What Did Jesus Teach about Limited Atonement?

This article is part of the What Did Jesus Teach? series.

The Ultimate Purpose of the Atonement Is the Glory of the Father

Before determining for whom Christ died,¹ it is necessary first to establish the ultimate purpose of his death.² Doing so provides a starting point for evaluating other purposes and benefits of Christ’s death as stated in Scripture. According to the Synoptics and Johannine Literature, the ultimate purpose of Christ’s death is to display the glory of God definitively. The Son glorifies the Father by doing the work of the Father, which is to accomplish effectively the salvation of those whom the Father gave him.

The Gospels repeatedly emphasize that everything Christ does is for the glory of the Father. According to John 1:14, a result of the incarnation is that “we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”³ By alluding to Exodus 33–34, John asserts that the same glory displayed to Moses is now visible in the incarnate Word.⁴ Just a few verses later John further explains that this same Word in the flesh “has made him [God] known” (John 1:18). The Greek verb used here (ἐξηγέομαι) means “to provide detailed information in a systematic manner—‘to inform, to relate, to tell fully.’”⁵ The stunning point that John makes is that, as the Word-made-flesh, Jesus Christ is the fullest revelation of God. As such, John intends the reader to see that everything that Jesus says and does is a manifestation of God’s glory.

Once Judas leaves to betray him, Jesus says to his remaining disciples, “Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and glorify him at once.” By sending the betrayer off, Jesus sets in motion the chain of events that will lead to the ultimate expression of God’s glory—his sacrificial death and triumphant resurrection. Thus the ultimate sign that displays God’s glory is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ.⁶

Doing the Work of the Father

Scripture does more than simply present the death of Jesus as glorifying the Father—it sets his death within the larger framework of the Son glorifying the Father by accomplishing the work that the Father gave him to do before he ever took on flesh. The Son agrees to display the glory of the Father by redeeming the people that the Father gave to him.⁷ As a result, these redeemed people will participate in the intra-Trinitarian communion shared by the Father and the Son from all eternity.

Several passages in the Johannine literature describe this agreement. Let’s consider a particularly important one in the Bread of Life Discourse (John 6:22–58), where Jesus explains the work that the Father gave him to do. After identifying himself as the Bread of Life, Jesus asserts,

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. . . . No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:37–40, 44)

Several times in this section Jesus emphasizes that he has come down from heaven to accomplish the will of the Father. From this passage, the plan established by the Father and the Son may be summarized as follows: (1) the Father gives a specific group of people to the Son; (2) the Son comes down from heaven to do the Father’s will; (3) the Father’s will is for the Son to lose none of them but raise them on the last day; (4) these people come to the Son by looking on him and believing; (5) the Son gives them eternal life; (6) the Son will raise them on the last day; and (7) no one can come to the Son unless the Father who sent the Son draws them. Thus it is the Father’s election of a specific group of people that defines who comes to the Son and is raised on the last day.⁸

This progression seriously undermines the contention that “the decree of election is logically after the decree of atonement, where also, in fact, it belongs in the working out of the application of salvation. That is to say, the atonement is general, its application particular.”⁹ According to John 6:37–44, the Father does not plan to send the Son to save everyone, and then only elect some, knowing that apart from such an election none would believe. Such a contention suggests that redemption circumscribes election; in other words, God’s general beneficence to all of mankind ultimately drives the atonement, and election is necessary only because without it none would believe. But John 6 indicates that the Father gives a specific group of people to the Son for whom he then comes to die in order to give them eternal life. Particularism attends the planning and the making of the atonement, not just its application.¹⁰ Thus it is election that circumscribes the atonement, not the other way around.

The Son glorifies the Father by doing the work of the Father, which is to accomplish effectively the salvation of those whom the Father gave him.

Jesus Died to Accomplish the Salvation of His People

Complementary to the first point, there are many texts that specify that Jesus died for a particular group of people who are described in various ways. Matthew indicates from the very beginning of his Gospel that the work of Jesus is for his people. The angel of the Lord tells Joseph that Mary “will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). More than simply explaining the etymology of Jesus’s name, the angelic announcement indicates that the salvation which Jesus will accomplish is specifically for his people. The remainder of Matthew fleshes out the identity of “his people,” often with surprising results.¹¹ Two passages in particular are crucial for determining the referent of “his people.”

Matthew 20:28

Shortly before his final entry into Jerusalem, Jesus responds to the request of James and John for special places of honor in the Messianic kingdom (Matt. 20:20–28). In contrasting greatness in the kingdom with greatness in this age, Jesus points to his own example when he states that “the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many [ἀντὶ πολλῶν]” (Matt. 20:28). Although it is possible to take “many” as synonymous with “all,”¹² there are reasons to see a narrower reference. First, Jesus likely echoes the language of Isaiah 52:13–53:12, where the Servant dies on behalf of the many.¹³ Within that passage, “the many” (οἱ πολλοί [LXX]) refers to those to whom the saving work of the Servant is actually applied, including not only Jews but “many nations” (Isa. 52:15) as well.¹⁴ Second, the language of ransom (λύτρον) indicates the payment of a specific price (Jesus’s life) for the release of a specific people (many).¹⁵ His life is given in exchange for (ἀντί) that of the many, not for all without exception.

Matthew 26:28

During the Last Supper (Matt. 26:26–29), Jesus offers the cup to his disciples and explains, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Just as the sprinkling of blood sealed a particular people in the old covenant (Ex. 24:1–8), so here the inauguration of the new covenant requires Jesus to shed his blood for a particular people. That particular people is the “many” for whom Jesus gives his life as a ransom (Matt. 20:28). The combination of “many” and “forgiveness of sins” here in Matthew 26:28 forges a link back to the angelic announcement in Matthew 1:21 that Jesus “will save his people from their sins.” Furthermore, this combination likely alludes again to the work of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53.¹⁶

Thus “his people” in Matthew 1:21 is further clarified by the “many” in Matthew 20:28 and Matthew 26:28 for whom Jesus dies to forgive their sins. As the fulfillment of the OT hope, Jesus seals the new covenant by ransoming a particular people from their bondage to sin through his death and resurrection.

These texts emphasize Jesus dying for a particular group of people rather than for humanity in general. Regardless of whether the term used is “many” or “his people,” the point remains the same: Jesus gave his life as a ransom for the eschatological people of God, composed of Jews and Gentiles who believe in him.

Johannine Literature

We find the same kind of particularist statements in the Johannine literature. But unlike the Synoptics, John also includes numerous statements about God’s election of a particular people to receive the benefits of Jesus’s death. In addition to John 6, which was treated above, the following passages are particularly significant.

In John 10:11–18, Jesus presents himself as the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep (John 10:11). Jesus further describes these sheep as “my own,” who know him “just as the Father knows me and I know the Father” (John 10:15). But who are these sheep? They are the eschatological people of God, drawn from Jew and Gentile alike (John 10:16). The religious leaders do not believe because they are not part of Jesus’s flock (John 10:26). By contrast, Jesus’s sheep hear his voice, follow him, and are given eternal life (John 10:27–28). They are his sheep because the Father gave them to the Son (John 10:29). Notice that Jesus does not say that the religious leaders are not part of his flock because they do not believe. Rather, Jesus makes it clear that the unbelief of the religious leaders is an outworking of the fact that they are not his sheep. From this passage we see that Jesus’s sheep are a particular set of people that exist before they exercise faith in him, and that those who are not part of that divinely selected group do not believe (cf. John 8:47). As the Good Shepherd, Jesus lays down his life for a particular group of people (his sheep) in distinction from others (those who are not his sheep).¹⁷

John even describes Jesus’s enemies as testifying that his death was directed toward a particular group of people. In the wake of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead, the Sanhedrin meets in an emergency session to discuss what to do about Jesus (John 11:47–53). The high priest Caiaphas argues that “it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish” (John 11:50). John goes on to explain that Caiaphas was unwittingly prophesying “that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad” (John 11:51–52). Whereas Caiaphas clearly means that the death of Jesus would spare the Jewish people from trouble with Rome, John sees the theological significance of the statement. Jesus’s death is for “the nation” (i.e., the Jewish people) as well as others who must be gathered into the united children of God.¹⁸ Following on the heels of the discussion of Jesus’s sheep in chapter 10, we should understand this as a reiteration of the idea that the true people of God, composed of Jew and Gentile alike, are the people for whom Jesus dies.

As Jesus prepares his disciples for his impending death, he once again stresses that it is for a particular group of people. After commanding his disciples to love one another as he has loved them (John 15:12), Jesus describes the nature of his love: “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).¹⁹ Just as the Good Shepherd lays down his life for the sheep, so here Jesus lays down his life for his friends out of love for them. This particular love for his friends is grounded in divine election: “You did not choose me, but I chose you” (John 15:16).²⁰

Summary

This collection of texts, drawn primarily from the Johannine writings and supported by texts in the Synoptic Gospels as well, demonstrates that when Jesus lived, died, rose, ascended, and interceded, he did so for a particular group of people. This group is variously referred to as his people, the church, the many, his sheep, the children of God, and his friends. They are the ones whom the Father has given to the Son before he came to earth, and whom the Father draws so that they come to the Son, who then grants them eternal life. Drawn from every tribe and language and people and nation, they are the sheep for whom the Good Shepherd lays down his life and who will share in the intra-Trinitarian love and glory.

Notes:

David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson prefer the terms “definite atonement,” “particular atonement,” or “effectual redemption” rather than the commonly used “limited atonement” which can be misleading. These preferred terms for the doctrine are used throughout From Heaven He Came and Sought Her, but for the sake of recognizability, we’ve used the term “limited atonement” in the title of this article.
Even some who hold to “universal atonement” recognize that this is the central issue. For example, Robert P. Lightner, The Death Christ Died: A Case for Unlimited Atonement (Des Plaines: Regular Baptist Press, 1967), 33: “There is no question about it; the issue between limited and universal atonement centers in the design or purpose of the redemptive work of Christ.”
Compare Luke 2:14, where the angels proclaim, “Glory to God in the highest!” to announce the birth of Jesus to the shepherds in the field.
See D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, PNTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 129.
Johannes E. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989), 1:410.
Although the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus are distinct events, they together comprise one (albeit complex) redemptive act of Christ on our behalf. So while Scripture does sometimes attribute a certain benefit to one of these events, that specific event would lack its true significance if divorced from the other two (see further Michael S. Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010], 521–47).
This agreement is sometimes referred to as the covenant of redemption, or the pactum salutis. For helpful treatments, see the following: Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 265–71; Richard A. Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis: Locating the Origins of a Concept,” Mid-American Journal of Theology 18 (2007): 11–65; Herman Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, vol. 3 of Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2011), 212–16; John B. Webster, “‘It Was the Will of the Lord to Bruise Him’: Soteriology and the Doctrine of God,” in God of Salvation: Soteriology in Theological Perspective, ed. Ivor J. Davidson and Murray Rae (Farnham, Surrey, UK: Ashgate, 2011), 15–34. Even if one is uncomfortable with the expression “covenant of redemption,” there can be no doubt that Scripture speaks of an agreement in eternity past between the Father and the Son that lays out the plan of redemptive history.
Note that later in the same chapter Jesus returns to the same theme when, after observing that some do not believe, he states, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father” (6:65). This helps explain how Judas was part of the Twelve and yet betrayed Jesus (6:70–71).
D. Broughton Knox, “Some Aspects of the Atonement,” in The Doctrine of God, vol. 1 of D. Broughton Knox, Selected Works (3 vols.), ed. Tony Payne (Kingsford, NSW: Matthias Media, 2000), 265.
Contra Knox, ibid.
D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 77, comments, “Though to Joseph ‘his people’ would be the Jews, even Joseph would understand from the OT that some Jews fell under God’s judgment, while others became a godly remnant. In any event, it is not long before Matthew says that both John the Baptist (3:9) and Jesus (8:11) picture Gentiles joining with the godly remnant to become disciples of the Messiah and members of ‘his people’ (see on 16:18; cf. Gen. 49:10; Titus 2:13–14; Rev. 14:4). The words ‘his people’ are therefore full of meaning that is progressively unpacked as the Gospel unfolds. They refer to ‘Messiah’s people.’” R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 53, notes that it is also possible to see a connection between “his people” and “my church” in 16:28.
Perhaps the most influential example is Joachim Jeremias, “πολλοί,” TDNT 6:543–45, who argues that πολλοί is used inclusively (= “all”) based on the OT evidence. But although Jeremias discusses Isaiah 52:13–53:12, he does not take into account that the work of the Servant for the many is actually applied to the many (see J. Alec Motyer, “‘Stricken for the Transgressions of My People’: The Atoning Work of Isaiah’s Suffering Servant,” in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, ed. David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013)). Furthermore, Jeremias’s assertion that, with the exception of Matthew 24:12 and 2 Corinthians 2:17, πολλοί always means “all” is quite overstated; for a whole series of Pauline texts where πολλοί means “many” or “most” but not “all,” see Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 336 n. 100.
For the connections between Mark 10:45//Matthew 20:28 and Isaiah 53, see especially Rikki E. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark, Biblical Studies Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000), 257–90.
There is also evidence that at Qumran the term “the many” at times refers to the elect community in contrast to those who are not yet fully initiated into the community (1QS 6:11–27) (Hanns Walter Huppenbauer, “Rb, rwb, rbym in der Sektenregel,” Theologische Zeitschrift 13 [1957]: 136–37, and Ralph Marcus, “Mebaqqer and rabbim in the Manual of Discipline 6:11–13,” JBL 75 [1956]: 298–302). While the Qumran interpretation does not prove “many” is equivalent to “the elect” in Isaiah 53, it does demonstrate clear precedence for this interpretation.
The payment of a price to secure release is fundamental to this word group (Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 3rd ed. [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965], 12–13). In addition to referring to purchasing freedom for slaves or prisoners of war, this word group could also refer to sacrifices made to pay for sins against the gods (Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Signification of Mark 10:45 among Gentile Christians,” Harvard Theological Review 90 [1997]: 371–82).
On the allusion to Isaiah 53 here, see Douglas J. Moo, The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield, UK: Almond, 1983), 127–32.
It simply will not do to assert that a text like this does not explicitly “say that Christ died only for the Church or that He did not die for the non-elect,” as does David L. Allen, “The Atonement: Limited or Universal?,” in Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism, ed. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 79. True, the claim that Jesus laid down his life for his sheep does not logically demand that he died only for the elect. But it must be stressed that this claim does not exist in a vacuum; it is part of a larger matrix of ideas in this passage that describes the purpose of Christ coming into the world, the means of accomplishing that purpose, and the specific distinction between his sheep and those who are not his sheep. Thus “to take the formula ‘laying down his life for’ out of the relationship in which it occurs and apply it to those who finally perish is to make a distinction that Jesus’ own teaching forbids” (John Murray, “The Atonement and the Free Offer of the Gospel,” in Collected Writings of John Murray. Volume 1: The Claims of Truth [Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1976], 76).
Notice that this group of people (“children of God”) exists before they believe in Jesus, another indication of their divine election.
It is common to speak of God’s love in a way that obliterates any distinctions in how the Bible speaks of it. But, following Carson, it is possible to identify at least five different ways that the Bible speaks of God’s love: (1) The special love between the Father and the Son; (2) God’s providential love for his creation; (3) God’s salvific stance toward his fallen world; (4) God’s particular, effective, selecting love toward his elect; and (5) God’s provisional or conditional love for his people (D. A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2000], 16–24; and also Murray, “Atonement and the Free Offer of the Gospel,” 69–74). Geerhardus Vos, “The Biblical Doctrine of the Love of God,” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1980), 456, is correct to point out that (4) is given the most distributive emphasis in Scripture. In other words, God’s love for the elect is no mere “afterthought,” as it must be in the Amyraldian scheme. This approach is far more faithful to Scripture than simply asserting, “The crux of the matter is, ‘Does God love all men or does He not?’” (Lightner, Death Christ Died, 111).
Here I would remind the reader of the inseparable link between those for whom the Son dies and those for whom he intercedes, as described in John 17.

This article is by Matthew S. Harmon and is adapted from From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective edited by David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson.

Matthew S. Harmon (PhD, Wheaton College) is professor of New Testament Studies at Grace College and Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana. He was previously on staff with Cru for eight years and is the author of numerous books, including commentaries on Galatians, Philippians, 2 Peter, and Jude. He also cohosts the Various and Sundry podcast. Matthew and his wife, Kate, live in Warsaw, Indiana, and have two sons.