It is not my purpose in these studies to deal with all the biblical evidence in support of the doctrine of definite or limited atonement. But there are some passages that are particularly relevant to the differentiations that have been propounded earlier and also show how the expiatory death of Christ is restricted to those who are the partakers of that expiation.
The first of these passages is John 10:10–29. The teaching of our Lord in this instance requires more analysis than is sometimes given in the debate concerned with the extent of the atonement.
At the outset it should be noted that by the metaphors of “sheep” and “shepherd” Jesus is speaking of the distinctive relation he sustains to certain persons and they sustain to him. They are those whom he knows and who know him (vs. 14 ), those who know his voice and follow him (vs. 27), those to whom he gives eternal and unloseable life (vs. 28), those for whom he lays down his life (vs. 15). On the other hand, there are those who are not in this category; they are not of his sheep (vs. 26), and this is stated to be the reason why they do not believe. The distinction, therefore, between sheep and those who are not does not reside merely in the fact that some believe and some do not. The difference in the relationship to Christ has its basis in something more ultimate than the empirical fact of believing and not believing.
There is also another facet of Jesus’ teaching in this passage pointing to this more ultimate factor. He said: “And other sheep I have which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one Hock, one shepherd” (vs. 16). These had not yet believed; they had not yet heard his voice; they had not yet been brought. But they are, nevertheless, sheep and are not in the category of verse 26. They will one day be brought and hear Jesus’ voice and come to follow him. It is obvious that the “sheep” are not merely those marked out by the response of faith. They are those determined as such and, therefore, appointed to be brought, to hear Jesus’ voice, and to follow him. There is the differentiation of being counted among the sheep and from this differentiation the afore-mentioned results accrue.
We are specially interested now in the design or extent of the laying down of Jesus’ life (vs. 15). The following considerations are to be observed.
1. The Purpose of Jesus’ Coming
Jesus’ words are: “I came that they might have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (vss. 10, 11). The life of which he speaks must embrace and God its consummation in the resurrection life of John 6:39, the indestructible life of verses 28, 29. The purpose for which Jesus came into the world is thus plainly asserted to be the giving of this life to the sheep and it is inconceivable that the purpose for which he came was frustrated or could be frustrated. The sheep will be given this life not only in its essential character but in its abundant realization (cf. vs. 10). To think otherwise would mean that Jesus failed in the execution of the Father’s will (cf. John 6:38, 39), and this is an impossible hypothesis.
2. The Means of Achieving This Purpose
The means is unmistakably the giving of his life. This is apparent from verses 11, 15, 17, 18. This formula of laying down his life for the sheep, used repeatedly in this discourse, can have no lesser import than the giving of his life as a ransom (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45). It is of redemptive blood-shedding, of substitutionary sacrifice Jesus is speaking. More inclusively, the laying down of his life for must be understood in terms of all the categories in which Scripture interprets the atonement and is, therefore, equivalent to the statement that Jesus made atonement for the sheep.
We must reckon with the correlativity of the design and the means. Our Lord came that the sheep might have life in the fulness and security enunciated in John 6:39; 10:10, 28, 29. The design, as already demonstrated, cannot fail of accomplishment. But the means can no less fail of achieving its purpose than can the design for which he came and to which the giving of his life is subordinate. This is but to say that the laying down of life is efficacious to the design of giving life to the sheep and, therefore, insures for them this life in the abundance which Jesus defines for us in this passage. The inescapable conclusion is that the substitutionary sacrifice insures the eternal life of all who are in this category of “sheep.”
3. The Exclusiveness of both Design and Means
There is distinction between the sheep and those not sheep, as noted above, and Jesus does not say that he laid down his life for those who were not of his sheep. It is not simply the absence of such a statement, however, that must be taken into account; it is that such a proposition would be impossible in view of the relationship between the giving of his life and the design, between the giving of his life and the securing of eternal life for those who are partakers of it.
It is to be admitted that, logically speaking, the mere proposition that Jesus laid down his life for the sheep does not carry with it the implication that he gave his life for no others. All the proposition of itself would involve is that the sheep were included in those for whom he gave his life. But others in other categories might also be included. It is not, however, the mere proposition that we find in this passage. Jesus tells us the purpose for which he came into the world, he states the means whereby that purpose is realized, he assures us of the issue involved for those on whose behalf he gave his life, and he restricts the giving of his life to those who are sheep as distinguished from those outside this category. So interrelated are all the elements of his teaching that anyone proposition cannot be abstracted and dealt with in isolation. It would be impossible in terms of the logic of the total teaching not to include in the “sheep” all those who are partakers of eternal life and are embraced in the substitutionary sacrifice that insures this life. To take the formula “laying down his life for” out of the relationship in which it occurs and apply it to those who finally perish is to make a disjunction that Jesus’ own teaching forbids.
A second passage closely related in its implications to the preceding is Ephesians 5:25–27. There are the following features of Paul’s teaching pertinent to our present interest.
1. The Sacrificial Death
There can be no question but the clause “gave himself for it,” that is to say for the church (vs. 25), refers to the substitutionary blood-shedding of Christ. Hence any indication given in this passage respecting the extent or design of the atonement is relevant to our subject.
2. The Love Expressed
The sacrificial giving is represented as the expression of Christ’s love—“Christ loved the church and gave himself for it” (vs. 25). There is here causal relationship between Christ’s love and self-giving parallel to the love of the Father and the giving of the Son in John 3:16. There should be no question but that Jesus’ love and sacrificial death are correlative and causally so in the order stated. There can be no disjunction.
The love is the love for the church. Differentiation is suggested by the analogy instituted in the text. Husbands are to love their wives even as Christ loved the church. Marital love is human love on the highest level and with its own distinguishing quality; it must not be transferred or duplicated. That it finds its analogue in the love of Christ for the church is the highest sanction and betokens its intensity. In any case the love of Christ referred to here is the love for the church, and we must not place it on any lower level nor predicate of it any lesser quality or intensity. This is the love of which Paul speaks, and its supreme quality is evidenced by Christ’s self-giving on behalf of that which is stated to be its object.
3. The Design of the Sacrifice
The design is expressly stated to be “that he might sanctify it” (vs. 26) and “that it might be holy and without blemish” (vs. 27; cf. also vs. 26). Again, we may not make any disjunction between the self-sacrifice and the design. It is impossible to dissociate “the giving himself for” in its meaning, purpose, and effect from the results contemplated in the design unless we can conceive of Christ’s atoning work as failing of the end for which he gave himself. That which Jesus is said to have loved, by reason of his self-giving is sanctified and cleansed, presented to himself glorious, holy, and without blemish.
4. The Exclusiveness of the Sacrifice
It cannot be said of those who fail to attain this specified goal that Christ loved them and gave himself for them in terms of the love and self-giving envisioned in the text. If we universalize the “gave himself for,” we shall have to universalize the designed effect as well as the love.
It is true here again that, in terms of formal logic, the mere proposition “Christ loved the church and gave himself for it” does not of itself limit the love and self-giving to the church. But, as in John 10:10–29, we may not make a disjunction in the various elements of the text. If there is another classification embraced in this love and self-giving, then of those embraced in that other category it will have to be said likewise that Christ loved them and gave himself for them that he might sanctify them and present them to himself glorious, holy, and without blemish. Paul is, no doubt, thinking of the church concretely as it existed in Ephesus, Philippi, Corinth, and other places. But it is apparent from the passage that, wherever there arc those loved in terms of verse 25, there are also the corresponding actions, design, and unfailing results of verses 26, 27.
As we found in the earlier studies there is the love that God bears to the non-elect and we must predicate the same of Christ. We must also say that Christ gave himself with the design of bestowing benefits upon the non-elect. But to this design we cannot give any higher content than the blessings enjoyed by the non-elect in this life and falling short of salvation. Likewise, we cannot accord to the love the quality that characterizes the love for the church and we cannot give to “gave himself for” the content and meaning of the text (vs. 25). This is to say we cannot construe the atonement in terms of the attenuated meaning and relevance that the death of Christ has for the non-elect. The atonement cannot be given a reference or extent that is broader than those who are sanctified and cleansed by the washing of water by the Word.
A third passage relevant to our present interest and calling for some comment is John 3:16. Certain observations may serve to place this text and its teaching in proper focus.
