The Contextual Meaning of Cosmos in 1 John 2:2

By Mark W. Christy, PhD

Classical Arminians affirm an unlimited view of the atonement which teaches that Christ died for the sins of all people and thereby apportioned His prevenient (saving) grace to all people such that all people have now become empowered to make a freewill choice in regards to the gospel. In the ongoing debate with Calvinists who affirm a limited view of the atonement whereby Jesus died only for the sins of the elect, Arminians strongly favor 1 John 2:2: “[Jesus] is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world” (cf. John 1:29).[i] Commenting on this verse in support of his Arminianism, Norman Geisler believes that its support for the unlimited atonement is so plainly obvious that “no comment would be needed” “were it not for the skewed claim of extreme Calvinists.”[ii] Rejecting what he terms the “unsupported claim of extreme Calvinists…that ‘world’ here refers to ‘Christian world,’ namely, to the elect,” he goes on to directly charge them with committing “an obvious case of eisegesis (reading into the text) that…does not deserve an extensive treatment.”[iii] To determine a proper interpretation of 1 John 2:2, this article will consider what John means when he mentions the “world” as well as his understanding of Jesus being the “propitiation” for sins.

According to Geisler, “One needs only to make a study of the generic use of the word world (cosmos) in John’s writings to confirm that he speaks here of the fallen, sinful world.”[iv] Having defined cosmos in this way, he feels assured in his flippant dismissal of all Calvinistic scholars who fail to perceive that which he considers abundantly obvious. To determine whether Geisler is correct, this article will attempt a brief overview of the use of ‘cosmos’ by John and it meaning in the context of 1 John 2:2.

In John’s writings, cosmos can have positive, neutral, and negative connotations depending upon the context. In John 3:16, the word is used positively when John writes, “God so loved the world” (cf. 1 John 4:14). In John 1:9, he gives the word a more neutral meaning when he says, “There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man” (cf. 21:24-25; 1 John 4:1, 9, 17; 2 John 1:7; Rev 3:10; 11:15; 13:8; 17:8). Despite these rare cases when John employs cosmos in a positive or neutral manner, the vast majority of his usages of this word connote something negative (again this is all based upon context). In most cases, the cosmos, when separated from its context (positive, neutral, or negative), “is not the universe, but the created order (especially of human beings and human affairs) in rebellion against its Maker” (1:10; 7:7; 14:17, 22, 27, 30; 15:18-19; 16:8, 20, 33; 17:6, 9, 14; 1 John 2:15-17; 3:1, 13; 4:3-5:5:4-5, 19; Rev 12:9; 16:14).[v] This understanding of cosmos accords with Geisler’s already mentioned definition.

This being the case, when considering John’s revelation of God as one who “loved the world” by sending Christ who somehow “enlightens every man” in the world even though all people in the world are in rebellion, one may agree with Geisler’s limitation of John’s usage of cosmos in 1 John 2:2 to “the fallen, sinful world.” Afterall, John’s usage of cosmos is confined to only those who are of the world and not at all to those within the believing community. While this is indeed true, D. A. Carson, a noted Calvinistic scholar, observes that John uses cosmos to refer to “all human beings without distinction” and not “all without exception.”[vi] As one considers Carson’s point of John’s use of cosmos alongside that of Geisler, one may conclude that Geisler’s definition of the word itself was correct. Even so, Geisler fails to see the constraints John places upon the word by its context.

To demonstrate this, one should consider John 15:18-19 where Jesus differentiates between those in the world who hate him (and his disciples) and those who “are not of the world” whom Christ “chose…out of the world.” Given this truth, when John argues that Jesus “is the propitiation for” the sins of “those of the whole world,” he simply cannot mean (unless he is guilty of double speak) that Jesus died for the sins of those in the world who are marked by hatred for Him and his disciples (1 John 2:2). Rather, he must be addressing the sins of those who are coming out of the world and its rebellious hatred for God.

