posting 14r

Posting 14 EXAMINING THE SO-CALLED “UNIVERSALISTIC” TEXTS

On the basis of Rom. 5:18, Princeton Calvinist Dr. Charles Hodge claimed that: "All the descendants of Adam…are saved" and that only the Bible itself may make exceptions to this claim (Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1888, Vol. 1, p. 26 emphasis added).

This Posting aims to demonstrate that (1) each of the following texts speaks of the full benefits of salvation in Christ; and (2) this salvation is spoken of in terms of all persons. The necessary exceptions to these universal declarations are not found in the immediate context of these passages. They are found in the broader context of the Scriptures as a whole (see Posting 2).

These passages speak of the “full benefits of salvation in Christ.” This includes the biblical concepts of:

Redemption — Jesus Christ paid the price to remove his people from their sin and its consequences;

Propitiation — By his death Christ turned away the wrath of God from every sinner for whom Christ died;

Reconciliation — All estrangement was removed by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ so that all of those for whom Christ died are reunited with God in perfect fellowship.

The very language of the Bible does not allow the possibility that the work of Christ is something well-intended but not necessarily effectual, that is, merely a “potential” salvation. Redemption, propitiation, and reconciliation are actually and fully accomplished for all who are in Christ Jesus.

Therefore the exposition of each of the following texts is a biblical refutation of the theme often expressed in the Emerging Church Movement: “Christ died for all people everywhere without any exceptions.” Consequently it claims that: “Heaven is full of forgiven people, for whom Jesus died; and Hell is full of forgiven people, for whom Jesus died.”

It is significant that, although technical details relating to the original language must be considered, the conclusion arrived at in this Posting is that each of the following texts can be accepted just as it is found in most English translations. The evidence for Evangelical Inclusivism is readily discerned by reading the commonly accepted English translations of the following texts:

For an examination of John 3:17; John 12:32; John 12:47; and 1 John 2:2 see below in this Posting.

1 Cor. 15:22 — “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.”

Does the phrase “shall all be made alive” refer only to the physical resurrection of the body, making this a declaration of the general resurrection of all persons? Or does this phrase imply newness of life, including the resurrection of the body for the elect? I believe it has the latter meaning for the following reasons:

1. The words “in Christ” are used. It is true that this expression can be used to include more than the elect; it is used when the redemption of “all things” is spoken of (Col. 1:16, 17; Eph. 1:9, 10). However, nowhere in Scripture is the phrase “in Christ” used to designate any persons who are finally lost. It is impossible for anyone “in Christ” to be lost. “If any one is in Christ, he is a new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17). Those who are made alive “in Christ” are saved.

2. Similarly, the verb “made alive” is nowhere used of unbelievers. Kittel's Theological Dictionary says of this Greek word, “In the New Testament and post-apostolic fathers [it] always means ‘to make alive' in the soteriological [saving] sense” (*1).

3. The theme of the entire fifteenth Posting of 1 Corinthians is the hope of those who are joined to Christ, for they share in his resurrection.

Some have felt it necessary to say that the second “all” in this text refers to the general resurrection of all persons because the second “all” is a distributive universal just as much as the first “all” is. They say that Paul does speak of the general resurrection of all persons in contrast to the resurrection of believers, since in several verses the phrase “from dead” appears in the original without the definite article “the” (*2). They take this to be a reference to the dead in general, and they say that when Paul means the resurrection of believers, he uses the expression “from the dead” (with the article).

However, the absence of the article in this verse and in the other verses in this Posting has been adequately accounted for by Grosheide and others. They make the point that the phrase “from dead” without the article indicates that Christ arose from the realm of death as a quality, not that he left other dead behind (*3).

4. The final reason for saying that 1 Cor. 15:22 speaks of the new spiritual and physical life in which all the elect and only the elect participate is that in verse 23 Christ is declared to be “the firstfruits” of those who are made alive. They are also “those who belong to him.” In neither instance can these expressions designate those who will be finally lost.

That being made alive in Christ is a benefit which the text applies to all persons distributively (each person head for head), allowing only for the exceptions found in the broader context of the Scriptures, can be seen in these considerations:

a) “All” appears without the article. Unless modified by the immediate context, its primary meaning is “all persons distributively.”

b) The very structure of the sentence suggests “all” without modifications; it says “in Christ shall all be made alive,” it does not say “all in Christ shall be made alive.” To say that Paul uses this structure, as found in our English translations, in order to maintain the parallel between the first and the second parts of the sentence begs the question. If Paul had meant to maintain a parallel structure without having in mind all persons distributively in relationship to Christ, he could have written, “For as all in Adam die, so also all in Christ shall be made alive.”

c) It is generally acknowledged that the first “all” is a distributive referring to all persons universally. It is most unlikely that the identical word used in a totally parallel grammatical construction within the same text would have a different denotation, unless there was some notice of an exchange of terms.

These arguments are weighty in themselves, but they are especially impressive because the only way to refute them is to claim that the benefit spoken of is the gift of new life in Christ, so that the second “all” cannot be a reference to all persons distributively. This refutation is based on an invalid theological presupposition, namely that there is no sense in which Scripture can ever say “all persons are elect in Christ.”

First Cor. 15:22 depicts salvation in Christ. The words and grammatical structure of the text point to an unrestricted application of this benefit to all persons. An impartial reading of this verse ─indeed of this entire Posting —in isolation from the rest of Scripture would lead one to absolute universalism. Nowhere does this Posting mention any who are finally lost; indeed, it says plainly that in Christ all persons are made alive.

However, this passage, like the other so called “universalistic” passages, may not be read and interpreted apart from the rest of Scripture. Therefore the conclusion is properly drawn that 1 Cor. 15:22, within the general context of Scripture as a whole, says that “all persons are elect in Christ except those who the Bible declares (in its broader context) will be finally lost” (see Posting 3).

2 Cor. 5:14, 15 — “For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.”

It would be difficult to deny the universalism of this passage. Not only does the word “all” point in the direction of universalism, but so does the sentence structure. It reads “one has died for all,” a much wider extension than if it said, “all in the one have died.”

Mention of the “all” for whom Christ died leads some to take this text as teaching Arminian or Lutheran universalism. They contend that the phrase “therefore all have died” means that in the death of Christ the moral and legal barrier preventing the salvation of all persons has been removed. God's judgment and wrath against sin have been taken away. All have died because Christ died for all and atoned for the sins of all. Christ's death was their death, and salvation is now available to all those who by faith are willing to receive it. “Those who live” is then a reference to a more restricted number of individuals, namely, those who accept this universal provision in faith.

Others, while they affirm the distributive universalism of the second “all” in verse 14, find it unacceptable to say that Christ merely made salvation possible by his death. Their view is that Paul has come to the understanding (he is “convinced”) that “one has died for all,” that is, for both Jews and Gentiles—a totality without the article. On this interpretation, the fact that Christ had to die for both Jews and Gentiles caused Paul to understand that the law brought death to all persons distributively; “therefore [the] all have died' (individual application with the article). That is, the realization that all persons are spiritually dead was brought to Paul's consciousness by the fact that Christ died for both Jews and Gentiles. “And he died for all” (for both Jews and Gentiles—same totality without the article) “that those who live” (a more restricted group, namely, believers) “should no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.”

Besides seriously questioning the interpretation of “all” as “Jews and Gentiles,” we should note that both the preceding views suffer from the error of claiming that “those who live” is restrictive and refers to a smaller yet component part of the “all” for whom Christ died.

Suppose we were to assume that the expression “those that live” is restrictive and does not have the same extent as the “all” for whom Christ died. This would bring us into conflict with the explicit affirmation of Paul in Rom. 6:5, 8 to the effect that those who have been planted into the likeness of Christ's death will also be in the likeness of his resurrection and that those who died with him will also live with him. The analogy of Paul's teaching in Rom. 6:4–8 must be applied to 2 Cor. 5:14, 15. Hence those referred to as “those who live” must have the same extent as those embraced in the preceding clause, “he died for all.” (*4)

We must view 2 Cor. 5:14, 15 in its context. The immediate setting discloses that these verses do not constitute a statement of Paul's missionary motivation, as though the meaning were that, since Paul has come to understand that Christ died for all persons, the love he has for Christ constrains him to go out to bring the gospel to all those for whom Christ died. Paul is not talking about his love for Christ; but he is controlled (or “hemmed in on all sides”) by Christ's love for Paul.

In verse 14, Paul is speaking of a compelling power which has changed every aspect of his life, not just his missionary zeal. Indeed, this compelling love was evident in his missionary enthusiasm, but the point is that he would have been similarly controlled by the love of Christ for him had he been a merchant, a farmer, a teacher, a lawyer, or a bulldozer operator. In the words of Anders Nygren:

When a man is laid open to the action of God, God's Agape

is shed abroad in his heart through the Holy Spirit (Rom.5:5),

and the foundation is thereby laid for the new Spirit-given,

Agape life, of which the subject is no longer the man

himself, but God, Christ, God's Agape, God's Spirit.

