God is Savior of All People, Especially Believers (1 Timothy 4:10)?

Paul writes in 1 Timothy 4:10, “For to this we labor and struggle, since we have hoped upon the living God, who is savior of all people, especially of believers.”¹ In what sense is God “savior of all people”? What is meant by the qualifying phrase, “especially of believers”? Are there two different ways or degrees or senses in which both unbelievers and believers are saved? Does this passage support universalism? 

Contextual Usage of “All”

Contextually the statement in question follows (and must therefore be understood in light of) what Paul has already affirmed in 2:3-6, “This is good and acceptable before our savior God, who desires all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of truth. For [there is] one God and one mediator between God and humankind, a man Christ Jesus, who gave himself [as] a ransom for all, the testimony in their own times.” 

Obviously, according to Paul, God wants “all people” to be saved and has thus made provision via Christ’s atoning sacrifice for “all.”² Therefore God is “savior of all people” prospectively in that he has provided redemption to everyone through “knowledge of truth.” Moreover, this follows Paul’s affirmation in 1:15, “Faithful is the saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am foremost.” In this sense salvation is made available to “all kinds of” people,³ even reprehensible sinners like Paul, but not without a faith response (1:16; 2:7) and enduring faith (1:19; 2:15; 3:9, 13; 4:1, 6, 8, 12-16; 5:4-15; 6:10-21).⁴

In 1 Timothy the adjective “all” is consistently applied, not universally but in a more limited, qualified sense (4:15; 5:20; 6:10, 13, 17). It is repeatedly employed emphatically when a certain point is being emphasized (1:15, 16; 2:2b, 11; 3:4, 11; 4:8; 5:2; 6:1, 10, 17).

Contextual Usage of “Especially”

But what is meant by the phrase, “especially [málista] of believers”? Some have interpreted this to mean salvation is granted to those who are not believers, which contradicts other clear passages of scripture (e.g. Mark 16:16; Heb. 11:6). If we keep reading, however, Paul himself reveals his intended usage of this phraseology. The superlative adverb “especially” can be interpreted to indicate a contrast between two different things, but this is not how Paul employs the Greek word málista in 1 Timothy.

In 5:8 the apostle says, “but if anyone does not provide for [his] own, and especially [málista] [his] household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” Here Paul is not making a distinction between one’s “own” and one’s “household” but is placing special emphasis on a particular obligation. Then in 5:17 he writes, “Let the well-ruling elders be considered worthy of double honor, especially [málista] the ones laboring in word and teaching.” Again Paul is not contrasting “well-ruling elders” with those “laboring in word and teaching” but is emphasizing with greater specificity what it means to be well-ruling elders.

In 1 Timothy the adverb málista (rendered “especially” in our English Bibles) seems to be employed emphatically rather than contrastingly. It narrows the focus and conveys particularity, thus comparable to “namely” or “in particular.”⁵ Whatever else might be inferred, the terminology in no way supports sweeping universalism.

Conclusion

If 1 Timothy 4:10 is isolated from its immediate context and the overall context of scripture, it can be misconstrued to convey any number of things. But when we carefully follow Paul’s train of thought, and interpret the verse in its much broader context of meaning, the statement is clear. The spiritual salvation God provides through Jesus Christ is universal in purpose and scope but conditional and thus limited in appropriation.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² John 3:16-17; Rom. 5:18; 8:32; 2 Cor. 5:14-15; Tit. 2:11; 2 Pet. 3:9; 1 John 2:2; 4:14. See K. L. Moore, “Did Jesus die for many or for all?” Moore Perspective (13 Feb. 2015), <Link>. 

     ³ The Greek adj. pas can idiomatically signify “a totality of kinds or sorts—every kind of, all sorts of” (J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT [NY: UBS, 1988]: 589); cf. 1 Tim. 6:10, 13, 17. In Romans the adj. “all” is consistently applied with particular reference to ethnic groups, not the unqualified totality of all individual persons. The overarching theme of Romans is that Jews and Gentiles stand before God on the same footing. Gentiles sin and are thus condemned (1:18-32), but they are not the only ones; Jews are also guilty before God (2:1-5). Whether Jew or Gentile, the obedient receive divine favor and the disobedient face God’s wrath (2:6-16); there is no partiality with God (2:11). All have sinned (3:10-12, 23; 5:12) = both Jews and Gentiles (3:9, 19), not just the one to the exclusion of the other. Moreover, “all” (both Jews and Gentiles) have equal access to God through Christ and are accepted by him on the same terms (3:29-30; 4:16, 24; 5:18; etc.).

     ⁴ For what it means to be a “believer” in the biblical sense, see K. L. Moore, “NT Believers,” Moore Perspective (26 July 2013), <Link>.

     ⁵ Idiomatically rendered “that is” (ISV); “particularly” (Mounce, NLT, Phillips, TLB). 

Related Posts: Religious Dialogue (Part 1), What Must I Do To Be Saved?

Related articles:

Image credit: Adapted from https://www.pinterest.com/pin/174584923034417835/?lp=true

To be scripturally qualified as an elder in the Lord’s church, must a man’s children all be faithful Christians?

     The relevant passages are the following: 1 Timothy 3:4-5, “one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?).” Titus 1:6, “… having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination” (NKJV).

     All would agree that the IDEAL scenario is for each qualified elder to have a plurality of children who are all faithful Christians. Unfortunately, the fallible world in which we live has always challenged and complicated what is ideal, and the Bible does not specifically address every conceivable situation with which we are confronted. This necessarily requires judgment calls for each unique case in light of general biblical principles. Here are some real-life dilemmas.

Multiple Children?

     What about a man who has only one child? Could he qualify to serve as an elder? While some would disagree, I believe he could. Genesis 21:7 states, “[Sarah] also said, ‘Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse children? For I have borne him a son in his old age’.” Here the plural “children” simply means one or more and applies to a single child. If an audience were asked, “Raise your hand if you have children,” surely the single-child parents would be expected to raise their hands. Note the following passages where the plural “children” clearly does not discount the parent of a lone child: Matt. 7:11; Luke 14:26; 20:28-31; 1 Cor. 7:14; 2 Cor. 12:14; Eph. 6:1, 4; 1 Thess. 2:7, 11; 1 Tim. 3:12; 5:4, 10, 14; Titus 2:4.

     Some would argue that a man with multiple children is more qualified to deal with differing personalities and inter-personal conflicts than a man with only one child. But this is a subjective perception rather than a biblical mandate. One could reason that a man with ten children is more qualified than a man with only two children, but obviously the two-child man is not biblically disqualified. While perhaps less than ideal, I don’t view a man with only one child as biblically disqualified to serve as an elder.

Faithful Children?

     What, then, does “faithful” mean in Titus 1:6? In light of the parallel description in 1 Timothy 3:4, a case can be made for “not unruly” in society and “compliant” while under the father’s direct influence. However, this interpretation is based on ambiguity and mere possibility rather than certainty. The more natural meaning, and surely the more solid position, is with reference to being faithful to the Lord.

     If a man has multiple children, therefore, must they all be faithful Christians? What if a father has ten children, nine of whom have obeyed the gospel and the other has not yet reached the age of accountability? It seems to me that this man has proven himself as “one who rules his house well” and would be scripturally qualified. What if he has ten adult children, nine of whom are faithful in the church and one is rebellious and unfaithful? Seeing that he no longer has direct control or immediate authority over his sons and daughters who have grown up and left home, he has still proven himself as a capable leader and can’t realistically be held accountable for the rebellious one who has resisted his direction. To suggest otherwise would be to impugn the Lord himself (cf. Psalm 107:6-11; Isaiah 1:2).

     Those of us who were raised by godly parents and are faithful in the church are testimonies to the way it’s supposed to be. Irrespective of how insubordinate we may or may not have been in the past, we exemplify receptive, moldable, compliant souls, as do our own faithful children. But this does not address the godly parents whose counsel is persistently rejected by the defiant son or daughter, not to mention any number of unseen variables beyond parental control.

     Now here’s where it gets tricky. What percentage of one’s children must be faithful in order for him to be scripturally qualified to serve as an elder? It is reasonably clear to me that if none of his children is faithful, he is not scripturally qualified. But what about 90% (as in the above hypothetical case)? While not ideal, I am not prepared to say that such a man is disqualified (assuming he meets all other criteria). What about 80%? 50%? 33%? 10%? Again, the Bible does not offer a specific, definitive answer to every conceivable, real-life predicament. Therefore, based on common sense, mature reasoning, general biblical principles, and knowledge of each unique situation, judgment calls have to be made.

Conclusion

     The only dogmatic statement I can make (and am compelled to make) is that a man should not serve as an elder if none of his children is faithful to the Lord. When multiple children are involved, the lower the percentage the more circumspect we ought to be. If I were to err, it would be on the side of caution.

     Consciences must not be violated. Unnecessary conflict should be averted. Commitment to doctrinal purity and the spiritual health of the church ought to supersede personalities, preferences, feelings, and opinions. For “if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?” (1 Timothy 3:5).

--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Train up a child 

Related articles: Michael Whitworth’s He Must Have Faithful Children, Jerrie Barber's Unfaithful Children and Elders 

Image credit: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ea/e8/2e/eae82e1fbc144aa4c05ad04da6c393e3.jpg

Questions About the Holy Spirit (Part 1 of 2)

Q: According to John 7:38-39, is the Holy Spirit given to individuals when they believe in Jesus?

     First let’s note the historical context of this statement: “. . . the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (John 7:39). The Holy Spirit was to be sent when Jesus was glorified, namely after his death, resurrection and ascension (John 16:7, 12-14, 28; 17:1-5). This was accomplished shortly after Christ ascended into heaven (Acts 1:4-12; 2:1-4). Later the Holy Spirit was indeed given to individuals in some measure (1 Thess. 4:8; 1 Cor. 6:19; 2 Cor. 5:5), but what was required by these individuals in order to receive the Spirit?     

     The point of Jesus’ statement in John 7:38-39 was not to detail what needed to be done in order to receive the Spirit, but rather to identify those who would receive the Spirit, namely believers as opposed to unbelievers (cf. John 14:17). But what constitutes a “believer” in the NT? He is not one who merely acknowledges the truth about Jesus (Mark 1:23-24; 5:2-7; Jas. 2:19), nor one who believes but refuses to confess (John 12:42-43; cf. Matt. 10:32-33), nor one who confesses but refuses to obey (Matt. 7:21; Luke 6:46). The Holy Spirit is given to those who obey the Lord (Acts 5:32). Thus in Acts 2:44 the ones identified simply as “all who believed” (lit. ‘all the believing ones’) had actually been baptized (v. 41) after having been taught: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (v. 38).

Q: Did the apostles receive the Holy Spirit when Christ breathed on them prior to his ascension? (John 20:22)

     The apostles were not to receive the Holy Spirit until the Lord was glorified (John 7:39), and he was not glorified and therefore the Spirit was not sent until after Jesus had ascended into heaven (John 16:7; 17:1-5).  The apostles were instructed to wait in Jerusalem for about ten days after Christ’s ascension in order to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1:1-12; 2:1-4).

     When Jesus breathed on the apostles in John 20:22, he did not say, “You have received . . . ” [perfect indicative] or “You are receiving . . . ” [present indicative], but rather, “Receive [aorist imperative] the Holy Spirit.” This statement instructs the apostles to be receptive to the Spirit when he comes, but it does not specify when he came. Why, then, did Jesus breathe on them? John did not see fit to explain it, but a couple of plausible explanations are the following. 

     1. Luke’s account (24:36-49) shows that when Jesus appeared to the apostles (to give the Great Commission) and said “Peace to you,” they were frightened, thinking he was “a spirit.” Jesus then showed them his nail-pierced hands and feet to prove he was alive and in the flesh. John not only mentions the Lord showing his wounds but adds that he also breathed on them (20:19-23), possibly to verify that he was really alive. 

     2. Since “breath” in the Bible symbolizes life (cf. Gen. 2:7; Mark 15:37), it may be that Jesus was illustrating the life-giving nature of their mission. In the previous verse the Lord had given them a commission, and in the subsequent verse he identified forgiveness of sins as part of their work. The gospel began to be preached, sins started to be forgiven, and the Great Commission was launched when the Holy Spirit was received by the apostles on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-41).

-- Kevin L. Moore

Related posts: NT Believers, Holy Spirit Baptism, Questions About the Holy Spirit Part 2

Image credit: http://stickyjesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/SJ-HolySpirit.jpg

New Testament "Believers"

     The New Testament was initially written in a language that is generally more expressive than English tends to be, and sometimes our English versions do not fully convey the depth or the clarity communicated in the original Greek text. This is not always a weakness of translation as much as a limitation of the English language itself.

     One of these translational challenges concerns the pisteuō word group. The standard rendering of the verbal form in most English versions is simply “believe,” which effectively limits the sense to an intellectual assent to a perceived fact. It fails to communicate, however, the wider range of nuances the term would normally express to a Greek speaker in the Hellenistic world.   

     The verb pisteuō has various shades of meaning, including the following: to believe in or be convinced of something (Acts 13:12; 1 John 4:16), give credence to (Luke 1:20; John 2:22), have confidence in (Matthew 8:13; 9:28; 21:22), be assured of (John 9:18; Acts 9:26; Romans 14:2), accept either tentatively (1 Corinthians 11:18) or without doubt (John 5:38, 46), assent with conviction (Romans 10:10) or without conviction (James 2:19b), trust in and/or rely on (John 6:29; 8:31; 2 Timothy 1:12), and entrust to (Romans 3:2; Galatians 2:7). Even though the same Greek word appears in all of these passages, it is clearly not employed in the same way and its usage must therefore be determined by the context.     

     Closely related to the verbal form is the articular participle ho pisteuōn. Although typically rendered “he who believes” (denoting one’s mental assimilation), the expression is more precisely translated “the believing one” (identifying who the person is). In other words, the participial form describes more than just someone who has accepted something in his heart. It categorizes a person who is receptive to the will of God, with the attendant requisites of commitment and obedience.

     Consider John 3:16 as an example. Does this frequently acclaimed “golden text of the Bible” include or exclude an obedient response to the Lord? The passage reads in English: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (ESV). It is not uncommon in today’s religious environment to hear this verse cited in an attempt to establish the widely held Protestant doctrine of salvation by “faith alone” and to further discount the essentiality of associated acts such as baptism. However, is it legitimate to separate a single verse from its context in order to constitute one’s entire system of faith? 

     If we take the time to read the whole paragraph (of which verse 16 is only a small part), it is hard to divorce obedience, including baptism, from the discussion. Jesus had already stated in verse 5, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” There is a twofold condition here for entering God’s kingdom, and the very next reference to water in this chapter is in relation to baptism (v. 23). Moreover, if we keep reading beyond verse 16, we see that the same Jesus, speaking to the same person, goes on to affirm in verse 21: “But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been carried out in God” (emp. added KLM). Is fulfilling the divine will contingent upon merely believing without doing, or is saving faith inclusive of an active, obedient response? By reading the Lord’s entire discourse, the answer is clear.

     The statement in John 3:16 does not actually employ the verbal form “believe” (as in most English translations) but rather the articular participial form: “all the believing ones in him.” The focus here is not on what these believing ones have done (as in v. 21) but rather on who they are in relation to where they are. They are believers, as opposed to the unbelieving world, viewed within the redemptive sphere of God’s Son (compare Galatians 3:26-27).

     Further, if one is willing to read even more of the text, John goes on to declare at the end of the same chapter: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him” (v. 36). Although some English versions fail to disclose this fundamental distinction, the contrast here is between the believer (literally “the believing one [who is] in the Son”) and the one who does not obey (literally “the one disobeying the Son”). Note that believing and obeying are not mutually exclusive in the Bible but are inseparably linked.

     Elsewhere in the New Testament this teaching is equally clear. In Acts 2:44 those simply described as “all the believing ones” are in fact the penitent baptized believers of verses 37-41. Obviously these so-called “believers” had done more than just “believe” in their hearts. Their internal acceptance of the truth was accompanied by and demonstrated through outward, observable action. 

     Who are “the believing ones” in Hebrews 4:3 who enter the heavenly rest? They are contrasted with those who are characterized by disobedience (vv. 6, 11). In fact, since “unbelief” and “disobeying” are synonymous in the context of this discussion (see 3:18-19), it follows that saving faith, as biblically defined, is more than a mere intellectual acquiescence to something but also entails one’s active compliance to the Lord’s directives (compare chap. 11; also James 2:14-26).

     Biblical faith is no more devoid of associated action than the Bible’s recurring emphasis on obedience can be understood apart from faith (see Romans 1:5; 6:16, 17; 15:18; 16:19, 26; 2 Corinthians 10:5, 6; Galatians 5:6; etc.). The concept of “believers” in the New Testament is indicative of much more than what these persons have done, i.e., they have done more than just believe. Rather, the descriptive terminology signifies who Christians are as distinct from the unbelievers who resist God and reject his will (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:22; 1 Peter 2:7; 1 John 5:10). In other words, believers are those who have accepted and obeyed the gospel and continue to faithfully adhere to the teachings of Christ – citizens of God’s kingdom and members of the household of faith. 

--Kevin L. Moore

First appearing in the Gospel Advocate 152.8 (2010): 26-27. 

Related Posts: A Closer Look at John 3:16, Are You Sure the Thief on the Cross Wasn't Baptized?

Image credit: http://www.joshualmann.com/advanced-greek-grammarresources/