Does God desire all men to be saved? An exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:4

In my last blog, a friend of mind asked me the following question:

1 Tim. 2:4 says that God would have all men to be saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth. Clearly not all men do this. Some men reject God and the knowledge of truth. Do you see it differently?

In 1 Timothy 2:3-4 it states:

“This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”

A cursory reading of the passage would seem to indicate that God does desire all men to be saved. This verse is often cited as a proof text by those who hold to the idea that God has ordained that man’s “free will” is the ultimate determiner of the salvation He has offered to men. It is assumed by most that the phrase "all men" means every "individual" person that is ever born into the world. But is this interpretation really what Paul had in mind when he penned those words? Let's take a closer look at the context of the passage to see what Paul was communicating to his fellow apostle Timothy.

At the end of chapter one, Paul encourages Timothy in his walk and ministry telling him to "fight the good fight, keeping faith". From there, in chapter two, Paul begins to counsel him as to how he should keep his faith.

v.1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men,

Stopping here in mid sentence, what can we surmise what Paul is saying so far. If one understands "all men" to mean each individual person, then is Paul telling Timothy to open up the local phone book, start with the letter A, and start to pray for each individual person listed? An alternative understanding of "all men" is to interpreted as generic categories of men, such as Jews and Gentiles or rich and poor. Continuing on in the rest of the verse:

v. 2 for kings and all who are in high positions,...

Here Paul defines what he means by "all men"; Kings and those in high positions. It would seem that the understanding of "all men" would better fit the idea of generic categories or classes of men rather then individual particular persons.

v. 2 ...so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity.

Here Paul tells Timothy the reason why we should pray for "all men", so that they can live a quiet and peaceful life. Remember that during this time the early Church was being persecuted by such men as kings and those in high positions. Paul wanted Timothy to pray for the very people that are causing them distress. And why should Timothy pray for kings and those in high positions?

v. 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Because God even wants those who are persecuting His people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. God is not partial in that He only wants curtain kinds or types of men to be saved, but God wants ALL KINDS of men to be saved, yes, even powerful oppressors. Therefore it is clear that Paul did not have in mind a universal scope of “individual’s” when he said “all men” in this passage, but generic categories of men. This is further reinforced in the rest of the passage:

v.5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all

Here Paul explains why Christians should pray for “all men” to be saved, “For there is ONE God, and ONE mediator also between God and men.” If one was to understand “all men” in verse 4 to apply to every individual, does it not follow that Christ must be the mediator of “all men” individually as well? If in fact He was a mediator of all men individually, would it not also follow that He fails in His mediation on behalf of “all men” since not “all men” are saved and come to the knowledge of truth? One would hope that a person with the understanding of atonement, mediation, and intersession would never promote such an idea of a failing Mediator on behalf of His people. Not only would such an idea turn Scripture on its head, but would render Christ’s’ self-sacrifice as less than perfect.

One last point is the ransom that Christ gave. Was His ransom a saving ransom or a non-saving one? If it was a saving ransom (as the rest of Scripture indicates), then to be consistent with the passage, one must say that if “all men” is to be taken in an individual sense, then “all men” individually are saved by the saving ransom of Christ. Obviously this is not the case. Christ’s ransom was a saving ransom for all men categorically and not individually. Christ actually saves those for whom He has died.

There are many other examples throughout Scripture to support this idea of all men in a categorical sense. Here is one example:

For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard. Acts 22:15 (emphasis mine)

It is obvious that he is not talking about every individual person, but all kinds of men are in view. Here is one of the clearest examples of how Paul uses “all” in different classes of men:

A renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all. (Colossians 3:11)

To answer the original question asked of me, yes I do see this passage very differently. God does not show partiality to certain groups of men, but desires all different kinds of men to be saved. The God that I worship and serve is not a God that merely tries to save and fails to bring about His saving will for "all men". No, my God is a sovereign and powerful God that actually saves men and saves them perfectly.