Cfxtrjtrk

In Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, Baker books, in the literal translation section of 1 Timothy 2:4 is "who all [sorts] of men desires to be saved". I think that pantas here is being seen as similar as panton in v1. In v1 the meaning of "all" is "all types" in as much as we are given examples of those types, kings and others in high positions.

The ordinary people then, are being encouraged to pray for other sorts of people because God desires to save people in every stratum of society. How confident should I be in this reasoning? So many Christians quote this verse, it appears to me, to prove that God wants to save absolutely every member of the human race, but their understanding that not all are saved plus their understanding of this verse justifies their belief system concerning free will, God's will not being done etc: I have been an active Christian for over sixty years and I would vote this verse and 2 Peter 3:9 as the two most significantly misquoted verses in the Bible.

At face value, it simply means “God wants everyone to be saved,” without exception.

As for the verbs “want” and “will” as translations of the Greek verb θέλει, they are synonymous when used in this context. According to Oxford English Dictionary:

“will”

“want”

Therefore, the verse can be translated as,

Informal speech:

Who wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Less informal speech:

Who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Archaic speech:

Who wills everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Indeed, a survey of 10 major English Bible versions² reveals that the majority translate θέλει as “wants” (30%) or “desires” (40%).

I believe some controversy was created because the King James Version translated θέλει as “will have.” Rather than a conjugation of “to will” (in the sense of desire, wish; see above), this is a conjugation of the verb “to have” combined with an auxiliary of the future tense.

“will”

“have”

Altogether, then, “will have”—with God, who is omnipotent, as the subject of the verb—suggests that everyone’s salvation is absolutely guaranteed. It is no wonder then that some are perplexed by this verse.

To resolve the supposed conundrum, Thomas Aquinas commented on 1 Tim. 2:4,²

To understand this we must consider that everything, in so far as it is good, is willed by God. A thing taken in its primary sense, and absolutely considered, may be good or evil, and yet when some additional circumstances are taken into account, by a consequent consideration may be changed into the contrary. Thus that a man should live is good; and that a man should be killed is evil, absolutely considered. But if in a particular case we add that a man is a murderer or dangerous to society, to kill him is a good; that he live is an evil. Hence it may be said of a just judge, that antecedently he wills all men to live; but consequently wills the murderer to be hanged. In the same way God antecedently wills all men to be saved, but consequently wills some to be damned, as His justice exacts.

Ad cuius intellectum, considerandum est quod unumquodque, secundum quod bonum est, sic est volitum a Deo. Aliquid autem potest esse in prima sui consideratione, secundum quod absolute consideratur, bonum vel malum, quod tamen, prout cum aliquo adiuncto consideratur, quae est consequens consideratio eius, e contrario se habet. Sicut hominem vivere est bonum, et hominem occidi est malum, secundum absolutam considerationem, sed si addatur circa aliquem hominem, quod sit homicida, vel vivens in periculum multitudinis, sic bonum est eum occidi, et malum est eum vivere. Unde potest dici quod iudex iustus antecedenter vult omnem hominem vivere; sed consequenter vult homicidam suspendi. Similiter Deus antecedenter vult omnem hominem salvari; sed consequenter vult quosdam damnari, secundum exigentiam suae iustitiae.

Footnotes

¹ English Bible translations surveyed: KJV, 1769; NKJV, 1982; NLT, 2007; NIV, 2011; ESV, 2016; NASB, 1995; ASV, 1901; NET, 2006; RSV, 1971; NABRE, 2010
² Aquinas, ST I, Q19, A6, ad. 1. (p. 269–270)

References

Aquinas, Thomas. The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Vol. 1. New York: Benziger, 1911–1912.

OED Online. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2018.

The Bare Adjective

The Greek adjective πας means "all, the whole, every kind of," depending purely on context. Its different grammatical forms do not change the meaning, and are purely morphological.

The Difficulty of Being Dogmatic

But sometimes determining the intended sense is tricky—you can't come down on either side and dig your heels in, due to the sheer ambiguity inherent in the word, as well as the multiple possible ways of looking at the context as a whole.

For example:

Romans 3:23 (DRB) But now without the law the justice of God is made manifest, being witnessed by the law and the prophets. 22 Even the justice of God, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe in him: for there is no distinction: 23 For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God.

Here, in one sense, the "all" answers to "no distinction between kinds of people" (such as Jews and Gentile: Romans 10:13), not 'all men in history.'

In one sense this passage has nothing to do with whether all human beings are sinners, even. Read it about two times if that's not clear. But implied by it is the fact that something underlies the human creature in his present and historical condition which is common to all, namely, a certain 'natural state' (Ephesians 2:3).

Here, a passage commonly cited to prove absolutely all human beings in history have sinned doesn't actually have this in view in this passage: it says "for all have sinned" in answer to "there is no distinction."

So here, there is a fuzzy line between the two senses of the word.

One might argue that Jesus being one obvious exception to "absolutely all men" necessitates we understand this to mean 'all kinds of men without exception are in need of redemption.' (I've also seen this verse used to disprove Mary's being concieved without sin, for example.)

So what about our passage?

1 Timothy 2:1-4 (DRB) I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men: 2 For kings, and for all that are in high station: that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all piety and chastity. 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 to the knowledge of the truth.

There are a few valid ways to take this. Of them, the view that "kings, etc." are included so as make sure these are not exceptions to the universality meant.

Or the view which takes these to be particularly important, practical or relevant examples for a particular persecuted group of people (the Christian community under Roman rule, for instance).

Then there is the view which says "all" in at least the last instance means "all kinds of." This view takes "kings etc." as examples of kinds of people in the group of "all kinds of men," and "For... God desires all" to mean "For God desires all kinds of men, including even these, to be saved."

All are viable understandings. But as demonstrated with the example from Romans 3, it's not easy even when deciding on one to exclude the others. The word "all" is often ambiguous or even multivalent in meaning, which in turn further complicates things by yielding different ways of interpreting 'fors' and 'sinces.'

Appendix

Something must be acknowledged by both sides of the argument: man's freedom, and the 'openness to all' in these passages, however liberal, cannot be interpreted in a sense which means people could be potentially saved whom God knows in His atemporal knowledge of all things, are not saved and do not receive eternal life.

So even according to the view with the most freedom in man does not necessitate that the "all" ever meant "potentially even those who are not of the elect." And as such, no breach of God's sovereign knowledge of His elect, whom He has chosen, as if they could hop in unnoticed—He knew before the world was created, and His knowledge cannot change.

This cannot be true, since Jesus said:

Matthew 22:14 (DRB) For many are called [to the Wedding Feast of the Lamb], but few are chosen [eklektoi].

In 1 Tim 2:1, if "all people" were disconnected from the following phrase, it would simply mean "all people".

HOWEVER, 1 Tim 2:1 cannot and should not be disconnected from the following phrase. As is well-known (BDAG, Analytical Lexicon by Fribeg, et al, etc), "pas" when modifying a noun refers to all things in that class. Paul is quite specific about the class he is discussing because of the construction he uses - my literal translation of 1 Tim 2:1b and 2a follows (set out to show the hint of Hebrew parallelism):

v1b: on behalf of all people

v2a: on behalf of kings and all those in authority

That is, Paul is NOT discussing all people (the entire population), but only those who rule/govern. Therefore, I do not see any justification for "all [sorts] of people" because this would be misleading - only (in this case) for all rulers/governors, ie, kings and those in authority are to be the subject of our prayers for these people. (This is not to suggest that we should not pray for others as well, but that this is all Paul is discussing here.)

NOW By contrast - "all People" in v4 in not qualified. In fact, Paul's previous argument suggests that many in authority will not be saved but we should pray for them anyway. He then annunciates a general principle that God wants all people saved (but we know that not all will be saved). This same idea is repeated by Paul in other places (Rom 5:18, 2 Cor 5:14, 18, 19) and confirmed by v6.