This material is also posted on the newer Calvin and Calvinism site (which is a work in progress), but I figured it may get more visibility here.
Prefacing Remarks
The reader should keep a few things in mind while reading this short essay.
Firstly, the following is a layman’s analysis of the logic involved in establishing a case for limited atonement from John 10:15 and John 10:26. The intent is to lay out the case in a non-technical manner for lay-readers. It is not meant to be an exhaustive discussion of the issues involved.
Secondly, it may be said that there are two types of arguments which use John 10:15 to prove limited atonement. The first is what one might call a strong form of the argument. This strong form of the argument insists that John 10:15 along with 10:26 establish a hard dichotomy between those for whom Christ did and did not die. That is, in no proper sense did Christ die for the non-elect. By “proper sense” I mean either in terms of penal relationship (“For whose sins was Christ punished?”), or divine intentionality to save (either by secret or revealed will). The issue stated this way avoids the distracting claims by some advocates of limited atonement that Christ died for all insofar as he secured common grace benefits for all.
Thirdly, the weaker form of the argument would intimate that John 10:15 suggests a distinction, not so much a dichotomy, namely, that Christ died for some distinctively, as opposed to others. Here the stress would be that John 10:15 shows us that it can be said that Christ died in a distinctive sense for the elect, in a sense in which he did not die for the non-elect. Stated another way, Christ died for the elect in a distinctive sense, as opposed to the sense in which he (may have?) died for the non-elect. I would still maintain that even this is not sustained by a sound reading of John 10:15.
For the purposes of this essay, it is the strong form of the argument which is under review. The weaker form is dealt with only in the comments section. It is there I will also follow-up on some added rejoinders from another location on the web. Readers need to keep in mind that I do not deny that Christ died for the elect in a sense in which he did not die for the non-elect. If we speak of the intentionality of Christ, I can say, in the sense that Christ died for the sheep, he did not die for the non-sheep.
Part 1: The Critique
This argument for limited atonement works like this in a syllogism:
Major Premise:
Let us use an analogy which follows the same form, yet clearly demonstrates the invalidity of the form of the argument.
You can swap out any terms and the invalid result will be same.
What’s happened is that the negative inference has been smuggled in, resulting in something like the following.
The Simple Positive:
And if we bring this back to John 10:15, the syllogism now looks like this with the smuggled in negation:
The problem is the conversion of the simple positive to a universal negative. This is the negative inference fallacy that Dabney referenced:
D. A. Carson also remarked on the negative inference fallacy:
There have been a few attempts by limited atonement advocates to claim that the negative inference fallacy does not apply in this case. These attempts are quite astounding. Imagine a Romanist saying that the proposition, “Justified by faith alone” does not apply here, such that we can make a converse positive inference that we can be justified by faith and works. We cannot be arbitrary when it comes to enforcing the universal and standard rules of logical inference.
And it should be straightforward that one should never seek to establish a positive argument based on invalid inferences. Such attempts will always and everywhere be invalid. Even repeating the invalid inference ad infinitum will never make it valid.
What is more, with that aside, Scripture declares emphatically in 1 Cor 4:6,
Lastly, one should also keep in mind that readers of John’s Gospel should not jump to the hasty conclusion that because of what Jesus says in John 10, that the Pharisees are goats (in other words, reprobates). Rather, one cannot preclude the possibility that they are rebellious and wayward sheep:
Part 2: The Affirmation
What is actually going on in John 10 is more like this:
Thus, the real emphasis and attention should be on this verse:
When we put together v. 15 and v. 16, we see in the mind of Christ a special intention to gather and faithfully lay his life down for his sheep so that they may be saved to the uttermost. He came to earth, not as a hireling coming to a field, but to gather those given to him. This is the direction we should move in, not in pressing the limited extent of the expiation.
When rightly understood, then, the verse speaks to a special intent of the satisfaction, not to the extent of the satisfaction.
Original post without modifications here (click).
Additional Notes and Observations by Tony Byrne (Updated on 7-1-25)
This section will be further expanded in the near future. In addition to the fallacies outlined above (showing that the high view is illogical), the decretal or high view of this chapter has the following problems:
1.1. The Context is About a Good Shepherd vs. Hireling Contrast.
The context is about the character of the good shepherd in contrast to the character of hirelings.
1.2. The Verse is Not About for Whom Christ Died, but Rather About What Kind of Shepherd Jesus is as Over Against the Mere Hirelings.
1.3. It is Not Even Mainly About Penal Substitution, but Rather About an Heroic Kind of Death vs. A Cowardly Abandonment.
By saying the above, I am not saying either that penal substitution is not taught in the bible or in the Gospel of John, or that a penal satisfaction is not included with the heroic nature of the Good Shepherd’s death, all things considered. I am just saying the penal substitutionary nature of Christ’s death is not the focus, or at least not the main focus, in the specific context and sacrificial theme of John 10:11. Rather, the focus is upon the ideal protector or the goodness of the true Davidic-like shepherd, who so loves the sheep that he even dies heroically to spare or rescue them from the attacks of the wolf. The mere hireling, in contrast, rather acts like this:
The reader should keep a few things in mind while reading this short essay.
Firstly, the following is a layman’s analysis of the logic involved in establishing a case for limited atonement from John 10:15 and John 10:26. The intent is to lay out the case in a non-technical manner for lay-readers. It is not meant to be an exhaustive discussion of the issues involved.
Secondly, it may be said that there are two types of arguments which use John 10:15 to prove limited atonement. The first is what one might call a strong form of the argument. This strong form of the argument insists that John 10:15 along with 10:26 establish a hard dichotomy between those for whom Christ did and did not die. That is, in no proper sense did Christ die for the non-elect. By “proper sense” I mean either in terms of penal relationship (“For whose sins was Christ punished?”), or divine intentionality to save (either by secret or revealed will). The issue stated this way avoids the distracting claims by some advocates of limited atonement that Christ died for all insofar as he secured common grace benefits for all.
Thirdly, the weaker form of the argument would intimate that John 10:15 suggests a distinction, not so much a dichotomy, namely, that Christ died for some distinctively, as opposed to others. Here the stress would be that John 10:15 shows us that it can be said that Christ died in a distinctive sense for the elect, in a sense in which he did not die for the non-elect. Stated another way, Christ died for the elect in a distinctive sense, as opposed to the sense in which he (may have?) died for the non-elect. I would still maintain that even this is not sustained by a sound reading of John 10:15.
For the purposes of this essay, it is the strong form of the argument which is under review. The weaker form is dealt with only in the comments section. It is there I will also follow-up on some added rejoinders from another location on the web. Readers need to keep in mind that I do not deny that Christ died for the elect in a sense in which he did not die for the non-elect. If we speak of the intentionality of Christ, I can say, in the sense that Christ died for the sheep, he did not die for the non-sheep.
This argument for limited atonement works like this in a syllogism:
Major Premise:
- Christ lays down his life for the sheep (John 10:15)
- The Pharisees are not Christ’s sheep (John 10:26)
- Therefore, Christ did not lay his life down for the Pharisees.
- Christ lays down his life for the sheep.
- The Pharisees are not Christ’s sheep.
- Therefore, Christ did not lay his life down for the Pharisees.
Let us use an analogy which follows the same form, yet clearly demonstrates the invalidity of the form of the argument.
- John loves his children.
- Sally is not a child of John.
- Therefore, John does not love Sally.
You can swap out any terms and the invalid result will be same.
What’s happened is that the negative inference has been smuggled in, resulting in something like the following.
The Simple Positive:
- John loves his children
- John loves only his children.
- John loves only his children.
- Sally is not a child of John.
- Therefore, John does not love Sally.
And if we bring this back to John 10:15, the syllogism now looks like this with the smuggled in negation:
- Christ lays down his life only for the sheep.
- The Pharisees are not Christ’s sheep.
- Therefore, Christ did not lay his life down for the Pharisees.
The problem is the conversion of the simple positive to a universal negative. This is the negative inference fallacy that Dabney referenced:
In proof of the general correctness of this theory of the extent of the Atonement, we should attach but partial force to some of the arguments advanced by Symington and others, or even by Turretin, e.g. that Christ says, He died “for His sheep,” for “His Church,” for “His friends,” is not of itself conclusive. The proof of a proposition does not disprove its converse. All the force which we could properly attach to this class of passages is the probability arising from the frequent and emphatic repetition of this affirmative statement as to a definite object.R. L. Dabney, Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology, Second Edition. (St. Louis: Presbyterian Publishing Company, 1878), 521. Or see R. L. Dabney, Systematic Theology (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2002), 521.
D. A. Carson also remarked on the negative inference fallacy:
…one form of improper syllogism is the negative inference, but this form is so common that it deserves separate notice and more lavish illustration. It does not necessarily follow that if a proposition is true, a negative inference from that proposition is also true. The negative inference may be true, but this cannot be assumed, and in any case is never true because it is a negative inference.D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Carlisle, U.K.; Grand Rapids, MI: Paternoster; Baker Books, 1996), 101–102.
There have been a few attempts by limited atonement advocates to claim that the negative inference fallacy does not apply in this case. These attempts are quite astounding. Imagine a Romanist saying that the proposition, “Justified by faith alone” does not apply here, such that we can make a converse positive inference that we can be justified by faith and works. We cannot be arbitrary when it comes to enforcing the universal and standard rules of logical inference.
And it should be straightforward that one should never seek to establish a positive argument based on invalid inferences. Such attempts will always and everywhere be invalid. Even repeating the invalid inference ad infinitum will never make it valid.
What is more, with that aside, Scripture declares emphatically in 1 Cor 4:6,
Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.No matter how tempting it is, no matter how important it is to one’s system, it is wrong to insert a negation into a verse where it was not originally present. This problem is further exacerbated if after smuggling in the extra-textual negation, one then tries to sustain the case for limited atonement. This then becomes grounds for a circular argument.
Lastly, one should also keep in mind that readers of John’s Gospel should not jump to the hasty conclusion that because of what Jesus says in John 10, that the Pharisees are goats (in other words, reprobates). Rather, one cannot preclude the possibility that they are rebellious and wayward sheep:
All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him (Isa 53:6).Here Isaiah speaks to the apostate house of Israel, as much as he does to the faithful, who have been themselves wayward sheep. If this is correct, then the contrast would be between obedient sheep versus disobedient sheep (the Pharisees), but not between the elect and the non-elect.
What is actually going on in John 10 is more like this:
I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.The point is not about the extent of Christ’s death at all, but the faithfulness and the loyalty of Christ to the sheep. The pharisees are the hirelings who abandon the sheep, unlike the brave and heroic good shepherd of Israel. 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 will do what it takes to effectually save us, even at the cost of his own life.
He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.
He flees because he is a hired hand and is not concerned about the sheep.
I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.
I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd (John 10:11–16).
Thus, the real emphasis and attention should be on this verse:
I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd (John 10:16).In this verse alone we have election, Christ’s intent to save, and the effectual call.
When we put together v. 15 and v. 16, we see in the mind of Christ a special intention to gather and faithfully lay his life down for his sheep so that they may be saved to the uttermost. He came to earth, not as a hireling coming to a field, but to gather those given to him. This is the direction we should move in, not in pressing the limited extent of the expiation.
When rightly understood, then, the verse speaks to a special intent of the satisfaction, not to the extent of the satisfaction.
Original post without modifications here (click).
This section will be further expanded in the near future. In addition to the fallacies outlined above (showing that the high view is illogical), the decretal or high view of this chapter has the following problems:
1. The High View is A-Contextual
1.1. The Context is About a Good Shepherd vs. Hireling Contrast.
The context is about the character of the good shepherd in contrast to the character of hirelings.
1.2. The Verse is Not About for Whom Christ Died, but Rather About What Kind of Shepherd Jesus is as Over Against the Mere Hirelings.
The context is not dealing with the extent of Christ’s death, but rather about the kind of Shepherd Jesus is in contrast to hirelings.
1.3. It is Not Even Mainly About Penal Substitution, but Rather About an Heroic Kind of Death vs. A Cowardly Abandonment.
By saying the above, I am not saying either that penal substitution is not taught in the bible or in the Gospel of John, or that a penal satisfaction is not included with the heroic nature of the Good Shepherd’s death, all things considered. I am just saying the penal substitutionary nature of Christ’s death is not the focus, or at least not the main focus, in the specific context and sacrificial theme of John 10:11. Rather, the focus is upon the ideal protector or the goodness of the true Davidic-like shepherd, who so loves the sheep that he even dies heroically to spare or rescue them from the attacks of the wolf. The mere hireling, in contrast, rather acts like this:
But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them (John 10:12 NKJV).J. C. Ryle said,
Both here and in the 11th verse, I do not think the Greek word translated “for” should be pressed too far, as if it necessarily implied the doctrine of substitution, or the vicariousness of Christ’s death. That doctrine is a blessed and glorious truth, and is taught plainly and unmistakably elsewhere. Here, however, we are reading parabolic figurative language, and I doubt whether it is quite fair to explain it as meaning more than “on account of,” or “in behalf of,” the sheep. Of course it comes to the same thing at last: if the Shepherd did not die, the sheep would die. But I do not quite think “vicariousness,” at any rate, is the primary idea of the sentence.J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on John, 3 vols. (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1878), 2:197.
In other words, the main idea in the context is this: Jesus is laying his life down to rescue the sheep from the wolf; it is not a picture of Jesus substituting himself in the place of the sheep as their vicarious satisfaction.
1.4. Sheep vs. Wolves (not Goats); Or His Sheep vs. Other Sheep.
1.4. Sheep vs. Wolves (not Goats); Or His Sheep vs. Other Sheep.
The two types of metaphorical animals that are contrasted (or who are at odds with one another in John 10) are sheep versus wolves, not sheep versus goats. A wolf, such as Saul the Pharisee (who was devouring Christ’s church) may become a sheep, such as Paul the Apostle.
It is he who made us his people, it is he who made us the sheep of his pasture. He who sent the innocent sheep to be slaughtered, made us sheep out of wolves.Augustine, “Sermon 26: A Sermon Preached in the Theodisian Basilica on a Verse of Psalm 96,” in Sermons 20–50 on the Old Testament, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Edmund Hill, vol. II of The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1992), 98.
But in the holy books wolves signify bad persons, while sheep signify good ones.Augustine, “Answer to Julian,” in Answer to the Pelagians, II, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Roland J. Teske, vol. 24 of The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1998), 490 (6.7.20).
I, at least, maintain this teaching of Augustine’s: where God makes sheep out of wolves, he reforms them by a more powerful grace to subdue their hardness; accordingly, God does not convert the obstinate because he does not manifest that more powerful grace, which is not lacking if he should please to offer it.4John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 2:949.
_______________
4 Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints ii. 4 (MPL 44. 962; tr. NPNF V. 499); Sermons xxvi. 5. 5 (MPL 38. 173).
He who sent the Lamb to be slain has, out of wolves, made us sheep.Benjamin B. Warfield, “Introductory Essay on Augustin and the Pelagian Controversy,” in Saint Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings, ed. Philip Schaff, vol. 5 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1887), xlvi.
Related to this point, one may observe that Christ says “you are not my [εμων, NA28; ὑμῖν, BYZ] sheep.” He did not say they were not sheep, but not my sheep. There are other sheep in the pin, but not all are His flock or fold. High Calvinists assume that Jesus is calling them non-sheep just because He said, “not my sheep.” So, strictly speaking, in the text we do not have a comparison between sheep and non-sheep, but different kinds of sheep, or sheep with different characteristics. There are sheep that are His and sheep that are not His. Deibler paraphrases the passage this way: “But instead [of believing who I am because of the miracles I do in my Father’s name], you do not believe in me because you do not belong to me. You are like sheep who belong to a different shepherd.” Ellis W. Deibler, Jr., A Translator’s Translation of the New Testament (Ann Arbor, MI: Cummins Works, 2008), 192; emphasis original.
2.1. The Sheep as the Elect Qua Elect.
2. The High View Misunderstands “Sheep”
2.1. The Sheep as the Elect Qua Elect.
Note: “Qua” means “in the capacity of,” “as,” “in the character of,” or perhaps better “considered as.” In English it may function as meaning “in the role of.” The elect qua elect means the entire abstract class of all those appointed to eternal life, whether born or not yet born, whether believing or not yet believing, etc. Elect qua believer means those elect who are in a believing state; they are the elect considered as believers. In Owen’s terminology related to John 10, he calls the elect qua elect the “sheep of Christ;” he calls the believing elect the “sheep of Christ’s pasture.”
The Owenian view thinks the “sheep” for whom Christ laid down his life (v. 15) are all the elect qua elect, even if they distinguish between elect as such (v. 16; all the elect Gentiles) and the believing elect (v. 27; or the “sheep of His pasture” in Owen’s terms) in the broader context, and that “not my sheep” (v. 26) means the non-elect. This abstract manner of speaking of the “sheep” as all of the elect as such is as old as Augustine, then it was picked up by Calvin, and taken into extremes by the stricter Calvinists. Note what Calvin said:
John Owen said that the elect, even “in the same state of actual alienation from God, yet then … are said to be … the sheep of Christ before they are called ... before they come into the flock or congregation” (John Owen, “A Display of Arminianism,” The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.], 10:64). In the context of John 10 and the purpose of Christ in laying down his life, Owen said, “We deny that the primary difference that here is made by our Saviour is between believers and not believers, but between elect and not elect, sheep and not sheep” (Owen, “Death of Death,” in The Works of John Owen, 10:219). Again, Owen said, “The opposition is between sheep and not sheep, and that with reference to their election, and not to their vocation” (Owen, “Death of Death,” 10:220; emphasis added). Owen allowed for some distinctions in the overall context regarding the elect qua elect and elect qua believer, saying, “If there be a distinction to be allowed, it can be nothing but this, that the ‘sheep’ who are simply so called are those who are only so to Christ from the donation of his Father; and the ‘sheep of his pasture,’ those who, by the effectual working of the Spirit, are actually brought home to Christ. And then of both sorts we have mention in this chapter, verses 16 [elect qua elect Gentiles], 27 [elect qua believers], both making up the number of those sheep for whom he gave his life [in v. 15], and to whom he giveth life” (Owen, “Death of Death,” 10:220).
Yet I admit that it [what Augustine said in Hom. in Joan. 45.12, i.e., “In regard to the secret predestination of God, there are very many sheep without, and very many wolves within”] applies in the sense that Christ calls unbelievers ‘sheep’ who in themselves could not be regarded as sheep at all. And by this word He not only shows what they will be, but, even more, refers it to the secret election of God, in that we are already God’s sheep before we are aware that He is our Shepherd; just as elsewhere we are called enemies, even when He loved us (Rom. 5.10) and this is also why Paul says that we were known of God before we knew Him (Gal. 4.9).John Calvin, “The Gospel according to St John 1–10,” trans. T. H. L. Parker, in Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, ed. D. W. Torrance and T F. Torrance, 12 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 4:267. Although Calvin was not himself a stricter (or high) sort on the extent of Christ’s death, he nevertheless interpreted some passages in the way that they do. Augustine himself held to universal redemption, but he still interpreted some passages in a decretal sense.
John Owen said that the elect, even “in the same state of actual alienation from God, yet then … are said to be … the sheep of Christ before they are called ... before they come into the flock or congregation” (John Owen, “A Display of Arminianism,” The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.], 10:64). In the context of John 10 and the purpose of Christ in laying down his life, Owen said, “We deny that the primary difference that here is made by our Saviour is between believers and not believers, but between elect and not elect, sheep and not sheep” (Owen, “Death of Death,” in The Works of John Owen, 10:219). Again, Owen said, “The opposition is between sheep and not sheep, and that with reference to their election, and not to their vocation” (Owen, “Death of Death,” 10:220; emphasis added). Owen allowed for some distinctions in the overall context regarding the elect qua elect and elect qua believer, saying, “If there be a distinction to be allowed, it can be nothing but this, that the ‘sheep’ who are simply so called are those who are only so to Christ from the donation of his Father; and the ‘sheep of his pasture,’ those who, by the effectual working of the Spirit, are actually brought home to Christ. And then of both sorts we have mention in this chapter, verses 16 [elect qua elect Gentiles], 27 [elect qua believers], both making up the number of those sheep for whom he gave his life [in v. 15], and to whom he giveth life” (Owen, “Death of Death,” 10:220).
In order for the Owenic argument to work, the strict view must say “not my sheep” means “you are not elect,” and “the other sheep I have” are elect-as-such Gentiles who are not yet believing (rather than Gentiles already contemplated as believing by proleptic anticipation; which see below), to bring in the elect qua elect presupposition. The argument requires that “sheep,” in these instances, especially in John 10:26, mean non-elect people as such. That is the only way they can create an elect vs. non-elect contrast in the context, rather than an obedient vs. disobedient contrast.
2.2. “Not My Sheep” is a Rebuke.
2.2. “Not My Sheep” is a Rebuke.
One author noted that some say “because you are not elect, therefore you cannot believe.” But if that is the case, the Jews’ unbelief was their misfortune, not their fault, and it would follow that our Savior furnishes them with an excuse for their unbelief, whereas surely he meant to charge it upon them as their crime, and an inexcusable one too. One cannot rebuke one by saying, “you are not elect.” People are damned by desert, not by mere decree. As Dort said, “The cause or guilt of this unbelief, as well as of all other sins, is no wise in God, but in man himself.” See also Thomas Manton (click). Being non-elect is not the ground that makes one rebukeable; it is that one is disobedient that makes one rebukeable. Jesus is saying they are not believing (present active verb) in him because they remain disobedient rejectors of His works (v. 25), not listeners to or obedient followers of God’s appointed Shepherd, as the true sheep of Israel are. Never in the bible do we have an example of someone being rebuked by calling them non-elect. The NET bible translation captures the sense of rebuke in its translation: “But you refuse to believe because you are not my sheep” (emphasis mine).
2.3. The High View Does Not Understand the Proleptic Nature of Jesus’s Words “I have” and “My Sheep.”
Proleptic language is common in the bible. It occurs when a prophet speaks about the future as though it has already happened, in order to convey the certainty of the future. It is a “prophetic technique treating a future even as past (Amos 5:1–2).” Also called a prophetic perfect, “The writer or speaker is so certain that an event will take place in the future that he speaks of it as though it already had taken place by using the perfect form of the Hebrew verb: it is also called the perfect of certainty” (F. B. Huey Jr. and Bruce Corley, A Students Dictionary for Biblical and Theological Studies: A Handbook of Special and Technical Terms [Grand Rapids: Academie Books (Zondervan), 1983], 157–58). A classic example is in Jude 14, where Enoch is described as saying, “the Lord came with his holy myriads” (RSV). Other translations (e.g., the ASV; BBE; DBY; ESV; NAB; NAS; YLT) also rightly put it in the past tense, while others interpret the verb in a present (“is coming”) or future tense (“will come”). The point of the past tense is to say that the Lord’s future coming is so certain to happen, the prophet speaks of it as though the Lord has already come. He is contemplating a yet-to-be event as though it has already transpired.
The point in the following quotes from exegetical sources is saying that Christ, in saying “other sheep I have” (in John 10:16), is contemplating Gentiles who will come to him in the future as though they have already come, since it is so certain that they will come. He is not, therefore, properly calling them “sheep” while they are in an unbelieving state, but he is thinking about them proleptically, as though they are already believers, now in a real-union possession, and thus are his sheep. “I have” is the proleptic way of saying “I will have” with prophetic certainty. Proleptically, then, they are contemplated as already his sheep, even though they are not yet. Harris observed,
Jesus’s ‘other sheep,’ given to him by the Father (17:7), are Gentiles (cf. 11:52; 12:32), who are proleptically already possessed (ἔχω), although they are actually ‘scattered abroad’ (11:52).Murray J. Harris, John, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2015), 197–98.
Bloomfield noted,
It is observable that Christ calls the Gentile folds his sheep, by prolepsis, though yet in ignorance and idolatry, since he not only meant that his doctrine should be propagated amongst them (John 17:18; Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15), but also since he foresaw that they would embrace his religion.Samuel Thomas Bloomfield, Recensío Synoptíca Annotationis Sacræ, 8 vols. (London: C. and J. Rivington; Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1826–1860), 3:396–397; italics original.
On John 10:16, Meyer commented:
Ver. 16. The repeated mention of His sacrificial death, by which the union of Jews and heathen into one community of believers was to be effected (see on Eph. 2:14), raises His look to the future when He (as the good shepherd lifted up on high, compare Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 2:25) shall be the guide also of the heathen, who have become believers, and whom he now prophetically terms His sheep. Compare 11:52, 12:32,1 and prophetic utterances, such as Mic. 4:2; Isa. 49:1 ff., 52:13 ff., 53:10 ff.Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Gospel of John, ed. Frederick Crombie, vol. 2 of Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1875), 94; italics original. By “prophetically,” Meyer means proleptically. In other words, they are not properly called His sheep already, but that it is so certain they shall be, He speaks as though they already are His sheep.
_______________
1 The relation of ver. 16 to what precedes corresponds entirely to the New Testament idea, that salvation proceeds from the Jews to the heathen (comp. 4:22, 11:52). This advantage of the Jews is also to be recognised as acknowledged by John, to whom we are not to ascribe the idea of a perfect equality of the two (Lücke, B. Crusius; comp. also Messner, Lehre der Ap. p. 355). The heathen who are to be gained are, however, even before they are recipients of salvation, τέκνα τ. θεοῦ, and Christ has them as His sheep, according to the ideal view of the future, as an actuality so far as it is certainly fixed in the counsel of God (comp. Rom. 11:28). It is therefore incorrect to explain the mode of expression from the fellowship with God realized through conscience (Luthardt); because, to be a child of God and an adherent of Christ presupposes regeneration. For this, however, they are destined by the divine election of grace, and fitted and prepared by the prevenient divine drawing.
Meyer also mentioned John 10:16 as an example of proleptic utterance in his comments on Acts 18:10:
Under His people Jesus understands not only those already converted, but likewise proleptically (comp. John 10:16, 11:52) those who are destined to be members of the church purchased by His blood (20:28; Eph. 1:14),—the whole multitude of the τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον (13:48) at Corinth.Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Acts of the Apostles, ed. William P. Dickson, trans. Paton J. Gloag, vol. 2 of Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1877), 134; italics original.
By calling future gentile believers “sheep I have,” Jesus is using a kind of “ampliatio,” which is employed “Where synonymously with one species of prolepsis, a name or attribute is given by way of anticipation, or where persons or things are described not as they are now, but as they will be.” George Winfred Hervey, A System of Christian Rhetoric: For the Use of Preachers and other Speakers (London: Houlston and Sons, 1873), 581. Hervey cited John 10:16 as an instance of this.
Luthardt commented:
…the thing here spoken of is, as in xi. 52, that which did not indeed exist as yet, but which should come into being. They are not yet πρόβατα, because they do not yet belong to the flock, that is, to the people of God, but they are to become sheep. Because this is beyond question, the present is used: ἔχω, ‘I have.’ Bengel remarks: ‘hoc verbum habet magnam potestatem’ (‘this word has great force’). Jesus does not merely know them, but he has them, they belong to him, he is their owner. For them too must he become shepherd.Christoph Ernst Luthardt, St. John’s Gospel Described and Explained According to Its Peculiar Character, trans. Caspar René Gregory, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1877), 2:363.
2.3.1 Other Quotes Related to This Matter of Proleptic Anticipation:
Ἔχω, not ἕξω, like ἐστί μοι in Acts 18:10: they are already His, given to Him (17:7) by the Father. He is their Owner, but not yet their Shepherd.A. Plummer, The Gospel according to S. John, Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896), 221.
Christ calls the Gentiles his other sheep, by way of anticipation, because shortly they were to be so, and united together with the believing Jews into one sheep-fold; and whereas he says, he must bring these sheep in, we are to understand it not of a necessity of co-action, but of a necessity of compact; it being a federal agreement betwixt the Father and himself, that both Jew and Gentile should be one flock, enclosed in one fold, and presented to his Father as a glorious church.William Burkitt, Expository Notes With Practical Observations on the New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ […], 2 vols. (Philiadelphia: Thomas Wardle, 1835), 1:503; italics original.
The church, the body, the members, the flock, the sheep, the seed of Christ, are all terms of equal import, and denote, in their proper and primary sense, not the elect as such, but believers, the first-born, the sons of God and heirs of glory; but are applied to those who are visibly, as well as to those who are really such. Yet in one instance the unregenerate and unborn elect are figuratively and by way of anticipation, called the sheep: “Other sheep I have which are not of this fold.—Ye believe not because ye are not of my sheep.” John 10:16, 26. And once, by the same form of speech, they are called the children of God: “He prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.” John 11:51, 52.Edward D. Griffin, “An Humble Attempt to Reconcile the Differences of Christians Respecting the Extent of the Atonement,” in The Atonement: Discourses and Treatises (Boston: Congregational Board of Publication, 1859), 228.
With his eye on Calvary, and with the joy of millions rising before him, he unbosomed to his disciples this great motive, which urged him to the cross. “I lay down my life for the sheep.—And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring.” Then turning to the Jews, “But ye believe not because ye are not of my sheep.” John 10:3–29. It has been already remarked, that by sheep is primarily meant, not the unregenerate elect, but believers. The fold is that which is enclosed by the pale of the church, and the flock are the church considered as an assembly of believers gathered together in Christ. And here the sheep “hear” the porter’s “voice,” and “know his voice,” and “follow him,” “and a stranger will they not follow.” The elect Gentiles are therefore called sheep plainly by way of anticipation. But still as there is an evident allusion to the election of the sheep, I cannot but think that Christ intended to express, not that the sins of the elect would be atoned for more than others, but that in the motive which prompted him to the sacrifice, he had a special reference to the salvation of the elect as a part of his promised reward. By a similar anticipation the unregenerate elect appear to be called the children of God, and a similar reference to them seems to be expressed in the following passage: “This spoke he [Caiaphas], not of himself [not at his own suggestion], but being high-priest that year [and in honor of his office being visited with a temporary inspiration], he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.” John 11:51, 52.Griffin, “An Humble Attempt to Reconcile the Differences of Christians Respecting the Extent of the Atonement,” 260.
In this chapter Christ sets before him the sheep as a flock already gathered and under his care; and in what he says about laying down his life for them, he alludes to the fidelity of a shepherd in exposing his life to defend his flock, actually assembled around him, from beasts of prey. … When he calls the elect Gentiles his sheep, it is plainly by anticipation; but when he speaks of laying down his life for his sheep, he means for the gathered and existing flock, such a flock as a hireling Jewish pastor would abandon to the wolves.Griffin, “An Humble Attempt to Reconcile the Differences of Christians Respecting the Extent of the Atonement,” 312.
16. Other sheep. There are others who shall be members of my redeemed church.Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament: Luke & John, ed. Robert Frew (London: Blackie & Son, 1884–1885), 289–90; italics original.
I have. This does not imply that they were then his friends, but that they would be. There were others whom it was his purpose and intention to call to the blessings of the gospel and salvation. The purpose was so sure, and the fact that they would believe on him so certain, that he could use the present tense as if they were already his own. This purpose was in accordance with the promise (Is. 53:11), “He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied.” An instance of a parallel expression occurs in Ac. 18:10, “I have much people in this city” (Corinth). That is, it was the purpose of God to bless the preaching of Paul, and give him many souls as the seals of his ministry. It was so certain that they would believe in the Saviour, that it could be spoken of as if it were already done. This certainty could have existed only in consequence of the intention of God that it should be so. It did not consist in any disposition to embrace the gospel which was foreseen, for they were the most corrupt and licentious people of antiquity, and it must have been because God meant that it should be so. Declarations like these are full proof that God has a plan in regard to the salvation of men, and that the number is known and determined by him. Learn—1. That it is not a question of chance or uncertainty whether men shall be saved. 2. That there is encouragement for preaching the gospel. There are those whom God means to save, and if he intends to do it it will be done.
2.4 “Bring” is Better Translated as “Lead.”
I suspect there is also some misunderstanding about “bring,” which really means “lead.” Since some want to think of Christ’s sheep as including the unregenerate elect, they might think “bring” means “bring them to faith,” rather than “leading” or “going before” these believers who are obediently “following” the shepherd. The point being that they are already contemplated as “followers” in the metaphor, with the shepherd leading the listening sheep. While it is true that God grants faith, this verse is not about “bringing them to faith,” but about leading those who are thought of as already believing.
Several translations (Jerusalem Bible; Phillips; BBE; CTBible; GW; ISV; LITV-TSP; KJ3; LITV; MKJV; Williams), such as The New Berkeley Version in Modern English (1969), translate it as “those I must lead.” The earlier 1959 Berkeley has “those I must guide.” Trail has a helpful summary:
Others say:
See also Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996) 202, 206–207; s.v. ἄγω (agō), in Rick Brannan, ed., in Lexham Research Lexicon of the Septuagint (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020); and William Arndt et al., in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 16.
Related to this is the sense in which the sheep “hear” him:
Several translations (Jerusalem Bible; Phillips; BBE; CTBible; GW; ISV; LITV-TSP; KJ3; LITV; MKJV; Williams), such as The New Berkeley Version in Modern English (1969), translate it as “those I must lead.” The earlier 1959 Berkeley has “those I must guide.” Trail has a helpful summary:
c. aorist act. infin. of ἄγω (LN 15.165) (BAGD 1.a. p. 14): ‘to bring’ [BAGD, LN; all translations except AB, NTC; CEV, NJB, Ph, REB], ‘to bring together’ [CEV], ‘to lead’ [AB, BAGD, LN, NTC; NJB, Ph, REB]. This verb means to direct or guide the movement of an object, without special regard to point of departure or goal [LN].Ronald L. Trail, An Exegetical Summary of John 10–21, Exegetical Summaries (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2018), 28.
Others say:
Bring (ἀγαγεῖν). Better, lead, as Rev. [Revised Version of the NT], in margin. Compare ver. 3, leadeth them out. The idea is not bringing them together (as συναγάγῃ, 11:52), or conducting them to one place, but assuming the guidance.Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, 4 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887), 2:193; italics original.
—ἀγαγεῖν] neither adducere, fetch (Vulgate, Luther, Beza, and many others; also Tholuck, Luthardt, Hengstenberg, Godet); nor συναγαγεῖν, 11:52 (Nonnus, Euth. Zigabenus, Theophylact, Casaubon); but lead, as shepherd, who goes before the sheep, and whom they follow, ver. 4. Bengel’s remark is appropriate: “Non opus est illis solum mutare;” for the shepherd who leads also the heathen is the exalted Christ, πάντων κύριος, Acts 10:36.Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Gospel of John, ed. Frederick Crombie, vol. 2 of Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1875), 95; italics original.
—ἀγαγεῖν, bring) by My death. He does not say, lead out, as at ver. 3; nor, introduce into this fold; but simply, bring [lead].Johann Albrecht Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, ed. M. Ernest Bengel and J. C. F. Steudel, trans. Andrew Robert Fausset (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1860), 382; italics original.
κἀκεῖνα δεῖ με ἀγαγεῖν, “them also I must lead,”J. H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, ed. Alan Hugh McNeile, International Critical Commentary (New York: C. Scribner’ Sons, 1929), 361; italics original.
them also I must bring] Better, them also I must lead.A. Plummer, The Gospel according to St John, with Maps, Notes and Introduction, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902), 216; italics and bold original.
ἀγάγειν. Lead, rather than ‘bring;’ comp. ἐξάγειν (v. 3).A. Plummer, The Gospel according to S. John, Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896), 221; bold original.
bring] Rather, lead. The idea is that of openly assuming the guidance of the sheep, and not that of gathering them into one body (συναγαγεῖν, 11:52), or of conducting them to one place (προσαγαγεῖν). The tense points to the one act whereby the Shepherd took up His rightful position.Brooke Foss Westcott and Arthur Westcott, eds., The Gospel according to St. John Introduction and Notes on the Authorized Version, Classic Commentaries on the Greek New Testament (London: J. Murray, 1908), 155; bold and italics original.
For these “other sheep” likewise “will hear” the Shepherd’s voice (v. 3), for this is the shepherd who has been assigned by God “to lead” (ἀγαγεῖν) them.Edward W. Klink III, John, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016), 466.
See also Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996) 202, 206–207; s.v. ἄγω (agō), in Rick Brannan, ed., in Lexham Research Lexicon of the Septuagint (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020); and William Arndt et al., in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 16.
Related to this is the sense in which the sheep “hear” him:
The ἀκούειν (‘hearing’) on their part corresponds to the ‘leading.’Christoph Ernst Luthardt, St. John’s Gospel Described and Explained According to Its Peculiar Character, trans. Caspar René Gregory, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1877), 2:363.
d. fut. act. indic. of ἀκούω (LN 36.14): ‘to hear’ [BAGD, Gdt, NICNT2; CEV, KJV, NASB, Ph], ‘to listen to’ [AB, NTC, TRT, WBC; NCV, NET, NIV, NJB, NLT, NRSV, REB, TEV], ‘to heed’ [HTC], ‘to pay attention to and obey’ [LN]. This verb means to listen or pay attention to a person, with resulting conformity to what is advised or commanded [LN]. When ἀκούω occurs with a genitive object as it does here it indicates hearing with understanding and obedience [ICC].Ronald L. Trail, An Exegetical Summary of John 10–21, Exegetical Summaries (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2018), 28.
2.5 A Note on the ὅτι/γάρ Textual Discrepancy
In John 10:26, there are textual variations. While most translations have “because” (ὅτι οὐκ, NA28), others follow the Byzantine Textform (otherwise called the Majority Text) and have “for” (οὐ γάρ, RP). For example, the Young’s Literal Translation has, “but ye do not believe, for ye are not of my sheep.” γάρ like ὅτι may have the sense of a causal conjunction (e.g., because or since). See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 674. However, γάρ may also serve as an inferential conjunction (e.g., therefore). See Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 673, and Georg Pasor, Lexicon Graeco-Latinum in novum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi Testamentum (Amstelodami: Apud Joannem Janssonium, 1641), 106. If that is the case with John 10:26, the sense would be, “you do not believe, therefore you are not my sheep.” Γάρ is indicating a reason or explanation for something just mentioned. It is serving as an explanatory conjunction, not as something causative, like “you do not believe since you are not my sheep,” as ὅτι might, at least in some instances, suggest.
Building on that possibility, it is also interesting to note that the BYZ also has καθωϲ ειπον υμιν (“as I told you” or “as I said to you”), and so some translations say, “but ye do not believe, for ye are not of my sheep, as I told you” (αλλ υμειϲ ου πιϲτευετε ου γαρ εϲτε εκ των προβατων των εμων καθωϲ ειπον υμιν). One may ask, “where else did Jesus give them such doctrine?” We can find a parallel idea in John 8:47: “He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore [διὰ τοῦτο] you do not hear, because [ὅτι] you are not of God” (NKJV). Or as the Young’s Literal Translation has it, “he who is of God, the sayings of God he doth hear; because of this [διὰ τοῦτο] ye do not hear, because [ὅτι] of God ye are not.” Deibler puts it thusly: “Those who belong to God habitually obey God’s message. You don’t belong to God; so you don’t obey his message.” Ellis W. Deibler, Jr., A Translator’s Translation of the New Testament (Ann Arbor, MI: Cummins Works, 2008), 189.
It is as though some are reading the text as conveying this idea: “since you are non-elect, this is the cause of why you do not believe.” That is what I mean by a causative sense. This is problematic, to say the least. After all, Dort said, “The cause or guilt of this unbelief, as well as of all other sins, is no wise in God, but in man himself;” (First Head of Doctrine: Of Divine Predestination, Article 5). I think the sense is rather an explanatory conjunction, such as, “you do not [or ‘you refuse to’] believe, and that indicates that you are not my sheep.” While I do not think the γάρ and ὅτι textual difference that exists is decisive, since both can mean simply “because,” I think ὅτι can serve as a causative conjunction whereas γάρ does not. That seems to be what Wallace indicates in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. It is interesting, therefore, to note the difference in the manuscript traditions that often goes unobserved, or without comment. Again, I do not think the term differences are decisive, but there are shades of meaning to ὅτι that do not seem to exist for γάρ in terms of logical relations, and γάρ seems more suitable to the explanatory (rather than causative) connection.
Although Carson, in some of his interviews and lectures, seems to take a stricter view of Christ’s satisfaction, classic-moderate Calvinists take no issue with what he said here, as it can be interpreted to echo Ryle’s point above:
3. Other Miscellaneous Notes:
P[aulinus]. What is your tenth argument?William R. Weeks, “A Dialogue on the Atonement,” in The Atonement: Discourses and Treatises (Boston: Congregational Board of Publication, 1859), 576–77.
A[spasio]. It is this: “The sacred Scriptures in many places restrict the death of Christ to his people.”
P. Will you favor me with some of these many places?”
A. Yes. Christ says, “I lay down my life for the sheep.” Again, it is said, “The church which he purchased with his own blood.”
P. But where is the restriction? I confess I do not see it. He laid down his life “for the sheep.” Who disputes that? If it was the will of God “that he should taste death for every man,” he must of course have laid down his life for the sheep.
A. I acknowledge “that these and such like passages do not, in so many words, declare that he died for no others. Yet they have no force or apparent propriety, unless thus understood.”
P. You acknowledge, then, that the passages you mention do not expressly restrict the death of Christ to his people? The whole force of your argument, then, comes to this: These passages do not appear to you to have any force or propriety, unless you understand them agreeably to your own scheme. But if we form our opinions first, and then interpret the Scriptures in such a manner as to make them accord with our opinions, I am afraid we shall never come to any certainty respecting any of the doctrines of the Bible.
A. But “if Christ laid down his life for his sheep, as such, whether yet called or not, then he lays not down his life for the goats, or for those who are not of his fold. If he, as the shepherd, lays down his life, then certainly for none but his sheep.”
P. I feel no difficulty in admitting that there is a sense in which Christ laid down his life for the sheep, in which he did not for others. But I contend also that there is a sense in which he laid down his life for all alike. As far as his object in laying down his life was to secure the salvation of those for whom he died, he laid down his life for the sheep only; for he never intended to secure the salvation of any others. But as far as his object in laying down his life was to place men in a state of probation, in a state in which they might be saved if they would; in a state in which their salvation or their perdition should depend entirely upon their own voluntary choice, so far he laid down his life for all alike. If you understand these and such like passages in the first sense, I have no objection; for on that point we have no dispute. But to infer from that that he could have no object in laying down his life for others, is to take for granted the very point in dispute. The passages you mention are totally silent on that subject; and, therefore, are nothing to the purpose.
Taken alone and by itself this sentence undoubtedly contains the doctrine of particular redemption. It declares that Christ “lays down His life for the sheep.” That He does so in a special sense I think none can deny. The “sheep” alone, or true believers, obtain any saving benefit from His death. But to argue from this text, that in no sense and in no way did Christ die for any beside His “sheep,” is to say what seems to me to contradict Scripture. The plain truth is that the extent of redemption is not the leading subject of this verse. Our Lord is saying what He does for His sheep: He loves them so that He dies for them. But it does not follow that we are to conclude that His death was not meant to influence and effect the position of all mankind. I venture to refer the reader to my own notes, in this commentary, on John 1:28; 3:16 and 6:32, for a full discussion of the subject.J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on John, 3 vols. (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1878), 2:197.
Although Carson, in some of his interviews and lectures, seems to take a stricter view of Christ’s satisfaction, classic-moderate Calvinists take no issue with what he said here, as it can be interpreted to echo Ryle’s point above:
10:14–15. The repetition of I am the good shepherd (cf. notes on v. 11) not only lays emphasis on the sacrificial theme already introduced and about to be enlarged upon (vv. 15, 17, 18), but signals to the reader that what immediately follows, the theme of the mutual knowledge of the shepherd and the sheep (vv. 14, 15), is also of great importance. This mutual recognition, or better, mutual knowledge, is clearly experiential, and is analogous to the mutual knowledge of the Father and the Son (v. 15). That the shepherd knows his sheep, and the sheep know their shepherd, is presupposed by vv. 3–4; this mutual knowledge is precisely what ensures that they follow their shepherd, and only him. But the intimacy of this relationship is mirrored on the intimacy between the Father and the Son (cf. also notes on 15:9–11); indeed, the intimacy of the sheep/shepherd relationship is grounded upon the intimacy between the Father and the Son (cf. notes on 17:21; cf. also Mt. 11:27). However clearly this Gospel portrays Jesus as the Saviour of the world (4:42), the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (1:29, 36), it insists no less emphatically that Jesus has a peculiar relation with those the Father has given him (6:37ff.), with those he has chosen out of the world (15:16, 19). So here: Jesus’ death is peculiarly for his sheep, just as we elsewhere read that ‘Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her’ (Eph. 5:25).D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 387; italics original.
