Pages

Saturday, October 03, 2009

An Exegesis of 1 Timothy 4:10 "...who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe."

“For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.” (1 Tim 4:10).
In 1 Timothy 4, Paul is exhorting Timothy that sound doctrine and persistent godliness should be the thrust of our life because of the hope of the living God — in this age and the one to come. We should be confident in our creeds and ethics because of the certainty of salvation. Paul introduces verse 10 with the inferential indicator eis touto gar (For to this end), followed by the grounding conjunction hoti (because), which highlights his main point: "we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe." His main point is corroborated by his use of the perfect tense ēlpikamen (we have our hope set), which marks out this action. Interestingly, the only other instance of a perfect tense in this immediate section is found in verse 6:

“If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed (parēkolouthēkas)” (1 Tim 4:5–6).

This is an uncommon term in the New Testament, only used four times (Mark 16:17; Luke 1:3; 1 Tim 4:6; 2 Tim 3:10). In the context of following a belief or practice, this term means "paying special attention, follow faithfully." In other words, for Paul, following sound doctrine is not about a static affirmation of creedal statements on paper — it is an active, conscious, engaged conforming. (Paul would not have anything to do with an ambiguous Church "Statement of Faith"!)

Back to verse 10. In the next statement, and our focus of this article, what is meant by, "who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe"?

Many modern believers read this with the assumption that Christ came to earth with the intention to die for every single individual who has ever lived; hence, "who is the Savior of all people." But only those who believe will have his atonement applied to their sin; hence, "especially of those who believe." Therefore, many modern readers, particularly Arminians, believe this verse undercuts any notion of particular redemption and election, which is affirmed in Reformed theology.

However, we should probe more than a prima facie reading of this verse and ask ourselves certain questions. Is there a theological connection between "the living God" and its qualifier "who is the Savior of all people"? What does "all people" mean here for Paul? Does it mean all people without exception or distinction? And most importantly, how can God be the Savior of those who do not believe? Or is there some other element that has escaped our notice?

A universalist reading should be ruled out since that would contradict Paul's unambiguous teaching in his corpus that many will indeed perish eternally.

Next, the Arminian interpretation reads too much into the statement, "Savior of all people," with two assumptions: (1) that the term "Savior" here must mean "possible Savior" and (2) it denotes "every single person."

But if Christ died for all sins, then there is no legal basis for him to punish or condemn any sinner to perdition; thereby making the Arminian an inconsistent universalist. What basis is there to punish the same sin twice: on the cross and on the sinner. There is none.

In addition, the context here does not state what Paul means by "all people." He could refer to every single person, or he could refer to all kinds of people. Earlier in this same epistle, in the similar context of salvation and all people, Paul makes it clear that he is referring to "all sorts of people," not every single person who has ever lived on planet earth. (See my exegesis on 1 Timothy 2:4 here).

Some interpreters have suggested that God is "Savior of all people" in a physical-preserving sense — if you will, a "common grace Savior." And then he is a spiritual Savior, especially of those who believe.

This is an unlikely interpretation since there is nothing in this context where Paul defines "Savior" in these two different ways. Further, v. 8b provides a soteriological context, "the present life and also for the life to come." And in v. 10, the natural reading is that Paul uses the same meaning for "Savior" for humanity in general, and believers in particular.

The most plausible interpretation of this verse is what I call the Monotheistic-Exclusivism Interpretation. What Paul is saying is that God (and by extension Christ as Redeemer) is the only true Savior in the world, therefore humanity cannot find any other competing Savior outside of the living God. They have no other Savior to turn to.

It is not by mistake that the phrase "living God," a term that suggests monotheism, is connected with this verse. This phrase is often found in the context of polytheism (e.g. Acts 14:15; 1 Thess 1:9; Josh 3:10; 1 Sam 17:26, 36; 2 Kgs 19:4). Since there is only one God who is alive, there is only one Savior for humanity to embrace.

Also, earlier in this same epistle Paul makes a similar exclusive statement that there is one medium of salvation for humanity: “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” (1 Tim 2:5). Here Paul connects this with the truth of "one God" with only one mediator, anticipating what he says two chapters later.

In addition, this is similar to Jesus' exclusive statement:

“Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6).

And in the same vein, Peter proclaims:

“And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12).

For all humanity, there is only one way, truth, life, Father, name, mediator, and Savior — especially of those who believe.

Finally, I want to conclude with another interpretation that is compelling. The term for "especially" is malista. George W. Knight III argues that this term here should be rendered, "that is," thereby functioning as an explanation or further clarification of the preceding statement. The translation would be as follows: "who is the Savior of all people, that is, of those who believe." So this interpretation does not view "those who believe" as a subset of "all people"; instead, "those who believe" identifies who the "all people" are. He writes:
The phrase [malista pistōn, "especially of believers"] contains the one qualification that Paul and NT always posit for receiving God's salvation, i.e., "trust" in God as the only Savior. Absolute [pistōn], as used here and elsewhere in the NT, refers to those who believe in Christ, i.e., Christian believers…[malista] has usually been rendered "especially" and regarded as in some way distinguishing that which follows it from that which goes before it. Skeat ("Especially the Parchments") argues persuasively that [malista] in some cases (2 Tim. 4:13; Tit. 1:10, 11; and here) should be understood as providing a further definition or identification of that which precedes it and thus renders it by such words as "that is." He cites several examples from papyrus letters that would seem to require this sense and that would in their particular cases rule out the otherwise legitimate alternative sense. If his proposal is correct here, which seems most likely, then the phrase [malista pistōn] should be rendered "that is, believers." This understanding is also in line with Paul's assertion that all sorts and conditions of people are in Christ (even at times using [pantes] ) and with his insistence in those contexts that all such are in Christ and have salvation by faith (cf., e.g., Gal. 3:26–28). NIGTC, The Pastoral Epistles, 203–4.


by Alan Kurschner

11 comments:

  1. "The most plausible interpretation of this verse is what I call the Monotheistic-Exclusivism Interpretation. What Paul is saying is that God (and by extension Christ as Redeemer) is the only true Savior in the world, therefore humanity cannot find any other competing Savior outside of the living God. They have no other Savior to turn to."

    I don't even know why any true Christian would contend otherwise. It looks like it goes without saying.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You find this a convincing argument?

    Calvinists use to say that God has to be an actual savior in order to be a savior at all and that a hypothetical savior is no savior at all. But this exegesis makes "savior" a mere title, a reference to a principle saviorhood. I find this suggestion objectionable and posted a comment on this here:

    http://combatingcalvinism.blogspot.com/2009/10/comment-on-latest-reformed-attempt-to.html

    -a helmet

    ReplyDelete
  3. What a shock. A Helmet doesn't know how to read.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Peter Pike,

    Savior of all? Hypothetical? Actual?

    See here and compare with Kurschner's exegesis:

    http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=55

    You guys must make a choice. But better, you should abandon the doctrines of grace!

    -a helmet

    ReplyDelete
  5. But if Christ died for all sins, then there is no legal basis for him to punish or condemn any sinner to perdition; thereby making the Arminian an inconsistent universalist. What basis is there to punish the same sin twice: on the cross and on the sinner. There is none.

    If I may play devil's advocate here, it should be noted that this objection will gain little traction against a thoughtful Arminian, who may well reject the pecuniary model of atonement which it presupposes.

    This isn't to say that I disagree with this post in general. I think the exegesis is good.

    ReplyDelete
  6. DBT,

    the atonement reasoning here is not only objectionable to arminians. I don't see a point in it eiter. It's based solely on John Owen's syllogism which is very doubtful to be an accurate presentation of the nature of the atonemen in the first place.

    But according to AK's exegesis Christ is not just a possible savior, but a principal, theoretical savior of all only.

    Savior of all men is reduced to a title.

    But if we take it that way, how is this different from the universal, unlimited atonement view? The pivotal question that arises here is: Is he, or isn't he? If all men "have no other savior to turn to" does this mean that Christ is indeed everyone's savior? If yes, I see no difference between the arminian "possible-savior-view", for what would be the difference? But if no, then the title "Savior of all" is meaningless and empty.

    What else would the title "Savior of all" imply than the reality of an unlimited atonement?

    But another thing is odd here: Kurschner first points out that Paul treats "all men" as all sorts of men. But then his interpretation, which he calls monotheistic exclusivism, does in deed understand "all men" as literally "each and every person".

    -a helmet

    ReplyDelete
  7. helmet,

    You have confused two things. First you said:

    But according to AK's exegesis Christ is not just a possible savior..."

    That is an illogical conclusion. I argued that God is the only one who can save. This does not necessarily infer that therefore God is a possible Savior for every single individual.

    If there is only one way to the Father, that does not require that there is a possibility that everyone will be saved.

    If there is only one Name under heaven by which Man must be saved, does this require that God is a possible Savior? or unlimited atonement? According to you, it does, but this is not a logical inference.

    So your reasoning is not only unsound, but invalid.

    Second, you said"

    "Kurschner first points out that Paul treats "all men" as all sorts of men. But then his interpretation, which he calls monotheistic exclusivism, does in deed understand "all men" as literally "each and every person".

    I argued that Paul treats 1 Tim 2:4 as "all sorts of men." And so he probably has the same thing in mind here. But it makes no difference in 1 Tim 4:10 if he is talking about every individual or sorts of people -- there is only one Savior for every single individual and all sorts of people.

    Thereby it is a irrelevant element in my argumentation.

    ReplyDelete
  8. For me, one of the best "Old" Testimonies of this Truth about "all" comes from Jeremiah:::>

    Jer 3:12 Go, and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, "'Return, faithless Israel, declares the LORD. I will not look on you in anger, for I am merciful, declares the LORD; I will not be angry forever.
    Jer 3:13 Only acknowledge your guilt, that you rebelled against the LORD your God and scattered your favors among foreigners under every green tree, and that you have not obeyed my voice, declares the LORD.
    Jer 3:14 Return, O faithless children, declares the LORD; for I am your master; I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion.
    Jer 3:15 "'And I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding.
    Jer 3:16 And when you have multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, declares the LORD, they shall no more say, "The ark of the covenant of the LORD." It shall not come to mind or be remembered or missed; it shall not be made again.
    Jer 3:17 At that time Jerusalem shall be called the throne of the LORD, and all nations shall gather to it, to the presence of the LORD in Jerusalem, and they shall no more stubbornly follow their own evil heart.

    Just two points of the many one can extract from those Words of the Prophet are,

    one, He takes people out of groups or families, cf verse 14,

    two, you see in verse 17 clearly the word "all" is used not meaning all people, but as the previous verses clearly indicate, from all people groups and families there shall be formed a people group who's heart is no longer evil.

    Again, as with all Salvation, God saves "His" people from their sins.

    Christ did not come to save all people. He came to save "all" His people from their sins as these verses, as well, indicate:::>

    Mat 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

    and

    Rev 1:4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne,
    Rev 1:5 and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood
    Rev 1:6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
    Rev 1:7 Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.

    If Jesus came to save "all" how come "all" tribes of the earth will wail on account of Him when He comes to judge the earth?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hello AK,

    I said in the previous comment:
    "according to AK's exegesis Christ is not just a possible savior, but a principal, theoretical savior of all only."

    You argued that God is the only one who can save.

    Okay, I didn't mean
    "principal savior"

    but

    "savior in principle" or theoretical savior.

    As I understand your point, the "savior of all men" isn't an actual savior of all men. That's what I meant by savior in principle or hypothetical savior.

    This does not necessarily infer that therefore God is a possible Savior for every single individual.

    But this is a strange understanding of the very phrase "who is the savior of all men", if there is an inherent impossibility involved.

    If there is only one way to the Father, that does not require that there is a possibility that everyone will be saved.

    I don't understand how "savior of all men" can entail an inherent impossibility of salvation. Unless you adopt the "all classes of men" understanding.

    If there is only one Name under heaven by which Man must be saved, does this require that God is a possible Savior? or unlimited atonement? According to you, it does, but this is not a logical inference.

    But you said the expression "savior of all men" is used to indicate that all men "have no other savior to turn to" because the living God is the only one.

    If they have no other savior to turn to (to which I agree), then this implies that the living God must be at least a possible savior or else that's all very implausible to say the least. They wouldn't only have no alternative, but no savior at all!

    Now, regarding the meaning of "all men" you said:

    the context here does not state what Paul means by "all people."

    And this brings us to the crucial issue here, because this is objectionable. We can derive from the context what people the author has in mind here. The following contemplations are helpful.

    The purpose of the letter is pastoral. The young minister Timothy is instructed regarding various pastoral issues, particularly the proper behavior towards heretics, apostates and other opponents of the faith. Timothy was facing hypocrites and grumblers (v. 4:1-2) and is exhorted to be faithful to the trustworthy saying (v. 4:9) the good news of the gospel, and to strive and labor because of two underlying truths:

    1) Unlike the dead idols worshipped by the false teachers and heretics, and the inanity of the old wives tales(v.4:7), the trustworthy saying is the word of the LIVING God. It pays to work for a living God, but it doesn't pay to work for dead idols and engage in exercises that don't contribute anything to the real life, which reaches out into the next age. The living God is worth trusting, hoping and laboring for.

    2) The struggle is not for Timothy's and the sake of the faithful ones alone. Rather the pastor is exhorted to put up with the heretics, because even these difficult fellows he must cope with are meant to be heirs of God's grace and hence, of His salvation. Timothy is urged to defend the truth against hypocrites and heretics and the basis for this encouragement (v.4:11)is the objective fact, that God as the savior is mercifully reaching out even to these persons ("all men") as well.

    Why should Timothy struggle with heretics and suffer reproof? What's the point in such efforts? The point is that God is not only the savior of the faithful who diligently follow the trustworthy saying, but the savior of the heretics and idolaters, too! The fact that God is the savior of all men is emphasized as the fundament of hope for the pastor that his work is not in vain and as the encouragement to strive forward in the ministerial and evangelistic work.

    So much concerning the coherence.

    In your article, you don't contemplate the question why Paul is making this statement in verse 10 anyway. Why is Paul even saying this in this context?

    ReplyDelete
  10. (contiue)

    Concerning 1 Timothy 2:4, it is quite the same. The christians are urged to pray for all men and in particular of those who are in governmental positions. Why are authorities explicitly mentioned?

    So "that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness." (1 Tim 2,2), because the heathen rulers were altogether enemies of the faith, a fact that didn't change significantly until the conversion of Constantine The Great. The christians were facing prejudices and persecution and had all reasons to worry about the authorities' tolerance toward them. Thus, the "kings and those in authority" aren't mentioned because Paul aims to hint at the various social and ethnic groups of humans, but because the rulers may serve (or thwart) the christians' pursuit of peaceful and quiet lives.

    However, like in chapter 4, why should the christian God care of the heathen kings? Why pray for those who are even opposing the faith? Because there is only ONE God "who gave himself as a ransom for all men.". That's the basis why it even makes sense to pray for the foreign kings in the first place and to expect God to answer these prayers. Otherwise there'd be no point in praying for one's enemies.


    Thus, the "social classes" meaning of 1 Timothy 2,4 is unwarranted as well.

    Greetings
    -a helmet

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi Alan,

    I just wanted to say that I just read this article by you, "Two Quick Apologetic Tips on the Trinity" and I thought it was magnificent.

    I sent it to Dr. Hutchens who wrote about the deficiencies of an egalitarian trinity on his blogpost here:

    http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2009/10/brief-note-on-mutual-submission.html

    ReplyDelete