The World According to John: Limited Atonement in the Writings of the Beloved Disciple

Many Christian people do not like the biblical teachings on predestination and sovereign election, or Calvinism for short if you prefer. But if there is one thing about Calvinistic doctrine which is even more offensive to most of its opponents than unconditional election, it is the doctrine of Limited Atonement. This teaching, also known as "Particular Redemption" or "Definite Atonement", basically states that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross was a true and actual sacrifice for the specific sins of His specific people, and for them alone. To simplify matters, Limited Atonement advocates believe that Jesus died for those whom God the Father had already chosen to be saved, and only for them. The death of Jesus then has no reference whatsoever to those not chosen for salvation from eternity past. I have written previously defending Limited Atonement in a concise fashion.

Against Limited Atonement is the doctrine of "Universal Atonement", which most North American Christians hold to. Universal Atonement posits a true atoning sacrifice for sins on behalf of sinners, but it holds that the death of Jesus was on behalf of literally every person in the entire human race, down to the very last person, whether or not they are ultimately saved. It is then up to the sinner to lay hold of that sacrifice by his or her faith, which flows from their alleged free will. A variant of this view is called Amyraldianism, which holds to most Calvinistic tenets, but nevertheless posits a universal atonement. 

Proponents of Universal Atonement point to a number of passages to bolster their view. The most famous of course is John 3:16, which is so familiar that it hardly needs quoting. But another favorite go-to text is 1 John 2:2. That passage reads: He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. Universal Atonement advocates believe that this verse definitively proves that the atoning death of Jesus was on behalf of literally the entire human race without exception. The logic goes like this: Jesus died not only for the sins of Christians (not only for ours), but also for every single person throughout the whole of time and space (the whole world). 

Based on the above understanding, it would seem that my view that Jesus died sacrificially and vicariously only for the elect of God would seem to be refuted. What I hope to show however, is that this verse must be interpreted in tandem with the whole of Scripture, but especially with the other writings of the Beloved Disciple. That is my task today. I intend to argue that John's statements in both John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2 should be understood firstly within the context of the first century milieu in which they appeared, but also compared with similar statements in his other writings which show that John believed that the atoning death of Jesus was intended only for the elect of God scattered throughout the whole of the earth, not only for his original audience. 

To begin with, we must discuss the meaning of the word "world", which is found not only in 1 John 2:2, but also the more famous John 3:16. Universal Atonement advocates naturally wonder what else it could mean but literally every person who has ever lived, is living, and will live. One Universal Atonement proponent says this, "There is no linguistic or exegetical or theological ground for reducing the meaning of 'world' to 'the elect' in such passages as John 3:16. John Owen made John 3:16 read 'God so loved those he chose out of the world,' which changes completely the sense of the verse and turns it into something opposite of its intended meaning. But to make the meaning of 'world' here 'the elect' is to make not only a linguistic mistake but also a logical mistake of category confusion". Contrary to the above quotation, I intend to show that there is in fact "linguistic", "exegetical", and "theological" grounds for understanding "the world" as meaning the elect of God who are gathered by the gospel throughout space and time. 

To be honest, I have never thought that John 3:16 was determinative for either the predestinarian or the free will view. This verse occurs too early in John and is not in a context of teaching over how sovereign election or the atonement works. Jesus uttered this famous statement while conversing with Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jewish people. When Jesus declared that God loved the world, how would Nicodemus have heard that? Remember, this is a man with Torah running through his veins from the time of his birth. This is a man steeped in Jewish particularism. The gentiles were unclean and had no knowledge of the true and only God. But here is Jesus saying that God loved the world in such a way as to send His only Son, bringing salvation to the believing ones. It seems more likely to me that Nicodemus would have understood "God so loved the world" as more of a general, rather than a specific, statement of God's saving benevolence beyond the boundaries of Judaism. 

It is doubtful Nicodemus would have understood Jesus as saying that God loves literally all people in some mathematical sense. Nicodemus was not a postmodern westerner with notions of egalitarianism. And neither was he a later puritan divine with access to the rest of the New Testament's teaching on election and the atonement. John 3:16 neither helps nor hurts the Calvinistic doctrine. Nor does it help or hurt the Free Will/Universal Atonement view. Most likely we should understand Jesus as simply foreshadowing in general terms that the gentiles will also partake of the salvation which Jesus, the Jewish Messiah is bringing to Israel. 

This understanding tracks well with John 12:32 in which Jesus is partially responding to the request of Greeks (i.e., gentiles from "the world") who wished to see Jesus. Jesus says, "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to myself." Here again, Jesus is speaking in general terms, foreshadowing that non-Jews will also participate in Israel's salvation and restoration which He will accomplish by His death.

But what about 1 John 2:2? Does not that text make unequivocally clear Universal Atonement for literally all people everywhere at all times and places? Actually, no it does not. To better illustrate my point, allow me to compare 1 John 2:2 with some similar Johannine passages which also speak of how Jesus' atoning death is both particular and wide reaching:

1 John 2:2	John 10:16b-16	John 11:51-52	Revelation 5:9b
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins	I lay down my life for the sheep	[Caiaphas] prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation	For you were slain, and have redeemed us to God by your blood
And not for ours only		And not for that nation only
But also for the whole world	And other sheep I have which are not of this fold	But also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad	Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation

As can be seen above, John has a different understanding of "the world" than most contemporary Christians in North America (or to be fair in Europe during Reformation and post-Reformation eras). For John, "the world" is really shorthand for the elect scattered abroad throughout the nations of the earth in all time periods. They too would benefit from Jesus' atoning death for His elect people. Jesus was not merely calling Palestinian and Diaspora Jews and a handful of gentiles from the 1st century. No, Jesus has given His life up for His elect people from all peoples, places, and times from the beginning of creation to the final day.

To summarize then, the contrast John is making in 1 John 2:2 about whom Jesus died for is not between a limited group (Christians) and an unlimited group (all people literally without exception), but it is rather between a small limited group (John himself and his readers whom he addressed in chapter 1), and a much larger, but still limited group (those from the nations who will also believe in Jesus and participate in the fellowship which John described in chapter 1 of his first epistle).

One of the challenges of biblical interpretation is making sure to not bring prior assumptions into the biblical text. I find that those who hold to free will theologies with its Universal Atonement doctrine are generally well meaning believers who want to uphold the love of God and the call for people to repent and believe. Nevertheless, such good intentions must be submitted - like everything else - to what the Scriptures actually say and not what someone might want them to say. I understand that Calvinistic teachings are hard doctrines that challenge us. But I am convinced that they are true and that they serve to keep us humble before God as we trust Him to carry out His plan of redemption that includes an elect people scattered throughout the whole earth. In this way does God love the world. Amen.