John 3:16, A Brief Exegetical Study
by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

Taken from “The Two Wills of God”.  
To purchase this book check here.

            John 3:16 is often utilized out of the context of Jesus’ didactic teaching to Nicodemas, and employed as a proof text for God’s saving love to the entire world.[1]  Some Calvinists believe that God is not saving all men here, but does intend a general “saving” love to all men.  Some attempt to force John 3:16 within a context of a “general love.”  Neither the context, nor the grammar, or the specific use of the words “so” and “gave,” allow for a general love to all men.[2]  As Hugh Latimer has stated, “God is not only a private Father, but a common Father unto the whole world, unto all the faithful, be they never so poor and miserable.”[3]  As will be demonstrated, the world of the faithful, and they alone, have God as their Father.

            First, the text reads, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”[4]  The article, ga.r (gar, for) denotes the information previous in the conversation which Jesus is expounding to Nicodemas.  The immediate context is taken from the Old Testament passage of the brass serpent in the wilderness for those who would look upon it.[5] The larger context is on regeneration and Jesus’ discourse with Nicodemas—how the Spirit, Son and Father accomplish redemption. The “for” is immediately connected with the objects of the last verse instrumentally; everyone who believers should not perish because God sent his son to those who believe.  The “for” of the verse links the thought in the previous verse, 3:15, to verse 16.  The “for” is transitive.  It is also to be noted that John 3:16 recalls the promise of the prologue seen in 1:12-13 and prepares the reader of the Gospel to encounter God’s expanded realm of salvation, not only for the Jews, but also for the Samaritans and Gentiles in John 4:1-54.[6]

The author of this love is God.  The grammar is literally, “so loved God…”[7] The word, “Ou[twj” (houtos) is the emphatically[8] used “so” of the verse.[9]  It is not a general love, but an emphatic love[10], of which there is none higher than this.[11]  The “so” stresses[12] the aorist tense of the verb “hvga,phsen.”  “So” acts as an adverb in this instance, connected vitally as a preceding intensive particle to the verb “love”.  As an adverb, it denotes the “degree of intensity” of the verb to be stated.  As is often noted, the phrase as a whole (“For, God so loved the world”) is a clause attached to a subordinate result clause (“that He gave…”).  This is important since it causes the phrase to stand on its own, except for the connection between the last verse and the word “for.”  As with most constructions in the Greek language, the sentence could literally be ripped apart and the words themselves strewn upon the floor.  But because word endings are the key to helping us understand the construction, even if we did jumble the words around, the meaning would still be the same.  The meaning, then, is quite straight forward in the Greek – not only did God love the world, but He intensely loved the world which is emphatically seen in use of the often neglected adverb Ou[twj. 

The particular use of the word “hvga,phsen” (love), is to love something in particular or to “delight in the object”.[13]  The “love” spoken of here by the Saviour cannot be a lesser love than that which God loves his elect.  The aorist active indicative of “agapao” is the word so common in the Gospels for the highest form of love.  It is used here as often in the writings of John (14:23; 17:23; 1 John 3:1; 4:10).  It is used of God’s love for his elect (2 Thess. 2:16; Rom. 5:8; Eph. 2:4).[14]  If this love in John 3:16 is “so” great as to be towards the whole world, this would cause the love of God to the whole world to be greater than the love He has for His elect.   But the Savior states, “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.” (John 15:13)  If this is true, then the love which is spoken of in John 3:16 is the greatest love.[15]  Thus, if this is true, and no greater love can be exemplified than this love which causes one to lay one’s life down for his friends, then the “world,” of necessity, is universally saved since God “so loves” it.  This is certainly not true.  It is true, though, that the love which is stated here is the greatest love God ever had, but it is for His elect.[16] 

Turretin rightly states:

