What does the Bible Really Say About Women in Church Leadership?

This research paper satisfied my requirements for obtaining my MS degree in Theology. It is long and more academic, but if you have the stomach for it and like to get down and dirty in the details, enjoy the read!

1 Timothy 2:11-15 Thesis Statement

This paper will show that Paul’s exhortation in his letter to Timothy (1 Tim. 2:11-15) was intended to address a specific group of women within a particular context in Ephesus’ history. While traditionalists propose a transcultural mandate, a contextual interpretation, consistent with Paul’s own gospel theology, centering on freedom and liberty, will be given. The impact of the highly patriarchal culture in which Paul lived no doubt influenced the early reading and understanding of this passage and perpetuated a misinterpretation and misapplication of what Paul intended for women within a church context. A survey of Paul’s inclusion of women leaders and teachers in the early church supports the fresh and contextual exegesis of this passage. A brief review of the Greco-Roman and Judaic cultural influences will be discussed to illustrate the negative biases of women in contradistinction with Paul’s revolutionary stance on gender equality.

Passage to be examined: 11

“Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control” (1 Tim. 2:11-15).

Introduction

Did Paul hold patriarchal views that disparaged women as some have suggested? Is characterizing him as biased toward women a fair depiction? Scholar Herbert J. Muller in his writing on Freedom in the Ancient World, denounced Paul for depreciating women, “Although they (women) had fared well with Jesus, appearing as central figures in many of the gentlest parables and episodes of the Gospels, their degradation began with St. Paul.”[1] After all, didn’t Paul forbid women to speak in church? Didn’t he command husbands to rule over their wives and wives to blindly obey? Didn’t he purport that because Adam was created first Eve was positionally inferior, setting the template for the traditional hierarchal relationship between men and women? While a resounding yes might conveniently support the narrative, as one looks closer at Paul’s theological views on freedom and liberty balanced with his reverence for women ministry leaders and within the very oppressive, patriarchal culture, we see a very different, dare I say, radically supportive champion of women! How would Paul become known in the minds of many as the one responsible for hindering women from operating in their God-given gifts in church leadership? That those interpreting Paul’s writings were so entrenched in Greek philosophy that the only lens from which to view them was patriarchal. In a sense, “they read Paul’s words through the eyes of Aristotle, from a perspective that was Greek rather than Jewish and pagan rather than Christian.”[2]

The Hellenistic Influences on Paul’s worldview

Athens, the capital of Greece, named after the goddess of wisdom, ironically is the source of the Western world’s formalized conviction that women are inferior to men. But it was Socrates (470-399 BC) who immortalized the Athenian disdain toward women. Often referring to women as “the weaker sex,” he argued that being born a woman is a divine punishment, since a woman is halfway between a man and an animal.[3] Although he believed in shared responsibilities of citizenship for men and women, Greek wives led a completely secluded life. They took no part in public affairs, were excluded from the marketplace, never appeared at social gatherings and rarely participated in recreational activities. The few Athenian women who were educated and could discuss current affairs were, for generally among the courtesans, upper class prostitutes, hetairai. The ideal Athenian woman, according to Xenophon, a disciple of Socrates, was one who “might see as little as possible, hear as little as possible, and ask as little as possible.”[4] Even conversation between husband and wife was neither valued nor expected. “Is there anyone to whom you entrust more serious matters than to your wife,” Socrates asked Athenian men, “and is there anyone to whom you talk less?”[5]

The teachings of Socrates influenced his star pupil, Plato (427-347) and his disciple Aristotle (384-322). Aristotle known for his “king bee” theory, assumed that the leader of a swarm must be a male, since the male by nature is more fit to command than the female. He declared, “The courage of a man is shown in commanding, of a woman in obeying.”[6] Aristotle no doubt laid a lasting foundation promoting the notion that females are inferior to males. Making matters worse, Stoic philosophers, such as Zeno, built on Aristotle’s position contending that women are a distraction and temptation to men, and therefore should be avoided, should be commanded by men and used for the pleasure of men.

Centuries later, church leaders who themselves were a product of Greek culture and education interpreted Paul’s writings from the perspective of Aristotelian philosophy, assuming that when Paul wrote of the husband being head of the wife, he was simply restating Aristotle’s hierarchal edict. However, careful contextualization of what Paul wrote demonstrates that he was actually challenging Aristotle’s idea instead of supporting it.

Not all ancient societies shared the Athenian deprecation of women. Women in Sparta enjoyed considerable freedom, both politically and economically. In fact, at one time in Spartan history, the women owned two-thirds of the land. Nevertheless, no philosopher challenged the edict for Spartan women promoted by Socrates, Aristotle or Zeno. However, Herodotus, a contemporary of Socrates, found with astonishment that the societal structure in Egypt was prominently egalitarian. Women shared legal rights with men in the same social class, retained those rights in marriage, could inherit, buy, or sell property and bequeath property. She could witness legal documents, execute her own legal documents, buy, sell or free slaves and adopt children. [7] Unlike the pitiable plight of the Greek woman, who was cloistered at home while the men traipsed society’s markets, theaters and law-courts, the Egyptian couple experienced every aspect of life together, was respected and shared equal citizenship in their secular and religious communities. While the state of egalitarianism persisted in Egypt for some time, the spread of Hellenization throughout the Greco-Roman world continued to oppress women, however, the farther west one traveled from Greece the more freedom women had.

Such was the case in Paul’s world where he began to spread the gospel. While women living in Rome, in contrast to them in Greece, did enjoy more freedom such as pursing academic studies, worshiping the goddess Isis in the Temple with other women, and accompanying their husbands on social outings however, females were still less valued than males. The Greek view and Stoic philosophy, that women were objects of pleasure or sources of temptation permeated the Roman culture, since Greek educators tutored many of the Roman boys. Furthermore, Plutarch, a notable philosopher and biographer who lived a generation after Paul, (46-120 AD) had no intention of women pursuing new goals, for he contends, “a woman’s two great duties are to keep at home and be silent.”[8]

Yet in Paul’s day, women were gaining more influence and greater equality in the philosophical, political, financial, literary and religious arenas. The Isis cult taught, “Thou [Isis] gavest to women the same power as to men.”[9] Women of status could study, organize meetings, and participate in religious ceremonies. In fact, first-century AD Roman law permitted women to hold political and religious offices, own and dispose of property, make a will, give testimony, and terminate a marriage. However, most women lacked formal education, and most therefore were viewed with widespread disdain.

Judaic influences on those interpreting the Epistles

While Paul’s Gentile converts to Christianity were entrenched in Greek philosophy his Jewish converts were heirs to the Old Testament. The unwavering determination of biblical women such as Rahab, Ruth, Tamar, Deborah, and Jael hardly exude meekness and passivity. The Proverbs 31 woman is depicted as not only a homemaker, but also a strong woman who, oversees vineyard production, runs a linen garment enterprise, and wins the admiration of her family. Despite the examples of capable and strong-willed women in the Old Testament, only few rabbis of Judaism promoted sexual equality in their teachings and many devalued women, particularly the Hellenized Jews.

While the portrayal of women generally relied on rabbinic sources, such diverse literary sources as the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, the works of Philo and Josephus and the Qumran scrolls were also revealing. Recovery and analysis of this new data, suggest that Jewish women are very much in line with the patriarchal patterns of contemporaneous eastern Mediterranean cultures, portraying them as repressed, denigrated and relegated to inferior status and exclusively domestic roles in a male dominated world.[10] Nevertheless, some supporting nontraditional, positive roles for women have been identified.

Recent findings, such as non-literary inscriptions on epigraphical and papyrological records, suggest that Jewish women held prominent roles in ancient synagogues, including teaching, collecting the half-shekel tax, and serving as patrons of building activities, arranging the services, fulfilling certain liturgical responsibilities, and perhaps dealing with outsiders.[11] Still, other inscriptions propose women impacted the larger social and economic arenas as well, such as possessing financial independence, and social and legal authority in both Jewish and non-Jewish circles. The wealth and independence Jewish women gained throughout the Mediterranean world were evidenced by the generous benefactions of women to synagogues.[12] Significant instances of active and public involvement of Jewish women in social, economic, political, and religious life are known. Nonetheless, while patriarchal patterns predominated among the Jews, not all Jewish women were as oppressed as some might suggest.

Some of the rabbinic literature has had positive leanings supporting women at times.[13] Jewish women who fulfilled their domestic obligations were held in high esteem.[14] Moreover, measures were enacted to protect the dignity and basic rights of women.[15] Nonetheless, the reverence for women predicated upon their submissiveness and their fulfillment of domestic obligations, and women were repeatedly characterized as “lazy, frivolous, excessively talkative, nosy greedy, temperamental, involved in witchcraft, and more prone than males to immorality.”[16] These negative characterizations were perpetuated in the apocryphal Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach, which values a man’s wickedness over a woman’s goodness (42:14).[17] The Testament of Job, which dates to the first century AD, suggests that women—precisely because they are women—are so spiritually imperceptive that they become easy prey for Satan and lead men astray as well.[18] Furthermore, ben Sirach considers all females lustful and sexually indiscriminate (26:10-12), daughters even more than wives, which represent a threat to a man’s ability to control his household and maintain his honor. In the final discourse, he ends by saying, “Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good” (42:14).[19]

Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenized Jew who sought to harmonize Jewish and Greek philosophy, emphasized the characteristics of the soul forming his view on female inferiority. Dissatisfied with the idea in Genesis 2 that a man shall “cleave unto his wife,” he reasoned: that the soul’s rational quality (mind or intellect) is masculine and therefore superior, while its irrational quality is feminine, thus inferior.[20] He used the Aristotelian philosophy, to inform his understanding that a husband is to his wife as one’s soul is to one’s body. It is clear that he imposed Greek disdain for women onto his interpretation of Scripture, just as later Christian scholars were to do in their interpretations of Paul’s writings. Philo, like others, cites woman’s intellectual inferiority and vulnerability to sin.[21] He argues that women are “best suited for the indoor life and should never stray from the house…A woman, then, should not be a busybody, meddling with matters outside her household concerns, but should seek a life of seclusion”[22] Furthermore, Philo defended the Essene ideal of celibacy, supporting the Stoic view that “a wife is a selfish creature…adept at beguiling the morals of her husband.”[23]

Although Josephus, a Jewish historian who also studied both Greek and Hebrew expresses high admiration for the matriarchs of Israel and for certain prominent women in his own time, however, wrote how the Jewish Law declared “The woman, say the Law, is in all things inferior to the man. Let her accordingly be submissive, nor for her humiliation but that she may be directed; for the authority has been given by God to the manuscript”[24] Not all Jewish scholars subscribed to the Hellenistic view of women. One notable exception was Gamaliel, the teacher who taught Paul.

Paul’s Worldview on Gender Equality

Acts 22:3 reports that Paul had the highest credentials in Pharisaic rabbinic education, “brought up in Jerusalem, at the feet of Gamaliel, I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.” Paul’s renowned teacher is described in Acts 5:34 as “a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people”, which earned him the title “Rabban,” given only to seven Jewish doctors.[25] Gamaliel, emphasizes God’s sovereignty, the kingdom of heaven, and claims he “saw directly by the holy spirit.”[26] These are all key themes in Paul’s letters. Both Gamaliel and Paul also exemplify care for particular slaves and the surviving sayings of the great rabbi indicate a favorable attitude toward women in sharp contrast to the rabbinic tradition as a whole. All but two of the six sayings of Rabban Gamaleil in the Mishnah explicitly treat women and men equally or promote the welfare of women.[27] It is believed that Gamaliel’s affirmations of women paved the way for Paul’s positive assessment of women, slaves, and Gentiles (Gal 3:28). In rejecting legalistic Pharisaism and championing freedom and equality, Paul extends the trajectory of his teaching, particularly towards women.

Many commentators justify Paul’s view of women as simply reflective of first century Judaism, pointing to his remarks in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 supporting the rabbinic tradition which imposed silence on the women in the synagogue as a sign of her subjection. Jewett argues that Paul’s Jewish perspective was incompatible with his Christian view of equality between men and women, and that “Paul himself sensed that his view of the man/woman relationship, inherited from Judaism, was not altogether congruous with the gospel he preached.”[28] However, if Paul himself taught male-female equality in Christ, foundational in his theology, it is highly unlikely that he promoted the common Jewish view. Undoubtedly, the positive and impressionable influence of Gamaliel and Paul’s gospel-centered theology influenced his views on women’s roles in society, ministry and family.

Paul’s Theology

It is a good hermeneutical practice to allow Paul’s overall theology to guide and inform the reader when exegeting any passage. A brief review of Paul’s theology relative to gender issues is germane to understanding the interpretation of the passage in view. Good hermeneutical logic suggests interpretation of any verse should never be done in isolation, but in light of the whole of Scripture.

First, Paul writes that all believers are created in God’s image. Their new self in Christ is “being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator” (Col 3:10; 2Cor 3:18). It is clear that Paul argues for the equal standing of man and woman in Christ, since in 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 argues that from the creation each has its source in the other. Colossians 2:10-11 confirms that both male and female have the fullness of the Godhead in Christ and are created in God’s image. At the heart of Paul’s theology is the unity of redeemed humanity “in Christ.” There is no distinction between male and female, “…Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Rom 10:12-13). Furthermore, it makes no difference whether someone is male or female; all are one in Christ (Gal 3: 28).

Paul never distinguishes the freedom for men and women. Shortly after this affirmation that there is neither “male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3: 28), he writes, “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery” (5: 1). This is addressed to all the congregations in Galatia and cannot be restricted to men alone. For Paul, status is repugnant, whether determined by race, nationality, economics or gender. Further, Paul opposed any type of division in the body; stratification of status is antithetical to the oneness in Christ. Ephesians 4:12 encourages all members, men and women to minister and build the body of Christ. Paul points out that the order of church worship and the structure of church authority are inextricably tied to the work and gifts of the Holy Spirit. He states, “to each the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good” (1 Cor 12:7), and in 1 Cor 12:11, “the Spirit gives to each one, just as he determines.” Clearly, there is no distinction with regard to gender in how the Holy Spirit disseminates the spiritual gifts. Since Christian leadership is based on love, willingness to serve, and spiritual gifts (1 Cor 1-2), and not on wisdom, strength, influence or one’s gender, it is no surprise when Paul often describes women colleagues who walk in their God given gifts of leadership and authority. Further, Paul affirms the direct access of believers to God in 2 Cor 3:12-18, implying the universal priesthood of believers. Paul’s prayer in Col 3:16 is that all Christians, women as well as men, will have a teaching ministry (1 Cor 14:26), “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom.”

Finally, the theme of mutual submission has received much attention over the years, and permeates much of Paul’s teachings. Statements such as, “Serve one another in love” (Gal 5:13), “Honor one another above yourselves” (Rom 12:10), “Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love” (Eph 4:2) promotes the bidirectional nature of mutual submission between believers. Side by side with Paul’s teaching of mutual submission, he calls wives to submit to their husbands, children to parents, and slaves to masters (Eph 5:22-6:9). With the Greco-Roman “house hold codes” in mind Paul was faced with a dilemma of managing cultural expectations while not jeopardizing or compromising the essence of the gospel.[29] Ephesians 5:21-22 applies Paul’s general command for husbands and wives to submit to one another.

Women in New Testament Leadership

Before we take a closer look at women in New Testament spiritual leadership a brief analysis of Old Testament spiritual leadership is worth noting such as, Miriam (Exod. 15:20; Micah 6:4), Deborah (Judg. 4-5), Huldah (2Kings 22:14-20; 2 Chron. 34:11-33), Noadiah (Neh. 6:140, the wife of Isaiah (Isa. 8:3), and Anna (Luke 2:36). Traditionalists often suggest that a ministry of such power and prominence such as Deborah’s was an exception to the rule of male authority in the Bible.[30] However, exception to rules occurs in the natural and social realms; but do they occur in the realm of God’s moral law? If God called Deborah to her ministry, female leadership cannot be said to violate moral principles ordained by God. God had a purpose in Deborah’s rise to power, which shows that there is nothing inherently unfitting or immoral about a woman occupying a position of civil or spiritual authority. Piper and Grudem believe that Deborah’s leadership actually affirmed “the usual leadership of men” by serving as a rebuke to the men of Israel who should have had the courage to take on the leadership of the nation themselves. They suggest that Deborah’s gifting and calling by God do not necessarily make her an ideal model to follow in every respect.[31]

The new covenant was instituted at the resurrection of Jesus Christ with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. The spiritual gifts and freedom to share in the blessings and responsibilities of the covenant were birthed as well. Whenever the different gifts and ministries are mentioned in the New Testament they are distributed by God’s grace to various people without respect to race, class, or gender as declared in that Galatians 3:26-28. Groothius points out how this contrasts with the Old Covenant where a person’s spiritual and social inheritance depended largely upon that person’s lineage, whether national or familial.[32] Under the Old Testament Law, a woman not only was barred from priestly service, but also had less spiritual authority than her father or husband. She could pray to God directly, and even make vows to God, but her husband or father had the spiritual authority to nullify any vow she made. But in the new covenant, all believers are to be recognized as having full spiritual status without regard to human distinctions and values. Even the women, slaves, and the Gentiles were accountable directly to God for their actions.

There are multiple New Testament women who were respected for their leadership and ministry, and one for her apostleship. Priscilla and Aquila, a married couple, participated in a teaching and pastoral ministry as fellow workers with Paul and as co-leaders of a church in their home (Rom 16:3-5; 1 Cor 16:19). Phoebe was a minister, or deacon (diakonos), of the church at Cenchrea (Rom. 16:1-2). The term (diakonos), used to describe Phoebe’s ministry is also used by Paul to describe the ministries of Apollos, Timothy, Tychicus, Epaphras, and even Paul himself.[33] Furthermore, Haubert suggests that in the case of these men, diakonos refers to ministry in general rather than a specific church office, however when Paul refers to Phoebe’s work as diakonos, it is especially in connection with the church at Cenchrea. While the nature of the office of deacon is never described in full detail in the New Testament, the lack of feminine equivalent makes it likely that there was no distinction between the office of male and female deacons. Phoebe was a deacon, not a deaconess having completely distinct duties.[34] Paul also describes Phoebe as a benefactor or patron (prostatis) of the church, suggesting a position of prominence and authority. When Paul describes the ministry of Euodia and Syntyche in Philippians 4:2-3, he uses similar terms he had applied previously to Timothy and Epaphroditus. For instance, Paul writes that Euodia and Syntyche had contended together with him “in the Gospel”. Earlier in the letter, Paul had described Timothy as someone who had served with him “in the Gospel” (Phil. 2:22). Furthermore, Paul goes on to refer to Euodia and Syntyche as his “co-workers“. Earlier, Paul had referred to Epaphroditus as his “co-worker” (Phil. 2:25). So, according to Paul, the ministries of the women Euodia and Syntyche were in some ways comparable to the ministries of Timothy and Epaphroditus.

Female teachers are referred to in Titus 2:3 as “older women” (presbutis), which would more accurately be rendered “female elders.”[35] These women were teachers specifically of women but not necessarily of women. Additionally, 1Timothy 5:3-16 discusses the role of widows. In verses 3-8 it is clear that Paul makes the distinction that some widows are to be emotionally and financially supported; whereas in verses 9-16 Paul introduces widows providing a service. “No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, and is well known for her good deeds” (1 Tim 5:9-10). These widows were an identifiable group put on a “list” or “register”. In fact Paul lists three qualifications for registration: seniority (over 60 years of age), faithfulness to her husband, and being well known for her good works. These qualifications could be compared to the elder qualifications outlined in 1 Timothy 3:1-7. According to Ignatius and Polycarp by the second and third centuries, they gave themselves to prayer, nursed the sick, cared for the orphans, visited Christians in prison, evangelized pagan women, and taught converts in preparation for their baptism.[36]

Paul praises two apostles in Romans 16:7, a man named Andronicus and a woman named Junia. They both offered doctrinal instruction to Apollos who received their instruction as authoritative (Acts 18:24-26). “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me: they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.” The identification of Junia has been a familiar problem in biblical interpretation. While some studies question the gender of the name, others assert that the correct rendition of the Greek text places her as well known to the apostles rather than prominent among the apostles. Pederson notes that Paige Patterson, the conservative president of Southwestern Baptist Seminary, is an example of those who believe an egalitarian agenda is driving the revival of Junia’s name.[37] This opposing interpretation of this verse rejects Junia’s apostleship, her female gender, or both.

Church fathers and scholars recognized her as an apostle from the 1st through the 12th century. The fourth-century Archbishop of Constantinople, John Chrysostom, praised Junia, ‘”To be an apostle is something great,” he said, “But to be outstanding among the apostles – just think what a wonderful song of praise that is.”’[38] The Orthodox Church has honored her as a saint since the 10th century and most Bible translations and leading scholars, male and female, now recognize her name. Adding weight to Pederson’s arguments are the philological studies that show Junias was never in usage in antiquity, whereas Junia was a well-known woman’s name. So why did Junia become a male? Historian Garry Wills in What Paul Meant says Junia was erased from history because it was unthinkable that a woman could have been an apostle. The very idea “offended the monopoly of church offices and honors” enjoyed by males.[39]

The religious and cultural backdrop for Paul’s Epistles

This section will examine Paul’s Hellenistic and Jewish cultural context and how his theology influences his profound views on women. Since Paul was born in Tarsus of Cilicia, his contact with Hellenistic thought and practice was inevitable. The bulk of his ministry was in the Greek, Gentile-speaking world where the treatment of Hellenistic women varied dramatically from region to region, from Sparta and Rome, where women had political responsibilities, to Athens, where wives of the wealthy were essentially imprisoned.

As Christianity began to spread throughout the Roman Empire, opposition from Roman authorities intensified. Paul himself experienced this in various persecutions and his most recent imprisonment at Rome. While the message of the gospel greatly appealed to the poor, oppressed and marginalized, it also attracted the wealthy and educated, especially in urban areas.[40] Women were especially attracted to the gospel, in part because of its message of freedom and equality in Christ. Based on Jesus’ own message, the early church allowed and encouraged women to learn and to take up positions of leadership.[41]

Nevertheless, while the church was experiencing persecution from without, it was also experiencing tension from within. False teachers were infiltrating Christian communities, which was the impetus and urgency to the opposition to these false teachers found in the Epistles. Fee suggests that First and Second Timothy are not “church manuals” as some have proposed, but an ad hoc response to the false teachers in Ephesus.[42] While the precise nature of the false teaching cannot be conclusively identified, however, it seems to be rooted in a misunderstanding of the Old Testament. Furthermore, some type of misguided asceticism was involved, where “deceitful spirits” forbade marriage and required abstinence from foods (1 Tim 4:1-5). These teachings were gaining a large hearing among the women (2 Tim 3:1-9).

Fee contends that “it seems certain from 1 Timothy 2:9-15, 5:11-15, and 2 Timothy 3:6-7 that these straying elders have had considerable influence among some women, especially some younger widows, who according to 2 Timothy 3:6-7 have opened their homes to these teachings, and according to 1 Timothy 5:13 have themselves become propagators of the new teachings.[43] Particularly the wealthy women and the younger widows, whom the church supported from common funds, may have paid the false teachers to tutor them. The younger widows, freed from their responsibilities of marriage and child-rearing, made their rounds to believers’ households promoting these heretical teachings. As a result of the misconduct of the Ephesian believers, the Christian household churches are in doctrinal disarray. The notion that God and his people are separate from the created order threatens the integrity of Paul’s message of the gospel.

In 1 Timothy 5:13, these women are described as busybodies going from house to house (church house to church house), “talking foolishness and speaking of things they should not.” As a result, some have already “turned away to follow Satan” (5:15). The false teachers were also urging these widows not simply to avoid married life but to abandon the support of their elderly mothers and grandmothers as well. In response, Paul urged women to support their mothers and grandmothers (1 Tim 5:16). One of Paul’s solutions to this situation was for women in the church to conduct themselves modestly and decently, in dress, demeanor, and to conform to the domestic roles that were considered appropriate for women in that culture (1 Tim. 2:9-10).

The Occasion of 1 Timothy

After Paul’s release from prison, he, Timothy, and Titus traveled to Crete to establish churches where they witnessed heretical versions of their teaching take root in some of the Jewish converts. [44] Paul then left with Timothy for Ephesus, where they found “certain people” advocating strange teachings similar to those that Paul and his coworkers encountered in Crete. This heresy influenced Paul to excommunicate two Ephesians, Hymenaeus and Alexander because they had fallen so deeply in error (1 Tim 1:20). Paul left Timothy to oversee the situation and probably wrote 1Timothy in Macedonia around 65-80 AD, where he continued his travels.[45] His primary concern is the pernicious false teaching that infected the Ephesian church.

First Timothy was a personal letter addressing problems known to both the writer and the recipient. The letter begins by outlining its central and overriding concern: the spread of false teaching. Paul’s goal is to help Timothy confront the heresy and correct the misconduct within the church. Fee identifies five aspects of the false teaching: myths and countless genealogies, controversies, causing apostasy, destructive talk, and inappropriate application of the law.[46] Specifically, “meaningless talk” (1:6), “old wives tales” (4:7), and “godless chatter (6:20). While the gist and purpose of the letter is to prohibit the spread of false teachings, and not structured as a manual for church order, since Paul steers his concerns not on the professional qualifications of church leaders but on the personal attributes necessary for leadership in handling those who stumble (3,5:19-20) and those who don’t reflect Christ-like standards (5:21-22). The church is riddled with malicious talk; malevolent suspicions and continued friction (6:4-5) and some have even wandered from the faith (5:15; 6:20-21).

The nature of these teachings can only be inferred from Paul’s objections to them, but based on his concern about such a rising heresy, it seems certain that the statements about Adam and Eve (1 Tim 2:13-15) were designed to reject such false teachings. What was the nature of the heretical teaching that troubled Paul? It was characterized by useless speculations and the desire for controversy (1:4, 6:4; 2 Tim. 2:23), a denigration of marriage and a demand for dietary abstinence (4:3), immoral practices (4:2), great attention given to genealogies and myths (1:4, 4:7), and a denial of the resurrection of the body (2 Tim. 2:18). This list fits one heresy: Gnosticism.[47].

While uncertain which form of Gnosticism was represented at Ephesus, Paul’s awkward discussion about Adam and Eve challenges these myths and clearly sheds light as to why Paul might be referencing the Genesis creation account at all. Consequently, the traditional interpretation of this sequence of creation in 1 Tim 2:13-15 is that women are inferior to men, since Adam was God’s original design while Eve was secondary, and therefore subsequently an afterthought. Since Paul recites the order of creation of the first human couple, it has been assumed that Paul was simply reaffirming this misinterpretation. Within this Gnostic context, however, it seems almost certain that Paul’s intention was not to make any statement regarding superiority or inferiority but to refute the doctrines of certain Gnostic teachings. A great portion of the Gnostic writings added or rewrote the story of Adam and Eve, often teaching that the first man was androgynous until he/she cut in two, with Adam and Eve then becoming separate individuals. [48] In some accounts, Eve was created before Adam or else the spiritual force who awakened Adam resided in the Tree of Life. The physical Eve, listening to the words of the “instructor,” ate of the fruit of the tree and gave the fruit to her husband, and both received knowledge.[49]

The Women in 1 Timothy

How were women specifically involved? Paul gives much attention to women in 1Timothy. He addresses women in worship (1 Tim 2:10-15), qualifications for deacons (1 Tim 3:11),[50] appropriate pastoral behavior toward older and younger women (1 Tim 5:2), support of widows in service of the church (1 Tim 5:9-10), correction of younger widows (1 Tim 5:1-15) and familial responsibilities toward destitute widows (1 Tim 5:3-8, 16). Although Paul notes that widows are going from house to house speaking about things they shouldn’t (1 Tim 5:13), this suggests a deeper problem beyond noisiness or gossiping. He suggests, “some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan” (1 Tim 5:15).

First Timothy’s many statements regarding problems caused by women depict a situation where women had become central to the false teaching that was dividing the church. The evidence for this is so strong that it has led three of the most prominent advocates that 1 Tim 2: 12 forever prohibits women from teaching or having authority over men to acknowledge, respectively: “The false teachers had persuaded many women to follow them in their doctrines (1 Timothy 5: 15; 2 Timothy 3: 6– 7)”;[51] the text “explicitly pictures only women as being influenced by the heresy”; 26 and “it is likely that the prohibition [1Tim 2: 12] is given because some women were teaching men.”[52]

Exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:11-15

“ Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control” (1 Tim 2:11-15).

What did Paul mean when he wrote this to Timothy? It says women are forbidden to teach and have authority over men in the church. She is to remain quiet. The ground for this instruction is the creation account in Genesis 2 that asserts the priority of Adam over Eve in the order of creation. The second reason for the instruction is the deception of Eve according to the account of the Fall in Genesis 3. Can this text be taken at face value as a permanent, transcultural restriction of women’s ministry in light of the biblical accounts of women teaching, public speaking, and exercising authority over both women and men in the early church? Is Paul restricting women from walking in freedom in their gifting as heirs to the new covenant as reflected in his theology? Is Paul using the order of creation and suggesting Eve is more susceptible to deception when this would contradict his very own teaching?

The usual traditionalist approach in response to this pericope is to allow women to teach and have some authority over some men in some sense while restricting their opportunities to some degree. From our many denominations over the centuries, the areas of restrictions for women are varied. This variance might be rooted in the lack of clear direction from this text or any other biblical text as to what exactly, that restriction is, barring cultural stereotypes that perpetuate a timeless mandate. While many other portions of Scripture are understood within its cultural and historical context, this passage continues to assume a universal normative. Because the restriction of women’s ministry depends on interpreting this text as universally binding, traditionalists must demonstrate that there is the only viable interpretation. There are, however, plausible alternative interpretations that do not bar women from using their gifts within a leadership or teaching context and since there is no other text that suggests this limitation, it is critical that fair and balanced hermeneutical methodology is applied.

Paul Invites Women to Learn—A Radical Proposition

The first part of verse 11, “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness” (the literal translation is “subjection,”) is significant since it was at variance with Jewish and Greek customs. As women, they would have been excluded from learning the Scriptures in the synagogues, whether as Jews or as gentile God-fearers[53]and were to be educated only in matters regarding homemaking skills. It was permissible for a man to teach Scripture to both boys and girls[54], but a woman could never teach her own children. However, learning would be in keeping with Paul’s goal for women. Whenever Paul established a church, he insisted that women were to be educated in the faith. Therefore, Paul’s desire that women to be educated in the faith was radical and often difficult to execute. Women were unfamiliar with listening to lectures or studying at all. For many, it would be the first time they would learn within a formalized setting.

Why would Paul state that a woman should learn quietly and submissively? In the face of women dressing indecently (1 Tim 2:9) and their participation, or initiation in false teaching (1 Tim 4:7), if Paul didn’t address the problem, the church might have been inclined to resume the Jewish customs of the synagogue excluding women from their assemblies. Paul’s desire to bring peace, not silence, which is the opposite of discord and disruption[55], is evidenced in, 2:11-12, letting them learn but not assume for themselves the authority to teach a man. In fact, learning “in silence with full submission” describes the attitude, which at that time was considered characteristic of and proper for all wise persons and students of Scripture.[56] Studying the Scriptures, one of the many privileges previously reserved for men, was now open to women as well. For Paul, the importance of women learning is rooted in the gospel, “For this is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1Tim 2: 3–6). To come to the knowledge of the truth, they must be taught. Moo appropriately notes, “almost certainly it [quietness] is necessary because at least some women were not learning ‘in quietness.’ These women had probably picked up the disputatious habits of the false teachers.”[57]

Grammatical structure points to a temporary and current problem

The second part of 1 Tim 2:11, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet,” suggests a temporary and current exhortation rather than a timeless mandate. While Barton suggests the English translation of ἐπιτρέπω in 1 Tim 2: 12, “I do not permit,” generally conveys an ongoing universal prohibition, however, this Greek verb and its grammatical form are better suited for an existing or current prohibition.[58] However, when Paul uses the first person singular, “I” with a present active indicative, in this case, “am not permitting” indicates his own personal advice or position for a situation that is not universal.[59] Moo justifiably states, “Paul’s use of the present indicative in exhortations and commands is also relatively rare. . . Advice for a current situation was being given [to Timothy], and furthermore, the verb ἐπιτρέπω is seldom used in Scripture to identify a universal prohibition.”[60]

Confirming that this instruction is addressing a specific problem and not a universal mandate is evidenced when Paul depicts women as teachers of both men and women. In a letter written about the same time as 1Timothy, Paul commanded Titus to “speak things fitting sound doctrine [διδασκαλίᾳ] . . . . [teaching] older women . . . to be teachers of what is excellent [καλοδιδασκάλους]” (Titus 2: 1– 3). The things that Titus is to teach older men and older women in verses 2– 3 are remarkably similar to the things that the older women are to teach younger women in verses 4– 5. Both are to teach others to be self-controlled (σώφρονας) and loving. Some have suggested that Paul’s prohibition is simply a reminder of what Timothy and the New Testament church already knew to be the case that women should not teach. Keener observes, “what is most significant about the working of the passage…is that Paul does not assume that Timothy already knows this rule…Paul often reminds readers of traditions they should know by saying, ‘You know,’ or ‘Do you not know?’ or ‘According to the traditions which I delivered to you.’”[61] In this case, there are no indications that Paul is merely reminding Timothy of an established rule that Timothy should have already known.

Did Paul Just Confront False Women Teachers?

The other question that can be asked is did Paul specifically restrict teaching by women? Moo states, “If Paul were here concerned with the problem of false teaching per se, surely he would have prohibited all false teachers from addressing the church, not just the women.”[62] However, Barton points out that Paul did do that, as he states in 1:3, “As I urged you when I when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people [τὶς] not to teach false doctrines any longer.”[63] Hymenaeus and Alexander had already rejected the faith (1: 19– 20), and Paul had already turned them over to Satan. The implication is that they were no longer under the discipline of the church nor were they teaching within it.

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet,”

A crucial question, rarely asked, is whether Paul intended the conjunction οὐδέ (no/not) to separate two different prohibitions—(1) to teach and (2) to assume authority over a man— or to merge these into a single prohibition. Surprisingly, the first thorough analysis of the use of οὐδέ in the Pauline corpus was not presented publicly until 1986, arguing that the οὐδέ construction in 1 Tim 2: 12 gives a single prohibition. Barton’s extensive and comprehensive analyses shows that the overwhelming majority of the uses of οὐδέ and of the οὐκ + οὐδέ + ἀλλά syntactical construction in the undisputed letters of Paul combine two elements to express a single idea.[64] It argues that this is the most natural way to interpret 1 Tim 2: 12 within its context. The function of οὐδέ in these cases is not to subordinate one expression to another, but to merge them together to convey a single more specific idea. There is no unambiguous case where Paul joins two conceptually distinct verbs with οὐδέ to convey two separate ideas, so there is no clear support in Paul’s letters for treating 1Tim 2: 12 as two separate prohibitions, of women teaching (or of women teaching men) and of women having authority over men. The conclusion to be reached, therefore, is that this verse does not prohibit women such as Priscilla from teaching men, as long as their authority is not domineering or properly recognized, not self-assumed. It simply prohibits women from either domineering while teaching men or assuming for themselves the authority to teach men. The interpretation of the second part of the text will be addressed in the next section, however, for now, the prohibition is against women teaching men in either a domineering fashion or simply assuming authority in teaching men that were never given.

Furthermore, attempts to reconcile 1Tim 2: 12 with women teaching other women by proposing that οὐδέ (no/not) in 1 Tim 2: 12 separates two conceptually different prohibitions and that the first prohibition is not of women teaching, but rather of women teaching men.[65] This asserts that the final word of the second prohibition, “man,” in isolation from the phrase where it occurs, limits the first prohibition as well. Moo, alleges that 1 Tim 2: 12 expresses two separate prohibitions since “in Greek, objects, and qualifiers of words which occur only with the second in a series must often be taken with the first also (cf. Acts 8: 21).”[66] Payne, however, contends this verse does not transfer only the qualifier but merges the two elements to convey one idea.[67] Acts 8: 21 for example, uses οὐδέ to join synonyms to make one point, not two: “You have no part or [οὐδέ] share in this ministry.” This removes the syntactical justification for requiring that their verbs have the same object. Therefore, this verse prohibits women from assuming for themselves the authority to teach men.

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet,”

Paul’s commands for peaceable and submissive behavior suggest that women were disrupting worship. The men were too. They were praying in an angry and contentious way (I Tim 2:8). Since Paul targets women who teach men (I Tim 2:I2) and uses the example of Adam and Eve as a corrective, it would be a fair assumption that a bit of a battle of the sexes was being waged in the congregation. A probable contributing factor to Paul’s restriction was that most women in Ephesus from either a Jewish or Gentile background would have had little knowledge of the Scriptures and the Christian message. Paul’s most complete description of the false teachers concludes, “They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm” (1: 7). This description fits women in the Ephesian church who, because of inadequate Christian education, were deceived by the false teaching. Particularly significant in this statement is the implication that their error was not in desiring to be teachers of the law, but rather in teaching without adequate knowledge. Until they are properly taught, they should not make blundering attempts at teaching, but rather learn, just as 2: 11– 12 requires.

R. C. and C. C. Kroeger point to the Gnostic and proto-Gnostic heresies teach that Eve preceded Adam, gave him life, and was not deceived but wisely ate the fruit that imparted knowledge.[68] This is in line with Paul’s reference to “falsely called gnosis” in 1 Tim 6: 20 and other parallels between Gnostic teaching and the false teaching described in 1 and 2 Timothy, especially the references to “myths and endless genealogies” (1: 4). It explains why Paul connects false teaching to the creation story.

The statement, “a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man” presents some additional exegetical challenges, least of which the word authentein is not used at all in the New Testament, nor is it used to denote positive or legitimate use of authority. Barton argues that there is not one instance for the use of αὐθεντέω with the meaning “to have authority over” or “to exercise authority” before or near the time of Paul. How did this translation work its way into our current Bible version? Have our English translations overlooked the difficulties due to the inherent hierarchical biases embedded in our culture? While Post-World War II translations routinely render verse 12 as, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have [or exercise] authority over a man” (e.g., RSV, NRSV, NAB, NABr, TEV, NASB/U, JB/ NJB, NKJV, NCV, God’s Word, NLT, Holman Christian Standard, ESV, TNIV,)[69] earlier translations according to Greek lexicographers and grammarians suggest the oldest versions down to the twenty-first century translate authentein as “to dominate” or “usurp authority” rather than “to exercise authority over.”[70] With this new rendering, the verse would read, “I am not allowing a woman to teach in such a way as to domineer over men.”[71]

Furthermore, biblical lexicographers, Louw and Nida point out that if Paul wanted to speak of an ordinary exercise of authority, he could have used several other verbs within the semantic domain of “exercise authority,” since there were twelve entries for “rule,” and forty-seven for “govern.”[72] Although there are no established instances with this meaning until centuries after Paul, the interpretation “to teach and have authority over a man” solves several problems for people who feel that a hierarchy of man over woman is compatible with Paul’s teaching. This interpretation of αὐθεντέω however prohibits the sort of authoritative teaching of a man that Paul approves of for women elsewhere, including Priscilla, along with Aquila, instructing Apollos. It also conflicts with Paul’s theological principles implying the equal standing of men and women in Christ.

Scholer observes that this term usually does carry a negative sense of “domineer” or “usurp authority.”[73] According to this view, Paul who desires for women to “learn quietly,” does not want them to teach disruptively, something he also would have forbidden men to do. Furthermore, it had a variety of meanings in ancient Greek usage, denoting violence.[74] Barton suggests, “to assume authority” or “to dominate” makes a better contrast with “quietness” in 1 Tim 2: 12 than “to exercise authority” or “to have authority.”[75] Moo suggests that the term may mean either “have authority” or usurp authority,” however, “it is difficult to evaluate what nuance readers would have attached to the term because the meaning of the term gradually changed, from associations with murder in classical usage to ‘domineer’ and, by the patristic period, to ‘exercise authority.’[76] While the evidence is not entirely clear, as Scholer observes, this is not Paul’s usual term for exercising authority.[77]

So there is no first-century warrant for translating authentein as “to exercise authority” and for understanding Paul in verse 2:12 to be speaking of the carrying out of one’s official duties. Rather the sense is the Koine “to dominate, to get one’s way.” This is supported by the grammar of the verse. If Paul had a routine exercise of authority in view, he would have put it first, followed by teaching, as a specific example. If Paul had a routine exercise of authority in view, he would have listed first in the word order, (since the grammatical rule is to move from general to specific) [78] followed by authentein as an example. The meaning “to dominate” or “gain the upper hand” fits best since dominate is more specific than exercise authority. It would be expected for the word order to be in reverse of what we have in I Timothy 2:12, that is, “neither to exercise authority [general] nor to teach [particular.]” They do not form a natural progression of related ideas either (“first teach, then dominate”). Instead, he starts with teaching, followed by authentein as a specific example. Given this word order, according to this view, authentein meaning, “to dominate” or “gain the upper hand” provides the best fit in the context.

Moreover, Knight notes the major weakness of the “teach and dominate a man” interpretation since it is not clear what “to teach and dominate a man” would have meant nor is it supported by the appeal of Eve’s deception. ”[79] Dominating teaching could refer to bombastic or threatening teaching or teaching that forces a man to change his belief or behavior. However, Barton suggests if Paul were specifically prohibiting teaching that dominates a man, one would expect his supporting illustration to exemplify dominating teaching.[80] Nothing in Gen 3:6 or its context suggests that the first woman-dominated Adam. Barton contends that Paul is more likely conveying a single idea that merges “to teach” and “to assume authority over a man,” in other words, “I am not permitting a woman to teach and assume authority over a man, namely take for herself authority to teach a man without authorization from the church.”[81]

Werner expounds on this view with his extensively supported and compelling argument that “authentia” does not mean dominate or exercised authority but is authority that is taken upon oneself.”[82] “Self-assumed authority” is based on readily recognized root meanings of the word αὐθεντέω, so Paul’s readers could understand it. Furthermore, this view suggests it fits Paul’s theology best, and unlike “to teach and exercise authority over a man,” it does not contradict Paul’s principles. Therefore, lexically, contextually, and theologically by far the most natural reading of 1 Tim 2: 12’ s prohibition is: “I am not permitting a woman to teach and [in combination with this] to assume authority over a man.”[83] To illustrate, the stranger did not have exousia over another man’s slave. That is why he says he ‘assumed authority,’ admitting that his command was not a command based on pre-existing authority.” Werner states, “The very reason for the injunction was the patrician who exercised authentia did not have exousia over the slave.[84]

In reference to Paul’s admonishment, this excluded women in Ephesus from assuming to themselves authority to teach men in the church. It would not, however, prohibit women with recognized authority from teaching men (e.g., Priscilla). Furthermore, according to this view, Paul is not permitting a woman to assume authority that she had not been properly delegated. According to this view, “Assume authority,” fits naturally with the following reference to Eve’s deception and fall. Eve took it on herself to eat the forbidden fruit and to offer it to Adam. Since she had no authority to eat the fruit; God had forbidden it. The narrative makes it clear that she assumed authority but says nothing about her dominating Adam

The assuming of authority for oneself is directly confronted by 1 Tim 2: 14 and its reference to the fall. The original sin of the woman in the garden was not her teaching with authority but her taking authority unto herself to take the fruit in spite of God’s prohibition. Grasping for authority was also part of the temptation “to be like God” (Gen 3: 5). It is this self-appointed authority that Paul prohibits. It led to the fall in the garden and it threatened the fall of the church in Ephesus. Whether they were teaching with domineering authority or self-appointed authority, why were the Ephesian women doing this? One explanation is that they were influenced by the cult of Artemis, in which the female was exalted and considered superior to the male. It was believed that Artemis and brother Apollo was the child of Zeus and Leto or Latin Latona). 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.[85]

Misinterpretation of the Creation Story that perpetuates the inferior status of women

Before we exegete the balance of this passage, a brief discussion will be given on the misinterpretation of the creation story that has perpetuated the inferior status of women and contributed to the misapplication of this critical pericope.

While the Gnostic ideas of creation were prevalent for Paul, there are also mainstream misinterpretations of the creation story that perpetuated the inferior status of women in the ancient world and even today. What is the root of the misinterpretation? First, some argue since Adam was made before Eve, Adam (male) is superior to Eve (female). However, Bristow suggests that notion, the order of creation taken to its logical conclusion would mean: that cows are superior to man, since cows were created before Adam, and fish superior to cows since they were created first, and so on.[86] Second, the order in which the first couple fell into sin also suggests that if Eve sinned first, women are therefore more susceptible to temptation, thus women constitute a moral threat to men. Furthermore, this supports the interpretation that the serpent waited for Eve to be alone before tempting her, which demonstrates that women are morally more vulnerable and easily led astray than men. However, it seems Adam was just as susceptible possibly even more so, since he showed little resistance when Eve, who posed less of a threat than the serpent, invited him to join her. A third interpretation focuses on the result of sin for the couple, in which she desires him and he rules over her. If this kind of marital relationship while not divinely ordered, is the product of sin and God’s curse, then it is to be avoided than lauded. To prescribe that kind of relationship advocates living under the penalty of sin imposed upon Adam and Eve, and denies the transformation Christ can bring to the marriage relationship. Furthermore, the rabbis teaching the portrayal of Adam’s incompleteness without Eve, and his need for a “helper” in part also contribute to the perpetuated subordination of women. The Hebrew word is ezer, translated either as “partner” or “helper,” however does not connote an inferior status. The same word ezer, not only refers to Eve, but also appears seventeen times in the Old Testament, and each time refers to God as our “helper. ”[87]

In the Life of Adam and Eve, the first century AD interpretative expansion of Genesis 1-4, responsibility for sin in the world is consistently placed on Eve rather than Adam. According to this interpretation, Adam claims that he and the angels prevented Eve from being deceived at first and then in their absence, Satan was able to take advantage of the unguarded female and persuaded her to sin (32-33). Subsequently, Adam says to Eve: “What have you done? You have brought upon us a great wound, transgression, and sin in all our generations” (44:2). [88] In Apoc. Mos. 32:1-2, Eve herself is depicted as acknowledging full responsibility for the human situation. Nine times in her short prayer of confession she admits, “I have sinned,” and her prayer ends with “all sin has come about through me.”[89] It is believed that this portrait of Eve weeping, ignorant, perplexed, vulnerable to sin, and dependent on males for insight is consistent with how women were actually perceived and treated.

What can’t be missed is that while Genesis states that Eve ate the fruit first, Paul in Romans 5 states Adam caused sin to enter the world, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned” (Ro 5:12). .” Although the serpent deceived Eve, this does not imply that she was to blame for original sin nor that only women are susceptible to being deceived. Although Eve was deceived by the serpent, was not Adam deceived by Eve? Furthermore, 2 Corinthians 11:3 clearly warns that both men and women can be deceived by the serpent, “But I fear, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” What is clear and will be fully addressed in the next section, is Paul’s usage of the creation story in 1Timothy has a specific purpose to address a particular problem.

“For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control” (1 Tim 2:13-15).

The traditional argument claims that since the first woman was deceived, this failure has been projected onto all women. Because of their propensity for deception, women are less fit than men to give spiritual instruction and leadership.

Following Paul’s restriction on women teaching his strange citation to the events from the creation narrative in Genesis 2-3 seems somewhat random and confusing. He begins his explanation, “For [γάρ] Adam was formed first, then Eve.” Moo suggests that the use of γάρ in the Pastoral Epistles usually implies a reason when used following a command.[90] What is the command for which Paul gives a reason or explanation? Paul gives one grammatical imperative in verse 11: “Let women learn.” It is modified by “in quietness and all submission.” Then Paul adds, “However, I am not permitting a woman to teach and assume authority over a man, but rather to be in quietness.”

Is what Paul introduces with γάρ the reason for letting them learn, for their being quiet, for their being submissive, for their not teaching, for their not seizing authority over a man, or for a combination of these? Further, how much of what follows the γάρ is the reason or explanation? Is it the sequence in which God formed Adam and then Eve? That Eve was deceived and Adam wasn’t? And/or that Eve became a transgressor? Only by comparing the various parts of Paul’s commands with the content of what he says regarding Adam and Eve can the options be identified and determine what explanation fits best. Barton suggests that Paul does not deduce from this text that women should be subordinate to men or that women, in general, are more prone to deception than men.[91] Furthermore, although Paul refers to Adam being created first (1 Cor 11:18-12), he also affirms in verse 11 the equal standing of woman and man.

Grudem interprets 1Tim 2: 13 as teaching that “women should not teach or have authority over men in the congregation of God’s people. . . . Because God gave Adam a leadership role when He created him first and Eve second . . . Paul . . . prohibits all women from teaching and governing the assembled congregation.”[92] Keener, however, suggests that Paul connects Eve’s creation order[93] to why she was deceived, suggesting she was not present when God gave the commandment, and thus was dependent on Adam for the teaching.[94] Additionally, the Genesis account does not subordinate Eve because she was created second, it makes her an equal part of Adam, her creation necessary for him to be complete. Furthermore, the ancient Middle Eastern mind would have never regarded the practice of primogeniture as relevant to Adam and Eve, for this custom pertained to male siblings, not to husband and wife.[95] Even more pertinent to the discussion, God would have neither.[96]

The problems caused by women in the Ephesian church are reminiscent of Eve in Eden. The false teachers’ lies, like the serpent’s lies, came from Satan. Both were persuasive and turned women from the truth to transgression. In other words, she was inadequately educated—like the women in the Ephesian church. Furthermore. Since Paul in 2 Cor 11:3 uses Eve as an analogy for the gullibility of the whole Corinthian church, the men as well as the women, it can be concluded that he does not simply regard Eve as a standard symbol for women, any more than the consequences of Adam’s fall apply to men in other Pauline passages. No doubt that Eve stands as a type of Ephesian woman who was being deceived by false doctrine. However, Paul does not mean that Adam was not entangled by the same deceitfulness of the devil, but Fee writes, “…it simply means that Adam was not deceived by the snake.”[97]

While many traditionalists argue from verse 14 that women are more susceptible to deception than men, and they therefore should not only teach men but be subordinate to them. However, if all women are by nature easily deceived and therefore not reliable teachers and that men are not so deceived, it would be an argument for prohibiting all women from teaching at all, whether teaching men, women, or children with or without authority in the home, church or society. Moo acknowledges the real difficulties of “viewing verse 14 as a statement about the nature of women . . . “there is nothing in the Genesis accounts or in Scripture elsewhere to suggest that Eve’s deception is representative of women in general. . . this interpretation does not mesh with the context.”[98]

Therefore, the text of 1 Tim 2: 14 emphasizes the deception of Eve, providing a warning to the Eves in Ephesus not to be similarly deceived by the false teachers or to spread their deception. As Satan deceived the woman leading to the fall, so Satan had already deceived some women in the Ephesian church (1 Tim 5: 15).

Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control” (1 Tim 2:15).

Once again, the traditional interpretation of this verse claims that since the first woman was deceived, this failing has been projected onto all women for all time. Because of their propensity for deception, women are less fit than men to give spiritual instruction and leadership. However, an alternative perspective for limiting women’s teaching contrasts Eve‘s deception by the serpent (1 Tim 2: 14) with the women of Ephesus who were deceived by the false teachers. Several new renderings and interpretations have been offered in the last century.

The first is that women are saved because they are part of the plan of salvation as evidenced in the great childbearing of Mary.[99] Mary’s childbearing reversed the effects of Eve’s sin. Keener however suggests that nothing in the context points to Mary in this context. Second, despite Eve’s sin, a woman can be saved if she lives righteously before God. This interpretation suggests that she is saved through fulfilling the roles necessary to be an appropriate witness in her culture.[100] In the third position, Keener suggests that women are being “brought safely through” childbirth. “Saved” means “delivered” or “brought safely through” often in ancient literature means “saved from sin.”[101] Furthermore, Paul might be suggesting that if women are brought safely through childbirth they will be spared from part of the curse, from which believers will not be completely free until they fully share in the resurrection of the second Adam, Christ (1 Cor 15:45-49).

Waters suggests an allegorical interpretation, whereby “she,” “they,” “the woman,” and “Eve” as equivalent references to the women of the Ephesian Church. Therefore, Paul uses the names “Adam” and “Eve” as metaphors respectively for the male teachers and leaders of the Ephesian assembly and its apparently wealthy female members (1 Tim 2:9).[102] According to this view, as “Adam” was formed first in Genesis 2:7-25, so the male teachers and leaders of the Ephesian church were formed first in Christ before the women. The seniority of the male teachers and leaders in Christ becomes the author’s reason for affirming their authority over those women of Ephesus who were far less mature in the faith. It was because of the immaturity in Christ that false teachers were deceiving these women, just as the serpent deceived Eve.

Padgett renders the phrase “saved through childbirth,” as a reference to Genesis 2:15 where the “child” is primarily the seed of Eve and in the context of 1 Timothy, an “oblique reference” to the child of Mary.[103] Waters, however, suggests this interpretation and others that reference the literal act of childbearing results in either a divide between childbearing and salvation or salvation for women is literally dependent on childbearing. A better rendering for Waters is that “childbearing” refers only to “birthing the virtues of faith, love, holiness and temperance and a postnatal relationship between the four virtues of 2:15 and those women of Ephesus who will be saved.”[104]

Barton argues since the reference to the fall precedes, “she shall be saved” it must naturally correspond to spiritual salvation. Paul and the church in Ephesus believed that spiritual salvation was accomplished only through the incarnation and work of Christ. Unless 1 Tim 2: 15 is the only exception, each of the twenty-nine occurrences of the verb σῴζω (saved) in the Pauline corpus refers to spiritual salvation, and not physical deliverance, from sin that comes through Christ.[105] The “she shall be saved” is the woman of 1 Tim 2:14, who is identified as Eve in verse 13. While Paul has Eve in view, he treats Eve here as representative of women in general. Furthermore, Barton proposes that Paul continued to have the Genesis account in mind as he wrote 1 Tim 2:15. Immediately following the statement of the woman’s deception in Gen 3:13 is the curse of the serpent. This curse predicts that the seed of the woman will crush the serpent’s head, the protevangelium, the Bible’s prediction of the promised seed that will overcome Satan and the effects of the fall. (Gen 3:15).

Barton concludes that the Genesis narrative of Eve’s creation, deception, the fall, and its consequences provided Paul with the perfect defense of his “not permitting a woman to teach and exercise self-assumed authority over a man.” He summarizes.

“The terrible consequences of Eve’s deception highlight the seriousness of the deception of women in Ephesus. Yet the story of Eve also offers women hope and dignity. Although women experience pain in childbirth as a result of the fall, a woman has given birth to the promised Seed who will destroy Satan and overcome the fall. Not only was a woman the vehicle for the entry into the world of sin, death, and the power of Satan, she was also the vehicle for the entry into the world of the Savior who delivers people from sin and death. Paul highlights both the deception of woman leading to the fall and woman as the channel through whom the Savior came. . . . the promised seed of the woman came through Mary in the childbirth of the Savior. As Paul so often does, he brings the focus back to salvation through Christ, and he does so in a distinctive way that gives dignity to women. The promised Seed, who came through a woman, fulfills the deepest yearnings of women. . . .” [106]

It is indisputable that the early church had a keen interest in the contrast between the fall through Eve’s deception and the coming of Christ through Mary to overcome Satan and reverse the effects of the fall. Thus, according to this view, the conceptual framework for understanding “the childbirth” as a reference to the birth of Christ is evident in Paul’s writings, in other books of the New Testament, and throughout the early church fathers.

Conclusion

Can 1 Timothy 2:11-15 be taken at face value as a permanent, transcultural restriction on women’s ministry in light of the biblical accounts of women teaching, public speaking, and exercising authority over both women and men in the early church? Is Paul prohibiting women from walking in their gifting as heirs to the new covenant as reflected in his theology? Is Paul using the order of creation to suggest Eve is more susceptible to deception when this would contradict his very own teachings?

First Timothy 2:11-15 presents a significant challenge for traditionalists since women in the early church did teach, lead, evangelize, prophesy and publicly exercise authority, including apostleship over both men and women in the course of their ministries. If Paul had any notion that his letters would be circulated to all churches over the centuries, I think he would have provided the necessary specificity ensuring any tragic misunderstanding of his intent. Since this letter was written to one individual who knew the challenges of the Ephesus church, clarification was unnecessary. Furthermore, those who suggest a transcultural application of this text limiting women’s roles in ministry and leadership cannot find clear direction from this text or any other passage indicating what that restriction is. The restriction of women’s ministry and the cultural presuppositions that perpetuate the interpretation of this text as universally binding, prohibiting all women for all time to be barred from teaching and leading has had devastating implications for women throughout history.

There is no doubt that certain biblical texts reflect the patriarchal worldview of the Greco-Roman world, but they do not necessarily endorse that worldview theologically. Hermeneutically deciphering and sifting through these ancient writings continue to challenge and frustrate theologians and evangelicals. However, when decisions regarding women’s roles in church leadership literally hang on one or two verses in Scripture, the effort to fully and thoroughly uncover God’s intent is a humbling and necessary endeavor.

I never expected to uncover such controversy, division, and passion in the biblical gender debate. I proceed with trepidation, desiring that my motives be pure before God, and not influenced by my previous feminist inclinations to promote an unbiblical agenda. However, when I consider how the first-century church with its unified message of grace, hope, and freedom, and the mutual bond of Christian brothers and sisters working side by side, as elders, deacons, and apostles; leading, spreading, and teaching their new faith in the risen Lord, I am disappointed to learn that a traditionalist view might have naively and wrongly promoted for centuries a transcultural application of church leadership, that continues to perpetuate gender biases today. This research has opened my eyes once again to the gender inequality that has permeated every institution on this planet including our churches. It is evident that when a spiritual movement or revival becomes institutionalized, the church reflects the culture. Only through love and gentleness can traditional church leadership actively respond to the compelling exegetic evidence. My prayer is that women will reclaim appropriate leadership in our evangelical churches that are suited to their gifting, sanctioned by God, and honoring to His name.

Endnotes

[1] Herbert J. Muller, Freedom in the Ancient World, New York: Harper & Row, 1961, p. 318-19, Cited in John Bristow, What Paul Really Said About Women: The Apostle’s Liberating Views on Equality in Marriage, Leadership, and Love , San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1991, p. 1.

[2] Alan Padgett, “Wealthy Women at Ephesus: 1 Timothy 2:8-15 in Context,” Interp, 41,1987, p. 3.

[3] Plato, Timaeus, trans. H.D.P. Lee Baltimore: Penguin, 1965, 42A-C, 90C, 91, Citied in John T. Bristow, .

[4] Xenophon, “Within the Home”, The Greek Reader trans. A.L. Wholl, New York: Doubleday, 1943, 625, Cited in Bristow p. 6.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Bristow, p. 9.

[8] Ibid.

[9] P.Oxy. 1380, 214– 215 in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ed. Bernard P. Grenfell, et al.; London: Egypt Exploration Fund/ Graeco-Roman Branch, 1915, 11: 200; Cited in Payne, p. 60.

[10] Jandall D. Chestnut, “Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman Era” In Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, Vol. 1, Carroll Osburn, ed., Joplin, MO: College Press, 1993. Pp. 95.

[11] B.J Brooten, “Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue,” BJS 36, Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982.

[12] Chesnutt, p. 126.

[13] Such as the Mishnah (compiled around 200 AD), the Tosefta (late 2nd century, after the Mishnah), the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds (compiled approximately 400 and 500 AD).

[14] Babylonian Talmud Yebamot 62b and Baba Mezia 59a for praise of the supportive and resourceful wife, in Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, Volume 1, p108.

[15]http://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Ketubot.5&6 Mishnah Ketubot 5:5-9 describes a reciprocal arrangement of matrimonial entitlements and obligations predicated on the wife’s performance of household chores; a wife retains title to any property she brings into her marriage, but cannot sell it without his consent (Mishna Gittin 5:6); she can appoint agents to transact her business and can act as her husband’s agent to sell his goods (Mishnah Ketubot 6:1, 9:4); she even has the right of action certain action against her husband and in some cases can petition for a divorce.

[16] Mishnah Sotah 3:4; Abot 2:7; Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 4, 66b; Soferim 41 a; Babylonian Talmud Kiddushin 49b; 80b; Sanhendrin 67a; Pesahim 111a; Shabbat 33b; 152a; Ketubot 65a; Genesis Rabbah 18:2; 45:5 Cited in Chesnutt.

[17] http://www.biblewise.com/bible_study/apocrypha/sirach.php

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Chestnut, p. 102.

[21]Chestnut, p. 103.

[22] Ibid ,p. 104

[23] Philo, Hypothetica, trans. 380. Cited in Bristow, pg. 26

[24] Josephus, 1: 372– 73, Thackeray, LCL, Cited Chesnutt, p. 104

[25] Payne, p. 35.

[26] D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology, London: SPCK, 1948, 331. Cited in Payne, p. 60.

[27] Herbert Danby, The Mishnah, Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1933), 822. Cited Payne, p. 60.

[28] Paul K. Jewett, Man as Male and Female: A Study in Sexual Relationships from a Theological Point of View, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975, 113.

[29] First-century philosophers Philo and Josephus included the household codes regarding the family hierarchy in their writings as well, arguing that the paterfamilias was critical to the success of society. Most ancient writers expected wives to obey their husbands with some marriage contracts stating this requirement in writing. Again, in the Greco-Roman culture, Greek thinkers would not conceive of their wives as equals. While Paul borrows the pairing of husband-wife, father-child, and master-slave relationships from Greco-Roman household codes, but what can’t be missed is, unlike most ancient writers, he undermines the basic premise of these codes: the absolute authority of the male head of the house. All of Paul’s household codes hinge on this idea of mutual submission. Paul introduces a new provocation as a consequence of being filled with the Spirit, which is “submit to one another” (Eph. 5:21). All of Paul’s household codes hinge on this idea of mutual submission. Particularly striking is that Paul actually acknowledges those who are culturally subordinate in each pericope (Eph. 5:22-24, 6:1-4, 6:5-9). It would be highly unusual to address any one other than paterfamilias in the Greco-Roman household codes. To address wives, children and slaves directly alongside husbands/fathers/masters assumes a level of equality and the mere notion of mutual submission would be unheard of. For more, see David L. Balch, “Two Apologetic Encomia: Dionysius on Rome and Josephus on the Jews,” JSJ 13 (1981): 102-22, and Russ Dudrey, “Submit yourselves to one another’: A socio-historical look at the household code of Ephesians 5:15-6:9,” Restoration Quarterly, 41, no. 1, (1999), 27-44.

[30] John Piper and Wayne Grudem, “An Overview of Central Concerns: Questions and Answers,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Gruderm. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1991, p. 72.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997, 191.

[33] Katherine M. Haubert, Women as Leaders: Accepting the Challenge of Scripture. Monrovia, Calif.: Marc 1993, p. 72, 93-94.

[34] Groothuis, p. 196

[35] Aida Besancon Spencer, Beyond the Curse: Women Called to Ministry. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publisher, 1985, p. 99-100.

[36] John R. W. Stott, The Message of 1 Timothy & Titus, Downers Grove, Ill, Intervarsity Press, 1996, p. 132.

[37] Rena Pederson, The Lost Apostle: Searching for the Truth About Junia, San Francisco, CA: Jossey –Bass, 2006.

[38] John Chrystostom, “Homily on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans XXXI”; Cited in Groothuis, p. 195.

[39] Groothuis, p. 202.

[40] Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church, Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 1970, pp117-18 Cited in Alan Padgett, “Wealthy Women at Ephesus 1 Timothy 2:8-15 in Social Context”, Interp, 1987, p. 41.

[41]Padget, p. 20.

[42] Gordon Fee, The Pastoral Epistles, NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982, p. 22– 23.

[43] Gordon Fee, Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishing, 1991, p. 52-65.

[44] Frank Theilman, Theology of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005, p. 408.

[45] Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 434, found in Frank Theilman, Theology of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005, p. 409.

[46] Gordon Fee, The Pastoral Epistles, NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982, 22– 23.

[47] Bristow, p. 74.

[48] “On the Origin of the World,” The Nag Hammadi Library, James M. Robinson, editor (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, 2.5.113-16, Cited in Bristow, p.74.

[49] Ibid, 118-120.

