Having considered the nature of the salvation that belongs
distinctly to believers (and which makes it possible for Paul to have referred
to God as the Savior “especially of believers”), let’s now consider the various
ways in which Christians have attempted to get around what Paul wrote in 1 Tim.
4:10. We’ll begin with the
following remarks from 19th century Anglican Christian scholar,
Charles Ellicott (as found in his commentary, Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers):
These words, like
the assertion of 1 Timothy 2:4, have been often pressed into the service of
that school of kindly, but mistaken, interpreters, who ignore, or explain away,
the plain doctrine of Holy Scripture which tells us there are those whose
destruction from the presence of the Lord shall be everlasting, whose portion
shall be the “second death” (2 Thessalonians 1:9; Revelation 21:8). These
interpreters prefer to substitute in place of this terrible, but repeated declaration, their own perilous theories
of universalism.
Evidently, Ellicott was unable to
reconcile the plain meaning of 1 Timothy 2:4 with his belief that many people would
never be saved by God. However, Ellicott’s
disbelief notwithstanding, the verse he referenced as being “often pressed into
the service” of those who believe that all mankind will be saved does, in fact, support the truth that
all mankind will be saved. As noted by one of Ellicott’s contemporaries (Thomas
Whittemore), “If [God] wills the salvation of all
men, he wills all the means by which it shall be accomplished; it must
therefore take place.”
Ellicott went on to assert that the doctrine of
universal salvation was contradicted by the “terrible, but repeated
declaration” of Scripture that “there are some whose destruction from the
presence of the Lord shall be everlasting, whose portion shall be ‘the second
death.’” Concerning the “second death” referred to in Rev. 21:8, I’ve argued in
greater depth elsewhere (see my five-part
study on this subject) that
this judgment will involve certain people – i.e., those whose names will not be
found “written in the scroll of life” – literally dying a second time, and then
remaining dead for the final eon of Christ’s reign. Understood in this way,
Rev. 21:8 in no way undermines the truth of the salvation of all mankind (for
we know that death is ultimately going to be abolished, and that all are going
to be vivified in Christ; in fact, in the same letter in which Paul affirmed
that God “wills that all mankind be saved,” Paul explicitly affirmed that God “is vivifying all”; see 1 Tim. 6:13).
What about what Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians 1:9? Although the
expression “everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord” appears in
less literal Bible versions, the word translated “everlasting” in these versions
is aiónion. And – as argued in the previous
installment of this study – this term does not mean “everlasting.”
Rather, it means “pertaining to (or lasting for) an eon, or eons” (with an eon,
or age, being understood as the longest segment of time known in the
Scriptures). See, for example, the definition of aiónion provided on the Perseus Greek Word
Study Tool (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ai)w%2Fnios&la=greek).
In fact, Ellicott himself
admits elsewhere in his commentary that the term aiónion does not inherently involve the idea
of endless duration. Commenting on Matt. 25:46, Ellicott wrote the following:
“...the Greek word which is rendered “eternal” does not, in
itself, involve endlessness, but rather, duration, whether through an age or
succession of ages, and that it is therefore applied in the N.T. to periods of
time that have had both a beginning and an ending (Rom. 16:25), where the Greek
is “from aeonian times;” our version giving “since the world began.” (Comp. 2
Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:3)--strictly speaking, therefore, the word, as such, apart
from its association with any qualifying substantive, implies a vast undefined
duration, rather than one in the full sense of the word “infinite.””
Ellicott continues his remarks on 1 Timothy 4:10 as follows: ”Here the gracious words seem to affix a
seal to the statement immediately preceding, which speaks of “the hope in the
living God” as the source of all the labour and brave patience of the Lord’s
true servants. The living God is also
a loving God, the Saviour of all, if they would receive Him, and, undoubtedly,
the Redeemer of those who accept His love and are faithful to His holy cause.”
According to Ellicott, God is “the
Saviour of all, IF they would receive Him…” But those who “receive” God are believers. Thus, Ellicott is essentially
saying that God is the Savior of believers only.
But this neither explains nor brings any clarification to what Paul wrote in 1
Tim. 4:10. Instead, it flat-out contradicts what Paul wrote in this verse. Since God is
“the Savior of all mankind, especially of believers,”
it logically follows that all mankind is, in fact, going to be saved by God. If God was unable or unwilling to
save those who died in unbelief, then he would not be “the
Savior of all mankind, especially of believers.” He would instead be the Savior
of believers exclusively (in which case v. 10 would have to read,
“…Who is not the Savior of all
mankind, but only of believers”). But this would contradict the first part of
verse 10, above. Since God is “the Savior of all mankind” (and not of believers
only), it follows that all mankind
– including all who die in unbelief – will, in fact, be
saved.
Ellicott’s
last argument seems to be that, by the words “the Savior of all mankind,” Paul
simply meant that God was not the Savior of Israelites only:
“It must be borne in
mind that there were many Hebrews still in every Christian congregation, many
in every church, who still clung with passionate zeal to the old loved Hebrew
thought, that Messiah’s work of salvation was limited to the chosen race. This
and similar sayings were specially meant to set aside for ever these narrow and
selfish conceptions of the Redeemer’s will; were intended to show these
exclusive children of Israel that Christ’s work would stretch over a greater
and a grander platform than ever Israel could fill…”
The problem with this view is that, if Paul’s intent in 1 Tim.
4:10 was simply to deny that God is the Savior of only a certain kind of men (i.e., Israelites), then the
expression “all mankind” does not actually mean “all mankind.” It would mean
“all kinds of men.” However, the literal meaning of
“all” necessarily refers to every member of whatever category of people or
things that are in view – i.e., the entire number or quantity of people
or things.[1]
To believe that the “all” referred to in 1 Tim.
4:10 should be understood as referring to less than the total number of people
constituting “mankind,” one must believe that Paul was not using the word “all” literally here.
For, again, the literal meaning of the word “all” necessarily refers to every
member of whatever category of people or things that are in view – i.e.,
the entire number or quantity of people or things. So if the word “all”
in this verse doesn’t actually include the entire number of people in
view (which, in this case, would be every member of that category of
people that is “all mankind”), then it can only be because Paul was using a
figure of speech (hyperbole) when he used the word “all” here. Although the
word “all” is, on some occasions, used hyperbolically in scripture, there is no
good reason – that is, no non-question-begging reason –
to understand it in a non-literal sense here.
Moreover,
since Paul specifically distinguished “believers” from the rest of mankind in 1
Tim. 4:10, then it would mean that believers are
one “kind” of men of which God is the Savior. And this, in turn, would mean
that the other kind of men of which God is the Savior (and of
which the rest of mankind is comprised) are unbelievers. But if the
only two “kinds of men” that Paul had in view in this verse are believers and
unbelievers, it “proves too much” for those who want the expression “all
mankind” to mean “all kinds of men” (rather
than “all men without exception”). For a human being is either a believer or an
unbeliever.
Let’s now see how 19th
century Presbyterian theologian, Albert Barnes, attempted to get around the
truth affirmed by Paul in 1 Tim. 4:10. In his commentary on this verse, Barnes
wrote:
This must be understood as denoting
that he is the Saviour of all people in some sense which differs from what is
immediately affirmed - "especially of those that believe." There is
something pertaining to "them" in regard to salvation which does not
pertain to "all men." It cannot mean that he brings all people to
heaven, "especially" those who believe - for this would be nonsense.
And if he brings all people actually to heaven, how can it be
"especially" true that he does this in regard to those who believe?
Does it mean that he saves others "without" believing? But this would
be contrary to the uniform doctrine of the Scriptures; see Mark 16:16.
Barnes’
puzzlement is itself puzzling, for there’s nothing nonsensical about the idea
that God is going to save all mankind, especially believers. As argued earlier,
the way in which God is the Savior “especially of believers” is simply that God is saving believers first, and giving
them “life eonian” (i.e., life during the future eons of Christ’s reign). That
is, believers are saved by God before
the rest of mankind is saved. However, believers are only a small fraction of
that category of people that Paul referred to above as “all mankind,” and of
whom God is said to be “the Savior.” And it would not be true to say that God
is the Savior of believers “especially” if he was the Savior of believers exclusively.
Moreover, the fact
that believers are simply a small part of the “all mankind” of which God is the
Savior means that God is the Savior of unbelievers as well. And this means that
one does not have to be a believer in this lifetime in order to ultimately
benefit from what Christ accomplished on the cross on behalf of sinners. In
other words, faith is not a
necessary condition for the salvation from sins that Christ, through his death,
accomplished for all mankind.
It’s actually not that difficult to get most Christians to
agree with the last statement. Although they may not initially realize they agree with it, this will
change as soon as they’re asked whether they believe that those who die in
infancy and early childhood (or adults who die without having had the mental
capacity to believe the gospel) will be saved. If God were the Savior of
believers only (i.e., if only those
who die as believers in Christ will be saved by God), then all who die as
infants/young children (as well as many mentally handicapped people) will be
lost forever. But I’ve never heard any Christian affirm or defend this view.
Even those Christians who claim that they can’t be “dogmatic” on the subject
(because of a supposed lack of scriptural clarity) seem entirely open to the
possibility, and inclined to believe, that those who die in infancy, early
childhood and in a mentally handicapped condition will be saved.
Consider, for example, the following excerpts
from an article on infants and salvation from the popular Christian Q&A
website, “GotQuestions.org”:
“The Bible tells us that even if an infant or
child has not committed personal sin, all people, including infants and
children, are guilty before God because of inherited and imputed sin…Infants
are just as guilty as adults are before the righteous God of the universe…The
only way God can be just and at the same time declare a person righteous is for
that person to have received forgiveness by faith in Christ…Salvation is an
individual choice.”
In accord with the above, we’re told elsewhere on the same
website (in an article titled, “What is the Christian Doctrine of Salvation?”)
that salvation ”is only available through faith in Jesus Christ.” Since those who die in infancy and early childhood die without faith in
Jesus Christ (and thus without receiving the forgiveness that is by faith in Christ),
we would expect the article to deny that this category of human beings will be
saved. After all, we’re assured that those who die in infancy and early
childhood die in a state of “inherited and imputed sin.” However, that’s not
the position we find affirmed on this website. The article goes on to affirm,
in no uncertain terms, that all who die in infancy and early childhood are
saved: “We believe that all infants and young
children who die before the age of moral accountability go straight to heaven.”
So, on the one hand, we’re assured by most Christians that
“salvation is an individual choice” and that salvation is “only available
through faith in Jesus Christ” (and by “salvation” they clearly mean going to
heaven rather than to “hell” for “all eternity”). On the other hand, it’s
commonly believed by Christians that a vast number of human beings who die
without having had faith in Jesus Christ will, in fact, be saved and “go
straight to heaven.” However, for Christians to make any category of human
beings an exception to the requirement that one must believe in Christ before one dies
in order to be eternally saved is to completely undermine the position that
faith is absolutely necessary to being eternally saved.
This important concession opens up the door to the “radical
notion” that, when it comes to human salvation, the sovereign God of the
universe is not limited by the condition in which humans die. Rather, God –
being God – is perfectly free to apply the redemptive benefits of what Christ
accomplished on the cross to whoever he wants, whenever he wants. And since –
according to Paul in 1 Tim. 4:10 – God is “the Savior of all mankind,
especially of believers,” we can conclude that all who die in unbelief
(children as well as adults) will ultimately be saved. Thus, unless Barnes
believed that Mark 16:16 disproved the very possibility that those who die in
infancy and early childhood (as well as in a mentally handicapped condition)
could be saved, then Barnes’ argument completely collapses.
The fact is that neither the salvation nor the condemnation
referred to in Mark 16:16 have anything to do with the “final destiny” of all
mankind. The salvation Christ had in view here is life eonian – i.e., life in
the kingdom of God during the future eons of Christ’s reign. In contrast with
this salvation (which is “especially” for believers), the condemnation that
Christ had in view will involve not
being able to live in the kingdom of God during one or both of the eons of
Christ’s future reign.
Barnes went on to write:
When, therefore, it is said that he
"is the Saviour of 'all' people, 'especially' of those who believe,"
it must mean that there is a sense in which it is true that he may be called
the Saviour of all people, while, at the same time, it is "actually"
true that those only are saved who believe.
Here we
find Barnes making the same big mistake as Ellicott. If it’s “actually” true
that only believers are saved by God, then it’s “actually” true that God is the
Savior of believers only. And if it’s
not “actually” true that God is the Savior of all mankind, then God would not be the “Savior of all mankind,
especially of believers.” Instead, God would be the Savior of believers exclusively (and not “especially,” as we
actually read in 1 Tim. 4:10).
Barnes
continued:
“This may be true in two respects:
(1) As he is the
"Preserver" of people (Job 7:20), for in this sense he may be said to
"save" them from famine, and war, and peril - keeping them from day
to day; compare Psalm 107:28;
(2) as he has "provided"
salvation for all people. He is thus their Saviour - and may be called the
common Saviour of all; that is, he has confined the offer of salvation to no
one class of people; he has not limited the atonement to one division of the
human race; and he actually saves all who are willing to be saved by him.”
The first
sense in which Barnes believed that God could be called “the Savior of all
mankind” (while “actually” saving only believers) involves equating the
salvation that Paul had in mind in 1 Tim. 4:10 with God saving people “from
famine, and war, and peril,” etc. But this won’t do; multitudes of people
throughout human history have not
been saved by God from “famine, and war, and peril.” Billions of people
throughout history have either perished or suffered great loss as a direct
result of both natural and human-caused disasters. So there is simply no
meaningful sense in which God can be referred to as “the Savior of all mankind”
if the salvation Paul had in view
refers to a salvation that multitudes of people throughout human history have
failed to receive from God. Barnes referenced Job 7:20 and Psalm 107:28 to
support this view, but neither of these verses say anything about God’s saving
“all mankind” (or even most people) from “famine, and war, and peril.”
The
second sense in which Barnes believed that God could be called “the Savior of
all mankind” (while “actually” saving only believers) involves the idea that
God merely “provided” salvation for all people. But if the provision that
Barnes had in mind is not a provision that necessarily results in all mankind
being actually saved (and it’s
clearly not), then such a provision merely makes God a potential Savior of all mankind, and not an actual Savior of all mankind. According to Barnes’ second suggested
“sense” in which God can be called the Savior of all mankind, then, God is the actual Savior of believers only.
However, this interpretation simply does not do justice to what Paul actually
wrote. “Savior of” does not mean “potential Savor of,” and “especially of
believers” does not mean “actually of believers.”
The last
attempt to get around the plain meaning of 1 Tim. 4:10 that we’ll be
considering is by Matt Slick (the President and Founder of the “Christian
Apologetics and Research Ministry,” or “CARM”). After asserting that God can be
called the Savior of all mankind without actually saving all mankind, Slick
attempts to defend his assertion as follows:
“Why does God not simply destroy [unbelievers] as is His
right? Because of the Christians! Because God is being patient with
the unbeliever, allowing them to enjoy the blessings of life in this world
without the rightful condemnation of God falling upon them. This is what
the Bible states:
"What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and
to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared
for destruction? And He did so in order that He might make known the
riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for
glory" (Rom. 9:22-23, NASB).
As you can see, God is patient with the unregenerate. They
receive a delayed judgment because of God's love for the believer. In this
sense, Jesus is the Savior of the world because He holds back His judging hand
from all who rightly and immediately deserve it. Judgment is delayed. This
is a blessing received from God upon the unbeliever.”
One problem with the first part of Slick’s response is that God’s
merely allowing unbelievers to “enjoy the blessings of life in this world” is not
at all equivalent to God’s saving
them. Nowhere in his letters does Paul refer to God’s allowing unbelievers to
“enjoy the blessings of life in this world” as their “salvation,” or as their
being “saved” by God. Slick quotes Romans 9:22-23, but there is no reason
whatsoever to believe that the “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” with
whom God was “enduring with much patience” were, in Paul’s day, “saved.” They shall be saved (just as we’re told that all mankind “shall be constituted just” in Romans 5:18-19), but as long as they
remain “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,” there is no meaningful
sense in which these people could be considered as having been “saved” by God in the sense that Paul used the term throughout
his letters.
Believing that one of Christ’s parables helps strengthen his case,
Slick goes on to say:
“Consider also Matt. 13:24-30 and the parable of the wheat
and the tares. In it, Jesus compares the world to a field. He later
interprets it by stating that "the good seed, these are the sons of the
kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one," (Matt. 13:38).
But in Matt. 13:29-30 Jesus states that the tares are not dealt with right
away because the wheat is there among them. "But he said, ‘No; lest
while you are gathering up the tares, you may root up the wheat with
them. ‘Allow both to grow together until the harvest," (NASB).
“So, can it be said that the tares were saved from
judgment? Yes...temporarily. The unbeliever enjoys a delayed
judgment. But with the Christian, Jesus is especially their Savior and judgment
is permanently removed from them.”
As was the case with Slick’s first example, there is no good,
scripturally-informed reason to equate God’s allowing those represented by the
“tares” to continue living on the earth until their appointed judgment arrives with
God’s “saving” them. Those represented by the “tares” in Christ’s parable are
good examples of what Paul referred to as “vessels of wrath prepared for
destruction,” and – as such – are appointed for God’s indignation. Unlike those
represented by the “wheat” (i.e., faithful Israelites), these people will not
be allowed to enter the kingdom of God after it’s been established on the earth
at Christ’s return (at best, those represented by the “tares” will be excluded
from the geopolitical territory of the kingdom and forced to live among the
nations during the eon to come; at worst, they’ll perish in the calamities that
will bring this present eon to a close).
Moreover, it wouldn’t even be correct to say that those
represented by the “tares” are “temporarily saved” (or will be “temporarily
saved”) by God until the appointed judgment takes place. According to Christ’s
explanation of this parable, the “harvest” represents “the
conclusion of the eon” (Matt. 13:39). Since the judgment to which those represented by
the “tares” are appointed will not be occurring until the conclusion of the eon
arrives, it would make no sense to speak of them as being “temporarily saved”
by God from an appointed judgment that God has not intended to occur until a
certain fixed time arrives. It’s not as if God was going to judge them sooner and then “changed his mind.” No;
the day of judgment for the inhabited earth has been fixed by God (Acts
17:30-31), and those represented by the tares in Christ’s parable are appointed
for it. To speak of those appointed to the divine indignation of this day as
being “temporarily saved” until the day arrives is simply not consistent with
the way in which the term “saved” is used in Scripture, and empties the term of
meaning.
We know that only eight people were saved when God judged the
earth in Noah’s day by means of a worldwide flood (1 Peter 3:20-21), and that God
did not “spare the ancient world” at this time (2 Peter 2:5). Would it make any
sense to refer to the rest of mankind as having been “temporarily saved” by God
from the flood before the time
appointed by God for the flood to begin actually began? No. The only people of
whom God could be referred to as the Savior from the worldwide flood was Noah
and his family, and their salvation from the flood did not occur until they
boarded the ark (which, in Heb. 11:7, we’re told that Noah constructed “for
the salvation of his house”). For it was shortly after they
boarded the ark that the deluge began.
Slick’s last attempt at explaining how God can be the Savior of
all mankind without actually saving all mankind is essentially the same as
Albert Barnes’ “potential Savior” view:
Another way in which Jesus is the savior of all men is that He
has made all people saveable. Without Jesus' sacrifice, none could ever be
saved. Since Jesus, who is the Word made flesh (John 1:1, 14), atoned for
sin, all people are now redeemable. He is the Savior of all, but especially of
believers. That is, all are now redeemable due to the sacrifice of Christ,
but redemption is specifically applied to those who trust in Christ.
While I would agree with Slick that, apart from Jesus’ sacrifice,
none could ever be saved, the mere fact that someone is able to be saved doesn’t make them actually saved. And the fact that someone is able to save someone else doesn’t make them their savior. If Jesus is
able to save someone but chooses not to save them, then he would no more
be that person’s savior than I am. For Jesus to be the Savior of sinners
requires that he actually save them (as we’re told by Paul in 1 Tim. 1:15 that
he came into the world to do).
Slick goes on to state:
It is obvious that the term [Savior] refers to God in the
generic sense of being the Savior of all men since He brings salvation to all
though it is not accepted by all. This is why it says that God (not Jesus)
is the Savior of all men, especially of believers. How is it especially to
believers? Simple. It is especially and specifically realized only by
those who are believers.
If salvation is “specifically realized only by those who are
believers,” then it would mean that God saves believers only (making God the
Savior of believers only). Thus, Slick’s last suggested interpretation of 1 Timothy
4:10 – like the interpretations presented by Charles Ellicott and Albert Barnes
before him – simply reduces God to being the Savior of believers only, and thus ends up contradicting what
Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 4:10.
[1] For example, when Paul wrote “…for
kings and all those being in a
superior station” (1 Tim. 2:2), the word “all” necessarily includes every person
“in a superior station.” This group of people (on whom Paul placed a
special emphasis because of the degree of influence
that they have over the lives of believers) is simply a subcategory of
the “all mankind” referred to in verse 1.