Köstenberger:

[3:14-15]

The allusion to Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness is plainly to Num. 21 :8-9, where God is shown to send poisonous snakes to judge rebellious Israel. When Moses intercedes for his people, God provides a way of salvation in the form of a raised bronze serpent, so that “when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, he lived.” But the primary analogy established in the present passage is not that of the raised bronze serpent and the lifted-up Son of Man; rather, Jesus likens the restoration of people’s physical lives as a result of looking at the bronze serpent to people’s reception of eternal life as a result of “looking” in faith at the Son of Man (d. 3:15-18; see Barrett 1978: 214; cf. Carson 1991: 202). Yet as in the case of wilderness Israel, the source of salvation ultimately is not a person’s faith, but the God in whom the faith is placed (d. Wis. 16:6-7). “Lifted up” (hypsothenai, hypsothenai) has a double meaning here (d. 8:28; 12:32,34), linking Jesus’ exaltation with his elevation on a cross (Ridderbos 1997: 136-37). The expression draws on Isa. 52: 13 LXX (hypsothesetai, hypsothesetai; see Dodd 1953: 247).

The phrase “everyone who believes” strikes a markedly universal note. Although looking at the bronze serpent in the wilderness restored life to believing Israelites, there are no such ethnic restrictions on believing in Jesus. Everyone who believes will, “in him” (Jesus; see additional note), receive eternal life (cf. 3: 16-18; see commentary at 1:4,9, 12).42 God sent Jesus to save not just Israel, but the entire world (3:17). Its insistence on the universality of the Christian message marks John’s Gospel off from sects such as the Qumran community or the large number of mystery religions, all of which saw salvation limited to a select few. At the same time, however, John’s Gospel does not teach universalism, that is, the notion that all will eventually be saved; rather, salvation is made contingent on believing “in him” (3: 16), that is, Jesus the Messiah (d. 20:30-31). This, then, is the answer to Nicodemus’s query in 3:9: these things (regeneration, entering the kingdom) can happen only through the “lifting up” of the Son of Man (Carson 1991: 202). The signs-based faith of 2:23 and 3:2 was founded on seeing Jesus in the flesh; the faith of 3:15 “is faith in the power of him who is powerless in the flesh and in the eyes of the flesh” (Ridderbos 1997: 137).

iii. The Evangelist’s Exposition (3:16-21)

3:16

What is the reason (gar [gar, for]) that God made eternal life available (Wallace 1996: 668)? It is his love for the world. This much-loved verse is the only place in John where God the Father is said to love the world (d. 1 John 4:9-10). The OT makes abundantly clear that God loves all that he has made, especially his people (e .g., Exod. 34:6-7; Deut. 7:7-8; Hos. 11:1-4,8-11). In these last days, God has demonstrated his love for the world through the gift of his one-of-a-kind Son. Significantly, God’s love extends not merely to Israel, but to “the world” (Morris 1995: 203; cf. Muller, ISBE 4: 1115; Guhrt, NIDNTT 1:525-26), that is, sinful humanity (Carson 1991: 205). Just as God’s love encompasses the entire world, so Jesus made atonement for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).

Read the rest of this entry »

Augustine:

1) Now this resurrection regards not the body, but the soul. For souls, too, have a death of their own in wickedness and sins, whereby they are the dead of whom the same lips say, “Suffer the dead to bury their dead,”–that is, let those who are dead in soul bury them that are dead in body. It is of these dead, then–the dead in ungodliness and wickedness–that He says, “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.” “They that hear,” that is, they who obey, believe, and persevere to the end. Here no difference is made between the good and the bad. For it is good for all men to hear His voice and live, by passing to the life of godliness from the death of ungodliness. Of this death the Apostle Paul says, “Therefore all are dead, and He died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them and rose again.” Thus all, without one exception, were dead in sins, whether original or voluntary sins, sins of ignorance, or sins committed against knowledge; and for all the dead there died the one only person who lived, that is, who had no sin whatever, in order that they who live by the remission of their sins should live, not to themselves, but to Him who died for all, for our sins, and rose again for our justification, that we, believing in Him who justifies the ungodly, and being justified from ungodliness or quickened from death, may be able to attain to the first resurrection which now is. For in this first resurrection none have a part save those who shall be eternally blessed; but in the second, of which He goes on to speak, all, as we shall learn, have a part, both the blessed and the wretched. The one is the resurrection of mercy, the other of judgment. And therefore it is written in the psalm, “I will sing of mercy and of judgment: unto Thee, O Lord, will I sing.” Augustine,“The City of God and Christian Doctrine,” in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series. 2:245.

2) Likewise to the Corinthians he says: “For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.” Again, in his Second Epistle to these Corinthians: “For the love of Christ constrains us; because we thus judge, that if One died for all, then all died: and for all did Christ die, that they which live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them, and rose again. Wherefore, henceforth know we no man after the flesh; yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet from henceforth know we Him so no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given unto us the minis try of reconciliation. To what effect? That God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, and putting on us the ministry of reconciliation. Now then are we ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ’s stead, to be reconciled to God. For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. We then, as workers together with Him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain. (For He saith, I have heard thee in an acceptable time, and in the day of salvation have I succored thee: behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)” Now, if infants are not embraced within this reconciliation and salvation, who wants them for the baptism of Christ? But if they are embraced, then are they reckoned as among the dead for whom He died; nor can they be possibly reconciled and saved by Him, unless He remit and impute not unto them their sins. Augustine, “Anti-Pelagian Writings,” in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, 5:32.

Read the rest of this entry »

Reposted with Permission from Developing the Mind of Christ.

In this series, I forward a considered case for a universal atonement, presenting what I find to be the most compelling arguments for it, defining what exactly it entails, and interacting with the most common and persuasive objections against it.

This is part 1 of 6, in which I forward the argument that particular atonement is inconsistent with what is revealed in Scripture about federal headship and forensic imputation: two doctrines central to Christ’s penal substitution.

My first argument is that limited atonement is incongruent with federal headship and forensic imputation. These two doctrines are central to penal substitution, which in turn is at the heart of the atonement: they say firstly that one man can represent another so that even his sin or righteousness can be regarded as the other’s; and secondly that God, in fact, does impute our sin to Christ and his righteousness to us, by which we may be saved apart from any merit of our own—for we have none.

The mechanism of imputation

In considering how imputation works, certain conclusions present themselves to my mind which contradict particular atonement.

Imputation to us

Christ, having fulfilled the whole law, is counted righteous, and this righteousness is imputed to us by God. But what is the form of this righteousness? It doesn’t seem to me that it can be in the form of specific acts, for this would result in obvious absurdities. For example, suppose I ask: did Christ fulfill the whole law in the sense of keeping every single commandment given? Of course he kept every commandment which applied to him—but what if he never encountered his enemy’s donkey going astray, that he might return it (Deuteronomy 23:4)? Does this imply that his adherence to the law was less than perfect? Does it imply that his righteousness, imputed to me, is in any way deficient? Does it imply that, if I were a Jew prior to my conversion and had encountered my enemy’s donkey and returned it, I would have added to his imputed righteousness?

The answer to these questions must plainly be no. God does not view the law in this way; as if, in Christ, I am counted as having done exactly the acts he did, and no others. It is not the acts of Jesus which are imputed to me, but the righteousness grounded in those acts. Since “the one who loves another has fulfilled the law” (Romans 13:8), and Christ loved perfectly, I am counted as having loved perfectly, and thus as having fulfilled the law. Therefore, I conclude that the righteousness imputed to me is qualitative, rather than quantitative. It is not a series of righteous acts which are imputed—it is righteousness itself: that is, the condition of being righteous, which is grounded in those acts.

Read the rest of this entry »

Shultz:

There are three statements in the Pastoral Epistles that describe the atonement as being for all people. The first of these is 1 Timothy 2:3-6, which states, “This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.” In the context of 1 Timothy 2:1-8, Paul¹⁰⁹ is encouraging prayer for all people (v. 1), including kings and those in authority (v. 2), because such prayer is good and pleasing to God our Savior (v. 3),¹¹⁰ who desires all people to be saved (v. 4).¹¹¹ The reasons that God desires for all people to be saved are because he is the one and only God, and because Jesus Christ is the one and only Mediator between God and humanity (v. 5).¹¹² Jesus is the one who was a ransom for all (v. 6), and the one whom Paul was appointed to preach to the Gentiles (v. 7). Therefore Paul desires that all people pray everywhere without wrath or dissension (v. 8).

The primary interpretive issue in this passage that impacts the debate over the extent of the atonement is the meaning of “all” in verses 4 and 6. Advocates of particular redemption argue that “all men” refers to “all sorts of men,” or “all kinds of men”; essentially this passage is stating that God’s desire and Christ’s ransom encompass not only the Jews, but Gentiles as well.¹¹³ On the other hand, advocates of unlimited atonement assert that “all men” means “all people”; God’s desire and Christ’s ransom are for all people without exception.¹¹⁴ In defense of the first option, appeal is often made to 1 Timothy 2:1-2, where Paul encourages prayers for all people, and then mentions specifically two groups of people, kings and those in authority.¹¹⁵ First Timothy 2:2 is understood as clarifying what Paul meant in 1 Timothy 2:1.¹¹⁶ Steven Baugh offers three additional arguments for this interpretation.¹¹⁷ First, the mention of one God and one Mediator (v. 5) echoes Deuteronomy 6:4, and demonstrates that God’s salvation is not only for the Jews but for the Gentiles as well.¹¹⁸ Second, the phrase “in his own time” emphasizes the eschatological nature of Christ’s ransom as reaching out to all peoples.¹¹⁹ Third, in Titus 1:1-3 Paul proclaims that his commission to preach to the Gentiles is confirmation of God’s purpose to include Gentiles in salvation through Christ, and this proclamation explains Paul’s zeal in defending his apostolic calling in verse 7.¹²⁰

The second option, that “all men” refers to “all people” and not to “all kinds of people,” seems preferable, however, for four reasons. First, it correctly understands 1 Timothy 2:1 as instructing believers to pray for all human beings, and not various classes of human beings.¹²¹ Second, it makes better sense of Paul’s argument regarding one God and one Mediator. God is the only God and Christ is the only Mediator, and therefore God is the God of all and Christ is the Mediator for all.¹²² These statements are true of all people without exception.¹²³ Third, the focus of Paul’s reasoning in this passage is that Christ is the ransom for all.¹²⁴ Most commentators understand verse 6 as going back to the thought of Mark 10:45,¹²⁵ which emphasizes the immeasurable greatness of Christ’s ransom.¹²⁶ The fourth reason, and perhaps the most decisive one, is that this meaning harmonizes with Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy 4:10, which states “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.” This statement is similar to the one in 1 Timothy 2:3-4, and it is extremely difficult to understand “all men” as “all sorts of men” in this verse; it seems clearly to refer to all people without exception.¹²⁷ First Timothy 2:3-6 states that Christ’s atonement is for all people without exception because God desires the salvation of the 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 Theological Seminary, 2008) 131-136. [Bold original, italics original; footnotes and values original; and underlining mine.].

Read the rest of this entry »