One of the primary ways the church advances the kingdom of God is through corporate prayer. And when God’s people gather at the throne of grace, they should not limit their prayers to the elect, but they should pray for all people.
Why? Because there is a wideness in God’s mercy. While his special grace secures the repentance of some, his common grace solicits the repentance of many. Thus, there is a real sense in which our heavenly Father desires, provides for, and pursues the salvation of all people. Such a big-hearted God calls for big-hearted prayers. This is the teaching of 1 Timothy 2:1–7.
Steering Clear of Exclusivism
Paul begins his first letter to Timothy by issuing a warning against false teachers (1:3–7). While scholars debate the precise identity and nature of the heresy, it seems to bear some relation to Judaism. In particular, the teachers appear to have pushed the notion that the “law” or torah was only for a particular class of people, i.e., “the just” (1:8–9). Hence, they taught a kind of “Judaizing exclusivism.” The gospel is not for all; it is only for some.1William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, WBC 46 (Word, Incorporated, 2000), 75–76; J. N. D. Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles, Black’s New Testament Commentary (Continuum, 1963), 60.
Against this false notion, Paul emphasizes that the torah is actually for “the lawless and disobedient” (1:9–11). Paul’s point is not to engage in another form of exclusivism. Rather, he is employing a bit of sarcasm to make the point that the law is for everyone since everyone is a sinner—including Paul himself!2When Jesus said, “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:32), he is not suggesting that some people are not sinners. Rather, he is employing a bit of sarcasm directed at the self-righteous who assumed they had no sin for which to repent. See William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles, NTC (Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 65–66; George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1992), 83. In fact, Paul goes on to use himself as an example of the kind of sinner whom Jesus came to save (1:12–17). Paul concludes this first part of the letter by exhorting Timothy to remain faithful to the truth and to wage warfare against the false teachers (1:18–20). That brings us to chapter two and the second main section of Paul’s letter.
A Call to Big-Hearted Prayer
Paul opens this section with an exhortation to pray (2:1–2), and then he explains the rationale for that exhortation (2:3–7).
The Essence of Paul’s Exhortation
In verses 1 and 2 we have the essence of Paul’s exhortation:
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way (1 Tim 2:1–2).
The phrase “first of all” is not designating the first item on a list. Rather, Paul is using the phrase to highlight the importance of this injunction. We might paraphrase it, “Most importantly.” If Timothy is to protect the church from veering into a false gospel and to keep her focus on the true gospel, he must instill within the congregation the absolute importance of prayer. There are three features about this prayer I would have you note:
1. The Full Range of Prayer
Paul calls for “supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving.” Paul does not want the church’s prayer meeting to devolve into a “petitions-only” kind of prayer meeting. Not just “supplications” but “prayers.” Not just “prayers” but “intercessions.” Not just intercessions” but “thanksgivings.” The list is not exhaustive. But representative. He might also have included “praise” and “confessions of sin.”
2. The Universal Scope of Prayer
Paul calls for prayer on behalf of “all people, even for kings and all who are in high positions.” To appreciate the significance of this point we need to remind ourselves that “kings” and people in “high positions” were not normally friends to the church. In Paul’s day, they were often enemies of the church and actively persecuted believers. Moreover, it is possible that the false teachers were discouraging the church from praying for certain kinds of people: “Don’t pray for the drunkards, they’re bad people.” “Don’t pray for the homosexuals, they’re bad people.” “Don’t pray for the politicians, they’re bad people.”
But Paul says, “Narrow-hearted prayer has no place in the church!” Praying only for people we like or people who like us does not serve the gospel of Christ. “Therefore,” Paul says, “I urge that the full range of prayer be offered for all people—including politicians.”
3. The Aim of Corporate Prayer
Paul enjoins corporate prayer for the following reason in verse 2b: “that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.”
I used to think Paul was spelling out the content of their corporate prayer. They were to pray for kings and rulers in order that those in positions of authority would enact and enforce laws that would protect their freedoms so that they could lead peaceful and quiet lives in godliness and dignity. However, there is another way to interpret Paul’s words which I believe better fits the context and goal of Paul’s instruction.
Paul is not telling them in verse 2b what they should pray for. Rather, Paul is telling them why he wants them to pray for rulers. Paul wants the church to pray for all people, including rulers because in doing so the church will “lead a peaceful and quiet, godly and dignified in every way.” Such a life adorns the gospel and makes Christianity attractive!3Donald Guthrie, Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC (InterVarsity Press, 1990), 84; Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 82.
I am not sure we adorn the gospel when we spend lots of time on social media complaining and griping about our politicians and our society. When our leaders and fellow Americans think about Christians and the church, the first thing that should come to their minds is “these people pray for us. These people want us to believe in Jesus and the gospel.”This leads to the bigger rationale for a big-hearted congregational prayer.
The Rationale for Paul’s Exhortation
Why should the church offer up the full range of prayers for all people—including people that are difficult to pray for? Paul answers that question in verses 3 through 7:
This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. (1 Tim 2:3–7)
Paul offers a primary reason for big-hearted prayer in verse 3. Then he offers three lines of evidence to support that reason in verses 4 through 7.
1. God’s Big Heart Affirmed
When God’s people pray for the well-being of “all people,” even those in authority, they engage in what is “pleasing in the sight God our Savior” (2:3). That is, God approves of big-hearted prayers. God is not a cosmic scrooge. And he does not want his people to be.
“But,” someone says to Paul, “How can we be sure that such big-hearted prayers are pleasing to God?”
2. God’s Big Heart Evidenced
First, such prayers reflect God’s big heart toward the lost: “who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2:4). In essence, Paul says, “Pray big-hearted prayers because such prayers reflect God’s big-heart toward the lost.”
God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked. God wants the wicked to turn from his way and live (Ezek 33:11). And since God’s disposition or propensity is toward the salvation of all living men, then the church ought to reflect that disposition in her prayer meetings.
Second, God’s big-hearted disposition is demonstrated in Christ’s mediatorial work on behalf of the whole world: “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time” (2:5–6). In the words of John 3:16–17,
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him (John 3:16–17).
Although Christ’s atoning sacrifice is only efficient for those who believe, it is certainly sufficient for the entire human race. And it is not just sufficient incidentally, as result of the infinite value of Christ’s sacrifice. It is sufficient for the entire human race because God ordained it to be so.4In the following quotes, one can see that Christ did not merely die for all men, but Christ intended and designed his death to be of such a nature that all would have an opportunity to be saved by it. By virtue of Christ’s “universal redemption,” as Edwards calls it, a door of mercy is opened for all, and this benefit was intentionally obtained by his death as something Christ aimed at. As it relates to the non-elect, Edwards says Christ’s incarnation labors, sufferings, and his resurrection were for their salvation in the same sense as the means of grace, the instructions, counsels, warnings, and invitations are given to them for their salvation. This is more than affirming a bare infinite intrinsic value and worth in Christ. “424. UNIVERSAL REDEMPTION. Christ did die for all in this sense, that all by his death have an opportunity of being [saved]; and he had that design in dying, that they should have that opportunity by it. For it was certainly a thing that God designed, that all men should have such an opportunity, or else they would not have it; and they have it by the death of Christ.” Jonathan Edwards, “Miscellanies,” in Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, 73 vols., ed. H. S. Stout (Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University, 2008), 13:478. “UNIVERSAL REDEMPTION. In some sense, redemption is universal of all mankind: all mankind now have an opportunity to be saved otherwise than they would have had if Christ had not died. A door of mercy is in some sort opened for them. This is one benefit actually consequent on Christ’s death; but the benefits that are actually consequent on Christ’s death and are obtained by Christ’s death, doubtless Christ intended to obtain by his death. It was one thing he aimed at by his death; or which is the same thing, he died to obtain it, as it was one end of his death.” Jonathan Edwards [1743], Documents on the Trinity, Grace and Faith (WJE Online Vol. 37), ed. Jonathan Edwards Center. Jonathan Edwards [1743], “Book of Minutes on the Arminian Controversy” Gazeteer Notebook, in Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, Volume 37, Documents on the Trinity, Grace and Faith (Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University, 2008), 10–11; “Christ’s incarnation, his labors and sufferings, his resurrection, etc., were for the salvation of such as are not elected, in Scripture language, in the same sense as the means of grace are for their salvation; in the same sense as the instruction, counsels, warnings and invitations that are given them, are for their salvation.” Jonathan Edwards [1743], “Controversies” Notebook (WJE Online Vol. 27) , ed. Jonathan Edwards Center. Or Jonathan Edwards [1743], Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, Volume 27, “Controversies” Notebook (Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University, 2008), part III. In other words, while God ordained Christ’s atonement to result efficaciously in the salvation of the elect, he also ordained that it provide the sufficient basis by which any sinner might be saved if he simply believes.5This view posits a “dual intention” in the atonement and is sometimes called “hypothetical universalism” by modern historical theologians. John Davenant, an English delegate at the Synod of Dort, held this position. See Michael Lynch, John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism (Oxford University Press, 2021). Davenant was likely persuaded of the view by James Ussher, as was John Preston. Others at the Westminster Assembly, such as Edmund Calamy, Lazarus Seaman, Richard Vines, George Walker, John Arrowsmith, and the lay assessor Francis Rous. See also Jeffrey Johnson’s position in He Died for Me: Limited Atonement & Universal Gospel (Free Grace Press, 2018), 17–32, 121–31 which falls within this “middle way” perspective as it used to be called. For an explanation of that label historically, see Lynch, John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism, 14–15. Thus, later in this epistle, Paul can refer to God as “the Savior of all people, especially those who believe” (1 Tim 4:10).6John Calvin argues that the phrase “Savior of all men” should be understood not in a soteriological sense but in the sense of Defender and Preserver of all people. Thus, God gives common grace to all people but special grace to “those who believe.” John Calvin, “Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon,” trans. William Pringle, in Calvin’s Commentaries, 21:111–112. However, Paul uses the term “Savior” (σωτήρ) ten times in the Pastoral Epistles, and each case it bears a soteriological meaning (see 1 Tim 1:1; 2:3; 4:10; 2 Tim 1:10; Titus 1:3, 4; 2:10, 13; 3:4, 6). Hence, it is better to understand “Savior of all people” in keeping with the idea that God wants everyone to respond savingly to the gospel (1 Tim 2:4) and has provided an atonement that is sufficient for their salvation (1 Tim 2:5–6). See Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, NAC (Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 136; Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, NICNT (Eerdmans, 2006), 312; Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd edition (Baker Academic, 2013), 761. It should also be observed that σωτήρ is a noun, not a verb. So, it does not mean Christ is preserving or saving all men (which are verbal ideas), but that it is his office to be Savior (noun). He is the one Savior to whom sinners should look to get saved. To illustrate the point, suppose a chauffeur arrives to a location where some people need transportation (noun). He then points to the car and says, “this has been appointed to be your transportation.” It does not follow that the people are being transported (verb). To be transported (verb), they must get into the car that has been appointed as their official transportation (noun). Some convert the noun σωτήρ into a verbal idea without realizing it, and so err. The point is that Jesus is God’s official Savior to whom mankind sinners should look for salvation since he is all-sufficient to save them. It is not teaching that he is preserving or saving them, even if there is some systematic theological truth that men are physically and temporally preserved/saved in this world on account of Christ’s work.
Third and finally, God’s big-hearted disposition is seen in the apostle Paul’s commission: “For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth” (2:7). Paul’s apostleship to the Gentiles was evidence that God wanted the gospel to be preached to every tribe and language and people and nation (see Matt 28:18–20; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8; Rev 5:9–10).
Conclusion: This passage tells us that we should desire and pray for the saving good of all people because God himself in some real sense desires the salvation of all people. God demonstrates this big-hearted desire by sending his Son into the world in order that the world might be saved through him.
He also demonstrates his desire by commissioning the apostles to take the gospel not only to the Jewish nation but ultimately to the very ends of the earth. Hence, we can say to each and every person we evangelize, “God has provided a way of salvation through his Son, and God sincerely wants you to repent of your sins, receive Christ, and be saved.”7We should not be timid to speak in this manner to every individual lost person. Notice this same kind of language in one of Edwards’s gospel invitations to the lost: “4. As great as this wrath is, it is not greater than that love of God which you have slighted and rejected. God, in infinite mercy to lost sinners, has provided a way for them to escape future misery, and to obtain eternal life. For that end he has given his only-begotten Son, a person infinitely glorious and honorable in himself—being equal with God, and infinitely near and dear to God. It was ten thousand times more than if God had given all the angels in heaven, or the whole world, for sinners. Him he gave to be incarnate, to suffer death, to be made a curse for us, and to undergo the dreadful wrath of God in our room, and thus to purchase for us eternal glory. This glorious person has been offered to you times without number, and he has stood and knocked at your door, until his hairs were with the dews of the night. But all that he has done has not won upon you. You see no form nor loveliness in him, no beauty that you should desire him. When he has thus offered himself to you as your Savior, you never freely and heartily accept of him. This love which you have thus abused, is as great as that wrath of which you are in danger. If you would have accepted of it, you might have had the enjoyment of this love instead of enduring this terrible wrath. So that the misery you have heard of is not greater than the love you have despised, and the happiness and glory which you have rejected. How just than would it be in God to execute upon you this dreadful wrath, which is not greater than that love which you have despised! Heb. 2:3, ‘How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?’” Edwards, “The Portion of the Wicked,” Works, 2:887. Though there is broad and general language, the instances of “you” references all of the lost in the audience, even those who finally perish.
Now we move on to some objections.
Objections to the Inclusive Reading
The main objection to the reading that sees 1 Tim 2:4 as supporting the well-meant offer of the gospel centers on the meaning of the Greek word πᾶς translated in verse 4 as “all people” (πάντας). Does the Greek word have a broader, more inclusive meaning—as the phrase “all people” seems to convey? Or does the Greek word have a narrower, less inclusive sense? Such as “all kinds or classes of people”? We do find examples of both usages use in the New Testament:
The More Inclusive Sense: “All People”
When the apostle Paul says in Rom 3:23, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” certainly Paul wants his readers to interpret “all” as inclusive of every human being without exception—except one! That singular exception is Jesus Christ.
When Paul says to the philosophers at the Areopagus in Acts 17:30, “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,” certainly Paul means every living human without exception.8Obviously, only living people can repent. Therefore, Paul does not mean to say that God is commanding dead people to repent. Yet, that fact does not undercut the universal force of text. Moreover, even those who have already savingly repented (believers) were once a part of the world in need of converting repentance. After all, the Messiah has come and has commissioned his church to take the gospel to “all the nations” (Matt 28:19) and is now commanding all the people who make up those nations to repent.
Thus, there are times when “all” is used inclusively to mean everyone. Nevertheless, there is also a less inclusive sense.
The Less Inclusive Sense: “All Sorts of People”
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus says, “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account” (Matt 5:11). Literally, Jesus says, “utter all evil.” He does not mean every possible utterance of evil without exception. He more likely means, all sorts or all classes of evil utterances. And that is why most English versions add the modifier “kinds” or “sorts” (ESV, NAS, NIV, CSB, NLT).
Another example is found in First Timothy. Towards the end of the epistle, Paul instructs Timothy to warn church members against an inordinate love of money. Then he gives the reason: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils” (1 Tim 6:10a). Literally, Paul says, “For a root of all evil is the love of money.” However, Paul’s point is not that every single instance of evil can be traced to greed. Rather, he is simply saying that an inordinate love of money produces all sorts or all classes of evil. Once again, most English versions make this plain (ESV, NAS, NIV, CSB, NLT).
Consider also Peter’s citation of Joel 2:28 on Pentecost:
And in the last days it shall be,” God declares, “that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy” (Acts 2:17–18).
The key phrase is “all flesh” (πᾶσαν σάρκα). The word “flesh” in this context does not include animals but is limited to humans. Hence, some English versions translate it “all mankind” (NAS) or “all humanity” (CSB) or “all people” (NIV).
Did the prophet Joel or the apostle Peter expect their audience to interpret the “all flesh” to mean every human who ever lived? Or every person living after Pentecost? Or even every human who was present in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost? I think one could make a case that Joel and Peter are saying, “God will pour out his Spirit at Pentecost on all classes of humans: sons and daughters, young men and old men, male and female.”
In summary, the term “all” may have a more inclusive, broader sense of “everyone” or “all people.”9I.e., “all of all kinds.” Or, it may have a less inclusive, narrower sense of “all classes or kinds of people.”
That brings us to the question: which of these two senses does Paul have in mind in 1 Tim 2:4? Is Paul saying, “God desires every human to be saved?” Or, “all classes of humans to be saved?”10We say “some of all” as Gill more precisely put it.
One’s answer to those questions will usually depend on how one interprets the reference to God’s “will” in verse 4. If one believes Paul is referring to God’s revealed will in verse 4, then he will normally understand the “all” as referring to “all people” in an open-ended, unlimited sense. However, if one believes Paul is referring to God’s secret (decretive) will in verse 4, then he will usually understand the “all” as referring to “all kinds of people”? Those who reject the well-meant offer argue for the latter. For example, John Gill comments on this passage and says,
It is better by all men to understand some of all sorts … since Christ has redeemed some of all nations, some out of every kindred, tongue, and people; and God saves and calls some of every rank and quality, as kings and peasants: of every state and condition, as rich and poor, bond and free; of every sex, male and female; of every age, young and old; and all sorts of sinners, greater and less.11Gill, The Cause of God and Truth, 94.
Even some who affirm the well-meant offer may, nevertheless, interpret the “all” of 1 Timothy 2 in a more exclusive sense as referring “all sorts of people.”12See Samuel Waldron, The Crux of the Free Offer of the Gospel (Free Grace Press, 2019), 77–78; George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, NIGTC (Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1992), 119. What is likely driving this interpretation, in some cases, is its implications for verse 6.
Arguments for the More Inclusive Sense
Let me offer some reasons why I personally favor the inclusive reading. If I do not persuade you on this text, that is okay. The free and well-meant offer does not depend on it as if it is a one-legged stool. Even so, I think there are good reasons for including this text as a support.
1. Note the subtle addition
As we have seen, there are instances when “all” refers to “all sorts or classes” (Matt 5:11; 1 Tim 6:10). However, merely changing the wording from “all people” to “all kinds of people” does not, by itself, make the meaning more restrictive.
For example, John Calvin prefers the translation “all classes of humans.” So, one might assume that Calvin limits the scope of the “all” in 1 Tim 2:4 to God’s elect. But he does not! In fact, Calvin argues that God’s “desire” in 1 Tim 2:4 is his revealed will and the “all kinds or classes of people” is open-ended and indiscriminate.13Martin Foord makes note of Calvin’s somewhat unique interpretation. “God Wills All People to be Saved – Or Does He? Calvin’s Reading of 1 Timothy 2:4,” in Engaging with Calvin: Aspects of the Reformer’s Legacy for Today, ed. Mark D. Thompson (Apollos, 2009), 179-203. See also Paul A. Hartog, Calvin on the Death of Christ: A Word for the World (Cascade Books 2021), 68–84, who thoroughly covers Calvin the verse from primary sources. J. H. Merle d’Aubigné also has some helpful remarks about Calvin’s view of the will of God in History of the Reformation in Europe in the Time of Calvin, trans. by William L. B Cates, 8 vols. (Robert Carter & Brothers, 1877), 7:90–94. In his words,
the Apostle simply means, that there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception.14Calvin, “Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon,” trans. William Pringle, in Calvin’s Commentaries, 21:54–55.
For this reason, those who prefer the “all classes of people” reading must transmute that idea to make it more restricted and limited to the elect. They must change “all classes of people” into “some of every class of people.”15Normally, to express this idea in Greek, we would need to add some words: τινας ἐκ παντὸς ἀνθρώπων. Then they must identify the “some” as the elect.16See John Gill, The Cause of God and Truth, 94, whom I cited earlier. Also, see John Owen, “Death of Death,” Works, 10:381–382. In other words, some convert “all kinds of people” to mean “some of all kinds of people” when “all kinds” may very well mean “all of all kinds.” The distinction, therefore, between “all without exception” vs. “all without distinction” can be misleading. Sometimes a biblical author may speak of all Jews and all Gentiles, which is the same thing as saying “all of all without distinction.” Gill is more forthcoming in stating his position, saying, “It is better by all men to understand some of all sorts.” Others are not as self-aware, and so speak of “all sorts” or “all kinds” when they really mean “some of all sorts.” Thus, they must interject “election” as a further restricting element.
They have to do his because simply saying, “God will have ‘all sorts’ or ‘all kinds’ of men to be saved” is too open-ended and inclusive. “All kinds of men” can simply men “all without exception” or “all without distinction.” But that sounds like a well-meant offer reading. Therefore, they must modify restrict the sense to “some (elect) of all kinds of men.”17For a helpful critique of this move to restrict the reading, see David Ponter, “Revisiting the Phrases: ‘All Without Distinction,’ and ‘All Without Exception,” Calvin and Calvinism: An Elenchus for Classic-Moderate Calvinism (blog), January 25, 2008, accessed on February 20, 2026, http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?p=12502. Such a move might be justified if the context demands it. But in my opinion, that’s highly doubtful.
2. The Context Supports the More Inclusive Sense
Remember, Paul’s burden in 1 Timothy is to urge the church away from a narrow, Judaizing exclusivism that says the gospel is only for some people, i.e., the “good people.” (1:8–9).Rather, the gospels is for “sinners” (1:9–11) and, as it turns out, all people are sinners—even people like Paul, “the chief of sinners” (1:12–16).
1) Pray for “all kinds of people,” not just “some of all kinds”
Thus, in 2:1–2, God is not telling us to pray for some of all kinds, but for all the particular people we know about within all those classes. The point is that we are not to exclude anyone from our prayers. The restrictive sense must engage in equivocation when interpreting the “all men” in 2:1 and the “all men” in 2:4. They cannot have the same meaning.
Some try to avoid the force of this by insisting that Paul is not really calling the church to pray for every person who ever lived, is living, or will live. After all, millions of humans had already lived and died by the time Paul wrote this epistle.18Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament, 3:281. Furthermore, it would be unrealistic for Paul to expect the church to create a prayer list with every single living person’s name on it.19Sometimes an absurd phone book analogy is used, as if the inclusive sense entails a need to pick up a phone book and pray for every name in it. Again, the point Paul is making is that if we know a King George who is persecuting us, we should not exclude him from our prayers, knowing that God wills kings and everyone else in various groups to be saved. If God wills all of all kinds to be saved, then there are none existing on earth in those classes that we may exclude, so pray for King George.
However, I believe that objection misses the point of Paul’s reference to “all people.” Of course, Paul does not expect us to pray for dead people.20Technically, even the Johannine group called the “world” does not involve those who are already dead, but the group who are in the process of “passing away” (1 John 2:17). It is also a group still capable of being saved, if they only believe (John 3:16–17; 12:46–4; 1 John 3:13), also a group that maliciously persecutes Christ’s church (John 15:18–19; 16:33; 17:14). The Johannine “world” is spiritually dead, but not yet physically dead. It is a dynamic group constantly changing (not static), as some come out of the “world” and believe (John 15:19; 17:6, 14, 16; 1 John 3:1, 13; 4:4–5; 5:4–5, 19), and some who finally pass out of it when they die in their sins. We may pray for the “world” properly understood, but we are not commanded to pray for the dead. Of course, Paul does not expect a local church to pray for every living person by name. Of course, Paul is not calling the church to pray for people who do not yet exist because they have not been born. Nevertheless, Paul’s aim is to remove any unnecessary limits on the scope of our prayers. He is using the term “all” in a way that is open-ended and inclusive.
2) Jesus, the only sufficient Mediator for all men
It is difficult to find election in Paul’s directives for congregational prayer (2:1–2). However, stricter Calvinists believe they can find it in Paul’s reference to Christ’s mediatorial work.
For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time (1 Tim 2:5–6).
However, as we noted earlier, it is possible to interpret the “ransom for all” clause as referring not to the limited efficacy of Christ’s atonement but to the universal sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. And that sufficiency is not just incidental but ordained, providing one of the grounds of the free and well-meant offer.
3) Paul called to preach to all kinds, not just some of all kinds.
Finally, Paul’s commission (2:7) supports a more inclusive reading. Jesus did not call “the teacher of Gentiles” to evangelize merely “some (elect) of all kinds of nations.” Rather, when Jesus commissioned his disciples, like Paul, to “go and make disciples of all nations” (Matt 28:19), he meant something like, “Go to every nation and keep preaching the gospel to everyone in those nations until I return.” It is the same idea Paul had in view when he said to the philosophers at the Areopagus: “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). Paul did not mean, “God commands only some sorts or some of all classes of people to repent”! He meant, “Every living human being to whom the preaching of the gospel comes.”
Conclusion
In closing, I see no good reason for interpreting the verb “who will” (ὃς… θέλει) as referring to God’s decree and the “all people” (πάντας ἀνθρώπους) as referring to some (elect) sorts of people. Instead, it makes much better sense to read this passage in keeping with the other texts we have studied which support the idea that there’s a real sense in which God sincerely and genuinely wants all people without distinction or exception to be saved—even though we know that God has not elected every person unto salvation.21Our praying (2:1, 8), giving thanks (2:1), living a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence (2:2), what is good and acceptable in the sight of God (2:3), testifying about Christ (2:6), Paul’s speaking the truth as a teacher of the Gentiles (2:7), our lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting (2:8), women adorning themselves modestly and learning in silence with submission and obedience (2:9–14), and being saved by continuing in faith, love, holiness, and self-control (2:15) all clearly has God’s revealed/preceptive will in view. Why then would Paul abruptly shift to God’s secret/decretal will in verses 4–6 when the entire context involves our need for obedience as modeled after Jesus’s obedience as Mediator and one who made a ransom for all? Moreover, speaking of God’s wanting men to “come to the knowledge of the truth” (2:4) so that they may also come to live “a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence” is different from saying that God has determined that some men shall come to the knowledge of the truth. If God’s decretal will is in view, how can that be our model for obedience in the context? We are rather to look to the commanding revealed will and desire of God as the basis for our duties.
C. H. Spurgeon agrees and chides those who interpret 1 Tim 2:4 in a restrictive sense. In a sermon on the passage, the Prince of Preachers comes to the phrase “all men” and remarks,
You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. “All men,” say they,—“that is, some men”: as if the Holy Ghost could not have said “some men” if he had meant some men. “All men,” say they; “that is, some of all sorts of men”: as if the Lord could not have said “all sorts of men” if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written “all men,” and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the “alls” according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor [John Gill?] who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, “Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth.” Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, “Who will have all men to be saved,” his observations are more than a little out of place.22Spurgeon, “Salvation by Knowing the Truth,” MTP, 26:49–50.
Rather than allowing his theology to have an undue influence on this exegesis, Spurgeon chooses to let his exegesis control and nuance his theology. As he goes on to say,
My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, “God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.23Spurgeon, “Salvation by Knowing the Truth,” MTP, 26:50. Other noteworthy predestinarians who interpreted the verse in accord with God’s revealed desire are Prosper of Aquitaine, Thomas Aquinas, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, Hugh Latimer, Wolfgang Musculus, Heinrich Bullinger, Augustine Marlorate, Benedictus Aretius, Robert Rollock, Henry Ainsworth, Richard Baxter, Robert Baron, John Davenant, Robert Jenison, Thomas Adams, Anthony Burgess, John Mayer, William Strong, Andrew Willet, John Howe, Thomas Manton, Stephen Charnock, Benjamin Andrews Atkinson (in Matthew Henry’s Commentary), Benjamin Grosvenor, William Prynne, Ralph Venning, Nathaniel Appleton, Benjamin Keach, Thomas Wilcox, William Burkitt, Jonathan Edwards, J. C. Ryle, Asahel Nettleton, R. M. McCheyne, Charles Hodge, Robert L. Dabney, A. A. Hodge, James P. Boyce, Lorraine Boettner, J. Gresham Machen, D. M. Lloyd-Jones, Iain Murray, J. I. Packer, Erroll Hulse, and John MacArthur.
Leave a Reply