Category Archives: Atonement

Did the thief on the cross go to Paradise at death – with Jesus?

Crucify

By Spencer D Gear

Where did the thief on the cross beside Jesus go when he took his last breath? Jesus’ words were: ‘And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise”’ (Luke 23:43 ESV). Let’s look at a few committee translations of the Bible and see how they translate this sentence:

1. KJV: And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

2. NKJV: And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

3. D-RB: And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise

4. NIV: Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

5. NASB: And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.”

6. NLT: And Jesus replied, “I assure you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

7. RSV: And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

8. NRSV: He replied, ‘Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.’

9. NAB: He replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

10. NJB: He answered him, ‘In truth I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.’

All of these translations have the comma before “today”, but there is the occasional exception. One of them comes from the JWs. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation gives this translation of Luke 23:43: ‘And he said to him: “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise’.

Please note that the comma is AFTER “today” and not BEFORE “today” as in the major committee translations of the Bible.

Why the change of comma?

There were no punctuation marks, breaks between words, or clearly defined sentences (as we understand them in English) in the original Greek of the NT.[1] Therefore, how do we interpret this statement? Greek scholars have called the SDA, JW, and Christadelphian interpretation of Luke 23:43 (with the comma after, ‘today’) various things, including “grammatically senseless” (Lutzer 1997:49) because it was obvious that Jesus was speaking to the thief on that very day. Jesus could not have been saying it in the past or in the future. Why would Jesus add the word, “today” to this sentence if it were only referring to Jesus’ and the thief’s existence on that day in which they were both alive and going to die?

It is getting into illogical nonsense to get Jesus to say that it was that very day on which he was saying it. That is obvious. It needs no reinforcement from Jesus that he is speaking to anyone today! If I am speaking to someone today, I don’t say something like, “I am speaking to you today and because it is today, I ask you to help me with carrying the groceries from the car to the house”. It is useless, redundant, superfluous, pointless, senseless, meaningless, worthless, stupid and inane to say that I am speaking to you today when I am speaking to anyone on this very day. The same adjectives can be used to describe the SDA, JW and Christadelphian interpretation of Luke 23:43.

Instead, Luke 23:43 should read as all of the committee translations at the beginning of this article state, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43 ESV).

Christ was giving assurance to the thief that on that very day they would both meet in Paradise, the place where all believers go at death.

It is obvious why the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, and Christadelphians do not want the thief on the cross to be in Paradise with Jesus that very day. They do not believe in the teaching of believers going into the presence of the Lord at death. They believe in the false doctrine of soul sleep or unconsciousness at death. Let’s check out their statements about what happens at death for the believer:

Jehovah’s Witnesses on what happens at death: “When a person dies, he ceases to exist. Death is the opposite of life. The dead do not see or hear or think. Not even one part of us survives the death of the body. We do not possess an immortal soul or spirit…. Jesus compared death to rest and sleep *

Seventh-Day Adventists on what happens at death: “The wages of sin is death. But God, who alone is immortal, will grant eternal life to His redeemed. Until that day death is an unconscious state for all people [this is commonly called ‘soul sleep’]” (Adventist fundamental beliefs #26, ‘Death and Resurrection’.

Christadelphians on what happens at death: “While awaiting this inheritance, all await resurrection in the sleep of death, where there is no consciousness (Psalm 146:3-4, Ecl. 9:10)”.

What happens for believers at death, according to the Bible?

From Luke 23:42, the thief on the cross asked, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom” (ESV). Jesus’ response was, “Today you will be with me in Paradise”. But we have a few pointed questions to answer:

1. Jesus said that the thief would be in Paradise with him that very day, but wasn’t Jesus in the grave (the tomb) for 3 days? (See Luke 23:50-56).

2. Didn’t Jesus go to Hades between death and his resurrection? (See Job 38:17, Psalm 68:18-22; Matthew 12:38-41; Acts 2:22-32; Romans 10:7; Ephesians 4:7-10, 1 Peter 3:18-20, and 1 Peter 4:6. The Apostles’ Creed states of Jesus Christ that he “was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell”).

3. What about this idea that Jesus didn’t go to Paradise until after his resurrection? If this is the truth about what happened to Jesus at death, Jesus could not make a promise to meet the thief that very day in Paradise. A Christadelphian website quotes Acts 1:3 (NKJV) that states that Jesus presented himself alive after his suffering by ‘many infallible proofs’ during the 40 days after his resurrection. Therefore, say the Christadelphians, ‘it was after these forty days that Jesus ascended to his Father in heaven. Therefore, if Paradise is indeed heaven, it was 43 days before Jesus got there, so by saying to the thief “You’re going to be there with me today”, Jesus would be lying’.

Christ’s promise to the thief on the cross was “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Stephen, the martyr, prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59). He did not pray, “Lord Jesus, send me to the grave to sleep until the resurrection of the just and unjust”.

Why is the destiny of the redeemed, whether immediately at death or in the future, variously described in the NT as heaven (Col. 1:5), Paradise (Luke 23:43), and Abraham’s bosom/side (Luke 16:22)? We have no difficulty referring to a house as a residence, mansion, dwelling, and perhaps a palace for some. I once lived in an old weather-board house on a Queensland cane farm, but later graduated to a brick-veneer house. God has no difficulty referring to what happens after death by these various designations (see also 2 Corinthians 12).

Where was Jesus between death and his resurrection?

1. Yes, his body was in the tomb (Matt 27:61; Mark 15:47; Luke 23:55; John 19:38-42). Matthew indicates that the tomb was sealed with a large stone (Matt. 27:62-65). This should guarantee that the tomb contained the body of Jesus for the 3 days. However, what happened to Jesus’ soul/spirit? Nothing is said in these verses about it. Remember the words of Jesus: ‘Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy bot soul and body in hell’ (Matt 10:28 NIV).

2. What was Paul’s view of what happened at death? Paul stated that ‘we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord’ (2 Cor. 5:8). This is parallel with what happened to the thief on the cross, Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43).

3. There are passages of Scripture that indicate an intermediate state following death and before the resurrection. It is a state in which the soul of the individual continues to live in conscious existence. For an indication of what happens to believers, see Luke 23:43; 2 Cor. 5:1-9, esp. v8; Phil. 1:23 and Heb. 12:23. For unbelievers, see Luke 16:24-26 and Heb. 9:27.

4. What about unbelievers at death? Bible.org has an article by Greg Herrick which states that ‘the intermediate state for unbelievers (i.e., what happens to them after death) seems to involve conscious punishment in Hades where they await a future, bodily resurrection to eternal punishment in Hell, the final place of the Devil, his angels, and the wicked (Matthew 25:41; Luke 16:19-31; 2 Thess 1:8-9)’. Therefore, the Christian belief (also included in late Judaism) was that at death, Christians go immediately into the presence of God (this is not going to their final residence, heaven) as Paul indicates in Philippians 1 and 2 Corinthians 5.

5. So, in Luke 23:43, Jesus was affirming what happened to believers at death. Their spirit/soul would go to Paradise (Luke 23:43). It is also called Abraham’s bosom/side in Luke 16:22.

6. The view, based on Christian tradition, that Jesus’ soul/spirit was in Hades between his death and resurrection comes from passages like Eph. 4:9; 1 Peter 3:19 and 1 Peter 4:6. The KJV and ESV translate Eph. 4:9 as ‘the lower parts of the earth’. The NIV and the NLT get to the meaning: (a) “descended to the lower, earthly regions” (NIV); (b) “descended to our lowly world” (NLT). The meaning from Eph. 4:9 is that this is not speaking of Jesus’ experience between his death and resurrection, but that He came down from heaven to earth at his incarnation. The evidence is fairly questionable that Jesus spent any length of time in Hades (‘prison’) between his death and resurrection.

7. John 20:17 (NIV) might be an indication that Jesus was not in heaven (as opposed to Paradise) until after the resurrection. The verse states, ‘Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God’”.

8. If Jesus was incorrect and he was NOT in Paradise when he died in order to meet the thief there, we are only left with theological guesswork as to where Jesus was between his death and resurrection – the cults vs orthodox Christianity. The Scriptures are more specific than that. Jesus went at death where all believers go – to Paradise or Abraham’s bosom/side. When Jesus proclaimed that the thief would be in Paradise with Him on that very day, Jesus was not only confirming where believers go at death (it is not to sleep), but also he was declaring that the work of salvation was complete. The vicarious and substitutionary atonement, and propitiation had been completed and justification by faith was available to all who would believe in Christ alone for salvation (points 1-8, with help from Kaiser et al 1996:488-489).

I have written a detailed refutation of the false doctrine of soul sleep in “Soul Sleep: A Refutation”. See also Dr. Richard Bucher’s exposition, “Where does the soul go after death? (Paradise or Soul Sleep)?” Dr. Bucher has stated:

But the soul sleep argument depends on all of these passages being taken literally. But is that really the case? Is it not possible, or even probable, that the “death as sleep” passages are intended to be understood in a figurative sense? Someone who has died looks like he is sleeping, which is why people of many cultures have described death in this way. Even if the soul and body are sleeping in some real sense, who can be sure that it is a sleep exactly like the sleep of the living, that is, a totally unconscious sleep? Who can be sure what the sleep of the dead is exactly like?

A valuable contribution is in, “Where did Jesus go after he died on the cross?”

Works consulted

Kaiser Jr, W C; Davids, P H; Bruce, F F & Brauch, M T 1996. Hard Sayings of the Bible. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.

Lutzer, E W 1997. One Minute after You Die: A Preview of Your Final Destination. Chicago: Moody Press.

Notes:

[1] I read NT Greek and have taught NT Greek at theological college level.

Whytehouse Designs

Should God heal all Christians who pray for healing?

Jesus calming the storm

(Jesus calming the storm, courtesy allthingsclipart)

By Spencer D Gear

Is it the will of God to always heal people when we pray for them?

A Christian friend wrote to me asking for recommendations concerning a situation in which he was asked to pray for healing for a sick person. My friend was impressed in his heart that instead of praying for healing, that he should trust the Lord for what God was doing through the sickness. When this information was revealed to the person who asked for prayer for healing, my friend was accused of this giving an ‘almost heretical response’. Why? It was because my friend had an inner impression that God had a bigger issue in the sick person’s life than physical healing.

There are dangers with ‘impressions’ because they are subjective and I find it difficult to discern if my friend is hearing from God or if this is a personal view. We know that God gives the gifts of the Spirit that require ‘some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching’ (1 Cor. 14:6 ESV). The safety of the church gathering that enables discernment of the manifestation of gifts is much more suitable than to receive a private impression. However, we do read in passages such as First Chronicles 14:10, 14 where ‘David inquired of God’ (ESV) and received the answer that he should go against the Philistines and God would give them into his hands. On another occasion (1 Chron. 14:14), God’s answer from David’s inquiry was that he was not to attack the Philistines.

Does the Bible teach that during the ministry of Jesus there was no person who wasn’t healed by Jesus? Let’s examine the Scriptures with a few examples, but they are enough to cause us to question the ‘almost heretical’ statement that a person does not believe that God always heals.

A few fundamentals are happening with the ‘almost heretical’ statement that are very different from when Jesus walked this earth and contrary to what we should expect from God when we ask for physical healing.

The Scriptures do say on occasions that Jesus did heal all who came to him in verses such as Matt. 8:16; 12:15; and Luke 6:19. But there’s another dimension.
On other occasions Jesus healed, not all, but “many” who came to him. See Mark 1:34; 3:10; 6:13.
BUT, there were circumstances in which Jesus did not heal people. I’m thinking of Mark 6:4-6:

‘Jesus said to them, “Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor.” He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. And he was amazed at their lack of faith’ (NIV).

What about the events like that at the Pool of Bethesda according to John 5:1-9? Verse 3 says that at that pool ‘lay a multitude of invalids-blind, lame and paralyzed’ (ESV) but only one invalid who had been at that Pool for 38 year was healed. The facts are that Jesus did not heal all who were sick in Israel at the time of his life and he didn’t even heal all invalids at the Pool of Bethesda. It is false information to say that Jesus healed all. He clearly didn’t.

People may ask why Jesus didn’t heal all. My understanding is that healings are pointers/signs to God’s greater healing of the human soul through salvation and God’s ultimate healing of the universe that will happen with a new heaven and a new earth at the end of time.

However, I do need to say that I accept the gifts of the Spirit are available for today’s Christians and one of the gifts is the gift of healing (1 Cor. 12:28-29). We must not overlook the biblical fact that God’s gifts to Christians function according to the “measure of faith” that God has given to believers:

‘For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you’ (Rom. 12:3 NIV).

According to James 5:14-15, the ministry of healing is available through the local church (and it is sadly neglected in most churches) in the anointing of oil by the elders of the church:

‘Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven’ (NIV).

Again, the emphasis is on “the prayer offered in faith” will cause the sick person to be raised up by the Lord.

I do not find any indications that Jesus healed all people. Nor do I find examples in the New Testament where all people were healed whenever there was a prayer for healing. I do find this in James 4:2b-3:

‘You do not have, because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures’ (NIV).

There are many reasons why we do not receive physical healing when we pray and when others pray for us. The major reason is that God is sovereign and we are puny, fallible human beings who can have the wrong motives.

There is also the further biblical truth that most Christians find hard to bear as stated in James 1:2-4:

‘Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing’ (NASB).

God has a greater plan for our lives than physical healing. The trials of our lives are meant to be considered with an attitude of ‘all joy’ by the Christian because God knows what trials are instrumental in achieving. Difficulties in our lives are are designed for the testing of faith to produce endurance of the faith so that we will be “perfect and complete, lacking nothing” when we face Jesus. This is a hard dose to take for many Christians.

May I say personally that I would not have reached this point of growth in my Christian life if it were not for the many trials of sickness that God has put me through. This has included 3 bouts of rheumatic fever when I was a child, aged 6, 10 and 12, that left me with leaking mitral and aortic valves in my heart. This has resulted in five (5) open heart surgeries in my adulthood to replace (4 times) the valve with4 mechanical ones and one surgery was for a repair around the valve. The last surgery in 2013 was to replace both mitral and aortic valves.

As an adult, I have prayed on all five occasions for healing and the church has prayed for my healing, so that I would avoid the surgeries, but God has not chosen to heal me. God has a greater purpose in my life and that is Christian maturity and endurance in my faith.

My wife, Desley, has a debilitating physical disease, polycythemia rubra vera, that has the possibility of becoming leukemia. I am amazed at her godliness and trust in the Lord through severe headaches and lack of energy on a daily basis, and her venesections from time to time to drain blood from her.

It is not biblical to demand that God heal others or oneself when you and others pray. Jesus did not do it and there is ample evidence for God’s greater plan of development in Christian maturity.

May I also add, that the demand for God to heal all people, can come with a diminished view of what life in the presence of God is all about. For believers, to have a desire to continue to live in this present evil world has some irony about it. Why is not living in the presence of God at death, and living for Him through trials in this life, not the way God plans it for all believers?

See these related articles:

Turning trash into treasure (James 1:2-4). This is based on a sermon I preached.

“Were miracles meant to be temporary?” (Jack Deere)

St. Augustine: The man who dared to change his mind about divine healing (Spencer Gear)

Are there apostles in the 21st century? (Spencer Gear)

Are miracles valuable? (Spencer Gear)

’Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer’ (Romans 12:12 NIV).

An Arminian view of faith in Christ

(Arminius, public domain)

By Spencer D Gear

It is not unusual to hear Calvinists state that Arminians do not believe that faith is a gift of God.[1] Is this true or false?

Part of #5 of the “Statement of Faith” of the evangelical Arminians states this about the gift of faith and the ability to believe:

In and of themselves and apart from the grace of God human beings can neither think, will, nor do anything good, including believe. But the prevenient grace of God prepares and enables sinners to receive the free gift of salvation offered in Christ and his gospel. Only through the grace of God can sinners believe and so be regenerated by the Holy Spirit unto salvation and spiritual life.

The following is a good summary of grace and faith from an Arminian perspective:

Freed by Grace {to Believe} (Article 4)

Because of Total Depravity and Atonement for All … God calls all people everywhere to repent and believe the gospel, and graciously enables those who hear the gospel to respond to it positively in faith.
God regenerates those who believe in Christ (faith logically precedes regeneration).
God’s saving grace is resistible, which is to say that he dispenses his calling, drawing, and convicting grace (which would bring us to salvation if responded to with faith) in such a way that we may reject it. Those who hear the gospel may either accept it by grace or reject it to their own eternal destruction.
Apart from the realm of pleasing the Lord and doing spiritual good, people often have free will, which means that, with respect to an action, they can at least either do the action or refrain from doing it. People often have genuine choices and are therefore correspondingly able to make choices.
God has ultimate and absolute free will. His choice to supernaturally free the will of sinners by his grace to believe in Christ is a matter of the exercise of his own free will and sovereignty.

I cannot find any teaching in the Bible that confirms that saving faith is for a select few people. The Bible assumes that “whoever believes” is a statement to indicate that faith is available to all. Anyone who says “yes” to Jesus, repents and receives Him, and so exercises saving faith. This is what is taught in:

Luke 13:3;
John 3:16, 18; 6:29; 11:40; 12:36;
Acts 16:31; 17:30; 20:21;
Heb. 11:6, etc.

Note especially the words of Acts 17:30 where God “commands all people everywhere to repent”. Since God commands all to repent, those who choose to respond positively to God’s command when the Gospel is presented, are saved. Those who reject, are damned. Those who respond with faith have faith as a gift of God, graciously enable by God himself. But this offer of God’s gift of salvation is able to be resisted and rejected.

We get this understanding from the Scriptures:

Jesus said, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing” (Matt. 23:37 NIV). The ESV translates as, “You would not”. The meaning is the same. They could reject Jesus’ offer.
Jesus made a similar kind of statement of a person’s ability to reject Him in John 5:39-40: “You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life (NIV).
John 1:12 is crystal clear of a person’s need to receive Christ to become children of God: “Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” (NIV).
John affirms this meaning in 1 John 5:1, “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God…” (NIV)
However, this salvation, is all of God, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this [salvation][2] is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9 NIV).

What is the meaning of Ephesians 2:8?

This verse has been one of the battlegrounds for Arminians and Calvinists. Is faith the gift of God and does regeneration precede faith, or does faith precede regeneration? R. C. Sproul, a Calvinist, maintains that

Regeneration is the theological term used to describe rebirth…. Regeneration is the work of the Holy Spirit upon those who are spiritually dead (see Ephesians 2:1-10)…. Regeneration is not the fruit or result of faith, regeneration precedes faith as the necessary condition for faith…. We do not decide or choose to be regenerated. God chooses to regenerate us before we will ever choose to embrace Him.[3]

So, being born again (regeneration), comes as God acting sovereignly on the unbeliever before he/she can have faith in Christ. That’s the Calvinistic view.

By contrast, the Arminian theologian, John Miley, sees it quite differently:

There are prerequisites which cannot be met without our own free agency. There must be an earnest turning of the soul to God, deep repentance for sin, and a true faith in Christ. Such are the requirements of our own agency. There is no regeneration for us without them. Yet they are not possible in the unaided resources of our own nature. Hence there must be a helping work of the Spirit prior to his work of regeneration.[4]

At the lay level, this is battled out on Christian forums on the Internet.[5] Let’s look at the gender of some of the nouns and the demonstrative pronoun in this verse:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8 ESV).

