On the Nature and Extent of the Atonement -- A Look at Paul's Doctrine of Reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5:17-21

Shortly after I released an episode of the Blessed Hope Podcast on 2 Corinthians 5:14-6:2 entitled “God Was in Christ,” a discussion began on social media regarding the matter of “hypothetical universalism” and the question of whether or not this view is compatible with Reformed orthodoxy. The Synod of Dort said “no” to that proposal in the first refutation of errors under the second head of doctrine. So does Paul.

In 2 Corinthians 5:17-21, Paul's focus falls upon what reconciliation accomplishes for God’s people. This is Paul's indicative (we are reconciled to God through the death of Jesus) to a congregation in Corinth which had tolerated false apostles who saught to undermine Paul’s apostolic authority as well as the gospel he preached.  Paul’s imperative is found in 2 Corinthians 5:20—we implore you, "be reconciled."  Paul is, in effect, saying “do not listen to such teachers.”  To a church in turmoil, Paul urged the Corinthians to stand upon the gospel which he preached to them previously so as to be at peace with God.  Why?  Today is the day of salvation (i.e., the age of salvation). This is the context for a portion of my exposition of the passage, reproduced below. 

______________________________________________

For Paul, everything centers upon Christ’s love for sinners. Paul is convinced (he has “concluded” – κρίναντας, krinatas), that even as all have died because of Adam’s fall into sin–which is the reason why “our bodily tents” wear out (5:1) and our jars of clay deteriorate (4:7)—Jesus has died for all. The fall of Adam brought a horrible calamity upon our race–sin, and its wages which is the curse and death. But the death of Jesus saves us from what Adam did to us and to our race. Jesus is said to have died for “all”– a group which many take to refer to the whole of humanity. Mark Seifrid, as but one example, describes the cross as a universal event without a universal salvation–a “riddle” as he calls it.[1]

But I take Paul to be referring to those for whom Christ is accomplishing his redemptive work– “for their sake.” Jesus died and was raised, overturning the curse on the behalf of God’s elect—which is the case if Christ’s work is substitutionary. Colin Kruse expresses the sense of this as, “only because Christ is the incarnate Son of God could the death of one be for all. Only the death of this one could redeem us from the curse of the law; the death of a mere human being could never achieve this.”[2] There is no limit placed upon the sufficiency of Christ’s death to save all—if the Father had chosen to save all, then Jesus’s death would have been sufficient to save all. But Paul is clear that those for whom Jesus dies no longer live for themselves, but they live for the one who died for them. They now are said to live for Jesus. Thus the efficacy/extent of the atonement is limited by God’s purpose and applied to those for whom Christ has died.

There are two disputed theological issues here–the extent and the nature of the atonement.[3] The first issue is the question of the extent (or intention) of Christ’s death. Did Jesus die for all people (potentially saving all), or for the elect only (actually saving the elect)? The standard objection to “particular redemption” (a Reformed distinctive which holds that Christ’s death is effectual for the elect only) is raised by this passage.[4] “How can you as a Calvinist hold to the notion that Jesus did not die for all (each and every person who has ever lived in each and every age), when Paul says Jesus did die for `all’”? Fair question.

We can answer the main exegetical objection by asking the question “whom does Adam represent?” The answer is that Adam represents all of humanity (cf. Rom. 5:12-21). As the old saying goes, “in Adam’s fall, sinned we all.” But whom does Jesus represent? All of humanity? The same group which has fallen in Adam and are now subject to the curse and death? Or does Jesus represent those in the new covenant, who have died to the world, who possess resurrection life, and who participate in the new creation?[5] Paul teaches us it is the latter.

The second issue (the nature of the atonement) explains the first (the extent), in part, by looking to the biblical concept of federal headship–a consideration of those who are represented by Adam (those who die), in contrast with those who are represented by Christ (those who live). The Adam-Christ distinction is reflected throughout Paul’s writings when he addresses the nature of Christ’s redemptive work.[6] As Paul will tell us in verses 17-21, through his shed blood, Christ’s death accomplishes reconciliation between God and sinners–Jesus establishes of a bond of peace with God for all those for whom he dies.[7]

There is nothing here which permits us to say, “Jesus reconciles sinners to God, but only if they do not unreconcile themselves through unbelief or some other sinful act which they commit.” There is nothing here which remotely implies that Jesus makes reconciliation possible if only those dead in sin do “x” “y” and “z.” No, according to verses 17-21, Jesus “reconciles” (καταλλάσσων – katallasso) sinners to God.[8] The aorist tense in verse 18 indicates a completed act. Jesus dies for all those said to be “in Christ.” Those who argue for any of the forms of universalism, often ignore the unintended consequences of their position and are left with something like Seifrid’s “riddle.” How does a universal, and potential reconciliation and non-imputation of sin not save all people if it is universal in its extent? You must limit the atonement’s efficacy–Christ dies for people he does not save. The Reformed take the other path and limit the atonement’s extent but not its efficacy. Christ saves all those for whom he died.

This is part of an extended discussion of Paul’s doctrines of reconciliation, substitutionary atonement, imputation, forgiveness, and new creation. You can find the aforementioned episode of the Blessed Hope Podcast here.

_________________________________________

[1] Seifrid, The Second Letter to the Corinthians, 244.

[2] Kruse, 2 Corinthians, 166.

[3] Granted, Paul is not discussing either of these issues here–they arise much later in church history. But his teaching becomes the basis for this later discussion and debate. The implications of what Paul says here cannot be dismissed from contemporary discussions of the nature and extent of the atonement. See the helpful discussion of the debate in Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Sin and Salvation in Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 3.460-475.

[4] According to B. B. Warfield, “Calvinism insists that the saving operations of God are directed in every case immediately to the individuals who are saved. . . . The Calvinist is he who holds with full consciousness that God the Lord, in his saving operations, deals not with mankind at large, but particularly with the individuals who are being saved.” See B. B. Warfield, The Plan of Salvation (Avinger, YX: Simpson Publishing Company, 1989), 89.

[5] G. K. Beale, Union with the Resurrected Christ: Eschatological New Creation and New Testament Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2023), 474.

[6] Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 420.

[7] An important response to a universal or hypothetical universalism interpretation of this text was offered by John Owen in the seventeenth century (1647). See John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (Carlsile PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1983), 227.

[8] Harris gives us substantial background regarding the use of the term. “The word group that relates to “reconciliation” is exclusively Pauline within the NT: καταλλάσσω occurs six times, ἀποκαταλλάσσω three times, and καταλλαγή four times. Only one of these thirteen is not theological in import. It is little wonder, therefore, that some scholars regard reconciliation as the “leading theme” or “center” of Paul’s thought and ministry. Basically, αταλλαγή means “exchange,” especially of money or merchandise. In the papyri it is used most often of the changing of money from one currency into another (Spicq 2.263). Metaphorically it denoted the exchange or substitution of peace for war, of love for anger, or of friendship for enmity. As a Pauline theological term depicting the relationship of God with humans, “reconciliation” denotes a transformation of relations, not in the sense that original friendly relations are restored (humans are by nature at enmity with God, Rom. 5:10; Eph. 2:1–3) but in the sense that friendly relations now replace former hostility.” See Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 435-436.