The words of this
verse were spoken by the Baptist. The Lamb of God, namely, the daily sacrifice,
takes away the sin of the world, as the sacrifice did for all Israel. In the Old Testament, the remedy was
universally applicable to that particular people, Israel. But here we have the true Lamb of God that
takes away the sin of the world. Ryle
quotes Calvin approvingly when he remarks that the writer, John, “extends this
favour indiscriminately to the whole human race, that the Jews might not think
he had been sent for them alone.”[1] The entire race is under divine condemnation,
but the divine remedy is offered to all without exception on condition of
faith, or as Calvin puts it here “by the guidance of faith.”
For him, John uses
the singular number, referring to “the sin” and not “the sins” of the
world. Says Ryle,
“The
expression seems to me purposely intended to show that what Christ took away,
and bore on the cross, was not the sin of certain people only, but the whole
accumulated mass of all the sins of all the children of Adam.[2]
Neither Ryle nor
Calvin places any restriction on the meaning and implication of the text
because Scripture does not. Believing as
they do that Scripture is clear on these important matters, the natural meaning
of the words is good enough for them, and therefore followed. To limit the author’s intent is to do
injustice to his thought, and both Calvin and Ryle eschewed that vigorously.
Ryle delves into the
hidden purpose of God in the Cross when he mentions His intention for Christ in
His death. Clearly, it was to atone for
the sins of all men, not a limited few (relatively speaking). It was all-encompassing in its intent and
limited only to the “whosoever believes,” in effect.
Ryle’s limited
understanding of things divine is confessed quite honestly when he states that
he rests in the inscrutableness of the divine will and purpose when the world’s
sin was laid on, borne by and atoned for in Christ.[3] It is inclusive of “all the men and women in
the world.” Repudiating the idea of
“universal salvation” as a “dangerous heresy,” and “utterly contrary to
Scripture,” Ryle asserts that “the lost will not prove to be lost because Christ
has done nothing for them. He bore their
sins, He carried their transgressions, He provided payment.”[4] Since He has done all that for the world, no
one having been provided out of the love of God for His creatures, can be said
to die without an offered and available, willing and able Saviour.[5] Their own stubborn refusal to trust Christ is
the cause of their eternal lostness, not any pre-creation decree passed by
God. As Ryle preaches, “He set the
prison door open to all, but the majority would not come out and be free.”[6]
So, for Ryle, it is
the act and attitude of unbelief that damns sinners, not any insufficiency on
the atonement. “Christ’s atonement is a
benefit which is offered freely and honestly to all mankind. ... the true
meaning [is] that the Lamb of God has made atonement sufficient for all though
efficient unquestionably to none but believers.[7]”
The Geneva Study
Notes on Jn.1:29 stick closely to the text and emphasise the universality of
the atonement without adding any limitations to it. The Lamb of God is Christ and in His death He
has made “satisfaction for the sin
of the world.” This word, αιρων, is in
the present tense, and signifies a continuous act of “carrying away,” for the
Lamb has this power to take away the sin of the world, both now and forever.
The Puritan Matthew
Henry writes: “This is encouraging to our faith; if Christ takes away the sin
of the world, then why not my sin?” Why
not indeed? The People’s New Testament
views Jesus as the world’s Saviour. Here
“the world,” means “the world,” humanity, all mankind. David Brown writes, “THE LAMB here, beyond
all doubt, points to the death of
Christ, and the sacrificial character
of that death.” He adds that the sin
(singular) denotes “the collective burden laid upon the Lamb” as well as its
“all-embracing efficacy.” It was not for Jews only – as the morning and evening
sacrifices were, but in contrast it was for the whole world; it was “the sin of
the world” that the Lamb of God carried away, not just that of one particular
nation. This was not an exclusive
sacrifice, but one sufficient for the whole world. Pastorally and evangelistically he continues,
Wherever
there shall live a sinner throughout the wide world, sinking under that burden
too heavy for him to bear, he shall find in this ‘Lamb of God’ a shoulder equal
to the weight.[8]
A. T. Robertson
makes the point that “He is the Lamb of God for the world, not just for Jews.”[9] The juxtaposition of “the world” and “the
Jews” suggests that in distinction to “the Jews,” which is a particular nation,
“the world” is the κosmos in all its
rich universality.
On κosmos, Zodhiates understands the noun
to denote inter alia “the mass of
people who are hostile or at least indifferent to the truth and the followers
of Christ.”[10] Naturally, this includes all mankind by
nature, there not being one individual who does not fit this description. It is this world of humanity that is
dominated by the evil one, and which is further the object of God’s wrath and
judgement, and also of His mercy. All
men are the objects of divine judgement individually and collectively. The κosmos,
here, equates to all men. So the Lamb of
God takes away the sin of all men.
Jesus was sacrificed
for the world, that is, for the entire human family in all ages. This is abundantly clear. All are bought, but all do not acknowledge
the purchase.[11] This is supportive of Baxter’s soteriology
and is that held by DML-J. The latter
preaches, “We
know why he died. There, on the cross,
God was laying on him the iniquity of us all.
He is the ‘Lamb of God’ – as John the Baptist had said – ‘which taketh away
the sin of the world’ Jn.1:29.’”[12] (94).
Wesley concurs with
the above, adding that the sins taken away are the sins of all mankind.[13] Sin and the world are of equal extent, argues
Wesley. Even the elect prior to
conversion are full of sin, so “sin and the world are (truly) of equal
extent.” However, for the sinner to
receive the benefits of the redemption purchased by Christ, God requires of him
faith in Jesus Christ and repentance that leads to life.[14] “And without faith it is impossible to please
God.”[15]
Gill’s exegesis (or
is it eisegesis?), reminiscent of Owen’s, makes “the world” equal “the elect,”
but on what grounds he does this are not given.
It is a purely gratuitous exercise, and dishonest, as Machen would say. By the “sin of the world,” is not meant the
sin, or sins of every individual person in the world, says Gill.[16] So according to this exegesis “the sin of the
world” does not mean “the sin of the world” after all. Had John said this in 1:29, confusion in
understanding basic English would not have occurred. We would have been clear that John the
Baptiser did not mean “the world” as we understand it.
Leon Morris
understands the Cross in its comprehensiveness.[17] John is referring to the totality of the
world’s sin, rather than to a number of individual acts. Individual acts are
carried out by individuals; therefore, John is not referring to individuals either. His reference is to “the sin of the world” in
its totality. Christ’s death on the
Cross is “completely adequate for the needs of all men.”[18] Despite attempts to question the authenticity
of this verse,[19]
none of them have proved to be successful.
The verse stands, and teaches the sweet lesson of Who Christ is and what
He came into the world to do.
Listen to what
Morris writes in his commentary on John’s Gospel:
...God
loves the world (3:16). Christ speaks to the world the things He has heard from
God (8:26). The whole work of salvation
which God accomplishes in Christ is directed to the world. Thus He takes away the sin of the world
(1:29). He is the Saviour of the world
(4:42). He gives life to the world
(6:33). This is at cost for He gives His
flesh for the life of the world (6:51).
Christ came especially to save the world, not to judge it (3:17; 12:47).[20]
This commentator is
very clear about what the attitude of God in Christ is to the world – He loves
it and sent His Son to die for it. What
is mean here is not just the world in its ‘badness’ but also the world in its
‘bigness.’ This is universalism in its
truest sense. God has within His divine
being an attitude of gracious and saving complacency towards the rebellious and
lost world that He loves and has redeemed.
Morris brings this out when he writes, “The Jew was ready enough to
think of God as loving Israel, but no passage appears to be cited in which any
Jewish writer maintains that God loves the world.”[21] This distinctively Christian idea is that
“God’s love is wide enough to embrace all mankind.”[22] This love proceeds from God’s nature as love.[23] It is in the heart of God to show love to
the unlovely, unlovable and unloving.
So Morris
demonstrates that what God has done in Christ has had an incalculable effect on
the whole world – He took away its sin – or as the Arabic and Ethiopic versions
have it in the plural, “the sins of the world.”
What then of the
issue of wastage in regard to the Baptiser’s statement that “the Lamb of God
... takes away the sin of the world”? If
all men are not thereby saved by this “taking away” of sin, then Christ has
failed. It was a wasted effort, carried
out in vain and for nothing. Well, Ryle,
for one, sees no strength in this objection.
He argues that we might as well say that because sin came into the world
through Adam and marred God’s perfect creation, creation was in vain. He marshals the argument that because we are
dealing with the works of God and not the works of man, there will, of
necessity, be many things we do not fully understand. Man’s fallen mind will never be able to
fathom the depths of divine knowledge and wisdom, let alone comprehend it. How God can “take away the sin of the world”
via His Lamb and yet not all men are saved by it, is a mysterious proposition
that defies rational thought, and demands humility to accept. We must learn humility in face of divine
mysteries that have not been revealed to us.
Our tendency towards a scholastic approach to what are essentially
metaphysical matters must be curbed if we are not to be diverted into a logic
that is not biblically warranted. That
there is a sense in which God has accomplished what He says in His Word is
accepted; but just how this has been done is beyond our ability to
understand. Ryle strongly repudiates
universal salvation as “a dangerous heresy, and utterly contrary to Scripture,”[24]
and believes that the vast majority of mankind will perish in their sins. This is not because Christ had done nothing
for them, but because they have not trusted in this freely offered Christ alone
for salvation. The remedy was provided
and available to all, yet many refused to avail of it. Their perdition cannot then be laid at the
door of Christ, but at their own because of their refusal to trust in the
God-provided Lamb. All that had to be
done for their salvation had been completed by Christ – bearing their sins,
carrying their transgressions, and provided payment – the ransom price. “But in the work of Christ in atonement I see
no limitation,” says Ryle. “The atonement was made for all the world, though it
is applied to and enjoyed by none but believers.”[25] Hypothetically, all can be saved if only they
trust in Christ’s atonement. There is no
evidence that its benefits will be enjoyed by the entire world. “But Christ’s atonement is a benefit that is
offered freely and honestly to all mankind.”[26]
Ryle could not be
clearer; in Christ’s atonement there is a general reference to the entire world
and a particular reference to believers only.
There is no need for limitation in reference to “the sin of the world,”
he contends. In this phrase he sees “the
whole mass of mankind’s guilt” converging, something the Bible says Christ took
away. He uses the Lombardian
sufficiency/efficiency maxim to strengthen his stated position.
Calvin’s exposition
is confirmatory of this position. He
comments,
And
when [John] says ‘The sin of the world,’ he extends this favour
indiscriminately to the whole human race, that the Jews might not think that He
had been sent to them alone. ... as all men, without exception, are guilty of
unrighteousness before God, they need to be reconciled to Him.[27]
Calvin equates those
who are under divine wrath with those who need to be saved from wrath – all
mankind. What one man needs, all
need. He continues,
...our
duty is to embrace the benefit that is offered to all, that each of us may be
convinced that there
is nothing to hinder him from obtaining
reconciliation in Christ, provided that he comes to Him by the guidance of
faith.[28]
Calvin’s contested
position is clear – the whole human race has had its sin taken away by Christ,
all men without exception. This has been
done by Christ in His death, but the actual mechanics of this have been kept
within God’s eternal council. The way by
which the benefits of this ‘taking away’ is by faith in the Saviour, by
embracing what has been offered to all.
Faith in Christ in central, not election and predestination.
Milne understands
the term, “the sins of the world,” as describing the scope of the Lamb’s
ministry. “Without exception, every kind
of sin and evil is covered. There is no
sin too heinous, no wickedness too terrible, no habitual failure too often
repeated, that it cannot be ‘taken away’ by Christ, our heavenly Lamb.”[29] Milne here uses the plural “sins” rather than
the singular, “sin.” He draws attention
primarily to the nature and extensiveness of sin, and includes all kinds of sin
– all good pastoral teaching. It is
important to know and to experience these truths if Christians are to have
assurance of their interest in Christ and His interest in them. But to stop there is to stop too far short. Milne does not deal with those whose sins are being referred to, therefore sells us short in
his exposition of this important soteriological text. So not much help here.
William Hendriksen
provides no help either, but rather takes us back into ultra-orthodoxy when he
avers, “According to the Baptist it is the sin of the world (men from every tribe, and people, by nature lost in
sin, cf.11:51, 52) which the Lamb is taking away, not merely the sin of a
particular nation (e.g, the Jewish).”[30] This completely misses the point the Baptist
is making. In any case, Hendriksen,
despite his otherwise detailed explanations of contested understandings, does
not provide even a hint of his grounds for making this statement on behalf of
the Baptist. Where “according to the
Baptist” are his grounds and warrant for such an interpretation to be
found? Exegetically, Hendriksen is
stretching his interpretation to breaking-point. Rather than ‘blaming’ the Baptist for this
spurious interpretation of Jn 1:29, he ought, with greater integrity, have
pointed to the Westminster Confession of Faith where Christ is said to have
died for the elect only.[31] For Hendriksen, it is more important to be
confessionally correct than to be biblically faithful. The universal aspect of the Gospel and of
Christ’s atoning work is ignored in order to satisfy confessional requirements.
[1] Ryle, 1869/1987:63.
[2] Ryle, 1869/1987:61.
[3] Ryle, 1869/1987:62.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Heb.7:25.
[6] Ryle, 1869/1987:62.
[7] Ryle, 1869/1987:62.
[8] Brown, 1864/1969:352.
[9] A T Robertson, Word Pictures of the New
Testament.
[10] Zodhiates, 1992:882.
[11] The Fourfold Gospel (n.d., n.p.).
[12] DML-J selection #194.
[13] Wesley’s Notes on the NT.
[14] The Westminster Shorter Catechism no. 85 adds
to these two requirements the following: “with the
diligent use of all the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us
the benefits of
redemption.
[15] Heb.11:6.
[16] Gill,
[17] Morris, 1972:148.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Morris, 1972:149.
[20] Morris, 1972:128.
[21] Morris, 1972:229.
[22] Ibid.
[23] 1 Jn. 4:8, 16.
[24] Ryle, 1869/1987:62.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Calvin as cited in Ryle, 1869/1987:63. See also his commentary on this passage.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Milne, 1993:54.
[30] Hendriksen, 1954:99.
[31] WCF, Ch.VIII, sections I, VI, VIII.
No comments:
Post a Comment