Canonical Sense of the Passage

Jesus’ prayer is not the only passage that Paul echoes in his charge to Timothy. An important inter-text for 1 Timothy 2:1-7 is found in Solomon’s prayer for the dedication of the temple in 1 Kings 8:22-61. Recognizing that he was dwelling in a house made of cedar while the ark of the covenant was kept in a tent, Israel’s king David had determined to build a temple unto the Lord.  God told David that task, instead, would fall to his son Solomon (2 Samuel 7:1-17) because David had been a man of war but Solomon, who would reign as king after David’s death, would be a man of peace (1 Chronicles 22:6-10).  After David’s death, Solomon constructed the temple and, having gathered all the congregation of Israel before it, had the ark placed within the Holy Place by the priests.  When the priests emerged from the Holy Place, the glory of the LORD filled the temple in the form of a cloud (1 Kings 8:1-11). Solomon then prays a prayer of blessing to the Lord (1 Kings 8:12-21) followed by a prayer of dedication for the temple (1 Kings 8:22-61).

The prayer of dedication and its benediction can be outlined as follows:

1. Praise to God for his faithfulness (8:22-24).
2. Request for a continuation of David’s dynasty (8:25–26).
3. Request for God to hear his prayers and Israel’s prayers to respond in forgiveness (8:27–30).
4. Request for justice in the land (8:31–32).
5. Request for forgiveness and a restoration of His blessings upon the nation when they repent of their sinfulness (8:33–40).

      1) When God causes them to be defeated by their enemies (33-34).

      2) When God causes there to be no rain (35-36).

      3) When there is famine, pestilence, blight, mildew or plague (37-38).

      4) Plea for forgiveness and that the people may fear the Lord (39-40). 

1. Request for God to hear the prayers of foreigners who visit the temple that all the peoples of the earth may know God’s name and know the temple is called by His name ( 8:41–43).
2. Request for victory in times of war (8:44–45).
3. Request for the people of Israel to be brought back from captivity after they have repented in the cases in which their sins might lead God to give them over to their enemies (8:46–53).
4. Benediction

1) Praise for God’s faithfulness thus far and a plea for his continued faithfulness (8:54-57).

2) Request that the Lord would incline the people’s hearts to walk in his commandments, rules and statutes (8:58-59).

3) Expression of hope that all the peoples of the earth will know that God is the only true God (8:60).

4) Charge to the people to keep God’s statutes and commands (8:61).

            There are a number of ways in which these two texts demonstrate common themes and concerns. First, they concern the “house of the LORD” and its central place in the lives of God’s people as well as its function as a witness to the non-believing world. The mercy seat which covered the ark of the covenant held within the temple was the place where God’s presence dwelled (Leviticus 16:2).  In this way, though God cannot be contained within a house (1 Kings 8:27), the temple could be properly called “the house of the LORD” where He would dwell forever (1 Kings 8:13). The temple, then, stood as a representation of God’s presence in the midst of His people, the place where they, themselves, longed to dwell (Psalm 27:4), and as a testimony to the outside world to God’s presence, faithfulness and power (1 Kings 8:43). 

The apostle Paul, likewise, admitted that God did not live in temples made by man (Acts 17:25) and, yet, refers to the church in Ephesus as “the household of God” (1 Timothy 3:15). Jesus also had told his disciples that “where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them” (Matt. 18:20), and so the identification of the gathered congregation with the presence of God is a natural one.  So closely was the church to be associated with the presence of God, Paul refers to the church in Ephesus as the “body of Christ” (Eph. 1:22-23). Paul expected that this “household of God” would be, like the temple, a testimony to a fallen world.  God declared that Israel would be a “light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth” (Is. 49:6b), Paul mirrored this declaration in telling the church in Philippi that they should “shine as lights to the world” by being “blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation” (Phil. 4:15).  Paul has this same concern for the church in Ephesus, that they live “peaceful and quiet” lives “godly and dignified in every way.” Implicit in this is his desire that they, too, would shine as lights into the darkness of Ephesus (1 Tim. 2:1-4).

Second, both Solomon and Paul express a recognition of the sinfulness of man, how it steers people from God and demands his justice. In his prayer, Solomon repeatedly anticipates future acts of rebellion on the part of the people of Israel and the resulting judgment of God (1 Kings 18:31, 33, 35, 39, 46-53). In response, he calls on them to have “true hearts” and to walk in God’s statutes and commandments (1 Kings 18:61). The charge to prayer that Paul issues in 1Timothy 2:1-7 arises from a similar concern. False teachers had arisen in their midst and, as a result, the church was in danger of being led astray from having “pure hearts” (1 Tim. 1:5) and Paul calls them to walk in “godliness and dignity” (1 Tim. 2:2).

Third, a confidence in the power of prayer is clear in both instances.  When the ark was placed in the temple, Solomon’s first act was to pray a prayer of dedication.  In that prayer he begins with thanksgiving and then moves to bold requests before the LORD for his continued faithfulness, his forgiveness, his sovereign power to be displayed over man and nature, for his influence on the hearts of the people, and for the salvation of others.  Paul, likewise, begins his charge to Timothy and, through him, the church, with prayer including a variety of approaches: supplications, intercessions and thanksgivings.  In both instances, these prayers were lifted up with a confidence that the LORD could move the hearts of people both within and outside of the household of faith.

Fourth, both passages include expressions of the desire that all people would be saved.  Solomon anticipated the arrival of foreigners who would come to pray towards the temple.  His call to the LORD was that he would hear their prayers “so that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you, as do your people Israel” (1 Kings 18:43).  Solomon was also concerned that the people of Israel would live uprightly “so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the Lord is God; there is no other” (1 Kings 18:60).  Paul expresses this same concern.  Perhaps as a response to the false teachers who were apparently exclusive in their claims to God’s favor, Paul emphasizes that God “desires everyone to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4).  Paul explains that it was for this reason that he was called to go beyond his kinsmen the Jews and to be a “teacher of the Gentiles (1 Tim. 2:7) and why he now called upon the church in Ephesus to live uprightly.   

Fifth, both affirm that there is only one God by whom all people can be saved. Solomon began his prayer by declaring “O LORD, God of Israel, there is no God like you, in heaven above or on earth beneath” (1 Kings 8:23). He concludes by stating “the LORD is God; there is no other” (1 Kings 8:60). Paul, likewise, makes it clear that “there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5).

Sixth, they both acknowledge that a payment must be made for the sins of mankind. The ark of the covenant that was placed in the temple had upon it the mercy seat (see Exodus 25:17-22).  Elwell notes that

the Hebrew word for which ‘mercy seat’ is the translation is technically best rendered as ‘propitiatory,’ a term denoting the removal of wrath by the offering of a gift. The significance of this designation is found in the ceremony performed on the Day of Atonement, held once a year, when blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat to make atonement for the sins of the people of Israel (Lv 16)…The propitiatory or mercy seat points forward to Jesus, who is termed by Paul (Rom 3:25) the ‘means of propitiation’ through faith in his blood for all who have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Here in Romans 3:25 the Greek term translated ‘propitiation’ is the same Greek word consistently used in the Septuagint and in Hebrews 9:5 to translate the Hebrew word for mercy seat in the OT.^[i]

Paul points to the need for the Ephesians to have Christ, “the” mercy seat, act on their behalf when he writes, “there is one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself a ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:5-6).

Seventh, they both call for a proper regard for the law and for an order by which the people of God should live. Solomon’s concern was that the people of Israel would “walk in all (God’s) ways” and “keep his commandments” (1 Kings 8:58). These were represented by the two tablets of the law that were kept within the ark and they, along with the other commands of the law (i.e. “the book of the covenant,” Ex. 24:7), were given to Israel that they might be a “priestly kingdom and holy nation” (Exodus 19:6). Paul expresses in 1 Tim. 1:8 that “we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully” and that he law calls to account the disobedient and those who hold to “whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine” (vs. 10).  He then calls those in the church to “hold faith and a good conscience” (vs. 19). It is in this light that his expressed hope that the church in Ephesus would “lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity” (1 Tim. 2:2) should be understood.  Paul will then go on to present an order for church life, including qualifications for church offices and instructions for the behavior of individuals and groups within the church, which will enable them to do just that. 

As a “Hebrew of Hebrews” and “as to the law, a Pharisee” (Phil. 3:5), Paul would have been intimately familiar with the story of Solomon’s dedication of the temple and one may be justified in believing that he reflected upon Solomon’s words as he considered the role of the Christian church as a witness to the fallen world around it.  Just as Solomon saw the “house of the LORD” as a testimony to the faithfulness and presence of God among his people and, thereby, a witness to the nations, so Paul saw the “household of God” as playing the same role.  The only difference being that Solomon’s temple was built of brick and mortar, the one in Ephesus built of believing Christians. 

Solomon, in his wisdom, foresaw the issues that the church in Ephesus faced. “There is no one who does not sin” he declared (1 Kings 8:46) and that sin often led people to stray from God making shipwrecks of their faith (a la 1 Tim. 1:19). He may not have anticipated the particular struggles facing the Ephesian church but his manner of addressing the challenges of his day was the same as those of Paul in his: prayer. 

During the years following the deaths of the apostles and despite their warnings, false teachings continued to arise within the church. One of the ways that heresies were addressed by those who were entrusted with leading the church was through the composition of rules of faith, creeds and confessions. It has been said that “creeds are signposts to heresies”[ii] and they served to contribute to the “good battle” that Paul had called Timothy to (1 Tim. 1:18). But it was not only in combatting false teachers that one might link Paul’s charge to Timothy to the use of these compositions.  They were also a “testimony and witness to the world.”[iii]  Christians were called to declare their belief in times of peace and times of persecution alike. Rules of faith, confessions and creeds were tools by which they did this.

            From the earliest days of the post-apostolic church, rules of faith echoed 1 Tim. 2:5-6 by containing affirmations of the uniqueness of God and of Christ who had come in the flesh for the salvation of man. Irenaeus composed a rule of faith (c. 190) in which he declared that the church believed in “one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation.”  Perhaps, one might be able to read echoes of 1 Timothy 2:4 when Irenaeus expressed that in Christ’s future return, Jesus would come “in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,’ and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” to Him, and that He should execute judgment towards all.”[iv]

Later, the Interrogatory Creed of Hippolytus (c. 215), a forerunner to the Apostle’s Creed, affirmed God the Father as “all governing” and Christ Jesus as he who will come to “judge the living and the dead” but also adds a belief “in the holy Church.”[v]  The Nicene Creed (325) affirmed that Jesus was fully God, but it was The Definition of Chalcedon (451) which made sure that it was understood that he was also fully man.  Reflecting Paul’s description of Jesus as “himself human” (1 Tim. 2:5), the Definition describes Jesus as “perfect both in deity and also in human-ness; this selfsame one is also actually God and actually man” and “as far as his human-ness is concerned; thus like us in all respects, sin only excepted.”[vi]

            It is not until much later in the Augsburg Confession of 1530, written by Philip Melanchthon for Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, that a few more elements from 1 Timothy 2:1-7 appear.  After Martin Luther’s death in 1546, theological conflicts commonly arose among his followers and the Augsburg Confession was written for two reasons: “to establish the integrity of the Christian faith of the Protestants, and...to justify their corrections of abuses in the life of the Church.”[vii] The concerns contained within 1 Tim. 2:1-7, are echoed throughout.  First, the occasion is similar.  Paul was responding to theological conflicts within the church in Ephesus which weakened the faith of those within and diminished their witness to those outside.  In 1530, theological conflicts were now plaguing the Lutheran church. A unified system of belief needed to be put forth to secure peace within the church while placating those outside who may have seen the conflicts as evidence that their complaints against the Catholic church were on unstable grounds and that, perhaps, their voices needed to be silenced.  Secondly, like Paul’s charge to prayer, the Confession is directed at influencing “kings and all who are in high places” (1 Tim. 2:2). The Lutherans were being associated with radicals[viii] and so the threat of their being persecuted by the forces of local rulers aligned with Charles V was real. The Lutherans sought to live “peaceful and quiet lives” and this was an effort to obtain it.  Third, the confession emphasized the role of the church.   In Article V, it is asserted that the “office of ministry” was instituted by God so that the Holy Spirit might work faith, “when and where he pleases, in those who hear the Gospel.” In Article VI, good works are said to be done for God’s sake and not to earn merit before him.  This echoes the concept of Paul that the church’s desire to live peaceful and quiet lives is good and pleasing to God, not because he desires easy lives for those in the church, and not because these lives become ways for them to earn his good pleasure, but because he desires all people outside of the church to be saved. Fourth, in Article XXI, a rejection of prayers to the saints is directly linked to 1 Timothy 2:5 as it announces that Jesus “alone has promised to hear our prayers.”  In 1540, Melanchthon produced an altered version of the Augsburg Confession to appeal to Calvinists which John Calvin himself signed. 

Sixteen years after signing the Augsburg Confession, Calvin published his commentary on 1 Timothy and it was, like the Confession, directed towards one “in high places.”  Dedicated to “The Most Noble and Truly Christian Prince, Edward, Duke of Somerset”, Calvin begins his Commentaries on Timothy, Titus and Philemon with high praise for the prince. After noting that he has demonstrated heroism and piety by making “the restoration of religion…in the kingdom of Europe…(his) principle object”, Calvin notes how Paul’s relationship to Timothy might serve as a model for him to follow with the Timothy’s that are under his charge:

Now, since in order to restore the English Church, which, along with almost every other part of Christendom, had been miserably corrupted by the shocking wickedness of Popery, you employ your strenuous efforts under the direction of your King, and for that purpose have many Timothys under your charge, neither they nor you can direct your holy transactions in a more profitable manner than by taking the rule here laid down by Paul for your pattern. For there is nothing in them that is not highly applicable to our times, and hardly anything that is necessary in the building of the Church that may not likewise be drawn from them. I trust that my labour will, at least, afford some assistance; but I choose that this should be known by experience rather than that I should boast of it in words. If you, most noble Prince, shall approve of it, I shall have abundant reason for congratulating myself; and your remarkable kindness does not permit me to doubt that you will take in good part that service which I now perform.^[ix] 

Calvin’s commentary on 1 Timothy 2:1-7 echoes that of the critical exegesis above on a number of particular points but the differences in his approach are not negligible. What differentiates Calvin in particular is in what he chooses to emphasize in the passage. His historical context led Calvin to have two main concerns in mind: 1) the role of civil authorities in promoting religion, 2) the challenge that Catholicism posed for a correct understanding of the work of Christ.  

            As already noted, Calvin dedicated his commentary to Prince Edward who he credited with seeking to restore proper religion to England. Perhaps it is not surprising then that he spends a great deal of time in his exposition emphasizing the role that princes have in promoting proper religion and the respect due them by the populace. Since “God appointed magistrates and princes for the preservation of mankind, however much they fall short of the divine appointment,” we ought “not on that account cease to love what belongs to God, and to desire that it may remain in force.” For “that is the reason why believers, in whatever country they live, must not only obey the laws and the government of magistrates, but likewise in their prayers supplicate God for their salvation.”^[x] Calvin likens prayers for governments to produce peace to our prayers for the earth to produce fruit: “We must always hold by this principle, that magistrates were appointed by God for the protection of religion, as well as of the peace and decency of society, in exactly the same manner that the earth is appointed to produce food…so in those benefits of which we have already spoken, we ought to consider the ordinary means which he has appointed by his providence for bestowing them.”^[xi] The fruit of such prayers is that the governments will promote “godliness” through their promotion of religion and “decency” through their promotion of an ordered life.^[xii] Calvin adds that if we do not experience these fruits, we need to take a look at ourselves.  Seeing that God assigns rulers for these ends, if they do not come about it is likely because God is rendering the rulers useless because of our sins.  The first response to poor rule from the government, then, is personal confession by their subjects.

Regarding the challenge of the Catholic Church, Calvin focuses on their promotion of prayers to the saints. He comments: 

First, the name is so hateful to them, that, if any one mentions Christ as Mediator, without taking notice of the saints, he instantly falls under a suspicion of heresy. But, because they do not venture to reject altogether what Paul teaches in this passage, they evade it by a foolish exposition, that he is called “one Mediator,” not “the only Mediator.” As if the Apostle had mentioned God as one out of a vast multitude of gods; for the two clauses are closely connected, that “there is one God and one Mediator;” and therefore they who make Christ one out of many mediators must apply the same interpretation in speaking of God. Would they rise to such a height of impudence, if they were not impelled by blind rage to crush the glory of Christ?^[xiii]….Some person will perhaps think, that it will, therefore, be easy for us to come to an agreement with the Papists, if they place below the only intercession of Christ, all that they ascribe to the saints. This is not the case; for the reason why they transfer to the saints the office of interceding is, that they imagine that otherwise we are destitute of an advocate. It is a common opinion among them, that we need intercessors, because in ourselves we are unworthy of appearing in the presence of God. By speaking in this manner, they deprive Christ of his honour. Besides, it is a shocking blasphemy, to ascribe to saints such excellence as would procure for us the favour of God: and all the prophets, and apostles, and martyrs, and even the angels themselves—are so far from making any pretension to this, that they too have need of the same intercession as ourselves.^[xiv]

When considering Calvin’s interpretations of the passage, it is helpful to understand his methodology.  Fortunately, he described it in his dedication of his commentary on Romans to a man named Simon Grynaeus.  In the dedication, he describes his methodology as a “lucid brevity” which is undertaken to “lay open the mind of the writer.” Calvin favored “plainness” over “the evil of tiring readers with prolixity.”^[xv] He believed that “it is an audacity, closely allied to a sacrilege, rashly to turn Scripture in any way we please, and to indulge our fancies as in sport” and bearing that in mind, “we may not be stimulated by any humour for novelty, nor impelled by any lust for defaming others, nor instigated by hatred, nor tickled by any ambition, but constrained by necessity alone, and by the motive of seeking to do good.”^[xvi]

Given these concerns, Calvin’s commentary on 1 Timothy 2:1-7 is wonderfully illustrative of how historical contexts shape one’s approach to the text. Calvin sought to be faithful to Paul’s thinking and labored to avoid any type of novelty in his approach.  Yet a number of his comments would be seen today as completely out of step especially by a reader in the United States.  For example, in his context, those who rule over the government were expected to promote religion.  It was not a question of “will they?” but of “which kind?” Calvin was thrilled that Edward was promoting a Protestant religion in the face of Catholic opposition which he saw as a real threat to the true church.  Commenting on 1 Timothy 1:7, Calvin likens the lack of understanding on the part of the Ephesian false teachers to the teachings regarding purgatory and the intercession of the saints by the Catholics of his own day. His understanding was that these are the teachings that will shipwreck true faith and which must be addressed not only by the church but by the government as well.  This sounds so foreign to our current historical context, particularly in places where the separation of church and State is a given.  In these contexts, to argue that the government has a place in the promotion of true Christian religion would be tantamount to treason.

 It seems that his own context limited Calvin’s ability to see what Paul was really striving for in this passage.  Paul did not expect Rome to promote the Christian religion but he did expect it to be used by God to provide a safe environment in which Christians could live.  This point of difference may not seem that profound until we take into consideration the ends for which Paul prayed. For Calvin, at least in his understanding of this passage, religion was to be promoted by the rule of government.  For Paul, religion was to be promoted by the lives of believers. No greater difference can be conceived.  If the spread of the faith is to come by the work of the government, then the peace that we are after is one of disconnecting from or suppressing the elements of society which do not line up with our systems of belief.  If the spread of the faith is to come by the work of the church, then our prayers for peace are ultimately prayers for the opening up of opportunities to connect to the world at large.  That being said, Calvin does us a favor that reminding us that prayers for the government are important and do bear real fruit for the advance of the kingdom.  It is not enough to simply pray for the avoidance of wars and the removal of corruption.  The church should actively pray for the salvation of those who rule over us for we know that, even if they cannot directly promote the Christian faith, the laws that they do promote will affect the way in which we are able to practice it. 

            Whether it be in dealing with the role of government or addressing doctrinal challenges, and whether or not we agree with his conclusions, Calvin’s approach is commendable in that it is pastoral. Modern commentaries often spend so much time questioning the text as to its veracity that, by the time one gets to the point where the interpreter is ready to posit their conclusions as to what the text itself means, one might be forgiven for wondering if they care anymore.  The manner in which every word is dissected for every conceivable nuanced meaning (see, for example, Craig S. Keener’s commentary on Acts) leaves the reader ready to accuse the author of “the evil of tiring readers with prolixity”! Calvin desired that his commentaries be read by pastors in order to be helpful to their congregants.  To that end, he pursued brevity with a view to application. Perhaps, that is why the readers of his commentaries, even while differing in their conclusions as to the meaning of a particular passage, still value them so.

            In his “Argument on the First Epistle to Timothy,” Calvin states “This Epistle appears to me to have been written more for the sake of others than for the sake of Timothy, and that opinion will receive the assent of those who shall carefully consider the whole matter. I do not, indeed, deny that Paul intended also to teach and admonish him; but my view of the Epistle is, that it contains many things which it would have been superfluous to write, if he had had to deal with Timothy alone.”^[xvii] Indeed, the letter to Timothy was composed with others in mind because it is, as 1 Thessalonians 2:13 says, “God’s word, which is also at work in you believers.”

Indeed, the word of God is living and active” (Hebrews 4:12), forming and transforming believers even today. Today’s political climate provides a rich context in which the Holy Spirit can use 1 Timothy 2:1-7 in new ways to form persons into the image of Christ and transform persons into better disciples. As an example, the 2017 headline in the Washington Post read, “Photo surfaces of evangelical pastors laying hands on Trump in the Oval Office.”[xviii]  Since that day, pictures of President Trump surrounded by ministers praying for him have become common as he has found himself embraced by a host of evangelical leaders.  Not every Christian is as enthused about Trump however, and he has been a lightning rod for criticism from those within the church as much as from without.  When the conversation turns to the question “What are we going to do in response to President Trump?”, 1 Timothy 2:2 provides the answer: pray.  For Paul, praying for “kings and all who are in high positions” was not about approving of their governance.  It was about asking the Lord to use them for the purposes of his kingdom. Could Trump be used to create an environment where Christians are able to pursue “peaceful and quiet” lives? Some say he already has.  Even when Trump has faced criticisms regarding past conduct, Franklin Graham, founder of Samaritan’s Purse, has been outspoken in his support of Trump stating "I never said he was the best example of the Christian faith. He defends the faith. And I appreciate that very much."[xix] Even if one is not convinced, the call still remains to pray.  Praying for someone that you do not care for is an act of humble service and one that we enter into with Christ.  As Karl Barth explains,

Even while we are in the communion of the saints, in the ecclesia of those who are brought together by Jesus Christ, we are also in communion with those who do not yet pray, perhaps, but for whom Jesus Christ prays, since he prays for humankind as a whole.  It is the object of this intercession, and we ourselves enter into the communion with the whole of humanity.  When Christians pray, they are, so to speak, the substitutes for all those who do not pray; and in this sense they are in communion with them in the same manner as Jesus Christ has entered into solidarity with sinners, with a lost human race.[xx]

Regarding the populace at large, studies have consistently shown that our nation is more divided now than it has ever been in recent history[xxi] and a deep distrust and dislike for the other has evidenced itself in confrontations both verbal and physical.  Christians may be tempted to jump into the fray but what does 1 Timothy call us to do?  Again, the answer is pray.  We are urged to pray for “all people.” These prayers include prayers for God to meet their needs (supplications), prayers that demonstrate genuine concern for their wellbeing (intercessions) as well as prayers of thanksgiving for them and the work that God is doing in their lives. If Christians today would follow this charge given to the believers in Ephesus, it would go far in diffusing some of the discord that marks our society today and would serve to make the church shine as a light of hope into this dark world. Jesus called on his disciples to “love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you” (Matt. 5:44), surely that includes political enemies?

            When we look across the political, social and racial landscape that exists today, what do we see?  The Christian answer is not given in terms of political affiliation, social status or color of one’s skin. The Christian answer is “we see people whom God desires would be saved.” As has already been noted, when you love God, you love the things he loves and desire the things he desires.  The church has no option, then, in the face of all the division but to pray.  Pray for hearts which love God and, out of that love for God, love humankind wishing with him that they would turn to the only one who can save, the man Christ Jesus. 

^[i] Walter A. Elwell and Philip Wesley Comfort, “Ark of the Covenant.” In Tyndale Bible Dictionary. (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001), 884.

[ii] John H. Leith, Creeds of the Churches (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1982), 9.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Ibid., 21.

[v] Ibid., 23.

[vi] Ibid., 35-36.

[vii] Ibid., 63.

[viii] Ibid.

^[ix] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, trans. William Pringle (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), xi.

^[x] Ibid., 51.

^[xi] Ibid., 52–53.

^[xii] Ibid., 52.

^[xiii] Ibid., 58.

^[xiv] Ibid., 59.

^[xv] John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, trans. John Owen (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), xxiii–xxiv.

^[xvi] Ibid., xxvi–xxviii.

^[xvii] Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, 13.

[xviii] Sarah Pulliam Bailey. “Photo surfaces of evangelical pastors laying hands on Trump in the Oval Office.” Washington Post, July 12, 2017.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/07/12/photo-surfaces-of-evangelical-pastors-laying-hands-on-trump-in-the-oval-office/?utm_term=.03b51323dccd

[xix] Justin Wise. “Franklin Graham: Trump defends the Christian faith.” The Hill, Nov. 25, 2018. https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/418180-franklin-graham-on-supporting-trump-he-defends-the-christian

[xx] Karl Barth, Prayer, 50^th Anniversary Edition, ed. Don E. Saliers, trans. Sara F. Terrien (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 23.

[xxi] Steven Shepard. “Study: Americans more divided along party lines than ever,” Politico, Oct. 5, 2017, https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/05/poll-americans-divided-party-lines-243466