The Extent of the Atonement: Biblical Theology (part 2 of 5)

My subject matter deals with the extent of the atonement. It can be phrased as a question in this manner: For whom did Christ die? How one answers that question places him or her into one of two general categories of believers. The first category would include those who would answer, “for every man, woman, and child.” This view is known as universal (or unlimited) atonement. Those who hold to the other position would answer that while Christ’s death was sufficient to save every man, woman, and child, his death only atoned for the elect.

The sheer volume of biblical texts used to support either view makes this a task suited more for a book than a paper. Books written to defend either side seem to approach the biblical theology from a very wide context. For the purpose of this paper I will have to focus on some of the pillar texts used by both sides. Universal atonement advocates point to texts that they believe show Christ’s death as being for the “whole world,” or for “all of us.” The texts cited by those who hold to limited atonement point (they would say) to the atonement being only for the people of God, his sheep, or for the “many” as opposed to all. I will begin with four of the texts used to support universal atonement and will follow with four used to support limited atonement.

John 3:17
“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.”

John 3:16 (which begins the section that includes our verse) begins with the conjunction, “for.” This indicates that the context extends back prior to the verse. The immediate context here goes all the way back to the start of the chapter where we read that a Pharisee named Nicodemus came to Jesus at night and began a conversation. Jesus seemingly turns the conversation on its head with a statement about being born again and eternal life. Jesus concludes this section with the words, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life (3:14-15). Jesus here is making a veiled statement concerning the fact that he would be put to death and that that death would somehow enable those who believe to have eternal life. John 3:16 starts by referring back to this discourse.

The direct limits of this passage are verses sixteen through verse eighteen. In verse sixteen we read that, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” The argument here is that God loved the world so much that he gave his Son. This is a profound statement, especially this side of the cross. It is important to note John’s use of the word “world.” In reflecting on this passage D.A. Carson writes, “World in John does not so much refer to bigness as to badness. In John’s vocabulary, world is primarily the moral order in willful and culpable rebellion against God” (17). According to Carson, this means that our awe should not be focused on that God sent his Son to a big place, but that he sent him to such a wicked place.

In verses seventeen and eighteen we see what the mission of Jesus was, and an aspect of how it was to be accomplished. Verse seventeen assures the hearers that Jesus did not come into the world to condemn it and offers the good news that instead he came that the world might be saved. Here we see the worldwide implication of Christ’s mission. Verse eighteen gets a bit more individualistic in that it describes a condition that one must meet to avoid condemnation.

The overall message of the passage seems to be that eternal life has been made possible. It will come about through a work done by Jesus, which includes him being lifted up (which we know to mean crucified). The passage shows the deep love of God in that he would send his Son to a place as wicked as this and yet not to judge it, but to instead save it. We know from verses seventeen and eighteen that this saving work does not extend to each individual person, but to those who believe. That this is a passage declaring that “whosoever believes will not perish” is clear. Neither side of the debate at hand would deny the “whosoever will” declaration.

1 Timothy 2:3-6

“This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God , and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.”

1 Timothy was written by the apostle Paul sometime in the mid 60s to his dear friend and disciple in the faith, Timothy. It is a letter that is made up of deeply personal instruction to Timothy, although it is certain that the principles included in it were to be used by Timothy in his ministry (An Introduction to the New Testament). Many of these principles (taking into consideration the cultural differences) are directly applicable to today’s Christians.

The exegesis of this passage hinges on a couple of words/concepts. The first is the opening phrase, “This is good.” And the second is the word, “all,” which is used twice. I will look to both in that order.

The opening line points backward to the surrounding context and forces the reader to ask, “What is good?” For the answer to this, I look to the start of the chapter where Paul writes, “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions.” The second half of that verse seems to be an elaboration on what he means by all people. Paul is exhorting Timothy to pray not just for the common people, but even those in positions of authority. His reasoning follows in the next verse: “that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.” So it seems that the “this” in verse three is referring to the ability to live a peaceful and godly life.

The “all people” in verse four and the “all” in verse six can mean one of two things. First, they may be referring to all types of people. This would find support in verse two where two specific groups are mentioned: “kings and all who are in high positions.” The reason for this exhortation then could be that if kings and others in positions of authority were to come to salvation, it would ensure that Christians would be allowed to live the quiet, godly life that Paul wishes for Christian. The other option is that “all people” means each and every living human being.

Any interpretation of this text must also come to grips with what Christ giving himself as a ransom means. If ransom is understood as a price paid that frees the one in bondage, then the “all” cannot possibly mean each and every individual or else we have a clear statement of universalism, which falls clearly outside the realm of orthodox Christianity.

The text here is too ambiguous to come to a definitive interpretation upon which one would build a doctrine. Instead we must let Scripture interpret Scripture and I believe that Revelation 5:9 is a wonderful passage to look at in conjunction with this verse so I will withhold an interpretation here and look to that passage in due course.

1 John 2:2

“He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”

It is uncertain as to whom John’s first letter was written. According to Carson and Moo, the best guess is that it was written to a group of churches somewhere in the region of Ephesus (677). The letter is most often characterized as a polemic work warning the followers of Christ about deceivers who were making their way into the ranks of the churches (678). So from this we can at least gather that the letter was written to believers. This would make sense of John’s touching and fatherly use of the term “little children” when he addressed his readers. It should also be mentioned that elsewhere, John is said to be an apostle to the Jews. In Galatians 2:9 Paul writes, “And when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, the gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.”

The interpretation of the passage turns on the meaning of three concepts: “propitiation,” “us,” and “the whole world.” According to Vine’s, the Greek word for propitiation, “signifies an expiation, a means whereby sin is covered and remitted” (224). So whoever receives this propitiation has had their sins covered and remitted.

The understanding of the word “us” when juxtaposed with “the whole world” comes back to John’s audience. Was he writing to Christians in general or to a more specific audience made up of mostly Jews. If he was writing to Christians in general, then that would tell us that he was saying, “The propitiation was not only for Christians, but for non-Christians as well.” However, if those in John’s audience were primarily Jewish, his meaning would be understood in this fashion: “The propitiation was not for we Jews only, but for Gentiles as well.” This is a tough question due to the uncertainty of John’s audience.

Because of the definition of propitiation as a being a definitive act whereby sins are covered and the impossibility that the sins of the whole world were effectively covered, I must come to the conclusion that in this passage, John is contrasting “us” and “the whole world” in a fashion that shows the universality of the offer of God’s grace to those who would believe. He is not here saying that every man, woman, and child’s sins have been remitted and covered.

2 Peter 2:1

“But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.”

The letter was written by the apostle Peter to “those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (1:1). The occasion for the letter is that there were false teachers who were making their way into the church and teaching a false knowledge. Peter encourages the readers to “Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (3:18). “And because of this, while Peter’s overall purpose is the positive one of encouraging spiritual growth, the letter is dominated by negative descriptions of, and warnings about, false teachers” (An Introduction to the New Testament, 654).

The text at hand is a prime example of one of the warnings issued by Peter relating to the false teachers. The verse opens by referring to the false prophets who came among the Jews, which we read about throughout the Old Testament. Peter then says, that just like in those days, there will also be false teachers among these believers and they will bring heresies into the body of believers secretly. The word “secretly” implies that the heresies are brought about purposely by these false teachers. One such heresy that these teachers will bring in will be a denial of the “Master who bought them.”

What exactly is implied by the phrase, “the Master who bought them?” From the context here, it hard to determine a precise meaning. He could be saying that these men were formerly men of the church who had submitted themselves to Christ, thus making him their master. He could also be saying that Jesus has bought all men with his blood (in the atonement sense), and therefore whether or not they have submitted themselves to him, he is indeed their master. The third option that I see, and the one I favor here, is that by his death and resurrection (without the atonement coming into view), Christ became the master of every individual who has ever lived. This seems the best interpretation because of some other helpful passages in the New Testament.

In Ephesians 6:9, Paul writes, “Masters, do the same to [your slaves], and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours in heaven, and there is no partiality with him.” The slaves mentioned in that passage are not reported by Paul to be believers. Surely some of them were, but we can be just a sure that some were not. Paul here puts them all under the authority of the “Master,” no matter their standing with him.

The other passage that helps us to understand this phrase comes from Philippians 2:9-10: “Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” From these two passages we can gather that no matter the extent of the atonement, Jesus is Lord of all.

Matthew 20:28

“Even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

This passage is one that in a larger context (verses 20-28) deals with the servant nature of Jesus. He makes the astonishing statement that the great ones are those who are the servants and slaves, and this includes himself, who “came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

This passage includes the concept of ransom (which we also observed in 1 Timothy 2:6). It is always easier to draw meaning from a more unambiguous text. And while the concept of servanthood is not easy to understand, Jesus’ words regarding for whom his life will be given as a ransom are much more clear here than in other passages. That group of people here is clearly limited. “Many” necessarily negates the possibility that the ransom will be given for all.

Matthew 26:27-28

"And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Here we have the tail end of what we call the Last Supper. Jesus directly states what the drink in the cup represents: it is the blood of the covenant. From other New Testament passages we know that this “covenant” is the new covenant, a pronouncement that would take a PhD dissertation to exegete properly. Briefly, the new covenant can be summed up in the words of the prophet Jeremiah: “ ‘Behold, the days are coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. . . . This is the covenant that I will make. . . . I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God and they shall be my people’” (31:31-33).

At this point, some of the language from the earlier passages I have covered comes to mind, particularly that the remission of sins is called expiation and is done through the work of propitiation. It is clear here that there is a limited amount of people who will have their sins forgiven. Once again, “many” excludes the possibility that “all” are the recipients of this new covenant. So the argument of this passage is that Jesus blood will not be effectual for all people, but instead for “many.”

John 10:14-15

“I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.”

This, like so may of Jesus’ teachings, is a mind-boggling passage. In it he calls himself “the good shepherd.” He contrasts himself as the good shepherd, one who cares for his sheep, with the one who would abandon his sheep at the sight of a wolf. Jesus knows who are his sheep and his sheep know who he is. It is these who he will lay down his life for.

One of the most extraordinary things in this passage is that the relationship between Jesus and his sheep is compared to the relationship between Jesus and the Father. The very level of knowledge that is displayed in the intra-Trinitarian union of Jesus and the Father is used here to describe the level of knowledge that is displayed between Jesus and his sheep!

The question of who the sheep are that Jesus died for is answered later in the chapter. In verse 29 it is said that the sheep are those whom the Father has given to Jesus.

Revelation 5:9

"And they sang a new song, saying, ‘Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.”

This verse comes in the middle of a heavenly scene wherein the search is on for one who is worthy to open the scroll of God. At the beginning of the chapter we see that the author is quite worried that no one will be found who is worthy to open the scroll, which would mean that the purposes of God in redemption would not be carried out.

This passage focuses on the one who is worthy. The worthy one is the Lamb who had been slain and he steps forward and takes the scroll. This is when the four elders and the twenty-four elders fall down before the Lamb and sing the words contained in Revelation 5:9-10.

The passage being dealt with here is focused on the reason why the Lamb who was slain is worthy to open the scroll. The reason is clear: “for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people from every tribe and people and nation.” This Lamb effected the purposes of redemption and therefore he alone is worthy to open the scroll and its seals, thus beginning the final stage of God’s redemptive purposes.

The text is also quite clear on who was ransomed by the blood of the slain Lamb. We read that the blood “ransomed people from every tribe and people and nation.” So it is transparent here that the blood was not shed for each and every individual on earth, but for people every people group on earth.

This survey of some of the pillar texts used by those on both sides of the debate seems utterly inadequate in the larger scope of the issue at hand. The one conclusive thing that I found in doing the exegesis of these texts is that it is much easier to see a limitation than it is to prove universality. The word “all” and the phrase “the whole world” are so ambiguous and can have a vast number of limitations without stretching the text at all. On the contrary, the limiting passages leave no doubt that they are indeed limiting. There can of course be discussion within those limitations, but to argue that many includes all is to overlook the plain meaning of the words.

I tried to be as objective in the exegesis as I could be, but must admit that during the course of my research, which included reading entire treatises from both sides, I came to the solid conclusion that the effective nature of the atonement is indeed limited. If there were any presuppositions brought to the text, it was only after extensive biblical and theological research. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately for my time’s sake), I was not able to fully address the biblical theology behind each position. To do so would require many more pages than I have written here.





Bibliography

Carson, D.A. The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2000.

Carson, D.A. and Douglas Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2005.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2002.

Lightner, Robert P. The Death Christ Died: A Case for Unlimited Atonement. Schaumburg, Illinois: Regular Baptist Press, 1967.

Owen, John. The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2002.

Vine, W.E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. United Kingdom: Marshall, 1981.