1 John 2:2 - Does Grace Extend to Everyone? (Part 2)

It’s worth noting that the context of 1 John 1 has nothing whatsoever to do with the extent of the atonement. The point, in context, is that Christians can be assured that they have a steadfast advocate with the Father. You can discuss the atonement issue from 1 John 2:2 if you want, but just know that wasn’t the issue John was addressing.

I think John’s point is an argument from the greater to the lesser (in reverse order, however). Believers can be cleansed of sin because Jesus’ death did not only atone for those believers, but, extravagantly, for the whole world! This there is no shortage of cleansing power in the blood of the Lamb.

I don’t think anyone denies the unlimited power of Christ’s death. Hence, “sufficient for all, efficient for the elect.” Calvinists believe that if there were 10,000 worlds, Christ’s death is sufficient to save them all. The question is not one of value (unlimited value), but of design or intent. God designed Christ’s atonement to satisfy the needs of His elect in regard to justification. When Christ died, did He intend to save everyone by His blood? No. Whom did He intend to save? The elect. His was a definite (or particular) atonement for those whom the Father had given to Him.

This shouldn’t be a problem for those who believe in unconditional election. If the Father chose His people, and gave them to the Son, then Jesus died to save those people, and the Holy Spirit applies the merits of Christ’s death to those same people. John Murray’s classic book, “Redemption Accomplished and Applied” provides a good treatment of this subject.

No Scripture says Jesus died only for the elect.

A number of Scriptures say or teach Jesus died for all.

Christ died for the ungodly. -Romans 5:6.
If One died for all, then all died; and He died for all…God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. -2 Corinthians 5:14-16, 19.
Who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. -1 Timothy 2:4.
Who gave Himself a ransom for all. -1 Timothy 2:6
Who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. -1 Timothy 4:10.
[That Jesus] might taste death for everyone. -Hebrews 2:9.

But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. -2 Peter 2:1
Not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. -2 Peter 3:9.

He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. -1 John 2:2.

David R. Brumbelow

Dr. Cone’s focus on exegesis is very problematic to me and in my view is not the best way to discover meanings in God’s Word. Exegesis of course plays a part, just not to the extent to what Dr. Cone would have me believe.

His views are deficient in that he sees human response (application of the blood on doors and mercy seat) as key in redemption. I don’t believe they were the key thing the bible is teaching in these passages. The blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat every year yet there were “son’s of Belial” in the nation. The message of many of Israel’s Prophets was that rituals were not enough without a changed life.

I think Dr. Sproul is right seeing this as Jew/Gentile context. To see the situation as Cone does, ignores explicit statements of the personal nature of salvation and also the exceeding greatness of God’s design and operation. The Reformers were right in this case.

Cone’s position has John making an absurd statement that is unsupported from elsewhere in scripture. While Sproul recognizes the nuance of the Jew/Gentile issue. This is what vacuum exegesis misses.

Of course “whole” is qualified. We don’t leave our biblical understanding outside the door to operate in a vacuum. Cone’s broad and sweeping rules of biblical interpretation are unsupported from my perspective.

Yes, theology gained from explicit statements informs more obscure parts of scripture. This subject (propitiation) is not a minor or disputable point of theology.

The context and background section is particularly deficient as it really doesn’t fully appreciate historical studies to be able to ‘enter the reader’s world’. An interpreter needs to understand the full situation in which the writer and recipients dwelt. Without this Setz im Leben the danger is always misunderstanding.

David, you might want to drop the II Corinthians 5:14,15 “proof text” from your list, as this one clearly teaches particular redemption. I had the privilege, years ago, of hearing C. Lewis Johnson, who taught Greek for years at Dallas Theological Seminary, explain how these verses compelled him to resign his teaching post. This text forced him to become a five-point Calvinist, which was in violation of DTS position of four-point Calvinism, required of all their professors.

Look at the text carefully to recognize what it actually says, which is not what you apparently think it says. “If One (Jesus) died for all, then all died.” (that is, died in Christ) This is not talking about “the wages of sin is death.” It’s talking about those who died in Christ and consequently now live in Christ. “One died for all.” And the “all” He died for all died in His death, and now live in Him. Plainly, “all” here does not mean all people without exception. It means all believers, all the elect. It is a wonderfully clear example of how “all” is very often used in the NT. With this clear example before us, we realize that many of the other “all” texts actually refer to “all the elect of God,” not every person in all the world.

C.N. Barkman,

Where do Scriptures say that it was God’s intent that Jesus die only for the elect? How can we know God’s intent if His Word doesn’t reveal it? Or does it?

Of this death the Apostle Paul says, “Therefore all are dead, and He died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them and rose again.” Thus all, without one exception, were dead in sins, whether original or voluntary sins, sins of ignorance, or sins committed against knowledge; and for all the dead there died the one only person who lived, that is, who had no sin whatever, in order that they who live by the remission of their sins should live, not to themselves, but to Him who died for all, … -Augustine, The City of God and Christian Doctrine.

Here it is evident that Augustine makes no use of the “all without distinction” concept, and in fact states clearly that the extent of Christ’s death extended to “all” who were dead in sins.

-David L. Allen, SWBTS

http://sbctoday.com/does-paul-teach-limited-atonement-david-l-allen-phd/

David R. Brumbelow

Ed, a good place to begin in answering your questions is John 10:11. “I am the good shepherd. The Good shepherd gives His life for the sheep.”

David, I am glad to know that you consider Augustine’s viewpoint compelling. Can I assume that you will take Augustine’s understanding of other passages as the correct interpretation?

However, in II Corinthians 5:14,15, it appears that Augustine missed the meaning of the text. “…because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.”

1) The “all” who died, died as a consequence of Christ’s death. (not as a consequence of sin)

2) The “all” who died now have an obligation as a consequence of Christ’s death for them, namely to no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.

3) Conclusion: The “all” for whom Christ died are those who believe (or will believe) on Him. Christ died for all the elect, and all for whom Christ died, died in Christ, which death results in their new life, and present obligation to serve Christ.

Cone links John 20.30-31 purpose statement to John’s Epistle. The question of recipients in John is just as important as the recipients of the epistle. The Jews were the ones to look for “signs” (Gentiles were looking for wisdom). Pagan Gentiles would have no context reading either John or 1 John. The recipients either had to be Jews or “Converts to Judaism,” or at the very least “God Fearers.”

So the statement of John 20.30-31 was written primarily to Jews in John’s day because Jesus came to the lost of the house of Israel and they were to look for the “signs.” The Epistle of John functions the same way as contextually (spiritually) the readers wouldn’t have a clue what John was saying without the back-story of biblical redemptive themes. To understand what John means requires knowing his recipients. Today, most western Gentiles have a background of O.T. knowledge so the things John writes connect with us since know the context. Gentile Pagans in the first century would not have this background. The statement in 2.2 therefore needs to be seen from a Jew/world perspective.

As Aaron said in the other thread: the interpretive crux is identifying “our.” “Our” refers to Jews and “world” is non-Jews. It is clear in not every Jew was redeemed and clearly not everyone of the Gentiles will be saved either.

“Ed, a good place to begin in answering your questions is John 10:11. “I am the good shepherd. The Good shepherd gives His life for the sheep.”

If the text said, “for my sheep ONLY” or “JUST” my sheep, you would have a point. No one denies that Jesus died for His sheep. John uses the term “our sins” referring to the sheep, but then extends it, “and not ours only,” referring logically to the non-sheep. I John 2:2 ESV:

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

The undistributed middle is the first and foremost error of even the best interpreters. ” All women are human, therefore all humans are women.” Using John 10:11 to teach a limited atonement is a logical fallacy, IMO.

Do you have any verse that limits the atonement. For example, salvation is limited as through Christ alone by John 14:6 and Acts 4:12. Otherwise, because one can be saved through faith in Jesus would not preclude being saved another way. If I used John 3:16 to show there was no other way, that would be the undistributed middle. But John 14:6, on the other hand, teaches that He is the only way, which is why we may confidently assert it.

It seems to me that Romans 5:8 onward speaks to a universal atonement…and maybe more…or to use the words of Paul …”much more..”.

It seems as if he is comparing Adam’s sin which brought universal condemnation and the Death and Grace of the Lord Jesus which brought universal atonement.

If the Work of Christ is limited to a few and Adam’s sin condemned all then sin becomes a greater power than Grace. Verse 18 says ” Therefore by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” The usage of “much more” in other verses when referring to Grace etc seem to indicate a greater power.

The Many by Christ must be equivalent to the Many in Adam. It is difficult to make their quantities different.

God bless you all as you seek to know the truth for the truth is what sanctifies and also along with spirit is the means of true worshipping of God… For such does the Father seek. Jn 4:23,24

“David, you might [also] want to drop the [2 Peter 3:9] “proof text” from your list, as this one clearly teaches particular redemption.” (taking the liberty of slightly misquoting Greg Barkman)

Follow the personal pronouns.

You have “us” and “they” in the chapter. The “us” are the beloved (v.1, 8), the “they” are the scoffers (v.3). Peter says that God is longsuffering to “us,” not the scoffers, and in the same sentence he uses the terms “any” and “all,” which must refer to those whom God is longsuffering towards.

If Peter had said that God is longsuffering to “all” not willing that any should perish, you would have a point, but Peter didn’t.

p.s. I can always distinguish the Calvinist from the other guys, cuz the Calvinist quotes the entire verse, while the other guys only quote the last half of the verse!

Here is an old thread on the verse

Ed, it seems to me you are reading too much into Christ’s statement. I might expect Him to say, “The good Shepherd gives His life for the sheep only” if He were debating with someone who was arguing for Universal Atonement. He was not. He was making a simple statement of purpose. This is the purpose for which He would die, namely to give His life for the sheep. That’s plan enough. It only becomes unclear when one reads something into the statement that is not there.

If I said, “I’m going to take money out of savings to buy a new suit,” I think everyone would understand my intent. No one would argue that I really intended to buy ten suits because I didn’t say, “one new suit only.”

I wish somebody would interact with Cone’s arguments, either for or against. This is really not a good forum for getting into systematic discussions. However, some progress can be made if somebody wants to stick to 1 John 2:2 and interact with Cone’s actual arguments. Or else, this discussion will likely go nowhere in a big hurry.

“And he (και αυτος — kai autos). He himself in his own person, both priest and sacrifice (Hebrews 9:14).

