In 1 Timothy 3:15, the apostle Paul wrote the following to his
co-laborer in the faith:
“But if I should
be delayed, I have written so that you will know how people ought to act in
God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar
and foundation of the truth.”
The
term translated “church” in this verse (ekklēsia)
denotes a called-out company or assembly (see, for example, Acts 19:32-41,
where the term is twice used to refer to a crowd of idol-worshipping pagans who
had assembled in a theater in the city of Ephesus; see also v. 39 for another
use of the word). The “called-out company” (or “ecclesia”) that Paul had in
view in 1 Tim. 3:15 is the company of believers that we find referred to
elsewhere as “the ecclesia which is [Christ’s]
body” (Eph. 1:22-23) or simply “the body of
Christ” (1 Cor. 12:12-13, 27). In Paul’s day, this called-out company of
believers was comprised
primarily (although not exclusively) of people from among the nations who had
formerly belonged to the pagan religious system of that day. However, after
being called by God through the gospel (or “evangel”) that was heralded among
them (2 Thess. 2:14) – i.e., the gospel that Paul said had been entrusted to him
to herald among the nations (Gal. 2:2, 7) – they turned away from idol-worship “to be slaving for the living and true God, and to be
waiting for His Son out of the heavens…” (1 Thess. 1:9-10)
But what about the “church of the living God” in our day? Of
whom is this called-out company of believers comprised at this present time? I think it’s safe to assume
that most mainline Christians consider the worldwide (or “universal”) Christian
church of which they see themselves as a part – and which includes whatever
Christian denomination and/or local church to which they belong – as being the
present-day continuation of the “church of the living God” referred to in 1
Tim. 3:15. In accord with this view, the majority of present-day Christian
leaders within the mainstream, institutional Christian church are seen as a
continuation of faithful and devout men such as Paul and his co-laborers in the
faith (e.g., Timothy, Silvanus and Titus). In sharp contrast with this view, I
believe that most Christian leaders throughout “church history” have
been, without realizing it, a continuation of those whom Paul predicted would
be “having a form of devoutness, yet denying its
power” (2 Tim. 3:5), and who would be “always
learning and yet not at any time able to come into a realization of the truth”
(v. 7).
I
realize that many Christians will consider this sort of claim incredible,
outrageous and laughable (I certainly would’ve considered it to be so back when
I belonged to a mainstream Christian church). However, I also think it’s a
claim that can be fairly easily shown to be supported by Scripture. Before I
begin to do so, however, I want to first consider the meaning of the
expression, “having a form of devoutness, yet denying
its power.” In Titus 1:1, Paul wrote that he was an “apostle of Jesus
Christ, in accord with the faith of God's chosen, and a realization of the
truth, which accords with devoutness…”
In
these verses we find that the sort of “devoutness” that Paul had in mind is
closely associated with – and, I believe, is based on one’s having come to – “a realization of the truth.” Similarly, after
referring to “the words of faith and the ideal
teaching” which we’re told Timothy had “fully
followed,” Paul went on to associate devoutness with a rejection of what he referred to as “profane and old womanish myths” (1 Tim. 4:6-8).
Regardless of the exact nature of these “myths,” I think it’s clear that the
“devoutness” to which Paul referred is not something that can be disconnected
from what Paul considered “the truth” and “ideal teaching.” In light of these
considerations, it’s my understanding that the “devoutness” of which Paul wrote
in 2 Tim. 3:5 and elsewhere is an attitude of God-honoring reverence and
devotion toward the living and true God that, during the wicked days that make
up this “present wicked eon” (Eph. 5:15-16; Gal. 1:4), can only be possessed by
believers (i.e., those whom Paul had
in mind when he referred to “the faith of God’s chosen”).
But
why do I believe that most Christian leaders only have the “form” (or “outward
appearance”) of the “devoutness” of which Paul wrote? Because, despite their
devout appearance (which includes not
only their conduct but, to a certain
extent, their words), these Christian
leaders unwittingly deny the very
power which enables people to possess the true
devoutness that Paul exhorted Timothy to be pursuing (1 Tim. 6:11). And what
power is this? Answer: The power by which believers are able to possess the devoutness
of which Paul wrote is, I believe, the
saving grace of God. In Titus 2:11-13, we read the following:
“For the saving grace of
God made its advent to all humanity, training us that, disowning
irreverence and worldly desires, we should be living sanely and justly and
devoutly in the current eon, anticipating that happy expectation, even the
advent of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ…”
It
should be noted that Titus 2:11 reads a little differently in other
translations. For example, in the English
Standard Version, the New English
Translation and the New King James
Version, the beginning of this verse reads as follows:
“For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for
all people…”
“For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all
people.”
“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared
to all men…”
Even
in these versions, however, it’s clear that the grace of God that Paul had in
view is inseparably connected with the salvation of all humanity (and in the
next section, I’m going to be arguing that the “saving grace of God” that “made
its advent to all humanity” is the grace of God that, in Col. 1:5-6, we’re told
is realized by all who have believed “the word of truth of the evangel”). But
what, exactly, is grace? The Greek
word translated “grace” in v. 11 (χάρις or “charis”) is
defined as follows in the
Greek-English Keyword Concordance of the Concordant
Literal New Testament: “An act producing happiness, a benefit bestowed on
one who deserves the opposite.” Regardless of the circumstances in which it’s
given or manifested, God’s grace is always unmerited,
and its recipients are always undeserving
of it.
Since
the “saving grace of God” is such that it trains believers to “be living…devoutly
in the current eon” – and since the grace of God is undoubtedly a power that brings about certain positive
changes in sinners (1 Cor. 15:10; 1 Tim. 1:14) – it’s reasonable to conclude
that God’s saving grace is, in fact, the
power that enables believers to be living devoutly in the current eon (thus
making it the power of devoutness that Paul predicted would be denied by
certain men who would be “having a form of devoutness”). In any case, I’m
convinced that the majority of Christian leaders throughout church history have, in fact, denied the saving grace
of God. And by virtue of this denial (and associated rejection of what Paul
considered “sound teaching”), they have, generally speaking, belonged to that
category of people whom Paul referred to as being “disqualified
as to the faith” (2 Tim. 3:8). And I believe the same can be said
concerning the vast majority of Christian leaders (and Christians in general)
in the world today.
Now,
to be clear, I’m not claiming that the majority of Christians knowingly deny the saving grace of God referred
to by Paul in Titus 2:11, or that most Christians believe that they deny God’s saving grace. Regardless of their
ecclesiastical background, all Christians would adamantly affirm that they
believe in God’s saving grace, and would happily profess (likely with a feeling
of strong conviction) that sinners are “saved by grace.” It also can’t be
denied that the word “grace” holds a prominent place in the
religious/theological vocabulary of most Christians (for example, the key
soteriological doctrines that were taught in the Presbyterian church in which I
grew up – and which are shared by all churches that belong to the so-called
“Reformed” tradition – are often referred to as the “Doctrines of Grace”). At
any given event during which Christian doctrine is being taught and/or
discussed by Christians, one is very likely to hear the word “grace” used quite
often. Similarly, one will find the word “grace” used frequently in Christian
literature and music (one of the most beloved and well-known Christian hymns of
all time is, of course, “Amazing Grace”). So how can I claim that the majority
of Christians deny the grace of God?
Realizing the grace
of God in truth
To
better understand why I think it can be said that the majority of Christian
leaders and laypeople deny the saving grace of God, we need to consider how the
saving grace of God relates to, and is revealed in, Paul’s gospel (or
“evangel”). As noted earlier, Paul predicted that the men who would
“have a form of devoutness” while “denying its power” would be “always learning
and yet not at any time able to come into a
realization of the truth.” I also noted how, in Titus 1:1, Paul
associated devoutness with “a
realization of the truth” (which “God’s chosen” come into when
they first believe the evangel through which God calls them). Keeping these
points in mind, let’s now consider the fact that, according to Colossians 1:5-7,
those who have heard and believed “the word of truth of the evangel” have “realized the grace of God in truth.”
These words imply that Paul’s evangel makes known God’s grace. In
accord with this fact, Paul referred to his evangel as “the evangel of the
grace of God” (Acts 20:24), and referred to the “administration” that
had been given to him for the sake of the nations as “the administration of
the grace of God” (Eph. 3:2). After hearing Paul’s evangel, one’s coming to
a realization of “the grace of God in truth” is inseparably connected with
understanding and believing the message. And insofar as this is the case, a
failure to realize “the grace of God in truth” when hearing Paul’s evangel can
be considered just as much of an obstacle to one’s believing it as if one had
never heard the evangel heralded at all. But what, exactly, did Paul have in
mind when he referred to the “the grace of God” that is realized “in truth”
when one believes the evangel referred to in v. 6?
In order to understand what Paul had in mind here, I think it
would be helpful to first review the actual elements of the evangel through
which those who come to belong to the “the ecclesia of the living God” are
called by God. According to 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, the evangel that was
entrusted to Paul to herald among the nations consists of the following two
facts: (1) “that Christ died for our sins” and (2) “that He has been
roused the third day.” The fact that Christ’s death “for our sins” was just as
essential to Paul’s evangel as Christ’s subsequent resurrection is further
confirmed from what we read in 1 Cor. 1:17-25 and 2:1-5 (where it’s made clear
that “the cross of Christ” and “Christ crucified” was the focus
of Paul’s presentation of his evangel among those in Corinth). But what does it
mean for Christ to have “died for our sins?”
The
Greek term translated “for” in the expression “Christ died for our sins” is “huper.”
In the
letter to the Hebrews, there are a number of verses in which we find this term
used in connection with sins (see Heb. 5:1, 3; 7:27; 9:7; 10:12). In all of
these verses, the author had in view a “sin offering” – that is, a sacrifice
offered to God to deal with the sins of those for whom the sacrifice was
offered (see Lev. 4:20, 26, 35;
5:10, etc.). With regard to what a sin offering accomplished, consider the following verses from Leviticus:
Lev. 4:26
And all its fat he shall burn on the altar, like the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings. So the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin, and he shall be forgiven.
Lev. 4:35
And all its fat he shall remove as the fat of the lamb is removed from the sacrifice of peace offerings, and the priest shall burn it on the altar, on top of Yahweh’s food offerings. And the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin which he has committed, and he shall be forgiven.
Lev. 5:10
Then he shall offer the second for a burnt offering according to the rule. And the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin that he has committed, and he shall be forgiven.
When a sinner on whose behalf a sin offering was sacrificed was forgiven by God, it meant that God ceased to reckon the sin to the individual (and that the sin thus ceased to be a source of condemnation for the one who committed it). Thus, in those verses where we find the term huper (“for”) being used in connection with a sin offering (and the sin for which the sacrifice was offered), it essentially means “to deal with” sin (i.e., by securing the elimination/removal of the sin for which it was offered). Thus, in those verses where we find the term huper (“for”) being used in connection with a sin offering, it essentially means “to deal with” (i.e., by resulting in the elimination/taking away of the sins for which it was offered).
Significantly, Paul
elsewhere referred to Christ’s death using words and imagery derived from the
sin offering (Rom. 3:24-25; 8:3; Eph. 5:1-2). Not only this, but Paul
explicitly stated that Christ was made a sin offering for our sakes: ”For the One not knowing
sin, [God] makes to be a sin offering for our sakes that we may be becoming
God’s righteousness in Him” (2 Cor. 5:21).[1] Insofar
as a sin offering is a sacrifice offered to God that has, as its design
and intended purpose, the elimination/removal of the sins of those for whom the
sacrifice is offered, it follows that
the sins of everyone for whom Christ died shall
be eliminated, and will cease to be reckoned to them by God. Thus, to
believe that “Christ died for our sins” is to believe that the
sins for which Christ died shall be
(and not merely “can be,” or “may be”) taken away. And this means that everyone
for whose sins Christ died is going to be justified.
But for whose sins did Christ die? Well, based on what we read
in 1 Tim. 2:4-7, we can conclude that “all mankind” are
included among those for whose sins Christ died. In these verses we read the
following:
“God…wills that all mankind be saved and come into
a realization of the truth. For there is one God, and one Mediator of God
and mankind, a Man, Christ Jesus, Who is giving Himself a
correspondent Ransom for all (the testimony in its own eras), for
which I was appointed a herald and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not
lying), a teacher of the nations in knowledge and truth.”
From these and other similar verses we can conclude that the word “our” in 1 Cor. 15:3 includes all mankind. Significantly, Paul wrote that it was for the
truth that Christ gave himself “a correspondent Ransom for all” (v. 6) that
he was “appointed a herald and an apostle…a teacher of the nations in
knowledge and truth.” Since we know that it was for the sake of the evangel that
Paul was appointed a herald and an apostle (Acts 20:24; Rom. 1:1; 15:16, 19; 1
Cor. 1:17; Eph. 3:7; 2 Timothy 1:11), we can infer that this truth affirmed in
1 Tim. 2:6 is essential to, and inseparable from, the evangel that was
entrusted to Paul. And since Paul undoubtedly had in view the purpose for which
Christ died here, it follows that the expression “[Christ] is giving [or gave] Himself a
correspondent Ransom for all” was understood by Paul as conveying the same
basic meaning as the expression “Christ died for our sins.”
In Romans
3:24, the blessing of justification that is inseparably connected with the
elimination of sins that Christ procured for all mankind through his death is referred
to as being “justified
gratuitously in [God’s] grace,
through the deliverance which is in Christ Jesus.” The connection between the grace of God and Christ’s
death for our sins is emphasized again in Romans 5:15-19:
But not as the offense, thus also the grace. For if, by the
offense of the one, the many died, much rather the grace of God and the
gratuity in grace, which is of the One Man, Jesus Christ, to the many super-abounds.
And not as through one act of sinning is the gratuity. For, indeed,
the judgment is out of one into condemnation, yet the grace is out of many offenses into a just award. For if, by the
offense of the one, death reigns through the one, much rather, those obtaining the superabundance of grace
and the gratuity of righteousness shall be reigning in life through the One,
Jesus Christ.
Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for all mankind
for condemnation, thus also it is through one just award for all mankind for
life's justifying. For even as, through the disobedience of the one man,
the many were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One,
the many shall be constituted just.
The “grace of God” referred to in v. 15 (which we’re told “super-abounds” to all who were “constituted sinners”) involves that which Christ procured by his obedient death on behalf of all mankind. Just as all mankind fell under condemnation because of the disobedience of “the one man,” Adam, so all mankind will ultimately become the recipients of the grace secured by the obedience of Christ (who Paul referred to as both “the last Adam” and “the second Man” in 1 Cor. 15:45-47). And this means that all mankind – i.e., “the many” affected by the obedience of “the One” – “shall be constituted just.”
Some have objected that the expression “the many” in v. 19
places a restriction on the words “all mankind” in v. 18. However, the same
people referred to as “the many” in v. 15 were previously referred to as “all
mankind” in v. 12. Thus, “the many” of v. 19 are identical with those referred to as “all mankind” in v. 18. It should also be noted that, in the immediate context in which
Paul used the expression “the many,” both Adam and Jesus Christ are referred to
as “the one man” and “the one.” Thus, rather than placing a restriction on the
words “all mankind,” Paul used the expression “the many” in verses 15 and 19 as
a way of contrasting two individual men (both of whom are referred to as “the
one”) with the rest of mankind (“the many”). That is, the contrast Paul was making in these verses is between “one” and “many” (and not between “many” and “all”).
It’s further evident from v. 19 that the same “many” who have been negatively affected by “the disobedience of the one man” (i.e., Adam) will also be positively affected by “the obedience of the One” (i.e., Christ). Since all human beings except Christ were constituted sinners (and thus condemned to die) as a result of Adam’s sin, it follows that these same individuals – i.e., all human beings – will be “constituted just” through the obedience of Christ. Moreover, since it is death
(and not “eternal conscious torment”) that is the
condemnation from which all mankind will be saved when they’re “constituted
just” (Rom. 5:12-14; cf. 1:32; 6:22-23; 1 Cor. 15:55-56), it follows that the
justification that Paul had in view in Romans 5:19 necessarily involves a state
in which all mankind will be placed beyond the reach and dominion
of death.
That this is the case is confirmed from what Paul wrote in 1
Corinthians 15:20-22:
“Yet now Christ has been roused from among the dead, the
Firstfruit of those who are reposing. For since, in fact, through a
man came death, through a Man, also, comes the resurrection of the dead. For
even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified.”
Contrary to how v. 22 is sometimes misquoted by Christians, the
“all” who we’re told shall be vivified are not said to be “all in Christ.” That’s not what Paul wrote. Rather, the truth Paul was affirming
is that, “in Christ, shall all be vivified.” The “all” who shall be vivified “in
Christ” are identical with the “all” who are dying “in Adam,” and are thus
identical with the category of people referred to as “all mankind” in Romans
5:12-18 and elsewhere. But what does it mean to be vivified (or “made alive”) in Christ?
For those who have died, being vivified in Christ means far more
than “merely” being resurrected. Christ is “the Firstfruit of those who are
reposing,” but he
was not the first man to be restored
to life after being dead for a period of time. However, all previous
resurrections (such as that of Lazarus, or Jairus’ daughter) involved being
restored to a mortal existence, and
did not place the person resurrected beyond the reach of death. Everyone
previously resurrected eventually died again. This was not the kind of
resurrection that Christ underwent. Rather, the resurrection that Christ underwent involved his being
introduced into an immortal, incorruptible state, and consequently
placed him beyond the reach of death (see also 1 Cor. 15:54-55 for further evidence
that being vivified in Christ
involves being placed beyond the reach of death).
Thus, the
resurrection that Paul said comes “through a Man” (Christ) – and of which
Christ is “the Firstfruit” – should be understood as a resurrection to
incorruption and immortality. And this means that being “vivified in
Christ” means being resurrected into the same incorruptible, deathless state
into which Christ was raised by God (and which, as revealed in 1 Cor. 15:42-44, will involve
being roused with an incorruptible, glorious, powerful and spiritual body).
After affirming that everyone dying in Adam will be vivified in
Christ, Paul wrote the following in 1 Cor. 15:23-28:
“Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit,
Christ; thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence; thereafter the
consummation, whenever He may be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father,
whenever He should be nullifying all sovereignty and all authority and power. For
He must be reigning until He should be placing all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy is being abolished: death. For
He subjects all under His feet. Now whenever He may be saying that all is
subject, it is evident that it is outside of Him Who subjects all to Him. Now,
whenever all may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be
subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him, that God may be All in all.”
That over
which Christ “must be reigning until he should be placing all his enemies under
his feet” is the “kingdom” that we find referred to in v. 24. The word
“until” in v. 25 indicates that the placing of Christ’s enemies under his feet
(i.e., the subjection of his enemies) is the goal of his reign
over this kingdom. When this goal is reached, there will no longer be any need
for Christ to continue reigning, and Christ will give up the kingdom to his God
and Father.[2] And when the kingdom over
which Christ will be reigning is given up to God, God alone will reign as King
over this universal kingdom, and all created beings – including Christ himself
– will be his subjects (which is what’s being affirmed in v. 28 where we read, “…then the Son Himself
also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him, that God may be All in
all.”).
That the “all” in whom God is going to be “All” when the kingdom
is given up to him will include all mankind is evident from the fact that “all
things” (ta panta, “the all” or “the universe”) are going to be
subjected to Christ before he gives up the kingdom to God (and, in v. 27, we’re
told that God is the only exception
to the “all” that is going to be put in subjection to Christ). Those who are to
become part of the “all” in whom God will be “All” when Christ gives up the
kingdom to him will, therefore, be comprised of the same all-inclusive
group that are to be subjected to Christ at the end of his reign. Thus, since all human beings
will be subjected to Christ when he abolishes death, it follows that all human
beings are going to be in the kingdom when it is given up to God so that God
“may be All in all.”
Paul’s words in Philippians 3:20-21
further confirm the view that the subjection of all to Christ will take place
when he abolishes death at the end of his reign. In these verses we read the
following:
“But our
citizenship is in heaven—and we also eagerly await a savior from there, the
Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform these humble bodies of
ours into the likeness of his glorious body by means of that power by
which he is able to subject all things to himself.”
The CLNT translates v. 21 as follows: ”[the Lord, Jesus Christ] will transfigure the body of our
humiliation, to conform it to the body of His glory, in accord with the operation which enables Him
even to subject all to Himself.”
The first future event that Paul had in view in these verses –
i.e., the transformation (or transfiguration) of our present, mortal bodies
into the likeness of Christ’s glorious body – will take place when, in accord
with verses such as 1 Thess. 4:15-17, Christ comes from heaven to save those
who belong to “the ecclesia which is His body.” And this event will involve
every member of the “body of Christ” being “changed, in an instant, in the
twinkle of an eye, at the last trump” (1 Cor. 15:50-52). And as is clear from 1
Cor. 15:53-55, this “change” will involve being instantly introduced into an
immortal, deathless existence:
“For this corruptible must put on incorruption,
and this mortal put on immortality. Now, whenever this corruptible should be
putting on incorruption and this mortal should be putting on immortality, then
shall come to pass the word which is written, Swallowed up was Death by
Victory. Where, O Death, is your victory? Where, O Death, is your sting?”
And according to Phil. 3:21, Christ will be exercising this same
death-abolishing, vivifying power when – in fulfillment of 1 Cor. 15:28 – he
subjects all to himself.
“These things be
charging and teaching”
The truth that ”the grace of
God and the gratuity in grace, which is of the One Man, Jesus Christ,” is going to “superabound” to all mankind
(and result in all mankind being “constituted just” and thus saved from all
condemnation) was not merely of secondary importance for Paul. In 1 Tim. 4:9-11 we
read the following:
”Faithful is the saying and worthy of all welcome
(for for this are we toiling and being reproached), that we rely on the living
God, Who is the Savior of all mankind, especially of believers.
These things be charging and teaching.”
The “things” that Paul exhorted Timothy to “be
charging and teaching” can be broken down into the following truths found in v.
10:
2. The living God is “the Savior of all
mankind.”
3. The living God is the Savior “especially of
believers.”
The fact that God is “the Savior of all
mankind” is in accord with what Paul
said was the reason Christ came into the world: “Faithful is the saying, and worthy of all
welcome, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, foremost of
whom am I” (1 Tim. 1:15). Since all humans are sinners, the
fact that Christ came into the world to save sinners entails that he came into the world to save all mankind
(hence, in 1 Tim. 2:6 we read that it is for “all” that Christ “gave himself a ransom”).
We also know that Christ came to do the will of God
(John 6:38; Heb. 10:7) and that God’s will “shall prosper in his hand” (Isaiah 53:10). Christ
shall, without fail, accomplish what he came into the world do. And what is the
will of God in regard to the purpose for which we’re told Christ came into the
world? According to 1 Tim. 2:4, God “wills that
all mankind be saved and come into a realization of the truth.”
The
fact that the salvation of “all mankind” is explicitly said to be willed by God cannot be overstated. For according
to Scripture, God’s will is supreme and
cannot be thwarted by the will of his creatures (Job 42:2; Psalm 115:3; Isaiah 46:10; Daniel 4:35;
Rom. 9:9-24; Eph. 1:11). Whatever God intends to do, he
does, and no one can successfully resist God when it’s his intention that
something occur. With regard to the salvation of anyone whom God
wills to save, God has no limitations; there is no one whom God could intend to save at a particular
time but then find it impossible – or even difficult – to do so (Matt.
19:25-26). As was so clearly manifested in the dramatic calling of the apostle
Paul (Acts 9:1-22), it is completely within God’s power to eradicate unbelief
from the heart of any sinner, and to elicit from any of his creatures – no
matter how wicked and stubborn they may be at present – the unfeigned love and
heartfelt obedience by which God is glorified. Concerning this fact, A.E. Knoch
wrote the following:
“The apostle
Paul’s case is of surpassing significance in its bearing on the salvation of
unbelievers. He was the foremost of sinners, and it cannot be denied that,
among men, there was no case quite as desperate as his. All question as to God’s
ability to save vanishes in the light of his call on the Damascus road. The
miraculous means employed in his case surely would suffice for every one of God’s
enemies.” (All in All, p. 93)
Thus, as surely as God wills
the salvation of all mankind (and as surely as the will of God shall prosper in Christ’s hand), the salvation
of all mankind must ultimately take
place. To deny this outcome is simply to deny the
saving grace of God.
In an attempt to get around the truth that God is the Savior of
all mankind, many Christians will appeal to the words “especially of believers”
in 1 Tim. 4:10. However, in addition to failing to take into account
the meaning of the term translated “especially” in 1 Tim. 4:10, this objection betrays a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the salvation that is
“especially” for believers (for a more in-depth defense of these two points, see the my two-part study 1 Timothy 4:10
vs. the Christian Doctrine of Salvation). The
special salvation that will be enjoyed by believers – and which is
referred to elsewhere as “life eonian” (1 Tim.
1:16; 6:12; cf. Rom. 5:21; 6:22-23; Gal. 6:8; Titus 1:2; 3:7)[4]
– is a blessing that pertains exclusively to the future eons
of Christ’s reign.
In Eph. 2:7, these future
eons of Christ’s reign are referred to as “the
oncoming eons” during which God shall “be displaying the transcendent riches of His
grace in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus.” It is during
these future eons of Christ’s reign that those in the body of Christ will be
enjoying the salvation that is “especially” for believers. However, when death, the
“last enemy,” is abolished by Christ at the end of his reign (1 Cor. 15:25-26;
2 Tim. 1:10), all mankind will be vivified in Christ and thus receive the same
kind of “indissoluble life” that Christ received when he was resurrected by God
(Heb. 7:17), and which believers will be enjoying during the eons of
Christ’s reign.
Thus, although those in the body of Christ are saved before the rest of humanity (which is
why God is said to be the Savior “especially of believers”), the special
salvation of believers in no way invalidates the fact that God is “the Savior
of all mankind” as well. And since God is
“the Savior of all mankind” (and not the Savior of believers only or exclusively), it follows that all mankind – including all who die
in unbelief – will be saved. Moreover (and as argued earlier), to believe that “Christ
died for our sins” is to believe that all of the sins for which Christ died are
going to be eliminated (which is a truth that implies the eventual
justification of every sinner for whom Christ died).
Since the very evangel (or “gospel”) that must be believed in order for one to be a “believer” in the current era
reveals that all sinners are going to be saved because of Christ’s death, it
follows that those who deny that all mankind are ultimately
going to be saved hold to a position that is inconsistent with (and contradicted
by) the very evangel that must be believed in order for one to be a “believer.” This means that the vast majority of Christians are not believers (at least, insofar as faith in the evangel of the grace of God is concerned). Thus, the common Christian view that God is the Savior of believers only not only contradicts what we read
in 1 Tim. 4:10, but – in light of what it means to
be a “believer” (i.e., one who believes the evangel of the grace of God) – this view doesn’t even make sense.
The truth concerning the religious
majority
In
light of what Paul taught concerning the saving grace
of God that is realized by those who believe his evangel, we have good reason
to believe that the majority of Christians unwittingly deny the saving grace of God (and reject what Paul considered “sound teaching”). But does Scripture
actually justify such a negative view of the “religious majority?” I believe
that it does.
Throughout Scripture, the people to whom God has
chosen to more fully reveal himself – and to whom he has given the most insight
into what he’s doing in history and will be doing in the future – have never,
at any given time, constituted the majority of people on earth (or within any
society). This truth was made especially clear during Christ’s earthly
ministry. Consider, for example, what Christ declared to his disciples
concerning why he spoke in parables to the multitudes (or “vast throngs”) who
came to hear him speak:
“To you has it been
given to know the secrets of the kingdom of the heavens, yet to those it has
not been given” (Matt. 13:11).
In other words, it
wasn’t part of God’s purpose that the majority of Israelites in Christ’s day
understand the “secrets of the kingdom of the heavens”; it was only to a select
few that this knowledge was being given by God.
Regarding God’s
dealings with the respected religious leaders of his own day, Christ summed up
God’s “modus operandi” as follows:
“I am acclaiming
Thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for Thou hidest these things from the
wise and intelligent and Thou dost reveal them to minors. Yea, Father, seeing
that thus it became a delight in front of Thee.” (Matthew 11:25-26)
This prayer
reveals God’s dealings with those within the institutional religion of
Christ’s day (who, like the leaders of the institutional Christian religion
today, claimed to be the caretakers and defenders of “God’s truth”). The context
clearly indicates that Christ had in mind the religious leaders of his day in a
more general sense, for his reproach in Matt. 11:20-24 is directed toward “the cities in which most of His powerful
deeds occurred, for they do not repent” (e.g., Chorazin, Bethsaida and
Capernaum). It is immediately after reproaching these Jewish cities that Christ
said what he did in verses 25-26. The Pharisaic religious leaders of these
cities had a significant influence on the beliefs of the majority. And God was
using these respected religious leaders to keep the majority of the Jews in
these cities just as ignorant of the truth as they were (while elsewhere
revealing God’s truth to only a few “insignificant nobodies”).
One Christian with whom I was discussing this subject referenced
Mark 4:22 as an objection to the view that God’s purpose involved hiding
certain important truths from the religious majority of his day. In this verse
we read, “For there is not
anything hidden, except that it should be manifested, neither did it become
concealed, but that it may be coming into manifestation.” However, what
Christ declared in this verse was just as true in his day as it is in ours. And
to whom was that which was “concealed” being “manifested” when Christ spoke
these words? Was it being manifested to the religious leaders of Christ’s day,
and to the multitudes that were being influenced by the religious leaders? No.
The truth was being manifested to the few who had been given the eyes to see it
and the ears to hear it. In fact, just a few verses before Mark 4:22, we read the following:
And when He came to
be in seclusion, those about Him, together with the twelve, asked Him about the
parables. And He said to them, “To you
the secret of the kingdom of God has been given, yet to those outside, all is occurring in parables, that, observing,
they may be observing and may not be perceiving, and hearing, they may be
hearing and not be understanding, lest at some time they should be turning
about, and they may be pardoned the penalties of their sins” (Mark 4:10-12).
And in both v. 9 and v. 23 we find Christ declaring, “If anyone has
ears to hear, let him hear!” Did God give the majority of
people in Christ’s day “ears to hear?” No; Christ’s words in the above passage
(and in Matthew 13:1-17) completely undermine this view. See also Romans
11:7-10, where we find Paul affirming that God had given the majority of Jews
who comprised the nation of Israel in his day “a spirit of stupor, eyes not to be
observing, and ears not to be hearing…”
Thus, if God’s
dealings with the Jewish leaders of the religious institution of Christ’s day
is any indication of how he’s been dealing with the “Bible-believing” Christian
leaders of the religious institution of our
day (as well as throughout church history), then we should actually expect them to be unable to “see”
certain fundamental truths pertaining to God’s saving grace and redemptive
purpose in Christ. Given the historical precedent, we have good reason to
believe that such leaders will, generally speaking, be mistaken concerning such
truths. We simply have no good reason to believe that God’s modus operandi
has changed since Christ’s day. And this means that we do have good reason to believe that the majority of leaders within
the institutional Christian church have, in general, been more like the majority of
religious leaders in Christ’s day (who, despite their sincerity, were greatly
mistaken, and were even described by Christ in Matt. 15:14 as “blind guides” who were “guiding the
blind”). Like the unbelieving Israelites referred to by Paul in Romans 10:2, these
Christian leaders can be said to have “a zeal for God,
but not according to knowledge.”
But when did it come to be the case that the majority of religious leaders within the Christian church became “blind guides?”
For part two of this study, click here: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/07/they-will-not-tolerate-sound-teaching_2.html
But when did it come to be the case that the majority of religious leaders within the Christian church became “blind guides?”
For part two of this study, click here: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/07/they-will-not-tolerate-sound-teaching_2.html
Translating “sin” as “sin offering” in this verse
is consistent with the usage of the word “sin” in the Hebrew Scriptures (where
the Hebrew term for “sin” is frequently used to mean “sin offering”). Concerning this fact, Adam
Clarke remarked as follows in his commentary: “[The Greek word translated ‘sin’
in the KJV] answers to the chattaah and chattath of
the Hebrew text; which signifies both sin and sin-offering in a great variety
of places in the Pentateuch. The Septuagint translates the Hebrew word by ἁμαρτια in ninety-four places in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, where a
sin-offering is meant; and where our version translates the word not sin, but
an offering for sin.” Clarke went on to reference more than one hundred verses
from the Septuagint in which the Greek word for “sin” (hamartia) is used
to denote a sin-offering.
[2] This is in accord
with Psalm 110:1-2 (which Paul likely had in mind when he wrote the above
words), where we read: “Yahweh says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my
right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool. Yahweh sends forth
from Zion your mighty scepter. Rule in the midst of your enemies!’” Notice that
the reign of the one whom David referred to as “my Lord” (i.e., Christ Jesus)
is to be “in the midst of [his] enemies.” It continues only as long as there
are enemies remaining.
[3] For a more
in-depth consideration of the nature and identity of “the living God” (which
is, of course, a subject that’s of great importance), please see the following
articles:
One God and Father
of all: How the scriptural revelation of the one true God contradicts the
doctrine of the Trinity (part one of five)
[4] Although
translated “eternal” in most English Bibles, the Greek word
translated “eonian” in the expression “life eonian” is aiónios, and is the adjectival form of the noun aión.
This being the case, our understanding of the meaning of the term aiónios must be based on the meaning
of the noun aión from which it’s derived. And since the noun aión means “age” or “eon”
(i.e., the longest segment of time known in the Scriptures), the
adjective aiónios should be
understood to mean “pertaining to, or lasting for, an age/eon (or
ages/eons).” A more literal English
translation of this term would thus be “age-lasting” or “eonian” (which is the
adjective form of the noun “eon”). For a more in-depth defense of this
fact, see my earlier, seven-part study “Eternal or Eonian?” (http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2015/01/eternal-or-eonian-part-one_17.html). See also my
article on the meaning of the Greek term “aión” (http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-meaning-of-aion-in-new-testament.html).