1. The Object of the Father’s love
It is, of course, God the Father specifically who is in view when the text says “God so loved the world.” Only of the Father could it be said that “he gave the only-begotten Son.” The Father gave and only of the Father is Christ the only-begotten Son. It is of the ultimate fountain of salvation the text speaks and this is the love of the Father.
Our present interest is particularly the object, “the world.” In the usage of John this term is often used in an ethical or qualitative sense, the world as sinful, estranged and alienated from God, resting under his wrath and curse, the world, indeed, as detestable because it is the contradiction of all that is holy, good, righteous, true, and loving—the contradiction, therefore, of God. 1t is not the denotative extent that is in view but the character.
When Jesus said to his disciples, “not as the world giveth give I unto you” (John 14:27), it is not the thought of all men distributively that governs the conception but the world as a system alien to the kingdom of God. Or when he says, “Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out” (John 12:31; cf. 14:30), it is apparent that he is not reflecting on distributive extent but upon the world as the kingdom of darkness. Again, in this same gospel, that “the world” is not used in the sense of all men inclusively is demonstrated by Jesus’ word: “If the world hates you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you” (John 15:18). The disciples are the object of the world’s hatred and, therefore, distinguished from the world. In the next verse they are said to be “not of the world” (vs. 19). Other instances call be adduced to the same effect (John 14:17; 16:11; 1 John 2:15, 16; 3:1, 13; 4:5; 5:4, 19; cf. I Cor. 1:20; 3:19; 5:10; Gal. 6:14; Eph. 2: 2; James 1:27).
It is this concept, with the complexion appropriate to the total emphasis of the text, that we have every good reason to believe appears in John 3:16. It is what God loved in respect of its character that throws into relief the incomparable and incomprehensible love of God. To find anything else as the governing thought would detract from the emphasis. God loved what is the antithesis of himself; this is its marvel and greatness.
2. The Intensity of the Love
The object of God’s love exhibits its surpassing greatness. But it is the contrast between the character of the object and the identity of the gift that displays its intensity. God the Father so loved that he gave his only-begotten Son, the Son of his bosom, his own Son. He gave him, too, to bear the contradiction which made the world the hateful, despicable thing that it is. Exposition fails to fathom that before which sanctified understanding is affixed with amazement. Love so amazing! We cannot scale its heights nor fathom its depths. Eternity will not exhaust its wonder.
3. The Security Contemplated
There is the design of, and the certainty emanating from, the giving of the only·begotten. The design is the salvation of all who believe in Jesus. This design is infallibly achieved. The security is obvious from the terms: “should not perish but have everlasting life.” This is just as important in its own place as are the preceding features of the text; the design and result arc indefectibly secure.
There is, after all, nothing in this text to support what it is frequently supposed to affirm, namely, universal atonement. What it actually says is akin to definite atonement.
Something is made infallibly certain and secure—all believers will have eternal life. What definite or limited atonement maintains is that God gave his Son to make something infallibly secure. Though John 3:16 does not state all the truth concerning God’s counsel in respect of security, yet what it does express is wholly in line with what the doctrine of limited atonement is jealous to maintain.
John 3:16 must not be severed from 3:17: “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.” The designated in verse 17 cannot be interpreted as having less security of achievement or less certainty of attainment than the design of verse 16. This follows from the virtual parallelism of the two verses. More analytically stated, verse 17 enforces and confirms the certainty and indefectibility of the salvation referred to in verse 16, namely, “that everyone that believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.” But, if we regard “the world” in verse 16 as denotatively universal, we would have to give “the world” in verse 17 similarly inclusive denotation, and we would have to paraphrase the clause thus: “that all men through him might be saved.” This introduces patent incompatibility. It is inconsistent with the limitation specified in the final clause of verse 16 with which it is parallel and it would defeat the security implicit in the clause itself. The only way whereby universalism can be posited in verses 16 and 17 is to assume that all men will believe in Christ and be saved, a position contrary to the teaching of our Lord and a position not adopted by those who have been in the centre of the debate as proponents of universal atonement.
(to be continued)
Prof. John Murray of Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, PA, continues his consideration of questions raised in recent articles on the free offer of the gospel and the extent of Christ’s atonement for the sins of His people. Three salient Biblical passages are discussed in detail. The first article of this series appeared in our March issue, to which the reader may wish to refer for a deeper understanding of what is affirmed here.