Note: I originally wrote this to help clarify the 1 Tim 2:1-8 passage, I have reworked it for this format in case it’s helpful for others. This post is written through a reformed understanding of God & His work. While I’d enjoy diving deeper and unpacking that topic, this post seeks to dive deeper into a specific outcome of a of the pillar of “Calvinism” namely, the scope (not value) of Christ’s atonement.

The question I want to unpack is:

Does God (ultimately) desire every single person to be saved?

Here’s the frequently quoted passage:

“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle ( I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; “

1 Timothy 2:1-8 ESV

There are 3 ways that people have come to understand this passage:

  1. God desires the salvation of all humanity and will save all of humanity
  2. God desires the salvation of all humanity and will save some of humanity
  3. God desires the salvation of his people from all people and will save them

If the passage is referring to the first understanding: that God wants every single human being to be saved and is, in fact, saving every single human being then this is universalism and we reject it knowing that not all are being saved (Matt 7:13–14). Again, I’d be happy to dive into this another time, but at this point I’m assuming you also reject universalism.

The second understanding is also rather problematic. It claims that God wants, ultimately in his very being, every single person to be saved, yet even though he wants this, he will not save them, he will not breathe life into their souls, he will not give them a new heart, he will leave them dead in their sin and instead he will do this only for some of those people.

*Side note: unfortunately the problems with this second view are deeply connected to the nature of Christ's atonement and there's no way I can do this topic justice in a blog post. In fact R.C. Sproul wrote a book on election and didn't even dive into this topic 🤣. However, If you're interested in diving deeper into the definitive atonement (also know as limited atonement) of Christ, I'll link to some great resources at the end of this post.*

The core of the problem with this second view is that it denies God sovereignty. God’s plans are different to our plans; his plans cannot be frustrated. We read in psalms that God does all that pleases him (Ps 115:3). This is what is means to be God, it’s the foundation of being sovereign.

While we may set about our lives with desires that remain unfulfilled, this isn’t true of God as no purpose of his can be thwarted (Job 42:2). He is God, thrice holy, set apart, there is none like him. To propose that “God our Saviour, who desires all people to be saved” is saying that God desires something he won’t get, is to frustrate God, and diminish his sovereignty. It elevates the importance of something else above him. It is tantamount to blasphemy or idolatry, because it’s saying he’s not God.

I know that there’s a desire in us humans to apply our sentiments to God; our sense of fairness, of rightness. We want to take this passage and say “isn’t it loving that God wants everyone to be saved” But let us truely consider this claim of love. A god that would say “I want everyone to be saved” but knows that they cannot, and will not, be saved without him breathing life & faith into them is not loving, it is an empty sentiment. Who ties God’s hands? Who prevents God from saving whomever he desires? No one.

Therefore if it’s not universalism, and we want to acknowledge God’s sovereignty, we’re left with a single remaining interpretation of who Paul is referring to when he writes “all people”: Paul’s referring to the global nature of God’s plan to save his people. It’s not just a single type of people or nation from which God is saving, but from every tribe, tongue and nation: not just the jews, but also the gentiles (Rom 9:23-25). We could phrase this as, “God is saving from all people”, rather than “God is saving every person”.

We can see support for this interpretation within the passage itself. Firstly from the author’s own mission & desires: Paul is on a mission to bring the gospel to the Gentiles, he says this in 1 Tim 2:7 that he’s “a teacher of the Gentiles”". Paul also expresses in this passage that in every place men should pray […], his heart for the gospel to go everywhere.

The second way we find support for this interpretation within the passage itself, that all is referring to a subset, is in verse 6 where we read that “Christ Jesus gave himself as a ransom for all”. Yet we know that this all is referring to a subset because the subject himself (Christ) identified the object of his ransom: his sheep, for whom he lays his life down: “even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mat 20:28)

So, if Paul means “many” why does he use all when he is referring to the object of Christ’s ransom? For that matter, why does he use all when he refers to who God desires to be saved, and who to pray for?

To answer this, we need to look at what Paul’s mission, his objective, and secondly at humans in comparison to God.

“Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?”

Romans 11:13-15

“But the Lord said to him, ‘Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel.’”

Acts 9:15

“testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. […] But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God. '

Acts 20:21,24

Paul was taking the good news of Christ to the nations of the world, to the Gentiles. For this world’s inhabitants: kings, Jews and gentiles.

If this is Paul’s focus, then we can see that in support of that, the chosen language is beneficial for communicating this global mission. Firstly we could look at what might happen if Paul had used a more specific phrasing like “the elect” when referring to the object of Christ’s ransom (which Paul has used elsewhere Eph 5:25). How might the church (then & today) interpret this? Would they focus on the Gospel going out to the world or would they focus on the “elect” bit? I’d suspect that the latter. If Paul had used the narrower phrasing it could have distracted from what he was trying to say.

But more significantly we can look at how Paul describes the mediation of Christ in the following verse: “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5). We see Jesus also describe himself in similar ways: I the way the truth and the life, there is no other way to God (John 14:6). When we talk about the work of Christ we can talk about how it saves an individual (again, Paul does this elsewhere), but we can also talk about humanity, how Christ is the only way to be right with God. This universal truth that applies to all humanity, there isn’t one path for some, and another path for others (as many false teachers proclaim). For the Jew, the Muslim, the Buddhist, the capitalist and the atheist there was no other name by which they can be saved: Jesus.

So the choice of phrasing Paul has used focuses on the global, expansive nature of God’s salvation plan: There is only a single way to be saved and this applies to all; God is gathering a people from all peoples; many will be saved.

Now I have come across some who would patronise this interpretation of the passage, by making a mockery of the “little” subset of each nation God is bringing to himself, but is this not what God has been doing all along? For all human history God has been gathering a remnant (Rom 11:5) for himself. I find nothing troubling nor humorous about this: God is gathering his Children from the four corners of the world:

“He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.”

John 11:51-52

“After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands"

Revelation 7:9

“And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.”

Daniel 7:14

“And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.”

Mark 13:27

Finally, he has commanded us: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19). He is using us for his glory, his work of salvation, to bring his people home. God has promised that his Word won’t return empty (Isa 55:11). While we do not know when Christ will return nor who Christ will save, we do know clearly, without a doubt, the work we are called to do.

Let’s conclude by considering the parable of the sower: The image of farmers scattering seeds indiscriminately, they throw the seeds of Gospel on all different soils. Liberally tossing it in order to find purchase and grow a bountiful harvest. Not all hearts receive it, but nowhere are we commanded to throw the gospel only on the good soil (for only God knows the heart of man - 1 Kings 8:39).

We’re called to scatter, to plant, and to water the seeds everywhere, but it is not us who will make them grow. Who will believe the message we preach?

“And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.”

Acts 13:48

To the praise of his glorious grace!

As promised here are 2 great resources on the nature of Christ’s atonement: