1My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. 3And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. 4Whoever says "I know him" but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, 5but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: 6whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.
Many advocates for the universal view of the atonement of Christ (Christ died for all people: past, present, and future) not only will appeal to John 3:16, but also 1 John 2:2. But can 1 John 2:2 mean that Christ died for everybody? or is it just another proof-text for the synergist to throw out there without thinking of the implications.
------------------
He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. -1 John 2:2 (ESV)
καὶ αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστιν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, οὐ περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου. -1 John 2:2 (GNT)
Looking at this text, just in english, we can immediately see the word "propitiation." This is key because we will see that it cannot mean what the synergist wants it to mean. The greek word for the english meaning of the word propitiation is ἱλασμός (hilasmos) which means: the means of appeasing, a propitiation. The means of appeasing what? Exactly what propitiation has always meant; an appeasing of wrath. The temptation for the synergist, in seeing this verse, is to read into the word "propitiation" as meaning "atonement for all." One perfect example it that the NIV translates ἱλασμός as "atoning sacrifice" which doesn't properly get at the meaning of the word and thus, eisegesis is open to all synergists.
What then are the consequences of reading 1 John 2:2 as a synergist? 1) The wrath of God against sin has been taken away from the whole world. If Christ is a propitiation (wrath-bearer) for the whole world, God is no longer wrathful toward the sins of the world, right? Not according to Romans 1:18 which states...
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. -Rom. 1:18
If the apostle John was saying what the synergist wants him to be saying, the apostle Paul has no right to be saying this statement nor could he if that goes against what the apostles were teaching. One might argue, "wrath has been taken away so God could love everybody and all people have to do is accept God's love" (I don't doubt that there are people that actually argue this). If then they are not accepting "God's love," they are suppressing the truth (Rom 1:18) and God's wrath remains upon them.
And that leads me into consequence number 2) Believing that wrath has been taken away from the whole world leads to universalism. If God has no more wrath for the world, that means he only has love and that love will save everybody. The bible teaches that a person can only be either under the law (God's wrath remains upon that person for his sins and he will necessarily perish) or under the gospel (God's love remains upon that person because of the completed work of Christ that was done in that person's stead). If the law has now been fulfilled by Christ (having been a propitiation) on behalf of the whole world, universalism is right. But any bible-believing christian knows that universalism is not right for it distorts the gospel. If one reads 1 John 2:2 as a means of supporting universal atonement, they are actually implying universalism though they may not realize it.
Thus we can see the danger of using proof texts without thinking of the consequences. What then is 1 John 2:2 actually saying? Since we know what it's not saying, we can draw out what John is really saying. The word "world" is loved by synergists when the atonement is being talked about but seeing as how this passage does not mean literally the entire world, we can conclude that it must be talking about those whose sins will be propitiated for, namely, the elect. John sums up the extent of the atonement and who the elect were in his vision in the book of revelation 5:9 where it says,
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..."
I know that some will object to me using the book of revelation but it is consistent, otherwise universalism is correct. Seeing as how 1 John 2:2 cannot be talking about a universal atonement, we can see that Rev. 5:9 not only interprets it fully, but is logically the result of knowing that not everyone will be saved. This is the only interpretation that will show the working of the gospel throughout the world. Peoples from every tribe, tongue, and nation will come to faith and their sins will have been propitiated for by the Savior.
Update: Furthermore, not only is the book of Revelation written by the same author (John), showing a use of Revelation to be consistent with interpreting 1 John, so is the Gospel of John. Note the following parallelism:
He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. -1 John 2:2 (ESV)
He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year 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. So from that day on they made plans to put him to death. - John 11:51-53 (ESV)
What more evidence is needed?! Same author, same message, same meaning! There is no doubt that the apostle John believed in election and denied a universal atonement. John affirms a gospel for everyone - a gospel of forgiveness on the basis of obeying Christ's command to repent and believe in him. But, who can do this? No one, apart from the grace of Christ and the regenerating Spirit of God.
Note: I do not believe in the common Reformed argument that says that this passage is talking about a Jew/Gentile distinction. This argument is weak seeing as how 1 John is a catholic epistle which was being circulated around the churches of asia minor (modern day Turkey) in which gentiles were no doubt included.
No comments:
Post a Comment