1 Timothy 2:1–6
“I appeal therefore, first of all, for petitions to be being made, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, in behalf of all men, in behalf of kings and all those who are in authority, in order that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all piety and respectability. This is good and acceptable before our Savior, God, who desires for all men to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth. For one is God, one also is mediator of God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, the one who gave himself a ransom in behalf of all.”
The obvious question, here, is whether “all men” in verse 4 and “all” in verse 6 are truly universal and encompass the entire human race. The Calvinist view is that they do not. Some Calvinists interpret the “all” to mean people of all kinds or classes, and thus to “refer to the revealed will of God that both Jews and Gentiles should be saved”; such passages “imply nothing as to the universal intent of the atonement.” Others, having distinguished between the sufficiency and the intent of the atonement, suggest that this passage refers to its sufficiency for all: “Owen remarks that [1 Tim. 2:6] must be understood to mean that Christ’s blood was sufficient to be made a ransom for all, to be made a price for all.”
Shedd, with Owen, is at least due credit for recognizing that “all” means “all” in the passage. No wonder he proceeds, therefore, to say that “Atonement must be distinguished from redemption,” and that “Atonement is unlimited, and redemption is limited”—a statement an Arminian might well agree with, especially in light of Shedd’s insistence that redemption “includes the application of the atonement.”
Arminians insist, however, that this passage indicates a provision for universal redemption. As Sailer notes, “The context … is universalistic throughout.” To summarize his treatment in loco,
(1) the passage opens with appeal to believers to pray for all men, which must be broader than believers since it includes kings and all in authority;
(2) this is based on God’s desire that all men be saved;
(3) this in turn reflects that there is one God and one mediator between God and men, again a universal emphasis;
(4) and this in turn rests on the fact that the one mediator gave himself a ransom for all. He concludes by observing that “The context demands a universal application.” His exegesis is convincing.
To simplify: in the passage at hand we find:
(1) prayers for all
(2) desire for all
(3) ransom for all.
Those who would interpret the “all” to mean “all classes” point to the reference to kings and authorities in verse 2 as supporting this view. In other words, we should pray for people at all levels, whether kings or commoners, princes or peasants.
Well, then, if we are to sustain that interpretation, given the unity of the passage, “all men” must have that meaning throughout.
In verse 6 we find that the “all” referred to are those ransomed. They must therefore be the elect. Consequently we must read the passage thus:
Verses 1, 2—the prayers exhorted must be made for all the elect among all people of whatever classes, including believing kings and authorities.
Verses 3, 4—the basis of this exhortation is that this will be well-pleasing to the God who desires that the elect of all classes of men, high and low, be saved.
Verses 5, 6—in turn, the basis of this is that there is one God and one mediator, Jesus Christ, between God and elect men, who gave himself a ransom for all elect men of all classes.
I submit that this is a consistent reading, using the Calvinist’s understanding of the “all men,” but that it is not coherent. The obvious lack of continuity between verses 1, 2 and verses 5, 6 is almost enough, by itself, to disqualify this exegesis. It is reasonably clear that Paul is not asking for prayers for Christian authorities only.
To those who insist that the mention of kings and authorities supports the understanding “all classes” of men, I would respond by saying that the passage as a whole makes better sense if God’s universal desire for the salvation of all and Christ’s ransom for all provide the universal basis that will include kings and authorities. It is the universal (all) that incorporates the particular (kings), not the particular that determines the meaning of the universal. On the grounds that prayers should be offered for all, Paul can readily include a request for kings and authorities in view of the fact that their good graces are needed for believers to live in piety and respectability and pursue the mission of the God who wills that all be saved.
Are there specific exegetical tasks that may help establish or undermine this view? One that occurs immediately is, Does Paul use “all men” elsewhere in this letter, and if so with what meaning? In this passage it occurs three times (verses 1, 4, 6), twice modifying “men” expressed and once with “men” left to be supplied.
The answer to the question is that it occurs three more times in 1 Timothy: namely in 4:10, with “men” expressed, and in 4:15 and 5:20, with “men” left to be supplied. Analysis of these is instructive.
4:10
… the living God, who is Savior of all men, most of all of believers.
4:15
… that your progress may be evident to all.
5:20
Rebuke those sinning in the presence of all.…
When I say that these are instructive I mean that they help us determine how to read the word “all.” In the latter two, Paul is speaking to Timothy in the direct light of his relationship to the believing community. It is obvious, as one reads the verses, that “all” means all those in that community (and not all men universally).
But the very sound of 4:10 is different, not to mention the specific verbal content. Even without the addition “most of all of believers” we would automatically understand “all men” to be all men universally. No doubt some interpreter would attempt to change our minds on that point; for that reason we are glad we have the added “most of all of believers.” That leaves us in no doubt, then, that “all men” means everyone. That He is Savior of all men speaks of provision; that He is Savior especially of believers speaks of application.
(I can hear some Calvinist arguing, as before, that if God is Savior of all then all will be saved. And I repeat, as before, that this reading is unwarranted. See above in this chapter and my answer to the Calvinist’s third argument in chapter 5. Indeed, this particular passage is helpful in answering that argument since it explains both how He can be Savior of all and especially of believers, to whom alone His Spirit applies Christ’s atoning work.)
This use of “all men” argues strongly for the same interpretation in 2:1–6. Indeed there, just as here in 4:10, Paul is speaking without the kind of self-evident limitation that “all” has in 4:15 and 5:20.
We are probably justified in extending our search for Paul’s use of “all men” to the letter to Titus, given that the two letters were apparently written at about the same time and with similar concerns and circumstances. In that letter “all men” occurs twice, both times with “men” expressed:
2:11
The grace of God bringing salvation to all men has appeared (or, has appeared to all men).
3:2
… showing all humility to all men.
Again, one needs no agonizing analysis to recognize that both of these are unlimited. In neither one is Titus being addressed regarding community life specifically. In both verses the subject is the Christian life in the midst of the world. In 2:11 Paul exhorts believing slaves to adorn the doctrine of salvation with right behavior because God’s saving grace toward all men has made its appearance and teaches godly living. They will undermine that grace with lives that are not commensurate with it. I will not argue the connection of the phrase “to all men” beyond saying that it seems more likely to be linked to the unique adjectival use of sotērios, bringing salvation: “For the grace of God for the salvation of all men has appeared” (I tend to think that the somewhat parallel ideas in 3:4 support this, but one cannot be dogmatic.) Regardless, the impact of the verse is the same and is universal: God’s saving grace, which made its appearance in history in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, is provided for all men.
In 3:2, as in 1 Timothy 2:1–6, the subject of rulers and authorities is again involved, and they are obviously not all (not even usually) believers. But in the face of unbelieving rulers, as also of all men, the Christian recalls his own formerly wicked life and manifests subjection to rulers and meekness to all.
The argument about 1 Timothy 2:1–6 does not depend on this usage in Titus, of course, but the usage, if it means anything, adds a measure of support for the universalistic understanding of “all men” in the passage before us.
I would conclude this chapter with what I believe is an important observation, although I offer it without hubris. All of us who handle God’s Word do well to remember that we do not honor Him with our interpretive ingenuity but with submission to what He says. To say, even to show, that a given statement can be interpreted in a certain way does us no credit at all. The question is always not what the words can mean but what they do mean, here. In 1 John 2:2 and in 1 Timothy 2:1–6, the most obvious meaning of “world” and “all men” is universalistic. In these cases, careful exegesis supports the obvious meaning.
Robert E. Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism
