Who Did Jesus Redeem?

An issue that arises whenever we speak about the doctrines of redemption and a paid ransom concerns the intention of God when he sent his Son to be the redeemer who would pay the price, the penalty that God required to be paid for sin. The division basically is whether or not Jesus on the cross paid the price for the sins of everyone or did he only pay the price required for the redemption of his people. Some try and avoid the issue by saying that the price he paid was sufficient for all, but efficient for some. If you think about that statement, all it does is avoid giving an answer to the question. 

 

Others might imagine that this is a debate about gardeners. On the one side, there are those whose favourite flower is a tulip and on the other side are those who don’t want a tulip in their gardens. Tulip, we should know, stands for total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. Those who like the tulip are called Calvinists and those who don’t are called Arminians. Some Calvinists don’t like the ‘L’ either, but all we can say to them is that the word does not make sense when it is removed, and the flowers in their garden are not so bright.

 

It is important to observe that this is not an argument about the words ‘limited’ and ‘unlimited’ which are often used in this debate. If someone says to me, ‘Do you believe in a limited atonement and an unlimited atonement?’, I reply, ‘Yes, I do.’ Such an answer usually puzzles the questioner because he assumes it must be one or the other. But everyone who believes that Jesus made an atonement on the cross believes that it is both limited and unlimited. A Calvinist believes that it is limited as far as people are concerned but unlimited as far as God’s power is concerned. An Arminian believes that the atonement is unlimited as far as people are concerned but limited as far as God’s power is concerned. A Calvinist believes that God will definitely save his people whereas an Arminian says that he will not manage to save all the ones he sent Jesus to save. Personally, I would not use the word ‘limited’. Rather I would use the word ‘definite’. This means that we would get rid of the acrostic TULIP, but we don’t need it anyway.

 

The issue has been around for a long time and has divided Christians into different parties. Perhaps the best known is the disagreement between George Whitefield and John Wesley, although in their case the disagreement also extended to other doctrines such as human ability or divine election or perseverance of the saints. Often, some say that we should avoid such disputes because they cause arguments. Yet, we are to defend the truth and we should not make false statements about what Jesus actually did. The fact is that both views cannot be right.

 

Sometimes, Calvinists are described as cold Calvinists. There may be some, but if they are cold they are not real Calvinists. A real Calvinist burns for the salvation of sinners, but he burns optimistically. A real Calvinist weeps over the lost, but he weeps hopefully. A real Calvinist longs for gospel success, but he longs expectantly. A real Calvinist prays for conversions, but he prays assuredly. Why? Because he knows what Jesus did for the salvation of sinners and what God has promised regarding the salvation of sinners.

 

Importance of context and brotherly love

A further complication is that sometimes the Bible includes verses with statements that seem initially to contradict once another. For example, Jesus says in one statement that he came to give his life as ransom for many. Whatever we wish to say about the word ‘many’, it does not usually mean everyone unless the context says so. But then Paul says in 2 Timothy 2 that Jesus gave himself as a ransom for all, and the word ‘all’ usually means everybody unless the context indicates otherwise. This means that whenever we look at a biblical statement, it must be interpreted within its context. This of course should be how we look at all Bible statements.

 

There is the danger that people can use Bible statements as arrows to fire at one another, but if they are not meant to be used in such a way there will not be any spiritual benefit. Our eyes will be taken off God, and even taken off the cross where Jesus paid the price, and they will turn into stares at people with whom we disagree. Rather the disagreement should be handled lovingly, aware of the real possibility that there can be true love for God in a heart that lacks knowledge. 

 

Going back to the disagreement between Whitefield and Wesley, we have probably heard the story of someone who asked Whitefield if he expected to see John Wesley in heaven. Whitefield replied that he did not. The person asking the question assumed that Whitefield thought Wesley was unconverted. But Whitefield went on to say that the reason he would not see Wesley is because Wesley would be far closer to the throne, and himself much further away. 

 

There is the danger that we turn Christianity into a debate about who is correct and fail to approach this aspect of the work of Jesus with the awe that should fill our hearts when we think of God’s grace and the sense of personal shame that should mark us at all times when we consider that it was our sins he was dealing with. 

 

It is not possible to cover every point of the disagreement, but I am going to mention some that convince me that Jesus paid the price only for his people. 

 

Harmony in the Godhead

The Bible mentions several ways in which each person in the Trinity contributes to our salvation. One passage that includes the activities of the three person is Ephesians 1:3-14. We are told that the Father elects and adopts, that the Son redeems and provides an inheritance, and that the Spirit indwells them as both a seal indicating divine ownership and an earnest giving assurance of what is to come. It is obvious that the actions of the Father and the Spirit are limited to the same group of people, and since the Trinity works in harmony it must be the case that the Son’s activity will be limited to the same people. So the harmony and shared interests of the Divine Persons point clearly to the redemption and ransom provided by Jesus as intended for the same people.

 

What about those who died before Jesus came?

Sadly, millions of the human race died unaware that he was going to come. This ignorance was not due to God being silent. After Adam fell, God informed him that the Deliverer would come and liberate his people. Somewhere along the line, people stopped speaking about this divine promise, so that by the time of Noah and his flood no one cared about it. The voice of the promise was drowned out by their other interests. After the flood, there is a repeat of the same outlook. A wilful forgetting of what God had done happened very quickly. There were still some who acknowledged God, people like Job and Melchisedek, but the vast majority had no interest in the things of God. They chose other things, lived their lives, and eventually passed away, having lived without God and no desire for his ways. 

 

Why are we thinking about them? To ask the simple question, did Jesus pay a ransom to deliver them from their sins when they were beyond deliverance? It is impossible to say, in the light of their sad end, that on the cross Jesus paid the penalty of their sins. This also means that he did not pay a ransom for all. We have no idea how many millions are included in this figure, and we have to leave all that with God.

 

What about those who heeded the promises of God about a future salvation, even if they did not have very much information to go on? Of course, salvation does not depend on how much information we have, but on what we do with the truth that has been given. Simple faith in the promise given in Eden is sufficient to bring salvation to any who responded in that way to the divine promise.

 

What does the Bible say about Union with Jesus?

Two kinds of death took place at Calvary. One kind is that Jesus died for others, the second kind is that others died with Jesus. Those who died in the second manner were united to Christ. We cannot say that Jesus died for everyone and that everyone died united to him because that did not happen. There must be a connection between the ones that Jesus died for and the ones who died with him. The connection is that they are the same people.

 

The doctrine of union with Christ is one that covers everything to do with salvation. The chapter from Ephesians that we thought about earlier says that what the Father did and what the Spirit does is connected to union with Christ. His people were chosen in him, adopted in him, redeemed in him, promised an inheritance in him, and sealed in him by the Spirit. Those united to him have always had a connection to him, long before they were born, long before the universe was born. Not only did they die with Christ, they have been raised with Christ. If they are still in this world, he intercedes for them. 

 

Responding

The first point to reflect on is whether or not such a view results in a defective gospel that denies the free offer of salvation. What is the gospel offer? The offer is based on the authority of Jesus, and the offer is stated by him when says ‘Come to me.’ The offer is about going to Jesus and trusting in him. It is depending on One who is a real Saviour.

 

What happens after we come to Jesus? We worship him as the Redeemer, the One who provided the ransom price. We admire him for his incredible action when he paid the penalty for our sins. Until we tasted the forgiveness that he provides, we had no idea how incredible his work on the cross was. There is nothing in the whole of history that compares with it. It is the most amazing of all the works of God. It is greater than his work of creation – that only involved a word of power. It is greater than the resurrection at the end of history – that will only involve a word of power. It is greater than the appearance of the new heavens and new earth – that will only involve a word of power. But much more than a word of divine power was needed to deal with our sins. We worship the great Achiever, who did so much for his people.  It is impossible that he will fail to provide what he died to provide – the redemption of his people.

 

In addition to worshipping the Redeemer, the ransomed desire to imitate the Redeemer. They don’t desire to try and duplicate what he did on the cross – that would be sacrilegious. But they want to imitate him in this sense – he gave his all for them, so they want to give their all for him. Gladly, they crown him the King of their lives. In a sense, this is the proof that we have tasted his gracious power, the proof that in some measure we understand that he has redeemed us. Redemption was more than delivering us from the penalty of sin, it also was purchasing us to be his own possession. A person who understands redemption has recognised that he belongs to Jesus Christ, that he is no longer his own, because he was bought with a price. 

 

Others can see that he is their King when they observe that his people obey him. How can we identify a Moslem? We see him doing what the Koran requires. How can we identify a Christian? When we see him living according to what Jesus wants him to do. There is no other way. Admiration and imitation are seen in consecration.

 

We are not called to continually go round in circles about who Jesus died for. One day, leaning towards Wesley, the next day leaning towards Whitefield, or whichever heroes come to mind. Rather we marvel at the harmony of the Trinity in their provision of salvation, at the way sinners before the Cross and after it have trusted in Jesus, and they did so because they have always been united to him. We embraced him through the gospel, and since then have grown in admiration for him, desired to give our all to him, and do so by obeying him. How amazing to be counted among the ransomed of the Lord!