 What about 1 John 2:1-2? John G Reisinger
Discussion of the Doctrines of Grace with those who do not share our views usually provokes many questions and protests. While each of the five points draws its own specific set of objections, it would seem that the doctrine of particular redemption has some serious biblical hurdles to overcome. Frequently, when we mention Limited Atonement, we are asked the question, "But what about 1 John 2:1, 2? Those verses clearly teach that Christ died for the whole world and that refutes your doctrine of Limited Atonement. It is obvious this passage teaches universal atonement, or that Christ died for every single child of Adam."
This is the Rock of Gibraltar text for those who reject Limited Atonement. On the surface, it may indeed appear to teach universal atonement. The Arminian says, "It is impossible to make the words 'the sins of the whole world' mean anything other than 'every individual without exception in the whole world.'" Is he correct? We believe not. Verse one establishes the audience the Apostle John is addressing. The pronoun in the phrase 'If anybody sins' is referring to the same people as 'My dear children'. The phrase 'my dear children' must mean that the writer is addressing Christians; his use of 'if anybody does sin' refers to the same Christian persons. John does not write to unbelievers to give them assurance that even if they do sin they have an advocate with the Father. His approach to lost people is to confront them with the gospel concerning how to be saved, not how to have victory over sin. Lost people are not discussed or considered in this verse. This is a clear and precious promise to the people of God alone. The 'we' and the 'our' in the sentence in 1 John 2:1, "We have one who speaks to the Father in our defense…" can only refer to God's people. The same Apostle writes in his Gospel that Christ is not an advocate for the lost man but only for the saved man. Hear Christ's own words, specifically stated in John 17:9:
Our Lord "speaks to the Father" in behalf of those who are his own. This text clearly disallows the idea that Jesus makes intercession for all men without exception. The words in the text just will not allow such an interpretation. When Jesus specifically insists that he does not pray for the world, but only for those his Father gave him, we must accept what he says. Jesus does not "speak to the Father" in behalf of the whole world, if by that phrase you mean every individual in the whole world without exception. Did he speak to the Father in behalf of Judas? Paul teaches the same thing in 1 Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus…" Notice the text does not say that Christ is the mediator between God and man, but between God and men. If our Lord was the mediator between God and man, the word could be understood as mankind. But Paul uses the word here to denote individual and specific men. Mankind does not have a mediator, but some individual men, referring to the sheep, have a mediator. If the Savior speaks to the Father in behalf of all mankind, then it would not follow, since many perish, that the Father did and hear and answer that request. We should never discuss either the atoning work of Christ on the Cross or his intercessory work of prayer for those for whom he died without seeing the essential relationship between these two things. The ministry of the High Priest was two-fold; he made a sacrifice of blood and then he interceded with God on the ground of the shed blood. The Day of Atonement under the Old Covenant is the best place to look to understand this point. The Day of Atonement was the one day of the year that Aaron could enter the Most Holy Place. On that day, he wore special clothing that he was not allowed to wear on any other day. The pieces of clothing that interests us in this study are the ephod and the breastpiece. The ephod was worn over the shoulders and had two onyx stones upon which were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. (Ex. 28:9-12). Aaron was to "bear the names on his shoulders as a memorial before the LORD." The breastpiece tied across the breast. It contained four rows of three stones. On these twelve stones were engraved the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. Again, as with the ephod, Aaron was to wear this as a memorial: "Whenever Aaron enters the Holy Place, he will bear the names of the sons of Israel over his heart on the breastpiece of decision as a continuing memorial before the LORD" (Ex. 28:29 NIV). When Aaron entered the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement, he carried the names of the twelve tribes of Israel on both his shoulders and on his breast. It was these twelve tribes of Israel that he represented in his work of atonement. It was for them specifically that Aaron shed the animal's blood and it was for these same twelve tribes that he applied the blood and made intercession in the Most Holy Place. Do you see the beautiful picture of redemption by blood? When Aaron went into the Most Holy Place to sprinkle the shed blood on the altar, he carried the names of the twelve tribes of Israel and on both his shoulders and on his heart. The Scripture is clear that the blood shed was for the sins of Israel alone. The blood was not shed for the Philistines, the Canaanites the Jebusites, the Amalekites, etc. When Aaron made intercession, he did not pray for anyone but the children of Israel, represented by the names on the ephod and the breastpiece. Aaron then came out of the Most Holy Place, placed his hands on the second goat's head (Lev.16:7-22), and confessed the sins of Israel that had just been covered by the blood of the slain animal. The sins put on the scapegoat did not include any other nation's sins besides Israel's. The point established is that the sacrificial work of shedding blood and the making of intercession in the Most Holy Place are coextensive. Both ministries are for the same people. Aaron prays for all those, and for them only, for whom he has made sacrifice; no more and no less. The twofold ministry of our Lord is the same. His work of shedding blood to pay for sin and his praying to the Father for those for whom he died are coextensive. We have his own words that he "does not pray for the world" but only for "those the Father has given him." When our Lord went to the Cross, he wore a spiritual ephod and a spiritual breastpiece with our individual names written on them. He carried his people on his shoulders and on his heart. He knew the specific individuals for whom he was dying, just as he knew the individuals for whom he prayed. I find it beyond comprehension that anyone could honestly believe that Christ died and shed his blood for all men, and then refused to pray for some of the very people for whom he is supposed to have died. Now that we have established the "who" of verse one, the next step we must take is to make sure of the "what" of verse two. What does John actually say, and what does he specifically not say? There is a tendency to pack this verse full of things it does not actually say and then proceed to use the supposed 'facts' as proof for Universal Atonement. The first thing to note is that the words 'our sins' ("He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins") cannot refer to the same group of people as those in the phrase 'the sins of the whole world' ("not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world"). The verse is making a contrast between a specific and particular group of persons denoted by the word 'our' and another specific group described as the 'whole world'. The first question concerns the identity of these two different groups. Let's start with the 'our sins' group and figure out exactly to whom John is referring. The contrast that John has established is completely destroyed if our sins means the sins of everyone in the whole world. The verse would not make any sense at all. It would mean "Christ died for everyone's sins, and not for everyone's but also for everyone's." I repeat, 'our sins' must refer to a different group of people than the 'whole world' group. The 'our sins' has to be a limited statement. It must refer only to those to whom John is writing. With this in mind, some interpret the verse to mean "Christ died for 'our sins,' (meaning us Christians, or all those already saved), and he also died for the sins of the 'whole world,' (meaning all those not yet saved)." This will fit neither the context nor the rest of the verse. Does 'our sins' ever mean 'the sins of everyone in the whole world' in Scripture? Look at a few places it is used.
'Our sins' in this text could possibly mean all Christians but it cannot mean "everyone in the whole world'. Those to whom John refers in this context are those who love God; his concern is not to distinguish between those who love God and those who do not, but rather to define love, not in terms of their love for God, but of God's love for them. John's concern is neither Limited nor Unlimited Atonement. He is explaining the amazing love of God toward 'us'. Regardless of what the verse means with regard to the definition of 'atoning sacrifice', the words 'loved us' and 'for our sins' cannot be stretched to mean all men without exception.
Here, Paul connects Christ dying for 'our sins' with the resurrection and the certainty of 'our justification'. Either the 'our sins' refer to a particular, limited group of people or else all men without exception will be justified. You cannot have it both ways. All who were in Christ when he died were also in him when he conquered death. According to this verse, all for whom Christ died must also be ultimately justified. Will 'everyone in the whole world' be justified before God because Christ died for 'our sins' and was raised from the dead for 'our justification'?
The words 'our sins' in this passage cannot possibly refer to everyone without exception. It must be limited to believers. Notice that this salutation is not only from Paul but from "all the brothers." It is not addressed to the world of unbelievers but 'to the churches' in Galatia. The blessings of 'grace and peace' in verse 3 cannot apply to all men but only to the children of God. The purpose for which Christ died is to deliver us 'from this evil world'. Again, that cannot be true of unbelievers but only of those who have been born of God and set free from the world. And lastly, this deliverance is tied up with the 'sovereign purpose' or will of God. This phrase means the same thing here as it does in Romans 8:28-30 and can only include the people of God. The words 'our sins' in our text probably refers to Jewish Christians. The text is teaching the same truth as John 3:16. There, the Apostle John is very explicit in teaching Nicodemus, a Jewish teacher, that entrance into the kingdom of God is not guaranteed by physical Jewish birth. A second birth, by the Spirit of God himself, is required for anyone (including Jews) to enter God's kingdom. God's love is not restricted to the Jewish nation, but extends to anyone who will believe. God's condemnation is not reserved for the Gentile world alone, but already rests on anyone (Jewish or otherwise) who does not believe. John is very clear; the gospel is not only for the Jews but also for the Gentiles. It is good news to the whole world of men; all kinds of men. We can say 'Christ died for the elect' or we can say 'Christ died for all those from every tribe and nation who will receive him as Lord and Savior." Both of these statements mean the same thing. A careful comparison of 1 John 2:2 with John 11:44-53 should be very helpful. First, let's look at the passage in John.
