Gary Long, whom you pointed us to said this: [i]3. Biblical: The term "all men" taken by itself is capable of an absolute meaning but the the context of 1 Tim. 2 does not support it. That "all" or "all men" do not always mean all and every man that were, are, or shall be, may be made apparent by nearly 500 instances found in Scripture. "Paul definitely mentions 'groups' or 'classes' of men; kings (v.2), those in high position (v.2) etc., the . . ." (William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles).[i]
But what if Paul is saying it like this:
I remember when my mother would come into my bed room when I was young and would say: "I want all your clothes picked up . . . the socks, the pants, the shirts." Do you think I could get away with not putting away my coat on the floor and underwear etc? After all, she qualified the term "all your clothes" with just groups or classes of clothes. But we know she really meant "all of the clothes" and should I be derelict, I may not get disciplined.
Paul is using the same logical construction is he not?
He wrote in 1Tim.2:1 "I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; (lit. all humans) 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty."
I just find it hard to see Mr. Long's position (actually he quotes William Hendriksen's position) on this matter as being correct. I'm not saying I am, but I think I am.
Thanks. I'm still thinking about what you wrote to me before.
