1 Timothy 4:10

[robbyyoung]

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.

Hi Homer,

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with this alternate meaning of, "that is". Briefly, Mr. Knight and others may entertain the idea of an alternate meaning, however, the BAGD or BDAG (Bauer-Danker Greek Lexicon of the New Testament) knows of no occurrence in the Greek NT where μαλιζηα is rendered “that is”. Additionally, there's already a greek word for this "alternate meaning", τοῦτ᾿ ἔστιν (tout' estin) 'THAT IS'. See Matt. 27:46; Mark 7:2; Acts 1:19; 19:4; Rom. 7:18; 9:8; 10:6, 7, 8; Philem. 12; Heb. 2:14; 7:5; 9:11; 10:20; 11:16; 13:15; 1 Pet 3:20. Knight's Presbyterian Polity may have influenced his jump to conclusions for unwarranted multiplied meanings.

I see no reason, in the verses you provided, to exchange a proper rendering to excite a new meaning. Especially when there is no conflict within the context. In other words, the repeated presence of two viable meanings is symptomatic of the systematic ambiguity that would be introduced into Greek if Greek speakers were to start using ma ́lista with the new meaning. The whole idea is unwarranted and untenable.

God Bless.

[dizerner]

Well it's just silly to argue that because there is another phrase with a similar meaning, no other phrase could mean that. It's just not the way languages work.

[robbyyoung]

Well it's just silly to argue that because there is another phrase with a similar meaning, no other phrase could mean that. It's just not the way languages work.

Hi dizerner,

There's nothing similar AT ALL regarding the two greek words in question. As steve7150 rightly pointed out, "One is inclusive and the other is exclusive, very different meanings."

So no, it isn't silly at all. Or is this an attempt by you to be your loving self?

God bless.

[TheEditor]

All "older men" were "elders". There was no 1st century hierarchy as we have it today; no lapel-pins or frock coats. When he wrote what he did, he was likely drawing a distinction between those older men that were acting in one role as opposed to those acting in another.

The time under consideration of one's "own family" has to be viewed through the lens of how the poor and aged were cared for in the 1st Century. Children were to care for their aged parents first and foremost, not outsiders. If there were no children, then the congregation should support. Also, relatives versus "one's own house" could be viewed as two distinct groups when using the word "especially".

Regards, Brenden.

[Homer]

Robby,

Consider the following comments on malista by Ra McLaughlin:

Moreover, it is possible that the Greek word malista, here translated “especially,” actually means something else. In fact, while malista can be translated “especially,” this translation does not make much sense when one considers what salvation really is (an unbeliever cannot be “saved”). Alternatively, malista may also be translated “namely” or “precisely.” Either of these meanings would render a translation of this verse as follows: “God is the savior of all men, or, to be more precise, of believers.”

This meaning is even more attractive because malista is the superlative form of the word mala. Although mala does not appear in the New Testament, its comparative form mallon does. A comparative may be thought of as an emphatic form of a word (e.g. the comparative form of “good” is “better”), whereas a superlative is one step more emphatic than a comparative (e.g. the superlative of “good” is “best”). The word mallon may mean “more” or “still more,” but it may also mean “rather” or “instead” , a meaning Paul used more than any other. It is entirely possible that by malista Paul meant an emphatic “rather” or “instead.” That is, it is feasible that he thought better of the phrase “savior of all men” because of its potentially misleading nature, and thus changed it to“believers,” with this change being noted by malista for emphasis.

You insist on malista meaning "especially" and in doing so you have nothing at the end of the day but an ambiguous statement that proves nothing regarding universalism, just provides a rabbit trail or three.

[robbyyoung]

Robby,

Consider the following comments on malista by Ra McLaughlin:

Moreover, it is possible that the Greek word malista, here translated “especially,” actually means something else. In fact, while malista can be translated “especially,” this translation does not make much sense when one considers what salvation really is (an unbeliever cannot be “saved”). Alternatively, malista may also be translated “namely” or “precisely.” Either of these meanings would render a translation of this verse as follows: “God is the savior of all men, or, to be more precise, of believers.”

This meaning is even more attractive because malista is the superlative form of the word mala. Although mala does not appear in the New Testament, its comparative form mallon does. A comparative may be thought of as an emphatic form of a word (e.g. the comparative form of “good” is “better”), whereas a superlative is one step more emphatic than a comparative (e.g. the superlative of “good” is “best”). The word mallon may mean “more” or “still more,” but it may also mean “rather” or “instead” , a meaning Paul used more than any other. It is entirely possible that by malista Paul meant an emphatic “rather” or “instead.” That is, it is feasible that he thought better of the phrase “savior of all men” because of its potentially misleading nature, and thus changed it to“believers,” with this change being noted by malista for emphasis.

You insist on malista meaning "especially" and in doing so you have nothing at the end of the day but an ambiguous statement that proves nothing regarding universalism, just provides a rabbit trail or three.

Hi Homer,

I'm not interested in manipulating the greek out of fear. These few men of dissent, concerning the matter, haven't proved anything AT ALL. The greek word stands as it is. All they are doing at best is giving an unwarranted, baseless opinion. And what is this talk about "unbelievers cannot be saved"? What????

Yes, I absolutely insist on "malista" meaning what the traditional evidence shows. If that leads to UR having some validity, then so be it. We shouldn't fear what the evidence shows.

God bless.

[Homer]

Hi Robby,

Earlier you wrote:

If I'm off base here, please correct my understanding of the greek lexicon interpretation.

I think Dizerner and I have been trying to show you there are other viable, or even more likely, translations.

And you wrote:

I'm not interested in manipulating the greek out of fear.

Do I appear to be afraid?

These few men of dissent, concerning the matter, haven't proved anything AT ALL.

I think there are more than a few; I'm becoming aware of more and more.

The greek word stands as it is. All they are doing at best is giving an unwarranted, baseless opinion.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Paul used the wrong Greek word. We are discussing the English word in the translation which is necessarily an opinion. You have not shown that an alternate opinion by those highly knowledgeable in Greek is baseless. Show us that their reasoning is baseless. I have reread this thread looking for your (or anyone's) "proof" of the popular translation of malista and all I found is a reference to a couple lexicons. Certainly the translation "especially" is plausible but, as pointed out, in places it is problematic. If not, we would not be having this discussion.

Yes, I absolutely insist on "malista" meaning what the traditional evidence shows.

OK by me.

[robbyyoung]

I don't think anyone is arguing that Paul used the wrong Greek word. We are discussing the English word in the translation which is necessarily an opinion. You have not shown that an alternate opinion by those highly knowledgeable in Greek is baseless. Show us that their reasoning is baseless. I have reread this thread looking for your (or anyone's) "proof" of the popular translation of malista and all I found is a reference to a couple lexicons. Certainly the translation "especially" is plausible but, as pointed out, in places it is problematic. If not, we would not be having this discussion.

Hi Homer,

What lexicon renders "malista" as "that is" or anything other than what is noted?

[steve]

It seems strange that the debate over the meaning of malista, in 1 Timothy 4:10, would be taking place here. The insistence on the word meaning "specifically" is a distinctly Calvinist concern.

This issue has no actual bearing on the universalist position, since evangelical universalists agree that only "those who believe" will be saved (as has been pointed out earlier in this thread). Universalists think that everyone will someday believe, even if not until after they have died. Therefore, if malista means "that is," or "specifically" (which I doubt), then it agrees with the universalist as well as with the traditionalist or the conditionalist.

I don't think that any of the parties involved in this thread are Calvinists. It is generally the Calvinists that argue for the non-traditional rendering of malista, while Arminians argue for the traditional reading.

Calvinists believe that salvation is never merely "potential," but is always "actual." That is, to them, Jesus is never a "potential" Savior. He is the Savior only of the elect ("those who believe" in 1 Tim.4:10), who are not potentially saved, but actually and inevitably saved. The non-elect are not capable of salvation. Thus, salvation cannot be "potential." If Christ is your Savior, it is because you are one of the elect. If you are not, then He isn't.

Arminians are the ones who argue that Jesus is the "Savior of all men" without distinction. That is, His death is sufficient, and intended, for the salvation of every descendant of Adam, without exception (not merely for some elect subset). In this way, Christ is the potential Savior of everyone, but the actual Savior of the believers.

The Arminian and Calvinist (as well as the universalist) agree that only the believers ultimately will be saved. Universalists believe that all men will become believers; Arminians believe all men could, but will not, become believers; Calvinists believe that none can become believers except for the elect ones.

The debate over 1 Timothy 4:10, and the meaning of malista, is generally about whether or not the unbelievers could also have been saved, in the plan of God, or whether Jesus died only for the pre-selected membership of the "elect" category.

Some Calvinists have an alternative means of interpreting this verse. "Savior of all men" is taken to mean, "in terms of temporal blessings and deliverances" (meaning, that He helps everybody in the sense of His general grace—e.g., Matt.5:45), but that Christ, specifically, saves those who believe "eternally".

[Paidion]

Hi Homer,

Let's first see how the Greek word “μαλιστα” is defined in several well-known lexicons.

The Online Bible Greek Lexicon:

3122 μαλιστα malista mal’-is-tah

neuter plural of the superlative of an apparently primary adverb mala (very); ; adv superlative

AV-specially 5, especially 4, chiefly 2, most of all 1; 12

1) especially, chiefly, most of all, above all

Strong's Greek Lexicon:

3122. μαλιστὰ̀ malista mal’-is-tah; neuter plural of the superlative of an apparently primary adverb μαλα mala (very); (adverbially) most (in the greatest degree) or particularly: —  chiefly, most of all, (e-)specially.

Louw & Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains:

μαλιστα: a very high point on a scale of extent — 'very much, especially particularly, exceptionally.' ὀδυνωμενοι μαλιστα ἐπι τῳ λογῳ ᾡ εἰρηκει 'they were especially sad at the word he had spoken' Ac 20:38

μαλιστα is found in 12 verses in the New Testament, and the generally accepted translation “especially” fits each one very well. So why reject this meaning in 1 Tim 4:10? I can think of no reason for those who reject it other than their theological bias.

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

Why wouldn't he? There's no contradiction. I intend to address this in my next post.[/quote]

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".

I don't see it as clear with that translation, but redundant. Why not simply state, “If anyone does not provide for those of his household,...”? The ESV makes it quite clear using the translation “especially”:

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

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.

All elders were WORTHY of receiving twice the amount that widows received, in order that they could support their families while spending the time they did in ruling well. Widows without children didn't need that much. Perhaps consideration was given to widows with children. We don't know. But those elders who laboured in instructing and teaching, and went beyond the usual responsibilities of elders were ESPECIALLY WORTHY of twice the amount.

Now how about addressing the verse which I previously quoted:

So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith. (Galatians 6:10 NASB)

Would you translate it as, “... let us do good to all people, that is, to those who are of the household of the faith”?

If you accept the translation with “μαλιστα” rendered as “especially,” in this verse, why not that translation in I Timothy, “...who is the Saviour of all people, especially of those who believe”? It's a pretty close grammatical parallel to the Galatians passage.

I suggest that the only reason you don't is that it looks too much like universal salvation to you.