Constrained by the Agape of Christ (2 Cor. 5:14), or led by

the Spirit (Gal. 5:18), the Christian now carries out God's

work, bears the fruit of the Spirit. (*5)

Paul's Spirit-filled life after his conversion was so radically different that many thought he was “beside” himself (vs. 13). He even ate and drank differently (1 Cor. 10:31). He knew everyone in a different way (2 Cor. 5:16). Paul had become a “new creation,” so that everything (not just his missionary motivation) had become new (vs. 17). Now he tried to “persuade men” (vs. 11), to cause them to understand his new lifestyle, but they did not. In verse 11, Paul expresses the hope that since God understands, his fellow Christians will also understand.

Beginning in verse 13, Paul explains his seemingly odd behavior (his new life in Christ). The content of this explanation is not so much rational as evangelical, since he declares the revealed truth concerning the actual status of all those joined to Christ; they have died but they also live in Christ. But the form of Paul's argument is persuasively logical. Its structure is this: whatever is said of the totality is true of each of the component parts individually, unless there is something which modifies an application. Paul speaks of the individualized death and individualized new life of all who are in Christ. The “therefore” and the “that” (“in order that”) in 2 Cor. 5:14, 15 indicate that Paul moves on the basis of the first “all” (totality) to the second “all” (individualized application).

“One has died for all” (a totality without the article), “therefore [the] all have died” (individualized application, with the article). “And he died for all” (same totality, without the article) “that [the living ones] those who live” (individualized application with the article) “might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.” From the same truth (“one has died for all”) Paul draws two opposite conclusions by way of individualized application of the totality. All have died and all live because Christ has died for all.

We have noted that Paul is accounting for his own behavior, which his detractors dismissed as very odd. What was being said about Paul also grieved his friends (vv. 11–13) and so Paul wants to explain to them the cause of his radically different lifestyle. He is convinced that he has died and is living a new life in Christ. It is the love which Christ has for him that now moves him to do everything differently.

The apostle indicates that “all” (the totality) of those for whom Christ died have themselves individually died and also live a new life in Christ. It is very significant that Paul offers no proof or demonstration of the fact that he himself is included in those for whom Christ died or that he is among those who have new life in Christ. This omission is vital to the chain of his reasoning, since he wants his readers to understand that his different lifestyle is due to the fact that he has died and that he is living a new life.

Is Paul himself included? Yes. He is among the “all” for whom “the one” died. The “all” is a distributive universal which necessarily includes Paul, just as it includes all other persons individually. This is a truth of which Paul has become “convinced” (as the “because” of vs. 14 indicates). Paul is arguing from the premise that all persons are in Christ except those who disregard or reject the truth. With this premise Paul needs no evidence to prove that he is among those who died and have new life in Christ, so consequently none is given.

When Paul accounts for the change that had taken place in his life, he reasons on the basis of a premise which must have been taken for granted in the church, namely, all persons are in Christ (“one died for all”). Paul sees no need to validate that premise. He states it and uses it as an axiom that Paul considers to be accepted by himself and his readers. Upon this axiom he bases his conclusion that he (Paul) has died and is alive again. As has already been stressed, “All are in Christ except those who reject or remain indifferent to God’s will for them.” Paul is sure he is in Christ because all are in Christ except those excluded by Scripture itself. His being “in Christ” is not something Paul has to establish on an individual basis, and his being in Christ accounts for the slander that he was “beside” himself.

Some will object that on this line of reasoning practically everyone may claim to be a new creation in Christ. Our reply is, indeed everyone may if, in response to the revelation God has given concerning his (God’s) will for his or her life, he or she can say with Paul, “Wherefore . . . I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision” (Acts 26:19). Such obedience does not merit, nor does it become the effectuating cause of, a new standing with God in Christ. Such obedience is the fruit of the redemption Christ has purchased on the cross for all persons except those who willfully and finally refuse to acknowledge God's will for their lives. Paul knew he was not among those who refused to acknowledge God’s will for his life.

2 Cor. 5:19 — “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them.”

That actual (not merely potential) salvation in Christ is the subject of these words is conveyed by the term “reconciling,” and the phrase “not counting their trespasses against them.” These expressions place this interpretation beyond doubt. “Not counting” trespasses is the same as forgiving them. Reconciliation is the process by which God sets aside his own legitimate and necessary grievance against the sinner by virtue of the work of Christ. Christ assumes the guilt and penalty belonging to the sinner. By this action God can and does receive all those for whom Christ died, without compromising his righteousness, holiness, and truth.

It is important to make a few observations about the universal extension of this actual (not merely potential) reconciliation-forgiveness. For one thing, it is untenable to suggest that Paul uses “world” here in the cosmological sense of the whole created universe. The “world” of humanity is intended. This is seen in the fact that the personal pronouns ”them” and “their” have the term “world” as their antecedent.

“World,” when appearing in the Greek without the article “the,” refers to “world” as a totality and in this instance as the totality of persons. Whatever is said concerning a totality is true of its constituent parts if no limiting factor is found in the immediate context. Not only do we find no limiting factor here, but the plural personal pronouns “them” and “their” indicate that an individualized application of the reconciliation is intended.

Verse 18 is transitional, reflecting that the gospel Paul proclaimed is the same truth on which he based his own assurance of being “in Christ” (Vs. 14). It is the fact that “God was reconciling the world [the totality of persons] to himself in Christ.” If it were not for the exceptions found elsewhere in Scripture, verse 19 would teach absolute universalism.

1 Tim. 2:6 — “. . . who gave himself a ransom for all men.”

This text has to do with Christ's giving himself, and there is no reason to dispute that it conveys the idea of substitutionary atonement for sin. Because the atonement is said to be for “all,” various attempts have been made to avoid interpreting this verse as teaching absolute universalism.

One such attempt consists of those Arminian and Lutheran interpretations which state that Christ paid the price and atoned for the sins of all persons, thereby making salvation possible for all without actually redeeming anyone. Yet it is not the simple word “ransom” which is used here, but the compound word “substitute-ransom,” indicating that the exchange of one for the other actually took place.

Another approach is to say that the words “all men” in verses 1 and 4 of this Posting and the substantive “all” in verse 6 mean all persons without distinction of race, nationality, or social position, rather than all persons individually. Appeal is made to the mention in verse 2 of “kings and all who are in high position” and the reference in verse 7 to Paul as a teacher of the Gentiles. Paul, it is said, is warning Timothy against Jewish exclusivism or perhaps the exclusivism of Gnosticism.

But what this proposal overlooks is that all persons without distinction of race is still a reference to “all men” distributively. This poses no problems for verses 1 and 4; but if the substantive “all” in verse 6 is not understood somewhat differently, and all persons without distinction of race is construed to mean all persons distributively, then only those who teach provisional salvation and absolute universalists can accept the interpretation. At this point some have sought refuge in the unacceptable claim that the simple substantive “all” means “all classes of people” (4).

A more recent attempt to escape the apparent absolute universalism of this passage is to assert that Paul is not interested in numbers, groups, classes, or specific individuals at all. The “all men” without the article in verses 1 and 4 is to be taken as an indefinite universal: “anyone at all,” or “anyone you please.” In this construction, then, the “all” of verse 6 implies a universal availability of Christ's ransom. It is available to “anyone at all.” The apostle's concern in this passage is to declare that in the actual confrontation of the sinner with the gospel it is God's positive disposition and desire to save the particular sinner whom he confronts with the gospel. (*6)

The difficulty with this approach is that in verse 5 and 6 the gospel is not actually being proclaimed any more than “supplications and prayers” are actually being made in verses 1 through 3. Although this approach does justice to verse 4, which discusses the disposition of God in the function of gospel proclamation, it does not do justice to the meaning of verse 6. Verses 5 and 6 are not speaking of an attitude, disposition, or inclination on God's part in the kerygmatic (proclamation) encounter. Those verses declare who Christ is (vs. 5) and what he has in fact done (vs. 6).

It may be true that as a consequence of Christ's having given himself “a substitute-ransom for all,” salvation is now available to all in the indefinite universal sense of “anyone at all.” But if that is the case we must learn it from other portions of Scripture, since it is not taught here.

The following interpretations have been given to verse 6:

1. “He gave himself a substitute-ransom for all, therefore salvation is provided for all universally” (Arminian or Lutheran Universalism).

2. “He gave himself a substitute-ransom for all; therefore salvation is available to all” (Indefinite Universalism).

3. “He gave himself a substitute-ransom for all, therefore all persons will be saved” (Absolute Universalism).

4. “He gave himself a substitute-ransom for all; therefore all persons will be saved except those who the Bible declares will be finally lost” (Evangelical Inclusivism).

The first two conclusions listed above cannot be properly drawn from this text. They are garnered from what certain advocates consider to be the teaching of Scripture as a whole. The third conclusion (absolute universalism) is based solidly on what the text says, but it is in conflict with the teaching of Scripture as a whole. It is only the fourth conclusion (Evangelical Inclusivism) that is based solidly on what this text says and is consistent with the analogy of Scripture.

1 Tim. 4:10 — “We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe” (see Posting 13, "A Misused Text").

Titus 2:11 — “For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men.” (RSV)

The central question here is whether the phrase “all men” should be read with the verb “has appeared” or joined to the word “salvation” (in the original, “saving”). Some say that the issue is in doubt and could be decided either way, but most interpreters agree that the structure of the sentence points to the reading adopted by the Revised Standard Version, associating the phrase “of all men” with the word “salvation.” This reading, of course, poses a problem for most schools of theology except for absolute universalism and Evangelical Inclusivism.

Some Lutheran theologians have preserved the universal element in this text by adopting the minority reading linking “all men” with the verb “has appeared.” The problem with that interpretation is explaining in what sense salvation has appeared to all persons, since it is self-evident that there are those who never heard and those who never will hear the gospel during their lifetime on earth. The solution of claiming that all persons are called by the Word of God at least indirectly has not been convincing even to most Lutherans. By indirectly they mean that general revelation and rumors concerning a people who worship the true God are invitations to seek the true God. To not respond to such invitations is to reject the gospel.

Lutheran historian Lars Nielsen Dahele is compelled to speculate about a postmortem confrontation, concluding that “the gospel, the message of salvation, testimony concerning Christ, must come to everyone before the final judgment can be passed upon him or her. If it does not reach them in this life, then we see no other conclusion that it will come to them after death.” (*10)

Others conclude that Paul intends to say that the grace of God has appeared “saving all classes of men,” and they substantiate their contention by noting that various classes of men are mentioned in the immediate context. This solution is unacceptable (4).

Still others avoid absolute universalism by arbitrarily adding words such as “capable of bringing salvation to all,” or “offering salvation to all,” or “providing salvation for all.” Such arbitrary additions will be necessary as long as one rejects absolute universalism and does not accept the premise of Evangelical Inclusivism that all persons are elect in Christ except those who the Bible declares will be finally lost.

Heb. 2:9b — “So that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.”

The only attempt made to limit the universal-substitutionary element in this text is the claim that it refers to the category or kind of persons mentioned in the immediate context: those who are “sons,” “brethren” of Christ, and the “sanctified” (see vv. 10, 11). It is said that Christ tasted of death “for every one” in this classification of people.

Grammatically, “everyone” has a standing independent of those mentioned in the immediate context, although as a universal term it necessarily includes them. If, however, the author had intended the term “everyone” to convey the idea of each individual within the category depicted in the context, he would have used a demonstrative pronoun, so that the translation would read: “so that he might taste death for all of these.”

Plainly, this text is an individualistic universal, depicting the tasting of death in the place of “everyone.” The singular form stresses the thought “everyone individually.” Most English versions translate this verse accurately, using no demonstrative pronoun to restrict this action of Christ to a particular category of persons. Whatever reasons there might be for restricting the text to everyone within a category of people, they are theological not grammatical.

An accurate translation of this verse is readily agreed upon. It cannot be denied that it speaks of Christ as having tasted death “for everyone.” To do justice to the text, in the light of the teachings of the Bible as a whole, it appears that one is required to choose between two conclusions. Either he “tasted death” (paid the price of sin) “for everyone” and therefore some of those for whom Christ paid the price of sin are not ultimately saved (Arminian or Lutheran universalism); or, he tasted death “for everyone” and therefore all persons are elect in Christ except those who the Bible declares will be finally lost (Evangelical Inclusivism).

John 3:17 — “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.”

John 12:47 — “For I did not come to judge the world but to save it.”

The term “world” has many different meanings in Scripture, and the context must determine what it means in a given instance. In the light of what is found in other universalistic passages, most of the “world” texts could be readily and meaningfully understood as Evangelical Inclusivism views them, namely, all persons with the exceptions described elsewhere in the Bible. However, because they may be open to other interpretations they shall not be used as a support for Evangelical Inclusivism. This is true of such texts as John 3:16; 6:33, 51; and 1 John 4:14. We shall, however, consider John 3:17 and John 12:47, because there is evidence that they can be rightly understood only as Evangelical Inclusivism understands them.

B. B. Warfield suggested that in the familiar words of John 3:16 “world” may have an ethical connotation, referring to the world of evil, that is, all that which is the contradiction of holiness, goodness, and righteousness. * (*11) Be that as it may, “world” obviously does not have reference to moral evil in John 3:17 or in John 12:47. These two verses point to Christ's intention to save “the world;” surely this is not the world of evil which Christ came to destroy.

The verb “to condemn” or “to judge” (the same word in Greek), in conjunction with its antonym “to save,” is ample evidence that the evangelist is speaking of the world of people. Only human beings can be “judged” or “saved.” In William Hendriksen's words, “Salvation, in the fullest sense of the term (deliverance from punishment not only but from sin itself, and bestowal of everlasting life) was what God had in store for the world into which he sent his Son; not condemnation but salvation.” (*12)

The term “world” in these verses is an undifferentiated totality. As such, whatever is said about it applies to each of its component parts. John 3:17 and 12:47 tell us that the Son came into the world in order that the world (of people) should be saved. Listen to Warfield again:

The elect—they are not the residuum of the great

conflagration, the ashes, so to speak, of the burnt-up world,

gathered sadly together by the Creator, after the

catastrophe is over, that He may make a new and perhaps

better beginning with them and build from them,

perchance, a new structure, to replace that which has

been lost. Nay, they are themselves “the world.” (*13)

Christ accomplishes his purpose—the world of human beings will not be lost. It will be saved because all persons are elect in Christ except those who the Bible declares will be finally lost.

John 12:32 — “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth will draw all men to myself.”

The meaning of this verse revolves around the expression “will draw.” The same term is used in John 7:44: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” In this instance it undoubtedly means to effectively bring to salvation. Elsewhere, the word “draw” is used to depict physical force. It is helpful to note that in every instance the word “draw” portrays a power that overcomes whatever resistance is offered. (*14)

In John 12:32, therefore, there is reference to the effective drawing power of the cross of Christ, that is to salvation. We cannot say that this text teaches only a possible or potential salvation.

To solve the “problem” of this text—that is, to get around the implication that the extension is universal in scope without any exception —some people point to the occasion which prompted Jesus to speak of the drawing power of his death. They maintain that when certain Greeks requested to see Jesus (vs. 21) his response was that by his death he would draw not only Jews to himself but “all classes” of men, including, possibly, those inquiring Greeks. However, there is no validity to the claim that the simple substantive “all” (in the plural) can be interpreted to mean “some persons of all classes” (4).

But even if that interpretation were grammatically acceptable, it would have made the answer evasive as it related to the Greeks who had come to see Jesus. At most it would have assured them that some of their fellow citizens —some representatives of the class of persons called Greeks —would be drawn to Christ. Whether in fact they would be so drawn is left unanswered. There is no real joy in the universalism of the gospel if the proclamation is that “some persons of all classes” are saved. That kind of universalism gives assurance of salvation to no one. It proclaims “release” from prison (Luke 4:18) as an accomplished fact to no one.

A more plausible understanding of Jesus' response to these Greeks is this. He takes note of the fact that Satan, as the prince of this world, had all persons (distributively) under the power of sin. “Now shall the ruler of this world be cast out” (John 12:31). The binding power of sin is to be broken. The cross would overcome the “ruler of this world.” “For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all” (Rom. 11:32). The obedience of Christ counteracts the disobedience of Adam (Rom. 5:18) in every instance except those specifically excluded by the analogy of Scripture.

.” This was indeed a relevant and joyous response to the Greeks who were making the inquiry. If they did not “see Jesus,” or were not “drawn” to Christ, they have only themselves to blame, because the full benefit of Christ's being “lifted up from the earth” is shared by all persons, except those who do “not see fit to acknowledge God” (Rom. 1:28).

1 John 2:2 — “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Perhaps no text in Scripture presents more plausible

support to the doctrine of universal atonement . . . The

extension of the propitiation to “the whole world” would

appear to allow for no other construction than that the

propitiation for sins embraces the sins of the whole world.

It must be said that the language John uses here would fit

in perfectly with the doctrine of universal atonement if

Scripture elsewhere demonstrated that to be a biblical

doctrine. (*15)

Having made this concession, John Murray then proceeds, as do most Reformed scholars, to argue that 1 John 2:2 does not necessarily teach a distributively universal atonement, since there are other reasons the apostle may have had for using the expression “for the whole world.” Murray mentions three possibilities: (1) to indicate the scope of Christ’s propitiation─not limited to the immediate circle of disciples, but extending to every nation and kindred and people and tongue; (2) to emphasize the exclusiveness of Jesus as the propitiation; there is no other sacrifice for sin; the whole world needs him; (3) to remind his readers of the perpetuity of Christ's propitiation; he continues to be the only hope in every age of world history.

Various Reformed scholars have selected one or another of these options. The apostle John, however, did not intend that his readers would be required to select one from many possible meanings. Murray himself appears to favor a combination of all three: “Hence the scope, the exclusiveness and the perpetuity of the propitiation provided sufficient reason for John to say, ‘not for ours only but also for the whole world.'” (*16)

We must now ask ourselves, “How can it be that scope, exclusiveness, and perpetuity are all implied in the expression “the whole world”? The words themselves carry no such diverse a range of meanings. Careful analysis discloses that such inferences are present only when the expression is accepted as a distributively universal statement. Only because “the whole world” is a universal declaration does it imply that Christ is the propitiation for the sin of all peoples and nations, that Christ's sacrifice is the exclusive provision for payment of sin all over the world, and that the atonement is needed in every age of the world's history.

We need not hesitate to accept the distributive universalism of this text for which the language of John, according to Murray, is “perfectly fitted,” because the exceptions to this universal declaration are found in the broader context of Scripture, thereby averting absolute universalism.

Can we perhaps say that there is in this text a potential or provisional salvation (a universalis gratia) which Christ has obtained for all persons without any exceptions? Expiation or propitiation (“the atoning sacrifice”) means appeasement or the cause for turning away wrath. So if Christ is the cause for turning away wrath for all persons without any exception, then there is no more condemnation for anyone. Any further punishment for sin would be capricious, since God's just wrath was satisfied by Christ's sacrifice.

It should also be noted that in the Greek this verse begins with the conjunction “and,” indicating its close association with the preceding text. Jesus Christ is the “one who speaks to the Father in our defense ... and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins.” Those for whom Jesus “speaks to the Father” and those for whom “He is the atoning sacrifice” are coextensive, as Murray points out. (*17) Jesus himself is both the lawyer and the evidence for permitting righteous wrath to be turned away from those who deserve it. (*18) With such an advocate, who is himself the perfect “atoning sacrifice for our sins,” the fate of those represented by him cannot be in doubt.

If 1 John 2:2 and other universalistic texts are seen in the light of the entire context of Scripture, they can be most readily understood as teaching the premise of Evangelical Inclusivism, that all persons are elect in Christ except those who the Bible declares will be finally lost.

OBSERVATIONS

OBSERVATION 1

Posting 1 demonstrated that the four hundred-year-old Arminian/Calvinist debate has established with finality that the translators have given us an accurate translation of the so-called “universalistic” texts. We must accept these texts just as we find them in our English and Greek Bibles.

No one can reasonably deny that these texts speak of a “certain-to-be-realized” salvation as Calvinists have historically maintained and they do so in terms of “all persons” as Arminians have always affirmed. What one does with this fact is debatable but the fact itself cannot be denied. The first principle of sound interpretation is that whatever is less clear must be understood in the light of what is clear in any given passage. What is clear is that these texts speak of a “certain-to-be-realized” salvation in terms of “all persons.”

We have the obligation, after hearing what these texts say, to interpret them in a manner consistent with the entire context of the Scriptures. One such interpretation is suggested by Dr. Charles Hodge: “all the descendants of Adam . . . are saved” and only the Bible itself may make exceptions to this premise (see Posting 1).

Hodge's premise can be referred to as Evangelical Inclusivism because it does justice to the universalistic language found throughout the Bible. One inevitable consequence of denying Hodge's premise is to give the Absolute Universalists exclusive use of the strong grammatical evidence that is found in most of the “all,” “all persons,” “every,” and “world” passages of the Bible.

OBSERVATION 2

Reformed theologians have been rather quick to say that most of the so-called “universalistic” passages do no more than reflect the fact that in the New Testament God's overtures of grace are extended to Gentiles as well as Jews. This, they say, accounts for the “all,” “all persons,” “every,” and “world” passages.

Because nearly every book in the New Testament speaks of the pivotal truth that in Christ “the dividing wall of hostility” (Eph. 2:14) between Jews and Gentiles has been broken down, we are not dependent on any of these passages to be convinced of this historical development. Every universalistic text, by virtue of its being universal, does make reference to both Jews and Gentiles. Therefore, the mention of Jews and Gentiles in the immediate context does not demonstrate that the author intended to merely make reference to two categories of people and not to “all people” distributely.

The use of such terms as “all,” “all persons,” “every,” and “world” is a very indirect way of making reference to two categories or classes of people. The preferred expression would be “both Jews and Gentiles.” This formulation is employed when so intended (see Acts 14:5; 19:10; 20:21; Rom. 3:9; 1 Cor. 1:24, etc.).

OBSERVATION 3

We may not simply rely on the words “all,” “all persons,” “every,” and “world” to resolve the issue of extent. Such terms are often limited by their immediate context. It must be kept in mind, however, that the primary meaning of such expressions is universal in scope. We may limit their extension only if the immediate or extended context of the Scriptures as a whole require such limiting.

The rule is that when the Greek word for “all” (in the plural) is used without the article, it refers to a totality. What is said of the totality is to be considered true of each of the component parts individually, unless there is something which modifies such a deduction. “The generic use of the adjective ‘all' (as in ‘all men') refers to each one in a group, though not with such stress on the individual that there can be no exceptions” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Eerdmans, 1967, V, P. 888).

OBSERVATION 4

The "all," "all men," and "every" expressions are burrs under the saddle of traditional Calvinists. They cannot accept them as written. Therefore they make the amazing claim that the "all," "all men," and "every" phrases refer to "all kinds" or "all classes of people." With what justification? None whatsoever! No translator has ever been so bold as to translate these terms as "all kinds" or "all classes" of people when translating the so-called "universalistic" texts. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (cited above) gives no warrant for doing so. A.C. DeJong states: “All in the plural without the article can have various meanings but, seldom, if ever, means all classes, all types or all kinds” (The Well-Meant Gospel Offer, Franeker, 1954, P. 173).

An even more substantial reason for rejecting “all kinds” or “all classes” as a translation for “all” in these so-called “universalistic” passages is the fact that “classes of persons” denotes an abstraction which can exist only in one's mind. Such abstractions do not need, nor are they capable of receiving “salvation” as it is referred to in these passages.

To bring these abstractions back into reality, it is said that the “all” and “all men” texts refer to “some persons of all classes.” This, however, is so far removed from what these texts actually say that this is not a viable interpretation. Consider how the Bible designates “some persons of all classes” in a non-abstract way (see Acts 2:5; Rev. 5:9; 7:9).

A listing of various “classes” or “kinds” of people in the immediate context does not necessarily account for the “all” and “every” terms. Indeed, the reverse is often the case. It is the “all” (a universally valid truth) of Titus 2:11 that accounts for various “classes” of people being listed in the immediate context (vv. 2–10), as the “for” at the beginning of verse 11 indicates (see also John 12:32; Rom. 11:32; 1 Tim. 2:6).

The force that the claims and obligations of these passages place on all persons is lost when it is said that the universal truth they proclaim applies only to “some people of all classes.” The demands, obligations, and authority of Christ's kingship apply to all persons distributively and allegiance to him is required of all persons whether or not they acknowledge his kingship.

FOOTNOTES

(*1) Vol. II, p. 874.

(*2) See vv. 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 29, 30

(*3) Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (New International

Commentary on the New Testament) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 1953, p. 363.

(*4) John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1955), p. 71. For further substantiation that Scripture teaches that all who die with Christ also live with him, see Gal. 2:20; Phil. 3:10; Col. 3:1–5; 1 Pet. 4:1, 2.

(*5) Agape and Eros, tr. Philip Watson (London: SPCK, 1957) pp. 132f.

(*6) DeJong, The Well-Meant Gospel Offer, p. 174.

(*7) The same meaning is apparent in Luke 1:47; 2:11; John 4:42; Acts 5:31; 13:23; Eph. 5:25; Phil. 3:20; Phil. 3:20; 1 Tim. 2:3; Titus 2:10, 13; 5:4, 6; 1 John 4:14.

(*8) See also Titus 1:3, 4; 2 Pet. 1:1, 11; 2:20; 3:2, 18; Jude 25.

(*9) See Acts 20:38; 25:26; 26:3; Gal. 6:10; Phil. 4:22; 1 Tim. 4:10; 5:8, 17; Titus 1:10; Phm. 16; 2 Pet. 2:10.

(*10) Life After Death, tr. J. Beveridge (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896), p. 187.

(*11) The Savior of the World (London; Hodder & Stoughton, 1913), p. 118.

(*12) New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1961), 1, p. 142.

(*13) Op. cit., p. 124.

(*14) See John 18:10; 21:6, 11; Acts 16:19; 21:30j; James 2:6. See also Hendriksen, op. cit., 1, p. 238.

(*15) Murray, Redemption, p. 72.

(*16) Ibid, p. 74.

(*17) Ibid, p. 75.

(*18) John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (London: Banner of Truth, 1959), presents biblical evidence to establish that those for whom Christ made oblation are the same individuals for whom he makes intercession (pp. 70–88).

Return to Postings