The First Letter of John in Light of Revelation 13:8

Transcription

1 The First Letter of John in Light of Revelation 13:8 In my book Cross Word Puzzles I argue that John s claim in Revelation 13:8 sets the stage for rethinking of the event of the crucifixion from a Jewish perspective. I demonstrate that John, Peter and the author of Hebrews all point to the atoning work of Yeshua s sacrifice before the foundation of the world. This fact means that we must reevaluate the common Christian assumption that the cross was the place for forgiveness of sin. My analysis of the crucial Greek and Hebrew terms for the atonement and the crucifixion point to a different, but nevertheless absolutely critical, purpose of the cross. The cross and Yeshua s death under the false accusation of criminal charges is YHWH s plan to deal with the consequences of sin, namely death itself. The cross establishes the sole eternal Kingdom and the sole everlasting King because through death Yeshua conquers death, the paradigm symptom of defilement in God s creation. The cross is a cosmic event altering the course of the entire universe, not simply a reconciliation of Man and God. The issue confronted on the cross is about King and Kingdom, not sin and forgiveness. It seems appropriate to ask the question, If John states that the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world provides the atonement necessary for forgiveness of sin, should we not find indications of this idea in his other New Testament works? John s apocalyptic vision and its recording in the book of Revelation is chronologically the last of the New Testament books. The idea that Yeshua s sacrifice occurred before the foundation of the cosmos (world) may not have been fully formed until this last vision, but we should at least find nothing contradictory in his other works and hopefully find substantiating references or hints about this final understanding. Therefore, let us begin by investigating John s first letter to see if we find elements that support the claim made in Revelation 13:8. We will look for thematic architecture in relation to the concepts of life, death, appearance, sin, day of judgment, Savior, and forgiveness. These categories cover most of the topics found in John s first letter and we will have to look among them for indications and implications that either support or do not support the claim before the foundation of the world. We will proceed verse by verse with commentary. 1 John 1:1 We should notice immediately that John sets the stage for his letter by introducing the direct relationship between his eyewitness account and the Word of life. We will find that the theme of life dominates John s thinking. Since the first chapter mentions forgiveness (verse 9), we perhaps would have expected John to introduce forgiveness as a central theme, but we do not find this. Forgiveness comes as an after thought of the concern about life. 1 John 1:2 John continues by expanding the idea of life, noting that it was manifested to him and others. But now the idea is expanded to include eternal life, life that was originally with the Father but is now revealed to us. Here we must note that John s claim is clearly that Yeshua exhibits eternal life, the same life that has always been with the 1

2 Father. Now we must ask, If you were a Jew in the first century and you read John s words about eternal life, what connections would you make with your own religious background? The first obvious connection is the direct relationship between Yeshua s manifestation and the Father s eternal existence. This is the equivalent of a claim about divinity. That would be shocking, but not altogether unexpected, as Daniel Boyarin points out. But that isn t all. Jews expected to encounter life in the olam ha ba after the Day of Judgment. At that day all will be judged either worthy or unworthy of continued fellowship with YHWH. John s claim surprises his Jewish audience. John says that eternal life is not postponed until the last day. It is a reality now, and a guarantee now, because it has been manifested in the life of Yeshua. 1 John 1:3 John confirms his prior surprising claim by noting that fellowship and its consequent eternal life is a present reality, enjoyed by those who have come into obedience and relationship with the manifested Son, Yeshua HaMashiach. Today we tend not to experience the theological jolt that this must have caused for John s readers because we have been immunized against astonishment by centuries of Christian repetition, but in the first century, in a Jewish context, this is an amazing claim. For purposes of our investigation we must note that John makes no mention whatsoever of the necessity of forgiveness or the crucifixion in this claim. Of course, this is an argument from silence and not sufficient to justify the claim of Revelation 13:8, but it is striking that in a passage where atonement and forgiveness could easily have been tied to the crucifixion, John does not do so. So far there is no contradiction to his claim in the apocalyptic vision. 1 John 1:7 Now we come across a verse that is often used to support the idea that Yeshua s death on the cross is the basis of our forgiveness. But we must be very careful to read what this verse actually says and what it does not say. First we notice that John points us toward fellowship with the Father (who is in the light), not with the Son. John s concern is the relationship with YHWH. Yeshua provides the means by which that relationship is established, but John does not say that the goal of our faithfulness is a relationship with the Son. The possessives of this verse ( His Son ) clearly indicate that Yeshua brings about this reconciliation through blood, but this is not the same as saying that the purpose of the reconciliation is focused on fellowship with the Son. What then does John mean by the phrase the blood of Yeshua His Son cleanses us from all sin? Certainly John has the atoning blood sacrifice in mind. Every Jew would know that a blood sacrifice was appropriate for atonement (although not always required). John s reference reminds us of the Levitical requirements. There is no doubt that John sees the sacrifice of Yeshua in terms of the Levitical context, in fact, extending beyond the Levitical context. But notice that John makes no mention of the cross. Why is this the case? I have argued that John s claim about the sacrifice of the Lamb before the foundation of the world necessarily implies that Yeshua s death on the cross was not a sin sacrifice. In the place where John could have overturned this idea, he says nothing that would do so. John only says that the blood cleanses. He does not tell us where or when. Since no first century Jew would have considered the cross a legitimate substitute for the required altar or the Roman executioners as the equivalent of Temple priests, it 2

