Banner

"...if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10). (Council of Orange: Canon 6)

« Scratching the surface | Main | Growth Update »

Understanding 1 John 2:2

From the archives on this blog (from October 2005) by Rev. John Samson

Many of you know something of my struggle in coming to understand and appreciate the doctrines of grace. One of the biggest hurdles I encountered was my traditional understanding of 1 John 2:2. For a long time, it acted much like a roadblock in my thinking, preventing me from believing what I now consider to be the clear and consistent teaching of scripture.

How are we to understand the verse then?

Let me start by affirming that scripture is explicit in saying that Jesus died:

for God's people ("He was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of My people" - Isaiah 53:8; "He shall save His people from their sins" - Matt. 1:21);

for His sheep ("I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep." - John 10:11 - note that Jesus categorically states that some are not His sheep - "but you do not believe because you are not My sheep." - John 10:26)

for His friends ("Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends. You are My friends if you do what I command you." - John 15:13-14;

for the Church ("... the church of God, which He obtained with His own blood." - Acts 20:28; "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her..." - Eph. 5:25, 26).

Indeed, as God allows us to gain a glimpse into the future, Revelation 5:9 reveals the song of the throngs of heaven as they sing to the Lamb upon His throne, "And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the scroll and to open its seals, for You were slain, and by Your blood You ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation." Notice that it does not say that He ransomed everybody in every tribe, etc., but that He ransomed people for God from every tribe, tongue, people and nation.

Yet at least at first glance, 1 John 2:2 seems to strongly deny this idea that Jesus' death was designed for a particular people. The verse states, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."

I don't believe that scripture contradicts itself. That is in fact why we are told to study the word of God in order that we might rightly divide it (2 Tim. 2:15) rather than simply throw up our hands saying a particular verse contradicts others on the same subject. "All Scripture is God breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16) and because there is one Divine Author of Scripture who does not contradict Himself, I am convinced that hard work and careful study will eliminate apparent contradictions.

I have written elsewhere about the principles of correct interpretation of scripture. In my article entitled "Playing Marbles with Diamonds" (here) I refer to a number of principles of biblical interpretation (hermeneutics). We start by affirming that there is only one correct interpretation of scripture. Though there may be many applications of a verse, it only means what it was intended to mean when it was written. With this as a foundation, two more principles would apply here:

1. Authorship - who wrote the book? What was his background, language, culture, vocation, concerns, education, circumstance, what stage of life?

2. Audience -why was the book written? who was the audience? what would these words have meant to its original recipients?

My friend, Dr. James White once wrote, "Remember when you were in school and you had to take a test on a book you were assigned to read? You studied and invested time in learning the background of the author, the context in which he lived and wrote, his purposes in writing, his audience, and the specifics of the text. You did not simply come to class, pop open the book, read a few sentences, and say, "Well, I feel the author here means this." Yet, for some odd reason, this attitude is prevalent in Christian circles. Whether that feeling results in an interpretation that has anything at all to do with what the original author intended to convey is really not considered an important aspect. Everyone, seemingly, has the right to express their "feelings" about what they "think" the Bible is saying, as if those thoughts actually reflect what God inspired in His Word. While we would never let anyone get away with treating our writings like this, we seem to think God is not bothered, and what is worse, that our conclusions are somehow authoritative in their representation of His Word."

With this in view, we approach the First Epistle of John, and remember that it is a letter written to a primarily Jewish audience. So in 1 John 2:2, as in the rest of the letter, we have the Apostle John, a Jew, writing primarily to fellow Jewish believers in the Messiah. He writes of Jesus Christ being "the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world." It is possible that the word "world" here refers to every person on planet earth, but in my estimation, not very likely, because of the fact that we have a Jew, writing to fellow Jews. I think it is far more likely that John is here declaring that Christ died not only for our sins (the sins of Jewish people), but for also for those of the whole world (the sins of Gentiles throughout the world).

There is another reason (beside authorship and background) that points me in this direction. A third principle I mentioned in the article relates to the concept of considering the author's context. This refers to looking at all of a person's writings - John's writings, Paul's writings, Luke's writings, etc. When we look elsewhere in John's writings we notice in his Gospel an exact parallel in John's use of words, which gives us a great deal of insight as to what he (John) was referring to.

In John's Gospel, chapter 11, verses 51-52, John wrote these words, "he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad."

When we see this in chart form, the parallel with 1 John 2:2 is easy understood:

Dr. Phil Johnson (who provided this helpful chart) writes, "There is little doubt that this is how John's initial audience would have understood this expression. "The whole world" means "people of all kinds, including Jews, Gentiles, Greeks, Romans, and whatnot" as opposed to "ours only" i.e., the Jewish nation. What the apostle John is saying in the John 11 passage is particularly significant: Christ died so that he might gather "the children of God" the elect, from the whole world."

I believe therefore that rather than undermining the case for Christ's death for His elect sheep, 1 John 2:2 actually affirms it. When we understand the verse in its Johannine context (the writings of the Apostle John) then the correct interpretation becomes very clear.

Posted by John Samson on November 9, 2007 10:14 AM

Comments

All the verses you quote trying to define who Jesus died for define the positive, but not the negative. They all define who He died for, but none of them define who He did not die for.

Jesus said He, the good shepherd, lays down His life for the sheep. He never said He did not lay down for those who were not His sheep. That is something theologians have added through man's logic and reason. They have put words in the mouth of the Savior.

Let me use a foolish example. Let's pretend I buy a watermelon for every person in the state of Oklahoma, where I live. Let's pretend that all my friends live in Oklahoma.

One day I tell someone "I bought all these watermelons for everyone in Oklahoma!"

The next day, I tell someone "I bought all these watermelons for all my friends!"

Do these two statements contradict each other? No! One statement is all inclusive (like 1 John 2:2). The other statement addresses a specific sub-group (my friends) without explicitly excluding the larger group as a whole.

This is how scripture treats the atoning work of Christ. It never specifically, explicitly excludes any man, woman or child. Only man's theology has done that.

I challenge you. Show me one verse in the Bible that explicitly says Jesus did not die for a specific group of people. Find it and e-mail it to me. When you can't find it, repent and stop teaching this false doctrine of limited atonement!

It is a dangerous thing to add to scripture, but that is exactly what you have done through man's logic and reason.

Hi Josh,

Your accusations carry little weight. You wish for me to find a scripture that says "Jesus did not die for the non elect" - or else you believe I add to scripture. Why would anyone wish to speak of the atonement in such language? Certainly not the authors of scripture. They do speak positively concerning what the work of Christ actually achieved and that He redeemed people OUT OF every tribe, tongue, people and nation, not that He redeemed everyone IN every tribe tongue people and nation. The people He dies for are actually saved.. actually redeemed, not merely potentially so. Jesus provided an actual atonement that atones, an actual propitiation that removes wrath for His people. The fact that you do not find this convincing is no refutation whatsoever.

Hello my brothers, I too am on an amazing grace journey. It seems that God is continually peeling another layer of the law off of my soul so I can better see Him through the lenses of the New Covenant. I believe the underlying question that arises in hearts when the whole elect topic is brought up is: does everyone actually have a choice to receive Jesus or is it something God "rigged" (Did he rig the "election")? Without going into too much verbage, one thing I have noticed in Romans8 and 1Peter1 is that we were "predestined according to foreknowledge..." This means that although God foreknew us, He didn't "fore-control" our decision. Furthermore, Jesus never said "Go into some of the the world and preach the gospel to some creatures". My point is, lets let God be God and focus on the mission He gave us. Let us be like David and not concern ourselves with matters too great for us (Psalm 131). Lets manifest Christ for all the world to see and be faithful to what God has called us to do. We may not be able to control people's responses but we will rest assured in the peace and joy that come from doing His will. Peace

John,

Sure, Christians are predestined according to the foreknowledge of God, but what exactly does that mean? You assume it refers to knowledge of the future actions of people, but nowhere in Scripture is this stated, and Romans 9 in fact teaches clearly that election is not according to works whatsoever. For more on this subject see: http://www.reformationtheology.com/2005/11/foreknowledge_by_pastor_john_s.php

"but nowhere in Scripture is this stated" - and, with equal force, "but nowhere in Scripture is this stated" that "the whole word" means only "the elect". A close reading of Romans 9-11 shows that the non-elect (specifically of Israel) have been hardened - but that one day they will be saved. God has bound all men over to disobedience so that He may have mercy on the all. Why do we insist on making things "clearer" than God has? (FYI - I am a former PCA minister and a graduate from Reformed Theological Seminary - which is not to say I am an expert - but I know, in a sense, where you are coming from....)

Correction - In my post above, I meant "the whole WORLD" (not "word" -my apologies!)
Calvin said concerning this issue (in his commentary on John): "And when he says the sin of the world, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race, that the Jews might not thing that he had been sent to them alone. But hense we infer that the whole world is involved in the same condemnation and that as all men with out exception are guilty of unrighteousness before God, they need to be reconciled to him. John the Baptist, therefore, by speaking of the sin of the world, intended to express upon us the conviction of our own misery and exhort us to seek the remedy."

Post a comment

Please enter the letter "i" in the field below: