Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Timothy 2:9 - 2:10
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Ti_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 1Ti_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 ., 1Ti_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 (1Ti_5:14, 1Ti_6:18; Tit_3:1-2), there is no example of two infinitives being thus connected.[98] 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 1Ti_2:8 προσεύχεσθαι means prayer made by the men aloud in the church, here in 1Ti_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 1Ti_2:10. This accumulation of clauses, however, cannot be urged, since we have a similar accumulation in 1Ti_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. 1Ti_3:8; Tit_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 .[99] 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.”[100] Hence it is that some expositors (de Wette among others) take it here as equivalent to habitus, κατάστημα (Tit_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. 1Ti_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.”[101]
It is to be noted that ΣΩΦΡΟΣΎΝΗ (apart from Act_26:25 : ΣΩΦΡΟΣΎΝΗς ῬΉΜΑΤΑ ἈΠΟΦΘΈΓΓΟΜΑΙ , in opposition to ΜΑΊΝΟΜΑΙ ) occurs only here and in 1Ti_2:15, and that all words kindred to it (except ΣΩΦΡΟΝΕῖΝ in Rom_12:3, opposed to ὙΠΕΡΦΡΟΝΕῖΝ in 2Co_5:13, denoting the opposite of the ecstatic state; also in Mar_5:15; Luk_8:35; 1Pe_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 ] (Isa_3:24 : îÄ÷ÀùÑÆä ) in 1Pe_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 1Pe_3:3, we have περίθεσις χρυσίων (comp. Rev_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.[102] 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.[103]
The relative ὅ stands here either for ἐν τούτῳ ὅ , for which Matthies appeals, but wrongly, to Rom_6:21; Rom_10:14; or more probably for καθʼ ὅ . So far as the meaning goes, the various reading ὡς ( καθώς , Eph_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, 1Ti_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. Gen_20:11; more frequently in the Apocrypha; θεοσεβής , Joh_9:31; LXX. Exo_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 2Ti_3:5. Calvin gives the connection with the preceding words rightly: si operibus testanda est pietas, in vestitu etiam casto apparere haec professio debet.
[98] 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.
[99] It is necessary therefore to do, as van Oosterzee does, supply the participle προσευχομένας with γυναῖκας because of the ὡσαύτως .
[100] 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.
[101] 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 .
[102] Van Oosterzee explains it as “a causal periphrasis to show why precisely this ornament is extolled by the apostle.”
[103] 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 2Co_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.