§1 According to the Ante-Nicene Church, “the good Lord revealed everything to us beforehand” (Ep. Barn.); and “material things are typical of spiritual things” (Origen); a thought memorably stated by Augustine as “In the Old Testament the New is concealed, in the New the Old is revealed.” Agreeable to these classic sentiments is Carl R. Trueman’s insistence that a correct interpretation of Christ’s work can only be obtained with reference to the OT since it “set the categories” and “provides the basic foundation” for the NT. And, specifically, that a correct interpretation of Christ’s atonement is “an inference from the Old Testament types and their New Testament fulfilment in Christ” (Perspectives on the Atonement [2015]).
§2 OT types like the Day of Atonement, the Serpent on the Pole, and the Manna in the Wilderness prefigure and foreshadow the death of Christ and its atoning significance. Such types imply or entail a universality of provision that is more consistent with an unlimited atonement than with a limited atonement, since in each case the provision equals or exceeds the plight. That Christ is the great NT antitype and analog of these OT types is no surprise. Surprising, however, is that the NT antitype and analog of elect Israel in the OT is not the Church, Bride, or sheep for whom Christ lays down his life (i.e., “the elect”), but the world (κόσμος). God’s gracious OT provision of atonement (for all the sins of every Israelite), healing (for all bitten by serpents), and feeding (of all hungry) anticipates what God later does for a spiritually sinful, dying, and starving world (κόσμος) through Christ’s ultimate and infinite sacrifice.
§3 Correspondingly, the many NT verses suggestive of universality (e.g., John 1:29; 3:14–17; 4:42; 6:33, 51; 12:32, 47; 1 John 2:2; 4:14) are best read in the light of these foundational and defining OT types to which reference is frequently made, especially in the Gospel of John.
§4 Similarly did the Ante-Nicene Church interpret these OT types and NT verses suggestive of universality: e.g., “It was needful that the Lamb of God should be offered for the other lambs whose nature He assumed, even for the whole human race” (Eusebius). In this they differ from later limitations of Christ’s atoning work to a specific subset of humanity (i.e., a predetermined number of elect). They saw no antecedent limitation of Christ’s atoning work in the divine will, intent, or decree, only a consequent limitation via libertarian human rejection of what Christ had done on behalf of all humanity and for every human.
§5 The primary focus herein will be on the OT types and their implications (§2), partly in dialog with Carl R. Trueman who surprisingly concedes that atonement is made for the sins of the non-elect in the OT. The secondary focus will be on NT texts suggestive of universality (§3) and subsequent Ante-Nicene elaboration/corroboration (§4).