1 Timothy 2
LenskiCHAPTER II
How Timothy Is to Regulate the Public Services and Offices
About Prayer in the Public Services
1 Timothy 2:1
1 Paul treats two points when he considers the public services of the congregations: 1) who is to be included in the prayers; 2) the part women may take in the services. What Paul has seen and learned on his recent visit in the Ephesian field evidently led him to charge Timothy with the directions here given. Whether he had mentioned them to Timothy before he left Ephesus is not indicated.
I urge, then, first of all, that there be made petitions, prayers, approaches, thanksgivings in behalf of all men, in behalf of kings and all who are in eminence, so that we may lead a still and restful life in all godliness and gravity.
Οὖν merely makes the transition to something else; it is our “then.” Since the subject of foolish teachers has been concluded, “then” takes us to the next subject. The efforts that regard this connective as basing what is now said on something special in the preceding are rather strained. John uses οὖν as Paul does here (B.-P. 945, also Kretzmann, Pastoralbriefe). When δέ is similarly used it is our “now” and not our “then.” Paul is again urging (1:3), which is sufficient, for more than this is not needed in regard to this matter. “First of all” means that he has a number of other things that are likewise to be urged; we have them in the rest of this letter. The A. V. follows Luther and construes “first of all” with the infinitive; but no second and third infinitives or their equivalents follow.
“That there be made petitions,” etc., is passive, which leaves the persons who are to make them (iterative present) unnamed. These persons are Timothy and the congregations; Timothy is to direct them, and the congregations are to follow his directions. Few commentators will entertain the thought that Paul’s directions are intended only for individuals and not for congregations. Timothy should not be regarded as being the pastor of the church in Ephesus; the elders were the pastors, Timothy was Paul’s representative who directed pastors and churches in the entire province; hence Paul also puts these directions into writing in case somebody raised objection.
We may now study a number of synonyms. First, there are four words for prayer: δεήσεις (δέομαι), “petitions” to fill needs; προσευχαί, the sacred word for “prayers,” which is as broad as the English word and a reverent term; ἐντεύξεις (ἐντυγχάνω), found only here and in 4:5 in the New Testament, “free, familiar prayer such as boldly draws near to God” (Trench). These three belong together. Stellhorn, Pastoralbriefe Pauli, says that the first implies the humble feeling of our great need of the gifts and the blessings of God who alone is able to bestow what is good and wholesome; the second, coming to God with due reverence, recognizing him as the Lord, the great God of heaven and earth, before whom we must bow in the dust; the third, drawing nigh to him in childlike trust and freedom, making known our wishes, and knowing that he will, indeed, give us what is salutary. Congregational prayer, when one voice speaks for all, leaves many with idle, drifting minds, which is the opposite of what lies in Paul’s words.
Εὐχαριστίαι, “thanksgivings,” adds grateful acknowledgments for past mercies to humble, worshipful, trustful requests. These are never to be absent when we are praying, for however sad our condition may be, we always enjoy great and undeserved blessings. Trench writes about thanksgiving: “As such it may and will subsist in heaven (Rev. 4:9; 7:12); will indeed be larger, deeper, fuller there than here; for only there will the redeemed know how much they owe to their Lord; and this, while all other forms of prayer in the very nature of things will have ceased in the entire fruition of the things prayed for.”
“For all men,” ὑπέρ, “in their behalf,” is world-wide and is not to be restricted in any way. No matter how far away men may be, the prayers of the church are able to reach them. Who can number all men? Yet these prayers omit none. “All men” transcends even national confines. “All men” means that, although millions do not pray or pray aright, the congregations of true believers who do know how to pray speak for them and leave none unprayed for. Paul does not seem to be afraid that a congregation may pray for too many or ask too much. If such praying were useless, the apostle would not write what he does write.
1 Timothy 2:2
2 Prayer is international, cosmopolitan, and yet patriotic in the highest sense. “All men” and “kings and all who are in eminence” rightly go together. All men are divided into national and political groups under governmental heads who have lesser officials beneath them, each of whom has his own eminence. The welfare of each nation is bound up with its government so that Paul means that we are to pray for “all men” as men, as one great mass, and yet also for nations under their rulers and magistrates. We recall Rom. 13:1, etc. To pray for the latter is equally needful. When Paul refers to “kings” he is not endorsing monarchy as being the only rightful form of government.
After writing “all men,” “emperors” would have been too narrow a term, for although the Roman Empire was vast in extent it did not include all men and all nations. Some people had had other than royal forms of government. “Kings” is the best term to use when supreme rulers in general are referred to. Some rulers, high and low, were evil; yet how many of “all men” were not also evil? The prayers of the church are not limited, in fact, especially evil men need prayers.
The church has followed Paul’s directions. As a part of its main service it has what is called the General Prayer. We may ask why Paul urges this comprehensiveness of prayer for the public services in the Asian churches. He offers us no clew. During his recent visit he had perhaps noted a lack in this respect; the prayers offered in the churches were including only the church with its members or only the homeland.
We regard ἵνα as indicating contemplated result: “so that we may lead a still and restful life in all godliness and gravity.” The statement that this clause after all asks the Christians in reality to pray only for themselves is an unfair remark. When Christians do pray for themselves, the blessings they receive are by no means confined to themselves; equally, when they pray for all men, their rulers, etc., “all men” not only includes all Christians but the many blessings secured by this prayer for the non-Christians, for rulers and people are again not confined to non-believers. One of the very great results will be the one here stated. Some specify what is to be prayed for. The best interpretation as to the contents of such a prayer is that embodied in our General Prayer: “Cause thy glory to dwell in our land, mercy and truth, righteousness and peace everywhere to prevail, etc.… Graciously defend us from all calamities by fire and water, from war and pestilence, from scarcity and famine,” etc.
Stellhorn comments: “In the case of an individual mature Christian little or nothing for his own spiritual life may depend on the government of his country; the most wicked government may afford him opportunity to attest and to prove his faith in the most notable way. But for the weaker and younger Christians and thus for the congregation and the church, which as a rule consists for the greater part of such, ‘a tranquil and quiet life’ is necessary if it is to be at the same time a life of ‘godliness and gravity.’… How disorder and wild, undisciplined conditions in a country, how especially cruel persecution harms the weaker members of the church and thus the church herself, experience has abundantly proved. Thousands, hundreds of thousands have permitted themselves to be drawn away from the Christian confession and life, have lost faith and salvation, no more living ‘in all godliness and gravity.’”
Διάγωβίον is a current expression although it is found only here in the New Testament. Ἤρεμος and ἡσύχιος (the verb is found in 1 Thess. 5:11; the noun in 2 Thess. 3:12) are close synonyms: “still—restful,” without inner fears or outward harassment. The two are combined in order to emphasize the idea. But “godliness and gravity” are not synonyms: the one = the right reverencing of God, inward and thus also outward—the other, dignified and worthy conduct toward our fellow men. “All” is to be construed with both nouns and means that both godliness and gravity are to be complete. Luther’s Ehrbarkeit is a good translation of “gravity”; “honesty,” the translation of the A. V., is to be understood in the older sense of honorableness.
1 Timothy 2:3
3 This (is) excellent and acceptable before our Savior God who wants all men to be saved and to come to realization of truth. For one (is) God; one also (is) Mediator for God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, the one who gave himself a ransom for all, this testimony for their own seasons, etc.
Paul does not write this because Timothy and the people with whom he is to deal do not know it but because they do know it, and because this knowledge is to be applied when they arrange their prayers for the public services. The churches are to pray as stated, not because Paul says so, not because Timothy tells them to do so, but because this is excellent and accepable in God’s sight as being the one who wants all men to be saved, etc. Paul states these facts in order to be helpful to Timothy and to the churches so that they may act intelligently and from conviction and not mechanically. It is one thing to know and another to use that knowledge aright.
Believers and the Una Sancta are to be separate from the world, from all other men in many respects, for they have been called out of the world, and the world hates them (John 15:18, 19); but in the matter of prayer this holding aloof from the world does not apply for the reasons here stated. Who would pray for the world if the churches did not do so? When Jesus says, “I pray not for the world” (John 17:9), this refers to what we call his special intercession in which he asks for what can be bestowed only on believers, that God sanctify them in the truth so that they may all be one. This special intercession does not exclude Christ’s general intercession, Isa. 53:12: He “made intercession for the transgressors,” even for his murderers (Luke 23:34), his blood speaks better things than that of Abel (Heb. 12:24).
Τοῦτο refers to the infinitive clause, to the making of prayers for all men. The phrase “before our Savior God” is to be construed with both “excellent and acceptable.” When these prayers come before God on his heavenly throne, his judgment pronounces them morally and spiritually “excellent,” a true expression of the Christian spirit of his people, and thus God receives these prayers as being “acceptable,” to be answered in his goodness and his grace. In English it is better to say: “of God, our Savior,” but Paul writes: “of our Savior God.” The apposition is “God” and not, as in 1:1, “our Savior.” The reason for adding the exceptional title “Savior” is the same as that advanced in interpreting 1:1. God’s Word is to be applied to sinners (1:8, etc.) in order to save them as by it this great sinner Paul was saved, it is not to be played with and turned into fancies. It is the Word of our Savior God.
1 Timothy 2:4
4 “Our” Savior cannot be limited to Paul and to Timothy: “thy Savior and mine,” or only to Christians in general; the next clause removes such a limitation. “Our” means that God has already saved us, but none of us would be thus saved if it were not God’s will that “all men be saved and come to truth’s realization.” “All men” is placed forward for the sake of emphasis. This is the important term, it is repeated from v. 1 and is followed by the general word “men” and by “for all” in v. 5, 6.
It is a severe indictment when in his Commentary Calvin says regarding this passage that all who use it to oppose his doctrine of absolute predestination “are subject to puerile hallucination,” that Paul means that no people or class of men are excluded from salvation (apostolus simpliciter intelligit, nullum mundi vel populum, vel ordinem a salute excludit), that Paul is speaking only of the different races of men and not of individuals as such, and that he also wishes the class of kings and rulers to be included. But this is a universal statement of the Scriptures.
Our dogmaticians call this the antecedent will of God, which is stated so often in Scripture, as in Ezek. 33:11; John 3:16; 2 Pet. 3:9. The truth that God wants all men to be saved is corroborated by the fact that Christ “gave himself a ransom for all” (v. 6), and that God provides the efficacious means of grace and salvation for all. The passive “to be saved” certainly does not mean to be saved by somebody else than “our Savior God.” The reason the active is not used: “who wants to save all men,” is that the passive implies the means for being saved even as “to come to realization of truth” states the means. This second infinitive still refers to the antecedent will which applies equally to all men. When men reject this blessed universal will which also includes them (Matt. 23:37), the subsequent will sends them to judgment and to perdition: Matt. 23:38; Mark 16:16. The dogmaticians do not divide the will of God nor assert that God has two wills; they divide only the objects with which God’s will deals as the Scriptures themselves do. See Franz Pieper, Dogmatik I, 558, etc.
Εἰςἐπίγνωσινἀληθείας omits the articles and thereby merely stresses the quality of the nouns. Ἐπίγνωσις is more intense than γνῶσις, Erkenntnis over against Kenntnis. The English has no such companion terms, and we try to convey what the former means by translating it “realization,” a knowledge which affects the religious life, eine die persoenliche Teilnahme in Anspruch nehmende und auf die Person einwirkende Erkenntnis, one which engrosses the personal religious interest and has its full effect on the person. There may be a false γνῶσις but never a false ἐπίγνωσις. “Of truth” is the objective genitive, meaning “saving truth” or the gospel in its substance as divine reality. Its embodiment is Jesus in his person and his work (John 14:6). “Truth” and “the truth” are regularly used in the New Testament as terms for the gospel, God’s objective means for salvation. “Realization of truth” = saving apprehension of and faith in the gospel, the subjective and the objective means combined.
It is an undue limitation to say that “to be saved” is eschatological, for in the case of each person salvation begins when he comes to realization of truth. It is a distinction without a difference to say that the infinitives should be transposed since one is saved by coming to this realization. Here the will of God is expressed, and that will wants the result (salvation) and thus the one means by which this result is attained. The passive idea might have been retained: be saved and be brought to realization. The active removes the idea of compulsion and irresistibility when God ex nolentibus facit volentes. No one can possibly in the least degree come by his own efforts; the Father draws him (John 6:44) by his grace and his truth; it is given to him to come (v. 6), and so he comes.
Jesus, the Truth, calls, “Follow me!” and, being thus drawn, we come unto him. But some set and harden their hearts against God and so do not come. The mystery as to why so many do this does not lie in God or in the truth but in themselves. In the writer’s opinion an explanation of this phenomenon would require that we furnish a reasonable explanation for an unreasonable act, which is an impossibility. The Scriptures do not offer an explanation.
The fact that God, our Savior, wants all men to be saved and come to realization of truth is the reason that our praying for all men is excellent and acceptable in his sight. Ὅς thus has causal force: “because he is the one who,” etc.
1 Timothy 2:5
5 Γάρ elucidates by adding two great facts. Here are mighty facts that are in perfect agreement: the one, that God wants all men to be saved, etc.; then these two, that one and one only is God, and that one and one only is Mediator for God and men, etc. It is inaccurate to speak of proof; when we are shown the facts, they elucidate each other, we see each one with greater clearness. But let us understand the Greek correctly. It cannot be translated: “There is one God, one Mediator also” (R. V.), the numerals modifying the nouns; nor: “God is one, God’s and men’s Mediator is one,” the nouns as subjects, the numerals as predicates.
The numerals are the subjects, the nouns the predicates (hence they are minus the article): “One (is) God,” not two or more; “One also (is) Mediator for God and men,” not several. Nor should these two facts be separated, for they have been joined in v. 3, where “our Savior God” joins them; and they are again joined here, net merely by καί (“also”), but by this Mediator who is “Mediator for this one, namely for God and men.”
See how perfectly the facts harmonize: Our Savior God is pleased to have us pray for all men and not only for ourselves—our Savior God wants all men to be saved and thus also us and not just us and some with us—he and also the one who is Mediator is one, he as Savior God and Christ Jesus as Mediator in the one, identical relation to all men. Seeing all this, let us confidently proceed to pray for all men, among them being those men (kings, etc.) under whom all other men are placed, whose management is so important for themselves and for all others.
We cannot refer to Gal. 3:19, 20 in order to obtain the sense of “Mediator for God and men” (objective genitives), for Moses was a mediator only in the sense of an Uebermittler who represented the many of Israel in conveying God’s law to them (see this passage). The same is true regarding Heb. 8:6; 9:15; 12:14, where Christ is presented as originating and transmitting a better testament and relation between God and his people than the ones Moses brought to Israel. In our passage two parties are mentioned so that the rendering of our versions is substantially correct: “Mediator between God and men,” although “between” is not in the text. We keep close to the context when we say that Christ mediates the will (θέλει) of our Savior God for him and by this realizes the σωθῆναι for men, so that through him there is salvation for them. For we must always remember that God and not men, not even men in conjunction with God accomplished this mediation. What Christ did to effect this mediation is stated in v. 6. Christ is the Mediator “of men,” of course, of all men.
In the apposition to “Mediator”: “a man Christ Jesus,” we have the name itself as an apposition to “a man.” The emphasis is: “One also (is) Mediator for God and men, a man Christ Jesus.” The fact that this one Mediator is “a man,” just “a man,” and not one who belongs to a certain class or kind of men, makes his mediation pertain to men as such, ἄνθρωποι, to human beings, none being excepted who are such. Paul is stating only the fact that the one Mediator is “a man”; he states this fact together with the others that God wants all men to be saved and that one is God, one also Mediator, and he Mediator for God and men. Thus as this fact of his being “man” gets its light from the associated facts, so it sheds its light on them, all men, human beings as human beings are involved. “Christ Jesus” is his blessed name, his official, mediatorial title: “Christ,” Messiah, Anointed (Matt. 3:16, 17), and his personal name “Jesus,” Savior, which was given him by God himself before he was born as man (Matt. 1:21).
1 Timothy 2:6
6 Another apposition brings forward the main act by which he realized this universal mediatorship: “the one who gave himself a ransom for all,” which should be read in one breath with the preceding. This refers to Christ’s act in Gethsemane when he literally “gave himself” into the hands of his enemies, to die as he had foretold. This was a voluntary act; he laid down his life, no man could take it from him even also as he took it again, John 10:18. His voluntary sacrifice reveals all the greatness and the nobility of his love and settles once for all the charge of injustice on the part of God, that he should have unjustly punished the innocent instead of the guilty. Jesus gave himself willingly, assumed all our guilt and penalty, and God accepted his all-sufficient sacrifice as “a sweet-smelling savor” (Eph. 5:2).
The substitutionary act of Jesus is here attested in a threefold way: twice by ἀντίλυτρον (by λύτρον which itself means “ransom” and by ἀντί which in this compound has the meaning “instead”) and a third time by ὑπέρ, “in behalf of,” which the ransom could not be unless it be “instead of.” On the latter R. 631 says that in these passages this preposition “has the resultant notion of ‘instead,’ and only violence to the context can get rid of it.” On the former R. 573, etc., says: “In λύτρονἀντὶπολλῶν (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45) the parallel is more exact. These important doctrinal passages teach the substitutionary conception of Christ’s death, not because ἀντί of itself means ‘instead,’ which is not true, but because the context renders any other resultant idea out of the question. Compare also ἀντίλυτρονὑπὲρπάντων by Paul, where both ἀντί and ὑπέρ combine with λύτρον in expressing this idea.” See also the whole chapter in Robertson’s The Minister and his Greek New Testament, 35–42: the papyri evidence on ὑπέρ places the whole matter of substitution beyond all caviling rationalistic question as far as linguistics are concerned. Only one course is open to the objector, namely to refuse to believe what the Scriptures say in plain words. B.-P. 1341: ὑπέρ, anstelle von, anstatt, in Stellvertretung; 115, the whole article on ἀντί.
While Paul writes “Mediator for God and men,” we now have “himself a ransom for all” (“a ransom” is the predicative accusative); “men” = “all” even as v. 1 and 4 have “all men.” Meyer combines the following passages: The entire human race lay bound in the power of darkness, Col. 1:13, and could not free itself, Matt. 16:26; then Christ came and paid the necessary ἀντίλυτρον, even himself, his own life, Matt. 20:28, and so obtained for us all the priceless σωτηρία. Other passages may be similarly combined. From λύτρον in Matt. 20:28 and Mark 10:45, plus ἀντίλυτρον in Paul we have ἀπολύτρωσις, “ransoming”; this English term is better than the usual rendering “redemption.”
The remark is true enough that Jesus had to be both man and God in order to mediate between the two as he did; yet that is not what Paul brings out by “a man Christ Jesus.” Again it is true that Jesus had to be man in order to die for us; yet this is not what Paul stresses here. We correlate “a man” with “for men” in connection with what precedes as we have indicated above. Docetism appeared later, became connected with Gnosticism, and toward the end of the second century appeared as the heretical sect of the Docetæ, 1 John 4:3. To speak of “the representative man” is to misunderstand Paul who writes ἄνθρωπος, “a man,” in the sense of the R. V.: “One (is) Mediator, (himself) man, Christ Jesus.” Subordinationism finds no support in this statement. The fact of Christ’s being man in no way contradicts his being God.
In the work of providing salvation for all men the ransoming was assumed by the second person. Paul states the mighty facts; theologians have devised their theories about the atonement because they were not satisfied with the facts as they stand.
Grammatically it makes no difference whether τὸμαρτύριονκαιροῖςἰδίοις is made an apposition to all that precedes in v. 5, 6 or an accusative absolute. To restrict it to the last apposition ὁδούςκτλ., is untenable since this is itself an apposition; thus also the sense cannot be that Christ’s act of giving himself a ransom for all is the testimony in act, the testifying to men, however the following relative clause (v. 7) is then understood. “This testimony for their own seasons” is that of the gospel. The “witnesses” bearing it are the apostles (Acts 1:8) who could, indeed, testify at firsthand. Their testimony stands for all time. Paul was added to the Twelve and was qualified as an apostle by the fact that Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus.
We may regard the dative as temporal: “in their own times,” or as commodi: “for their own times,” these denoting the καιροί or “seasons” of the New Testament, from the time the ransom was paid until the last day. Before this, in the “seasons” of the Old Testament, there were and could be, strictly speaking, only promises and prophecies about the will of God for all men and about this Mediator for all of them. Now there is “this testimony” that all the promises and prophecies are fulfilled.
1 Timothy 2:7
7 So Paul is able to add: for which (testimony) I on my part was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am speaking truth, not lying—a teacher of Gentiles in faith and truth.
This relative clause adds the final item to all that has been said about “all men” and having the churches pray for all of them. Since this is a relative clause it brings the secondary item; the primary ones are God’s will that all men be saved, that one is God, one is Mediator, and that this is he who gave himself a ransom for all. Paul’s appointment to teach such as are Gentiles (ἐθνῶν, qualitative, no article) is in line with these facts yet is secondary. To put this into a relative clause which is attached to “the testimony” is also proper because Paul completes the thought of v. 4: “and come to realization of truth.” The bulk of humanity consisted of Gentiles, and in order to help to reach this vast bulk with salvation so that Gentiles as well as Jews might come to realization of truth, Paul was especially appointed an apostle of the Gentiles. We thus see that this clause rounds out the presentation concerning “all men.”
It is rather unkind to say that Paul again obtrudes himself, his office and his authority. Nor is it correct to say that he was always beset by enemies who chal lenged his authority and then to find some of these enemies in chapter 1. In chapter 1 he is not fighting enemies and is not vindicating his authority. Those to whom he refers were foolish teachers and nothing more. In this second chapter Paul has no more to say about them and takes up the public worship of the churches, which is something that is entirely different. A reference to passages in other letters that speak about enemies is irrelevant.
“For which (testimony) appointed was I on my part a herald and an apostle,” ἐγώ, I in particular, to help to spread this testimony which was intended for all men. “Herald” = one who makes a loud, public announcement as he is ordered by a superior; paired with this word is “apostle” which = one sent forth on a commission by a superior. The two convey one general idea, both as a herald and as an apostle one would be “appointed.” Instead of at once adding to both nouns the apposition “a teacher of Gentiles in faith and truth,” Paul prefixes the assurance: “I am speaking truth, not lying.” We see that he does the same in Rom. 9:1.
This parenthesis is misunderstood when it is applied to “a herald and apostle”; it looks forward. Twelve others had also been appointed heralds and apostles; ἐγώ, “I on my part,” points to something distinctive beyond that: Paul’s appointment as herald and apostle was to the effect that he should be this as a “teacher of Gentiles.” It is this point of being their teacher that is sealed with the assurance: “I am speaking truth, not lying.” “Teacher” does not intend to add a third function. Paul is not speaking regarding different functions, for “apostle” expresses no function that is comparable to heralding and to teaching. No “and” joins “teacher” to herald and apostle, for “teacher” is an apposition to both “herald and apostle” and states the real point: “a teacher of Gentiles.” Yet not “of the Gentiles,” for Jesus sent out the Twelve to “all nations” (Matt. 28:19); Paul alone, however, was sent to Gentiles in a most specific way (Acts 9:15; 26:17, 18).
That explains the assurance that he is telling the truth; he was specifically the Lord’s herald and apostle as a teacher of pagans. Paul does not think that Timothy might perhaps doubt this. Had Timothy not been Paul’s assistant among these Gentiles for many a year? Once again let us remember that, while this letter instructs Timothy as to what he is to do in the Asian churches and states these instructions in written form, it at the same time certifies Timothy as Paul’s representative and also certifies these instructions for all these churches so that no one may question them or Timothy’s authority. Paul always uses such assurances when he is able to appeal to no other witnesses, when something is only in his own heart or conscience, and he does so here where he can bring no witnesses for the type of appointment the Lord had given him. The point is essential here because it brings out the fact that God wants “all men” to come to realization of truth. The great host of men were Gentiles; God made adequate provision to have the truth of the gospel brought also to them.
The closing phrase has been variously interpreted. Let us at once say that we do not accept the interpretation which regards it as adding two personal attributes to Paul as a “teacher”: “in faithfulness and truthfulness,” treulich und wahrheitlich; or the view that it is a hendiadys, “in true faithfulness”; or the view that one is a quality in Paul: his own faith, while the other is the object of his teaching, the truth or doctrine he taught. After naming the personal objects of διδάσκαλος with the objective genitive ἐθνῶν, Paul could not add the impersonal objects with two additional objective genitives; so he chooses ἐν which has so wide a range in Greek and writes: “a teacher of Gentiles in connection with faith and truth.” Anarthrous “truth” is the same truth that was mentioned in v. 4, the gospel truth. The statement that Paul should then have placed “faith” in second place is not warranted; for both is done by good logical writers, they at times have: cause—effect; at other times: effect—then its cause.
Stellhorn states that the sphere (ἐν) in which Paul operated as a teacher was not worldly science or art, attainments of human knowledge and ability, new political and social ideas and ideals, but “faith and truth,” truth as the contents of faith. “The basic error of our own religiously muddled, in the worst sense unionistic times that everything depends on faith as a general confidence of the heart in a Higher Being and little or nothing on the contents of this faith, surely has no support in Paul as little as in Christ or in general in the New Testament … What relates to faith and truth, to faith as the saving confidence of the heart and to truth as the contents and ground of this faith, to preach and to teach that, to expound and to inculcate that is his (the preacher’s) office, this he must take into the pulpit, this he must make the all-controlling object of his study and work, and nothing else. All else dare serve only this one thing.” Incidentally, this expositon explains why Paul places “truth” in the second place. As far as the construction with ἐν is concerned, we still have it in English: teacher in music, in Latin, etc.
Men and Women in the Public Services
1 Timothy 2:8
8 As was the case in v. 1, οὖν turns to the new subject and is not inferential. I intend, then, the men to do the praying in every place, lifting up holy hands without wrath and wrong consideration.
Βούλομαι is synonymous with θέλω. Thayer’s discussion of these two words is rather disappointing; C.-K. 224 is to the point: the former is wider, “to have in mind, to intend”; the latter means “to be energetically resolved,” to have the will for the deed. Here “I will” (A. V.) is too nearly like the latter, and “I desire” (R. V.) is too weak, nor is “I wish” correct. As far as βούλομαι and παρακαλῶ in v. 1 are concerned, they are of equal force. Both simply direct Timothy, the latter urging him in regard to what is to be done in the public services, the former stating who is to do this. While either might be used in either place, to urge what is to be done fits exactly, and to say who is to do this again fits in the same way.
Προσεύχεσθαι, “to pray” or “to do the praying” is the broader term, which includes all that is implied in the four nouns used in v. 1. In v. 1 “petitions, prayers,” etc., are properly without articles; now “the men” properly has the generic article. In v. 1 the four nouns imply no contrast with four opposites; here “the men” are in contrast with all who are women (v. 9). This difference is not felt in English as witness the way in which our two versions translate; but in the Greek this is plain. The men only and no women whatever are to do the praying in the public worship of the congregations. “In every place” = in every city or town where there is a congregation, where public worship is held. Timothy is Paul’s representative in the whole Asian territory and not merely in the one congregation in Ephesus. “In every place” has no reference to private worship, that of one or of a few individuals at home.
The public worship and the entire management of it in each congregation were in the hands of the elders (5:17 refers to them). There was as yet no individual who was sole pastor. One or the other of these elders led the congregation in prayer; one or the other of them read from Scripture; one or the other likewise taught (“in word and teaching,” 5:17) and prophesied (1 Cor. 14), i.e., restated parts of the divine revelation. But all this was not restricted to the elders. Other members who had the proper ability were allowed to do the same things in and for the congregation.
All of this was inherited from the synagogue, even the arrangement to have such elders was borrowed from this institution. We know that in the synagogues the Jewish elders called upon Paul and Barnabas to speak, Acts 13:14–16, etc., because they were regarded as men who had the proper ability. In this way Paul and his assistants obtained the privilege to present the gospel in synagogue after synagogue. In 1 Cor. 14:29–33 Paul directs that all speaking be done in due order, each man who has something to offer is to await his turn. The same is true with regard to the public praying referred to here. Under direction of the called elders in every congregation only men are to lead in public prayer and not women, now one man, now another as the service offered occasion. The word Paul uses is οἱἄνδρες, “the men” (males), Maenner, not, as in v. 1, 4, 5, ἄνθρωποι, human beings, Menschen.
Paul’s presentation affords no basis for assuming that a feminist or “woman’s rights” movement was becoming evident in these churches. There were comparatively few Jews among the converts, who were acquainted with the synagogue and the Old Testament regarding women and the public services. These congregations were new, a number of them had only recently been established. Questions such as this one regarding women would arise. When they did, here was the proper answer, which is given in much the same way as it is in 1 Cor. 14:34, 35. In the rest of the letter other questions are similarly answered.
“Lifting up holy hands,” etc., is only an incidental addition regarding the proper outer and inner attitude of the men who lead the congregations in prayer. To stand expresses honor to God, and to raise the hands is the attitude of one who is beseeching. One stands in the presence of superiors; one stretches out the hands when pleading, and since God is always above us, the hands are lifted up. The Scriptures also mention other attitudes. They are by no means immaterial, for they reflect the corresponding attitude of the mind and the heart. When one man voices the prayers, petitions, etc., of a whole congregation, his outward attitude is the more important, for all those present see it. Our ministers and our congregations stand.
We now fold the hands, which expresses the thought that, when we turn to God, we fold up and put away all that our hands are busy with in life so that none of these things distract our thoughts while we pray. Prostration, kneeling, bowing the head have their very proper significance and are to be used when they are in place. When Paul writes “the men” he means: “only men and not women”; when he uses the participle “lifting up hands” he does not mean: “only so,” as though no other proper position of the hands were acceptable to God. Jesus did not always lift up his hands, he sometimes lifted up his eyes.
The important feature is “holy” hands, “without wrath and wrong considerations.” Ὅσιος is used only a few times in the New Testament and is best explained by Trench as being the opposite of “polluted.” “Holy hands” are such as have not been polluted by our previous actions, for if we raised polluted hands we should insult God by raising such hands to him, he would see the pollution and turn away. Ἅγιος would express separation and devotion to God and is used much more frequently. Trench refers to the case of Joseph in bringing out the difference: by reverencing the sanctities of marriage, which he could not violate without pollution, Joseph was ὅσιος; by keeping aloof from the temptress and being devoted to God he was ἅγιος. Since ὅσιος was frequently regarded as a word that had endings for only two genders, its construction with “hands” (and not with the participle) is assured.
“Without wrath” refers to men. If there is anger in the heart, no matter against whom, such a heart is rendered unfit for all worship (Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8). Wrath is so prominently mentioned here because of the way in which it is put forward by Jesus in Matt. 5:22. To find wrath mentioned together with praying reminds one of Matt. 6:14, 15, where forgiving is mentioned in connection with prayer.
Wrath is, however, only a sample of sin in the heart; it is here combined with διαλογισμός, “wrong thought” of any kind. The best definition of this word is given by C.-K. 683: “In the New Testament only with evil connotation regarding reprehensible thoughts and considerations.” This is exactly to the point here, for it covers all kinds of wrong thoughts regarding our fellow men or regarding God. This definition is also appropriate in Luke 24:38, and Rom. 14:1. We thus do not accept the rendering “disputing” (R. V.) and “doubting” (A. V. and R.
V. margin) and the applicatory remarks based on these renderings. All wrong thought of any kind must be repentantly removed from the heart when we pray. The fact that this applies to those who are being led in prayer as well as to those who lead is self-evident.
1 Timothy 2:9
9 Likewise (I intend) that women adorn themselves in adorning dress with modesty and sobriety, not in braids and gold or pearls or expensive clothing but—what befits women professing godly piety—by means of good works.
We supply only the main verb “I intend” from v. 8. Those who supply also the infinitive: “Likewise I intend that women pray,” have difficulty with the infinitive κασμεῖν which they then construe as epexegetical or as consecutive, but praying is not adorning themselves. This adorning takes place before they go to church and is not a result of this churchgoing. Just as we have an infinitive with “the men,” so we have an infinitive with “women”; the infinitives are even placed chiastically. This answers the question as to how all the modifying phrases are to be construed: all three are to be construed with the one infinitive. It would be rather strange to understand Paul to say: “that women (pray) in adorning attire and (then epexegetically) adorn themselves with modesty,” etc.; or consecutively: “so as to adorn themselves,” etc. This construction is grammatically untenable on account of μετά, “in company with,” which does not modify the infinitive; it modifies the ἐν phrase so that the phrases “in adorning attire with modesty and sensibleness” form a unit.
“Women,” without the article = women as women; in v. 8 “the men” = these as distinguished from women. The fact that Paul is still speaking of public worship, of how women ought to appear there, ought not to be questioned, for in v. 11, 12 he continues to speak about public worship. This is, however, true, that “to adorn themselves” means to do this prior to attending public worship, and not during worship. The fact that, if women dress heart and body for church as here described, they will dress in no contrary way at any other time, does not need to be said. The holy hands without wrath, etc., are not a parallel to the phrases used regarding women.
There is a neat play on words in κοσμίῳ and κοσμεῖν which we seek to imitate: “in adorning attire—adorn themselves.” Luther sensed this when he translated in zierlichem Kleide sich schmuecken although he has been faulted for using zierlich. Let some say what they will about Paul, he here states that women are to dress in good taste when they prepare to attend church. “Adorn” means to adorn, and the adjective “adorning” emphasizes this point. Καταστολή (found only here in the New Testament) is not wuerdige Haltung (B.-P. 655) but “dress” (literally, something let down), “habit,” even as the simplex στολή always = a flowing garment or robe.
But this fair outward dress must ever be “in company with modesty and sobriety,” which are inward. Αἰδώς = Scheu, Scham, Ehrfurcht, the negative side of the moral sensibility which shrinks from transgressing the limits of propriety; we may say “modesty,” “shamefastness” (R. V. and Trench; not the corrupted word “shamefacedness” of our A. V.). The companion word σωφροσύνη = “sobriety,” in Acts 26:25 it is like our “saneness” (our versions “soberness”). It is often translated “self-control” and is then uually referred to sexual passions in our passage despite Acts 26:25. Because these two words are here referred to women they should not be unduly restricted to sex.
Vanity, pride, and other improprieties are here also excluded. Extravagant dress is generally worn for mere display with the secret desire to produce envy.
Isa. 3:18–24 names some of the extravagant female ornaments. Paul says: “not braids and gold or pearls or expensive clothes.” 1 Pet. 3:3 writes: “not the outward adorning of plaiting of hair and of wearing things of gold or putting on apparel.” This is the vanity of personal display in order to attract general attention, in particular to fill other women with envy, to outshine rivals. These are “braids” or “plaits” of the hair, the putting it up in a showy, unusual fashion so as to become conspicuous, and not just common and customary braids.
Paul does not say where the gold or the pearls are worn, whether in the braided hair, or in chains about the neck, or in pins, etc., on the dress. Display of jewelry is referred to. Aside from religion good taste forbids such display. The two “or” are not disjunctive so that, when gold is worn, pearls would not be; but conjunctive, which, is a common use of “or” that draws attention to each item separately, to the gold for one thing, to the pearls for another, and also to the expensive clothes. The fact that flashy jewelry would be displayed with costly ἱματισμός or “clothing” is apparent. Such a woman wants to make a stunning impression. Her mind is entirely on herself; she is unfit for worship.
This verse does not refer merely to sex attraction. How many women who are past that age are given to the silly vanity of dress? Paul is not insisting on drab dress. Even this may be worn with vanity; the very drabness may be made a display. Each according to her station in life: the queen not being the same as her lady in waiting, the latter not the same as her noble mistress. Each with due propriety as modesty and propriety will indicate to her both when attending divine services and when appearing in public elsewhere.
1 Timothy 2:10
10 When Paul now turns to the positive he does not become redundant as some think, for to the inner virtues of modesty and sobriety as shown in attire he adds the adornment of corresponding “good works” which are lovely in the eyes of God and of man, far beyond jewels and costly clothing: “but—what befits women professing godly piety—by means of good works.” We accept this simple construction. The parenthetical clause “what befits” = ὅ, this thing of adorning themselves by means of good works, the relative means neither “in which” nor “according to which.” Supply: “but (that women adorn themselves) by means of good works”—the thing “which befits women professing godly piety” (this noun is found only here, the adjective is found in John 9:31).
Κοσμεῖν is not transitive, it is reflexive as in v. 9: “adorn themselves,” and thus can be construed with either prepositions or with both: “adorn themselves in” (v. 9) and “by means of” (διά, v. 10). Women are to use “good works” as their adornment. Any and all of such works are referred to, we do not restrict them. We do not ask: “How about men?” The whole subject of adornment belongs peculiarly to woman—ever will. There is no need to say more. Here and in 6:21 ἐπαγγέλλομαι is to be understood in its modified meaning; it originally meant “to promise” but here means “to profess.” The parenthesis should not be unduly extended: “professing by means of good works.”
1 Timothy 2:11
11 The asyndeton indicates a new point. Attention is arrested by the absence of a connective. The second point regarding women is thus indicated. A woman, in quietness let her be learning in all subjection. This = 1 Cor. 14:34, 35, which is a fuller statement: “The women are to keep silent in the assemblies, for it is not permitted to them to speak; on the contrary, they are to be in subjection even as also the law declares. Moreover, if they want to learn anything (on some special point) they are to inquire of their own men (men folks and not just husbands) at home.” Paul does not state why he adds this.
The view that Timothy had asked him about it in a letter is not satisfactory, for Paul would then have indicated this. To think that women were seeking to teach in public is also stating too much; there is no hint in the text to this effect. This is also true with regard to 1 Cor. 14. Timothy knew what Paul had written to the Corinthians; he also knew about the apostolic arrangement in all the congregations. He would meet this as well as other questions; Paul fortifies him in writing as he does in regard to these other matters. The gospel brought a new freedom.
What did this imply in regard to this subject? This question would certainly be asked.
In v. 9 Paul has written the plural: “that women are to adorn themselves,” etc. It is characteristic of Paul now to use the individualizing singular. He might have reversed the two. As the plural refers to “women” as a class, all of them, so the singular refers to “a woman” as such, any and every woman—certainly not just to “a wife.” The word used in v. 8 is not “husbands.” “In quietness” she is to be learning and not to be assisting in the conduct of the services as qualified men are. The imperative “is to be learning” means by the teaching of others, that of the elders and of qualified men whom they approve. “In quietness” = “without herself talking, without placing herself on an equality with the men conducting the service and doing the teaching,” Stellhorn. The imperative is placed between the two phrases, which means that “in all subjection” modifies “in quietness let her be learning” and not “in quietness” only.
This quiet learning is to be done “in all subjection,” ὐποταγή, ranging herself under, not putting herself forward, not in self-assertion, not making herself heard. “All” is not intensive but extensive. The reference to Tit. 2:5 is irrelevant, for our passage does not refer to subjection to husbands.
The position and the spheres assigned to the sexes in their concreated natures is not altered by Christianity; they are rather sanctified by it. The fact that women may teach each other is stated in Tit. 2:3, 4; that they may teach their children in private is stated in 3:15. Nor does Acts 18:26, the fact that Aquila and his wife instructed Apollos in their home, constitute an exception to what Paul says here and in 1 Cor. 14. Ellicott exclaims: “What grave arguments these few verses supply us with against some of the unnatural and unscriptural theories of modern times!”
1 Timothy 2:12
12 Δέ is not adversative but only specifies more closely. Now to teach I do not permit to woman, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness. The fact that a woman may not lead the congregation in prayer is settled by v. 8; the fact that she may not teach in the public assembly is now added. “I do not permit” = “it is not permitted,” 1 Cor. 14:34. The verb means to turn something over to someone. This is not an autocratic ruling of Paul’s; he does not permit because the law does not do so (1 Cor. 14:34), namely the νόμος or Torah, i.e., Genesis, in the section which deals with the creation and the fall. If Paul would permit this he would be like those who set aside the Torah and decree as they please.
If this statement were positive it would be followed by an explicative καί; since it is negative, we have explicative οὐδέ, for “neither to exercise authority over a man” states the point involved in the forbidding “to teach.” To teach is to act as an αὐθέντης over all those taught, as a self-doer, a master or—to put it strongly—an autocrat. The verb appears here for the first time in the Greek, it is a vernacular term, αὐτοδικεῖν being the literary term. Verbs of ruling govern the genitive.
The opposite helps to bring out the meaning: “but to be in quietness.” Those who are taught sit in quietness and learn; the one who teaches acts as the master who is to be heard, heeded, and obeyed. Because of its very nature his is the dominant position and function; the rest are there quietly to receive and to be directed. Nor is Paul speaking of ordinary schoolroom teaching, where secular knowledge is imparted by one who is authority enough in some branch of learning to sit at the teacher’s desk. A learned woman may discourse to a whole class of men.
Paul refers to teaching Scripture and not to imparting intellectual secular information to the mind. The public teacher of God’s people does not only tell others what they need to know, but in the capacity of such a teacher he stands before his audience to rule and govern it with the Word. That position and that αὐθεντεῖν the Word itself accords to the man and withholds from the woman, and no woman may step into the place of the man without violating the very Word she would try to teach to both women and men. Her effort to do so would be self-contradictory in God’s eyes despite what the world may say. Paul is bound as much in this as we all are. God and his Word have not “turned over” to him or to anybody else a right to say anything on this relation of the sexes in the church that is different from what Paul says.
How all this affects other questions such as woman’s right to vote in congregational meetings, her protests of conscience in matters of doctrine and of practice in the church, important work that is especially assigned to women, etc., we have indicated in expounding 1 Cor. 14:34. See at length Loy, The Rights of Women in the Church; also, The Christian Church, 292, etc.; in brief, my own, The Active Church Member, 91, etc. “But to be in quietness” after “I permit” is an instance of brachylogy.
1 Timothy 2:13
13 Why Paul cannot permit this is elucidated by γάρ. For Adam was formed as the first, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman, having been completely beguiled, has come to be in transgression.
These are the facts, all of them are stated by aorists. These facts are what the νόμος, the Torah, records in Genesis 2 and 3. These facts are valid for all time in the church; the gospel does not alter them. These facts debar women from any position in the church by which she would become the head. There are two facts, and the greater is stated first although the second, too, is very decisive.
Adam and Eve were not created at the same time. Paul’s brief statement is to the point. He uses the word ἐπλάσθη; the verb πλάσσω means to form or mold and refers to the bodies of the first pair because Genesis says nothing about the derivation of Eve’s soul Πρῶτος is the predicate adjective and not the adverb. Adam was created as “the first.” He existed for some time before Eve was formed. That certainly reveals God’s intention that Eve was not to direct, rule, supervise him, that she was not to be the head, but he. It is said truly that priority in creation includes dignity, 1 Cor. 11:3.
God could have created both at the same time; he did not do this. The whole race was to be of one blood (Acts 17:26), was to have one head. Adam’s creation is recorded in Gen. 2:7, and Eve’s is not recorded until Gen. 2:21, 22. The facts pertaining to their position and their relation antedate the entrance of sin; Adam’s creation precedes even the planting of Eden (Gen. 2:8). The fact that Adam was at once created as a male, and that thus Eve’s creation was already in the mind of God, changes nothing as to priority and headship. Jesus refers to this fact that Adam was at once created as a male as being the foundation of marriage (Matt. 19:4); yet this only the more makes Adam and the husband the head.
“Then Eve.” This brief adverb “then” = Gen. 2:18: “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make a help meet for him” in the sense of 1 Cor. 11:8, 9. “The man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man; neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” “Then” also = Gen. 2:22–24, Eve was taken from the body of man, formed from a rib of his side (not from his head, his hand, his foot), brought to Adam (not he to her), “bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh, called Woman (Isha), because she was taken out of Man (Ish),” her name stating her relation and her origin. Both are derived and thus second and secondary and not first and primary.
Can these things that were done by God ever be changed? But is this “rib-story” not just an ancient myth? The use of the word “myth” does not remove from the New Testament the use that Jesus and Paul have made of this record in Genesis. To wipe out the account in Genesis wipes out the truth of Jesus and of the New Testament. If these are mythical as to the very origin of man, can anything be true and trustworthy regarding the redemption and salvation of man? If Genesis is a “myth,” what was the original fact? An animal origin, an animal evolution? Does this hypothesis change the nature of man and of woman as we now see this nature? Does it destroy the natural relation of the two?
“There are effeminate, long-haired men who claim the rights of women, and masculine short-haired women who claim the rights of men, and, in virtue of the good sense with which the Creator has endowed humanity, they become the laughingstock of the sober-minded in both sexes. But when such men, shouting liberty and equality, assert their right to be women and set up a lugubrious whine because all nature and all social instincts are against them, they become not only ridiculous, but simply contemptible. And when such women claim the rights of men, what then? Why, they are not men, and all their crying and clamoring and puling and whining will not make them men or secure for them the right to be men. How could they have such right when God has unalterably made them women and destined them to be useful and happy in their womanhood?” Loy. God did not make even all the angels alike.
He made both angels and human beings. Who will undo and re-do his creative work?
“The fact that all believers have the same spiritual prerogatives in the church (which are those of children as well) never for one moment abolishes the differences due to nature. Always the husband is the head of the family—two heads make a monstrosity. As woman has her own divinely appointed sphere, into which man intrudes only when he is a fool, so man has his divinely appointed sphere, into which it is folly for a woman to intrude. As in a normal family the husband and father leads and directs, and the sons gradually rise to the same duty, so in the larger family of the congregation the mature men have the duty to lead and direct. God’s people gladly follow God’s order, and recognize that any wisdom of their own, dictating a different course, is only pretense.” The Active Church Member (Lenski).
1 Timothy 2:14
14 Καί adds the second fact to the first. This is not done because a second is needed; yet Paul lets two witnesses speak. “Adam was not beguiled, but the woman, by being completely beguiled, has come to be in transgression.” This fact is not complimentary to woman. By taking the leadership into her own hands without warrant the fatal sin was committed. Paul uses the simplex “was not deceived” when speaking of Adam and the compound with ἐκ when speaking of the woman, she was “completely deceived.” The point to be noted is the fact that the completeness of the happening (perfective ἐκ) deserves notice. “The woman” is certainly Eve, yet the use of “the woman” in place of her personal name emphasizes her sex so that in v. 15 Paul may continue with the generalization “she shall be saved,” which applies to any and to every woman, and after that with the plural “if they remain in faith,” etc.
But this is only formal. By saying “the woman” Paul means that she who as the woman was to be Adam’s helpmeet, she was the one who also induced him to sin. The aorist participle states the fact: “completely beguiled.” The perfect γέγονε = came to be in transgression and remained there. We discard the older “pregnant” idea of ἐν; it involves no εἰς: “got into and so was in.” Nor is παράβασις a mild term for Eve’s sin. Not inadvertently did she “step aside”; she “stepped aside” with God’s plain command and threat on her own lips (Gen. 3:2, 3). This word is used in the New Testament with reference to a fatal stepping aside, for the Greek παρά means “aside” whereas the English (Latin) employs trans, “across”: transgression. Both words mark the fullest guilt.
Despite all his brevity Paul regards the account of the fall as historical fact. Yet some of the comment on this passage is scarcely acceptable. Thus when it is said that Satan attacked Eve because she was the weaker vessel. Is this not confusing the physical with the moral? Eve was surely as perfect and as strong morally as was Adam. Again it is said that Satan promised himself an easier victory in the case of Eve because she was subordinate.
But is it not true that our race did not sin when Eve fell, that it sinned only when the head, Adam, fell? “By one man (ἀνήρ, not ἄνθρωπος) sin entered into the world,” Rom. 5:12. The victory over Eve alone would have been barren; Satan’s aim was Adam., But this comment is true, that both Eve and Adam had to violate not only the command of God not to eat but also their respective positions toward each other in order to effect the fall: Eve her position of subordination, Adam his headship; she gave him to eat, and he did eat (Gen. 3:6, 12). God confronts both of them, but Adam first and then Eve. Eve usurped the headship in the fall; Adam, who was the head, became the feet and followed Eve in the παράβασις, in the stepping aside.
Not much is usually said about the two statements that Adam “was not beguiled” while Eve was “completely beguiled.” In Gen. 3:13 Eve says that the serpent beguiled her, ἠπάτησεν, the LXX rendering, the simplex; in 2 Cor. 11:3 Paul says that the serpent beguiled her, ἐξηπάτησεν, the compound verb as in our passage. It will not do to erase the difference. The simplex is here used with reference to Adam, the compound with reference to Eve. When Paul denies the deception of Adam, the simplex suffices; when he asserts the deception of Eve, the compound (perfective) is in place. But the latter does not mean that Eve did not know what she was doing. She had both God’s command and Satan’s lies before her; she accepted the latter and set aside the former, in this way she was deceived.
Note the passive which implies one who did the deceiving. Eve let the lying promise of the serpent move her to disregard the threat of God. To accept, to believe, and to act on a lie in place of the truth is to be deceived indeed. An excellent presentation can be found in Meusel, Kirchliches Handlexikon: Suendenfall.
Paul writes: “Adam was not deceived.” To explain that he was not the first to be deceived alters the sense. To say that he was deceived indirectly while Eve was deceived directly, does the same. To say that the serpent deceived the woman, but the woman did not deceive the man but persuaded him (Bengel, and others), is not in accord with the facts; for the serpent did as much persuading as Eve. Deception works by means of persuasion. Let us venture to say only this: “Adam followed Eve and was thus not deceived. She had sinned, and Adam had her before him when she came to him with the forbidden fruit.
Thus he was not deceived. Yet when she came with the forbidden fruit, ‘he did eat’ (Gen. 3:6, 8).” You ask how he could do this. The only answer is: “Both Eve’s act and Adam’s are irrational.” To ask how either could be done is to ask for a rational explanation of an irrational act. No man can give that.
May we say: “Paul’s point is that the woman demonstrated her inability to lead the man, and that thus Christian women must not try to lead men?” I do not think that this explanation is adequate. Then Adam certainly demonstrated the same thing regarding himself. We can also certainly say that now, since sin is here, whenever a man is ignorant or when he goes wrong, a woman should lead him aright, but should do this in her divinely appointed position. Acts 18:24–26 is one example; Pilate’s wife is another although she was unsuccessful (Matt. 27:19).
Paul’s point is the divinely appointed relation between man and woman. In that relation each must keep his and her place. To point to ability in leadership deflects the thought. Paul does not here speak of the terrible disobedience to God’s command not to eat. Moses does this. Paul first (v. 13) makes plain the two positions of the sexes, secondly (v. 14) the fact that Eve deserted her position. There is no need to say more, namely that Adam then also deserted his. Verses 9–15 deal with women and their position in the church in relation to men. Let the women remain in their subordinate position. Paul himself states what he wants men to do.
The question regarding queens, whether they are Christian or not, who rule earthly kingdoms, does not belong here where churches are discussed. Church and state are separate.
A word should be said regarding the charisma of prophecy which was bestowed also upon women. But first let us see what this charisma is, 1 Thess. 5:20; Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 14:3. Then let us consider Loy’s remarks. “It is certainly gratuitous to assume that the silence of women in the public assemblies of the church, because they must not usurp authority over men, is inconsistent with the bestowal of prophetic gifts upon them. The Lord who bestows them offers ample opportunities to use them without violating his ordinance. It is not necessary that they should appear as teachers in the public assemblies of the church; they can do their work in private, for which they are much better adapted. It is not necessary that they should immodestly present themselves in public before the gaze of men in the attempt to usurp authority over them by presuming to be their teachers when there is plenty of work to be done among their own sex and among the children.
The thought that woman is wronged when she is limited to her own sphere as woman, and when her claim to be a man and to do a man’s work in the church is not admitted, is as irrational as it is impious. There is plenty of room for the exercise of her gifts in the place which God has assigned her.” Let us add the fact that in the very chapter in which Paul deals at length with the use of this gift, 1 Cor. 14, he writes (v. 34): “Let your women keep silence in the churches! For it is not permitted unto them to speak, but to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” Some take the charisma of prophecy to be a reception of direct and immediate revelation. They thus speak of “exceptions” from Paul’s v. 11 and think that God makes them.
In the entire Old Testament but five women are called “prophetess”: Miriam, Exod. 15:20, etc., only because she led the women of Israel in a great hymn of praise; Deborah, Judges 4:4, etc., only because she delivered a direct revelation to Barak; Huldah, 2 Kings 22:14, etc.; 2 Chron. 34:22, etc., only because she, too, had a direct revelation to convey; Noadiah, Neh. 6:14, a false prophetess; Isaiah’s wife in Isa. 8:3, only because she was his wife. There is little material here for the advocates of woman preachers in the Christian Church.
1 Timothy 2:15
15 When Paul continues: saved, however, shall she be by way of childbearing if they remain in faith and love and sanctification together with sobriety, the change of tense from the preceding aorists to the future shows that “the woman,” which refers to Eve in v. 14, is now extended so as to refer to woman in general. We do not regard the mild δέ as a strong ἀλλά, “but” (R. V.). It merely adds this further statement in regard to the status of woman in the church. How she is to be outwardly and inwardly adorned when attending church; how she is there to learn and not to teach or to exert authority over the men because God did not intend that she should do this when he created her, and because by going contrary to this intention of God she brought on the fall: all this Paul has just said. Now this is completed by indicating in a few words her status in general as a Christian woman, namely her great sphere of motherhood in the family, a motherhood full of the essentials of the Christian salvation and life. This also ends the subject for the supervision Timothy is to exercise.
“Saved shall she be” states this supreme thing first. By not being permitted to engage in the public work of teaching, by letting men attend to that work, woman is not in the least curtailed as far as her being saved is concerned. No one is saved by teaching; all are saved by learning (v. 11), by remaining in faith, etc. Such learning will include a knowledge of what position and sphere God assigns to his children in the church and will produce thankfulness for the allotment he has made. Because of the διά phrase some alter the sense of “shall be saved” so that it means less than obtaining eternal salvation. This verb has its full soteriological meaning.
It seems rather out of place to think that Paul makes “childbearing” a means of salvation for woman, διά with the genitive does not, however, invariably denote means. Here and elsewhere it denotes Art und Weise (B.-P. 281), which is often called the accompanying circumstance. The great natural function of woman is childbearing, motherhood, with all that this implies for a saved woman. If our overrefined ears seem too delicate for “childbearing,” it may be well to remember that each of us still has his “birthday,” that we all joyfully celebrate Jesus’ birthday, that the whole subject of birth is as openly mentioned in our day, if not more so, than in any other age, that motherhood (= childbearing) is today glorified with more sentimentality than ever.
“Childbearing” includes the rearing of the children, which means Christian rearing to every Christian woman. Paul has in mind what we read in his other letters: the Christian family and home, the mother surrounded by her children, happy in these outlets for her love and affection, in this enrichment for herself and for them, Eph. 6:1, etc.; Col. 3:20. “By way of childbearing” speaks of the highest ideal of Christian (and even secular) womanhood. Nothing shall erase or even dim that for us. Yet the subject is “the woman,” which includes also women of all ages, also girls who die before maturity, and women who may never marry, and those who are married but remain childless. God’s providence in individual lives in no way destroys his creative purposes. But when a woman deliberately contravenes his purposes and, although a mother bore her, will not herself bear a child in her marriage, God will reckon with her, the more severely if she professes godliness (v. 10).
Some would connect this childbearing with “the seed of the woman” (Gen. 3:15), with God’s Son “made of a woman” (γενόμενονἐκγυναικός). They feel that διά must express means; that childbirth was the means of bringing the Savior into the world. They stress the article: by means of “the” childbirth. Then follow their arguments: this childbearing which was laid upon the woman as a penalty by means of God’s wonderful plan was to bring the salvation into the world: she who caused the man to sin and to bring damnation into the world, she by the penalty laid on her was to help bring salvation for herself and for all. This argument can easily be met. Childbearing goes back to Gen. 1:28 and to Paradise.
Childbearing was never the curse. The pain added to it because of the fall, this alone constituted the curse; and from this curse of pain the Savior did not come. Dropping this strange reference to the curse of birthpains, the fact that the Son of God was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary by God’s miraculous act means no more than that God used this one woman for his saving purpose. Nor does this effect women as a class more than men as a class, or, stated in a different way, all have the Savior alike. It is idealizing to see either all mothers or all womanhood in the Virgin. So we might idealize all crosses and all tombs by way of Christ’s cross and tomb.
“She shall be saved” speaks only about woman and does not generalize. “By way of the childbearing” is not “by means of,” and “the” refers to the well-known childbearing, common motherhood by way of common fatherhood, and not to the miraculous birth from the Virgin.
The plural “if they remain” is used ad sensum. Moreover, Paul quite regularly concentrates and individualizes with the singular and then expands with the plural, he sees every subject in all its relations. The aorist = definitely remain. Faith secures salvation on the instant, but definite remaining in faith retains salvation and attains its consummation. The condition with ἐάν is that of expectancy.
When Paul writes: remain “in faith and love and sanctification together with sobriety,” this is comprehensive, these four do not stand in the same relation to salvation. Faith apprehends it; love to God and to man is the invariable fruit of faith; sanctification (1 Thess. 4:3, 7; 2 Thess. 2:13) is the result, which is here to be understood in the narrow sense of having the life sanctified. Μετά makes soberness (see v. 9) the accompaniment of sanctification. All four apply to all men and thus also to women; theirs is no peculiar way to salvation. The repetition of “soberness” from v. 9 and its attachment by means of μετά are po inted for the specific purpose here in hand, namely that women keep their proper place in the services. Christian sensibleness and balance will easily achieve that and will readily accompany faith, love, and sanctification, for they are really a product of the latter.
B.-P Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.
R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition..
C.-K Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.