I John 2:2 – What is the nature of the atonement?

After much reading and studying the doctrines of grace most people have come to the conclusion that they are Biblical and rational, however it seems to me that when they are confronted by the big "L" of Tulip most 4-point Calvinists or Arminians put their red flags up. In most minds the idea sounds so ridiculous that it is not even worth researching or studying the text, after all aren't the Scriptures clear on the issue? It is my desire in this article to deal with a well-known text, but not on the basis of traditional bias, but in light of the text of Scripture.

Some have addressed I John 2:2 and have become very quick to conclude that "the whole world" must mean the "world without exception". It is the opinion of this author that these people are not very concerned about dealing with the text contextually nor expositionally. Let’s look at each argument against a generic or universal atonement and then come to the conclusion on this particular text.

I John 2:2 – The extent of the Atonement

There are a number of observations that must be made in objection to the generic or universal interpretation of I John 2:2.

Terminological objection. —The first observation made in objection to the generic view concerns the use of the term "world" (kosmos) in the New Testament. The fact that kosmos can and does have more than the meaning of all mankind generically cannot be denied (cf. John 1:10,11; 3:17; 12:31; 17:6,9,1 l,18,21,23,24). In fact kosmos, as effectually verified in Owen's work, has many uses and meanings. The usual meaning being "many of mankind."
     According to the New Testament Greek text, kosmos occurs about 185 times. It is used about 105 times by the apostle John, 47 times by Paul and 33 times by other writers. With the use of a concordance, it is eagerly observed that kosmos is never used by Paul or the other writers to mean all mankind generically in a salvation context unless John's usage is the exception. It is used of all mankind universally in a context of sin and judgment (Rom. 3:6, 19; 5:12), but never in a salvation context.
     In John's writings, kosmos is used a total of 78 times in his gospel, 23 times in I John and 4 times in II John and Revelation. A check of each of these references, in context, reveals that there are perhaps, at the most, eleven occurrences in ten verses, which could possibly, even according to Arminianism, mean all mankind generically in a salvation context. These occurrences are found in John 1:29; 3:16; two times in 3:17; once each in John 4:42; 6:33, 51; 12:47; 16:8 and once each in I John 2:2 and 4:14.
     Concerning the possible usage of kosmos to mean all mankind without exception in the redemptive context of I John 2:2, let the reader observe that kosmos is used differently at least 21 out of 23 times elsewhere in the epistle. As a matter of fact, the identical term "whole world" is used in I John 5:19 where it cannot possibly mean all mankind absolutely. John writes: "we know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in wickedness (in the wicked one)." Can this be true of the believer who is in Christ? Let the reader judge. If the term "whole world" in I John 2:2 means all mankind generically, it is an exceptional usage in the epistle (objectively, only in I John 2:2 and 4:14 could it possibly refer to all mankind without exception—two times out of 23 occurrences). Therefore, it is the writer's argument that the burden of proof rests upon those who interpret "whole world" generically to establish that the term means all mankind in any redemptive context, let alone I John 2:2. Logical objection. —The second observation made in objection to the generic view is a logical one. It is based upon the principle of the analogy of faith and relates to the design of propitiation from the standpoint of the special and distinguishing love of God. The fact that Christ's blood was an appeasement of God's wrath, in order that the chief purpose of God's love might be manifested, demands Christ's death. But if God's giving His Son is a manifesting of His special distinguishing love (and it is), and if "He spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things" (Rom. 8:32)? The answer to this question should be obvious. The term "whole world" cannot refer to all mankind generically in a salvation context, for the non-elect do not receive all or any of the gifts of saving grace which (according to Rom. 8:32) is assured to them if, in reality, Christ actually died for them. Do all men have faith (II Thess. 3:2)?

Contextual objection. —A third observation made in objection to the generic view lies in the fact that the context of I John 2:2 teaches that Christ's advocacy and propitiation are the same in design and extent. This is supported by the coordinating conjunction "and," which connects verse 2 with verse 1. Certainly no Calvinistic universalist is willing to admit that Christ's advocacy actually extends to the non-elect. How, then, can propitiation be absolutely universal if Christ's advocacy is not? In an attempt to explain this objection, those who hold to the generic interpretation suggest that it is Christ's advocacy in heaven, which particularizes His propitiation on earth and makes it efficacious before the Father. They say that propitiation is conceived as merely laying a basis for actual forgiveness of sins, and is spoken of therefore rather as "sufficient" than efficacious—becoming efficacious only through the act of faith on the part of the believer, by which he secures Christ as his Advocate.

But this attempted explanation empties the idea of propitiation from its biblical meaning and shifts the saving operation of Christ from His atoning death on earth to His intercession in heaven. However, as Warfield points out, no support is given this elaborate construction by John; and our present passage is enough to shatter the foundation on which it is built. . . . 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, . . . 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 the 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 follow as circumstances may determine. It itself saves. It actually accomplishes the work. And this saving work is common to Christians and "the whole world." By it the sins of the one as of the other are paid for. . . . They no longer exist for God? And they are blessed whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered, to whom the Lord will not reckon sin?

Grammatical objection. —The fourth observation made in objection to the generic view is grammatical. One contemporary Calvinistic universalist attempts to explain Christ's suffering for the sins of both the elect and non-elect by saying that His suffering was retroactive to Adam's fall and potentially available (a better term would be hypothetically available) for the non-elect both before and after the cross. He explains I John 2:2 by saying that Christ is the propitiation for our sins," which means He is the actual propitiation for [believers' sins through faith] . . . . But we are also told that He is the propitiation "for the sins of the whole world,” [which] means that He is the potential propitiation only [for the non-elect]; otherwise the Apostle would have been teaching universalism.

Is this not an example of exegetical escubalan by a Calvinistic hypothetical universalist? But what does I John 2:2 actually say? It says that Christ "is (estin) the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." The text does not say that Christ is potentially the propitiation for "our sins and "the sins of the whole world."

Biblical objection. —The fifth and final observation made in objection to the generic view concerns the use of the term "propitiation" in Romans 3:25, Hebrews 2:17 and I John 4:10. In each of these references, propitiation is restricted to believers, that is, to God's elect. Furthermore, when dealing with a problem text, the principle of interpretation which requires one to determine the usage of a word or term as it is used elsewhere must not be ignored or insulted, especially when it is used elsewhere by the same author. Yet this is done by those who hold to generic universalism, for they do not mention the extent of propitiation in its other occurrences when they discuss the extent in I John 2:2. Both the modified and consistent Calvinists admit that there is some ambiguity in the interpretation of I John 2:2; otherwise there would not be the great theological controversy between them over the meaning of this verse. Is it not proper, then, for I John 4:10 also to be considered to determine if it will help remove some of the ambiguity? Does I John 4:10 help do this? "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." May the reader decide if this verse is helpful in understanding the extent of the atonement in general and the extent of propitiation in I John 2:2 in particular.

The Geographical Interpretation

     The second explanation of the universal terminology in I John 2:2 is that termed under the heading of "geographical universalism." This view interprets "and he is the propitiation for our sins" as referring to the recipients of John's epistle, that is, those believers living in Asia Minor. It interprets the latter part of the verse "and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" as referring to those Christians everywhere outside Asia Minor who confess their sins to Christ as their advocate. This view is close to that of Augustine, Calvin and Beza who understand by "the whole world" "the churches of the elect scattered through the whole world"; and by the declaration that Jesus Christ is "a propitiation for the whole world," that in his blood all the sins of all believers throughout the world are expiated.

Hope you enjoyed the reading. Please feel free to ask questions and if I can’t answer them I will go an extra mile to do so.

E-mail me at: apologus@hotmail.com

This is a research article and I have used the work of several well-known scholars including John Owen, Dr. Gary Long and others.