1 Timothy 2:8-14: Paul’s Remedy for Deception in Ephesus


Most of Paul’s letters were written to churches. That is not the case with the letters to Timothy and Titus. These letters – long identified as Pastoral Epistles – serve as a quasi-church manual for ministers in a local church setting. 

I am becoming more and more convinced that this labeling obscures Paul’s purpose. How?

  • It obligates modern readers to interpret the letter to fit one’s unique ecclesiology. 
  • The label, Pastoral Epistles, contributes to the ongoing confusion of how to apply the biblical passage of 1 Tim 2:8-14 in today’s Restoration churches. This passage is the focus for the exegetical work presented in this blog.


According to two scholars, Johnson and Towner, the letter to 1 Timothy suits a genre of letter-writing known as a mandata principis – that of a superior writing to his delegate serving on the superior’s behalf.[1] A mandata principis contains personal information for the delegate with information for the community by which the superior’s authority is then transferred to the delegate to accomplish a particular task. 

Prior to this letter, Paul and Timothy had spent a few years working together teaching those at the church in Ephesus. When Paul left Timothy behind it was not so he could establish a church ecclesiology but to suppress the ongoing, infiltration of false teaching.[2]

Keeping that in mind, Timothy’s marching orders, as such, consisted of the primary goal of refuting the false teaching (other-teaching) and a secondary goal of remedying behaviors that thwarted the furtherance of the gospel. 


In this pericope (1 Tim 2:8-14) we encounter the Greek words for man/husband and woman/wife. 

  • In the Greek language the words anēr and gynē are used interchangeably for man/husband and woman/wife. 
  • The plural andres often denotes the “totality of population” and not simply men at the exclusion of women.[3]
  • This often presents difficulties for the English translator.

In the Greek text, gendered terminology is often ambiguous making it difficult to determine which meanings is meant by the author. 

  • Is Paul referencing a man or a husband, to a woman or a wife
  • The use of a possessive pronoun in addition to context, aids the translator as to whether Paul meant husband or wifeor if he meant a man or a woman.[4]

One’s unique ecclesiology often influences and determines how the terms are (or can be) translated in order to sustain previously held doctrines and opinions regarding men and women’s work in the church. 

Since this pericope focuses predominantly upon the men and women in Ephesus, it is important to pay attention to this matter when exegeting the text.


From the literary context, we learn of Paul’s commitment to teaching and preserving the gospel of God (1:1, 11, 15; 2:7). There were those in the congregation “propound[ing] strange teachings” in Ephesus – causing Paul to coin a new Greek word, heterodidaskalein.

That word, heterodidaskalein, is one clue.

  • The questionable teaching was actually an “other-teaching,” a teaching clearly out of alignment with Paul’s teaching.[5]
  • Not only was the teaching other than what it should be, it was causing shipwreck to the faith of others in the church at Ephesus (1:3, 19, 6:3, 20). 
  • These other doctrines were of a deviant nature, but not clearly explicated in the letter.[6]
  • Additional clues in the text reveal the teachings consisted of myths and wives’ tales (1 Tim 1:4; 1 Tim 4:7), along with radical teachings about marriage and food restrictions (1 Tim 4:2-3).
  • The teachings appear at first, to be of an immoral nature. 


The primary target of the other-teaching were women – young wives and the young widows – in the church (1 Tim 5:13-15). If the false teachings – which some suppose consisted of culturally strange, immoral behaviors – were not curtailed, the church and gospel message at Ephesus could potentially be shipwrecked (1 Tim 3:2; 3:15; 5:7; 6:9, 6:14).

In this first letter to Timothy, Paul reiterates what he wholeheartedly believes: 

“God’s missional purpose is that all peoples come to salvation and to the full knowledge of the truth.” 

This was Paul’s mission as well (1 Tim 2:3-7). 

  • In order for the mission to succeed – every person’s daily walk mattered to the cause.
  • The work of evangelizing and teaching the gospel rested upon the testimony of both men and women! 
  • Women’s witness – mattered as equally as that of the men’s witness.


The primary method implemented to accomplish the missional goal was that of prayer (1 Tim 2:1). This underlies Paul’s attention to the attitudes and actions of those doing the praying. Men, as well as women (tous andras, gynaikas), were urged to make prayer a priority so this mission – bringing all to salvation – could be accomplished.[7]

Jewish believers may have heard an echo from Hebrew scripture: the house of the Lord would be called a house of prayer for all nations (Isaiah 56). Therefore, it makes sense for Paul to include instructions regarding the demeanor of those who participate in the praying activity within the pericope of 1 Tim 2:8-14. 

With that goal – salvation for all – in mind (1 Tim 2:1), Paul begins 1 Tim 2:8 with the word boulomai – which can be interpreted in two ways.

  • With a weak imperatival force like that of a wish, or
  • With that of an “apostolic demand in the language of personal desire.”[8]

What did Paul desire? He desired that all men (tous andras) would engage in prayer. But why?

The plural noun – andras – often used as a general term for the totality of population, as mentioned above, is frequently translated in English with men.[9] I maintain the English translation should better communicate the view that all people (men and women) and not just men are in focus. 

There are varying viewpoints regarding this:

  • One view argues that the activity (of praying) is exclusive for men because only men are the church leaders.[10]
  • Another view states it involves only the husbands, but not their wives.[11]
  • Others question both views, and rightly so.[12]

Does Paul desire all men and women, or only the male leaders, or only the married men to participate in the activity of praying? How one interprets the next phrase may help define this.


The clause, “in every place (en panti topō)” is easy enough to translate. But it is still troublesome, because one must determine whether the phrase restricts the activity to a “local reference” as in the house churches throughout Asia or whether the work of praying was possible to take place anywhere and everywhere, rather than restricted to a building?[13]

In an earlier letter to a church in Thessalonica, Paul expressed the idea that prayer as an unceasing activity (1 Thess 5:16-17). Is Paul correcting the idea that prayer is punctiliar and confined to a particular location? Or in this case the place of the gathered worshippers? Perhaps Timothy is to correct a misconception about prayer and the work of prayer so that it is configured to this earlier teaching.

Paul also has more in store when it comes to prayers and praying. Rather than focusing upon the action and location of prayer, he focuses upon one’s behavior and heart-attitude when praying. Paul addresses their attitudes and desires first and foremost, that the prayers be made without anger, disputation, or doubts (dialogizomos).[14]

The mention of holy hands (hosious cheiras) may imply the presence of “evil intentions,” or a “volatile interaction between men and women (who teach).”[15] Could this imply that those praying may not be on the same missional-page as Paul?

This is what I wonder …

  • Could Paul be expecting those who are praying (men and women) to be in agreement with the gospel message – that God’s salvation plan embraces everyone: kings, rulers and even the opponents of the faith? 
  • Could anger towards outsiders and disagreements about whom the gospel message is for actually be a hindrance in achieving the goal of the gospel? 
  • Is Paul desiring that all prayers be subjected to God’s salvific purpose? 
  • Is praying to be intentional? 
  • Is the intent of prayer to bear in mind that God works on behalf of everyone, in all nations, not just the chosen Jewish people or believers within the Ephesian church?
  • Is prayer an indispensable element in missional work so that without prayer none could come to the knowledge of the One true God, via the One Mediator Jesus Christ (1 Tim 2:4-6)?


In 1 Tim 2:9 the word hōsautōs means “similar or likewise” and with the word circles back to the previous command for all to pray. Paul now turns his attention to the outer garment of the women. 

Since the word gynaikos has neither a definite article nor a pronoun scholars wonder if Paul has women in general or married women in mind.[16] Most scholars argue that women in general is the intent – otherwise widowed and single women would be excluded from the directive.[17]

Clothing for a respectable, married woman in the first century required “a considerable amount of fabric” and the “stola became a symbol of female virtue and modesty … and protect [ed her] from unwanted attentions.” [18] Paul obviously wants women to dress appropriately at all times – not simply when they assemble for worship.

It is difficult to determine if the phrase, en katastolē kosmiō (1 Tim 2:9), refers to a woman’s demeanor or to her actual material clothing. But when paralleled with 1 Tim 2:8 it is better understood as an inner character and decorous demeanor, since the passage’s focus is men and women in “divine service.”[19]

There is much more that could be said about divine service. We miss noticing this when the application focuses upon women sitting in the pews in a building during the Sunday morning worship service!

Those who take a more literal sense of Paul’s concern interpret this in one of two ways.

  • Some think this reveals how the women’s attire contributed to a disruption of sorts in the assembly. This interpretation is valid only if it can be proved that the women indeed dressed immodestly and if Paul had only the assembled church in mind.
  • Others say that the women were simply preoccupied with external attire and neglecting virtuous behaviors suited to their gender. 

My view … is that Paul’s attention to women’s attire is of a soberer concern than simply that of female modesty – as defined in a modern sense.

It is likely that certain clothing styles – when worn by the believing women – confounded outsiders to mistakenly relate them with one of the many Ephesian cults. This would thereby jeopardize the spread of the gospel, which happens to be foremost in Paul’s mind.

It is important to note that the prepositional phrase – meta … sōphrosynēs – opens and closes the section for the women in the Greek text, like two bookends holding the text together (1 Tim 1:15; 1 Tim 2: 9). This is not readily recognizable in the English translation and is unfortunate because the word actually centers Paul’s concerns on a person’s conduct within community.


The Greek word, sōphrosynēs, is used in 1 Tim 2:9 and 1 Tim 2:15. Sōphrosynēs is one of Plato’s “four cardinal virtues.”[20] Sōphrosynēs concerns one’s conduct in relationship to others and the community of faith.[21] It appears that the conduct of the women in the community at Ephesus is an important issue for Paul.

The preposition, with (meta), expects the category of appropriate outer garments to be expressly related to the inner qualities of the women and it concerns how one’s attitude should accompany the proper demeanor and attire. 

When sōphrosynēs is joined to the noun, aidous, it usually concentrates upon a wife’s modest, discreet and respectful behavior.[22] It concerned the “parts of the female body that must be covered in respectable Roman society.”[23]

Honor in a Greco-Roman society was maintained by living according to the accepted social and cultural standards by “exhibit[ing] proper reserve and self-control in sexual matters.[24]

  • Living contrary to these expectations brought shame upon the extended family and community.[25]
  • Shame was a means to maintain honor, and to instill respectful and reverent attitudes – in the community and for one’s conscience.[26]
  • This virtue is not limited to women only. It concerned a man’s public duties in the city or in his military roles.[27]
  • Dishonor – for a man or woman in any role – brought shame to the community. 

Therefore, self-control – the ability to make wise decisions and to refrain from passions – was an important leadership quality for those in the church (1 Tim 3:2).  

Apparently some women – whether married, single, or young widows, deceived by the other-teaching – were perhaps bringing shame and dishonor to the Ephesian community by their disregard of cultural norms (1 Tim 5:13).


Next, Paul turns his attention to the external concerns of braided hair, gold, pearls expensive clothing. The following restrictions (1 Tim 2:9b) are sandwiched between the concern for a woman’s inner character (1 Tim 2:9a) and that of the woman attired with good works (1 Tim 2:10). 

  • This string of external accoutrements (hair, gold, pearls, clothing) when modified by polytelēs, are viewed pejoratively due to their “oppressively expensive, rare and luxurious” nature.[28]
  • Gold was considered to be extravagant adornment often identified with a “shameful woman.”[29]
  • The excessive use of jewelry and pearls “epitomized sumptuousness” and we learn from Pliny that “the epitome of extravagance was sewing pearls on shoes and socks.”[30]

The adversative conjunction, alla, places the ostentatious external appearance in direct opposition to that of a sōphrosynēswoman (1 Tim 2:9a). These are deemed unfitting for the woman who professes to be a believer (1 Tim 2:10).[31]

The noun, theosebeian, is found only here in the NT and concerns true religion.[32]

  • Women who confess to be followers of Christ “substantiate this confession” by their good works. 
  • With good works, Paul expects their behavior to correlate to an inner reality. 
  • These works are to be everywhere evident in the woman’s life—the private sphere, while participating in a worship, and even in the more public places of life. 

It makes no sense for these requirements to be reserved for attending the worship gathering. Could Paul be describing the perfect godly woman as a model for all believing women? 


In 1Tim 2:11,12, Paul introduces a sub-topic between the bookends of sōphrosynēs. This continues instructions from verses 1 Tim 2:1 and 1 Tim 2:8 for those in the church at Ephesus. Now the focus turns to gynē, a singular noun. 

How one has determined the meaning of in every place (1 Tim 2:1) will determine how these verses are interpreted. Here we ask again whether Paul is speaking of a woman in general,[33] a wife,[34] or women in general.[35]

One commentator is confident that the use of gynē and with the mention of Adam and Eve that Paul has shifted his focus to that of a married woman—one who is a wife (2:13,14).[36] The view for this paper is that of woman, as representative of all women, and not that of wife. But that may require more research.

Before studying the meaning of the word manthanetō, it is helpful to understand its unique grammatical structure as a third person, present active imperative in 1 Tim 2:11. 

  • The imperative mood is used for giving commands, such as “from a superior to one of an inferior rank” and it involves “volition and possibility” on the part of the inferior.[37]
  • Most imperatives are second-person: “Go quickly!” meaning “you, 2p” must do the action: going. 
  • The third person is rare and because of the ambiguity of who is actually being addressed, it becomes a challenge to translate correctly. 
  • English often translates this with a sense of “mere permission” such as “let her/him[38]” but this causes the word to lose its commanding force. 

When moving from Greek into English, the meaning should be understood to mean that “he [she] must” do the action which is commanded.[39] The present tense means the action is to be an ongoing action. 

The verb, manthanetō, comes from the root math, meaning simply to learn.[40]

  • It means “to acquire information as the result of instruction, whether in an informal or formal context.”[41]
  • The goal is not simply to acquire information but to transform one’s life into obedience with God’s will. 

What does Paul have in mind? Does Paul expect a teaching that corrects inappropriate behaviors or immodest dress? Or could it be that the teaching content is of an entirely other matter than modesty and what a women can or cannot wear at church? I believe there’s more to this than modesty-training.

Undoubtedly Paul desires for all the women to learn. Scholars do not agree whether this section addresses a wife or a woman. But whether it is one particular woman at Ephesus in need of learning or whether more women needed to be taught, it is yet safe to conclude that Paul taught that women must learn.

Paul knows women were the easy target of the deceptive other-teachings. Was this because they had not been fully taught regarding the faith? The third-person-imperative invests the command to learn with more substance than the ongoing rationale of simply allowing women to learn as a safeguard against their gullible nature.

Women are not inherently more gullible and easier to deceive than men. 

Some hold to the view that the act of teaching needs to take place within a formal setting with only gifted male teachers performing the teaching.[42]

The command ‘to learn’ (manthanetō) is modified by two dative adverbs: en hēsychia and en hypotagē (1 Tim 2:11-12). An adverbial dative possesses an abstract nature, conveying what one’s attitude should be when the verbal action is carried out.[43]

So, the action – to learn – is to be modified by the abstract, inner attitude of hēsychia and hypotagēHēsychia carries the meaning of stillness,[44] tranquility,[45] while enjoying a state of undisturbed quiet circumstances.[46] The opposite of this would be agitation, annoyance or compulsive discussion.[47] We must be careful to understand that this does not mean women are to be mute. Instead women are to learn with a receptive spirit and a peaceful attitude governed by submission (hypotagē). 


Hen pasē hypotagē is often translated in all submission.[48] Modern readers have a difficult time comprehending the idea of submission. It concerns the “structural placement of one person below another.”[49] The word, hypotagē, is another adverbial dative and concerns the state of mind for the learner. 

When speaking of women in the first-century, submission usually referred to the ordered relationship with one’s husband. Did Paul use this word to reflect a woman’s subordinate station in relation to men? Or was he communicating something else? I believe he had something larger in view. 

Since, as I argue, Paul is not addressing the roles of married men and women in this passage, it is likely that submission is related to something other than the husband. Timothy’s work involved curbing the other-teaching that led many women astray. With this in mind, I suggest two possibilities. 

  • First, the woman or women – those most likely to be deceived – while participating in the learning event must place themselves as learners submitted to the teacher.
  • Second, all previously held other-teachings – by which the woman or women had been deceived – must as well be brought into submission to Paul’s teaching. 
  • This makes sense when we consider Paul’s appeal to Adam and Eve in verses 13 and 14.

We may better understand Paul’s insistence that women must learn by looking carefully at his appeal to the creation account introduced with for (gar) in 1 Tim 2:13.[50] Adam was fashioned first, then Eve (1 Tim 2:14). And it was not Adam, but instead Eve – after being deceived (exapatētheisa),[51]who fell into transgression

The word transgression concerns stepping over valid human commands, of violating a commitment or agreement in a figurative and real sense which brings dishonor to God.”[52] Nearly everyone listening to the account of Eve would be aware of the consequences of her deception: violence and death came to all of humanity. Was this Paul’s main concern?

Did Paul digress in the text about Adam and Eve to bolster a view of a male hierarchy in the church? In my opinion, this is an unfortunate argument that reveals the stranglehold the label ‘Pastoral Epistles’ has over the text! 

More probable in my mind, is the reality that Paul is making a point that we overlook. He draws upon the trope of Eve’s deception – invoking a familiar image in order to indicate why and how the women in the Ephesian church fell for the false teachers. Deception is the key concern, not that of over-stepping a husband’s authority.

I propose Paul – drawing from his own experience – understood how easy it was for the women (anyone!) to fall into the trap of the false teachers. After all, earlier in the letter he admitted how he had been ignorantly convinced that he was doing God’s work by persecuting the believers (1 Tim 1:11-14).  

For Paul – the women, like himself – believed and acted upon the false teaching simply because they had not thoroughly learned or fully ‘mathaneto-ed’ the whole story.


How did Paul propose to halt the heterodidaskalein? Hymenaeus and Alexander – key figures who rejected the genuine gospel – had been earlier removed from the believing community. What now to do with those blindly following the blasphemous teachers?  

Expel them, perhaps? The fact that this was not the remedy for the deceptive teaching is key to understanding 1 Tim 2:12-14.


Returning to 1 Tim 2:12 – the subject changes from learning to that which Paul does not allow or entrust the woman or wife (γυναικὶ) to do.[53] Since “to teach” (didaskein) is mentioned first, it is usually considered the most important issue being addressed. The work of teaching naturally concerns the content of the true-teaching: the gospel (1 Tim 1:10, 11) as opposed to the deceptive, or other-teaching forbidden by the Paul. 

The Greek word, authentein, is found only here in the New Testament which complicates translating it into English with absolute certainty.

The word is often translated into English as “authority” or “usurp authority.” Tracking down the precise meaning is quite difficult since the word is not found in literature contemporary with Paul, except perhaps the apocryphal work, Wisdom of Solomon (Wis 12:6, NRSV) in the Septuagint. 

The situation in Wis 12:3-11 describes the detestable Canaanite practices of parents who slaughtered their children for their sacrificial feasts. Yet, even in this graphic text, the author of Wisdom of Solomon extols God as a merciful, patient God – affording the ancient Canaanites an opportunity to repent and to put their trust in God (Wis 12:1, 10). After all, God’s concern is for all peoples (Wis 12:13a). 

The verb authenteō carries the image of “one who kills with his own hand, either others or himself,” as well as “one who does a thing by himself.”[54] But the word only came to have the “contextual meaning of exercising authority after the fourth century (emphasis added), for those who wrote in Greek.”[55]

Jerome’s Latin translation of the Bible – nearly 400 years after 1 Timothy was written – helped categorize the Greek word’s conceptual meaning of domination and authority into Latin.[56] Since the 1611 King James English translation relied upon the Latin Vulgate, this concept of the word was thereby placed firmly into our English language. 

Recent use of Thesaurus Linguae Graecae – a powerful search engine that scours through centuries of Greek texts – uncovered the word used by Greek playwrights who wrote four centuries before the time of the early church.[57]

These plays reveal that the verb, authenteō, concerns violent, murderous action and the noun form, authentēs, depicts a “kin-murderer.”[58] I believe Paul coined a new word, authentein, just as he did with heterodidaskalein, for rhetorical impact. 

The plays were imbedded in the Greek and Roman psyche just as the Hebrew narrative of Adam and Eve would have been in the Jewish psyche. 

Some see the coordinating conjunction, oude, as a helpful link for didaskein (to teach) and authentein – strengthening Paul’s concern about (and against) the work of women teaching.[59] But the uncertainty about the word andros, causes speculation (1 Tim 2:12).

As you can imagine by now, most commentators disagree whether andros (2:12) should be translated ‘man’, ‘husband’, or ‘all men’.[60]

So what was Paul doing? 

  • Did he use these words (and especially authentein) to remind Greek listeners of the gravity and scope of the problem before the church? If so, what was the problem exactly? 
  • Did he appeal to the Adam and Eve account to prove how women were discarding male authority? If so, is there any biblical record that proves this is how Paul understood Eve’s behavior? 
  • Did Paul use authentein – in order to reiterate or etch in stone the bounded relationships between men and women, husbands and wives – in their homes, in society, and in the church communities for all time?

There are no satisfactory resolutions; only more questions:

  • Would it matter to the first-century audience whether the intended category was that of a singular mana husband, or all men in general if it can be proven without a doubt (which has not been done so far) that it was culturally inappropriate for any woman to rise to a place reserved only for men?
  • Would women filling teaching positions result in society rejecting the budding church and thereby the gospel message?

And more questions:

  • What if … women indeed filled leadership positions within the numerous religious institutions (albeit pagan cults) in Ephesus without disrupting the cultural norms in Ephesus? What might Paul be saying? 
  • What if …women indeed filled leadership positions within other churches established by Paul?
  • What if … Paul temporarily restricted the deceived women from teaching until they studied and submitted their knowledge and lifestyle to the Gospel – known as Paul’s gospel?

And the most important questions of all:

  • What if … our misunderstanding (if indeed we have misunderstood) has led to a misapplication of restrictions in our Restoration churches (and others) today?  
  • What if … in our restricting women from leading, teaching, or preaching, we have actually grieved the work of Holy Spirit’s work in the lives of thousands of believing women and have thwarted the thriving and flourishing of the Great Commission?


I propose Paul’s remedy to the subverted-teaching that was running rampant over the women in the Ephesian church was this:

  • Extend to women … the same grace and mercy he himself received from God before he fully comprehended the message of the Good News taught by the resurrected Jesus.
  • Equip women … through a learning environment to discern other-teachings in order that they would willingly submit the errant-teachings to the genuine gospel.
  • Empower women … to recognize false teachers and to oppose the other-teaching by ultimately bringing their personal lives into alignment with the true gospel by becoming genuine disciples who participate in the work of the Great Commission.

For God’s missional purpose to be accomplished – both men and women – in Ephesus and everywhere, in every age, are to join together with Timothy and Paul in the ongoing work of bringing the nations to the Truth.

[1]Phillip Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 88; Luke T. Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, AB 35A (New York: Doubleday, 2001) 63, 139-57.

[2] Gordon Fee, “Reflections on Church Order in the Pastoral Epistles, with Further Reflection on the Hermeneutics of Ad Hoc Documents,” JETS 28/2 (1985): 141-151.

[3] Albrect Oepke, “ἀνήρ,” TDNT 1:360-63.

[4] I. Howard Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999) 444; Towner, 201.

[5] Jerome Quinn, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), ECC 62.

[6] Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, 146.

[7] Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, NICNT 52-55; I. Howard Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999)443.

[8] George Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, NIGTC 14:128; Mounce 106.

[9]Albrect Oepke, “ἀνήρ,” TDNT 1:360-63.

[10] Knight, 128.

[11] Towner, 201.

[12] Johnson, 198, Mounce, 105; Knight, 444.

[13] Knight, 128, Johnson, 198.

[14] Gottlob Schrenk, “διαλέγομαι, διαλογίζομαι, διαλογισμός,” TDNT 2:93-98.

[15] Marshall, 443, 445, Towner, 202-203.

[16]Towner, 212.

[17] Mounce, 112.

[18] Bruce W. Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows, The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003, 91.

[19]Sasse, “κόσμιος,” TDNT 3:895-96; Mounce, 113; Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “καταστολῇ,” TDNT 7:588-599. 

[20]Knight, 134.

[21] Ulrich Luck, “σωφρονέω, σωφρονίζω, σωφρονισμός, σωφρόνως, σωφροσύνη, σώφρων,” TDNT 1097-1104.

[22] David C. Verner, “The Household of God and the Social World of the Pastoral Epistles” (PhD diss., Emory University, 1981), 250; Spicq, “αἰδώς, ἀναίδεια,” TLNT 42-3.

[23] Winter, 101.

[24] David Verner, 249-50.

[25]Korinna Zamfir, Men and Women in the Household of God, (Bristol, Connecticut: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013) 100-101.

[26] Sharon Hodgin Gritz, Paul, Women Teachers, and the Mother Goddess at Ephesus: A Study of I Tim 2:9-15 in Light of the Religious and Cultural Milieu of the First Century, (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1991) 128.

[27] Zamfir, 101.

[28] Celas Spicq, “πολυτελής,” TLNT 134-5.

[29] Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows, The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities, 105.

[30] Winter, 104, 106.

[31] Wallace, 671; “ἐπαγγέλλομαι,” L&N 412.

[32] Georg Bertram, “θεσεβής, θεοσέβεια,” TDNT 3:123-28.

[33] Johnson 200, Mounce, 117, Marshall 452.

[34] Towner, 213.

[35] Knight, 139.

[36] Jerome Quinn, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, ECC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 221.

[37] Wallace, 485.

[38] NRSV, let; NASB95, must; ESV, let; NET, must; NIV, should.

[39] Wallace, 486.

[40] Knight, 139.

[41] Louw Nida, 467.

[42] Gritz, 128, Towner, 213.

[43] Wallace, 161.

[44] James Strong, “ἡσυχία hēsuchia,” CDWGTHB 35.

[45] Spicq, “ἡσυχάζω, ἡσυχία, ἡσύχιος,” TLNT 1:178-183.

[46] Louw Nida, L&N 753.

[47] Spicq, TLNT 1:182.

[48] NRSV, NASB95, NET and NIV-submission; ESV-submissiveness.

[49] Johnson, 201.

[50] Strong, “γάρ,” CDWGTHB  20; Andrew C. Perriman, “What Eve Did, What Women Shouldn’t Do: The Meaning of ΑΥΘΕΝΤΕΩ IN 1 TIMOTHY 2:12,” TynBul 44.1 (1993): 129-142.

[51] Strong, “ἐξαπατάω,” CDWGTHB 29.

[52] Johannes Schneider, “παράβασις,” V TDNT, 739-40.

[53] Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie, “ἐάω; ἐπιτρέπω,” LEH 163.

[54] Joseph Henry Thayer, “αὐθεντέω,” GELNT 84.

[55] Wilshire, Leland E., Insight into Two Biblical Passages: Anatomy of a Prohibition I Timothy 2:12, the TLG Computer, and the Christian Church (University Press of America, 2010) 10. 

[56] Wilshire, 63.

[57] Ibid. 27-32.

[58] Al Wolters, “ΑΥΘΕΝΤΗΣ and Its Cognates in Biblical Greek.” JETS 52 (2009): 719-29.

[59] Andreas J Köestenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, eds., Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), 85-103.

[60] Knight, 140; Mounce, 123; Fee, 73.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: