Joseph Truman (1631-1671) on John 3:16 and John 12:47

Truman:

Will any dare to say, Here is nothing of grace or kindness to the World? Joh. 3. 16. “He so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” V. 17. “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.” Cannot you see plainly here what is meant by the World, and that his first coming was to save it, though his second will be to take a severe account? V. 18. “He that believeth on him, is not condemned; but he that believeth not, is condemned already, because he believeth not.” Can you say, a sick man dyed, because he took not such a Medicine; when, if he had taken it, it would not have cured him? You cannot say, the Devils continue to be condemned, because they reject Christ; because, if they should accept him, they would still perish; for there was no satisfaction made for them: And may not the same be said of them that perish, if no satisfaction be made for them? So John 12. 47. “If any man hear my words, and believe not” (surely you will say this is meant of a non-elect man) “I judge him not; for I came not into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world.” Which reason would have no show of reason, except Christ came to save that man, except he be one of that World he came to save.

Joseph Truman, The Great Propitiation; or, Christ’s Satisfaction; and Man’s Justification by it Upon his Faith; that is, Belief of, and Obedience to the Gospel (London, Printed by A. Maxwell, for R. Clavell, in Cross-key Court in Little Britain, 1672), 218-219.  [Some spelling modernized, some reformatting, and underlining mine.]

John Humfrey (1621–1719) on John 3:16

Humfrey:

The Scriptures say, Christ died for all, and for every man. God so loved the World, (says Christ) that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. By the World, this Gentlemen must understand the Elect: but when by the words [that whosoever believeth in him] Christ plainly intimates, that there are some of those God loves, do believe, and some not; the World must be more than the Elect. Of the world of those God loves so as to give his Son, to die for them; some believe in him, and have everlasting life, and some believe not and perish. But of the Elect all believe, and none perish.

John Humfrey, Peace at Pinners-Hall Wish’d and Attempted in A Pacifick Paper Touching The Universality of Redemption, the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace, and our Freedom from the Law of Works (London: Printed and be Sold by Randal Taylor near Amen-Corner, 1692), 2-3. [Some spelling modernized; italics original; and underlining mine.]

Credit to Tony.

Ralph Wardlaw (1779-1853) on John 3:16

Wardlaw:

§ 12. In inquiring, then, after this principle of harmony I must begin with avowing, that, ever since I was able to think at all upon such subjects, I have felt myself far from satisfied with a common way of interpreting tome of those text which express the extent of the atonement in universal terms, by, means of a convenient supplement. According to this method of explanation, the world is, in such occurrences of it, made to signify the elect world, the word elect being inserted, as a supplement, conceived to be necessary for the consistency of scripture. An elect world, indeed, has become a phrase in common use with a particular class of commentators and divines, and, from them, among private Christians of the same caste; being employed with much matter-of-course freedom as if it had actually had the sanction of ordinary usage in the Sacred Volume. But it is not to be found there. It belongs to human systems merely. Any system, however, that requires each means to save its credit, must be considered as in straits. The supplement is too arbitrary; and while it solves one difficulty, or rather conveniently cuts a knot which it is felt hard to loose, it involves us in other difficulties, equal, if not greater, in regard both to doctrine and to principles of interpretation. I object to it on two grounds, besides its apparent arbitrariness. It is in itself forced and unnatural, and it makes the sacred penmen, in some instances, write inconsistently and absurdly.

In the first place, it is in itself forced and unnatural. I mean by this, that it is, a priori, most unlikely, that the term world should ever be used to designate the elect. It sometimes denotes the habitable globe, the residence of mankind:–sometimes mankind at large, the inhabitants of the globe:–these are senses of the word about which there is no dispute, and no room for any. There is a third application of it which is peculiar to scripture phraseology, but so frequent and so marked there as to be equally out of the range of debate:–it signifies the great mass of mankind, as distinguished from the of God. For example: “The world cannot hate you, but me it hates, because I testify of it that the works thereof are evil:”–“If ye were of the world, the world would love his own; but Because ye are not of the World, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you: “We know that whomever is born of God sins not; but he that is born of God keeps himself, and that wicked one touches him not. And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in the wicked one.”¹ The occurrence of the word in this sense, indeed, considering how small the proportion was then, and ever has been, which the children of God have borne to the mass of mankind, is quite natural. But on this very account, I cannot but consider it as in a high degree unnatural and improbable, that it should at the same time signify the very opposite of this:–that the same term, which is so currently used to signify the great majority of mankind in distinction from the elect number or small minority, should at the same time, by the same writers, be used as a designation of the smaller number, of a character directly contrary, in distinction from the majority or the mass! The unreasonableness of this in itself has ever appeared to me to constitute a strong ground of previous unlikelihood that it should be so.–The previous improbability is strengthened to certainty, when I consider, in the second place, how inconsistently and absurdly this supposed acceptation of the term makes the sacred writers express themselves.–I must give an instance or two of what I mean.–In John iii. 16, our Savior says–“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish but have everlasting life.”’ It surely will not be questioned by, my one pretending, I do not say to critical knowledge, but even to common understanding, that in this sentence the word “whosoever” (or every one who–pas ó) has less extent of meaning than the more comprehensive word “the world” which precedes it. It restricts and limits this comprehensive term. It signifies–whosoever of the world. Suppose, then, the world to mean the elect world, or more shortly, for it is the same thing, the elect, what kind of statement will this produce?–“God so loved the elect world, or the elect, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever of the elect–namely–believes in him might not perish but have everlasting life!” This is sheer absurdity. Yet I do not see what else can be made of the verse, if ”the world” really signifies the world of’ the elect.

Ralph Wardlaw, Two Essays: I. On The Assurance of Faith: II. On The Extent of the Atonement, And Universal Pardon (Glasgow: Printed at the University Press, for Archibald Fullarton & Co., 1831), 277-280. [Some spelling modernized; italics original; and underlining mine.]

_____________________

¹John .vii. 7; xv. 18. I John v. 18, 19.

Edward Polhill (1622-1694) on God’s Love With Reference to John 3:16

Polhill:

4. Grace is in a very eminent manner lifted up in the gospel. Grace gives Christ, and faith to believe in him. Grace justifies and sanctifies. Grace saves, and crowns with a blessed immortality. Everywhere in the gospel sounds forth, grace, grace! but if God might not justly have stood upon the old terns, the giving of new ones to man was not grace, but debt; not mercy, but justice. Those novatores who say, that it would have been unjust for God to have condemned Adam’s posterity for the first sin, do thereby overturn the grace of the gospel. The apostle, who is much rather to be believed, says expressly, “That by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation,” (Rom. v. 18;) that is, according to the terms of the old covenant; but if the old terms might not have been stood upon, the new ones must be necessary and due to mankind, and so no grace at all. They who deny the justice of the old covenant, overturn the grace of the new.

God, as we see, might have stood upon the old terms, even to the utter ruin of fallen mankind. But oh! immense love! He would not; he would do so with angels, but he would not with men; an abasement was made to them, not afforded to those nobler creatures, once inmates of heaven. In the case of Sodom, God came down lower and lower, from fifty righteous persons to forty-live; and so at last to ten: “I will not do it for ten’s sake.” (Gen. xviii. 32.) But in the case of fallen man, when all had sinned, when there was none righteous, no, not one, God comes down from !the first terms made with man, to such lower ones as might comply with his frailty. Under the law there were sacrifices called by the Jewish doctors, gnoleh vajored, ascending and descending. The rich man offered a lamb; the poor, whose hand could not reach so far offered two turtle doves. While man was rich in holy powers and excellencies, God called for pure, perfect, sinless obedience; but after the fall, he being poor in spirituals, altogether unable to pay such a sum, God stoops and accommodates himself to human weakness; a faithful conatus a sincere though imperfect obedience, will serve the turn in order to man’s happiness. This is the first step which infinite mercy takes in raising up man out of the ruins of the fall; the old terms were not stood upon.

But now, that new terms might be made find established, that the second covenant might have an happier issue than the first, mercy goes on to give the Son of God for us: “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John iii. 16.) This (so) is unutterable, this love immeasurable, diffusing itself, not to Jews only, but to a world, and that overwhelmed in sin; giving, and that freely, without any merit of ours, a Son, and an only begotten Son, that we through faith in him might have life eternal, and there enjoy him who is love itself, forever. Here is a mine of love too deep and rich for any creature to fathom, or count the value of it. But before I open it, I shall first remove the il use which the Socinians make of this love, to overturn Christ’s satisfaction. If God, say they,¹ so loved us, as to give his Son for us, then he was not angry with us; and if not angry, then there was no need at all of a satisfaction to be made for us. Unto which I answer, anger and love are not inconsistencies; in Scripture hath are attributed unto God: He gave his Son for us: was not. that love, immense love? He wounded and bruised him for our iniquities: he made him to be sin and a curse for us: was not there wrath, great wrath? We have both together in one text: “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” (1 John iv. 10,) The high emphasis of his love, was in giving his Son to be a propitiation for us: unless there had been a just anger, a propitiation would have been needless: unless there had been immense love, his Son should not have been made one of us. We have a plain instance in Job’s friends; God’s wrath was kindled against them, and yet in love he directs them to atone him by a sacrifice. (Job xlii. 7. 8.) God could not but be angry at the sin of the world, and yet in love he gave his Son to be an expiatory sacrifice.

Edward Polhill, “A View of Some Divine Truths,” in The Works of Edward Polhill (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1998), 19-20. [Some spelling modernized; and underlining mine.]

______________________

¹Soc. de Ser,” i,l, c, 7, Sclicting, cantr, Mein.

Thomas Becon (1512–1567) on John 3:16

Becon:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoso believeth in him should not perish, &c.–John iii.16-21.

THIS gospel is one of the most notable that a man can find in the New Testament, and worthy to be commended with all kinds of commendation. But as it is not possible that a man should sufficiently express this sermon of Christ by words; first let us call unto God, that he will expound these words more plainly in our hearts, than we can by our words and interpretation, and that he will enkindle them, and make them so plain, that our conscience may receive comfort and peace thereby. Amen.

The pith of this excellent sermon is, that God so greatly loved the world, that he delivered his only begotten Son for it, that we men should not die, but have everlasting life. And first let us see who is the giver. He is the Giver, in respect of whom all princes and kings, with all their gifts, are nothing in comparison. And our hearts might worthily be lifted up and exalted with a godly pride, since we have such a giver, so that all who should come unto us by any other liberality, might be counted of no price in comparison of this. For what can be set before us that is more magnificent and excellent than God almighty.

Here God, who is infinite and unspeakable, gives after such a manner as passes also all things. For that which he gives, he gives not as wages of desert, or for a recompense, but, as the words sound, of mere love. Wherefore this gift wholly proceeds of God’s exceeding and divine benevolence and goodness, as he says, God loved the world. There is no greater virtue than love, as it may hereby be well understood, that when we love anything, we will not hesitate to put our life in danger for it. Verily, great virtues are patience, chastity, sobriety, &c., but yet they are nothing to be compared with this virtue, which comprises and includes within itself all other virtues. A good man does no man wrong, he gives every man his own; but by love, men give their own selves to others, and are ready with all their heart to do all that they can for them. So Christ says he also, that God gives to us, not by right or merit, but by this great virtue, that is by love. This ought to encourage our hearts, and to abolish all sorrow, when this exceeding love of God comes in mind, that we might trust thereto and believe steadfastly, that God is that bountiful and great Giver, and that this gift of his, proceeds of that great virtue of love. This sort of giving. which bas its spring of love, makes thin gift mare excellent and precious. And the words of Christ are plain, that God loves us. Wherefore for this love’s sake ought we greatly to esteem all things that he gives us.

And as hitherto we have spoken of the Giver and of his loving mind, so is the gift itself no less to be esteemed. For God gives not riches here, nor kingdoms, nor any creature, but gives his only begotten Son, who is no less than the Father. If wealth and prosperity cause joy, how great joy ought his gift to be to them that it is given unto!

For as God the Giver is exceedingly great, and his love also whereof the gift proceeds; so is the gift that he gives, which is his only Son. For he gives himself wholly in this gift, as Paul says to the Romans. Seeing God has given his Son for us all, how can it be that with him, he should not give us all thin also? Sin, death, hell, heaven, righteousness, and life, all are ours, because, the Son as by gift is ours also, in whom are all things Wherefore if we believe truly and receive this most excellent gift by faith, it must needs be that every creature, faulty or not faulty, must be ours. and given for our good; as St. Paul says. But here incredulity and misbelief trouble us, as Christ himself afterwards complains; and also incredible darkness and ignorance, as when we hear of this so great a gift, and yet we do not believe it, and the words of such great matter go in at the one ear, and run out at the other, and never pierce to the heart. When men conceive any hope of purchasing possessions, or of buying lands, they can never have their hearts at rest for the fervent care and greedy desire to obtain the same. But whereas it is declared here, that God hath given unto us his Son, of mere love, we are slothful and sluggish, without all desire to receive it. What is the cause that we set so lightly by such a high gift, and do not embrace it worthily as we ought to do? The devil truly, who casts a mist over our hearts, that we care not for the word and promise as touching this gift, but in the mean time we bestow all our cares in worldly things. Wherefore, in the beginning.