Calvin’s comments on 1 John 2:2

By Angus Harley

In preparing to exegete 1 John 2:1-2, I was reminded of the debate over Calvin’s comments on 1 John 2:2. Was he a‘Calvinist’ or an ‘Amyraldian’ (i.e., Neo-Calvinist)? This also brings to mind brother Stuart Brogden’s project that rejects the position that the 1644 London Baptist Confession was but a form of Covenant Theology. Both issues or debates involve historical theology and the necessity of proper exegesis of historical texts. Historical theology is important, for we can learn from it. We can also sharpen our exegetical skills, because historical documents are liable to the same principles of exegesis that we place upon the bible. This article is doing exactly that: sharpening exegetical skills by interpreting Calvin’s comments on 1 John 2:1-2; but the article is more than that, for Calvin does have some aspects that challenge our reading of 1 John 2:2 in the bible. 

As to Calvin’s view of 1 John 2:2, there are two comments by him that are typically cited: his comment in his commentary on 1 John; and, his comment in his book Eternal Predestination. This first comment on 1 John 2:2 is thought to contain some intense ‘Calvinistic’ elements; whereas his comment in Eternal Predestination has some Amyraldian strains, so some say. 

I will, first of all, explain both of Calvin’s comments on 1 John 2:2, and then draw some conclusions from them concerning Calvin’s own theology. In doing this part, I am not agreeing or disagreeing with Calvin, nor am I trying to prove or disprove Calvinism or Amyraldianism. I am merely allowing Calvin to speak for himself and drawing conclusions from these things that are applied to all theological readings of Calvin. The second part of the article (which is by comparison super-brief) takes some emphases that Calvin makes and applies them to our exegesis of 1 John 2:2.

Calvin’s commentary on 1 John 2:2

Calvin states:

“Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools.  Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. 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. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world.”

An explanation of Calvin’s statement

• To Calvin, every single person’s sins have not been expiated, for the reprobates do not have their sins expiated. Calvin makes no attempt to distinguish between salvation and expiation.
• Every single person is not saved, for the reprobate are not saved. 
• Every single person is not saved, for Satan, a reprobate, is not saved.
• 1 John 2:2 as a text does not promote the formula that Christ’s death is sufficient for every single person and efficient for some.
• The concept of a ‘whole’, as in “whole world”, is interpreted by Calvin to apply merely to the “whole church”.
• Consequently the “whole world” could not possibly include the reprobate.
• This “whole world” as determined by the “whole church” is then further refined to mean “those who should believe” in the future, and those then who were believers and were scattered throughout the world.
• Due to his exclusively ecclessiological reading of “whole world” to mean “whole church”, Calvin concludes that “whole world” is a declaration of the truly salvific grace of Christ for the church, and only in that way is there a “salvation of the world”.

Calvin in Eternal Predestination

He writes:

“Georgius thinks he argues very acutely when he says: Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world; and hence those who wish to exclude the reprobate from participation in Christ must place them outside the world. For this, the common solution does not avail, that Christ suffered sufficiently for all, but efficiently for the elect. By this great absurdity, this monk has sought applause in his own fraternity, but it has no weight with me. Wherever the faithful are dispersed throughout the world, John extends to them the expiation wrought by Christ’s death. But this does not alter the fact that the reprobate are mixed up with the elect in the world. It is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the world. But the solution lies close at hand, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but should have eternal life (Jn 3:15). For the present question is not how great the power of Christ is or what efficacy it has in itself, but to whom he gives Himself to be enjoyed. If possession lies in faith and faith emanates from the Spirit of adoption, it follows that only he is reckoned in the number of God’s children who will be partakers of Christ. The evangelist John sets forth the office of Christ as nothing else than by His death to gather the children of God into one (Jn 11:52). Hence we conclude that the reconciliation is offered to all through Him, yet the benefit is peculiar to the elect, that they may be gathered into the society of life. However, while I say it is offered to all, I do not mean that this embassy, by which on Paul’s testimony (II Cor 5.18) God reconciles the world to Himself, reaches to all, but that it is not sealed indiscriminately on the hearts of all to whom it comes so as to be effectual.”

An explanation of Calvin’s statement

• Calvin rejects the “great absurdity” of Georgius’ claim that the propitiation for the “whole world” must include every single person so that the propitiation of Christ’s death is of every single person in the world.
• Nor does Calvin think that the “common solution” posed by many is a proper response to Georgius, for the doctrine of Jesus’ death being sufficient for all yet efficient for the elect is not appropriate.
• The answer to Georgius is this: the phrase “whole world” refers to “the faithful…dispersed throughout the world” who have the expiation of Christ’s death extended to them.
• This theology is confirmed, to Calvin, by the belief that the elect are mixed up with the reprobate in the world. 
• In that light, Calvin then declares that it is incontestable that Jesus’ death was an expiation for the “whole world”.
• The incontestable teaching that Jesus is an expiation for the “whole world” is then affirmed in a limited sense to indicate “whosoever believes in Him should not perish but should have eternal life (Jn 3:15)”. That is, it refers only to believers who do receive by faith the crucified Christ.
• Calvin then expands upon why the sufficiency-inefficiency argument is wrong: “For the present question is not how great the power of Christ is or what efficacy it has in itself, but to whom he gives Himself to be enjoyed.” 1 John 2:2 is not a theoretical discussion of the nature and efficacy of Jesus’ death; it is, rather, concerned with the real blessing of Jesus giving himself  in real-time as a propitiation to those who believe in him.
• Calvin then states that Jesus and his propitiation is possessed, according to 1 John 2:2, by faith. This is furthering Calvin’s argument that John’s statement is not concerned with a theory of sufficiency-efficiency. 
• More pointedly, Calvin considered 1 John 2:2, and by extension, John 3:15, to feed a doctrine of assurance. As each biblical text is concerned with those who believe in Jesus’ propitiation, faith itself is derived from the Spirit of adoption, so that faith itself is the expression that the believer is a child of God. This is to say that, Calvin is not considering faith as merely an act of man that looks to God, but is a divine blessing issuing from heaven that demonstrates that one is a true child of God, and not one of the reprobate.
• In stating this, Calvin is consumed with the real-time, pastoral, concern that 1 John 2:2 is a live-time demonstration, through faith, of God’s commitment, through the risen Christ who had died, to his children, “The evangelist John sets forth the office of Christ as nothing else than by His death to gather the children of God into one (Jn 11:52).”
• This blessing is not independent of the Gospel, for the teaching of 1 John 2:2 and of John 3:15 and 11:52 are the evangelists words, or Gospel, that are set forth. 
• It is in this Gospel context that Calvin states that, God’s reconciliation in Jesus’ propitiatory death is therefore “offered to all” but that its “benefit is peculiar to the elect”. The Gospel blessing of propitiation comes to the hearing of “all”, but as to its actual benefit of real propitiation, it was designed for the elect, not for the non-elect.
• That this offer is the proclamation of the Gospel, and not the extension of the actual death of Jesus in and of itself, as if it were offered outside of the Gospel, is confirmed by Calvin referring to the embassy of Paul’s apostolic-Gospel testimony to all. 
• The previous mention of the Gospel being “offered to all” is not about an efficacious offering of the Gospel of propitiation; for although God’s reconciliation with the world is offered to “all” in the Gospel, actual Gospel-reconciliation is not sealed on the hearts of all who hear the Gospel.

Discussion of both texts and their meaning

Mode: redemption in live-time. It is a monumental misreading of Calvin to force his two comments to focus upon the historical moment of the death of Christ as a theological control. Both Amyraldianism and Calvinism read the above comments by Calvin and interpret them to refer to the time or moment of Jesus’ actual death on the cross and its ‘extent’. In that context, expiation and propitiation belong to ‘redemption accomplished’ upon the cross, not to ‘redemption applied’ afterward by the Spirit. Jesus died on the cross as an expiation and as a propitiation, we are told. Scholars then debate the ‘extent’ of this historical work as it took place two thousand years ago on the cross. Although Calvin does believe in Jesus’ historical death on the cross as an expiation and propitiation, it does not, in this historical capacity, serve as the basis for his statements on 1 John 2:2. In the above comments, Calvin’s understanding of Jesus’ expiatory death, although his death took place on the cross, in history, is exclusively set forth in the context of the application of redemption, of the real-time efficacy and giving of Christ and his propitiation/expiation to believers. That is, Calvin is talking about the death of Christ and its role and effects in the present.

As such, both Amyraldianism and Calvinism face a major problem here, for as Calvin is referring to live-time expiation, redemption, reconciliation, propitiation, and salvation, these blessings are not restricted to the cross and its moment (redemption accomplished). These are blessings that take place in the present, now. Jesus’ historical death on the cross, which was a propitiatory sacrifice, works in the present, in live-time, to propitiate God’s wrath upon those who believe, to save those who have faith in his death.

Method: preaching of the Gospel. In coordination with the live-time application of Jesus’ propitiatory death is its method, namely, the preaching of the Gospel. Every single statement Calvin makes in the above quotes is to be understood in the context of the going forth of the apostolic Gospel to the world. There is no mere theorizing going on here, no attention to the sufficiency-efficiency ‘principle’, no desire to wrangle concerning ‘what happened on the cross?, or with, ‘whom did Christ die for on the cross?’. ‘Theology’ is not Calvin’s concern. We are in real-time, so that the Gospel is the mode by which the historical death of Christ goes forth to the world to save it through faith. 

Result: to actually propitiate-save. Once more in coordination with the live-time setting of this Gospel preaching of Jesus’ death, is that this proclamation actually saves sinners within real-time, actually expiates their sins in the present, and propitiates God’s wrath in the now. The Amyraldian reading that Jesus death propitiates every single person’s sins but does not save them flies-in-the-face of Calvin’s comments. As said already, this error springs from another: locating Calvin’s discussion within the historical moment of the cross, and not understanding that it is in the preaching of the Gospel that Jesus’ death is going forth into the world. 

Nor does this salvific value kick-in sometimes: the Gospel of expiation is invariably efficacious. This is why Calvin refers to the role of the “office of Christ”, which is indicative of his heavenly priesthood and service that is entirely efficacious. It is as to his heavenly office that the risen Christ’s goes forward in his Gospel to save those who believe in his expiatory death. When the Gospel goes forward it is therefore a true embassy, the true form of God’s actual reconciliation of those who believe who are in the world. I will come back to this point further on.

Levels of definition: background, middle ground, and foreground. Calvin’s view of the meaning of “whole world” and “world” is somewhat elastic, possessing various aspects. However, all are not equal. The primary, controlling, idea is that “world” refers to the church, the faithful, to believers, even to the elect. This is the foreground, the proper focus. Even this foreground perspective is in itself rather elasticated, ranging from believers in the present, to the elect, unto believers to come. 

In the middle ground is the geographical extent of this earth, for it is the arena in which believers live, and it is within this arena that the Gospel goes forth to call out the elect who believe. Another aspect of the middle ground is that the Gospel message comes to all who hear it. As the Gospel of reconciliation/expiation goes forth into the world, it, in strict terms, comes to those who hear the Gospel. It does not come to ‘every single person’ in the world, but is ‘offered’ to all who hear it.

In the background is the negative aspect of the reprobate: they are mixed in with the elect who are scattered throughout the earth.

It is plain that, Calvin’s view of “world” does not submit to the theological definitions of either Amyraldianism or Calvinism. He has his own elasticated style. Even so, the true value and meaning of “world” is its foreground aspect, the salvation of believers. The reader will have noticed, too, that unbelievers are not spoken of favorably but are invariably cast as the reprobates.

Control: ecclessiological. Technically, this point is a development of the previous ones, but it most definitely requires its own space. The Calvinistic argument is that “world” is controlled by the idea of the salvation of the elect. Even though Calvin’s second comment contains a form of this teaching; his first comment does not. Why not? The reason is, that the true control for Calvin’s comments is that the Gospel is directed to the ‘church’ (assembly). His live-time approach does not start with election per se, but with believers coming to faith in Christ’s propitiatory death. The second quote brings in the aspect of the elect, but even this is stated in the context of believers being the elect. Calvin is not, in other words, starting his argument with the concept of God’s eternal act of election, working from it to the cross, and then moving on from there to the elect coming to faith. Rather, Calvin begins with believers in the present (or to come), for their faith in Jesus’ historical death is evidence that they are sons of God, and, this in turn demonstrates that they are chosen by the Father from all eternity. Calvin is, in other words, working from the present to the past, not the past to the present.

There are two corollaries that come out of this teaching.

Rejection of sufficient/efficient. Calvin does not deny the theology of the sufficient-efficient formula; however, he rejects it as in any way relevant to 1 John 2:2. Why? Because the formula is theory, and does not allow for the live-time salvation of sinners through the preaching of the expiatory death of Jesus. Moreover, the concept of sufficiency forces the Christian to think along the lines of the legitimacy of ‘every single person’ as an interpretation of “world”, but in 1 John 2:2 “world” does not suggest or imply ‘every single person’ (see before). 
 

Nature of the offer. Calvinism will be swift to point out Calvin’s reference to an offer of the Gospel dispels the hyper-Calvinistic reading that says Calvin did not believe in the modern notion of a free offer of the Gospel. The Gospel is offered verbally to all who hear it (universal calling) but is efficacious for the elect alone (effectual calling). There is some truth to this interpretation of Calvin, but I think the supposed ‘hyper-Calvinists’ are somewhat correct, at least if the above two quotes are our guide.

When Calvin refers to the Gospel “embassy”, “declaration”, or “offer”, the control is invariably the Good News as ‘being’ salvation in action or actual Good News. The Good News is not the potential to save, an offer to save, or a reaching out to save; it is, rather, the live working out of salvation, or active Good News, real-time salvific Good News. The Gospel is ‘Good News’ solely because it invariably saves. It is in that sense a true embassy and declaration, for it invariably and efficaciously reconciles. Due to the “office” of Christ who is in heaven applying his successful propitiatory death, this Gospel of propitiation-salvation never fails. Thus, it is not ‘mainly,’ ‘somewhat’, ‘by degree’, ‘mostly’ Good News; it ‘is’ fully and always Good News for it never fails to save.

The “offer” aspect, in the above quote by Calvin, is identified with the verbal declaration of the true salvific embassy of the Gospel of reconciliation. This verbal message does not say something like, ‘God will save you if you believe‘. Rather, the Gospel message is this, to paraphrase, ‘Jesus is saving/will save the world. Therefore repent and believe.” As the reader can see, there is no modern-day idea of an offer here. There is a command, rather, to repent and believe in the Good News of Jesus saving the “world”. The “offer”, in this case, is in regard to the verbal going forth of this Gospel into the world, in the fact that it is an embassy declared in the world. The “offer” is tantamount to God condescending, through his apostles/preachers, to declare the fact of his victorious Gospel. 

So, Calvin was distinguishing between ‘Good News’ as a verbal message and the actual, live-time realization of that message itself that God never fails to save, for the cross and the heavenly Son never fail in bringing in the faithful, the elect.

I am going to make up my own illustration to show the difference between Calvin’s idea of an ‘offer’ and that of modern-day Calvinism. Let’s use the story of Moses lifting up the rod with the serpent. Using our imagination, the modern Calvinist might have Moses saying something like this, ‘Israel, look to the pole, for God is willing to save you. Just look and live for the serpent can save you; it has the power to save.’ Calvin, however, would have Moses stating something like this, ‘This serpent does nothing but save; it always saves. Therefore look and live!’ There is nothing ‘potential’ to Calvin about Jesus’ death; it is always efficacious, always victorious. In Calvin’s quote on 1 John 2:2, there is no ‘offer’ in the modern sense going on; rather, the ‘offer’ is found merely in the verbal declaration of the truth of the ever-efficacious serpent-rod/cross.

Challenges for us today

1. We need to allow historical documents/historical theology to speak for itself. Too often, Calvin is not really appreciated in and of himself, as to his own thought, but is utilized as a theological resource for Calvinism, or some other position. More often than not, this leads to inaccurate, imposed, readings of Calvin. It is typical of Calvin scholars to jump from quote-to-quote by him, garnering aspects of his thought that support their own systems. Indeed, in reading for this article, I was frustrated by both Neo-Calvinist and Calvinist readings of Calvin’s view of 1 John 2:2 that jumped all over his writings to support their interpretations of him. Instead of this model, we must exegete full comments and then bring together the exegetical findings of these comments, turning them into ‘Calvin’s theology’.

2. Calvin’s hermeneutic was different to modern Calvinism’s. Modern Calvinism begins with eternity and its eternal decree and eternal predestination, and works from it to the cross, then on to the elect believing in Christ. Although Calvin upholds this as a form of theology, it is not his interpretive starting point. His starting point is that the going forth of the Gospel saves believers, creating the assembly, who are assured that they are children of God, and therefore eternally chosen of the Father. He is coming at matters from the ground and working up, not from above then working down.

3. Calvin relied on a live-time, Gospel, understanding of propitiation and its relevance. Calvinism incorrectly, in my opinion, confines Jesus’ propitiatory death to the cross. However, his historical death and its victory was taken, so to speak, with Christ into the heavens. His current high priestly function is to apply his historical, propitiatory, death as an ever-living/efficacious form of propitiation. Sins are propitiated in the present when believers come to Christ for forgiveness. His historical death was once-for-all, even as a propitiation, but the propitiatory value and work of his death is eternal. 

Thus, 1 John 2:1-2 refers to Christ himself, in heaven, as our propitiation, “He himself is the propitiation for our sins”. It does not say he “was the propitiation for your sins.” Nor is the propitiation separated from his risen person (not on the cross!): “He himself is the propitiation”. He “is” our living redemption, holiness, righteousness, propitiation, etc.. Likewise, Romans 3:25 states, “whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.” Paul is implying that his Gospel (the message) teaches about the historical propitiatory death of Jesus that was done in public, but which is effective only through faith, “propitiation in His blood through faith.” Faith looks to the Christ who is now in heaven, having first been crucified as a propitiatory sacrifice, which he now ’embodies’ in heaven.