TWO APPROACHES REGARDING PAUL’S PROHIBITION FOUND IN 1 TIMOTHY 2:8-15: An Exegetical Analysis

© 2005 WAYNE T. SLUSSER

All Rights Reserved

Views Regarding Paul’s Prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:8-15

SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION

Another essay on Paul’s prohibition found in his first letter to Timothy? There are

countless articles and books written on this subject that, if all were collected in one area,

can cover multiple shelves of any seminary library. But why has this passage created so

much interest? Is it because Paul is prohibiting women from teaching and having

authority over men, yet countless churches across America employ women teachers in

Sunday school classrooms? Or is it because Paul is really not stating a universal

prohibition, but rather a unique prohibition that is only applicable to the audience in

Timothy’s day?1 Or, based on an extreme feminist position, is it because today’s

postmodern view, not only of Scripture, but also of truth in general, suggests that

tolerance and equality for women in positions of leadership is necessary in any field (i.e.

the corporate world, pastoral, and home)? Or lastly, based on an extreme traditionalist

position, is it because women are not to hold any status outside of the home? These and

other questions can fill an article by themselves. While there are a number of key

passages that speak to these questions, the focus of this essay is 1 Timothy 2:12; therefore

it will provide answers to the above questions with greater clarity.

This essay discusses the prohibition found in 1 Timothy 2:12 in three areas. They

are: context, exegesis, and theology. This essay also examines and defines both the

1 Some who hold to this position state that God uses women as missionaries, for Bible studies, and

for discipleship purposes; therefore, they conclude that Paul could not have meant for the universal prohibition in this passage, that is, that women cannot teach. Also, due to today’s increasing number of women found in authoritative positions (i.e. presidents of universities, heads of state, corporate heads of major companies) it is impossible on this view for Paul to have stated that women could not have authoritative roles.

2egalitarian and complementarian positions in general as well as specifically with this

passage. The analysis of this text in these three areas validates the complementarian

position. The essay concludes with the practical implications of how the understanding of

this passage affects ministries in the church today and the discipline of hermeneutics

within the academic realm. The author of this essay is in no way suggesting this essay

offers the final exegetical answer in these pages; more study is necessary.

Before endeavoring to understand the meaning and the significance of this

passage, which is found later in sections two, three, and four, it is necessary to briefly

discuss egalitarian and complementarian positions, the occasional nature of the Pastoral

Epistles, and the potential hermeneutical issue involved.

The Egalitarian and Complementarian Positions

The two labels denoting the positions regarding the issue of women in ministry

are commonly known as egalitarian and complementarian. There is no real consensus

among evangelicals today as to the role of women in ministry; therefore the question

asked by Pierce and Groothuis probably best captures the fundamental divide of these

two positions. “Are there any aspects of leadership denied to women and reserved for

men strictly on the basis of what one cannot change, one’s gender?”2

2 Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, ed., Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 15. Later they pose two essential questions that are worth noting. They are: “Are all avenues of ministry and leadership open to women as well as men, or are women restricted from certain roles and subordinated to male authority on the basis of gender alone? Likewise, do wives share equally with husbands in leadership and decision making in marriage, or does the husband have a unique responsibility and privilege to make final decisions, based on his gender alone?” (p. 17).

3The Egalitarian Position

This position advocates equality, mainly the equality of women and men in such

areas as church offices. Christians for Biblical Equality (hereafter, CBE) is “a non-profit

Christian organization that promotes a biblical basis for gift-based, rather than gender-

based, service for men and women of all races, ages and economic classes.”3 Beck and

Blomberg write, “The real heart of this position seems to be the stress on equality of men

and women, not merely for salvation or in essential personhood, but in opportunities to

hold every office and play every role that exists in church life.”4

Although this position stresses equality, Pierce and Groothuis adamantly point out

that the adjectives evangelical and biblical describing the egalitarian position are

necessary for the following reasons. “The qualifier evangelical is helpful in

distinguishing evangelical feminism from the unbiblical aspects of liberal religious and

secular feminism . . . biblical is added to the concept of gender equality in order to

distinguish evangelicals from those who seek gender equality primarily because of

cultural pressure, personal agendas or equal-rights politics, rather than out of obedience

to the Bible.”5 Therefore, the claim that egalitarians are the same as feminists (i.e. secular

feminists of a world system) cannot be supported.

3 Christians for Biblical Equality, “CBE,” (http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/index.shtml

[7 August 2005]). For the purposes of this paper, CBE is used merely as a representative mouthpiece for evangelical feminism.

4 James R. Beck and Craig L. Blomberg, ed., Two Views on Women in Ministry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 16.

5 Pierce and Groothuis, Discovering Biblical Equality, 16-17.

4The purpose of this position is to demonstrate that God has both gifted the

women and the men to minister in the Church today. Women ought not to be restricted

either in ministry or leadership roles because God has so gifted both genders for these

roles. They, like the men, are called to serve and use their gifts.6

The Complementarian Position

This position mainly advocates the complementary roles of men and women. The

Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (hereafter, CBMW) is “an alliance of

Bible-believing, Gospel-loving, evangelical Christians committed to the Scripture’s clear

teaching on manhood and womanhood, that is God has created men and women equal in

their essential dignity and human personhood but different and complementary in

function, with male headship in the home and believing community [the church] being

understood as part of God’s created design.”7

The key or heart of this position is the complementarian attitude, thus suggesting

both equality and beneficial differences between men and women. Piper and Grudem

stress that the complementarian position is not the same as a traditionalist or

hierarchicalist position so often tagged to it. They write, “We are uncomfortable with the

term ‘traditionalist’ because it implies an unwillingness to let Scripture challenge

traditional patterns of behavior, and we certainly reject the term ‘hierarchicalist’ because

it overemphasizes structured authority while giving no suggestion of equality or the

6 Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1

Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992), 11-26. 7 Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, “CBMW,”

(http://www.cbmw.org/about/greeting.php [7 August 2005]), author’s emphasis. For the purposes of this paper, CBMW is used merely as a representative mouthpiece for the traditional view of feminism.

5beauty of mutual interdependence.”8 Therefore, like those who falsely categorize the

egalitarians as feminists, it is important not to falsely accuse complementarians as

adhering to the same opinion as the traditionalist or hierarchicalist.

The purpose of this position is to demonstrate that God has uniquely created both

men and women for specific and distinct roles in the home and church.

Complementarians are in no way advocating that women cannot minister within the

church body. God indeed has a place for them in countless women’s ministries and their

contribution of wisdom and insight is encouraged. Although this is God’s design, their

role however, does not include that of a pastor. This is one of the main differences

between egalitarian and complementarian positions.

Occasional Nature of the Pastoral Epistles

It is common for some to claim that the New Testament epistles are easy to

interpret. Although this may be a prevalent opinion among pastors, scholars, and even

laypeople, it can be quite deceptive. But why is this? It is often correctly said that Paul’s

epistles are occasional or situational. Schreiner states that these epistles were “addressed

to specific situations and problems in various churches” and are not theological treatises

in which a theological system is established.9 Due to their occasional nature, it is

8 John Piper and Wayne Grudem, ed., Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A

Response to Evangelical Feminism (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991), xiv. Pierce and Groothuis in their introduction write regarding the attempt by the complementarians to change the vocabulary of the traditionalist view, “Concurrent with this terminology is the contention that God created male and female as equal but ‘distinct’ (to be ‘complements’ of one another) and that female submission to male leadership is inherent in the gender distinction,” Discovering Biblical Equality, 16.

9 Thomas R. Schreiner, “Interpreting the Pauline Epistles,” in Interpreting the New Testament:

Essays on Methods and Issues, ed. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman, 2001), 412. See Schreiner’s earlier discussion in Interpreting the Pauline Epistles (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1990), 41-50. He writes, “They are pastoral works in which Paul applied his theology to

6important that interpreters recognize that they are arising out of a specific context that is

from the first century church. Therefore, it is important that one always remembers the

basic premise that “a text cannot mean what it never could have meant to its author or his

or her readers.”10

The hermeneutical importance behind understanding the occasional nature of the

epistles is twofold. First, one must be careful to interpret each epistle on its own terms.

For example, scholars have often identified the Pastoral Epistles, 1-2 Timothy and Titus,

as manuals for church organization. This is unfortunate. Due to the occasional nature of

Paul’s epistles, he has a specific agenda/situation that he is attending to in each of the

Pastoral Epistles.11 They are separate epistles with separate circumstances. Therefore,

grouping them together under one theme, such as church organization, is not exegetically

prudent. Second, to suggest that one cannot apply Paul’s writing today because the

specific problems in the churches,” (p. 42). Ann Bowman agrees, “The selection of theological issues and the extent to which they were discussed was shaped by the circumstances that occasioned a particular epistle” (“Women in Ministry: An Exegetical Study of 1 Timothy 2:11-15,” Bibliotheca Sacra [April-June]: 193).

10 Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 3rd ed. (Grand

Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 74. 11 This writer is not advocating that church organization material is absent in the Pastoral Epistles

or unimportant. However, it is not the main intent that Paul is wishing to communicate. Rather, he is dealing with the idea that false teaching is threatening the church and how the church ought to respond. See Gordon Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988). John B. Polhill is also cautious about the label and purpose of the Pastoral Epistles. He writes, “The term Pastoral Epistles is of more recent vintage, seemingly having first been applied to these epistles in the early eighteenth century. The term is not altogether accurate. Timothy and Titus were not pastors. They were Paul’s temporary, personal representatives to the churches of Ephesus and Crete.” (Paul and His Letters [Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman, 1999], 397).

For more information regarding ecclesiastical importance and purpose found in 1 Timothy, see D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris ed., Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 375-76.

7culture is altogether different “confines Paul to his day and is a frank acknowledgment

that his teaching does not constitute a word from God for us.”12

Although Paul’s epistles are sometimes emphasized as ad hoc (for a special case

only, without general application), they can incorporate lasting principles. Knight states

that one may emphasize all of Scripture as being ad hoc. The nature of Scripture warrants

this. He writes however, “The subtle fallacy is to draw from this obvious fact a kind of

general operating conclusion that the contents and teachings must be therefore ad hoc”13

Knight rightly notes that Scripture is not just applicable to the first century. Yes, there are

some cultural differences between the first century and some contemporary settings (i.e.

“greeting one another with a holy kiss,” Rom 16:16) that ought not be ignored. But, often

times it is “the specificity of the concrete situation (where Paul is giving greetings to

those in the church in Rome) conveying a principle, as the apostle Peter enjoined

honoring the king as the concrete expression of submitting to civil authorities (1 Pet

2:17).”14 It is therefore important that one does not allow the cultural differences to

preclude any present day application.

What is clear in the later discussion of 1 Timothy is that the occasional nature of

Paul’s epistles proves to be one of the major dividing points between egalitarians and

12 Schreiner, “Interpreting the Pauline Epistles,” 427. 13 George W. Knight, III “The Scriptures Were Written for Our Instruction,” Journal of

Evangelical Theological Society (March 1996): 3. Knight provides two reasons as to why one cannot assume ad hoc documents can only contain ad hoc teaching. First, “ad hoc situations are often addressed by those who intend to give general teachings and lasting principles that apply to all human beings.” Second, “The apostle Paul specifically indicates that these Scriptures ‘were written for our instruction’ (Rom 15:4)” (p. 4-5).

14 Ibid, 13.

8complementarians. Egalitarians suggest that Paul’s prohibition is unique to Timothy’s

day; therefore it is not binding on women today. On the other hand, complementarians

suggest a universal prohibition, thus limiting the role of women in churches today.

Hermeneutical Issue

This subject, women in ministry, seems to raise one fundamental hermeneutical

issue that is clouded by improper definitions and descriptions and its employment. This

brief section provides a clear understanding of the hermeneutical issue involved in this

study, that is meaning and significance.

Meaning and Significance

An understanding of these two hermeneutical terms proves to be foundational

when one is involved in the exegetical process. Although the distinction between them

could not be more important, it is often blurred. Meaning is that which is represented by

the text. Vanhoozer states, “The meaning of a text is what the author attended to in

tending to his words.”15 Significance on the other hand names a relationship between that

meaning and a person, or concept or situation. Significance is always ‘meaning-to’ and

never ‘meaning-in.’16 One must maintain a critical distinction. The basis of meaning is

the author of the text (authorial intent). The basis of significance is the interpreter who

judges the relationship between meaning and his experiences. One must not violate the

15 Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 262;

Elliott E. Johnson, also states, “Meaning views meaningfulness from the author’s point of view in the textual composition. The issues and subjects are defined by the author” (Expository Hermeneutics: An Introduction [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990], 227).

16 Johnson states, “Significance, by contrast, regards meaningfulness exclusively from the

interpreter’s point of view. The interpreter defines the issues. He articulates the problems. From this viewpoint of issues or problems he seeks to find relationships with the textual meanings” (Expository Hermeneutics, 227).

9meaning of the text by introducing one’s experiences or culture into the exegesis.

Vanhoozer is correct. “Without this basic distinction between meaning and significance,

subsequent distinctions – between exegesis and eisegesis, understanding and

overstanding, commentary and criticism – will be difficult, if not impossible to

maintain.”17

What is clear in the discussion of 1 Timothy is that interpreters often blur this

distinction during the exegetical process. Rather than first understanding Paul’s authorial

intent for Timothy’s audience, evangelicals tend to bring their clouded feminist or

traditionalist opinions (significance, how it applies to their situation) into the exegetical

process, therefore coloring the interpretation (meaning, how Paul intended the passage) to

favor their position. One step in the exegetical process that can help the exegete rid his

presuppositions is to understand the context in which the passage in question is found. A

passage is tied to a context and must be analyzed as such. Therefore, this paper finds it

necessary to understand the context of 1 Timothy.

SECTION TWO: CONTEXT OF 1 TIMOTHY

The context in which one finds 1 Timothy 2:8-15 is under heavy scrutiny. What is

Paul’s intent? What is the purpose for Paul’s first letter to Timothy? Who is Paul

communicating to? Is it to those in Timothy’s day? Or today’s church? Egalitarians

propose a feminist-type society that is influenced by the great mother goddess Artemis

and the beliefs of Gnosticism. Paul’ prohibition, therefore, addresses a specific issue that

17 Vanhoozer, Is There A Meaning in This Text, 263.

10is only applicable to the church in Ephesus. Complementarians reject this contextual

reconstruction.

General Context: Purpose of 1 Timothy

Paul sent a letter to Timothy, his fellow laborer and colleague at Ephesus. He was

the apostle’s personal representative among the Ephesian house-churches, who was to

serve as an instrument of personal communication and encouragement. Although Paul

sought to deal with several issues, two themes stand out signifying Paul’s purpose for

writing the letter. They are: a warning against false teachings with an exhortation to stand

against them and an instruction concerning their conduct and life within the community.18

Polhill explains why Paul issued this warning and instruction. Polhill writes,

The teaching was disrupting the fellowship, wreaking havoc on individuals and families. . . . He wanted his leaders to be good managers of their own households so that they might effectively manage the household of God. . . . Christians were called upon to live an exemplary life so that all those in their community might be led to a saving knowledge of God’s truth.19

Paul was encouraging Timothy to pass along sound doctrine so that it would

counter the doctrine of the heretics. In so doing, he also instructed him to exhort the

18 Select bibliography, though not exhaustive, affirming this twofold purpose of 1 Timothy: E.

Earle Ellis, “Pastoral Letters,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 661-65; George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 10-12; Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, Jr., 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, The New American Commentary, vol. 34 (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992), 41-42; William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 46 (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2000), lvi-lix; and John Polhill, Paul and His Letters, 407.

19 Polhill, Paul and His Letters, 407.

11believing community (church) into a proper attitude of worship (2:8-15).20 Paul

appealed both to men and women to show behavior that was holy, teachable, and

peaceable.

Specific Context: 1 Timothy 2:8-10

These three verses are not without controversy. It is necessary to provide a proper

contextual understanding for the discussion of Paul’s prohibition. First, how is one to

consider the relationship of ou\n (“therefore”) in verse 8? Does it mark a relationship with

the preceding (2:1-7) or the following (2:8-15) context? Second, how is one to take the

wJsauvtwV (“in the same way also”) in verse 9? Is Paul recommending that women pray

like men (v. 8) or are the women to adorn themselves just as he wishes for the men to

pray, which is in a godly fashion? Third, how is one to take the overall context of verses

8-10? Is Paul speaking about men’s and women’s responsibility exclusively in the

worship assembly? Or is Paul referring to the wider framework of the Christian

community with the church?

Verse 8 is where Paul begins his section regarding the questions of disruption (vv.

8-10) and leadership (vv. 11-15) in the worship assembly. The issue is where to place

verse 8, with the preceding or following context. The typical division is between verses 8

and 9, rather than verses 7 and 8. This typical break makes a comfortable subject change

between paragraphs with men in the former (2:1-8) and women in the latter (2:9-15).

20 Bowman also rightly states, “Paul was eager to refute them [false teachers] and to defend

against further attacks through the teaching of correct doctrine, through promoting godly living of both leaders and laity, and through ensuring correct church practice” (“Women in Ministry,” 195). Polhill states, “Quite possibly the false teachers were using the women to propagate their own erroneous views as the women flitted about from house to house. In their social context the women would have had little formal education and were scarcely qualified to teach” (Paul and His Letters, 410).

12However, this is unfortunate, for grammatically and contextually the division seems

more appropriate between verses 10 and 11, thus providing two smaller units (2:8-10 and

2:11-15) within the larger unit (2:8-15). Mounce suggests the following reasons for this

division. First, grammatically, verse 9 is dependent on verse 8 because it does not contain

a finite verbal form. Second, contextually, verse 11 possesses a topic change from

disruption in the church to leadership in the church.21 Therefore ou\n is better related to

the following context.22 This essay assumes verses 8-15 to be the proper paragraph

structure.

Paul begins verse 8 not only with the initiating particle, but also with bouvlomai

(“to purpose, to determine, to will”) followed by the infinitive proseuvcesqai (“to pray”).23

Knight suggests that the use of bouvlomai here “expresses an apostolic demand in the

language of personal desire (“I want”).”24 Paul wanted the men to pray. But it was not so

21 Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 103-04. See also Lea and Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, 93-94; Walter

L. Liefeld, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, The NIV Application Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 92-93; Contra: John MacArthur, 1 Timothy, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 73-75. Knight states that verse 8 should be considered as more of a transitional verse rather than with the preceding or following paragraphs, (The Pastoral Epistles, 130).

22 Mounce also suggests three more reasons as to why verse 8 must be related to the following

context. He writes, “Prayer is not the main concern of either vv 1-7 or v 8, and therefore the connection is secondary. . . . V 8 begins with the words bouvlomai ou\n, ‘therefore I desire,’ which parallels the beginning of v 1, parakalw: ou\n, ‘therefore I urge.’ The repetition has the effect of initiating a new discussion. . . . The strongest argument for including v 8 with vv 9-15 is that is shares a basic theme with vv 9-10, namely, that those causing disruption in the church must cease” (p. 104).

23 Cleon L. Rogers Jr. and Cleon L. Rogers III, The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the

Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 490. Danker defines bouvlomai as “to plan a course of action, intend, plan, will” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature 3rd ed. based on the sixth edition of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch Deutsches Wörterbuch [Chicago: Moody Press, 2000], 182).

24 Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 128. Mounce states, “Its primary meaning [bouvlomai] in the NT

indicates a simple wish, a desire, but in the PE it occurs three times carrying an authoritative note established by the context (1Tim 2:8; 5:14; Titus 3:8)” (Pastoral Epistles, 106).

13much what he wanted them to do as in what manner he wanted them to do it. They

should pray with holiness and cwri;V ojrgh:V kai; dialogismou: (without “anger or

controversy”). The focus of the paragraph is prayer in the worship assembly, but Paul’s

intent is more concerned with the heart attitude of those men offering the prayer. Because

the emphasis is on men’s holy attitude, verse 8 is not suggesting that only men should

pray (cf. 1 Cor 11:5). Why he specifies only men here is not stated. He is also not

suggesting a universal posture, men praying with their hands lifted up.25 Rather Paul is

alluding to the mode or the means by which the men were to pray, namely, with oJsivouV

cei:raV (“holy hands”). This was normally practiced by the Jews and signified hands as

morally pure. This calls for a devout lifestyle that passionately seeks to please God. The

conduct of the person therefore should be acceptable and appropriate to God.

With this contextual understanding of verse 8, the initial adverbial marker of

verse 9 is also properly understood. This brings the reader to the second exegetical

question, how is one to take wJsauvtwV? In verse 8, Paul discusses the disruption of men

and now turns to the disruption of women, namely, their inappropriate dress. Paul uses

wJsauvtwV (“likewise”) as a connecting conjunction to the previous thought.26 He uses this

word to explain that the women are to adorn themselves in a manner fitting worship of

God. Although Paul deals with dress and the outer look of women, his primary purpose is

the same as the men, which is presenting a proper and godly attitude when coming to

25 This is qualified by the phrase “without anger and arguing” that follows “lifting holy hands.”

Paul had in mind the manner of the prayer not the posture of the prayer. 26 Daniel B. Wallace suggests this as a comparative conjunction of manner. He writes, “This use

suggests an analogy or comparison between the connected ideas or tells how something is to be done” (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 675).

14worship. He uses katastolh: kosmivw (“modest clothing”), but in a wider sense. Mounce

suggests, “The wide scope of meaning for kosmei:n and katastolhv continues to open the

way for the true emphasis of vv 9-10, that a woman conduct herself in a way that is

appropriate to her Christian calling, a conduct that includes but is not limited to her

clothing.”27

After describing the women’s demeanor during worship, Paul specifies the

negative behavior that women should not partake in. They were not to have as their

adornment elaborated hairstyles, the wearing of gold or pearls or costly garments (cf. 1

Peter 3:3) because these were only outward and showy displays that attracted undue

attention. Paul wanted the attention on the fear of God rather than on the women’s

outward dress. The attitude was to be one of aijdou:V kai; swfrosuvnhV (“modesty and self-

control”).28

Verse 10 provides the positive testimony that women should have, that is a proper

adornment that is concerned with good works. Paul is stating here, in a contrastive way

using ajll j (“but”), to state that the women are to place a priority on behavior appropriate

to a person who has made a commitment to godliness. This emphasis on good deeds is

27 Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 113. John MacArthur states, “Katastole (clothing) encompasses not

only the clothing itself, but also the look—the whole demeanor. Women are to come to the corporate worship ready to face the Lord . . . Proper adornment on the outside reflects a properly adorned heart” (1Timothy, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary [Chicago: Moody, 1995], 79). Danker agrees. He writes, “The writer skillfully moves from the lit. sense of garments to personal characteristics of ‘modesty and self-control’ as appropriate adornment” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 527).

28 Regarding aijdou:V, MacArthur states, “It refers to modesty mixed with humility. At its core is the

idea of shame. A godly woman would be ashamed and feel guilt if she distracted someone from worshipping God, or contributed to someone’s lustful thought” (1 Timothy, 81). Regarding swfrosuvnhV,Rogers and Rogers state, “It is a habitual inner self-government, with its constant reign on all the passions and desires” (The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the New Testament, 491).

15not salvation by works. Rather, “good works are the necessary response by the believer

to God’s grace and mercy and are one of the purposes for which Christ came (cf. Titus

2:14).”29 Paul is informing the women that if their claim is Christianity, namely, a love,

worship, and honor for God, then their behavior must also speak to this. This issue again

is a matter of the heart.

In sum, Paul is discussing the disruption that is taking place within the worship

assembly. He therefore provides instructions and responsibilities for men and women

within this context. Men are to pray with a godly attitude that is with a cleansed

conscience, free from the stain of interpersonal conflicts, while the women are to avoid

disruption by adorning themselves with good works. They are to have an attitude that is

in accordance to those who have made a commitment to godliness. The writer of this

essay assumes that Paul is referring specifically to the worship assembly, because of

Paul’s desire for the men in verse 8. It is difficult however to dogmatically say, due to the

exhortations given to women that would certainly speak to both the worship assembly

and the community at large.

SECTION THREE: AN EGALITARIAN VIEW

The egalitarian understanding is that Paul’s prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12 was

unique only to Timothy’s day and context in Ephesus; therefore women can minister in

teaching roles today. Although there are several scholars holding this position who arrive

at similar conclusions, the road to the conclusion is not always straightforward. One of

29 Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 116.

16the main differences between the egalitarian scholars is their view of context; hence a

deeper look at this area is warranted.

Context

What is important to the egalitarians is context. Keener states that this is the crux

of the debate.30 Egalitarians may approach 1 Timothy 2 with very different

understandings of the context, but what they are communicating is that the understanding

of the context affects the meaning in the text. A brief look at each of the contextual

reconstructions is in order. It must not be missed at this point, that even though these

scholars share different contextual understandings they all share the same conclusion,

namely, that women are not forbidden to teach men.31

Fee’s claim is that Paul writes in a culture-specific setting. He views Paul as

writing to the church at Ephesus to correct the false teaching and combat the false

30 Craig S. Keener, “Women in Ministry,” in Two Views on Women in Ministry, ed., James R.

Beck and Craig L. Blomberg (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 55. 31 One interesting note is Webb’s approach, an egalitarian who holds to the contextual argument of

a complementarian, but subscribes to an egalitarian conclusion. He states that the context is clear and Paul was indeed prohibiting women from teaching absolutely (William J. Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001], 113). However, due to the recognition of today’s society that women are not more easily deceived than men, the traditional interpretation is now invalid. Webb claims, “It is not only politically incorrect to say so today, it simply does not square with the hard data. Such a perspective can be dismissed on the basis of social-scientific testing” (p. 113).

This scientific and social-scientific evidence is part of Webb’s 18 criteria that must carefully be used in order to find Scripture’s ultimate ethic, and to determine whether a component of a text is cultural or transcultural. He states, “A component of a text may be culturally confined if it is contrary to present-day scientific evidence. Should scientific or social-scientific research produce evidence that conflicts with the text, then it may be that the particular affirmation in the biblical text reflects a cultural or time-locked perspective” (p. 121). Because the ultimate ethic of Scripture is found in culture (outside of Scripture), Paul’s prohibition is null and void.

Webb finds the ultimate ethic of Scripture outside of Scripture. In order to apply the text one must move the contemporary appropriation of the text beyond its original application framing. Social change is taking place and Christians must reevaluate their beliefs in light of culture. Webb’s hermeneutical approach is very much culturally-based rather than biblically-based.

17teachers within the church. These false teachers have a great influence among the

women in the church, even the young widows. Therefore these women need to be

rescued. One way to do this is by exhorting the women to have proper demeanor in dress

and in the assembly (2:9-10). Fee writes that women were “playing loose” with the norms

of society. They were not displaying “good works.”32 These young widows were also

being busybodies by speaking foolishness and talking about matters that are none of their

business; thus this is the reason for Paul to forbid women to teach (2:11-12).33

Kroeger’s view is a little more complex. She also understands the context as it

relates to false heresy, but more than just heresy as others propose. She sees this false

heresy culminating from the worship of the great mother goddess, revered as Artemis,

and the teachings of Gnosticism. The ancients understood Artemis as the originator of

life. The dead were also gathered to her. The primary deities in Asia Minor were female,

which was almost unknown farther west. Due to her power, “the citizens of Ephesus

derived their feelings of security from their goddess.”34 Mortal women began serving as

prime mediators and mouthpieces of their gods and goddesses. As a result, women began

32 Gordon Fee, “Issues in Evangelical Hermeneutics, Part III: The Great Watershed-Intentionality

and Particularity/Eternality: 1 Timothy 2:8-15 as a Test Case,” Crux 26 no 4 (Dec 1990): 33. 33 Fee’s conclusion is that Paul’s prohibition is unique to the situation at hand that is “to correct a

very ad hoc problem in Ephesus” (Ibid, 36). See also David M. Scholer, “1 Timothy 2:9-15 and the Place of Women in the Church’s Ministry,” in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 202-08. Scholer writes, “The instructions of 2:11-12 are directed against women who, having been touched or captivated by false teachings, are abusing the normal opportunities women had within the church to teach and exercise authority” (p. 203).

34 Kroeger and Kroeger, I suffer Not a Woman, 54. See also R. T. France, Women in the Ministry:

A Test – Case for Biblical Hermeneutics (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press, 1995), 57-62.

18to dominate and become superior to men.35 An allegiance to Artemis not only included

women however, but also men.

Kroeger further claims that Gnosticism also made headway into the home.

Gnosticism was an opposition to the Jewish Scriptures. Gnostics distorted Bible stories.

“Gnosticism has been called a religion of rebellion. Its mythology constitutes an ‘upside-

downing’ of the Bible as we know it.”36 Both men and women were involved in the false

teachings of Gnosticism where the women were telling stories that contradicted Scripture.

Thus, like Fee’s view, Kroeger concludes that Paul’s prohibition is unique to Timothy’s

day in that it prohibits only the women of Ephesus from teaching. Paul was attacking the

very basis of the Ephesian religion which was the improper teachings and worship of

false deities and the fallacy of radically distorting Bible stories.

A third example is Keener’s view. It is somewhat similar to both Fee and Kroeger

yet different. Like Fee, he claims that the prohibition falls under the hermeneutical

category of culturally-specific.37 Keener believes that the women of Timothy’s day were

uneducated; therefore they were consequently susceptible to false teaching. His argument

35 Linda Belleville provides one reason why women were dominating men. She writes, “One

explanation is that they were influenced by the cult of Artemis, in which the female was exalted and considered superior to the male. . . . Instead of seeking fellowship among her own kind, she spurned the attentions of the male gods and sought instead the company of a human male consort. This made Artemis and all her female adherents superior to men” (“Teaching and Usurping Authority: 1 Timothy 2:11-15,” in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, ed. Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004], 219).

36 Kroeger and Kroeger, I Suffer Not A Woman, 61. 37 For a full treatment of his argument see Craig S. Keener, “Interpreting 1 Timothy 2:8-15,”

Priscilla Papers 12.3 (1998): 11-12. As an additional point Keener states, “We cannot consistently require a transcultural application prohibiting women’s teaching or holding authority based on 1 Timothy 2:11-12 without also requiring all married women to cover their heads in keeping with 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (a point Paul in fact argues at much greater length)” (“Women in Ministry, 62).

19comes to a head when he explains that Paul’s use of Genesis and Eve’s deception is

analogous to the women in Ephesus, thus once again coming to a similar conclusion as

the others, Paul’s prohibition against teaching has limited those women who were

uneducated.38

In sum, what is clear is that context indeed is important. Three egalitarian scholars

propose Paul’s prohibition is unique to the situation at hand and is not a universal

prohibition. Fee demonstrates that the women of Ephesus were busybodies, Kroeger sees

the women as teachers of a Gnostic viewpoint, and Keener claims that the Ephesian

women were uneducated and should not be teachers. Regardless of which scholar one

follows, it is clear that Paul’s prohibition is to silence the women within a situational

context.

Exegesis

Assuming the above contextual situations that ultimately result in the typical

egalitarian conclusion, how does this approach exegetically support the conclusion?

Again, with differing contexts, the egalitarian scholars have different exegetical nuances.

Verses 11-15 are considered here.

Fee claims that the concern in verses 11-12 is a woman’s quiet and submissive

spirit. Paul emphasizes a proper demeanor in verses 9-10 and Fee sees these verses as two

sides of the same coin. He relates Paul’s statements to the larger culture. “There is an

abundance of texts in antiquity that suggest that ‘dressing up’ and insubordination on the

38 Keener, “Women in Ministry,” 59-61.

20part of women, and especially wives, go hand in hand.”39 Paul prohibits women from

teaching and domineering a man. She must take her proper role in society (2:15; 5:9-10),

not live for pleasure and be a busybody going about from house to house speaking

foolishness.

Fee claims that Paul’s intent in verses 13-14 is simply explanatory. Fee claims

that the woman, Eve, was deceived and fell into transgression. Paul is providing support

as to why false teachers had so easily grasped women.40 Therefore according to Fee,

Paul’s prohibition is unique to the women playing loose with society and the

prohibition’s rationale is illustrative of the deceived women in Timothy’s day.

Kroeger proposes exegetical nuances different than both Fee and Keener. Her

claim, which is hermeneutically an important one, is one cannot be dogmatic as to the

interpretation of words when that term has more than one meaning. With this claim, she

raises several issues regarding Paul’s use of words.

First, Kroeger claims that didavskein (“to teach”) takes on several meanings.41 The

use of didavskein in the Pastoral Epistles is used to express the content of the teaching;

therefore, Kroeger suggests that Paul’s prohibition forbids women to teach a wrong

doctrine. Second, Paul’s use of ejpitrevpw (“I do not allow”) speaks to a specific

circumstance rather than a universal prohibition. She suggests that Paul’s “use of the

39 Fee, “Issues in Evangelical Hermeneutics,” 33. See also Alan Padgett, “Wealthy Women at

Ephesus: 1 Timothy 2:8-15 in Social Context,” Interpretation 40 no 1 (Jan 1987): 19-31. 40 Ibid, 37. Fee states, “It is absolutely foreign to the text and to Paul’s argument to suggest, as

does Moo, that women by nature are more susceptible to deceit and ‘that this susceptibility . . . bars them from engaging in public teaching’” (p. 37, n. 12).

41 “Emphasis is placed upon the function of teaching (didaskein), the teaching itself (didaskalia

and didache), and the actual teacher (didaskalos)” (Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman, 80).

21present tense may also indicate that his decree had to do with a situation

contemporaneous with the writing of the epistle.”42 Third, Kroeger sees the two

infinitives didavskein and aujqentei:n (“to claim ownership,” Kroeger’s translation)

conveying the meaning of the decree. “The oude indicates that authentein explains what

sort, or what manner, of teaching is prohibited to women.”43 Fourth, aujqentei:n possesses

quite a range of meanings. Based upon the Church Fathers and other Christian writings,

Kroeger assumes a meaning of ‘representing oneself as the author, or originator.’44

Her translation of aujqentei:n fits well with Kroeger’s understanding of the context.

Women were thought of as the primal source for things, especially given their view of

Artemis. Along with context, she also assumes Paul’s prohibition is to stop the beliefs of

the Gnostics because the woman was not responsible for the creation of man. Hence, Paul

explains correct doctrine in verses 13-14 using the Genesis account that speaks to Adam

as the one who was formed first and Eve was deceived.45

The final exegetical point is that Paul speaks to a woman’s childbearing (v. 15)

because of three Gnostic beliefs: their view that salvation comes through masculinity,

their negative view of marriage and childbearing, and their denial of a woman’s

femininity. Kroeger concludes that Paul’s prohibition forbids women to teach wrong

42 Ibid, 83. 43 Ibid, 84. Kroeger’s support comes from an unpublished paper presented by Dr. Payne at a

national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Atlanta, Georgia, 1986. 44 See Kroeger’s lengthy discussion regarding the semantic range of meanings and the support for

each (87-103). 45 Kroeger claims that the priority of the matter is more than creation; it was concerned about the

teachings of the Gnostics. They believed Eve was created first, she was the mother of different sons by different fathers, she breathes the breath of life in Adam, and Adam was deceived (117-24).

22doctrine, namely, that women are the author or originator of man, thus providing

Paul’s rationale in verses 13-15. Adam was formed first, Eve was deceived, and women

can be saved through childbearing.

Keener views the argument in a similar fashion to Fee. There are three areas of

exegesis to consider. First, women were admonished to learn in silence, that is to pay

attention and not interrupt with unlearned questions. Keener suggests that this

“presumably relates to the specific situation in Ephesus suggested in 1 Timothy 5:13—

many younger women were making the rounds with foolish talk, trying to teach but not

knowing what they were talking about.”46 Second, Paul’s prohibition specifically forbids

women from teaching in a domineering way or in a way that usurps authority. Keener’s

reasons for Paul’s prohibition are twofold. (1) Women were to learn submissively (v. 11)

and (2) due to the women’s unlearned state (context), false teachers used women as a

network to further their teachings.

The third area of exegesis to consider is Paul’s rationale for the prohibition is that

he is making an analogy between Eve’s deception and the deceived women of Ephesus.

The women of Ephesus were being taken in by the false teachers, therefore a prohibition

was necessary.47

Keener’s point comes to a conclusion by stating that Paul’s reference to women

being saved through childbirth is a way that Paul can demonstrate that the elements of the

46 Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of

Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992), 108. 47 Ibid, 113-17.

23fall (2:14) are passing away.48 Due to the fact that women are unlearned, Paul forbids

women from teaching and his rationale is that the women of Ephesus were being swept

away by the false teaching, thus they were deceived as Eve was in Genesis.

In sum, the exegetical claims of these egalitarian scholars nuance the argument

somewhat differently but come to the same conclusion. Their exegesis indeed supports

their contextual findings. Paul’s prohibition is unique and the prohibition’s rationale is

explanatory. Paul’s prohibition is unique because it forbids women from teaching who

were busybodies and unlearned. His rationale is explanatory because it provides the

necessary information regarding the state of women in Ephesus, namely, that they were

easily deceived by false teachers. Therefore, regardless of one’s exegetical

understanding, Paul’s prohibition is to forbid the women of Ephesus to teach because

they were easily deceived by false teachers. The prohibition does not speak directly to the

church today.

Theology

The theology of the egalitarian view is quite complex. Though a detailed analysis

of the texts used to support this view is outside of the purpose of this essay, a brief look is

warranted.49 The purpose here is to summarize the texts used in order to support the

egalitarian view, namely, that women are able to teach and hold the office of a minister

today. Women are able to teach today for the following two reasons: (1) men and women

48 Ibid, 118-20. See also Walter L. Liefeld, “A Plural Ministry View: Your Sons and Daughters

Shall Prophesy,” in Women in Ministry: Four Views, ed. Bonnidell Clouse and Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 149.

49 This section represents only a sampling of texts and considerations used by the egalitarian

position in order to demonstrate their approach theologically. There is far more information and work that must be uncovered. However, due to limited space in this essay, only a brief treatment is provided.

24were created equally, therefore women are not inferior to men; and (2) women held

ministry positions in the New Testament, therefore this enables them to hold them today.

Women are able to teach and hold the office of a minister today because they

were created equally. The first text to support this is Genesis 1-3. Several points are

brought out regarding the creation of men and women. Hess states that the themes of

unity and gender diversity are clear, not authority or leadership of the man over the

woman.50 There is clarity in this text as to a ‘creation order,’ however, not in the sense of

hierarchy of men over women. The fact that woman was created to be man’s helper does

not indicate that she is inferior to him. There is only one authority given by God before

the fall, that is that man and woman were to share dominion over creation. Finally, God’s

judgment was on both man and woman to work.

A second text used is Galatians 3:26-29. Typically egalitarians use Galatians 3:28

to state that men and women are created equal. It is the overall message that Paul is

conveying that convinces Fee. He states, “the driving issue in Galatians is not first of all

soteriology but ecclesiology: who constitute the people of God in the new creation

brought about by the ‘scandal of the cross’ (Gal 6:11-16).”51 Paul is stating that ethnicity,

status, and gender no longer are relevant for constituting value and social identity in the

50 Richard S. Hess, “Equality With and Without Innocence: Genesis 1-3,” in Discovering Biblical

Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, ed. Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 79-95.

51 Gordon D. Fee, “Male and Female in the New Creation: Galatians 3:26-29,” in Discovering

Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, ed. Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 174.

25new creation.52 Fee concludes, “And to give continuing significance to a male-

authority viewpoint for men and women, whether at home or in the church is to reject the

new creation in favor of the norms of a fallen world.”53

Women are able to teach and hold the office of a minister today because they held

ministry positions in the New Testament (i.e. prophet, counselor, patron of a house

church, teacher, and deacon/overseer).54 Kroeger states, “A prohibition against women

assuming positions of authority is inconsistent with the strong evidence demonstrating

that in the early Christian communities women were most certainly engaged in

leadership.”55 The prominent texts to convey women’s role in teaching and leadership

are Romans 16:3 and 7, (i.e. Priscilla and Junia). Priscilla was a fellow-laborer of Paul

(Acts 18:1-3) and teacher of Apollos (Acts 18:26), while Junia was a noteworthy apostle

(Rom 16:7). In addition, since many women possess ministry gifts, like those of men, the

egalitarians suggest that Paul clearly commended women for such roles.

52 France comments here at length. He writes, “At all points within the period of biblical history

the working out of the fundamental equality expressed in Galatians 3.28 remained constrained by the realities of the time, and yet increasingly the church was discovering that in Christ there was the basis, indeed the imperative, for the dismantling of the sexual discrimination which had prevailed since the fall” (Women in the Church’s Ministry, 91).

53 Ibid, 185. Fee also states, “Paul insists here that to be ‘one in Christ’ (because in Christ there is

neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female) means that each is individually baptized into the one body of Christ, so that all are mutually interdependent for life in the new order” (p. 185, n. 26).

54 For further details regarding the defense of these positions see the extensive work by Linda L.

Belleville, “Women in Ministry,” in Two Views on Women in Ministry, ed. James R. Beck and Craig L. Blomberg (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 82-104; Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women and Wives, 237-57; and R. T. France, Women in the Church’s Ministry, 73-96.

55 Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman, 92.

26In sum, women are created equal with men, their gender is no longer relevant in

Christ, and they hold ministry positions like those of men in the New Testament.

Therefore, women can teach and minister today.

SECTION FOUR: A COMPLEMENTARIAN VIEW

The complementarian understanding of Paul’s prohibition is considerably

different than that of the egalitarians. These differences range from context to theology.

The complementarian view concludes that Paul’s prohibition is universal; therefore

women cannot minister in teaching roles that have authority over a man. Several scholars

who subscribe to the complementarian view have similar contextual and exegetical

nuances; therefore a straightforward exegesis of Paul’s prohibition does not include

different scholars’ approaches. Rather the writer of this essay provides his analysis with

scholarly support.

Context

No doubt context is equally important to the complementarians as it is to the

egalitarians. Few question that Paul is warning against false teachers and calling believers

to live godly. Egalitarians propose a far different contextual setting than what is

warranted. What was the real Ephesus like?

The feminist Ephesus proposed by the egalitarians simply did not exist.56 Ephesus

was a thriving commerce center that eventually became one of the largest and most

important cities in the empire next to Rome. It was founded by a Greek hero named

56 This part of the essay relies on the work of S. M. Baugh, “A Foreign World: Ephesus in the First

Century,” in Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 13-52.

27Androclus, whom the Ephesians ascribed as the foundation of their city and not

Artemis. The city was dominated by kings who never adopted an egalitarian ideology.

Baugh states, “Even though women had some public roles at Ephesus, leadership in the

political and social spheres was solidly in the hands of exclusively male institutions.”57 It

is also understood that women held prominent positions, such as high priestess. However,

the duties of these priestesses included service, financial underwritings (i.e. banquets,

games, buildings, etc.), and adornment. Just because some of these women were known

as high priestesses do not mean that a shift took place on the familial roles of women. As

a matter of fact the role of ancient women was thought of as a role of authority and

management over domestic affairs. Baugh states, “They may not have held public office

or taught, not because it was forbidden by domineering men, but because they did not

care to.”58

This background helps the exegete move forward without the assumption or bias

that Ephesus was a feminist society. This is not to say that women did not play a role in

society; it was not a male-dominated society. Rather, one is not to see a religious

environment saturated with the feminine principle proposed by the egalitarians. Paul’s

prohibition, therefore, is not to a temporary and unique setting, for Ephesus’s society and

religious characteristics was like that of other cities in the Greco-Roman area.

57 Ibid, 20. 58 Ibid, 51.

28Exegesis

This exegetical component of section four provides the proper meaning and

significance of Paul’s prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12 and is based on the earlier discussion

of verses 8-10 in section two. Here an analysis of verses 11-15 is considered. A clear

grammatical and syntactical understanding validates a complementarian conclusion.

Paul’s Prohibition: 2:11-12

Verse 11 is where the topic shifts from disruption to leadership. It begins by

directing women in general to learn.59 The exhortation to learn manqanevtw “implies a

belief in the intellectual capability of women and their ability to profit from instruction

and education.”60 This demonstrates that women are not inferior to men, a belief often

tagged to complementarians due to the distinction of roles between men and women. The

focus of the directive is the manner in which women are to learn.61

The manner of learning is twofold. Paul states this by providing two ejn clauses,

namely, ejn hJsucia/ (“in quietness”) and ejn pavsh/ uJpotagh/: (“in all submission”). The women

59 Douglas J. Moo provides three reasons why the directive to learn is not limited to wives. (1) In

the previous context (vv. 8-10) Paul directed the men to pray and women to adorn themselves. Because it is unlikely that he meant for only husbands to pray and only wives to adorn themselves, this context is best understood as women in general. (2) Paul is viewing men and women in the context of worship. It is unlikely that Paul is referring to only husbands and wives. (3) It is more likely to see a definite article before ajndrovV if Paul was talking about the husband-wife relationship (“1 Timothy 2:11-15: Meaning and Significance,” [Trinity Journal 1 (1980)]: 64).

60 Thomas R. Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15: A Dialogue with Scholarship,” in

Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 122.

61 Wallace states, “The dative substantive denotes the manner in which the action of the verb is

accomplished. Like many adverbs, this use of the dative answers the question ‘How?’ (and typically with a ‘with’ or ‘in’ phrase). The manner can be an accompanying action, attitude, emotion, or circumstance” (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 161).

29are to have a quiet and respectful demeanor about them when learning.62 There is some

question as to the meaning of hJsucia/, is it “quietness” or “silence”? With the context

more concerned with the women’s spirit and heart attitude, which is one with a teachable

spirit, “quietness” seems best. Paul’s second clause denoting the manner in which women

are to learn conveys the idea of “an entire submissiveness.”63 Mounce suggests that this

“is the first of two qualifications of what Paul means by quietness: to learn in quietness

means to learn in a submissive manner.”64

The de; beginning verse 12 introduces the corollary that if women are to learn in

quietness and submissiveness, then they are not to teach or to exercise authority over a

man; learn but not teach. Moo suggests that it is a “transition from one activity that

women are to carry out in submission (learning) to two others that are prohibited in order

to maintain their submission (teaching and having authority).”65

Paul writes two prohibitions restricting women’s involvement in the public

worship assembly. The two prohibitions are the infinitives of indirect discourse didavskein

(“to teach”) and aujqentei:n (“to have authority”). This is the second of two qualifications

of what Paul means by quietness: “a woman may not exercise authority in the church, and

62 See Steve Motyer, “Expounding 1 Timothy 2:8-15,” Vox Evangelica 24 (1994): 93-95. Susan

Foh states, “quietness and submission are not negative qualities with reference to learning; they are the way to learn,” (“A Male Leadership View: The Head of the Woman Is the Man,” in Women in Ministry: Four Views, ed. Bonnidell Clouse and Robert G. Clouse [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1989], 80).

63 Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15,” 124. 64 Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 119. 65 Douglas Moo, “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men? 1 Timothy

2:11-15,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991), 184.

30this includes teaching.”66 “To teach” means the careful transmission and exposition of

the word of God.67 “To have authority” means the exercising of authority over someone,

in this case men.68 ajndrovV (“man”) is the object of both infinitives. Due to other passages

that encourage women teaching younger women (Titus 2:3-4), it is clear that Paul is

communicating that the prohibition is restricted in some way, namely, to men. Therefore,

women are forbidden to communicate and expound God’s Word to men and are also

forbidden to have authority over the man in the worship assembly.

At this point, the use of the infinitives highlights one of the exegetical differences

between egalitarians and complementarians, which is, is it one command or two? How,

then, are these two prohibitions connected? Due to the use of oujdev, there are two separate

prohibitions. Moo states, “While it is tempting to suggest a kind of hendiadys (didavskein .

. . oujde; aujqentei:n = “to teach authoritatively”), an examination of Paul’s use of oujde; in

similar constructions shows that two separate provisions are always envisaged.”69 This

evidence provides the understanding of two separate prohibitions. Egalitarians, however,

66 Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 120. 67 Ibid, 125; Moo, “1 Timothy 2:11-15,” 66; Bowman, “Women in Ministry,” 200. 68 For a proper lexical study of aujqentei:n see George W. Knight, “auqentew in Reference to Women

in 1 Timothy 2.12,” New Testament Studies 30 (1984): 143-57. Although there is a wide semantic range to auqentew, his conclusion places the meaning of aujqentevw in the area of authority, the unifying concept in the meanings examined. This is contra Kroeger’s interpretation of “representing oneself as the author, or originator.” Knight and others simply state Kroeger’s interpretation is not warranted.

Andreas J. Köstenberger rightly notes that scholars on both sides have attempted to assign exclusive meanings to words based on extrabiblical literature. Although these studies are helpful, they cannot definitively establish the meaning of a term in a specific context (“Gender Passages in the NT: Hermeneutical Fallacies Critiqued,” Westminster Theological Journal 56 [1994]: 264-67). Also see the discussion regarding word study fallacies in D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 27-64.

69 Moo, “1 Timothy 2:11-15,” 68.

31propose the hendiadys construction; thus their exegetical conclusion is not plausible. It

can be concluded that the phrase ejn hJsuciva/ forms an inclusio as it introduces verse 11 and

also concludes verse 12.70

In sum, verses 11 and 12 state Paul’s directive and prohibition. These verses are

closely tied structurally with the phrase ejn hJsuciva, thus providing the manner in which

women are to both learn and not teach or have authority over a man. Women are to

comply with Paul’s commands in quietness that is with a respectful demeanor.

Paul’s Rationale: 2:13-14

The use of gavr in verse 13 initiates the second exegetical difference between

egalitarians and complementarians. How is one to take this conjunction, as

illustrative/explanatory or causal? The most frequent use of gavr is to express cause or

reason, especially in the Pastoral Epistles.71 Paul therefore is continuing his discussion by

giving two reasons why he instructed women in the worship assembly to learn in a quiet

submissive spirit and not to teach or have authority over a man.

By referring to the account in Genesis 2, Paul is clearly indicating that man was

formed first. His emphasis is on chronological priority.72 Thus, Paul uses this order to

70 Some propose the structure of verses 11 and 12 to be chiastic. Due to the varied nature of these

proposals, these verses are probably not chiastic; rather they are probably more likely parallel. To view chiastic structures see Moo, “1 Timothy 2:11-15,” 64; Ronald Y. K. Fung, “Ministry in the New Testament,” in The Church in the Bible and the World, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 336.

71 Schreiner states, “When Paul gives a command elsewhere in the Pastoral Epistles, the gavr that

follows almost invariably states the reason for the command (1 Tim. 4:7-8, 16; 5:4, 11, 15, 18; 2 Tim. 1:6-7; 2:7, 16; 3:5-6; 4:3, 5-6, 9-10, 11, 15; Titus 3:1-3, 9, 12)” (“An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15,” 135). See also the extensive defense of Mounce for this view (Pastoral Epistles, 131-35).

Moo offers a detailed summary of information from the grammars that also consider the use of gavr

as primarily causal (“1 Timothy 2:11-15: A Rejoinder,” Trinity Journal 2 NS [1981]: 202-03). 72 Knight claims, “prw:toV, used here as a predicate adjective . . . indicates both the absolute

priority of Adam in God’s creation and, most of all, in the contrast here of Adam and Eve (ei\ta Eu{a), his

32provide a rationale for the prohibition that women should not teach or exercise

authority over a man. By so doing, Paul was certainly not indicating that the Genesis

account teaches the ontological superiority of the male over the female.73 But as Ross

notes, “His ruling would stand as authoritative whether he connected it to creation or not;

but he shows how his instruction harmonizes with the design of the Creator in this

world.”74

The egalitarians often propose that women could not teach due to the heresy they

were advancing and the fact that they were uneducated. However, Paul does not speak a

word about these matters, nor does he forbid heretical and uneducated men from

teaching. The reason the text actually gives is the created order, not the fact that women

were uneducated. If Paul prohibits women from teaching because they were spreading

heresy and were uneducated, then one would expect him to also give this same

prohibition to the men, for they too were spreading heresy (i.e. 1 Tim 1:20; 2 Tim 2:17-

18; 3:5-9). But Paul only prohibits women. Therefore, the “appeal to creation shows that

priority to her” (The Pastoral Epistles, 143). Bowman suggests, “In typical rabbinic fashion, Paul was making an analogical application based on the Genesis text. He was stating that according to the Genesis 2 account, Adam was first created; and the implication is that Adam’s chronological primacy in creation carried with it some degree of authority” (“Women in Ministry,” 204-05).

See also Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr., (“Male-Female Equality and Male Headship: Genesis 1-3,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem [Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991], 99-105). His extensive essay explains that God both created male and female equally in his image and made the male the head and the female the helper.

73 To this claim Schreiner writes, “It is customary nowadays for evangelical scholars to claim that

a distinction between roles of men and women cannot be justified from Genesis. But many remain unpersuaded by their exegesis because it seems quite apparent both from 1 Timothy 2:13 and 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 that Paul interpreted Genesis 2 to posit legitimate role differences between men and women. A difference in role or function does not imply that women are inferior to men” (“An Interpretation,” 135).

74 Allen P. Ross, “The Participation of Women in Ministry and Service,” Exegesis and Exposition

4 (1989): 77.

33the Pauline proscription here is not just part of societal norms but is rooted in the

created order.”75

Verse 14 provides the second reason why Paul instructed women in the worship

assembly to learn with a quiet submissive spirit and not to teach or have authority over a

man. Paul uses the Genesis 3 account of the fall of mankind. His emphasis is on Eve’s

deception. Paul is in no way suggesting that women are more easily deceived or that

women cannot teach because they are less intelligent.76 Paul is simply restating the

Genesis 3 account of the fall.

The woman was deceived and Adam was not. This statement is not claiming that

Adam was sinless, for Paul lays the transmission of sin at his feet (cf. Rom 5:12-21). The

text is specific to point out Eve’s deception and then finally the result of Eve’s deception,

which is that she became a transgressor. As a result of Eve’s deception, a reversal of roles

took place. The Genesis temptation illustrates what happens when male leadership is

abrogated. Thus, Paul is reminding believers what happens when God’s ordained pattern

is undermined.

In sum, verses 13 and 14 state Paul’s reason for his prohibition.77 These verses

use the creation and fall accounts to state why women are forbidden to teach and have

75 Schreiner, “An Interpretation,” 138. 76 Moo agrees, “It should be noted that, in attributing blame to the woman here, Paul in no way

seeks to exonerate man and obviate his responsibility for sin: he concentrates upon the woman because it is her role which is being discussed” (“1 Timothy 2:11-15,” 70).

77 Susan Foh states, “The reasons are (1) the man was created first and (2) the man was not

deceived but the woman was. Whether or not these reasons make sense to us or meet our standards of justice is immaterial. They are God’s reasons, and we either submit ourselves to him or not” (“A Male Leadership View,” 91).

34authority over a man. Genesis 2 teaches God’s created order, man first and woman

second. Paul’s point here was that Adam’s status carried with it the role of leader, thus

the woman was not to lead the man. Genesis 3 teaches the fall of mankind and what

happens when God’s created order is undermined; the transgression of sin is likely.

Therefore, Paul makes it clear why women are to not teach or have authority over a man.

Women Being Saved through Childbirth: 2:15

At first glance, this verse does not seem to fit Paul’s argument. Moo disagrees. He

writes, “Verse 15 as a specification of the role through which women experience

salvation admirably suits the context of vv 9-14, where the issue is obviously the proper

sphere of women’s activities.”78 But how is one to interpret this verse? There are several

options.79 The option that best fits the context is that women will be saved through

faithfulness to their proper role, rather than through an active teaching and ruling role.80

Verse 15 is a qualification to verse 14. Even though Eve’s sin had consequences,

they had been dealt with. Women can be saved. The reference is to Christian women

everywhere, for childbearing is not limited to a particular culture. The women are saved

by adhering to their God ordained role. Women cannot be saved if they simply bear

78 Ibid, 71-72. 79 Ibid, see her article for an extensive discussion regarding the interpretive options, 70-71. 80 Ibid, 71-72; Bowman, “Women in Ministry,” 207-12; Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 144-49;

Schreiner, “An Interpretation,” 146-52. For an extensive exegetical study of 2:15 see Stanley E. Porter, “What Does It Mean To Be Saved By Childbirth: 1 Timothy 2.15?” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 49 (1993): 83-102.

35children; this is not Paul’s purpose.81 He is stating that they must persevere in faith,

love, and holiness. This adherence to virtues is not salvation by works. These godly

virtues are evidence that one has been saved.

In sum, verse 15 qualifies Paul’s statements in verse 14. Women, when adhering

to their proper God-given role, that of childbearing, and assuming the characteristics of

faith, love, and good works, will be saved through childbearing. Paul “stresses the

necessity of her consistently living a life characterized by holiness and obedience, one

worthy of future rewards.”82

The complementarian view supports the context of 1 Timothy, namely, a society

much like today with false teachings and a confusion of leadership roles. Their exegesis

indeed supports their contextual findings. Paul’s prohibition is universal and the

prohibition’s rationale is causal. Paul’s prohibition is universal. It forbids those women

from teaching who were a disruption to the worship assembly by not possessing a proper

submissive and respectful demeanor as well as those who were not assuming their God-

81 Schreiner clarifies, “Salvation is not evidenced by childbirth alone. But the genuineness of

salvation is indicated by a woman living a godly life and conforming to her God-ordained role. These good works are one indication that one belongs to the redeemed community” (“An Interpretation,” 153).

82 Bowman, “Women in Ministry,” 211.

36given roles. His rationale is causal. Paul’s use of Genesis 2 and 3 states why women

were forbidden to teach and have authority over a man, namely, because of God’s created

order and Eve’s deception. Therefore, based on Paul’s clear contextual argument,

including the appeal to the creation account, his prohibition forbids women from teaching

and possessing authority over a man.

Theology

The purpose here is not to summarize texts used in order to support the

complementarian view, nor is it to refute the texts used by the egalitarians. Rather, the

purpose is to demonstrate the theological fallacy of the egalitarian position. The theology

of the complementarian view is quite different from the egalitarians. It is interesting that

this section proves to be different. It is different for two reasons. (1) The

complementarian view assumes a literal, grammatical, historical method of interpretation,

and (2) the analogy of faith principle, though important, is not necessary when

interpreting 1 Timothy 2:8-15.

First, this essay uses the method of interpretation most fundamental to

ascertaining the authorial intention of the author, the literal, grammatical, and historical

method of interpretation. The author of this essay is not suggesting the egalitarian

position foregoes this method; however, their reconstruction of a false historical context

and their use of contemporary culture to obtain a meaning that corresponds to today’s

church leaves their interpretations wanting. This essay demonstrates that the

implementation of a proper method of interpretation does not require one to find an

application of a contemporary setting within the historical context (e.g. Ephesus as a

37feminist society). Let the text speak for itself. Although God’s Word is written in a

first century context, it is still relevant for today.

Second, the egalitarians insist on using supporting texts (analogy of faith) to

prove that Paul is not forbidding women from positions of leadership. The

complementarian view also does not forbid women from ministry. However, the

fundamental difference is the egalitarians’ interpretation of supporting texts. Their

conclusions are not supported by the context in which one finds them (e.g. their

interpretation of Gal 3:28, see above). It is this collection of evidence from supporting

texts in order to validate a proposed interpretation of a text that is methodologically

flawed. The analogy of faith principle is important. It is however, not to assume a

position of priority over the literal, grammatical, and historical method of interpretation.

In sum, the complementarian view of Paul’s prohibition is accurate. It uses the

literal, grammatical, and historical method of interpretation to properly ascertain Paul’s

intent to Timothy and its significance for today. The complementarian view is guided by

exegesis rather than influenced by theological presuppositions and cultural biases.

SECTION FIVE: PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The role of women in church is a hotly debated topic. The exegetical analysis of 1

Timothy 2:8-15 seems to only provide more confusion. While the debate is typically over

the meaning of this and other passages that appear to either support or forbid women’s

leadership positions, the application of these passages is at an impasse. Two questions

result from this discussion. (1) What effect does either view have on the church today?

(2) What effect does either view have on the discipline of hermeneutics?

38Effect on Church

Both views represented in this essay offer positive and negative effects on

churches today. Egalitarian interpretations of Scripture offer potential pitfalls. These

include women ordained as pastors when the Bible clearly forbids it (cf. 1 Tim 3), an

improper view regarding men’s and women’s roles in the home when the Bible clearly

speaks to it (cf. Eph 5), and the equality of men’s and women’s roles in any area of

society when the Bible clearly delineates God’s created order (cf. Gen 1-2). Although

these potential dangers exist, there are positive effects. Egalitarians can potentially help

hard patriarchalists see that women can hold positions of ministry (e.g. ladies teaching

other ladies, Bible study and discipleship) that were not otherwise available. They can

also potentially provide ladies with hope that they too can learn God’s Word and begin

ministering in their local churches.

The complementarians also offer potential pitfalls. These include extreme

traditionalists assuming interpretations of Scripture that are not really valid, thus,

forbidding women from any ministry opportunity, misunderstanding Scripture’s contexts

by taking certain passages absolutely, thus, forbidding women to speak at all, and men

taking God’s created order to the extreme and forbidding women to go outside the home.

Although these dangers seem a bit exaggerated, they unfortunately exist today. The

positive effects include women ministering in local churches within their God-given roles

(cf. Titus 3), and men and women as leaders and helpmeets respectively honoring God

with godly homes and marriages (Gen 1-2).

39Though the listing of these effects is short and limited, the point of them is to

demonstrate that today’s churches and homes can both benefit and suffer greatly.

Therefore, a proper interpretation of God’s Word is paramount. This leads to the

hermeneutical question posed above.

Effect on Hermeneutics

Egalitarians employ a cultural hermeneutic. Although those who hold this

position would adamantly deny this, this essay illustrates differently. Egalitarians possess

two hermeneutical fallacies. They are: (1) a use of contemporary culture to exegete texts,

and potentially, as a result (2) a reconstruction of false historical contexts of passages.

First, Schreiner correctly notes, “The implicit assumption has been and continues

to be that changes in society require parallel changes in the church. Nowhere has this

been truer than in the area of biblical teaching on sex and gender roles.”83 The pressure of

feminism pushed into the churches by society causes scholars to abandon biblical

accuracy in favor of the culture. Webb, an egalitarian, proposes, “As part of our

interpretive task, then, we must distinguish between kingdom values and cultural values

within the biblical text. With every change in our culture we have to reevaluate our

interpretation of Scripture to determine what our perspective should be.”84 The problem

with this approach is that the egalitarian is allowing his understanding of cultural change

83 Schreiner, “An Interpretation,” 164. F. F. Bruce could not be closer to the truth. He writes, “We

too are culturally conditioned; only we do not notice it. The women’s liberation movement has conditioned not only our practices but our very vocabulary” (“Women in the Church: A Biblical Survey,” in A Mind for What Matters [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990], 266).

84 Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals, 23.

40to dictate his interpretation of Scripture. One must allow Scripture to dictate cultural

needs, not vice versa.

Second, egalitarians are reconstructing the contextual situations of passages in

order to assume an application relevant today. Schreiner again notes that the application

of the text “in the modern situation within the cognitive framework of modern thought

instead of seeking from the text the means to construct a cognitive framework that might

well clash with presumed modern certainties”85 is occurring more frequently than not.

Therefore the modern scholar believes not what the text ought to be taken to mean, but

rather the interpreter’s own prior certainties decide what the text must mean. This is

unfortunate, for it places the authority of Scripture it in the hands of the interpreter rather

than in the text. The egalitarians are therefore implementing a culture-based hermeneutic

instead of a biblical-based hermeneutic.

On the other hand, complementarians employ a biblical hermeneutic. The

complementarian view effects hermeneutics is a positive fashion. This view upholds the

inspiration, sufficiency, clarity, and authority of Scripture by understanding its superior

teaching for the believer. It also implements a proper hermeneutic, the literal,

grammatical, and historical method of interpretation.

85 Schreiner, “An Interpetation,” 172.

41WORKS CITED

Baugh, S. M. “A Foreign World: Ephesus in the First Century.” In Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, ed. Andreas Köstenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin, 13-52. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.

Beck, James R. and Craig L. Blomberg, ed. Two Views on Women in Ministry. Grand

Rapids: Zondervan, 2001. Belleville, Linda. “Teaching and Usurping Authority: 1 Timothy 2:11-15.” In

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, ed. Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, 205-23. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

_______. “Women in Ministry.” In Two Views on Women in Ministry, ed. James R. Beck

and Craig L. Blomberg, 77-154. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001. Bowman, Ann. “Women in Ministry: An Exegetical Study of 1 Timothy 2:11-15.”

Bibliotheca Sacra 149 (April-June): 193-213. Carson, D. A., Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, ed. An Introduction to the New

Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. Carson, D. A. Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996. Christians for Biblical Equality. “CBE.” 7 Aug 2005.

http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/index.shtml

Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. “CBMW.” 7 Aug 2005. http://www.cbmw.org/about/greeting.php

Danker, Frederick William. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature 3rd ed. based on the sixth edition of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch Deutsches Wörterbuch. Chicago: Moody Press, 2000.

Ellis, Earle. “Pastoral Letters.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F.

Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid, 661-65. Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Fee, Gordon D. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 3rd ed. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 2003.

42_______. “Issues in Evangelical Hermeneutics, Part III: The Great Watershed-

Intentionality and Particularity/Eternality: 1 Timothy 2:8-15 as a Test Case.” Crux 26 no. 4. (Dec 1990): 31-37.

_______. “Male and Female in the New Creation: Galations 3:26-29.” In Discovering

Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, ed. Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, 172-85. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

_______. 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988. Foh, Susan. “A Male Leadership View: The Head of the Woman is the Man.” In Women

in Ministry: Four Views, ed. Bonnidell Clouse and Robert G. Clouse, 69-123. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1989.

France, R. T. Women in the Ministry: A Test—Case for Biblical Hermeneutics. Carlisle,

UK: Paternoster Press, 1995. Fung, Ronald Y. K. “Ministry in the New Testament.” In The Church in the Bible and the

World, ed. D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987. Hess, Richard S. “Equality With and Without Innocence: Genesis 1-3.” In Discovering

Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, ed. Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, 79-95. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

Johnson, Elliott E. Expository Hermeneutics: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

1990. Keener, Craig S. “Interpreting 1 Timothy 2:8-15.” Priscilla Papers 12.3 (1998): 11-13. _______. Paul, Women and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of

Paul. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992. _______. “Women in Ministry.” In Two Views on Women in Ministry, ed. James R. Beck

and Craig L. Blomberg, 27-73. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001. Knight, George W. “The Scriptures Were Written for Our Instruction.” Journal of

Evangelical Theological Society 39 (March 1996): 3-13. _______. The Pastoral Epistles. The New International Greek Testament Commentary.

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. Köstenberger, Andreas. “Gender Passages in the NT: Hermeneutical Fallacies Critiqued.”

Westminster Theological Journal 56 (1994).

43Kroeger, Richard Clark. And Catherine Clark Kroeger. I Suffer Not a Woman:

Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.

Lea, Thomas D. and Hayne P. Griffin Jr. 1, 2 Timothy and Titus. The New American

Commentary, vol. 34. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992. Liefeld, Walter L. “A Plural Ministry View: Your Sons and Daughters Shall Prophesy.”

In Women in Ministry: Four Views, ed. Bonnidell Clouse and Robert G. Clouse, 127-69. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1989.

_______. 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 1999. MacArthur, John. 1 Timothy. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Chicago:

Moody Press, 1995. Moo, Douglas J. “1 Timothy 2: 11-15: Meaning and Significance.” Trinity Journal 1

(1980): 62-83. _______. “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?” In

Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed John Piper and Wayne Grudem, 179-93. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991.

Motyer, Steve. “Expounding 1 Timothy 2:8-15.” Vox Evangelica 24 (1994): 91-102. Mounce, William D. Pastoral Epistles. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 46. Nashville:

Thomas Nelson, 2000. Ortlund, Raymond C. “Male-Female Equality and Male Headship: Genesis 1-3.” In

Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed John Piper and Wayne Grudem, 95-112. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991.

Padgett, Alan. “Wealthy Women at Ephesus: 1 Timothy 2:8-15 in Social Context.”

Interpretation 40 no. 1. (Jan 1987): 19-31. Pierce, Ronald W. and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, ed. Discovering Biblical Equality:

Complementarity without Hierarchy. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

Piper, John and Wayne Grudem, ed. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A

Response to Evangelical Feminism. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991.

44Polhill, John B. Paul and His Letters. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1999. Porter, Stanley E. “What Does It Mean To Be Saved By Childbirth: 1 Timothy 2.15?”

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 49 (1993): 83-102. Rogers, Cleon L. Jr. and Cleon L. Rogers III. The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to

the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998. Ross, Allen P. “The Participation of Women in Ministry and Service.” Exegesis and

Exposition 4 (1989): 63-85. Scholer, David M. “1 Timothy 2:9-15 and the Place of Women in the Church’s

Ministry.” In Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen, 193-224. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986.

Schreiner, Thomas R. “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15: A Dialogue with

Scholarship.” In Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, ed. Andreas Köstenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin, 105-54. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.

_______. “Interpreting the Pauline Epistles.” In Interpreting the New Testament: Essays

on Methods and Issues, ed. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery, 412-32. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2001.

_______. Interpreting the Pauline Epistles. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990. Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Is There A Meaning in This Text? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Webb, William J. Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of

Cultural Analysis. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001.