Featured I John 2:1,2; Jesus' Advocacy and Penal Satisfaction are Both Effectual and Limited to the Elect.

Jesus' Advocacy and Penal Satisfaction
are Both Effectual and Limited to the Elect.

I John 2:1 "My little children, these things write I unto you,
that ye sin not. And if any man sin,
we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

2 "And he is the propitiation for our sins:
and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

1 JOHN 2:1, 2, by Usage, Lexicography, Grammatically,

HISTORICALLY; John's Disciple Polycarp, Augustine, Calvin,

EXEGETICALLY;

I. THE PURPOSE OF THE VERSES,

II. THE "AND" OF VERSE TWO,

III. PROPITIATION,

IV. IS (estin). John says that
the Lord Christ IS (present indicative)
our satisfaction with the Father.

V. OUR (hemon) Who are the "our"?

VI. BUT ALSO (alla kai). Christ is the Penal Satisfaction
for our sins and also for others.

VII. THE ELLIPSIS: "He Himself is the propitiation for our sins;
and not for ours only, but also for [ellipsis] the whole world."

VIII. THE WHOLE WORLD,

And from Parallel Passages, i.e., John 11:51,52.

It is typical of John to emphasize that the Gospel
is for the "world" or Gentiles (10:16; 11:52; 17:20; 4:42; 20:30, 31).

In John 4:39-42 John uses "world"
as including races other than Jews
(So Paul also: Rom. 11:11 & 12 with v. 15), etc.

We see that Advocacy and Penal Satisfaction
are both Effectual and Limited to the Elect

and from the same line of evidence
that "whole world"

means the elect Gentiles
in contrast to the elect Jews.

(An example of the quality-quantity problem).

The issue is what "whole world" and "propitiation" mean.

If the quantity of "whole world" means all without exception, every person who has ever lived on the face of the earth, then the quality of propitiation cannot mean to cover sin or to take away sin, for then all would be saved.

On the other hand, if the quality of propitiation denotes the satisfaction of justice so that sin's penalty is taken away, then the propitiation cannot be for the reprobate.

This is the quality-quantity problem. If the quantity of "whole world" includes all without exception, then we have a watered-down meaning for "propitiation' ; but if "propitiation" denotes the actual canceling of sin, then "whole world" must be understood in some other way than to include all without exception.

HISTORICALLY.

Polycarp. Remember that Polycarp was taught by the Apostle John himself! Note what he said about 50 years after the death of John, apparently alluding to this passage: ". . . Christ suffered for the salvation of the whole world of those that are saved . . . ." 1

Augustine. He lived in the latter part of the fourth century. In his commentary on 1 John, Augustine gives several meanings to "world":

(1) In a bad sense it refers to those who love the world;
(2) when used in praise, it is heaven and earth and God's works in them;
(3) "Also, the world is the fullness of the earth, as John himself hath said, 'Not for our sins is He the propitiator, but (for the sins) of the whole world:' he means, 'of the world,' of all the faithful scattered throughout the whole earth" (p. 491).

Calvin. In his commentary on 1 John: "I pass by the dotages of fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself.

Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation . . . . Then under the word 'all' or 'whole,' he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world."

EXEGETICALLY.

A suggested translation:

IF any one sins, [THEN]
(1) we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; (2) and He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.

Note in the above translation that two things follow from the "if": advocacy and propitiation. The words that follow "advocacy" and "propitiation" only further elaborate on the two terms.

As in verses 6-10 of chapter one, so also here there is an "if" followed by two results, and the two results are inherently bound together. This means that advocacy and propitiation stand or fall together.

We shall see more of this later.

I. THE PURPOSE OF THE VERSES.

The stated purpose is ". . . to give consolation to believers against their sins and failings." 2

Believers are to take comfort when they sin because Christ is continually made effectual for them as their propitiation. That this comfort is only for believers may be seen:

1. Only believers have an Advocate (John 17:9; Heb.7:25).

2. Only believers can take comfort in His death, others have wrath (John 3:36).

3. The "little children" of v. 1 are believers (see 2:12, 14).

4. As John Owen said, if the verse were for the non-elect, then ". . . what comfort can arise from hence to them, by telling them that Christ died for innumerable that shall be damned?" 3

In other words, if it is maintained that Christ died for many that will perish, what comfort can His death have for the sinning Christian?

After all, His death did not avail for millions so why should it avail for this particular Christian?

And if it does avail, why?

What makes the difference?

II. THE "AND" OF VERSE TWO.

(First "and"). The "and" continues the thought of verse one and connects the "propitiation" with the "Advocate," giving the Christian's twofold comfort: Christ is the sinning Christian's Intercessor and satisfaction.

Furthermore, verse two is the second half of the twofold conclusion (apodosis).

Notice:

If anyone sins, we have an Advocate . . .
and He is the propitiation . . .

The construction of a twofold conclusion with the conditional sentence is just what John has used five times in verses 1:6-10!

The point I'm making is that the twofold conclusion is in conjunction with the single "if" (protosis); and since the "if" relates only to Christians, so must the conclusion.

At least this is what John did in the verses preceding these (1:6-10).

Hence since the statement "if anyone sins" applies only to Christians, so does the twofold conclusion: "we have an Advocate AND He is the propitiation for our sins."

At this point in the sentence Christ is not a propitiation for Non Christians.

III. PROPITIATION.

Hilasmos is used only here and 1 John 4:10 in the New Testament.

Hilaskomai is found only in Luke 18:13 and Heb. 2:17, and hilasterion only in Rom. 3:25 and Heb. 9:5.

"Hilasmos and hilasterion . . . do signify that which was done or typically [speaking of the mercy seat in the Old Testament] effected by the mercy seat--namely, to appease, pacify, and reconcile God in respect of aversation for sin." 4 Owen further states that hilasmos

. . . is that whereby the law is covered, God appeased and reconciled, sin expiated, and the sinner pardoned; whence pardon, and remission of sin is so often placed as the product and fruit of His blood shedding, whereby He was a 'propitiation,' Matt. 26:28; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14; Heb. 9:22 Rom. 3:25; 5:9; 1 John 1:7; 1 Peter 1:2; Rev. 1:5. 5

I add the following passages to his list of those that teach that the fruit of His death is forgiveness and/or justification: Rom. 8:32-34; 1 Peter 2:24; Gal. 3:13; 4:5, 6; Eph. 2:13-15; 5:25-27; Col. 2:13-15; Heb. 2:9-17; 9:12-14, 26; 10:10-18, 26 1 Peter 2:24; Titus 2:14; Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; Isa. 53:5, 6, 11, 12.

For them (believers) the apostle affirmed that Christ is a propitiation; that he might show from whence ariseth, and wherein chiefly, if not only, that advocation for them, which he promiseth as the fountain of their consolation, did consist--even in a presentation of the atonement made by His blood.

He is also a propitiation only by faith, Rom. 6:25; and surely none have faith but believers . . . 6

We may conclude the following:
(1) propitiation is efficacious, effecting pardon for its recipients.
(2) He is a propitiation through faith, thus not for unbelievers.
(3) Propitiation is limited to the elect in 4:10 and Heb. 2:17 and is efficacious there. Trace the people in 2:17, beginning at verse nine.
(4) Thus propitiation by definition is for the elect only, unless all are saved.

con't

IV. IS (estin).

V. OUR (hemon) Who are the "our"?

VI. BUT ALSO (alla kai). Christ is the Penal Satisfaction
for our sins and also for others.

VII. THE ELLIPSIS: "He Himself is the propitiation for our sins;
and not for ours only, but also for [ellipsis] the whole world."

VIII. THE WHOLE WORLD.

 

IV. IS (estin).

John says that the Lord Christ IS (present indicative) our satisfaction with the Father--not became such later by application nor was such in the past only to be applied later, but He IS.

Either that is true or not true.

One cannot say He is potentially the propitiation when John says he IS.

If the unlimited redemption people say that "our" is the elect and "world" is the non-elect, then he is saying that the propitiation is effectual for the "our" and not for the "world."

