Is White Right?
Under discussion is a critique of Dr. James White’s
comments made on his Blog (see http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4819)
regarding Dr. Roger Olson’s book with particular and sole reference to 1 Tim 2:4.
Preliminary Remarks
Before I engage White’s
Blog to Dr. Olson’s interpretation of 1 Tim 2:4 in his book, Against Calvinism, allow me to say:
1. The Bible is not some sort of Gnostic literature whereby only
the initiated are able to comprehend its meaning.
2. Biblical revelation speaks plainly of things that pertain to
salvation and everyone is given the ability to understand it. I do not deny there are certain subjects
“hard to understand.” Nevertheless, with
respect to salvation, divine revelation is sufficient and plain.
3. While, admittedly, I am no scholar, it should be observed that
being a scholar is no guarantee of freedom from error. Even “experts in the field” may arrive at
wrong conclusions.
4. White’s Blog and the section on 1 Tim 2:4 in his book (The Potters Freedom), seems to argue on
the basis of what he sees is the logic of the text in context as opposed to the
logical absurdity of the opposing view (e.g., p.140 on an “Ephesian phone
book”). He does not appear to provide a thorough
and in-depth exegesis.
My observations are not to
prove that White’s conclusion is
erred but only that there are valid and serious challenges even from an
unscholarly point of view.
The Text
 |
| "...rightly dividing the word of truth." - 2 Timothy 2:15 |
"First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers,
petitions and thanksgiving, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all
who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all
godliness and dignity. This is good and
acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also
between God and men, the man Christ
Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all,
the testimony given at the proper time.
For this [reason] I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am
telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and
truth. Therefore, I want men in every
place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension” (NASB
Updated Edition).
White’s Contention
White argues in his blog that the “context [of 1 Timothy 2:4] had specifically referred
to kinds or groups of men. Olson ignores this. It is
actually absurd to think that Paul was exhorting Timothy to pray for “every
person without limit” when he said that prayer should be made for ‘all men’.” After making comparing verses
1 and 4 in the Greek, White continues, “If Paul expected Timothy to take ‘all men’ in verse one as meaning ‘every person without limit,’ then why did he immediately place a categorical limitation on his words? That is, he defines ‘all men’ as classes or kinds of men by speaking of kings
and those in authority. But if ‘all men’ already had the meaning Olson demands that it
has, why would Paul do this since Timothy would already understand that Paul is
saying that prayers should be made for every single human being on the face of
the earth? Indeed, are we to assume that not only where the
prayer meetings in Ephesus to include, by name, every single individual in the
city, but every single individual living on the planet at that time? No wonder folks fell asleep
during those meetings! Of course, this only shows the absurdity of the position
Olson tells us we must adopt. And, it follows naturally, that if the ‘all men’ of verse one is to be taken categorically and not individually, then
this is the immediate context of
the use of ‘all men, in verse four as well” (emphasis mine).
My
Statement of Disagreement
I take the plain meaning
of 1 Tim 2:1,4,5-6 as it is translated in English to refer to all men, none excluded. My reasons are as follows:
A Broad Look at 1 Tim 2:4
1. If White’s interpretation that “all” in 1 Tim 2:4 refers to all
classes, kinds, or groups of men, then how are we to understand the "all”
in verse 2: “all in authority”? If White
is to be consistent, then “all” here cannot mean every individual who has
governmental authority but those kinds, classes, or groups of authority, which
obviously makes no sense. However, if
White states that “all” in verse 2 means all individual persons of authority,
on what basis can he change the meaning of “all” here to mean something
different from the same Greek word translated “all” in verse 4?
2. If “kinds or groups of men” are meant, nevertheless, it can
still be understood to refer to all men without limit within each group
rendering White’s argument moot. For
example, as Mounce’s Dictionary,
p.12, under “all”, states when “pas in the plural” is used, its stress is “not so
much on each individual within the group as on the group as a whole. For example, in 1 Cor. 15:22 Paul writes,
‘For as in Adam all die, so in Christ
all will be made alive.’ His emphasis here is on two ‘all’ groups: the
‘all’ group that dies because of Adam’s sin (i.e., every single human being)
and the ‘all’ group that lives in Christ (those who believe in him)” (emphasis
his). The point here is that in each
group, no person is excluded. Therefore,
even if the emphasis is on classes, kinds, or groups in 1 Tim 2, nevertheless,
every single person within that group is to be included; no one is excluded; no
limitation is implied (see also Cornerstone
Biblical Commentary, vol.17, p.41-44).
3. Within the context, Paul mentions only one or two classes or kinds
of men, “kings and all who are in authority.” Unless one wants to place a “categorical
limitation” to Paul’s reference in vs. 2 and 4 to “kings and all those in
authority” as the only objects of prayer (v.1) and salvation (in the parallel
v.4), Paul intends to include all men without limit or exception.
White
seems to suggest that prayer should not be for individuals but for classes and
kinds, limiting for whom prayer ought to be made as individuals. For example, White seems to say that the
apostle invites us to pray not for Congresswoman Pelosi but for all Congress
men and women in general, something like, “Dear Lord, please save our U.S. congressional
leaders (of course, only those whom you have chosen and in your predetermined
time).” I agree we may not, for all practical purposes, be able to pray for each
of them by name in one prayer meeting, let alone every living person on earth
by name. However, what is to stop us from praying for as many individuals as
practically possible by name and to include all men in general?
If
classes or kinds of men and not all men individually are meant in verse 1, then
are our prayers to be rendered under such a "categorical limitation",
for only all classes or kinds of men and not “on behalf of all men” as
individuals? That seems to be what White suggests when he asks, “Indeed, are we
to assume that not only where (sic) the prayer meetings in Ephesus to include,
by name, every single individual in the city, but every single individual
living on the planet at that time?"
Obviously
there are limitations to how far we can practically exercise prayers for all
men. Nevertheless, the intended universal nature of the apostle’s injunction
cannot be minimized to assume the exclusion of any individual and, thereby,
understand its practice in a way that assumes limitations on the objects of
prayer. Whether the apostle had or had not on his mind every person in the
known world of his time who existed, excluding or including those beyond the
borders of the known world, is irrelevant. The fact is that his injunction to
pray was meant to exclude no one. As the RSV translates, “prayers…be made for everyone.”
4. White asks if Paul meant “every person without limit, then why
did he immediately place a categorical limitation on his words? That is, he defines ‘all men’ as classes or
kinds of men by speaking of kings and those in authority”. If that’s the case, Paul must be placing a
“categorical limitation” on the phrase “all” (same Greek word as in v.4) who
are in authority” (v.2); he must then be referring to kinds, groups, and
classes of authority. If not, White is
arbitrarily defining “all” according to and in support of his theological
presuppositions. Otherwise, why would
“all” in v.2 be defined differently from “all” in v.4 and 6, and the parallel,
v.1?
Paul is not making
a “categorical limitation” but is simply and appropriately listing examples –
specifically kings and, in general, those in authority – of those for whom the
Church ought to especially pray given
the political climate at his time (cf. IVP
Bible Background Commentary, p.610).
As Martin Glynn, a member of the Society of Evangelical Arminians noted,
“Paul is talking about authority in terms of saving a larger number of persons
by converting leaders. So, if we pray for the emperor to be saved, and then he
is, it will allow the gospel to spread easier.”
Engaging the Context of 1 Timothy
2:1-6
1. In 1 Tim 4:10, we read of Paul’s affirmation of God as the
“Savior of all men, especially believers.”
He is not limiting God’s role as Savior of “all men” by inserting,
“especially believers”. He is merely
noting the fact Christ died for all men (Jn 3:16; 1 Jn 2:2) in order that they
might obtain salvation but the effects of His saving work are applied only on
the condition of “whosoever believes”.
2. 1 Tim 1:15 – “It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full
acceptance, that Christ came into the
world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.” Cf. 1 Tim 4:10; Rom 3:10-23; 5:12, “all [men]
sinned”; 2 Cor 5:14-15.
3. Again, in 1 Tim 1:15, “sinners” cannot refer only to certain
classes or kinds of men or have a “categorical limit”. If all men are affirmed as sinners or all men
in every group and kind are sinners, then all men “without limit” are contemplated as those for whom Christ came
into the world to save, whether it is every individual or every individual
within every group and kind. That only
believers are effected is besides the point here made, which is that Christ
died for all men as sinners (cp. 2:4,6; 4:10).
The atonement rendered by Christ has universal intention.
4. In 2:5-6, Paul reaffirms Jesus’ role as the Savior of all men as
sinners. In verse 5, he asserts Christ
as mediator between “God and men” (RSV: “between God and humankind”), and that
mediation is between God and men as
sinners, or “all men” for “all have sinned”. No “categorical limitation” is suggested; no
individuals are excluded. In verse 6,
Christ is viewed as the “ransom for all”, namely men as sinners (v.5), that is,
all men without limit (if all men
without limit are sinners). Of course,
the word “men” is omitted from v.6, however, it is assumed that “all” refers to
“men” mentioned in v.5.
5. In 2 Tim 2:24, the Church is exhorted to “be gentle to all (same Greek word use in 1 Tim 2:4)”,
by implication, men whether believer or unbeliever. Are we to be gentle only to certain groups,
classes, or kinds of men (e.g. kings and those in authority) or all men without exception?
Challenges from Theological Study Resources
White also attempts to
support his argument on the basis of the Greek language. However, looking to theological study
resources to determine the validity of White’s argument, I find it
unconvincing.
If his argument and
conclusions are correct, why are there so many competent scholars who challenge his interpretation of 1
Tim 2:4 as “all men without limit”, that is, the human race, rather than "all classes of men"? I would think that many scholars, especially
of the Calvinistic persuasion, would agree with White’s assessment of the text. However, such is not the case, for example:
1. “…God wants all men to
know the truth and that Christ gave his life for all mankind” (J.N.D Kelly, Black’s
NT Commentary, p.60; emphasis his).
2. God “is willing that all
should be saved by believing…Our prayers ought to include all, as God’s grace includes all”
(Jamieson, Faussett, Brown, A Commentary,
vol.3, part 3, p.484; his emphasis).
3. “We must also pray for all
men, for the world of mankind in general” because “God will have all men to be saved…he has a good will to the
salvation of all” (Matthew Henry Commentary,
vol.6, p.811f; emphasis his).
4. “This statement is in accord with John 3:16 and with the declaration
in 2 Corinthians 5:14,15 that Christ died for all. Salvation has been provided for all…” (Ralph
Earle, Expositors Bible Commentary,
vol.11, p.358).
5. “This passage cannot mean, as many have supposed, that God wills
that all kinds of men should be
saved, or that some sinners of every rank and class may be saved…” (Barnes’ Notes on the NT, 1 vol.,
p.1134).
6. “From hence our Savior’s commission and command is universal…he
excludes no people, no person…” (Matthew
Poole’s Commentary, vol.3, p.777).
7. “The scope of the prayer is universal including all kinds of
sinners (and saints)” (Robertson Word
Pictures, vol.4, p.567).
8. “Prayer to God for all
is acceptable to him, because he wills the salvation of all…willeth, marking a determinate purpose” (Vincent
Word Studies, 4:218).
9. “The universality of the grace is grounded in the unity of
God…One divine purpose for all implies one God who purposes…As the one God, so
the one mediator implies the extension of the saving purpose to all” (Ibid,.
vs.5, p.218).
10. “The literal Greek is, ‘who willeth all men’...marks a
determinate purpose…It is possible for all men to be saved, because over them
are not many Gods…but one only” (Wuest Word
Studies, p. 40f).
11. Finally, to my knowledge, no Bible versions support White’s
interpretation, e.g., NRSV, NASB, NIV, NET, TEV, CSB, ESV, NEB, Tyndale,
Moffat, Fenton, Lamsa, Cassirer, Schonfield, etc.
None of the above Bibles
or theological resources suggest there is a “categorical limitation on [Paul’s]
words” that would require a meaning that does not apply universally to
mankind. However, they do affirm that
“all men” means exactly how it reads, “all
men”, that is, “all men without limit”; none excluded. Furthermore, “all men” is meant whether or
not one understands the text to speak of all men as individuals or as
individuals within kinds, groups, or classes.
Challenges from the Church Fathers
The Church Fathers also challenge White when they
contemplate Biblical revelation as demonstrating God’s intent in salvation to
be for “all men without limit” as follows:
1. “For God is a lover of mankind ‘and will have all men to be
saved…’.” (Ignatius to the Philadelphians, Ante-Nicene
Fathers, vol.1, p.80).
2. “…the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family
to take upon Him the curses of all…in order that by His stripes the human race
might be healed…” (Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, ibid., p.247).
3. “He destroys no one but grants salvation to all” (Clement of
Alexandria, Fathers, vol.2, p. 575).
4. “…the blood of Christ…has set the grace of repentance before the
whole world” (Clement of Rome, ibid., vol.1, p.7).
Although more might be
said, I must end here with a couple of brief comments.
Concluding Remarks
White’s comments regarding
the mediation of Christ seems (a) based upon his own eisegetical
presuppositions; (b) to betray an erroneous understanding of the Biblical view
regarding Jesus’ mediation; and (c) a misunderstanding of the Arminian view of
the atonement.
Dr. Olson’s “simplistic
interpretation” of the text might be simply
because he follows the plain meaning of the text, which seems to require no interpretive
gymnastics to understand it.
Appendix: Further Resources
 |
| "O Lord, teach me..." - Psalm 119:11 |
A long time ago, I read a book about sociology. I think it was “The Naked Ape” by Desmond
Morris. I was not a Christian at the
time and it is not a Christian book.
However, I believe it was in there that I read something to the effect
that the author is surprised that, upon reading the morning newspaper while
eating breakfast, we don’t throw up.
As
Christians, we should be filled with much more of a sense of the sorrow and
pain that others go through other than to casually remark, “Oh, my, this is
terrible!” while we eat our breakfast.
We say we know Christ Jesus. Yet,
it seems we do not realize that he was a “man of sorrows, filled with grief.” We read in the Bible that Jesus, the Son of
God, wept over what others wept over in what is probably the most profound yet
ignored and underrated verse in the Bible: “Jesus wept.” The writer of Hebrews does not say that Jesus
dropped a couple of tears over the tragedy of man but “with strong crying and
tears” to His Father, and “was heard.”
The Cross is more than God forgiving us.
It is God’s entrance into the depths and utmost experience of human
tragedy; it is God taking upon himself more than our sin but also our feelings
of deep sorrow and unmitigated pain.
