Did Christ Perfectly Love "His Reprobate Enemies?"

Also, see, “A Biblical Defense of Particular Grace in Light of Arminian Objections” (by Sonny Hernandez)

The love of God, per Scripture, is applied to His particular people alone (Rom. 5:5; Eph. 5:25; Col. 3:12; 1 John 4:10), not all men without exception. Regarding the goats, God hated them from eternity (Ps. 5:5; 11:5; Rom. 9:13c), and it is an unremitting hostility without the possibility of eradication (Rev 20:15).

Arminians take a different stance and thus think God loves everyone, none excluded. Even so-called reformed, Calvinist, or sovereign grace false teachers, whom I refer to as crypto Arminians, will try desperately to apply God's love in some sense to the reprobate.

In the crypto Arminian or moderate Calvinist attempt to preach Christ, some will correctly say Christ died for the sheep and call it 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑜𝑏𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒. However, these compromising Calvinists will, like every Arminian, also argue that Jesus perfectly loved all of "His enemies" concerning His 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑜𝑏𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒.

When dealing with the righteousness of God as revealed in the gospel, the ones for whom Christ died (penal obedience) are the same recipients of His vicarious lawkeeping, i.e., alien preceptive obedience. Put another way, Christ died a propitiatory and substitutionary death on behalf of the elect, and He perfectly satisfied the demands of the divine law in their place as well. So it makes no sense when compromising Calvinists say, ‘Christ's penal obedience was for 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡, but His preceptive obedience was for 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑚𝑒𝑛, including "His enemies."’

Most importantly, where does Scripture say Christ perfectly kept the law on behalf of His enemies? Nowhere! Nonetheless, since Paul used 𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑠 ("enemies") several times in the context of Christ’s relationships or regarding the gospel (Rom. 5:10; 11:28; Phil. 3:18; Col. 1:21), some take this Greek root word as a passive voice to suggest that Christ once had hostility towards the sheep. This view is problematic for two reasons:

First, there is no sufficient linguistic evidence or exegetical proof to support the root 𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑠 as a passive voice. Pertinent to this discussion is Romans 5:10. The Greek text says,

εἰ γὰρ ἐχθροὶ ὄντες κατηλλάγημεν τῷ Θεῷ διὰ τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, πολλῷ μᾶλλον καταλλαγέντες σωθησόμεθα ἐν τῇ ζωῇ αὐτοῦ· (bold emphasis added).

The first part of the verse has been taken to mean that God has exhibited enmity or hate towards those He has now reconciled. This misreads the text. The Theological Dictionary by Kittel asserts that,

“εχθρος is particularly used . . . for what is hostile to God and His Christ as in Lk. 19:27 . . . Phil. 3:18 . . . Acts 13:10 . . . εχθρος is also used to describe the relationship of natural man to God. R[om]. 5:10 . . . Col.1:21 . . . R[om]. 11:28 . . . [and] Jm. 4:4 . . . In R[om]. 11 εχθρος is passive. . . .Yet this passage does not decide the others. In these [Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:21; & Jam. 4:4] εχθρος is act[ive]. For Paul’s intention in R[om]. 5 is to show the greatness of the divine grace of forgiveness manifested towards those who in their conduct are the enemies of God” (Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. II, 814 (cf. the One Volume Abridged Edition, Gerhard Kittel; Geoffrey William Bromiley; Gerhard Friedrich. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Kindle Locations 7107-7108). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Kindle Edition).

Also, the following commentators argue for an active notion. Bruce says,

“While we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son. Cf. Colossians 1:21–22, ‘And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death.’ The hostility and estrangement which require to be removed lie in human beings, not in God; it is he who takes the initiative in good will by providing ‘the redemption which is in Christ Jesus’” (F. F. Bruce, Romans, Tyndale NT Commentaries, [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985] 118).

Kasemann agrees, and especially note his difference from noted exegetes:

Verse 10 . . . The concept does not refer (so Kuhl; Leenhardt; Baules) to an inner event but to the objective ending of enmity (Bultmann, Theology, I, 285ff.; Dupont, "Reconciliation," 19f.; Kummel, Theology, 203ff.; Ridderbos), without belonging to the legal sphere or having sacrificial significance (contra Dupont, "Reconciliation," 28ff., 40ff.; rightly Fitzer, "Ort der Versohnung," 180ff.). The idea of substitution is not intrinsic to it but may be combined with it, as here by way of the prepositional phrases (Whiteley, "Atonement," 240; Kasemann, "Theme," 56ff.). Paul uses it to characterize the event of salvation as the justification of enemies (Ridderbos, Paul, 182) and the peace of Christ as its goal, as the participial clause shows. εχθροι, like εχθρος in 8:7 though not as in 11:28, has an active sense and means rebels (Ernst Kasemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990] 138-39).

When the context refers to 𝐻𝑖𝑠 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑒𝑠, God's Word makes it explicitly clear. For example, Jesus used the genitive pronoun 𝑎𝑢𝑡𝑜𝑠 ("his") + the root 𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑠 in the parable of the tares (Matt. 13:25). In this parable, Christ revealed the identity of the "enemy" as the "devil" (Matt. 13:39) and the "tares" as the "children of the wicked one" (Matt. 13:38).

Second, per many lexical sources, 𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑠 signifies hating or hated. So treating 𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑠 to mean Christ once had hostility or hatred toward His elect would undermine Paul's teaching about God's love towards His elect before the world's creation (Eph. 1:4). It is best to treat 𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑠 as man's [elect] hostility towards God rather than the Lord's hatred towards them. Therefore, what Christ accomplished was not for "His enemies, whom God actively reprobated" but for His sheep.

Moreover, many grossly think man's obligation to the law is the same for Christ. They are woefully mistaken. Creatures are lawbreakers, but the Creator is above all laws [ex lex]. The Son perfectly satisfied the demands of the divine law because He is a law unto Himself. Christ perfectly kept the law, and the law reflects His character. Paul emphasized this point in Romans 7 when he claimed the law is "holy," "just" and "good" (v. 12) — while knowing that God is "Holy" (Is. 6:3), "just" (Ps. 25:8; 119:137), and "good" (Mark 10:18).

Where compromising Calvinists go wrong is when they think Christ had to perfectly keep the laws He gave to others and believe this is what preceptive obedience means. For example, since Christ commanded His disciples to love their "enemies" in Matthew 5:44, some take this to mean that Christ had to love "His [reprobate] enemies" also. Yet, these Arminian-minded people—who are desperate to apply God's love to the goats—fail to see how Christ also commanded the disciples to "pray" for 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 enemies in the same verse. Since Christ commanded His disciples to pray for their enemies, does that mean Christ also had to pray for His? No! Per John 17:9, Christ prayed for His sheep and did not pray for the "world," i.e., His "reprobate enemies" (Jam. 4:4).

Regardless of what compromising Calvinist or sovereign grace Arminians claim, Christ did not perfectly keep the law “on behalf of,” or “in the stead of,” His reprobate enemies. Jesus did not die for the goats but the sheep alone. Also, Christ's preceptive and penal obedience, encompassing the whole work of His righteousness, was accomplished for the sheep and not the goats. Hence, God’s gift of alien righteousness, both active and passive, is imputed to the elect alone for the Glory of God alone. God’s love for His own is an Everlasting Love (cf. Jer. 31:3).

Disclaimer - I cited a few lexical sources and theological commentaries in this short article. However, I do not endorse any of the scholars I mentioned and do not agree with all of their theological convictions.