IV. EXEGETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. 2 Peter 2:1
It is generally acknowledged that the verse most difficult to harmonize with the limited atonement view is 2 Peter 2:1. Apparently it says that the false teachers (who are not among the elect) had the price of redemption paid for them by the Lord, for in their teaching they deny the Lord who bought (agorazo) them. In other words, Peter seems to be saying that the Lord in His sacrifice paid the price of redemption for these nonelect people.
Some particular redemptionists say that Peter is only recording what the false teachers claimed. They said that the Lord bought them, but in reality He did not because He died only for the elect. Thus Peter simply acknowledged what they were saying without affirming the truth of it, and indeed, it is not a true statement from the limited viewpoint. But, of course, even if this is an expression of what the false teachers were saying, it still can be a true statement, so it cannot be assumed to be false simply because it comes from their mouths. But more likely Peter is emphasizing the depth of their defection by pointing out that they denied the Lord who bought them. This is sometimes called the “Christian Charity” view.
Others understand this to mean that the Lord (as Creator) “purchased” these nonelect people in the sense that He as Creator possessed them. Thus agorazo (buy, redeem) comes to mean ktizo (create). The Lord possessed them as He did Israel when He effected a temporal deliverance from Egypt (Deut. 32:6).
In attempting to reinforce this interpretation, particular redemptionists cite three lines of alleged support. (1) The word for Lord (despotes) when used in the New Testament refers to God, not Christ, and it should refer to Christ if this verse teaches a soteriological ransom (see, for example, Acts 4:24; Rev. 6:10). While the word does usually refer to the Father when it refers to Deity, does not Jude 4 use it in reference to Christ? It seems so, and if so there, then there is no reason why it does not also refer to Christ in 2 Peter 2:1.
(2) They also point out that in other occurrences of agorazo where it refers to soteriological redemption in the New Testament, the price paid is mentioned in the context. Therefore, since no price is mentioned in 2 Peter 2:1, this must not refer to an actual soteriological redemption, but rather a Creator-creature “possession.” However, in Revelation 14:4 no price is mentioned in the context of relating the soteriological redemption of the 144,000. Likewise, 2 Peter 2:1 could also refer to a soteriological redemption without mentioning the specific price.
(3) Further it is alleged that agorazo is always used in contexts where there is a real, take-possession kind of buying. Because the false teachers in 2 Peter 2:1 were not actually saved, agorazo cannot refer to a salvation purchase since no real possession took place. But notice Luke 14:18-19 where a real, actual purchase was made of a piece of property and yet the purchaser had not even seen it. Likewise, the unlimited redemptionist argues, the false teachers were actually purchased (that is, Christ did die for them) even though they were never possessed (that is, they were not saved). (See John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ [London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1959], pp. 250-2); and Gary Long, Definite Atonement [Nutley, N.J., Presbyterian and Reformed, 1976], pp. 67-82).
B. 1 John 2:2
This verse also seems to say rather clearly that the death of Christ was for the whole world, since He is the propitiation not only for our sins but also for the sins of the whole world. “Our” seems to refer to those who are (or will be) saved while “the whole world” includes those who are not saved. How do limited redemptionists explain this verse so as to be compatible with their viewpoint?
Actually three suggestions are made. In all three, “ours” and “the whole world” add up to the sum total of all the elect; therefore, “ours” refers to some of the elect and “the whole world” to others of the elect.
(1) Some understand “ours” to mean the elect living in Asia Minor where the Apostle John was; “the whole world” then refers to the elect living outside Asia Minor. This is a geographical distinction.
(2) Others see a racial distinction; that is, “ours” means the elect from among Jewish people, and “the whole world” designates the elect from among Gentiles.
(3) Still others make a chronological distinction. “Ours” designates the elect living in the first century, while “the whole world” focuses on the elect in subsequent centuries. In other words, limited atonement sees the Atonement from this verse as geographically, ethnically, or chronologically universal, but only in relation to the elect, not all people (see John Murray, Redemption—Accomplished and Applied [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961], pp. 82-5).
To be sure, the word “world” does not always mean all people (see John 12:19), but no dictionary gives it the meaning of only the elect. And limited atonement advocates are assigning it the meaning of only part of the elect in this verse.
Furthermore, the only other occurrence of the phrase “the whole world” in John’s writings is in 1 John 5:19, and there it undebatably includes everybody. So the presumption is that it also means everyone in 2:2. And this means that Christ died for all people even though all are not ultimately saved.
C. 1 Timothy 2:4-6; 4:10
Generally, limited redemptionists understand the “all” in 1 Timothy 2 to refer to all kinds of people. That is, Christ died for all kinds of sinners (among the elect), and God wishes all kinds of people (among the elect) to be saved. In 4:10, however, some understand Savior to mean that Christ provides the general benefits of providence to all and especially to believers. “Savior” then has no soteriological connotation, according to this interpretation. The logic behind these interpretations is that if Christ is the Savior of all people absolutely, then all must be saved, and since all are not saved, then He cannot be the Savior of all in any soteriological sense. But is not God the Father of all people absolutely (Acts 17:29) and yet not all people are in the redeemed family? (Gal. 3:26) Similarly, Christ can be said to be the Savior of all without all being saved (see Owen, p. 235).
D. Hebrews 2:9
Again it seems clear that the Atonement was universal. How else could the writer say that He tasted death for every man. Notice that the preceding verses use the word “man” also and the meaning is clearly all people, not just the elect.
E. John 3:16
Limited redemptionists are forced to say that this verse means God loved only the world of the elect. One advocate of limited redemption understands the verse to emphasize the intensity of God’s love; that is, God loved the world of sinners. But it is still restricted to the elect sinners. Now if John 3:16 is so restricted, then no limited redemptionist could tell his young children, for example, that God loves them, since he could not know at that age whether or not they belonged to the elect. The Lord, however, expressed His love for an unsaved (and evidently a nonelect) man (Mark 10:21).
F. Acts 17:30
This verse states the matter as broadly as it could be said. God commands all men everywhere to repent. To read it to say all men without distinction of race or rank everywhere in the earth but only among the elect (which is the way it would have to be understood to support limited atonement) does not appear to be the most secure exegesis!
Exegesis clearly supports the unlimited position.
