Chapter VI: The Universality of Christ’s Merit
CHAPTER VI: ON THE UNIVERSALITY OF CHRIST’S MERIT
§ 106. And that is the second basis which we set against their fiction regarding an absolute decree of reprobation.
The third is the universality of the merit of Christ, where we adduce the following proof: Those for whom Christ shed His precious blood on the altar of the cross have not been rejected by God with an absolute decree, for these things conflict directly with each other, as is clear. But now, Christ shed His blood on the altar of the cross for all people without exception. Therefore God has rejected none of them by any absolute decree. The major premise is clear of its own light, for whatever Christ does in His work of redemption, He thereby carries out the will of the heavenly Father. That is why He confesses so often that He came not to do His own will but the will of the Father [cf. John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38; Matt. 26:39]. However, if this was the goodwill of the heavenly Father—that Christ should die for all and shed His blood for the sins of all—surely, then, no man has been cast out and reprobated by the heavenly Father with an absolute decree. It remains for us to confirm the minor premise.
§ 107. Scripture emphatically expresses in many ways the universality of the merit and satisfaction provided through Christ. First, it uses universal terminology. Christ tasted death “for all” (Rom. 5:8; 2 Cor. 5:14; 1 Tim. 2:6; Heb. 2:9).
Next, it uses the collective term “the world.” Christ is “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29); that is, He makes satisfaction for the sins of all as if there was one sin belonging to all. “God gave His Son for the world” (John 3:16). “He is the Savior of the world” (John 4:42).
Third, it adds a definition: “Christ is the propitiation not only for the sins of us” (the faithful) “but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2).
Fourth, it describes those for whom Christ died in such a way that they cannot be excluded as reprobate. Isa. 53:6: “God has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” Who those “all” are is explained in the preceding words: “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way.” This is a description of the wretchedness of all people, as is clear from Ps. 14:2–3 and Rom. 3:11–12. Adduce here the type of the scapegoat from Lev. 16:21, “upon whom the priest at God’s command was putting all the iniquities of the children of Israel.” In the same way in Romans 5 the apostle compares the disobedience of Adam and the obedience of Christ, and shows that both have the same extent. In fact, he concludes that “grace abounded even more than sin” (Rom. 5:20), which is not tenable if we say that all men were made sinners through Adam but that the satisfaction of Christ was offered for only a few.
Fifth, it expresses the specific case of those who perish in Rom. 14:15: “With food do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.” 1 Cor. 8:11: “The weak brother will perish, for whom Christ died.” 2 Pet. 2:1, 3: “There will be false teachers among you who will bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction; and their destruction does not sleep.” Note that the same word is employed here that the elect use, Rev. 5:9: “You were slain and redeemed us to God.”
The objections of our opponents: First, that the word “world” is taken to mean the elect.
§ 108. Here our opponents seek out various avenues of escape. (I) Zanchi, Beza, and all the rest say: “The word ‘world’ must be taken as a reference for the worthier of the world, namely, for the elect.”
We respond. Nowhere in all of Scripture is the word “world” used solely for the elect. The authors of the Concordant. Latin. (Frankfurt edition of 1600) cite these very passages, but this is begging the question [τὸ ἐν ἀρχῇ λαμβάνειν]. They think that the words of Matt. 5:14—“You are the light of the world”—must be understood as referring to the elect alone, though the apostles nevertheless were sent out into all the world to illumine it with the light of the preaching of heavenly doctrine. Likewise, they take John 17:21—“That the world may believe that You have sent Me”—as a reference to the elect alone, though God nevertheless wants all to come to the knowledge of the truth. There is only one passage that seems to fit, and I am surprised that they have omitted it. 1 Tim. 3:16: “Christ was believed on in the world,” that is, He was received by the elect alone. However, pay attention to the words of the apostle. He does not say that Christ was believed by the world because of John 1:10: “The world knew Him not.” Instead, he says “in the world”; that is, He was received by the faithful in the world.
Zanchi (Miscell., vol. 2, p. 300) brings up John 12:19: “The whole world has gone after Him.” We respond. (1) These are not the words of the Holy Spirit but of the Pharisees. (2) They are taken as a reference to the mixed crowd which followed Christ and not to the faithful alone. (3) Ὅλος [“whole”] is not in the Greek. (4) Verse 11 declares that in this context it must be taken as particular.
§ 109. Therefore it must still be proved that the word “world” is used anywhere in Scripture to mean only the elect. However, in most places “world” is used only for the unregenerate and the reprobate. However, let us show, more than is necessary, that the word “world” is used as universal in those passages which we cited. In John 3:18, Christ divides the world into believers and unbelievers; in v. 19 He puts into this world men who loved the darkness rather than the light. From v. 17 it is clear that Christ is speaking about that world to which He was sent in His first coming to save and not to condemn. That this should be taken generally to refer to all is clear from John 12:47: “If anyone hears My words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.” Finally, if the word “world” is taken only for the elect, what will be the gradation in the apostle’s words: “Christ is the propitiation not only for our sins but for the sins of the whole world” [1 John 2:2]? Of course, Beza takes the first part as a reference to the elect from the believing Jews and the latter to the elect from all nations, because this Epistle seems to have been written only to converted Jews. However, it was written indiscriminately, without regard for nationality, to all who believe in the name of the Son of God (1 John 5:13); wherefore throughout the entire church this Epistle is called a “catholic” Epistle.
Second, that Christ died for the reprobate according to opinion.
§ 110. (II) Concerning passages that testify that those for whom Christ died can perish, they take them “according to opinion,” namely, that “Christ died for them in the opinion of themselves and of others.”
We respond. We add that even according to the assertion of the apostle Christ died for them, and this assertion of the apostle is not mere opinion but infallible truth. It is serious rashness—I dare say, too serious—that those things which are stated in the Scriptures as having been really and truly done are referred to as opinion. However, lest any loophole for slipping out be left, we offer here the statement of the apostle in Heb. 10:29: “How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has trampled the Son of God and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified?” You see, Christ shed His blood even for those who have trampled Him, so to speak, with their impenitence.
The arguments in favor of the universality of the merit of Christ.
§ 111. The remaining exceptions of less importance can easily be explained; we shall at all events still add some arguments to confirm the universality of the merit of Christ. If the reprobate are condemned because they do not believe in the Son of God, it follows that the suffering and death of Christ apply to them too. The logical consequence is obvious, for otherwise they could not be condemned because of their contempt for what does not pertain to them on the basis of God’s decree. The first statement is asserted in clear language in John 3:18: “He who does not believe is condemned already because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” Verse 36: “The wrath of God will remain upon him who does not believe in the Son.” Thus John 16:[8–]9: “The Holy Spirit will convict the world of sin because it does not believe in Christ.” Therefore the Holy Spirit wants the world to believe in Christ. Imagine that Christ did not make satisfaction for the sins of those who do not believe. It will follow that they are condemned because they refused to believe that something pertained to them, something that in fact and according to the unchangeable decree of God did not pertain to them.1
§ 112. I add this argument too: To whomever God offers the benefits obtained through the suffering and death of Christ, for them Christ died. The logical consequence is clear, for far be it from us to attribute to God this pretense: that through the Word He calls unbelievers to repentance and to the kingdom of Christ, though nevertheless He has excluded them from those things by an absolute decree. Rather, Scripture and experience show that even to the reprobate and condemned God has offered, and to some still offers, the Word and Sacraments and, in those, the benefits won through the suffering and death of Christ. Therefore Christ died also for them. This argument will become more clear if you consider that in Baptism those also are reborn who later fall from the grace of regeneration. But now, regeneration comes to us from the merit of Christ. Likewise, [consider] that God, through the mouth of the minister, says to all who come to the Supper (among whom even the reprobate are sometimes present): “Take, eat. This is the body of Christ given into death for your sins. Take, drink. This is the blood of Christ shed on the altar of the cross for your sins.” Briefly, those to whom the Word is preached are those for whom Christ is preached as crucified (1 Cor. 1:17). But now, there are many reprobate among those to whom the Word is preached.
§ 113. This argument is just as strong: Those who have faith and remission of sins are those for whom Christ died. No one can deny that faith finds and obtains remission of sins in the obedience and satisfaction of Christ. And yet many of those who have faith and the remission of sins fall away at the last, ultimately perish, and in so doing prove that they are in the number of the reprobate, as is clear from Heb. 6:4–6 and as will be shown in greater detail in its own place [§§ 177–85]. Therefore Christ died even for them.
The statements of the ancients on the universality of the merit of Christ.
§ 114. The ancients teach the same as we do. Origen (on Job, bk. 1): “Christ came to earth in a human body and endured sufferings for the salvation of all men.” On Job, bk. 2: “The only-begotten Son of God came down from heaven in the latter days; clothed Himself in the covering of a human body of a virgin; shaved off the filth, uncleanness, and rottenness of the whole world and cleansed it by carrying off the sins of all; and by His bruises all have been healed.” Basil (Serm. de nat. hum. assumta): “There was found one price to pay for all men for all time: the blood of Jesus Christ, which He shed for us all.” Ambrose or Prosper (De vocat. gent., bk. 2, ch. 6): “There is no reason for us to doubt that Jesus Christ, our Lord, died for the wicked and for sinners, to whose number He was found not to belong. Did Christ not die for all? Certainly Christ died for all. Therefore before the reconciliation, which happened through the blood of Christ, there was no man who was not either a sinner or wicked,” etc. Among the articles falsely attributed to blessed Augustine [Articulos falso D. Augustino impositos], the first is this: that our Lord Jesus Christ did not suffer for the redemption of all men. To this Augustine responds:
Against the wound of original sin by which the nature of all men was corrupted and made liable to death in Adam and out of which developed the disease of all lusts, the true and powerful and unique remedy is the death of the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, etc. As far as the magnitude and power of the price are concerned, and as that price is related to the one cause of the human race, the blood of Christ is the ransom for the whole world. However, those who pass through this life without faith in Christ and without the sacrament of regeneration are foreigners to redemption, etc. The cup of immortality, which was prepared from our weakness and from God’s power, has in itself indeed the power to benefit all people. But if they do not drink it, it does not profit them.
Augustine again (Letter 171 ad Donatist.): “The Passion of the Lord is the price for the whole world. He has redeemed the whole world.” Sermon 14 de temp.: “Just as our Lord was the Creator of all, so also as the Restorer of all He has absolved the whole world with a single death. For we must surely believe that He who has given more than the whole world was worth has ransomed the whole world,” etc. “He alone, the pious sacrifice, fell for all to raise up all.” Sermon 130 de temp.: “Furthermore,” (Christ suffered) “outside the city and outside its walls that you may understand that He is the universal victim offered for humankind and therefore is its universal purification.” Chrysostom (on 1 Timothy 2): “Christ died also for the heathen. Will you not pray for them too? They did not believe—they refused—yet He did His part when He hung from the cross.” Optatus of Milevis (Contra Parmen., bk. 3): “Surely all have been redeemed by the blood of Christ.” Cyril of Alexandria (on John, bk. 2, ch. 53): “He shows that the sin of unbelief is great because the only-begotten is the very Son of God. The more excellent He is who is held in contempt, so much the greater are the punishments to which the despiser will be subjected. But He says that the unbeliever is already judged, since because he has not accepted the bestower of pardon, he passes the sentence of condemnation upon himself.” Synesius (Letter 57): “Christ was crucified for the sins of all.” Primasius (on 1 Timothy 2): “Indeed the blood of Christ was shed for all, but it benefits those who believe. On the other hand, for him who does not believe, it will be his condemnation.” Bede (on Mark, bk. 4): “He” (Christ) “alone prays for all, and He alone suffers for all,” etc.
The admission of our adversaries concerning the universality of this merit.
§ 115. And furthermore, one can clearly prove the universality of the merit of Christ even from our adversaries. Peter Martyr (Loc. comm., on Philippians 2, p. 1042): “Christ was suffering for many wicked and thankless people whom His death would not benefit.” Wolfgang Musculus (Loci, p. 326, under the heading which treats the redemption of the human race) writes:
“The human race” does not include one or two nations but the entire world, namely, every and all men of the entire world from the first to the last. Yes, we know that not all become partakers of this redemption, but the destruction of those who are not saved hardly prevents us from calling redemption universal, for it is directed not to one nation but to the entire world. Among the Jews, during the year of jubilee, there was a universal manumission of all slaves, though many remained in slavery and spurned the gift of freedom. The redemption of the human race also holds to this pattern. When reprobate and deplorably impious men do not receive it, this is not a failure of the grace of God, nor is it just that it should lose the glorious title of univer sal redemption because of the children of destruction, for it has been prepared for all and all are called to it, etc. Thus He who has redeemed the world is quite justly called the Savior of the world, regardless of what may happen to the reprobate.
Rudolf Gualterus (on 1 John 2): “Let all thoughts be put far away that try to convince us that the merit of Christ extends to merely a few. For John says that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. He wanted to use the word ‘world,’ lest we suppose that anyone has been excluded from the merit of Christ.” (See the same, Homily 83, on Romans 14; Homily 42, on 1 Corinthians 8; etc. Also Hemmingius, Instit., De praedest., thesis 26.) Note especially that quite recently Bucanus (Locus 23, p. 213) lists among the causes of torments in the soul of Christ “the thought of the ingratitude of the larger part of the world”; and that Polanus (on Daniel 9, p. 858) correctly argues that “the benefit of Christ is no more limited than the harm of Adam, and the innocence of Christ is no less effective than the fault of Adam.” One can clearly conclude the universality of the merit of Christ from all these.
The antithesis of our adversaries regarding the particularity of His merit.
§ 116. In this way we have proved the universality of the merit of Christ, through which an absolute decree of reprobation is completely overturned. The architects of this decree see this and therefore deny also the universality of the merit furnished by Christ. For thus say the participants on the opposing side in the Colloq. Mompelg. (p. 514): “Your statement that Christ died for the condemned seems intolerable to us.” Beza (Resp. altera ad colloq., p. 222): “I again say and confess before the entire church that it is blasphemous and wicked to say that, as far as the plan of God is concerned or as far as its effect is concerned, Christ made satisfaction for the sins of those who would be damned no less than for the sins of Peter, Paul,” etc. Zanchi (Miscell., bk. 1, p. 280): “He teaches that we should understand that ‘Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world’ [cf. 1 John 2:2] in such a way that the word ‘world’ is taken to refer to the best part of the world, that is, to the elect alone.” Piscator of Herborn (Disput. de praedest., thesis 3): “Christ did not die for each and every one but only for some.” Bucanus (Locus de praedest., p. 395): “Christ is not the Redeemer of Pharaoh, Judas, Caiaphas, Herod, etc., nor did He die for them.”
Did Christ die for all only sufficiently and not efficiently?
§ 117. Moreover, they generally and frequently explain their view in these words: “Christ died for all sufficiently but not efficiently” (Tossanus, De praedest., theses 31 and 32; Bucanus, op. cit.; and others). Here note that this distinction is taken from the Scholastic doctors but applied in a far different sense. The Scholastics teach that Christ, to the extent that it is in Him, freed all, but the reason that not all become partakers of His grace lies in their own culpability, namely, because they do not cling in faith to the Mediator. Thomas (on Revelation 5) says: “There are two ways of speaking about the redemption which occurred through the Passion of Christ: either according to sufficiency, and thus His Passion redeemed all because, according as it concerns Him, He liberated all, for He is sufficient to redeem and save all, even if worlds were infinite.” “Or,” as Anselm says (bk. 2), “according to efficiency, and thus He did not redeem all through His Passion because not all cling to Him as their Redeemer.” Lombard (Sent. 3, dist. 30, letter C): “Christ offered Himself to God for the sake of all as far as the sufficiency of the price is concerned, but only for the elect as far as efficiency is concerned, because He effects salvation only for the elect.” Biel (Sent. 3, dist. 19, q. 1, art. 2): “Christ sufficiently merited grace and the opening of the kingdom for Adam and for all his posterity. The failure that He does not save all is not the result of the inefficacy of the merit of Chris but is the result of the indisposition of the subject who had not duly approached the cause of his salvation.” Socinas (Sent. 3, dist. 20, concl. 2): “With condign merit Christ made satisfaction through His own interior action and exterior suffering for all human nature.” [Socinas again,] (concl. 3): “However, the merit and satisfaction of Christ do not have ultimate efficiency except in those who are united with Him through faith and the Sacraments.”
On the other hand, those who follow Calvin explain that distinction in this way: Of course the death of Christ was not lacking in value to expiate all sins, if God had intended it for that purpose; but God and Christ never established this as Their plan and will. (See Beza, Resp. ad colloq. Momp., part 2, p. 217; Grynaeus, Disp. de vera et orthod. fide, class 1, thesis 12.) “If you consider the power of His blood,” Bucanus says (loc. cit.), “it is enough for the redemption of all. On the other hand, if you are looking at the eternal purpose and plan of God and the will of the Mediator, He died only for the elect.” You see, the Scholastics relate the cause of this inefficiency, so to speak, to men themselves, but [the Calvinists] relate it to a decree of God. For this reason, Beza (Thes. theolog., De praedest., thesis 13) says that in this distinction there is a “misuse of words” [ἀκυρολογία]. In Resp. ad colloq. (part 2, p. 217) he says that it is pure subterfuge. Piscator (Disput. de praedest., thesis 109) expressly disapproves of this distinction: “Christ by no means died for the reprobate, whether you say sufficiently or efficiently.” In his observations from 1 Tim. 2:6 (p. 26), he says: “This distinction has the appearance of erudition but actually does not work, because it implies a contradiction.” (See the passage itself.)
Arguments in favor of the particularity of the merit of Christ: First, the blood of Christ was shed for many.
§ 118. Let us take a look at the stronger arguments with which they fight against us and cast aside the rest of the “light-armed soldiers” to another place. “Christ says in John 10:15 that He gives His life for His sheep, and in John 17:19 that He sanctifies Himself for those whom the Father had given Him. In Matt. 26:28 His blood is said to be shed for many. Therefore Christ died only for the elect,” says Bucanus. However, (1) what is the strength of the logical consequence: “Christ died for His sheep; therefore He died for His sheep alone. Christ died for the elect; therefore He died only for the elect”?
(2) Rather, they should include that particular in its own universal,2 namely, that Christ died for all. Therefore that universal should not be limited through the particular, but the particular should be extended through its own universal.
(3) The word “many” is used quite often in Scripture for “all”: Ps. 97:1; Dan. 12:2; Rom. 5:19; etc. Thus the syllogism is not valid: “Christ shed His blood for many; therefore He did not shed it for all.”
(4) Now pay attention as we show that in those passages the word “many” necessarily must be understood universally as a reference to the entire multitude of people. We urge the apostle’s contrast (Rom. 5:19). Those many who were made sinners through the fall of Adam are also those many who have been established as righteous through the righteousness of Christ. That is, He has obtained for them the gift of His righteousness (for the apostle is not speaking about application). But now, all men become sinners through the fall of Adam (vv. 12 and 18). Therefore the benefit of righteousness, too, was obtained for all through Christ. Compare Isa. 53:12 with v. 6. God bore the sin of those many who had strayed like sheep. Compare also Matt. 20:28: “Christ gave His life as a ransom [λύτρον] for many,” with 1 Tim. 2:6: “Christ gave Himself as a ransom [ἀντίλυρον] for all.” Matt. 1:21 reads: “Christ will save His people from their sins.” And lest you think that some have been excluded from the merit of Christ by an absolute decree, it says in Gen. 22:18 that “all nations will be blessed” in Christ, and in Luke 2:10 that, because of the birth of Christ, there would be joy “to all people.”
(5) Therefore observe: because of the two respects of the merit of Christ, Scripture speaks distinctly about it, for it is universal if it is considered in itself without respect to its application. On the other hand, the application itself and the actual enjoyment of it are made particular by the fault of human beings.
Second, [that] the fruit of Christ’s death does not pertain to all.
§ 119. However, they say: “If Christ truly died for all, it will follow that the very effect and fruit of His death pertain to all.”
We respond. (1) For alms to be received not only is the offering hand required but also the hand which receives the gift. In the same way also “one possesses as much of these goods as he gathers in the vessel of faith,” as Bernard says beautifully (Song of Songs, sermon 32, col. 597, and De annunt., sermon 3, col. 113). It is not enough that the benefits obtained by the death of Christ be offered, but they must also be received by faith.
(2) God ordinarily kindles this faith in human hearts through the Holy Spirit by means of the Word and Sacraments. If any, like the stubborn Jews, reject the Word, hold the Sacraments in contempt, resist the Holy Spirit, and thus despise the plan of God for their salvation, they are deprived of the benefits of Christ’s death by their own fault.
(3) In order that the basis of our position may be quite clear, let us consider the words of the apostle in 2 Cor. 5:18: “God reconciled us to Himself through Christ,” and v. 19: “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.” Take notice: the reconciliation is done, namely, with respect to the benefit obtained through Christ’s death, and yet in v. 19: “God gave the apostles the ministry of reconciliation.” Verse 20: “We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were exhorting through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.” Now look: the reconciliation must still take place, namely, with respect to its application through faith.
(4) The argument they propose rests upon the hypothesis that the death of Christ does not pertain to those who are not partakers of its salutary effect. However, this cannot stand, for I ask whether Paul, the thief on the cross, and others were excluded, as long as they were faithless and impenitent, from the number of those for whom Christ died. If this is denied, the universality of the proposition fails; if it is affirmed, it follows that in conversion they were either justified without Christ’s death or that Christ did not die for them until that point.
(5) A comparison can clarify how the universality of Christ’s merit still stands, despite the fact that some do not become partakers of its effect. For example, suppose a hundred Christian prisoners were held by the Turkish emperor. Now suppose a Christian prince paid a certain sum of money to ransom them all. If some prisoners later prefer to remain longer in that captivity rather than to enjoy the freedom offered and purchased with a price, they should impute that to themselves. This has not taken anything away from the universality of the ransom [λύτρου] given for all of the prisoners. This is how it is with people who were being held prisoner in the kingdom of Satan and of sin. For all of these Christ gave His precious blood as ransom [ἀντίλυρον]. The fact that not all are actually freed from that spiritual captivity removes nothing from the universality of the ransom. Musculus clarifies this with the example of liberation in the year of jubilee, as we have seen earlier [§ 115]. We have also heard [see § 114] the comparison which Augustine offers (Ad art. sibi falso impositos, art. 1): “The cup of immortality, which was prepared from our weakness and from God’s power, has in itself indeed the power to benefit all people. But if they do not drink it, it does not profit them.”
Third, [that] Christ does not pray for the world.
§ 120. They go on to argue: “Christ did not make satisfaction for those for whom He does not pray. And yet He does not pray for the reprobate. John 17:9: ‘I do not pray for the world.’ Therefore He did not make satisfaction for them.” They all use this argument.
We respond. (1) We limit the major premise in this way: The satisfaction of Christ does not apply to those for whom Christ does not pray simply and absolutely. But now, the former cannot be said about the reprobate, because He prayed for the transgressors in Isa. 53:12. The nature of this prayer is explained in Luke 23:34: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.” Therefore Christ surely prayed for those by whom He was given up into the death of the cross, among whom were Caiaphas, Pilate, and other reprobate people.
(2) Therefore one must distinguish between a general and particular prayer. In this chapter Christ is praying in particular for the elect [cf. John 17:6], whom He in turn commends to the eternal Father particularly as a possession given Him by His Father. Meanwhile, it does not follow3 that He is by no means praying for those who must be converted nor for the reprobate themselves. Lyra writes: “Christ says that He is not praying for the world because the efficacy of His prayer extends only to the elect. For though it is effectual for all, nevertheless the wicked set up a hindrance for themselves so that they do not become partakers of it.” Erasmus (Paraphras.): “Now I am not praying for the world, blinded as it is by its wicked lusts but which stubbornly cries out against My teaching and begrudges salvation, which I offer freely.”
(3) Moreover, in this very chapter Christ prays that the world would “know and believe that the heavenly Father has sent this Son of His” ([John 17:]21, 23). Here Augustine (on John, tract. 110) wanted the word “world” to be taken for the elect, but the context does not allow this, because Christ says that He is praying for all who would believe through the preaching of the apostles, that they all would be one and that thereby the world would believe and know that Christ was sent by the Father, that is, that He is the true Messiah. Suppose that in this passage the word “world” means only the elect—you will put a tautology into the words of Christ. Calvin (commentary on [John 17]:21): “Some explain ‘world’ as the elect who at that time were still scattered. But because in this entire chapter the word ‘world’ is taken for the reprobate, a different sense seems better to me. It happens that immediately after ‘world,’ which He now mentions, He distinguishes it from all of His own people.” Those are Calvin’s words. Therefore just as 1 Pet. 2:12 admonishes the converted to “maintain good conduct among the Gentiles so that, in case they speak against them as wrongdoers, they may see their good deeds and glorify God,” so also Christ here is praying that those who believe may be one, that thereby many may be invited to Christianity. Just as Christ is the “light illumining every man coming into the world” (John 1:9, namely, to the extent that He is in him), so also He prays and earnestly desires that the whole world be illumined and believe.
(4) In this way David at times prays particularly for the well-being of the church, though he also prays elsewhere for its very persecutors. Thus in public prayer we pray, first, particularly for the well-being and safety of the church, and then, in general, that God would have mercy on all.
(5) In connection with this, Christ commands us (Matt. 5:44) to pray for those who persecute and curse us, yet few of these are converted. If they had been cut off from the blessings of Christ’s death by an absolute decree, how could we pray for their conversion? Calvin (on this passage): “In our prayers we include the whole human race, but for the prayer which is recounted here there was some other particular reason which ought not be used as an example,” etc.
(6) But we also do not disapprove of the explanation of Luther (in Gloss. margin.), who interprets these words of Christ as follows: “I am not praying for you to be pleased with the actions of the world and of unbelievers”—just as Moses prays, Num. 16:15: “Do not respect the sacrifice of Korah,” and as David does, Ps. 59:5: “Do not have mercy on any who work iniquity.”
(7) To make this easier to understand, note that Christ was not only a priest but also a prophet. With respect to His priestly office, Christ as the chief priest of the New Testament prayed for all when He offered His body to His heavenly Father on the altar of the cross as the sacrificial victim for the sins of the whole world, just as Hebrews 5 explains the type set forth in Leviticus 16. With respect to His prophetic office, however, Christ wanted the sins of impenitent and resisting sinners to be retained with the binding key.
Fourth, [that] Christ was not sent except for the lost sheep of Israel.
§ 121. We shall also add an explanation of this argument which some employ: “The suffering and death of Christ pertain only to those to whom Christ Himself pertains. Yet Christ pertains only to the elect. Matt. 15:24: ‘I was not sent except for the lost sheep of Israel.’ Therefore.”
We respond. (1) If these words of Christ are taken as a reference to His being sent to His priestly office or to provide satisfaction, it will follow that it applies to the Israelites alone and that not even one Gentile is elect, which is absurd. Nor indeed can one respond that “Israelites” means the spiritual Israelites who are “the children of promise” (Rom. 9:8) and who are “of the faith of Israel” (Rom. 4:[16]), because that Canaanite woman was of the number of the spiritual Israelites. In fact, her faith was great (Matt. [15]:28). Yet Christ said that He had not been sent for her. Suppose that Christ was speaking about those who were Israelites by faith rather than by nationality; it will follow that Christ took away from that woman what actually did belong to her.
(2) Therefore it must be understood thus: Christ is not speaking about His office of redemption but about His ministry, for He was “the minister to the circumcised,” that is, to the Jews (Rom. 15:8). As chief priest, Christ was sent for all, but as prophet and teacher of the church He was sent particularly to the Jews, to whom He wanted to reveal His doctrine with so many signs and wonders because of the verity of the divine promises, since to them “the kingdom of God had to be preached first” (Acts 13:46).
(3) Augustine writes (on John, tract. 31):
According to His bodily form, which the Jews saw and despised, Christ was not among us, because this also was spoken of Him as the apostle says: “For I say that Christ was the minister to the circumcised for the sake of the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers” [Rom. 15:8]. He was obliged to come to those by whose fathers and to whose fathers He was promised. Therefore He Himself also says: “I have not been sent except for the sheep which have been lost of the house of Israel” [Matt. 15:24]. But what does the apostle say in the words which follow? That the Gentiles glorify God because of His mercy [Rom. 15:9]. What does the Lord Himself say? “I have other sheep which are not of this fold” [John 10:16]. How does He who had said, “I have not been sent except for the sheep who have been lost of the house of Israel,” have other sheep for which He was not sent, unless He meant that He was sent through His bodily presence to the Jews alone, who saw and killed Him? Yet many of them believed both before and afterward, etc.
Augustine again (Sermon 74 de temp.): “Christ says, ‘I have not been sent except for the sheep who have been lost of the house of Israel’ [Matt. 15:24], in order to show them the foreknowledge of His body and not to despise and overlook the sheep which He had among the Gentiles; for He did not go to the Gentiles Himself, but sent His disciples.” Lyra writes in this way also, and, in fact, Calvin himself says (on this passage): “He gives the apostles the reason He did not listen to the Canaanite woman: because He wanted Himself to be wholly near the Jews, to whom alone He had been sent as the minister of the grace of God. Therefore He asserts the calling and mandate of the Father that no aid should be provided to foreigners, not because the power of Christ was eternally closed up within such narrow limits but because the nature of that time suggested that He begin with the Jews and bind Himself to them in a particular way,” etc. Those are Calvin’s words.
Fifth, [that] there is no use for universal merit.
§ 122. There are some who argue thus: “We should not believe that God did something that is of no use. Yet there is no use for universal merit since, in fact, at that time some of the reprobate were already in hell, and Christ would have suffered for them in vain. Therefore one should not believe that the merit of Christ is universal.”
We respond. (1) Could I not conclude in the same way that Christ did not suffer for Abraham, Isaac, and the rest of the Old Testament faithful who had been taken into the fellowship of eternal life, because they already had obtained that very thing which is claimed to come to them from the sufferings of Christ?
(2) In fact, we say from Rev. 13:8: “The Lamb of God was slain from the beginning of the world,” namely, with regard to the divine decree, with regard to the promise, with regard to types in the [Old Testament] sacrifices, and with regard to efficacy. As a result, the benefit of the Passion of Christ is not to be restricted to the point in time when it occurred; instead, its effect extends to past and future time. That is why the fathers say: “The Passion of Christ was beneficial before it occurred.”
(3) Therefore we are correct in saying that Christ suffered and died even for those who were in hell while He was suffering, not as if Christ freed them from hell with His Passion, but because they ought to have embraced the promises of the Messiah while they were still living and thus grasped the benefit of Christ’s Passion just as the patriarchs, prophets, and the rest of the devout of the Old Testament were saved by faith in Christ.
(4) The fact that Christ says that the unbelievers are thus judged “because they do not believe in the name of the only-begotten Son of God” (John 3:18) must be understood not only of the unbelievers who lived in the New Testament after the satisfaction of Christ was made but also of the unbelievers who lived in the Old Testament before the mystery of our redemption through the suffering of Christ took place. They likewise were condemned because they did not believe in the name of the Son of God. Therefore surely Christ suffered for them; otherwise they could not have been condemned because of their contempt for the benefits of Christ.
Sixth, [that] the benefits of Christ are not offered to all.
§ 123. Finally, some provide even an argument of this sort: “If Christ had died for all, the benefits obtained by the death of Christ ought to have been offered to all in the Word. But now, the Word is not actually preached to all nations and peoples everywhere, nor are all offered the benefits obtained by the death of Christ. Therefore Christ also did not die for all.”
The response which should be given to this will become clear in what follows [§§ 124–46], in which we shall prove the universality of the calling. For we invert the argument: Because Christ calls everyone to Himself, because He commands that repentance and the forgiveness of sins be preached to all in His name, because He commands the Gospel be proclaimed to all creation, therefore Christ indeed died for all, and the benefits which are offered to people in the Gospel He earned for all.
1 That is, they would be condemned for believing the truth, that Christ did not pertain to them.
2 The word “some” is a particular term, whereas words such as “none” and “all” are universal terms.
3 Read interim non sequitur with Cotta instead of interim sequitur.