Exposition of 1 Timothy 2:1-7
Dec 21, 2013 8:44:14 GMT
Post by Colossians on Dec 21, 2013 8:44:14 GMT
This material is for the teaching of the Body of Christ, however the author reserves copyright over it.
Forward
The famous English preacher C. H. Spurgeon (1834-1892), a staunch Calvinist, once commented that, although he was a firm believer in Limited Atonement, he could find no support for such doctrine in the following passage of 1 Timothy. Rather, he felt that, if God had wanted to indicate that the phrase “all men” repeated throughout meant (merely) “all kinds of men”, He would have simply written it as such.
This apparent anomaly did not deter or dampen Spurgeon’s conviction as to the truth of Limited Atonement: he simply, and to the credit of his integrity, did not feel to tamper with the passage in order to get it to say what Calvinism taught. For the word of God is indeed sacred.
Below we show what Spurgeon missed – that by “all men” Paul does indeed intend “all kinds of men”, and that therefore the doctrine of Limited Atonement is not abrogated by the text.
The exposition is necessarily brief as it concerns itself almost exclusively with the understanding of the phrase “all men”.
______________________________
EXPOSITION OF 1 TIMOTHY 2:1-7
[1] “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; [2] For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.”
This “all men” here, is easily enough taken as a very general “everyone”, for it is followed up immediately with an example of those various in authority. In line with this, we all at some stage or other wave our arms in the air and refer to “everyone!”, without actually intending “every single person in existence”.
So it is not at this early stage in the passage, that Calvinism’s Limited Atonement incurs any significant bother.
[3] “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; [4] Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.”
At this point here however, Calvinism’s Limited Atonement starts to look weaker, for “all men” is now mentioned without qualification. For unlike the previous verse, there is no reference to various kinds of men to help ward off the notion that “all men” is indeed a reference to every single man in the world.
However by no means is the Calvinist assertion at the point of falling over here, for we (also) read that the obedience of the church at Rome had “come abroad unto all men”– surely not intending “every man in the world”.
And we read of the Corinthians that they were an “epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men” – again surely not “every man in the world”.
And yet even stronger support do we find in the epistle to the Thessalonians, for in speaking of the Jews, Paul states:
“Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved.”
: in introducing the category “Gentiles” without need to do so, it is clear here that Paul is not focused on the individual level, but the category level, with result that this “all men” which prior to Pentecost would have been taken to mean "all Jews", has now been 'updated' to relate "all kinds of men, irrespective of race, colour, and background".
And so we will read on with Calvinism's Limited Atonement still intact.
[5] “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; [6] Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.”
But by virtue of sheer repetition, together with the necessarily-indiscriminate nature of the God-to-man mediator notion here – the latter echoing the seemingly universal mood of v4 – it is at this point in the passage that the modern evangelical mind is perhaps overwhelmed to conclude that this “all [(men)]” is, at the very least here at v6, a reference to “every single man”, and that finally enough straws have been laid upon the Calvinist’s camel, to break its Limited Atonement back.
But to the contrary, it is in fact this very verse (6) which provides conclusive, irrefutable proof that the phrase “all men” used throughout these seven verses, is indeed a reference to all kinds of men (i.e. all men irrespective of race, colour, and background), and not at all to every single man. For it is this verse and only this verse which contains the logical key to the interpretation of the phrase.
For we are told here that there was a testimony, and therefore a witness as to the meaning of “all [(men)]”.
Considering this testimony then, we are told not that it testified (merely) to the simple fact of Christ’s giving Himself as "a ransom" (of which fact it was not possible to testify anyway, for there could be no proof in the (mere) outward appearance of the Lord’s crucifixion that such was indeed a ransom), but rather, to the complex fact of His giving Himself "a ransom for all", which is, and taking our Christian faith as a given, at least objectively verifiable.
Accordingly, we note that if this “all” stood for “every single man”, what would be required as objectively-verifiable testimony, would be the subsequent conversion of every single man. Else how could it be “testified” that He had given Himself a ransom for all? But if that which rather stood for “all kinds of men” (i.e. all men irrespective of race, colour, and background), what would be required as objectively-verifiable testimony, would simply be the conversion of all kinds of men, and in particular, the conversion of both Jews and Gentiles.
And indeed this is what we find, for we find in the book of Acts the account of the theretofore unheard-of conversion of thousands of Gentiles, and even the further falling upon them of the Holy Spirit, most notably the household of Cornelius.
And we are further told in the same book that such had been prophesied as the rebuilding of the (spiritual) tabernacle of David (Acts 15:14-16).
And because such a conversion would be in stark contrast to the theretofor-entrenched notion that God’s kingdom was confined to the Jews, we would expect to see some significant opposition from those first in the faith who had naturally spent their formative years in the old Jewish school of thought. And so at the very minimum we will note Peter’s resistance in the matter of Cornelius, figured in his refusal to partake of foods declared in the law as “unclean” (Acts 10).
[7] “Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not; ) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.”
And so Paul at the last confirms our rendering that this “all men” is indeed rightly taken to mean “all kinds of men”, for hot on the heels of his allusion to the testimony to such, he here reminds us that it was for such purpose that he was made “a teacher of the Gentiles”.
In concluding ...
It is perhaps not insignificant that God appointed this passage to be written to the man Timothy, whose mother was a Jewess, but whose father a Greek.
For what better way to confirm the required particular hermeneutic, than to (cryptically) signify it in the lineage of the one to whom the letter was written, one who most certainly could identify with the ‘coming together’ of the Jew and the Gentile, in one new Man?
"Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace" Eph 2:15.
Amen.
Forward
The famous English preacher C. H. Spurgeon (1834-1892), a staunch Calvinist, once commented that, although he was a firm believer in Limited Atonement, he could find no support for such doctrine in the following passage of 1 Timothy. Rather, he felt that, if God had wanted to indicate that the phrase “all men” repeated throughout meant (merely) “all kinds of men”, He would have simply written it as such.
This apparent anomaly did not deter or dampen Spurgeon’s conviction as to the truth of Limited Atonement: he simply, and to the credit of his integrity, did not feel to tamper with the passage in order to get it to say what Calvinism taught. For the word of God is indeed sacred.
Below we show what Spurgeon missed – that by “all men” Paul does indeed intend “all kinds of men”, and that therefore the doctrine of Limited Atonement is not abrogated by the text.
The exposition is necessarily brief as it concerns itself almost exclusively with the understanding of the phrase “all men”.
______________________________
EXPOSITION OF 1 TIMOTHY 2:1-7
[1] “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; [2] For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.”
This “all men” here, is easily enough taken as a very general “everyone”, for it is followed up immediately with an example of those various in authority. In line with this, we all at some stage or other wave our arms in the air and refer to “everyone!”, without actually intending “every single person in existence”.
So it is not at this early stage in the passage, that Calvinism’s Limited Atonement incurs any significant bother.
[3] “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; [4] Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.”
At this point here however, Calvinism’s Limited Atonement starts to look weaker, for “all men” is now mentioned without qualification. For unlike the previous verse, there is no reference to various kinds of men to help ward off the notion that “all men” is indeed a reference to every single man in the world.
However by no means is the Calvinist assertion at the point of falling over here, for we (also) read that the obedience of the church at Rome had “come abroad unto all men”– surely not intending “every man in the world”.
And we read of the Corinthians that they were an “epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men” – again surely not “every man in the world”.
And yet even stronger support do we find in the epistle to the Thessalonians, for in speaking of the Jews, Paul states:
“Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved.”
: in introducing the category “Gentiles” without need to do so, it is clear here that Paul is not focused on the individual level, but the category level, with result that this “all men” which prior to Pentecost would have been taken to mean "all Jews", has now been 'updated' to relate "all kinds of men, irrespective of race, colour, and background".
And so we will read on with Calvinism's Limited Atonement still intact.
[5] “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; [6] Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.”
But by virtue of sheer repetition, together with the necessarily-indiscriminate nature of the God-to-man mediator notion here – the latter echoing the seemingly universal mood of v4 – it is at this point in the passage that the modern evangelical mind is perhaps overwhelmed to conclude that this “all [(men)]” is, at the very least here at v6, a reference to “every single man”, and that finally enough straws have been laid upon the Calvinist’s camel, to break its Limited Atonement back.
But to the contrary, it is in fact this very verse (6) which provides conclusive, irrefutable proof that the phrase “all men” used throughout these seven verses, is indeed a reference to all kinds of men (i.e. all men irrespective of race, colour, and background), and not at all to every single man. For it is this verse and only this verse which contains the logical key to the interpretation of the phrase.
For we are told here that there was a testimony, and therefore a witness as to the meaning of “all [(men)]”.
Considering this testimony then, we are told not that it testified (merely) to the simple fact of Christ’s giving Himself as "a ransom" (of which fact it was not possible to testify anyway, for there could be no proof in the (mere) outward appearance of the Lord’s crucifixion that such was indeed a ransom), but rather, to the complex fact of His giving Himself "a ransom for all", which is, and taking our Christian faith as a given, at least objectively verifiable.
Accordingly, we note that if this “all” stood for “every single man”, what would be required as objectively-verifiable testimony, would be the subsequent conversion of every single man. Else how could it be “testified” that He had given Himself a ransom for all? But if that which rather stood for “all kinds of men” (i.e. all men irrespective of race, colour, and background), what would be required as objectively-verifiable testimony, would simply be the conversion of all kinds of men, and in particular, the conversion of both Jews and Gentiles.
And indeed this is what we find, for we find in the book of Acts the account of the theretofore unheard-of conversion of thousands of Gentiles, and even the further falling upon them of the Holy Spirit, most notably the household of Cornelius.
And we are further told in the same book that such had been prophesied as the rebuilding of the (spiritual) tabernacle of David (Acts 15:14-16).
And because such a conversion would be in stark contrast to the theretofor-entrenched notion that God’s kingdom was confined to the Jews, we would expect to see some significant opposition from those first in the faith who had naturally spent their formative years in the old Jewish school of thought. And so at the very minimum we will note Peter’s resistance in the matter of Cornelius, figured in his refusal to partake of foods declared in the law as “unclean” (Acts 10).
[7] “Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not; ) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.”
And so Paul at the last confirms our rendering that this “all men” is indeed rightly taken to mean “all kinds of men”, for hot on the heels of his allusion to the testimony to such, he here reminds us that it was for such purpose that he was made “a teacher of the Gentiles”.
In concluding ...
It is perhaps not insignificant that God appointed this passage to be written to the man Timothy, whose mother was a Jewess, but whose father a Greek.
For what better way to confirm the required particular hermeneutic, than to (cryptically) signify it in the lineage of the one to whom the letter was written, one who most certainly could identify with the ‘coming together’ of the Jew and the Gentile, in one new Man?
"Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace" Eph 2:15.
Amen.