The Narrow Path Ministries

Homer and Dizerner, what reason do you have for saying that the word can mean "specifically" rather than "especially (other than your desire to avoid the Scripture's teaching concerning universal salvation)? There are ten other verses which contain the word "μαλιστα." Can the word in ANY of these be taken to mean "specifically"?

Here is a verse which is rather parallel in some respects to 1 Tim 4:10.

Galatians 6:10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith.

I suppose we could substitute "specifically" for "especially" and then we wouldn't have to do good to all people, but only to our fellow Christians.

Right, Paidion, you make a good point. Sometimes a word can have a "common" meaning and a more "uncommon" meaning. If we think this word is being used in an uncommon way, we'd need to have a good reason to do so. There's no doubt the common meaning of it is to include the original idea, but focus or point out on thing particularly. I'd read from a couple sources that malista in some old sources had seemed to be used as "that is" or "namely" or as a narrowing or specifying of the original idea. They mentioned there were examples of this, but I've yet to find them. A search of the LXX came up fairly empty-handed. Until I find an example, I'll definitely withhold that claim. I think the passage can still be interpreted as a Savior in potentiality though, and not an actuality. One intersecting note i found, the word is used in modern current-day Greek as "indeed, surely, of course, emphatic yes."

dizerner wrote:One intersecting note i found, the word is used in modern current-day Greek as "indeed, surely, of course, emphatic yes."

Hi dizerner,

And this is why modern day language, over 2000 years removed from an ancient language, is mostly irrelevant to the study of ancient script. "Our intent", is not what's in view, rather, what was the "ancient's intent", is the real question and focus. I'm sure we can all somewhat agree to this.

God Bless.

This seems to be missing the point.

This is not a letter to a church. Paul isn't outlining his doctrine and theology. The purpose of this letter is to encourage a young church leader. That's a very different purpose from romans.

Taken in that context, this section of the letter, Paul is encouraging Timothy. Not making a doctrinal statement. This verse is a tiny tag to the end of a 4 verse encouragement to focus on the right things and not be distracted by the wrong things. Trying to pull doctrine out of it is akin to determining my eschatology based on how I end my prayer at the dinner table.

When you pull back and read it macroscopically, Paul is saying "this is why we work hard. Because we have hope. That God is the savior of all people,."

It's not doctrine. It's a vision statement.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When you pull back and read it macroscopically, Paul is saying "this is why we work hard. Because we have hope. That God is the savior of all people,."

It's not doctrine. It's a vision statement.








I agree it's not a letter about doctrine and it s/b included together with a basket of other Pauline statements. But it is to be considered that Paul appears to have separated believers and unbelievers and possibily used a word (especially) that may allude to UR. He could have known that Timothy knew what he knew already so a doctrinal was not necessary just a reminder of what they already knew.

Hi Paidion,

George W. Knight, professor of Greek, has written a detailed verse-by-verse commentary of the Greek and English text of the Pastoral epistles, published by Eerdmans (New International Greek New Testament Commentary series). According to Knight malista can be translated "that is", "to be precise", or "in other words". In favor of Knight's position is the ambiguity that comes with translating it "specially". For example:

1 Timothy 4:10. Why would Paul mean that all will be saved when in the same epistle he speaks of many being destroyed?

1 Timothy 5:8 (NASB)

8. But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Who are "his own"? As translated it appears to include those (some?) not "of his household". Did Paul mean his church family, as in Galatians 6:10? An uncle living in another country? All is clear if malista is translated "that is".

1 Timothy 5:17 (NASB)

17. The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.

This passage is ambiguous in that it could be (and has been) construed to speak of two classes of elders, those who teach and those who are administrators. Not only that but it appears to say that both groups are worthy of double honor while saying one group is especially so, thus they both receive the same support. All is clear if "especially" is translated "that is" because teaching is a function of the elders in ruling over the flock. Ruling well are those who work hard at preaching and teaching.

Two other examples in the exact same letter. I feel blind for missing that, thanks Homer.

1 Timothy 5:8 (NASB)

8. But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Who are "his own"? As translated it appears to include those (some?) not "of his household". Did Paul mean his church family, as in Galatians 6:10? An uncle living in another country? All is clear if malista is translated "that is".

1 Timothy 5:17 (NASB)

17. The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.

This passage is ambiguous in that it could be (and has been) construed to speak of two classes of elders, those who teach and those who are administrators. Not only that but it appears to say that both groups are worthy of double honor while saying one group is especially so, thus they both receive the same support. All is clear if "especially" is translated "that is" because teaching is a function of the elders in ruling over the flock. Ruling well are those who work hard at preaching and teaching.







Maybe i'm missing something but it seems clear that the translation could have been "in particular." "Especially" seems to simply place more emphasis toward a particular group.

Sure, it could have been. But the point is room for ambiguity... can the word ever be used in a narrowing down sense and not just a subset of the original. But even that point is moot if we simply assume that Paul was not specifying whether God being the Savior of all men was conditional or unconditional, I think that clarification is left unspoken but easily inferred from surrounding text, just like the verse "all will be made alive in Christ" is not specifically giving the qualification "unconditionally," it's merely an extremely terse statement. God is the Savior of all men, potentially, all will be made alive in Christ, potentially, and in the surrounding passages we receive the obvious conditions.

if we simply assume that Paul was not specifying whether God being the Savior of all men was conditional or unconditional












IMHO Paul always made clear it's conditional , but the issue is whether or not physical death is the deadline or not. UR believes it's not and traditional Christianity believes it is.