Meyer's NT Commentary
1 Timothy 2:1. παρακαλῶ] Instead of this, D* F G, Sahid. Clar. Boern. Hilar. Ambrosiast. ed. Cassiod. (alicubi) Or. (ter ut Rec.) have the imperative παρακάλει, which is manifestly a conjecture for the purpose of giving to the words the form of a commission to Timothy.
πάντων] is omitted in some codd. (G, G, Boern. Or. [semel]); it might easily be overlooked as merely strengthening the πρῶτον.—1 Timothy 2:3. In A 17, 67** א, Cop. Sahid. γάρ is wanting, and is therefore omitted by Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. 8; it is retained in Matthaei and Tisch. 7.—1 Timothy 2:6. τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις] Some codd. have the reading οὗ τὸ μαρτ. κ. ἰδ. ἐδόθη (D* F G, Clar. Boern. Harl.* Ambrosiast.; while some cursives have the reading οὗ, but without ἐδόθη). This reading has only arisen out of a desire to connect the words more closely with what precedes. The omission of the words τὸ μαρτύριον in A is to be considered merely an error in copying. Lachm. in his large edition (so also Buttm.) left them out; in the small edition he retained them. א has the reading καί for τό.—1 Timothy 2:7. The words ἐν Χριστῷ were rejected from the text even by Griesb. (so also Scholz, Lachm., and others), because they are wanting in the most important authorities, in A D* F G 3, 6, 23* 31, al., Syr. utr. Arr. Copt. etc.; on the other hand, they are found in א. Matthaei, however, has retained them with the remark: adhuc maneo in ea sententia, ut credam, ab Praxapostolis et Euchologiis exclusum esse in fine lectionis. If they are compared with Romans 9:1, it is easy to explain how they came into the text.
Instead of ἐν πίστει, א has ἐν γνώσει. Buttm., following A, reads ἐν πνεύματι.—1 Timothy 2:8. Instead of the singular διαλογισμοῦ, F G 17, 47, 67** al., Syr. utr. Boern. Or. (ter sed ter ut Rec.) Eus., etc., have the plural διαλογισμῶν (Tisch. 7); Matthaei remarks on this: hujusmodi lectiones plerumque placent viris graece doctis; verum in N. T. contraria ferenda est sententia. Most authorities, including א, have the singular (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8). The plural is with Reiche to be considered a mere correction, all the more that the singular of the word does not occur elsewhere in the N. T. (except in Luke 9:46-47); comp. especially Php 2:14.—1 Timothy 2:9. καὶ τάς] are wanting in A 71; καί alone is wanting in א, and τάς alone is wanting in D* F G 67** 73, al., Or. Lachm. and Buttm. omitted both words, Tisch. only τάς.
ἢ χρυσῷ] Instead of the Rec. ἤ (in D*** K L, etc.), Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. rightly adopted καί, following A D* F G, etc. Tisch. retained the Rec. χρυσῷ, following D K L, etc.; Lachm. and Buttm., on the other hand, read χρυσίῳ, following A F G, etc. As both forms are used in the N. T., we can hardly decide which is right here.—1 Timothy 2:10. The reading ὡς instead of ὅ, found in some cursives, Arm. and Cypr., is manifestly a correction to facilitate the interpretation.—1 Timothy 2:12. Instead of γυναικὶ δὲ διδάσκειν (Tisch. 7), we should follow A D F G א, al., Arm. Vulg. It. Cypr. Jer. Ambrosiast., and read διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικί, which has been received into the text by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8. Hofm., for the sake of his exposition, prefers the Rec.—1 Timothy 2:14. Instead of the Rec. ἀπατηθεῖσα, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. read the compound ἐξαπατηθεῖσα, on the testimony of A D* F G 17 28, al., Mt. K., Bas. Chrys. If the compound had not such weighty authorities in its favour, we should be inclined to account for it out of Romans 7:11 and 2 Corinthians 11:3.—1 Timothy 2:15. On the reading γάρ for δέ, found in some codd., Matthaei rightly remarks: ita centies istae particulae … praesertim in principio pro arbitrio mutantur.
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;1 Timothy 2:1. After directing Timothy’s attention generally to the στρατεία to which he had been appointed, Paul proceeds to mention in detail the things for which, in his office, he had to care. This connection of thought is marked by the particle of transition οὖν (Wiesinger), which therefore does not stand (as de Wette, following Schleiermacher, thinks) without any logical connection.
ΠΡῶΤΟΝ ΠΆΝΤΩΝ] is not to be taken with ΠΟΙΕῖΣΘΑΙ, as Luther does: “to do before everything else,” but with ΠΑΡΑΚΑΛῶ (Heydenreich, Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee).
ΠΟΙΕῖΣΘΑΙ ΔΕΉΣΕΙς Κ.Τ.Λ.] The apostle herewith begins to give “instructions regarding public prayer” (Wiesinger). The idea of prayer is here expressed by four words. ΔΈΗΣΙς and ΠΡΟΣΕΥΧΉ are connected in other passages as synonyms—in Ephesians 6:18, Php 4:6; the difference between them is this, that ΔΈΗΣΙς can be used only of petitionary prayer, ΠΡΟΣΕΥΧΉ of every kind of prayer. Not less general in meaning is ἜΝΤΕΥΞΙς, from ἘΝΤΥΓΧΆΝΕΙΝ ΤΙΝΊ incidere in aliquem, adire aliquem, and in reference to God: pray (Wis 8:21; Wis 16:28). The reference to another is not contained in the word itself, but in the preposition connected with it, as in Romans 11:2 : κατά τινος; and Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25 : ὙΠΈΡ ΤΙΝΟς. Accordingly, the substantive ἜΝΤΕΥΞΙς, which occurs only here and in chap. 1 Timothy 4:5, does not in itself possess the meaning of intercession for others, but denotes simply prayer as an address to God (Wiesinger); comp. Plutarch, Vita Numae, chap. 14: μὴ ποιεῖσθαι τὰς πρὸς τὸ θεῖον ἐντεύξεις ἐν ἀσχολίᾳ καὶ παρέργως. The three words, accordingly, are thus distinguished: in the first, the element of insufficiency is prominent; in the second, that of devotion; and in the third, that of child-like confidence (prayer—the heart’s converse with God). Calvin is right in his remark, that Paul joined these three words together here “ut precandi studium et assiduitatem magis commendet ac vehementius urgeat.”
εὐχαριστίας] “prayers of thanksgiving,” the apostle adds, because in Christian prayer the giving of thanks should never be wanting; comp. Php 4:6 : ἐν παντὶ τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ τῇ δεήσει μετὰ εὐχαριστίας τὰ αἰτήματα ὑμῶν γνωρίζεσθαι πρὸς τὸν Θεόν.
ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων] is not to be referred merely to εὐχαριστία, but also to the preceding words (Wiesinger). The prayer of the Christian community (for this and not private prayer is here spoken of) is—in petition and thanksgiving—to embrace all mankind.
 Hofmann’s reference of οὖν to 1 Timothy 1:15 and the conclusion of ver. 16 is far-fetched: “If Christ came into the world to save sinners, and if the long-suffering of God towards the man whom He made His apostle from being a reviler, was to be a prophecy regarding the conversion of those who were afterwards made to believe on Him, it becomes Christians not, in sectarian fashion, to limit its command to its sphere at that time, but to extend it to all men.”
 In regard to the more precise definition of the word, there is much that is arbitrary in expositors older and more recent. Thus δέησις is understood to be prayer for averting the punishment of sin; προσευχή, prayer for the bestowal of benefits; ἔντευξις, prayer for the punishment of the unrighteous (Theodoret: δέησίς ἐστιν, ὑπὲρ ἀπαλλαγῆς τινῶν λυπηρῶν ἱκετεία προσφερομένη· προσευχή ἐστιν αἴτησις ἀγαθῶν· ἔντευξίς ἐστι κατηγορία τῶν ἀδικούντων; so, too, Theophylact and Oecumenius). Photius (ad Amphil. qu. 193) explains ἐντυχία in the same way: ἐντυχία (ὅταν τὶς κατὰ τῶν ἀδικούτων ἐντυγχάνῃ τῷ Θεῷ, προσκαλούμενος αὐτὸν εἰς ἐκδίκησιν); but the other two words differently: δέησις μὲν λέγεται, ὅταν τὶς Θεὸν ἀξεοῖ εἰς πρᾶγμα· προσευχὴ δὲ, ὅταν ὑμνῇ τὸν Θεόν. Origen (περὶ εὐχῆς, § 44) finds a climax in the succession of the words, and distinguishes προσευχαί from δεήσεις in this way, that the former are prayers joined with a δοξολογία, made for greater things and μεγαλοφυέστερον, while ἐντεύξεις are the prayers of one who has παῤῥησίαν τινὰ πλείονα.—Still more arbitrary is Kling’s explanation, that δεήσεις are prayers in reference to the circumstances of all mankind; προσευχαί, prayers for some benefit; ἐντεύξεις, prayers for the aversion of evil. Matthies is partly right, partly wrong when he says: δέησις is the prayer made with a feeling of the need of God, so that the inner side of the need and of uprightness (?) is particularly prominent; προσευχή, prayer, in the act of devotional address to the Godhead, therefore with reference to the outward exercise (?); ἐντεύξεις, intercession, made not so much for ourselves as on behalf of others (?).—There is no ground whatever for the opinion of Heydenreich, that the first two expressions are used of prayer (δέησις = petition; προσευχή = thanksgiving) for the whole Christian community, while the other two (ἔντευξις = petition; εὐχαριστία = thanksgiving) are used of prayer for the whole of mankind. Lastly, we may note the peculiar view of Augustine (Ep. 59), according to which the four expressions are to be understood of prayers used at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, δεήσεις being the precationes before consecration; προσευχαί, the orationes at the benediction, consecration, and breaking of bread; ἐντεύξεις, the interpellationes at the benediction of the congregation; and εὐχαριστία, the gratiarum actio at the close of the communion. Plitt so far agrees with this view of Augustine, that he thinks the apostle’s various expressions denote the various liturgical prayers, as they were defined even in ancient times at the celebration of the Eucharist (?).
For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.1 Timothy 2:2. Ὑπὲρ βασιλέων] βασιλεῖς are not merely the Roman emperors, the apostle using the plural because of the emperor’s colleagues (Baur); the word is to be taken, in a more general sense, as denoting the highest authorities in the state.
καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐν ὑπεροχῇ ὄντων] not only denoting the governors in the provinces, but all who hold the office of magistrate anywhere. The expression is synonymous with ἐξουσίαι ὑπερέχουσαι in Romans 13:1; comp. 2Ma 3:11 : ἀνὴρ ἐν ὑπεροχῇ κείμενος. Josephus calls the magistrates simply αἱ ὑπεροχαί (Antiq. vi. 4. 3). In the old liturgies we find, in express accordance with this passage, the δέησις ὑπὲρ βασιλέων καὶ τῶν ἐν ὑπεροχῇ, ὑπὲρ τῆς εἰρήνης τοῦ σύμπαντος κόσμου. The purpose for which intercession is specially to be made for all men in authority is given in the words that follow: ἵνα ἤρεμον καὶ ἡσύχιον βίον δίαγωμεν, which, as de Wette rightly remarks, denotes the objective and not the subjective purpose. Paul does not mean here to direct attention to the value which intercession has for our own inner life, and by means of this for outward peace, as Heydenreich (“Christians are to pray also for heathen rulers, that by this prayer they may keep alive within themselves the quiet submissive spirit of citizens”), Matthies (“animated with loving thoughts towards the representatives of the government, they are to be blameless in their walk, and to strive after the undisturbed enjoyment of outward peace”), and others think; but the apostle is speaking of the still, quiet life as a blessing which the church obtains by prayer to God for the rulers. The prayer is directed, as Wiesinger rightly remarks, not for the conversion of the heathen rulers, but for the divine blessing necessary to them in the discharge of their office (Romans 13:14).
The adj. ἬΡΕΜΟς occurs only here in the N. T., and ἡσύχιος only here and in 1 Peter 3:4 (synonymous with πραΰς). The expression βίον διάγειν also occurs only here; in Titus 3:3, διάγειν is used without βίον.
No exact distinction can be established between ἤρεμος and ἡσύχιος. Olshausen (in Wiesinger) says, without reason, that the former means: “not disquieted from without;” the latter, “from within.” Ἠρέμα denotes, in classic Greek at any rate, “still, tranquil existence;” but ἡσύχιος (ἥσυχος) has the same meaning, and also denotes that there is no disturbance from without. The collocation of the two words serves to give more force to the thought; a ἤρ. κ. ἡσύχ. βίος is a life led without disturbance from without, with no excitement of fear, etc.
βίον διάγειν] “spend life, more than ἄγειν” (Wiesinger); the same expression is often found in classical writers.
ἐν πάσῃ εὐσεβείᾳ καὶ σεμνότητι] Not on this, but on ἠρ. καὶ ἡσύχ. is the chief emphasis of the sentence laid (Plitt); the words only add a more precise definition. Εὐσέβεια, a word foreign to the other Pauline Epistles, and (with εὐσεβής, εὐσεβῶς, εὐσεβέω) occurring only in the Pastoral Epistles, in Acts, and in 2 Pet., denotes the godliness of the heart; σεμνότης, also peculiar to the Pastoral Epistles (σεμνός, only here and in Php 4:8), denotes the becoming conduct of the Christian in all the relations of life. Hofmann is arbitrary in separating this addition from what immediately precedes, and joining it with ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις κ.τ.λ., as “denoting the manner in which the prayer commended is to be made.”
 Hofmann maintains, without grounds, that ἵνα κ.τ.λ. does not give the purpose of the prayer for all men and for rulers, but “the purpose for which rulers exist” (!).
 Nor is the positive ἤρεμος used in the Greek classics. As yet it has been found only in the Inscript. Olbiopol. n. 2059, v. 24, by Lobeck; see Winer, p. 68 [E. T. p. 82]; Buttmann, p. 24.—The substantives ἡσυχία and ἠρεμία are frequently found together in the classics; e.g. Demosth. de Contributione, § 8; Bekk. s. Dorville, On Chariton. p. 411.
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;1 Timothy 2:3. This verse points back to what was said in 1 Timothy 2:1; not, however, in such a way as to make 1 Timothy 2:2 a parenthesis (so in a former edition of this commentary), but rather so as to include the points mentioned in it.
τοῦτο] does not refer to the thoughts immediately preceding, but to the ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις … ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων κ.τ.λ.
The highest motive of the Christian to such prayer is the good pleasure of God.
καλὸν καὶ ἀπόδεκτον] ἀπόδεκτος] (like ἀποδοχή) occurs only in this First Epistle to Timothy; it is synonymous with εὐάρεστος in Colossians 3:20 (τοῦτο γὰρ εὐάρεστόν ἐστιν ἐν κυρίῳ).
ἐνώπιον τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Θεοῦ] is referred only to ἀπόδεκτον by several expositors, who either take καλόν absolutely (de Wette: “good in itself;” so also van Oosterzee, Matthies: “καλ. denotes the endeavour recommended in its inner worth and contents”), or, as Leo, supply with it ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώπων: “which is praiseworthy, sc. before men.” The latter is clearly quite arbitrary; but even for the former there is not sufficient ground, all the more when we compare 2 Corinthians 8:21 : προνοοῦμεν γὰρ καλὰ οὐ μόνον ἐνώπιον κυρίου, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐνώπιον ἀνθρώπων. On ΣΩΤΉΡ, see 1 Timothy 1:1.
Paul uses this name for God here because he has already in mind the thought that follows (Wiesinger).
 Heydenieich’s opinion is utterly erroneous, that Paul calls prayer for all καλόν, because it is not only right and good, but “brings a benefit to the Christians, by recommending them to their rulers.”
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.1 Timothy 2:4. Ground of the previous thought. The general intercession is καλ. κ. ἀπόδ. before God, because He, etc. It is not unusual to give in a relative clause the grounds of a previous statement. Ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι (comp. Titus 2:11)] The chief accent is laid on πάντας (corresponding with ὑπὲρ πάντων, 1 Timothy 2:1), which is therefore placed first. God’s purpose of salvation extends to all, and therefore the prayer of Christians must include all. Wiesinger, however, is right in remarking that “the apostle in ὃς κ.τ.λ. does not mean specially to give a reason for prayer for the conversion of all men, but for prayer generally as a duty of universal love to men.” Chrysostom puts it differently: μιμοῦ τὸν Θεόν· εἰ πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι, θέλε καὶ σύ· εἰ δὲ θέλεις, εὔχου· τῶν γὰρ τοιούτων (τῶν θελόντων) ἐστὶ τὸ εὔχεσθαι.
The true connection of thought is obscured if we supply the intermediate thought, that prayer for all, and specially for kings, serves to maintain the peace without which the spread of Christianity would be hindered.
καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν] The same connection of words is found elsewhere only in 2 Timothy 3:7; on the meaning of ἘΠΊΓΝΩΣΙς, see my Commentary on Colossians, pp. 74 f., Remark.
The connection of the two expressions σωθῆναι and ΕἸς ἘΠΊΓΝ. ἈΛ. ἘΛΘΕῖΝ may be regarded differently. Hofmann takes them to be in substance identical; Heydenreich takes the latter as an explanation of the former, “showing how and by what means God wishes to effect the salvation of all;” he therefore regards the ἘΠΊΓΝΩΣΙς Τ. ἈΛ. as the means of the σωτηρία. So, too, Winer (p. 514 [E. T. p. 692]): “at first the general purpose is mentioned (ΚΑΊ, and in pursuance of this), then the immediate purpose (as a means of attaining the other).” It is explained in the same way by Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, and others. But it seems more natural to regard the ἘΠΊΓΝΩΣΙς Τῆς ἈΛΗΘΕΊΑς as the goal to which the rescue (ΣΩΘῆΝΑΙ) leads (so, too, Plitt).
 Mosheim (Instit. Hist. Eccles. maj. I. 36): Id sanctus homo tradit: nisi pax in orbe terrarum vigeat, fieri nullo modo posse, ut voluntati divinae, quae omnium hominum salutem cupit, satisfiat; bellis nimirum flagrantibus haud licuisset legatis Jesu Christi, secure ad omnes populos proficisei.
 In this verse the idea of the universality of God’s purpose of salvation is clearly and distinctly expressed. Calvin, in order to save his theory of predestination, has to take refuge in an exposition more than ingenious: de hominum generibus, non singulis personis, sermo est; nihil enim aliud intendit, quam principes et extraneos, populos in hoc numero includere.
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;1 Timothy 2:5. Εἷς γὰρ Θεός] The particle γάρ connects this verse with the thought immediately preceding (Wiesinger), and not, as Leo and Mack think, with the exhortation to pray for all. The apostle wishes by it to confirm the idea of the universality of the divine purpose of salvation as true and necessary: he does this first by pointing to the unity of God. There is a quite similar connection of ideas in Romans 3:30 (emphasis is laid on God’s unity in another connection in 1 Corinthians 8:6, and, in a third connection, in Ephesians 4:6). From the unity of God, it necessarily follows that there is only one purpose regarding all; for if there were various purposes for various individuals, the Godhead would be divided in its nature. As there is one God, however, so also there is one Mediator.
εἷς καὶ μεσίτης Θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων] The word ΜΕΣΊΤΗς occurs elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles only in Galatians 3:19-20, where the name is given to Moses, because through him God revealed the law to the people. Elsewhere in the N. T. the word is found only in Hebrews 8:6; Hebrews 9:15; Hebrews 12:24, and in connection with διαθήκης, from which, however, it cannot (with Schleiermacher and de Wette) be concluded that the idea mediator refers necessarily to the corresponding idea covenant. Christ is here named the μεσίτης Θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, because He is inter Deum et homines constitutus (Tertullian). He is the Mediator for both, in so far as only through Him does God accomplish His purpose of salvation (His θέλειν) regarding men, and in so far as only through Him can men reach the goal appointed them by God (σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγν. ἀλ. ἐλθεῖν). Hofmann says: “He is the means of bringing about the relation in which God wishes to stand towards men, and in which men ought to stand towards God.” As with the unity of God, so also is the unity of the Mediator a surety for the truth of the thought expressed in 1 Timothy 2:4, that God’s θέλειν refers to all men.
To define it more precisely, Paul adds: ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς. This addition may not, as Otto and others assume, have been occasioned by opposition to the docetism of the heretics. In other epistles of the N. T. special emphasis is laid on Christ’s humanity, with no such opposition to suggest it; thus Romans 5:15; 1 Corinthians 15:21; Php 2:7; Hebrews 2:16-17. In this passage the reason for it is contained first in the designation of Christ as the μεσίτης (Theodoret: ἄνθρωπον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν ὠνόμασεν, ἐπειδὴ μεσίτην ἐκάλεσεν· ἐνανθρωπήσας γὰρ ἐμεσίτευσεν); and further, in the manner in which Christ carried out His work of mediation, i.e., as the next verse informs us, by giving Himself up to death.
 Van Oosterzee confuses the two references: “God’s universal purpose of salvation is here established in such a way that at the same time there is to a certain extent (!) an indication of a third motive for performing Christian intercessions.”
 Regarding the use of the word in classical Greek, comp. Cremer, s.v.—There is no necessity for Cremer’s opinion, that μεσίτης in the passages of Hebrews does not so much mean “mediator” as “surety.”
 The ἀνθρώπων suggested the ἄνθρωπος all the more naturally, that in the apostle’s consciousness the σωτηρία of men could be wrought only by a man. Only a man could reconcile men with God; only, indeed, the man of whom it was said ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί (chap. 1 Timothy 3:16). Hofmann supposes that Christ Jesus is here called ἄνθρωπος, “in order to say that, as He became man to be mediator, He is therefore the mediator and saviour not of this or of that man, but of all men without distinction.” This thought, however, is more the ground of the εἷς, for even the mediator “of this or that man” might also be a man.
Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.1 Timothy 2:6. Ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων] The word ἀντίλυτρον, which occurs only here, is synonymous with ἀντάλλαγμα in Matthew 16:26; it is distinguished from the simple λύτρον, as Matthies rightly remarks, only in this, that the preposition makes the idea of exchange still more emphatic. According to the usage of the N. T., there can be no doubt that the apostle here alludes to Christ’s reconciling death; comp., besides Titus 2:14, Matthew 20:28, etc., especially 1 Peter 1:18-19, where the τίμιον αἷμα is mentioned as the means by which we are redeemed. The expression δοὺς ἑαυτόν has here—where ἀντίλυτρον is added by way of apposition to ἑαυτόν (as in Matthew 20:28, λύτρον is in apposition to τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ)—the emphatic meaning of self-surrender to death, as in Titus 2:14, Galatians 1:4 (comp. also in John 6:51, ἣν [τὴν σάρκα μου] δώσω, which, indeed, is uncertain critically), where δοὺς ἑαυτόν has the same meaning as παραδοὺς ἑαυτόν in Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 5:25 (comp., too, Romans 8:32). He gave Himself as a ransom by giving Himself up to death. The thought on which it is based is this: men were held ἐν τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ τοῦ σκότους (Colossians 1:13); from this they could not free themselves (τί δώσει ἄνθρωπος ἀντάλλαγμα τῆς ψυχῆς αὑτοῦ, Matthew 16:26); Christ therefore gave the ἀντίλυτρον necessary to free them; this ransom is Himself (δοὺς ἑαυτόν), i.e. His life: τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ, Matthew 20:28; so that by this, σωτηρία is purchased for them. This, however, was done for the benefit not of some, but of all. Hence Paul adds expressly ὑπὲρ (equivalent to: in commodum) ΠΆΝΤΩΝ, which is emphatic, and with which he returns to the beginning of 1 Timothy 2:4. In this, as at 1 Timothy 1:15, the apostle revealed the substance of the ὙΓΙΑΊΝΟΥΣΑ ΔΙΔΑΣΚΑΛΊΑ, only that here he defines his former expression more precisely.
In order, however, that this act of love on the Lord’s part may bring forth its fruit, it must be proclaimed to the world; this is indicated in the words that follow.
ΤῸ ΜΑΡΤΎΡΙΟΝ ΚΑΙΡΟῖς ἸΔΊΟΙς] ΤῸ ΜΑΡΤΎΡΙΟΝ is not to be taken as in apposition to ἈΝΤΊΛΥΤΡΟΝ, and explained of the death of Christ (Chrysostom: ΜΑΡΤΎΡΙΟΝ ΤῸ ΠΆΘΟς); it is to be regarded as in apposition to the thought contained in the previous words of this verse (not “to the whole of what was previously said,” Hofmann). This does not mean, however, that τὸ μαρτύριον denotes Christ’s gift of Himself as a ransom (or “Christ’s sacrifice”), to be “the witness of salvation set forth at the appointed time, the historical fact that the divine purpose of salvation is realized” (Matthies); for ΜΑΡΤΎΡΙΟΝ is not the deed itself, but the attestation, the proclamation of the deed; comp. 1 Corinthians 1:6; 1 Corinthians 2:1. Nor does it mean that by ΜΑΡΤΎΡΙΟΝ we are to understand the testimonium, quod Deus per Christi vitam, doctrinam et mortem protulit, vera esse ea omnia et rata, quae V. T. prophetae fore divinaverant (Heinrichs), for there is nothing to indicate an allusion to O. T. prophecy. The act of Christ already mentioned is called ΤῸ ΜΑΡΤΎΡΙΟΝ, in so far as this was its meaning and purpose. Bengel: ΤῸ ΜΑΡΤΎΡΙΟΝ acc. absol. ut ἜΝΔΕΙΓΜΑ, 2 Thessalonians 1:5, innuitur testimonium redemtionis universalis. The reason why the preaching of the gospel is called ΜΑΡΤΎΡΙΟΝ, is that its subject is an historical fact, the importance of which becomes known only by individual experience.
ΚΑΙΡΟῖς ἸΔΊΟΙς] “is to be connected with ΤῸ ΜΑΡΤΎΡΙΟΝ, just as if it were connected with ΤῸ ΜΑΡΤΥΡΟΎΜΕΝΟΝ” (Hofmann); the same expression is found in 1 Timothy 6:15; Titus 1:3; also Galatians 6:9 (Acts 17:26 : ΚΑΙΡΟῚ ΠΡΟΤΕΤΑΓΜΈΝΟΙ); Chrysostom: ΤΟῖς ΠΡΟΣΉΚΟΥΣΙ ΚΑΙΡΟῖς.
 Van Oosterzee asserts, without reason, that ὑπέρ here is to be taken in the sense of substitution.
 Leo’s explanation is substantially the same as this: Quae Christus, inquit apostolus, ad homines servandos fecit, ea sunt ipsius Dei testimonium. Quid vero testatus est Deus eo, quod Jesum Christum mori passus est? Quid aliud, quam amorem suum in genus humanum plane incomparabilem?
 Van Oosterzee believes that μαρτύριον here must be taken as in apposition to ἀντίλυτρον, the apostle calling the Lord’s surrender of Himself the great μαρτύριον, with special reference to the truth mentioned in ver. 4. But against this it is to be remarked, that this explanation does not give a right definition of the relation of apposition, nor of the meaning and purpose of the μαρτύριον.
Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.1 Timothy 2:7. This verse defines more precisely the previous μαρτύριον; it was for proclaiming the μαρτύριον that the apostle received the office entrusted to him. The chief emphasis rests on the universality; the subject of the μαρτύριον is the fact that Christ gave Himself a ransom for all.
εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην ἐγὼ κήρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος] Comp. on this, Ephesians 3:1-12; Colossians 1:25-28; 2 Timothy 1:9-11.
εἰς ὅ: for which (μαρτύριον), viz. “for proclaiming which.” ἐτέθην is to be taken in close connection with κήρυξ κ.τ.λ.
κήρυξ, it is true, only occurs here and in 2 Timothy 1:11 as a name for the preacher of the gospel (in 2 Peter 2:5, Noah is called a κήρυξ δικαιοσύνης); but κηρύσσειν is used very frequently of the preaching of the gospel. In 1 Corinthians 1:21, κήρυγμα is identical with εὐαγγέλιον. In order to direct attention to his peculiar apostolic authority, Paul adds to the general idea of κήρυξ, the more specific expression ἀπόστολος. By the addition of ἀλήθειαν λέγω, οὐ ψεύδομαι, the truth of the εἰς ὅ is confirmed; he explains himself sufficiently on account of the heretics who wished that Paul should not be considered an apostle by the appointment of God.
The further definition: ΔΙΔΆΣΚΑΛΟς ἘΘΝῶΝ, is to be taken in apposition to ΚΉΡΥΞ Κ. ἈΠΌΣΤΟΛΟς. It was added to make clearer the reference to the heathen already indicated in ΕἸς Ὅ, not, as Hofmann thinks, to form an apposition to the subject of ἈΛΉΘΕΙΑΝ ΛΈΓΩ; had that been so, we should have had an emphatic ἘΓΏ. The connected words ἘΝ ΠΊΣΤΕΙ ΚΑῚ ἈΛΗΘΕΊᾼ do not form the object of ΔΙΔ. (Heydenreich takes it as “equivalent to ἘΝ Τῇ ΠΊΣΤΕΙ Τῇ ἈΛΗΘΙΝῇ, a teacher of the Gentiles who is to instruct them in the true religion”); they are loosely added, according to a common usage of the N. T., and denote here the sphere in which he was appointed to discharge his office as teacher of the Gentiles. The peculiar point of view must not be lost by arbitrarily changing the words into ἘΝ Τῇ ΠΊΣΤΕΙ Τ. ἈΛΗΘΙΝῇ, or, as Leo does, into ΠΙΣΤῸς ΚΑῚ ἈΛΗΘΙΝΌς. It is wrong also to render ΠΊΣΤΙς here by “faithfulness,” and ἈΛΉΘ. by “verity” (Hofmann: ἘΝ ΠΊΣΤΕΙ, equivalent to “faithfully,” and ἘΝ ἈΛΗΘΕΊᾼ to “in verity”). ΠΊΣΤΙς is faith, the subjective relation, and ἈΛΗΘΕΊΑ is truth, the objective benefit, appropriated in faith (so also Plitt and van Oosterzee).
 Wiesinger less suitably refers the addition to the διδ. ἐθνῶν, which in that case should have been preceded by a καί. Otto (p. 117) unjustifiably uses this asseveration of the apostle to confirm his assertion that the epistle was written during the apostle’s stay at Ephesus, insisting that Paul, after he was put in prison in Jerusalem, was acknowledged an apostle in all Christian churches, and from that time, therefore, had no occasion for this asseveration. Apart from other points, Otto errs in referring the words ἀλήθειαν κ.τ.λ. only to the expression ἀπόστολος, whereas they apply to the entire thought in εἰς ὃ κ.τ.λ. Paul does not make asseveration that he was appointed an apostle, but that he was appointed an apostle of the μαρτύριον, the subject of which he had already mentioned. Comp. on this the passages quoted above.
 Bengel seems to take the words in a sense corresponding to the formula of asseveration, ἀληθ. λέγω κ.τ.λ. He says in regard to this formula: “pertinet haec affirmatio ad comma praecedens; nam subsequenti additur parallela: ἐν π. καὶ ἀληθ.;” a view for which there is no justification.—Matthies expresses himself somewhat obscurely; for while he in the first place mentions faith and truth not only as the elements, but also as the aims of the teaching, he says at the end of the discussion: “The apostle is teacher of the Gentiles in such a way that he knows himself to be impregnably established thereby in faith and truth.”
I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.1 Timothy 2:8. After giving, in the digression of 1 Timothy 2:3-7, the grounds of his exhortation to prayer for all, Paul returns to the exhortation itself in such a way as to define it more precisely in regard to those who are to offer the prayer.
βούλομαι οὖν προσεύχεσθαι τοὺς ἄνδρας ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ] “Hoc verbo (βούλομαι) exprimitur auctoritas apostolica,” Bengel; comp. 1 Timothy 5:14; Titus 3:15 : “I ordain.”
οὖν] Bengel’s explanation: “particula ergo reassumit versum 1,” is not quite accurate; the particle connects with 1 Timothy 2:1 in order to carry on the thought there expressed.
προσεύχεσθαι] Bengel: “sermo de precibus publicis, ubi sermonem orantis subsequitur multitudinis cor.” Matthies wrongly disputes the opinion that προσεύχεσθαι here is used of “prayer in the congregations.” The whole context shows beyond doubt that the apostle is here speaking of congregations.
τοὺς ἄνδρας] opposed to τὰς γυναῖκας, 1 Timothy 2:9. Paul assigns to each part its proper share in the assemblies for worship; “he has something different to say to the men and to the women” (Wiesinger).
ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ] does not stand here in opposition to the Jewish limitation to the temple (Chrysostom and others): “not once found” (de Wette), nor to the synagogue (Wolf), nor in reference to the various places of Christian worship in Ephesus (van Oosterzee), nor to the neighbouring congregations belonging to Timothy’s diocese (Heydenreich); it is to be taken generally, not in the sense of every place, “where the religious mood, custom, or duty cherishes it” (Matthies), but to all places where Christian congregations assemble (Wiesinger).
As to the construction, ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ does not belong to προσεύχεσθαι alone, but “to the whole clause” (Wiesinger, Matthies, van Oosterzee, Hofmann). The apostle means to lay stress not on this, that men are to pray, but on how they are to pray; the chief emphasis, therefore, rests on ἐπαίροντας κ.τ.λ.
ἐπαίροντας ὁσίους χεῖρας] The Jews lifted up their hands not only in swearing an oath, Genesis 14:22 (Revelation 10:5), and in blessing, Leviticus 9:22 (Luke 24:50), but also in prayer, Psalm 28:2; Psalm 44:21; Psalm 63:5, etc. This passage is a proof that the same custom was observed in the Christian church. It is true that in the N. T. it is nowhere else mentioned, but in Clement’s First Epistle to the Corinthians we have at chap. xxix. an evident allusion to this passage: προσέλθωμεν αὐτῷ ἐν ὁσιότητι ψυχῆς, ἁγνὰς καὶ ἀμιάντους χεῖρας αἴροντες πρὸς αὐτόν.
Regarding the form ὁσίους for ὁσίας, see Winer, p. 67 [E. T. p. 81].
The hands are holy which have not been given over to the deeds of wicked lust; the opposite is given by ΜΙΑΡΑΊ, ΒΈΒΗΛΟΙ ΧΕῖΡΕς, 2Ma 5:16; comp. on the expression, Job 17:9, Psalm 24:4, and in the N. T. Jam 4:8 especially: ΚΑΘΑΡΊΣΑΤΕ ΧΕῖΡΑς ΚΑῚ ἉΓΝΊΣΑΤΕ ΚΑΡΔΊΑς. Hofmann is ingenious in defining ὉΣΊΟΥς ΧΕῖΡΕς more precisely by what follows: “The hands of the one praying are ὍΣΙΟΙ only when he is inwardly saturated with the consecration without which his praying does not deserve the name of prayer.”
ΧΩΡῚς ὈΡΓῆς ΚΑῚ ΔΙΑΛΟΓΙΣΜΟῦ] Bengel is more pregnant than exact when he says: “ira, quae contraria amori et mater dubitationis; dubitatio, quae adversatur fidei. Fide et amore constat christianismus, gratiam et veritatem amplectens. Gratia fidem alit; veritas amorem Ephesians 4:5;” for ΔΙΑΛΟΓΙΣΜΌς is not to be rendered by “doubt” (so Bengel, with Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, Luther, and many others), which never is its signification. The rendering “contention” is also inaccurate; ΔΙΑΛΟΓΙΣΜΌς is equivalent to consideration, deliberation, cogitatio. In the N. T. the singular occurs only here and in Luke 9:46-47; it is usually in the plural. The word is in itself a vox media, but it is mostly used where evil or perverted thoughts are spoken of; comp. Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21; Luke 5:22; Luke 6:8; Luke 24:38. That it is to be taken here malo sensu, is shown by the close connection with ὀργή, which indicates that it is applied to deliberation towards one’s neighbour; comp. Meyer on Php 2:14, and especially Reiche, Comment. Crit. in N. T., on this passage. In the Pastoral Epistles, special stress is laid on peaceableness as a Christian virtue, 1 Timothy 3:3; Titus 3:2; 2 Timothy 2:24.
 It would be very forced to connect ὁσίους with ἐπαίροντας as a masculine, which Winer considers at least possible.
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;1 Timothy 2:9-10. Ὡσαύτως γυναῖκας κ.τ.λ.] After speaking of the men, Paul turns to the women, and gives some precepts regarding their behaviour in church assemblies.
As to the construction, it is obvious that the verse depends on βούλομαι in 1 Timothy 2:8. Several expositors, however, connect it not only with βούλομαι, but also with βούλομαι προσεύχεσθαι: “I will that the men pray … so also the women;” they then take what follows: ἐν καταστολῇ κοσμίῳ κ.τ.λ., as corresponding to ἐπαίροντας κ.τ.λ., 1 Timothy 2:8, and as defining more precisely the manner in which the women are to pray. The infinitive κοσμεῖν, however, is against this construction. De Wette, indeed, thinks that it is added to the infinitive προσεύχεσθαι by asyndeton; but although the connection of several infinitives with one another asyndetically frequently occurs (1 Timothy 5:14, 1 Timothy 6:18; Titus 3:1-2), there is no example of two infinitives being thus connected. Hofmann is forced to assume that κοσμεῖν “is a consequence dependent on μετὰ αἰδοῦς καὶ σωφροσύνης;” but how can self-adorning be considered a consequence of “modesty and good sense”? Though sometimes the infinitive does stand connected in such loose fashion with what precedes, it would be difficult to find an instance of such a connection as Hofmann here assumes.
Against that construction there is also this point: since in 1 Timothy 2:8 προσεύχεσθαι means prayer made by the men aloud in the church, here in 1 Timothy 2:9 it would have to be taken in a weakened sense; and it is so rendered by de Wette and Hofmann: “taking part in prayer.”
According to this, the verse cannot be dependent on βούλομαι προσεύχεσθαι, but on βούλομαι alone, so that ἐν καταστολῇ κ.τ.λ. merely states how the women are to adorn themselves (so, too, Plitt). De Wette, indeed, thinks that objection may be made to this construction because the affirmative ἐν κατ. κ.τ.λ. is followed not only by a negative μὴ ἐν πλ. κ.τ.λ., but also by a second affirmative in 1 Timothy 2:10. This accumulation of clauses, however, cannot be urged, since we have a similar accumulation in 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Nor is the particle ὡσαύτως an argument against us, since it stands in other places where the same predicates are not used (comp. 1 Timothy 3:8; Titus 2:3). Ὡσαύτως may be used wherever the members to be connected contain something not exactly alike, but of a kindred nature, as is the case here with ὁσίους … διαλογισμοῦ and ἐν καταστολῇ … σωφροσύνης. Nothing is to take place in the church, neither among the men nor among the women, which can hurt its spiritual dignity.
ἘΝ ΚΑΤΑΣΤΟΛῇ ΚΟΣΜΊῼ] ΚΑΤΑΣΤΟΛΉ may, according to Greek usage, denote “sedateness of nature.” Hence it is that some expositors (de Wette among others) take it here as equivalent to habitus, κατάστημα (Titus 2:3); but it never occurs in that sense. The words that follow: μὴ ἐν πλέγμασιν … ἱματισμῷ πολυτελεῖ, show that the word is to be understood of clothing. True, it does not originally mean this, but the letting down, e.g., of the περιβολή (Plutarch, Pericl. 5). This meaning, however, might easily pass into that of “the garment hanging down,” and then further, into that of “clothing in general.” This is the explanation given here by most expositors (also by Plitt and Hofmann; van Oosterzee translates it: “bearing,” but explains it afterwards: “καταστολή = ἔνδυμα”). Some take it quite generally; others, again, understand it of the garment enveloping the whole body (Chrysostom: ἡ ἀμπεχόνη πάντοθεν περιστέλλουσα καλῶς, μὴ περιέργως). This last explanation has no sufficient support in the etymology, nor in the ordinary usage.
κόσμιος] does not mean “delicately” (Luther), but “modestly, honourably” (comp. 1 Timothy 3:2); beyond these passages, it is not found in the N. T.
μετὰ αἰδοῦς καὶ σωφροσύνης] The outward modesty which makes itself known in the dress, is to be accompanied by inward purity and chastity, since the former would otherwise be of no account. While αἰδώς denotes the inward shrinking from everything immodest, σωφροσύνη expresses the control of the desires; τὸ κρατεῖν ἡδονῶν καὶ ἐπιθυμίων (Luther): “with modesty and propriety.”
It is to be noted that ΣΩΦΡΟΣΎΝΗ (apart from Acts 26:25 : ΣΩΦΡΟΣΎΝΗς ῬΉΜΑΤΑ ἈΠΟΦΘΈΓΓΟΜΑΙ, in opposition to ΜΑΊΝΟΜΑΙ) occurs only here and in 1 Timothy 2:15, and that all words kindred to it (except ΣΩΦΡΟΝΕῖΝ in Romans 12:3, opposed to ὙΠΕΡΦΡΟΝΕῖΝ in 2 Corinthians 5:13, denoting the opposite of the ecstatic state; also in Mark 5:15; Luke 8:35; 1 Peter 4:7), such as ΣΩΦΡΟΝΊΖΕΙΝ, ΣΩΦΡΟΝΙΣΜΌς, ΣΏΦΡΩΝ, ΣΩΦΡΌΝΩς, are found only in the Pastoral Epistles.
ΜῊ ἘΝ ΠΛΈΓΜΑΣΙΝ Κ.Τ.Λ.] Instead of ΠΛΈΓΜΑΤΑ, we have ἘΜΠΛΟΚΉ [ΤΡΙΧῶΝ] (Isaiah 3:24 : מִקְשֶׁה) in 1 Peter 3:3, which is particularly to be compared with this passage; it denotes “the artificial plaits of hair” (Clemens Alex. Paedag. iii. 11: περίπλοκαι ἑταιρικαὶ τῶν τριχῶν).
καὶ χρυσίῳ] The καί divides the ornament into two parts, πλέγματα belonging to the body itself, and what follows being the things put on the body. In 1 Peter 3:3, we have περίθεσις χρυσίων (comp. Revelation 17:4).
It is wrong to connect χρυσίῳ with the previous πλέγμ. as a hendiadys for πλέγμα χρύσιον (Heinrichs).
ἢ μαργαρίταις] The gems are not named in Peter, and instead of ἱματισμὸς πολυτελής we have there ἔνδυσις ἱματίων; the adjective πολυτελής (Matt.: μαλακὰ ἱμάτια) is contrasted with κόσμιος.
ἀλλʼ ὃ πρέπει κ.τ.λ.] Most expositors (among them Wegscheider, Flatt, Heydenreich, Leo, de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, also Winer, p. 149, note 1 [E. T. p. 171]) refer διʼ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν to κοσμεῖν, and take ἃ πρέπει … θεοσέβειαν as a parenthesis. But there are three points against this, viz., that the ornament of the women is already named in ἐν καταστολῇ κ.τ.λ., that the preposition διά does not suit with κοσμεῖν (which is construed previously with ἐν), and that “good works” would be unsuitably described as ornament here, where he is speaking of the conduct of the women in the assemblies of the church, unless we arbitrarily limit the general idea to offerings for the poor, as is done by Heydenreich and van Oosterzee. Theodoret rightly joins διʼ ἐργ. ἀγ. with the immediately preceding ἐπαγγελλ. θεοσεβ. (“εὐσέβειαν ἐπαγγέλλεσθε, καὶ τὴν διʼ ἔργων ἀρετήν”); so, too, Oecumenius, Luther, Calvin, etc.; and among more recent names, Mack, Matthies, and Plitt. The comma before διά, which is found in the editions, must therefore be deleted. Hofmann connects the words with what follows, taking διά in the sense of accompanying; but διά never has such a simple copulative meaning.
The relative ὅ stands here either for ἐν τούτῳ ὅ, for which Matthies appeals, but wrongly, to Romans 6:21; Romans 10:14; or more probably for καθʼ ὅ. So far as the meaning goes, the various reading ὡς (καθώς, Ephesians 5:3) is correct. Hofmann wishes to refer ὅ to κοσμεῖν ἑαυτάς in such a way that “the latter is mentioned as a thing … seemly for women.” The intervening ἀλλά, however, manifestly makes this construction impossible.
ἐπαγγελλομέναις θεοσέβειαν] ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι usually means in the N. T. “promise.” Matthies accordingly renders the word here by “give information, show;” so, too, Luther: “who therein manifest blessedness.” But it is more correct here to take the word in the sense in which profiteri artem is used, so that θεοσέβεια is regarded as an art or a handicraft. De Wette rightly says: “who make profession of blessedness;” so, too, 1 Timothy 6:21; comp. Xenophon, Memor. i. 2. 7: ἀρετὴν ἐπαγγελλόμενος (Ignatius, ad Ephes. chap. 14: οὐδεὶς πίστιν ἐπαγγελλόμενος ἁμαρτάνει).
θεοσέβεια] only here in the N. T. (LXX. Genesis 20:11; more frequently in the Apocrypha; θεοσεβής, John 9:31; LXX. Exodus 18:21), is equivalent to εὐσέβεια.
διʼ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν] must not be limited to works of benevolence alone. The addition of these words is fully explained by a comparison with 2 Timothy 3:5. Calvin gives the connection with the preceding words rightly: si operibus testanda est pietas, in vestitu etiam casto apparere haec professio debet.
 Wiesinger unites the κοσμεῖν with the προσεύχεσθαι, and defends it with the remark, that if instead of the asyndeton of the infinitive κοσμεῖν we had the participle, there could have been no doubt regarding it. Then he asks: “Have we not elsewhere examples enough of a similar change of construction?” To this we must answer, “No,” unless “similar” be taken in too wide a sense.
 It is necessary therefore to do, as van Oosterzee does, supply the participle προσευχομένας with γυναῖκας because of the ὡσαύτως.
 In this sense the word is found, e.g. in Arrian (Epict. ii. 10), joined with αἰδώς and ἡμερότης.—In the passage of Josephus, B. J. ii. 8. 4 : καταστολὴ δὲ καὶ σχῆμα σώματος ὅμοιον τοῖς μετὰ φόβου παιδαγωγουμένοις παισίν, which is commonly quoted as a proof of the meaning “clothing,” the meaning is doubtful. Salmasius explains it: sedatus animus et remissus, elato et superbo tumentique oppositus, in contrast with ὀργῆς, ver. 8; but in that case the added adjective κόσμιος is superfluous.
 The two words are also placed together elsewhere as feminine virtues. See Raphelius, who quotes, among others, the passage from Epictetus (Enchir. chap. 62): mulieres in ornatu spem collocant omnem; quare operae pretium est, dare operam, ut sentiant, sibi non ob aliud honorem haberi, ἢ τῷ κοσμίαι φαίνεσθαι, καὶ αἰδήμονες ἐν σωφροσύνῃ. Although in the Cyropaedia (Book viii.) the two words are thus distinguished: διῄρει (sc. Cyrus) δὲ αἰδὼ καὶ σωφροσύνκν τῇδε, ὡς τοὺς μὲν αἰδουμένους, τὰ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ αἰσχρὰ φεύγοντας, τοὺς δὲ σώφρονας, καὶ τὰ ἐν τῷ ἀφανεῖ, the distinction cannot be regarded as always valid.—Aristotle (Rhet. i. 9) explains σωφροσύνη in the following fashion: σωφροσύνη ἀρετή, διʼ ἣν πρὸς τὰς ἡδονὰς τοῦ σώματος οὕτως ἔχουσιν, ὡς ὁ νόμος κελεύει.
 Van Oosterzee explains it as “a causal periphrasis to show why precisely this ornament is extolled by the apostle.”
 Hofmann thus paraphrases the thought: “They are to do what is good, and to learn in still seclusion. The former is that which is to be accompanied by the latter.” He appeals to 2 Corinthians 2:4. He does not prove, however, that that passage justifies such a paraphrase. The relation between writing and tears is obviously quite different from that between learning in stillness and good works.
But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.1 Timothy 2:11-12. Further injunctions for women.
γυνὴ ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ μανθανέτω] ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ, “without speaking herself;” μανθάνειν denotes here, as in 1 Corinthians 14:31, attention to the word in order to learn from it what is necessary for advancing and building up the Christian life.
ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ] “in complete subordination,” i.e. without contradiction.
The thought here expressed is to be filled up by what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:35 (which passage should be particularly compared with this): ΕἸ ΔΈ ΤΙ ΜΑΘΕῖΝ ΘΈΛΟΥΣΙΝ, ἘΝ ΟἼΚῼ ΤΟῪς ἸΔΊΟΥς ἌΝΔΡΑς ἘΠΕΡΩΤΆΤΩΣΙΝ.—“Spiritual receptivity and activity in domestic life were recognised as the appropriate destiny of women, and therefore the female sex was excluded from the public discussion of religious subjects” (Neander, Geschichte der Pflanzung der Kirche durch die Aposteln, Part I. p. 125). Though in Christ there is no distinction, yet Christianity does not put an end to the natural distinctions ordained by God; it recognises them in order to inform them with its higher life.
διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω] Διδ. stands first in emphatic opposition to ΜΑΝΘΆΝΕΙΝ; in the parallel passage (1 Corinthians 14) ΔΙΔ. stands instead of the more general word ΛΑΛΕῖΝ.
ΟὐΔῈ ΑὐΘΕΝΤΕῖΝ ἈΝΔΡΌς] Leo: “ΑὐΘΕΝΤΕῖΝ et ΑὐΘΈΝΤΗς apud seriores tantum scriptores ita occurrit, ut dominii notionem involvat; melioribus scriptoribus est αὐθέντης idem quod ΑὐΤΌΧΕΙΡ” (see Valckenaer, Diatr. in Eurip. rell. chap. 18 pp. 188 ff.; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 120). Luther has rightly: “that she be master of her husband;” whereas in the translation: “to assume to herself respect or mastery” (Heydenreich, de Wette, van Oosterzee), the notion of assumption is imported. Hofmann, too, is wrong when he says that αὐθεντεῖν in conjunction with the genitive of the person should mean: “to act independently of this person, i.e. as one’s own master” (!).
Many expositors (Matthies, and earlier, Estius, Calovius, and others) assume in this word a reference to domestic relations; whereas Heydenreich, de Wette, Wiesinger, and others, limit even this command to behaviour in the assemblies for divine worship. This last is correct, as is shown by ἈΛΛʼ ΕἾΝΑΙ ἘΝ ἩΣΥΧΊᾼ, corresponding to ἘΝ ἩΣΥΧΊᾼ in 1 Timothy 2:11. Yet ΟὐΔῈ ΑὐΘΕΝΤΕῖΝ Τ. ἈΝΔΡ. puts the prohibition to teach under a more general point of view, and at the same time confirms it. Nor can it be denied that women are not ΑὐΘΕΝΤΕῖΝ Τ. ἈΝΔΡ. in the assemblies, because in the apostle’s opinion that does not beseem them at any time. The reason why not, is given in the verses that follow.
It is to be observed, further, that 1 Timothy 2:12 corresponds exactly with 1 Timothy 2:11 : ΓΥΝῊ … ΓΥΝΑΙΚΊ; ΜΑΝΘΑΝΈΤΩ … ΔΙΔΆΣΚΕΙΝ ΟὐΚ ἘΠΙΤΡΈΠΩ; ἘΝ ΠΆΣῌ ὙΠΟΤΑΓῇ … ΟὐΔῈ ΑὐΘΕΝΤΕῖΝ ΤΟῦ ἈΝΔΡ.; ἘΝ ἩΣΥΧΊᾼ … ἈΛΛʼ ΕἾΝΑΙ ἘΝ ἩΣΥΧΊᾼ. This parallelism is clear proof that the same thing is spoken of in 1 Timothy 2:12 as in 1 Timothy 2:11, which Hofmann denies. Still 1 Timothy 2:12 is not therefore superfluous, since it both emphasizes and more precisely defines the particular ideas in 1 Timothy 2:11.
ἈΛΛʼ ΕἾΝΑΙ ἘΝ ἩΣΥΧΊᾼ] The same construction is found in 1 Corinthians 14:34. The infinitive is dependent on a ΒΟΎΛΟΜΑΙ to be supplied from ΟὐΚ ἘΠΙΤΡΈΠΩ—an abbreviated construction which occurs also in classic Greek.
De Wette rightly directs attention to these points, that we must not by arbitrary interpretations take away the clear definite meaning from the commands here laid down, in order to make them universal in application; and, on the other hand, that they are not to be considered as local and temporal ordinances: they are rather injunctions to be still held valid as applying to public assemblies.
 Otto quotes the agreement of these passages with one another as a proof that the letters are contemporaneous. It is, however, to be observed that Paul himself, in the words: ὡς ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶς ἁγίων (1 Corinthians 11:33), describes the maxim as one which he was seeking to establish in all the churches. Hence there is nothing strange in his urging it on Timothy’s attention at a later period, just as he had urged it before on the Corinthians.
 Hofmann, in opposition to these two views, maintains that the apostle here speaks of the “Christian life in general,” “of all action for which there was occasion in ordinary life;” but the context gives no ground for his assertion.
 Compare with this apostolic expression, Const. Apost. iii. 6 : οὐκ ἐπιτρέπομεν γυναῖκας διδάσκειν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἀλλὰ μόνον προσεύχεσθαι καὶ τῶν διδασκάλων ἐπακούειν. Tertull. De Virg. Vel.: non permittitur mulieri in ecclesia loqui, sed nec docere, nec tinguere, nec ullius virilis muneris, nedum sacerdotalis officii sortem sibi vindicare. It is curious that in the Apost. Const. it is permitted to women προσεύχεσθαι in church, while here it is granted only to men to do so. But, on the one hand, προσεύχεσθαι in the Constitutions does not mean exactly prayer aloud; and, on the other hand, this passage here does not plainly and directly forbid προσεύχεσθαι to women; it only forbids distinctly διδάσκειν on their part.—There is the same apparent contradiction between 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, and 1 Corinthians 11:5; 1 Corinthians 11:13. While in the former passage λαλεῖν is forbidden to women, in the latter προσεύχεσθαι and even προθητεύειν are presupposed as things done by women, and the apostle does not rebuke it.—The solution is, that Paul wishes everything in church to be done εὐσχημόνως καὶ κατὰ τάξιν; while, on the other hand, he holds by the principle: “τὸ πνεῦμα μὴ σβέννυτε” (1 Thessalonians 5:19). Meyer on 1 Corinthians 11:5 differs.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.1 Timothy 2:13. First reason for the previous prohibition, taken from the history of the creation.—1 Timothy 2:14. The second reason, taken from the history of the fall. Elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles we find proofs that the historical facts of the O. T. are to the apostle full of meaning as symbols of higher, universal truths. So here, the facts that Adam was first created, and that Eve, not Adam, was tempted by the serpent, are to him prototypes and proofs that it is becoming for the wife not αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, but to be meekly subordinate to the husband. Hence he says: Ἀδὰμ γὰρ πρῶτος ἐπλάσθη, εἶτα Εὔα. The verb πλάσσειν occurs in the N. T. only here and in Romans 9:20, both times in its original meaning. The meaning “create,” here appropriate to the word, is, however, found in the LXX. Genesis 2:7, from which passage the apostle here has drawn (comp. also 2Ma 7:23 : ὁ πλάσας ἀνθρώπου γένεσιν). Compare 1 Corinthians 11:2 ff., where the apostle says that the husband is εἴκων καὶ δόξα Θεοῦ, and the wife δόξα ἀνδρός, because the husband is not ἐκ γυναικός, but the wife ἐξ ἀνδρός. De Wette, without reason, thinks that the author of this Epistle to Timothy had that passage in mind.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.1 Timothy 2:14. καὶ Ἀδὰμ οὐκ ἠπατήθη] In order to justify this expression, the expositors have sought to define it more precisely, mostly by supplying πρῶτος. So Theodoret; Tertullian, too (De Hab. Mul.), says, perhaps alluding to this passage: tu divinae legis prima es desertrix. Others, again, supply ὑπὸ τοῦ ὄφεως (Matthies: “As the apostle remembers the O. T. story of the fall, there comes into his thoughts the cunning serpent by which Eve, not Adam, let herself be ensnared”). De Wette thinks that the author is insisting on the notion be charmed, betrayed (by sinful desire), as opposed to some other motive to sin. Hofmann arbitrarily supplies with Ἀδὰμ οὐκ ἠπατήθη the thought: “so long as he was alone.”
The apparent difficulty is solved when we remember the peculiarity of allegorical interpretation, which lays stress on the definite expression as such. This here is the word ἀπατᾷν (or ἐξαπατᾷν). On this word the whole emphasis is laid, as is clearly shown by the very repetition of it. This word, however, in the Mosaic account of the fall, is used only of the woman, not of the man, for in Genesis 3:13 the woman expressly says: ὁ ὄφις ἠπάτησέ με; the man, however, uses no such expression. And in the story there is no indication that as the woman was deceived or betrayed through the promises of the serpent, so was the man through the woman.
Adam did certainly also transgress the command, but not, as the woman, influenced by ἀπάτη. Paul, remembering this, says: Ἀδὰμ οὐκ ἠπατήθη, ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἐξαπατηθεῖσα. Bengel: serpens mulierem decepit, mulier virum non decepit, sed ei persuasit. To supply anything whatever, only serves therefore to conceal the apostle’s real meaning.
ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἐξαπατηθεῖσα ἐν παραβάσει γέγονε] This betrayal of the woman by the serpent is mentioned by Paul also in 2 Corinthians 11:3, where he employs the same word: ἐξαπατᾷν.
The emphasis, as is apparent from what precedes, is not on the last words, but on ἐξαπατηθεῖσα; hence it is not right to supply πρώτη with ἐν παρ. γεγ. Παράβασις here, as elsewhere (οὗ οὐκ ἔστι νόμος, οὐδὲ παράβασις, Romans 4:15), is used in regard to a definite law.
The construction γεγονέναι ἐν occurs frequently in the N. T. in order to denote the entrance into a certain condition, a certain existence. De Wette: “fell into transgression.” Luther wrongly: “and brought in transgression.”
As to the thought itself, expositors find the force of this second reason to lie in the fact that in the fall the weakness of the woman, her proneness to temptation, was manifested, and that consequently it is not seemly for the woman to have mastery over the man. But did the man resist the temptation more stoutly than the woman? Paul nowhere gives any hint of that. The significant part of the Mosaic narrative to him is rather this, that the judgment of God was passed upon the woman because she had let herself be betrayed by the serpent, and it is in accordance with this judgment that the husband is made lord over the wife.
 The right interpretation of this passage does not even in appearance contradict Romans 5:12. In the latter, Paul does not mention the woman, but the man, as the origin of sin; but then he is thinking of the man as the image of God, of the woman as the image of the man.
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.1 Timothy 2:15. Σωθήσεται δὲ διὰ τῆς τεκνογονίας] σωθήσεται δέ is in opposition to the previous ἐν παραβάσει γέγονε. Still this sentence is not intended merely to moderate the judgment pronounced in 1 Timothy 2:14 (Matthies); after the apostle has forbidden to the woman any activity in church assemblies as unbecoming to her, he now points to the destiny assigned her by God, the fulfilment of which brings salvation to her. The subject of σωθήσεται is ἡ γυνή, to be supplied from the preceding words; but, of course, it applies collectively to the whole sex, while referring specially to Eve.
σωθήσεται is to be taken here in the sense which it continually has in the N. T. (not then equivalent to “she will win for herself merit and reward,” de Wette). Every reason to the contrary falls to the ground, if only we consider that ΤΕΚΝΟΓΟΝΊΑ is regarded as the destiny assigned to the woman by God, and that to the woman ΣΩΤΗΡΊΑ is assured by it under the condition given in the words following: ἘᾺΝ Κ.Τ.Λ. It is to be noted also, that though faith is the only source of salvation, the believer must not fail in fulfilling his duties in faith, if he is to partake in the ΣΩΤΗΡΊΑ.
ΔΙΆ is taken by several expositors (also Wiesinger) in the sense of “in;” but this is wrong, for either this signification “in” passes over into the signification “by means of,” or it has much the same force as “notwithstanding, in spite of” (Romans 2:27; see Meyer on the passage); διά, however, cannot be used in this sense, since τεκνογονία would in that case have been regarded as a hindrance to the attainment of the σωτηρία. This militates also against Hofmann’s view, “that σώζεσθαι διά τινος has the same meaning here as in 1 Corinthians 3:15, to be saved as through something;” this explanation also makes the τεκνογονία appear to be something through which the woman’s σώζεσθαι is endangered.
τεκνογονία, a word which occurs only here in the N. T. (as also ΤΕΚΝΟΓΟΝΈΩ only in chap. 1 Timothy 5:14, and ΤΕΚΝΟΤΡΟΦΈΩ only in chap. 1 Timothy 5:10), can have here nothing but its etymological meaning. Some, quite wrongly, have taken it as a term for the marriage state, and others have made it synonymous with ΤΕΚΝΟΤΡΟΦΊΑ. This latter view is found in the oldest expositors; thus Theophylact remarks, not without wit: Οὐ ΓΕΝΝῆΣΑΙ ΜΌΝΟΝ ΔΕῖ, ἈΛΛᾺ ΚΑῚ ΠΑΙΔΕῦΣΑΙ· ΤΟῦΤΟ ΓᾺΡ ὌΝΤΩς ΤΕΚΝΟΓΟΝΊΑ, ΕἸ ΔῈ Οὐ, ΟὐΚ ἘΣΤῚ ΤΕΚΝΟΓΟΝΊΑ, ἈΛΛᾺ ΤΕΚΝΟΦΘΟΡΊΑ ἜΣΤΑΙ ΤΑῖς ΓΥΝΑΙΞΊ.
The question, how the ΤΕΚΝΟΓΟΝΊΑ contributes to the ΣΩΤΗΡΊΑ, is answered by most by supplying with the one or the other something of which there is no hint in the words of the apostle, and by which the thought is more or less altered. This much may be granted, that Paul, by laying stress on the ΤΕΚΝΟΓΟΝΊΑ (the occasion for which was probably the ΚΩΛΎΩΝ ΓΑΜΕῖΝ on the part of the heretics, chap. 1 Timothy 4:3), assigns to the woman, who has to conduct herself as passive in the assemblies, the domestic life as the sphere in which—especially in regard to the children—she has to exercise her activity (comp. 1 Timothy 5:14).
In order not to be misunderstood, as if he had said that the ΤΕΚΝΟΓΟΝΊΑ as a purely external fact affects ΣΩΤΗΡΊΑ, he adds the following words: ἘᾺΝ ΜΕΊΝΩΣΙΝ ἘΝ ΠΊΣΤΕΙ Κ.Τ.Λ. The subject of ΜΕΊΝΩΣΙΝ is the collective idea ΓΥΝΉ (see Winer, pp. 481, 586 [E. T. pp. 648, 787]), and not, as many older (Chrysostom and others) and later (Schleiermacher, Mack, Leo, Plitt) expositors think: “the children.” This latter might indeed be supplied from ΤΕΚΝΟΓΟΝΊΑ, but it would give a wrong idea.
It is quite arbitrary, with Heydenreich, to supply “man and wife.”
Paul uses the expressions ἘΝ ΠΊΣΤΕΙ Κ.Τ.Λ. to denote the Christian life in its various aspects. They are not to be limited to the relation of married life, ΠΊΣΤΙς denoting conjugal fidelity; ἈΓΆΠΗ, conjugal love; ἉΓΙΑΣΜΌς, conjugal chastity; and ΣΩΦΡΟΣΎΝΗ, living in regular marriage. ΣΩΦΡΟΣΎΝΗ is named along with the preceding cardinal virtues of the Christian life, because it peculiarly becomes the thoughts of a woman (comp. 1 Timothy 2:9), not because “a woman is apt to lose control of herself through her excitable temperament” (Hofmann). There is in the context no hint of a reference to female weakness.
 Even Theophylact declared against the curious view, that Mary is to be taken here as subject. Clearly also Eve cannot here be meant.
 Van Oosterzee translates διά by “by means of,” and then says: “it simply indicates a condition in which the woman becomes a partaker of blessedness,” leaving it uncertain in what relation the apostle places τεκνογονία to σώζεσθαι.
 Hofmann says in explanation: “If it is appointed to the woman to bear children in pain, she might succumb under such a burden of life;” but, in reply, it is to be observed that τεκνογονία does not mean “to bear children with pain.”
 Most think of the faithful fulfilment of maternal duty in the education of children. Chrysostom: τικνογονίαν, φησι, τὸ μὴ μόνον τεκεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ κατὰ Θεὸν ἀναγαγεῖν.—According to Heinrichs, Paul means here to say: mulier jam hoc in mundo peccatorum poenas luit, διὰ τῆς τεκνογ. eo, quod cum dolore parturit, adeoque haec τεκνογ. eam quasi σώζειν putanda est, et ipsa σώζεσθαι διὰ τῆς τεκνογονίας. The passage quoted by Heinrichs, Genesis 3:16, does not denote the τεκνογονία as such, but the pains connected with it as a punishment of transgression. According to Plitt, the τεκνογ. serves to farther the woman’s σωτηρία; on the one hand, because by the fulfilment of her wish gratitude is aroused within her; on the other hand, because of her care for her children she is preserved from many frivolities.
 De Wette asserts too much when he says that this passage is in contradiction with 1 Corinthians 7:7 ff., 1 Corinthians 7:25 ff., 1 Corinthians 7:38 ff. The truth is rather that the matter is regarded from various points of view. In 1 Corinthians the apostle is delivering his judgment, while he considers the difficult position of Christians amid the hostility of the world, without for a moment denying that τεκνογονία is an ordinance of God. Here, however, he is considering only the latter point, without entering into every detail.