The noun, grace – charis – is feminine gender;
The noun, faith – pistis – is feminine gender;
The demonstrative pronoun, this/that – touto – is neuter gender.

So it is very clear in Greek that touto, neuter, cannot refer back to the antecedent feminine nouns – charis and pistis. If the demonstrative this/that was meant to refer to grace or faith, there is a perfectly good Greek way of expressing this. The demonstrative would be the feminine, taute.

To what does “this/that” refer if it is not to grace or faith? Verse 8 tells us that “it is the gift of God’, thus referring to salvation by grace through faith.

What did John Calvin state about Ephesians 2:8?

On one side, we must look at God; and, on the other, at man. God declares, that he owes us nothing; so that salvation is not a reward or recompense, but unmixed grace. The next question is, in what way do men receive that salvation which is offered to them by the hand of God? The answer is, by faith; and hence he concludes that nothing connected with it is our own. If, on the part of God, it is grace alone, and if we bring nothing but faith, which strips us of all commendation, it follows that salvation does not come from us.

His meaning is, not that faith in this verse is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God, or, that we obtain it by the gift of God.

One of the greatest NT Greek scholars of the 20th century, Dr. A. T. Robertson, noted this of Eph. 2:8,

“Grace” is God’s part, “faith” is ours. And that (kai touto). Neuter, not feminine taute, and so refers not to pistis (feminine) or to charis (feminine also), but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part.[6]

If Paul wanted “that/this” to refer to grace or faith, there was a regular Greek way of doing it. He would have used the same gender for “this/that” as for “faith” or “grace”. Paul would have written taute and not tauto for the demonstrative in this Scripture. But he did not use this grammar. Instead, by using the neuter, tauto, Paul refers to the whole process of salvation by grace through faith.

Even the Calvinist, F. F. Bruce, stated of Eph. 2:8,

But the fact that the demonstrative pronoun ‘that’ is neuter in Greek (tauto), whereas ‘faith’ is a feminine noun (pistis), combines with other considerations to suggest that it is the whole concept of salvation by grace through faith that is described as the gift of God.[7]

So Ephesians 2:8, based on the Greek grammar does not teach that faith is an irresistible gift straight from God that a person has no say about and cannot reject. This verse says that salvation is of God (and affirmed by Eph. 2:9). But Eph 2:8 does not demonstrate that salvation is a deterministic born again (regeneration) experience that is imposed on a person without his/her consent – which the Calvinists believe.

To use John Miley’s language, “Regeneration is a true sphere of the divine monergism.[8] [But] there is also a sphere of synergism”.[9]

Notes:

[1] For an example of the back-and-forth on this topic, see the thread, “On what basis does God elect?” in Christian Forums.com.

[2] See what follows for an exegetical understanding of why “this” refers to salvation and not to “grace” or “faith”.

[3] R C Sproul 1992. Essential Truths of the Christian Faith. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, pp. 171-172.

[4] John Miley 1893/1989. Systematic Theology, vol 2. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, pp. 336-337.

[5] One example is on Christian Forums.com, “What precedes what – faith regeneration” (Accessed 2 September 2011).

[6] A T Robertson 1931. Word Pictures in the New Testament: The Epistles of Paul, Vol IV. Nashville, Tennessee: Boardman Press, p. 525, emphasis in the original.

[7] F F Bruce 1961. The Epistle to the Ephesians. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, p. 51.

[8] Monergism is based on the Greek, monos (meaning ‘single’), plus ergon (meaning work’). The Century Dictionary defines monergism ‘in theology as the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in regeneration – that the human will possesses no inclination to holiness until regenerated, and therefore cannot cooperate in regeneration (The Century Dictionary 1890, p. 287).

[9] Miley, vol. 2, p. 336. What is synergism? “Arminius proposed what we might call an evangelical synergism. Synergism is any belief in cooperation between the human will and agency on the one hand, and God’s will and agency on the other hand” (Roger E. Olson 2005. ‘Confessions of an Arminian Evangelical’, (Accessed 30 August 2011).

“Jacob I loved, Esau I hated". What is the meaning?[1]

Peter Paul Rubens, The Reconciliation of Jacob and Esau, 1624

(Image courtesy Wikipedia)

Spencer D Gear

There has been for centuries a debate on the means that God uses to bring people to salvation. One Calvinist takes the view that Romans 9:13 refers to ‘a declaration of the sovereign counsel of God as it is concerned with the ultimate destinies of men’ (John Murray).[2] Another Calvinist (Douglas Moo) states that this

passage gives strong exegetical support to a traditional Calvinistic interpretation of God’s election: God chooses those who will be saved on the basis of his own will and not on the basis of anything – works or faith, whether foreseen or not – in those human beings so chosen.[3]

Calvinist Charles Hodge affirmed that

God is perfectly sovereign in the distribution of his favours, that the ground of his selecting one and rejecting another is not their work, but his own good pleasure…. Thus Meyer says, “God does not act unjustly in his sovereign choice; since he claims for himself in the Scriptures the liberty to favour or to harden, whom he will.[4]

The contrasting view of Norman Geisler is that, loving Jacob and hating Esau,

one of the strongest verses used by extreme Calvinists does not prove that God hates the non-elect or even that He does not love them. It simply means that God’s love for those who receive salvation looks so much greater than His love for those who reject it that the latter looks like hatred by comparison.[5]

Lutheran exegete, the late R. C. H. Lenski, wrote of Romans 9:13 that the Israelites (national, not individual) should have recognised what God had done for them by his grace through promises to them. This grace should have caused all of them to become ‘the children of promise’ (v. 8). But it didn’t and they chose the opposite, refused faith and became stubborn in their presumptuous, outrageous unbelief.[6]

Evangelical Arminians state that:

The Calvinist methodology of interpreting Jacob and Esau as a representation of how individuals are chosen then is a decontextualized over-stretching of the analogy, and thus fundamentally flawed. The context of the chapter plainly dictates that the analogies demonstrate the choosing of one group over the other according to God’s eternal purpose in Christ.

So, what does Romans 9:13 mean? Is it promoting Calvinistic double predestination – some to salvation and the rest to damnation? Or is it contrasting election for the destinies of the nation of Israel and the nation of Edom?

Romans 9:10-13 reads:

And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, ¹¹though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— ¹²she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” ¹³As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (ESV).

There is a tendency among some Christians to understand this passage as referring to individual salvation, thus supporting a Calvinistic view of election to individual salvation, interpreting it as meaning God loved Jacob and he was saved, but hated Esau and he was lost.

However people fail to realise that the context of Romans 9 in which v. 13 appears is not referring to individual salvation but Paul is talking about nations. We know in this passage from the OT:

And the LORD said to her,
“Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you shall be divided;
the one shall be stronger than the other,
the older shall serve the younger” (Gen. 25:23, emphasis added).

Back in this Genesis context, Esau as an individual did not serve Jacob. It was the opposite. The evidence from Genesis 33:1-3 is that Jacob was “bowing himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother [Esau]” (Gen. 33:3) and Jacob addressed Esau as “my lord” (Gen. 33:8, 13). In fact, Jacob said to Esau that Jacob was “your servant” (Gen. 33:5). It was Jacob who wanted Esau to “accept my blessing” (presents) and Jacob said that Esau’s face was “like seeing the face of God” (Gen. 33:10-11).

So we know from this Genesis 33 context that Esau as an individual did not “serve” his younger brother, Jacob. It was the nation of Esau (Edom) that served the nation of Jacob (Israel).

So what is the point that Paul is making in Romans 9? God’s choice of Jacob was God’s choice of the nation of Israel over the nation of Edom and that choice was made while they were still in the womb before they had committed neither good nor evil. This was a plan that God had made, the choice of a nation –Israel – and it was not based on human merit. Calvinistic commentator, F. F. Bruce, stated of Rom. 9:13 that it was “from Malachi 1:2 f, where again the context indicates it is the NATIONS of Israel and Edom, rather than their individual ancestors Jacob and Esau, that are in view”.

What is the meaning of “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”? Does God indicate what he means by “loved” vs “hated”? We get some concept from Genesis 29:30-31,

So Jacob went in to Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah, and served Laban for another seven years. ³¹When the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb, but Rachel was barren (ESV).

There is an indication here that “hated” means loved less than. We see this kind of view with the comparison of two NT passages that discuss the same event:

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26 ESV, emphasis added)

The parallel passage is in Matt. 10:37,

Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me (ESV).

So the comparison of these two passages shows us that the word “hate” can not be taken literally, but it implies “love more than”. Even a Calvinistic commentator, John Murray, agrees:

It has been maintained that the word “hate” means “to love less, to regard and treat with less favour“. Appeal can be made to various passages where this meaning holds (cf. Gen. 29:32, 33; Deut. 21:15; Matt. 6:24; 10:37, 38; Luke 14:26; John 12:25). It would have to be admitted that this meaning would provide for the differentiation which must be posited.[8]

So when the Bible uses the contrast of “hate” vs “love”, it signifies that hate means “love less than”. This is the meaning we find in the passage from which Paul seems to have quoted in Malachi 1:2-3,

“I have loved you,” says the LORD. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the LORD. “Yet I have loved Jacob ³but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert” (ESV).

In Malachi 1, the prophet dresses down Israel in a firm – even angry – way, so he cannot be seeing any merit in the nation of Israel. The parallel in Romans 9 has Paul to correct is opponents who believed that the works of the law were the reason God chose Israel and provided them with the way to holiness (Rom. 9:30-33).

Lenski, provides this exegesis of Romans 9:13:

The statement cited from Mal. 1:2, 3: “Jacob I treated with an act of love but Esau with an act of hate,” is used by Paul as corroborating the promise of Genesis: “Even as it has been written” (the perfect: and is thus still on record). The [Greek] aorists egapesa and emisesa might be constative and summarize God’s different treatment of the two nations until Malachi’s time. But Paul treats this passage in the same way as he treated Gen. 25:23; he takes out of each only what pertains to Jacob and to Esau personally and omits the rest. So we translate the two aorists with reference to the two individual acts when God took Jacob and did not take Esau. The passage is excellently chosen for bringing out what we have repeatedly said regarding Paul’s illustrating how the Israelites got all the gifts mentioned in v. 4, 5. When Israel asked wherein the Lord had loved them they were answered: “Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? Yet I loved Jacob and hated Esau.” Had Jacob a greater claim to be the next patriarch than Esau? Why, they were twin brothers! Let the Israelites look at their array of blessings (v. 4, 5) and see in them God’s gratuitous gifts of love.

That is the great point here. The Israelites should have recognized what God had done for them with his grace and his gratuitous promises. They should have recognized the gratuity that made these the pure promises they were. They should, every last one of them, have become “the children of the promise” (v. 8). They did nothing of the kind. They did the exact opposite. They refused faith; they became obdurate in unbelief and in their unbelief grew presumptuous. Outrageous! When Paul thought of it, it nearly broke his heart. To use such blessings only for their own damnation – incredible but, alas, a fact!

“I did hate” is highly anthropopathic but refers to the effect that Esau was not made the third patriarch and not the affect. Hate is used comparatively to love. On this use compare Gen. 29:30, 31; Deut. 21:15-17; Prov. 13:24; Matt. 10:37 and its restatement in Luke 14:26; finally, John 12:25…. Sufficient has been said regarding the Calvinistic interpretation.[9]

Both OT and NT demonstrate that God’s choice of the nation of Israel (Jacob) over the nation of Edom (Esau) was not because of Israel’s good works, but because of God’s choice – His plan. So in Rom. 9:13, God’s love of Jacob and hatred of Esau meant that God chose to give the nation of Israel a special place in His plan for history. It was not based on any goodness or righteousness of the nation of Israel. It was God’s way of planning the unfolding of history.

Anglican commentator, the late Leon Morris, in his commentary on the book of Romans gave this meaning of Romans 9:13:

Characteristically Paul backs up his argument with a quotation from Scripture, this one from Malachi 1:2-3: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”…. We have just seen that the Genesis passage refers primarily to nations and we would expect that to continue here. That this is the case seems clear from what Malachi writes about Esau: “Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals (Mal. 1:3). Both in Genesis and Malachi the reference is clearly to nations, and we should accept this as Paul’s meaning accordingly.[10]

Norman Geisler pointedly summarised the facts from Romans 9 to contradict the view that God is not perfectly good [11] or does not have moral perfection in Romans 9:13, “Jacob I loved, Esau I hated”. This is the objection that Geisler is answering:

According to Romans 9, God loved Jacob and hated Esau (v. 13); He has mercy on some but not on others (v. 15) (v. 15); He destines some to destruction and not others (v. 18). From these examples, it seems obvious that God is not omnibenevolent when it comes to salvation.[12]

Geisler provides these responses:[13]

1. The passage in Romans 9 is not speaking of election of individuals but of nations, the nation of Edom that came from Esau (cf. Mal. 1:2) and the nation of Israel that came from Jacob (cf. Rom. 9:2-3).

2. Individuals and their election to salvation are not being addressed, but Israel is chosen as a nation, a ‘channel through which the eternal blessing of salvation, through Christ, would come to all (cf. Gen. 12:1-3; Rom. 9:4-5)’. However, even though Israel as a nation was chosen by God, not all individuals in Israel were elected to salvation (Rom. 9:6).

3. The use of the word, hate (Greek emisesa, from miseo) means ‘to love less’ or ‘to regard with less affection’ and does not mean ‘not to love at all’ or ‘not to will the good of a person’.[14] This is seen in the phrases used in Gen. 29:30-31, ‘loved Rachel more than Leah’ which is used as equivalent to ‘Leah was hated’ (see also Matt. 10:37).

4. See the example of Pharaoh hardening his own heart against God (see Ex. 7:13-14; 8:15, 19, 32) before God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (Ex. 9:12). Why were the 10 plagues sent on Egypt? They were to convince Pharaoh to repent. He refused to repent and so his heart was hardened as a result of Pharaoh’s own actions. Geisler uses the example of how sun melts wax but hardens clay. ‘The problem is not with the source but with the receptivity of the agent on which it is acting’.[15]

5. The ‘vessels of wrath’ (Rom. 9:22 ESV, NKJV) were not destined to be destroyed against their own will. They were destroyed because they rejected God and 2 Peter 3:9 states that the Lord ‘is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance’ (ESV).

Even such a prominent Calvinist as Charles H. Spurgeon stated,

I cannot imagine a more ready instrument in the hands of Satan for the ruin of souls than a minister who tells sinners it is not their duty to repent of their sins [and] who has the arrogance to call himself a gospel minister, while he teaches that God hates some men infinitely and unchangeably for no reason whatever but simply because he chooses to do so. O my brethren! May the Lord save you from the charmer, and keep you ever deaf to the voice of error.[16]

Conclusion

We can conclude that Romans 9:13 does not refer to double-predestination of the Calvinists (some predestined to salvation and the rest predestined to damnation). Rather, it refers to two nations, Israel (Jacob) and Edom (Esau) that were chosen when the individual men were in the womb. It is not referring to God’s unconditional election of some to salvation – those whom God loved – and the remainder, whom God hated, to damnation. With Charles Spurgeon we echo the theme that it is ‘the voice of error’, an instrument of Satan, to not tell all people (sinners) that it is their duty to repent of their sins.

Notes:

[1] Much of this material has been gleaned from Roger T. Forster & V. Paul Marston 1973. God’s Strategy in Human History. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., ch. 9, pp. 59-62. This is by far the finest explanation I have read of the meaning of “Jacob I loved, Esau I hated” in Rom. 9:13.

[2] John Murray 1968. The Epistle to the Romans (vol. 2). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., p. 24. This is the one-volume edition that contains Vol. 1 and Vol. 2, but the page numbers start at the beginning for each volume.

[3] Douglas J. Moo 1996. The Epistle to the Romans (The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, p. 587.

[4] Charles Hodge 1972. A Commentary on Romans (The Geneva Series of Commentaries). London: The Banner of Truth Trust, p. 312. The original edition was in 1835, with a revised edition in 1864.

[5] Norman Geisler 1999. Chosen But Free. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, p. 83. Dave Hunt considers that Rom. 9:13 is ‘not about salvation of individuals but concerning blessing and judgment upon nations descended from Jacob and Esau’ (Dave Hunt & James White 2004. Debating Calvinism. Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, p. 105).

[6] R. C. H. Lenski 1936. Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers (this edition was published by Hendrickson in 2001), pp. 604-605.

[7] Christian Forums, Baptists, “Questions for Arminians on their assurance of salvation”, Skala #208, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7584042-21/ (Accessed 28 August 2011).

[8] John Murray 1968, The Epistle to the Romans, Part 2 (The New International Commentary on the New Testament). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., p. 21. This is a one-volume edition that consists of Part 1 (published 1959) and Part 2 (published 1965). The numbering for the two parts is retained as two separate volumes in this one-volume edition. Part 1 covers Romans, chapters 1-8; Part 2, chapters 9-16.

[9] R. C. H. Lenski op cit, pp. 604-605.

[10] Leon Morris 1988. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company / Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, pp.356-357.

[11] Geisler used the term, “omnibenevolent”. Reference.com gives the meaning of omnibenevolence as ‘defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “unlimited or infinite benevolence“. It is a technical term used in the academic literature on the philosophy of religion, often in the context of the problem of evil and in theodical responses, and even in such context, the phrases “perfect goodness” or “moral perfection” are often preferred’. Available at: http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Omnibenevolence (Accessed 28 August 2011).

[12] Dr. Norman Geisler 2004. Systematic Theology (vol. 3: Sin, Salvation). Minneapolis, Minnesota: BethanyHouse, p. 195.

[13] Ibid., pp. 195-196.

[14] Geisler uses the comparison with Luke 14:26 where Jesus stated, ‘If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-yes, even his own life-he cannot be my disciple’.

[15] Ibid., p. 196.

[16] Iain H. Murray 1995. Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: A Battle for Gospel Preaching. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, pp. 155-156.

Sinful nature or sinful environment?

By Spencer D Gear

From where did my sinful actions come? With my parents? The evil environment around me whether at school, work, TV, radio, Internet or anywhere else in our sin-soaked society?

The Bible’s teaching on original sin (a misunderstood term) and the sinful human nature being the cause of sin, has caused much controversy down through the centuries. Evangelical theologian, Wayne Grudem, prefers to use the phrase “inherited sin” instead of “original sin” because ‘the phrase “original sin” seems so easily to be misunderstood to refer to Adam’s first sin, rather than to the sin that is ours as a result of Adam’s fall’.[1]

One of church history’s early rejections of the teaching on inherited sinful nature or original sin came from the Pelagians (followers of Pelagius, ca. AD 360-420[2]), Pelagius being engaged in controversy on the topic with St. Augustine. What did the Pelagians believe? The late Yale University church historian, Kenneth Scott Latourette, summarised:

“In general Pelagians differed from Augustine in denying In general Pelagians differed from Augustine in denying that the taint of Adam’s sin and the impairment of the will brought by it have been transmitted to all Adam’s de- scendants, but, in contrast, declared that each man at birth at, has the ability to choose the good. In other words, they denounced “original sin.” Some seem to have held that Adam was created mortal and that his His death was not due to his sin, that new-born children need not be baptized, for they have no original sin inherited from Adam which needs to be washed away, and that some men before and after Christ have so used their free will that they have been sinless. God’s grace, so at least some Pelagians held, is seen in giving man free will at his creation, in giving man the law as a guide to his choice, and in send- ing Jesus Christ who by his teaching and good example assists men to do good. From Augustine’s standpoint, this view made grace unnecessary and differed little from Stoic morality”.[3]

R. C. Sproul leaves no doubt about how much of the Christian church is practising Pelagian theology, in his view. He states:

“Modern Evangelicalism almost uniformly and universally teaches that in order for a person to be born again, he must first exercise faith. You have to choose to be born again. Isn’t that what you hear? In a George Barna poll, more than seventy percent of “professing evangelical Christians” in America expressed the belief that man is basically good. And more than eighty percent articulated the view that God helps those who help themselves. These positions — or let me say it negatively — neither of these positions is semi-Pelagian. They’re both Pelagian. To say that we’re basically good is the Pelagian view. I would be willing to assume that in at least thirty percent of the people who are reading this issue, and probably more, if we really examine their thinking in depth, we would find hearts that are beating Pelagianism. We’re overwhelmed with it. We’re surrounded by it. We’re immersed in it. We hear it every day. We hear it every day in the secular culture. And not only do we hear it every day in the secular culture, we hear it every day on Christian television and on Christian radio.

“In the nineteenth century, there was a preacher who became very popular in America, who wrote a book on theology, coming out of his own training in law, in which he made no bones about his Pelagianism. He rejected not only Augustinianism, but he also rejected semi-Pelagianism and stood clearly on the subject of unvarnished Pelagianism, saying in no uncertain terms, without any ambiguity, that there was no Fall and that there is no such thing as original sin. This man went on to attack viciously the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and in addition to that, to repudiate as clearly and as loudly as he could the doctrine of justification by faith alone by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. This man’s basic thesis was, we don’t need the imputation of the righteousness of Christ because we have the capacity in and of ourselves to become righteous. His name: Charles Finney, one of America’s most revered evangelists. Now, if Luther was correct in saying that sola fide is the article upon which the Church stands or falls, if what the reformers were saying is that justification by faith alone is an essential truth of Christianity, who also argued that the substitutionary atonement is an essential truth of Christianity; if they’re correct in their assessment that those doctrines are essential truths of Christianity, the only conclusion we can come to is that Charles Finney was not a Christian. I read his writings and I say, “I don’t see how any Christian person could write this.” And yet, he is in the Hall of Fame of Evangelical Christianity in America. He is the patron saint of twentieth-century Evangelicalism. And he is not semi-Pelagian; he is unvarnished in his Pelagianism”.[4]

Elsewhere, Sproul wrote: “Pelagianism has a death grip on the modern church”.[5]

Pelagianism is alive and well today. A contemporary Pelagian, Verticordious, wrote on Christian Forums:

“People are not born with a sinful nature, they are taught a sinful nature by other sinful people. That’s why the Bible places such an importance on parents and marriage, as they are responsible for teaching their children. If you don’t teach your children right from wrong then they’re just going to get their behavior from society. Everyone has a choice, to obey God or to not obey God. Why would be a good parent matter if you child was inherently sinful from birth? People are responsible for their own choices, which is why they are punished when they wrong choices”.[6]

Is this a biblical perspective?[7]

The Bible says through Psalm 51:5, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (ESV). The NIV translates as, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me“.

Again from the Psalms, “Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies” (Psalm 58:3 NIV)

Isaiah wrote, “Well do I know how treacherous you are; you were called a rebel from birth” (48:8 NIV)

Then we have the NT. Paul wrote to the Ephesians:

“As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath” (2:1-3 NIV).

Two important points come out of this passage:

1. Considering the Ephesian readers life before coming to Christ (which can be applied to all people before they experience salvation), Paul insists that these unsaved folks were dead in transgressions and sins and followed the world’s ways in disobedience, gratifying the cravings of the sinful nature with desires and thoughts. Surely most of us can recognise this before coming to Christ! I can!

2. From where did this sinful condition come? Paul does not say that this sinful condition was taught by other people, including parents. Paul deliberately says that we were “by nature” objects of God’s wrath. The problem did not have its initiation through sinful actions in our environment. The core cause of our sinful problems is that it is “by nature” – sinful nature.

And where did it originate? The Psalms and Isaiah are clear that it comes from conception/birth. We are rebels from birth – before any sinful environment had an influence on us.

How did we come to be rebels from conception? Some of the clearest biblical statements are in Romans 5:12, 18-19:

“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned…. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (ESV)

These verses provide not only the cause of inherited sin, one man’s [Adam’s ] transgression, but also the solution, justification and life for people “by one man’s [Jesus Christ’s] obedience” through his death on the cross.

People may object: “God is unjust for making all people sinners through Adam’s original sin”. Are you also going to object, “God is unfair in providing the God-man, Jesus Christ, as a sacrifice for sin”. Remember Romans 5:19, “As one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men” (ESV).

That’s my clearest, but brief, understanding of the issue from the Scriptures.

Endnotes:

[1] Wayne Grudem 1994. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, p. 494, note 8.

[2] E. E. Cairns 1981. Christianity through the centuries: A history of the Christian church. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, p. 137.

[3] K.S. Latourette 1975. A history of Christianity: To A.D. 1500, vol 1, rev ed.

New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, p. 181. Also available at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/26953799/6/Christianity-Takes-Shape-in-Organization-and-Doctrine#outer_page_151 (Accessed 25 May 2011).

[4] R. C. Sproul 2001. ‘The Pelagian captivity of the church’, Modern Reformation, Vol 10, Number 3 (May/June 2001), pp. 22-29, available at: http://www.bible-researcher.com/sproul1.html (Accessed 25 May 2011).

[5] Available at: http://www.monergismbooks.com/Freedom-of-the-Will-p-16186.html (Accessed 25 May 2011).

[6] Verticordious #14, 24 May 2011. Christian Forums, Theology (Christian only), Christian Apologetics, “But what about those who never hear about Christ?”, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7562188-2/ (Accessed 25 May 2011).

[7] The following was my response to Verticordious at OzSpen #22, 25 May 2011, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7562188-3/ (Accessed 25 May 2011).

Does the Bible teach limited atonement or unlimited atonement by Christ?

(public domain)

By Spencer D Gear

It has been a theologically contentious issue since the time of the Reformation, with even some dispute going back to St. Augustine. Did Jesus die for the sins of the whole world or did he die only for the sins of the elect – the church?

One supporter of limited atonement (Dr. C. Matthew McMahon ) wrote:

The Atonement of Jesus Christ is not limited in its power to save, but in the extent to which it reaches and will save certain individuals.

Limited atonement is a theological term that has been used for centuries to define a very important aspect of the Gospel. It is a fundamental Christian doctrine which states that Jesus Christ came and died for a limited number of people. He did not die, or redeem, every individual for all of time, but for some individuals, i.e. His sheep and His church. This does not mean that the power of His death could not have saved all men if He wanted to. The power and efficacy of His death in and through one drop of His blood could have saved a million-billion worlds. That was not what God intended. The Scripture does not dabble in “possibilities.” It does, however, state that the scope of His death is limited.

R. C. Sproul (1992:175) prefers the term definite atonement to limited atonement and he states that it refers “to the question of the design of Christ’s atonement” and what God intended in sending Jesus to the cross. He explained:

Christ’s atonement does not avail for unbelievers…. Some put it this way: Christ’s atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for some. This, however, does not really get at the heart of the question of definite atonement…. The Reformed view holds that Christ’s atonement was designed and intended only for the elect. Christ laid down His life for His sheep and only for His sheep. Furthermore, the Atonement insured salvation for all the elect (Sproul 1992:176).

I John 2:2 would seem to be an excellent verse to establish Christ’s unlimited atonement – dying for the whole world of sinners: “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (NIV).

How does Sproul interpret this verse? He admits that “this text, more than any other, is cited as scriptural proof against definite atonement”. His view is that if this verse is taken in this sense, “it becomes a proof text for universalism”. His way of viewing the text is

“to see the contrast in it between our sins and those of the whole world. Who are the people included in the word our?…. In this text, John may merely be saying that Christ is not only a propitiation for our sins (Jewish believers) but for the elect found also throughout the whole world…. The purpose of God in Christ’s death was determined at the foundation of the world. The design was not guesswork but according to a specific plan and purpose, which God is sovereignly bring to pass. All for whom Christ died are redeemed by His sacrificial act…. The Atonement in a broad sense is offered to all; in a narrow sense, it is only offered to the elect. John’s teaching that Christ died for the sins of the whole world means that the elect are not limited to Israel but are found throughout the world” (Sproul 1992:176-177, emphasis in original).

Talk about confusion. There is not a word in context of 1 John to speak of the elect as limited to Israel. What does the Bible teach?

By contrast, Lutheran commentator, R. C. H. Lenski (1966:399-400), while preferring the term expiation to propitiation, states that the Righteous One (Jesus, from 1 John 2:1) “suffered for unrighteous ones” and this was effective regarding the whole world.

John advances the thought from sins to the whole world of sinners. Christ made expiation for our sins and thereby for all sinners. We understand [cosmos] in the light of John 3:16 and think that it includes all men [meaning people], us among them, and not only all unsaved men [i.e. people] (Lenski 1966:400).

Did John Calvin (AD 1509-1564) support limited atonement? In the early days of his writing when he was aged 26, he completed the first edition of The Institutes of the Christian Religion. In the Institutes, he wrote:

I say with Augustine, that the Lord has created those who, as he certainly foreknew, were to go to destruction, and he did so because he so willed. Why he willed it is not ours to ask, as we cannot comprehend, nor can it become us even to raise a controversy as to the justice of the divine will. Whenever we speak of it, we are speaking of the supreme standard of justice (Institutes 3.23.5).

Here Calvin affirmed that God willed the destruction of unbelievers. Calvin continues:

their perdition depends on the predestination of God, the cause and matter of it is in themselves. The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should: why he deemed it meet, we know not. It is certain, however, that it was just, because he saw that his own glory would thereby be displayed (Institutes 3.23.8)

While this description is tied up with Calvin’s view of double predestination, it is linked with the doctrine of limited atonement in that it would be impossible for God to predestine unbelievers to eternal damnation and yet provide unlimited atonement that was available to them, unto the possibility of salvation. That is the logical connection, as I understand it.

Roger Nicole has written an article on “John Calvin’s view of the extent of the atonement”. This indicates that Calvin did not believe in limited atonement, but that it was a doctrine originated by Calvinists following Calvin.

Calvin’s first edition of The Institutes was in Latin in 1536 and this was published in a French edition in 1560.

John Calvin did progress in his thinking when he wrote his commentaries on the Bible later in life. His first commentary was on the Book of Romans in 1540 and his commentaries after 1557 were taken from stenographer’s notes taken from lectures to his students. He wrote in his commentary on John 3:16:

Faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish….

And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life (emphasis added).

Thus John Calvin himself is very clear. He believed in unlimited atonement.

The following verses also affirm unlimited atonement:

John 1:29: “The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.'”

John 4:42: “They said to the woman, ‘We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.'”

Acts 2:21: “And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Romans 5:6: “You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.”

2 Corinthians 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.”

1 Timothy 2:3-4: “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”

1 Timothy 2:5-6: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men – the testimony given in its proper time.”

1 Timothy 4:10: “We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.”

Titus 2:11: “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.”

Hebrews 2:9: “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.”

2 Peter 3:9: “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”

1 John 4:14: “And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.”

John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

Theologian, Henry C. Thiessen’s, summary of the sense in which Christ is the Saviour of the world is:

His death secured for all men a delay in the execution of the sentence against sin, space for repentance, and the common blessings of life which have been forfeited by transgression; it removed from the mind of God every obstacle to the pardon of the penitent and restoration of the sinner, except his wilful opposition to God and rejection of him; it procured for the unbeliever the powerful incentives to repentance presented in the Cross, by means of the preaching of God’s servants, and through the work of the Holy Spirit; it provided salvation for those who die in infancy, and assured its application to them; and it makes possible the final restoration of creation itself (Thiessen 1949:330).

Limited or definite atonement is clearly refuted by Scripture. Limited atonement is a false doctrine.

Works consulted

Lenski, R C H 1966. Commentary on the New Testament: The interpretation of the epistles of St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers (© 1966 Augsburg Publishing House).

Sproul, R C 1992. Essential truths of the Christian faith. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.

Thiessen, H C 1949. Introductory lectures in systematic theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Whytehouse designs