How can the same word have two opposite meanings concomitantly?!

Or, if the unlimited redemption people say that "our" are the Christians of John's day and "world" both the elect and non-elect of the future, then he is still saying that IS (estin) has two opposite meanings simultaneously.

He would be maintaining that Christ IS (indicative) the satisfaction for "our" sins now and POTENTIALLY (subjunctive) for those to come.

The unlimited redemption people are always bellowing that we distort the plain meaning of the words of Scripture.

"Scripture must denote exactly what it says," they affirm.

If they believe this, then why do they change the meaning of "satisfaction" to "potential satisfaction" and "is" to "provided"?

Or in the irrefutable words of the prince of the English theologians:

God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for,
(1) all the sins of all men,
(2) all the sins of some men, or
(3) some sins of all men.

If the last (3), then all men have some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God enter into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight (Psa. 130:3).

If the second (2), that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world.

If the first (1), why, then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins?

You will say, "Because of their unbelief; they will not believe."

But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not?

If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be [sin], then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not.

If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death?

If he did not, then he did not die for all their sins. Let them choose which party they will. 7

I shall elaborate on this powerful dilemma.

If God forgives a sinner the sirs of unbelief for which Christ did not die, then why did He need to die for the other sins?

If you say that Christ died for their unbelief, then why do people go to hell, especially in light of Heb. 2:9-17; 9:12-14, 22, 26; 10:10,18, 26.

Also 1 Sam. 3:14 says no atonement would ever be made for this particular sin, and John 8:24, 28 says that some die in their sins, indicating that Jesus the Lord did not pay for them!

Another point about IS. Observe that "advocate" has a present indicative verb (we have) with it so that Jesus is interceding NOW for Christians.

But does He only intercede for the saved elect or does He intercede for the non-saved elect now?

According to John 17:9, 20, 24 He intercedes for the non-saved elect now and ONLY for them.

Furthermore, His intercession is effectual
(John 17:9; Rom. 8:32-34; Heb. 7:25; Isa. 53:12).

Now if Jesus IS the Advocate who is effectually interceding NOW for all the elect and for them ONLY, and John connects the propitiation with His present advocacy, and bases the Advocacy on the propitiation, then His death must be limited to the elect.

To put it another way, we know that His advocacy is effectual
and is based on His death
(John 17:9; Heb. 7:25-27; Rom. 8:32-34; Isa. 53:12);

thus if His intercession is a fruit of His death, then His satisfaction must be effectual for His intercession to be effectual.

If His death is effectual in and of itself, then it must have been for the elect only. Intercession and satisfaction are two sides of one coin and thus inseparable.

There is a logical order to them, though, with intercession being effectual because His death rendered the justice of God satisfied Warfield's comments on this cannot be improved:

The advocacy of our Lord is indeed based here on his propitiation. But it is based on it not as if it bore merely an accidental relation to it, and might or might not, at will, follow on it; but as its natural and indeed necessary issue.

John introduces the declaration that Christ IS--not WAS, the propitiation is as continuous in its effect as the advocacy--our propitiation, in order to support his reference of sinning Christians to Christ as their Advocate with the Father, and to give them confidence in the efficacy of his advocacy.

The efficacy of the advocacy rests on that of the propitiation, not the efficacy of the propitiation on that of advocacy. It was in the propitiatory death of Christ that John finds Christ's saving work: the advocacy is only its continuation--its unceasing presentation in heaven.

The propitiation accordingly not merely lays a foundation for a saving operation, to follow or not to follow as circumstances may determine. It itself saves. And this saving work is common to Christians and "the whole world."

By it the sins of the one as of the other are expiated, that is to say, as Weiss wishes to express it in Old Testament forms of speech, are "covered in the sight of God." They no longer exist for God--and are not they blessed whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered, to whom the Lord will not reckon sin?

It is idle to talk of expounding this passage until we are ready to recognize that according to its express assertion the "whole world" is saved.

Its fundamental assumption is that all those for whose sins he is--"is," not "was"--the propitiation have in him an Advocate with the Father, prevailingly presenting his "righteousness" to a the Father and thereby securing their salvation. 8

His advocacy is effectual only because His death is effectual, for how can Christ effectually intercede for the elect except on the basis of His effectual death?!

If His death is not effectual, then the effectualness of His intercession is then based on something other than His death; at which time it must be asked, "Why did He die at all?"

And His Advocacy is only the continuation of His satisfaction--it is not something new or separate from satisfaction!

V. OUR (hemon) Who are the "our"? The unlimited redemption people assume that "our" refers to the elect and "world" to the non-elect, or "our" to Christians in John's day and "world" to all the people after John's time (elect and non-elect).

I have never seen them try to defend "our" and "world" by the context or usage.

As Owen said above, what comfort would it be to sinning Christians to know that His blood is the penal satisfaction for those sinners in hell?

If His blood did not avail for them, maybe it will not avail for us.

Now I understand "our" to be the elect Jews for these reasons:

1. 1 John 1:1-3 could only refer to the Apostles, as only they heard, saw, and preached Him, and they were all Jewish
(Calvin, Owen, A. W. Pink).

2. 1 John 2:7 speaks of the commandment they had from the beginning, which was true of the Jews only (see John 13:33, 34).

The order of the Gospel was Jew first and then Gentile (Rom. 1:16) 9 Thus John was writing to Jews.

3. Owen argues that 1 John 2:18, 19 handles Jewish errors, since they so opposed the Gospel. 10

4. Gal. 2:9 says that Peter, James, and John were Apostles to the Jews.

Thus James to the twelve tribes (James 1:1) and Peter to the Jews in dispersion (1 Peter 1:1). So it is most probable that John wrote to Jews (Owen, Pink).

5. There is no one who would doubt that 1 John reproduces much of the Gospel of John. For instance:

1 JOHN............ JOHN
1:1............ 1:1
1:2............ 1: 14
1:6............. 3:19-21
2:7, 8 ............ 13:33, 34
2:9 ............ 3:19-21
........... 15:16-27
2:11........... 12:35,
........... 36, 46
3:13. ......... 15:18-25

Thus it seems obvious that John 11:51, 52 is parallel to 1 John 2:2,
as the wording and content are the same.

Note these parallels:
1 John, "He is the propitiation for our (Jewish) sins";
John, that Jesus "should die for the nation" (Jews).

First John, "and not for ours only";
John, "and not for the nation only."

First John, "but also for the whole world" (Gentiles);
John, "but that He might gather into one the children of God
who are scattered abroad" (Gentiles).

"Those who are scattered abroad"
would seem to be the "other sheep" of John 10:16, who are Gentiles!

Thus the "our" is Jewish Christians by all that lends evidence.

con't

VI. BUT ALSO (alla kai). Christ is the Penal Satisfaction
for our sins and also for others.

VII. THE ELLIPSIS: "He Himself is the propitiation for our sins;
and not for ours only, but also for [ellipsis] the whole world."

VIII. THE WHOLE WORLD,

And from Parallel Passages, i.e., John 11:51,52.

It is typical of John to emphasize that the Gospel
is for the "world" or Gentiles (10:16; 11:52; 17:20; 4:42; 20:30, 31).

 

VI. BUT ALSO (alla kai).

This continues the preceding thought in the initial clause of the verse,
that is, that Christ is the penal satisfaction for our sins and also for others.

What He IS to "us," He IS to the "whole world" Now this does not say He is potentially the propitiation for the whole world, or that He will become their propitiation, but that He IS NOW the propitiation for the whole world.

If He is their propitiation, then they are saved--period!

A. W. Pink has a good note on the "also" here:

If the "whole world" signifies the whole human race, then the first clause and the "also" in the second clause are absolutely meaningless.

If Christ is the propitiation for everybody; it would be idle tautology to say, first, "He is the propitiation for 'our' sins and 'also' for everybody."

There could be no "also" if 11e is the propitiation for the entire human family. 11

Thus the "but also" argues in favor of definite atonement.

