Proper Objects of Prayer
Following the charge to Timothy in chapter 1, which points to the presence of false teachers as the occasion of the letter, Paul now moves on to give a series of specific instructions (2:1–7 on the proper objects of prayer; 2:8–15 on the proper demeanor for prayer; 3:1–13 on qualifications for church leadership). All of this leads directly to 3:14–15, where Paul repeats his purpose for writing in terms of the believers’ knowing how to conduct themselves in God’s household.
Because there is no specific reference to the false teachers in these three sections, it is often suggested that what is being given in the two chapters is an early church manual, of the kind that would have been needed for setting a congregation in order—although some have suggested that the reason for such a manual would have been to offer church order as the proper antidote to heresy. By and large, however, the “church manual” view sees very little relationship between chapters 2 and 3 and the charge to Timothy in chapter 1.
But since the new section begins with the conjunction “therefore” (NIV, then), implying a result or inference from what has preceded, it seems much more likely that all of this material is a direct consequence of what was said in chapter 1. That means that these instructions are best understood as responses to the presence of the wayward elders, who were disrupting the church by their errors and controversies. In fact, Paul does not suggest at any point that Timothy is to set the church in order, as for the first time. In each case the activities seem already to be present. What Paul is doing, rather, is correcting abuses of various kinds. For example, it may be assumed that men pray, and do so with raised hands (v. 8). The instruction here is that they do so with “holy” hands, not “soiled” by anger or argument.
If that be so, then what might be the place of this first paragraph in the argument? The frequent answer is that the point lies in verse 2, that prayer be made for rulers so that the church may enjoy a peaceful existence. It has even been suggested that a correct Christian attitude toward the state is what is in view. Verses 4–7, then, are seen as nearly irrelevant to that point, but go back to elaborate on a secondary point made in verse 1 (prayer be made for everyone). However, it seems much more likely that precisely the opposite is the case. The one clear concern that runs through the whole paragraph has to do with the gospel as for everyone (“all people,” vv. 1, 4–6, and 7). In this view, the phrase this is good in verse 3 refers to prayer for everyone in verse 1, thus seeing verse 2 as something of a digression—albeit as before (1:12–17), a meaningful one. The best explanation for this emphasis lies with the false teachers, who either through the esoteric, highly speculative nature of their teaching (1:4–6) or through its “Jewishness” (1:7) or ascetic character (4:3) are promoting an elitist or exclusivist mentality among their followers. The whole paragraph attacks that narrowness.
2:1 Although this sentence clearly begins something new, the then (better, “therefore”) also ties it to what has gone before. But what? Most likely it goes all the way back to the charge in 1:3, but now by way of verses 18–20. What Paul says, then, is: “Even as I urged you, stay there in Ephesus to stop the false teachers. I now urge, therefore, first of all, that …” The first of all suggests not so much that prayer itself is the first thing that needs to be discussed, but that offering prayers of all kinds for “all people” is the matter of first urgency.
Four different words for prayer are used; however, the distinctions often made between them are usually oversubtle. Paul’s point is not to define or distinguish the various kinds of prayer that should mark Christian worship, but to urge that prayers of all kinds be made for everyone, with the emphasis on everyone. That becomes clear in verses 3–7.
2:2 “Prayers” of all kinds “for all people” also includes the governing authorities—kings and all those in authority. The word for kings usually means the emperor, but the plural here seems to make it more comprehensive, which is further substantiated by a generalizing addition: and all those in authority. It might be, of course, given the nature of things in Ephesus, that the addition refers to those in authority in the church. But the use of kings, plus the whole context, implies that all those who govern (the emperor, provincial officials, local magistrates) are proper objects for Christian prayer. In this there is nothing new: Prayers and sacrifices for pagan authorities have a long history in Judaism (see note).
Paul now adds a reason for praying for the pagan authorities: that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. For many scholars, this sounds terribly bourgeois, even selfish. But, again, it probably reflects the activities of the false teachers, who are not only disrupting (“disquieting”) the church(es) but apparently are also bringing the gospel and the church into disrepute on the outside (see esp. 3:7; 5:14; 6:1; cf. Titus 2:5, 8; 3:1–3). The concern here, therefore, is not that Christians should have a life free from trouble or distress (which hardly fits the point of view of 2 Tim. 1:8 and 3:12) but that they should live in such a way that “no one will speak evil of the name of God and of our teaching” (6:1).
This understanding is supported by two other factors: First, in 1 Thessalonians 4:11–12 Paul uses identical language (“lead a quiet life”) for the selfsame reason (to “win the respect of outsiders”), where “busybodies” are disrupting things (cf. 2 Thess. 3:11 with 1 Tim. 5:13); and second, the language all godliness (eusebeia) and holiness (semnotēs; better, “proper conduct,” as GNB), which is peculiar to these letters in the Pauline corpus (except for Phil. 4:8, semnēs), has to do with behavior that can be seen. At such points one would expect “righteousness” (dikaiosynē) and “holiness” (hagiosynē) in Paul if the emphasis were on one’s relationship to God or internal righteousness.
The term eusebeia (along with its verb and adverb) is a crucial one in these letters. In popular parlance it meant roughly what religious means in popular English. For many it is difficult to imagine Paul’s using such a word, which belongs to Hellenism and Hellenistic Judaism (see esp. Ecclesiasticus and 4 Maccabees), to describe either the Christian faith or Christian behavior. But the answer to this, as with many such terms in the PE (see the Introduction), lies with the false teachers. Most likely this is their word, being used by Paul to counteract them (cf. the use of wisdom in 1 Cor. 1–3).
It should also be noted that the attitude toward the state reflected in this passage is quite in keeping with Romans 13:1–5. Prayer for such authorities is to be made precisely so that believers, including the elders, may freely live out their faith before “outsiders” (3:7). But such a point is nonetheless a slight digression, brought about by the mention of pagan officials.
2:3–4 Paul now returns to his main concern, prayers of all kinds “for all people.” The reason? Because God wants all [people] to be saved. That this is good, and pleases God might, of course, refer to the content of verse 2. But the relative clause in verse 4 indicates otherwise. This is good, Paul says; that is, prayers “for everyone” is good, and pleases God our Savior, precisely because the God who has saved us (our Savior) wants his salvation to reach all people.
The appellation God our Savior (see the note on 1:1) emphasizes that God is the originator of the saving event (cf. Phil. 1:28; 1 Thess. 5:9) and that Paul and the church have already experienced it. But neither our salvation, nor that of an elitist few, satisfies God, for God wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. The point of the text is clear: The gospel, by its very nature, as Paul will argue in verses 5–6, is universal in its scope, and any narrowing of that scope by a truncated theology or by “novelties” that appeal to the intellectual curiosities of the few is not the gospel of Christ. And to say that God wants (not “wills,” and therefore it must come to pass) all people to be saved, implies neither that all (meaning everybody) will be saved (against 3:6; 4:2; or 4:10, e.g.) nor that God’s will is somehow frustrated since all, indeed, are not saved. The concern is simply with the universal scope of the gospel over against some form of heretical exclusivism or narrowness.
In this sentence salvation is closely tied to coming to a knowledge of the truth. That does not suggest that salvation is no longer a response of faith (see disc. on 1:15–16) but that, especially in the context of false teachings, salvation also has its cognitive side, to a knowledge of the truth, that is, to hear and grasp the gospel message (cf. 3:15; 4:3; 2 Tim. 3:8; 4:4; Titus 1:1).
2:5–6a Paul will now offer as evidence for the contention that “God wants all people to be saved” some commonly held theological affirmations, probably from an early creedal formulation—although some of the present language may well be his own. The statement has three parts to it: the unity of God, Christ as mediator, and Christ’s death as securing redemption. It should be noted that all three parts support Paul’s insistence on the universal scope of salvation.
