And as Moses lifted
up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;
that whoever 1believes may in Him have eternal life. For God so loved the
world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should
not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to
judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him. (John 3:14-17
NASB)
John 3:14-17
is a common proof-text used against Calvinism. Some errantly claim that verse
16 alone refutes such, notwithstanding the Greek does not say “whoever” will
believe, but instead, it is “all the believing ones” (πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων), so on
that point, John 3:16 is not definitive one way or another for or against
Reformed theology. Notwithstanding, when read in light of the Old Testament
text informing John 3:14-17 proves to be fatal to Calvinism, showing, among other
things, that not only are all men commanded to repent (which Calvinism teaches)
but that all men can repent (which
Calvinism explicitly rejects) and that faith precedes regeneration. As Ronnie Rogers, a former Calvinist noted:
These verses recall
the incident in Numbers 21:4-9. Numbers 21:1-3 teaches God gave Israel a great
victory over the Canaanite king of Arad. Numbers 21:4-5 tells us the Israelites
became impatient with Moses, God’s leader and, therefore, God, and were griping
and complaining (Num 20:4). God then judged their ungratefulness and rebellion
by sending poisonous snakes among them. If one of the serpents bit a person, he
died, and many of them did die (Num 21:6). God’s judgment prompted many to
repent and plead for Moses to intercede for them (Num 21:7).
“Then the Lord said
to Moses, ‘Make a fiery serpent, and sit it on a standard; and it shall come
about, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, he will live.’ And
Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on the standard; and it came about, that
if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived” (Num
21:8-9). This illustration seems crucial in determining if the Calvinists’ or
the Extensivists’ view is most reflective of the sequential relationship of
faith and the new life, what Christ’s death accomplished, and what God’s love
desires.
Following are some
observations drawn from the biblical record of this event in order to provide a
biblical lens through which to understand the relationship of revelation,
opportunity, faith, salvation, and the required new birth. This approach seems far
superior to Calvinism’s superimposed limited interpretive grid of unconditional
election. Keep in mind Jesus chose to compare his crucifixion to this example:
1.
God’s judgment was already upon them.
2.
God would have been just to let them all die because of their sin
and rebellion.
3.
Except for God’s sovereign work of loving grace, they would all
perish.
4.
God is neither a minimalist in holiness (sin must be punished) nor
love (deliverance is offered to all).
5.
God’s offer of deliverance to even one sinner is an act of grace.
6.
God’s offer of deliverance for all in need is an act of immeasurably
more grace than if for only some.
7.
God’s grace alone provided sufficiently for all the needy to trust
and receive his deliverance.
8.
God’s promise was exactly what it appeared to be (real opportunity
for all who hear).
9.
God’s redeeming love provided the pole, serpent of brass,
opportunity to look, and the efficaciousness of the look of faith.
10.
There was a mystery of how looking at a serpent of brass upon a
pole could result in new life (like the wind illustration in John 3:8).
11.
Not just any old serpent on a pole would result in healing, but
only the one where God was at work.
12.
God determined the time the offer was available.
13.
What God required, repentance and the look of faith, each was able
to do.
14.
God made it personal by requiring that “when he looked” he would
receive life.
15.
God pre-determined to make the offer of deliverance unconditional
and the reception of deliverance conditioned upon the look of faith.
16.
The deliverance was truly accessible to “everyone” and “any man.”
17.
God did not exclude anyone under the sentence of death for sin
from the offer of healing.
18.
This was a good offer and not merely a good faith offer.
19.
Only the number who needed deliverance restricted the quantity of
the new life offer.
20.
Any suggestion that God’s extensive offer was trumped by a
predetermination to preclude “everyone” or “any” from “looking” is eisegetical!
21.
God gave new life after repentance and faith rather than prior to
them.
22.
The new life was the consequence of the look of faith rather than
the cause.
23.
God’s judgment occasioned repentance and his love occasioned the
opportunity for faith.
24.
The look was prompted by believing the promise of Numbers 21:8.
25.
They had to choose between two accessible options (look and live
or not look and die).
26.
There was not a work to do but a promise to be accepted.
27.
Helplessness occasioned and preceded the look of faith.
28.
The dying people came to Moses and plead for intercession prior to
receiving new life.
29.
A dying glance was enough to deliver the judged and perishing.
30.
There were only two classes of people: those who looked and lived
and those who did not and died.
31.
The look required faith but did not require a full understanding
of God’s work in making the perishing live.
32.
There was only one way to access deliverance.
33.
Jewish descent was not enough to save them.
34.
Life given at the first birth was not enough to stay death and
judgment.
35.
Looking in trust was man’s part, and giving the miracle of life
was God’s part.
In light of God’s revelation regarding the
nature and actions of man, and that many of those at the time of the incident
had not been faithful to trust and obey God’s promises for years, there may
well have been some who rejected the offer because of pride, a sense of
independence, a belief they would somehow survive, or maybe a doctor would find
a cure. That is, they rejected God’s offer of deliverance because they did not
accept his description of their helplessness which is the initial act of
delivering faith.
Additionally, since the group was undoubtedly
rather large, it is probable that some could not literally see the pole as clearly as others, maybe some were blocking the vision
of others, some may have had cataracts, but they could all exercise a
faith-prompted look. Maybe some were
even far enough away that they heard of God’s offer second or third hand. Regardless,
while all may not have seen everything clearly and none could fully understand
the work of God, all could look by faith and receive healing.
Although earlier in his conversation with
Jesus, Nicodemus was utterly confused, it seems quite plausible that this
historical illustration played a part in Nicodemus’s understanding of how to
become a true disciple of God (John 19:39). It appears this example made the truth
of John 3:16-21 compellingly clear to him, and when he saw Christ high and
lifted up, his works leaving hi hopelessly damned, he simply trusted God and
left the business of the required new life to God his creator and deliverer.
Scripture affirms faith precedes and is the
prerequisite for regeneration—being born again (John 1:12-13, 3:3, 3:15-16,
3:36, 5:24, 6:40, 7:37-39, 12:36, 16:7-14, 20:31: 1 Pet 1:23; 1 John 5:1, 4). These
and a host of other Scriptures all show spiritual life follows the sinner
placing his faith in Jesus Christ. (Ronnie W. Rogers, Does Love All or Some? Comparing Biblical Extensivism and Calvinism's
Exclusivism [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2019], 77-80)