3 seems impossible that John would have thought of the cross in relation to this blood cleansing. 1 John 2:2 The English translation of the Greek hilasmos is propitiation. The word and its translation are difficult. The LXX provides linkage to kipper, meaning to cover, to wash away, to expiate. But even English definitions of the Hebrew word are subject to theological manipulation. David Leman s work on atonement demonstrates that the Hebraic idea does not necessarily involve restoring broken relationships but rather removing what offends. In this sense, atonement is the cleansing of defilement that prevents open fellowship with YHWH. Atonement re-establishes God s presence, not by purifying the sinner but by removing the uncleanness. Atonement is a fully cultic concept. Therefore, when we translate hilasmos according to the background of kipper we must avoid any hint that hilasmos means placating God. Hilasmos is not appeasement. The issue at stake is not how to divert God s wrath but rather how to remove any obstacle that prevents God from providing life. English definitions of the term suggest that appeasing the gods is included in the concept, but this is not the case from a Hebraic perspective. John s statement in Hebraic context means that Yeshua s atonement removes the defilement created by our disobedience allowing the broken relationship between Man and God to be re-established, but not because God s attitude has been changed. The change is the wiping away of the obstacle. God has always desired fellowship and by means of the atonement, His desire is now unimpeded. We are the ones cleansed because the obstace of sin has been wiped away. The relationship is restored. Finally we must note that John does not say (as the NASB suggests) but also for those of the whole world (italics in the text indicate additions by the translators). The Greek literally says also of the whole cosmos. The NASB addition moves the force of the translation toward an anthropocentric theme while the original Greek suggests that the atoning event has an impact on the whole cosmos. Perhaps the translators thought it reasonable to add those of since they understood sin as an entirely human predicament, but I do not think John is so myopic. Just as we find in his gospel, John suggests that the incarnation and the work of the Messiah have cosmic effects. In this case, whatever hilasmos means to John, it is clearly not limited to the human frame. In what sense the entire cosmos participates in a need for hilasmos-kipper might not be clear, but at least this much seems obvious: everything in creation is in the grasp of death and this must be removed in order for the God of life to restore His creation to its original design. 1 John 2:6-7 see 1 John 2:12 The key to understanding this verse is the technical phrase for His name s sake. When we read this, we are not likely to recall the abundant use of the parallel expression in the Tanakh for Your name s sake but we should. Certainly John s Jewish readers would have been aware of the relationship. 3

4 First we must note that the Greek text simply says through His name. The NASB rendering modifies this expression because in ancient Greek thought onoma (name) was not simply an ostensive appellation. Onoma was considered to be part of the person who bears it. Names have power. Names designate essence. In the name of carries the same authority as though the one named spoke the words. In this case, the divine name is a summary of the divine being. Therefore, when John says our sins are forgiven through His name, he does not mean that the phonetic expression of the name is some magical formula. He means that the name implies the full personality behind it. We are forgiven because of whom Yeshua is, not because His name is pronounced in a certain way. This is essentially the same idea that is contained in the use of YHWH as a name in the Tanakh. The divine name is who YHWH is. It is not just a collection of arbitrary consonants. We should also note that the Greek text uses the preposition dia, usually translated as through or on account of or by means of or with. That changes the meaning of the translation. It is not for the sake of but rather through the summary of His character found in the Name. We are forgiven our sins through the character of the Messiah. Paul echoes the same thought when he writes, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through the faithfulness of Christ Jesus. 1 It is the Messiah s work and character that provides atonement, not ours. We must recognize that John does not say our sins are forgiven because of the crucifixion. He employs a phrase that suggests it is the entire character and works of the Messiah that provides the means of forgiveness and he does not specify the place or the time. In other words, there is nothing in this passage that demands a revision of John s expression in Revelation 13:8, although this would have been an ideal point to insert some claim about the cross. 1 John 2:25 Notice that the promise is eternal life, not forgiveness of sins. Of course, forgiveness of sins entails eternal life according to our current theological understanding but they are not the same. As I argue in Cross Word Puzzles, it is possible to forgive the guilt associated with disobedience and still not erase the consequences. Fellowship can be restored in spite of the fact that the ultimate penalty remains in place. The requirement for eternal life is not only the forgiveness of the debt but also the removal of the consequences. The forgiveness of the debt is accomplished when the atoning sacrifice is performed, but this leaves the person in a state where the past debt has been forgiven but the ultimate consequences still pertain. Here we must distinguish between the penalty for sin and the defilement of sin. When I am forgiven, the guilt is removed and the penalty associated with that guilt no longer applies, but the ultimate defilement created by my original action still remains. For example, I may seek forgiveness for the fact that I deliberately injured another person by hitting him, and forgiveness may be granted to me, but the black eye does not instantly vanish. The consequences remain even though the guilt has been removed. Forgiveness of sins repairs the broken relationship between the Lord and me, but the ultimate consequence of sin, namely death, 1 On the striking difference between the two legitimate translations of the Greek text of Galatians 2:16, see 4

5 still exists in the creation. That must also be removed. When I am forgiven, death does not instantly evaporate from the universe. I still die. Everyone still dies. The universe is still dying. This must also be reversed, and the crucifixion and resurrection is the means by which God reverses this defilement. The ultimate issue surrounding defilement is the issue of life and death. So John notes that the promise is eternal life, not simply the removal of guilt. 1 John 3:5 This verse seems to be the strongest argument against our thesis that the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world. There is no argument about the second part of the verse. Yeshua is sinless. But what about the claim that he appeared in order to take away sins? The Greek text uses the verb phaneroo which can be translated to appear, to become evident, to reveal, to manifest. In the New Testament, the verb is commonly used to describe what was once hidden but is now made visible (for example, the meaning of a parable). The verb is common in John s works where it means to disclose. In this verse the verb is aorist, passive. In other words it describes an action done to the subject that has already occurred. Yeshua was manifest, disclosed, or appeared in the past in order to take away sins. Christian theology usually interprets John s statement as a reference to the incarnation, that is, Yeshua appeared in His earthly ministry. The verb reference is assumed to include only those years between His birth and death in human history. But this isn t the direct implication of the verb phaneroo. The action in the past could refer to the entire soteriological event. It could refer to the entire disclosure of Yeshua s voluntary atoning sacrifice. That entire disclosure can encompass all the history of His action, from before the foundation of the world until the time of John s letter. In other words, John s use of phaneroo does not establish a temporal limit between incarnation and crucifixion. Disclosure can be extended to cover the entire saving work and still be a legitimate interpretation of the verb. Theological commitment determines the range of meaning, not the language itself. We might consider the larger temporal envelope found in Paul s expression of the kenosis, an action that must include Yeshua s pre-incarnate decision to empty Himself of divinity in order to take on the human condition (cf. Philippians 2:6-8). If John means the full disclosure of Yeshua that may also include His role as the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. The verse tells us only that He was manifested, disclosed, appeared in order to take away sins. It does not necessarily mean that His manifestation or disclosure only occurred on earth. It could mean that we now perceive this full disclosure of events; events that have been in place since the beginning. 1 John 3:8 The second part of this verse helps us clarify the meaning of the previous verse. Notice the repetition of the verb phaneroo (to appear). John expands the previous claim concerning the manifestation of Yeshua, the disclosure of His purpose, by claiming that His goal was to destroy the works of the devil. Given our previous investigation we must ask, Is sin a work of the devil? The Greek text uses the word erga, a word that is usually associated with all kinds of action or activity, covering a host of related Hebrew terms. In the human context sin is the act of disobedience, a violation of Torah, not an action of Satan. But John makes it clear that he is thinking about the broader idea 5

