October, 2007
by: Jack Hughes
We are continuing to look at the five points of Calvinism, often designated by the mnemonic “T.U.L.I.P.” In the last two Calvary Reviews we have looked at the intricacies and problems associated with the atonement, its purpose, scope, intent and application. While we do not have time to go over all that has been covered, I would encourage you to visit the Calvary Bible Church website at www.calvarybiblechurch.org, and read the last two Calvary Review articles on the atonement (August 2007, September 2007). We have been arguing for a view of the atonement that is somewhere between a strict “limited atonement view” and the liberal “universal view.”
By way of a quick review, we have learned first, that Jesus died to save and make atonement for the elect and the elect only. Second, the phrase “Jesus died for” is not a synonym for “Jesus atoned for.” Third, the provision of Jesus’ death is not synonymous with the atonement people receive from that provision. Fourth, Jesus made a universal provision (not to be confused with “universalism”) for the sins of all men, but only the elect receive the benefits of Jesus’ death which include atonement for sins. Fifth, the phrase “died for” should not be confused with “died to save.” The second phrase is much narrower in its scope. Sixth, the Father had more than one intent in sending Jesus to die on the cross, not just the intent of saving the elect and the elect only. In other words there are non-redemptive reasons why Jesus died on the cross. Seven, two non-redemptive reasons Jesus died on the cross were: 1) so the gospel could be preached and legitimately offered to all, and 2) so the non-elect could be judged for not receiving the Gospel message so as to be saved.
In this Calvary Review I would like to look at a variety of texts which indicate that Jesus died for the elect and texts which indicate that Jesus died for everyone. Please take note of the words used and if the word “atonement” doesn’t appear, don’t assume that the words that are used are synonymous for the word atonement. It is tempting, when you are thinking of the atonement, to assume that “died for” or “redemption” or “propitiation,” or “savior” necessarily means “atonement.” As already pointed out, only the elect receive atonement for sins upon placing their faith in Christ. The question being investigated is if the Scriptures teach Jesus died in any way, and for any other reason than saving the elect.
Texts Which Indicate That Jesus Died for Some, the Elect, but Not All
Those who argue for the limited atonement view correctly point out that there are Scriptures that teach Jesus died to save a limited number of people and therefore atonement, which is part of salvation, is limited. They cite texts such as Jn. 10:15-16 where Jesus says, “even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.” It is clear from the context (vss. 27-28), that not all people are Jesus’ sheep. It is clear that Jesus says a limited number of sheep will be brought into his sheepfold.
Paul in Acts 20:28 speaking to the Ephesian elders says, “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” Here, the church of God is described as those purchased with Christ’s blood. Clearly a reference to a limited number of people who are true believers or the elect.
In Rom. 5:8 Paul says, “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Here, the words “we” and “us” are qualified in the context of vs. 9 as those who have been justified. This tells us that only a limited number of people, the elect, have their sins atoned for which affirms the limited or particular atonement view that only a limited number of people have their sins atoned for. So we can see that the Scriptures teach Jesus died to save the elect, and the elect only, who alone receive atonement for sins.
Texts Which Indicate That Jesus Died for the Non-elect or Everyone
When looking at certain other texts the word “all” is limited by the context to mean all of a certain subgroup of people. For instance, in Rom. 8:32-33 Paul says, “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies.” Paul uses the term “all” but goes on to explain that “all” refers to those who cannot be separated from the saving love of God in Christ Jesus.
In II Cor. 5:14-15 Paul says, “For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.” Here, the phrase “died for all” is used twice. Yet Paul is speaking of the totality of a sub group of people who are characterized as having died with Christ, a designation which applies to believers (Rom. 6:8; Gal. 2:20; I Tim. 2:11). Unbelievers are never described as having “died with Christ.” Therefore the word “all” is limited by the context to those who are saved.
II Pet. 3:9
is a verse that is less clear and used by both sides to prove their point, but it is worth mentioning. Peter says, “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.” Here it can be noted that the words “any” and “all” are qualified by the pronoun “you.” It is argued by some that Peter is writing to believers and when he says “not wishing for any to perish but all to come to repentance” he is really saying, “not wishing that any of you “the elect” perish, but all to come to repentance.” Others in disagreement, point out that if Peter was talking about believers then he wouldn’t be talking about those who still need to come to repentance. Peter purposefully does not include the term “elect” and it has to be read into the text. Left out, the plain meaning of words makes perfectly good sense. It is also argued that the call to repentance is universal (Acts 17:30), and God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:23). So there is nothing wrong with saying, as the Scriptures affirm, that God does desire all men to come to repentance and faith in Christ otherwise He wouldn’t call all men to repentance.
Another term that is crucial to the discussion of the extent and purpose of Christ’s death and atonement is the word “world” — kosmos in the Greek. It is a word that can be translated multiple ways depending on the context. The three most common meanings of the Greek word kosmos are: 1) the earth, 2) human race or mankind, 3) Gentiles in distinction from Jews. It is significant that not a single notable Greek lexicon ever says the word “world” (kosmos) means “the elect” or “believers.” With that, let’s look at some key texts that use the Greek word kosmos.
In Jn. 1:29 we read about John the Baptist, “The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” It is clear that Jesus only “takes away” the sin of the elect. The best interpretation seems to be that the term “world” means the “world of the elect” or “the entire world of humanity that includes the elect,” as Jesus does not take away the sins of unbelievers.
In Jn. 4:42 John comments on the people who had listened to the Samaritan woman and come to see Jesus, “and they were saying to the woman, ‘It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the world.’” Those in the limited atonement camp often interpret this to mean that Jesus is the Savior who is presented to the entire world or that he is the Savior of the elect who are in the world. Either interpretation can work. Most agree that not all are saved. Yet, if we allow for the first interpretation then we must allow that Jesus is presented to the entire world, both elect and non-elect as the one and only means of salvation and the Savior of all mankind. Yet we must not neglect to remember that this is a narrative text. Just because the Bible accurately records what people have said doesn’t mean that all that is recorded of what they said is true. These are unbelieving Samaritans making comments not Jesus or the Apostles teaching doctrine.
Another debated text is I Jn. 2:1-2 where John says, “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” In vs. 1 and the beginning of vs. 2 it is clear that John is speaking to believers. Then John makes a clear contrast when he says Jesus himself is not only the propitiation for our sins (believers), “but also for those of the whole world.” Propitiation describes a sacrifice which satisfies the payment of penalty and the wrath of God. While many have tried to argue that “whole world” means the whole world of the elect, the strongest contrasting Greek conjunction rules out that interpretation entirely. However, it is obvious that the entire world does not receive propitiation for sins.
The best interpretation is to understand “world” as referring to all men in general. Jesus is presented to the entire world universally as the only means of propitiation. It is not that the entire world receives propitiation from Christ, but the entire world is offered that propitiation. This interpretation argues for Christ’s death being a universal provision for all men, but providing particular atonement for only the elect.
In I Jn. 4:14 the text says, “We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.” Again, the best way to interpret this is that Christ is presented as the only Savior to the entire world. He doesn’t save the entire world, but is the light, which coming into the world enlightens every man, and is a light to all the nations (Isa. 9:2; 42:6; 49:6; 51:4). As can be seen there are some texts that might be interpreted in favor of either view.
Finally there are texts that seem to clearly state Jesus died for all men without qualification. Isa. 53:6 says, “All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on him.” Here Isaiah uses the words “all” (twice) and “each” to describe those for whom the Suffering Servant (Jesus) would die. It is important to note that at that time the entire nation was in rebellion. The plain meaning of the text is that Isaiah is talking about everyone. Yet others argue that later in the near context of vs. 11 Isaiah also says, “My servant will justify the many” clearly indicating that not all will be justified. So universalism (Christ died to save everyone) is ruled out. Only some are justified and since only the justified receive atonement, the atonement is limited. Yet this is not the crux of the issue but whether or not there is any non-redemptive purpose for Jesus’ death and this we will investigate further in the next Calvary Review.