Yesterday, I concluded my involvement in a somewhat long blog debate over L, ‘ish, & particular redemption. The “L” is the middle point of TULIP, of course, which refers to “limited atonement” or as Calvinists prefer to phrase it “particular redemption”. The ‘ish is a Hebrew word for “man” which can also be translated “each” or “every”. That word became important in the debate which centered on Is. 53:6.
To summarize, Pastor Kent Brandenburg claimed that the use of ‘ish indicated that the reference was expanding from either the nation of Israel or the believing remnant (which is the consistent use of “we” throughout the context) to all people everywhere. He claimed that both the use of “all” at the beginning and end of the verse, as well as the use of ‘ish [translated as “every one”] set the verse off from the context to indicate that all people in general, or all of mankind are in view in the final phrase “the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all”.
I disagreed with this view. I see the Hebrew word in question merely pointing to each person in particular within the “all we” group about whom the verse is speaking. In fact, ‘ish comes in a phrase that also includes “we” in the translation: “we have turned everyone to…”. That seems to support my view. (For more support, reference the debate itself.)
This is not to say that Is. 53:6 is an open and shut case for limited atonement. The word “all” is used twice in the verse, and I can see how people (like Calvin himself!) would take the verse to be referring to all of mankind. But I see the “all” as referring to everyone within the group referred to by “we”. A spokesman might say on behalf of a group: “we agree”. Then later he might emphasize, “we all agree”. I think a similar use of “all” is in view here.
And I believe this understanding fits with two other important points. First, the verse is written as poetry—Hebrew poetry. And the poem is longer than just verse 6. Second, several verses in the context all point to the “suffering servant” (aka the Messiah—Jesus Christ) as suffering on behalf of and atoning for the sins of the believing remnant—a select group of people.
“Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows…” — vs. 4
“But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.” — vs. 5
“…stricken for the transgression of my people” — vs. 8
“…by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.” — vs. 11
“…yet he bore the sin of many,…” — vs. 12
So this is my position on Is. 53:6. It fits with the larger teaching on the atonement elsewhere in Scripture. In the atonement, Jesus actually substituted for and actually redeemed a people for Himself. Jesus did not merely make atonement or redemption possible, He accomplished it. I recently came across a great blog post which gives many of the reasons for the Calvinist understanding of particular redemption. Let me refer you to that summary post and also this article (taken from this online booklet) by John Piper.
But before I go, let me deal with two further things. First of all, Pastor Brandenburg, with many others I am sure, like to stress that just because the Bible says Christ died for the sheep (Jn. 10:11, 15), or died to purchase His church (Acts 20:28), or died to save His bride (Eph. 5:25-27) it does not follow that Christ did not die for the non-sheep, non-church, and non-bride. I respond as follows: such a logical dismantling of these texts results in a bunch of nonsense. What is the point in saying Christ shed his blood to purchase the church, if he also purchased everyone else? When Jesus says He gives His life for His sheep, that has to mean something. It is just such expressions of intent, which are one of the chief cornerstones of the doctrine of particular redemption. He bore God’s wrath for all of the sins of the elect. God did not intend to save the world, and fail; rather, He intended to save the elect and wonderfully succeeded!
Lastly, let me deal with Calvin. Perhaps some of my readers have some proof that he believed in limited atonement. But his comments on Is. 53:6 and 53:12 lead me to conclude that he did not accept this position. How can I respond to this? Well, for starters, Calvinism as a system of doctrine was still being formulated, and later Reformed people like John Owen would advance this understanding of the atonement. Further, particular redemption has never ruled out that general blessings for all flow from Christ’s work on the cross (ie. common grace, not being thrown into Hell immediately, gospel preached to all nations, etc.). But most importantly, Calvin’s rejection of this doctrine highlights the fact that I don’t merely agree with a man, but with the Bible. Further, it shows that Calvinists can disagree over this point, and they have. There are a number of “4-point” Calvinists today. Some may argue that “L” logically follows from the other points, and I would agree. But others differ. In other words, I’m saying if you shoot down “L” that doesn’t demolish Calvinism as a whole.
Finally, let me hear from you on this. Do you agree with my position that “we” refers to the remnant? Am I wrong about Calvin? What passages convince you of particular redemption?
∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7
Although I disagree with you, I certainly respect your position. You have made a strong case. I lack the time right now to put any strong efforts into debate, but I do have one question. This is an honest question that I do not know the answer to, not a debate question. Do you think that the verses in the Old Testament are tarnished by the prejudice of those who wrote it? It seems that the Old Testament refers to the greatness and righteousness of the Jews, while only looking down in scorn on all other nations and people. In the New Testament, Christ expanded these teaching to include all people and tried to counter the prejudices of the Jews. I agree that Isaiah may have been talking about only the Jews, but Christ made many attempts to adjust their thinking in this matter. He reached out to a lot of non Jews. Like I said, I don’t have time to say too much, but I thought I would throw this thought out there. Thanks for the good post.
Bob,
The only place I know of where Calvin explicitly addresses his understanding of the atonement, is in his commentary on I John 2:2, where he agrees with the assessment, “sufficient for all, efficient for the elect.” Here’s a quotation:
“They who seek to avoid this absurdity [universal salvation], have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect…Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the designation of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world”
That should be, “explicitly addresses his understanding of the extent/intent of the atonement,” in the sense you were speaking of. He talks about his understanding of the nature of the atonement, etc., in many places.
Nicholas,
I understand where you are coming from. However, you need to be very careful. Statements like “tarnished by the prejudice of those who wrote it” and “Old Testament refers to the greatness and righteousness of the Jews, while only looking down in scorn on all other nations and people” could make it seem that you are saying the Old Testament is wrong. This would be a denial of inerrancy, which I don’t think you are intending. All the Old Testament authors have a proper view of things when they write!
Now concerning what I think you meant, that the Old Testament is focused more on Jews and the New Testament on all peoples, let me respond. First this is generaly correct. However, the Old Testament is rife with prophecies concerning the inclusion of the Gentiles. In fact, the Abrahamic covenant makes provision for the circumcision and hence inclusion of Gentiles. Several key figures, like Rahab, Ruth, Obededom, and etc. come from non-Jewish backgrounds. Second, however, the New Testament stresses that being part of “true Israel” is not a matter of physical descent but a matter of faith. Rom. 2:28-29, Rom. 9:6-8, Phil. 3:3, Gal. 3:29 (also Rom. 4:11-17) speak concerning this.
Further, 1 Pet. 2:24-25 quotes from Is. 53:6 and applies it to all believers, but not all peoples. The teaching of the New Testament is that Christ came to “save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21b). I really encourage you to read that article by John Piper (in fact the whole booklet on Calvinism, will give you a level-headed Biblical presentation of Calvinism—it should let you understand how Bible lovers can hold to that doctrine).
Thanks for the honest questions. I am sure if you consult the debate I link to, you may understand the opposing views more. I do hope you will ultimately come to understand and believe in Calvinism. However, if you don’t I still extend Christian fellowship to you. This is not a matter of separation or anything. I think Calvinism best accounts for what Scripture tells us about what goes on “behind the scenes” in regards to salvation. I believe it by faith, but this does not mean that I think people do not have to repent and believe, or that no one needs to preach the gospel.
God bless you, brother.
Bob
Nathan,
Thanks for that quote. When someone writes as voluminously as Calvin did, it would be understandable if you contradicted yourself at times. I also understand that saying Is. 53:6 ultimately refers to all people, is not the same as saying the atonement was intended for all, necessarily. I am not sure how to conclude regarding Calvin’s position due to his comments here on especially vs. 12, but ultimately it isn’t really all that big of a deal.
Do you have any other support for taking Is. 53:6 to be referring to the believing remnant?
Thanks,
Bob
Note to all: Pitchford had another comment three minutes after his initial comment here which said the following:
That should be, “explicitly addresses his understanding of the extent/intent of the atonement,†in the sense you were speaking of. He talks about his understanding of the nature of the atonement, etc., in many places.
[We are doing some testing as to why half of his comments end up in the spam bin, so it may be a while before his actual comment comes through, so I wanted to quote his comment here for the discussion.]
Bob, I have to correct your summary. I never ever thought that it was just “saved Israel” in the context. I showed that in at least one long post in which I wrote: “Isaiah wasn’t just written to believing Judah, but to Judah, which was at that time mainly unbelieving (see Isaiah 1). Look back in 53:1—he includes those who wouldn’t even believe this message. Look at v. 3. The Jews, we, esteemed Him not. So Jesus bore the griefs of those who esteemed him not (v. 4a). That’s what he is saying. Instead of believing in Him, we esteemed Him as smitten of and punished by God (v. 4b). That doesn’t sound like all saved people that He was dying for.” I believe that he does move beyond Israel with the addition of “all,” “every man” (not “each man”), and “all.” The context would show that too in many places, including how they viewed Christ in Isaiah 52.
You made this argument against unlimited atonement: “But before I go, let me deal with two further things. First of all, Pastor Brandenburg, with many others I am sure, like to stress that just because the Bible says Christ died for the sheep (Jn. 10:11, 15), or died to purchase His church (Acts 20:28), or died to save His bride (Eph. 5:25-27) it does not follow that Christ did not die for the non-sheep, non-church, and non-bride. I respond as follows: such a logical dismantling of these texts results in a bunch of nonsense. What is the point in saying Christ shed his blood to purchase the church, if he also purchased everyone else?”
Here are problems:
1) Appeal to Ridicule—“Nonsense”
2) Begging the Question—“What is the point in saying Christ shed his blood to purchase the church, if he also purchased everyone else?”
3) Non Sequitur—Your whole argument is non sequitur, a logical fallacy. You argue that because He died or paid for some or many that He didn’t die or pay the penalty for all. I love my son. It doesn’t follow that I don’t love my neighbor. I paid for your college doesn’t follow that I didn’t pay for anything else. The particular people that were the beneficiaries of the payment will be thankful when they are told that they have receieved benefits. It doesn’t follow that they were the only ones for whom benefits were provided.
When you have settled into a position like Calvinism or Reformed, it often muzzles Scripture for you.
Re: the context of Isaiah 53. All saved people at one time viewed Christ in a sinful way. The immediate context about the suffering servant seems to me to clearly be stating that the sins of the believing remnant were placed on the suffering servant.
Re: your arguments against limited atonement from my other quote you mentioned.
1) When you say “I love my son” and “I love my neighbor”, the love is obviously not the same. Jesus died for His bride in a different sense than He died for non-believers. If you admit the previous sentence, you have just granted the basic thrust of particular redemption.
2) Acts 20:28 states that God obtained or purchased the church of God “with his own blood”. He actually obtained the church with the payment price of His blood. He did not merely obtain a potential redemption to which only the church responded in faith. If he actually “purchased” the church, he did not “purchase” the non-church. They are not redeemed.
3) When Jesus says that He intends to lay His life down “for His sheep”, He is stating His intent. If I state “I intend to give my wife a rose”, and I really intend to also give every woman I know a rose too, what really does my statement of intent concerning my wife mean? On this point, as the article in mention points out, Christ states his intent (vs. 15) then expands his intent to include sheep “not of this fold” which will ultimatley become part of Christ’s “one flock” (vs. 16). Then later in the context of the chapter in vs. 26 Jesus states “you do not believe because you are not part of my flock”. Belief doesn’t make you a sheep, rather sheep are the only ones who believe. (See in this regard Jn. 8:47 also).
3) There are other indications of intent which is limited to only the elect in Scripture. See for instance, Jesus’ high priestly prayer. In it He prays for everyone who will ever believe, and He expressly excludes people: “I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.” (Vs. 9) And in that prayer He goes on to pray “Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am…”. (Vs. 24). So Jeus only prays for His elect that they would enter heaven one day, He specifically excludes the non-elect. And this in an important prayer given moments before His betrayal and crucifixion. His people were on His mind at this time. No one gets saved apart from this priestly prayer, and the prayer specifically excludes the non-elect. Another example would be Matt. 13:11 (with 11:27). There are some people who are not chosen to have the truths of salvation and of God revealed to them. Add to this the teaching of Jn. 6:44 with 6:64-65 (also vs. 37)—which simply put states that people can only believe if it is granted to them by God the Father, and you see a strong case regarding intent.
It is not as simple as just appealing to “logical fallacy”. You must explain what the verses themselves are stating. I contend that if they are interpreted as you have in the discussion above, then they lose any real meaning.
We get doctrine from what Scripture says, not from what it doesn’t say. The Bible never says that Christ limits atonement. It only goes so far to say in certain instances that He died for certain people. When Paul said that Christ gave Himself “for me” (referring to himself in Gal. 2:20), what point exactly what Paul making theologically? What he limiting atonement by saying “me” and not everyone else? Several places read unlimited. Hebrews 2:9—taste (aorist) death for every man. That seems to be specifically unlimited. 1 John 2:2—sins of the whole world. If you are going to go to the lowest common denominator, you will need to find Him dying for Paul alone. If not, then you are just autonomously applying your own limitations, drawing the line based on your own personal preference.
With the sheep in John 10, you are absolutely right that we have to explain the verses, what they are stating. Christ is the Good Shepherd. That’s what it’s about. Proof that He is a good shepherd is that He gives and gives and gives His life for His sheep. You make that into He died (aorist) only for unbelievers. Here we have a present tense verb. He keeps laying his life down for His sheep, laying and laying and laying (tithemi).
Your take on John 17 is classic non sequitur, when you write: “He specifically excludes the non-elect.” He doesn’t pray for the non-elect there. For you it follows that Christ didn’t die for them. That is further example of non-sequitur, making conclusions from silence. He excluded them from prayer—you should make that clear.
In John 17, I could say to you that Jesus prays for only believers because:
1) They are the ones He predestined to sanctify, and
2) Grace is resistible; He doesn’t pray for those who resist His grace.
Pastor Brandenburg,
Just a quick question on your usage of John 2:2 to support a universal atonement: Do you believe anyone in hell is experiencing the wrath of God?
If yes, then his wrath against them has not been propitiated (which means that Christ was not a propitiation for the sins of every human without exception).
If no, then what is hell, and why does Christ speak of it as a place of torment/punishment for sins?
Thanks for taking my questions the right way. I certainly was not trying to elude to any error in the Word of God. That would be the last thing that I would try to do. Thanks for the response.
Paul was making a point in Gal. 2:20. And it should be obvious that he is rejoicing in his own inclusion in Christ’s atoning work on the cross. His declaration is not even comparable to the Bible teaching in the verses I gave. Gal. 2:20 doesn’t cancel out the clear inferences drawn from Jn. 10, Acts 20, and Eph. 5. See Gill on 2:20:
“Now though Christ gave his life a ransom for many, and himself for his whole church, and all the members of his mystical body, yet the apostle speaks of this matter as singularly respecting himself, as if almost he was the only person Christ loved and died for; which shows that faith deals with Christ not in a general way, as the Saviour of the world, but with a special regard to a man’s self: this is the life of faith; and these considerations of the person, love, and grace of Christ, animate and encourage faith in its exercises on him.”
Gill’s answer on Heb. 2:9 is more succinct than mine would be:
“…Christ died, not merely as an example, or barely for the good of men, but as a surety, in their room and stead, and that not for every individual of mankind; for there are some he knows not; for some he does not pray; and there are some who will not be saved: the word “man” is not in the original text, it is only uper pantov, which may be taken either collectively, and be rendered “for the whole”; that is, the whole body, the church for whom Christ gave himself, and is the Saviour of; or distributively, and be translated, “for everyone”; for everyone of the sons God brings to glory, (vs. 10) for everyone of the “brethren,” whom Christ sanctifies, and he is not ashamed to own, and to whom he declares the name of God, (vs. 11) for everyone of the members of the “church,” in the midst of which he sung praise, (vs. 12) for every one of the “children” God has given him, and for whose sake he took part of flesh and blood, (vs. 13) and for everyone of the “seed” of Abraham, in a spiritual sense, whose nature he assumed, (vs. 16).”
Regarding 1 Jn. 2:2, it is well known that John used “world” in many different ways, both within his epistles as well as in his Gospel. In fact, “world” rarely means “every person who ever lived”. Also there is a strong parallel between 1 Jn. 2:2 and Jn. 11:51-52. The understanding I have (and many other Calvinists) of this verse is that Jesus died not only for the sins of the recipients of the letter, or the believing church then. But also for all the elect throughout the whole world (from all ethnicities). Also, check out Calvin’s quote above (comment #2).
Regarding John 10, so are you going to say that Jesus both “gives and gives and gives His life for His sheep” and for the non-sheep? I don’t see how appealing to the Greek tense really dodges the bullet on that one. So Jesus keeps “laying and laying and laying” his life down for the sheep and non-sheep alike? Because after all, your interpretation says I can’t say from this verse that Jesus isn’t giving and laying His life down for the non-sheep, since that is not what is “said”. I conclude that what was said means that Jesus did not die for the non-sheep. That is the point of phrasing it that way.
Re: John 17, I see the atonement as intimately connected with the application and effecting of the atonement. Jesus atoning work on the cross was sealed through Jesus’ intercessory work in Heaven for those He intends to save. No one has sins atoned for apart from that intercessory work, and that work excludes the non-elect because they weren’t given to Jesus by the Father.
Your final two points about Jn. 17 illustrate something important in this debate. Those points deal with other letters from the TULIP. And if you reject those other letters, it is no wonder you won’t understand and accept the “L”. This post centers on the “L” so I don’t want to get into a big discussion of the “U” and “I” right now. But basically, I would say that Scripture teaches that God predestined people to more than just sanctification—to justification as well (Rom. 8:29-30). And that while grace is certainly resistable, for all of God’s elect the Holy Spirit will eventually overcome that resistance by regenerating their hearts so that they stop resisting—not against their will, because their will was changed—they want to believe now.
Before I go, this reminds me of another Scriptural inference that strongly teaches particular atonement. Rom. 8:32 says, “He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?” This is an argument from the greater to the lesser. If God gave His own Son for us, will not He give us everything else too? But if you have an unlimited atonement position, the very foundation of this promise crumbles. The promise is that “if” God gave Jesus for you, then God is obligated to give you everything else too. However, if God gave Jesus for all people (unlimited atonement), then God-haters and wicked sinners would be able to lay claim to God’s promise that He is obligated to give them everything else too. Especially in light of the teaching of Rom. 8:28-30 preceding vs. 32, it is clear that the verse is built upon a particular redemption/definite atonement understanding.
Regarding Christ’s “High Priestly Prayer” in John 17, to which Pastor Brandenberg refers: if Christ served the office of Priest for elect and non-elect alike, then why would he not pray for the non-elect as well as the elect? It would be unfitting for a priest to pray for some, but not for all of those for whom he makes his offering. The whole idea of Christ’s dying to redeem those whom he had supposedly foreseen rejecting the outward (and inward?)call of the gospel necessarily limits the power of the atonement of One for whom nothing is impossible.
Having looked at the ESV translation and Calvin’s comments on verses 6 and 12, I think the text intends to convey that “every one” in verse 6 refers back to “All WE” and refers to the chosen people.
But in Calvin’s comment on the use of “many” in verse 12, when he says, ” . . . on him was laid the guilt of the whole world,” how do we know he didn’t mean “whole world in the sense of elect Gentiles as well as elect Jews? Considering the fact that some of your other commenters have mentioned knowledge other quotes in which Calvin more clearly comes down on the side of particular redemption, I think it’s reasonable to infer this.
It may be yet another “Risky Business” to take on Pastor Kent as I have on John 17, but you know what they say, “sometimes, you just gotta say . . . ahem . . . ‘why not?'” If you get this joke, it just might undermine your professed level of sanctification and separation, so think twice before laughing.
Bob, in the picture of the shepherd in the actual text in John 10, not in our limited atonement handbook, (I say this based upon your saying: “You must explain what the verses themselves are stating” in response to your own logical fallacies) the present tense is picturing the life of a shepherd. He keeps on laying his life down for His sheep. This can’t be talking about the atonement, Bob, in the actual passage we are dealing with, because then you would need a Catholic interpretation of an ongoing sacrifice of Jesus. The present tense is used to show the sacrifice of Christ. He keeps laying down and giving His life for His sheep. That’s how a good shepherd is. Yes, Jesus intercedes with His life for sheep, not for unsaved people, in so saving them by His life (Romans 5:9,10). Your careful protection of this doctrine astounds me.
And look at Gill’s dodge in Hebrews 2:9. Why did Christ not taste death for every man according to Gill? He says: “For there are some he knows not; for some he does not pray; and there are some who will not be saved.” CIRCULAR REASONING. Do you realize that is another logical fallacy, Bob. He does not argue from the text, but argues from his doctrine of limited atonement.
I’m not going to argue on everything else, not because there is nothing to say. I have no problem accepting Jesus dying for me, us, many, His sheep, or for the elect. The text teaches that. I just can’t reject the teaching that He died for everyone like you do, something you explain away to keep your TULIP intact. It’s a pattern that is easy to see. Making “world” a “world of ethnicities,” etc. is not something I even want to start talking about, and there are a few more passage that teach unlimited atonement.
Capt. Headknowledge,
I’d make you at least a Colonel. I’m not going to argue about what Calvin meant—I’ll leave that to you and Bob. However, I didn’t find anything from your first paragraph in John 17 except vague extrapolation, nothing of a textual nature at all. Until we come to Christ by faith, we don’t have Him as our high priest. He doesn’t interced for the unsaved because they haven’t been redeemed by His blood. You can try to explain if you want, but I’m not planning on commenting on that anymore because it defies commentary IMO. I commented out of respect to your interaction. Have a good day Colonel. I will not comment any more on this thread.
You are not listening to my point on Jn. 10. Disregarding the question of whether the atonement is in view, your interpretation now is admitting that “for my sheep” excludes non-sheep. Once you admit that point, then you have forsaken your previous assertions concerning logical fallacies. “To purchase the church” would clearly imply not purchasing the non-church. “Giving Himself up [Aorist there] for His bride” would clearly imply not giving Himself up for the non-bride.
Now concerning the present tense being used: present tense does not always have to signify continual action. Dan Wallace says there is a “futuristic present” which seems to match what is in view here (if not for vs. 11, certainly for the explanation of that vs. in vss. 15-18). A sense of “certainty” can be conveyed by using the futuristic present. (See pg. 535-539 in Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics.)
What troubles me is that I have just got done looking at multiple commentaries and the vast majority of them unite in seeing Jn. 10:11, 15, 17 & 18 as referring to the atonement. Your interpretation seems somewhat novel. Take a look at vs. 17-18 again. I don’t see how you can read those verses and not see Jesus referencing His imminent death on behalf of His sheep.
Below are quotes from three commentaries. They cross time periods and theological persuasions, yet they agree on the passage as referring to the atonement. It seems that the church has almost unanimously accepted that this passage refers to Christ’s death.
Clarke on vs. 11: “That is, gives up his soul as a sacrifice to save them from eternal death. Some will have the phrase here only to mean hazarding his life in order to protect others; but the 15th, 17th, and 18th verses, as well as the whole tenor of the new covenant, sufficiently prove that the first sense is that in which our Lord’s words should be understood.”
