Apr
9
Issues with “All Men” in 1 Timothy 2
In a recent podcast from Stand to Reason with Greg Koukl, a caller (beginning around 25:30) asked about Koukl’s understanding of the biblical doctrine of predestination. Koukl began with a basic definition of the word — i.e., to determine that something will take place before it takes place — and pointed out that a lot depends on how the word is applied in a particular text. He then began examining one of the premier passages that speaks of predestination, namely Romans 8:28-30.
“28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.” (NASB95)
Before long, the caller voiced his primary concern, which was, “If predestination is the biblical doctrine that God in His sovereignty chooses certain individuals to be saved, then that appears to contradict 1 Timothy 2:4, which basically says that God’s desire is that all would be saved and come to repentance.” Koukl then proceeded to show how this apparent contradiction can be reconciled. The next few paragraphs constitute my attempt at putting Koukl’s approach into a coherent paraphrase/summary.
We must first ask if the apparent meaning for one of the two has more force to it and the other is a bit more flexible. For example, is there a legitimate way of reading the Romans 8 passage such that God did not predestine anything at all to happen, and that He leaves the decision for salvation totally up to the individual? I don’t think so (and neither does Koukl). We definitely need to take a closer look at the 1 Timothy passage.
It seems like there are two conflicting desires here. God sovereignly desires to save some, and He does that via predestination (see Rom. 8, for example). But, He also desires to save “all” (see 1 Tim. 2, for example). It sounds like a contradiction. The Law of Non-contradiction states: “‘A’ cannot be ‘not A’ at the same time and in the same way.” Question: Is it possible to desire something in more than one way at the same time? Sure.
There are many passages of Scripture in which we are told that God’s will is for us to abstain from various immoral things (e.g., 1 Thess. 4:1-8). But, we are all guilty of at least some, either in thought and/or deed. Clearly, even Christians, then, can violate God’s will in this sense. This is typically known as God’s “moral will”. On the other hand, there are things which God has declared will be done and He makes sure that they happen. It is inviolable. This is typically known as God’s “sovereign will”. (Both Dan. 4:35 and James 4:15 speak to this idea.)
When we read the Romans 8 passage, it sounds like Paul is telling us what God has long ago, sovereignly determined will happen. It is very difficult to read it any other way. The 1 Timothy passage, on the other hand, must be an example of God expressing His moral will, which can indeed be violated. If it was an expression of His sovereign will, then everyone would be saved, as in the heretical doctrine of universalism. We know from many biblical passages that this is not the case. Romans 8 points out that it is only those whom God foreknew and called who are justified and glorified in the end. He personally predestined each one to election; or, put another way, He guaranteed that the individual salvation of each would be accomplished.
So, the apparent contradiction is resolved by recognizing that the Romans 8 passage is referring to God’s desires in the sovereign sense of His will, and the 1 Timothy passage is referring to God’s desires in the moral sense of His will.
Incidentally, there is something important to know about that word “foreknew” as used in Romans 8:29 (and elsewhere). Many people look at that and think it is talking about God’s omniscience — specifically, that God looked down the corridors of time and saw which people would freely choose Him, so He chose them back. But, it doesn’t say that God knew people’s decisions beforehand; rather, He knew the people beforehand. Foreknowledge is a sort of nuanced synonym for God’s sovereign plan of election.
Not surprisingly, James R. White addressed 1 Timothy 2:4 in his book The Potter’s Freedom. Having read and heard him teach many times about God’s sovereign will, moral will, foreknowledge, predestination, etc., I suspect he is largely in agreement with Koukl on those concepts in general. But, he makes a very different but important point about “all men” here that Koukl seems to have missed. He begins by quoting the verse with a bit more context:
“First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.” (1 Tim. 2:1-6 (NASB95); underlining added by me)
I think White does a great job of explaining his take on this, and I don’t want to leave anything out. So, I’ll just cite the next three pages verbatim from the book:
— — —
The first appearance of the phrase “all men” comes at the end of verse 1, and its meaning is unambiguous. Paul is not instructing Timothy to initiate never-ending prayer meetings where the Ephesian phone book would be opened and every single person listed therein would become the object of prayer. The very next phrase of the sentence explains Paul’s meaning: “for kings and all who are in authority.” Why would Paul have to give such instructions?
We must remember that the early Christians were a persecuted people, and normally the persecution came from those in positions of power and authority. It is easy to understand why there would have to be apostolic commandments given to pray for the very ones who were using their power and authority to persecute these Christians.
Who are kings and all who are in authority? They are kinds of men, classes of men. Paul often spoke of “all men” in this fashion. For example, in Titus chapter 2, when Paul speaks of the grace of God which brings salvation appearing to “all men” (Titus 2:11), he clearly means all kinds of men, for the context, both before and after, speaks of kinds of men. In the previous verses Paul addresses such groups as older men (v.2), older women (v.3), younger women (v.4), young men (v.6), bondslaves (v.9-10), and rulers and authorities (3:1). No one would suggest that in fact Paul is speaking of every single older man, older woman, etc.; he speaks of kinds of people within a particular group, that being the fellowship of the Church. Likewise, “rulers” and “authorities” are obviously generic classifications that everyone would understand needs to be applied to specific locations in specific times.
The same kind of usage (all kinds of men being in view) is found elsewhere in Paul, such as Titus 3:2:
“to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men.”
This should be connected to the fact that in the very commissioning of Paul, this phrase is used in a way that cannot be made universal in scope:
“For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard (Acts 22:15).”
Of course, Paul would not think that these words meant that he would witness of Christ to every single individual human being on the planet. Instead, he would have surely understood this to mean all kinds and races of men. Likewise, the allegation against Paul was that he preached “to all men everywhere” against the Jews and the Law and the Temple (Acts 21:28). Paul speaks of kinds of people in other places as well:
“A renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all (Colossians 3:11).
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28).”
So it is perfectly consistent with the immediate and broader context of Paul’s writings to recognize this use of “all men” in a generic fashion.
Returning to 1 Timothy 2, Paul then states that such prayers for all kinds of men is good and acceptable “in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” If we are consistent with the preceding context we will see “all men” here in the same manner as “all men” of the preceding verses: all kinds of men, whether rulers or kings (yes, God even saves people who used to persecute Christians, a fact Paul knew all too well). But there is much more reason to understand Paul’s statement in this way.
Almost invariably, proponents of Arminianism isolate this passage from the two verses that follow. This must happen of necessity for the questions that can be asked of the non-Reformed position based upon verses 5 and 6 are weighty indeed. Verse 5 begins with the word “for”, indicating the connection between the statement made in 3-4 and the explanation in 5-6. Why should Christians pray that all men, including kings and rulers, be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth? Because there is only one way of salvation, and without a knowledge of that truth, no man can be saved. Paul says, “there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all.” This immediately takes us into the meat of the discussion of the atonement, but for now just a few points should be made.
First, if one takes “all men” in verse 4 to mean “all men individually”, does it not follow that Christ of necessity must be mediator for all men as well? If one says, “Yes, Christ mediates for every single human being”, does it not follow that Christ fails as mediator every time a person negates His work by their all-powerful act of free will? One could hope that no biblical scholar would ever promote such an idea, for anyone familiar with the relationship between atonement, mediation and intercession in the book of Hebrews knows well that to make such an assertion puts the entire argument of Hebrews 7-10 on its head. For the moment, we simply point out that it is far more consistent with biblical theology to recognize that Christ mediates in behalf of the elect and perfectly saves them than it is to assert that Christ mediates for all (but fails to save all).
The second point is closely related to the first: the ransom that Christ gives in His self-sacrifice is either a saving ransom or a non-saving one. If it is actual and really made in behalf of all men, then inevitably all men would be saved. But we again see that it is far more consistent to recognize that the same meaning for “all men” and “all” flows through the entire passage, and when we look at the inarguably clear statements of Scripture regarding the actual intention and result of Christ’s cross-work, we will see that there is no other consistent means of interpreting these words in 1 Timothy.
— — —
I think both Koukl and White make great points of hermeneutical and theological significance. Regardless of which approach you prefer (or neither of them), at the very least it should be apparent that Romans 8 poses no threat to 1 Timothy 2 or vice versa. There is no contradiction, and it takes no violation of the text or context to demonstrate this.