In the context of 1 John 2:2, cosmos most certainly does not refer to believers in and of itself as Geisler states, but even so, it is quite misleading for Geisler to overlook the context while he proclaims his Arminian theology and disparages his Calvinistic detractors. John is not addressing the cosmos directly but rather the sins of the cosmos. Given that John limits Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice to the sins of the world, the question still remains as to whether or not John is referring to the sins of the whole world (i.e., all people) or the sins of those who are coming to faith in Christ and were formerly of the world. For Geisler, in his rush to condemn Calvinists for making “unsupported claim[s]” and eisegeting the text, he fails to engage the context of John’s usage of cosmos to determine proper interpretation of 1 John 2:2, be it Arminian or Calvinsistic.[vii]

Before beginning a discussion on the context of John’s usage of cosmos in 1 John 2:2 where he points to Jesus as the propitiatory sacrifice for sin, it may help to briefly consider the meaning of propitiation. As the personal, propitiatory sacrifice for sin, Jesus appeases or satisfies God’s wrath which has been kindled against sinners due to the constraints of God’s justness. Those who fail to believe in Christ and thereby receive His propitiation or satisfaction of God’s wrath will ultimately have to supply their own propitiation by spending an eternity in hell.

In 1 John 4, John addresses the “[b]eloved” saints who are “from God” and differentiates between them and those who “are from the world” (1-6). Moving forward in his discussion, John tells his Christian audience that “love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God” (7). Those who do not love are those who do “not know God” and are, therefore, “from the world” (5, 8). This being the case, one might reasonably consider how one becomes a lover of God when one is born in a state where they “do not know” God. In reply, John says that “the love of God was manifested in” believers by the sending of “His Son to be a propitiation for [their] sins.” (9-10). In the context of this declaration, John makes clear that those beloved by God never loved God first; rather, they were first loved by God, and this truth was made manifest in the sending of His Son (10). To reconfigure John’s argument so as to gain a more thorough understanding of John’s theology, one could say that Jesus is God’s propitiation for those whom He loves since the love of God is required of those who would be covered by Christ’s propitiatory work even while they themselves are incapable of manifesting such love due to the constraints of their fallen condition.

While John’s discussion on the atoning of Christ in 1 John 4 points to a personal salvation whereby Jesus died personally for specific individuals whom God had decided to first love so as to awaken their love for Him in their hearts, Arminians reject any such notion in favor of arguments that support the idea that Jesus died for all people such that all now have been empowered to decide. While this error leads to a multitude of other theological errors (i.e., a rejection of substitutionary atonement, Pelagianism, etc.), suffice it to say that it leads to Christ making a propitiatory sacrifice for no one in particular while failing to fully satisfy God’s wrath.

In opposition to this Arminian error (which flows out of careful deliberation of the Scripture and upon how their theology flows in light of that deliberation), John address the personal propitiatory work of Christ on behalf of His beloved saints: “[Jesus] is the propitiation for our sin” (1 John 2:2). This affirmation by John, however, is immediately questioned by those holding to the Arminian view when John adds, “and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” Since the possible meanings of “the whole world” have already been discussed, it is now necessary to consider Johannine theology in regard to the context of these words to further uncover John’s meaning.

In Revelation 5:9-10, John clearly articulates his understanding on the extent of Christ’s atoning work: “for You [Christ] were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.” In this passage, John declares that Jesus’ death did not merely bring forth a plan whereby the whole world could potentially be saved if only they would make a freewill response to God’s offer of salvation through Christ, as the Arminians would have it. Instead, John states rather clearly that Jesus’ death “purchased…men.” In other words, His death on the cross was indeed personal, and yet His death did not purchase all men. As John says, His atoning work “purchased” some “men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.”

In conclusion, a proper interpretation of 1 John 2:2 requires more than knowledge of a simple albeit biblical meaning of one term. When understanding the terminology within a given verse is fundamental to the interpretative process, one must never neglect the wider context. While John does indeed use cosmos to refer to rebellious humanity, he limits that group by addressing those within that larger community (which includes all unconverted people) whose sins have been atoned for by Christ’s propitiatory work. In essence, John is addressing the entire believing community including those within his temporal sphere of ministry and beyond.

---

[i]All Scripture references are taken from NASB1995.

[ii]Norman Geisler, Chosen But Free (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001), epub version, 437. When Geisler refers to extreme Calvinists, he is actually discussing those who firmly support traditional Calvinism (i.e., TULIP). Apparently, his reason for calling them extreme is to make it possible for him to misrepresent himself as what he calls a moderate Calvinist which for him, based on a careful study of the theology in Chosen But Free, is afor a classical Arminian.

[iii]Ibid., 438.

[iv]Ibid, 438.

[v]D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 122-23.

[vi]Ibid., 151.

[vii]Geisler, Chosen But Free, 438.