Morris:¹

16 God loved “the world” (see Additional Note B, pp.126ff.). The Jew was ready enough to think of God as loving Israel, but no passage appears to be cited in which any Jewish writer maintains that God loved the world. It is a distinctively Christian idea that God’s love is wide enough to embrace all mankind. His love is not confined to any national group or any spiritual elite. It is a love which proceeds from the fact that He is love (I John 4:8, 16). It is His nature to love. He loves men because He is the kind of God He is. John tells us that His love is shown in the gift of His Son. Of this gift Odeberg finely says, “the Son is God’s gift to the world, and, moreover, it is the gift. There are no Divine gifts apart from or outside the one-born (sic) Son“.In typical Johannine fashion “gave” is used in two senses. God gave the Son by sending Him into the world, but God also gave the Son on the cross. Notice that the cross is not said to show us the love of the Son (as in Gal. 2:20), but that of the Father. The atonement proceeds from the loving heart of God. It is not something wrung from Him. The Greek construction puts some stress on the actuality of the gift: it is not “God loved so as to give”, but “God loved so that He gave”. His love is not a vaguely sentimental feeling, but a love that costs. God gave what was most dear to Him. For “only begotten” see on 1:14, and for “believeth on” see on 1:12 (also Additional Note E, pp. 335ff.). The death of the Son is viewed first of all in its revelatory aspect. It shows us the love of the Father. Then its purpose is brought out, both positively and negatively.

Those who believe on Him do not “perish”. Neither here nor anywhere else in the New Testament is the dreadful reality behind this word “perish” brought out. But in all its parts there is the recognition that there is such a reality awaiting the finally impenitent. Believers are rescued from this only by the death of the Son. Because of this they have “eternal life” (see on v.15). John sets perishing and life starkly over against one another. He knows no other final state.

17 Now John uses the thought of judgment to bring out God’s loving purpose, and once again he employs the device of following a negative statement with the corresponding positive. God did not send the Son into the world, he tells us, in order to judge it. Elsewhere, however, he tells us that Jesus did come into the world “for judgment” (9:39). The resolution of the paradox demands that we see salvation as necessarily implying judgment. These are the two sides to the one coin. The very fact of salvation for all who believe implies judgment on all who do not. This is a solemn reality and John does not want us to escape it. Judgment is a recognized theme in contemporary Jewish thought, but it is the judgment of God, and it is thought of as taking place at the last day. John modifies both these thoughts. He does, it is true, speak of judging sometimes in much the normal Jewish way (8:50). But it is quite another matter when he says that God has committed all judgment to Christ (5:22, 27). He goes on to speak of Christ as judging (5:30; 8:16, 26) or not judging (8:15 [but if. 16]; 12:47), and of His word as judging men (12:48). His judgment is just (5 : 30) and it is true (8:16). How men fare in the judgment depends on their relation to Him (5 24; 3:19). As the cross looms large Jesus can even speak of the world as judged (12:31) and of Satan likewise as judged (12:31; 16:11) . Clearly John sees the whole traditional doctrine of judgment as radically modified in the light of the Incarnation. The life, and especially the death of Jesus have their effects on the judgment. So far we have referred to future judgment, the judgment of the last day. But this is not all of John’s teaching. He sees judgment also as a present reality (v. 18). What men are doing now determines what will happen when they stand before Christ on judgment day. All this has obvious Christological implications. Clearly John has a high view of Jesus’ Person. His teaching on judgment is yet another way in which he brings out the messiahship of Jesus, his great central aim.

In this verse “judge” has a meaning much like “condemn” (AV), as the contrast with “be saved” shows. Some men will, in fact, be condemned, and that as the result of Christ’s coming into the world (v. 19). But the purpose of His coming was not this. It was on the contrary “that the world should be saved“. So John brings out his positive corresponding to the negative at the beginning of the verse. Salvation was central to the mission of Jesus, a truth which is brought out also in the Synoptists (Matt. 27:42; Mark 8:35; Luke 19:10, etc.). We should not overlook the “through him” at the end of the verse, for this attributes the salvation in question ultimately to the Father. It is also worth noticing that in this verse we have another example of John’s habit of giving emphasis to certain words by the simple device of repetition. He uses “world” three times in this verse.

Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI.: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1971), 229-232.

Read the rest of this entry »

Further comments here.

Clifford:

Under the influence of Aristotle’s teleology and the commercial theory of the atonement, Owen proposes a ‘dilemma to our universalists’ in a powerful piece of reasoning. After stating that there was a qualitative and quantitative ‘sameness’ in the sufferings of Christ and the eternal punishment threatening those for whom he died, Owen affirms, ‘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 of the sins of all men’. This is Owen’s famous ‘triple choice’ position, which, in his view, conclusively settles the controversy in favour of a limited atonement. The last choice is quickly ruled out: if the atonement fails to deal with all sins, then the sinner has something to answer for. The first choice invites Owen’s question, ‘Why, then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins?’ He therefore concludes that the second choice alone fits the case; the atonement is exclusively related to ‘all the sins of some men.’

Owen anticipates the universalist objection that men are only lost through an unbelieving rejection of the atonement. He asks:

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 the sins.

For all its apparent cogency, this compelling argument raises some important problems. It is clear that unbelievers are guilty of rejecting nothing if Christ was not given for them; unbelief surely involves the rejection of a definite provision of grace. It also makes nonsense of the means of grace, depriving general exhortations to believe of all significance.

A further objection arises from an unexpected quarter. In Owen’s view the sufferings of Christ not only deal with the guilt of the believer’s pre-conversion unbelief, they are causally related to the removal of unbelief. But Owen’s pastoral experience taught him that even true believers–or those who have grounds to regard themselves as elect–continue to be plagued with unbelief. Should this be the case if Christ had died to purchase faith for them, or are they perhaps deceived? Owen certainly denies that lapses of unbelief in the elect are not sinful if Christ has paid the penalty for them. Neither would he question the fact that doubting believers fail to participate fully in the subjective blessings Christ’s death has purchased for them. In other words, his argument applies as much to supposed believers as it does to unbelievers, with interesting consequences. For if partial unbelief in a Christian hinders him from enjoying the fullness of those blessings Christ has died to purchase for him, this is no different in principle from saying that total unbelief in a non-Christian hinders him from ‘partaking of the fruit’ Christ’s death makes available for him too.

Read the rest of this entry »

Shultz:

2 Corinthians 5:14-15

In the first seven chapters of 2 Corinthians Paul is defending the integrity of his gospel ministry.⁷¹ Second Corinthians 5:11-21 is a significant passage in this first part of the letter, as Paul is here hoping to persuade the Corinthians that his ministry is a credible apostolic ministry (vv. 11-12).⁷² In verses 14-15, Paul explains why he was devoted to serving God and the Corinthians (v.13). Second Corinthians 5:14-15 reads, “For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.” The reason that Paul ministered to the Corinthians was because the love of Christ compelled him to do so.⁷³ The reason that Paul was convinced of Christ’s love was because he died for all.⁷⁴ After expressing this conviction Paul then states two consequences of Christ’s death for all. First, the consequence of Christ dying for all is that all died; his death involved their death (v. 14).⁷⁵ Second, the purpose of Christ’s death was so that those who live in him should live for him (v. 15).⁷⁶

The pertinent interpretive question in this passage for the extent of the atonement is how extensive the term “all” (pantes) is. Does Paul use “all” to refer to all people without exception, or does he use the term to refer to all believers?⁷⁷ A related question is who is included in the group “they who live.” Are “they who live” the same group as the “all,” or is Paul referring to a different group of people here? Advocates of particular redemption understand all four expressions (the three uses of “all” and “they who live”) as referring to believers.⁷⁸ The “all” that died are those who died to sin when Christ died for them on the cross.⁷⁹ The “all” are the same people as “they who live” because Christ’s death and resurrection are a unity, and all for whom Christ died are the same people for whom he rose.⁸⁰ This understanding is supported by an appeal to Romans 6:4-8, which asserts that those who died with Christ in the likeness of his death are also made to live with him in the likeness of his resurrection.⁸¹

The other possible meaning for pantes is that it refers to all people without exception, or the whole of humankind. The phrase “they who live” may then refer to all people without exception as well, or it may refer to those in Christ. It seems clear that the phrase “they who live” refers to believers.⁸² This is so for three reasons: because this is how Paul describes believers elsewhere (Rom 6:4), because this would be an odd way to refer to all human beings, and because if this were true, universalism would result.⁸³ If “they who live” are believers, however, then it strongly suggests that pantes refers to all people without exception, and not to believers. Paul introduces a new category of people with the phrase “they who live,” and this category is distinct from the “all.”⁸⁴ If Paul had meant to indicate that “all” and “they who live” were the same group of people, then why did he not simply continue to use the word “all?” Paul in these verses states that Christ died for all so that all died,⁸⁵ and so that those who live (believe in him) should no longer live for themselves, but for him, the one who died and rose on their behalf.⁸⁶ These verses therefore affirm Christ’s substitutionary death for all people without exception.

Shultz, Gary L. “A Biblical and Theological Defense of a Multi-Intentioned View of the Atonement” (Ph.D diss., Southern Baptist Theologican Seminary, 2008) 121-125. [Bold original, italics original; footnotes and values original; and underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Chambers:

The relation of faith to Christ’s death in Scripture.

From our brief survey we see that when faith is related to Christ’s death that death is predominantly presented as an object of faith, as trust is placed in Jesus the Christ who was crucified.⁵⁵ Where it is related causally to people’s coming to faith it is as the content of what is preached, not as a guarantor of a right purchased from the Father.⁵⁶ Faith comes through hearing and what is heard is the gospel of Christ crucified for sin, buried, and risen.⁵⁷ The gospel of the cross is also the focus of the Spirit’s illuminating work.⁵⁸ Coming to faith seems to occur in the creation of a compelling relational context in which, by the presentation of the object of faith, Christ clad in the promises of His gospel,⁵⁹ and the revealing of the certainty of the reality of that object by the Spirit, the illuminated hearer can do no other than freely turn to God in the genuinely and thoroughly human response of believing.⁶⁰ Thus the scriptural mode of relation contrasts with that of Owen whose talk of the purchase of faith stresses the eternal and efficient in the causation of faith. The Scriptures, however, are seen to stress the sufficiency of Christ’s death as presented in the gospel and its temporal application by the Spirit in relation to coming to faith.

Some of the references to faith contained in scripture create positive difficulties for the notion of purchase. These are those references which indicate the weakness or incompleteness of the faith of believers. If the faith which is purchased is a weakness of faith [Rom. 14: 1 who in context are specifically those for whom Christ died, 14: 15] or a lacking in faith [1 Thess. 3: 10] is that the result of a deficiency in acquisition or application? Is it because He dies for some or applies to some in ways different to others? This Owen cannot allow. He specifically rejects the idea that Christ can die for some in one way and for others in another, and he insists that what is obtained must be applied, for that is the purpose of its obtaining.⁶¹ Owen’s language has difficulty in accommodating itself to the reality of Christian faith as it is presented in the scriptures. Making a slightly different point, Clifford elaborates on the consequences of this variability of the subjective Making a slightly different point, Clifford elaborates on the consequences of this variability of the subjective experience of faith amongst Christians for Owen is position.

First he observes that

in Owen’s view the sufferings of Christ not only deal with the guilt of the believer’s pre-conversion unbelief, they are causally related to the removal of unbelief.⁶²

Then, noting that

doubting believers fail to participate fully in the subjective blessings Christ’s death purchased for them

he concludes that Owen’s

argument applies as much to supposed believers as it does to unbelievers, with interesting consequences. For if partial unbelief in a Christian hinders him from enjoying the fullness of those blessings Christ has died to purchase for him, this is no different in principle from saying that total unbelief in a non-Christian hinders him from ‘partaking of the fruit’ Christ’s death makes available for him too.⁶³

That is, if Christ can be said to have died for one who has a relative lack of the subjective benefits of that death, why can He not be said to have died for one whose lack of those benefits is greater, when the barrier in both to fullness of blessing is unbelief.

Chambers, N.A. “A Critical Examination of John Owen’s Argument for Limited Atonement in the Death of Death in the Death of Christ,” (Th.M. thesis, Reformed Theological Seminary, 1998), 221-224. [Some reformatting; old style title emphasis converted to italics; italics original; underlining for side-headers original; and inline underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »