The assumption of this blog site is that too often the Christian faith we hear in church and try to live out is incomplete.
Much of what I write highlights just one area of theology and Christian life that lacks wholeness. Specifically, most Christians have not heard that God’s earth matters. Nor have we heard that how we treat God’s earth matters.
But the lack of wholeness in the Chrisitianity people encounter in churches goes beyond that. I believe there are other elements, even some at a fundamental level, that are missing in much of what we encounter at church.
And you can’t get more fundamental than how we define salvation and what it means to be a Christian.
That’s why I want to share a podcast interview that Carey Nieuwhof recently did with John Ortberg, the senior pastor of Menlo Church. Ortberg’s words riveted me. And I believe your heart and mind, too, will be struck by his insights. He delivers them with modesty, great clarity, and a pinch of good humor as well.
Just click on the podcast title below, and you should be good to go to listen to it through your computer. You can also search for the interview through whatever system you use to listen to podcasts.
Here’s just one Ortberg statement that gives you an idea of what he learned from a close look at the Bible and from Dallas Willard:
“Heaven isn’t so much about relocation as it is about transformation.”
What Ortberg shares helps me make sense of a number of verses and themes I see in the Bible. Acts 5:20 is just one example. In this verse, an angel is speaking to the apostles, and the angel says:
“Go stand in the temple courts,” he said, “and tell the people all about this new life.”
What is this new life that we can live now? What is the abundant life Jesus offered during his life and still offers today?
John Ortberg has helped me get a better sense of what that life is. He is helping us understand what a whole faith is. I’m profoundy grateful.
A medieval illumination of Jesus exorcizing the Gerasene demoniac from the Ottheinrich Folio. You need to look carefully to see the pigs.
Almost exactly one year ago, I wrote this blog on the story we find in Mark 5:1-20 about Jesus, demons, and the pigs. The standard interpretations assume the pigs are mere dumb animals whose deaths are meaingingless. I explored a different way of reading it.
I thought I was balanced in what I presented and liked what I wrote. Other people have found it interesting as well. Only my post about Solomon has been read more. This suggests that the Bible story of the demon and the pigs is troubling for many people. They are looking for a way to reconcile the story with a loving Savior and Creator God.
Very recently, another blogger – Raymond Hermann – also wrote a piece about the same story and referenced my piece. You can find his thinking – “Demons, Jesus, and the Pigs” – here. It’s worth reading.
You’ll find that Hermann disagrees with me that there is a possibility that the pigs committed suicide rather than live in possession by the demons.
Here’s what Hermann writes:
I’m sorry, but I can’t buy that answer; pigs can’t think and reason like humans. It makes a lot more sense that, considering what the demons did to the two men, the pigs were just overwhelmed and went berserk (another word for being possessed by a demon), therefore causing their own death. Or maybe Jesus directed them to do so, as part of a lesson.
There is certainly no scientific consensus that animals can intentionally commit suicide.And I realize my proposition that the pigs might actually have done so is highly speculative. The insanity-by-berserkness approach seems possible.
Further Thinking
Hermann’s piece, however, compels me to make several points.
First, I encourage you to read Pig Tales: An Omnivore’s Quest for Sustainable Meat by Barry Estabrook. If you are open-minded, the book will expand your estimation of pigs and their intelligence. You’ll even read of pigs beating young children in video games.
What’s more, I’ve come to realize the real question at hand is not the reasoning intelligence of pigs. It is whether they, like us, have heart in the Biblical sense of the word.
If we have open minds, we will find that a surprising number of animals seem to have something that I would call heart. In an early blog post I shared the story of a group of elephants who traveled for up to 12 hours to stand outside of the home of Lawrence Anthony who had just passed away. He had helped them, protected them, and rehabilitated them over many years.
Or check out this story from San Francisco in 2005. It tells how a humpback whale showed appreciation to each of the six divers that had helped to free it from crab pot lines that had become wrapped around its body and threatened to drown it.
Second, while there is no definitive scientific consensus, that doesn’t mean that animal suicide does not happen.