The propitiation (ιλασμος — hilasmos). Late substantive from ιλασκομαι — hilaskomai (Luke 18:13; Hebrews 2:17), in lxx, Philo, Plutarch, in N.T. only here and 1 John 4:10. Christ himself is the means of propitiation for (περι — peri concerning) our sins. See ιλαστηριον — hilastērion in Romans 3:15.

For the whole world (περι ολου του κοσμου — peri holou tou kosmou). It is possible to supply the ellipsis here of των αμαρτιων — tōn hamartiōn (the sins of) as we have it in Hebrews 7:27, but a simpler way is just to regard “the whole world” as a mass of sin (1 John 5:19).

At any rate, the propitiation by Christ provides for salvation for all (Hebrews 2:9) if they will only be reconciled with God (2 Corinthians 5:19-21).”

-A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, on 1 John 2:2. Robertson (AD 1863-1934) was a renowned scholar of New Testament Greek and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

David R. Brumbelow

[TylerR]

I wish somebody would interact with Cone’s arguments, either for or against. This is really not a good forum for getting into systematic discussions. However, some progress can be made if somebody wants to stick to 1 John 2:2 and interact with Cone’s actual arguments. Or else, this discussion will likely go nowhere in a big hurry.

The Grammatical-historical method of interpretation requires a reconstruction of what both the writer and recipients understood among themselves. Today our western society is saturated with a biblical framework whether it is readily apparent or not. The first century Gentile knew nothing of Hebrew theology. The Jews almost totally kept to themselves in the religious sphere. When the Pharisees encompassed land and sea to make a disciple the were ministering to Jews in the Diaspora not Gentiles. 1st John was not written to Gentiles. The text would be indecipherable to a first-century Gentile.

Cone has given arguments where the historical situation was not developed along with the grammatical. His arguments are incomplete, there is nothing with which to interact if one builds a false scenario. I choose to stand with Piper, MacArthur, and Sproul on this issue seeing the reference to inclusion of Gentiles.

The inclusion of Gentiles was really the burning issue of the day as evidenced by Paul’s conflicts. John had been ministering ‘in the land’ to Hebrew Christians who were now exiled. They were ostracized by both unbelieving Hellenistic Jews and Gentiles. John continued his ministry no doubt among those he dealt with while ‘in the land.’ So we see the text is a Jewish document. The writer, a Hebrew who was never assimilated. Recipients who were thoroughly Jewish. If it had been written to Gentiles it probably would be stated in a way to indicate this fact. There was no reason to not name the recipients if they were not persecuted or marginalized in some way.

Tyler, Alex has addressed some of Christopher Cones exegetical postulations, but few bothered to engage him. I have answered the objections that were directed to my initial posts, which, though not engaging Cones directly, do deal with the texts that others have offered to support Cones.

A basic issue in I John 2:2 is the nature of propitiation. If propitiation is a satisfaction for sins, it is difficult to see how you can avoid the conclusion that if “world” means everyone who was ever born, and Christ made a propitiation for the sins of the world, that ultimately everyone is saved. Aaron made that point early on, but was not engaged by others, except Don Johnson, who simply said that he disagreed.

Cones tries to deal with this difficulty by appealing to the OT system, and suggesting a difference between the offering made on the Day of Atonement for the whole nation, and it’s efficacy to the individual worshipper, who must personally involve himself in the sacrificial system for this sacrifice to become effective for him. That’s an interesting argument that I had not heard before. Alex addressed this issue, but no one responded. I do not believe appeal to typology is adequate to support a theological argument.

It seems simple enough to me. If I owe a debt of $5,000 to the bank, and someone else pays the debt for me, the debt is erased. I don’t even have to know that the payment was made. If it was made for me, and was accepted by the one to whom it was owed, the debt is gone. The common argument that it only applies to me if I accept it, fails. That confuses the one to whom the debt is owed with the one who owes the debt. I don’t have to “accept it.” If it is paid by another, the debt is satisfied. I may find out about it at some later time. Christ rendered full satisfaction for all the sins of all the elect on the cross. The Holy Spirit applies this reality to individual elect sinners by convicting them of sin, showing them Christ, and bringing them to faith in Christ. They “accept” the payment, but only after it was already made on their behalf. By God’s design, each elect sinner comes to personal faith in Christ, but his sin debt was paid long ago by Christ and accepted by the Father. The elect sinner cannot fail to believe. His debt was already satisfied, and God will eventually and inevitably bring him to embrace Christ.

I would love to believe in particular redemption because it makes sense logically…but I just can’t because Scripture prevents me. But no matter. Everytime this discussion comes up, I quote a 5-pointer, Wayne Grudem, on the issue:

Finally, we may ask why this matter is so important at all. Although Reformed people have sometimes made belief in particular redemption a test of doctrinal orthodoxy, it would be healthy to realize that Scripture itself never singles this out as a doctrine of major importance, nor does it once make it the subject of any explicit theological discussion. Our knowledge of the issue comes only from incidental references to it in passages whose concern is with other doctrinal or practical matters. In fact, this is really a question that probes into the inner counsels of the Trinity and does so in an area in which there is very little direct scriptural testimony—a fact that should cause us to be cautious. A balanced pastoral perspective would seem to say that this teaching of particular redemption seems to us to be true, that it gives logical consistency to our theological system, and that it can be helpful in assuring people of Christ’s love for them individually and of the completeness of his redemptive work for them; but that it also is a subject that almost inevitably leads to some confusion, some misunderstanding, and often some wrongful argumentativeness and divisiveness among God’s people—all of which are negative pastoral considerations. Perhaps that is why the apostles such as John and Peter and Paul, in their wisdom, placed almost no emphasis on this question at all. And perhaps we would do well to ponder their example (Systematic Theology, 603).

C. N. Barkman said:

Ed, it seems to me you are reading too much into Christ’s statement. I might expect Him to say, “The good Shepherd gives His life for the sheep only” if He were debating with someone who was arguing for Universal Atonement. He was not. He was making a simple statement of purpose. This is the purpose for which He would die, namely to give His life for the sheep. That’s plan enough. It only becomes unclear when one reads something into the statement that is not there.

If I said, “I’m going to take money out of savings to buy a new suit,” I think everyone would understand my intent. No one would argue that I really intended to buy ten suits because I didn’t say, “one new suit only.”

The context is a contrast between the Good Shepherd and the hired hand, who deserts the sheep when he sees the wolf coming.The context is not a detailed discussion about for whom Christ would die. So I do not think you analogy works.

The Bible tells us God is sovereign over Israel, but it doesn’t mean by this that He is sovereign nowhere else (as many other Scriptures affirm). To say that Jesus died for me in no way implies that Jesus did not die for you.

Even in this illustration, Jesus seems to refer to sheep who do NOT hear his voice and do not follow him, seemingly contrasting his sheep to other sheep, although not stated as such (John 10:27). The Pharisees who do not come to Jesus fail not because they are not sheep, but because they do not hear his voice. .

[G. N. Barkman] I don’t have to “accept it.” If it is paid by another, the debt is satisfied. I may find out about it at some later time. Christ rendered full satisfaction for all the sins of all the elect on the cross. The Holy Spirit applies this reality to individual elect sinners by convicting them of sin, showing them Christ, and bringing them to faith in Christ. They “accept” the payment, but only after it was already made on their behalf.

I have a project tomorrow and limited time so here are some additional thoughts on Cone’s post.

Cone makes a big deal about correct “application” as if that is the key. This is typical of Disps. in that they want to trace redemption through the ages to see how God worked. However, what really goes on? They are looking for a ‘key’, ‘a grail’ if you will. I have seen this repeatedly.

John in this epistle later speaks of God fathering believers. How many of us have chosen our fathers? None! This is abundantly clear, it is plain language and reliable. There seems to be a divine ordering of redemption with God, in love choosing some. No one can just believe from themselves to untap salvation if God did not love them first.

God did not hide the way of salvation as something to be uncovered by careful searching. God ordains the means as well as the result. God has the redeemed recorded from the foundation of the world. The disciples thought they chose to follow Jesus but He says: “you did not choose me but I chose you.” Jeremiah was “known” before his birth since it was ordained (him being known-foreknowledge=fore choosing).

Some may object saying it is fatalism to think this way. However, the fatalism already came into effect at the fall. Now all deserve the penalty promised: eternal death. In love, God chose some to be redeemed. Jesus paid the price for those he chose. Humans deserve nothing but judgment, this is justice. We all in Adam sinned, we are not owed ‘another chance’ of finding some sort of key to salvation.

The blood of bulls and goats could never take away sins, neither could the passover lamb. Rather, these sacrifices pictured ‘the redemption message’ (1.5, 3.11) which first rang out in the curse on the serpent (Gen.3.15). Even though there were sacrifices for sin in the Mosaic Law and they were called this term (sin, guilt), they never actually expiated sin but were signs pointing to the depth of God’s love in the sacrifice of Christ. We cannot say that the application of Passover blood saved them. If they didn’t apply the blood their firstborn would die, yes, but only God knows which were His in a redemptive sense.

I would argue that the Pharisees of Jesus’ day were greater scholars than most anyone today on comparable basis. When the perfect Son arrived they were blind to who he was. Illumination comes from God. Even if someone were to tell them that Jesus really was born in Bethlehem (they mentioned this sticking point particularly), they would have found another reason in their minds to not believe.

They diligently searched the scriptures and were incomparably punctilious. Why didn’t God ‘help’ these searchers? They were the offspring of vipers and religious counterfeits Jesus said. The ordained to believe among the Pharisees searched also: Nicodemus. One Pharisee didn’t go looking for Jesus at all instead he raged murderous threats and sought how to persecute Christians. This improbable Christian was Paul. It is clear from these biblical truths and examples that God personally saves whom He wills to save. He does not provide some sort of salvific potential and depend on us to figure out the secret formula.

Also, saving faith really seems to be a gift (2Pet.1.1). Dead people cannot generate saving faith. Those ordained to believe were regenerated and trusted Christ. So, yes, regeneration is first before faith.

Ed, please re-read John chapter ten carefully. Several of your statements are the opposite of what Jesus says. He says nothing about sheep who do not hear His voice. He clearly states that the reason unbelievers do not hear His voice is because they are not of His sheep. (vs. 26) He says that His sheep hear His voice. (vs. 27) All of them. Nothing could be more clear. The reason some do not hear His voice is because they are not His sheep. The sheep who have not yet believed will hear and be brought into the fold in due time. They are already His sheep (His elect), and therefore will be brought to the Shepherd. Those who are not of this fold (Jewish sheep) are Gentiles who will be brought in the future. Sheep is another word for “elect”.

