God's Purpose Of Election :: The Doctrine Of Divine Election And Its Implications And Importance In The Christian Life

GOD’S PURPOSE OF ELECTION:

THE DOCTRINE OF DIVINE ELECTION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS AND IMPORTANCE IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE

Introduction

“Election destroys evangelism! It encourages pride and diminishes the responsibility of God’s people to reach out to the world in missions. Those pastors who preach the doctrine of election are in churches that are doing nothing for the growth of the kingdom. I believe in election, but I do not teach it because it would drive people away.” Those are the words of the pastor of a large Southern Baptist church.

The Southern Baptist statement of faith says:

Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility.[i]

What is it about the doctrine of election that a Southern Baptist pastor would be so afraid of? Many simply do not understand the doctrine of election, its biblical basis, and its history. Some who claim to believe in the doctrine fail to see its importance in the Christian life. Carey C. Newman, in an article published in Review and Expositor argues, “Biblical teaching about election and predestination remains as vital for the church as it is controversial for the history of interpretation.”[ii] So if the doctrine is greatly misunderstood and controversial it is equally (if not more) important, especially to the week-to-week preaching of pastors who are responsible to God for their people’s knowledge of the word of God.

The well-respected Baptist theologian Millard Erickson says, “Election is the selection of some for eternal life.”[iii] Election means that God has chosen some individuals from all the peoples on earth to be special, a people who would be redeemed and ransomed by the blood of Christ, for the purpose of being “a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works” (Tit. 2:14 ESV). This is the meaning of the doctrine of divine election and it should not be avoided simply because it is a difficult doctrine.

The purpose of this paper is not to completely explain every aspect of the doctrine, but to show four implications of the doctrine of election that give it importance for the Christian life. These are:

1. Divine election is unconditional and eternal and therefore destroys human boasting, and promotes humility.

2. Divine election is the motivation and the guarantee for the success of evangelism and missions.

3. Divine election is the foundation on which the Christian life is built and the foundation of the Christian’s hope for the future.

4. Divine election is Christological in nature, and is intended to display the glory of the grace of God.

1. Divine Election is Unconditional and Eternal and Therefore Destroys Human Boasting, and Promotes Humility.

“Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will” (Eph. 1:4-5 ESV).

Paul says in Ephesians 1:4 (ESV) that the election of God’s people is “according to the purpose of his [God’s] will,” and that it was “before the foundation of the world.” First of all, this means that God’s election of people for salvation is unconditional, according to the “purpose” of “his will.” There was no reason outside the sovereign will and purpose of God for any person to be chosen for salvation in Christ. God freely chooses whomever he wills, based on his own purpose and good pleasure.

Paul makes reference to this sovereign will of God again in Romans 9. Here he is speaking of Jacob and Esau. Jacob was chosen over Esau to be Israel, not because of anything that Jacob or Esau did, but simply because that is the way God chose to work his plan. He says “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call” (Rom. 9:11 ESV). In verse 13 he adds, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” By all rights Esau should have been the one to receive the more prominent position, but God chose Jacob to be the leader of his people. This is testimony to the fact that God “works all things after the counsel of his own will” (Eph. 1:11 KJV), and for no other reason.

Secondly, God’s election is eternal, “before the foundation of the world.” Humans were unable to influence God’s decision in whom to choose by virtue of the fact that they were not there at the time he chose. Before there was ever a created universe, there was God. Before God ever created human beings who would fall away from him in sin, he chose a certain number of them to be redeemed in Christ. The Bible clearly teaches an eternal, unconditional election.

The doctrine of election, however, in no way encourages pride. John Calvin stated that the opposite is true:

“It [election] is useful, necessary, and most sweet. Ignorance of it impairs the glory of God, plucks up humility by the roots, begets and fosters pride. The doctrine establishes the certainty of salvation, peace of conscience, and the true origin of the Church.”[iv]

As the apostle Paul was teaching the gentiles about how God had hardened the hearts of Israel so that they would not believe and the gentiles would believe, he warned them sternly, “do not be arrogant toward the branches (Israel),” but to “note the kindness and severity of God” (Rom. 11: 18, 22). There is no room for boasting in the Christian life.

The truth is that there was no other reason for God choosing any person over another but that he simply chose to do it that way. This is designed to humble the believer who realizes that no one deserves God’s grace, and that every person deserves God’s wrath. As the Baptist Faith and Message states it, the doctrine of election “excludes boasting and promotes humility.”[v] The person who has been chosen by God can no more boast of his standing than the beggar and criminal to whom a king decides to show favor. Paul again makes it clear that salvation is not of human effort, but all of God’s grace and mercy:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph. 2:8-9 ESV).

2. Divine Election is the Motivation and the Guarantee for the Success of Evangelism and Missions.

“Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory” (2 Tim. 2:10 ESV).

There are those who claim that the doctrine of unconditional election hinders, even destroys evangelism and missions. If God’s “elect” are going to come to faith in him no matter what, they reason, then it follows that there is no need for the preaching of the gospel. It is true, especially among Particular Baptists in 17^th and 18^th century England that some Christians in the Church’s history have held to this view of election. This hyper-Calvinist view is what many are reacting against when they object to the doctrine of unconditional election. There are still many hyper-Calvinistic churches around today. However, those who object to teaching the doctrine of election on these grounds simply demonstrate their ignorance of the whole of Church history, and of the word of God.

Moreover, there are also those who believe strongly in the doctrine of unconditional election (especially in staunchly Reformed traditions), who fall into the same error as that of their objectors. These maintain that the elect will come to Christ no matter what the church does to reach out to them (for God is sovereignly in control of all things), but that the church must preach the gospel simply out of obedience to Christ’s command, namely the great commission (Matt. 28:19-20). Even though these proponents of the doctrine intend to uphold the truth of the word of God, they miss the importance of election to evangelism and missions. This does not aid their case against the former group.

There is an easy answer to the question “if the elect are going to be saved, why do evangelism?” It is found in 1 Corinthians 1:21. The apostle Paul writes, “it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (KJV). The Bible teaches that God has chosen a people for himself, and that he has also chosen the means by which they become his people, namely preaching. Jesus said, “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd” (Jn.10:16, ESV). Do you hear the confident language of Jesus? He was certain that his “other sheep” would come into the fold. How would they come? They would hear his “voice.” God’s elect hear about the grace of God through the preaching of the gospel, and they respond accordingly.

Paul has said that he is “a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ,” “for the sake of the faith of God's elect…” (Tit.1:1 ESV). Paul suffered many things because of his commitment to the gospel of Christ. Why? Surely he did not work in obedience to the great commission without a certianty that God would work in the hearts of those to whom he preached. No, he claimed the promise of the gospel, which ensures that Christ has by his own blood “ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9 ESV). Paul says that for this reason he was willing to “endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory” (2 Tim. 2:10 ESV).

So then it follows that the doctrine of election is election is the “impetus” and “guarantor” of the success of evangelism.[vi] Election ensures the church that it’s labor is not in vain. The preaching of the cross, as foolish as it may seem, will convert the hearts of sinners, bringing them into the kingdom of God. On this doctrine the church must wager all.

Many claim that the Reformed doctrine of election hinders evangelism and therefore they reject the teaching of reformers such as John Calvin. But again they only show their ignorance of the past and base their objections on mere speculation. Joel R. Beeke, writing in the Reformation and Revival journal, points out that “Calvin was more of an evangelist than is commonly recognized. Through instruction and practice, he relit the torch of biblical, Reformed, God-centered evangelism,”[vii] and “the truths of sovereign grace taught by Calvin such as election are precisely the doctrines that encourage missionary activity.”[viii]

May the truth of history be acknowledged and gloried in that the greatest missionaries and pastors and evangelists of modern times have been staunch, five-point-Calvinists, holding to the highest, most biblical view of the doctrine of eternal, unconditional election. Among these are William Carey, the father of modern missions, Adoniram Judson, the first American foreign missionary, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, revivalists George Whitefield and Jonathon Edwards. Ministers of the gospel today should have no reservations about being counted among this great cloud of witnesses.

3. Divine Election is the Foundation on Which the Christian Life is Built and the Foundation of the Christian’s Hope for the Future.

“He chose us…that we should be holy and blameless before him” (Eph. 1:4 ESV).

“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified” (Rom. 8:29-30 ESV).

John Calvin called election “the church’s heart, hope, and comfort.”[ix] The doctrine of election is the grounds on which Christians may be confident toward God in the Christian life. Believers have certainty of eternal life, not because of themselves, but because of God’s grace in election. Election works itself out in the Christian life, confirming the believer’s standing with God, and therefore providing a foundation on which to live victoriously. The apostle Peter encourages Christians to “be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure” so that “you will never fall” (2 Pet.1:10 ESV).

Against the notion mentioned earlier that election produces pride on the part of those chosen by God stands the reasoning of the apostle Paul. He says, “Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience” (Col.3:12 ESV). Election is the basis for which Christians are to display a humble attitude toward God and the world. The knowledge that one has been graciously chosen should lead to “compassion,” “kindness,” “humility,” “meekness,” and “patience.” The knowledge of election causes the church to walk humbly before God, having as its great ambition to freely give what it has been freely given (Matt. 10:8).

The elect have been chosen for the purpose of living lives of holiness and blamelessness before God, and thus inheriting an eternal life of glorification. But God does not leave this up to the believer to accomplish. His election ensures the Christian that “he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil.1:6 ESV). Carey C. Newman states, “The beginning, middle, and end of the Christian life is wholly and wonderfully dependent upon the mercy, love, and grace of God.”[x] “Election,” says Newman, “inaugurates the progressive transformation of the total person.”[xi] Without the knowledge of the grace of God in election, Christians will live in doubt as to whether they can live the Christian life, and in fear of the future. With a proper understanding believers are enabled to live fruitful lives. Jesus said,

“You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you” (Jn. 15:16 ESV).

An understanding of the doctrine of election and its consequences enables believers to live triumphantly over depression, suffering, and even death. The great tragedies and questions of the age are less of a threat to the person who is grounded in the grace of God. Again Newman encourages the church: “God answers life’s bizarre irrationality through the security, empowerment, and promise grounded in election…”[xii] Calvin himself stated that “the design of all God’s promises…[is] to keep us from being disturbed, to give us quietness of mind, and to cause us to look for the help promised to us.”[xiii] The doctrine of election is the great foundation for the victorious Christian life, and the assurance of hope for the future.

4. Divine Election is Christological in Nature, and is Intended to Display the Glory of the Grace of God.

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him [Christ] before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:3-6, ESV).

From this verse alone one can see the Christological nature of divine election. It is “in Christ” that God has chosen his elect and adopted them “through Jesus Christ.” There is no election apart from Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God.

The purpose of election is to stimulate praise for “the glory of [God’s] grace” (Eph. 1:6 KJV). The glory of the grace of God is seen in none other than the person and work of Christ. Christ vividly displayed the gracious purpose of God in the days that he walked this earth in human form. He loved, he labored, he lived, and he wept for the purpose of bringing glory to the Father. This was them primary focus of Jesus’ life, and it is the primary focus of the gospel today, clearly stated and seen in the doctrine of divine election. Carey Newman states, “To speak of election is to speak of God first, and only secondarily of humanity.”[xiv] This theme is repeated in Ephesians 1: 6,12,14: “to the praise of his glory” (ESV).

Newman says again:

“Election is the clearest expression of God’s will. Election in, through, and by Christ consequently becomes the interpretive prism by which and through which all of God’s will, history, and even our lives can and should be read. Fundamental questions such as, ‘what is God like?,’ ‘how does he behave?,’ and ‘upon what should we stake our lives?,’ receive their most decisive and salient answer in election.”[xv]

What is primary and most important to God is seen in the doctrine of election, namely, his glory, or more specifically, the glory of his grace. God desires, not only a people ransomed for himself, but a people who will give him praise for the glory of his free gift of grace in Christ. This is the very foundation of the gospel. The church must not only proclaim that sinners can be saved and have eternal life in Christ, it must also be careful to proclaim the glory of the one who gives salvation and eternal life.

A proper understanding of the doctrine of election, as well as what is at stake (the glory of God), will move to church away from a “humanistic concept of evangelistic task and methods,” and will promote and fuel “God-centered, God glorifying evangelism” that is in keeping with the truth of God’s revelation.[xvi] The church must see God as a God-centered God, and the gospel as a God-centered gospel, and must proclaim the glory of God in Christ in all its endeavors. Election at its root is the primary doctrine that guards against a man-centered, idolatrous view of God and the gospel.

What is foremost in the doctrine of election is the election of Christ, and not the individual who is chosen in Christ. In the Old Testament, God proclaimed this through the prophet Isaiah:

“Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles” (Isa. 42:1 KJV).

If the elect were chosen in Christ “before the foundation of the world,” it is also true that Christ was a lamb slain before the foundation of the world (1 Pet. 1:19-20). Peter was careful to draw attention to Christ:

“Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded” (1 Pet. 2:6 KJV).

The election of Christ must take precedence over the election of individuals, regardless of one’s view of the logical order of God’s decrees. Without the election of Christ and his passion, the election of individuals would be meaningless. Romans 8:29 says, “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. The glory of God in Christ is the primary focus of election.

Conclusion

Some may mock the doctrine of election as having no importance for the Christian life. Some say that the doctrine of election belongs only to the academy for discussion and theological debate, and not for the average Christian in the average church. The Christian life, they claim, consists of a more practical nature than does the study of systematic doctrines, such as election. What these pastors and teachers fail to see is that the doctrine of divine election has many practical implications for the Christian life, and that it is important for the believer’s spiritual journey.

One implication is that the doctrine of election eliminates human boasting and promotes humility before God. When believers realize that God has chosen them for no other reason than his sovereign purpose of grace, they live lives of thanksgiving and gratitude.

Another implication is that divine election is the motivation and guarantee for the success of evangelism and missions. There are those who maintain that the doctrine destroys evangelistic fervor, but they simply show their ignorance of history, and of the word of God. The knowledge that God will call his elect to himself through the church’s preaching of the gospel will encourage and motivate the church to go to the ends of the earth with the gospel of Christ.

The doctrine of divine election also is the very foundation on which the Christian life is built, and the foundation of the Christian’s hope for the future. Believer’s are encouraged in Scripture, “Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience” (Col.3:12 ESV). Knowledge of the free grace of God is the basis for which the Church seeks to do good works.

Finally, divine election is Christological in nature, and is intended to display the glory of the grace of God. What could be more important for the Christian life than a proper understanding of the person and work of Christ in relation to the glory of God the Father? Understanding the biblical doctrine of election means to understand the most important and most valuable thing in the universe, namely the glory of God. God desires that his glory be seen most clearly in his grace toward humans, and this is seen most clearly in the doctrine of divine election.

Pastors who would diminish the importance of the doctrine of election miss the point of biblical doctrine. They are robbing their people of the spiritual experience of understanding a little more of the God that has redeemed them, and they will be held accountable to God for their neglect.

---

[i] Baptist Faith and Message, 2000, Article V.

[ii] Carey C. Newman, Election and Predestination in Ephesians 1:4-6a: An Exegetical-Theological Study of the Historical, Christological Realization of God’s Purpose, in Review and Expositor (vol. 93, Spring 1996), p. 237.

[iii] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology 2^nd edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), p. 921.

[iv] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Translated 1845 by Henry Beveridge, Published August 1, 1536. Zondervan Pradis [CD ROM]), 3.21.1.

[v] Baptist Faith and Message, 2000, Article V.

[vi] Joel R. Beeke, John Calvin: Teacher and Practitioner of Evangelism, in Reformation and Revival (vol. 10 no 4 Fall 2001), p. 124.

[vii] Ibid., p. 108.

[viii] Ibid., p. 123.

[ix] Ibid., p. 124.

[x] Carey C. Newman, Election and Predestination in Ephesians 1:4-6a: An Exegetical-Theological Study of the Historical, Christological Realization of God’s Purpose, in Review and Expositor (vol. 93, Spring 1996), p. 240.

[xi] Ibid., p. 240.

[xii] Ibid., p. 242.

[xiii] John Calvin, quoted in Reformation and Revival (vol. 10 no 4 Fall 2001), p. 105.

[xiv] Carey C. Newman, Election and Predestination in Ephesians 1:4-6a: An Exegetical-Theological Study of the Historical, Christological Realization of God’s Purpose, in Review and Expositor (vol. 93, Spring 1996), p. 238.

[xv] Ibid.

[xvi] Joel R. Beeke, John Calvin: Teacher and Practitioner of Evangelism, in Reformation and Revival (vol. 10 no 4 Fall 2001), p. 124.

The Purpose Of The Law In Galatians 3:19-25 (Greek Exegesis)

THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW IN GALATIANS 3:19-25

In his epistle to the Galatians, the apostle Paul is writing, as would a father to a wayward child. The Galatians have turned away from the faith of Christ, to a false gospel. He writes not only rebuke them in their error, but also to correct the problem by encouraging them to remain in the true faith. Paul spends a great deal of time in the early chapters of his letter telling the Galatians what the true gospel is and where it came from.

The great offence on the part of the Galatians is that they have forsaken justification by faith in Christ alone and turned to the Jewish law of circumcision for their justification before God. Paul had preached his gospel to them beforehand, they had accepted it as truth, and now they were being led astray to something that was not what Paul preached. Apparently there were false teachers among the churches of Galatia who were preaching this false gospel. In response to this, Paul begs an appropriate question of the Galatian Christians; ejnarxavmenoi pneuvmati nu'n sarki; ejpitelei'sqe—having begun by the Spirit, are you now being completed by the flesh? (Gal. 3:3). Paul questions them so as to point out to them the error of being set free from the law in Christ and then supposing to go back to the slavery of it for the living out of the Christian life. If the Galatians had indeed “begun by the Spirit,” then it logically followed that they should continue in the Spirit rather than turn to the Jewish law. Paul warned them of the curse of attempting to be justified by the law; ejpikatavrato" pa'" o}" oujk ejmmevnei pa'sin toi'" gegrammevnoi" ejn tw'/ biblivw/ tou' novmou tou' poih'sai aujtav (Gal. 3:10). So Paul asserts boldly, ejn novmw/ oujdei;" dikaiou'tai para; tw'/ qew,'—by the law no one will be justified before God (Gal. 3:11).

Paul’s argument here is that justification comes by faith in Christ, not by works of the law. Those who have received Christ by faith have received the promise made to Abraham through the offspring of Abraham, that is Christ. So, in light of this, it is foolish for the Galatians to suppose that they may be justified by works of the law, when the law has nothing to do with the promise made by God to Abraham. The promise was by faith from the beginning, and the law did not come until later, so it had no bearing on the promise already made, the covenant God ratified with Abraham. Paul declares in verse 17 that the novmo" does not cancel a diaqhvkhn prokekurwmevnhn uJpo; tou' qeou', neither does it nullify the ejpaggeliva, the promise made to Abraham. The law came 430 years after the covenant ratified by God, and so it has no effect on the promise made to Abraham. So for Jew and Gentile alike, it is foolish to trust in the law to bring about justification before God when the promise of God’s grace is by faith and has always been by faith.

The question then remains: Tiv ou\n oJ novmo"—why then the law (Gal. 3:19)? If the promise of justification comes by faith and has been such since the covenant made to Abraham, what was the purpose of the law? Why did God give the law to Moses? Why did the law serve such a prominent role in Jewish history? The law, as Paul will show was given to serve a temporary role in salvation history, and would be rendered invalid at the coming of faith in Christ. Paul shows how the law was inferior to the promise in that the law could not give life, was given indirectly from God to humans by the hands of mediators, and that the law was a guardian in charge of keeping or imprisoning people under sin. On the other hand the promise of Christ that is by faith gives life and justification apart from the law.

Paul’s answer to the question of the law’s purpose, in short, is that the law was given tw'n parabavsewn cavrin—because of transgressions. BDAG remarks that the law was given in the interest of transgressions or for their sake; the purpose of the law was to make sins possible and readily apparent.[1] In this view, the law was added (prosetevqh) to the revelation of the promise of God to Abraham in order to make sins knowable and visible to the people of God, a view which is consistent with other Pauline texts such as Romans 3:20; 5:13, and 7:7. The law was added to “reveal”[2] transgressions.

The law surely served in this capacity, but it also served to multiply, even provoke sins. Ronald Y. K. Fung suggests that the use of cavrin indicates the purpose of the law, not its cause. In other words, the law was not added because of transgressions in the sense that God added the law in response to the existence of sin. No, the law was added with a specific purpose in mind for its existence, something that Paul will explain further throughout Galatians 3, and also something he illustrates in other texts his letters. The law then served a negative role rather than a positive one.[3]

Richard N. Longenecker remarks, in opposition to Fung’s position, that the law was added simply to bring the knowledge of sin. He completely rejects the notion of the law provoking or multiplying transgressions, seeing no reason for God desiring to increase sin before the coming of the Messiah.[4]

Both Fung and Longenecker agree, however that the law served a specific purpose in the history of redemption, but was only temporary. The law served its purpose a[cri" ou| e[lqh/ to; spevrma w|/ ejphvggeltai—until the seed to whom the promise had been made should come. The word a[cri" used with the relative pronoun ou| simply means until, denoting the extent of time[5] in which the law will serve its purpose. The law was given a role in history up until the time that the seed, the offspring of Abraham, should come to whom the promise of Abraham had been made. That seed is Christ (v. 16).

Paul says that the law was ordered through angels—diatagei;" di j ajggevlwn, by the hand of a mediator—ejn ceiri; mesivtou. Apparently, Yahweh used his angels to give the law to Moses on Mt. Sinai, who would in turn give the law to the people of Israel. J. B. Lightfoot notes that there was a two-fold mediation from God to the people: the angels between Yahweh and Moses, and Moses between the angels and the people. Lightfoot makes the comparison between the law, which was not given directly by God to the people, and Christ who came directly from God to mankind, with no mediator between the two parties but himself, who is God in flesh.[6] Paul posits the idea of angelic mediation here to illustrate the superiority of the covenant of promise over the covenant of the law.[7]

In verse 20, Paul explains that the fact that the law was given through mediation implies that it was a contract between two parties, Yahweh and Israel, both of which must keep their end of the bargain for the covenant to remain in effect.[8] The ESV translates oJ de; mesivth" eJno;" oujk e[stin, “an intermediary implies more than one” (Gal. 3:20, ESV). So there was more than one party involved in the covenant the law, but God, who made the promise to Abraham and swore to uphold it is one—oJ de; qeo;" ei|" ejstin. DeV here is meant as a contrast between the former statement and the later. There is then a contrast between the law, which was dependent on two parties, and the promise of Abraham, which is dependent on God alone who had sworn to uphold it. In other words the law was contingent, but the promise is absolute and unconditional.[9] God is one (Deut. 6:4), and the promise is built on and depends on his character and power alone.

At this point the contrast between the law and the promise has been so strong that Paul deals with an obvious question: oJ ou\n novmo" kata; tw'n ejpaggeliw'n[10] tou' qeou'—is the law then against the promises of God? It is easy to see why this question should be asked. If the law came 430 years after the covenant made with Abraham, and could not nullify the promise of God, and was only added multiply transgressions among God’s people, then it seems that it worked against the covenant of grace. Did the law then “take the place of”[11] the promise so as to bring justification apart from the promise? The apostle emphatically counters mh; gevnoito—may it never be!

Paul explains that if a law had been given that was able to give life—eij ga;r ejdovqh novmo" oJ dunavmeno" zw/opoih'sai, then righteousness would certainly be available ejk novmou—by the law. So in other words, if it were possible to obtain the righteousness of God by works of any law, then the law of Moses would have indeed been kata; tw'n ejpaggeliw'n tou' qeou'—against the promises of God. The promise of God was by faith—ejk pivstew" (v. 11), and the law was in no way contrary to the promise because the law could not produce righteousness. The participle oJ dunavmeno" is attributive to novmo", meaning the able law to put it woodenly, i.e. a law that was able zw/opoih'sai—to give life, or the able to give life law. As will be seen in the next verse, this was not that kind of law. The if/then construction in this verse is known as a second-class condition, or a condition contrary to the fact.[12] If there were such a thing as a law that could bring life and justification before God, which there is not, then the Law of Moses would indeed have produced righteousness in its adherents. Because there is no such thing as this kind of law, then the law only kills; it does not give life. It does not help; it just leaves one helpless. It does not deliver from sin; it simply keeps one locked in sin.

Rather than the law being able to give life and righteousness, the scripture has imprisoned all things—sunevkleisen hJ grafh; ta; pavnta under sin—uJpo; aJmartivan. BDAG suggests that all things were “locked in” under the “power of sin.”[13] Paul may have in mind a specific scripture, namely Deuteronomy 27:26. This would be consistent with Paul’s use of grafh; throughout his epistles. However, it may be the case that Paul is departing here from his usual use of grafh; and using the singular “scripture” to refer to the Old Testament as a whole. It seems that Paul’s case cannot be clearly deducted from the Deuteronomy passage or any other single passage, but it can be drawn out of the whole of Old Testament witness.[14] Paul has the scripture actually doing what it declares to have been done.[15] Scripture can be seen as the magistrate responsible for holding prisoners. Fung remarks that Paul is here equating the scriptures with God himself as the subject, the imprisoning agent.[16] This is a bold assertion, that Yahweh, by his word would imprison his people under the power and control of sin. This is similar to what is said in Romans 11:32: sunevkleisen ga;r oJ qeo;" tou;" pavnta" eij" ajpeivqeian—for God has imprisoned everyone in disobedience. God has locked everyone up in subjection to sin and its condemnation, offering them no way of escape through the law.[17]

What the law accomplished then was imprisonment and bondage. If the purpose of the law was to imprison, the purpose of the imprisonment was freedom—i{na hJ ejpaggeliva ejk pivstew" jIhsou' Cristou' doqh'/ toi'" pisteuvousin. The law imprisoned the Jews[18] so that the promise of Abraham might be given by faith to those who believe. At first thought this sounds absurd. However, God’s plan was to use Israel as a depository of the gospel of Christ in order to reconcile the world to himself.

Verse 23 explains that before the coming of faith, or before faith came—Pro; tou' de; ejlqei'n th;n pivstin—that is, before faith in Christ came, the Jews were being guarded under the law—uJpo; novmon ejfrourouvmeqa. They were being kept as prisoners (sugkleiovmenoi) for a period of time, until the coming of the gospel of Christ—eij" th;n mevllousan pivstin ajpokalufqh'nai, until the faith that was destined to be revealed should come. The NEB translates well the phrase, “pending the revelation of faith.” The coming of faith and the coming of the Christ are one and the same.[19]

The law was meant for a specific and temporary role that would be rendered invalid once Jesus came on the scene. The law served as a guardian (paidagwgo;") until Christ came—eij" Cristovn. A paidagwgo;" was a slave of high rank charged with watching over a children until they came of age (Gal. 4:1-2). The term paidagwgo;" conveys the idea of stringent and guarded supervision of a child.[20] The Mosaic law then was not only a means of imprisoning the Jews in sin, but very imprisonment was used as a kind of custodian whose responsibility was to set boundaries for the Jews. Fung and Longenecker both agree that the law was not a teacher in the modern sense, one who instructs children to do good. Rather, the law was the slave guardian charged with keeping children in a certain condition or circumstance: to make sure they stayed safely where they were, much like a prison guard. The law served a disciplinary and custodial function, not an educational one.[21] Therefore the law was not designed to “lead us to Christ” (see Gal. 3:24, KJV, NIV).

The preposition eij" can signify motion towards something or motion into something, thus making possible the translation unto Christ, or to Christ. But it is more likely that it simply signifies here the temporal sense of the duration of the law. The law would be in effect, imprisoning the people until the coming of Christ when it would then be rendered invalid.[22] So the law was not Christ-ward, but simply until Christ. The law was not positive preparation for Christ, not a teacher or schoolmaster to lead people to Christ (KJV, NIV). Paul’s language simply indicates the temporary function of the law in the history of redemption.[23] That means that this passage has no direct application to the way a person comes to Christ today, but rather that Paul is just recounting historical facts. This does not mean that the law should not be used in preaching to bring knowledge of sin, but simply that Paul is speaking of something different in this passage.

Again in verse 24 Paul asserts that the reason for the law, the imprisonment under sin, and the moral imprisonment of the Jews was that they, and the rest of the world might be justified by faith—i{na ejk pivstew" dikaiwqw'men. It seems like Paul is being double tongued here. He first says that the law could not give life and that its purpose was to enslave under sin, but then he goes on to say that the reason for the law’s work in salvation history was in order that we might be justified by faith. Which is it? The law only served the direct role of prison guard and custodian. But in the end, it has served God’s ultimate purpose; the redemption of the world. So it was not the immediate purpose of the law to bring anyone to Christ, but God used the law to work toward his ultimate goal for his people.[24]

Paul next makes as bold a statement about the relationship of the law and the believer as one can make—ejlqouvsh" de; th'" pivstew" oujkevti uJpo; paidagwgovn ejsmen—but now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. In other words, the law now has no bearing on the Christian life. This does not mean that the believer is free to commit lawlessness, but that those who believe are justified apart from the works of the law and are free from its bondage and requirements. Righteousness has come by faith in Christ, who is the fulfillment of the law.

So then, the purpose of the law was only temporary, and it lasted only until the coming of the Messiah who would set free those who were imprisoned under its curse. The law came later than the promise given by God to Abraham, and is therefore inferior to the promise. The promise is of Abraham and his seed, i.e. Jesus Christ is by faith, and faith is superior to and in contrast to the works of the law. The law could never have given life, only it kept people imprisoned under the consequences of sin, waiting for the day when Christ would come to set the captives free. The Law of Moses did not directly influence anyone toward faith in Christ, but it did serve God’s ultimate purpose for the salvation of his people, according to the promise of faith in Christ to all who believe. To God be the glory!

---

[1] BDAG, 1079.

[2] J. B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, A Revised Text with Introductions, Notes, and Dissertations, 10^th ed. Pradis Bible Software (The Zondervan Corporation), CD-Rom, 2002).

[3] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 159-160.

[4] Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, Word Biblical Commentary, v. 41 (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1990), 138, 148.

[5] BDAG, 160.

[6] Lightfoot, Galatians.

[7] Fung, 162.

[8] Lightfoot, Galatians.

[9] Lightfoot, Galatians.

[10] Lightfoot remarks that the plural is used for the promise here, as well as in v. 16 because the promise was spoken to Abraham on several occasions. See Genesis 12:2-3, 13:15-16, 17:8.

[11] Lightfoot, Galatians.

[12] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, An Exegetical Syntaz of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 694.

[13] BDAG, 952.

[14] Fung, Galatians, 164.

[15] Lightfoot, Galatians.

[16] Fung, Galatians, 164. See Romans 11:32.

[17] Fung, Galatians, 164-165.

[18] Fung believes that the transition from the 1^st person plural pronoun “we,” implied in ejfrourouvmeqa and sugkleiovmenoi, in verse 23 to the 2^nd person plural pronoun “you,” implied in verse 26 (ejste) is incidental. He suggests that the “we” includes the later “you,” referring to and including both Jews and Gentiles alike as the recipients of the imprisonment under the law (Fung, Galatians, 167). This is consistent with other Pauline passages (Rom. 3), even though there are some scholars who would disagree with Fung’s position. However, regardless of whether it is incidental or not, the meaning is not much changed. The point here is that the law imprisoned, but the promise gives freedom and life.

[19] Fung, Galatians, 168.

[20] Lightfoot, Galatians.

[21] Fung, Galatians, 169, also Longenecker, Galatians, 146. See especially Longenecker’s reference to Plato’s use of paidagwgo;", 146.

[22] Longenecker, Galatians, 148-149.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Longenecker, Galatians, 149.

Did Christ Die For The Cherokee? :: A Defense of the Doctrine of Limited Atonement

DID CHRIST DIE FOR THE CHEROKEE?

A Defense of the Doctrine of Limited Atonement

In the early part of the 1^st century A.D. the Han Dynasty ruled over most of the territory of modern day China. The Maya peoples were thriving in the Yucatan Peninsula, and the Cherokee Indians were settling in the Appalachian mountains of what is now the United States of America. One could think of many examples of peoples all over the globe who lived about the time that Jesus was dying on the cross. This begs the question: Could these peoples say with the same certainty as the apostle Paul that Jesus “loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20, ESV)? Did Christ give up his life for every member of the human race? Did he die for all men in the same way, or was there a special efficacious union between his death and his individual followers from which others are excluded? Did Christ die a substitutionary death for the Cherokee Indians of North America who were alive at the time of the crucifixion and resurrection, but who died centuries before the good news could reach them? If the nature of Christ’s atonement is substitution, then what was its extent? The real question of the atonement is: “on whose behalf did Christ offer himself as a sacrifice?”[1]

The atonement is the crowning jewel of Christian theology and one must be a careful student of the Bible to discover the answers to the questions concerning the accomplishment of Christ’s death. As J.M. Pendleton states it: “The death of Christ is the most important event that has ever taken place in the universe. His cross is invested with a moral grandeur to be seen nowhere else in the boundless empire of space.”[2] There are several factors that give credence to the reformed doctrine of limited or particular atonement. These include the witness of the Bible, the witness of history, the idea of covenant and the doctrine of divine election, and the doctrine of Christ’s high priestly work.

The Witness of the Bible

The author of Hebrews states that “when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come,then through the greater and more perfect tent . . . he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:11-12 ESV, emphasis added). For whom did Christ secure this eternal redemption? Again he states: “Therefore he [Christ] is a mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant” (Heb. 9:15 ESV, emphasis added). So, here in the book of Hebrews it is said that Christ actually secured eternal redemption and that it was for those who are called by God. The cross was for those in Israel who were called, having committed trespasses “under the first covenant,” and for the called of all the ages. In this passage is found both the nature and the extent of the atonement of Christ.[3] Jesus died for God’s elect.[4]

According to the scriptures, the nature of the atonement is one of redemption, reconciliation, propitiation, and substitution (Eph. 1:7; Rom. 5:11; 1 Jn. 4:10; 1 Pet. 3:18). An understanding of its extent is bound up in questions such as whom did Christ reconcile to God?, for whom did Christ propitiate the wrath of God?, and whom did he redeem?[5] Some claim that these terms mean that God so altered the world in Christ that all men are now “rendered savable,”[6] while others maintain that these terms are definite in nature with respect to a certain number of the human race, namely the elect.

With regard to the nature of redemption, it seems unreasonable to suggest that there is a redemption that does not actually redeem.[7] According to John Murray, redemption means that something was actually redeemed at the cross; it is not the case that Christ merely made redemption available, but that he actually redeemed.[8] Murray maintains:

“It is to beggar the concept of redemption as an effective securement of release by price…to construe it as anything less than the effectual accomplishment which secures the salvation of those who are its objects. Christ did not come to put men in a redeemable position but to redeem to himself a people.”[9]

Others, such as August Pfeiffer, hold the position, based on the same scriptural evidence, that “Jesus redeemed and made satisfaction for all men.”[10]

With regard to propitiation, Roger Nicole states, “God is actually appeased and he does not deal any further in terms of his righteous anger with those who are under the benefit of propitiation.”[11] Pfeiffer’s position seems to indicate that God’s anger toward sin is satisfied and turned away from all men equally. Pfeiffer makes no attempt to deny the efficacy of redemption or propitiation, but at the same time holds that it was not limited in scope. He is forced to say, then, that God has provided a perfect redemption and propitiation in Christ, but that he makes it contingent upon the response of people, so as to avoid the error of universalism.[12] However, as A. W. Pink argues, “To say that salvation turns upon the sinner’s own acceptance of Christ would be like offering a sum of money to a blind man upon the condition that he would see.”[13]

Murray argues that atonement something that has already happened upon the death of Christ as an offering for sin.[14] Murray says:

“In the atonement something was accomplished once for all, without any participation or contribution on our part. A work was perfected which antedates any and every recognition or response on the part of those who are its beneficiaries.”[15]

The same argument can be applied to the idea of substitution. Penal substitution is consistent only with a doctrine of definite atonement, because of its nature. It has been well said, “A substitute which does not substitute is not a substitution.”[16] Substitution implies that Christ has literally taken the place of the sinners, dying the death that was due them, and rendering them right with God. It is inconceivable to think that those who are rendered right with God based on the substitutionary death of Christ should still suffer the penalty of their sins.

And what of reconciliation? The apostle Paul states, “In Christ God was reconcilingthe world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them” (2 Cor. 5:19 ESV). How is it that people are reconciled to God? It is through the substitutionary, propitiatory, redemptive death of Christ. It is true that in this same passage Paul implores his readers to “be reconciled to God,” but this is to be regarded in the same sense that the apostle elsewhere speaks of salvation in general. Reconciliation is something that God has done in Christ on behalf of the elect, but it still remains that it be played out in each of their lives in conversion. While it may be argued that the sinner has something to do with reconciliation before it actually occurs, this may not be said of redemption and propitiation. Redemption and propitiation are means by which sinners are reconciled to God.

It cannot be the case that reconciliation by propitiation and redemption has occurred on behalf of those who do not believe in Christ and who die in their sins. If God has truly not counted their trespasses against them, then he would be exacting double payment for their offense, one when Christ died as their substitute and another when they are punished in hell forever. Nowhere does the Bible teach that God should require a double payment for sins. God neither forgives sin apart from satisfaction, nor does he punish sin where satisfaction has been paid.[17] To say that those for whom Christ died still have to pay for sin by dying in hell is as errant as saying that the elect who are given to Christ do not enjoy the benefits of the atonement. One is as illogical as the other. God does not demand double payment for sin.[18]

In Romans 5, Paul compares Adam to Christ. Adam represents the human race: “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men,” and Christ re-represents the human race: “so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men” (Rom. 5:18, ESV). At first glance this passage might be said to give credence to the doctrine of universal salvation. Those who wish to have Christ dying for all men equally but who do not wish to fall into universalism interpret this verse as meaning that Christ has made salvation possible for “all men,” upon the condition that they should take advantage of what was done for them.[19] However, there is a better explanation. Verse 19 makes the meaning more obvious: “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:19, ESV). Adam represented one group of “many”, the whole human race, and Christ represented another group of “many,” the elect. It cannot be that Christ represented every member of the human race because he brought justification and life and righteous to all whom he represented, just as Adam brought judgment to all whom he represented. It is clear that Paul speaks of “actual justification,”[20] and if he means every member of the human race, then Paul teaches universalism. The context demands a limited or particular atonement.

John Murray points out the efficacious nature of the death of Christ on behalf of sinners by referring to passages that claim that those for whom Christ died also died in Christ, and that all those who died with Christ also were raised with him (Rom. 6:3-11; 2 Cor. 5:14,15; Eph. 2:4-7; Col. 3:3).[21] In 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, the apostle declares, “one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised,” (ESV). Here is seen the purpose and the effect of the atonement. Christ died so that people would live for him, and the effect of his death is the death of those who will in fact live for him. If the “all” mentioned by Paul here refers to each and every member of the human race, then it follows that each and every member of the human race has died in Christ and will forsake themselves and devote their lives to him.

To those in the reformed tradition, the Bible is clear that Jesus’ death had a special and particular reference to his people. Hebrews 13:12 declares that “Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood” (ESV, emphasis added). Here the relationship between the Old Testament sacrifice on the Yom Kippur and the atonement made by Christ is seen. The Day of Atonement sacrifice was for the people (Heb. 9:7), that is, the people of Israel with whom God had made a covenant. It was not for the people of the nations surrounding Israel. It had a definite reference to a specific group of people. So also, Christ offered himself as a sacrifice for God’s covenant people, i.e. the elect of all the ages.

Louis Berkhof notes that Caiaphas the high priest, speaking by the Holy Spirit, prophesies correctly that Jesus would die for the nation of Israel, and “not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad” (John 11:51-52, ESV).[22] The words of the high priest are consistent with the rest of the biblical witness concerning the extent of the work of Christ. Matthew 1:21 states that Jesus “will save his people from their sins" (ESV, emphasis added). Titus 2:14 says Christ “gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works” (ESV, emphasis added). Ephesians 2:16 says that Christ died in order that he “might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross. . .” (ESV emphasis added). Jesus said, “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (Jn. 10:11, ESV, emphasis added). Jesus spoke about himself and his work in limited terms. To the Pharisees he said, “You do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will 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 the Father's hand” (Jn. 10:26-30, ESV, emphasis added). Many other passages could be cited that speak of the atonement in limited or definite terms (John 17:1-11, 20, 24-26; John 10:14-18; John 15:18; Matthew 20:28; Matthew 26:28; Isaiah 53; Acts 20:28; Ephesians 5:25-27; Romans 8:32-34; Revelation 5:9).

It is argued that passages that state that Jesus died for his people need not be interpreted in a way that makes his death exclusive to his people. If Jesus did in fact die for the whole human race, then it would not be wrong to say that he died for the church as a part of the whole.[23] So those who maintain that the atonement was for each member of the human race without exception interpret these verses in just such a manner. It may be pointed out, however, that those who hold to a particular atonement may do the same with passages that suggest a universal atonement, with good, biblical exegesis. According to J. M. Pendleton, Christ died primarily for mankind as a whole, and only secondarily for the church as a part of the whole. That Christ died for the church is less important than that he died for the whole. That he died for individual sinners personally is simply “a joyous appropriation of the blessings of salvation.”[24] Pendleton’s position is untenable in that it depersonalizes the cross.[25]

The Witness of History

Perhaps the most classical expression of the doctrine of limited or definite atonement is found in the writings of John Owen. In his classic The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, Owen argues:

“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. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved…If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why, then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, ‘Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.’ But this unbelief, is it a sin or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will…To affirm Christ to die for all men is the readiest way to prove that he died for no man.”[26]

It must be admitted that Owen’s reasoning is difficult to argue to the contrary. Christ either died to forgive all the sins of all for whom he died, or he did not. As Loraine Boettner aptly puts it, for the Calvinist, the atonement is a “narrow bridge” that extends all the way across a river, but for those who reject the reformed doctrine, the atonement is but a “wide bridge” that extends only half way across.[27] If the salvation of men is only half accomplished, then all are in trouble.

John Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, speaks of the special relationship connecting Christ’s death to his followers. Although Calvin never explicitly spells out a doctrine of limited atonement, he never speaks in a way that would lead the reader to suspect him of holding to a universal or general atonement. For example, Calvin says, “Christ enriches his people with everything necessary to the eternal salvation of their souls.”[28] And again, he holds that God is “the deliverer of the church by the hand of Christ.”[29] Calvin explicitly states, “God was enemy to every man, till by the death of Christ they were restored to his favor.”[30] Here Calvin speaks of the enemies of God, namely “men.” He clearly does not mean to say that all men have been restored to God. Calvin speaks of the church as being loved by God from before creation, and that this love is the basis for his sending Christ to restore them.[31] Calvin, in light of his doctrine of double predestination[32], does in fact teach a limited or particular atonement.

Another scholarly work is that of Charles Hodge:

“If it were just that all men should perish on account of their sin it was just to leave a portion of the race thus to perish, while the salvation of the other portion is a matter of unmerited favor…Christ did not die equally for all mankind, but that He gave Himself for his people and for their redemption.”[33]

Hodge maintains that particular redemption is the orthodox position on the atonement by labeling his own view the Augustinian doctrine. Says Hodge,

“Augustine, the follower and expounder of St. Paul, taught that God out of his mere good pleasure had elected some to everlasting life, and held that Christ came into the world to suffer and die for their salvation. He purchased them with his own precious blood.”[34]

From Augustine to Calvin, from Spurgeon to Edwards, history is replete with godly men who, in their own Spirit-led studies of the word of God, held the doctrine of particular redemption as the orthodox position on the atonement.

Objections to the Reformed Doctrine

The Reformed doctrine of definite atonement is rejected on many fronts, not the least of which is the small number of scripture passages that seem to speak of the atonement in universal terms. For example, Hebrews 2:9 states, “But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone” (ESV, emphasis added). It is said that this teaches a universal atonement, that Jesus “tasted death” for each and every member of the human race.[35]

From careful exegesis it may be seen that it is not necessary to find a universal atonement in this passage. First, the context demands only that the “everyone” of verse 9 refer to the “many sons” and the “children” in verses 10 and 13 (Heb. 2:10, 13, ESV). John Murray affirms:

“It is this that supplies us with the scope and reference of the ‘everyone’ for whom Christ tasted death. Christ did taste death for every son to be brought to glory and for all the children whom God had given him. But there is not the slightest warrant in this text to extend the reference of the vicarious death of Christ beyond those who are most expressly referred to in the context. This text shows how plausible off-hand quotation may be and yet how baseless in such an appeal in support of a doctrine of universal atonement.”[36]

According to Murray, Hebrews 2:9 must be interpreted in light of its immediate context.

Secondly, there is in this verse evidence of a larger context that is less specific to atonement, and more specific to the idea expressed in Psalm 8. God’s purpose for man, namely that of dominion over all things, was fulfilled in Christ who “tasted death” in order to accomplish the vision of the Psalmist.[37] Where Calvin saw substitution meant by use of the preposition uJper,[38] William Lane takes the phrase uJper panto" to mean “on behalf of everyone”.[39] The meaning of the prepositional phrase here could be either one, and the context of Psalm 8 does not rule out substitution, but it does take the emphasis off of atonement and makes it a more general statement about Christ fulfilling for the human race what God had intended for them since creation. Either Murray’s or Lane’s interpretation fits the context of Hebrews 2:9 better than the idea of universal atonement.

And then there is 1 John 2:2: “He [Jesus] is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (ESV, emphasis added). This verse is used as certain evidence against the doctrine of limited atonement.[40] It is said that this verse not only proves that the atonement not only had some reference to the whole human race, but that it was actually a propitiation for the sins of each and every person on earth. While August Pfeiffer mocks those of the reformed faith for relying to heavily on logic and reason in their theology,[41] he still must use reason to avoid universalism. It is a huge logical jump to claim that Jesus actually propitiated the wrath of God, that because of Christ God no longer counts people’s sins against them, and that the sacrifice was for the sins of every person, and at the same time claim that it does not result in universal salvation for every person. Here indeed is a doctrine that must be logically deduced from one’s own hermeneutic.

Much has been said regarding this passage in response to the idea that John means universal propitiation for all sins. Louis Berkhof points out that the term “world” (kosmos) means different things in different passages (Lk 2.1; Jn 1.10; Acts 11.28; 19.27; 24.5; Rom 1.8; Col 1.6), and that even in reference to men it does not always mean all men, i.e. each and every member of the human race (Jn 7.4; 12.19; 14.22; 18.20; Rom 11.12, 15).[42] Gary Long mentions that kosmos is never used universally in a salvation context outside of John, and that John himself uses the term in a way that cannot possibly mean every person (1 Jn 5.19).[43]

John Murray cites three reasons why John might use universal language in his letter to the church. According to Murray, John’s reasons are as follows. 1) The scope of Jesus’ atonement was not just John’s immediate community, but to every nation, 2) that everyone in the world needs propitiation. The sacrifice of Jesus is the only way for all peoples and 3) the propitiation of Jesus is ongoing in its effects to the whole world, to the end.[44] With regard to the universal language employed by the apostle John in his writings (Jn. 1:29; 3:16; I Jn. 2:2, etc.), Long cites B. B. Warfield’s doctrine of “eschatological universalism.”[45] According to Warfield, Jesus came to save the world, and at the end of the age the entire world will in fact be saved, that is, the entire world at that time.[46] A better explanation of John’s universalism is what Long refers to as an “ethnological interpretation.”[47] John uses world just as Paul does in Romans 11:11-15, that is, relatively; Jesus came to secure the salvation of his people from every nation of the earth (see Rev. 5:9). This is what A. W. Pink calls “relative universality” in John.[48] According to Kuiper, it is the Calvinist who is most capable of being an “ardent universalist” in the biblical sense. He above all can be deeply committed to “scriptural universalism.”[49] All of the previous arguments are sufficient to prove that it is not necessary to find universal atonement in John’s first epistle.

Another passage commonly cited against the doctrine of limited atonement is 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” (ESV, emphasis added). It is said that the atonement must have been universal in extent because here it is said that Christ “bought” false teachers whose end is destruction.[50] As Robert Lightner puts it: “Christ paid the ransom price even for those who deny him.”[51]

In response, Long argues that Peter is referencing the song of Moses (Deut. 32.6), rather than teaching that Christ paid a ransom price for these false teachers. He maintains that Christ, in his sovereignty, acquired these false teachers as a part of his church to show his glory in condemning them, making mention of the purpose Peter cites in verses 4 and 9 of the same chapter.[52] Pink would agree, claiming that this verse presents no problem to his view of limited atonement. There is a difference between buying and redeeming. There is buying like you buy a field, and then there is buying in the relational sense, redeeming, which is more personal. This verse simply says that Christ bought everyone in the same sense that a man might buy or acquire a field.[53] A more plausible interpretation, however, is that of R. B. Kuiper. Kuiper maintains that Peter speaks of the false teachers in relation to how they presented themselves to the church. They presented themselves as redeemed teachers and this is how Peter refers to them, even though he goes on to explain their actual end.[54] This seems to best account for the manner in which Peter is speaking. Murray points out that it is not taught in the Bible that those for whom Christ made died should perish; actually just the opposite is true (Jn. 6:38-39).[55]

Yet another verse that may be wielded against the reformed view is 1 Timothy 4:10: “For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe” (ESV, emphasis added). It may be said that God is the “savior of all people” by those who argue for universal atonement, but what do they do with the last phrase—“especially those who believe?” Kuiper interprets this verse in the sense that God is the savior, i.e. preserver of all men. For Kuiper, God is a lover of all men, even the non-elect, providing them with common grace. This grace was also purchased in the atonement. But even though God loves all men everywhere as his creatures, he loves and saves the elect in a special way. Therefore, it can be said that God is both savior of all men, but especially to those who believe.[56] Millard Erickson agrees and says that Christ died in some way for both believers and non-believers.[57] Charles Hodge maintains both to be true, that in one sense Christ died for all, yet in another he died only for the elect.[58] While the term “limited atonement” may not capture the whole of the work of Christ, despite its inadequacies, unless one is ready to believe in universalism, one cannot have an unlimited atonement. According to John Murray, those who hold to a general atonement have a limited atonement with respect to its very character; general atonement is a cheapening of the work of Christ.[59]

The Idea of Covenant and the Doctrine of Divine Election

It is clear from scripture Christ died “in execution of a covenant in which his people were promised to him as his reward.”[60] Christ fulfilled his part of the covenant God was making with mankind in that “he rendered the obedience required of all, and suffered the penalty which all had incurred.”[61] This covenant is spelled out in Jeremiah 31:31-34 which is also referenced by the author of Hebrews (Heb. 8:8-13). It is, for Charles Hodge, the nature of this covenant that determines the nature and extent of the atonement.[62] Election and Covenant are seen as being closely related. Christ’s redeeming work was definite in both its intent and its extent. It’s purpose and result was to make total satisfaction for a select group of sinners whom God chose out of the world, and to actually make certain the salvation of those individuals to the exclusion of the non-elect. “Redemption, therefore, was designed to bring to pass God’s purpose of election.”[63] If there was a covenant between the Father and the Son with reference to the elect, then it follows that Christ’s death be for the elect. It is not necessary to apply it any further. If it were unjust to have Christ die for only the elect, would not also be unjust for God to elect in the first place? Hodge points out that the doctrine of limited atonement was never rejected until the doctrine of sovereign election was rejected. Hodge states it this way:

“The one doctrine necessarily involves the other. If God from eternity determined to save one portion of the human race and not another, it seems to be a contradiction to say that the plan of salvation had equal reference to both portions; that the Father sent his Son to die for those whom He had predetermined not to save, as truly as, and in the same sense that He gave Him up for those whom He had chosen to make the heirs of salvation.”[64]

For Hodge, these two doctrines go hand in hand.

It was a special love for his covenant people that motivated Christ to die, not some generic sense of benevolence to every sinner on earth. It is a mistake and a contradiction to say that God’s love for those whom he has not chosen was what caused Christ to die on the cross. The doctrine of universal atonement is not consistent with the doctrine of divine election. This is true whether one believes in a conditional or unconditional election. Christ not only made salvation possible, he made salvation sure and efficacious.[65] It is a contradiction to say that God sent Jesus to die for those whom he had already determined not to save.[66]

Christ as High Priest

Another significant factor in determining the extent of the atonement is the High Priestly work of Christ, in comparison to the work of the High Priest in the Old Testament. According to Charles Hodge:

“The unity of the priestly office rendered the functions of the priesthood inseparable. The high-priest interceded for all those for whom he offered sacrifice. The one service did not extend beyond the other. He bore upon his breast the names of the twelve tribes. He represented them in drawing near to God. He offered sacrifices for their sins on the great day of atonement, and for them he interceded, and for no others. The sacrifice and the intercession went together. What was true of the Aaronic priests, is true of Christ. The former, we are told, were the types of the latter. Christ’s functions as priest are in like manner united. He intercedes for all for whom He offered Himself as a sacrifice. He himself, however, says expressly, ‘I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me.’ (John xvii. 9.) Him the Father heareth always, and, therefore, He cannot be assumed to intercede for those who do not actually receive the benefits of his redemption.”[67]

The atonement of Christ falls under the category of his priesthood. Christ worked as a “merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (Heb. 2:17 ESV). Therefore his work cannot be general and indefinite, because priesthood “prerequires personal relation.”[68] It does not follow that those for whom Christ served as a high priest should perish, and as Kuiper argues, Christ’s atonement cannot apply to more than to those for whom he effectually prayed.[69] If in fact Jesus did not pray for the world, but only for those who were given to him by the father (Jn. 17), then it follows that his sacrificial work not exceed his intercessory work.

Conclusion

So, in answering the question of the extent of the atonement, one must consider what is taught from a study of the Biblical evidence, the witness of Spirit-filled theologians throughout history, the idea of covenant redemption and the doctrine of divine election, and the doctrine of Christ’s high priestly work. These together are sufficient to prove that Christ’s death was definite in nature and in scope. Christ died for the sins of his covenant people, namely the elect. Again Charles Hodge is worthy of quoting:

“When Christ said, ‘I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me,’ He meant men of all ages, classes, and conditions, and not every individual man. When God predicted that upon the advent of the Messiah He would pour out his Spirit upon all flesh, all that was foretold was a general elusion of the Holy Ghost. And when it is said that all men shall see (experience) the salvation of God, it does not mean that all men individually, but that a vast multitude of all classes shall be saved. The same remark applies to the use of the term world. It means men, mankind, as a race or order of beings. No one hesitates to call the Lord Jesus the ‘Salvator hominum.’ He is so hailed and so worshipped wherever his name is known. But no one means by this that He actually saves all mankind. What is meant is that He is our Saviour, the Saviour of men, not of angels, not of Jews exclusively, nor yet of the Gentiles only, not of the rich, or of the poor alone, not of the righteous only, but also of publicans and sinners. He is the Saviour of all men who come unto Him. Thus when He is called the Lamb of God that bears the sin of the world, all that is meant is that He bears the sins of men; He came as a sin-offering bearing not his own, but the sins of others.”[70]

So did Christ die for the Cherokee Indians of North America? No and yes. It is not feasible that Christ would have died for the sins of those who were alive at the time of his death but who were never given an opportunity to hear the good news. Yet, at the same time it may be said that, in light of the ethnological universalism taught in the bible, Christ did in fact die for the Cherokee. It is doubtless that there will be Cherokee Indians, as well as men and women from every nation of the earth included in the countless multitude in heaven, whose song is forever “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” (Rev. 5:9 ESV).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berkhof, Louis. The History of Christian Doctrines. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1949.

Berkhof, Louis. Vicarious Atonement Through Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1936.

Boettner, Loraine. Studies in Theology. The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1974.

Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1951.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews, in The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews. Translated by John Owen. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1948.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Translation of: Institutio Christianae religionis.; Reprint, with new introd. Originally published: Edinburgh : Calvin Translation Society, 1845-1846. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA. 1997.

Campbell, John M. The Nature of the Atonement. London: MacMillan and Company. 1886.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. SystematicTheology. 8 volumes. Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press. 1948.

Culpepper, Robert H. Interpreting the Atonement. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1966.

Edwards, Jonathan. The Satisfaction for Sin, in The Works of Jonathan Edwards. Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Calvin College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works2.xi.v.html.

Edwards, Jonathan. The Works of President Edwards. 4 volumes. New York: Jonathan Leavitt and John F. Trow, Boston: Crocker and Brewster. 1863.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2d edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. 1998.

Gill, John. Body of Divinity. Atlanta: Turner Lassetter. 1965.

Hill, Charles E. and James, Frank A. III, eds. The Glory of the Atonement. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press. 2004.

Hodge, Archibald A. The Atonement. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication. 1867.

Hodge, Charles C. Systematic Theology. Vol 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1952.

Hodge, Charles C. Systematic theology. Originally published 1872. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA. 1997.

Hodge, Charles C. The Orthodox Doctrine Regarding the Extent of the Atonement Vindicated. Edinburgh: R. Groombridge and Sons, 1846.

Kuiper, R.B. For Whom Did Christ Die? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959.

Lane, William L. Word Biblical Commentary, Hebrews. Vol. 47a. Dallas, TX: Word Books Publisher. 1991.

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

Lillback, Peter A., Editor. The Practical Calvinist: An Introduction to the Presbyterian and Reformed Heritage. Granies House, Fearn, Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications. 2002.

Long, Gary D. Definite Atonement. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. 1977.

Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.

Murray, John. Redemption Accomplished and Applied. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.

Nicole, Roger. The Case for Definite Atonement, in Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society. X, No. 4. 1967.

Owen, John. An Exposition of Hebrews. Vol. 4. Evansville, Indiana: Sovereign Grace Publishers. 1960.

Owen, John. The Works of John Owen. Vol. 10. Ed by William H. Goold. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000.

Owen, John. The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1963.

Pendleton, J. M. The Atonement of Christ. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1885.

Pfeiffer, August. Anti-Calvinism. Columbus, Ohio: Printing House of the Joint Synod of Ohio. 1881.

Pink, Arthur W. The Atonement. Swengel, PA: Reiner Publications.

Steele, David N., Thomas, Curtis C., Quinn, S. Lance. The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented. 2d edition. P & R Publishing. Phillpsburg, New Jersey. 2004.

Warfield, B.B. The Plan of Salvation. The Works of B.B. Warfield. http://www.mbrem.com/calvinism/pos4.htm

Wiley, H. Orton. Christian Theology. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1958. Vol 2.

---

[1] John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 62.

[2] J.M. Pendleton, The Atonement of Christ (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1885), p.86.

[3] William L. Lane, Word Biblical Commentary, Hebrews. Vol. 47a (Dallas, TX: Word Books Publisher, 1991), 241.

[4] John Owen, An Exposition of Hebrews, Vol. 4 (Evansville, Indiana: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1960), pp. 326-327.

[5] John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 62.

[6] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology. 8 vols. (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), vol. III, p. 91.

[7] Gary D. Long, Definite Atonement (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1977), p. 28.

[8] Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, p. 63.

[9] Ibid.

[10] August Pfeiffer, Anti-Calvinism (Columbus, Ohio: Printing House of the Joint Synod of Ohio, 1881), p. 107.

[11] Roger Nicole, The Case for Definite Atonement, in Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society, X, no. 4, 1967, p. 210.

[12] Pfeiffer, Anti-Calvinism, p. 107.

[13] A.W. Pink, The Atonement (Swengel, PA: Reiner Publications), p. 245.

[14] Murray, Redemption Accomplished, p. 62.

[15] Ibid, p. 52.

[16] Gary D. Long, Definite Atonement (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1977), pp. 30-33.

[17] A.W. Pink, The Atonement (Swengel, PA: Reiner Publications), p. 249.

[18] Jonathan Edwards, The Satisfaction for Sin, in The Works of Jonathan Edwards (Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Calvin College), http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works2.xi.v.html.

[19] Robert H. Culpepper, Interpreting the Atonement, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), p. 126.

[20] Murray, Redemption Accomplished, p. 60.

[21] Ibid, pp. 69-70.

[22] Louis Berkhof, Vicarious Atonement Through Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1936), p. 161.

[23] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2d edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), p. 849.

[24] J. M. Pendleton, The Atonement of Christ (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1885), p. 103.

[25] Charles Hodge, The Orthodox Doctrine Regarding the Extent of the Atonement Vindicated (Edinburgh: John Johnstone, Hunter Square, London: R. Groombridge and Sons, 1846), p. 63.

[26] John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1963), pp. 61-62.

[27] Laraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publications, 1963), p. 153.

[28] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Translated by Henry Beveridge (Translation of: Institutio Christianae religionis.; Reprint, with new introd. Originally published: Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845-1846. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA. 1997), 2.15.4, (emphasis added).

[29] Calvin, Institutes, 2.6.4, (emphasis added).

[30] Ibid, 2.16.2.

[31] Ibid, 2.16.4 (emphasis added).

[32] Ibid, 3.21.

[33] Charles C. Hodge, Systematic theology (Originally published 1872. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA, 1997), vol. 2, chp. 8.

[34] Charles C. Hodge, Systematic theology (Originally published 1872. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA, 1997), vol. 2, chp. 8.

[35] August Pfeiffer, Anti-Calvinism (Columbus, Ohio: Printing House of the Joint Synod of Ohio, 1881), pp. 113-118.

[36] John Murray, Redemption Accomplished, p. 61.

[37] William L. Lane, Word Biblical Commentary, Hebrews, Vol. 47a (Dallas, TX: Word Books Publisher, 1991), pp. 49-50.

[38] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews, Translated and edited by John Owen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), p. 61.

[39] William L. Lane, Word Biblical Commentary, Hebrews, Volume 47a (Dallas, TX: Word Books Publisher, 1991), pp. 49-50.

[40] Pfeiffer, Anti-Calvinism, pp. 113-118.

[41] Pfeiffer, Anti-Calvinism, p. 2.

[42] Berkhof, Vicarious Atonement, p. 67.

[43] Long, Definite Atonement, p. 89

[44] Murray, Redemption Accomplished, pp. 72-73

[45] B.B. Warfield, The Plan of Salvation (http://www.mbrem.com/calvinism/pos4.htm). Warfield proclaims: “Calvinism is the guardian…of the universalism by which I am assured that he [Christ] is also the true and actual Savior of the world.”

[46] Long, Definite Atonement, p. 93.

[47] Ibid, p. 94.

[48] Pink, The Atonement, p. 263.

[49] R.B. Kuiper., For Whom Did Christ Die? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), p. 79.

[50] Pfeiffer, Anti-Calvinism, pp. 113-118.

[51] Robert P. Lightner, The Death Christ Died: A Case for Unlimited Atonement (Des Plaines, Illinois: Regular Baptist Press, 1967), p. 77.

[52] Long, Definite Atonement, pp. 76-77. Long notes that there is no ransom price mentioned here and that in almost every passage where ajgorazw is used in a salvation context a price for ransom is mentioned or implied. Long, referring back to Deuteronomy 32:6, believes that Peter quotes the Old Testament passage because of similar context, and substitutes ajgorazw for ktaomai (LXX). While the linguistic validity of Long’s argument has not been proven to this author, it is worth noting as a possible interpretation.

[53] Pink, The Atonement, p. 264.

[54] R. B. Kuiper, For Whom Did Christ Die? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), p. 38.

[55] Murray, Redemption Accomplished, p. 64.

[56] Kuiper, For Whom Did Christ Die?, p. 82.

[57] Erickson, Christian Theology, p. 846.

[58] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), p. 546.

[59] Murray, Redemption Accomplished, p. 64.

[60] Charles Hodge, The Orthodox Doctrine Regarding the Extent of the Atonement Vindicated (Edinburgh: John Johnstone, Hunter Square, London: R. Groombridge and Sons, 1846), p. 67.

[61] Hodge, Systematic Theology, p. 546.

[62] Charles C. Hodge, Systematic theology (Originally published 1872. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA, 1997), vol. 2, chp. 8.

[63] David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas, S. Lance Quinn, The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented. 2d edition (Phillpsburg, New Jersey: P & R Publishing, 2004) pp. 39-40.

[64] Charles C. Hodge, Systematic theology (Originally published 1872. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA, 1997), vol. 2, chp. 8.

[65] Charles Hodge, The Orthodox Doctrine Regarding the Extent of the Atonement Vindicated (Edinburgh: R. Groombridge and Sons, 1846), pp. 63-64.

[66] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), p. 548.

[67] Charles C. Hodge, Systematic theology (Originally published 1872. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA, 1997), vol. 2, chp. 8.

[68]Long, Definite Atonement, p. 29.

[69] Kuiper, For Whom Did Christ Die?, p. 64.

[70] Charles C. Hodge, Systematic theology (Originally published 1872. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA, 1997), vol. 2, chp. 8.