By chance I’ve just finished reading Giants of the Monsoon Forest by Jacob Shell. It’s a fascinating book about the centuries-long use of Asian elephants for forestry and transporation in northern Burma. The relationship between the elephants and their riders (mahouts) is far more complex and nuanced than I had realized.
Shell shares this disturbing incident:
I heard of an awful story of another elephant, a mother, found dead one morning. She was still standing, her forefeet crushing her own trunk. Evidently she had committed suicide. I didn’t understand how this was possible. Surely, as she lost consciousness from lack of oxygen, she would voluntarily breathe through her mouth, or the trunk would jerk free.
Science, as we know, is a powerful human tool for understanding the world. But it has limits. It assumes that if something does not act in ways that provide consistent evidence through our senses, then it does not exist. This assumption causes Science to tend to dismiss explanations of animal behavior that suggest complex volition. It also causes Science to dismiss the idea of a Creator God who interacts in complex ways with people and the rest of Creation.
In fact, Science would tell us the idea of believing in the possibility of demons, much less Jesus interacting with supernatural creatures, is absurd.
So we need to carefully consider the judgments of Science regarding animal volition and will.
Shell relates a moving incident during World War II. A convoy of elephants ridden by mahouts were making their way with rice and other food supplies to British and American soldiers in a remote area of Burma. After a tragic miscommunication, a number of mahouts and elephants were killed. Shell writes:
While the surviving mahouts regrouped and debated what to do, some of the surviving elephants picked up their dead mahouts and carried them all the way back to the mahouts’ families in Chowkham, some sixty miles away.
Third, Hermann offers another explanation for why the pigs didn’t swim. He writes, “Or maybe Jesus directed them to do so, as part of a lesson.”
The text does not suggest this at all.
Fourth, referencing a commentary, Hermann shares another interpretation:
Or perhaps this is another possible example of a miracle that has a visible lesson—the point being that the deliverance of one man (or two) is worth the destruction of many pigs.
That conclusion reflects a self-focused way of looking at how God works. Clearly, within the story’s logic, Jesus didn’t need to grant the demons’ wish. Jesus could have destroyed the demons without using the pigs. So the deliverance of the man wasn’t dependent on the demons moving to another host.
Fifth, our tendency, and one that Hermann seems to go along with, is to intently look for distinctions between us and Creation. That informs how we understand what Jesus meant when he said we are worth more than sparrows in God’s eyes, it doesn’t register at all that Jesus was also saying that sparrows are worth something to God.
We seemingly can’t help but see things in a binary way. If we matter, we wrongly think, then the rest of Creation does not. We think, also wrongly, that if Creation matters then somehow our standing is diminished.
In fact, in this story, God’s living creatures and humanity clearly share something significant in common. Dark forces can possess both of us. And that possession causes us both misery and suffering.
Pigs and the Restoration of All Things
In Acts 3:21, we read of Peter saying of Jesus, “For he must remain in heaven until the time for the final restoration of all things, as God promised long ago through his holy prophets.”
I’m convinced “all things” means “all things.” And “all things” will include pigs.
It will also include the restoration of our respect and right relationship with all of God’s Creation. That is very good news indeed.
I’ve always been challenged by the story in Mark 5: 1-20 of the demons and the pigs.
I knew I needed to finally wrestle with it in earnest when I found a piece about the story by Pastor Andrew Wilson in the latest issue of Christianity Today. Like almost every other article, commentary, and sermon I’ve ever encountered, Wilson’s piece discounts the significance of the pigs.
This story, as you may remember, involves Jesus and a man possessed by demons who call themselves “Legion.” When confronted by Jesus, the demons expresses the desire to remain in the area and ask permission to go into a herd of 2,000 pigs. Jesus grants that permission. The pigs rush down the hill into the Sea of Galilee and die by drowning.
“Jesus and the Demoniac”- Woodcutting
It’s a puzzling story. Wilson shares a personal anecdote of an older pastor who recalled that one of the three most common questions about the Bible and the Christian faith he had received over the course of his long career had been, “And what’s the deal with the pigs?”
Wilson is a skilled writer and provides some valuable insights. However, he,like most other Bible interpreters (see this and this and this), seems to approach the story with the same two assumptions that have long shaped interpretations of the story: (1) the lives of the pigs do not matter and (2) the pigs are acted upon but are not able to choose to act themselves.
What happens if we read this story carefully and with an open mind? What happens if we apply what we know of pigs to the story? What if weave in other themes of Jesus’ life and of the Jewish roots of the Christian faith? What if we apply the whole faith principle that Creation matters to God and is part of God’s eternal plans?
If we interpret with all that in mind, this story comes to be even more wholly and richly provocative.
Below, I draw out that interpretation through a step-by-step, question-and-answer format. As you go forward, I encourage you to have an open mind while at the same time carefully scrutinizing each of my points of logic.
Did Jesus explain why he allowed the demons to go into the pigs and why the pigs rushed into the lake?
No. Like so many other examples of storytelling in the Bible, we are told of actions and statements but are left to figure out the connecting tissue of meaning and context ourselves. So we must be very careful about how we interpret the story. We will be tempted to project our own theories, prejudices, and ideas onto it.
What did the demons say their motivation was to move into the pigs?
To stay in the area. In other words, it seems they wanted to remain a source of torment and danger. This makes it illogical that the demons would want their hosts (the pigs) to die while they, the demons, were still possessing them. If this is kept in mind, it appears that the demons’ desire was ultimately thwarted.
Is there any Biblical basis for expecting that animals, especially higher order animals, might have a clearer and more virtuous perspective on the spiritual reality they are dealing with than humans?
Yes. Read the story of Balaam and his donkey carefully in Numbers 22: 21-35. In this provocative story, Balaam’s donkey sees an angel prepared to strike Balaam (a Moabite prophet) down three times, but each time Balaam’s donkey turns aside to prevent its master from being killed. Balaam, who has not perceived the angel, proceeds to beat the donkey each time, thinking that the donkey is being capriciously rebellious. God opens the donkey’s mouth, enabling it to speak its thoughts and feelings. The donkey reproaches Balaam and poignantly asks, “Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?” Then God enables Balaam to see the angel with its sword drawn and to realize what the true situation was. The angel tells Balaam, “If it (the donkey) had not turned away, I would certainly have killed you by now, but I would have spared it.”
In other words, the donkey sees the spiritual reality Balaam is facing but does not see himself. And not only that. The donkey also acts to prevent Balaam’s death from that spiritual reality, even after it becomes clear that Balaam does not appreciate what the donkey is doing for him.
What do we know of pigs?
They, of course, are considered an unclean animal in Hebrew law. We also know they are highly intelligence animals, as smart as or even smarter than dogs. They have complex social relationships with each other and with humans when allowed. They have saved people from harm. I’ve even read that it is hard to find funding to research their intelligence because, in part, it raises painful questions about the ethics of how they are raised for food today in factory farms and how they are slaughtered. (A great book to read about all of this is Pig Tales: An Omnivore’s Quest for Sustainable Meat.)
It’s also significant that pigs can swim. So just running into the lake should not have caused their death by drowning.
In The Food Revolution by John Robbins, one reads the story of a pig who showed protective instincts while swimming. Robbins shares an experience of a farmer who had had a pet pig when he was young to which he was very attached. He would even sleep together with the pig in the cool barn on hot summer nights. He also enjoyed swimming in the farm’s pond. One of the farm dogs, however, would always swim out and then crawl on top of him, unintentionally scratching the boy with his claws. This was about to cause the boy to give up on swimming when the pig intervened:
“Evidently the pig could swim, for she would plop herself into the water, swim out where the dog was bothering the boy, and insert herself between them. She’d stay between the dog and the boy, and keep the dog at bay. She was, as best I could make out, functioning in the situation something like a lifeguard, on in this case, perhaps more of a life-pig.”
Is there any other explanation for what the pigs did and their demise?
Yes. The assumption in most commentaries is that the demons caused the pigs, directly or indirectly, to rush down the hill and into the water where they drowned. In othe words, the demons either directed the pigs to run into the lake and die or the pigs’ instinctive, non-rational reaction to their possession by the demons was to rush blindly and without thinking into the water.
Another way to read the story begins with assuming the pigs had their own volition. This leads to the idea that the pigs decided it was better to die than live with the demons in them. So they decided to not only rush into the water but also not to swim and keep themselves alive. In other words, they committed suicide with a sacrificial purpose. They committed suicide to thwart the demons’ desire to remain in the area.
In what ways does this alternative reading make sense?
Here are the ways I believe it does make sense:
1. The last story we read before the story of the demons and the pigs is of Jesus calming the storm. The disciples wonder in the last verse of chapter 4, “Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!” A reading of this story that gives the pigs some will of their own enables this story to show that Jesus is both more powerful than the evil forces of the universe and, again, lord of the universe itself. He is able to use Creation to thwart the purposes of the demons. In this case, though, Jesus uses the sentience and intelligence of creatures within Creation.
2. We have seen in the story of Balaam’s donkey an animal that sees aspects of the spiritual world that people, including Balaam, cannot see and reacts out of good motives to preserve the life of Balaam. Why can’t pigs, who are as intelligent as donkeys and potentially more so, also act with their own will in a situation where they are confronted with the spiritual world intervening in the material world? This is so unexpected, of course, that our minds recoil at the idea. But perhaps the unexpected is part of what Jesus meant when he said earlier in Mark, “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” The kingdom of God upends all that seems normal in the world!
3. This reading fits, in a radical way, with the theme we see in the Gospels of the Gentile world sometimes recognizing Jesus and God’s ways more aptly than the Jewish world. The pigs are an extreme symbol of not only uncleanness but even of pagan and Roman culture, which were opposed and hostile to Jewish culture. What could be more radical than the kingdom of God leading pigs, the epitomy of all that seemed opposed to the Jewish understanding of God, to serve God’s purposes and eliminate evil from the world?
4. There is evidence that higher order animals can take action for good. There is also some potential evidence that higher order animals can commit suicide. A recent paper by David M. Pena-Guzman examines that possibility as does an article in Psychology Today.
5. If the pigs chose to take action for good by deliberating running into the lake and allowing themselves to be drowned (remember, pigs can swim), then this story actually picks up on the theme of sacrifice being needed to break the power of evil in the world. This is part of the fundamental story of Jesus dying on the cross. Jesus had the power to remove himself from the situation but chose not to in order to fulfill God’s purposes. The demons thought they had saved themselves by appealing to move into the pigs while evil thought it had triumphed over God by having Jesus killed. Both were wrong. And the pigs, which were likely used in sacrifices to pagan Gods, redeemed their goodness in Creation by being sacrifices for the removal of evil.
6. The theme of sacrifice that we see in the life and death of Jesus being paralleled here in this story actually enables us to feel better about Jesus allowing the demons to go into the pigs. Reading this story with the usual interpretations projects callousness onto Jesus. Why would Jesus allow demons to take their evil elsewhere in the world and cause the death of other members of Creation? Why wouldn’t he just have the demons leave the world forever? Why have compassion on the demons?
What if Jesus wasn’t having compassion on them at all but was taking advantage of their underestimation of the rest of Creation? What if Jesus was giving the pigs the opportunity to have a more noble purpose in their lives than they would normally have had – being slaughtered for food or sacrificed to a pagan god? Maybe their example of sacrifice to eliminate evil was a radical message from the least likely source? Maybe it was a profound sign?
7. This reading also fits with theme of Jesus having more knowledge and power in this world than demons. If one reads the exchange between Jesus and the demons, Jesus doesn’t actually assent to them staying in the area. He only assents to them moving into the pigs. Why couldn’t Jesus have known that pigs would be the agents of destruction of the demons?
8. And check out verses 16-17 – “Those who had seen it told the people what had happened to the demon-possessed man – and told about the pigs as well. Then the people began to plead with Jesus to leave their region.” Maybe what was so unsettling to the people of this region was not just Jesus’ ability to free the demon-possessed man of the demons but also the seeming suicide of the pigs. People there would have known that pigs could swim. Perhaps the idea that the pigs they ate and sacrificed on a regular basis could actually choose to do something good at the costs of their own lives would have been deeply unsettling?
9. In his article, Pastor Wilson picks up on the potential connection between the name of the demons being “Legion” and the Roman rule over the area. Doesn’t it add to the subversiveness of the story to think of pigs, a symbol of Roman culinary culture and their pagan religious culture, causing the demise of a legion?
In what ways is this alternative reading open to criticism of its own?
1. There is no commentary in the verses that provides clear basis for believing that the pigs had their own will in this situation or that Jesus expected the pigs to act on their own to resist the demons. You could just as easily read the verses to suggest that the demons either drove the pigs mad or drove them to run into the lake in some sort of purposefully destructive act. This story is a Rohrshach test of sorts. We project onto it what we bring to it. What’s more, there is no indication in the story whether the demons came back or not. So much is left unsaid!
2. There is no scientific consensus about whether animals can commit suicide. Here is an article that casts doubt on the whole idea.
3. You can make the argument that just as the demons caused the man to act irrationally, violently, and self-destructively the pigs would have lost control of themselves, even to the point of rushing into the water and losing the ability to swim.
4. It seems to our modern mindset to give too much agency and volition to the pigs in the story. These are the same intelligent animals we put into factory-like facilities that we call farms. Even worse, the culture of almost every church sees no problem with eating the flesh of these animals, even after the way they have been treated in life and death has been counter to every fruit of the spirit and the opposite of loving stewardship. Anything that suggests that pigs (and other animals under our control) have intelligence and can serve God’s will with some autonomy is deeply unsettling. We are not truly open to a Kingdom of God that upends and unsettles all of our expectations and assumptions.
You, of course, should make your own judgments. Nevertheless, no matter how you read the story, it is worth mentioning that both the possessed man and the pigs are capable of being afflicted by the demons. That should give us pause as well.
We tend to emphasize our unique qualities as humans and to avoid thinking of the commonalities we have with our fellow created beings around us. But just as Jesus was both God and man, we are simultaneously both special image-bearers of God and plain members of Creation. This should give us humility and a sense of fellowship with the rest of Creation.
It’s easy to write about what good stewardship of God’s earth looks like in the abstract. It’s another thing to live it out.
And it’s another thing altogether when you are trying to make a living off of the land, and your particular neighborhood happens to have grizzly bears.
That’s why it was inspiring to read this article by Kristine Johnson of the Food and Environmental Reporting Network. The article describes how ranchers in the Tom Miner Basin in Montana are raising cattle in ways that prevent predation on their cattle without killing the predators.
You’re probably inundated with information, articles, and books. Nevertheless, I urge you to take the time to read this article and ponder it. And if you can, do so before continuing below.
In the Tom Miner Basin in Montana ranchers are trying to live with grizzlies. (Photo used with kind permission of photographer Louise Johns – www.louisejohns.org)
Here are the traits of good stewardship of God’s earth that this story brings to the fore.
“They deserve to be here, too:” Fundamentally, this story of ranchers in Montana is about people who are living by the conviction that grizzlies are part of the fabric of that country. From their ethical perspective, it’s up to them to figure out how to make a living ranching while allowing the whole fabric to continue to thrive. And that means figuring out how to live with predators.
This parallels what we see in the Bible. In Psalm 50:11 we read: “I know every bird on the mountains, and all the animals of the field are mine.” Without doubt, predators are included in “all the animals.”
In Job 38:39-41 we read:
Do you hunt the prey for the lioness
And satisfy the hunger of the lions
When they crouch in their dens
or lie in wait in a thicket?
Who provides food for the raven
When its young cry out to God
And wander about for lack of food?
In Exodus 23:10-11, we read of the Sabbath concept of giving a parcel of farmland a rest every seventh year which enabled the poor and wildlife to be able to gather food from that land.
Acting within Creation’s framework: I was struck by the words in article of Whit Hibbard. A rancher and the editor of The Stockmanship Journal,Hibbard is an advocate for low-stress livestock handling. These are techniques that more peacefully and subtly direct the cattle to do what is needed. Knowing how to get your goals accomplished without being a tyrant is the most obvious sign of a good steward. For ranchers that can mean how you handle your cattle and how you interact with your predator neighbors. For all of us, no matter where we are, that means paying attention to how the ecosystems and the animals and plants around you interact and naturally behave and then trying to fit your place, your activities in those patterns.
Apply our creativity: Genesis tells us we are made in God’s image. I’m convinced that one of the primary elements of that image is creativity. We worship a Creator God, a God who is amazingly imaginative and who has endowed Creation with its own creativity. And we are, similarly, inventive beings. Using God’s earth for our needs while purposefully enabling God’s earth to thrive and even regenerate is one of the most important and most challenging puzzles we face as a species and as communities and individuals. This puzzle should bring out in us our best, most thoughtful,and wisest innovations.
It takes a little extra: Doing the right thing is rarely the easy thing. In comparison to the long-time ranching approach of letting the cattle out on the range for weeks on end with little human presence, having someone riding the range every day takes more time, energy, and money. Seeking out specific breeds of cattle that are better able to fight off predators also requires an investment of energy and research. In page three of the latest newsletter of People and Carnivores, you can read of ranchers learning how to put up special fences with fluttering flags attached (a practice called “fladry”) to scare off wolves without harming them. This is another example of thoughtfulness translated into action.
It reminds me of the parable of the good shepherd. In that parable, Jesus reminds us that an attentive shepherd puts his heart into his task and will search out one lost sheep. That’s neither the easy or simple thing. It might not make pure economic sense. Creation is God’s flock. Are we willing to be the kind of shepherds God wants us to be?
You and I cannot be judgmental spectators of the challenges ranchers face. We should be going to the extra effort of supporting farmers and ranchers like these by buying their products, even if it costs a little more. We should also be good stewards of our own land, even if that is just 20′ x 30′ backyard.
Living with loss: I don’t know how I would react to the killing and consumption of an animal of mine by a wolf or grizzly bear. I know it would be wrenching. This is what makes the stewardship ethic of the ranchers profiled in this article so powerful. They are moving forward even as they know there is danger of loss. Somehow, we must be able to be vulnerable enough to accept some level of hurt as we work to be good stewards.
Boundaries and solemn necessities: Any close relationship will have some friction and reasonable boundaries are needed. Some culling of the most aggressive individuals of predator species is a solemn necessity in places where people and nature live side by side, which is increasingly the future of conservation. Conversely, there must also be abundant preserves, reserves, and national parks where predators and other wildlife can thrive without pressure from humanity.
Right stewardship comes from the right heart: It is not stated directly in the article, but it’s clear from the words and actions of the ranchers that are profiled that everything starts from their hearts. Their actions are the fruits of what is in their hearts. Of course, I don’t know if many ranchers would feel comfortable using the language of “fruits of the hearts” to describe their motivations. Nevertheless, consider the qualities in Galatians 5:22-23 that describe the person in whom the Spirit of God has transformed:
“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things.”
I believe these ranchers and their families, regardless of their faith convictions, are showing us what the fruits of the spirit look like when applied to how we live practically on God’s earth.
Experiences of the world in synch: I became very interested in learning more about what values and family cultures compelled these ranchers to adjust their way of life and to put their ranches’ future on the line in the way the article describes. So I made some inquiries and was eventually able to speak with Andrew Anderson. Andrew grew up on a ranch in Montana and works on the J Bar L Ranch, which uses many of the predator-protecting practices mentioned in the article. He said something very interesting towards the end of conversation:
“When I’m on a horse, working with cattle, knowing that predators are on the land around me, it feels great to feel that I’m part of this natural system and not working against it. I love horses. I love working with animals in nonstressful ways. I love being connected with the landscape. And I don’t have to choose. I can have it all. That’s where the real satisfaction comes from.”
This might be one of the better descriptions of shalom, the peace that the Bible speaks about, the peace that is not just the absence of conflict but is all the elements of the world and life in synch.
Committing ourselves to creative Creation stewardship doesn’t mean our hearts will always be in a state of bliss and harmony. Far from it. This is a challenging, difficult world.
Yet, when we respond to God’s call to tend God’s earth, we will have the kinds of moments that Andrew Anderson does.
In two previous blogs (here and here), I’ve dived into the subtleties of John 3:16. This iconic verse, often used to convey the Gospel, has more nuance to it than is normally recognized. The words “believe” and “eternal life” and even “have” are translations that typically do not capture the full meaning. This epitomizes how easy it is simplify the Christian faith and lose its wholeness. And one of the ways Christians have been tempted to do so is by making Christianity only about individual people and their individual destinies beyond death.
It is with this in mind that I tackle one key word in John 3:16 – “world.” The argument I make is not conventionaI. But while I certainly don’t claim to be a theologian, I do believe we all should wrestle with what we read in the Bible and work to understand how it fits together as a whole. I encourage you to be the judge whether my reasoning is compelling or not.
What do most Christians understand to be the meaning of the word “world,” which is a translation of the Greek word “kosmos,”in John 3:16?
I’ve looked to answer that with an admittedly unscientific search online. And I’ve encountered what one often finds with Christian doctrine and key verses – a wide range of opinions with sometime fierce denunciations of others’ opinions.
Some of the dominant opinions one finds for answers to that question are
1. All of humanity
2. All of fallen humanity
Here’s John Piper’s take on the second understanding, which is representative of many other theologians I’ve come across:
That is the way John is using world here. It is the great mass of fallen humanity that needs salvation. It’s the countless number of perishing people from whom the “whoevers” come in the second part of the verse: “. . . that whoever believes in him should not perish.” The world is the great ocean of perishing sinners from whom the whoever comes.
3. The elect of God (of which there are a number of interpretations).
What I could not find was anyone asserting that world in this case actually meant the whole world of people, ants, trees, salmon, soil microbes, coyotes, and dung beetles.
Here are some reasons why I believe it makes sense to read “kosmos” as the whole earth:
The Gospel of John begins with the whole world: All too often we atomize the Bible, pulling together a set of verses plucked out of different books of the Bible to prove our case on a particular issue. In the process it is very easy to do violence to the wholeness of each book and to the complex wholeness of the Bible. When you begin at the beginning of the Gospel of John, you find John stating that Jesus was the Word and the Word was with God from the Beginning. And in John 1:3, John asserts that “Through him all things were made…” Would Jesus desire the spoiling and destruction of all the things made through Him?
The Bible itself begins with the whole world: In the beginning we see God creating earth mysteriously and through an orchestration of the creative capacities of the forces of nature. All of what God creates is good. When humanity is added in God’s image, the whole of Creation is judged to be very good. This is the context of the rest of the Bible.
The Bible ends with all of Creation: Gregory Stevenson, professor of New Testament at Rochester College, writes in this article:
Revelation presents God as the Creator for whom creation is a fundamental component of his identity and activity. He is both the divine benefactor who bestows creation upon us as a gift and the sovereign Lord who rules over that creation faithfully. As God will not abandon his people, he also will not abandon his creation. Furthermore, God’s vision for his creation is all-encompassing (from the alpha to the omega) and leading towards a predetermined goal – a goal which itself is all about creation.
Humanity is given a special and weighty responsibility: In the first chapter of Genesis, humanity is told to fill the earth and to subdue and rule over the living things of the world. How do we choose to read this? Christians have, unfortunately and tragically, tended to read Genesis 1: 26 in isolation and as license to kill, exploit, and tyrannize. This question needs more attention but consider these factors: (a) God has just said that all that God created is good, (b) look carefully at the original meanings of the Jewish words of subdue and rule in this blog, (c) in the very next verse humanity’s diet is defined to be plants, so what kind of rule is it when you are not given permission to eat animals?, (d) in Genesis 2, Adam is called on to keep and tend the Garden, (e) other verses and stories in the Bible make clear that all of Creation is of value to God, and (f) our model for ruling should be God’s rule over us which we see most fully realized in Jesus who showed anger at the misuse of power and who came and died out of sacrificial love.