6 of disobedience. Notice the opening of this verse, an observation that the devil sinned from the beginning. Obviously John cannot have a violation of Torah in mind. He must be thinking about acts that occurred before the creation of human beings ( from the beginning ). This sets the temporal frame for John s claim that Yeshua was manifested to destroy the works of Satan. These works must have been in place from the beginning. Therefore, they cannot be predicated upon human disobedience. We must ask, What were the works of the devil from the beginning? Those works were the result of demonic hubris, ha-satan s attempt to overthrow the divine kingdom. What was the result of this act of treason? Death, but not simply the death of mankind. Ha-Satan s rebellion altered the fabric of creation, ushering in defilement that displays itself in death. Notice that Paul recognizes the prior existence of sin before Adam disobeyed. Paul says that Adam opened the door for sin to enter into this world, but this implies it already existed somewhere else. The works of the devil entered our world through Adam s disobedience. Death became a reality here but it was already a reality elsewhere. If this is true, then Yeshua was not manifested to deal just with human sins. He appeared in order to deal with the entire issue of defilement across the whole creation. Once more we see that the crucifixion has cosmic application. It is difficult to believe that John has only the forgiveness of human sins in mind in these words. Furthermore, John specifically states the Yeshua s purpose (Greek eis touto into this ) is to destroy, not defeat, the result of the devil s effort. This must be seen in its cosmic sense. Once we investigate these two verses (1 John 3:7-8) carefully, we see that they offer no contradiction to John s claim in Revelation 13:8 and actually provide hints that support our claim about the cross event. 1 John 3:14 Notice the contrast John uses: to pass from death to life. The subject matter of John s concern is the transition from death to life, not simply the forgiveness of sins. Yes, forgiveness may result in life, but John does not make this his focal point. He has a wider view. The real issue is death, for us and for the universe. God s restoration requires that all creation pass from death to life. This is a summary of the whole biblical account: to pass from death to life. This is precisely what I have argued in Cross Word Puzzles. 1 John 3:23 Believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ needs further explanation. Christians often consider this the only and primary condition of salvation. The problem is that believe in has been redefined by our cultural perspective. In the Greek/Roman worldview, believe in implies rational, cognitive assent to a statement of fact. But in the Hebraic worldview, cognitive agreement means nothing without heart execution and subsequent behavioral change. John s use of the preposition eis implies this because eis is a preposition of motion and location, not of intellectual affirmation. So John is effectively saying, You must transition from one way of living to another way of living. That s what it means to believe in. 6

7 How does this Hebraic view help us understand John s claim in Revelation 13:8 about the Lamb? Clearly John is not suggesting that all that is required is mental assent. He is implying that a life-altering transformation must occur. But this begs the question, If this is true, how do we recognize the change in behavior? The answer is firmly established in the Tanakh. Those who have experienced this transformation live according to God s instructions called Torah. This means that as far as John is concerned, Abraham and all of the fathers of the faithful in the Tanakh enjoyed the same relationship as those who committed their ways to Yeshua HaMashiach. There is no difference between Abraham s faith and John s requirement of believing in Yeshua because the transformation is the same. This, of course, implies that Abraham is saved in precisely the same way that you and I are saved (i.e., through the faithfulness of Yeshua in His atonement), and that further implies that the cross cannot be the place of salvation. Furthermore, we should note that John cannot mean this is the only commandment because he immediately adds and love one another, in essence repeating the two great commandments that Yeshua summarizes in His answer to the scribe. 1 John 4:2 John combats the gnostic heresy of the first century, reiterating the claim that Yeshua was a real human being. Proponents of the claim that Yeshua s death on the cross ushers in forgiveness might consider this verse as support for that doctrine, but the truth of Yeshua s physical existence does not weight against the idea that the sacrifice occurred in the heavenly Temple before the foundation of the world. The physical manifestation of Yeshua does not necessarily require that the cross is the place of forgiveness. It only requires that the crucifixion put to death a real human being. 1 John 4:9 Reading this verse according to the standard Christian view of the cross allows proponents to claim that God sent Yeshua into the world so that we might live through Him. But if we read the verse according to the idea put forth in John s vision (Revelation 13:8), we find a different interpretation of the same words. God did send His son so that we might live, but the focus is on life and death, not necessarily on forgiveness and redemption. The two are related, of course, but the verse doesn t actually say that Yeshua came into the world for provide forgiveness. It says that He came into the world to provide life, a theme consistently employed by John and not in contradiction to John s statement in Revelation. How we interpret the verse depends on the theological paradigm. Therefore, this verse cannot be used as a contradictory statement. It may legitimately be read either way as it stands, but when it is combined with John s statement in Revelation 13:8, it must be interpreted as a statement about life and death (eternal life), not the place of forgiveness. Otherwise John would be contradicting himself. 1 John 4:10 We return to remarks made concerning hilasmos (propitiation) in 1 John 2:2. But here we also have the translator s addition to be. The Greek text reads apesteilen ton huion autou hilasmon, literally, sent the son of him the propitiation. First we must notice that by adding to be the translator shifts the emphasis from a statement of the role Yeshua plays to a statement about the objective of Yeshua s manifestation. But this 7

