by Cloyce Sutton II
via Biblical Insights, Vol. 15 No. 1, January 2015

For over half a century, brothers and sisters in Christ have disagreed on the extent of local church benevolence. May a local church financially assist unbelievers? Or to put it differently, must a local church restrict its benevolence to Christians?

I am convinced that local churches must limit their benevolent efforts to needy saints. While the issue is multifaceted, this article examines one aspect of the debate: a seemingly innocuous statement in II Corinthians 9:13.

A Disputed Passage

In II Corinthians 8-9, the apostle Paul describes a collection for needy Jewish Christians in Judea. He solicited funds from Gentile Christians among the churches he had planted. He now appealed to the Corinthian church to make good on their prior commitment. Their generosity would have two effects: First, the needs of the saints would be generously supplied (II Corinthians 9:12); second, the recipients would offer praise, thanksgiving, and prayer to God (II Corinthians 9:12-14). II Corinthians 9:13 reads, “Because of the proof given by this ministry, they will glorify God for your obedience to your confession of the gospel of Christ and for the liberality of your contribution to them and to all” (NASB).

The disputed phrase is, “your contribution to them and to all.” The KJV says, “your liberal distribution unto them and unto all men.” The identity of “all” is the issue. Does this text mean that money was available only to needy Christians? If so, then “to them and to all” means “to the needy saints in Judea, and to all other saints.” Or does it mean that money was available to both believers and unbelievers? If so, then “to them and to all” means “to needy saints and to anyone else, including unbelievers.”

A Familiar Argument

As early as 1968, Gus Nichols argued that “all” meant “all mankind.” He noted, “The Greek word ‘Pantas’ when used apart from some other word meaning man, is translated all men eleven times in the New Testament, and does not mean saints only a single time” (Arlington Meeting, p. 194f). His eleven texts were — John 2:24; 12:32; Acts 21:28; Romans 16:19; II Corinthians 9:12; Galatians 6:10;  I Thessalonians 3:12; 5:14, 15; II Timothy 2:24; and I Peter 2:17.

Nichols’ argument is problematic. The KJV does translate pantas consistently as “all men,” but with the caveat that each occurrence of “men” is italicized. The KJV translators interpreted pantas to mean “men” although italicization acknowledges that the word was not in the Greek text.
Newer versions vary the translation to suit the context. For example, the NKJV, NASB, and ESV omit “men” at Romans 16:19, while the NIV and HCSB translate pas as “everyone.” At II Corinthians 9:13, the NKJV agrees with the KJV, but the NASB says “all,” the NIV says “everyone else,” the HCSB says “others,” and the ESV says “all others.” Similarly, there are variations at Galatians 6:10; I Thessalonians 3:12; 5:14-15; II Timothy 2:24; and I Peter 2:17.

Pantas is the masculine plural accusative form of the word pas. Pas is an adjective that means “all” or “every,” and covers a wide range of usage in the New Testament in its more than 1,200 occurrences. As an adjective, pas modifies (describes) a noun elsewhere in the sentence or phrase. In English, we would say, “all apples,” or “all girls,” or “all cars.” Pas may also function as a substantive where it is used in the absence of the noun it would otherwise modify. In this way, the word describes “all” of a class or “all” of a kind of something. Only context can determine what “all” is describing.

Even a brief look at passages containing pantas demonstrates it does not always mean “all mankind.” For example, Romans 16:19 (like II Corinthians 9:13) uses pantas without a corresponding noun — “For the report of your obedience has reached all...” (NASB). The question is, “All of whom?” Chapter 16 is replete with references to Christians in Rome and other places. Just before this, he sends them greetings from “the churches of Christ” (Romans 16:16) and warns them to keep an eye on troublemakers among the churches (Romans 16:17ff). Here, Paul means “all Christians” or “all churches.” Simply put, pantas does not inherently mean “all mankind.”

In a 1987 debate with Eulane Walker in Union City, TN, Virgil Hale presented a variation of the pantas argument. He said the key phrase was eis pantas, “unto all.” He argued that whenever this phrase occurred, it always meant “unto all men (mankind).” That proposal is no better, for the adjective still takes its meaning from either the noun it modifies or, absent a noun, from the context. The meaning of eis depends upon the meaning of pas, which depends on context. Joining the preposition eis with the adjective pas changes nothing.

A Different Perspective

Gordon Fee offers a better line of inquiry in his commentary on Philippians. Commenting on Philippians 4:5, where Paul says, “let your forbearing spirit be known to all men,” Fee interprets “all men” as “those on the outside” (Fee 406). He then explains (note 27):

“While one would not deny in light of w. 2-3 that he also intends them to have this disposition toward one another, in Paul the combination pasin anthropois regularly points outward, to the whole of humankind; cf. I Thessalonians 2:15; II Corinthians 3:2; Romans 5:18 (2x); 12:18, 18; I Timothy 2:1, 4; 4:10; Titus 2:11; 3:2... To translate it simply all’ may leave the impression in context that it is inward looking.”

On Philippians 3:21, where Paul says, “by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself,” Fee observes (Fee 384, n 34) that the Greek phrase ta panta is “used by Paul when he wants to refer to the whole of the created universe or the whole of a given subject; for present usage cf. I Corinthians 8:6 (2x); 15:27-28 (4x); and Romans 11:36...”

In other words, if Paul wanted to say “all mankind,” not only did he have a way of doing so in Greek, but he routinely did so with the phrase pas anthropos. This does not mean that anthropos must be present with pas to mean “all mankind.” Nor does it mean that pantas alone cannot mean “all mankind.” Context determines the meaning of pas (in any form). However, when anthropos is coupled with pas, it is the most common way in the New Testament to express “all humanity.”

In his thirteen epistles, Paul uses this phrase nineteen times in sixteen verses to describe humanity.

• Seven times it occurs in the accusative case (direct object) — Romans 5:12, 18 (2x), I Corinthians 7:7; Colossians 1:28 (3x); I Timothy 2:4; Titus 3:2.
• Six times it occurs in the genitive case (possessive) — Romans 12:17, 18; I Corinthians 15:19; II Corinthians 3:2; I Timothy 2:1; 4:10.
• Six times it occurs in the dative case (indirect object) — Galatians 5:3; Philippians 4:5; I Thessalonians 2:15; Titus 2:11.

Whether this is a peculiar feature of Paul’s writing style or simply a mode of expression in the Greek language is irrelevant.

So, if Paul had wanted to say “all mankind” in II Corinthians 9:13, he could have added one word — anthropos — to the text. But he did not. Why? The answer is simple enough: Paul did not mean “all mankind.” He meant “all Christians” and gave his readers plenty of clues. Everything in the context of II Corinthians 9:13 supports this conclusion.

• Paul was collecting money “for the saints” (I Corinthians 16:1).
• It was for “the support of the saints” (II Corinthians 8:4).
• It was a “ministry to the saints” (II Corinthians 9:1).
• It was for “supplying the needs of the saints” (II Corinthians 9:12).
• Through this collection, Paul was “serving the saints” (Romans 15:25).
• It was aimed at “the poor among the saints in Jerusalem” (Romans 15:26).
• It was sent “to the saints” (Romans 15:31).

The Exception that Proves the Rule

Some may object that Galatians 6:10 undermines this argument. There, Paul said, “So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.” Here, “all people” is pros pantas — there is no noun for “people” — yet all agree that the phrase means “all people.” My answer is that the context (as always) determines the meaning, which is the case in Galatians 6:10. Here pantas is distinguished from “the household of faith” by the word “especially,” (malista, the superlative form of the adverb mala): “Let us do good unto all [people], especially [most of all, chiefly] to the household of faith.” Elsewhere in Galatians “all” appears to be universal:

• Galatians 2:16 — “no flesh will be justified” is ou dikaiothesetai pasa sarx (literally, “not will be justified all flesh”);
• Galatians 3:8 — “all nations” is panta ta ethne (literally, “all the nations”);
• Galatians 3:22 — “all men” is ta panta (see above).

In other words, Galatians 6:10 changes nothing. It well illustrates how pantas may mean “all mankind” when clearly supported by the context. At the same time, it does not negate the use of pas anthropos as the common New Testament expression for “all humanity.”

Conclusion

The argument that eis pantas in II Corinthians 9:13 means “all humanity” is without foundation. It ignores both the context of Paul’s discussion regarding the Jerusalem collection and the more common way of expressing “all humanity” in the Greek New Testament, which is pas anthropos. While this does not by itself resolve the issue of helping unbelievers from the local church treasury, it all but cripples one already weak argument.

Note:

I want to give special thanks to Jeff Smelscer and Ryan Boyer for their help with the Greek grammar. Any errors or infelicities that remain are my own fault, not theirs.

Work Cited:

• Fee, Gordon D. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (NICNT). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
• The Cogdill Foundation. The Arlington Meeting. Ed. Cecil Willis. 2nd Printing. Marion: Cogdill Foundation publications, 1976.