John
10:15 is a statement that occurs within a broader context of the eternal
security of those who belong to Christ via salvation and the fact that Christ
will never abandon them. John 10 is not an atonement context; much less does it
address the issue of the extent of the atonement. The verse does not explicitly
teach a limited atonement. That is a deduction not made based on the teaching
of the text itself but on a logical fallacy—negative inference.
What
cannot be demonstrated is where John 10:15 logically demands that Christ died
only for the sheep. By what logic does not exclude Jesus’s critics from the
scope of his death by the revelation that they are not his sheep? There is
nothing in Jesus’s statement that limits the scope of his death. As long as the
Pharisees and other unbelievers refused what Jesus was saying, they were
incapable of receiving the saving benefits of his death. Even if Jesus’s
statement indicates that his critics are not now nor ever will be among his
sheep, that does not affirm or entail limited atonement
However,
that is not the only error made by limitarians in their interpretation of John 10:15.
To assert this verse teaches limited atonement is to take what applies to
existing believers and extrapolate the prediction to all the elect in the
abstract—the unborn and currently unbelieving elect. What are the exegetical
grounds for reading “sheep” in John’s context as the abstract class of all the
elect? There are none. Notice Jesus describes the “sheep” as those who hear
his voice and follow him in obedience. That cannot be said for all the elect. Where
is the term “elect” in the New Testament ever used for anyone other than
believers? Nowhere.
Here
is the logical argument limitarians desire to set out from John 10:15:
1.
Christ died for his sheep (where “sheep” are understood as all the elect of all
time).
2.
Pharisees are not his sheep (since Jesus states this is the case).
3.
Therefore, Christ did not die for them.
Most
defenders of limited atonement attempt to employ this kind of logical argument without
stating it explicitly. But the argument is invalid. The conclusion does not
follow, and the syllogism is logically fallacious. Consider this parallel
example from Donald A. Carson:
All
orthodox Jews believe in Moses.
Smith
is not an orthodox Jew.
Therefore,
Smith does not believe in Moses. (Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1996], 102)
No
matter how you parse it, this is invalid logic, and no sound argument can be grounded
in an invalid logical argument. It does not matter what interpretation of the
sheep one takes in John 10; the argument is invalid. Limitarians wrongly
conclude from John 10 that Christ died only for those given to him. Jesus’s
statements in John 10 in no way prove exclusivity. When we are told Jesus died
for his “friends,” does that prove he died only for them? Did he not die for
his enemies as well? I would point out also that contextually, those who are
given to Christ are in a believing state as the sense of “friends” connotes.
The point here is that simple positive statements cannot logically be used to
infer category negations. To attempt to sustain the case for limited atonement in
this way is merely a circular argument.
The
point of John 10 is not about the extent of Christ’s death at all, but the
faithfulness and loyalty of Christ to the sheep. The Pharisees are the hirelings
who abandon the sheep. Jesus is saying to them something like this: “I am not
like you, who run away, rather I will lay my life down for the sheep, defending
them to the end.” And by implication, we, the sheep, can truly know that Christ
has effectually saved us. There is no limited atonement in John 10:15 or in
John 10 at all. (David L. Allen, “A Critique of Limited Atonement,” in Calvinism:
A Biblical and Theological Critique, ed. David L. Allen and Steve M. Lemke
[Nashville, Tenn.: B&H Academic, 2022], 82-83, emphasis in bold added)
Do also note that the "sheep" in John 10 is (correctly) interpreted by Allen as being present believers in Christ, not then-future believers. This is important as the next verse speaks of Christ's "other sheep," showing that the then-unbelieving Gentiles are not in view. On this, see:
The "other sheep" of John 10:16: A Critique of the "Gentile" Interpretation