The love treated in John 3:16 when it is said that “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,” cannot be universal towards each and every one, but special towards a few. (1) It treats of the supreme and immense love of God[17] (a greater than which is not and cannot be conceived) to those he gave his only begotten. This is evident both from the intensive (epitatike) particle houtos (which has great weight here) and from the thing itself.   For no one can have a greater love than to lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13), so no greater love can be found than that by which God (when men were yet enemies) delivered his own Son to death for them. And as Abraham could not more evidently prove his piety to God than by offering up his son as a sacrifice, so God could not more illustriously demonstrate his love to men than by giving up his Son to them as a propitiatory victim (hilastiken). (2) The love by which God gave his Son draws after itself all other things necessary to salvation: “For he that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?” (Rom. 8:32).  But not upon each and every one, rather upon the elect alone, he bestows all things with Christ. (3) Therefore the end of that love which God intends is the salvation of those whom he pursues with such love; hence he adds, “For God sent not his son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved” (John 3:17).  If therefore God sent Christ for that end (that through him the world might be saved) , he must either have failed of his end or the world must be necessarily saved in fact.  However it is certain that not the whole world, but only the chosen out of the world are saved; therefore to them properly this love has reference. Nor can it be conceived if a universal love is here under­stood, how such and so great love (which is by far the cause of the greatest and most excellent good, viz., the mission of Christ) can consist with the hatred of innumerable persons whom he willed to pass by and ordain to damnation (to whom he never has revealed either his Son or willed to bestow faith, without which it is set forth in vain). Nor can it be conceived how this love of God can be so greatly commended here which yet remains void and inefficacious on account of the defect of subjective grace, which God has determined to deny.[18] 

The object of the love is “to.n ko,smon” (ton cosmon, the world).[19]  John Gill states that the Persic version translates the word “world” as “men”, which, in this case may be fitting though not necessary.[20]  John Flavel rightly states, “The objects of this love, or the persons to whom the eternal Lord delivered Christ, and that is the [World.] This must respect the elect of God in the world, such as do, or shall actually believe, as it is exegetically expressed in the next words, “That whosoever believes in him should not perish.”[21]  As Owen states, God of his free grace, has prepared a way to redeem and save his elect (John 3:16; Isaiah 53:6).[22]  I believe it is difficult to translate the verse in any other fashion without entering into theological problems.[23]

The word “world” cannot be loosely translated as meaning every one for all time, including those who have already perished. No one would grant that it includes all men in hell, or those who had previously been in hell at the time of the crucifixion.  But by not granting this, the scope of those for whom God “so loves” is already limited.  I quote John Owen at length, “First…Now, this love we say to be that, greater than which there is none. Secondly, by the “world,” we understand the elect of God only, though not considered in this place as such, but under such a notion as, being true of them, serves for the farther exaltation of God's love towards them, which is the end here designed; and this is, as they are poor, miserable, lost creatures in the world, of the world, scattered abroad in all places of the world, not tied to Jews or Greeks, but dispersed in any nation, kindred, and language under heaven. Thirdly, “i[na pa/j o` pisteu,wn”  “in order that every believer,” is to us, and is declarative of the intention of God in sending or giving his Son, con­taining no distribution of the world beloved but a direction to the person whose good was intended, that love being an unchangeable intention of the chiefest good. Fourthly, “Should not perish, but have life everlasting,” contains an expression of the particular aim and intention of God in this business; which is, the certain salvation of believers by Christ.  And this, in general, is the interpretation of the words which we adhere unto, which will yield us sundry arguments, efficient each of them to evert the general ransom; which, that they may be the better bottomed, and the more clearly convincing, we will lay down and compare the several words and expression of this place, about whose interpreta­tion we digress, with the reason of our rejecting the one sense and embracing the other:­ The first difference in the interpretation of this place is about the cause of sending Christ; called here love.  The second, about the object of this love; called here the world. Thirdly, Concerning the intention of God in sending his Son; said to be that believers might be saved.[24]  As Owen again states, “It is the special love of God to his elect, as we affirm, and so, consequently, not any such thing as our adversaries suppose to be intended by it, - namely, a velleity or natural inclination to the good of all.”[25]  It must be kept in mind that Owen did believe God gave good things to lost men, but it does not argue a natural disposition in Him to do so in this saving sense.

            Turretin explains at length what the word “world” refers to.  I quote him in brief here and in length in the footnote, “It is true of the elect alone that they are actually reconciled to God and that their sins will not be imputed unto them. Why then should “the world” not be taken universally for individu­als, but indefinitely for anyone (Jews as well as Gentiles, without distinction of nation, language and condition) that he may be said to have loved the human race inasmuch as he was unwilling to destroy it entirely, but decreed to save some certain person out of it; not only from one people as before, but from all indis­criminately although the effects of that love should not be extended to each individual, but only to some certain ones (viz., those chosen out of the world)! And nothing is more frequent in common conversation than to attribute to a community something with respect to some certain individual, not to all.”[26]

In dealing fairly with John we must look through his Gospel and letters on the use of the word “world.”[27]  26 times he uses the word to refer to the earth.[28] 3 times he uses the word to refer to Jews and Gentiles specifically.[29] 12 times he uses the word to refer to believers and unbelievers in the world, or all humanity.[30] 3 times he uses the word to refer to the world system in particular.[31] 31 times he uses the word to refer to the wicked, without including believers, which is his most common use.[32]  And finally, he uses the word for the world of the elect 11 times.[33]  Seeing the varied usage of the word, the context and thought of each passage is critical, or the meaning of the word would enter into absurdity.  For instance, if we were to use the same logic that the Remonstrance or Arminians[34] use in their use of the word “world” in John 3:16 as “everyone for all time”, what says we cannot use that same word in 1 John 5:19, “We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.”  This would make absolutely no sense.  Or what of Revelation 12:9, “So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”  Is this all of humanity as they would purport in John 3:16?  Why do they read it into John 3:16 without considering to the context of the “so” and the “gave”, including the previous verse and the latter verse?

            Arthur W. Pink also helps us further consider the word “world” in its context. “But the objector comes back to John 3:16 and says, “World means world”.  True, but we have shown that “the world” does not mean the whole human family. The fact is that “the world” is used in a general way.  When the breth­ren of Christ said, “Shew Thyself to the world” (John 7:4), did they mean “shew Thyself to all mankind? When the Pharisees said, “Behold, the world is gone after Him” (John 12:19), did they mean that “all the human family” were flocking after Him? When the apostle wrote, “Your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world” (Rom. 1:8), did he mean that the faith of the saints at Rome was the subject of conversation by every man, woman, and child on the earth? When Rev. 13:3 informs us that “all the world wondered after the beast”, are we to understand that there will be no exceptions? What of the godly Jewish Remnant, who will be slain (Rev. 20:4) rather than sub­mit? These, and other passages which might be quoted, show that the term “the world” often has a relative rather than an absolute force.”[35]   I do believe that the word is relative depending upon the context.  In almost every instance it is used in the Bible it is relative.  It almost always has connotations to specific groups of people.

Pink goes on to say, “in 2 Cor. 5:19 we read:

To wit that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.”   What is meant by this is clearly defined in the words immediately following “not imputing their trespasses unto them”.  Here again, “the world” cannot mean “the world of the ungodly for their trespasses are “imputed” to them, as the judg­ment of the Great White Throne will yet show.  But 2 Cor. 5:19 plainly teaches there is a “world” which are “recon­ciled”, reconciled unto God, because their trespasses are not ' reckoned to their account, having been borne by their Substitute.  Who then are they?  Only one answer is fairly possible-the world of God's people!  In like manner, the “world” in John 3:16 must, in the final analysis refer to the world of God's people.  “Must” we say, for there is no other alternative solution.  It cannot mean the whole human race, for one half of the race was already in hell when Christ came to earth.  It is unfair to insist that it means every human being now living, for every other passage in the New Testament where God's love is mentioned limits it to His own people-search and see!  The objects of God's love in John 3:16 are precisely the same as the objects of Christ's love in John 13:1: “Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His time was come, that He should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end.

I admit that my interpretation of John 3:16 is no novel one invented on my own, but one almost uniformly given by the Reformers and Puri­tans, and many others since them.”[36] 

            The Westminster Assembly also has some contentions concerning the idea of the word “world” due to the theological positions of the Amyraldians in their meetings (such as Davenant).  Rutherford, Seaman, and Gillespie contended for the word “world” as meaning “the elect” and presented the idea to the Assembly and the Assembly accepted their proposition concerning God loving the “world” as God loving the “elect”.  This was noted in detail in their Minutes.[37]  The consensus of the Assembly was to abandon the Amyraldian notion that God loves all men generally[38] and moved forward with the meaning of John 3:16 as particular for the elect only.

            The words, “w[ste to.n ui`o.n to.n monogenh/ e;dwken” (“He gave his only begotten Son”) rest on the idea presented – the giving act of the Father.[39]  The word “e;dwken” (3^rd person aorist active indicative of di,dwmi, “gave”) is crucial to understanding God’s intention in the passage. The Greek construction puts some stress on the actuality of the gift: it is not “God loved so as to give”, but “God loved so that He gave.”  His love is not a vaguely sentimental feeling, but a love that costs.  God gave what was most dear to Him.[40]  This is the “love” which is stated as “for us” in Romans 8:31-32, “What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?”  1 John 4:9-10, “In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.”  Propitiation, God’s love and His giving are all intrinsically linked together here and paralleled as in John 3:16.

What does it mean to “give” the Son? It is nothing less than the entirety of the oblation of Christ in his incarnation, work, death, resurrection and intercession.[41]  In speaking of the giving, it points to the design and intention of God.  As John Flavel states, “You have heard of the gracious purpose and design of God, to recover poor sinners to himself by Jesus Christ, and how this design of love was laid and contrived in the covenant of redemption, whereof we last spake.  Now, according to the terms of that covenant, you shall hear from this scripture, how that design was by one degree advanced towards its accomplishment, in God’s actual giving or parting with his own Son for us: “God so loved the world, that he gave,” etc. The whole precedent context is spent in discovering the nature and necessity of regeneration, and the necessity thereof is in this text urged and inferred from the peculiar respect and eye God had upon believers, in giving Christ for them; they only reaping all the special and saving benefits and advantages of that gift: “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish.”[42] 

The same remarks made by those who create a double will in God in John 3:16 cannot be linked to John 6:33, though if they were consistent in their hermeneutic, it should be.  The passages states, “For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.”  If this is true, and we were to use the same interpretive tools the some have used on John 3:16, then, as Jesus gives life to the world, they all, by necessity, must have life and are alive.  But we know the “world is condemned already” if they remain in unbelief.  How could we interpret John 6:33 to mean “all men for all time?”  We cannot, just as we cannot say He loved “all men for all time” in John 3:16.  Who are these which are given life?  We know the whole world is not given life or they would be alive. If they eat of the bread of life, then they have life.  Jesus is not saying that He is the bread of life which every man for all time is regenerated.  He is saying that all men, Jews and Gentiles, may eat of Him.  Not every individual man, but all kinds of men, which would have been foreign to His Jewish listeners. As a matter of fact, in John 6:41 the Jews murmured at His teaching, saying that Jesus could not have “come down from heaven” since he is “Joseph’s son.”  But Jesus then remarks to them in 6:43-44 with these words, “Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.”  This shows the intention of God towards the Jews, and towards the world.  He raises up only those that the Father gives Him.  The Father, if He were savingly interested in all men, would have given all men to Christ.  But God is not interested in all men in this way, but only some men—those Jesus will raise up at the last day.

The “giving” of Christ is of intense theological importance.  Even the Greek construction given to these words shows us the rarity and exclamational intent of the writer. The words “That He gave” is the usual classical construction of the grammar with “hoste” and the indicative (first aorist active) entail a practical result; that God did do such a thing as give His Son, truly.  The only other example of this in the New Testament is in Gal. 2:13 where Paul is shocked that even Barnabas was “carried away” with the hypocrisy of the Jews which seemed unthinkable.[43] 

Why did God do all this giving? John Owen states, “The whole Scripture constantly assigneth this sole end of that effect of divine goodness and wisdom; yea, asserts it as the only foundation of the Gospel, John 3:16.”[44]  God gave because of His goodness to the elect and His goodness is seen in the Gospel itself, not specifically to all men in general.  The divine goodness and wisdom of God has given Christ as an oblation to “whosoever believes.”  Those “o` pisteu,wn” (ho pisteuow, believing ones) partake of what God gave in His love, “His only begotten Son.”  To “believe” is immediately linked to Jesus’ instruction in verse 3, those who are “born again” and who “perceive” the things of the Kingdom.  Those believing are those sovereignly regenerated by the Spirit who gives birth to spirit.  The construction here is considered a “purpose clause” in the Greek.  It is impossible to break the line of Christ’s thought and attribute the special and purposeful love of God which gives His only begotten Son to the entirety of mankind without distinction, where Jesus has, in verse 3 and following, already made the distinction.[45]  It is true that Reformed Calvinists, such as Murray and Dabney, do not believe God is “attempting” to save the world.  However, the theological position to attribute John 3:16 to all men generally is contextually deviant.  John Owen rightly states, “Nor is there any mention of any special love or grace of God unto sinners, but with respect unto the satisfaction of Christ[46] as the means of the communication of all its effects unto them.”[47] John Gerstner states, “John 3:16 says more clearly than probably any verse in Scripture that the atone­ment was made for believers only.  God so loved the world He gave His Son that believers should have eternal life.”[48]  Even John Newton must state that God in John 3:16 “opened the Kingdom of God to all believers.”[49]  The Kingdom of God is open to every believer, but that is a limited number – those whom God regenerates and endows with faith.  It is the intention of God towards “whosoever believes” that determines the “world” of the verse, and the direction of His goodness and His love.

The objection is often stated as such, “God’s love is infinite, and it cannot be limited to only a few.”  God’s saving love is not indiscriminate as His providence is.   Samuel Rutherford answers well for us if the former is true; “This should conclude, that there be an infinite number of men and angels to whom God’s salvation is betrothed in affection; but His love is infinite in its act, not in its object; the way of carrying on His love is infinite.”[50]  But the idea continues into the concept that because God is love, then God must, out of necessity to His nature, love.  This love then encompasses all of creation in one form or another.  But this is an exegetical strain.  There must be a distinction between love ad infra and ad extra.  Within the nature of the Trinity, there is a pure love communicated to each of the persons of the Trinity.  The Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father and this love is communicated between them through the working of the Spirit of love.  This love is the inner Trinitarian love which is ad infra, a love without restriction.   God, communicating love in this way, holds a pure and unrestricted love.  Yet, there is also a pouring out of His love in and through Christ, which is restricted to those elected in Christ.  This pouring out of redemptive love on His creatures is ad extra, outside Himself in the Beloved.[51]  As finite creatures it would be impossible to receive the saving love of God in any other form except through the mediation of Christ since the love which God pours out is infinite.  Finitum non capax infinitum[52] is the general rule which must always be attended to the understanding of the communication of God’s attributes to His people.  We cannot contain the love which God shares ad infra.  We obtain and enjoy through God’s gift that which is in Christ ad extra.

John Owen speaks about the love of God in this manner when he states, “He is love eternally and necessarily in this love of the Son; all other workings of love are but acts of His will, whereby somewhat of it is outwardly expressed.”[53]  Here Owen states that God necessarily loves in Christ but those acts of love externally upon men are those which He wills, which as we have discussed is a “love of the creature” or “love of men” but not savingly.  God, then, will savingly love upon men in wisdom.  He uses His goodness and love wisely in specific acts of His will upon His creation.  Owen continues to explain that God’s love is experienced by us in the “person of Christ…the first recipient subject of all that divine love which extends itself unto the church.  It is all, the whole of it, in the first place fixed upon him, and by and through him is communicated unto the church.”[54]  God does not use His saving love unwisely, or irrespective of Christ.  Turretin states this same thought, “Hence although love is considered affectively and on the part of the internal act is equal in God (because it does not admit of increase or diminution), yet regarded effectively (or in the part which He wills to anyone) it is unequal because some effects of love are greater than others.”  Calvin states, “Since our hearts cannot, in God’s mercy, either seize upon life ardently enough or accept it with the gratefulness we owe, unless our minds are first struck and overwhelmed by fear of God’s wrath and by dread of eternal death, we are taught by Scripture to perceive that apart from Christ, God is, so to speak, hostile to us, and his hand is armed for our destruction; to embrace his benevolence and fatherly love in Christ alone.”[55] Here Calvin also states that this kind of benevolence is found in Christ alone.  He says “until Christ succours us by his death, the unrighteousness that deserves God’s indignation remains in us, and is accursed and condemned before Him.”[56]  Calvin speaks here in a compound sense.  God loves Himself in us.  God loves Christ in us.  He does not love the marred image of Himself, or the wicked intents and thoughts of our hearts.  He loves Christ, and when we are in Christ He loves us ad extra.[57] 

It is also important to make note of the word “whosoever” in the Greek.  The text is often rendered, “that whosoever believes shall have everlasting life.”  Appeal is made to the “whosoever” and not commonly to “whosoever believes.”  The Gospel is certainly a “whosoever believes” Gospel, but there is a more important note to make on this word than stressing the obvious fact that the “whosoever” is linked with “belief.”  John 3:16 in the Greek is fully quoted concerning the “whosoever believes” idea, “Ou[twj ga.r hvga,phsen o` qeo.j to.n ko,smon( w[ste to.n ui`o.n to.n monogenh/ e;dwken( i[na pa/j o` pisteu,wn eivj auvto.n mh. avpo,lhtai avllV e;ch| zwh.n aivw,nionÅ”  The word in bold type is a verb which is a participle.  It is the present active nominative masculine singular verb which determines our English rendering “whosoever believes”.  The problem here is the word “whosoever”.  There is no word “whosoever” in the Greek text.  Literally the section reads “the believing ones into Him.”  God so loved the world that the ones who believed into Christ may not perish but have everlasting life.  Oftentimes Pelagian and Arminian advocates stress the word “whosoever” where the word does not even exist.  The Gospel here is directed to those who believe, and to no more.  Even if we were to take liberty in rendering the English as “whosoever believes”, it still ends up meaning the same thing: that those believing – whosoever they may be - are the ones actually saved.[58]

In summary, John 3:16 is not directed towards the entirety of mankind with no exceptions.  Calvinists sometimes refuse this for an interpretation which views this as a general saving love.  However, those suffering in hell, or who will suffer in hell, are not the recipients of the cross of Christ and the benefits of the redeeming love of God towards the elect, but would be considered part of the whole world.  If these Calvinists are merely stating that God has an eye, now, towards all nations instead of simply to Israel, then such an interpretation would still warrant the specific aspect I am proving by the text.  God’s love in John 3:16 is the highest form of love, as the Greek shows us, and that love cannot be towards the whole world indiscriminately with a lesser love to the elect.  Nor can this love be both for the whole world and the elect, for then we would wonder why the whole world is not saved.  Its context, nor its use of the Greek, allows its use to aid in propagating a general love for all men; that is not the point of the passage.  I do not believe this love to be extended to all without distinction, but to all kinds (both Jew and Gentile) from all ages with the distinct and particular love of God in Christ to His elect in those masses.[59]  Thus, Jesus is teaching Nicodemas, a Jewish ruler, that his narrow interpretation of God’s love is incorrect.  The saving love of God in Christ does not simply fall upon the Jew, but all kinds of men, the Gentiles included.  Jesus is not saying that God’s love is a general saving love for all men indiscriminately, but it reaches to all nations indiscriminately under the new covenant.  However, even though Calvinists rest on this interpretation, they must at the very least agree with me that the elect of Christ are those which this saving love shall be ultimately applied.  This does not destroy the message of John 3:16, but rather enforces it.

Others may attempt to create a duality in the will of God from this verse.  God not only elects and reprobates, but also loves everyone equally in some type of general saving manner.  This is a fallacious and irresponsible exegetical work.  The will of God here, I believe, is expressed in the divided sense.  Jesus had been teaching Nicodemas in John 3:1-10 that the Spirit of God blows and regenerates whom He will.  This is God’s eternal decree realized in the lives of men.  It is the compound sense translated into the divided sense for us.  In verse 16, He stresses this divided sense.  God reaches out into all the world to gather His elect.  His elect do not only reside in the physical covenant community of Israel any longer, but through the farthest reaches of the whole world.