8 seems unwarranted. Yeshua is the propitiation. He does not come to be a propitiation. This helps us clarify the use of the verb apostello. Here it is translated send but the verb covers the umbrella of meanings from to send forth to to commission, to authorize, and to give full authority. In John s gospel, apostello often carries the idea of authority, not simply arrival. If we read the verse with this background, John maybe saying that the Father authorized or commissioned His Son as propitiation for our sins. With this interpretation, the verse says nothing at all about the cross and furthermore is completely consistent with the statement of Revelation 13:8. There is no contradiction in the claim that the authorization of Yeshua as the redemptive sacrifice for sin occurs before the foundation of the world. 1 John 4:14 The same issue mentioned in 1 John 4:10 occurs in this verse. Once again the translators add to be, shifting the focus of the verse from an act of authorization to an act of location. If apostello carries the idea of imputed authority in 1 John 4:10, we would expect the same framework to be true in this verse. Since we know that John uses the verb in ways that carry the idea of authority, it is acceptable to consider this verse a repetition of the thought in 1 John 4:10. Here the verb is in the perfect, active indicative whereas in 1 John 4:10 is was aorist, active indicative. The verb tense shift is important. In 1 John 4:10, the aorist tense makes it clear that this action is completed in the past. In 1 John 4:14 the verb tense makes is clear that this completed action in the past has continuing consequences for the present. This puts strain on the translators addition of the words to be. If the action is completed in the past with ongoing consequences, how are we to understand that implication of to be that suggests the consequences are yet to occur? The verb tense suggests the action is finished. Only the consequences remain to be seen. John is arguing that YHWH authorized the propitiation of the Son in the past, a completed act, and as a result of that act, we experience life rather than death. This fits perfectly John s claim in Revelation 13:8. But if we read the verse as if the Father sent the Son in order to accomplish propitiation, then it appears that the action was not completed until the crucifixion. And that further implies that those who lived prior to the cross event were never actually redeemed, or at least must have been accepted by YHWH on grounds other than the designation of the Son as propitiation. But this violates everything about the sense of John s letter. If apostello is used in the sense of authorization, of commissioning, then we need to revise the English translation. It is not to be read as a statement of about God dispatching Yeshua to be Savior but rather a statement that God authorizes Yeshua as Savior. The difference is important. 1 John 4:17 Notice the focus of John s statement. John draws attention to the status we enjoy on the Day of Judgment. This is a completely Hebraic concept of priority. What matters is the relationship of the follower to God on the day when men are examined. Notice that John counsels we have confidence in that day. Why? First because of the reconciliation affected by the propitiation of Yeshua and secondly because we live according to God s instructions. Also notice what is not mentioned. There is no statement here about forgiveness, salvation or repentance. What is highlighted in Judgment Day? Life! John looks back at the completed, fully sufficient act of atonement 8

9 and looks forward to the Day of Judgment. The temporal position of the cross does not enter into this arrangement. 1 John 5:6 This may be the most difficult verse in John s first letter to reconcile with his statement in Revelation 13:8. But once again we must not read into the verse theological positions not found within the verse. What exactly does this verse say? It claims that Yeshua came by water and blood. This could mean nothing more than the fact that he was born a human being. This would reiterate John s polemic against the Gnostics. But this makes the wording rather awkward. Every child is born by water and blood so why does John make a point that Yeshua came not only by water but also by blood? Does the verse imply anything more than physical birth? Christian apologists sometimes turn to this verse to claim that water and blood refer to the death of Yeshua on the cross. For example, even the noted scholar F. F Bruce remarks, The sequence water and blood is not accidental, but corresponds to the historical sequence of our Lord s baptism and passion. 2 They claim that the spilling of blood somehow validates the cross as a place of atoning sacrifice. But this stretches John s words to cover events that do not necessarily synchronize with the history of Yeshua. Why should we think of water as if it must imply Yeshua s baptism by John? As a Jew, Yeshua would have been baptized often, in fact, even time He went to the Temple. And why should be think of blood in relation to the crucifixion? Would any Jew automatically make this association? Isn t it more likely that a Jewish audience would associate blood with lineage rather than death? Moreover, there is no textual reason to suppose that the blood on the cross has anything to do with the idea of atonement. I have argued in Cross Word Puzzles that this is not a legitimate understanding of the event from a Hebraic perspective. If this is true, then why does John place emphasis on the blood in this verse? I believe the answer is also to be found in the Hebraic worldview. What matters most about the claim that Yeshua is not a god disguised as a man (the Gnostic heresy) is that Yeshua is born human and has human ancestry. What would in blood mean to a Jew? It would mean that Yeshua was one of the tribe, one who came from an acceptable ancestry. In other words, He has a Jewish genealogy. This is critically important for John. It establishes the legitimacy of Yeshua s claim as Messiah and opposes the Gnostic heresy. What can we conclude about John s use of water and blood? We certainly cannot claim that this verse definitely speaks about the crucifixion. This is especially true when we realize that John does not use the normal preposition for by (dia) but rather the preposition en, literally in the water and in the blood. The problem is how to interpret en. A corollary of the versatility of en is the exegetical ambiguity that often attaches to its use.... Sometimes all the exegete can do is to reduce the number of possible meanings of en by examining the context. But even when it proves impossible to eradicate all the ambiguity, the prep. phrase may be of crucial import. 3 That leaves the 2 F. F. Bruce, The Epistles of John, p The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol 3, p

10 exegete with the problem of interpreting the wording in a much larger context, and that is precisely what I have proposed to do in Cross Word Puzzles. In other words, even verses like this one demand a context established by the full range of John s theology. This means that interpreting a controversial verse loaded with ambiguity in favor of the standard Christian position is no more legitimate than viewing the verse from a Hebraic perspective, and, I would argue, makes less sense in the context of John s Jewish perspective than reading the verse as if it fully supported the later Christian doctrine. 1 John 5:8 John uses the same connection (i.e. water and blood) but adds Spirit in this statement about bearing witness. If John is writing against the Gnostics, then the use of these three as witnesses provides evidence that Yeshua was human, born as a human being, from human lineage and attested to by the Spirit. All three agree that He is not a god disguised as a man. The point of John s argument is not about Yeshua s baptism by John (what difference would that make to Gnostics?) or Yeshua s death on the cross (do Gnostics care how a man dies if he is really a god?) but rather that His humanity cannot be in doubt and is testified to by the Spirit. This polemic against the Gnostics is borne out by the continuation of the argument about witnesses in the next few verses. 1 John 5:11 Notice once more the emphasis of John s letter. It is life, eternal life, given by God. It is important to recognize that this life is given by God, not by Yeshua. John says that this eternal life is in the Son. If the cross event is the defeat of death, then this makes perfect sense. Yeshua is the one and only eternal King who conquers death through the resurrection. Eternal life is literally in Him and we participate in that life as we become His disciples. We don t own that life. It belongs exclusively to Him as the one who conquered death. 1 John 5:13 John concludes with the same theme. What do we absolutely know as a result of his letter. That we are forgiven? That we have been saved by the blood spilled on the cross? That Yeshua died for us? No. John writes in order that we may know that we have eternal life. Everything else is secondary in this letter. 1 John 5:16 John reiterates the theme of life, not forgiveness. In fact, where we might expect John to say, and he shall ask and God will forgive we read and he shall ask and God will for him give life. 1 John 5:19 John says that the whole world lies in the evil one. The translators add in the power of but this is not in the Greek text. For John, the world is encompassed by evil. The Greek text uses an adjective to describe this situation; an adjective that is often translated as a noun, the evil one. For our investigation, this rather odd expression is not of as much concern as the fact that John recognizes that until and unless the grip of evil over this world is broken permanently, no redemption of creation can succeed. That grip is most obvious in death. It is death that must be defeated, and this is precisely what occures on the cross. 1 John 5:20 Once again John s emphasis is on life. 10

11 CONCLUSION: A thorough examination of John s first letter reveals that there are no statements that contradict the claim of Revelation 13:8 that the atoning sacrifice occurred before the foundation of the world. Furthermore, those verses that could potentially discredit our interpretation of the Revelation passage can be interpreted in legitimate ways that support our Revelation claim. Finally, when Christian exegetes use passages from 1 John to support the argument that Yeshua s death on the cross is the place of atoning forgiveness, they either misconstrue the Hebraic background of John or they import theological ideas that are not necessary in order to understand John s thought. In conclusion, nothing in John s first letter causes us to doubt the argument of Cross Word Puzzles. In fact, once we understand John s Hebraic perspective, many thoughts in his letter give credence to the claim that Yeshua s atonement was accomplished on the heavenly altar before the foundation of the world. 11