John 3:16 and Dabney’s “Indiscriminate proposals of Mercy”

As you can see, the parallels that I observe are that the “looking” parallels with the “believing”; “the bronze serpent” parallels with Christ; and the “shall live” and “lived” parallel with “have eternal life” and “should not perish but have everlasting life.” The first parallel deals with belief; the second with the object of belief; and the third with the result of belief. In this, the prevailing idea of belief is laid out. The supposed idea of “offer” is not mentioned in this passage nor in the parallel analogy. It should be noted that the snake was raised so that the one who looked at it would be healed. The meaning is not “so that when it is offered and when the one who is offered it and looks may be healed.” That the offer is not implied from this text will be made more apparent with the comparison in the purpose of Christ’s being “lifted up.”

Just as the snake was lifted up in the wilderness, “in the same manner it is necessary that the Son of Man be lifted up”[7] for a purpose. This is seen by the Greek word ina [8]. According to The Analytical Greek Lexicon[9] , ina is a conjunction that may be translated as “that; in order that; so that”[10] which denotes “to the purpose of” since lexically ina is used to describe the end goal and the means of accomplishing the purpose here.

The question that we can ask of the text next, is to what end, or what is the purpose that the lifting up of the snake is analogous to the “lifting up” of the Son of Man? The Bible says that Christ must (of necessity) be lifted up so that “all the believing ones” might have eternal life. The Greek phrase is paS o pisteuwn . The Greek word pisteuwn is a nomitive, singular, masculine, present participle. In most translations, it is translated as “believes” which has the appearance of a future tense verb (being that they interpret the verse as an “offer” so that all may have the opportunity to believe) and maybe even a perfect tense verb to some. But the Greek text does not support that. Rather, it speaks of a state of being since the text speaks of “the one believing” or “the one who is believing” since it is a present participle. The Greek word paS means “all; the whole”. The lexical rendering of this phrase is normally rendered “whosoever believes” (NKJV), “whoever believes” (NASB, ESB) and “everyone who believes” (NIV, Amplified). Obviously, the first two lexical renderings seem to not be as clear as the literal Greek is, but the latter lexical rendering of “everyone who believes” best represents paS o pisteuwn because it mentions the “all” or “the whole” through the use of the word “everyone” and places the emphasis on those who are actually believing with the word “believes” because it can be easier understood to be a present participle. On the other hand, the phrase “whosoever believes” can be an amphiboly[11] to mean a hypothetical state of affairs of potential believers. The emphasis is on the persons who is actually believing and securing their “eternal life” and not the eternal life of mere “hypothetical believers”[12] for they have no life in them till they be born again (cf. Eph. 2:1).

Therefore, the purpose of Christ being lifted up according to John 3:14, 15 is so that “all” of the “believing ones” “would have eternal life”[13]. In whatever age or era they may be in, “the whole” of those who believe are secured in the “lifting up of the Son of Man.” There is not a hypothetical possibility for hypothetical believers, but rather an actual salvation for actual believers.

John 3:16

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (NIV)

outos gar hgaphsen o qeos ton kosmon wste ton uion ton monogenh edwken ina pas o pisteuwn eiS auton mn apolhnai all’ ech zwhn aiwnion [14]

gar is a conjunction that “establishes a causal relation between this verse and the preceding verse.[15]” It is a “causal particle[16]” as well. Therefore, John 3:16 is giving the cause, or motivation, of God’s redemptive action that was previously described in verses 14 and 15. It is the giving us a glimpse of the motive behind God sending “the Son of Man” – God’s only Begotten Son – so that believers might not perish, namely because God “so loved”.

The Greek word that is translated as “so” is outoS, and it is an adverb[17] that is modifying the verb hgaphsen [18] (literally “loved”). God’s love is not an ordinary love in this text. It is not a “common love” or a “common grace”. Instead, God’s love is shown in a particular manner to this “world” (of which we will deal with its interpretation shortly). God so loved the world “so that”, “so as to” do something. wste is the Greek word that is translated as “that” in most translations[19]. It is a conjunction that serves as a “particle of design”[20]. God “SO” loved this world that He is moved to redemptive action and volition[21] that causes Him to “give” (Gr. edwken) His “only Begotten Son”. He gives His Son “so as to” effect eternal life.

