In What Sense Can it be Said that

Jesus Died for the Whole World?

An Introduction to the Issue

Several years ago, in my first pastorate, the question of the limited and unlimited nature of Christ’s atonement came up in a small group Bible study on the Doctrines of Grace. The pages that follow were a formal attempt at answering their questions in a way that I felt was biblically honest with all the texts of Scripture.

This issue of the atonement seems to be the most pivotal point for all Christians who encounter the Doctrines of Grace. In fact, some believers can handle all four points and call themselves ‘Four-Pointers,’ referring to how many of the five points of Calvinism they agree with. Others, disagreeing only slightly with the nuance of the “L” (Limited Atonement) in TULIP, call themselves “Four-and-a-Half Pointers.” This leaves the rest, divided into two groups, who would either prune the TULIP altogether, or else display the whole thing in a vase on their coffee table!

My answer to those dear sheep who questioned me over five years ago has been reviewed (to see if I had changed my mind yet!), revised (where necessary), and edited (down to size) in order to share with those of you who are also struggling with the issue. Perhaps my personal solution to the issue will satisfy some of you. For others, I’m sure it will undoubtedly raise more questions. But I am convinced (at least right now) that this solution does justice to all the texts that refer to the atonement, and in at least some small way helps clarify what the Bible means when it says that Jesus died for all mankind, while maintaining firmly those portions that teach that He only died for the elect. I commend this article to your minds and hearts as at least a biblical ‘snack’ for your spiritual consumption. I also encourage and look forward to any post-reading interaction you may desire with me as your schedule allows.

What We All Should Agree Upon

In regard to the atonement of Christ, His death on the cross, there are nine fundamentals that those who hold to limited atonement and those who hold to unlimited atonement can agree upon:

1. Every Christian should agree that all men are not and will not be saved. Universalism is an unbiblical teaching, for it teaches that all mankind will eventually be saved from eternal punishment in hell, regardless of what they have done or whether or not they have disobeyed God and rejected Jesus Christ. All Christians agree that an innumerable number of people will be saved and an innumerable number of people will not be saved in the end.

2. Every Christian should agree that the death of Christ is suitable and sufficient to save every man. Since the man Jesus Christ was God, His death was infinite in its capabilities.

3. Every Christian should agree that no man can be saved by any other means other than the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

4. Every Christian should agree that the gospel must be preached to all persons. And ever Christian should agree that the sad fact is that the gospel is in fact not preached to all persons.

5. Every Christian should agree that the Holy Spirit must work a work of faith in the unsaved.

6. Every Christian should agree that ultimately only the elect will be saved, though they may disagree about how one becomes elect.

7. Every Christian should agree that whatever Christ did, whether for elect or non-elect, the ability of the unsaved to partake in what Christ did is suspended until they comply with the conditions of repentance, faith, belief, conversion, etc. That is, no person can be forgiven of their sins unless they put their faith in Christ.

8. Every Christian should agree that no person is ever born forgiven for their sins or justified in the sight of God.

9. Every Christian should agree that God provides salvation at least for the elect to the end that those elect will be saved.

Three Possible Views

Assuming all my readers are on the same page, in full agreement with the orthodox fundamentals listed above, there are really only three possible views concerning the atoning work of Christ on the cross. Logically only one can be and must be true as far as deciding to whom that death was applied (or for whom Christ died). Each view is not without its explanation though:

1. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

But though Christ died for all the sins of all men, the unsaved man’s consequent eternal punishment ultimately is based on his own personal failure to recognize and receive that saving work of Christ on his behalf. Christ’s work on the cross made all men savable, and did not actually and fully save anyone. He must first obey the gospel call to repent and believe and then and only then is he actually and fully saved.

Christ’s bearing of sin is not equivalent to the salvation of the one for whom He suffered. Forgiveness, eternal life, justification, his position in Christ, and some aspects of sanctification are features of man’s salvation through Christ which are directly secured through the work of Christ on the cross. But his place in the family of God, adoption, heavenly citizenship, access to God, freedom under grace from the law and other such features of salvation are worked by God as the expression of divine benevolence and are only related to the death of Christ on the cross insofar as God is free through Christ’s death to act in behalf of those who believe. Therefore, the particular aspect of the saving work of God in providing a Savior, and the saving work of God in which the transformations that cause a Christian to be what he is are two entirely differing things.

No responsibility of faith is put on the sinner to provide the values of Christ’s death, but salvation itself is only realized in answer to saving faith. There is nothing inconsistent, if God so wills, in God leaving the elect in a lost state until they believe . There is also no inconsistency if one for whom Christ died is left in a lost state forever. The death of Christ is actual for the elect and potential and provisional for the non-elect.

In respect to redemption, it is written that Christ died for fallen men and that salvation, based on that death, is proffered to all who believe; and that condemnation rests on those who do not believe, and on the ground that they refuse that which has been provided for them. It is unnecessary to point out that which doesn’t exist, so if Christ did not die for the non-elect, they cannot be condemned for unbelief (cf. John 3:18). Both salvation and condemnation are conditioned on the individual’s reaction to one and the same thing, namely, the saving grace of God made possible through the death of Christ.

Again, certainly Christ’s death of itself forgives no sinner. Any one of the elect, whose salvation is predetermined, and for whom Christ died, may live the major portion of his life in open rebellion against God and, during that time, manifest every feature of depravity and spiritual death. This alone should prove that men are not saved by the act of Christ in dying, but rather that they are saved by the divine application of that value when they believe. The fact that an elect person does live some portion of his life in enmity toward God and in a state in which he is as much lost as any unregenerate person, indicates conclusively that Christ must not only die to provide a righteous basis for the salvation of that soul, but that value must be applied to him at such a time in his life as God has decreed, which time, in the present generation, is almost two thousand years subsequent to the death of Christ. By such it is proved that the priceless value in Christ’s death does not save the elect. God indicates who are the elect, not at the cross, but by the effectual call and at the time of regeneration. And so the objective in Christ’s death was the making of salvation possible to all men and not the making of the salvation of the elect certain. (Adapted from Lewis Sperry Chafer’s Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, p. 186-88, 193-94)

2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.

The redemption, propitiation, and reconciliation of Christ on the cross actually and fully saved sinners. His atoning work on the cross actually and fully appeased and satisfied the wrath of God for sinners (1 John 2:2; 4:10), it actually and fully redeemed or bought back sinners to God (Acts 20:28; Galatians 3:13; Titus 2:14), it actually and fully reconciled sinners to God (2 Corinthians 5:18; Romans 5:11). There was nothing which Christ did on the cross which was not planned before the foundation of the world (Acts 2:23 – “this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God you nailed to the cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.”); there was nothing that Christ did on the cross which was not completely successful (John 19:30 – “it is finished”); and there is nothing which Christ did on the cross which will not be successfully accomplished (John 6:37,39 – “All that the Father gives to Me will come t Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out…And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”).

Since Christ actually and fully provided salvation for sinners, then sinners must in some way be able to appropriate that atonement. It is agreed that Christ died for sinners and that salvation is offered to sinners. It is also agreed that those sinners who believe are saved and those sinners who do not believe are condemned. But if sinners are dead in sin (Eph. 2:2) and at enmity with God (Rom. 8:6) then every sinner will always refuse every offer of the atoning work of Christ on the cross and every offer of the gospel of Christ, if left to his own choice. Therefore God must work within the sinner a work that actually and fully procures his acceptance of the gospel. And His work within that sinner is based on His work in Christ on the cross, which was on the sinner’s behalf. If the work of Christ on the cross was on behalf of sinners’ then it can only be those sinners within whom God works to procure their acceptance of the gospel.

The atoning work of Christ was necessary to forgive the sins of those who would come to God. It was necessary to redeem, propitiate, and reconcile those sinners to God. Therefore, if God actually and full forgave sinners and if Christ actually and fully propitiated God’s anger, and if Christ actually redeemed and reconciled sinners, and if this offer is extended to all those who believe in Christ, then those who do not believe in Christ do not have their sins forgiven, are not redeemed and reconciled to God, and do not have God’s wrath propitiated for them. The death of Christ on the cross was, thus, only for those sinners in whom God works salvation.

3. Christ died for some of the sins of all men/some men.

Christ’s death on the cross was an atonement only for some of the sins of men, though those specific sins which are not atoned for are not named specifically in Scripture. Therefore, though the sinner has certainty of forgiveness of some sins, he has no certainty of forgiveness of all his sins. And with no complete forgiveness of all his sins, there are still sins for which he must suffer eternal punishment. If this is the case for these, on whose behalf Christ died for some sins, then they are in reality no different than those who have none of their sins forgiven. Both are doomed to eternal punishment and there is no hope for any.

Statement/View 3 seems unbiblical, with no statements or teachings to support such. But the Bible does speak in terms of statements/views 1 and 2. Observe the following chart that displays these two options.

The Bible On Both Sides

Approaches to a Solution

Now, the first approach is to take sides and compare who has the most Bible verses, so that the one with the most Bible verses wins the debate. Obviously this would be an illogical manner of solving the issue. The second approach somewhat stems from the first in that some parties have already chosen a side in their minds because of the overwhelming support of that one side. They then seek to explain (away) all the other verses in light of their own position. A third approach is still similar in that it approaches the passages theologically. This means that they approach the verses which seem objectionable to their already formed theological conclusion.

The Correct Approach

All the above approaches are incorrect and illogical for several reasons. First, it is the task of the Bible student to study and interpret each passage by itself in its own context. This point cannot be stressed enough because it is this foundational step which is most often violated and leads, therefore, to an improper understanding of the issue. When one passage has been thoroughly studied and interpreted with a conclusion formed on the meaning of that verse, the student should then lay that passage aside and go on to the next one. It is not until all the work of interpretation has been done on each passage individually that the Bible student may then form a theology of those passages. This has two results: (1) the student will know the specific meaning of each passage without resorting to explaining it “in light” of another passage or verse, and (2) the student will be able to formulate a theology which harmonizes (wherever and whenever possible) those seemingly problematic passages. This concept is most often seen in the approaches to this problem which reinterpret the “world” and “all” passages to speak of the elect. Such an approach is common in the most famous work on the doctrines of grace by John Gill (predecessor to Charles Spurgeon) called The Cause of God and Truth. Gill’s approach more often than not is to re-interpret the inclusive references in almost all of its appearances as referring to the exclusive group, i.e., “the world of the elect[1]

Second, the Bible student must understand that when interpreting the Bible he should not and may not hold an interpretation on any text that ultimately contradicts another text. This also should not be neglected, for when the first step of the individual study of individual passages is skipped, the result is usually this problem of contradicting oneself. Many say they don’t believe in limited atonement, but if shown portions of Scripture which clearly speak to this, they then say they believe that too, and all this without so much as blinking at the apparent contradictions which they hold in their minds. The passages in each column above may not and cannot contradict one another in any way. Instead, there must be a harmonization of these truths so that each column of truth can consistently be held in light of the other. However, there cannot be the approach that holds both views and all that they imply. This approach is practiced by such men as Millard Erickson (Systematic Theology Professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary), author of Systematic Theology. Erickson seeks to take a middle of the road approach in which he affirms both as truth while making no effort to resolve the issue in readers’ minds. This is contradictory, for in each view the one who holds that one view understands and implies much more than a cursory definition or statement of the view. And in that case, to hold on to both views results in nonsense since there are so many things in each view that contradict the other.

Now a parenthetical word regarding this needed harmonization. You need to know that only in the mind of God are these issues completely and entirely harmonized. This means that by default, as human beings with finite and feeble minds, we will not be able to harmonize all of it nor will we be able to figure out all of it. But there is a balance as Deuteronomy 29:29 teaches. Some things are the secret things of God. Which things are those? They are the things that we cannot figure out. But the things that are revealed in Scripture belong to us to figure out and harmonize. How does all this work out? Simply put, the matter of the atonement is revealed in Scripture and this means we are to take upon ourselves the task of harmonizing whatever difficulties present themselves. BUT (!), if we arrive at a place where the conflicting sides simply cannot be harmonized, at least in our minds, we must hold them both to be true, no matter how uncomfortable that makes us. This doesn’t mean that we are holding contradictory truths. Rather, it means that the Bible teaches both truths clearly and unequivocally, but due to our inability to harmonize them we must let them stand as they are and trust in God’s divine and infinite ability to harmonize it all. Having said that, let’s turn now to an attempt to harmonize the two truths of Scripture regarding the atonement.

Many solutions have been offered which attempt to harmonize these two truths. Perhaps the best solution I have read thus far which helps harmonizes the differences in the inclusive and exclusive language is to understand the difference between distinction and exception. David Steele and Curtis Thomas (The Five Points of Calvinism, P & R, 1963, p. 46), for instance, state

One reason for the use of these expressions [“world” and “all”] was to correct the false notion that salvation was for the Jews alone. Such phrases as “the world,” “all men,” “all nations,” and “every creature” were used by the New Testament writers to emphatically correct this mistake. These expressions are intended to show that Christ died for all men without distinction (i.e., He died for Jews and Gentiles alike) but they are not intended to indicate that Christ died for all men without exception (i.e., He did not die for the purpose of saving each and every lost sinner).

This is clearly the concept found in such verses as Revelation 5:9 – “Worthy are Thou to take the book, and to break its seals; for Thou wast slain, and didst purchase for God with Thy blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (NASB, Cf. 7:9). Here we see that Christ purchased people from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. This shows therefore that Christ’s death was for all people without distinction of their nationality or language or race. The verse does not say He purchased every tribe, tongue, people, and nation, but rather that He purchased men from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation. This little word from is a Greek preposition ek which means “from, out from, away from, out of, with idea of removal from an unlimited space.[2] Consider, then, the following observations:

1. The word every in Rev. 5:9 refers to an unlimited number of tribes, tongues, peoples, and nations. Certainly it must refer to every one of these else Paul could not say in Romans 2:11 that “there is no partiality with God.” Observe the context of Romans 2:9-11: “There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to every man who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.” Here’s the point: if God doesn’t show partiality with His judgment (the point of verse 9), the certainly He doesn’t show partiality in giving glory, honor and peace (the point of verse 10). Therefore, neither would He show partiality in Christ’s death on the cross, that is, He died for the Jew first and also for the Gentile. Christ’s death on the cross knows no tribal, language, national, or racial boundaries.

2. The idea behind the definition of the word from was “removal from an unlimited space.” We just concluded that “every tribe and tongue and people and nation” is clearly unlimited. But the verse states “for Thou wast slain, and didst purchase for God with Thy blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.” This clearly teaches us then that Christ purchased people out from or out of every nation, language, and race. But further, the logic of the verse shows clearly, as we stated before, that Christ did not purchase every man in every nation from every language in every race. Again, He purchased people out of each of these. If He did not purchase all men in all nations, languages, and races but purchased men out of these areas, then those whom Christ purchased out of their nations, languages and races are different from others even in their own nation, language, and race. The conclusion is that within every tribe and tongue and people and nation there are those who were purchased by Christ and therefore some who were not. Observe the diagram the following:

In conclusion:

· If those who were purchased by Christ were purchased out of their own race, language, and
nation, and…

· If Christ did not purchase every one in each race, language, and nation…

· Then there are those left within each race, language, and nation who were not purchased.

Because of the clarity of this verse grammatically and exegetically, it should perhaps be the ruling guide in explaining a solution between the seemingly unlimited “all,” “each,” “every,” and “world” categories and the clearly limited “some,” “many,” “church,” and “us” categories. Again, the clear fact of the matter is that Jesus died for some people, yet these some will be represented from every nationality and language and people group.

The Proposed Solution

A chief argument of those who hold to the “unlimited atonement” view against those who hold to the “limited atonement” view is that the limited view sees no benefit of the atonement for the unsaved. With this I heartily disagree. And it is only this point which the remainder of this paper seeks to deal with and attempt to solve. So at the outset of this attempt let me first say…

· I undeniably hold to the fact that Christ’s death provided propitiation for God’s anger on behalf of the sinner, redemption of the sinner, reconciliation of the sinner, and forgiveness of the sinners’ sins and that the sinners for whom this work was done was the church of God (Acts 20:28), the sons of God (Eph. 1:5), or the elect.

· But I also undeniably hold to the fact that Christ’s death does have certain benefits towards or upon those who are not in the church of God or the non-elect.

· It is my submission therefore, that:

· If the salvation of the elect in the present is based on the atonement of Christ on the cross in the past, and…

· If this salvation of the elect in the present is really the present reality and outworking of God’s predetermined plan and decree before the foundation of the world

· Then any benefits, great or small, which may come upon the non-elect in the present as a result of the atonement of Christ on the cross in the past is also part of the predetermined plan and decree of God before the foundation of the world.

· In a concise sense, if Christ’s death for the elect was decreed by God, then so also are any effects or benefits of Christ’s death which may come on/to the non-elect.

The key is that the atonement is limited in a salvific sense (regarding the salvation of the elect) but it is unlimited in a temporal sense (regarding the life of the non-elect while alive on this earth). The issue at hand, then, is to present what effect(s) or benefit(s) of Christ’s death there is/are for the non-elect. I intend to show below here that chiefly, there is really only one benefit or effect of Christ’s death for the non-elect and that all other benefits or effects are a part of this one.

Christ’s death has provided a temporal propitiation for the sins of the non-elect.

1 John 2:2 teaches that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of believers and for the sins the whole world. Several views abound on this verse. (1) Christ satisfied the wrath of God for every sinner in the world. (2) Christ satisfied the wrath of God only for the “world” of the elect. (2a) Christ’s propitiation was not just for Jews (to whom John was writing) but also for anyone else in the world. (2b) Christ’s propitiation was of such quality that it satisfied the wrath of God for “us” and also for anyone else who knows Christ (2:3), obeys Christ (2:4,6), and loves Christ (2:5). But aside from these and other views of 1 John 2:2, I use it as a springboard to discuss the application of this passage, for I believe that there certainly is a way that Christ’s propitiation was for everyone in the world, though not specifically intended by this verse. I believe it was a temporal propitiation for the sins of the world. You see, God’s graciousness and mercy has been demonstrated to man in a way not demonstrated before the cross. Since Christ has died, there are no more “times of ignorance” (Acts 17:30). The offer of Christ’s salvation goes out to all men (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15). This gospel “is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent…” (Acts 17:30). Consider the following:

1. Christ’s Temporal Propitiation in His Death is Manifested Foremost In A Temporary, Patient Delay of Divine Judgment.

Based on Acts 17:30, part of the gospel proclaims that “He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead” (Acts 17:31). Those who continue willfully sinning, despite Christ’s coming and offering of salvation, will find, according to the writer of Hebrews, that, “there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries” (Heb. 10:26-27). The point the writer of Hebrews makes here is that if OT Israelites were put to death without mercy for ignoring the law of Moses, how much more severe will the judgment be for those who trample under their feet the Son of God (10:29). The writer concludes, “It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (10:31).

With this day of judgment on the horizon, and with the opportunity of salvation at hand since the death of Christ, God’s wrath towards all men is temporarily delayed or suspended in the gracious and merciful display of His divine patience. 2 Peter 3:9 clearly teaches this. On the heels of the Lord’s promised day of judgment, Peter reminds the dispersed Christians: “The Lord is not slow about His promise…but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance.” Because of the death of Christ, God is patient, not wanting any to perish, but for all to come to a saving knowledge of Christ. This patience was demonstrated by Christ Himself toward the Church of Thyatira in Revelation 2:21: “And I gave her time to repent…” Indeed, Peter considers “the patience of our Lord to be salvation” (2 Peter 3:15).

For Paul, Christ’s death was that unbreakable link between God’s day of judgment and God’s patience with all men until that day of judgment.[3] Paul delineates this twice in his letter to Timothy: “It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. And yet for this reason I found mercy, in order that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience, as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life” (1 Timothy 1:15-16).[4] He continues this vein of thought in 2:3-6: “This (entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings made on behalf of all men) is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all…”[5]

Paul’s letter to the Romans was written partly to help the Romans understand this patience of God toward their sinful lives: “And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things…Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance” (Romans 2:24). This is by no means a different God from Old Testament times. This is certainly the same God of Exodus 34:6 (“The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate a gracious, slow to anger…”), and the same God of Noah’s days, which Peter recounts in 1 Peter 3:20 (“when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark…”).

But the death of Christ has “upped the ante” if you will, in that Christ’s death has raised the stakes. With Christ’s death behind us and God’s judgment in front of us, there is no more time left to waste. But knowing the sinfulness of mankind, God is yet patient with the world, giving everyone ample opportunity to repent. Paul restated this in Romans 9:22: “What if God, although willing (and able) to make His power (of judgment) known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?” This patience to which Paul referred is linked with the death of Christ, by far. He argues his case perhaps the clearest in Romans 3:21 and following:

"But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being
witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through
faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a
gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God
displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was
the demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed
over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His
righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of
the one who has faith in Jesus."

Clearly, there is no argument that Paul definitely sees the death of Christ in a salvific sense only for the elect, because he uses the phrase “the righteousness of God…for all those who believe.” Only Christ’s death and faith placed in that death provides the righteousness to be saved. But Paul also sees the death of Christ for the non-elect in the sense that God is presently and patiently withholding divine judgment from those who have not yet believed. You see, it is not until a man is dead that it can be confirmed with some degree of accuracy that he was elect or non-elect. Therefore, until an elect man comes to faith in Christ, he is considered by us, in our finite minds and from our finite point of view, to be a sinner and a non-elect. Christ’s death, then, is the grounds of God’s patient withholding of judgment and the grounds of God’s holding out hope and salvation to that non-elect man. Though, ultimately, only the non-elect persons that He has elected will heed God’s patient delay of judgment and come to faith in Christ, they are nonetheless still non-elect, as far as we are concerned, until they do; and Christ’s death provides God’s temporary propitiation for them through God’s patient waiting for them to come to repentance.

The goal here is to work to understand the atonement not only from God’s mindset but also equally from our mindset. There is a balance to maintain between two equal truths, yet too often with the tendency to lean more heavily towards one side. In our theological discussions we sometimes are totally “limited atonement” in conviction. Yet in our evangelism we act like we are totally “unlimited atonement” in conviction, because we sincerely believe in preaching the gospel to sinners everywhere. The fact is we really don’t know who is elect and who is not. We preach the gospel truly because the non-elect don’t manifest they are elect until coming to faith in Christ through the preaching of the Word (Romans 10:17). The gospel goes out to all, elect and non-elect, but eventually only the elect will respond. So also, the death of Christ goes out to all (elect and non-elect), in that God is patient with all sinners, regardless of their ultimate elect or non-elect status, waiting for them to eventually repent and respond to the gospel. But again, eventually only the elect will repent and respond.

In a nutshell, Christ’s death on the cross was decreed to actually and fully save only the elect, but that decree also equally involves the temporary benefit of a “Divine waiting period,” if you will, for all sinners (since all are sinners according to Rom. 3:23) until those who are elect come do come to faith in Christ.

2. Christ’s Temporal Propitiation in His Death is Also Manifested In The Temporary Sanctification of the Lost.

If God delays His divine judgment on the non-elect so that they will have more time to come to faith in Christ, then that waiting period will, more often than not, contain many experiences and encounters with the gospel, in one form or another. Our hope is that through preaching the gospel, that experience will be one of salvation through an encounter with Christ. Sometimes this is not the case, however. But even where it is not the case, even where those who do encounter the truth of the gospel do not come to faith in Christ, there is still an effect the gospel has upon them which is a direct result of the death of Christ. 1 Corinthians 7:14-16 teaches that there is a sense in which Christ’s propitiation of God’s anger towards the non-elect is appeased. That propitiation shows itself in the “sanctification” of the unbelieving spouse and children in marriage. God temporarily delays His divine judgment so that the believer can be used to either bring the unbeliever to Christ or to morally affect the unbeliever in a more peaceful, positive direction.

In chapter 7 of 1 Corinthians, Paul is dealing primarily with the issue of marriage and divorce. Concerning the saved spouse who is married to an unsaved spouse, Paul exhorts that the saved spouse cannot just leave the unsaved spouse just because he/she isn’t a Christian. He exhorts in verse 13: “And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, let her not send her husband away.” Why? “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy” (v. 14). He then appeals to both parties that “if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace” (v. 15). Paul’s final case for his exhortation is made in an appeal to the logical: “For how do you now, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?” (v. 16). Now appropriately, verse 16 should be interpreted in light of verse 15. Paul is advocating in a logical fashion why the believer should accept divorce if the unbeliever should initiate it: Because the believer cannot know for sure if that he will be able to lead the unbelieving spouse to Christ. That’s the point Paul is making. Since the believing spouse cannot know for sure that the unbelieving spouse will come to Christ, the believer therefore should accept a divorce when and only when initiated and strongly insisted on by the unbeliever, for after all, “God has called us to peace” (v. 15). But as A. T. Robertson points out, concerning this verse, in his Word Pictures in the New Testament, “Surely the believer ought to be sure that there is no hope before he agrees to break the bond.”

Now the flip side of that interpretation is equally true. How does the believing spouse know for sure whether or not he will be able to lead his wife to Christ, or the wife lead the husband? They don’t know that they will and they don’t know that they won’t. Paul’s point is that the believer should remain in the marriage if the unbeliever is willing to remain married. If that is the case, then there remains that possibility that that believer truly might have that hope of leading his/her spouse to Christ. This is especially the point in 1 Peter 3:1-6 where the wife is taught how to win an unbelieving spouse to faith in Christ.

His case is equally conversely clear if the marriage remains in tact. It is most desired that both parties would stick it out together for two reasons: (1) because the unsaved is sanctified in some way, and (2) because of the possibility of the salvation of the unsaved. This second reason fits more closely with the first effect of Christ’s death mentioned above, namely that of a delay of God’s judgment. The parallels are clear.

· If God is waiting with patience, withholding His divine judgment, so that the unsaved may repent and come to faith in Christ, then we are act no differently, even if it is in marriage. The saved are to follow and imitate God’s patience.

· If God is more angry with that unsaved spouse than we could ever possibly be, and yet He withholds His punishment, so also should the saved spouse withhold any anger he/she has against the unsaved spouse.

· If God is willing to wait for the unsaved to respond to the free offer of the gospel, then the saved spouse should also be willing to stick it out in marriage in hopes that the unsaved spouse will respond to the gospel.

· If the unsaved spouse is willing to stick it out for the wrong reasons, then most certainly should the saved spouse be willing to stick it out for the right reasons!

But in what way is the unsaved spouse “sanctified through” the saved spouse? First, we must understand what the word “sanctified” means in this passage. It is noteworthy to point out that in every other place where Paul uses this word (Rom. 15:16; 1 Cor. 1:2; 6:11; Eph. 5:26; 1 Thess. 5:23; 1 Tim. 4:5; 2 Tim. 2:21) it means the same thing: to make holy or to set apart.[6] Specifically in 1 Corinthians 7:14, the word refers to “an unbelieving partner in a Christian home set aside for God’s purpose, consecrated, accepted, or acknowledged by God” (Friberg’s GNT Dictionary, agiazo). The verb here in the verse is a perfect passive verb. This means two things: (1) as a perfect it implies that the sanctification was an act which occurred in the past at one point in time, with results still happening in the present; and, (2) as a passive it implies that this person played no part himself in that sanctification but was sanctified by someone else.

In the context of this verse, the interpretation is really quite simple: the moment that a spouse becomes a Christian, the marriage is sanctified by God, unto God, as a holy marriage before God as long as they are both married. All it takes is one person in the marriage to become a Christian for the marriage to be considered “sanctified” or holy. If the marriage is holy, then the Christian need not think that his/her being yoked in marriage to an unbeliever (2 Cor. 6:14) is somehow unpleasing to God. Paul is referring to those marriages which were begun with both husband and wife as unbelievers. During the course of that marriage, one may have come to faith in Christ while the other had not. In the minds of the Corinthians, they thought this was grounds for divorce. Paul urges that it is not, but that it is actually the opposite. Rather than thinking that they need to set aside that marriage, Paul comforts the Christians with the knowledge that God has already set apart that marriage as holy to Himself.

Now how does this fit in with Christ’s temporal propitiation for the non-elect? Simply, as long as the unbelieving spouse remains married to the believing spouse, there is more opportunity for the unbelieving spouse to be affected by the life and ministry of the believing spouse. Christ’s death for the believer will ultimately overflow through that saved spouse into the home to all who live there, including any unsaved family members. Unbelieving spouse and unbelieving children cannot escape the effects which are had upon them by the believing spouse/parent. This is most certainly an effect of Christ’s death for the unsaved. Most any believing spouse married to an unbeliever can attest to this factor. The marriage is surely more peaceful in most (though, obviously not all) cases: the unbeliever often feeling the need to curb his/her sinful actions or speech, the children often coming to faith in Christ, etc. These and many other effects and benefits of the atonement of Christ are experienced by the non-elect in any family where there is a believing spouse or parent.

3. Christ’s Temporal Propitiation in His Death is Also Illustrated in the Old Testament Day of Atonement.

The Day of Atonement, mentioned in Leviticus 16 (particularly verses 17,21,34) provides an especially fitting illustration of temporary propitiation (and especially an appropriate illustration of the limited/unlimited concepts of atonement). The Old Testament looks forward to the saving sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. Therefore the Day of Atonement is fitting since it is the sole event in the life of Israel which pictures or typifies this future anticipation of the death of Christ.

In Leviticus 16, it is made quite evident that the High Priest offered the atonement sacrifice on behalf of himself and then the entire nation (16:17 – “for all the congregation of Israel”), and specifically for “all their iniquities” (v. 22). The interesting point here is that this sacrifice was offered even though not all the nation was redeemed and even though not each one was individually faithful and obedient to God. Yet the sacrifice, for that following year, appeased God’s wrath. Through this sacrifice, God mercifully withheld their deserved judgment. The atonement (or “covering”) of sins through the sacrificial lamb in the OT not only looked forward to the redeeming sacrifice of Christ for those OT saints who had placed their faith in God for salvation, but it also brought temporal common grace to those for whom the sacrifice was offered. But it must be carefully noted that this grace was not eternal and not salvific in nature towards the non-elect or towards those unfaithful Jews of the nation of Israel. In other words, God’s temporary display of salvation (through withholding His divine judgment) to the whole world (as illustrated by the OT Day of Atonement toward the whole nation of Israel) was secured by Christ’s atonement for only the duration of their earthly lives (Heb. 9:27), just as the Day of Atonement secured temporary salvation for the next year for every single Israelite present at that event. However, God’s redeeming grace only to the elect was secured by Christ’s atonement for an eternal salvation, just as real forgiveness of sins for the faithful Israelite was secured in his/her individual faith in God Who really forgave sins.

In 23:29 we are told that “if there is any person who will not humble himself on that day, he shall be cut off.” This clearly teaches a universal (though actually national with respect to the extent of the sacrifice, yet universal in that national sense) provision, with a particular appropriation or application. Basically, an unredeemed or unfaithful Israelite could simply show up on that Day and have God’s judgment withheld from him for the next year. In this way, the Day of atonement therefore certainly had effects on the entire nation – real forgiveness of the sins of those who were God’s faithful and delay of God’s judgment for a year for those who were not faithful. In other words, the sacrifice made on the Day of atonement had an effect on the entire nation, including those unfaithful Jews. But we shouldn’t think that those Jews who were unfaithful to the commandments of God and yet offered sacrifice on the Day of Atonement are in heaven today. That day of Atonement didn’t actually forgive sins, but symbolized forgiveness of sin, namely the forgiveness of those who were faithful looking to God as the real and sole Forgiver of sins. As for those who were not faithful, their sins were obviously not atoned for and they will suffer in hell because of their own personal unfaithfulness and disobedience to God

There, we must conclude that what is taught concerning the atonement of Christ in the NT is also pictured perfectly in the OT. Christ’s atonement is unlimited in a non-saving, temporary sense for all members of sinful humanity, but is limited in respects to its forgiveness of sins only to those whom God individually, specifically and unconditionally elected to eternal salvation.

Conclusion of the Proposed Solution

In conclusion, it is hoped that those who find difficulty in harmonizing the more difficult inclusive passages of Scripture in relation to the atonement of Christ (those speaking of all the world or every one in the world, etc.) would seek this solution which fits perfectly into the atonement of Christ on the cross. The work of the cross, again, saves only those who have been elected by God. This has been decreed by God before the foundation of the world. But this same work of the cross also benefits those who have not been elected by God, and this too has been decreed by God before the foundation of the world. Remembering that every elect individual is an unbeliever before they come to faith in Christ, the judgment of God remains upon them as John 3:18,36 clearly teaches, until they do come to faith in Christ. Therefore, while they remain in that “un-elect” state, Christ’s atonement, forgiveness, reconciliation, and redemption is offered freely to them with benefits held in tact should they refuse Christ. How gracious a God we serve to offer these bonus gifts (temporary propitiation, common grace, etc.) to the unsaved to keep free of charge should they decide to mail back (or reject) the original package of salvation in Christ! These bonus gifts are a temporary propitiation of His wrath because of Christ on the cross. His gracious gift to the unsaved is His delayed judgment and wrath upon them in order to give them yet more time to repent and come to Christ. This is the heart cry from which John Wesley wrote:

Lord, I believe thy precious blood,
which at the mercy seat of God
forever doth for sinners plead,
for me, even for my soul was shed.

Yet these same truths of Christ’s atonement formed the foundation for John’s brother Charles Wesley to write:

Come Thou long expected Jesus,
Born to set Thy people free.
From our fears and sins release us,
Let us find our rest in Thee.
Israel’s strength and consolation,
Hope of the all the earth Thou art.
Dear Desire of every nation,
Joy of every longing heart.

Born Thy people to deliver,
Born a child and yet a King.
Born to reign in us forever,
Now Thy gracious kingdom bring.
By Thine own Eternal Spirit,
Rule in all our hearts alone.
By Thine all sufficient merit,
Raise us to Thy glorious throne.

Footnotes

[1] Granted there are some passages where this is reasonable exegesis and interpretation, i.e. 1 Tim. 2:3-6; 2 Cor. 5:14-19; Heb. 2:9-13. In these passages the context clearly rules that the inclusive terminology (“all men,” “everyone,” “world”) be interpreted in light of the exclusive terminology (“those who believe,” “brothers,” “us,” “many sons,” etc.). In such passages, if the context makes it abundantly clear that a exclusive group is being referred to, then any inclusive references must be understood to refer to the exclusive reference.

[2] United Bible Societies Greek New Testament Dictionary, The Friberg Greek New Testament Dictionary, The Louw-Nida Greek New Testament Dictionary, et al.

[3] That day of judgment will come either at one’s physical death, according to Hebrews 9:27 (“it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment”), or when Christ returns, according to 2 Corinthians 5:10 (“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.”).

[4] Note the context of the verse. Christ came into the world to save sinners. He came to show them mercy. But the passage specifically raises and answers the question, “which sinners?” He “came into the world to save…those who would believe in Him for eternal life.”

[5] The context of this verse lends itself to a common usage of “all” in which it doesn’t necessarily mean “all, each, every, each and every, etc. 2:1 speaks of requests, prayers, and intercessions being made for everyone. But that “everyone” is specifically named in 2:2 – “for kings and all those in authority…” So the everyone is not each and every single individual on the face of the earth. Instead it is for everyone in authority. This is the grounds for interpreting 2:4 correctly. “God our Savior” wants “all” men without distinction to be saved. “Christ Jesus…gave Himself as a ransom for all men” without distinction. Why the issue about distinction? Because Paul himself distinguished “kings and all those in authority.” He himself makes a distinction in 2:1-2, concerning his exhortation to pray and therefore this same distinction must be kept in mind in 2:4 and 6. If God wants us to pray for everyone in authority then He must also want those in authority to be saved also.

[6] Usually in regards to setting one apart from sin to salvation in Christ, except in 1 Tim. 4:5 where things are referred to rather than people. Here the meaning is more akin to the meaning in 1 Cor. 7:14.