Kevin, yours is a good question. Thanks for raising it. You have shown a distinction between the time when sins are paid and the debt is satisfied, and the time when this is applied to the individual sinnner’s account. Since it is impossible that one for whom Christ died could fail to be brought to saving faith by the Holy Spirit, in one sense, it is an accomplished fact at Calvary. But in the sinner’s experience, it applies personally when he is justified by exercising saving faith. (Romans 5:1) Until he believes in Christ, he is, “by nature” a child of wrath. All people are by nature children of wrath. We are removed from that category when we believe in Christ.

Greg Long, I feel your pain. I wrestled long and hard with Particular Redemption before becoming convinced that Scripture does, in fact, teach this. It is more than a logical necessity. It is a Scriptural necessity. A proper understanding of II Corinthians 5:14,15, and II Peter 3:9 require it. As to the Grudem quote, I believe I understand where he’s coming from, though I think he concedes too much. However, evidently Grudem does not believe, as you do, that Scripture prevents him from believing in particular redemption. His placating words not withstanding, he believes in limited atonement because he is convinced that Scripture does not teach universal atonement.

It should be clear that limited atonement and universal atonement cannot both be true for the same people in the same saving sense. If one is true, the other is false. Grudem acknowledges that limited atonement has fewer clear Biblical statements than, say, unconditional election. He concedes that some may have difficulty being persuaded that the Bible teaches it. He is charitable toward those who differ from himself. But, at the end of the day, Grudem believes in definite atonement because he believes the Bible teaches it. Grudem does not believe the Bible teaches universal atonement. If he did, he could not believe in definite atonement, no matter how logically necessary it may seem.

Yes, of course he weighs the Scriptural evidence for and against differently than I do and comes to a different conclusion.

And yet he disagrees with just about every 5-pointer that I’ve ever read who asserts: 1) Limited Atonement is really, Really, REALLY IMPORTANT, and 2) You can’t believe in the other four points of Calvinism if you don’t believe in this one (see R. C. Sproul, for example), because it all rises and falls on Limited Atonement.

I wrote:

Even in this illustration, Jesus seems to refer to sheep who do NOT hear his voice and do not follow him, seemingly contrasting his sheep to other sheep, although not stated as such (John 10:27).

I do agree, G.N. Barkman, that “MY sheep” are the elect. Sheep of another fold (gentiles) are also part of “MY sheep,” also part of the elect. My point is that the sheep who HEAR His voice and follow Him are the elect sheep, implying that others do not hear and follow. In other words, the elect are a sub-category of sheep in general. This is not a big point, but I think it is implied.

Still, saying that because Jesus gave his life for his sheep does not translate into Jesus giving his life ONLY for his sheep. There is no limiting statement, as you seem to think there is. This is a logical fallacy, and it would get you into all sorts of trouble hermeneutically if you applied this across the board. For example, Mark says there was an angel at the tomb of the resurrected Christ (Mark 16:5, a “young man”). Thus, based on your principle, there was ONLY one angel there. But John 20:12 tells us there were two angels. Indeed, this principle of limiting an unlimited statement would make harmonizing the Gospels impossible.

Ed, I respectfully, but emphatically disagree with your conclusion that Christ’s sheep are a sub category of “sheep” in John chapter 10. Do you have any respectable commentary that states this position? I certainly have never seen one.

C. N. Barkman wrote:

Ed, I respectfully, but emphatically disagree with your conclusion that Christ’s sheep are a sub category of “sheep” in John chapter 10. Do you have any respectable commentary that states this position? I certainly have never seen one.

This is a sub point and doesn’t really matter. The real issue is assuming the word “alone” on your point, not whether the non-elect are ever thought of as sheep.

To give you a commentary, here is R.C.H. Lenski on John 10:15

“ ‘Mine own’ sheep are all who in heart and soul, by living faith and trust belong to Jesus… Nothing further is heard said concerning these others, simply because they are away from the line of thought.”

Indeed, brother, it makes only limited sense to say “my sheep” if there are no sheep that are not “my sheep.”

I fear, though, that you are misunderstanding me. My point is that the text does say that Christ did die for His sheep, but I am suggesting the text does not say nor imply “my sheep ONLY.” The original point I was trying to make is that the text is silent about whether He died only for his sheep. Even if you want to say the non-elect are never called sheep, it changes nothing — of course, unless the text said that Christ died only for sheep — which it does not.

Ed, I believe that the proposal that there are sheep in John 10 who do not belong to Christ, and will not hear His voice does matter. It demonstrates a view of the passage which will probably color the intended meaning of other words and statements.

I must differ with you about the “My sheep” statement. It could indicate other sheep which are not “mine,” but not likely. More probably it makes a distinction between those sheep who are already believers, and those who are not yet believers. They are all sheep. In one sense, they are all “mine” (that is Christ’s sheep), but Christ may be reserving the possessive pronoun to identify those who have already come to faith in Him, as distinct from those who have not yet believed.

If I say, “I’m going to take my family to the ballgame,” does that indicate that I plan to take others who are not part of my family? Maybe, but probably not. Hardly anyone would take that statement to mean that I intended to take others as well. It is simply a statement of personal relationship with one family. I could say, “I am taking family to the ballgame,” and most would understand this to mean the same thing as the original wording, or to mean that I am taking part of my family, but not all. “My sheep hear my voice” means all of Christ’s sheep hear his voice, not that there are sheep who are not Christ’s.

Ed, if I said, “I love my family, and am willing to lay down my life for them,” would anyone think I intended to include others in the scope of that statement? I seriously doubt it. I don’t consider the definite atonement interpretation of Christ’s statement a logical fallacy at all. I consider it the way most people would understand His words, “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” I believe it is only the need to argue for universal redemption which fuels the search for alternative ways to understand this plain statement.

If I say, “If there were a fire in my house, I would do whatever it takes to save my family. I would even lay down my life for my family,” it does not exclude the fact that I would also lay down my life for a stranger in another scenario, say if a gunman starting shooting in a public event. The emphasis in my one statement on my love for my family in the context of a specific discussion of a house fire does not preclude my willingness to die for others; it’s simply not the point of the discussion.

It light of the clear statements in 1 Jn. 2:2 and elsewhere, I interpret Jesus’ statement and a similar one in Eph. 5:25 as stating nothing about the extent of the atonement. They do not preclude a universal atonement; they simply do not address it.

I hope in a future article the author will address 1 John 5:19, which to me is the best key to the interpretation of “whole world” in 1 John 2:2. I find it ironic that limited atonement proponents make a big deal of interpreting John’s use of “world” in 1 John 2:2 by his use of “nation” in John 11:51, rather than interpreting John’s use of “whole world” by his use of “whole world” in the very same epistle.

G.N. Barkman, the study of the imagery of sheep is a deep one. A good place to start is its understood use from the OT. Zechariah ll:7-14 [ESV] suggests the sheep as Israel, and Christ [the Shepherd] as ceasing to shepherd them for 30 pieces of silver, a prophecy you are no doubt familiar with. I think this also has reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the devastation of the Jewish nation. Albeit complex, I think this is an important text.

I think this sets the tone and background for Jesus’ teaching in John 10 — the whole Midrash thing that I am into. While not denying God’s coming wrath upon the Jewish people, He singles out those who choose to follow Him, “my sheep” and “other sheep not of this fold.” Here is the Zechariah text.

So I became the shepherd of the flock doomed to be slaughtered by the sheep traders. And I took two staffs, one I named Favor, the other I named Union. And I tended the sheep. 8 In one month I destroyed the three shepherds. But I became impatient with them, and they also detested me. 9 So I said, “I will not be your shepherd. What is to die, let it die. What is to be destroyed, let it be destroyed. And let those who are left devour the flesh of one another.” 10 And I took my staff Favor, and I broke it, annulling the covenant that I had made with all the peoples. 11 So it was annulled on that day, and the sheep traders, who were watching me, knew that it was the word of the Lord. 12 Then I said to them, “If it seems good to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them.” And they weighed out as my wages thirty pieces of silver. 13 Then the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—the lordly price at which I was priced by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord, to the potter. 14 Then I broke my second staff Union, annulling the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.

It seems like this thread is rehashing my objections to GN Barkman in the first article discussion thread, so I’ll sidestep that now.

@ Greg Long,

Yes, of course [Grudem] weighs the Scriptural evidence for and against differently than I do and comes to a different conclusion.

And yet he disagrees with just about every 5-pointer that I’ve ever read who asserts: 1) Limited Atonement is really, Really, REALLY IMPORTANT, and 2) You can’t believe in the other four points of Calvinism if you don’t believe in this one (see R. C. Sproul, for example), because it all rises and falls on Limited Atonement.

Is is possible that this is because this has more to do with retaining and defending the Calvinist theological system than it may have to do with Scriptural specificity? It seems to me that the people that I have come across that made this discussion of particular (fundamental?) importance are usually very, very strongly committed to the Calvinist structure and formulation (whether TULIP or not), even more so than, say, the clear interpretation of other passages that may seem to conflict.
Paul admonishes Titus to reject a divisive man (Titus 3:10, and not just a false teacher) and ignore him, and it seems like this discussion usually pulls out the same people over and over again who will absolutely die for that system. And those of us who accept it and who are disinclined to fight about it [I refer here to Grudem] have a better position and, frankly, Christian demeanor about it.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.” This figure of speech Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.

So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me,just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”

There was again a division among the Jews because of these words. Many of them said, “He has a demon, and is insane; why listen to him?” Others said, “These are not the words of one who is oppressed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?”

Given what I’m seeing in John 10, I don’t think it makes any sense at all to apply this teaching to a discussion as to who “the elect” are and are not although it may incidentally touch on it. It has to do with Jesus’ defense of Himself, His roles, and His authority. Here’s a brief recap from John, chapters 8 - 10

8:1 - Jesus goes to the Mount of Olives
8:2 - Teaches at temple in the morning
8:3-11 - Adulterous woman brought to Jesus
8:12-20 - Light of the world
8:21-30 - Sent by the Father
8:31-59 - Temple debate about father Abraham / Jesus leaves the Temple
9:1-7 - Jesus heals a man born blind
9:8-12 - Neighbors question the former blind man
9:13-34 - Pharisees question man’s parents
9:35-39 - Jesus finds the man
9:40-10:6 - Pharisees ask if they are blind
10:7-18 - Jesus explains he is the Good Shepherd
10:19-21 - Division among the Jews

The emphasis in John’s Gospel right here is “Who is this man?”. It is not a discourse on salvation, because Jesus is too busy explaining to the unbelieving bystanders who He is. It is not a discourse on “[so and so] people are elect and these people are not”, and no amount of scripture twisting will make it so.

I found this article by Andy Naselli very helpful on the question at hand.

[DavidO]

I found this article by Andy Naselli very helpful on the question at hand.

Thanks DavidO. Though I am not much of a music aficionado, I liked the message. I agree with Owen so in some ways I am biased.

Ed, thanks for the update. I find the OT references helpful. However, I want to state that Jesus does not say people become His sheep by choosing to follow Him. He puts it the other way around. People believe in Him because they are His sheep. “But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.” (John 10:26) This is why I said earlier that “sheep” is used in this passage to mean “elect ones.”

I respectfully disagree with Alex’s statements about the context of John’s letter. Were there issues with Jew/Gentile relations? Certainly so. But the following bolded points I believe are wholly unsustainable:

The Grammatical-historical method of interpretation requires a reconstruction of what both the writer and recipients understood among themselves. Today our western society is saturated with a biblical framework whether it is readily apparent or not. The first century Gentile knew nothing of Hebrew theology. The Jews almost totally kept to themselves in the religious sphere. When the Pharisees encompassed land and sea to make a disciple the were ministering to Jews in the Diaspora not Gentiles. 1st John was not written to Gentiles. The text would be indecipherable to a first-century Gentile.

Cone has given arguments where the historical situation was not developed along with the grammatical. His arguments are incomplete, there is nothing with which to interact if one builds a false scenario. I choose to stand with Piper, MacArthur, and Sproul on this issue seeing the reference to inclusion of Gentiles.

The inclusion of Gentiles was really the burning issue of the day as evidenced by Paul’s conflicts. John had been ministering ‘in the land’ to Hebrew Christians who were now exiled. They were ostracized by both unbelieving Hellenistic Jews and Gentiles. John continued his ministry no doubt among those he dealt with while ‘in the land.’ So we see the text is a Jewish document. The writer, a Hebrew who was never assimilated. Recipients who were thoroughly Jewish. If it had been written to Gentiles it probably would be stated in a way to indicate this fact. There was no reason to not name the recipients if they were not persecuted or marginalized in some way.

The average Gentile may well have known nothing of “Hebrew theology,” but John is not writing to average Gentiles, he is writing to saved Gentiles and Jews—all believers of his target for the letter. By the time John was writing to this group, the text would be wholly decipherable to many believing Gentiles. Scripture makes this abundantly evident:

1. There were, before the gospel spread, already believing Gentiles that were dispersed around the Roman empire, awaiting (unbeknownst to them) God to bring that gospel message; the Ethiopian eunuch was familiar with OT scripture, though still struggling to understand (Acts 8:27-30) and Cornelius was a believer of the true God (Acts 10:1-2), no doubt from interaction with some Jewish thought (Peter even calls in his sermon to Cornelius upon the authority of the prophets, Acts 10:43). This was only the early period, before the gospel expansion to the empire.
2. Paul’s preaching in synagogues, as was his normal mode of operation when coming to a new community, included God fearers that were not Jewish (Antioch, Acts 13:26, 42; Iconium, Acts 14:1; Thessalonica, Acts 17:4; Berea, Acts 17:12; etc.). God had already been preparing certain Gentiles to hear the good news and understand it from an OT context.
3. Most importantly, by the time John was writing, Paul had already spent considerable time teaching Gentiles, two years located in the central position of Ephesus, such that Greeks from throughout Asia had heard his teaching (Acts 19:10). He was focused on “the kingdom of God” in his long term teaching ministry (Acts 19:8), and without question would have been pulling his teaching about the kingdom from OT Scriptures, since much (if any, depending upon one’s views) of the NT was not yet written.

It is completely unsustainable to believe that believing Gentiles were ignorant of Hebrew theology and the OT background by the time of John writing (and even most of Paul’s letters show he wrote to Gentiles with the understanding they knew OT background; e.g. Romans).

John himself would write to the churches in Gentile lands when the book of Revelation was penned (Rev 2-3). John’s ministry was clearly not so isolated to the Jews alone as some would argue, and his Gospel is generally recognized as being a writing with a focus upon Christ’s work for the world (unlike, generally speaking, Matthew to the Jews, Mark to the Romans, and Luke to the Greeks). And primarily, in John’s writings, the world refers to the unbelieving crowd (if it refers to a group of people) or the system under which that group operates. In 1 Jn 2:2, however, it has to be the people group referred to, because only people have sins to be propitiated.

In order not to clutter I won’t use the quote function Scott but will just defend my thoughts here. Firstly, as I noted, no reason exists to think that John ever ministered to Hellenistic Jews while in the Jerusalem Church (if indeed John’s ministry was in Jerusalem, if it wasn’t in Jerusalem, there would be even less chance John would have any Gentile contact). It is important to understand that Gentiles were not like modern Gentiles today (these were really pagans whose thinking and background we can know from the plethora of materials from the time). Here is point to point:

1. The Etiope Eunuch was on pilgrimage (already a convert attending the feasts as required). Cornelius was a God-fearer already. These were instances pointed out by the Spirit that The New Covenant was now applied to a new class: Gentiles in general. These are ‘fulfillment notices’ among other things for the disciples.

2. I agree with the point without having to jump to a forced conclusion.

3. Again, general agreement, without seeing how it has to come towards specific conclusion. Nuance is involved by seeing the whole picture from cultural studies.

Believing Gentiles is the key but you have not proved That this Hebraic Jew had any ministry to Gentiles or that the recipients were Gentiles. You will have to do better than this before I will be convinced. I took this tact on the recipients as I did not think it was adequately developed (eliminated as a consideration). The more I looked at the data, it seemed to me that this was a live option (and I still think it very viable). I would argue that John had little capacity to relate to Gentile thought if that thought was not deeply rooted in the O.T. and Jewish Theology.

Look at John’s style of writing. He sounds like Jesus the Hebrew! No doubt that Jesus’ discipling of John deeply influenced both his theological thought and writing style. No, this is an area (the recipients) that defies quick dismissal one way or another.

The “world” use in John needs to be cataloged according to context (I think you will find some interesting things). As in Hebraic style, John’s careful choice of words is significant. The reader will have to carefully see what the writer means in the immediate context and not look at other places later or earlier in the text. This aspect is thoroughly Jewish and includes those things common in thought among them without pedantically referencing the fact. The immediate context reigns supreme in Hebrew.

John’s use of terms has to be from deeply theological understandings previously accepted. For example: What was the announcement they had heard from the beginning (1.5, 3.11)?

Hebrew thought will sometimes see fulfillment differently that how we think fulfillment should occur. The Hebrew mind had the Mosaic System of sacrifice and observance as central as part of their thought, it was of course required. Here John writes New Covenant realities without actually mentioning that he is so doing. If one were brought up with The Mosaic System in mind, they would understand. Notice further in chapter 1 how he mentions light and darkness. The legal system (as Paul explicitly describes) of the Jews showed how only perfection would be acceptable and the adherent would have remedy only by sacrifice. Notice what happens next: Confession towards God!

In Moses confession took place in the courtyard before the Meeting Place with the confessor having his sacrifice ready. He would place his hands on the animal and confess (implicit substitution). Here however John tells the Christian the New Covenant reality under the High Priesthood of Jesus that restored fellowship in the Spirit is immediate. Later when we come to our verse under examination, John mentions Jesus’ propitiation: The New Reality - The New Covenant. The law has changed, there is a new law since there is a new priesthood! All this John says without actually using the phrase (as Paul does) New Covenant. There is an implicitness, if you will, in Hebrew thought that differs from how we today would examine a text.

I am sticking to my guns on this and will do more studies in the area. Historical considerations should loom large when examining John especially over the other General Epistle writers. Above all these writers, he is the most Jewish (as opposed to Hellenistic).

Your initial replies to my three points are fine, except in your “counter” to #1, you seem to miss the point of what I am chiefly arguing: your position that “The text [of John’s letters] would be indecipherable to a first-century Gentile,” yet these two “already converts” are still believing Gentiles, the one of which is certainly immersing himself in OT texts, and so John’s allusions/references to OT texts need not be considered “indecipherable” to believing first-century Gentiles.

You state “have not proved That this Hebraic Jew had any ministry to Gentiles,” yet the book of Revelation that I note in my final paragraph (which is directed to churches in Asia, so that is how my 3rd point relates directly to the discussion) is specifically addressed to the seven churches of Asia, which were all chiefly Gentile churches. That should, beyond doubt, prove John had a “ministry to Gentiles” (assuming one holds John the Apostle is the writer of Revelation, the Gospel bearing his name, and the three letters attributed to him, all of which I do hold).

“John’s style of writing” and that he “above all these writers [of the General Epistles] , he is the most Jewish” is relevant as far as indicating he was a Hebrew in thought, but not relevant to whether believing Gentiles that were taught the OT could decipher John’s writings, nor any reason to dismiss that he was writing to a mixed Jewish/Gentile believing audience with his writings. Whatever implications of comparing Old Covenant to New Covenant may have be lost on some of his recipients, but not all, and those that could explain it to their fellow believers no doubt did so (just as believers today have teaching ministries to other believers to help them see truths of Scripture missed without proper background). So the initial audience cannot be determined purely based on the style of the writer, but at best by the content within it. The content of 1 John is applicable to all believers, which of course the Divine Author behind 1 John no doubt also intended the letter to be instructive to all believers, even if those later believers would need to get some OT background to understand better (the whole NT requires an OT background to understand it correctly).

I agree “the ‘world’ use in John needs to be cataloged according to context,” but also contend that in the majority of his uses he refers to either unbelieving/ungodly people or the system of unbelief/ungodliness influencing the world (which is primarily influencing through those said people, along with the spiritual forces against mankind). And while immediate context is important, that does not mean one simply should “not look at other places later or earlier in the text” for his usage, as he also follows themes of thought (and the two prominent uses of ungodly people or the ungodly system are not wholly unrelated thematically). However, I am not aware of any place that it is defensible that he refers to the “world” of the Gentiles when referring to people, but rather if he is making a reference to persons, he either includes all people generally (humanity) or unbelieving/ungodly people in particular (when contrasted with believers, such as here in 1 Jn 2:2).