There is one God. This statement reflects the primary Jewish affirmation about God (see Deut. 6:4; cf. 1 Cor. 8:4). Its original intent in the OT was to stress God’s unity vis-à-vis the polytheism that surrounded Israel. Unfortunately, however, it often came to be used in an exclusivistic way: “He is our God and he looks out for his own.” But basic to the original intent, and what Paul is stressing here, was that the fact of one God not only meant that there were no other gods but that he is therefore the one God over all peoples.
And there is one mediator between God and men (lit., “One also is the mediator between God and mankind”). The presupposition of this line in relation to the first is the universal sinfulness of humanity, who needs outside help in order to be rightly related to the one God whom it has spurned. The point being made is not only that humankind needs mediation with God (the presupposition) but that God himself has provided it. The word “mediator” had sometimes been applied to Moses in Judaism (e.g., Philo, Moses 2.166), as the one who “mediated” the Law to God’s people, a notion Paul seems to allude to negatively in Galatians 3:19–20. Here, or in the creed itself before Paul used it, the background lies in the idea of a “negotiator” who “establishes a relation which would not otherwise exist” (TDNT, vol. 4, p. 601). Jesus Christ is the “go-between God,” who reconciles fallen humanity to the one God, that is who mediates between God and men.
The phrase the man Christ Jesus emphasizes both his full identification with all men and his being the one human being of whom it can be said, he is the Man (anthrōpos, the generic term, not anēr, expressing male gender). This seems to reflect Paul’s use of the Adam-Christ imagery, wherein Christ becomes the representative “man” for people of the New Age, as Adam was of the Old.
Who gave himself as a ransom for all people: This clause, of course, makes explicit what was only implicit in the first two clauses, revealing Paul’s reason for citing the whole. God’s desire for all to be saved is evidenced in the creed itself with its statement that Christ’s death was for all people. The gospel, therefore, potentially provides salvation for all people, because Christ’s atoning self-sacrifice was “in behalf of” (hyper) all people. Effectually, of course, it ends up being “especially [for] those who believe” (4:10).
The clause is very close in concept, but not so in its actual language, to Mark 10:45 and probably reflects a Hellenized form of that saying. To give himself up for us is a typically Pauline way of referring to Christ’s self-sacrifice on the cross (Gal. 1:4; 2:20; Eph. 5:2). As a ransom translates a noun, antilytron, that can mean either a “ransom” (involving “payment”) or “redemption” (in the Exodus sense of delivery from bondage). In both Mark 10:45 and here, the latter is to be preferred (as well as in Titus 2:14).
As often happens, therefore, when describing the work of Christ (cf. Rom. 3:24–25; 1 Cor. 1:29; 6:11), a rich combination of metaphors is used, and this creedal statement is no exception. But the point throughout is its potentiality for all people.
2:6b The dash before the words the testimony given in its proper time reflects (correctly) an attempt to handle a very difficult phrase, which seems to stand without obvious grammatical connection to what has gone before. Literally, it says, “the witness in its [or “his”] own times.” “The witness” apparently stands in apposition to the whole of verses 5–6a. “His own times,” which will recur at 6:15 and Titus 1:3, implies that in the “history of salvation” the time for God’s showing mercy to all people has now arrived, as witnessed in the death of Christ, which is “for all.”
2:7 With one final stroke Paul will underscore the point of the paragraph: prayer for all because God wants all to be saved. This time he does so by reasserting the purpose of his own ministry. The sentence is tied grammatically to the “testimony” mentioned in v. 6: For this purpose, that is, for the sake of bearing testimony to the all-inclusive redemptive work of Christ, Paul himself was appointed a herald and an apostle … and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles. The word herald, which occurs only here and in the companion passage in 2 Timothy 1:11 in Paul, images the apostle as the announcer of good news. Although he follows this with apostle, the emphasis in this sentence lies not on his apostleship as such, but on his being a teacher of the Gentiles, which picks up the theme of the universal scope of redemption. This is demonstrated by the sudden insertion of the protestation I am telling the truth, I am not lying (cf. Rom. 9:1; 2 Cor. 11:31) before teacher of the Gentiles. Such an emphatic outburst, which almost certainly is intended to emphasize what follows, not what precedes, seems quite out of place, except for the need of the church in Ephesus to hear clearly that Paul’s own ministry as teacher (not apostle) of the true faith to the Gentiles also demonstrates the universal scope of the gospel. This latter phrase in particular would seem to suggest some form of Jewish exclusivism as lying at the heart of the problem (cf. esp. Titus 1:10–16).
