by Angus Harley

Commonly, isolated statements and comments by Calvin are used by scholars to promote that he held to a certain view. Part of his comment on Isaiah 53:12 is taken to support the Neo-Calvinist view that Calvin did not believe in limited atonement. This article defends the view that we must not separate Calvin’s controverted comment from the rest of what he says on that verse, for the context drives us in one direction: that Calvin is referring to atonement coming to the assembly within the world. For the reader’s benefit, I have appended Calvin’s entire comment on Isaiah 53:12. Also, I have put some of Calvin’s words into bold text.

Calvin’s opening statement on this verse is expressive of the application of Jesus death. He writes:

“Isaiah again declares what will be the result of the death of Christ. It was necessary that he should add this doctrine as to the victory which Christ obtained by his death; for what was formerly stated, that by his death we are reconciled to the Father, would not have sufficiently confirmed our hearts.”

Calvin’s focus here is upon the effect of the death of Christ. This is not a reference to its extent on the cross, but to the application of his death in his high priestly ministry (see ahead). It is for that reason that Calvin concludes that by his death believers “are” reconciled to the Father. If, in v12, Calvin were working within merely the historical parameters of the extent debate, he would have said “were”.

In referring to the clause, “And he shall divide the spoil with the strong”, Calvin again makes the application of Christ’s death to the assembly the focus:

“…that Christ enjoys that benefit, he enjoys it not on his own account, but on ours for the fruit of this victory comes to us. For us Christ subdued death, the world, and the devil.”

Notice, again, that there is no indication that the historical moment of the death of Christ on the cross is the interpretive control. It is the application of his death, rather, that is the focus. Moreover, its application, being in live-time, is directed to the assembly. That is why Calvin then says that it was “[F]or us” that Christ subdued his enemies, one of which was the world itself. Plainly, this view cannot imply the reconciliation of the world as ‘every single person’.

According to Calvin, the fruits of Jesus’ death are paralleled by the fruits of Jesus’ resurrection and his ascension:

“In a word, the Prophet here applauds the victory which followed the death of Christ; for “although he was crucified through the weakness of the flesh, yet by the power of the Spirit” he rose from the dead, and triumphed over his enemies. (2 Corinthians 13:4) Such is the import of the metaphor of “Spoil,” which the Prophet used; for “he ascended on high, that he might lead captivity captive and give gifts to men.” (Psalms 68:18; Ephesians 4:8).”

The point being that the historical death of Christ per se is not Calvin’s concern as such, but the application of his death and of his resurrection.

As to, “He bore the sin of many”, Calvin relies again on the perspective of the application of Jesus’ death to the assembly:

“This is added by way of correction, that, when we hear of the shame of Christ’s death, we may not think that it was a blot on the character of Christ, and that our minds may not, by being prejudiced in that manner, be prevented from receiving the victory which he obtained for us, that is, the fruit of his death.”

Calvin continues in the same vein of the application of Jesus’ death, but this time he puts a stronger emphasis upon the historical side of his atonement:

“He shows, therefore, that this was done in order that he might take our sins upon him; and his object is, that, whenever the death of Christ shall be mentioned, we may at the same time remember the atonement made for us. And this fruit swallows up all the shame of the death of Christ….”

Jesus took the sins of his assembly upon himself. This is affirmed in Calvin’s statement, “that, whenever the death of Christ shall be mentioned, we may at the same time remember the atonement made for us”. See how the death of Christ is not mentioned as an event for itself, but “for us”. Every time Jesus’ atonement on the cross is recalled by the believer, it is to be understood as an atonement for them. The fruit and victory of this application in its turn “swallows up all the shame of the death of Christ”. I hope the reader is observing Calvin’s method: the atonement of Christ is being retrospectively graded and assessed, as it were, its value and meaning measured by its results or fruits.

It is at this juncture that we move into the part of Calvin’s comment that some consider to be Amyraldian in nature. He states:

“I have followed the ordinary interpretation, that “he bore the sin of many,” though we might without impropriety consider the Hebrew word רבים (rabbim,) to denote “Great and Noble.” And thus the contrast would be more complete, that Christ, while “he was ranked among transgressors,” became surety for every one of the most excellent of the earth, and suffered in the room of those who hold the highest rank in the world. I leave this to the judgment of my readers. Yet I approve of the ordinary reading, that he alone bore the punishment of many, because on him was laid the guilt of the whole world. It is evident from other passages, and especially from the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, that “many” sometimes denotes “all.””

Calvin is saying that “many” can, in one sense, mean all ranks of people, but this is not the most accurate meaning. In context, it is better to understand it to mean Jesus bore the punishment of many. By “many”, says Calvin, Isaiah indicates “the whole world”, or “all”. Calvin’s theology here does not allow for a hypothetical atonement or reconciliation. Jesus’ death really did bear the punishment of the sins of the whole world. It is this position that is considered by Amyraldians as cast-iron proof of unlimited atonement “for the whole world”. Yet, the Amyraldian interpretation misses the setting of Calvin’s reasoning, for we must not exclude the entire context up unto this point that refers to the atonement as expressed in the actual reconciliation of Christ’s assembly. This is to say that, “many”, “the whole world”, and “all” are denoting the entire number of those who are saved in the world.

In the next comment, concerning, “And prayed for the transgressors”, Calvin takes us into a more detailed version of his method of understanding the atonement. He writes:

“Because the ratification of the atonement, with which Christ has washed us by his death, implies that he pleaded with the Father on our behalf, it was proper that this should be added. For, as in the ancient Law the priest, who “never entered without blood,” at the same time interceded for the people; so what was there shadowed out is fulfilled in Christ. (Exodus 30:10; Hebrews 9:7) First, he offered the sacrifice of his body, and shed his blood, that he might endure the punishment which was due to us; and secondly, in order that the atonement might take effect, he performed the office of an advocate, and interceded for all who embraced this sacrifice by faith; as is evident from that prayer which he left to us, written by the hand of John, “I pray not for these only, but for all who shall believe on me through their word.” (John 17:20) If we then belong to their number, let us be fully persuaded that Christ hath suffered for us, that we may now enjoy the benefit of his death.”

This quotation is vital to understanding Calvin’s supposedly ‘extent’ comments. It follows a two-step process: the historical death of Christ, and its “ratification”. The historical death of Christ is not being considered as something in and of itself. Nor is its application the sole focus. Both are united in one purpose: describing atonement’s actual efficacy. So, in regard to ratification of the atonement, Calvin brings us, inevitably, to the high priestly ministry of Jesus “on our behalf”. That is, on behalf of his assembly.

This heavenly application of Christ’s atonement, Calvin compares, in a shadowy form, to the Levitical high priest’s service and intercession. The Levitical high priest’s service was not two separate actions divorced from one another; for the first required the second, and the second required the first, for them both to ‘work’, so to speak. To be pointed, the high priest was required, in performing the one act of atonement, to: 1) offer up the sacrifice of blood before God; 2) and intercede for atonement before God on the basis of that blood. No atonement was possible without both stages operating together. And both were for one people, never two. The ‘death’ and its ‘application’ were for Israel alone. The notion that the sacrificial animal’s blood reconciled anyone outside of those interceded for by the high priest is simply not feasible.

By extension, Christ’s one act of atonement had two stages: 1) Jesus’ offering of his body on the cross to endure suffering on our behalf; 2) that this atonement might ‘kick in’ for us by his advocacy in heaven. This is to say that, it is only those whom Jesus intercedes for by his blood whose atonement in his death, through faith, he ratifies.

He then confirms the model of one act of atonement in two stages by adding the text of John 17:20 that refers to those who were believers and those who were to believe.

In looking back to the controverted part of Calvin’s comment on Isaiah 53:12, it is readily apparent that, contextually, he is working with the model of atonement as one act that has two stages: the historical sacrifice of Christ, and, its immediate application. Both were done before God as the one act of Jesus as the heavenly high priest. That is why in his very last comment on Isaiah 53:12, Calvin writes:

“He expressly mentions “transgressors,” that we may know that we ought to betake ourselves with assured confidence to the cross of Christ, when we are horror­struck by the dread of sin. Yea, for this reason he is held out as our intercessor and advocate; for without his intercession our sins would deter us from approaching to God.”

See, here, how the “transgressors” are believers, those belonging to the assembly. Calvin does not say that Jesus died on the cross for transgressors, and our sins were forgiven then. On the contrary, he is preaching to the assembly that, even up unto this moment, the death of Christ is efficacious unto the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation, even for believers, for Christ is alive and in heaven, advocating for us before the Father on the basis of his historical sacrifice and atonement.

Now, I have responded to Amyraldians in particular in the above article, but the modern Calvinistic reading of Calvin is not without error in interpreting his words on Isaiah 53:12. Some of these Calvinists are inclined to constantly take us to Lombard’s thesis of the death of Christ being sufficient for every single person but efficient only for some. I have argued previously that Calvin allows for this doctrine merely as a theological fact, but does not consider it relevant to understanding the reality of actual, living, atonement.[1] In his comments on Isaiah 53:12, Calvin is concerned with actual reconciliation and atonement, which is comprised of two stages, as we saw. There is never any hypothetical element to his argument, no room for the notion of Jesus’ death being hypothetically sufficient for anyone, never mind for ‘every single person’. Secondly, Calvin is not concerned in the above comments, as Calvinists are, with election as a base or starting point for his doctrine of the cross. Election is not even mentioned in Calvin’s words on Isaiah 53:12. Why not? Because Calvin’s ever-consuming thought is how the atonement is ‘live’ for the sake of the assembly. God will never fail them, for Jesus ever lives to make intercession for them through his atoning, reconciling, blood.

Key take away: one act of atonement in two stages

\\

APPENDIX: CALVIN’S FULL COMMENT ON ISAIAH 53:12

12.Therefore will I divide to him a portion. Isaiah again declares what will be the result of the death of Christ. It was necessary that he should add this doctrine as to the victory which Christ obtained by his death; for what was formerly stated, that by his death we are reconciled to the Father, would not have sufficiently confirmed our hearts. Here he borrows a comparison from the ordinary form of a triumphal procession held by those who, after having obtained a signal victory, are commonly received and adorned with great pomp and splendor. Thus also Christ, as a valiant and illustrious general, triumphed over the enemies whom he had vanquished.

And he shall divide the spoil with the strong. This statement is the same as the preceding, and it is a customary repetition among Hebrew writers. Those whom he formerly called “great” he now calls mighty or “strong.” Those who translate רבים (rabbim) by the word “many,” (58) torture, in my opinion, the Prophet’s meaning. In these two clauses there is only this difference, that in the former God testifies what he gave to Christ, and in the latter he adds that Christ enjoys that benefit, he enjoys it not on his own account, but on ours; (59) for the fruit of this victory comes to us. For us Christ subdued death, the world, and the devil. In a word, the Prophet here applauds the victory which followed the death of Christ; for “although he was crucified through the weakness of the flesh, yet by the power of the Spirit” he rose from the dead, and triumphed over his enemies. (2 Corinthians 13:4) Such is the import of the metaphor of “Spoil,” which the Prophet used; for “he ascended on high, that he might lead captivity captive and give gifts to men.” (Psalms 68:18; Ephesians 4:8)

For he poured out his soul to death. He now adds that Christ’s humiliation was the beginning of this supreme dominion; as Paul also declares that Christ, “after having blotted out the handwriting which was opposed to us, triumphed on the cross.” (Colossians 2:14) So far, then, is the shame of the death which Christ died from making any diminution of his glory, that it is the reason why God the Father exalted him to the highest honor.

And was ranked with transgressors. He describes also the kind of death; as Paul, when he magnifies “the obedience” of Christ, and says that “he abased himself even to death,” likewise adds, that it was no ordinary death, but the death “of the cross,” that is, accursed and shameful. (Philippians 2:8) So in this passage Isaiah, in order to express deeper shame, says that he was ranked among malefactors. But the deeper the shame before men, the greater was the glory of his resurrection by which it was followed.

Mark quotes this passage, when he relates that Christ was crucified between two robbers; for at that time the prediction was most fully accomplished. (Mark 15:28) But the Prophet spoke in general terms, in order to show that Christ did not die an ordinary death. For the purpose of disgracing him the more, those two robbers were added; that Christ, as the most wicked of all, might be placed in the midst of them. This passage is, therefore, most appropriately quoted by Mark as relating to that circumstance.

He bore the sin of many. This is added by way of correction, that, when we hear of the shame of Christ’s death, we may not think that it was a blot on the character of Christ, and that our minds may not, by being prejudiced in that manner, be prevented from receiving the victory which he obtained for us, that is, the fruit of his death. He shows, therefore, that this was done in order that he might take our sins upon him; and his object is, that, whenever the death of Christ shall be mentioned, we may at the same time remember the atonement made for us. And this fruit swallows up all the shame of the death of Christ, that his majesty and glory may be more clearly seen than if we only beheld him sitting in heaven; for we have in him a striking and memorable proof of the love of God, when he is so insulted, degraded, and loaded with the utmost disgrace, in order that we, on whom had been pronounced a sentence of everlasting destruction, may enjoy along with him immortal glory.

I have followed the ordinary interpretation, that “he bore the sin of many,” though we might without impropriety consider the Hebrew word רבים (rabbim,) to denote “Great and Noble.” And thus the contrast would be more complete, that Christ, while “he was ranked among transgressors,” became surety for every one of the most excellent of the earth, and suffered in the room of those who hold the highest rank in the world. I leave this to the judgment of my readers. Yet I approve of the ordinary reading, that he alone bore the punishment of many, because on him was laid the guilt of the whole world. It is evident from other passages, and especially from the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, (60) that “many” sometimes denotes “all.”

And prayed for the transgressors. Because the ratification of the atonement, with which Christ has washed us by his death, implies that he pleaded with the Father on our behalf, it was proper that this should be added. For, as in the ancient Law the priest, who “never entered without blood,” at the same time interceded for the people; so what was there shadowed out is fulfilled in Christ. (Exodus 30:10; Hebrews 9:7) First, he offered the sacrifice of his body, and shed his blood, that he might endure the punishment which was due to us; and secondly, in order that the atonement might take effect, he performed the office of an advocate, and interceded for all who embraced this sacrifice by faith; as is evident from that prayer which he left to us, written by the hand of John, “I pray not for these only, but for all who shall believe on me through their word.” (John 17:20) If we then belong to their number, let us be fully persuaded that Christ hath suffered for us, that we may now enjoy the benefit of his death.

He expressly mentions “transgressors,” that we may know that we ought to betake ourselves with assured confidence to the cross of Christ, when we are horror­struck by the dread of sin. Yea, for this reason he is held out as our intercessor and advocate; for without his intercession our sins would deter us from approaching to God.

[1] Angus Harley, “Calvin’s comments on 1 John 2:2,” All Things New Covenant, January 18, 2025, https://allthingsnewcovenant.com/2025/01/18/calvins-comments-on-1-john-22/.