Matthew Poole on verse 11: “That good Shepherd prophesied of, Isa 40:11 . I cannot agree with those who think that Christ here speaketh not of himself as the good Shepherd, with reference to his office, as he was the Messiah, but only in opposition to the hirelings after mentioned. I can allow that he thus calleth himself, both in the one respect and the other; but I cannot allow the latter sense exclusively to the former; for what followeth is peculiar to the Messiah, of whom it was prophesied, Da 9:26 , that he should be cut off, but not for himself: and though it be true, that the true shepherd will hazard his life for his sheep, as David did, when he encountered the lion and the bear, 1Sa 17:34,35 ; yet it cannot be said to be the duty of the best shepherd to lay down his life for the sheep, for the life of a man is much more valuable than the life of any beast. Our Saviour therefore, doubtless, in this place showeth wherein he was the most excellent Shepherd, far excelling the best shepherds in the world, because he was come, not only to expose, hazard, and adventure his life, but actually, willingly, and freely to lay it down.”
Merrill Tenney in Expositor’s Bible Commentary on John: “The phrase “lays down his life” is unique to the Johannine writings and means a voluntary sacrificial death (10:11, 17, 18; 13:37-38; 15:13; 1John 3:16). The verb is used elsewhere in John to mean “lay aside, strip off” (13:4). In addition, the preposition hyper, translated “for,” is generally used with a connotation of sacrifice John 13: 37; 15:13; cf. Luke 22:19; Rom 5:6-8; 1Cor 15:3). “Life” ( psyche ) implies more than physical existence; it involves personality and is more frequently translated “soul.” The good shepherd stands ready to sacrifice his total self for the sake of the sheep.”
The more I look at the John 10 passage, the more clearly I see particular redemption being taught. So on that account, I am grateful for the exchanges here. However, like yourself, I really don’t want to keep on arguing indefinitely here on every passage which relates to particular redemption.
But I must briefly address Heb. 2:9, before I close here. Gill did offer contextual arguments for his view. “All” and “Every” are words which must be defined in their proper context. Everybody does this. The immediate context clearly concerns the elect. And to go beyond Gill’s defense, vs. 10 offers a reason for verse 9. The reason Jesus tasted death for “every one” was due to his intention to bring many sons to glory, and thus he needed to suffer. Piper’s sermon on the verse goes into the argumentation of the passage a little better than Gill does.
Everyone:
Notice this comment by Pitchford (#9 above). It also ended up in the spam bin. Sorry, Nathan, WordPress is working on figuring out why. Until then, some of your comments are not showing up.
Just wanted to bring up this comment in case it gets overlooked in the discussion.
It is a great point, by the way, about 1 Jn. 2:2. And it goes to show that particular redemption is based off of our understanding of the nature of the atonement. Did Jesus potentially propitiate, or actually propitiate?
Kent,
If Christ is no one’s high priest until THEY come to him by faith, then he died for know one? Is not his death a sacrifice? Is not offering sacrifices the work of a priest? But Christ was offering a sacrifice for only those who had thus far come to him by faith? That’s all I see if it’s ultimately in the hands of sinners to rise up and come, lest Christ do nothing for them.
What text specifies that Christ is no one’s high priest until they come to him and initiate their own redemption?
I personally don’t like the common understanding of “Limited Atonement.” I think it’s a debatable point. But I also don’t think it’s essential to Reformed theology. Lutheranism, for example, doesn’t hold to a “Limited Atonement” in the same way.
You can’t pull a couple of Calvin’s comments out of the context of the total of his work and then say that Calvin rejected particular atonement. That is merely “prooftexting.”
Charlie,
Please understand me. I am biased towards understanding Calvin as holding to Limited Atonement. I am biased towards traditional 5 point Calvinism. But I am trying to understand Scripture and deal with the facts as I see them honestly.
See also my comment #5 above. I am not trying to proof text.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob