.

To determine the meaning of such a phrase, in my semantics I take the core meaning according to normal usage (in the NT and other koine documents in this case), note the rare usages such as idioms, look at the immediate context, then give a considered judgement as to meaning. This process is pretty standard among translators. I doubt if you could find a translator anywhere in the secular or Biblical world who would disagree, except for those taking the radical view that the translated document is a new work of literature and thus need not be faithful to the original (ala a secular translation theory called deconstructionism).

In the case of "whole world," we have a very simple and very traceable phrase. It's not an idiom. If the meaning is not to be taken literally or as hyperbole in the NT passages, the only way to prove your point is to find the phrase in extra Biblical sources that are obviously not literal or hyperbolic. If you can do that for me, I'll comment again on this thread. If not.... :saint:

Sorry to be confusing about that. I thought it was pretty clear. My bad.

No problem. Sorry I can't talk much more on this thread. I just contributed because I think the semantics of "whole world" as opposed to "world" is very important here. But we have big projects or events in May, June, July, August, October, etc. Very busy year. So I'm doing very little in forums for the rest of this year at least.

 

[Me4Him]

you seem to build your "whole" theology around ...."might be". I have showed in the past were this is a error to do so.

"where"???

 

[Pastor Larry]

But first let's define what was the propitiation, the law requires a "death for sin", Jesus fufilled that law that the "WORLD" "MIGHT BE" saved without having to die for it's sins.

If sin had been taken away, all would be saved, no "Might be".

That's not the way the Greek subjunctive works.

 

[Pastor Larry]

To determine the meaning of such a phrase, in my semantics I take the core meaning according to normal usage (in the NT and other koine documents in this case), note the rare usages such as idioms, look at the immediate context, then give a considered judgement as to meaning. This process is pretty standard among translators. I doubt if you could find a translator anywhere in the secular or Biblical world who would disagree, except for those taking the radical view that the translated document is a new work of literature and thus need not be faithful to the original (ala a secular translation theory called deconstructionism).

I agree with all that.

In the case of "whole world," we have a very simple and very traceable phrase. It's not an idiom. If the meaning is not to be taken literally or as hyperbole in the NT passages, the only way to prove your point is to find the phrase in extra Biblical sources that are obviously not literal or hyperbolic. If you can do that for me, I'll comment again on this thread. If not....

But I don't think that solves the problem because "whole world" is not that common of a phrase, particularly when used in conjunction with propitiation. We must first determine what propitiation means. If it means "satisfaction" then that affects what "whole world" means theologically.

So my point is that it is more than just looking up a word in the dictionary.

 

[Me4Him]

That's not the way the Greek subjunctive works.

Ro 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; (law)

Mt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation (substitute death) for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish,

Faith in Jesus takes away the law of death for sin, we 're not "under the law", Jesus nailed that ordinance (law) to his cross.

Unbelief leaves us "in sin", still "under the law", to fulfil ourselves. (hell)

Belief/unbelief (whosoever) is where the "might be" fits in.