Part 2 of a 3-part series. You can read Part 1 here. I am picking up where I left off in my exegesis of Romans 8:28–34. Note: the footnotes restarted at 1 owing to how the post is divided.

Romans 8:28–30

The structure of Rom 8:28–30 is as follows: “God works out all things for good to those who love God” is semantically the claim that Paul makes. This claim receives its justification in vv. 29–30. What God has “purposed” for believers is that “all things work for their good” (panta sunergei eis agathon). Three syntactical options are possible: 1) panta (“all things”) may be functioning as the subject of the verb sunergei (“work together”), as expressed in the ESV; 2) “God” is the subject with panta functioning syntactically as an accusative of respect, as in the NIV; 3) “God” is the subject who causes all things (panta– accusative of direct object) to work together for good, as in the NASB.[1] There is little appreciable difference in meaning regardless of which option is chosen.

Paul speaks of God’s purpose here for believers as evidenced by his use of tois agapōsin ton theon (“those who love God”) and tois kata prothesin klētois ousin (“those called according to his purpose”). Verses 29 and 30 are introduced with a subordinate conjunction, hoti (“for”), indicating these verses modify the dominant semantic information conveyed in v. 28. Syntactically and semantically, vv. 29–30 are subordinated to v. 28 and provide the justification for the claim made in v. 28. Some think that vv. 29–30 provide support for v. 28 as a whole, while others limit its modification to the specific promise that “all things work for good,” or to the word “purpose” (prothesin). Again, there is little distinction in overall meaning whichever option is chosen. The realization of God’s “purpose” in individual believers is the bedrock of “the hope of glory.”[2]

The focus of Rom 8:28–30 is not on how the elect become elect, but on how believers, who are the chosen ones, have assurance and confidence. “Those who love God” in v. 28 refers to all believers. Paul’s emphasis in this text is God’s intention to bring to glorification and conformity to the image of Christ every person who has been justified by faith in Christ. According to Schreiner, all things are vouchsafed to “believers”—sun autō, “with him” (v. 32).[3]

There is an “eschatological cast” to this entire section.[4] Neither Schreiner nor Moo make the mistake of saying all things are given to the elect qua elect, inclusive of the unborn and unbelieving elect, as this would be patently false. Even the unbelieving elect remain under the wrath of God according to Paul in Eph 2:1–3, as John Piper rightly noted.[5]

Much debate centers on the meaning of proegnō (“foreknow”) and proōrisen (“predestine”) in v. 29. What is the object of that which is foreknown? Is it believers viewed corporately or individually? Is it faith that is foreknown or is it people who are foreknown? Most Arminians interpret “foreknow” to refer to the foreseen faith of believers. Calvinists generally interpret “foreknow” to connote something along the lines of “to choose or determine beforehand” or “to enter into a relationship with,” or a combination of the two. Attempts to construct an ordo salutis from this text are always problematic.

Calvinism teaches that predestination guarantees salvation and is unconditional in the sense of being totally unmerited. What Calvinists often mean (e.g., the greatly admired John Davenant and others among the British delegation at Dort[6]) is that election to faith is unconditional or absolute. Salvation itself (or predestination to salvation and glorification) is conditional upon the instrumentality of faith, as all Calvinists affirm. For Calvinists, the foreknowledge and predestination of Rom 8:29 is an act by which God unconditionally chooses some people to be the sole recipients of his saving mercy and grace. Arminianism teaches that predestination to salvation is conditional upon the libertarianly free act of the person. God predestines to heaven those whom he foreknew would meet the condition (faith) through a free-will act.

Moo noted of the six occurrences of the verb proegnō (“foreknow”) and its cognate noun, only two mean “know beforehand.” The other four have God as the subject. The verb has a personal object, “us,” and indicates an action applicable only to believers.

Whatever the meaning of proegnō, the action is unique to believers.[7] Paul affirms that believers are those whom God foreknew. Paul likely has in mind individual believers rather than believers viewed corporately since the former seems to fit the context better—Paul’s purpose is to assure individual believers.[8] However, it is also true that the context indicates a corporate group as well as individuals are in view, as Schreiner noted.[9] Porter is correct that Paul does not identify the basis of God’s foreknowledge, only that God knew in advance.[10]

As to the time of God’s action of “foreknowing,” Moo states it “could relate to the time at which we come to ‘love God’ (v. 28), but 1 Pet. 1:20 and Eph. 1:4 suggest rather that Paul would place this choosing of us ‘before the foundation of the world.’” Contextually, the former is more likely, though the latter is also true.

Paul states God “predestined”[11] those whom he foreknew. Crucial to note is precisely what Paul says those foreknown are predestined to.[12] He does not state they are predestined “to believe,” or “on the grounds of their faith,” or “to salvation.” Rather, the purpose of their predestination is that they would be “conformed to the image of his Son.” Moo correctly noted that Paul’s use of summorphous (“conformed”) in v. 29 “picks up the ‘with Christ’ dimension of Christian experience that was last found in 8:17b.”[13] Paul is continuing to develop the eschatological benefits that accrue to believers according to God’s determined purpose. Paul speaks of believers in a comprehensive, corporate manner. The passage has less to do with the predestination of individuals to salvation (or condemnation).[14] “Paul signifies that, prior to their coming to faith, and purely by grace, God knew those whom he would predestine…The elect were predestined for a purpose: to be conformed to the image of his Son.”[15]

Eschatology is Paul’s focus in 8:28–39. “This makes it more likely that Paul thinks here of God’s predestining us to future glory, that glory which Christ already enjoys. The last clause of the verse tends to confirm this interpretation: “so that he [Christ] might be the firstborn among many brothers.” Moo noted the idea of Christ as prōtotokon (“firstborn”) reminds us of Christ’s place as the “first fruits” of those who are raised (1 Cor 15:20; cf. Rom 8:10–11). “It is as Christians have their bodies resurrected and transformed that they join Christ in his glory and that the purpose of God to make Christ the “firstborn” of many to follow, is accomplished.”[16] Notice again how both Moo and Schreiner interpret the passage as applying to believers.[17]

Note also how Paul interjects the purpose of predestination as conformity to the image of Christ before he continues the golden chain with “calling” and “justification.” This supports an interpretation of the passage that Paul is not talking about predestination “to salvation,” but rather to the eschatological benefits of salvation—final conformity to the image of Christ.

Paul then continues: “and those whom he predestined he also called” (v. 30). All Calvinists interpret ekalesen (“called”) as an “effectual call” by the Holy Spirit which infallibly results in regeneration. Arminians and non-Calvinists disagree. God is indeed the one who calls, but two things should be noted: 1) Scripture is clear that the call must be accepted (as Paul has made clear previously in Rom 3–8, and in Rom 9–11, and 2) nothing in the text excludes the call with the same power of grace to those who don’t accept. To suggest otherwise is to invoke the negative inference fallacy. In other words, “whom he called” is Pauline shorthand for “those whom God called and who responded to the call by faith.” The preceding chapters of Romans clearly confirm this contextually. The initiative is all of God. The faith is genuinely a human activity, regardless of whether one asserts faith is a gift of God given only to the elect (as do all Calvinists) or not. Also at issue here between Calvinists and non-Calvinists is the nature and capacity of the human will and whether this should be described and defined in terms of compatibilism or libertarian freedom.[18]

The next link in the chain brings us back to the central theme of Romans 1–4: justification (edikaiōsen– “he justified”). In those chapters, long before any mention of predestination, Paul repeatedly stresses the necessity of faith leading to justification. As Moo correctly cautions: “Paul’s focus in these verses on the divine side of salvation in no way mitigates the importance of human response. It is indeed, God who ‘justifies’; but it is the person who believes who is so justified.”[19]

Finally, Paul states: “and those whom he justified he also glorified” (edoxasen). Though glorification has not yet been achieved in the life of Paul’s readers, “the divine decision to glorify those who have been justified has already been made; the issue has been settled.”[20] It is God’s settled intention to conform to the image of Jesus every person who has been justified by faith in Jesus Christ. This is one of the strongest statements in Scripture affirming the eternal security of the believer.

If viewed as an air-tight ordo salutis, the “golden chain” has some missing links. Where is regeneration? Regeneration is specifically and solely the work of God via the Holy Spirit. Unlike faith, regeneration is totally a monergistic act. That it should not be included in the golden chain is odd. Where is sanctification?[21] Sanctification is both positional (totally the work of God and thus monergistic in nature), progressive (synergistic in nature as believers cooperate in this process), and final (monergistic in nature, as God alone gives final sanctification, which is glorification). Where is the atonement? Apart from atonement, not only does the chain fail to hold together, it becomes nonexistent. If the chain is intended to indicate a complete ordo salutis, and if Paul wanted to affirm a strictly limited atonement, would he not have written, “whom he did predestine…them he also atoned for, and whom he atoned for, them he also called, and whom he called…”? Why is there an absence of atonement in the golden chain? Perhaps because it would be untrue since Paul elsewhere affirms Christ died for the sins of all people, as in Rom 5:18–19 and numerous other places in his epistles.

Not to be missed is the point that even if Paul taught a limited atonement elsewhere, he does not do so here in the golden chain. It is significant that even Schreiner, who affirms a limited atonement, does not give any indication in his commentary on this passage that Paul teaches the doctrine. The subject is never mentioned. Again, let the reader note, whether the golden chain is interpreted in a Reformed fashion or not is immaterial to the argument—limited atonement is nowhere to be found either way.

The question remains whether Paul teaches or implies a limited atonement in the following paragraph, Rom 8:31–34.

Romans 8:31–34

The theme of Rom 8:31–39 was begun and developed by Paul earlier in 5:1–11. There, Paul ties personal assurance to God’s love, Christ’s cross, and our faith.[22] “Paul brings his section on the life of the Spirit, as well as the main portion of the body of his letter to the Romans, to a fitting conclusion.”[23]

Romans 8:31–34 is obviously closely connected to 8:28–30. This is evidenced by Paul’s rhetorical question “What then shall we say to these things?” (31). “These things” (tauta) refers at least to Rom 5:1–8:30, and probably is inclusive of Rom 1:16–8:30.

It is interesting to see the sub-headings for Rom 8:31–39 in some of the key exegetical commentaries on Romans: Moo—“The Believer’s Security Celebrated;” Schreiner—“Certainty of Hope in Suffering;” Longenecker—“God’s Vindication of and Care for People ‘in Christ Jesus.’” In every case, the focus is on believers; those who are “in Christ Jesus,” and not the elect qua elect in the abstract sense of the entire class of those appointed to eternal life, including the unbelieving, or even those not-yet born. Not a single major modern exegetical commentary on Romans asserts this sense of the “elect” with respect to Rom 8:31–39.

Paul uses hēmōn (“us”) twice in v. 31, referencing believers. Verse 32 is closely connected to 31 and functions as the grounds for the conclusion/claim of v. 31.[24] Paul’s continuing theme of God being “for us” is paralleled by the balancing rhetorical question in v. 32: “For since he did not spare his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him give us all things?” Semantically, v. 32a is subordinate to 32b in that v. 32a furnishes the grounds—God did not spare Jesus but gave him up for us all—for the conclusion—will God not also give us all things with Christ? From a semantic perspective, any proposition functioning as “grounds” is subordinate to the proposition that draws a conclusion on the basis of the grounds.

Paul’s use of huper hēmōn (“for us”) signifies not only that Christ died “on our behalf” but that he died as our substitute. Paul clearly affirms substitutionary atonement here and in numerous places throughout his letters.[25]

Notice the two uses of “us” in verse 32: hēmōn (“for us all”) and hemin (“give us all things”). Paul states God gave Christ on the cross “for us all.” If God made such a superlative sacrifice for the sake of believers inclusive of both Jews and Gentiles, surely he will grant them everything else “with Christ.” It is an argument from the greater to the lesser.

There are different views as to who is included in the “us all” for whom Christ died. Some take the referent to be all living believers at the time of Paul’s writing.[26] Others see the reference to all believers living or in heaven. Still others broaden the meaning to be all believers of all time.[27] By entailment, all believers of all time share in this promise. One does not share in the promise until one becomes a believer. Some, like Calvin, interpret the meaning to be a reference to all people, believing and unbelieving. A few Calvinists interpret the phrase to refer to all the “elect” in the abstract sense of the unborn elect, unbelieving elect, and believing elect on earth and in heaven.

At the very least, Paul refers to all living believers at the time of his writing. It is possible he is referring to all believers, whether on earth or in heaven; or all believers of all time, since what is stated in the remainder of the passage is true in principle for all believers. “The addition of ‘all’ to ‘us’ stresses that it is for all believers (‘you’ in this context) that God has given his Son (note, however, that the text does not say ‘only for all you believers’).”[28]

It is also possible Paul is referring to all people by the first “us,” regardless of their spiritual state, such that he is asserting, generally speaking, that Christ died for “us” all, both Jew and Gentile, and for those (the second “us”) who are united to Christ by faith—hence the sun autō (“with him”) language—he will give them—those who are “with him,” tauta (“all things”). However, even some Arminians don’t of necessity interpret the “us all” in v. 32 to refer to all humanity. For example, Cottrell limits it to believers only “who will constitute the completed family of God.”[29]

The view that Paul is referring to all the elect qua elect, regardless of their spiritual state, is ruled out exegetically and logically, and for an obvious reason: no one, even one of the elect in Calvinist theology, who is not already in vital union with Christ, can expect to receive “all things” while still in an unregenerate state. Such is simply not possible. As Paul makes clear in Eph 2:1–3, even the unbelieving elect remain under the wrath of God, even as the rest. Just because they are among the abstract class of the elect (in a Calvinist system) does not mean they are recipients of any spiritual blessings (included in the “all things”) in their condition of being apart from Christ. Until anyone is in Christ through faith, elect or not, one does not and indeed cannot receive the “all things” Paul refers to.

Schreiner captures the meaning of v. 32 well: “The main point of the verse is clear: believers can face the day of judgment with confidence, for those whom God has chosen for his own will certainly not be accused on the day of judgment. God has declared them to be right in his sight, and thus those who would accuse believers will not successfully establish their case.”[30]

Notice Schreiner says the verse speaks of “believers” and nowhere imports the idea of the predestined as such (the elect qua elect) into the “us” of v. 32. In fact, virtually all the key exegetical commentaries interpret Paul’s use of “us” in Rom 8:32–34 to refer only to believers, whether at the time of writing or for all time.[31]

Verse 33 semantically functions as a specific restatement of the conclusion/claim in v. 31. Believers (the elect) cannot be “charged” (egkalesei) with any legal accusation that will stick since it is God himself who has justified for all time all believers. There is no conjunction introducing theos ho dikaiōn (“God is he who justifies”), which semantically places the emphasis on “God.” Since it is God himself who is the justifier, who can condemn? The question is not intended to suggest there will not be those who attempt to condemn, as that will certainly be the case. Rather, the point is that no accusation (emphatic negative) will ever stand. Believers are secure because God himself has justified them.

Where the confusion lies on the part of some who deduce limited atonement from Rom 8:32 is with Paul’s use of the word eklektōn (“elect”) in v. 33: “Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies.” The reason no accusation will stand is because it is against God’s “elect,” i.e., believers,[32] that the accusation is being made. Paul is obviously speaking about believers and not about the abstract class of the elect qua elect as the term is sometimes used in Reformed theology. Significantly, Calvin applies the meaning of eklektos in v. 33 to believers only and not to the abstract class of the elect qua elect, and nowhere in his commentary on Rom 8:28-34 does he suggest the text teaches a limited atonement.[33]

Note how the venerable Calvinist theologian Charles Hodge likewise concurs that the passage addresses believers only and not the abstract class of all the elect: “This passage, however, proves that those who are elect, and whose election has become recognized, are in a state in which they are free from condemnation.”[34] In other words, the “elect” here are believers only, not the elect viewed as a group in the abstract. Again, the unbelieving elect remain under the wrath of God and would indeed be liable to accusations made against them by God, Satan, or anyone else as long as they remain in an unbelieving, unregenerate state.

The word eklektos (“elect”) is a common way of describing believers in the New Testament: Matt 24:22, Rom 8:33, 16:13; Col 3:12; 2 Tim 2:10; Titus 1:1; 1 Pet 1:1–2; and 2 John 1. Nowhere in the New Testament is the term “elect” used to describe anyone other than a believer. As Longenecker correctly noted, Paul employs the phrase eklektoi theou (“the elect of God” or “God’s elect”)

with application to believers in Jesus – though (1) earlier in 8:30 Paul had spoken of Christians as those “God has called” (ekalesen),…; (2) later in 16:13 he will identify Rufus as ton eklekton en kuriō (“elect/chosen in the Lord”); and (3) still later in the Pauline corpus of NT letters, as well as in some other NT letters, the expression eklektoi theou (“the elect/chosen ones of God” or “God’s elect”) will be used as a title for believers in Jesus…In his letter to Rome, however, Paul begins to use “the elect/chosen ones of God” or “God’s elect” as applicable to all believers in Jesus, whatever their ethnicity.[35]

Notice the use of dikaiōn (“justify”) in 31–34, linking back to the use of the word in 8:30 and further confirming that the focus here is on believers and their current status.[36] Notice also v. 34 speaks of Christ entugchanei (“interceding”) for all believers. This connects back to vv. 26–27 where Paul speaks of the intercession of the Holy Spirit for believers.

The final paragraph, 8:35–39, highlights God’s love in Christ as the basis of this assurance by a three-fold mention of this love in vv. 35, 37, and 39. Note the similarity to Paul’s statements in Rom 5:5–8. “Thus it may legitimately be argued that the focus in 8:33–34, just as it was in 8:31–32, is on the present—with two rhetorical questions and their two respective confessional responses having to do with God’s present justifying of his own people against all opposition and charges.”[37]

Romans 8:31–39 asserts the eternal security of the believer. Rom 8:31–39 does not assert or imply limited atonement. Robert Jewett noted:

Here Paul places himself among the “us all,” along with all of the Roman believers, as well as all who have not yet heard the gospel, thus bringing this formulation in line with the confessional citation in Rom 3:25–26. The death of Christ offers universal atonement, moving beyond the boundaries of traditional cultic activities in the ancient world, including the Day of Atonement ceremonies in the Jerusalem temple. It conveys divine love for the entire human race…[38]

Monday, in Part 3, I’ll provide theological analysis and consider the implications, followed by my conclusion and an addendum.

---

[1]See C. L. Irons, A Syntax Guide for Readers of the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2016), 352.

[2]Moo, Romans,531; see also Schreiner, Romans, 443.

[3]Schreiner, Romans, 451

[4] Ibid., 451.

[5]J. Piper, “‘My Glory I will not Give to Another’: Preaching the Fullness of Definite Atonement to the Glory of God,” in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her, eds. David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson (Wheaton: Crossway, 2013), 650–52. “God doth hate his elect in some sense before their actual reconciliation. God was placable before Christ, appeased by Christ. But till there be such conditions [i.e. repentance and faith] which God hath appointed in the creature, he [the elect] hath no interest in this reconciliation of God [by Christ’s death]; and whatsoever person he be in whom the condition [of faith] is not found, he remains under the wrath of God, and therefore is in some sense under God’s hatred” (Stephen Charnock, “A Discourse of God’s Being the Author of Reconciliation,” in The Works of Stephen Charnock [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1986], 3:345). Similarly, Calvin said: “And the first thing to be attended to is, that so long as we [even the elect] are without Christ and separated from him [through unbelief], nothing which he suffered and did for the salvation of the human race is of the least benefit to us. To communicate to us the blessings which he received from the Father, he must become ours and dwell in us [through faith]” (Institutes, 3.1.1).

[6]See, for example, the statements made by the British delegation at the Synod of Dort in Anthony Milton, ed., The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (1618–1619) (Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK; Rochester, NY: The Boydell Press, 2005), 286–87. “Some promises of God are touching the end, others touching the meanes which conduce to the end. The promises, concerning the end, that is to say, Salvation, are conditional [i.e., predestination to salvation] … But for as much as no man is able to performe the conditions, God also hath made most free and absolute promises to give the very conditions [i.e., election to faith], which he works in us, that so by them, as by meanes, we [the elect] may attaine the end” (ibid, 286).

[7]Moo, Romans, 532–33.

[8]Ibid. 533. See also Schreiner, Romans, 444.

[9]Schreiner, Romans, 446.

[10]S. Porter, The Letter to the Romans: A Linguistic and Literary Commentary (Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015), 173.

[11]Stanley Porter suggested that instead of “predestined,” the translation of “circumscribed beforehand” might be preferable since the word “predestined” “carries too much theological baggage, even though the idea is probably accurate” (Porter, Romans,172).

[12]For a helpful overview of the various interpretive options concerning election and predestination, see Chad Brand, ed., Perspectives on Election: Five Views (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2006).

[13]Moo, Romans,534.

[14]A. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 328. See also Fitzmeyer, Romans, 522.

[15]Hultgren, Romans, 328–29.

[16]Moo, Romans, 535.

[17]Moo, Romans, 528–29. Schreiner, Romans, 443–47.

[18]Even if the Calvinist interpretation is true, it changes nothing. Limited atonement is still not taught or entailed. Romans 8:29–30 makes no mention of the atonement.

[19]Moo, Romans, 535.

[20]Ibid., 536.

[21]Some Calvinists suggest that regeneration is implied in this effectual sense of “calling,” and that sanctification is implied in “conformed to the image of His Son” (v. 29), and in “glorified” (v.30).

[22]Cottrell, Romans, 1:514.

[23]Porter, Romans, 174.

[24]Deibler, Semantic Structural Analysis, 198–99.

[25]See Allen, The Atonement, 74–110. On the significance of Rom 8:33 for substitutionary atonement, I highly recommend the excellent work by S. Gathercole, Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul, in Arcadia Studies in Bible and Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015), 55–79.

[26]As, for example, Porter who said: “all of us” does not refer to all humanity, but to those who, at the end of Paul’s argument, are justified, reconciled, and led by the spirit taken as a whole. . .” (Porter, Romans, 175). I take this to mean Porter interprets the phrase to mean current believers at the time of Paul’s writing.

[27]As, for example, J. D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, WBC 38a (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1988), 501.

[28]Moo, Romans, 540. Notice that Schreiner, Moo, and other Calvinist commentators do not say “only for all believers,” though Schreiner certainly affirms limited atonement himself.

[29]Cottrell, Romans, 1:516.

[30]Schreiner, Romans, 454. Italics mine.

[31]So Schreiner, Romans, Cranfield, Romans, ICC², 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2004); L. Morris, Romans, in PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988); D. Moo, Romans, NICNT; S. Kistemaker, Romans, Ellis Deibler, A Semantic Structural Analysis of Romans, J. D. G. Dunn, Romans, WBC; as noted by D. Abernathy, in An Exegetical Summary of Romans 1–8, 2^nded. (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 565. Abernathy mentions John Murray in his list as well, which is true with respect to Murray’s commentary, but Murray does seem to take the “us all” to include all of “the elect [as such] and the justified” in Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 67. Italics mine. See also, C. Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012); F. Thielman and C. Arnold, Romans, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2019).

[32]Notice how Moo refers to the “elect” here as “believers”: “In a sense, then this manner of designating Christians in the question itself is the only answer required” (Moo, Romans, 542).

[33]J. Calvin, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, in Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, eds. D. Torrance and T. F. Torrance, trans. Ross Mackenzie (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 182–86.

[34]C. Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 289.

[35]R. N. Longenecker, The Epistle to the Romans­ (NIGTC: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 756.

[36]Though Longenecker, Schreiner, and most other modern commentators, whether Reformed or non-Reformed, don’t elaborate on Paul’s use of “us” and its implications for the extent of the atonement, it is clear that whatever their views on the extent question, none asserts or even implies that Rom 8:31-34 suggests or supports limited atonement. Charles Hodge seems to leave the identity of the “us all” somewhat open to interpretation. See Hodge, Romans, 288, as quoted below. As Hodge continued his exposition, he goes on to talk about believers. Even though John Murray seems to take “us all” vaguely as the “elect” and “predestined,” he may mean the predestined who are in a believing state, at least in his commentary. “The [all] things contemplated are the gifts and blessings of grace bestowed upon believers and are, therefore, all of the things which the context, as one dealing with salvation in its whole expanse, would be expected to indicate” (Murray, Romans, 326). However, as indicated above, Murray seems to broaden the “us all” to include all of the elect as such and the justified when he makes arguments for limited atonement in Redemption Accomplished and Applied.

[37]Longenecker, Romans, 756.

[38]R. Jewett, Romans, ed. E. J. Epp, Hermeneia Commentary (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006), 538. Jewett interprets the “us all” as all mankind. Although Jewett affirms universal atonement, it is improper to say “the death of Christ offers universal atonement” as Jewett does, unless by “atonement” one means the “forgiveness of sins,” or that classical sense of at-one-ment as meaning the full reconciliation between the repentant sinner and God. In our modern usage of “atonement” as Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice for humanity’s sin on the cross, one must say it is an “unlimited” or “universal atonement.” It is forgiveness of sins that is offered indiscriminately to all in the gospel call based on Christ’s unlimited (universal) satisfaction for the sin of the whole world.