1 John 2:2 - Does Grace Extend to Everyone? (Part 2)
Image
Read Part 1.
An Exegesis of 1 John 2:2
To adequately handle any passage we must work through some important exegetical steps. We need to (1) verify the text and translation, (2) identify background and context, (3) identify structural keys, (4) identify grammatical and syntactical keys, (5) identify lexical keys, (6) address Biblical context, and (7) consider theological context. Then we would verify our work, put it into practice in our own lives as appropriate, and communicate it with others as God gives us opportunity.1
(1) Text and Translation
καὶ αὐτὸς ἱλασµός ἐστιν περὶ τῶν ἁµαρτιῶν ἡµῶν, οὐ περὶ τῶν ἡµετέρων δὲ µόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσµου.2 A literal translation would read, “And He a propitiation He is for the sins of us, not for those of us only, but also for those of the whole world.” The NASB translates the concluding phrase as “but also for those of the whole world.” The ESV renders it, “but also for the sins of the whole world.” The NASB italicizes the phrase for those of, in acknowledgment that the phrase is not actually in the Greek, but the genitive tou kosmou implies the phrase, so it is a sound rendering. The implication of the translation is that the propitiation is for the sins of the whole world, rather than being for the whole world itself.
There are a couple of minor textual variants that do not affect the meaning of the words individually or the passage as a whole. A few manuscripts read huper ton, rather than peri ton. A few spell monon with the omega rather than the omicron (the omega indicates the genitive plural, the omicron indicates the adverb or adjective). We can be confident that the English translations above are good representations of the Greek text.
(2) Background and Context
John’s first epistle functions as a sequel to his Gospel. It is closely related in terminology and in thought. John addresses his letter to those he calls his little children (2:1), beloved (2:7), fathers (2:13), young men (2:13), and brethren (3:13). John writes his Gospel so that “you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that believing you may have life in His name” (Jn 20:31). In his first follow-up letter, John has several purposes in mind. He proclaims “what was” so that believers might have horizontal and vertical fellowship (1:3), he writes so that his joy might be complete (1 Jn 1:4), so that his little children might not sin (1 Jn 2:1), and so that those who believe can know that they have eternal life (1 Jn 5:13). His last stated purpose builds on the purpose of John’s Gospel, written so that people might believe, whereas his letter was written so that those who believe might know. In the letter, John concentrates on the vertical relationship with God, through Christ, in chapters one through three, specifically focusing on the fruit of salvation: love (2:9-10). In chapters four and five he discusses the horizontal relationship of believers to each other and underscores success in those relationships as further practical evidence of the positional reality of salvation.
(3) Structural Keys
As John’s is a very personal letter, it is not structured as identifiably as is his Gospel. The thought transitions are often represented by personal address (such as in 2:1, 7, 12, 4:7, 5:13). Other times we recognize the theme shifts by transitional terms, such as for (hoti, 3:11), and thematic chiasm (as in 1:6-7, 2:9-10). John also uses imperatives to move from one theme to the next (as in 2:15, 24, 3:1, 4:1). Sometimes the topic changes are thematically self-explanatory. In any case, considering these structural keys, the letter can be outlined as follows:
1-3 Vertical Fellowship1:1-4 The Basis: The Word of Life | 4-5 Horizontal Fellowship4:1-6 The Discernment |
(4) Grammatical and Syntactical Keys
The subject is He (autos), the verb is is (estin), the object is propitiation (hilasmos). The third person singular pronoun (autos) along with the third person singular verb (estin) emphasize that it is Christ Himself who is the propitiation. The remainder of the verse modifies or qualifies the term hilasmos. It is for our sins (ton hamartion, in the genitive), but not the sins of us (ton hemeteron) only, but those of the whole world. Of the whole world (holou tou kosmou) is genitive, thus the three terms are linked: whole modifies the world. The differences in interpretation are not due to grammar and syntax, but rather to how two key words or phrases are defined.
(5) Lexical Keys
There are two key concepts in 1 John 2:2 that help us understand the author’s intended meaning, and which are disputed: propitiation (hilasmos), and the whole world (holou tou kosmou). The Greek hilasmos is employed in its masculine form also in 1 John 4:10, and in neuter form (hilasterion) in Romans 3:25 and Hebrews 9:5. The term is translated by the KJV, NASB, and the ESV as propitiation, which could be understood as the place or means by which the price of sin is satisfied. The disagreement is not on the lexical definition of the word, but on the timing of when the propitiation is applied to the individual.