[50]While this qualification has been traditionally ascribed to men, there is some discrepancy over whether it’s “wives” or “women.” Some versions, including the old NIV, translate verse 11, “In the same way their wives are to be.…” The NIV 2011, however, translates it, “In the same way the women are to be….” Payne outlines eight compelling reasons why the translation more likely refers to “women” then “their wives,” which suggests the qualifications Paul outlines are for women. Payne, p. 454-459.

[51] Douglas Moo, “What Does It Mean,” RBMW 181.

[52] Thomas R. Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1Timothy 2: 9– 15: A Dialogue with Scholarship,” WCFA, p. 141.

[53] For women’s lack of knowledge about the Torah see G. F. Moore, Judaism, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1927, II, 128-29, Cited in Aida Spencer, pp. 217—18

[54] Mishnah, Nedarim 4:3. http://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Nedarim.4.3

[55] A. Padgett, “Wealthy Women at Ephesus: 1 Timothy 2: 8– 15 in Social Context,” Interp 41, 1987, 22– 24.

[56] Spencer, p. 77.

[57] Douglas Moo, “What Does It Mean,” RBMW p. 183.

[58] Payne, p. 320.

[59] E.g., 1 Cor 7: 6, 7, 8, 25 (2x), 26, 28, 29, 32, 35, 40. Similarly, the vast majority of Paul’s uses of this form of the verb λέγω (“ I say”) are limited, not universal, Cited in Payne, p. 336.

[60] Douglas Moo, “A Rejoinder,” 200. Nevertheless, he writes on p. 199, “the prohibitions are universal.” Cited in Payne, p. 336.

[61] Craig S, Paul, Women, and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992, p. 112.

[62] Douglas Moo, “Rejoinder,” 203, Cited in Payne p. 333.

[63] Ibid, p. 333.

[64] Payne demonstrates seven instances (eight including the textual variant in Gal 1: 12), οὐδέ joins two expressions that are equivalent in meaning. In each of these cases οὐδέ joins expressions to convey a single idea, p. 339.

[65] Ibid, p. 202.

[66] Douglas Moo, “Rejoinder,” 203, Cited in Payne p. 333.

[67] Payne, 353.

[68] 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, MI: Baker Books, 1992, p. 117-25.

[69] Linda Belleville, Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2005, Kindle Locations 2259-2261.

[70] The Old Latin (2nd-4th cent. AD), Vulgate (4th-5th cent. AD), Geneva (1560 edition), Casidoro de Reina (1569), Bishops (1589), KJV (161 I) all translate authentein to dominate/authority over, Ibid,

[71] Payne, p. 366.

[72] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, mains, 2 vols., 2nd ed., NewYork: United Bible Societies, 1988-1989), 37.35-47, 37.48-95. Authentein is noticeably absent from both of these domains, Cited in Belleville, Kindle Locations 6898-6899.

[73] David Scholer, “1 Timothy 2:9-15 & the Place of Women in the Church’s Ministry,” p. 205 Cited in Craig Keener, p. 108.

[74] Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, p. 215.

[75] Payne, p. 379.

[76] Douglas Moo, “1 Timothy 2:11-15: Meaning and Significance,” Trinity Journal 1, 1, Spring, 1980, p. 66-67.

[77] David Scholer, “1 Timothy 2:9-15 & the Place of Women in the Church’s Ministry,” p. 205 Cited in Craig Keener David Scholer, “1 Timothy 2:9-15 & the Place of Women in the Church’s Ministry,” p. 205 Cited in Keener, p,109.

[78] Bellville, Kindle Locations 2352-2354.

[79] Knight, “ΑΥΘΕΝΤΕΩ,” 150– 51. Cf. Baldwin, “Important Word,” WCA 200, “The most basic sense is the positive exercise of authority.” Cited in Payne, p. 398.

[80] Payne, p. 384.

[81] Ibid, p. 393

[82] BGU 1208, a papyrus dated at 27/ 26 BC, uses αὐθεντέω to mean, “assume authority.” Its first confirmed use to mean “dominate,” is from 127– 148 AD, Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos 3.13.10, and its first confirmed use to mean “exercise authority” is ca. AD 370 Saint Basil, The Letters 69, line 45. In a letter from John R. Werner to Philip B. Payne, p. 2, Cited in Payne, p. 398.

[83] Payne, 394.

[84] Ibid, p. 3.

[85] Belleville, Kindle Location 2354.

[86] Bristow, p. 17.

[87] Exod. 18:4; Deut. 33:7,26,29; Pss. 20:2, 33:20, 70:5, 89:19, 115:9, 121:1-2, 124:8, 146:5; other references are Isa. 30:5; Ezek. 12:14; Dan. 11:34; and Hos. 13:9 and John T. Bristow, p. 16.

[88] Carroll D. Osbum, Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, Volume 1, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2007, p. 101.

[89] Life of Adam and Eve 3:1; 5:2; 18:1, 35, 37 and Apoc. Mos. 11:1-3, Cited in Osbum, p. 101. Douglas Moo, “Rejoinder,” 203, Cited in Payne, p. 333.

[90] Payne, p. 333.

[91] Ibid, p. 401.

[92] Grudem, EF 72–73. Cited in Payne, p. 402.

[93] Creation order argument really can’t stand since, Eve was not born after Adam, she was born from Adam.

[94] Keener, p. 221

[95] Ibid, 220.

[96] God does not ascribe to the patriarchal custom of primogeniture, i.e., God chose Jacob over his older brother Esau (Mal 1:2-3), Ephraim over his older brother Manasseh (Gen 48:13-20), tribe of Judah over Reuben (Gen 49:8-10), David over all his brothers (1Sam 16:4-13).

[97] Gordon Fee, 1 & 2 Timothy Titus, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1988, p. 37.

[98] Douglas Moo, “A Rejoinder,” 204. Nevertheless, he writes on p. 199, “the prohibitions are universal,” Cited in Payne, p. 336.

[99] Spencer, Curse, p. 92 Cited in Keener

[100] Kelly, Pastoral Epistles p. 69 Cited in Keener

[101] The most natural way for an ancient reader to have understood “salvation” in the context of childbirth would have been a safe delivery, for women regularly called upon patron deities, such as Artemis or Isis in childbirth. Keener, p. 118.

[102] Waters, “Saved Through Childbearing”

[103] Alan Padgett, “Wealthy Women at Ephesus: 1 Timothy 2:8-15 in Context,” Interp, 41, 1987, p. 21.

[104] Kenneth L. Waters, “Saved Through Childbearing: Virtues as Children in 1 Timothy 2:11-15” JBL 123/4, Jan 2004, p. 713.

[105] 982– 83 lists every Pauline occurrence, including 1 Tim 2: 15, as “save/ preserve from eternal death”, in Walter Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition (BDAG), Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 2000, p. 982-83.

[106] Payne, p. 422

Bibliography

Balch, David L. “Two Apologetic Encomia: Dionysius on Rome and Josephus on the Jews,” JSJ 13 (1981): 102-22.

Bauer, Walther. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition (BDAG), Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 2000, p. 982-83.

Belleville, Linda L. Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy, Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2005, Kindle Edition.

Bristow, John, T. What Paul Really Said About Women: The Apostle’s Liberating Views on Equality in Marriage, Leadership, and Love. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 2011. Brooten, B. J. “Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue,” BJS 36, Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982

Chestnut, Jandall D. “Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman Era” In Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, Vol. 1, Carroll Osburn, ed., Joplin, MO: College Press, 1993. Pp. 93-130.

Gordon Fee, Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishing, 1991, 52-65.

Gordon Fee, 1 & 2 Timothy Titus, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1988.

Gordon Fee, The Pastoral Epistles, NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982, 22– 23.

Groothuis, Rebecca Merrill. Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997, 191.

Haubert, Katherine M. Women as Leaders: Accepting the Challenge of Scripture. Monrovia, Calif.: Marc 1993.

http://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Ketubot.5&6

http://www.biblewise.com/bible_study/apocrypha/sirach.php

Jewett, Paul K. Man as Male and Female: A Study in Sexual Relationships from a Theological Point of View. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975, 113.

Dudrey, Russ. “Submit yourselves to one another’: A socio-historical look at the household code of Ephesians 5:15-6:9,” Restoration Quarterly, 41, no. 1, 1999, 27- 44.

Keener, Craig S. Paul. Women, and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992.

Kroeger, Richard Clark and Kroeger, Catherine Clark. I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1992.

Mishnah, Nedarim 4:3. http://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Nedarim.4.3.

Moo, Douglass. “What Does It Mean,” RBMW, p.181.

Osbum, Carroll D. Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, Volume 1. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2007.

Padgett, Alan. “Wealthy Women at Ephesus: 1 Timothy 2:8-15 in Context,” Interp 41,1987.

Payne, Philip Barton; Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters. p. 60

Pederson, Rena. The Lost Apostle: Searching for the Truth About Junia, San Francisco, CA: Jossey –Bass

Piper, John and Grudem, Wayne. “An Overview of Central Concerns: Questions and Answers,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Gruderm . Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1991.

Thomas R. Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1Timothy 2: 9– 15: A Dialogue with Scholarship,” WCFA, 141.

Spencer, Aida Besancon. Beyond the Curse: Women Called to Ministry. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publisher, 1985.

Stott, John R. W. The Message of 1 Timothy & Titus, Downers Grove, Ill, Intervarsity Press, 1996, 132

Theilman, Frank.Theology of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005.

Waters, Kenneth L. “Saved Through Childbearing: Virtues as Children in 1 Timothy 2:11- 15” JBL 123/4, Jan 2004, p. 703-735.