Universalistic Statements

There are many Scriptures that directly state or imply for whom Christ died that stress a universal generalization. The point of these universalistic texts is to ensure the readership does NOT limit the death of Christ to an outlook which is smaller than it actually was. Here are various texts which can be included into this discussion, but are not limited to (John 1:29, John 3:16, John 4:42, John 6:33, 51; 1John 2:2; 2 Cor 5:19; 1 Tim 2:6; Heb 2:9) .

It is important to understand how each side in this controversy understands these particularistic and universalistic passages. With no intent to misrepresent either side, I have attempted to demonstrate the meaning that is often unconsciously assumed, depending upon one’s previous religious instruction, when these texts are read.

One of the keys to studying any biblical text, is to set it against its background, or the historical context. We will notice that five of the universalistic statements are found in the John’s writings. These five statements in John’s gospel do not appear in the synoptics, and John includes cases of Gentile (and Samaritan) salvation not found in the synoptics. One by John the Baptist, one by the Samaritans, two by Jesus, and one by John. Since it was John who chose to include the universalistic statements in his writings we can safely say that John wanted to ensure that his readers would not limit the scope of Christ’s death to that which was smaller than it actually was.

It is helpful to ask, what was the smaller scope that many of John’s readers may have tended to limit Christ’s death to? They would almost unconsciously limit the Messiah’s death to Israel, Jews, the descendants of Abraham. In order to prove this point, the Old Testament levitical system of animal sacrifices must be introduced. Every sacrifice witnessed by the Jew on the day of atonement, was offered by the high priest, and it’s blood was taken into the holy of holies to atone for the sins of Israel. Furthermore, by Jewish law in order for a Gentile’s sin to be atoned for, he was to profess Israel’s God as his own and be circumcised before he could participate in the Passover. The circumcision entitled the Gentile convert (proselyte) to become a member of Israel by entering into the Abrahamic Covenant. With this in mind, it would never have entered their minds that such sacrifices were intended to atone for the Egyptians, Philistines, or the Romans! The Jew would naturally limit the scope and view of the death of the Lamb of God, to believing Jews or to all Jews. This is the historical context in which John is writing. I believe this to be the case for the entire New Testament, and if this is true, then it is correcting the view of limited atonement for Israel only. Thus John’s intention was to expand the scope of the death of Christ in the minds of his readers. This would prove my initial argument, The point of these universalistic texts is to ensure the readership does NOT limit the death of Christ to an outlook which is smaller than it actually was.

However, we should also ask, what type of amplification did John intend? Did he purpose his Jewish readers to think, “every person who has ever lived, past and future” or did he purpose “individuals from every non-Jewish nation on the earth”? The latter is most likely the case, because when his Jewish readers heard the term, “world” they would think “non Jewish people”, “nations other than Israel.” They would not think the abstract concept “every person” regardless of race. They would think races other than their own. And furthermore, when they heard the terms “nations” or “world”, they likely would exclude themselves, understanding the terms to be referring to the Gentiles.

Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus illustrates the above. What did the term “world” in verse 17 refer to in this conversation? Not every person who has ever lived. It likely does not even refer to Israel, because Nicodemus would never have thought that God sent His Son to condemn Israel. John 3:17 “For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.” In this context, “world” in verse 17 refers to non-Jewish peoples, whom Nicodemus, like many Jews, thought God was going to send His Son to destroy. The Jews expected the Messiah to save Israel and establish a political kingdom whereby Israel would rule over the Gentile nations and usher in a time of peace in which all her enemies would be judged (Hos 3:4-5; Ezek 38:14-23; Dan 10:14, 11:40-45, 12:1-3). According to the Old Testament interpretation by the Jewish leaders, this anticipated deliverance and judgment will come to pass through God’s Messiah, who will conquer Israel’s Gentile enemies and who will establish a Davidic kingdom, his rule extending to the ends of the earth (Gen 49:1-8; Num 24:14-19; Isa 2:2-4; Dan 2:28-45, 10:14-21; Mic 4:1-3). Jews understood Messiah to come once and therefore never anticipated Him to save Gentile nations. Understanding this backdrop, “world” in this conversation predominantly refers to non-Jewish nations. Jesus is expanding Nicondemus’ understanding regarding those whom God loves and for whom He sent His Son.

All of John’s universalistic statements can very naturally be interpreted in this way without “stretching” the historical or written contexts.

As John amplifies the extent of God’s atoning love to embrace Gentiles, does he also desire to impress upon his reader to restrict the scope of the atonement, by not extending it to “every individual that ever lived”, but rather to include “individuals from every race on the earth”? Such expansion limiting statements appear to exist by excluding the, “every individual who ever lived” idea.

John 11:48-52, this text confirms John’s intent to limit the amplification of Christ’s death, but it also proves the expansion is limited to, “the children of God scattered abroad.” John does not say Christ dies for the nations, but the children of God which are scattered abroad in nations other than Israel. These children of God are the other sheep of John 10:16 (which has no reference to the Jewish dispersion).

The simple understanding of John 10:11, 26 is that the faithful Shepherd protects and gives His life for His sheep. He is responsible to save and to keep those sheep. But, surely he does not do this for those who are not his sheep (verse 26). To say that Christ laid down His life for those who are not His sheep makes no sense in this passage. However, there is no conflict with John’s universalistic statements if we understand them as explained above, to refer to the “other sheep” of verse 16 who are from the Gentile nations of the whole world.

In John 13:1 it is clear that Jesus does not love all individuals or every individual in the world the same. There exists this group referred to as, His own who were in the world. His own are those given to Him by the Father (John 6:39, 10:29, 17:2, 6, 9, 11, 24). These he loved to the end, which means to be willing to go through the ordeal he was about to face in dying for them (His own). His hour had come and His greatest act of love was to give His life as a ransom for His own. It is obvious that a distinction is being made in this verse between His own who are in the world and (all) individuals who are in the world.

Which view of John’s intended expansion of the scope of Christ’s death does this coincide with? Surely not the unrestricted, unlimited view! But the idea that His own are the children of God scattered abroad throughout all the nations in the world and not only in Israel.

The explanation given of John 13:1 is confirmed by Jesus’ High Priestly prayer recorded in John 17:1-10, in which He prays explicitly for His own, and not for every individual in the world.

John 17:2, Christ has authority over all flesh, i.e. every individual in the world. And He has authority to give eternal life, not to all of them, not even to those He chooses, but to as many as the Father has given Him. Here is a plain distinction between every individual in the world and His own, those specific individuals given Him by the Father.

John 17:9, Christ prays for His own and not for the world, but for those whom the Father gave Him. Which view of John’s intended expansion of the scope of Christ’s death does this coincide with? These statements contradict an expansion of the, “every individual who ever lived, is living now, or ever will live.”

In summary of the exegetical argument, a failure to realize that the NT’s universalistic statements were addressed to a Jewish mind set has led to much misunderstanding concerning the atonement. One must realize from the context of Scripture that the early Jewish Christians held a “limited atonement” view of Christ’s death. They incorrectly restricted the death of Messiah to apply only to Israel, in light of passages like John 7:34-35 and Acts 10:24-48. This view must be kept in mind when interpreting the NT since it is the view the NT authors are addressing.

John 7:34-35, these Jews simply did not consider it possible that messiah would go among the Greeks and teach them. It would be a foreign thought for Jesus to walk amongst the Greeks, it would mean that Jesus was going where they couldn’t (at least in their minds, because they would never consider going amongst the Greeks). Surely this mind set rules out any idea of Messiah providing an atonement for the sins of any people beyond Israel.

The depth to which this attitude was engrained into the minds of the Jews, not only in Jesus’ enemies, but also in those who believed in Him, can be seen by considering Peter even years after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 10:24-48, it is obvious that at this point in time Peter could not possibly believe in a “Christ died for every person who ever lived” view of the atonement. At this time he still does not understand the great commission (Matt 28:18-20). Notice his question in verse 29, “I ask then for what reason have you sent me?” It still did not occur to him that he should offer the saving benefits of Christ to these people. It was Cornelius who told Peter what he should preach as God had commanded (Acts 11:13-14). It is obvious that Peter the apostle did not believe in “universal atonement.”

Acts 10:45-48, “those of the circumcision who believed” is a reference to Jewish Christians. They were astonished because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on Gentiles. Surely these individuals did not, at this time, believe in universal atonement. They did not eve believe in any “non Jewish” atonement. This of course was a serious mistake in their understanding of Messiah’s death.

It must be understood that the “problem” the NT is addressing is not “how is it that God does not save everyone”, or “how can god condemn people who have never heard the gospel”, or “how can God choose some individuals and not other.” The early Jewish Christian church had no struggle with the concept of election, or Christ dying only for the Jewish nation. The problem the NT is addressing is, “can any non-Jewish gentiles be save?” and, “how can Jewish Christians be convinced that the benefits of their Messiah are equally shared with any and all believing Gentiles (Acts 10:34-35)?”

A summary of the argument presented thus far:

1. The historic situation addressed by the NT was one in which most Jewish believers unconsciously held to an overly “limited atonement.” Limited to either ethnic Jews only, or believing ethnic Jews only. For them to think that Messiah would die for Gentiles was as strange an idea as an OT Jew to think that when the high priest was offering the sacrifice on the day of atonement that it was also being offered for the surrounding Gentile nations.
2. The universalistic statements of the NT are designed to correct the problem described in 1. When Jewish Christians heard the world or nations, referred to, they did not think, “every person” irrespective of race. They would naturally think, “all the other non Jewish races.”
3. That John did not intend his readers to understand his universalistic statements in the “every individual who has ever lived” manner is clear from other statements he recorded in his own gospel (John 6, 10:11,26; 11:48-52, 13:1, 17:1-24) which exclude non believers (Jews and Gentiles).
4. The particularistic statements that actually state for whom Christ died, should be taken at face value. Jesus died for the sheep, however the flock is made up of sheep called from all nations of the world. Jesus died for the church, however the church is made up of people called from all the nations. Jesus died for the children of God, however they are from every nation under heaven.

1 John 2:2, This verse is often used as the “proof text” of universal atonement. However, when this text is viewed in a context of a Jewish apostle writing to an audience containing many Jewish believers, the interpretation given above for John 3:16 appears to be at least an equally valid interpretation, and in some ways it should be preferred. That interpretation being, Christ is the propitiation for the sins no only for believers from the Jewish nation, but for believers from every race in the whole world.

The key to properly interpreting this text is to discern to whom John is referring to when he writes, “not for ours only but for the whole world.” Does the ours refer to : 1) Jewish and Gentile believers or 2) Jewish believers and Jewish unbelievers, or 3) Jewish believers?

I am not aware of anyone who would try to defend option 2 so we will dismiss it.

Those holding to universal redemption assert option 1, Jewish and Gentile believers, and say that the intended contrast (John is drawing a contrast between “not ours only” but also “for the whole world”) in John’s statement is: Christ died not only for the sins of us believing Jews and Gentiles (the little children of vs. 1), but also for every individual in the world. Was this the point John wanted to convey to his readers? Did he want to ensure his readers would understand that Christ died not only for believers but everyone? This seems unlikely and far stretched because in every other context where John either quotes Jesus or writes himself about Christ in relation to the world, the subject he is dealing with is the overly restricted view of the Jewish mind set which excluded Gentiles from being objects of God’s grace. Consider the third option, that when john refer to not ours only, he is referring to Jewish believers.

John’s intended contrast is: Christ died not only for the sins of us believing Jews but also for every believing person from any of the gentile nations of the whole world. Many of those believing in universal redemption will acknowledge that when John begins emphasizing the idea of whole world, he is dealing with this Jew/Gentile problem and emphasizing that the Gentiles are objects of God’s grace. However, as soon as one acknowledges that the whole world emphasis in this text has to do with the Jew/ Gentile problem, then John’s contrast,” not ours only but also”, must be allowed to determine the meaning of the phrase ours only. John is making a Jew/Gentile contrast, and this leads to the conclusion that the ours only is referring to Jewish believers. The contrast between ours only and the whole world, is not a believers/unbelievers contrast, but rather a Jewish believer/non-Jewish believer contrast. Both are children for whom Christ is their Advocate with the Father (1 John 2:2).

John’s thought in 1 John 2:2 is parallel with his thought in John 11:51-52. Notice the close parallel of ideas between these two statements from the same author.

The interpretation given above of 1 John 2:2 is contextually valid and does more justice to the contrast that John actually intended, and is consistent with particular redemption. If the rest of Scripture presents a case for particular redemption there is no reason to insist that 1 John 2:2 conflicts with such a case. It is not being argued here that 1 John 2:2 proves particular redemption. It is being argued that it cannot disprove particular redemption. And if 1 John 2:2 cannot disprove particular redemption, neither can any of John’s other universalistic statements.

In summary, the intent of NT authors was to expand the understanding of Jewish believers regarding the extent of the atonement. The question considered above has been, to what degree was the extent to be expanded; to include believers from every nation in the whole world, or to include every individual in the whole world? The above section has shown that a very natural interpretation of the universalistic texts points to an expansion of the extent of the atonement of the first type (“limited to believing/non-believing Jews). To expand the atonement from believing/non-believing Jews to “every individual who has ever lived whether they are saved or lost” is to misinterpret Scripture.

Tagged as: Gospel of John, Particular redemption, Universal redemption, Universalistic Statements