Who did Christ die for? — Peace in Christ

In his letters, Paul speaks of Christ’s death both in a particularistic way (by a specific group) and universally (by an indefinite and vague group). My argument is that these texts have elements consistent with Paul’s theology. Atonement. Universalist texts do not exclude the possibility of limited atonement in Paul; instead, they complement it. A careful examination of these texts reveals that the meaning of “Many”, “Everyone” and “world” cannot be interpreted simplistically at every opportunity as meaningful, all without exception?or ‘every person’. My analysis reveals four important points in considering Paul’s universalist language:

First, although Paul has the linguistic arsenal to unequivocally affirm that there was no one for whom Christ did not die, he decided not to use it. The terms? All?And? World remain undefined and vague, depending on the context for your senses.

Second.
The meaning of universalist terms?A lot?? Everyone is influenced by several contextual factors: (1) an implicit union with Christ (Romans 5: 12-21; 2 Corinthians 5.
14-15); (2) an ecclesiastical context in which the Apostle confronts the false teaching that promoted an elitist and exclusive culture in the Church (1 Timothy 1.
4-7; 4.
1-8; Titus 1.
10.
14-15; 3.
9); (3) a literary context where emphasis is placed on all kinds of people?(1 Timothy 2.
4-6; 4.
10; Tite 2.
11-14); (4) a historical-redeeming context through which Paul is presented as an Apostle of the Gentiles (Acts 22.
15); (5) a theological context in which monotheism is the basis of the gospel for all (1 Timothy 2.
5-6; see Romans 3.
27-31); and (6) internal biblical connections to the texts of the New and Old Testaments (1 Timothy 2.
6; see Matthew 20.
28 / Mark 10.
45; Cp.
Isaiah 53; Titus 2.
14; Cp.
Ezekiel 37.
23).
The observation of these factors prevents us from concluding that Paulo has a distributive meaning for its universalist terminology.

Third, a text such as Colossians 1. 20, which highlights the universal impact of Christ’s atoning work, is irrelevant to discussions about the extent of Christ’s surrogate death: arguing retrospectively from the universal scope of his death is an illegitimate inference As demonstrated by Romans 8. 19-23, the universal restoration of all creation is based on a specific redemption : the adoption of God’s children.

Fourth, the “perishable” Roman texts 14. 15 and 1 Corinthians 8. 11 (see Acts 20. 28) were finally introduced to support the limited rather than universal Atonement; and those who wish to use them to defend a universal atonement must respond to the consequences of the perseverance of the Saints: some for whom Christ died are saved and ultimately lost.

With these points in mind, it is now reasonable to understand how Paul’s universalist language is more than compatible with his particularism, yet two important warnings are needed:

First, arguing by a non-distributive meaning of the terms “Many”, “All” and “world”, I do not want to suggest that, by these terms, Paul means “many chosen”, “all chosen” or ‘the world of the chosen’. If there were reformed interpreters who argued in this way, then their exegesis is unfortunate. Calvin turned out to be a better example to follow: does it not conflict with the interpretation of the term?In 1 Timothy 2 which means “all the chosen” on the one hand, nor pretend that the Apostle means “all without exception”, on the other. Rather, there is a third option: “all sinners without distinction”. As Calvin has argued, the discussion of predestination is irrelevant to context, but this does not lead him to conclude that either, and all, therefore, must necessarily mean “every individual”. Paul’s language is deliberately vague and vague, and all sides of the debate must respect that.

The reason Paul sometimes uses a universalist language in relation to the Atonement is that he faces heresy in the church that promoted salvation for an elite and a distinguished few. Paul is adamant in such contexts: Christ died for all, for the world, for Jews and pagans. The terms are historically redeeming: Paul sees the gospel as the end of time when God’s grace and love must be proclaimed to all the peoples of the earth. He is the “great universalizer of the gospel”. In this sense, the meaning of “Everything without distinction”?Should it be seen for what it really is: supercomplete and inclusive?No one is excluded: neither pagan, nor woman, nor slave, nor barbarian, nor children, nor old. People, neither poor, nor white, nor black?

Second, the organic dimension of those for whom Christ died should not be overlooked in the theology of Paul’s Atonement. Paul presents christ’s death to individuals (Galatians 2. 20), but also to all organics (Acts 20:28; Ephesians 5:25). ; 2 Corinthians 5. 19) . As husband and chief, Christ died for his wife and body; as a Cosmic Savior, he died for the world; and like the last Adam, he died for a new humanity. In this sense, is Christ really the Savior of the world?countless people from all tribes, languages and nations.

(Adapted from Jonathan Gibson’s chapter?Particularism and universalism in the Pauline epistles? For the book From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological and Pastoral Perspective, edited by David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013] 328?330. )

Authorizations: You are authorized and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format, provided that the author, his ministry and translator are no longer no longer modified and not used for commercial purposes.

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply