On January 2nd 2022, WWUTT (When We Understand The Text) posted a video on their YouTube channel entitled "Does God Desire ALL People to be Saved? (1 Timothy 2:4)". Ordinarily, WWUTT is an excellent ministry, whose videos are very informative in spite of being rather short in length. In mere minutes, they tackle a range of theological issues, and normally, with little slide shows to back up their presentations, they're right on the ball.
In this particular video, however, they dropped that ball in spectacular fashion. Their answer to the question posed in the title is ultimately "no". Their reasoning? Whereas 1 Timothy 2:4 clearly states, in every translation I am aware of, that God wants "all men/people" to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, WWUTT feels justified in altering the text, so that it now says all kinds of people.
They begin their argumentation by pointing out that Jesus says not all people will be saved, but most will actually go to eternal punishment. For this, they cite Matthew 7:13-14; Matthew 25:46. They therefore go on to argue that if this is the case, "all people" cannot mean every person without exception, otherwise we would have to accept Universalism (the belief that all people will be saved). Alternatively, they argue, if God does desire all people to be saved, yet most will not be, then there are circumstances outside of God's control, thus meaning He is not sovereign.
They continue to say that the Greek word for all can mean "all kinds", then point out that the passage begins with Paul urging Timothy to pray for all people, for kings, and all who are in high positions. This means all kinds of people, as God desires all kinds of people to be saved. After this, they show that in 1 Timothy 6:10, we are reminded that the love of money is the root of "all kinds" of evil. Furthermore, they argue that in 1 Timothy 2:5-6, we are told Jesus gave Himself as a ransom "for all", yet in Matthew 20:28, Jesus Himself says He gave Himself as a ransom "for many". To back this up further, they cite Revelation 5:9, stating Jesus has ransomed people for God "from every tribe, people, language, and nation". Thus, they conclude, all kinds of people are saved.
Allow me to explain why I do not find these arguments compelling, starting with the idea that if God wants all men to be saved, we must either accept Universalism, or that God is not sovereign.
We can rather swiftly dispatch with the idea that we must accept Universalism if God wants all men to be saved, first of all, by pointing out that what God wants and what happens are two different things. Jesus is saying people will be condemned, not that God wants them to be condemned, or that they couldn't have been saved by the same Gospel if they had repented. A simple question to ask a Calvinist is if a person, like Christopher Hitchens, had repented, would he have been saved? If they say no, they are consistent with Limited Atonement, but not with scripture, which cites faith as the sole criteria for salvation. If they say yes, then Christ did die for all, but not all are saved because faith is the criteria for salvation. This is the reason we do not accept Universalism.
But this is where WWUTT's alternative comes in: There are circumstances beyond God's control, and therefore God is not sovereign. This argument is equally illogical, but for multiple other reasons. The first is that just because God doesn't do something doesn't mean He can't do it. For example, in Matthew 26:53, Jesus tells us that God could have sent 12 legions of angels to save Him on the night He was arrested. Yet, Jesus was arrested, and not an angel in sight. We even know that Jesus willed not to be crucified (Matthew 26:39). Jesus, of course, is God, and the Holy Trinity is of one accord. Thus, what Christ wills, the Trinity wills. It even makes sense that the crucifixion would be outside of His will, because it was a punishment He accepted on our behalf.
This introduces us to the concept of greater and lesser wills. Sometimes, you want two conflicting things, but you cannot have both, so you sacrifice the lesser for the greater. In our case, it might be something like spending money on bills, rent, and essentials, rather than spending it on luxuries. Or perhaps, to give a more Godly example, you're forfeiting your own right to eat by fasting in order to feed another person. In the case described above, Jesus did not want to go to the cross, but did want to obey the Father (and of course loves us enough to save us), so He sacrificed His desire to be in good health and not suffer the wrath of God for those goals.
"But you're saying God can't have it both ways". Yes. I am quite happy to say that God cannot contradict Himself for the same reason scripture says God "...cannot deny himself" (2 Timothy 2:13) or "...cannot lie..." (Titus 1:2). Does God cease to be sovereign if He has limits He imposes upon Himself?
Or let me ask you another question. In Luke 7:30, which rather explicitly says the lawyers and Pharisees rejected the will of God for themselves by not being baptised by John, is Luke telling us, by divine inspiration, that God is not sovereign? Like God is not strong enough to overcome a few stubborn and rebellious Jews?
My brethren, sin, by definition, is anything which violates the will of God. Only one man throughout human history has ever been able to fulfil God's will perfectly. Need I tell you who? Of course, it's Jesus. Everyone else has "gone our own way" (Isaiah 53:6). We need the gift of salvation precisely because we do things God does not will! Rejecting the Gospel is just as opposed to God's will as any other form of blasphemy, yet for reasons I am perfectly content to leave to Him, He decides to allow such sins to continue eternally. Does He lose out this way? Was God denied something He needs? Does He lack anything? Of course not! Salvation is a gift from God to us. Therefore, when someone whom God desires to be saved rejects that salvation and is condemned, they lose, God is still victorious, still glorified, still sovereign over all. It's a case of win with God, or lose against Him.
Those are the two strongest arguments in WWUTT's video, and yet as you can see, their reasoning is about as solid as a melting gummy worm. But what about the argument from the original Greek?
For obvious reasons, this argument seems more convincing than the others. Perhaps this is because most people don't speak Greek. Rather, we read from translations. And of course, there is good reason to assume translations are inferior. The problem is, because most people cannot read scripture in its original languages, even the worst of heretics are able to bend the original languages to their will. I've even been told by a Theistic Evolutionist that my English translations "have zero authority".
Now, I'm absolutely not saying WWUTT are in any way heretical, nor do I even believe that Calvinism is heretical. I believe it's wrong, but not heretical, as I can understand why a casual student of scripture may draw Calvinistic conclusions. What I am saying is that appealing to the original languages, as if translations are somehow insufficient, opens the door to a wide range of heresies, including many that WWUTT is quite adept at dispatching. I've seen appeals to the original languages to defend the Papacy, Transubstantiation, Theistic Evolution, and even to reject the Deity of Christ. The answer to WWUTT is the same as to all of these heretics: The English is sufficient.
WWUTT even indirectly admits this in their citation of 1 Timothy 6:10, as seen in this slide from their video:
This, of course, is an issue with translation. Do we translate word for word, which often sacrifices meaning (called "formal equivalence"), or "thought for thought" (called "dynamic equivalence"), which often means the translator must do your interpretation for you. Most Bibles use some degree of both methods, with translations like the KJV tending more towards formal equivalence, whereas translations like the NLT tend more towards dynamic equivalence.
In the case of 1 Timothy 6:10, WWUTT is correct: The word "kinds" is added. Whether or not this is ok depends on your point of view. In some translations, this addition does not exist. The KJV does not make this addition, though most modern translations do. If you want a more literal translation, you must ignore the word "kinds" in this verse. But by admitting it is added in 1 Timothy 6:10, they open up the question, why could I find no reputable translations that add the word "kinds" into 1 Timothy 2:4? In fact, I normally say "reputable" translations to block out the possibility that the NWT, the Passion translation, or some obscure translation somewhere might pop up that says what I'm saying "no translation" says, but in this case, I did a search on Bible Gateway, and I could not find a single translation, even among the ones I've never heard of, that do to 1 Timothy 2:4 what WWUTT admits was done to 1 Timothy 6:10.
Now, I'm not a Greek expert by any means. That's why I use translations in the first place. But I am of the opinion that if there is justification to translate a verse a specific way, there would be a reputable English translation that does so. After all, I'm not an expert, but those who translated the Bible certainly are, including the Calvinists who were involved in those translations. So why would I trust one heretic, or in this case one fantastic ministry that unfortunately made an oopsie here, over the scores of scholars who would be putting their reputations on the line if they produced a dodgy translation?
The conclusion I draw, therefore, is that there are no translations that translate 1 Timothy 2:4 as "God wants all kinds of men to be saved" because there is no linguistic justification to do so, as there is (or one could argue isn't, if formal equivalence is your preference) in 1 Timothy 6:10.
At any rate, I am certainly content to let "all men" remain "all men" in 1 Timothy 2:4 because the rest of scripture firmly indicates that this is the case. Of course, WWUTT disagrees even with this. You may recall, they contrasted 1 Timothy 2:5-6 with Matthew 20:28. But the problem with this is that it is a basic rule of hermeneutics to interpret the unclear in light of the clear. Which word is clearer: All, or many? Well, we often ask "how many", but we never ask "how all". Many can mean any large number, but all means all. "I've had many cookies from that jar". "How many?" "All of them". Is there a single cookie left in that jar? Not one.
So it may well be true that all can mean all kinds, but it can also mean all. What does it mean, for example, when Roman 3:23 says "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"? "Jesus is an exception, why can't Mary be?", asked one Catholic I once debated. Under WWUTT's use of the word "all", she very well could be. But in this case, WWUTT would almost certainly agree that all means all, and that's all all means. So, why not in 1 Timothy 2:4?
In reality, scripture is replete with statements similar to that found in 1 Timothy 2:4, but with a problem for WWUTT's interpretation: They don't use the word "all". In fact, we even see in 2 Peter 2:1 that the Lord bought those who deny Him and are swiftly destroyed. This can only refer to the atonement, as there is no other sense in which God, who owns everything, would need to buy false teachers.
And so this is why we offer prayers and supplications for all people. Because God really does want all people to be saved. Had God intended us to believe He only wants all kinds of people to be saved, He would have said that. He wouldn't have made it abundantly clear, both in 1 Timothy 2:4 and throughout the rest of the scriptures, that He does want all people to be saved. If there were exceptions, not only would He have told us about them, but He would have told us not to preach to them, or at least He would not have told us to preach to them. Why are we being asked to go out and tell people "hey, because Jesus died for your sins, you can be saved", if Jesus did not die for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2), and thus the people we preach salvation to are actually unable to receive that salvation? It makes no sense.
What does make sense is that when the Bible says "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16, emphasis added), God meant exactly that.
So, does God want all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth? Absolutely, when we understand the text.