Verse 44 states that Lazarus came out of the tomb in response to the command of Jesus and verse 45 gives us the response of many who saw -they believed in Christ. Verse 46 tells us that some others went to the Pharisees and informed them of what Jesus had done. It is important to remember that the action and dialogue that followed is the response of the Pharisees to the news that Christ had raised Lazarus from the dead. Verses 47-49 show clearly that the Pharisees knew that the claims of Christ were valid but they rejected him rather than give up their places of authority. The prophecy by Caiaphas is the focal point of the passage. Remember, Caiaphas was not aware of the import of his words. Verse 51 specifically says, "He [Caiahas] did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied." Exactly what did the high priest unknowingly prophesy? Notice first what he did not say. He did not say Jesus would die for 'the Jewish nation' and also for 'all the Gentile nations'. That is not the contrast Caiaphas is making. No, he said Jesus would die for the Jewish nation and also 'for all the scattered children of God' throughout the whole world. The words 'children of God scattered abroad,' when contrasted with the Jewish nation, can only mean the writer is comparing the elect of God in the Jewish nation with the elect of God among the Gentiles. The words at the end of verse 52, "to bring them together and make them one" are describing exactly the same concept that Paul presents in Ephesians 2:13-18. The phraseology is almost identical and the experience described in Ephesians is the perfect fulfillment of what Caiaphas unknowingly prophesied. I think we can also see that the wording of verses 51 and 52 is very similar to that of 1 John 2:2. Christ died not only for one group but also for another group. The hermeneutic choice is whether (1) you interpret 1 John 2:2 in the light of John 11:51-53 and see clear limited and particular language, or (2) you interpret John 11:51-53 with 1 John 2:2 and try to make the passages in John's Gospel to be universal. One of the rules of biblical interpretation is that you always interpret a general statement with a particular statement. It is obvious which is the more general and which is the more particular statement in this case. As we continue our exposition of 1 John 2:2, let's look at the words whole world. The Arminian position sees this verse as teaching Universal Atonement on the strength of the words whole world. This argument hinges on the interpretation of the meaning of the word world. This view insists that the words 'whole world' must mean 'all men without exception,' but such is not the case. It is argued that the word ought to be taken in its normal sense unless some compelling reason exists to take it otherwise. But is the normal definition in Scripture that of all men without exception? This is to totally misinterpret the word world. This makes it mean something that cannot be made to fit into the rest of Scripture. Look at three passages of Scripture that speak about the whole world.
Can John possibly mean that everyone without exception in the whole world had gone after Christ? Of course not. The whole world certainly did not include the Pharisees who were that very moment plotting to kill Christ. The Pharisees were indeed 'going after him' but it was in a totally different sense than the whole world to whom they referred!
Everyone [no pun intended] will recognize this as hyperbole. The phrase whole world does not even refer to people in this text. The word world is used in reference to space, not to people.
Again, the words whole world in this text cannot mean everyone without exception, because it does not include Christians. They have been delivered from the power of Satan. A Christian cannot be under the control of Satan. This text clearly contrasts the 'children of God' with the rest of the world. I think the easiest understanding of 1 John 2:1 and 2, and certainly the one most consistent with the rest of Scripture, is this:
He is the atoning sacrifice [He really paid the full price of our redemption. His death was not merely a hypothetical payment, but a real payment, resulting in a real salvation for all for whom the atoning sacrifice was made] for our sins [we Jewish believers], and not only for ours [we Jews] but also for the sins of the whole world [all those children of God bought by that atoning sacrifice from among every tongue and tribe in the whole world]. It is consistent with the internal witness of the entire letter of 1 John to understand its primary intended readership as converted Jews. This is not an instance of reading information into the text to make it fit our particular point of view, but rather of careful notation of terms used. In 2:7, John refers to writing new and old commands. The old command is the message the readers have had since the beginning (2:7b, 24; 3:11). To whom did the written commands of God come in the beginning? The Gentile world had only general revelation, through creation, by which to know God (Rom. 1:18-20; Eph.2:11-12). It was the Jew to whom the oracles of God were entrusted (Rom. 3:1-2), the Jew who knew the law of God (1 John 3: 4), the Jew who was familiar with the history of God's dealings with mankind (1 John 3:11-12). This is not to deny that the letter has any relevance to Gentile believers, but merely to point out that it is not stretching credibility to state that the readers who would be familiar with the concept of an atoning sacrifice would be of Jewish background, and thus to understand 'our' sins in verse two as referring to Jewish believers is appropriate. The final point to examine in our study of 1 John 2:2 is the way the atonement of Christ is described. The NIV says, "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins…" and the KJV says, "He is the propitiation for our sins…" The correct understanding of this passage will finally hinge on the meaning of the word translated 'propitiation' and 'atoning sacrifice'. The question is this: Did the death of Christ actually atone for 'our sins'; that is, did Christ really make the full payment of our guilt, or did he make a hypothetical atonement that would only become a real atonement when we were willing to accept it? In our booklet entitled Limited Atonement1 we showed that those who believe in Universal Atonement must bleed all the redemptive words in the New Testament (redemption, propitiation, reconciliation and substitutionary) of their biblical meaning. The Universal Atonement of free-will theology teaches the following:
In all four of these cases, Christ's death is not victorious until the sinner, with his free-will, makes his contribution. In each case, the Universal Atonement view is forced to have two different meanings for the same word. When the four words listed above for atonement are applied to a believer, then the words are given their true biblical meaning. We are actually, truly and fully redeemed and reconciled. However, when the universalist, in his preaching, applies the identical words to the 'world', then the words must be emptied of their biblical content. The same words now become only hypothetical possibilities. We are merely redeemable not actually redeemed. We are reconcilable but not actually reconciled. The nature of Christ's sufferings provide half of what is necessary to atone for sin, and the sinner's faith provides the other half. The ungodly are just as redeemed as the Christians. The only difference is that the ungodly have not yet claimed their redemption. If 1 John 2:2 is talking about a biblical 'atoning sacrifice' then it must be speaking of a real atonement, and not merely a hypothetical atonement. It must be describing a sacrifice that actually and fully pays the penalty of guilt and guarantees the salvation of all those for whom the sacrifice was made. If we understand the true nature of the atoning work of Christ then the choice is not between Particular and Universal Atonement. The only choices are between Particular Atonement and universal salvation. One of the things that puzzled me for many years concerned the fact that none of the people I knew who believed in Universal Atonement ever went so far as to believe in universal salvation. It is a most logical step, and yet not a single person that I knew fell into that position. This was driven home to me when a magazine called Verdict began to publish some excellent articles on justification by faith. Their primary goal was to fight introspection. They insisted that our whole salvation was based purely on the 'doing and dying' of Christ. One of their favorite lines was, "It is not what you did, it is what he did. It is not what you feel, it is what he felt." In other words, our entire salvation depended on something totally outside of us. It depended solely on the atoning work of Christ. They had a very high view of the atonement. When Verdict came to discuss the extent of the atonement, they did take the logical step and went into universal salvation. They did so because they had, on the one hand, rejected election, and on the other hand, they had a very high view of the atonement. They saw that Christ had really accomplished something at the Cross. His death did not merely provide a hypothetical possibility, but a real atonement. Because Verdict realized this, it was forced to choose between Particular Atonement or universal salvation. They chose the latter. When I read that, I had my long sought-for answer concerning the typical free-will Arminian position. Although it would be the most logical thing in the world for an Arminian to fall into universal salvation, he will never ever do so. The reason is that he really has no real atonement! His atonement is only hypothetical and does not actually, in and of itself, save anyone; therefore, the Arminian is never in danger of believing universal salvation. As I said, because Verdict had such a high view of the atonement it was logically forced into accepting Limited Atonement or universal salvation. If those who want to make the whole world in 1 John 2:2 mean 'everyone in the whole world without exception,' then they, like Verdict, are faced with only two choices. They must either bleed the great biblical word propitiation (atoning sacrifice) of its biblical meaning or frankly admit that their belief necessitates that 'everyone in the whole world without exception' is going to be saved. A careful reading of the text in its context proves that far from being an obstacle to the doctrine of Limited Atonement, John's first letter furnishes further biblical support for it.
1 New Covenant Media, 5317 Wye Creek Drive, Frederick, MD 21703-6938 |