“Whosoever Believes”: Why I Interpret John 3:16 as a Gospel Invitation
Some may not think I’m a Calvinist when it comes to John 3:16. Actually, I’m a John Calvinist when I interpret this verse (double entendre intended). I don’t think the verse (and its larger context) is simply designed to teach people biblical doctrines or facts. It has a larger aim. Namely, God through the apostle John wants to solicit a response on the part of the reader. Let me explain my reasoning.
Daddy Bought Some Ice-cream
We all know that indicatives or interrogatives can be used as “directives.” “Honey, I don’t have any blue socks” is a spousal plea for help. “Boys, your room is a mess” isn’t simply the conveyance of information (which they probably already know); it’s an implied command, viz., “Clean up your room!”
Allow me to use an example more apropros of our text.
When I inform my five children at the dinner table, “Children, Daddy bought a gallon of “Moose Tracks” ice-cream so that all those who finish their supper might enjoy a tasty dessert,” I’m not simply stating a fact or describing a (potential) state of affairs. Actually, my remark is rhetorical. There’s an illocutionary1 intent behind it designed to solicit their compliance and to promote their happiness. My announcement at the dinner table would be semantically equivalent to the following: “Children, I want you to finish your dinner and in order to motivate you to do so I’ve purchased a gallon of your favorite ice-cream as a reward for those who comply with my wish.”
Look and Live!
John 3:16 probably begins an explanatory remark the apostle John appended to Jesus’ discourse with Nicodemus (3:1-15). The conjunction “for” (Greek: γαρ) makes the connection obvious.
Jesus had told the Jewish religious teacher, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up that whoever believes in him may have eternal life” (3:14-15). The Lord is alluding to an incident in Israel’s wilderness wanderings. The Israelites grumbled against Yahweh and Moses (Num 21:5). So God afflicted the murmurers with poisonous snakes resulting in the death of many (21:6). When the people acknowledged their sin and asked Moses to intercede (21:7), Yahweh responded to Moses with the following instructions:
And the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live” (Num 21:8).
It’s unlikely that God’s words were intended for Moses’ ears alone. He wasn’t merely preparing Moses for what would happen as dying Israelites happened (by chance) to gaze on the bronze serpent. It’s more likely that what God communicated to Moses, Moses, in turn, communicated to the Israelites. And that bare statement of fact, i.e., “anyone bitten shall live when he looks at it,” was designed to solicit a response from the dying Israelites. Rhetorically, it functioned as a directive: “Look and live.”
“So so must the Son of Man be lifted up that whoever believes in him may have eternal life,” says Jesus (3:15), and the gospel hymnwriter doesn’t miss the link:
“Look and live,” my brother, live,
Look to Jesus now, and live;
‘Tis recorded in His word, Hallelujah!
It is only that you “look and live.”
Believe and Live!
Expanding on Jesus’ words, the apostle renders the redemptive-historical portrait in full-technicolor. Just as Yahweh showed unexpected grace to that ungodly lot of unworthy Israelites, so God surprisingly loves the fallen human race (κοσμος)2 to such an extent (ουτως)3 that he sends His Only Son. It’s the “badness” of the human race that renders God’s love so surprising and extravagant. The effect is, Wow! how could God love a race of such evil people! As Donald Carson remarks, “God’s love is to be admired not because the world is so big and includes so many people, but because the world is so bad.”4
But why does the apostle underscore the greatness of God’s love? Is it simply to assure the elect that God loves them and that they’re going to heaven? I think not.
Just as Moses lifted the serpent to solicit a remedial look, so the apostle John with illocutionary intent shows God the Father raising up the Son as a standard in order to solicit a saving look from “whosoever” desires not to perish but to live forever. In other words, God has provided the all-sufficient remedy. Therefore, anyone and everyone who would not perish but live should believe. So John 3:16 isn’t primarily a commentary on God’s special love for the elect as it is an invitation based on God’s gracious love toward Adam’s fallen race to the end that they might “believe and live!”
Such a reading agrees with John’s primary purpose for writing the Gospel:
These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name (emphasis added; John 20:31).
Good Ol’ John Calvin
Unlike some Calvinists who restrict John 3:16 to a simple affirmation of God’s effectual redeeming love for the “elect-world”5, John Calvin, I think, appreciated the rhetorical nature of John 3:16. “It is true that Saint John says generally, that he loved the world,” Calvin observes. “And why?” Calvin queries. His answer: “For Jesus Christ offers himself generally to all men without exception to be their redeemer” (emphasis added).6 In other words, the divine love of John 3:16 "extends to all men" in Calvin's view. More importantly, Calvin ascertained the illocutionary force of the words:
For men are not easily convinced that God loves them; and so, to remove all doubt, He has expressly stated that we are so dear to God that for our sakes He did not spare even His only begotten son.... and He has used a general term, both to invite indiscriminately all to share in life and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the significance of the term 'world' which He had used before. For although there is nothing in the world deserving of God's favour, He nevertheless shows He is favourable [Latin, propitium: propitious, merciful, favourable] to the whole world when He calls all without exception to the faith of Christ, which is indeed an entry into life.7
When a Little Greek Is Not Enough
Some Calvinists with a little Greek under their belt are quick to tell us that the reading of the AV, “whosoever believeth in him,” is mistaken. The Greek features a participle in the nominative case (ο πιστευων) modified by the adjective “all” (πας). Hence, they argue, John is simply stating a fact: “all believers go to heaven.”
Unfortunately, this is a case where knowing a little Greek vocabulary, grammar, and syntax is not enough. One must grasp the larger picture of how language works, that is, the science of linguistics. Language is much more flexible than many realize, and it doesn’t take an imperative or cohorative to express a command, directive, or entreaty. Consequently, it’s not enough to parse verbs correctly and arrive at a “literal” rendering of the text. The interpreter must look for the rhetorical strategy behind the text. This is certainly the case with so famous a verse as John 3:16.
Preach It! Brother
Just because you’re a Calvinist doesn’t mean you’ve got to reserve John 3:16 for the saints. It’s designed for sinners too. It has an evangelistic aim. Therefore, don’t just preach the facts of God’s benevolent love and Jesus’ incarnation. Don’t just tell your congregation that believers go to heaven. Use the text as a gospel invitation. Entreat all and every sinner to “look and live.” And if someone questions whether you’re truly a Calvinist, you can reply, “I’m a ‘John (3:16) Calvinist.”
B.G.
- Illocutionary: “pertaining to a linguistic act performed by a speaker in producing an utterance, as suggesting, warning, promising, or requesting.” From the Random House Dictionary 2010, s.v. [↩]
- Here, the term κοσμος carries ethical overtones and refers to “mankind as alienated from God, unredeemed and hostile to him” (Friberg, s.v.). This usage is pervasive in Johannine literature: John 1:10; 3:17, 19; 7:7; 8:12, 23, 26; 9:5; 12:31, 46-47; 14:17, 19, 30-31; 15:18-19; 16:8, 11, 20; 17:6, 14, 16, 18, 21, 23, 25; 1 John 2:2; 3:1, 13; 4:5, 14; 5:19; Rev 12:9. [↩]
- The Greek ουτως (houtôs) can refer either to the intensity or extent of a verbal idea, i.e., “so much,” or to the manner of a verbal idea, i.e., “in this way.” It should be noted that the construction here features the adverb ουτως followed by the conjunction ωστε (hôste). Where this construction occurs elsewhere in the NT, the emphasis seems to be on the quality of the verbal idea: “they spoke so effectively (ουτως) that (ωστε) a great number of Jews and Gentiles believed” (Act 14:1 NIV). Accordingly, I’m inclined toward the idea of the quality or extent of God’s love, i.e., God loved the world so much that ….” In a similar vein, D. A. Carson notes, “The Greek construction behind so loved that he gave his one and only Son (houtôs plus hôste plus the indicative instead of the infinitive) emphasizes the intensity of love” (emphasis added). The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 204. Cf. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 229; William Hendrickson, Exposition of the Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1953), 139. [↩]
- Ibid., 205. [↩]
- For instance, in his treatise The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, John Owen paraphrases John 3:16 as follows: “‘God’ the Father ‘so loved,’ had such a peculiar, transcendent love, being an unchangeable purpose and act of his will concerning their salvation, towards ‘the world,’ miserable, sinful, lost men of all sorts, not only Jews but Gentiles also, which he peculiarly loved, ‘that,’ intending their salvation, as in the last words, for the praise of his glorious grace, ‘he gave,’ he prepared a way to prevent their everlasting destruction, by appointing and sending ‘his only-begotten Son’ to be an all-sufficient Saviour to all that look up unto him, ‘that whosoever believeth in Him,’ all believers whatsoever, and only they, ‘should not perish, but have everlasting life,’ and so effectually be brought to the obtaining of those glorious things through him which the Lord in his free love had designed for them” (emphasis his). The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1967), 10:320. [↩]
- Sermons on Deuteronomy: Facsimile of the 1583 Edition (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1987), 167. [Note: the archaic spellings in the facsimile edition have been updated for readability. [↩]
- Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, trans. T. H. L. Parker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 74. [↩]
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
- “Whosoever Believes”: Why I Interpret John 3:16 as a Gospel Invitation | It Is Written « john8forty5ministries
- A Defense of the Well-Meant Offer: Its Logical Consistency | It Is Written
Comments are closed.
AMEN!
I like what Dabney says about it: if whosoever=elect, then we have the elect losing their salvation in v18.
Thumbs up!!
I subscribe to the statement: “Preach like an Arminian; Sleep like a Calvinist.”
Preach and witness to people like they have to choose, but sleep well knowing that in so doing you have obeyed your Father whose choice it is.
Great thought, Dave. Thanks for dropping in.
Hi;
I may be misunderstanding you here but isn’t the idea of “Look and Live” contrary to the Calvinistic notion that a dead person cannot do so unles and until God regenerates him first? Therefore wouldn’t the proper Calvinistic view be expressed as “Live and Look”?
James
James,
I don’t believe “look and live” is contrary to the Calvinistic doctrine that God must first regenerate if the sinner is to exercise saving faith. When, for instance, the crowd at Pentecost comes under conviction of sin and asks Peter and the apostles, “What shall we do?” Peter doesn’t say, “Wait till God regenerates you, then repent and be baptized.” Rather, he begins by calling them to comply with the terms of the gospel. The order of “look and live” corresponds nicely with the order in John 3:16: saving faith results in eternal life.
Hope this clarifies.
Grace and peace!
I think the words of our brother Augustus Strong would be beneficial to remember:
“Under this head we treat of Union with Christ, Regeneration, Conversion (embracing Repentance and Faith), and Justification. Much confusion and error have arisen from conceiving of these in chronological order. The order is logical, not chronological. As it is only “in Christ” that man is a “new creature” or is “justified,” union with Christ logically precedes both regeneration and justification; and yet chronologically, the moment of our union with Christ is also the moment when we are regenerated and justified. So too, regeneration and conversion are but the divine and human sides or aspects of the same fact, although regeneration has logical precedence, and man turns only as God turns him. (Outlines of Systematic Theology, 793)
Dr Bob,
Thanks for pointing out Calvin’s comments on John 3:16. He was such a faithful interpreter. Refusing to force a text to fit any system, He simply explained each verse according to its true intent. What an example.
May God give us eyes to LOOK and LIVE!
Mike
Amen, brother. So the text reads, and so we must run.
Did you preach my sermon last week Bob? It sure looks like you did. I’m thankful for the timing of this article, though just a week earlier would have been even better, then I could have quoted you.
Doug, I did mention the verse in passing in a SS lesson on the “Well-Meant Offer.” Sorry I posted it a week late.
Many sinners have been drawn to the Lord and saved through John 3:16. I think that pretty much settles it. Anyone trying to “prove” that it should not be used that way is straining out a nat while gulping down a camel.
Kevin, good point. The verse has an evangelistic appeal. It’s directed to sinners as such and not aimed exclusively at the elect.
I definitely agree with you. After all, Jesus was talking to a non-believer wasn’t He? He was telling Nicodemus that he could be in the whosoever, but He also said that he must be born again before he could see the kingdom of God. We can tell them to look all we want, but apart from God bringing their spirit to life by His Spirit, they will never see or be part of the Kingdom of God..
Bob,
Although the more I have studied this verse the more I have come to think that John has the elect from all over the world in mind, I still believe that we should not be dogmatic about such an interpretation. I recently taught on this verse over a couple of Sundays and cited both John Calvin and D.A. Carson as holding to the view that you have espoused even though I have come down on the other side. I made a point of telling my congregation that both perspectives are perfectly acceptable in Reformed circles and that we should agree to disagree in love on the matter. In fact, one of my fellow elders actually stands with you, Calvin, and Carson on the matter.
For any who are interested, Part 1 my teaching on the verse, in which I handle the meaning of kosmos, may be found here:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=121212203110
Part 2, in which I handle the meaning of “whosoever believes” may be found here:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1101263200
In my view, there are way too many Calvinists these days who are more dogmatic about such things than Calvin himself would ever have been! This is one reason I apprecaite so much the article you have written. In fact, had it been written before I gave the aforementioned teaching, I would have cited you instead of Carson.
Thanks!
Keith
Keith,
Thanks for your kind words and your characteristic irenic spirit. As long as our Calvinism remains warm-hearted and evangelistic, we’ll be okay.
Grace and peace!
Amen, brother!
I don’t believe “look and live” is contrary to the Calvinistic doctrine that God must first regenerate if the sinner is to exercise saving faith. When, for instance, the crowd at Pentecost comes under conviction of sin and asks Peter and the apostles, “What shall we do?” Peter doesn’t say, “Wait till God regenerates you, then repent and be baptized.” Rather, he begins by calling them to comply with the terms of the gospel. The order of “look and live” corresponds nicely with the order in John 3:16: saving faith results in eternal life.
Hope this clarifies.
————————
And should such an approach be taken without telling folks that the -cannot- look & live unless God first gives them life from the dead?
Jesus did just that.
Joh 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who has sent Me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:65 And He said, Because of this I said to you that no one can come to Me unless it was given to him from My Father.
And Paul concurs;
Romans 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Otherwise men are left with the false impression that they “looked” all by themselves while they were still dead in sin.
James
James,
Sure. No one denies that there are occasions when Jesus or the apostles explicitly underscore spiritual inability especially when they’re dealing with careless, presumptuous, or hard-hearted individuals.
But it’s equally true that there are dozens of cases in the Gospels and Acts where the Lord or the apostles call sinners to comply with the terms of the gospel without prefacing that demand with a discourse on spiritual inability. When, for instance, the Philippian jailor asks Paul and Silas, “Sirs, What must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30) the immediate response was not, “Nothing” or “Ask God to give you a new heart” or “Wait for the new birth.” Instead, he’s immediately told, “Believe in the Lord Jesus” (Acts 16:31). Other examples could be multiplied.
So to return to your original question: the expression “look and live” is not in-and-of-itself contrary to the Calvinist doctrine of spiritual inability. Only when that expression is lifted from its biblical (and Calvinistic) context and placed within a theological framework that denies spiritual inability and the need for the new birth is it contrary to the Calvinistic doctrine. In sum: context, context, context.
Grace and peace.
Hello Mr. B.G. admin;
I could not agree more with your 3 prong reminder of a proper hermeneutic; context, context, context.
Now… if you examine the context of John 3 you will discover that Messiah Himself opens His discourse to Nicodemus by, to use your expression, “prefacing that demand with a discourse on spiritual inability.” In speaking to “Nic” on the matter of the New Birth [Regeneration] Christ strongly impresses the absolute necessity of being “born from above” by His use of the word “cannot” twice no less in vss 3 & 5. This is precisely to the point that unless you do preface the Gospel by telling men their greatest problem… that they are Dead in sin and are unable to “look” unless God has mercy on them, you run the risk of giving a less-than-complete gospel and leaving men with the wrong impression that they somehow have the ability to do what Messiah Himself said quite clearly they cannot do unless God “does” First. That’s the Gospel. And not only does Messiah Open his discourse with that point… he also closes it by giving “Nic” the result of men being dead and unable to do anything unless God raises them from the death of their sins by showing that all men are -already condemned- because we are all born in unbelief. This shows that the true Doctrine of Depravity must be a major element in presenting the message of salvation and if one is going to use John 3:16 it must not be presented in isolation of that important truth because Messiah Himself sandwiched that verse in the middle of His discourse on man’s Depravity. As I point out in my paper, many people who read John 3:16 acquire amnesia over verses 3 & 5 and that ought not to be. You yourself give a good caution against lifting “look & live” from its spiritual context but if you omit man’s inability from a gospel presentation you are in effect doing so are you not?
Moreover… if I may… if you happen to be talking to a group of people that contains reprobates and you tell them “All you have to do is look and you will live” you would be telling them an untruth now wouldn’t you. Unless you believe that Christ died for reprobates which would be Arminianism which is another gospel. Or unless you know for sure that those you you are speaking to are all unsaved elect.
http://jamesjay.webng.com/john%203×3.htm
James
James,
I would like to interject my thoughts here if you don’t mind.
I agree with you James on this particular context. Part of this context is the fact that Nicodemus is a Jewish Rabbi and should know these things from the scriptures. That was Jesus’ point to him.
I would agree with your conclusion if every instance of telling the gospel in scripture included a teaching on the inability of sinful man to “look and live”.
Therefore, as I see it, it could not be a requirement for a clear gospel presentation to include a discourse on the inability of man.
Kevin
Great article brother!
James Kirby,
You can all me Bob.
Let me respond to your rejoinder above:
(1) I affirm the doctrine of total depravity and spiritual inability.
(2) I believe the precedents and teachings of Scripture require us to articulate these doctrines explicitly when proclaiming the gospel in certain situations.
(3) However, unless I’m misunderstanding you point, you seem to insist that the doctrine of total depravity (and its corollary spiritual inability) must be explicitly articulated in every presentation of the gospel. You write:
(4) I pointed out that there are many examples of gospel preaching in the Bible where sinners are told to comply with the terms of the gospel, i.e., repent and believe, without any preceding discourse on total depravity or spiritual inability. I even offered the example of Paul and Silas’ directive to the Philippian jailor (and before that Peter’s directive to the convicted sinners at Pentecost). You didn’t respond to these examples.
(5) In my own personal experience, I wasn’t given a full presentation of the doctrine total depravity and the necessity of God’s prevenient work of regeneration. I was exhorted to repent of my sins and believe the gospel. Of course, I didn’t pat myself on the back while I was doing so, taking credit for “turning over a new leaf.” I felt helpless. Yet when when I was told to look to Christ in faith, I did.
Did I believe in my own strength? Of course not! It was all of grace from beginning to end. But in my case, I didn’t come to realize that my turning from sin to Christ was the result of an electing decree in eternity past and a prevenient work of grace in my pre-converted heart until after my conversion. In the words of the hymnwriter:
(6) So while the evangelist should assume the doctrine of total depravity and, when necessarily, explicitly expound it in certain situations, I remain unpersuaded that every invitation to repent and believe must be preceded by a discourse on total depravity and pre-faith regeneration.
May your Lord’s Day be blessed!
Your humble servant,
Bob Gonzales
Hello Bob; [call me Jim]
You wrote;
(4) I pointed out that there are many examples of gospel preaching in the Bible where sinners are told to comply with the terms of the gospel, i.e., repent and believe, without any preceding discourse on total depravity or spiritual inability. I even offered the example of Paul and Silas’ directive to the Philippian jailor (and before that Peter’s directive to the convicted sinners at Pentecost). You didn’t respond to these examples.
,,,,,,,
That’s because I didn’t want to wax long-winded. Since I play the harmonica I need all the wind I can get… especially at my age; 8^)
With the Philippian jailor, it is obvious that he was already concerned about his soul and wanted desperately to know how to “be saved”. That’s different from speaking to a group of folks who may or may not have any interest in salvation. And… it was the same situation in Ax 2.
37 ¶ Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, ~what shall we do?~
Both situations have men asking the exact same question! This shows their extreme concern for their souls… which as I say is different from people who may or may not.
If I may add one point…. we must keep in mind that all the accounts in the NT of presenting the Gospel are incomplete in terms of Revelation. By that I mean the NT was not yet compiled and “completed”. Now we do have the complete revelation and wouldn’t it be wiser to take that into consideration and do our utmost to present as full a “version” of the Gospel as possible according to the information we have? And if you’re going to use John 3:16 at least keep the context and that does include the doctrine of depravity.
When God saved me no one had to tell me about my depravity. When I heard the truth I said… “If there’s a Hell I’m goin’ there!”. I was terrified just like the jailor & the folks in Ax 2. But if I’m speaking to folks who may or may not care I make sure I let them know they are dead and their only hope is the mercy of God.
There is a difference.
Jim
Jim,
I think we agree. As I said above, “The precedents and teachings of Scripture require us to articulate [the] doctrines [of total depravity and spiritual inability] explicitly when proclaiming the gospel in certain situations.” In cases where sinners already feel their lost and hopeless condition, we may not need to be as explicit or detailed. Even there, though, we’re both committed to the truth that unless the Father draws sinners to Jesus, they cannot come.
Thanks, brother, for your input. And I’d love to hear you play your harmonica
Your servant,
Bob Gonzales
Hello Bob;
You wrote;
And I’d love to hear you play your harmonica
Well I’m in the Harrisburg area & I do coffee houses that have what’s called “open mic” where any one can get up & do his thing. I’m scheduled for tonight in Mt Holly Spgs and Wednesday in Camp Hill. If you’re near or ever in the area let me know & if I’m not scheduled anywhere you can come for T & I’ll give you a command performance. How’s that.
Jim
James,
If I’m in the Harrisburg area, I’ll try to look you up. Grace and peace to you, and may the Lord richly bless your service in His Kingdom!
BG
The suggestion is, I gather, that every time the NT has an exhortation to believe, it is to the ‘sensible’ sinner, ie., someone who has already been a recipient of regenerating grace. This is asserted, it seems, because it is alleged that the contrary would entail a denial of total depravity.
Behind such reasoning is the history of the duty-faith question.
As Bob said, there are many verses where this line of thought can be shown as being limited and unnecessary.
In Acts itself, for example:
Acts 3:11 “And while he was clinging to Peter and John, all the people ran together to them at the so-called portico of Solomon, full of amazement. 12 But when Peter saw this, he replied to the people, “Men of Israel, why do you marvel at this, or why do you gaze at us, as if by our own power or piety we had made him walk? 13 “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, the one whom you delivered up, and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him. 14 “But you disowned the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15 but put to death the Prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses. 16 “And on the basis of faith in His name, it is the name of Jesus which has strengthened this man whom you see and know; and the faith which comes through Him has given him this perfect health in the presence of you all. 17 “And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers did also. 18 “But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ should suffer, He has thus fulfilled. 19 “Repent therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord…”
The following context adds a warning to those who reject the Messiah. Peter’s audience is clearly not composed exclusively of ‘sensible’ sinners, such an idea would be absurd.
David