The Bible teaches that God “gave” His Son in a sacrificial manner (cf. Isa. 53:6-10; Matt. 20:19, 26:2, 16; 27:2, 18, 26; Luke 24:7, 20; Acts 2:23; Romans 8:32; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 5:2; Hebrews 7:26,27; 10:12,etc…). The reference (of “giving”) is obviously alluding to the atonement of Christ. Therefore, in connection with the “particle of design”, this manner of God’s love – love that provided an atoning sacrifice - is the moving cause of the atonement. This is not God’s “general love” or “common love” or “common grace” and “omni-benevolence” toward all of mankind, for the Scriptures teach that God has designed the atonement only for His elect (cf. Isa. 53: 8, 11-12; Matt. 1:21; 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 10:11, 14-16, 24-29; 11:51-52; Acts 20:28; Romans 8:32-34; Eph. 5:25; Hebrews 9:28; I John 4:10). Rather, this blessed passage is detailing God’s particular manner of love toward this “world” that caused Him to design an atonement that would inevitably secure the salvation of “all the believing ones” (paS o pisteuwn). It should be noted that this is the same Greek construction that is in verse 15 which is a present participle verb. That this is the design of the atonement from this passage is brought out more clearly by the conjunctive ina (that stands in front of the preposition paS o pisteuwn) which means “in order that” or “for the purpose of”[22]. The only begotten son was given “in order that” the ones believing in his atoning work for their sins would not perish, but have eternal life. Therefore, the design and purpose of the atonement – the “giving” of the Only Begotten Son – in this verse is so that “all those believing in Him” might not perish but have everlasting life. To reduce this to a mere “offer” would be to misinterpret the verse.

In regards to the interpretation of paS o pisteuwn , this is one point where I believe Dabney goes wrong. When he says that if “world” only means “the body of the elect then 1) we have a clear implication that some of that body may fail to believe and [will] perish”, he could only derive this from the translated words “whosoever believes,” understood in a hypothetical sense by Dabney. However, Dabney’s “clear implication” does not hold water since it would go against o pisteuwn: “the believing one”. The person who “is believing” cannot fail to believe since he is actually believing, and not hypothetically believing. In reality, all hypothetical believers are perishing because they are still “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1). But the ones who are believing will not perish, but have(present tense) everlasting life.

There is no room for thinking that this “loving” act of God is intended for all men individually and universally since its purpose is to secure “the believing ones” so that they will “not perish but instead, have everlasting life.” The Father’s giving of Christ is to secure salvation in this verse, not make it hypothetically possible to those who will never believe. The connection between verses 15 and 16 shows that God is moved to save “all the believing ones” by a certain “manner” of love that provides an atoning sacrifice to secure salvation for believers, not make them a mere offer.

The question that must now be dealt with from this is: who is the “world” in John 3:16 that God is so loving toward? To whom is it that God is so loving toward that He gives His only begotten Son to secure their salvation?

It is true that some would require a “face value” interpretation of the word “world” to mean “all men universally”. Dabney and Piper propose this so as to make room for God’s sincere offer of the Gospel while claiming that this interpretation does no damage to the doctrine of limited atonement, as does the Arminian[23]. However,(after having just exegeted John 3:16) I believe that these men are wrong, and they are being inconsistent with their applications of Reformed Theology - particularly the doctrines of election and Limited Atonement.

First, in regards to the doctrine of election: The Bible consistently teaches that God has a particular “love” and “grace” for His elect people that He does not bestow on all men ( Deut. 7: 6-8, Amos 3:2; Malachi 1:2,3; Romans 8:28-30; 9:11-12; 11:1-10; II Thess. 2:13, etc…). God’s “love” for these particular people is distinguished from “common love” that God has for created men, whether elect or non-elect. It is these “sheep” (cf. John 10:14-16) that Christ “knows” (Gr. ginoskos). For these people, it is a special love of God that existed before time. This same love, according to Reformed Theology is not given to the non-elect, for they are reprobate – passed over for judgment. The Bible puts it in this language: “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated,” (Malachi 1:2,3) of which Paul uses to justify God’s election of individual unto mercy (see Romans 9:6-24). “He has mercy on whom He wills” (Romans 9:18). In this context, God’s “mercy” is His salvific mercy and not “common mercy” that is given to all men through “a propension not matured into a volition to redeem.” He has redemptive mercy on whom “He wills,” and Romans 9 makes the point that not all men receive this mercy nor are offered it from God[24].

To interpret “world” in John 3:16 with a face value meaning[25] of “men universally” – whether as the Arminian does or as Dabney has it to mean “all who hear the Gospel”- clearly goes against the doctrine of election in that it equates God’s redemptive “love” (that caused Him to give His only begotten sacrificially and substitutionarily as not pertaining to the Elect, of which the Scriptures are clear, as is the author of the Gospel of John), with the same love that he has for the non-elect. Does the Bible anywhere teach that God’s “common love” toward the elect moved Him to the height of redemptive action? Was God’s love for the non-elect a motivation to give His only begotten as a substitutionary sacrifice for them? If these questions are answered in the affirmative, then Reformed Theology has been abandoned and Arminianism embraced. Not only this but John 3:16 would be understood to mean: For God so loved “all those who would hear the Gospel”(according to Dabney) that He gave His Son to die for the believing ones. To a Reformed person, this makes no sense for God to “love” a group of people in the same manner that He is moved to send a sacrifice on their behalf so that only the some from that same group that God loves equally - “the ones believing”- might be saved[26]. Clearly this goes against the doctrine of election and God’s sovereign love that accomplishes the salvation of those whom He loves “in Christ”.

This brings me to the objection of Dabney’s interpretation of John 3:16 and the doctrine of Limited Atonement. As mentioned above, If, as Dabney takes it to mean, “world” is taken to mean “all who hear”, and God is moved by His love for “all who hear” so as to give His only begotten Son sacrificially for them, how is it that only the “believing ones” are alone saved if Christ is given in the same manner for them who hear but yet don’t come to faith? For whom atonement is “given”, they, of necessity, according to the Bible, must be infallibly saved. Is the atonement ineffective for those who heard but rejected? Surely, according to Reformed Theology and the consistent teachings of Scripture, this cannot be the case. Rather the Bible teaches that Christ was given ONLY for the Sheep as John points out (John 10:11, 15). It is them that Christ “knows” (ginoskoS). To those who are not “His sheep” (non-elect), God is not motivated to provide atonement for (John 10:26 cf. 10:11, 15). No atonement was made for Gospel rejecters as Owen points out that God did not give His son for “1. for them who do never believe; 2. Much less for them who never hear of him, and so evidently [lack] means of faith; 3. For them on whom he hath determined not to bestow effectual grace, that they might believe.[27]”

However the word “world” is interpreted, we should understand that God’s giving of His only Begotten Son necessitates their(world) salvation since Christ is “given” for them (contrary to Dabney’s thought[28]). Even though it may not necessitate “universal” atonement, it would still necessitate atonement made on behalf of “those who hear” and run contrary to the doctrine of Limited Atonement and the rest of the scriptures. Essentially, this would be the “renegade verse” – the explicit contradiction – in the Bible that would render it inconsistent and, hence fallible, if we took it in this sense. So far from protecting the “integrity” of the Scriptures, interpreting world in a “universal” sense as Dabney and Piper actually propose, they would destroy the integrity of the Holy Scriptures.

So who is the “world” that God is “so loving” toward? Although there is no explicit evidence from the text to suggest someone, I do believe that the answer may be reached inductively. From the text itself, I propose that the “world” and “all the believing one’s” are one and the same. Verse 15 says Christ was lifted up to save “all the believing ones” and verse 16 give God’s motive for saving that same group of people - the “believing ones” mentioned in verse 15. It makes sense that the author continues to describe that same group of people when he continues to give the motive of God sending His only Begotten Son to save them. Otherwise, we have a disjointed thought here in that Christ is described as to be lifted up, of necessity, for believers and then to show that the motive of God’s giving of His Son is His love for both believers and non-believers (elect and non-elect). Of course the question can get pushed back even further if we ask: who are the “believing ones”? According to the Bible, they are the elect. They are SOME men from “every tribe, nation and people and language” (Rev. 5:9; 7:9). This is the world that God’s wants to save. A world that is not limited to the Jews, as Nicodemus would have been thinking in this conversation. There is no getting around this conclusion that the “believers” inevitably are the “elect”. It is for them that God is moved to give His Son as a substitutionary sacrifice to secure their “eternal life” and for no others. Again I offer the categorical syllogism[29]:

1) All of the world are loved by God

2) Some of the world are sent to hell

3) Therefore, some loved by God are sent to hell

4) Therefore, some loved by God are not sent to hell

Again, I note that this is an AII-3 categorical syllogism which is unconditionally valid in form, which means that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises in form and there is no content in the subjects and predicates of the syllogism that may invalidate the conclusion. Supposing that in (1), “world” in understood to mean “those who hear the Gospel” and “loved” is understood in the redemptive sense as has been made clear from the exegesis of John 3:16 above. If that is true, then one logical inference that can be immediately made from (1) is that there are men who are not loved by God in a redemptive sense at all since all men have not heard, are not hearing, nor will hear – by the providence of God – the Gospel. So the word “world” as used in this sense cannot embrace all universally into God’s purposes of salvation. In (2), we see that some of “those who hear the Gospel” (world) are sent to hell. Obviously there is no problem with this premise and it is scripturally true. The problem is in the logical conclusion of these two premises, namely (3). How is it that some of those whom God redemptively loves are sent to hell? Conclusion (4) is true by immediate inference (sub-contrary) of (3). It is also objectionable since it is odd that only “some” whom God “so loves” redemptively, to give a sacrificial substitute, go to heaven and others go to hell. The Bible clearly teaches that the Atonement infallibly saves those for whom it is made as is affirmed by Reformed Theology. However, Dabney and Piper do not seem to think so, yet it is clear from the above logic, that their Reformed foundation is excluded from such thinking.

Of course there is one place that a person could fault the above logic. I am using “love” in a redemptive sense in which John 3:16 clearly displays in the “giving” of the Only Begotten Son. It could be argued from Dabney’s and Piper’s perspectives that “love” should be understood as that “propension of benevolence not matured into the volition to redeem”[30] and that “love” in the syllogism should be used in that sense. I disagree with that usage since 1) loved is not used in that sense in John 3:16 2) God’s love in the Bible is RARELY, if ever mentioned as a “propensity” – defined as a “natural inclination or preference[31]”. Rather, it is His sovereign choice.

So in response to that, I offer the following disjunctional syllogism:

1) Either God redemptively loves every single individual in the world OR God redemptively loves some of all peoples in the world whom He chooses

2) God does not redemptively love every single individual in the world (Malachi 1:2,3)

3) Therefore, God redemptively loves only some of all peoples in the world whom He chooses[32]

Through this logic, it should be clear that the word “world” should be understood to mean “those whom God choose to love redemptively” and not generally. The “world” that God loves in such a manner is the “world” of elect people who are referred to as “the Elect”, “His people”, “His sheep”, “His Church”, “the Children of God who are scattered abroad” and some “men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9; 7:9). Therefore, John 3:16 cannot be saying that God redemptively loves “universally” to include the non-elect. John is consistent in his work that Christ came to save His people alone and excluded those who are “not His Sheep” (John 10:26).

In conclusion, the meaning of the word “world” in John 3:16, cannot be taken in a “universal understanding” in which the non-elect are included for, as I believe I have sufficiently demonstrated, it undermines the scriptural doctrines of election and limited atonement, which then have their ramifications on other doctrines as well. While it is true that to interpret “world” in the “universal understanding” as Dabney proposes and Piper agrees with, does make room for a universal offer from this text, but, I believe at the cost of the integrity of the scriptures with regards to its clearer teachings on election and limited atonement. It should also be noted that both Dabney and Piper offer no real exegesis for their conclusion as I believe that I have done. For the most part, Dabney interprets John 3:16 from his analogy with George Washington and Andre. He, also, only offers negative exegesis in that he tells us what the verse cannot mean. I am also puzzled about what is “the Saviour’s own exposition” of his statement[33]. As has been demonstrated above, v16 would actually be the exposition of v14 and 15. Dabney’s solution of God’s love as “a propension of benevolence not matured into the volition to redeem” seems absurd in light of the fact that God “so loved the world that (Gr. wste) He GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON for the purpose that (Gr. ina) all the ones believing would not perish, but have everlasting life.” If that is not a manifestation of redemptive volition, I don’t know what is.

As has been noted in prior discussions, the text is a promise guaranteeing the final and complete salvation of those believing Christians unto eternal life. If a universal offer is going to be implied from the text, I would suggest that it may be implied from the phrase “believing ones” (Gr. o pisteuwn). That is, anybody who is believing – irrespective of race, nationality, language, etc…all who believe will be saved. And since belief is a “duty” of all sinners, it is not something that is offered as an opportunity but something that is their duty that we merely make known in the Gospel call.

Also, perhaps this is true and perhaps it isn’t, but both Dabney and Piper seem to be writing in a context in which they are either trying to reconcile, or bring to common ground Arminian evangelism and Reformed soteriology. This is somewhat apparent in Piper’s article who quotes - what appear to be – Arminian theologians and even an Open Theist in Clark Pinnock. Dabney, in his essay, seems to want to “have his cake and eat it too” in that he is proposing that the main “Arminian pillar” may still stand and yet be reconciled with the Reformed faith. This attempt to reconcile the two exclusive theologies appears to be serving as a presupposition that is eisegeted in John 3:16. I respect Dabney and Piper but I believe them to be fallible men even as I am. I believe them to be capable of overlooking things that could lead them in other directions. In this case, I believe them to have overlooked the grammatical construction of John 3:16. God gave his son for purpose according to John 3:14-16. That purpose, according to the Bible is “to save” (give eternal life) any and all who are believing (Gr. pisteuwn). And the motivating reason for God doing this is because He loves people from every “tribe and tongue and people and nation”. It is for that “world” that God gave His Son as the atoning sacrifice for that He “so loved.”

[1] Johnson, Phil, A Primer on Hyper-Calvinsm, www.gty.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm

[2] Dabney, Robert. L., God’s Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy as related to His power, wisdom,, and sincerity, www.gty.org/~phil/dabney/mercy.htm

[3] Piper, John, from Still Sovereign: contemporary perspectives on election, foreknowledge, and grace by Thomas Schreiner and Bruce Ware, (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2000).

[4] Greek text are from The Greek New Testament: Fourth revised edition, edited by Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, Biblia-Druck, D-Stuttgart, Germany, 1998

[5] “just as” in the Amplified Bible and NIV, “as” in the NKJV, ESB, NASB

[6] “so” in ESB, Amplified, NIV; “even so” in NASB, NKJV

[7] outoS uywqhnai dei ton uion tou anqrwpou

[8] translated as “that” in ESB, NJKV, and NIV; “so that” in NASB, and “in order that” in the Amplified Bible

[9] The Analytical Greek Lexicon, Zondervan Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1977, edited by Harold K. Moulton

[10] ibid, pg. 201

[11] An informal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the misinterpretation of a statement that is ambiguous owing to some structural defect ( A Concise Introduction to Logic, Patrick J. Hurley, Wadsworth Thomson Learning, Belmont, California, 2002, pg. 677)

[12] By this I do not mean that only those believing at that specific moment in history for that would be absurd. But I do mean, as I believe the text to be saying, that Christ is to be lifted up so that “all believers” would have eternal life – in whatever age they may be in. All human beings are hypothetical believers, but this text is not guaranteeing the salvation for them. His “lifting up” does not benefit, directly, the hypothetical believers – who are non-believers- but only those who actually believe. If the Doctrine of Limited atonement is applied here, Christ purchased regeneration for His people as well. Therefore, He was not lifted up to make an “offer” but to secure salvation according to the text.

[13] ech zwhn aiwnion .

[14] My literal rendering of the verse: “ For in this manner God loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son in order that all the one’s believing in Him might not perish, but [instead] might have everlasting life.”

[15] Hendriksen, William, New Testament Commentary: John, volume 1, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1953, pg. 139.

[16] The Analytical Greek Lexicon, pg.

[17] ibid, pg. 296

[18] 3^rd person, sing., aorist 1, indicative, active

[19] NKJV, NASB, ESB, Amplified and NIV to name a few.

[20] The Analytical Greek Lexicon, pg. 444

[21] Contrary to Dabney’s “a propension of benevolence not matured into the volition to redeem” in God’s indiscriminate proposals of mercy as related to His power, wisdom and sincerity.

[22] see above in John 3:14, 15. Translations : “that” in ESB, NKJV, NASB, NIV; “so that” in Amplified.

[23] On a side note, it is interested that Arminian theology bases their evangelism on the false belief that Christ died for all men universally. Since Christ died for “the world” – as they interpret it – all are hypothetically saved, upon the condition of belief. Their evangelism, then, presents “faith” as an opportunity; if my understanding serves me correctly though, in the Bible and in Reformed theology, faith in God and repentance are a “duty” and not an offer. And God “commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30) as well as to believe.

Perhaps even further questions that can be raised are “does God call people to salvation or does He offer it to them?” Does God call to salvation all that are offered? If not, is it “sincere”? If yes, then are all who are offered called?

[24] This is seen in the fact that God ordains things so that some men are not offered salvation in Christ at all by God’s providence of where he sends His evangelist.

[25] Of course, I wonder what the “face value” meaning is since it is clearly an equivocal word in the Bible and has at least 12 different usages and meanings. So to argue for a face value meaning to engage in circular reasoning by assuming the face value to be defined without having proved that premise(meaning) or stating it. It is a word that must be interpreted exegetically where possible. The analogy of faith may also help when the meaning is unclear.

[26] Think about this logic: God loved all of A so that only SOME A would be saved. In other words, God loved “all” so that “some” would be saved (God’s UNIVERSAL love yields only PARTICULAR salvation). Personally, I have a problem with God loving all people only to save some of all whom he loves in the same manner. If God loves the “all” in the same sense, that he loves the “some”, then something other than God’s love is the determining factor of salvation. Of what this could be, I would not speculate.

[27] Owen, John, The Death of Death in the death of Christ, Banner of Truth, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1959, pg. 217

[28] Substitutionary atonement necessitates salvation for the one being substituted for.

[29] I offer this syllogism again because it has yet to have been dealt with in a sufficient manner. The questions that were posed in response to the logic were nothing more than “red herrings” since they avoided the logical argument altogether, thus, failing to show “where a wrong turn was taken”, and tried to make another point. All the marks of a red herring (fallacy of relevance).

[30] see Dabney’s God’s indiscriminate proposals of mercy as related to his power, wisdom and sincerity.

[31] Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-Webster Inc., Springfield, Massachusetts, pg. 943

[32] The form of this argument is valid and may be expressed as

1) A v B (Either A or B)

2) ~A__ (not A)

3) B (Therefore, B)

[33] It is also interesting to note that some Bible scholars suggest that Jesus’ and Nicodemus’ conversation probably comes to an end at verse 15 and that verse 16-21 are the “Evangelists application to the reader of the significance of that conversation” (see F.F. Bruce’s The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition and Notes, Eerdman’s Publishing, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1983, pg. 89). The aorist tenses of the words “loved” and “gave” would seem to suggest this as well since Christ was not yet “given” to allow for Christ to speak in a past tense manner, but the Evangelist was in such a position to speak from that perspective.