“For Whom Did Christ Die?” Romans 5:12-19
Introduction: This question has been asked for many years and has caused considerable division in the Christian community. Many say, “Why of course, Christ died for everyone.” Others have responded by saying, “No, Christ died only for the elect.” Major denominations have divided over this question. “Did God intend to save only the elect in the death of Christ or provide salvation for everyone?” Passionate defenses on each side of the issue have been offered. Frequently, tensions are so strong on this issue that one side does not hear what the other is saying. Each feels justified in her/his view and often refuses to look at the other’s argument. Not a few have stated that both are true and then dismissed the subject without seeing the inconsistency of their logic. Such approaches are not good theological methodology, nor are they to be commended as intellectually credible. This morning I want to examine this topic by taking a closer look at Romans 5:12-19 to see how each side of the issue has a point worth considering. I am not suggesting a compromise of the two views, but rather I am suggesting how a different model might reveal a richer understanding of the intention God had in mind in sending His Son to die on the cross. There is an extensive literature on this topic and probably much more thorough than most of you want to wade through. Years ago I published an academic paper on this very topic if you care to examine it more thoroughly. (Simply Google “Two Aspects in the Design of Christ’s Atonement” if you want to read further on this issue.) But for today I want to offer a skeletal outline of my view and the scriptural logic supporting it.
I. I believe Romans 5:12-19 deals with two men, two groups, and two destinies.
1. Adam and Christ are obviously the two men and we looked at them last week. In some ways Adam and Christ are similar. We spoke of Adam being a type of Christ, but that typology only goes so far. In other ways they are vastly different.
2. These two men represent two groups. One represents believers and the other represents humans in their natural state.
3. Each represents two different destinies. One represents those who are God’s children and the other represents those who are not.
4. But more central to my argument is the distinction between the “all” and “the many” mentioned in Romans 5:15, 18,19. Simply stated, when the text uses “the many” with the definite article, it is a reference to the elect, or God’s chosen people. But at other times the text uses the word “all” to refer to all people. Please note examples of the use of “the many” in the following references.
ESV Romans 12:5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.
ESV 1 Corinthians 10:17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
ESV 1 Corinthians 10:33 just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.
ESV Hebrews 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
II. How some other passages distinguish two groups.
1. 1 Timothy 4:10 is often quoted to support the view that Christ died for everyone.
ESV 1 Timothy 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.
It is true that in some sense Christ is the Savior of all people. But the text goes on to say that He is the Savior “especially of those who believe.” My contention is that the “all people” and “especially those who believe” are not the same group. “Especially those who believe” is a subset of all men, but is not identical to the “all people.” Please note the following passages where a subset is contained within the larger group. In each case the same word “especially” is used to set off the subset.
ESV 1 Timothy 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
ESV 1 Timothy 5:17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.
NAS 2 Timothy 4:13 When you come bring the cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus, and the books, especially the parchments.
ESV Titus 1:10 For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party.
ESV Galatians 6:10 So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.
2. 1 John 2:2 is another favorite passage that is often quoted to support the view that Christ died for everyone. However, if what I have presented so far is valid, then I believe that 1 John 2:2 fits my proposal nicely. It seems to me that there are two aspects of the death of Christ that are indicated in this verse.
ESV 1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
I also believe there is more than a subtle hint in I John 2:2 that there is a dual intent in Christ’s propitiation. In one sense He has “us” (i.e. believers) in mind. In another sense He has the whole world in view. “And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.” (NKJ) Those who believe Christ died for everyone often present this verse as the strongest in the NT in support of their view. Those who believe Christ died only for the elect are quick to argue that this verse speaks of the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement and not its intended result. However, it is possible that Christ’s death was intended for everyone with respect to the condemnation of Adam’s transgression, but specifically for the elect with respect to their eternal salvation.
III. Romans 5:18-19 is a summary of verses 12-17 and supports my understanding of the two aspects of Christ’s atonement.
I believe that if this dual hypothesis of the intentionality of Christ’s death is considered, then this verse fits quite well with my understanding of Romans 5:12-19.
In subsequent weeks I hope to deal with two very practical matters that are directly related to Romans 5:12-19 and spell out their implications.
Before we conclude this morning I want to share an illustration that beautifully pictures the transaction that took place when Christ died on the cross. 2 Corinthians 5:21 nicely summarizes the atonement of Christ. (Ill.)