“Kosmos” can legitimately mean “earth”: Here is what the commentary in the Today’s New International Version of the Zondervan Bible says about this Greek word: “Another common word in John’s writings, the Greek noun for “world” is found 78 times in this Gospel and 24 times in his letters (only 47 times in all of Paul’s writings). It can mean the universe, the earth, the people on earth, most people, people opposed to God or the human system opposed to God’s purposes. John emphasizes the word by repetition and moves without explanation from one meaning to another.”
The context of the bronze snake: In John 3:14, Jesus creates a parallel between the necessity for him to be raised up on the cross and Moses raising up the bronze snake while the people of Israel were in the wilderness. This comes from Numbers 21 where we read of God using poisonous snakes to punish the people of Israel for murmuring against Moses, which is essentially the doubting and questioning of God. In agony and fear, the people ask for the snakes to be taken away. Instead, God has Moses make a bronze snake and hold it up high. People who looked on the snake would not die.
This creates an interesting context for John 3:16. Here are several elements of this context we should allow to seep into our hearts. First, God used snakes for his purposes, and they obeyed, unlike the people of Israel. Second, God did not send the snakes away (much less destroy them) as God had been asked to do, Third, God used an image of a snake as a method of saving the bitten people who looked on it. Fourth,in the context of how the Bible tells the story of how sin entered the world, perhaps God is making a point of redeeming the conception of snakes in the bronze snake. Perhaps the challenge, in part, for the Israelites to decide to look on the bronze snake with faith was that it was a snake. In short, the reference to the bronze snake is steeped in sinful people, in sinful behavior, consequences for sin, Creation as part of the story, Creation serving God, and an unexpected symbol requiring faith and confession that will then lead to saved life in this world which will inevitably lead to changed behavior in this world.
Moses and the Brazen Serpent – John Augustus 1898
The challenging logic of the structure of the verse: However one chooses to read John 3:16, there is an interesting question that one must answer when reading it. How does the first part of the verse relate to the second part of the verse? Specifically, the first part begins with God’s love for the world. Whether “world” refers to the whole earth or just to fallen humanity, why does the verse end with individual human beings having the opportunity to have eternal life? How can God care about the whole set encompassed by “world” and offer a solution that is seemingly only effectatious for a subset of individual human beings?
In other words, how does it make sense for God to love this larger entity if the benefit of those who believe is only for their individual souls beyond death?
It doesn’t.
As we’ve seen already, John is using the present continuous tense when referring to “have eternal life.” The proper way to read this is actually this – “go on having eternal life.” And what does go on having eternal life look like? I’d suggest that it looks like Jesus’ life, a life in deep synchronicity with God’s purposes right now and forever, before and after death.
When you and I go on believing and completely trusting in Jesus which leads us to go on having eternal life, we will begin to become the humans we were all meant to be. That will impact our relationship with God and with fellow human beings. We will share God’s love and the message of God’s love in Jesus. We will fight against the abuse of power.
It will also shape how we live out our mandate to be God’s image on this earth. When we become what we as humanity were intended to be, then Creation will also flourish as any subjects of a good king would flourish. This will bring God’s love for all of life to the earth.
So the puzzle of the structure of this verse is at least partly solved by the unspoken assumption it contains – an eternal, faith-filled life will be full of outward-focused love that prospers other people and God’s earth.
True eternal life leads to a rippling outward of God’s love to all that God has made.
Nathan believes that a whole Christian faith includes an imperative for us, individually and collectively, to actively show God’s earth mercy and compassion every day. For more than 15 years, he has worked for non-profit conservation groups that restore and protect natural habitats, change the relationship people have with nature, and promote sustainable farming. To learn more, click here.
