Contexts for “Universalistic” Texts

 

 Part 2

 

(1 Timothy 2:4-6)

 

The purpose of this article is to offer a valid alternative interpretation to a verse that is often used to support the idea that Christ’s death on the cross was for each and every human being. It is my conviction that a better approach is to see the multi-national scope of Christ’s work according to the promise made to Abraham (Gen. 12:3 cf. Rev. 7:9-10), and the first century authors combating a spirit of Jewish superiority and covenant exclusivity based on God’s choosing their nation. Though Israel was God’s chosen nation that was never meant to imply every person in that nation was chosen (Mt. 3:9; John 8:39, 44; Rm. 9:8; 11:2), nor that God never planned to reveal himself in and through other nationalities – i.e. including Gentiles in the New Covenant “Israel” (Eph. 2:19).

The two respective views (universal atonement and particular redemption) have a long history, and are not new to the current Preterist movement, but both can affect eschatological views about life for mankind in the New Covenant age and so it is important to get both the CROSS as well as the Parousia correct. Indeed, where we fall short in understanding the one we will inevitably fall short in the other, and our message to the world will be at best compromised, and at worse yet another false testimony about the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is my opinion that the view labeled “Limited Atonement” or “Particular Redemption” is most in line with the scope of Scripture, and the big picture of God’s redemption of mankind in Christ according to the promise made to Abraham. The following will simply seek to establish context for one of the most common proof-texts cited against this view.

“… [God] who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time...” 1 Tim. 2:4-6

Can we through context establish that Paul is not implicitly teaching a universal redemption? I believe so. First, Paul is writing to Timothy, a half Jewish disciple (Act 16:1) sent to minister to the Ephesian church to which this letter was sent (1 Tim. 1:3). Earlier Paul had Timothy circumcised because of the constant contact he would have with Jews in Derbe and Lystra, and the ethno-centric Jew of the first century in Ephesus would no doubt also have a serous aversion to Timothy without this drastic step being taken. Also, the Jews who were already despised by the local Gentile worshippers of Diana (Act. 19:34) would not be so warm-hearted toward these pagans, nor the local authorities that thought little of this “sect.” Paul saw that Timothy would be the right guy to help bridge some ethnic and theological gaps in this city, and so stayed him there to minister and rebuke those who wanted to focus on genealogies and “be teachers of the law” (1 Tim. 1:7) to the spiritual detriment of the poor Gentile Christians.

We know that this community of believers started out largely Jewish, with about twelve disciples who were baptized by John (I assume “the Baptist” (Act. 19:3, 7)). For three months, Paul taught the kingdom in the synagogues (Act. 19:8), to which many Jews responded in faith. After some hardened their hearts he spent two years “reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus,” from which we can deduce that some Greeks as well as Jews may have begun to fellowship together (Act. 19:10 -20). By virtue of the fact that Paul later devotes a whole letter almost exclusively to the Gentiles in Ephesus (Eph. 2:11-12) correcting their notion that they are second class citizens in the kingdom (as opposed to first class Jewish believers), we know that the Gentile numbers would eventually be as significant as the Jewish.

Another point worth considering is that we also see in Revelations 2:6 that Jesus compliments this church in the last days for hating the practices of the Nicolaitans - a group thought by some to have been started (though it cannot be proved) by a “fallen from grace” Jewish proselyte deacon Nicholas (Act 6:5). If it were assumed that Nicholas was the founder of this group, he (and his ilk from Jerusalem) may have been zealous for the Law - having undergone circumcision at a later age to join the Jewish community (contrast this with Timothy who was circumcised later to spread the message of grace). If this is the case, we must ask how did this church come to “hate” such legalistic deeds (as contrasted with licentious deeds of the Neo-Balaams in Pergamos (Rev. 2:14-15 both of which the Lord hated)). What was it that transformed this church from a legalistic Jewish dominated community (this can be demonstrated without reference to the Nicolaitans), to one that apparently “hated” legalism?

As I stated, Paul left the right man for the job in the city to deal with the tensions between Jew and Gentile believers - the young man Timothy. Who else could bridge such gaps? He was in essence Jew and Gentile, circumcised out of love for the Jew, spreading the gospel with Paul out of love for the Gentile as well. He was mentored by Paul who emphasized his glorious ministry to the Gentiles (e.g. 2 Tm. 1:11; 4:17). He was not predisposed to hate either group, nor be ethno-centric, for he was a “mixed breed.” Timothy was taught the Old Testament by his grandmother and mother from his youth (2 Tm. 3:15) and so no Jewish sectarian could stump him with the Scriptures. This was the first step in nurturing this hurting church.

Secondly, Paul wrote a letter primarily devoted to the Gentiles in Ephesus in which he explains to them that they were not afterthoughts in God’s redemption plan, nor born-again illegitimately, but were God’s very own “workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared before hand that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10). He goes on to explain to them that they are now joined to the “commonwealth of Israel” (2:12) as one Body with the Jewish believers. He repeatedly emphasizes this point, calling them “fellow citizens” (2:19) and reminds them that of God he was predestined to be a minister to the Gentiles (1:9; 3:1-13). He admonishes them not to loose heart over their tribulations, and informs them that for this reason, “I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom THE WHOLE FAMILY in heaven and on earth is named” that they would be able to realize how much God loves His Gentile children (3:19). He realizes there are problems going on between them and the Jewish Christians and so explicitly tells them to do their part to behave in this “one body” with “one God and Father of ALL [Jews and Gentiles] who is above ALL [people from every nation], and through ALL [Jew and Gentile believer], and in YOU ALL [Christians from the JEWS and GENTILES]” (4:4-6) (unless one believes that God is in every individual, but I think I‘ve shown from the context that that is untenable - or at least an unlikely interpretation).

Lastly, Paul wrote specifically to Timothy about how to handle among other things the Jewish (or Jewish sympathizing) Christians in Ephesus who “desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm” (1 Tm.1:7-8). Timothy was instructed to “wage the good warfare” at Ephesus with the pure gospel of Christ in those last times when some would depart from the faith and speak lies to others, “forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth” (1:18, 4:1-3). This then is the broader context of Paul’s first letter to Timothy, and quite frankly the broader context of much of the first century, i.e. ethno-centric Jews consigning Gentiles to second-class citizens in God’s kingdom (keeping them in their “Gentile court” outside the temple) and Jesus, Paul, et al. correcting them with doctrines such as the one to the ethno-centric Jewish teacher of Israel Nicodemus, “for God so loves the WORLD [Jews and Gentiles] that WHOSOEVER [Jew or Gentile] believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

Consequently, why would it be thought strange when we see that in Eph. 4:4-6 “all” means Jew and Gentile Christians, and that the broader context of Paul’s letter to Timothy in Ephesus could easily support this contention? Moreover, the qualifiers to the “all” of 1 Tim. 2:4 are blaring out at us in 3D Technicolor. Paul shows that he means all TYPES of people when he immediately adds, “for kings and all who are in authority.” Now if Paul simply meant all individuals, wouldn’t that necessarily cover the king? But the point is that they were to “pray for those [in this case Gentiles] who persecute you.” If Paul literally meant for them to pray for every individual (if that’s who God supposedly desired to save) wouldn’t that require knowing everybody, or at least a lot of time on one‘s hands. I must admit, I pray for a lot of people, but I can’t imagine that God is going to grant my request to save EVERY individual. But on top of this, Paul - after telling them to pray for ALL [types of] MEN (like GENTILE kings) -- reiterates to these ethno-centric legalists that this pleases God who wants ALL [types of] MEN (and woman) to be saved, and how does he put the last nail in the coffin of their bigoted, discriminatory, anti-authority/anti-Gentile prayer life? First, in verse 5, he appeals to the mediatorial work of Christ for ALL men (and where have we heard about this ethno-inclusive gospel that was to be testified about “in due time” more clearly than in Ephesians 3:1-7 regarding this “mystery” concerning the Gentile elects’ redemption). He further appeals to his own Christ commissioned Apostolic ministry, “for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle - I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying - a teacher OF THE GENTILES in faith and truth.” (2:7).

In light of the context, Universalists ought to take another look at what Paul’s point is in this particular verse. Paul saying, “God wants SOME to be saved” or "a ransom for SOME," would completely defeat his point, and add fuel to the fire already in Ephesus (who already believed God wanted some to be saved - i.e. the faithful JEW). As Preterists, we of all people know that words like “world” “earth” “all” etc. are often qualified by the context. Is it possible that the same thing is going on in 1 Tm. 2:4? I believe I have provided sufficient contextual evidence based on exegesis to support the case for a muli-national (without implying "omni-individual") understanding of this passage, and do hope that those holding to concepts of universal redemption based on this particular passage are rethinking the use of it for supporting their beliefs.