Hi Chad…
I’m all for the “emotional” however it can lead to conclusions that are other than what given texts might say. There is a proverb… Prov 13:12 “Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but when the desire comes, it is a tree of life.” Israel was promised resurrection, not individual casket resurrections but a ‘collective body corporate’ resurrection in terms of ‘covenantal restoration’ i.e., renewal (Ez 37:1-14; Jer 31:31-33)… this in time was none other than Paul’s “the hope of Israel” (Acts 28:20; 26:6-8 [vs. 8, again [i]present indicative singular tense = “is raising”]; 24:15; 23:6)
The modern church to an extent has had ‘the heart sick’ because like Israel of old she has not recognised the ‘Day of Visitation’ (Lk 19:44) and what that meant, having ‘deferred’ to endless forestalling of Christ’s Parousia out into countless eons, making IMO a mockery of many of Christ’s prophetic words about what was ‘about to’ shortly occur on THEIR prophetic horizon, and what THAT meant in terms of Israel’s redemption drawing nigh… Lk 21:28.
As someone who holds to a pantelist view of scripture my hope (not a hope-so, but a sound assurance) is in the power and mercy of God’s grace and is NOT limited to man’s ability or the lack thereof to comprehend it, and so the good that awaits all beyond can find traction already in this life.
I have some other thoughts on this HERE.
Doctrine? no. They simply assumed such was so. I like what Tom Wright has to say…
In light of “audience relevance” I understand the principle is “to the Jew first then the Gentile” and so read this text as being more pertinent to Israel than has been appreciated and subsequently universalised. I’m NOT saying it can’t have general meaning to any past the scope of NT Israel, BUT that Israel was the primary focus of Jesus’ words and so I understand it thus…
Jn 3:16 For God so loved the world [of Israel]* that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever* [of Israel]* believes in Him should not perish* [in Israel’s fall]* but have life unto the age.*
Or to paraphrase a bit further:
Jn 3:16-17 For God so loved Israel that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever of Israel believing in Him might not perish (AD70 lake of fire)* but might have life into the age about to come. For God did not send His Son unto Israel to condemn Israel, but that Israel through Him might be saved.* Mt 1:21; Lk 1:68; Rom 11:26-27]
As you can see, in the life and story of Israel I understand “world” is decidedly “Israel" in focus, but again, not to the total exclusion of all else (Jn 1:12b) but that Israel as personified in Jesus and His elect firstfruit saints (Gal 6:16) were God’s redemptive means and focal point (Jn 4:22) to the rest of humanity, who were predestined to benefit from Israel’s redemption. Remember, Israel were to be “a light” to the nations, and were actually a kind of firstfruits of humanity (Jer 2:3; Jas 1:18) – in keeping with the covenantal working of God of restoring humankind back to Himself. So, I see much of the NT “world” and “all” language as “exclusively orientated” by virtue of the fact that that was the divinely pre-ordained redemptive path through Christ and the firstfruit saints; but having the wider divinely pre-ordained “all inclusive application” that all humanity through Israel’s redemption has been reconciled to Him [the message of Romans 11].
Thus it is not wrong in that sense to acknowledge that God indeed pursues all, as He does indeed “so love the world".