"VII. THE ELLIPSIS.

The ellipsis concerns the phrase in the second part of verse two that says:

"He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for [ellipsis] the whole world."

While Westcott argues against the ellipsis of "for the sins of" the whole world, 12 Robertson 13 and Nicoll 14 say that it should probably be supplied.

I agree that it should be left out grammatically, but there can be little doubt that "He is the propitiation for our sins" is understood with both clauses: "not for ours only" and "for the whole world."

Thus John is saying that just as Christ IS NOW the penal satisfaction for our sins, so He IS the penal satisfaction for "the whole world."

And if He is the penal satisfaction for the whole world, this necessarily implies a satisfaction "for the sins" of the whole world, for Christ died for sins.

And if His death is effectual for the "us," it is also effectual for "the whole world," as what He IS to one, He IS to the other.

This brings up the question of what "whole world" means.

con't

VIII. THE WHOLE WORLD,

And from Parallel Passages, i.e., John 11:51,52.

It is typical of John to emphasize that the Gospel
is for the "world" or Gentiles (10:16; 11:52; 17:20; 4:42; 20:30, 31).

In John 4:39-42 John uses "world"
as including races other than Jews
(So Paul also: Rom. 11:11 & 12 with v. 15), etc.

We see that Advocacy and Penal Satisfaction
are both Effectual and Limited to the Elect

and from the same line of evidence
that "whole world"

means the elect Gentiles
in contrast to the elect Jews.

 

VIII. THE WHOLE WORLD.

It is amazing that the unlimited redemption people accuse the Calvinists of "weaseling" when we limit "the whole world" to be the elect, yet they do the same when they limit propitiation to mean potential propitiation, which is like maintaining that God is infallible, almost.

They limit the quality of Christ's death by affirming that "He is the propitiation" means "He is the potential propitiation."

John, as we have seen, did not use the subjunctive but the indicative. Furthermore, they limit the quality of propitiation in the face of its universal usage always meaning something accomplished.

Furthermore, they define "world" not from its usage, but from the word "world" itself, which is circular reasoning.

Thus, they give "world" a universal meaning--contrary to its usage in John's writings, as any Greek lexicon will instantly reveal--and they limit the effectual meaning of propitiation--against its usage!

The point I'm making is that we Calvinists seek to understand words in the way they are used, not by some "common sense" understanding of "world."

I've often heard them say, "World means world,
as anyone can plainly tell."

However, may I point out to my Arminian brothers
that one cannot define a word by repeating it.

If I say that sproik means sproik,
I have only repeated the problem--not solved it.

Yet these sincere brothers tend to go into a frenzy when we challenge them that "world" may not mean what they say.

We must be controlled by usage of the terms--
not by what we would like them to say.

From 106 times "world" is used in John's writings, Arndt and Gingrich lexicon lists only five times it could mean all mankind, and 1 John 2:2 is not one of them!

Concerning the universal passages (John 3:16, 17c; 6:33, 51; 12:47), the lexicon states that "world" is "of all mankind, but especially of believers, as the object of God's love."

Even in the so-called universal passages the lexicon recognizes a limitation! None of the universal passages are listed in 1 John. I have also studied John's usage of "world" (all 106!), and I see no place in John's writings where world means every human.

Even in John 3:16 one is forced to limit either the quality of the word "love" to a mushy compassion over which God has no control and limit the qualitative meaning of love, or limit the quantity of "world."

Most likely Warfield is correct is saying that "world" in John 3:16 means "sinner"--without stating which ones.

This would be analogous to Rom. 5:6 where Paul states that Christ died for the "ungodly"--without stating which ones.

The word "world" is used 23 times in 1 John and only twice could it come close to meaning "all without exception" (2:2; 4:14).

Arndt and Gingrich list both 2:2 and 4:14 under the heading of "mankind in general" and add that this sense of "world" is often found in the early inscriptions.