Romans 3:25 identifies Jesus as publicly portrayed as a propitiation. Hebrews 9:5 refers to the mercy seat, the place where the price was paid and the forgiveness was rendered.3 1 John 4:10 reiterates that Jesus was sent to be a propitiation for our sins. It is important to note that the mercy seat itself did not guarantee the forgiveness of sins—the blood had to be applied properly, according to the laws pertaining to the sacrifices.
The need for proper application is foreshadowed in Exodus 12:7, 13 at the first Passover. The shedding of blood paid the price for redemption, but the application of the blood was a separate event, even if separated by only a little time. That separate event resulted in the completion of the redemption process. In the same way, Jesus could serve as a propitiation paying completely for sin, but unless His sacrifice is applied as required (through belief in Him), that price paid is not applied, and therefore sin is not forgiven. This understanding differs from the Reformed view, which does not distinguish as separate events the price paid and the application to the elect.
The second key lexical component is the phrase the whole world (holou tou kosmou). The question is whether or not whole is qualified or unqualified. For example, Sproul suggests—correctly, I believe—that 2 Peter 3:8-9 qualifies all (pantes) as all of a specific group. He observes, “The immediate antecedent of the word any in this passage is the word us, and I think it’s perfectly clear that Peter is saying that God is not willing that any of us should perish, but that all of us should come to salvation. He’s not speaking of all mankind indiscriminately; the us is a reference to the believing people to whom Peter is speaking.”4 Similarly, Matthew 2:2 uses the word all (pas) to say that all Jerusalem was troubled along with Herod. Does the all include the houses themselves in Jerusalem? The word would not require that, but seems to be making a clear reference to the people of Jerusalem—those who could be troubled. Likewise, Matthew 11:13 describes all (pantes) the prophets as prophesying until John, yet there were clearly prophets that came after John (see Acts 21:10). The all is referring to a specific group.
Thus it is not uncommon to see a contextual qualification of universal terms. But while examples of such qualification can readily be identified, it is important to recognize that qualification should only be inferred when the context directly calls for it. There is no textual argument—grammatical or lexical—to be made that whole does not mean whole. The only arguments offered by those holding the qualified view are theological. There is nothing in 1 John 2:2 that suggests that whole is qualified, nor any other passage that would demand that we understand the whole of 1 John 2:2 as qualified.
(Coming soon: Biblical and Theological Context, Conclusions and Implications.)
Notes
1 More detail is offered on these steps, and two additional steps for Bible study (secondary verification, and exposition) in Christopher Cone, Integrating Exegesis and Exposition: Biblical Communication for Transformative Learning (Fort Worth, TX: Exegetica Publications, 2015).
2 Barbara Aland et al., The Greek New Testament, 4th ed. (Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies, 1993), 1 Jn 2:2.
3 The LXX translates the Hebrew kapporeth in Ex 25:17 as the Greek, neuter, hilasterion.
4 Sproul, “TULIP and Reformed Theology: Limited Atonement.”
Christopher Cone 2015 Bio
Dr. Christopher Cone serves as Chief Academic Officer and Research Professor of Bible and Theology at Southern California Seminary. He formerly served as President of Tyndale Theological Seminary and Biblical Institute, Professor of Bible and Theology, and as a Pastor of Tyndale Bible Church. He has also held several teaching positions and is the author and general editor of several books. He blogs regularly at drcone.com.
- 262 views
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.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
“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.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
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.
G. N. Barkman
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).
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
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. .
"The Midrash Detective"
[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’m just curious how you explain Ephesians 2:3 in regards to the elect. If the the elect already have their payment made before they become believers, then why would Paul say they “were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.”? If their payment is made, would they really be children of wrath, just like the sons of disobedience?
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.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
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”.
G. N. Barkman
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.
G. N. Barkman
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.
G. N. Barkman
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.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
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.
"The Midrash Detective"
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.
G. N. Barkman
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.
"The Midrash Detective"
Featured Resource
Discussion