Response to Erick's Article on 1 John 2:2

 

The purpose of this article is to give my evaluation of Erick's article on 1 John 2:2. His stated purpose was "to offer a valid alternative interpretation to a verse that is often used to support the idea that Christ’s death on the cross was for each and every human being.

A better approach is to see the multi-national scope of Christ’s work according to the promise made to Abraham (Gen. 12:3 cf. Rev.7:9-10; 22:2), and the first century authors combating a spirit of Jewish superiority and covenant exclusivity based on God’s choosing of their nation in the past. Though Israel was God’s chosen nation that was never meant to imply every person in that nation was chosen (Mt. 3:9; John 8:39, 44; Rm. 9:8; 11:2), nor that God never planned to reveal himself in and through other nationalities – i.e. including Gentiles in the New Covenant “Israel” (Eph. 2:19). "

I believe that Erick's purpose can be summarized as an analysis of the word "world" which is a translation of the Greek word "kosmos". Erick's understanding of the Universalist position is that kosmos in 1 John 2:2 means "each and every human being". Erick's "better approach" is to see that kosmos means many nations. I personally hold to neither of these views so I think I can provide a somewhat unbiased perspective.

I really appreciate Erick's tone and his comprehensive look at the passage. His tone is not that of someone giving the authoritative view but rather the tone of someone expressing an option or opinion. He also doesn't string together verses from various passages to prove his point. He supplies the background for the passage and gives ample reasons for consideration of his viewpoint.

I also appreciate when Erick says it "is important to get both the CROSS as well as the Parousia correct." The nature of the atonement lies at the heart of Preterism. The essential tenant of Preterism is that the Old Covenant was completely destroyed in AD70. My personal view is that the Old Covenant was destroyed spiritually at the cross and that this destruction was confirmed in a striking physical, visual way when Jerusalem was destroyed in AD70. How I relate this view of the cross to 1 John 2:2 is a subject for another time.

I also appreciate that he doesn't abbreviate Preterist Universalism.

Now, let's examine the reasons for Erick's view that "kosmos" has a multi-national scope. First, Erick concedes, "Though this may on the surface to be an adequate explanation of this verse, it does not hold up under more careful scrutiny." Erick then goes on to explain why the verse doesn't mean what it appears to mean on the surface. While I also hold to a view that isn't obvious from a surface reading, I think that it's fair to hold views, which require a more careful scrutiny to a higher standard of proof. These proofs should come from the context, as Erick acknowledges. I would add that the context should first be the immediate passage and then the book itself, then other writings by the same author, then writings by other authors of Scripture and, finally the historical context in which the book was written.

I enjoyed the background context that Erick supplied for the passage. I agree that "it was probably a mostly Jewish audience - and thus prone to bias against the Gentiles." Erick then goes on to use verses to support this contention. Since I concede the truth of this contention, I'll skip these verses. As I said before, I appreciate the background context that Erick provides but it is not, in itself, much help in determining the scope of the word "kosmos" in John's writings.

Erick then goes on to say, "However, it is not enough to show that the context makes the multi-national interpretation most likely; we must also demonstrate that the universalistic interpretation is most unlikely" I feel like there is even more work to be done. While Erick has shown that the multi-national interpretation is possible, he has yet to demonstrate that it is "most likely". When going against the "surface" meaning of the passage explicit reasons should be supplied from the proximate context of the passage itself. The most helpful context is usually the preceding verses. It should be possible to show from the first 11 verses of 1 John that the multi-national view is correct. I look forward to a more precise exegesis of the passage to pin down this meaning.

Next Erick tries to demonstrate that there is "explicit proof" that John teaches particular redemption. He does this by quoting 1 John 3:16 and 1 John 4:9-11 where John says that "He laid down His life for us" and "He sent His son to be a propitiation for our sins". Erick then says, "Notice also how the "propitiation" spoken of by John is for the Church alone". While this may be true, the passages he has cited merely say that the propitiation is for the Church. The do not say whether the propitiation is for those outside the Church. When I say that Christ died for me I am not explicitly saying that Christ did or didn't die for anyone else. In the same way, when John says that Christ died for the Church he is not saying anything about those outside the Church.

Erick then compares the propitiation spoken of by John to that of the nation of Israel. He says that "the High Priest sacrificed not for every individual on earth, but only those taking part in the chosen nation of God, to make atonement for “the people” – now the spiritual elect “descendants of Abraham” (Heb. 2:17; 9:15; 13:10; Rm. 9:24,11:5)." I understand this to be saying that since the atonement under the Old Covenant was limited to the physical nation of Israel that the atonement under the New Covenant is limited to their spiritual anti-type, the Church. While this argument is appealing to me, I am wary of arguments from typology. I would rather have the Scriptures point out the nature of the parallel explicitly.

The story of David and Goliath is an example of why I'm wary of arguments from typology. In this story, I believe that Goliath is a type of Satan, David is a type of Jesus, and Israel is a type of the world. Israel is enslaved to Goliath and the Philistines through fear of death.

Hebrews 2:14, 15

Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.

As representatives of their nations, the victor and the defeated will each decide the fate of the whole nation. In victory, David frees the entire nation of Israel, each individual, from slavery to the Philistines. Now, though each individual is freed from the Philistines, if an individual does not choose to believe in David and the freedom he has provided then that individual will still be enslaved by his unwarranted fear of death from the Philistines. David has set them free, but only their belief brings the benefits of that freedom.


In Christ,

Bill"