What in the "World" does that word mean?

[John of Japan]

I find you to be disingenuous. You are trying to take jabs then defend your taking of jabs.


Ad hominem.


More ad hominem and I also retracted my statement yet you take the jab anyway. Your true colors are showing.

So, then, you refuse to answer my points?

 

[Reformed1689]

So, then, you refuse to answer my points?

What "point" would you like me to address outside of the personal attack?

 

[John of Japan]

What "point" would you like me to address outside of the personal attack?

Well first of all, what you are calling "ad hominem" is nothing more than treating your less-than-stellar points with gentle ribbing. My intent was rebuke, and I apologize that you took it otherwise. You appear to be very young in your photo, and you've not been on the BB for long, so I hope you'll get past this.

As for my points,

1. In Post #75 I wrote, "The word 'elect' does not occur in the whole book of John, much less 3:16-17."
2. In Post #78, I gave a lexicon definition of kosmos, and the word "elect" does not appear anywhere in it. Here it is again; please tell me why the rendering in John 3:16-17 should not be meaning #3, "as all human beings mankind, humanity, all people."

Here is the definition (Friberg, accessed through BibleWorks): "basically something well-arranged; (1) adornment, adorning (1P 3.3); (2) as the sum total of all created beings in heaven and earth world, universe (AC 17.24); (3) as all human beings mankind, humanity, all people (MK 16.15); (4) as this planet inhabited by mankind world, earth (MT 16.26; JN 11.9); (5) morally, mankind as alienated from God, unredeemed and hostile to him world (1J 5.19); (6) sum total of particulars in any one field of experience, world, totality (JA 3.6)."

In Post #73, in arguing against Reynolds, you wrote, "I have corrected and still stand by it is REFERRING to the elect. Stop arguing semantics and argue substance." (And by the way, Reynolds was arguing semantics in the linguistic way, not the "That's just semantics" way. So you deserved rebuke there.)

So linguistically, you are saying that "world" in the passage has a referential meaning of "elect." How do you get there?

 

[Reformed1689]

You appear to be very young in your photo, and you've not been on the BB for long, so I hope you'll get past this.

It's an old photo. And as far as answering your points, I am actually no longer engaging you. You can address me but I am no longer responding to you. I don't need any of your "rebuke" and I will be adding you to my ignore list.

 

[John of Japan]

It's an old photo. And as far as answering your points, I am actually no longer engaging you. You can address me but I am no longer responding to you. I don't need any of your "rebuke" and I will be adding you to my ignore list.

Okey dokey. I'm not surprised (and will survive this ). So this means to me that, at a minimum, he simply does not want to answer me, but the other possibility is that he cannot answer me. But as Ronald Reagan said, "I am not going to exploit...my opponent's youth and inexperience."

P.S. I predict that David's "Ignore List" is going to be very long if he can't abide yours truly.

 

[Reformed1689]

With regard to John 3:17 we know that world cannot mean every person because of the context of the rest of the book of John. God does not love every person in the world. To say that He does goes directly against Scripture "Esau I hated." He does not save every person. He only saves and loves the elect.

Therefore, John 3:17 can only be referring to the elect when it says world. Otherwise it would not harmonize with the rest of Scripture.

Again, as I have said before, imagine you are watching the Super Bowl and the commentator says the eyes of the whole world are on this play. Does he literally mean every person? No, he means the people actually watching the game.

 

[John of Japan]

With regard to John 3:17 we know that world cannot mean every person because of the context of the rest of the book of John. God does not love every person in the world. To say that He does goes directly against Scripture "Esau I hated." He does not save every person. He only saves and loves the elect.

Therefore, John 3:17 can only be referring to the elect when it says world. Otherwise it would not harmonize with the rest of Scripture.

Again, as I have said before, imagine you are watching the Super Bowl and the commentator says the eyes of the whole world are on this play. Does he literally mean every person? No, he means the people actually watching the game.

I know I'm no doubt on David's ignore list by now, but I simply have to say that he is mixing up lexical meaning and figures of speech. His Super Bowl illustration is clearly hyperbole, but John 3:17 is not clearly hyperbole. It is a simple statement of fact. As for his Esau illustration, that is taken from the writings of Paul, not John. It is not an exegetically valid comparison, though it may be valid from his theological presuppositions.

 

[kyredneck]

What "point" would you like me to address outside of the personal attack?

I will be adding you to my ignore list.

ROFGUFFAWING, you've no idea have poetic this is. Those are JoJ's lines, a hundred times over...

 

[Grasshopper]

There seems to be a sense from the anti-calvinist position that the Calvinists are wrong simply because the New Testament uses the word "World" often. I want to look at the book of John alone and propose quite a few different meanings of the word world. This is based on context. In short, the "word" world does not always mean "every individual person."

The word "World" can mean:

1. The entire universe or created order such as John 1:10
2. The physical earth. John 13:1
3. The world system. John 12:31
4. All unbelievers. John 7:7
5. A large group. John 12:19
6. The general public. John 7:4
7. Large groups both Jew and Gentile. John 1:29
8. The non-elect. John 17:9
9. The elect. John 3:17

The Extent of His Death Pt.1 Redemption Pt.2

 

[Reformed1689]

As for his Esau illustration, that is taken from the writings of Paul, not John. It is not an exegetically valid comparison, though it may be valid from his theological presuppositions.

Oh brother. You have to take all of the Bible John. You can't just cherry-pick. Do John and Paul disagree then? Did they somehow one or both get it wrong?

 

[John of Japan]

Oh brother. You have to take all of the Bible John. You can't just cherry-pick. Do John and Paul disagree then? Did they somehow one or both get it wrong?

I'm still talking semantics here. In studying the meaning of a Greek word, it's not acceptable to take a totally different word and interpret the meaning. In other words, "Esau" in Romans does not give meaning to "world" in John. What the Greek linguist does is look at the usage in the particular context, and determine meaning from that. (Discerning meaning, especially with hapax legomena, can also depend on extra-Biblical usage.) Another mistake is to interpret the meaning of a word through one's theological lens. In that regard, the list of "world" meanings in your OP is not bad, but the last one does that--it looks at "world" in John 3:16 as meaning "the elect," but there is nothing in the context or usage or extra-Biblical usage to indicate that meaning.

With this view I am forced to interpret "predestine" without a theological supposition, and I do that. This does not make me a Calvinist, but it does keep me from being an Arminian, if that makes sense.

 

[percho]

Why do translators translate as they do? Take the word, κόσμος (kosmos).
The KJV translates Strong's G2889 in the following manner: world (186x), adorning (1x).

Why did they not translate it as, used, if that is what it takes for us to understand a passage?
Why one time different?

I do not have the means, I don't think, to check every instance of say, Westcott and Hort, but did check that one instance from KJV and noticed they remained true to as used in other passages.

 

[The Biblicist]

As for my points,

1. In Post #75 I wrote, "The word 'elect' does not occur in the whole book of John, much less 3:16-17."

However, the word "kosmos" does. Hence, this could be an argument against you rather than for you as election is clearly taught in other books of the Bible and so possibly John's use of kosmos in soteriological passages may be applied to the "elect" by contextual soteriological application as explanatory of "mankind" consisting of various races, genders and classes rather than every human being that has ever existed.

For example, although the word "elect" may not be found in John the term "sheep" is found and although they have no lexical relationship the term "sheep" could be used synonymous with "elect" in certain soteriological passages in John.

2. In Post #78, I gave a lexicon definition of kosmos, and the word "elect" does not appear anywhere in it.

No one argues that kosmos and elect are interchangable in Lexical meaning any more than anyone argues that "sheep" and "elect" are interchangable in Lexical meaning. Yet it can be argued in the book of John that "sheep" may have a soteriological application to the "elect" in the book of John.

However, what I think you may be missing is the cultural application of the term "kosmos" by Jews when it comes to the question of soterilogy. I think it can be sucessfully argued that the Jews believed that salvation was not for the "world" in the sense of either non-Jewish world or or inclusive of all races, classes and genders but was restricted to becoming a jew. In john 4 even Jesus said "salvation is of the Jews" and the woman at the well was astonished that a Jewish male would address a woman and even more so a non-Jew - Samaratin. Nicodemus was a strict orthodox Jew who held this view. In the first nine chapters of Acts no Jew would even go preach the gospel to a Gentile. In Acts 10 Peter had to be admonished three times directly by Christ for him to even set foot inside a Gentile home which he immediately told Cornelius that it was "not lawful" for him to do. Even after Acts 10-12 Jews would not go evangelize Gentiles but it was proseylted Jewish believers that did. God had to call and send a special apostle to evangelize gentiles as the Jewish apostles restricted their ministry to the circumcision (Gal. 3:9). In Acts 15 the first general counsel held in the Jerusalem assembly was whether Gentiles could be saved without becoming Jews (circumcised). Hence, the New Testament jewish soteriological culture opposed Gentile salvation apart from becoming Jewish.

So, the question is what does the word "kosmos" mean in the Jewish mind with regard to soteriology. I think it means at least the world of non-Jewish mankind and could be understood to mean "mankind in the sense of all races, classes and genders." Hence, when Paul describes the extent of salvation he speaks in classifications when he says "in Christ there is neither jews or Gentiles, bond or free, male or female."

Finally, the apostle John in Revelation 5:9 also speaks of the elect in terms of classifications when he describes them "hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;"

Paul uses the term "kosmos" in terms of limited classification of mankind in Romans 11:11-12 where it is clear he is referring to "gentiles" as opposed to Jews as "the world":

Rom. 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

So, there is sufficient New Testament evidence that kosmos in soterioligical passages can be used for a restricted classification of mankind.

In the first epistle of John, John is writing Jewish Christians. This is evident as he tells his readers that they had already received the commandment as an "old" commandment but now as a "new" commandment. He is talking to a people who soteriologically had believed salvation was restricted to one classification of people (Jews) and which had trouble going beyond that restricted classification (Acts 1-12, 15). Hence, in the redemptive passage (1 Jn. 2:1-2) "whole world" would reinforce that all (whole) classes of mankind (world) are objects of redemption without demanding John means every single human being ever born.

Here it is again; please tell me why the rendering in John 3:16-17 should not be meaning #3, "as all human beings mankind, humanity, all people."

John 3:16 is contextually directed to a Jewish rabbi and presumably Jesus would be speaking in langauge the rabbi would understand. I argue that the Jewish religious community understands "kosmos" with regard to soteriology as a term designating either non-Jewish mankind in general or inclusive of all races, classes and genders rather than every human being ever born anywhere on planet earth. In Romans 11 it could be argued that the term "world" not only refers to a restricted class of human beings - "gentiles" but "elect" gentiles as he is speaking of the promise of salvation relating to the soteriological promise to Arabram or the two olive trees (Jewish and Gentile) elect.

 

[John of Japan]

However, the word "kosmos" does. Hence, this could be an argument against you rather than for you as election is clearly taught in other books of the Bible and so possibly John's use of kosmos in soteriological passages may be applied to the "elect" by contextual soteriological application as explanatory of "mankind" consisting of various races, genders and classes rather than every human being that has ever existed.

For example, although the word "elect" may not be found in John the term "sheep" is found and although they have no lexical relationship the term "sheep" could be used synonymous with "elect" in certain soteriological passages in John.

I'm a linguist. I've been arguing from linguistic semantics. From that POV, you can't make kosmos mean anything but "world" in John 3:16. It doesn't mean "sheep" and it doesn't mean "elect." (I find your "sheep" argument to really roundabout.) All the rest of your argument here is from a certain theology, not from exegesis. So, to me it is irrelevant. I don't believe in interpreting Scripture based on theology.

No one argues that kosmos and elect are interchangable in Lexical meaning any more than anyone argues that "sheep" and "elect" are interchangable in Lexical meaning. Yet it can be argued in the book of John that "sheep" may have a soteriological application to the "elect" in the book of John.

Maybe, it can, but I certainly wouldn't argue that, and it seems like a mighty weak argument to me, done with theological presuppositions rather than exegesis.

However, what I think you may be missing is the cultural application of the term "kosmos" by Jews when it comes to the question of soterilogy. I think it can be sucessfully argued that the Jews believed that salvation was not for the "world" in the sense of either non-Jewish world or or inclusive of all races, classes and genders but was restricted to becoming a jew. In john 4 even Jesus said "salvation is of the Jews" and the woman at the well was astonished that a Jewish male would address a woman and even more so a non-Jew - Samaratin.

Well of course salvation is of the Jews. Jesus is a Jew. The Greek for "from" is ek, so it is indicating the origin of salvation. That's what Jesus said, "Salvation comes from the Jews," not that only Jews could be saved. (That view would make Jesus ignorant of famous OT Gentile converts.) So your argument is a complete nonstarter to me.

Nicodemus was a strict orthodox Jew who held this view. In the first nine chapters of Acts no Jew would even go preach the gospel to a Gentile. In Acts 10 Peter had to be admonished three times directly by Christ for him to even set foot inside a Gentile home which he immediately told Cornelius that it was "not lawful" for him to do. Even after Acts 10-12 Jews would not go evangelize Gentiles but it was proseylted Jewish believers that did. God had to call and send a special apostle to evangelize gentiles as the Jewish apostles restricted their ministry to the circumcision (Gal. 3:9). In Acts 15 the first general counsel held in the Jerusalem assembly was whether Gentiles could be saved without becoming Jews (circumcised). Hence, the New Testament jewish soteriological culture opposed Gentile salvation apart from becoming Jewish.

I don't see your point here. Jesus was trying to change the Jewish view (with Nidocemus or whoever), not endorse it.

So, the question is what does the word "kosmos" mean in the Jewish mind with regard to soteriology. I think it means at least the world of non-Jewish mankind and could be understood to mean "mankind in the sense of all races, classes and genders." Hence, when Paul describes the extent of salvation he speaks in classifications when he says "in Christ there is neither jews or Gentiles, bond or free, male or female."

No, the question is not what kosmos meant in the Jewish mind, the question is what Jesus meant by it. Jesus quite often said things that disagreed with the Jewish world view of his hearers.

Finally, the apostle John in Revelation 5:9 also speaks of the elect in terms of classifications when he describes them "hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;"

The question is not "Does God love the elect?" I think everyone would agree that Rev. 5:9 speaks of the elect, and also that God loves the elect. But John used the word clearly to mean the entire inhabited world in Rev. 11:15.

Paul uses the term "kosmos" in terms of limited classification of mankind in Romans 11:11-12 where it is clear he is referring to "gentiles" as opposed to Jews as "the world":

Rom. 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

So, there is sufficient New Testament evidence that kosmos in soterioligical passages can be used for a restricted classification of mankind.

I disagree.

In the first epistle of John, John is writing Jewish Christians. This is evident as he tells his readers that they had already received the commandment as an "old" commandment but now as a "new" commandment. He is talking to a people who soteriologically had believed salvation was restricted to one classification of people (Jews) and which had trouble going beyond that restricted classification (Acts 1-12, 15). Hence, in the redemptive passage (1 Jn. 2:1-2) "whole world" would reinforce that all (whole) classes of mankind (world) are objects of redemption without demanding John means every single human being ever born.

Go back and check. The verse says, "God so loved the world," not "God so loved certain classes of mankind."

John 3:16 is contextually directed to a Jewish rabbi and presumably Jesus would be speaking in langauge the rabbi would understand. I argue that the Jewish religious community understands "kosmos" with regard to soteriology as a term designating either non-Jewish mankind in general or inclusive of all races, classes and genders rather than every human being ever born anywhere on planet earth. In Romans 11 it could be argued that the term "world" not only refers to a restricted class of human beings - "gentiles" but "elect" gentiles as he is speaking of the promise of salvation relating to the soteriological promise to Arabram or the two olive trees (Jewish and Gentile) elect.

So then, is it your view that "world" in v. 17 is only Jews? That God did not send His Son into the world in general? That would be the logical extension of your view. In that case, none of us Gentiles should actually be saved.

No, kosmos means "world." Frankly, John 3:16 appears to be the most difficult of all passages for someone believing in limited atonement to interpret. One such has to end up saying that kosmos doesn't mean "world," which it obviously does. That's why there are so many 4 pointers out there.

 

[Revmitchell]

Since there is a greek word for "elect" the idea that world in John 3:16 means elect is absurd. Talk about eisegesis.

 

[Reformed1689]

Since there is a greek word for "elect" the idea that world in John 3:16 means elect is absurd. Talk about eisegesis.

Do you understand how completely ridiculous this statement is?

 

[John of Japan]

Interestingly enough, kosmos is translated in the Shinkaiyaku and Kogoyaku and other Japanese translations as 世, a literary word for "world."

The Chinese Union Version has 神愛世人, the four Chinese characters for "God loves world people," since in Chinese syntax you have to modify "world." So everyone reading the Chinese Bible is going to think, "God loves me too, since I am a 'world person.'"

Jerome translated it into Latin as mundum (acc. of mundus), meaning "world, universe, toiletware, nature, earth, mankind" (https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71.Ph5FA6qz1Js).

We could go on with many other translations in many other languages. Face it, folks, kosmos just means "world" in John 3:16, and you can't make it mean anything else.

 

[Reformed1689]

Jerome translated it into Latin as mundum (acc. of mundus), meaning "world, universe, toiletware, nature, earth, mankind" (https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71.Ph5FA6qz1Js).

As I recall, Jerome got some BIG things wrong in his translation....

 

[McCree79]

We could go on with many other translations in many other languages. Face it, folks, kosmos just means "world."

"World" is the best rendering here, but even that comes with varying levels of meaning. It almost certainly refers to humanity in general in John 3:16-17. But the hina clause shows the purpose behind sending his son which is, so that all the ones believing in him shall not perish but have eternal life. The purpose of sending the son is to save the πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων. That is why I believe the BDAG is correct in saying κόσμος in 3:16 refers "to humanity in general, but especially of believers, as objects of God's love.


It can also be used in a sense where "world" would be inappropriate.
1 Peter 3:3





Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

As I recall, Jerome got some BIG things wrong in his translation....

I like Toiletware. Let's go with that.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk