Additional Notes §5
§5 Proper Objects of Prayer (1 Tim. 2:1–7)
Following the charge to Timothy in chapter 1, which points to the presence of false teachers as the occasion of the letter, Paul now moves on to give a series of specific instructions (2:1–7 on the proper objects of prayer; 2:8–15 on the proper demeanor for prayer; 3:1–13 on qualifications for church leadership). All of this leads directly to 3:14–15, where Paul repeats his purpose for writing in terms of the believers’ knowing how to conduct themselves in God’s household.
Because there is no specific reference to the false teachers in these three sections, it is often suggested that what is being given in the two chapters is an early church manual, of the kind that would have been needed for setting a congregation in order—although some have suggested that the reason for such a manual would have been to offer church order as the proper antidote to heresy. By and large, however, the “church manual” view sees very little relationship between chapters 2 and 3 and the charge to Timothy in chapter 1.
But since the new section begins with the conjunction “therefore” (NIV, then), implying a result or inference from what has preceded, it seems much more likely that all of this material is a direct consequence of what was said in chapter 1. That means that these instructions are best understood as responses to the presence of the wayward elders, who were disrupting the church by their errors and controversies. In fact, Paul does not suggest at any point that Timothy is to set the church in order, as for the first time. In each case the activities seem already to be present. What Paul is doing, rather, is correcting abuses of various kinds. For example, it may be assumed that men pray, and do so with raised hands (v. 8). The instruction here is that they do so with “holy” hands, not “soiled” by anger or argument.
If that be so, then what might be the place of this first paragraph in the argument? The frequent answer is that the point lies in verse 2, that prayer be made for rulers so that the church may enjoy a peaceful existence. It has even been suggested that a correct Christian attitude toward the state is what is in view. Verses 4–7, then, are seen as nearly irrelevant to that point, but go back to elaborate on a secondary point made in verse 1 (prayer be made for everyone). However, it seems much more likely that precisely the opposite is the case. The one clear concern that runs through the whole paragraph has to do with the gospel as for everyone (“all people,” vv. 1, 4–6, and 7). In this view, the phrase this is good in verse 3 refers to prayer for everyone in verse 1, thus seeing verse 2 as something of a digression—albeit as before (1:12–17), a meaningful one. The best explanation for this emphasis lies with the false teachers, who either through the esoteric, highly speculative nature of their teaching (1:4–6) or through its “Jewishness” (1:7) or ascetic character (4:3) are promoting an elitist or exclusivist mentality among their followers. The whole paragraph attacks that narrowness.
2:1 / Although this sentence clearly begins something new, the then (better, “therefore”) also ties it to what has gone before. But what? Most likely it goes all the way back to the charge in 1:3, but now by way of verses 18–20. What Paul says, then, is: “Even as I urged you, stay there in Ephesus to stop the false teachers. I now urge, therefore, first of all, that …” The first of all suggests not so much that prayer itself is the first thing that needs to be discussed, but that offering prayers of all kinds for “all people” is the matter of first urgency.
Four different words for prayer are used; however, the distinctions often made between them are usually oversubtle. Paul’s point is not to define or distinguish the various kinds of prayer that should mark Christian worship, but to urge that prayers of all kinds be made for everyone, with the emphasis on everyone. That becomes clear in verses 3–7.
2:2 / “Prayers” of all kinds “for all people” also includes the governing authorities—kings and all those in authority. The word for kings usually means the emperor, but the plural here seems to make it more comprehensive, which is further substantiated by a generalizing addition: and all those in authority. It might be, of course, given the nature of things in Ephesus, that the addition refers to those in authority in the church. But the use of kings, plus the whole context, implies that all those who govern (the emperor, provincial officials, local magistrates) are proper objects for Christian prayer. In this there is nothing new: Prayers and sacrifices for pagan authorities have a long history in Judaism (see note).
Paul now adds a reason for praying for the pagan authorities: that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. For many scholars, this sounds terribly bourgeois, even selfish. But, again, it probably reflects the activities of the false teachers, who are not only disrupting (“disquieting”) the church(es) but apparently are also bringing the gospel and the church into disrepute on the outside (see esp. 3:7; 5:14; 6:1; cf. Titus 2:5, 8; 3:1–3). The concern here, therefore, is not that Christians should have a life free from trouble or distress (which hardly fits the point of view of 2 Tim. 1:8 and 3:12) but that they should live in such a way that “no one will speak evil of the name of God and of our teaching” (6:1).
This understanding is supported by two other factors: First, in 1 Thessalonians 4:11–12 Paul uses identical language (“lead a quiet life”) for the selfsame reason (to “win the respect of outsiders”), where “busybodies” are disrupting things (cf. 2 Thess. 3:11 with 1 Tim. 5:13); and second, the language all godliness (eusebeia) and holiness (semnotēs; better, “proper conduct,” as GNB), which is peculiar to these letters in the Pauline corpus (except for Phil. 4:8, semnēs), has to do with behavior that can be seen. At such points one would expect “righteousness” (dikaiosynē) and “holiness” (hagiosynē) in Paul if the emphasis were on one’s relationship to God or internal righteousness.
The term eusebeia (along with its verb and adverb) is a crucial one in these letters. In popular parlance it meant roughly what religious means in popular English. For many it is difficult to imagine Paul’s using such a word, which belongs to Hellenism and Hellenistic Judaism (see esp. Ecclesiasticus and 4 Maccabees), to describe either the Christian faith or Christian behavior. But the answer to this, as with many such terms in the PE (see the Introduction), lies with the false teachers. Most likely this is their word, being used by Paul to counteract them (cf. the use of wisdom in 1 Cor. 1–3).
It should also be noted that the attitude toward the state reflected in this passage is quite in keeping with Romans 13:1–5. Prayer for such authorities is to be made precisely so that believers, including the elders, may freely live out their faith before “outsiders” (3:7). But such a point is nonetheless a slight digression, brought about by the mention of pagan officials.
2:3–4 / Paul now returns to his main concern, prayers of all kinds “for all people.” The reason? Because God wants all [people] to be saved. That this is good, and pleases God might, of course, refer to the content of verse 2. But the relative clause in verse 4 indicates otherwise. This is good, Paul says; that is, prayers “for everyone” is good, and pleases God our Savior, precisely because the God who has saved us (our Savior) wants his salvation to reach all people.
The appellation God our Savior (see the note on 1:1) emphasizes that God is the originator of the saving event (cf. Phil. 1:28; 1 Thess. 5:9) and that Paul and the church have already experienced it. But neither our salvation, nor that of an elitist few, satisfies God, for God wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. The point of the text is clear: The gospel, by its very nature, as Paul will argue in verses 5–6, is universal in its scope, and any narrowing of that scope by a truncated theology or by “novelties” that appeal to the intellectual curiosities of the few is not the gospel of Christ. And to say that God wants (not “wills,” and therefore it must come to pass) all people to be saved, implies neither that all (meaning everybody) will be saved (against 3:6; 4:2; or 4:10, e.g.) nor that God’s will is somehow frustrated since all, indeed, are not saved. The concern is simply with the universal scope of the gospel over against some form of heretical exclusivism or narrowness.
In this sentence salvation is closely tied to coming to a knowledge of the truth. That does not suggest that salvation is no longer a response of faith (see disc. on 1:15–16) but that, especially in the context of false teachings, salvation also has its cognitive side, to a knowledge of the truth, that is, to hear and grasp the gospel message (cf. 3:15; 4:3; 2 Tim. 3:8; 4:4; Titus 1:1).
2:5–6a / Paul will now offer as evidence for the contention that “God wants all people to be saved” some commonly held theological affirmations, probably from an early creedal formulation—although some of the present language may well be his own. The statement has three parts to it: the unity of God, Christ as mediator, and Christ’s death as securing redemption. It should be noted that all three parts support Paul’s insistence on the universal scope of salvation.
There is one God. This statement reflects the primary Jewish affirmation about God (see Deut. 6:4; cf. 1 Cor. 8:4). Its original intent in the OT was to stress God’s unity vis-à-vis the polytheism that surrounded Israel. Unfortunately, however, it often came to be used in an exclusivistic way: “He is our God and he looks out for his own.” But basic to the original intent, and what Paul is stressing here, was that the fact of one God not only meant that there were no other gods but that he is therefore the one God over all peoples.
And there is one mediator between God and men (lit., “One also is the mediator between God and mankind”). The presupposition of this line in relation to the first is the universal sinfulness of humanity, who needs outside help in order to be rightly related to the one God whom it has spurned. The point being made is not only that humankind needs mediation with God (the presupposition) but that God himself has provided it. The word “mediator” had sometimes been applied to Moses in Judaism (e.g., Philo, Moses 2.166), as the one who “mediated” the Law to God’s people, a notion Paul seems to allude to negatively in Galatians 3:19–20. Here, or in the creed itself before Paul used it, the background lies in the idea of a “negotiator” who “establishes a relation which would not otherwise exist” (TDNT, vol. 4, p. 601). Jesus Christ is the “go-between God,” who reconciles fallen humanity to the one God, that is who mediates between God and men.
The phrase the man Christ Jesus emphasizes both his full identification with all men and his being the one human being of whom it can be said, he is the Man (anthrōpos, the generic term, not anēr, expressing male gender). This seems to reflect Paul’s use of the Adam-Christ imagery, wherein Christ becomes the representative “man” for people of the New Age, as Adam was of the Old.
Who gave himself as a ransom for all people: This clause, of course, makes explicit what was only implicit in the first two clauses, revealing Paul’s reason for citing the whole. God’s desire for all to be saved is evidenced in the creed itself with its statement that Christ’s death was for all people. The gospel, therefore, potentially provides salvation for all people, because Christ’s atoning self-sacrifice was “in behalf of” (hyper) all people. Effectually, of course, it ends up being “especially [for] those who believe” (4:10).
The clause is very close in concept, but not so in its actual language, to Mark 10:45 and probably reflects a Hellenized form of that saying. To give himself up for us is a typically Pauline way of referring to Christ’s self-sacrifice on the cross (Gal. 1:4; 2:20; Eph. 5:2). As a ransom translates a noun, antilytron, that can mean either a “ransom” (involving “payment”) or “redemption” (in the Exodus sense of delivery from bondage). In both Mark 10:45 and here, the latter is to be preferred (as well as in Titus 2:14).
As often happens, therefore, when describing the work of Christ (cf. Rom. 3:24–25; 1 Cor. 1:29; 6:11), a rich combination of metaphors is used, and this creedal statement is no exception. But the point throughout is its potentiality for all people.
2:6b / The dash before the words the testimony given in its proper time reflects (correctly) an attempt to handle a very difficult phrase, which seems to stand without obvious grammatical connection to what has gone before. Literally, it says, “the witness in its [or “his”] own times.” “The witness” apparently stands in apposition to the whole of verses 5–6a. “His own times,” which will recur at 6:15 and Titus 1:3, implies that in the “history of salvation” the time for God’s showing mercy to all people has now arrived, as witnessed in the death of Christ, which is “for all.”
2:7 / With one final stroke Paul will underscore the point of the paragraph: prayer for all because God wants all to be saved. This time he does so by reasserting the purpose of his own ministry. The sentence is tied grammatically to the “testimony” mentioned in v. 6: For this purpose, that is, for the sake of bearing testimony to the all-inclusive redemptive work of Christ, Paul himself was appointed a herald and an apostle … and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles. The word herald, which occurs only here and in the companion passage in 2 Timothy 1:11 in Paul, images the apostle as the announcer of good news. Although he follows this with apostle, the emphasis in this sentence lies not on his apostleship as such, but on his being a teacher of the Gentiles, which picks up the theme of the universal scope of redemption. This is demonstrated by the sudden insertion of the protestation I am telling the truth, I am not lying (cf. Rom. 9:1; 2 Cor. 11:31) before teacher of the Gentiles. Such an emphatic outburst, which almost certainly is intended to emphasize what follows, not what precedes, seems quite out of place, except for the need of the church in Ephesus to hear clearly that Paul’s own ministry as teacher (not apostle) of the true faith to the Gentiles also demonstrates the universal scope of the gospel. This latter phrase in particular would seem to suggest some form of Jewish exclusivism as lying at the heart of the problem (cf. esp. Titus 1:10–16).
The NIV’s of the true faith in the final phrase is an attempt to clarify an otherwise obscure conclusion to this sentence, which literally reads “a teacher of Gentiles in faith and truth.” This can refer either to the manner of Paul’s ministry (a faithful teacher, full of integrity) or to the sphere of that ministry (a teacher of the Gentiles as to the faith and truth). Although the former fits well the emphasis of the sentence, more likely Paul intends the latter (cf. the use of “truth” in v. 4), so that the sentence ends not on a note about himself but about his gospel. The NIV thus takes the two words as nearly equal, the true faith, which in this case is to be understood as over against the exclusivism of the false teachers.
Although it is not directly Paul’s point in this paragraph, these words function as one of the more significant missions/evangelism passages in the NT. The same reason that Paul was appointed a herald of the good news for the Gentiles is why the church must always be involved in missions. It is inherent in the very character of God, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth, and in the redemptive work of Christ, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. It is therefore incumbent on God’s people to proclaim that good news.
2:1 / The first three words for prayer in this verse may have slightly different nuances, but in fact all three simply mean “prayer.” The first two, deēsis and proseuchē are interchangeable synonyms in the NT (e.g., cf. 1 Thess. 1:2, proseuchē, with Phil. 1:4, deēsis); and when they appear separately, they are simply translated “prayer.” The word for intercession appears again in 1 Tim. 4:5 and is usually translated “prayer” (although the context suggests that the prayer is a thanksgiving!). In this list, however, it may well lean toward “intercession.” Thanksgivings (eucharistiai) has been suggested to refer to the Eucharist, but that is surely an anachronism. The earliest attempt to draw fine lines between these words was made by Origen, On Prayer 14; he has been followed, among others, by Bernard, Hendriksen, and Barclay.
The clear emphasis of Paul’s paragraph lies with the universal scope of salvation, as seen in the repetition of pantas (“all people”) at the three key places in the paragraph (vv. 1, 4, 6). It is therefore unfortunately misleading and unnecessarily sexist for the NIV to translate this “all men” in vv. 4 and 6, especially after translating it “everyone” in v. 1.
2:2 / The following Jewish texts speak about Jews praying, or offering sacrifices, for the authorities: Ezra 6:9–10; 1 Macc. 7:33; Letter of Aristeas 44–45; Pirke Aboth 3.2; Jos. Wars 2.196. See also in first- and second-century Christian authors: 1 Clement 60:4–61:1; Tertullian, Apology 30.
2:3–4 / There is, of course, a long history of theological urgency in the church that has been generated by this sentence. Much of it stems from an Augustinian-Calvinist view of election that appears to be at odds with the plain sense of the text. Various suggestions have been offered, such as all meaning “all kinds of” (that is, people from all races and stations) or “all the elect.” Much of this discussion has been carried on quite apart from Paul’s context and thereby assumes the text to be intending some kind of theological pronouncement; or else an author’s theology has been already in hand before approaching the text, and the discussion has been a kind of skirmish with it. All of this applies to v. 6 as well.
2:5–6a / In the second line of the creed, the structure of the Greek, which, as in our literal “translation,” has the kai (“and,” “also”) following the word one, allows the possibility that the statement emphasizes the deity of Christ. That is, the one God is also the one who mediates, with the following appellation, the man Christ Jesus, then emphasizing his humanity. See I. H. Marshall, “The Development of the Concept of Redemption in the New Testament,” p. 166.
For a discussion of “ransom, redemption” words in the NT, see L. L. Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, pp. 9–59; D. Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings, pp. 49–81, whose influence is evidenced on these pages; and the Marshall essay just mentioned.
2:7 / There is an emphatic I in Paul’s sentence here, but the verb is in the passive, indicating that his ministry was not of his own choosing but of God’s.