The NIV’s of the true faith in the final phrase is an attempt to clarify an otherwise obscure conclusion to this sentence, which literally reads “a teacher of Gentiles in faith and truth.” This can refer either to the manner of Paul’s ministry (a faithful teacher, full of integrity) or to the sphere of that ministry (a teacher of the Gentiles as to the faith and truth). Although the former fits well the emphasis of the sentence, more likely Paul intends the latter (cf. the use of “truth” in v. 4), so that the sentence ends not on a note about himself but about his gospel. The NIV thus takes the two words as nearly equal, the true faith, which in this case is to be understood as over against the exclusivism of the false teachers.
Although it is not directly Paul’s point in this paragraph, these words function as one of the more significant missions/evangelism passages in the NT. The same reason that Paul was appointed a herald of the good news for the Gentiles is why the church must always be involved in missions. It is inherent in the very character of God, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth, and in the redemptive work of Christ, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. It is therefore incumbent on God’s people to proclaim that good news.
Additional Notes
2:1 The first three words for prayer in this verse may have slightly different nuances, but in fact all three simply mean “prayer.” The first two, deēsis and proseuchē are interchangeable synonyms in the NT (e.g., cf. 1 Thess. 1:2, proseuchē, with Phil. 1:4, deēsis); and when they appear separately, they are simply translated “prayer.” The word for intercession appears again in 1 Tim. 4:5 and is usually translated “prayer” (although the context suggests that the prayer is a thanksgiving!). In this list, however, it may well lean toward “intercession.” Thanksgivings (eucharistiai) has been suggested to refer to the Eucharist, but that is surely an anachronism. The earliest attempt to draw fine lines between these words was made by Origen, On Prayer 14; he has been followed, among others, by Bernard, Hendriksen, and Barclay.
The clear emphasis of Paul’s paragraph lies with the universal scope of salvation, as seen in the repetition of pantas (“all people”) at the three key places in the paragraph (vv. 1, 4, 6). It is therefore unfortunately misleading and unnecessarily sexist for the NIV to translate this “all men” in vv. 4 and 6, especially after translating it “everyone” in v. 1.
2:2 The following Jewish texts speak about Jews praying, or offering sacrifices, for the authorities: Ezra 6:9–10; 1 Macc. 7:33; Letter of Aristeas 44–45; Pirke Aboth 3.2; Jos. Wars 2.196. See also in first- and second-century Christian authors: 1 Clement 60:4–61:1; Tertullian, Apology 30.
2:3–4 There is, of course, a long history of theological urgency in the church that has been generated by this sentence. Much of it stems from an Augustinian-Calvinist view of election that appears to be at odds with the plain sense of the text. Various suggestions have been offered, such as all meaning “all kinds of” (that is, people from all races and stations) or “all the elect.” Much of this discussion has been carried on quite apart from Paul’s context and thereby assumes the text to be intending some kind of theological pronouncement; or else an author’s theology has been already in hand before approaching the text, and the discussion has been a kind of skirmish with it. All of this applies to v. 6 as well.
2:5–6a In the second line of the creed, the structure of the Greek, which, as in our literal “translation,” has the kai (“and,” “also”) following the word one, allows the possibility that the statement emphasizes the deity of Christ. That is, the one God is also the one who mediates, with the following appellation, the man Christ Jesus, then emphasizing his humanity. See I. H. Marshall, “The Development of the Concept of Redemption in the New Testament,” p. 166.
For a discussion of “ransom, redemption” words in the NT, see L. L. Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, pp. 9–59; D. Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings, pp. 49–81, whose influence is evidenced on these pages; and the Marshall essay just mentioned.
2:7 There is an emphatic I in Paul’s sentence here, but the verb is in the passive, indicating that his ministry was not of his own choosing but of God’s.
Proper Demeanor in Prayer
In this paragraph Paul continues his instructions on “prayers” begun in verse 1. But now the concern is for proper demeanor on the part of the “pray-ers.” But why these concerns, and why in this way? And why the inordinate amount of time devoted to the women in comparison with the men? Again, the solution lies with the false teachers. The word to the men is an obvious response to their controversies and strife. The word to the women, therefore, may be assumed also to respond to this conflict. But how?
The answer lies close at hand—in 5:3–16 and 2 Timothy 3:5–9. It is clear from the latter passage that the false teachers are finding their most fruitful hearing among some “weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth.” According to 1 Timothy 5, among these women are some younger widows who “live for pleasure” (v. 6), have become “gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to” (v. 13), and by so doing are bringing the gospel into disrepute (v. 14). Some of them, Paul says, have “already turned away to follow Satan” (v. 15; cf. 2:14 and 4:2). His advice there is similar to what is given here. They should marry (ct. 4:3), have children (cf. 2:15), and take care of their homes (5:14). Within that context, both the instructions on modest dress and on neither teaching nor having authority over men, as well as the illustration of Eve, who was equally deceived by Satan, plus the final instruction in verse 15 on bearing children, can all be shown to make sense.
Whether any of this is also related to the predominance of women in the local Artemis cult (see disc. on 1:3) is a moot point, but it is certainly possible.
2:8 This sentence is tied to what precedes by the conjunction oun (“therefore”), untranslated in the NIV (probably because it was understood to be transitional). “Therefore,” Paul says, “while we’re on the subject, as the people gather to pray be sure it is for prayer and not in anger or disputing.” That is, the instruction is neither that men should pray nor that only men pray nor that they should do so with uplifted hands, but that when at prayer they should do so without engaging in controversies.
This is to be so everywhere, that is, “in every place where believers gather in and around Ephesus” (the house-churches). To lift up holy hands while in prayer is the assumed posture of prayer in both Judaism and early Christianity (see note). The imagery is that of ritual purity, hands cleansed before praying, and here refers to their not being “soiled” by anger or disputing, the particular sins of the false teachers.
2:9–10 Paul turns next to women (without the definite article, implying a broader context than merely wives). The concern has to do first of all with their dress and demeanor. It is not easy from our vantage point to understand the reason for this concern, but probably it is related to their becoming “wanton against Christ” (5:11, RSV) and their being “swayed by all kinds of evil desires” (2 Tim. 3:6). There is a large body of evidence, both Hellenistic and Jewish, which equated “dressing up” on the part of women with both sexual wantonness and wifely insubordination (see note). Indeed, for a married woman so to dress in public was tantamount to marital unfaithfulness (see, e.g., Sentences of Sextus513: “A wife who likes adornment is not faithful”). Given the close tie here between trumpery (vv. 9–10) and the need “to learn with all submissiveness” (v. 11, RSV), it is most likely that Paul is viewing the actions of some of the women from within this same general cultural framework (see esp. disc. on 2 Tim. 3:6–7).
Thus women are to dress modestly, with decency and propriety. Inherent in this last word is the use of “good judgment” in the matter of dress. This is then specifically defined as not wearing braided hair (lit., “with plaited hair”; cf. 1 Pet. 3:3 and Juvenal, cited in the note) or gold or pearls (see Juvenal) or expensive clothes.
Indeed, women who are believers are to be “clothed” in better things—with good deeds, which will later be defined as, among other things, “bringing up children” (5:10). The point is that “healthy teaching” (see disc. on 1:10) has to do with conduct that is appropriate for women who profess to worship God, not conduct that is immodest or indecent, as is characteristic of women intent on seduction.
2:11–12 Paul now moves to the other side of the problem of immodesty, the tendency toward insubordination. A woman is to learn in quietness and full submission. By saying that a woman should learn, Paul is presupposing that women were a part of public worship and were included in the instruction. It simply goes too far to argue from this that he is herewith commanding that they be taught, thus inaugurating a new era for women. The rest of the data in the NT makes it clear that that had already happened among most Christians.
But she (the Greek text uses the singular from this verse until the middle of v. 15) is to learn not “in silence” (that is, without speaking), as some would have it (e.g., GNB), but “in a quiet demeanor” (cf. the same word in 2:2 and the evidence from 1 Corinthians 11). Since this is the first thing said about women here in verse 11, and the last thing said in verse 12, it seems clear that the emphasis lies here. Most likely, in this context, it is against her being “up front,” talking foolishness, or being a “busybody” (5:13). Her learning “in quietness” is further qualified as being in full submission (“being submissive in every way”). Paul does not say to whom she is to be submissive. Because of the Adam-Eve illustration that follows, it is often suggested that he is here addressing wives with regard to their husbands. But the implication of the full (“in every conceivable way”) probably has a larger front in view, which includes the conduct of the younger widows and their “going about from house to house [house-churches?], saying things they ought not to” (5:13).
Verse 12, which begins with Paul’s own personal instruction (I do not permit; better, “I am not permitting,” implying specific instructions to this situation), picks up the three items from verse 11 and presents them with some further detail. I am not permitting a woman to teach corresponds to a woman should learn. Teaching, of course, is where much of the problem lay in the church in Ephesus. The straying elders are teachers (1:3; 6:3); the “worthy” elders, for whom Timothy is probably to serve as something of a model (4:11–16; cf. 2 Tim. 2:2), are “those whose work is teaching” (5:17). Indeed, Paul calls himself a teacher in these letters (2:7). But he is here prohibiting women to teach in the (house-) church(es) of Ephesus, although in other churches they prophesy (1 Cor. 11:5) and probably give a teaching from time to time (1 Cor. 14:26), and in Titus 2:3–4 the older women are expected to be good teachers of the younger ones.
Part of the problem from this distance is to know what “teaching” involved. The evidence from 1 Corinthians 12–14 indicates that “teaching” may be presented as a spiritual gift (14:6, 26); at the same time, some in the community are specifically known as teachers (cf. Rom. 12:7), while more private instruction is also given (Acts 18:26; here by a woman). Given that evidence and what can be gleaned from the present Epistles, teaching most likely had to do with instruction in Scripture, that is, Scripture as pointing to salvation in Christ (cf. 2 Tim. 3:15–17). If that is what is being forbidden (and certainty eludes us here), then it is probably because some of them have been so terribly deceived by the false teachers, who are specifically abusing the OT (cf. 1:7; Titus 3:9). At least that is the point Paul will pick up in verses 14 and 15.
Such an understanding is supported further by the woman’s being forbidden to have authority over a man, which corresponds to her “being submissive in every way” in verse 11. The word translated authority, which occurs only here in the NT, has the connotation “to domineer.” In context it probably reflects again on the role the women were playing in advancing the errors—or speculations—of the false teachers and therefore is to be understood very closely with the prohibition against teaching. Rather, Paul concludes, she must be not silent, but “in a quiet demeanor,” which exactly repeats the prepositional phrase of verse 11. Thus some kind of disruptive behavior, which perhaps included boisterous affirmation of the heresies, seems to lie behind these instructions.
2:13–14 Paul now turns to Scripture to support what has been said in verses 9–12 (not simply vv. 11–12). However, he does not do so in his usual way, by citing Scripture itself, but by referring to two realities from the narratives in Genesis 2 and 3. First, he notes that Adam was formed first, then Eve. Although he does not explicitly say so, nor is it implied in the text of Genesis 2, the priority of Adam in creation is apparently seen as support of a woman’s needing to dress modestly and behaving “in a quiet demeanor.” A similar point seems to be made by Paul earlier in 1 Corinthians 11:8–9, although there the context has no suggestion of submission, and in verses 11–12 he sharply qualifies verses 8–9 lest they be misapplied. In any case, Paul here neither explains nor elaborates; he simply states the facts of the order of creation.
Paul does, however, elaborate his second point, based on Eve’s statement in Genesis 3:13 that she was deceived by the serpent. Since the concluding sentence in verse 15 follows directly from her deception and subsequent fall into sin, this appears to be the basic reason for his appeal to the Genesis account. As Adam has served elsewhere as the representative man, through whose sin all mankind came into sinfulness (Rom. 5:12, 19), so here Eve serves as the “representative” woman, who through her deception by Satan became a sinner (lit., “came to be in transgression”). Likewise it is through the deceptions of the false teachers, who themselves are involved in “things taught by demons” (4:1), that some women have “already turned away to follow Satan” (5:15). To say that Adam was not the one deceived simply means that he was not deceived by the “snake.” But Eve was, and that led to her downfall.
2:15 Paul will now bring this instruction on women to a conclusion by picking up several strands from the preceding verses. In so doing, he expresses himself in a way that has been troubling for generations of Christians, because it seems so contradictory to his own theology, on the one hand, and somewhat demeaning to women, on the other. But as a conclusion to this argument in this context, it in fact makes good sense.
Having said that the woman was deceived and thus fell into sin, he now says: But she will be saved. There is a subtle shift here from Eve to the women in Ephesus. The subject of the verb will be saved is in fact the woman in verse 14 (see NIV text note b on v. 15). Obviously Paul is not talking about Eve’s salvation but “the women” in Ephesus; hence the change back to the plural in the middle of verse 15. How she will be saved is what has created the problems—through childbearing! Can he mean that? Many have said no and have suggested as one alternative that the clause means “will be kept safe through childbirth” (e.g., NIV, GNB margin). But besides simply not being true to reality—many Christian mothers have died in childbirth—Paul’s use of the word saved throughout these letters disallows it (he always means redemption, from sin and for eternal life, as in 1:15–16 and 2:4). Moreover he uses an entirely different word for the idea of being “kept safe” throughout his letters (see, e.g., 2 Tim. 3:11 and 4:18). A second suggestion is that they will be saved from the errors in verses 11–12. But besides having against it the same things as the first alternative, it is nearly inconceivable that Paul would use the verb saved in an absolute way, as he does here, without some qualifier (e.g., “from these errors”), if he had intended to refer to verses 11–12. A third alternative is that “through childbearing” should be translated through the Childbirth, that is, through Mary’s giving birth to Jesus, thus reversing the role of Eve by referring to the so-called protevangelium of Genesis 3:15. But besides this being a most obscure way of trying to say that, Paul nowhere else suggests that salvation is by the Incarnation or by Mary’s deed (since the word under no circumstances can be stretched to mean “Mary’s child”). Moreover, this noun always has to do with the fact of bearing children, not to the event of a single birth (that is, the word has to do with the activity of “bearing,” not with the noun “birth” or “child”). It should also be noted that nowhere in all of Jewish interpretation was Genesis 3:15 ever understood to mean anything other than the natural enmity between humans and poisonous reptiles. The earliest extant Christian interpretation of this text to refer to the death of Christ comes from Irenaeus in the second century.
More likely what Paul intends is that woman’s salvation, from the transgressions brought about by similar deception and ultimately for eternal life, is to be found in her being a model, godly woman, known for her good works (v. 10; cf. 5:11). And her good deeds, according to 5:11 and 14, include marriage, bearing children (the verb form of this noun), and keeping a good home. The reason for his saying that she will be saved is that it follows directly out of his having said “the woman came to be in transgression.”
But Paul could never leave the matter there, as though salvation itself were attained by this “good deed,” so he immediately qualifies, “Provided of course that she is already a truly Christian woman,” that is, a woman who continues in faith, love and holiness. This is obviously where her salvation ultimately lies, as is always true with Paul. It is assumed such a woman already has faith, which is activating love and holiness. But the whole context of the letter, and the present argument in particular, has generated this rather unusual way of putting it. Even at the end, however, he has not lost sight of where he began, so he adds, with propriety.
Thus, as with the instruction on the proper objects of prayer (all people), so with the proper demeanor in prayer (men without arguments; while women’s place in the worshiping community is to be a quiet one), the reason for these particular instructions in this particular way is best understood as a response to the activities and teachings of the wayward elders.
Additional Notes
2:8 The NIV’s everywhere probably intends to suggest “in all the churches universally.” But when Paul intends that, he usually says it (1 Cor. 11:16; 14:33). Besides, that seems to miss Paul’s point altogether. Most likely this is a reference to house-churches in and around Ephesus.
For references to prayer with uplifted hands in Judaism, see, among others, 1 Kings 8:54; Pss. 63:4; 141:2; 2 Macc. 14:32; Philo, Flaccus 121; Jos., Antiquities 4.40; for early Christianity, see esp. Tertullian. On Prayer 17.
2:9–10 For but one example of this perspective, see Juvenal’s Satire 6: “There is nothing that a woman will not permit herself to do, nothing that she deems shameful, when she encircles her neck with green emeralds and fastens huge pearls to her elongated ears.… So important is the business of beautification; so numerous are the tiers and storeys piled one upon another on her head!… Meantime she pays no attention to her husband” (Loeb, pp. 121ff.). Cf., among others, 1 Enoch 8:1–2; Testament of Reuben 5:1–5; Ps-Phintys 84–86; Perictione 135; Seneca, To Helvia 16:3–4; Plutarch 26.30–32; Sentences of Sextus 235.
The words braided hair and gold or pearls may go together and have to do with tiered hair decorated with gold and pearls. See J. B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective, pp. 198–99.
2:11–12 In requiring learning “in a quiet demeanor” Paul is hardly adopting a view like Plutarch’s: “Her speech as well ought not to be for the public.… For a woman ought to do her talking to her husband or through her husband” (26.30–32, Loeb). Plutarch’s view had to do with all women in all public circumstances. Paul’s statement is specifically related to the problem in Ephesus. He obviously did not take this position about women in general (see, e.g., Rom. 16:1–3; Phil. 4:2–3).
By saying, “I am not permitting,” Paul focuses particularly on the situation in Ephesus. Such language as this, as well as the “I want” in v. 8, lacks any sense of universal imperative for all situations. This is not to say that he does not see his word as authoritative, but that it simply lacks the thrust of a universal imperative (cf. 1 Cor. 7:25).
There are some who see the word authority here to refer to juridical authority in the church or the transmission of the authoritative teaching of the church, but such a view assumes a much more advanced structure than actually emerges in these letters. It simply makes too much of a simple point, namely, that a woman’s place in the worshiping community is to be a “quiet” one.
The hermeneutical question, whether these verses apply to all situations at all times, is a live one. For the view that it does, see D. J. Moo, “I Timothy 2:11–15: Meaning and Significance,” and J. B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective. For the other side, see P. B. Payne, “Libertarian Women in Ephesus: A Response to Douglas J. Moo’s Article,” and G. D. Fee and D. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, pp. 57–71. It is of some interest to note that those who think these verses are universally applicable, even though the rest of the NT suggests otherwise, do not feel the same urgency about younger widows remarrying in 5:14, which begins the same way as this paragraph (“I want”).
2:13–14 The argument often made that the “order of creation” precedes the Fall and is therefore eternally binding is neither made by Paul (nor Moses) nor relevant, since that is not his concern here. Rather, Paul is concerned with her subsequent deception and fall into sin.
The “deception of Eve” had a long history of speculative interpretation in Judaism, seen sometimes as sexual seduction on the part of the serpent (e.g., 2 Enoch 31:6; 4 Macc. 18:6–8; Yebamoth 103b; Rabbah Genesis 18.6) and at other times as the result of her being the weaker sex (e.g., Philo, Questions on Genesis 1.33, 46; Pirke Rabbi Eliezer 15a). Even if Paul knew these traditions, he is not here alluding to them. He is only interested in the fact of her deception, as a vital illustration of the current problem. Note the comparable use of it in 2 Cor. 11:3.
2:15 For a recent and helpful discussion of the various options for interpreting this verse, see D. J. Moo, “1 Timothy 2:11–15,” pp. 71–73.
