John 1:29 and the Atonement

By Mark W. Christy, PhD

Robert Wilkin, in Is Calvinism Biblical?, offers two verses (John 1:29; 2 Peter 2:1) which he claims offer solid biblical support for the doctrine of unlimited atonement (UA).[i] This doctrine, held by Arminians among others, states that Jesus died for the sins of all people and not just the elect (those chosen by God). To be clear, this doctrine still affirms some people will still go to hell, but their final eternal destination is ultimately dependent on their response to the gospel.

Despite its name, UA still limits the atonement of humanity but the limitation is applied by humanity when they choose not to repent and believe in response to the gospel. Some would argue that this understanding of atonement fails first and foremost because it is really no atonement at all. Essentially, those holding this view (UA) argue that Jesus’ death did not purchase salvation for anyone and rather merely made it available. To put this another way, Jesus’ death was not personal so Christians (if they maintain this doctrine) cannot say that Jesus died personally for them on the cross.

This view of the atonement is further upended when one realizes that it sets forth the proposition that some sinners whose sin was covered by Christ on the cross will ultimately go to hell. If this is the case, then Jesus’ death did not serve as a full and final payment for sin. Furthermore, those who go to hell are receiving a sort of double punishment for their sin as this view holds that Christ bore their sin on the cross. This has the effect of making at least some of Christ’s work on the cross completely meaningless and to an extent devalued.

Despite these obvious flaws that should make one consider the doctrine of limited atonement (LA) a little more seriously, Wilkin prefers to move forward with what he believes to be resounding evidence from John 1:29. In this verse, John states in reference to Christ, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”[ii] On the surface, it certainly appears that Wilkin may have found solid evidence to support UA. The Greek word for “world” has a broad range of meaning but Wilkin prefers to arbitrarily limit John meaning by understanding it to mean “all humans at all times” (61). While acknowledging its other usages in Scripture, he apparently chooses this definition as it is (at least he claims) the “most prevalent” usage. While his preference on this matter certainly allows this verse to add support to UA, two points should be considered before moving forward in support of his exegesis.

First, “world” could have been employed to connote the idea that Jesus is the only Savior the world will have whether they belong to the Jewish ethnic group or Gentiles. Second, a literal interpretation of this verse using Wilkin’s definition of “world” with no appeal being made to the broader context of John much less the rest of Scripture would imply that all sinners have had their sins paid for through Christ’s death. Such a stance would rightly bring a charge of universalism. Third, while restricting the definition of “world”, Wilkin still appeals to the broader context to avoid the charge of universalism. Specifically, he ultimately limits the world to those who choose to respond in faith to the gospel: “With sins taken way, the issue for the sinner is not how to deal with his own sins, but whether or not he will believe in the Savior who took them away” (63). Finally, by demonstrating his willingness to appeal to the broader context for better understanding of the passage so as to avoid the charge of universalism, Wilkin by default makes way for his detractors to do the same. Perhaps recognizing the potentiality, Wilkin tried to limit the meaning of world himself to that which benefitted his view. Even so, he fails to understand that a word’s meaning is ultimately more precisely determined by its context as opposed to its literal definition(s) located in a dictionary.

Given the previous predicaments that are caused by affirming UA, it would seem wise to look within the context of John (and the rest of Scripture if that were necessary) so as to avoid the obvious conflicts that would result. Thankfully, Jesus Himself discusses the atonement in John 10:11, “I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.” Are these sheep all inclusive of all humanity? No, he straightforwardly declares that his sheep are those given to Him by God and this group does not include all human beings:

“But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand” (John 10:26-29; cf. John 17:6, 9).

Here, Christ Himself confirms the doctrine of unconditional election whereby God chooses those who are to be saved (the Elect). It is quite clear that some people are not chosen and therefore do not believe the gospel. Those who do believe the gospel are first chosen by God. In John 6:38-39, Jesus says, “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.” In this passage, Jesus confirms that his activities are fully in line with and at the behest of the will of the Father and that that which He was given He would make sure to keep hold of.

To further confirm the true meaning of Christ’s words, a short tour of Scripture beyond the gospel of John will prove helpful. In Ephesians 1:4, Paul states, “[God] chose us in [Christ] before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.” This verse along with those in John make it clear that truly saved individuals are chosen by God before the creation and given to Christ before His atoning work. With this in view, Christ’s atoning work is ultimately constrained by the will of God before creation even existed and not by the will of the respondents. By accepting this view of the atonement (LA), one will avoid the charge of universalism since the atonement is limited by God’s own sovereign choice. Since Christ foreknew the Elect of God, he could atone specifically and personally for their sins apart from those of all others. In this way, no one who goes to hell can claim that Christ has already received their punishment and therefore their release should be granted. Finally, God’s condemnation of individuals to hell could no way draw Christ’s completed work on the cross into question.

[i]Robert Wilkin, Is Calvinism Biblical?: Let the Scriptures Decide (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2017).

[ii]All Scripture references are taken from NASB1995.