Our text reads,
“First of all, then, I urge that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all those who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good, and it pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
For there is one God and one mediator between God and humanity, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, a testimony at the proper time.
For this I was appointed a herald, an apostle (I am telling the truth; I am not lying), and a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.” (1 Tim. 2:1-7, CSB)
Paul believes in the effectiveness of “petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings.” As requests and thanks to God, Paul puts stock in their role in affecting the thoughts and actions of the personal God in heaven who, through the death of his Son, Jesus Christ, accomplished our salvation and demonstrated his love for us (Rom. 5:8). Obviously, Paul believes that prayer changes things. (For a critique of the Calvinists’ rationalizations of “God works through means” and “Second causes,” see “Chapter 8 – Calvinist Attempts to Justify Sovereignty as Theistic Determinism.”)
Now, note the scope of those to be prayed for – “everyone.” These prayers are to “be made for everyone.” Here we have the first indication of Paul’s universal concern. Paul has everyone in mind in this passage. The “kings and all those who are in authority” are of special concern as a subset of “everyone.” Why pray for these kings and those in authority? Certainly, for their salvation, but also because, as those who wield authority, they determine how Christians are to be perceived by society and treated by those in authority. Paul wants believers to “lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity,” and that has to do with the decisions of the authorities regarding Christians. But, of course, it also has to do with Christians leading their lives tranquilly, quietly, and with dignity. Such a demeanor and these behaviors are pleasing to God and would serve the Christian well in not attracting undue attention from the authorities. Such an attitude is good. Not only that, but “it pleases God our Savior” (v. 3). This is why Paul instructs Timothy to make sure believers are living and acting according to “sound doctrine and in accordance with the glorious gospel” (1 Tim. 1:10-11; 3:14-15; 4:6, 11, 15-16; 5:20-21)
Paul now shifts his thoughts directly to salvation. And this is when he tells us that God “wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (cf. Jn. 1:14-18; 1 Cor. 1:22; 2 Thess. 2:9-13). Paul could not be clearer. This is an amazing soteriological and gospel truth, and its meaning is obvious! William Klein writes,
“Clearly the word save does have its salvific sense in this setting (note 1:15 and 2:5-7).[1] What is more, we have no evidence to posit that Paul envisioned two senses of God’s will when he penned these words. Nor will it do to suggest that “all men” means all types of people.[2] Concerning this kind of solution Kelly says, “All the subtle qualifications which have been proposed…are artificial and out of place.”[3] Certainly God’s love extends to all people, not merely all types.
How, then, does Paul perceive God’s will? In this context it must refer to what God wants, wishes, or desires, but does not command or determine. Apparently then, God’s will (in this sense of wish or desire) is not always done.[4] This keeps 1 Tim 2:4 in line with Paul’s other statements that indeed some will perish. God desires the salvation of every person, though not all attain it. God wills the salvation of all, not some specific group of individuals within the totality of humanity.”[5]
Paul plainly tells us that God wants everyone to be saved! This has direct implications for our controversy, especially for the Calvinist. Calvinism’s doctrine of a limited, exclusive, unconditional election in which God does not want everyone to be saved stands in direct contradiction to Paul’s words here. Indeed, Calvinism is in defiance of the clear Word of God. Paul’s teachings, not only here but in his other epistles, expose the fact that Calvinists have created and are prolonging this controversy. Calvinism is not even in view in this text, or in the whole of Scripture. Commentator William D. Mounce states,
“The theological debate over the issues concerning the Christian doctrine of election arising from v 4 was not the focus of the text in its historical situation. Within the context of the false teachers in Ephesus Paul was saying that the church was not to exclude anyone, not even the governing authorities (v 2), from the proclamation of the gospel since God’s desire was to save all people…The supposed universalism of v 4, however, has led to much theological reflection throughout the history of the church. Some have tried to distinguish θέλεiv, “to wish,” in v 4 (as an “instructive desire”) from βουλέσθαι, “to intend” (a mental decision…and on the basis of this argue that v 4 does not designate an absolute divine will…Although there are some examples where these original meanings are still present, and while there is much to be said for distinguishing between God’s preference and what he wills to accomplish, it is the context that determines meaning and not the choice of words (G. Schrenk, TDNT 1:629-32; Marshall, “Universal Grace,” 55-57). In 2 Pet 3:9 the author uses βουλέσθαι to say that God does “not wish that any should perish.” The theological issue must thus be resolved by reflection on the nature of God and the context of the passage (see further G. Schrenk, TDNT 3:44-62).
Usey (“Christology”) rightly emphasizes that the “Christology is in the service of paraenesis” (12). The passage teaches that the church should pray for everyone, including rulers and Gentiles in general, since Christ died for them in line with God’s salvific design. This joining of exhortation and theology, of Christology supporting paraenesis, is also illustrated in Phil 2:1-11 where Paul calls the Philippians to practice humility (2:1-4) by having the same mind as did Christ who, being in the form of God, “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself” (2:5-11).”[6]
Note the hermeneutical observation Mounce states above. “…it is the context that determines meaning and not the choice of words…The theological issue must thus be resolved by reflection on the nature of God and the context of the passage.” These are important hermeneutical observations and principles. I have elaborated on them extensively in previous chapters on this site.
Contextually, then, Paul states in 1:15, “Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners…” (NIV, cf. 1 Jn. 2:2). No artificial limitation can be imposed here, as if Paul was meaning to say, “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, that is, those sinners whom God elected and predestined to be saved.” Surely, such a meaning, which is consistent with Calvinism, is reading Calvinism into the text (eisegesis). That would not be proper exegesis; that is, letting the text speak its own message to the reader. “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” We are all sinners. Christ Jesus came to save us all! That statement “deserves full acceptance.” Calvinists refuse to accept it.
Note verse 5. “For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus…” (CSB). Here is the rationale for the scope of salvation being universal. There is just one God. Therefore, God is the God of all people, and if he is love, which he is, he has a loving concern for all his creatures who are the same in their lost condition (Jn. 3:16; Rom. 5:8). Hence, there is “one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.” So, this singular God and this singular mediator being over all people, places the same need for salvation on all people. Now note 6a, where Paul adds, “…who gave himself as a ransom for all…” (1 Jn. 1: 2; 3:16; 4:7-21). These words, contrary to Calvinism, are clear. Jesus has ransomed all people, that is, provided salvation for all persons.
Note also that by rejecting “faith and a good conscience,” Hymenaeus and Alexander “made shipwreck of their faith.” And Paul handed them “over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme” (1 Tim. 1:19-20, ESV). If this is an instance of apostasy, as is very likely, then the Calvinist’s doctrine of unconditional election has been falsified.
James D. G. Dunn writes on 1 Timothy 2:1-7,
“After the initial charge to Timothy, the primary emphasis seems to be to stress the breadth of concern that Christians could express (vv. 1-2), and precisely (v. 3) as a reflection of God’s concern (vv. 4-6). The key word here is “all”; prayers should be made for all (v. 1), particularly all in authority (v. 2), for God wants all to be saved (v. 4), and Christ Jesus gave himself as a ransom for all (v. 6). This, too, is the gospel Paul has been appointed to preach (v.7).
There could be several reasons why this emphasis was given such high prominence (“first of all” (v. 1). (1) It set the gospel in still sharper contrast with the other teachings already attacked (1:37, 10-11, 19); by implication, their concern was more introverted and self-centered. (2) It developed an emphasis that had been integral to the gospel from the beginning: good news for all, sinner and not just righteous, Jew first but also Gentile (“all” is equally prominent in Romans). The emphasis then, is not necessarily directed against Gnostic elitism; the older Jewish “exclusivism” (Jews only) could equally be a target. (3) It made clear that the young Christian movement was not an anarchistic revolution, but was concerned rather to be a positive force in and for society. This last concern provides the link of continuity into the next section; good order in the state leads naturally to thought of good order in the household (vv. 8-15; see also Titus 3:1-2).
2:1-2. Typical of the author is the heaping up of near synonyms – “supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings” (v. 1). The whole range of prayer forms should be used to express Christian concern. And this concern should be for everyone (the Greek denoted all human beings, not just all “men”). The language, presumably, is not literally prescriptive, as though such prayer was practically possible (beyond the mere mouthing of “all”). Rather, it is indicative that Christian concern should exclude no one.”
“…2:3-4. Such concern for others and for rulers is not merely pragmatic policy but a theological necessity. It is fine and acceptable to God (the primary criterion), because “God our Savior” is not only “our Savior.” There follows a statement that is as clear as any assertion of “Christian universalism”: God wills the salvation of everyone. The God who wished to save Paul, “chief of sinners” (1:15), could hardly want anything less for everyone else (v. 4); the earlier Paul had spoken with equal boldness (Rom. 11:32).
The traditional way of squaring this affirmation with the awareness of how few actually accept the gospel has been to distinguish between God’s general will or desire and God’s active determination of outcomes or permissive will in the face of human intransigence. But whatever the theological complications involved, it is important to recognize that the bottom line for the writer is God’s concern for the salvation of everyone. The wholeness of the salvation in mind is indicated also in the complementary phrase “to come to knowledge of the truth” (v. 4), a phrase that appears regularly in the Pastorals (e.g., v. 4; 4:3; 2 Tim. 2:25; Titus 1:1). Salvation includes a knowing, both intellectual, and existential, and awareness and acknowledgement of the reality of oneself and of the world.”
Dunn continues, observing how Paul grounds his “Christian universalism.”
“The ground for this theological claim is given in another creedal fragment, one of the most striking in these or any Pauline letter (see also 1:15; 2:15; 3:16; 2 Tim 1:9-10; 2:11-13; Titus 3:4-7). The fact that God is one (the primary Jewish confession, Shema; Deut 6:4) leads inevitably to the conclusion that God is God of all (as in Rom 3:29-30) and, therefore, is concerned for all.”
Dunn goes on to make a crucial observation that is essential for properly interpreting John’s gospel regarding the unity of God the Father and Jesus. He continues,
“But the point of the creed is to integrate the oneness of God with the singular role of Christ Jesus (as in 1 Cor 8:6). This is the second affirmation of traditional Jewish monotheism (1:17); however lofty the claims to be made for Christ, that are to be held within that frame of reference. In a formulation pushing toward universalism (“gave himself a ransom for all”), the limitation of effective mediation to Christ Jesus is not to exclude from salvation those who have not heard of Christ, but to affirm that effective salvation, wherever it is experienced, will be found to have been mediated through Christ. We may compare John 1:9 (the Word enlightens everyone) with John 14:6 (Jesus said, “No one comes to the Father except through me”). Particularly striking is the repeated antithesis between God and humankind: Christ comes from the side of human beings to act as mediator on their behalf of God (cf. 1:15). The thought is of a piece with Paul’s earlier Adam Christology: Christ is the second or last “man” who more than rectifies the damage done by the first (Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:21-22, 45-49).
The second half of the creedal form echoes several earlier versions (Mark 10:45; Gal 1:4; 2:20; Eph 5:2, 25). The imagery is of something or someone given in place of others to secure their liberty (though 2 Tim 2:11 indicates that the imagery should not be over pressed). But the key linking word is again “all.” The importance of the text is obvious for the old dispute about the scope of the atonement between Calvinists (atonement limited to the elect) and Arminians (atonement for all who will).”[7]
Yes, the importance of this text for this dispute is obvious. It obviously supports the non-Calvinist view of the atonement and refutes the Calvinist view. Just more powerful biblical evidence, from the writings of Paul, that Calvinism is not the teaching of Scripture.
Back to Chapter 16 – The Doctrine of Election According to Scripture
Footnotes
[1] M. Dibelius and H. Conzelmann confirm this point, noting that the phrase “knowledge of the truth” “in the Pastorals is a formula for Christianity, viz. conversion to the Christian faith” (in The Pastoral Epistles, Hermeneia [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972], 41).
[2] This is what E. Simpson, The Pastoral Epistles, TNTC (London: Tyndale, 1954), 41-42 does. He removes this from a strict soteriological context and suggests a meaning for sozo (save) as found in Mt 14:30; Jn 11:12; 12:27; cf. 1 Tim 4:10, in which God is the Savior of all people.
[3] J. N. D. Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 62.
[4] R. A. Ward says, “The NT shows that God’s will is not always done (Matt 6:10; 7:21; 12:50). The will of Jesus was not always done (Matt 23:37; Mark 7:24)” (Commentary on 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus [Waco, TX: Word, 1974], 45).
[5] William W. Klein, The New Chosen People, 170.
[6] William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary v. 46 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2000), 85-86.
[7] James D. G. Dunn, 1 & 2 Timothy, The New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary, vol. X (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2015), 389-391.
The Truth of the Gospel 