Thus the Calvinists have usage and the lexicons on their side. In 1 John alone "world" has these meanings:
(1) earth in contrast to heaven (4:9);
(2) mankind in general (4:1, 3, 14);
(3) world as earthly possessions (2:15a; 3:17);
(4) the opposite of God, at enmity with Him
(2:15b-17; 3:13; 4:4, 5, 17; 5:4, 5, 19).

Thayer's lexicon agrees with this diversity of meaning for world but is ambiguous as to what he means by the human race under heading 5.

Is this all mankind in general, as the Arndt and Gingrich above, or all mankind without exception?

But what about the usage of "whole world"?

Does not the word "whole" make "world" universal? No!

Again it is usage that we must consider.

The phrase "whole world" is used 18 times in the New Testament.

Ten times kosmos is used for "world":
Matt. 16:26; 26:13; Mark 8:36; 14:9; Luke 9:25;
Rom. 1:8; 3:19; Col. 1:6; 1 John 2:2; 5:19,

and 8 times "world" translates oikoumene:
Matt. 24:14; Luke 2:1; 4:5; Acts 11:28; 19:27;
Rev. 3:10; 12:9; 16:14.

I shall mention a few of the occurrences of "whole world."

In 1 John itself, the same epistle we are studying, in 5:19 we read that "the whole world lies in the evil one." Does this include the Christian?

Absolutely not, we are in Christ.

And the first part of the verse reads that "we are of God," which is a technical phrase in John to indicate the elect.

In Rev. 3:10 "whole world" is not universal because some will not be tested, which excludes them from the world.

In Rom. 1:8, did every person in the world hear and speak of the Romans' faith? No.

In Luke 2:1 were the people in China taxed?

In Rev. 12:9 did the devil deceive the elect?

The only place in the New Testament where "whole world" means "all without exception" is in Rom. 3:19:
". . . that all the world may become guilty before God."

And how do we know it means "all without exception"?

Because the context tells us so:
v. 9: ". . . both Jews and Greeks are all under sin",

vv.10-12: "There is none righteous, not even one, . . . none who does good, not even one."

The context tells what the phrase means and not the reverse!

Therefore, here in 1 John 2:2 I maintain that "whole world" refers to those Gentiles who are elect for these reasons:

1. See Polycarp's statement given earlier in this treatise, where he states that the whole world means all those Gentiles who will be saved. Remember, Polycarp was taught by John himself!

2. The lexicons do not give a universal meaning to "whole world" here.

3. "Our" refers to Jews so "whole world" must refer to Gentiles.

4. The parallel to John 11:51, 52 given above is extremely strong as to the meaning of the phrase. It is typical of John to emphasize that the Gospel is for the "world" or Gentiles
(10:16; 11:52; 17:20; 4:42; 20:30, 31).

In John 4:39-42 John uses "world" as including races other than Jews (So Paul also: Rom. 11:11,12 with v. 15).

5. To a people like the Jews who thought that only their race was God's people, it was a shock to them to find out that the people they hated most were to be united with them in one body (Eph. 2:11-22).

Thus John and the other Apostles emphasized this by the terms "Gentiles," "world," "uncircumcised," etc.

When John says Christ is the Savior of the world,
he means two things:
(1) He only is the Savior, and
(2) the Savior of all races--not just the Jews.

SUMMARY.

Thus by usage, lexicography,
John's disciple Polycarp,
parallel passages (especially John 11:51, 52), etc.,

We see that Advocacy and Penal Satisfaction
are both Effectual and Limited to the Elect

and from the same line of evidence
that "whole world" means the elect Gentiles
in contrast to the elect Jews.

This is the quality/quantity approach. Every so-called passage that the Arminians adduce must be exegeted this way.

Everyone, whether, Calvinist or Arminian, understands the words in a certain qualitative and quantitative way.

He cannot waive into oblivion
the qualitative meanings of words

by emotional statements such as:
"World means world"!

This is true of such passages as 1 Tim. 2 and a few others."

From:
HOW TO HANDLE SO-CALLED PROBLEM PASSAGES
ON THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.
by Curtis I. Crenshaw, Th. M.