2 Peter 3:9

The first thing to note about 2 Peter 3:9 is that we rarely hear the whole thing – or even a full sentence – quoted.  Typically, we hear, “God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”  This is actually only half of a thought.  The full verse says:

“The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”

See, if you read the verses immediately preceding this one, Peter is addressing the accusation that had been made that God wasn’t really keeping His promise to return, because He hadn’t done so yet.  Important to note in the immediate context is the word “us.”  He is longsuffering “toward us.”  Who is “us”?  Well, who is the letter written to?  “To those who have obtained like precious faith with us…” (1:1)  So the simple explanation here is that God is not willing that any of His elect will perish!  (As a friend very cogently pointed out today, if she stands up in church and makes an announcement that she wants everyone to come to her birthday party, she doesn’t mean everyone in the whole world; she means everyone in the church where she’s making the announcement.)

1 Timothy 2:3-4

On to 1 Timothy 2:3-4.  This one is a bit “trickier,” but I think a careful look at the context yields a viable interpretation for this one, too.  The passage reads, “For 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.”

Let’s look at the context.  What is the “this” in the first phrase?  Back up for a moment, to the beginning of the chapter:  “Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.”  Then we come to verse three, where we began.  I think it quite likely (at least possible) that the “all” here refers to “all kinds.”  As in, men of humble means, kings, others in authority, etc.

“But you’re twisting the word ‘all’!”

Now, before you start arguing that “all” means “all,” period, and that it cannot be taken any other way, scoot on over to chapter six, verse ten.  Same writer, same letter.  “For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil…”  Most translations render it this way – “all kinds.”  This is the very same word used in chapter two, verse four!  Obviously, that does not necessarily mean that “all” in 2:4 means “all kinds,” because the word does often just mean “all.”  It does, however, demonstrate that those “in the know” linguistically see “all kinds” as a legitimate meaning of the word.

What Else Does Peter Have to Say?

To further solidify these “takes” on these passages, let’s see what else the same writers had to say about God’s sovereign election.  Peter refers to his readers as the “elect” according to God’s foreknowledge.  (1 Pe. 1:2)  (This word “foreknowledge” is the noun form of the same word used in 1 Pe. 1:20 in calling Jesus “foreordained.”)  In chapter two, verse eight, he says that those who stumble over Christ are “appointed” to their disobedience.  And again in chapter nine, His people are “chosen.”  Again in 1 Peter 5:13, the church is “elect.”

What Else Does Paul Have to Say?

And what about Paul, who wrote to Timothy?  Where shall we even start?  Paul wrote Romans 9, which clearly spells out that whom God wills, he hardens.  In Ephesians, he says that God “chose us” (1:4) and that he “predestined us to adoption as sons…according to the good pleasure of His will” (1:5).  Again in verse 11, we are “predestined.”  To Titus, he mentions “the faith of God’s elect.” (1:1)  This is just a sampling.

In short, it’s clear from their writings as a whole that both of these writers believed that God either elected (chose) a person to believe in Christ or not.  Why would they then each contradict themselves in one small phrase?

*In my last post, I also pointed out that it is my intent here to explain, not to convince.  I should probably also point out that these two passages are not the foundation on which our theology is built!  Rather, these are some of the most common objections.