For whom did Christ Die?
Steven R. Cook
Though
the Bible is a revelation from God to man and the Holy Spirit illumines the
minds of those who read it, there are some things in the Bible that are
difficult to comprehend. For example,
the Bible teaches that God exists as three persons who are co-equal,
co-infinite, and co-eternal. They are
three in person, but one in essence. One
can know that the doctrine of the Trinity is true, but never fully grasp all
that is knowable about it, because it relates to God who is beyond human
comprehension. This is also true about
the doctrine of the hypostatic union, which teaches that Jesus is one hundred
percent man and at the same time one hundred percent God. Such a truth is a logical contradiction, and
yet it is taught in the Bible. One could
also look at other Bible doctrines such as divine decrees, election, and
predestination and realize that such doctrines are clearly taught, even though
they extend beyond the sphere of human comprehension.
Like
the doctrines mentioned above, it would seem that when one considers the
doctrine of the atonement to its fullest extent, human comprehension seems to
be at a loss. Many Christians fumble
over themselves in an attempt to explain this doctrine; others appear to explain
it well. That Christ died as a substitute
for sin is not contested, but the extent of His atonement is studied here. Many passages in the Bible can be used to
argue that Christ died only for the elect, and others used to argue that Christ
died for all. Scripturally, both appear
to be true; that Christ died universally for everyone, but particularly for the
elect.
God’s Character
God acts
according to His character, or essence; so that all that God does is a
reflection of who He is. Biblically, God
is declared to possess many attributes, such as Sovereignty
(Deut. 4:39; Dan. 4:35), Righteousness (Ps. 11:7; 97:6; 119:137), Justice (Ps.
9:7, 8; 19:9), Love (Jer. 31:3; 1 John 4:7-12), Eternal Life (Ps. 9:7; 90:2;
102:27), Omniscience (Ps. 147:5; 139:1-6), Omnipresence (Jer.23:24; Ps.139:7-12), Omnipotence (Jer. 27:5;
Eph. 1:19; 3:20), Immutability (Ps. 102:26, 27; Mal. 3:6), and Truth (2
Sam. 7:28; Jo. 14:6; 16; 17:17). From these attributes, righteousness,
justice, and love play the most important role with regard to the subject of
atonement. With regard to righteousness
the Scripture states:
Your
eyes are too pure to approve evil, and You can not
look on wickedness with favor. (Habakkuk
For the LORD is righteous, He loves righteousness; the
upright will behold His face. (Psalm 11:7)
Righteous are You, O LORD, and upright are Your judgments. (Psalm 119:137)
God is
perfect righteousness, and He cannot “look on wickedness.” God’s righteousness is the guardian of
heaven, and it is also the standard for any who would enter into a relationship
with Him. Too often people ask “how can
a loving God send someone to the hell?”
A better question is “how can a perfectly righteous God allow a wicked
sinner into heaven?” God’s character
demands that if someone is going to spend eternity with Him, that person must
measure up to the standard of His righteousness. The Bible speaks plainly about measuring up
to God’s righteousness when it states:
“Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:48)
For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. (Romans 10:3-4)
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (2 Corinthians 5:21)
He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit. (Titus 3:5)
I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith. (Philippians 3:8-9)
God
also acts with perfect justice according His standard of righteousness. That is, His judgments are always just
because His character is perfectly righteous.
One might say that what God’s righteousness expects, His justice carries
out. Since human sin is contrary to
God’s righteousness, His justice rejects and condemns it.
But the LORD abides forever; He has established His throne
for judgment, and He will judge the world in righteousness; He will execute
judgment for the peoples with equity. (Psalm 9:7, 8)
The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; the
judgments of the LORD are true; they are righteous altogether. (Psalm 19:9)
And the heavens declare His righteousness, for God Himself is judge. (Psalm 50:6)
God’s attributes of righteousness and justice always
work together and cannot be separated.
God has always been, is, and forever will be righteous and just in all
He does. However, if God were only a God
of righteousness and justice, there would never be mercy or forgiveness, for
man would never deserve anything except condemnation. Yet, the Bible clearly reveals that God is
also love. The Scripture declares:
The LORD appeared to him from afar, saying, “I have
loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have drawn you with
lovingkindness. (Jeremiah 31:3)
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and
everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does
not know God, for God is love. By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world
so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but
that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has seen
God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is
perfected in us. (1 John 4:7-12)
We have come to know and have believed the love which God
has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God
abides in him. (1 John 4:16)
Because
of God’s love, He found a way to satisfy His perfect righteousness and justice,
and to save sinful mankind from eternal separation and punishment. God’s love motivated Him to provide a
substitute that would bear the penalty of sin, and provide forgiveness to the
offender. Regarding this, Leon Morris
states:
The need for the atonement arises from the universal sinfulness
of mankind and our inability to deal with the problem posed by our sin. That all are sinners is clear from specific
expressions in Scripture (e.g. 1 Ki.
It is a serious thing to say “we do not measure up to the standards God lays down.” Man, by his own efforts, is not able to correct his fallen position, nor is he able to remove the barrier that exists between him and God. God had to find a way to satisfy his righteousness, and at the same time provide salvation for lost sinners. He did this in the atonement.
The Meaning of Atonement
‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have
given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the
blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.’ (Leviticus 17:11)
The
life that is given up in sacrifice as a substitute atones for the sin of the
sinner. The Hebrew verb kaphar in
Leviticus 17:11 means to “cover over,
pacify, propitiate, [and] atone
for sin.”3 Regarding
what atonement means, J. I Packer declares that “Atonement means
making amends, blotting out the offense, and giving satisfaction for wrong
done; thus reconciling to oneself the alienated other and restoring the
disrupted relationship.”4
Atonement
accomplishes the payment for sin, and satisfies the righteousness of God so
that the sinner is reconciled to God, and the relationship is healed. This truth is observed in the Greek words hilaskomai which
means “to forgive, to make
atonement for, show mercy,”5
and hilasmos
which refers to the “means of
forgiveness.”6 There is also the Greek word hilasterion which Swanson believes points to the “sacrifice of atonement,”7 but
Carson believes “includes the notion of propitiation.”8 The former
emphasizes the payment of the debt, whereas the latter emphasizes God’s
satisfaction. Either way, sin is taken
care of, and salvation is provided.
Christ
is said to have died for (huper) sinners, in the sense that His death was
substitutionary. “The foundational
meaning of the death of Christ is its substitutionary character. He died in
place of sinners that He might purchase their freedom, reconcile them to God,
and thereby satisfy the righteous demands of a holy God.”9
Biblically,
atonement is the act of God which deals with sin by condemning it in the
substitute of Christ, and removes sin from the offender. Atonement satisfies God’s righteousness
demands and allows the sinner to approach Him without fear of
condemnation. Atonement is accomplished
by God through the work of Christ on the cross, which bears His wrath in place
of the sinner. By taking the initiative
to remove sin by substitutionary atonement, God reveals His attributes of
righteousness, justice, and love all at once.
J. I Packer succinctly explains atonement as follows:
Atonement means making amends, blotting out the
offense, and giving satisfaction for wrong done; thus reconciling to oneself
the alienated other and restoring the disrupted relationship. Scripture depicts
all human beings as needing to atone for their sins but lacking all power and resources
for doing so. We have offended our holy Creator, whose nature it is to hate sin
(Jer. 44:4; Hab.
That Christ has paid the bill for sin in full appears to be the clear teaching of Scripture. In the atonement, the sin debt is paid in full, and Christ has been declared victorious. “It is not saying too much to contend that the basis of Christ’s atonement is the vindication of God in His victory over sin and Satan.”11
The Extent of the Atonement
When evangelicals ask the question, “For whom did Christ die?” they are not asking whether the death of Christ has value sufficient to cover the sins of all persons. There is total agreement on this matter. Since the death of Christ was of infinite value, it is sufficient regardless of the number of elect. Rather, the question is whether God sent Christ to die to provide salvation for all persons, or simply for those whom he had chosen.12
That
Christ died as a substitute for sinners in order to meet the demands of God’s
righteousness seems obvious from Scripture (Isa. 53:4-11; Rom.
For whom did Christ die? In the history of the church there have been two basic answers to that question. Most Christians have taught that Christ died for every human individual. Therefore the atonement is universal in extent. Others have held that Christ died only for the elect. Therefore the atonement is limited, definite or particular in extant.13
There
are basically two positions to hold: one being that Christ died for everyone,
and the other that Christ died only for the elect. Yet, even within these two basic positions,
men have found room to disagree. Lewis
S. Chafer, in his systematic theology, lists four groups, two of which are
limited redemptionists, and the other two unlimited redemptionists:
1. The Extreme Limited Redemptionists. This group is sometimes styled the High, Ultra, Calvinists. It includes the supralapsarians who, as has been seen, assert that the decree of divine election stands first in the order of elective decrees—before the decree to create men, before the decree to permit the fall, and before the decree to provide salvation. Such a view could make no place for an unlimited redemption, nor could it encourage the preaching of the gospel to those who, they contend, were reprobated from the beginning.
2. The Moderate Calvinists Who Are Limited Redemptionists. The appellation Moderate Calvinist, in this instance, is based on their belief that the decree to elect is preceded by the decree to create and the decree to permit the fall. Though they contend for a limited redemption, they make a place for world-wide preaching of the gospel and grant certain concessions not possible to the extreme Calvinists.
3. The Moderate Calvinists Who Are Unlimited Redemptionists. The men who belong to this school of interpretation defend all of the five points of Calvinism excepting one, namely, “Limited Atonement,” or what has been termed “the weakest point in the Calvinistic system of doctrine.” This form of moderate Calvinism is more the belief of Bible expositors than of the theologians, which fact is doubtless due to the truth that the Bible, taken in its natural terminology and apart from the strained interpretations which are required to defend a theory, seems to teach an unlimited redemption. Men of this group believe that Christ died actually and fully for all men of this age alike, that God has ordained that the gospel shall be preached to all for whom Christ died, and that through the proclamation of the gospel He will exercise His sovereign power in saving His elect. This group believes in the absolute depravity of man and his total inability to believe apart from the enabling power of the Spirit, and that the death of Christ, being forensic, is a sufficient ground for any and every man to be saved, should the Spirit of God choose to draw him. They contend that the death of Christ of itself saves no man, either actually or potentially, but that it does render all men savable; that salvation is wrought of God alone, and at the time the individual believes.
4. The Arminians…hold that Christ’s death was for all men alike, and that it secures for everyone a measure of common grace whereby all are able to believe if they will. Men are, according to this view, subject to divine judgment only on the ground of their willful rejection of Christ’s salvation.14
The
first two groups argue that Christ died only for the elect; whereas, the second
two groups argue that Christ died for everyone.
Both groups argue their position from Scripture, and it is Scripture
that must determine which view is correct.
Below are some of the Scriptures used for limited atonement:
The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many. (Matthew 20: 28)
“I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. (John 10:14-15)
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)
In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (1 John 4:10)
Regarding some of the above quoted passages Paul Enns States:
There are a number of passages that emphasize Christ died for
a particular group of people and not for everyone. As the Good Shepherd, Christ
laid down His life for the sheep (John
Such teaching is common among Calvinists who “believe that the purpose of Christ’s coming was not to make possible the salvation of all humans, but to render certain the salvation of the elect.”16 This teaching is also commonly called “definite or particular redemption, suggesting that the atonement of Christ is limited to a definite or particular number of people.”17 The larger context of humanity would therefore be considered as residing within the sphere of darkness and sin, since Christ did not die for them; whereas, the elect reside within the sphere of light and forgiveness, since Christ died only for them. The following diagram illustrates limited atonement:
Apart from relying on the usual Bible passages, many Calvinists argue limited atonement from logic, stating that “if Christ actually made atonement for sin then the objects of that atonement must be a particular group. Otherwise the atonement’s effect is weakened because not everyone is saved for whom Christ made atonement.”18 So the idea here is that if Christ died for a sinner, and that sinner is not saved, then Christ died needlessly. Arguing further Paul Enns states:
Other arguments advanced for limited atonement include the
following. If God is sovereign (Eph.
Unlimited
redemptionists argue that there are many passages that clearly state that
Christ died for all (cf. Jo.
On the
other side of the fence are those who believe that Christ’s death was actual
for everyone, but efficacious only for the elect. Regarding this understanding, Lewis S. Chafer
states:
The limited Redemptionist considers the death of
Christ as actual for the elect and of no saving benefit for the nonelect, while
the unlimited Redemptionist considers the death of Christ as actual for the
elect and potential and provisional for the nonelect.”21
Some of the Scriptures used to support unlimited
atonement are as follows:
The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! (John 1:29)
For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers. (1 Timothy 4:10)
But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. (Hebrews 2:9)
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. (1 John 2:1-2)
In a straight forward reading of the Bible, it is easy to conclude that Christ died for every person, and not just a select few. Since Christ died for everyone, then it would appear logical that every person has the potential to be saved. Thus, there is a true universal message that Christ died for everyone. The preacher of the gospel does not have to question whether Christ’ death actually paid for everyone’s sin, but simply has to go out and share the good news.
Now, the limited redemptionist will argue that if Christ paid for the sin of everyone, and everyone is not saved, then Christ died unnecessarily for many, who, in the end, will be lost. Arguing against unlimited atonement Wayne Grudem states:
Reformed people argue that if Christ’s death actually paid for the sins of every person who ever lived, then there is no penalty left for anyone to pay, and it necessarily follows that all people will be saved, without exception. For God could not condemn to eternal punishment anyone whose sins are already paid for: that would be demanding double payment, and it would therefore be unjust.22
There seems to be weight to Grudem’s
statement that “if Christ’s death actually paid for the sins of every person
who ever lived, then there is no penalty left for
anyone to pay, and it necessarily follows that all people will be saved,
without exception.” However, “it is well
to observe that salvation is vastly more than the forgiveness of sins.”23 If
salvation were a coin, forgiveness of sin would only be one side; the
imputation of God’s righteousness to the believer would be the other (2 Cor.
Because some reject does not invalidate that the provision was not made for them. If we say that a father provides sufficient food for his family, we do not exclude the possibility that some members of that family may refuse to eat what has been provided. But their refusal does not mean that the provision was made only for those who actually do eat the food. Likewise, the death of Christ provided the payment for the sins of all people—those who accept that payment and those who do not. Refusal to accept does not limit the provision made. Providing and possessing are not the same.24
Ryrie’s argument that “providing and possessing are not the same” carries weight. For the unlimited redemptionist, there is no conflict between the value of Christ’s death for everyone, and the understanding that only some will benefit from it. Only those who believe in Christ will be the fortunate recipients of the provision. When comparing verses between the two views, it makes good sense to conclude that “unlimited verses can include the truth of the limited ones; but since the reverse is not true, it seems best to conclude that the death of Christ was unlimited in its value.”25 So then, Christ’s death was sufficient for all, but “the personal application of that death is limited to those who believe in Him.”26 The diagram below illustrates that Christ died for everyone, and that He died for the elect:
Practically speaking, it would seem difficult, if not impossible, to go to anyone and preach that Christ died for them, if in fact He did not. How could one preach the cross of Christ to a person and tell him that salvation is predicated on trusting the Savior, if the hearer cannot be saved because his sins were in fact never forgiven? To this Lewis S. Chafer states:
It would seem unnecessary to point out that men cannot reject what does not even exist, and if Christ did not die for the nonelect, they cannot be condemned for unbelief (cf. John 3:18). Both salvation and condemnation are conditioned on the individual’s reaction to one and the same thing, namely, the saving grace of God made possible through the death of Christ.27
How one understands the work of
Christ on the cross will determine his confidence in preaching the good
news. So then, “the provision of Christ
in His atonement is for everyone; it is sufficient for everyone to be saved
(although not all are).”28
Conclusion
The
evidence, it would seem, favors the understanding that Christ died for
everyone, but that His death is only efficacious to those who believe. That godly men argue on both sides of the
fence is obvious, and both groups will have all eternity to settle the matter
once they are in heaven. Until then,
Christians should feel free to go out and share the gospel with everyone,
knowing that Christ died for all, and that salvation is truly available to any
person who will believe in Christ.
__________________________________________________________
Endnotes:
1. All Scripture quotes are from the New American Standard Bible Updated © 1995 by The Lockman Foundation.
2. Leon L. Morris, “Atonement,” in New Dictionary of Theology, eds. Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 54.
3. Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers 1979), 497.
4. J. I. Packer, Concise Theology (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1995), 137.
5. James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains, Vol. 3, (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 301.
6. Ibid., 301
7. Ibid., 301
8.
D. A. Carson, “Atonement in Romans
9. Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1997), 322.
10. Packer, Concise Theology, 138.
11.
S. Lewis
Johnson, Jr., “Studies in the
Epistle to the Colossians—Part VII: The Complete Sufficiency of
12.
Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (
13. W. R. Godfrey, “Atonement, the Extent of” in New Dictionary of Theology, eds. Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 57.
14. Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1993), 184-185.
15. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, 326.
16. Erickson, Christian Theology, 843.
17. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, 326.
18. Ibid., 326.
19. Ibid., 327.
20. Ibid., 327.
21. Chafer, Systematic Theology, 3:186-187.
22.
Wayne Grudem, Systematic
Theology (
23. Chafer, Systematic Theology, 3:186.
24. Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology (Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1986), 318.
25. Charles Ryrie, A Survey of Bible Doctrine (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 122.
26. Ibid., 122.
27. Chafer, Systematic Theology, 3:187.
28. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, 498.
__________________________________________________________
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, Kenneth W. “Justification by Faith,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 135 (1999):110-127.
Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. Revised and edited by Fredrick
William Danker.
Brown, Francis, Driver, S.R. and Briggs, Charles A. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon.
Carson, D. A.
“Atonement in Romans
Chafer,
Lewis S. Systematic Theology, Three Volumes.
Enns, Paul P. The Moody Handbook of Theology.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology.
Godfrey, W. R. “Atonement, the Extent of” in New Dictionary of Theology, eds. Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright. Leicester,
England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988.
Grudem,Wayne. Systematic Theology.
Hodge,Charles. Commentary on 2 Corinthians.
Johnson Jr., S. Lewis. “Studies in the Epistle to the Colossians—Part
VII: The Complete Sufficiency of
Sacra 120, (1998): 22-45.
Morris, Leon L.
“Atonement,” in New Dictionary of
Theology, eds. Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright, Leicester.
Varsity Press, 1988.
New American Standard Bible Updated © 1995 by The Lockman Foundation.
Packer,
J. I. Concise Theology.
Ryrie, Charles. A Survey of Bible Doctrine.
Ryrie, Charles. Basic Theology.
Swanson, James. Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains, Vol.
3.
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1996.