Archive for June 29th, 2010
Shultz:
There are three statements in the Pastoral Epistles that describe the atonement as being for all people. The first of these is 1 Timothy 2:3-6, which states, “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.” In the context of 1 Timothy 2:1-8, Paul109 is encouraging prayer for all people (v. 1), including kings and those in authority (v. 2), because such prayer is good and pleasing to God our Savior (v. 3),110 who desires all people to be saved (v. 4).111 The reasons that God desires for all people to be saved are because he is the one and only God, and because Jesus Christ is the one and only Mediator between God and humanity (v. 5).112 Jesus is the one who was a ransom for all (v. 6), and the one whom Paul was appointed to preach to the Gentiles (v. 7). Therefore Paul desires that all people pray everywhere without wrath or dissension (v. 8).
The primary interpretive issue in this passage that impacts the debate over the extent of the atonement is the meaning of “all” in verses 4 and 6. Advocates of particular redemption argue that “all men” refers to “all sorts of men,” or “all kinds of men”; essentially this passage is stating that God’s desire and Christ’s ransom encompass not only the Jews, but Gentiles as well.113 On the other hand, advocates of unlimited atonement assert that “all men” means “all people”; God’s desire and Christ’s ransom are for all people without exception.114 In defense of the first option, appeal is often made to 1 Timothy 2:1-2, where Paul encourages prayers for all people, and then mentions specifically two groups of people, kings and those in authority.115 First Timothy 2:2 is understood as clarifying what Paul meant in 1 Timothy 2:1.116 Steven Baugh offers three additional arguments for this interpretation.117 First, the mention of one God and one Mediator (v. 5) echoes Deuteronomy 6:4, and demonstrates that God’s salvation is not only for the Jews but for the Gentiles as well.118 Second, the phrase “in his own time” emphasizes the eschatological nature of Christ’s ransom as reaching out to all peoples.119 Third, in Titus 1:1-3 Paul proclaims that his commission to preach to the Gentiles is confirmation of God’s purpose to include Gentiles in salvation through Christ, and this proclamation explains Paul’s zeal in defending his apostolic calling in verse 7.120
The second option, that “all men” refers to “all people” and not to “all kinds of people,” seems preferable, however, for four reasons. First, it correctly understands 1 Timothy 2:1 as instructing believers to pray for all human beings, and not various classes of human beings.121 Second, it makes better sense of Paul’s argument regarding one God and one Mediator. God is the only God and Christ is the only Mediator, and therefore God is the God of all and Christ is the Mediator for all.122 These statements are true of all people without exception.123 Third, the focus of Paul’s reasoning in this passage is that Christ is the ransom for all.124 Most commentators understand verse 6 as going back to the thought of Mark 10:45,125 which emphasizes the immeasurable greatness of Christ’s ransom.126 The fourth reason, and perhaps the most decisive one, is that this meaning harmonizes with Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy 4:10, which states “For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.” This statement is similar to the one in 1 Timothy 2:3-4, and it is extremely difficult to understand “all men” as “all sorts of men” in this verse; it seems clearly to refer to all people without exception.127 First Timothy 2:3-6 states that Christ’s atonement is for all people without exception because God desires the salvation of the all people without exception.
Shultz, Gary L. “A Biblical and Theological Defense of a Multi-Intentioned View of the Atonement” (Ph.D diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2008) 131-136. [Bold original, italics original; footnotes and values original; and underlining mine.].