Limited
Atonement
By Moses Flores
Last semester, we spent our last four to five weeks on the subject of the atonement of Christ on the Cross. We learned what terms such as “redemption”, “propitiation”, “reconciliation” and “substitution” meant and hopefully, now, we appreciate the grace of God in Christ more fully and the Cross is more meaningful to us. But now it is time to take our study deeper in the Scriptures and ask questions that current “traditions” do not allow us to ask because the answers are assumed to be known and questioning current beliefs is considered “blasphemous” to some. However, we must truly seek answers and know what the Bible really teaches if we are to truly know the Christian faith. After all, “assumptions” are on the same level as “tradition” and “routine religion”. So let us begin by asking:
“Did He or didn’t He? Did Christ actually make a substitutionary
sacrifice for sins or didn’t He? [1]”
Did Christ really and actually reconcile God to man? Is the wrath of God really placated? Did Christ really accomplish redemption on the Cross? The reason we emphasize “actually” is because many people believe that Christ “did something” on the Cross, but nothing that is powerful enough, in and of itself. For the most part, modern Christianity believes and teaches that Christ did “half” of the work of salvation but people, individuals, must do the other half in order to be actually saved by “Christ’s half.” That is, the work of the Cross is only accepted by the Father on a person’s behalf if they choose to believe in it, or to word it another way, Christ “died absolutely for none, but conditionally for all [2]”. After what we have studied so far in the attributes and definition of atonement terms, can we really believe that atonement only finds its acceptance before the Father on the basis of its acceptance by its subjects? Most likely not. The sufficiency of the atonement is never in question. It is sufficient to accomplish that which it is intended for. Our dilemma is the extent, or scope, of the atonement. John Owen (1616-1683), puritan author of the 17th century, voices the dilemma in this question:
“God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men [3]”
Before we
actually get to the answer of that question, we must answer two important
questions: What was the intention in the
coming of Christ and the atonement? And what were the effects of the atonement? In answering the first question, it will be
helpful to see the nature of the atonement and that will, ultimately, answer
the question of the extent of the atonement.
As we search for these answers, it is important to see exactly what it
is that the Bible is saying and that we do not bring in any “traditions” into
the readings so as to introduce “bias” into the true interpretation of the Word
of God. We must “rightly divide the word
of truth” (2 Timothy
Part I
The intention of
the Atonement
Why did Christ come? It is important to note that Christ came with
a purpose as the author of Hebrews reminds us in a Messianic passage,
“Sacrifices and offering you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for
me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, ‘behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the
scroll of the book’(10:5-7).” Jesus also
acknowledged this fulfillment in John 14:31 when He said, “But I do as the
Father has commanded Me…” and also in John
“And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.”
Notice several things in the text. Of course, there is the angel informing Joseph that Mary shall bring forth a child that will be born of the Holy Spirit (v20). The angel then proceeds to command Joseph concerning the name that is to be given to the holy child: Jesus. But then notice the purpose that comes attached to the meaning of the name “Jesus” (which is a transliteration of the Hebrew “Joshua” which means “Jehovah is the Savior”): “for He WILL SAVE.” The long awaited time of God’s salvation was about to be realized in this child. No longer was salvation going to be something to look forward to, but it was actually about to be realized in the coming of Christ and His atoning work on the Cross. The purpose of Christ’s coming was to make an atoning substitutionary death that would result in Him “saving”. “He will save,” are the words found in scripture. This is the intention of the coming of Christ and the work that He was to fulfill: to “save” - to accomplish an actual salvation. For Christ to accomplish anything less than this intention is to say that Christ failed in His appointed task. Finally, we are told what (or who, the object) of the salvation of the Lord: “his people.” Although we are not too concerned with this particular topic since we are dealing with the intention of the atonement, which is to actually save, it is important to see that the Bible, here, teaches that Christ came to save his people. “Not everybody but ‘his people’, “his sheep’” [4]. The phrase “his people” creates two categories of people that are “term complements” of each other: “his people” and those that are “not his people.” They are exclusive categories.
The Lord Jesus Himself also mentioned his purpose being that he would be the propitiation who was going to be offered to the Father.
“For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.” (Matthew 18:11, cf. Luke 19:10)
Here Jesus gives a clear directive of what His mission has been since His incarnation: “to SAVE that which was lost” (emphasis mine). We may know that Jesus’ mission was to actually save through His work from the proceeding context of the parable of the lost sheep that Jesus tells. In Matthew 18:14, Jesus tells us that it is “not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish (Italics mine).” The will of God is to actually save people through Christ. Therefore, the task of Christ to be completed is to save these “little ones.” The point is actually demonstrated in the Lukan account where Jesus calls Zaccheus down from the tree. The scripture says that “today salvation has come to this house [the house of Zaccheus], because he also is a son of Abraham; for the Son of Man came to seek and save that which was lost (Luke 19:9, 10).” John Owen comments, “so unless he findeth that which he seeketh for, unless he recover that which he cometh to save, he faileth of his purposes [5].”
Jesus
also said that He came to “give His life as a ransom for many” (Matthew
Likewise, the apostles are in harmony with the teachings of Christ concerning the purpose of His coming. Paul wrote to Timothy,
“This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.” (I Timothy 1:15)
Paul introduces us to the “saying” by first laying down its reliability: “this is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance.” Then he gives us the phrase “that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” We are given an answer to “who”: Christ Jesus; “what” (as in, did what?): came into the world; and finally, we are told “why” (to what purpose, or for what end): to save sinners. The root of the Greek word, that is translated as “to save” (Gr. swzw root), carries the meaning of “to save from final ruin. [7]” Again Owens rightly observes that Christ came to “save sinners” – “not to open a door for them to come in if they will or can; not to tame a way passable, that they may be saved; not to purchase reconciliation and pardon of his Father, which perhaps they shall never enjoy; but to actually save them from all guilt and power of sin, and from the wrath of God for sin: which, if he doth not accomplish , he fails of the end of his coming… [8]” Therefore, we should understand from this faithful saying that Christ came into the world to actually “save” people.
Notice, also, the language that Paul uses in Ephesians 5:25-27 to bring this point out as well:
“Husbands, loves your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of the water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church – not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.”
Notice that Christ “gave Himself” so that He would bring about the sanctification and cleansing of His bride, the Church.
Elsewhere,
in Titus 2:14, Paul also teaches that Christ “gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every
lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good
works.” Paul, in full agreement with the
teaching of Christ (cf. Matthew
The unknown author of the book of Hebrews also has a contribution to make to the teaching of the intention of Christ’s coming and purpose on the Cross. In Hebrews 2:14-17 we read:
“Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.”
As
rich as this text is, there are a few things that concern us with regards to
the mission of Jesus Christ. Notice
first that the one mission was to “destroy him who had the power of death,”
which we find out it Satan. Likewise,
the apostle John teaches the same thing when He said in I John 3:8, “for this
purpose the Son of God was made manifest, that He might destroy the works of the Devil”(Italics mine). We know that this is a purpose of the
atonement because of the phrase “through death” that precedes the purpose to
destroy the works of Satan. Christ’s
atoning death is the means while the destruction is the end. Second, notice that upon this destruction the
“release” of captives is to be accomplished.
We also note that his purpose was “priestly” in that Christ was to be a
“merciful and faithful High Priest” for us before God. Finally, Christ was sent “to make
propitiation for the sins of the people.”
Just as a High Priest of Israel sprinkled the atoning blood on the Mercy
Seat, so Christ was to be our propitiation.
Romans 3:25 also speaks of God “setting forth” Christ to be a
“propitiation.” The Greek word that is
translated as “set forth” may also be translated as “purposed.” Likewise, the
apostle John testified to Christ being sent to be the propitiation for our sins
(I John
It is clear from these texts that Jesus came with a purpose. He did not come to somehow “try” something out and see what happens or who will respond. His was given a mission by the Father. As a general rule, the Bible does not give an exhaustive list of the multiple tasks that Christ was given in His first coming in clear statements; some of the tasks are deduced from texts that deal with the actual accomplishments of the atonement. Listed are those clearer statements that do specify the missions of Christ as given to Him by the Father in the atonement. One important principle to keep in mind is this: “What is intended is actuated; and what was actuated was intended.” The justification for this principle is that nothing catches God “off guard.” He knows His purposes and His will for His people. As God does not change, so neither do his purposes. Therefore we say that nothing happened in the atonement that was not planned, and everything that the atonement was intended for happened.
The actual accomplishments of the Atonement
Redemption
Among
the actual accomplishment of the atonement is redemption. That is, according to the Scripture, people are
actually said to be “redeemed” or “purchased.”
Acts
The
same idea is found in I Corinthians 6:20 and
At a great price, the Church of God was “purchased” and “bought” as Peter reminds us that it was “not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect (I Peter 1:18,19).” Notice that Peter’s language not only speaks of the actual ransom paid, but even the end effect when He says that believers are “redeemed.” The Greek word lutroo(Gr. lutrow) “signifies the actual ‘deliverance,’ the setting at liberty [11].” Here Peter makes an emphatic statement that the Church was actually “set free” from the wrath of God and delivered over to Christ through the shedding of the blood on the Cross.
Likewise, the apostle John in the Revelation of Jesus Christ, allowed his readers to listen to the chorus of heaven sing to the Lamb as the 4 living creatures and the elders sang, “You are worthy to take the scroll, and to open its seals; For you were slain, and have redeemed men to God by your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation.(5:9)” The twenty four elders are symbolic of those redeemed by Christ in some form [12]. The assertion is that the Church, which is comprised of people from every tribe and tongue and people and nation, was “redeemed” by Christ.
The
book of Hebrews, with its emphasis on the priesthood of Christ, also gives us
an account of what Christ actually did through the atonement. Hebrews
“The purpose for
Christ’s sacrificial death is summarized in the clause having obtained eternal redemption.
After his figurative entrance into the
If the blood of “goats and calves” was sufficient to effect a temporal atonement under the Old Covenant, how much more is the blood of Christ, the God-man, sufficient to effect redemption and that eternally! Notice that the text does not say, nor imply, that Christ did “His part” and that the only way to make the atonement efficient before the Father is for us to do a “part” as well. Rather the text speaks of the sufficiency of the atonement of Christ alone without added merit.
Galatians 3:13,14 also teaches that Christ did, in fact, redeem through His death on the Cross;
“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’), that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”
Notice that the Bible says “Christ has redeemed…” For clarity’s sake, we should note that it is not “tried to redeem” or “made a payment (so as to imply that another needs to be made in order to complete the transaction)” “or is redeeming (so as to say that Christ’s redeeming is continuous so that the objects purchased are being added to).” The Bible is clear when it says that Christ “has redeemed.” Redemption was completed with the work of Christ “on a tree.”
Because redemption was actually accomplished on the Cross of Christ, Paul, with all confidence could always tell his audience that they “have redemption” (cf. Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14). It was never a hypothetical possibility to be redeemed but a reality what the apostle Paul preached to his audiences with all confidence to guarantee their salvation in Christ through faith.
Reconciliation
In the same way that the Bible speaks of an actual redemption that was accomplished through the Cross, the Bible also speaks of the Cross actuating God’s reconciliation toward man. Perhaps the clearest teaching on reconciliation is found in 2 Corinthians 5:18-21.
“Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”
The word “reconciled” in v18 is in the aorist tense signifying “that the removal of alienation occurred punctiliarily [14] with the death of Christ and is now an accomplished fact. [15]”. What makes this fact even more real is that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.” It is a “God originating” reconciliation. God has been reconciled in the atonement.
Paralleling this teaching of reconciliation as a completed work in the atonement is Romans 5:10 which says, “For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved His life.” The Bible teaches that we “were reconciled” – actually reconciled – while we were still enemies of God. That is, while we were still sinners standing at the foot of the Cross and applauding the crucifixion of Christ and mocking Him with our sin, Christ “reconciled” God to man.
It is important to recall from the previous work on reconciliation that this reconciliation is on God’s part toward man. That is, God’s enmity towards “us” has been laid aside so that “friendship” may be restored. These passages are not referring to mankind’s being reconciled, that is, laying aside their enmity toward God, as the effect of the atonement. Men become reconciled on their part through regeneration and justification. Such is the meaning of “having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life” in the above passage. The idea is that since God has been reconciled and laid aside his enmity toward sinners, how much greater the relationship when not only one party has dealt with His enmity, but the other party does the same as well. The atonement effected God’s enmity toward sinners, not man’s enmity toward God.
Continuing with the teachings of Paul on reconciliation, in the letter to the Colossians, Paul says, “And you, who were once alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight (Col. 1:21,22).” The phrase “He has reconciled” could not be clearer than to mean that reconciliation has actually occurred. We have been reconciled “through death” which is to say through the atonement of Christ. So again, it is clear that the Bible is teaching that reconciliation has been accomplished on God’s part through the death of Christ on the Cross, and it is presented to believers in the Bible as a final certainty.
In the letter to the Ephesians, Paul speaks of the reconciliation of God to the Gentiles as well. He says:
“But now in Christ Jesus you who were afar off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the Cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. (2:13-17)”
Notice
three things that Christ accomplished through the Cross. 1) the Gentiles have been “brought near” by
the blood, or atonement, of Christ. Previously in history, they were
characterized as “separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of
Propitiation
As
previously shown, Christ was “set forth to be a propitiation” for sins (Romans
It
is very clear, from the above examination of the scriptures, that Christ came
with an actual purpose as He was given by God and that task was accomplished
through the atonement on the Cross.
Perhaps Jesus summed up His mission best in John 6:38-39 by saying, “For
I have come down from heaven , not to do My own will, but the will of Him who
sent Me. This is the will of the Father
who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should
raise it up at the last day.” How
fitting that in His “high priestly prayer” in John 17 Jesus said that He had
“finished the work” that the Father had given Him (v. 4) since His life was
nearing the end on the Cross and then, on the Cross itself, Jesus, just before
He gave up His spirit, proclaimed, “It is finished” (John
In
those statements and various others that we have seen, it should be clear that
there is no question concerning the efficacy of the blood of Christ to
save. The magnitude of such a sacrifice
is effective in all that it intends to do for it is the very blood of Christ,
the God-man Himself, who shed it according to the will of God the Father. There is no question of the “quality”, or
power, that the blood has in and of itself.
It is not subject to another person’s will to be counted as effective as
the scriptures, which we have examined, clearly show. God is under no restraints in the work of
Christ. Christians should be convinced
of the power of the blood of Christ and that they can rest safely in their
salvation knowing that God will never reject the work of His Son that He
ordained. The Blood is sufficient to
save “to the uttermost all who come to God in Christ Jesus” (Hebrews
Part II
Purpose
of the atonement in regards to its extent
Now that we have answered the questions of God’s intention for the atonement and the actual effects of the atonement, we must press on to ask, “For whom did God intend to make atonement for?” That is, was the Design of the atonement to save each and every person that ever lived or to only save some people? Very quickly let me some up the two historical positions that have been taught. The first is “Universal Atonement [17]”. This teaching is promoted by Arminianism and can be summed up as thus:
“Atonement is Universal, since God loves all persons equally and alike, and Christ died for all persons, indiscriminately. The blood of Christ makes atonement for sin in the sense that it is the basis for offering pardon, but it does not accomplish pardon unless man freely wills to accept pardon…The Arminian insists that it was accomplished for all mankind, indiscriminately. [18]” (Italics mine)
That is, that Christ’s work on the Cross was done equally for every single person so as to establish a basis of offering salvation but in and of itself, the Cross did not actually accomplish reconciliation, redemption, propitiation, nor was it a substitionary act. The work of the Cross only becomes effective when man decides to use his will to apply it to their life by faith. That is, when they decide to “believe in” the Cross.
The other historical position on the extent of the atonement is described by the phrases “Limited atonement [19]” or “particular redemption” and is promoted by Reformed Theology, otherwise known as Calvinism. Their belief may be summed up as such:
“Atonement is for the elect only, since Christ died only for those whom the Father gave Him to be His bride. Only the saints or elect ones are ever said to be “beloved of God,” for they alone are the objects of His saving grace. The Calvinist reasons that if Christ died for all, then all will be saved. If only the elect are to be saved, then Christ died for them, and them alone. Although it is true that the blood of Christ is surely sufficient in value to atone for all, still it is obviously efficient only for those who are saved by His unmerited favor. [20]”
That is, since it was God’s intention to only save His elect people whom He loved from “before the foundation of the world,” it was His intention to save only them through the atonement. Since there was no intention of saving “goats”, Christ did not die on their behalf as a substitutionary atonement; He died on behalf of His “sheep”. The atonement is unlimited in its saving power having purchased complete salvation – redemption, reconciliation, propitiation, justification, etc…- for whom it was intended and, therefore, is limited in scope or extent.
Historically speaking, t should be noted that this theological perspective did not originate with John Calvin. Also, this perspective on the atonement is not limited to Calvinism either. The debate can be traced all the way back to St. Augustine and his battles with Pelagius over original sin and the grace of God and also debates between the Jesuits, who contended for a universal atonement, and the Jansenites who argued for a particular redemption.
Both of these views have the common ground that says that Christ’s atonement did not save everybody [21]. Ultimately, much of modern Christianity falls into the Arminian view of the atonement or the Calvinist view. Nobody can simply say, “well I believe what the Bible teaches” to avoid this matter because these are the only two camps that have existed in all of classical Christian history [22]. It is theological laziness to avoid the subject. It is also theological laziness to allow traditions to be the determiner of our doctrine. Therefore, we will search the Scriptures to see what they teach about the extent of the atonement. We will examine the “particular” passages first and then examine the “universalistic”, or “all” passages.
The
Particular passages examined
Isaiah 53:8,11,12
“…For He was cut off from the land of the living for the transgressions of My people He was stricken…He shall see the labor of His soul and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities...He bore the sins of many.” (Italics mine)
This passage is a Messianic prophecy delivered to
The unity of this teaching runs throughout verse 11 as well. Verse 11 begins with a statement concerning the effectiveness of the work that is to be accomplished in bearing the sins of His people: He shall see the labor of His soul and be satisfied. One is not satisfied unless they have accomplished the work that they set out to do. Therefore we conclude that the atonement, as we have see before, accomplishes all that it intended it to do. But then the prophet says, “By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many…” The use of the word “shall” implies a certainty that only God can proclaim. The use of the word “many” as it is applied to the justification of sinners shows that the remission from the work of the atonement was not designed to be given to all. That is, not all were intended to be forgiven since He was only to bear the transgressions of many. Those whose transgressions are bore are only those who may be forgiven, and, of necessity, must be forgiven because their sin has been dealt with through a substitionary act [24]. This is clear from the next phrase, “for He shall bear their iniquities.” The word “for” is a premise indicator of the conclusion that “many” will be justified. The apostle Peter gives us the realization of this prophecy in his letter by saying, “who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness – by whose stripes you were healed” (I Peter 2:24). Peter’s language is well within the same language of Isaiah 53 (cf. 53:5 “by his stripes we are healed”) and Peter also limits the scope of the atonement by saying that He bore “our” sins on the cross so that “we”, the same group whose sins were atoned for, might live for righteousness. The context of Peter’s letter also lends weight to limiting the work of Christ on the Cross to the elect since He is writing to those who are “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (1:2). Peter is not addressing His letter to unbelievers, only elect believers. It is them that He refers to us as “our” and “we”. Isaiah and Peter are in unity in teaching a particular scope of the atonement of Christ.
Matthew 1:21
“And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.” (Italics mine)
Previously, the intentions of the atonement were noted from this verse but now we will focus on the scope of the intention. Namely, to save “His people.” To quote William Hendriksen, again, Jesus came to save “not everybody but ‘his people’, ‘his sheep’” [25]. Again the Bible separates the “world” into at least two categories of people: “His people” and “not His people.” James White adds to this by asking “Why is the Lord even named ‘Jesus’? Because He will save His people from their sins. We are not being trite to point out the obvious: He is not called Jesus because He will make savable a vague, indistinct general group of people who exercise their free will to enable Him to redeem them. He is called Jesus because 1) He has a people, His people, and 2) He will save them from their sins. He does not try to save them, seek long and hard to save them, but He saves them. [26]”
Matthew 20:28
“just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Italics mine, cf. Mark10:45)
The context of this conversation is just after the mother of James and John asks Jesus if her sons can sit at His right and left hands when He comes in His kingdom (v.21). Jesus gives his disciples a small lecture about serving one another and his summation statement is what we that even He did not come to be served, but to serve and “to give his life as a ransom for many.” The Greek word for “ransom” is lutron (Gr. lutron) which is “a means of loosing [27]” or a “means of release; means of redeeming [28]” and hence, translated as “ransom” which is the price paid to set a captive free. Jesus, through the shedding of His blood, is that “ransom” on our behalf as Peter also teaches in I Peter 1:18,19: “you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ…”.
The word “for” is anti (ant i) in the Greek. The word “anti” in the English language usually means “against” like in the word “anti-war.” In the Greek language, however, “anti” means “for, in place of, instead of; in behalf of [29]” carrying the idea of substitution – doing something in the place of another. “The passage is a clear proof of Christ’s substitutionary atonement. [30]” Remember that “the very idea of substitution is that what is done by one in the place of another avails as though that other had done it himself. [31]” That means that this “ransom ‘in the place of’ and ‘in exchange for’ many immediately implies that benefit accrues to the many. [32]”
It is for “many” that Christ is said to be the “ransom substitute.” The Bible does not say here that Jesus was to give his life as a “ransom for every single person” since, of necessity, that would render every single person saved since, as we have seen above, the atonement’s effects are actual and not hypothetical. Likewise, Jesus uses the same phrase “for many” in Matthew 26:28 when He makes mention of the blood He is about to shed on the Cross and the inauguration of the New Covenant. Jesus says:
“For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (Italics mine)
Who
are these “many”? According to the Bible
, the “many” refers to “my people” (Isa. 53:8), “His people” (Matt.
John 10:11, 14-16, 24-29
“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep….I am the good shepherd; and I am know My Sheep, and am known by My Own. As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep and other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear my voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd….Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, “How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, then tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My Sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and My Father are one.” (Italics mine)
The
context of this dialogue between Jesus and the Jews is shortly after Jesus
restores the sight to the blind beggar at the pool of Siloam. The Pharisees have come up to Jesus to
question Him about the healing. After a
short discourse, Jesus then directs their attention to Him being the “door”
(10:7) of which all sheep must enter.
While still using His reference to “sheep” Jesus makes the statement, “I
am the good shepherd. The good shepherd
gives His life for the sheep.” Jesus is the “good shepherd” and “the
excellent character of this shepherd is shown especially in this: The good shepherd lays down His life for the
sheep [33].”
The word “for”, here, is the Greek word uper (huper). The word has a root
meaning of “over” and it’s meaning, as used in the Gospel of John, “pendulates
all the way from the colorless concerning
(1:30), through for the benefit of and
the closely related for the sake of (6:51;
11:4; 17:19), to the very meaningful instead
of (see 10:11, 15; 11:50, 51, 52; 13:37, 38; 15:13; 18:14)” [35]. The word, as used in this context, then,
carries the idea of substitution, though it should be noted that the word huper, in and of itself, does not mean
“instead of” as the Greek word anti
(Gr. ant
i) does. It is given that
meaning through the context it is used in.
A good shepherd, according to Jesus, lays down His life for “the sheep” – for “My sheep” (v14) according to Jesus. Notice that the scope of the “laying down” of Jesus’ life is only for “the sheep.” Jesus does not say that He lays down his life for just “anybody” [36] neither does His speech suggests that it is meant for a universal audience. He is being particular with His language. “It is for the sheep – only for the sheep – that the good shepherd lays down his life. The design of the atonement is definitely restricted. Jesus dies for those who had been given to him by the Father, for the children of God, for true believers [37].”
Further
down, in verse 14, Jesus declares that He “knows His sheep.” “The verb ‘know’ occurs four times in verses
14 and 15, and each time it is the present tense of ginosko [Gr. ginoskw] that is used, the present here
having ‘gnomic’ or timeless force. [38]” Vine says, “In the N.T. ginosko frequently indicated a relation between the person
‘knowing’ and the object known; in this respect, what is ‘known’ is of value or
importance to the one who knows, and hence the establishment of the
relationship… [39]” In other words, this
“knowledge” of the sheep is a relational knowledge and not a mere intellectual
acknowledgment of them. It is special [40]. The
Bible speaks of God “knowing” only His people (Amos 3:2, Nahum 1:7; II Tim.
The
point that is being made is that these sheep have been “known” to Christ from
all eternity (cf. Romans
Division
breaks out amongst the Jews listening to Jesus explain Himself and his relation
to the sheep. The Jews finally approach
him and ask if He is the Messiah. Jesus
replies to them, “I told you, and you do not believe…but you do not believe
because you are not of My Sheep(v.
26).” Notice that Christ has created the
category of “his sheep” in the previous verses and now He creates (not by
implication) the term complement: the
category of “not His sheep.” Jesus makes
a distinction in the world: those who
are His sheep and those who are not His sheep.
Furthermore, the Bible says that He dies only for one of those
categories, namely, His sheep.
Therefore, the extent of the atonement is exclusively for those sheep,
who were “foreknown” to God and “predestined” (cf. Romans
John 11:51,52
“‘…nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.’ Now this he[Caiaphas] did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.”
The context of this scripture is in a council
meeting of the Pharisees where Caiaphas has just shared his idea to hand Jesus over
to die so that the Jewish people could be spared any reprisal from
Jesus
is also said to die in place of “the nation.”
Who is this “nation”? The
“nation” is the “children of God” that is mentioned just a bit further down. “There are, then, two groups. All of those included in these two groups are
children of God. But the first group consists of those
children of God who are not scattered
abroad; that is, it consists of Jews, and Jews only, the fold of Israel ;
while the second group consists of those children of God who are scattered abroad; that is, it consists of Gentiles, and
Gentiles only, those elect Children of God who are not in the fold of Israel. [44]”
Essentially, there is continuity and unity in what John is saying here
and what He has previously said in John
“As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.”
The
“other sheep” mentioned in
Acts
“Therefore take heed to
yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you
overseers, to shepherd the
This
particular portion of scripture is a part of Paul’s exhortation to the elders
of the Church in
Ephesians 5:25
“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the Church and gave Himself for her…”
This passage is in Paul’s exhortation to the Ephesians concerning the practical applications of Christian doctrine into one’s life. While dealing with issues within marriage, Paul gives an exhortation to all Christian men to “love their wives” even as Christ loved the Church. In this exhortation, Paul reveals the extent of the love of Christ and how it relates to the atonement and uses that to support his application of men loving their wives just as Christ loves His church.
Paul revealed a lot more information than Christ merely loving His Church; he reveals that Christ gave Himself only for the Church. It could be argued though, that this point of Christ giving Himself only for the Church is an “argument from ignorance” – that is, it doesn’t say only for the church, and neither does it say for all. But let us reason, for a moment, why it cannot mean “for all” in a universal sense.
The exhortation is for men to love their wives as Christ loved the “church”. If the passage is to be understood in a universal sense, then we should understand it to mean “husbands love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for every single person.” This raises the question, how is a husband to show complete devotion to his wife, by covenant, when he is commanded to love her like he would love “every single person”? What would be special about a “general love” in a marriage? “Love your wife like you would everybody else because this is the way Christ loved and gave Himself,” is what we would be left with. That would be an absurd conclusion. We don’t love our neighbor the same way that we love our spouses; we don’t “love” our enemies the way we love our spouses and we certainly don’t love “strangers” whom we have never met the same way that we love our spouses. Yet, a universalistic approach to the atonement would induce such an absurd interpretation of the text.
Rather, the text teaches that Christ loved (Gr. root agapaw) and gave Himself for her. He did not give up His life for “strangers” but for His “bride”, which is the Church. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, the great expositor, said,
“And here we are reminded that He died for the church. We must never lose sight of this. He died for the church; He died for nobody else. His death, as Calvin and other expositors remind us, because it was eternal and because He is the Son of God, is sufficient for the whole world; but it is efficient only for the church. His purpose in dying was to redeem the church. He gave Himself for the church, for all who belong to her when she will be complete and perfect and entire. All was known to God from eternity, and the Son came, and gave Himself for the Church. [46]”
Christ
gave Himself “for” (
By now it should be clear that this verse cannot be interpreted in the universalistic sense nor can it entertain that as a presupposition into the text. Rather, it says plainly, that Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for her.
Romans 8:32-34
“He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is He who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.” (Italics mine)
The eighth chapter of Romans is known as the “peak” of the New Testament, and some even go so far as to say the “peak” of the entire Bible. In particular, verses 31-39 bring out of the greatest and most comforting truths of the Gospel. In these verses, the apostle Paul is expounding to Christians, their security in Christ in the midst of their various “trials and tribulations” that they are and will endure as Christians. In these verse, Paul uses particularistic language that has implications for the atonement work of Christ on the Cross.
Notice
verse 32: “He who did not spare His own
Son, but delivered Him up for us all…” God the Father did not spare His own Son when
it came to our salvation, but rather delivered over to death (cf. Galatians
1:4; Romans
“In accordance with the immediately preceding context, the apostle must have been thinking of all those who love God (verse 28), who were foreknown and foreordained (verse 29), were (or were going to be) called, justified, and glorified (verse 30). To this can be added the similar expressions contained in the statements which follow; namely, the elect (verse 33), those for whom Christ makes intercession (verse 34), those who are ‘more than conquerors’ (verse 37). It was to these people, to them all, to them alone, that the merits of Christ’s death had been, were being, or were going to be savingly applied. [49]”
Robert Haldane says,
“For us all – That is, for all to whom the Apostle is writing, who he had addressed as beloved of God, called, saints, Rom. i. 7, among whom he ranks Himself. But as these epistles are to the churches equally apply to all believers to the end of time, so this expression includes all the elect of God – all who have been given to Jesus – all in who behalf He addressed the Father in His intercessory prayer. ‘I pray for them. I pray not for the world, but for them which thou has given Me,’ John xvii. 9,20. That those to whom Paul here refers when he says, ‘for us all,’ applies to none but believers, is evident -1st, because in the preceding and following verses the Apostle speaks of those who love God, and who are the called according to His purposes; 2nd, he says in express terms that He will with Him freely give us all things, which implies that we have faith, by which we receive Jesus Christ. This absolute gift, then , concerns only those who, being elected by God, believe in Him. [50]”
Finally, Professor John Murray observes that,
“…(2) The extent of ‘us all’ is defined by the context. The denotation is the same as that of verse 31 and ‘us all’ of verse 32 cannot be more inclusive that the ‘us’ of verse 31. The ‘us’ of verse 31 are those spoken of in the preceding verses, expressly identified as the foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified. And, furthermore, the succeeding context specifies just as distinctly those of whom the apostle is speaking – they are God’s elect (verse 33), those on behalf of whom Christ makes intercession (vs. 34), those who can never be separated from the love of Christ (vss. 35-39). The sustained identification of the persons in these terms shows that this passage offers no support to the notion of universal atonement. It is for ‘all of us’ who belong to the category defined in the context that Christ was delivered up. [51]”
Therefore, the words “us all” ultimately reduces to mean the “elect” of v33 in the succeeding context and is supported by the preceding and following contexts itself. “Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us” (v.33,34). Again, the “us” is the same audience that Paul has had in mind throughout this entire letter – believers, the elect. Paul is not introducing a new audience nor does the text suggest this.
Therefore, we can conclude that this text reflects the teachings of a particular atonement made for those “whom God foreknew”(v29), the “called” and the “justified”(v30) – of which, only the Christian falls into that category. The context also calls these people “the Elect” of God, and therefore, the atonement becomes exclusive to the category of the elect whom Christ makes intercession for, and not for all humanity inclusively and individually.
Hebrews 9:28
“So Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many…”(Italics mine)
This passage in Hebrews comes in the middle of a description of the greatness of Christ’s sacrifice. In accord with the Old Testament teachings of Isaiah 53, the author of Hebrews teaches that Christ bore “the sins of many” (Isaiah 53:11,12). The obviousness of this verse is that Christ bore the sins of “many” and not “all” absolutely. Therefore, atonement was made for these “many” and not for everyone universally.
I John 4:10
“In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” (Italics mine)
In this epistle, John deals with many false teachers – antichrists – that are spreading heresies in the Church. While doing this, John begins to tell this Church that love is a means of testing these “teachers”. While expounding the true nature of love, John makes reference to the propitiation of Christ in the atonement. In the mentioning of the atonement, John also makes a reference to the scope, or the extent, of the atonement with the word “our”. Jesus Christ is the propitiation for “our sins.” The question that we have to ask is who did John me by “our” when He wrote this letter? Did He mean all people absolutely or did he refer to a certain category of people?
The context of the letter does not allow for a universal interpretation of the word “our” for several reasons. First, the letter is written for a Christian audience. Even thought the letter has no formal introduction like most New Testament epistles, it is quite obvious that the apostles wrote to Christian audiences in established churches. Second, the content of the letter makes it obvious that the letter is written to believers being that it gives warning against false teachers and the sin in the world. Also, in the closing of the letter, John mentions to his audience that the “whole world lie under the sway of the wicked one”, of which he meant all others outside of the category of his Christian audience, thereby, creating at least two categories of people: “the world under the wicked one” and the “world not under the wicked one”. He spoke only to the latter and referred to them as “us” and “our” in the entire letter.
It
is this Christian audience that Christ is said to be the propitiation for. He is the propitiation for the sins of
believers, not non-believers. Therefore,
the atonement of Christ is limited to believers without distinction in regards
to race or nationality.
So
far, the Scriptures that we have seen are consistent with each other in
teaching that Christ made atonement, not for all absolutely, but rather for all of His people, the elect, indiscriminately. These passage do not allow for a universal
death of Christ in the slightest bit since a universal death would result in
the absolute salvation of all to whom atonement was made. Instead they may all be summed up in the
words of Christ, “I lay down my life for
the sheep” (John
Preliminary considerations of the words “world” and “all” prior to examining the Universal passages
Among the many arguments for a universal atonement, the main argument that Arminians place in the foreground is that the words “world” and “all” in the Bible mean “every, single person absolutely.” Before we proceed to actually look at scriptures that deal with theses words, I believe it is necessary to take time to examine their fundamental presupposition and most important premise in their argument for universal atonement in the light of the scriptures and see if the meaning they use is the only possible meaning that the Bible allows for those words.
First, let us consider the word “world” in the Bible. In the New Testament, the Greek word that is translated as world is kosmos (Gr. kosmos). The use of the word in the Bible has a pendulum of meanings that it often swings according to its respective use in the context. Therefore, it is a word that may be equivocated; that is, it is may be used in different senses and with different meanings at times. Therefore, we must consider each of these meanings before we can determine in what sense it is used in the “universal” passages lest we commit the fallacy of equivocation in our theological inferences from the Scriptures.
The first
sense in which the word “world” is used is to convey the meaning of creation. Within that sense though, it can still be
broken down further to mean “the whole fabric of heaven and earth, with all
things in them contained, which in the beginning were created of God [52]” as is seen in Job 34:13, Acts 17:24 and
Ephesians 1:4 to name a few places.
Another sense in which the word world may be taken in creation is to
refer distinctively to the heavens,
and to all things that pertain to them.
For example, Psalm 90:2 says “Before the mountains were brought forth,
or ever You had formed the earth and the world,
even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.” As this passage makes reference to the
creation of the world, we know that God created “the heavens and the earth” according to Genesis 1:1. Therefore, we may safely deduce that the word
“world” here in Psalm 90:2 is not being redundant with the term “earth” used
just prior to “world.” Instead, it is
being equated to “the heavens” which is clear when we compare the Psalm with
the teachings of Genesis 1:1. The word
“world” may also be used to distinguish the
inhabitable earth as well. This is done quite frequently in the
scriptures. In Matthew
The second
sense in which the word “world” is used in the Scriptures is to refer to the inhabitants of the world. This sense is also distinguished in several
ways. First, it may refer to all and
everyone universally in an absolute sense as used in Romans 3:6, 19 and
Thirdly, the word “world” may be understood in the sense that it means “the world corrupted, or that universal corruption which is in all things in it” [59] as in Galatians 6:14 in which the “world” is used to mean all the corruption and sin that exists in creation; in Ephesians 2:2 where the word “world” is used to represent the lifestyle that is according to Satan’s working; James 1:27 where the “world” is portrayed as that which may stain our Christian purity; in James 4:4 where friendship with the “world” is not permissible because it is spiritual adultery; in I John 2:15-17 where the word “world” is to be understood as “the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life” and as passing away; in I Corinthians 7:31,33 where the “world” signifies those things that are “passing away” and contrary to the Lord ( the things of the Lord vs. the things of the world); in Colossians 2:8 where the philosophy of the “world” is contrary to Christ; in 2 Timothy 4:10 where Demas is said to have abandoned Paul for the love of the “world”; in Romans 12:2 where we are urged not to be conformed to the patterns of this “world”; I Corinthians 1:20,21 where the wisdom of the “world” in contrary to the wisdom of God; and also in I Corinthians 3:18,19 where the wisdom of the “world” is deemed foolishness by God.
The fourth sense in which the word “world” is used is to mean an earthly estate or terrain. This can be seen in scriptures like Luke 16:8 where the origins of men - sons of this “world” and the sons of light - are contrasted with the each other; John 18:36 where Jesus mentions that his kingdom is not of this “world”; in I John 4:5 where those against the Christian faith are said to originate from the “world” and are of the “world” Vs. those who are of God in proceeding verse. There are other scriptures that teach this as well, of which, I have not taken the time to list. We often use this meaning when we speaking of “worldly people” and “worldly activities.”
Finally, the fifth sense in which the word “world” can be understood is to mean the “world” as it is cursed by God and under the influence of Satan. This is demonstrated in John 14:30 where Satan is described as the ruler of this “world”; likewise in John 16:11 Satan is again called the ruler of this “world”; in John 16:33 the “world” is that which has been overcome by Christ and that place where tribulation exists for Christ’s followers; in I John 5:19 where the “whole world” are those men who are under the sway of Satan; in I Corinthians 2:12 the spirit of the “world” is contrasted with that of Christ and by the analogy of faith, comparing scripture with scripture, we may deduce that he “spirit of the world” is “spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience” which is of the “prince of the power of the air, who is Satan (cf. Eph. 2:2,3); in 2 Corinthians 4:4 Satan is again referred to as the God of this “world” [60]; likewise in Ephesians 6:12 and other places.
In the same manner that the word “world” may be equivocated to have several meanings, the word “all” likewise is a term that needs to be understood accordingly. The two ways in which we see the word “all” used in the scriptures are collectively, which is for “all in general, without exception” [61] or distributively, to mean for “some of all sort”[1]. In logic, a term is said to be collective when an attribute is to a class as a whole and a term is said to be distributive when an attribute is assigned to each and every member of a class. For example, take the statements :
Men are sinners
Men are numerous
The first statement is a general one. That is, the attribute of a being human is being predicated distributively (distributed) or assigned to each and every man in the class. Each and every man in the class is said to be human. The second statement, however, is a making a statement about the class as a whole, or what is also called a “class statement” [62] in logic. The term “numerous” is not describing each and every man but is describing the class as it is taken collectively. The meaning of the statement is not “each and every man is numerous” but “all men as a whole are numerous”, of which there is a world of difference.
The importance of such a distinction is this: the Arminians will only allow for the term “all”, especially when it is used with the word “men” behind it, to be taken only in the distributive sense of the word. However, the word cannot always be taken in such a way or else one may easily become guilty of fallacious conclusions. A few examples will help to show this from the Scriptures.
Sometimes
the word all is limited to mean “all of some sort [63]”
even when a qualifier is not present in the text. That is to say, all the members of a class
that is mentioned. For example, in I
Corinthians
“The adjective all should not be interpreted to mean that Paul teaches universal
salvation. Far from it. The meaning of verse 22 is that as all those
who by nature have their origin in Adam die, so all those who by faith are
incorporated in Christ shall be made alive. [64]”
Likewise, Harold Mare says that the “all” in Adam are “the whole human race [65]” and the “all” in Christ are “God’s redeemed people [66]” It is evident that all, does not always mean “all members of a class” all the time as the Arminian contends it does. If it did, we would be left with scriptural absurdities. Other examples of this may be seen in Ephesians 4:6 and Romans 5:18.
Other times the word “all” is used to express “some of all sorts” [67]. That is, some members of all the many categories that exist within an entire class. This can be demonstrated from I Timothy 2:1-4 which says:
“Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires all men to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.”
There are some who would have the phrase “all men” in verse 1 to mean “all men individually without exception”; that is, the whole class of men. However, if we examine this verse closely, we can see that this cannot be what Paul had in mind when He wrote this to Timothy. Is Paul referring to “all men” absolutely, or is He referring to a different categories, or kinds, of men? Is this to be understood collectively or distibutively? Given the context of this how “all men” is used, the phrase should be interpreted to mean “all kinds of men” (distributively). Bible expositor, William Hendriksen observes:
“…it is the context that must decide. In this case the context is clear. Paul definitely mentions groups or classes [kinds] of men: kings (verse 2), those in high positions (verse 2), the Gentiles (verse 7). He is thinking of ruler and (by implication) subjects, of Gentiles and (again by implication) Jews, and he is urging Timothy to see to it that in public worship not a single group be omitted. In other words, the expression ‘all men’ as here used means ‘all men without distinction, race, nationality, or social position,’ not ‘all men individually, one by one. [68]”
For a moment, suppose that Paul really was saying to pray for all men “individually” – for each and every member of the class of men. That would mean that we would have to pray for every single person who for all who are alive individually! The command is then to be able to know all who are in existence in the entire world and to be able to pray for them. How is one to know everybody’s name, much less remember their names in prayer? That would be quite a tall order to fulfill and it would make us all guilty of sin by not being able to fulfill such a command. But Paul makes it clear that all “kinds” of men are to be prayed for by listing “kinds” of men immediately after he says to pray for “all men”; he is qualifying what he means by “all men.”
In verse 4, Paul mentions “all men” again but this time He is adding that God wishes “all men to be saved”. The question that must be asked is this: are the “all men” in verse 1 and qualified in verse 2, the same “all men” mentioned in verse 4? That is, are “all kinds of men” being referred to in verse 4 as well? In the context, we would have to conclude that “all kinds of men” is the only meaning we can assign to the phrase “all men.” Therefore, we should understand verse 4 to be saying that God wills that all kinds of men, without regard to race, nationality, or language, or social status, be saved. John Calvin, the great expositor, said that “the present discourse relates to classes of men, and not to individual persons…in a word, Paul intended to show that it is our duty to consider, not what kind of persons the princes at that time were, but what God wished them to be. [69]” The Gospel is to be preached to all – the Gentiles as well as the Jews is the point that Paul brings out by mentioning, in verse 7, that he is a teacher of the Gentiles, and not only of the Jews. Salvation is inclusive to all men of every “tribe, nation, and people and tongue” (Rev. 5:9; 7:9).
Clearly, the word “all” can refer to some of all sorts as we have seen here. Other scriptures that this can be seen in include I Timothy 6:10 and John 12:32. Revelation 5:9 and 7:9 are also helpful in understanding the “sorts” of men that have been redeemed as well.
As you can clearly see, the word
“world” is an equivocal term that can have various meanings in different
context and the word “all” must be taken in the proper sense. It should also be clear that we cannot just
assume a “universal” meaning to the words “world” and “all” because that could
lead us to absurd conclusions and explicit contradictions - which render the
Bible as fallible and a lie -from the scriptures such as “all – believers and
unbelievers – alike under the control of Satan” in I John 5:19 and even the
“all men absolutely in the world being deceived by the beast” in Revelation
13:3. Rather, we must follow the rules
of interpretation and exegete – draw out from the scriptures – their true
meaning and senses of the words “world” and “all” rather than eisegete –
placing into the scripture – a meaning that is not suggested in the context nor
grammatically. Therefore, we must take this into consideration when we are
dealing with the word “world” in the next few texts of scripture.
Universal
Passages examined
John 1:29
“The next day John saw Jesus coming down toward him, and said, ‘Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!’”
The
context of this verse is taking place “the next day” , when John the Baptist
met with the Pharisees who had questioned John about being the Messiah. As Jesus is coming toward John and he
identifies Jesus as “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”
When John, the disciple wrote this, did he have in mind the world of
“all men individually”, or did He have another meaning in mind? For a moment, let’s assume that John did mean
the “entire world of men individually.”
Is Christ really the person that takes away their sin? Do all men really have all their sin taken
away? Certainly not! Even Jesus told the
Pharisees that their “sin remains” (John
“Now, that these are
not all men, but only believers of Jews and Gentiles throughout the world, is
evident: - 1. Because all are not saved, and the Lord hath said ‘he will do all
his pleasure, and his purpose shall stand’ [Psalm 103:21; Isaiah
The gist of Owen’s argument is based on the scriptural facts that there were already some men that were damned in hell when Christ died and that the scriptures speak of men who were appointed to that damnation (cf. Deut. 294-32:35; Prov. 16:4; Isa. 6:9-10; Mal. 1:2-5; John 12:37-40; 1 Pet. 2:8; Jude 4). So Owen’s mentality is this: Did Christ come to die for those who were already damned and for those who were destined to be damned to eternal hellfire?
So if the sense of the word “world” is not all men absolutely, then what sense should we understand this to be meant in? There are two possible senses which can fit exegetically into this word “world”. The first is that the “world” can be that “world of believing men” since it is they who are justified and do, in fact, have their sins “taken away”. John Owen agrees with this interpretation as he says, “The saved world is the people of God scattered abroad throughout the world. [71]” A person who has no sin to answer for cannot be condemned to hell since they have nothing to be laid to their charge. Since the Bible always refers to believers as those whose sins have been forgiven in Christ, therefore, it would be proper to say that Christ takes away the sins of them that believe. This is a reasonable answer and sound within the entire teachings of the Bible. The second way that we could take the word “world” is to mean “all people without regards to race, nationality or social status.” Calvin agrees with this interpretation:
“And when he says, the sin OF THE WORLD, he extends this favour indiscriminately to the whole human race; that the Jews might not think that he had been sent to them alone. [72]”
When
Calvin mentions “the whole human race”, he is saying that Christ died for and
redeemed men “out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (Rev.
5:9). It is racially and nationally
indiscriminate. This interpretation is
more likely since many of John’s themes in his Gospel and in I John deal with
the inclusiveness of Gentiles into the salvation which is in Christ. This interpretation would agree with John
11:52 where Jesus’ death is prophesied as being a death to “gather together in
one the children of God who were scattered abroad” in the world at that time and
also in John
“This all men, in the given context which
places Greeks next to Jews, must mean men
from every nation. The idea is found
in the Fourth Gospel again and again: salvation is not dependent upon blood or
race (
So,
in accord with the clearer teachings and themes of the writings of the Beloved
disciple John, John
John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
“This place,” says John Owen, “the Universalist [read Arminian] exceedingly boast in… [75]” It is no doubt that this verse is the most popular, most “catchy” and even the most misinterpreted and misapplied scripture in Christianity. This verse is usually the most common quoted objection to the doctrine of particular redemption. The interpretation that is usually given to this text is summed up as such:
“ ‘God so loved’ had such a natural inclination, velleity, and propensity to the good of ‘the world,’ Adam, with all and everyone of his posterity, of all ages, times, and conditions (whereof some were in heaven, some in hell long before), ‘that He gave His only begotten Son,’ causing him to be incarnate in the fullness of time, to die, not with a purpose and resolution to save any, but ‘that whosoever,’ what person soever of those which He had propensity unto, ‘believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life,’ should have this fruit and issue, that he should escape death and hell, and live eternally. [76]”
That is, that God loved each and every person in all times, in all ages and in all places (including heaven and hell) that He gave his only Son so that if they believe (conditional statement), then they would see the fruit of the atonement. But, the sending of the Son was not meant to save apart from the condition of belief. Therefore, the work of Christ is not a sufficient condition to bring about salvation by God. Rather, the only sufficient condition, according to this, is that one “believes”. Therefore, the Cross of Christ alone, is not responsible for salvation nor can it obtain it from God. Instead, “believing” is the sufficient condition to acquire salvation.
The strength of their interpretation rests on the meaning of the word “world” as being “every member of the race of Adam absolutely and without exception.” So in order to test the coherence and truthfulness of such an argument and interpretation, attention must be given to the word “world” as the object of God’s love.
So
the first question that we must ask is what “world” is God “so loving”
toward? The question can get broken down
even further, because of the words “so loved”.
Obviously, this is not God’s “general love” toward humanity and is not
simply “natural” to Him as some claim.
The emphasis on this kind of love, exhibited by the word “so” in front
of “love”, tells us that this is more than a common love for humanity that is
being exhibited by God in the sending of His only begotten Son. How are we to understand the “general love”
of God toward all humanity when God has said through Malachi, “Jacob I have
loved, but Esau I have hated” (Malachi 1:2,3)?
Also, Paul uses this same scripture to apply it to God’s elect whom He
has loved and the reprobates whom He has “hated”? If God has always loved the “world” – every
single person at all times and in all ages – why has He only now taken the time
to offer his salvation in Christ to the Gentiles? How was God showing the nations “love” when
He never provided them with requirements of the law and not even a hope of the
coming Messiah that
For a moment, let us suppose that the “world” that God is “so loving” toward is “every single individual person of all times and all ages.” Then let us consider the following:
(1) All of the world are loved by God.
(2) Some of the world are sent to hell.
(3) Therefore, some who are loved by God are sent to hell.
Is there something wrong with this categorical syllogism? In form, it is valid [78]. That is, the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. However, the content is what is troubling. It is a startling thought that God sends to hell those whom He “so loves”. Is it really a “loving” act when God sends people to hell? Do we not rather associate that more with God’s attributes of justice, holiness, and righteousness? It would be a theological maze to work out an explanation of how we are to understand just exactly how God extends and shows His love toward those whom He has sent to hell.
It is should be obvious to a Christian mind that the conclusion does not make scriptural sense. Even to the Arminian, the conclusion sounds rather awkward, yet they must accept it because it is the guaranteed conclusion of the premises. If they did not accept the conclusion, then they must believe that one of the preceding premises is in error. How should we handle this absurd conclusion, then?
The problem can be settled in two ways: either deny one of the premises, which is to say that one or both of the premises are false, or through the fallacy of equivocation. The former, the Arminian is not willing to concede. That is, they are not willing to get rid of the first premise(1) because that is the entire basis of their theology. They are not willing to bargain or, limit this in any sense. Neither are they willing to deny that some people are sent to hell (premise 2) since they believe that much of the scriptures to be true. Perhaps they might try to say, though, that those who are in hell are not loved by God in the same way as those who are believers. However, in admitting that, they have altered their first premise by using the world “love” in a different sense and it would lead an Arminian to conclude that God does not love all equally so as to want to save all but is divided in his love toward believers and those non-believer, whether in hell or still alive.
Seeing,
then, that the Arminian would not wish to give up either of the premises as
they stand, scripturally speaking then, the only way to fault this syllogism is
through the fallacy of equivocation.
That is to say, that the term “world” is being used in two different
senses in each of the premises. As we
have seen before, the word “world” has many different scriptural meanings. It should also be clear that there is a
“world” of believing people who are loved by God (John
(4) Either God loves every single individual in the world in all ages or God loves only some of all people’s in the world whom He chooses
(5) God does not love every single individual in the world (Mal. 1:2,3; John 17:9)
(6) Therefore, God loves only some of all the people’s in the world whom He chooses
Scripturally,
speaking, those whom God chooses to love are “the elect.” They are those whom are “foreknown”
(fore-loved) by God in Christ Jesus. We
may also deduce that the “world” whom God loves are those people from “every
tribe, nation and tongue” (Rev. 5:9) who make up God’s elect. They are the “children of God who are
scattered abroad” (John
We
should understand that God’s love toward people is not something that is
“natural” in the sense that God “can’t help loving people” like some
uncontrollable emotion. On the other
hand, we should understand - through the sovereignty and freedom of God - that
God displays all His attributes as He
wills. His love, therefore, is a
choice; it is not something that He is constrained to do. He loves us by choice. God even told Israel through Moses, “The LORD
did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than
any other people, for you were the least of all peoples; but because the LORD
loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your
fathers…(Deut. 7:7,8).” Out of all the
nations in the world, God chose to set His love on
So who are the members of the “world” that God “so loved” that He gave His only begotten Son to be an atoning sacrifice for? It should be clear from John 3:17 that it is the “world” that God intended to save through Christ. It can be none other than those mentioned in the “particular passages” that were mentioned previously. They are the elect “world” of men and women of “every tribe, nation and tongue”; they are the “children of God scattered abroad”; the “sheep”. These particulars are consistent within the Gospel of John; the mentions of “His people” “many” “us” and “God’s elect” are consistent with the teachings of the entirety of the Scriptures. It should also be clear from John 3:18 that there are those who were “already condemned” through unbelief; those living are in a state of condemnation just like those who are dead and both groups await their final pronouncement of doom, of which Christ did not come to do in His first coming (cf. John 3:17). Therefore, Christ could not have been sent to atone for them in any way so that they could “have a chance” to believe because they were already condemned by God.
Instead, as Jesus prayed in His “high priestly prayer”, He was sent to “give eternal life to as many as You [the Father] have given Him (John 17:2).” Jesus also explicitly said that He was not praying “for the world” (verse 9). As a priest, He was the mediator between God and those for whom He was offering atonement for. Therefore, if Christ was not praying for “the world” but only for those whom the Father had given Him, it is clear that Christ made atonement only on their behalf. Christ also prayed for “those who will believe” in Him through the testimony of the apostles (verse 20). We should understand that Jesus is not “widening the scope” of His atonement but is still only offering prayer for “those whom the Father has given Him” and for only them does He make atonement as their High Priest.
So is John really teaching that God so loved every single individual person that every lived so as to give his only begotten Son to die for them even those a good many of them will perish in hell and some already are in hell? Obviously not. John Owen observes, concerning this passage, that God did not give his Son “1. for them who do never believe; 2. Much less for them who never hear of him, and so evidently [lack] means of faith; 3. For them on whom he hath determined not to bestow effectual grace, that they might believe. [79]”
Instead
God’s Son is given that so that all who believe will not perish. That is, Christ is given for
“believers”. The death of Christ is to
secure the salvation of believers in Christ. That is the simple message of John 3:16. Any person who believes savingly in Christ
will not perish but have everlasting life.
In this context there are several things that can be said. The first is that John
The
message of John
So does Arminianism’s claim to a universal atonement have a foothold to stand on in their interpretation of this most blessed passage of scripture? I believe from the preceding arguments that is does not. Furthermore, it should be noted that they do, in fact, deny the truth of this scripture. That is, it is embedded within Arminian belief to believe that a person can “lose their salvation.” Yet as we have just seen, the truth of the atonement of Christ is so that those who believe “will not perish.” God will not let them perish because Christ has died for them. This truth is best seen in Romans 8:31-39 which says:
“What shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?...Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Because God so loves us, He secures our final salvation in the death of Christ. He does not send Christ to make a hypothetical atonement only to give a hypothetical salvation as well. Rather God so loved all those who would believe in His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, that He gave His Son to be the atonement for their sins so that they would never perish but have everlasting life to the glory of God alone. Amen.
I John 2:2
“And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.”
The obvious strength for interpreting this passage as offering a “universal” atonement is the preposition “the whole world.” Unlike John 1:29 and John 3:16, the word “world” does not stand alone, but now has the qualifying word “whole” in front of it. Because of this preposition, there are some who interpret the passage to be a universal atonement. Gary Long explains their view on this passage:
“This view interprets ‘whole world’ to mean all men generically or universally, that is, each and every members of Adam’s race. Therefore, propitiation for the sins of the world does not save the world; rather it only ‘secures the possibility of salvation.’ Furthermore, this view distinguishes between the advocacy and propitiatory work of Christ in I John 2:1,2 and associates actual salvation only with Christ’s advocacy. [81]”
In other words, Christ made a propitiation for all and every member of the race of Adam – elect and non-elect. However, the advocacy of Christ – his pleading in our defense – is restricted only to those who do actually believe. Therefore, according to this view, what condemns a person is their rejection of Christ as the Savior. The logic behind that is since Christ has made “propitiation” for the “whole world” they have no sins to be condemned for. Rather, people are condemned for rejecting Christ as the Savior.
There are several objections that may be offered to this “generic” or “universal” interpretation of this passage. Benjamin B. Warfield notes an objection to being condemned for rejection of Christ as the grounds of condemnation. He says:
“Is not the rejection of Jesus as our propitiation a sin? And if it is a sin, is it not like other sins, covered by the death of Christ? If this great sin is excepted from the expiatory [effectual covering] of Christ’s blood, why did not John tell us so, instead of declaring without qualification that Jesus Christ is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but for the whole world? And surely it would be very odd if the sin of rejection of the Redeemer were the only condemning sin, in a world [where] the vast majority of the dwellers in which have never heard of this Redeemer, and nevertheless perish [82]”
The gist of Warfield’s objection is two fold: 1) If rejecting the Christ is a sin, then why is it not, like all other sins, propitiated in the atonement? 2) Since there are many who do not hear of the existence of such a savior, what grounds does their condemnation rest upon since it is not the “rejection” of the savior, being that they never heard of Him to reject Him? Surely they are not condemned for their sins according to the “universal” interpretation either because their sins have been propitiated for by Christ.
It should be mentioned at this point that not all who hold to a “universal” interpretation of the passage believe that Christ did in fact make propitiation for the whole world but that He is merely a “hypothetical” propitiation that only takes effect when a person actually believes. The same objections that will be seen in reference to the “generic” interpretation apply to this view as well.
Another objection that can be raised is a terminological one. As has been demonstrated before [83], the word “world” has a variety of meaning. Gary Long points out that John uses the word “world” 23 times in the letter of I John alone [84]. The Arminian contends that the phrase “whole world” can only mean “every individual member of the race of Adam”. However we should note that the exact same term “whole world” is used in I John 5:19 which says “we know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.” Obviously the same interpretation of “whole world” cannot be meant here without creating the explicit contradiction in the Bible that even Christians themselves –as members of the whole world – are “under the sway” of Satan himself! Therefore, the burden of proof to interpret “whole world” in an absolute sense rests upon the Arminian.
Another objection is a hermeneutical one that is based on the “analogy of faith [85]”. After the many “particular” passages that we have seen and the many instances in scripture where the effects and intention of the atonement and its benefits are applied only to “us” – believers – it would make no sense, on the basis of one scripture to deviate from those clear teachings of the Bible.
A contextual objection may also be made against the “generic” interpretation which lies in the context of I John 2:2. Gary Long explains:
“…in objection to the generical 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. [86]”
In other words, the efficacy of the advocacy of Christ rests on the efficacy of the propitiation and not the other way around as the “generic” interpretation seems to be proposing.
Finally, a grammatical objection can be raised against the universal interpretation of this text. It has been proposed that Christ propitiation, here, is a hypothetical one for the “whole world.” Norman Douty explains:
“ ‘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]… [87]”
Does the Bible really say that Christ is the “potential” propitiation as Douty interprets it? “It says that Christ ‘is’ (Gr. 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 Christ is potentially the propitiation for ‘our sins’ and the ‘sins of the whole world’ [88].” The Greek word “is” (estin) is in the present tense, indicative mood. Therefore, the Bible is saying that Christ is actually the propitiation for sin. So it cannot be the case that the propitiation becomes effectual through belief or any other conditions because the Bible speaks here, as well as in other scriptures, that Christ is the actual and realized propitiation for “our” sins in and of Himself (see above section on actual effects of the atonement). He is never spoken of as a “conditional” or “hypothetical” propitiation since that would not be propitiation at all. Propitiation is the “removal of wrath through the offering of a gift or sacrifice” and not “the possible removal.” To speak of Christ as a hypothetical propitiation takes us back to the original question that we began this study with:
“Did He or didn’t He? Did Christ actually make a substitutionary sacrifice for sins or didn’t He? [89]”
From an Arminian/hypothetical Universalist perspective, the answer is negative. The only way to answer the question in the affirmative is to either adopt the Calvinistic system of particular redemption, or to adopt the unscriptural view of true universalism, in which all are saved without exception. That is the dilemma.
It is clear that Christ did make an actual propitiation for sins, but we must ask and seek answers, from the text, as to whom is the audiences is that John associates himself with when he says “our sins” and who is the “whole world” that he makes reference to in this passage. To answer this, we must address two hermeneutical issues: The audience, or recipients of this letter, and the intention of the writer in the letter and, particularly, in the context we are looking at in I John 2.
The
audience of the this epistle is not clearly identified by the content of the
letter. It does not even have the formal
introductory structure like the other epistles in the New Testament. It is pretty much agreed by Biblical
scholars, though, that the letters are “sent to churches somewhere in the
“(1) In the opening
verse he says of Christ, ‘Which we have seen with our eyes…and our hands have
handled.’ How impossible it would have
been for the apostle Paul to have commenced any of his epistles to Gentile
saints with such language! (2) ‘Brethren, I write no new commandment unto
you, but an old commandment which ye had
from the beginning’ (I John
2:7). The ‘beginning’ here referred to
is the beginning of the public manifestation of Christ. In proof compare 1:1,
If the audience of I John is composed primarily of Jewish believers, according to Pink’s inductive analysis, then “ours sins” are those of Jewish believers and “the whole world” is to be interpreted as Gentile believers. But scholarship varies on the audience since arguments like Pink’s are only an inductive conclusion at best. Bible scholars are in agreement that it cannot truly be determined to whom the letter was directed to. The Wycliffe Bible dictionary admits that “the readers of the epistle cannot be identified with certainty, [92]” although they admit that some content may suggests a Gentile audience and some may suggest a Jewish audience. Edward McDowell also agrees that “it is not known to what church or churches I John was directed [93].” McDowell, as well as other scholars suggest that it was written to churches mentioned in Revelation 2-3 and other surrounding churches. Simon J. Kistemaker mentions about the audience:
“The readers of the
first epistle were generally not recent converts but had been Christians for
some time. The writer addresses
‘fathers’ and ‘young men’ (
Of the Jewish tones that appear in the letter Kistemaker says:
“The direct reference
and the allusion to the Old Testament provide a description of the author, not of the readers. They indicate that the author’s mind was conditioned
by Jewish teaching; this cannot be said of the readers. The absence of Old Testament quotations
leaves the impression that his readers were of Gentile origin. For them the Scriptures of the Old Testament
were relatively new…from
According to Kistemaker, then the recipients and audiences of I John were primarily Gentile, though some Jews could have been in that audience.
At
best, we can say that the epistle was written to Christians whom John knew
intimately since he referred to them as “my little children” (2:1), “Beloved” (
2:7; 4:1,7,11), “little children” (
What was John’s purpose for this portion of the scriptures? In context, we answer that John was writing to comfort his readers of the presence of sin in their lives. We read in 2:1, “My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” The purpose of John’s writing up to 2:1 has been to exhort his audience to “not sin” because if we “walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth” (1:6). The problem that comes up is: what happens when a believer does sin? Does that mean that He is not really a believer at all and is still in darkness? In order to answer this dilemma, John writes that “if anyone does happen to sin – fear not- we have an Advocate: Jesus Christ the righteous (paraphrase).” That is the comfort that John is trying to bring to his readers: The fact that Christians have Jesus Christ, the righteous, as their “defense lawyer”. John further develops that thought of the advocacy of Christ by in two ways through Jesus’ sacrifice and the extent of that sacrifice [96].
The
advocacy of Christ is based on the propitiatory work of Christ in the
atonement. “This is supported by the
coordinating conjunction ‘and,’ which connects verse 2 with verse 1. [97]” The
extent of the atonement is also seen in the word “our” and “the whole
world.” Obviously, “our” has reference
to the audiences sins as can also be demonstrated from the parallel passage in
I John
Of the several interpretations offered, the Arminian says that “whole world” is to be understood universally for all men in all ages. However, this may be flat out rejected because the context of I John 2:2 renders Christ as the advocate of “believers”, who have sinned, based on the atonement on their behalf. That is, the advocacy of Christ is not separated from the atoning work. It cannot be the case that Christ is the propitiation of “all men universally and individually” and yet only be the Advocate of believers. This is the interpretation that the Arminian must give because he admits a “hypothetical propitiation” yet understand that whomever Christ is the Advocate for is “not guilty” by any charge of sin against the sinner. The confidence of the believer, according to the scriptures, of Christ as our Advocate is given on the basis that Christ “is” the propitiation for our sins. As Gary Long points out, “The efficacy of the advocacy rests on that of the propitiation… [98]”
The interpretation of I John 2:2 according to Pink’s view, however, would sound like this: “Christ is the propitiation not only of the sins of Jewish believers, but of the Gentile believers as well.” This interpretation is called the “ethnological interpretation” according to Gary Long [99]. It will be up to the reader to decide on the validity of this interpretation, but the author rejects this interpretation for lack of deductive evidence of an exclusively Jewish audience.
However,
if the audience is seen as simply Christians –composed of Jews and Gentiles in
the
“The word whole describes the world in its totality, not necessarily individuality. In another context, John distinguishes between the “children of God” and the “children of the devil” ( I John 3:1,10) and then concludes, “Jesus Christ laid down His life for us” (v16). Jesus died for all the people who believe in him and who come “from every nation, tribe, people and language” as a “great multitude that no one [can] count (Rev. 7:9) [100]”
That
is that John “intimates that it was not for him and for those to whom he wrote
alone, but for the redeemed of every period, place, and people – that is,
prospectively and retrospectively. The
apostle connects the intercession and propitiation in such a way as to show
that Christ’s work is applicable to all the redeemed who then lived, or had
ever lived, or should live, wherever found in the nations of the earth, and in
whatever age. This is the point of the
distinction; it is not the distinction elsewhere expressed between Jew and
Gentile [101],” says George Smeaton. In essence, Christ is not only the
propitiation for those recipients of the epistle, but “is” also the
propitiation of all who have Christ as their Advocate before the Father. He is not only the propitiation for the
It should also be noted that Christ “is” the propitiation for the sins of the “whole world”. That is, He is not counted as a hypothetical propitiation. Rather, He is the actual propitiation for “the whole world.” To understand that in a universal sense would be to render all men saved for God’s wrath, by definition, would be averted and have no sins to answer for. But if whole world is interpreted as Smeaton suggests, then “whole world” refers to those Christians in and throughout the inhabitable world whom the rest of the scriptures agree as having Christ as their propitiation; the “whole world” would be the “the people” whom Christ was sent to make propitiation for (Hebrews 2:17); they are the “us” and “our” –Christians in I John 4:10.
Therefore, we conclude that I John 2:2 is not supporting a “universal atonement” as the Arminian contends. It should also be noted that the Arminian position, through their rendering of this verse, must, in fact, deny that atonement has been made at all since they render the propitiation as merely hypothetical, thereby, contradicting the teaching of this verse which says that Christ “is” the propitiation for our sins.
We
began looking at this verse with the legitimate concern of the words “whole
world”. However, this phrase need not
drive us away from interpreting “the whole world” as all men, individually, in
all ages when the same preposition is used to describe the wicked men of all
times and all ages in I John 5:19 which says that “the whole world lies under
the sway of the wicked one.” Obviously
“whole world” does not mean all men universally and individually here since
right in front of that the “whole world” of Satan’s followers is contrasted
with those who “are of God.” “Whole
world”, then, in I John 5:19 need not carry a universal meaning since “whole
world”, in that context, are all those who are not of God. Therefore, it is not necessarily the case
that “whole world” in I John 2:2 carries the Arminian meaning of the word.
[1] Quote by Edwin Palmer quoted in God’s Sovereign Grace by James R. White (Crowne Publications, Southbridge, Massachusetts, 1991) pg. 68
[2] An Arminian
argument cited in John Owen’s , The Death
of Death in the Death of Christ, Banner of Truth publishing,
[3] ibid, pg. 61
[4] Hendriksen,
William, New Testament Commentary: Matthew, Baker Book House,
[5] Owen, John , The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, Banner of Truth publishing, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1959, pg. 97
[6] It is important to
recall that the “ransom” for our sins is paid to God. We are redeemed from the “curse of the law”
(Gal.
[7] Moulton, Harold K. editor, The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1977, pg. 395
[8] Owens, pg. 97
[9] Webster’s Ninth New
Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-Webster Inc, Publishing,
[10] Mare, W. Harold, Gaebelein, Frank E. Editor, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 10, Romans – Galatians, Zondervan publishing co., Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976, pg. 225
[11] Vine, W. E., Vine’s complete expository dictionary of Old
and New Testament words, Thomas Nelson Publsihers,
[12] Kistemaker, Simon
J, New Testament Commentary: Revelation, Baker Book House,
[13] Kistemaker, Simon
J., New Testament Commentary: Hebrews, Baker
Book House,
[14] from the word “punctual” meaning, “beginning on time”
[15] Reymond, Robert L., A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Thomas Nelson Pub., Nashville, Tennessee, 1998, pg. 647
[16] Kistemaker, Hebrews, pg. 79,80
[17] There are two kinds of “universal atonement.” The first teaches that because all are atoned for equally and because of the efficaciousness of such a sacrifice, all, without distinction will be saved. This is known as “ actual universalism” – the belief that all, repentant and unrepentant, will go to heaven. The second type of universalism is “hypothetical universal atonement.” This view teaches that although Christ died for every single person, the atonement is not actual, but only hypothetical in its accomplishments. It is made actual through the will of man’s choice to “accept” the work on their behalf. We will focus on the “hypothetical atonement” since it is absurd, and contradictory, to all scripture that all will be saved. The bible is clear that some go to heaven and others go to hell.
[18] Spencer, Duane
Edward, TULIP: The five points of
Calvinism, Baker Book House,
[19] The term “limited atonement” can be somewhat misleading according to Calvinist. The reason being is that it sounds negative by the word “limited.” Also, Calvinist insist that “particular redemption” and “hypothetical atonement” both “limit” the atonement in different sense. Hyphothetical atonement is a limitation of the power of the Cross while promoting unlimited extent, and particular redemption is a limitation on the extent of the work of atonement while promoting unlimited power.
[20] Spencer, Ibid.
[21] The Arminian/Hypothetical Universalist understands that to mean that the death of Christ does not save anybody but has the potential to be saved while the Calvinist understands that to mean that Christ did not intend to , nor did He die for everybody.
[22]More recent trends, however, teach that Christ did not make atonement at all because there is no such thing as the “wrath of God” that needs to be placated. This is most common in Liberal Theology. They contend that Christ set an example of selflessness that we should demonstrate to other human beings in devotion to God.
[23] The Scriptures
also make this distinction in the book of Hosea 1:8; 2:1.
[24] The work of Penal substitution is seen through out Isaiah 53:4-12 in the use of the words “our”, “My people”, “their” and even “of many”. The clear meaning is that the Christ is taking the place of the sinners to whom all the penalties of the law are due.
[25] Hendriksen, Matthew, pg. 132
[26] White, James R., The Potter’s Freedom: A defense of the
Reformation and a Rebuttal of Norm Geisler’s Chosen But Free, Calvary
Press,
[27] Vine’s, pg. 506
[28] Newman, Barclay
M., Jr, A Concise Greek-English
Dictionary of the New Testament, German Bible Society,
[29] ibid, pg. 16
[30] Hendriksen, Matthew, pg. 749
[31] Hodge, Charles, 2 Corinthians: Crossway Classic
Commentaries, Ed. Packer, J.I., McGrath, Alister J., Crossway Books,
[32] Hendriksen,
William, New Testament Commentary: Mark, Baker Book House,
[33] ibid.
[35] Remember that Jesus also said, “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends” (Italics mine) in John 15:13. Again, not the idea of substitution with the use of the word “for” and also notice that “greater love” is demonstrated in the giving of one’s life for “his friend’s”; Jesus does not include all people here for it is clear that not all were His friends nor were all intended to be.
[36] ibid, pg. 111
[37] Bruce, F. F., The Gospel and Epistles of John, Eerdmans Publishing Co. , Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1983, pg. 227
[38] Vine, pg. 346
[39] The Greek word oida (oida) is the Greek word that indicates “cognitive” or “intellectual knowledge” would be more in line with God’s attribute of omniscience.
[40] The same word “know” is applied to the sexual relationship between a man and a woman. “Adam knew his wife Eve…” (Gen. 4:1) denoting a relationship and not mere cognitive apprehension.
[41] Some people have tried to explain the meaning of the verse as saying that since the person did not have a “personal relationship” with God, they are condemned. However, the text in Matthew 7 does not suggest that the person’s condemnation lies in the basis of their not having a personal relationship with God. Rather the text says that It is God who did not “know” them, and not vice versa.
[42] Hendriksen, John, pg. 113
[43] Hendriksen, John, Volume 2, pg. 165
[44] Kistemaker, Simon
J., New Testament Commentary: Acts, Baker Book House,
[45] Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn , An Exposition of Ephesians , Volume 6: Life in the Spirit in marriage, home and work, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1973, pg. 145-146
[46] see uper in John 10:14 above.
[47] Owen, pg. 181
[48] Hendriksen,
William, New Testament Commentary:
Romans, Baker Book House,
[49] Haldane, Robert
(1764-1842), Commentary on Romans, Kregel
Publications,
[50] Murray, John (1898-1975), The Epistle to the Romans, Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1968, pg. 325
[51] Owen, pg. 192. Most, if not all, of this material is taken from Owen’s Death of Death in the death of Christ, being that he has led the way in most of this study and put in much time and effort to bring this knowledge to the foreground.
[52] Owen, pg. 192-193
[53] ibid., pg. 193
[54] ibid.
[55] ibid.
[56] ibid.
[57] the NIV Bible translates this phrase as “ungodly people.” This is not wrong to assume, but it should be noted that the Greek word used in the NIV for “people” is kosmo which is properly translated as “world”.
[58] Owen, pg. 193
[59] aeon in Greek, yet rendered “world” in most translations.
[60] Owen, pg. 195
[61] ibid.
[62] Hurley, Patrick J., A concise introduction to Logic, Wadsworth/Thompson Learning, Belmont, California, 2002, pg. 168
[63] Owen, pg. 197
[64] Kistemaker, Simon
J. , New Testament Commentary: I
Corinthians, Baker Book House,
[65] Mare, W. Harold, Gaebelein, Frank E. Editor, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 10, Romans – Galatians, Zondervan publishing co., Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976, pg. 285
[66] ibid.
[67] Owen, pg. 197
[68] Hendriksen,
William, New Testament Commentary: Thessalonians – Hebrews, Baker Book
House,
[69] Calvin, John, Calvin’s Commentaries, Volume XXI: Galatians – Philemon, Baker Book House, 1979, pg. 55
[70] Owen, pg. 230
[71] ibid.
[72] Calvin, John, Calvin’s Commentaries, Volume XVII: Harmony of Matthew, Mark Luke; John 1-11, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1979, pg. 64
[73] Hendriksen; John, Volume II, pg. 203
[74] Latin for “reducing to absurdity”
[75] Owen, pg. 207
[76] ibid., pg. 207, 208
[78] Owens also asks “If every one in the world be intended, why doth not the Lord, in the pursuit of this love, reveal Jesus Christ to every one whom he so loved? Strange! that the Lord should so love men as to give his only begotten Son for them, and yet once by any means signify this his love to them, as to innumerable he doth not! – that he should love them, and yet order things so , in his wise dispensation, that this love should be altogether in vain and fruitless!” (Death of Death, pg. 216).
[79] This is an AII-3 categorical syllogism which is unconditionally valid in form.
[80] Owen, pg. 217
[81] William Hendriksen
says “It is important, however, to take note of the fact that Jesus mentions
the necessity of regeneration before He speaks about faith (cf. 3:3,5 with
[82] Long, Gary D., Propitiation in I John 2:2, http://www.the-highway.com/1Jh2.2.html
[83] quoted by Gary
Long from Selected Shorter Writing of Benjamin B. Warfield (Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1970-73) by John E. Meeter
(ed.) in Propitiation in I John 2:2.
[84] See “Preliminary considerations of the words “world” and “all” in the Scriptures” above
[85] Long, http://www.the-highway.com/1Jh2.2.html
[86] This principle of interpretation is simply to interpret what is implicit, or less clear, in light of the explict, that which is clearer. In essence, it is comparing scripture with scripture to deduce proper meaning and interpretation
[87] Long. Propitiation in I John 2:2
[88] Douty, Norman F (The Death Christ died, Reiner
Publications, Swengel, Pennsylvania, 1972, pg. 29) quoted by Gary Long in Propitiation in I John 2:2
[89] Long, Propitiation in I John 2:2
[90] Palmer, in God’s sovereign grace by James R. White, pg. 68
[91] Carson, D.A., Moo, Douglas J., Morris, Leon , An Introduction to the New Testament, Zondervan Publishing, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1992, pg. 451
[92] by A.W. Pink (The Atonement) quoted by Gary Long in “Propitiation in I John 2:2”
[93] Pfeiffer, Charles F., Rea, John, Vos, Howard F. editors, Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Massachusetts, 2000, pg. 939
[94] McDowell, Edward
A., in The Broadman Bible Commentary,
Volume 12: Hebrews – Revelation; General articles, Broadman Press,
[95] Kistemaker, Simon
J. , New Testament Commentary: James, Epistles of John, Peter and Jude, Baker Book House,
[96] ibid. pg. 207, 208
[97] ibid., pg. 252
[98] Long, Propitiation in I John 2:2
[99] ibid.
[100] ibid.
[100]Kistemaker, pg. 253
[101] Smeaton, George, The Doctrine of the Atonement according to
the Apostles, Hendrickson
Publishers, Peabody, Massachussets, 1870, 1988, pg. 460