What in the "World" does that word mean?

[The Biblicist]

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.

I have provide evidence, which you disagree but can't refute that the term world can and is used to refer to a class of mankind (Rom.11:11-12).

(That view would make Jesus ignorant of famous OT Gentile converts.) So your argument is a complete nonstarter to me.

You are missing my point entirely. It is the Jews that developed this closed soterilogical application not Jesus. However, Jesus had to respond to his audience and how they used and understood terms. This was a deep cultural problem that led up to Acts 15 but really never was settled in the first century among Jewish believers.

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

My point is that Jews regarded "world" in soteriological application to be synonymous with "Gentiles" as demonstrated by the Jewish rabbit Saul of Tarsus in Romans 11:11-12. Whether you agree with my view of Romans 11:11-12 you can't disprove it and you can't disprove the real cultural problem that limited salvation to Jews only excluding gentiles. Hence, by using the the term "world" in such a soterilogical context was a rebuke to Nicodemus as it included what Jews excluded.

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.

One important principle of sound hermeneutics is to ask "who is being addressed" and you must assume that language is meant to be understood and in order to understand each other those talking must know how terms are defined and used by those they are addressing or there is no communication. So, it is important to know the theological use and meaning because Jesus is addressing a Jewish theologian.

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.
I disagree.

Of course, it is your right to disagree. However, just because John uses the term "world" in one context to mean inhabited world does not mean he uses it in another context to mean that or to mean every human ever born from adam to the last living man.

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

I did not say that. He loves ALL classes of mankind not merely "certain" thus, the whole world but not every human being ever born or will be born - it does not say that either.

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.

If "world" in both verses 16 and 17 are interpreted to mean "all races, all classes, all genders" of mankind there is no inconsistency.

 

[John of Japan]

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

But not this.

 

[Reformed1689]

But not this.

For the record, this is a discussion of the USE of the word "world." It has many different uses based upon context.

 

[John of Japan]

"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.

The clause after "God so loved he world" is a hwste clause. The hina clause then follows that. You have to exegete the hwste before the hina..

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

Well, of course. It is polysemous.

 

[John of Japan]

For the record, this is a discussion of the USE of the word "world." It has many different uses based upon context.

For the record, here is you OP title, which is about meaning:
What in the "World" does that word mean?

 

[Reformed1689]

For the record, here is you OP title, which is about meaning:
What in the "World" does that word mean?

Yeah but anyone with half a brain knows what that means as well based on the context of the thread....

 

[John of Japan]

I have provide evidence, which you disagree but can't refute that the term world can and is used to refer to a class of mankind (Rom.11:11-12).

Sure I can refute you. The problem is that you are another one of these guys that posts a whole essay every time, and then dares your opposition to refute it. I simply don't have time to refute everything you write. But I will work with you a little bit below.

You are missing my point entirely. It is the Jews that developed this closed soterilogical application not Jesus. However, Jesus had to respond to his audience and how they used and understood terms. This was a deep cultural problem that led up to Acts 15 but really never was settled in the first century among Jewish believers.

Jesus was flat out changing the narrative on Nicodemus, not "responding" to him. Nicodemus was totally at sea because Jesus was not responding, but was taking the narrative into totally new areas. "Born again? What's that???"

My point is that Jews regarded "world" in soteriological application to be synonymous with "Gentiles" as demonstrated by the Jewish rabbit Saul of Tarsus in Romans 11:11-12. Whether you agree with my view of Romans 11:11-12 you can't disprove it and you can't disprove the real cultural problem that limited salvation to Jews only excluding gentiles. Hence, by using the the term "world" in such a soterilogical context was a rebuke to Nicodemus as it included what Jews excluded.

Don't you hate it when people say, "You can't refute this"??? I'll just say that you cannot prove that v. 12 in Rom. 11 does not include the Jews. I would take more time, but you keep writing these long essays (and then saying, "Aha, you can't answer me.").

One important principle of sound hermeneutics is to ask "who is being addressed" and you must assume that language is meant to be understood and in order to understand each other those talking must know how terms are defined and used by those they are addressing or there is no communication. So, it is important to know the theological use and meaning because Jesus is addressing a Jewish theologian.

And again, Jesus is changing the whole narrative of the Jewish theologian. Nicodemus was lost in more ways than one. He couldn't even wrap his brain around "born again."

Of course, it is your right to disagree. However, just because John uses the term "world" in one context to mean inhabited world does not mean he uses it in another context to mean that or to mean every human ever born from adam to the last living man.

I did not say that. He loves ALL classes of mankind not merely "certain" thus, the whole world but not every human being ever born or will be born - it does not say that either.

John's doctrine included "God is love" twice in 1 John. I can't comprehend how the God who is Himself "love" (a noun, not a verb there), does not love all of His creation. It is His very nature to love. But all of a sudden He hates the non-elect? Where in the Bible does it say, "God is hate"? You see, it is precisely this kind of thinking that prevents me from ever embracing limited atonement.

If "world" in both verses 16 and 17 are interpreted to mean "all races, all classes, all genders" of mankind there is no inconsistency.

I'll go with the Chinese Union Version on this one.

 

[John of Japan]

Yeah but anyone with half a brain knows what that means as well based on the context of the thread....

So you didn't mean you would discuss meaning when you wrote the word "mean"? Should I apologize for thinking you meant meaning when you didn't? (You and Bill Clinton.)

 

[Reformed1689]

So you didn't mean you would discuss meaning when you wrote the word "mean"? Should I apologize for thinking you meant meaning when you didn't? (You and Bill Clinton.)

Yep you should apologize because it was made clear pages ago. If I'm not mistaken we have even addressed it with you individually.

Yes, that is what I am saying. And yes, splitting hairs, but in this case (and given some of the arguments on this board) it was a good hair to split.

Apparently, you missed this quite near the beginning of the thread.

 

[McCree79]

The clause after "God so loved he world" is a hwste clause. The hina clause then follows that. You have to exegete the hwste before the hina..

"In this manner God loved the world".

In this way he loved humanity........out of love, God did something; ὥστε (therefore, so that, accordingly, which resulted in....sending the μονογενῆ ....then we are to the hina clause, which is the purpose clause

God's love resulted in send of the Son with the purpose of "so that" πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων will not perish.




Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[John of Japan]

Folks, I'm going to bow out now. I have a senior recital to go to in a short while with my wife. Just a note: BAGD (I don't like BDAG) has over 3 columns on kosmos, and none of the meanings give license to interpret it as "some people but not others."

 

[McCree79]

Yeah but anyone with half a brain knows what that means as well based on the context of the thread....

Even that takes reading all your early posts. I found the title misleading as well. You did clarify later. With John being a translator and diving into meaning of each word, I can see him going where he did.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[John of Japan]

Yep you should apologize because it was made clear pages ago. If I'm not mistaken we have even addressed it with you individually.

Apparently, you missed this quite near the beginning of the thread.

Squirm away, but it's too late to change your very clear OP. I won't apologize for taking your OP title literally.

 

[Reformed1689]

Squirm away, but it's too late to change your very clear OP. I won't apologize for taking your OP title literally.

Then that reeks of dishonesty when we already dealt with you on this.

 

[Reformed1689]

Even that takes reading all your early posts. I found the title misleading as well. You did clarify later. With John being a translator and diving into meaning of each word, I can see him going where he did.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Yeah except we already addressed this with him.

 

[McCree79]

Yeah except we already addressed this with him. To continue to try and use that as a tool is dishonest of him.

He honestly may have forgotten. A lot of posts since then, and he is busy. John seems to always try to deal with others honestly....even if he is wrong [emoji16].

So, I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt....more than I do others.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Reformed1689]

He honestly may have forgotten. A lot of posts since then, and he is busy. John seems to always try to deal with others honestly....even if he is wrong [emoji16].

So, I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt....more than I do others.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Sorry no, given the way he has treated me here and other places he no longer gets the benefit of anything.

 

[John of Japan]

Then that reeks of dishonesty when we already dealt with you on this.

The wife's not here yet, so I'm going to answer this false charge.

Look, you're saying it's all about "usage" and not "meaning." Then you call me dishonest for sticking with "meaning." That's ridiculous. "Meaning" and "usage" are all wrapped up together. If you discuss meaning you have to discuss usage. If you discuss usage you are discussing meaning. There are entire books about this. I recommend the landmark Biblical Words and Their Meanings by Moises Silva, or Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek by my son's mentor, David Alan Black.

As the saying goes, "Don't teach your grandma to suck eggs." If you are younger than 40, I was studying meaning and usage before you were born in college, seminary, and then at the prestigious Tokyo School of the Japanese Language (1981-1983). And you dare to call me "dishonest" for discussing "meaning" and not "usage." You can't discuss one without the other.

P.S. And in post #83 you are talking about meaning.

 

[Reformed1689]

The wife's not here yet, so I'm going to answer this false charge.

Look, you're saying it's all about "usage" and not "meaning." Then you call me dishonest for sticking with "meaning." That's ridiculous. "Meaning" and "usage" are all wrapped up together. If you discuss meaning you have to discuss usage. If you discuss usage you are discussing meaning. There are entire books about this. I recommend the landmark Biblical Words and Their Meanings by Moises Silva, or Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek by my son's mentor, David Alan Black.

As the saying goes, "Don't teach your grandma to suck eggs." If you are younger than 40, I was studying meaning and usage before you were born in college, seminary, and then at the prestigious Tokyo School of the Japanese Language (1981-1983). And you dare to call me "dishonest" for discussing "meaning" and not "usage." You can't discuss one without the other.

I stand by my comments.

 

[McCree79]

Folks, I'm going to bow out now. I have a senior recital to go to in a short while with my wife. Just a note: BAGD (I don't like BDAG) has over 3 columns on kosmos, and none of the meanings give license to interpret it as "some people but not others."

This occurred right after my post. My use of the BDAG did not suggest Κόσμος referred to just the elect....or Jews alone ...or whoever. Perhaps it was not directed at me. But I think I am the only one who mentioned BDAG as well...and I quoted it directly.

Enjoy your time with the wife.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk