Exegetical Paper on 1 Timothy 2.9-15

1 Timothy 2:9-15
9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire,

10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness— with good works.

11Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.

12 I 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;

14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

15Yet she will be saved through childbearing— if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

First Timothy 2:9-15 is from the pastoral epistle 1 Timothy in which Paul gives corrective instruction to Timothy regarding the structure of the worship service for the church in Ephesus. This passage is frequently discussed with regards to church structure and is particularly raised in opposition to women holding the office of pastor or elder. It is a key passage in the debate between complementarianism, which argues that men and women are of equal intrinsic worth before God but should have complementary roles in the church and in society, and egalitarianism, which argues for no institutional distinctions between men and women. Although a common assumption has been that an egalitarian interpretation promotes liberal feminist agendas, an egalitarian interpretation of 1 Tim 2:9-15 is not necessarily an unbiblical or liberal interpretation. This can be shown through a consistent hermeneutical approach to interpreting the text that upholds the inspiration, authority and inerrancy of scripture whilst giving strong hermeneutical reasoning for its interpretational decisions.
Paul’s authorship of the book of 1 Timothy was universally accepted until recent years. Strong evidence for his authorship has been that many early church fathers such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius and Ignatius all cited Paul as the author of 1 Timothy.[1] Controversy over authorship only began in the nineteenth century, and has been denied by most conservatives on historical grounds. To agree that the historical claim of 1 Timothy being written by Paul to Timothy is correct, means that the Timothy being addressed is the same man mentioned in other Pauline letters as well as the book of Acts. It is possible that Timothy may have heard Paul during Paul’s first missionary journey and perhaps was converted at the time. The first specific mention of Timothy is Acts 16:1-5, which describes Timothy joining Paul on his second missionary journey. First Thess. 3:1-6 reports Timothy being sent out on individual missions however, most of the time it appears that the two worked closely together (Acts 18:5, 19:22 as well as references in 2 Cor 1:1, Phil 1:1, Col 1:1 1 Thess. 1:1, 2 Thess. 1:1).[2] Paul’s letter to Timothy is to be read in the context that Paul had traveled with Timothy to Ephesus and found the church in spiritual shambles. It was here in Ephesus that Paul left Timothy and continued on his way to Macedonia, where he then wrote 1 Timothy as further instruction to Timothy on how to correct the church on its damaged ecclesiology. In 1 Timothy, Paul states two reasons for writing. His first reason was to direct Timothy to give vigorous personal opposition to the false doctrines developing Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3).[3] The nature of this false teaching involved proto-Gnostic teachings[4] colored by an inappropriate application of Judaist elements, with two men in particular named Hymenaeus and Alexander being speakers of this blasphemy (1 Tim 1:20).[5] Their teaching contained an interest in the law (1 Tim 1:7-8), observing strict dietary restrictions (1 Tim 4:3) as well as superior knowledge (1 Tim 6:20-21), word battles (1 Tim 6:4), fables, and genealogies (1 Tim 1:4). These teachers also apparently disparaged the body and prohibited marriage (1 Tim 4:3), with their moral character being utterly corrupt and deceitful (1 Tim 4:2, 6:5). The second purpose of Paul’s letter was to instruct Timothy about the kind of behavior that should characterize Ephesian believers as members of God’s household (1 Tim 3:15).[6] Nothing in 1 Tim 3:15 suggests 1 Timothy is a manual for church organizations, rather the need for a committed Christian lifestyle occurred in relation to the rise of false teachers. Therefore, Paul’s emphasis of personal qualifications for church leaders in 1 Tim 3:1-13 and 1 Tim 5:17-25 gives a hint that a lack of such Christian living had posed a threat to sound teaching and doctrine. Paul’s statements also indicate that these false teachers had found a ready response among women, who were lacked self discipline and were being swayed to sin. Given the prominence of the goddess cult at Ephesus and the significant social changes in the roles and perception of women, Paul asserts his guidelines to support proper living.[7] With regards to 1 Tim 2:8-15, the passage sits at the beginning of Paul’s practical instructions to Timothy about the structure and governing of the church. Chapter one begins with Paul’s personal greeting to Timothy, an acknowledgement of the church’s ecclesial disarray and then Paul’s personal charge to Timothy to be faithful to his calling. Paul then elaborates upon what being faithful should look like. He begins with instruction on prayer in 1 Tim 2:1-7. Chapter 2 as a whole is specifically instructing Timothy about how the worship service should be properly conducted in light of the sinful disruption that was taking place in it at that time. Paul’s instructions in 1 Timothy 2:8-15 suggest that some women were being disruptive during the church service through their apparel and teachings. Following this, Paul immediately explains what an overseer and deacon should look like. The rest of 1 Timothy continues in these instructions, further expanding on Paul’s response to the particular church situation in Ephesus.
Having dealt with the disruptive men in 1 Tim 2:8, Paul turns towards the disruptive women in 1 Tim 2:9. The main question this passage brings up is whether or not Paul is specifically combating things taught by the false teachers, or if Paul is merely describing universal principles that all women (and men) should follow. First it must first be noted that the issue of cultural relativity and authorial intent must be explained. Though Paul in 2 Tim 4:13 urges Timothy to bring him his cloak, the church today as a whole is not required by scripture to bring a cloak to Paul’s grave. In comparison however, it is generally accepted that when Paul in 2 Tim 2:3, exhorts Timothy to share with him in his suffering, that this should understood universally for all believers.[8] Secondly, when approaching this specific passage, it is important to note that there are two levels being addressed. On the larger, universal scale, Paul is urging women to “modesty and self control” that is displayed through “adorn[ing] themselves in respectable apparel.” This truth is timeless and as applicable today in the church as it was in Ephesus, however, the mention of “braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire,” refers specifically to the cultural standard of modesty in which Paul and Timothy were living. The women in Ephesus clearly were overstepping the bounds of appropriate attire and were disrupting the public prayer and worship that Paul had just previously described. The verse begins with the word “likewise,” with Paul emphasizing that the women, just like the men, must play an active role in changing the standards of worship. That women should “adorn” can mean “to dress” but it’s scope is much larger, including the ideas of slaves adorning the doctrine of God by being submissive to their masters (Titus 2:10) of the temple being adorned with “noble stones and offerings” (Luke 21:5) and of the scribes and Pharisees adorning the graves of righteous people (Matt 23:29).[9] The significance then is that though the verse addresses specifics around what the women wear, Paul is more importantly talking about the women’s priorities. The mention of apparel has similar connotations, referring more to the inward demeanor rather than just the outward appearance. Paul’s focus in verse 9 and 10 is that a woman might conduct herself in a way that is appropriate to her Christian calling, a conduct that includes but is not limited to her clothing. Modesty and self control are the opposite of what it was these women appeared to be doing. According to Towner, the “New Roman Women” of the time were experiencing a feminist revolution involving a new found freedom that the imperial women of upper classes used flaunt their wares and extravagant clothes in order to exploit men in rebellion to how the imperial men had been sexually exploiting women.[10] Paul calls the Christian women (who were more naturally drawn towards revolution) away from these new secular practices to a life of “self control.” The specific clothing Paul mentions was common of Greco Roman culture, but only among the upper class. Earlier in the Greek world, the hair was pinned in the back and held up with a simple band or scarf. In public, respectable women would then cover their hair with veils falling to their shoulders and covering any elaborate hair styles. Only women of immoral repute would have their hair elaborately braided so as to attract the attention of Men.[11] Therefore Paul is not frowning down upon make up or jewelry, rather he is denouncing the extravagant and culturally provocative way these women were dressing during church gatherings. This principal can be further strengthened through examination of 1 Tim 2:10 where we find the third qualifying phrase for the women “to adorn themselves in respectable attire.” Though in verse 9 Paul only implies that this adornment refers to inward attire as well as outward, he now makes the claim explicitly clear. Paul is urging the women to place their priorities on what really matters, that is, their godliness and good works. Doing good deeds is a primary concept in the Pastoral Epistles, in accordance with their strong practicality of instructions.[12] Paul says that Jesus gave himself to prepare a people zealous for good deeds (Titus 2:14) and that believers should pursue them (2 Tim 2:21, Titus 3:1, 8, 14) while being equipped by scripture (2 Tim 3:17). Good deeds are recognized by society, either immediately or eventually ( 1 Tim 5:25). Titus is to be a role model of good deeds (Titus 2:7). Paul also explains that a widow will be recognized by the church for her good deeds such as raising children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping the afflicted and “devoting herself to doing good in every way” (1 Tim 5:10-11).[13] Desiring to be an elder is a good work according to Paul (1 Tim 3:1) and it is possible that Timothy’s work as an evangelist is seen as a good work (2 Tim 4:5). Finally, Paul’s opponents , the false teachers are seen as unfit for any good work (Titus 1:16). Alexander will be punished for his evil deeds (2 Tim 4:14) however, Paul is sure that God will rescue him from every evil work (2 Tim 4:18). First Timothy 2:11-12 go together and shift from disruptions caused by women’s clothes to questions of teaching and leadership. The topic of leadership is of central concern to the Pastoral Epistles and one that Paul is going to address shortly in Chapter 3. The reason for such concern seems to derive from the behavior the Christian women in Ephesus were displaying. Some of the women were characterized as learning to be idlers, gadding about from house to house, gossiping and in general being busybodies (1 Tim 5:13). They were anything but quiet, instead they were disruptive and prone to be so in a manner supporting false teachers.[14] Though many Christian feminists have argued that the emphasis of 1 Timothy 2:11 lies on women learning,[15] I agree with complimentarian Thomas Schreiner, who rightly explains that “the focus of the imperative is not on women learning, but the manner and mode of their learning.”[16] I disagree, however, with Schreiner’s statement that, “the permission for women to learn is contrasted with the proscription for them ‘to teach’ while ‘all submissiveness’ is paired with ‘not exercising authority over a man.’”[17] Sarah Sumner rightly points out that, “Paul does not say, ‘Let a woman learn but not teach.’ Nor does he say, ‘Let a woman be submissive to a man but not in charge of a man.’ On the contrary, Paul couples learning with submitting and teaching with authentein (in 1 Tim 2:12).”[18] Therefore I believe it accurate to read verse 11 in relation to learning how a woman is to learn submissively. Paul’s switch here from the plural “women” to singular “woman” would seem to indicate that his command has to do with all women and not simply wives.[19] The learning to be done was to be from someone in authority, who would teach them the scriptures. This stands in contrast to Jewish standards for women, with Paul encouraging what previously was laughed at (a common Rabbinic saying was “better to burn the torah than teach it to a woman.”)[20] Paul specifies two manners in which the women should learn. First she must learn quietly. This is not a prohibition from any talking at all but rather an attitude that would be required for learning in the first place. The attitude of quietness also stands in contrast to the indications mentioned previously that the women were known as “gossips and busybodies” (1 Tim 5:13). This quietness would be appropriate deference to a teacher and does not exclude women from such activities as praying, prophesying or speaking in tongues.[21] Given the bias against instructing women in the law, it is Paul’s advocacy of their learning the law, not his recognition that they started as novices and so had to learn quietly, that was radical and countercultural. Synonymous with quietness in Paul’s depiction of how the women were to learn, is the phrase “with all submissiveness.” Submission is an important element in church structure for men and women alike in the church today and therefore a proper word study of submission is needed for clear understanding. The Greek word for “submissiveness” used here is ὑποταγή, meaning obedience, submission, subordination.
The word appears four times in the New Testament, appearing in 2 Corinthians 2:13, Galatians 2:5, 1 Timothy 2:11, and 1 Timothy 3:4. In 2 Corinthians 2:13, Paul is explaining the necessity of joyful giving and says that if the church would do this service, then the churches they give to, “will glorify God because of your submission flowing from your confession of the gospel of Christ, and the generosity of your contribution for them and for all others.” It is the church that is recognized to their “submission” to the gospel. In Galatians 2:5, Paul explains that when false brothers tried to teach a false gospel (similar to the situation in Ephesus), he and Titus, “did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.” This situation’s description of submission is that one should not fall sway to any false teaching. Finally in 1 Timothy 3:4, Paul explains the requirements of an overseer, stating, “He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive.” Therefore, when brought together, the depth of this word begins to paint a picture of obedience to an authority. Paul’s point with his word choice of “submissiveness” with these women is that they are meant to follow in obedience with what they are learning because it is sound doctrine instead of false heresies that are being taught. As demonstrated above, Paul only uses the word “submission” in the context doctrinal authority, not simply in terms of gender roles. The point is the sound teaching they will be learning from, not the necessity of women to simply be submissive to whoever tells them to do something. Therefore we can conclude from 1 Tim: 2:11 that Paul allowed a woman to learn submissively. Of first note in 1 Tim 2:12 is Paul’s opening statement, “I do not permit,” setting the verse up to be one of significant command. Most complimentarians embrace a straightforward reading of this verse, believing that it is simply a prohibition on women teaching or holding authorial positions over men. This hermeneutic faces difficulty when you encounter the strong historical context of women who operated in Pauline ministry. Titus 3:5 commands women to “teach what is good,” Acts 18:26 indicates that both Pricilla and Aquila engaged in teaching Apollos (a man), reference to the woman Junia as an Apostle (Rom 16:7) and to other women involved in ministry (Rom 16:1-3, Phil 4:2) could also be noted and when reference is made to charismatic gifts in the book of Corinthians, no gender distinctions are made (1 Cor 14:26). Therefore, though not conclusive, a valid and conservative egalitarian interpretation of Paul’s prohibition most likely involves the specific situation of the church in Ephesus (wealthy women who were falling under sway of false teachers, abandoning marriage and families, and were spreading their learned false teaching in public) as well as the cultural disruption that women teaching would have created at that time. The evidence of women working in ministry alongside Paul as well as Paul’s gospel charge in Galatians 3:28, reveals that it wasn’t like Paul to prohibit a woman, more specifically it wasn’t like Paul to prohibit a woman from teaching in Ephesus due to the historical fact that Paul allowed Priscilla, a woman, to correct Apollos in the city of Ephesus, where Timothy was when he received 1 Timothy 2.[22] All this makes it highly unlikely that this verse was ever meant to be interpreted as an excuse to keep all women quiet and submissive in our churches. Paul therefore is not suggesting that women were incompetent to occupy the role of pastor/teacher, rather his concern related to the specific women of Ephesus whose perpetuation of false teaching was damaging marriage, the value of motherhood and their own learning of sound doctrine.[23] Finally, the second infinitive, “to exercise authority,” appears here and nowhere else in the entire New Testament and is therefore incredibly difficult to translate with complete certainty. Part of the difficulty is that the normal Greek word for “authority” is not used. The apostle Paul did not say exousia. He used the word authentein instead. The word authentien is not used anywhere else in the New Testament. Most scholars conclude that the word has two possible meanings, either neutral “to exercise authority,” or negative “to domineer.”[24] Either definition can be argued depending the context of this passage in the way that it is interpreted. If Paul’s prohibition to women is meant as general principle, then it is most likely neutral, implying women must not hold authority over any man. Whilst both complimentarians and egalitarians can conclude from 1 Tim 2:12 that Paul forbade a woman to teach or authentein a man, egalitarians would argue that since Paul allowed a woman to learn if she behaved acceptably, he likewise forbade to her teach if she behaved unacceptably. This understanding can be rightly supported by the grammar of the Greek sentence which calls for a transitive verb of authentein and therefore could rightly hold negative connotations of ‘control’ or ‘dominate.’ When reading this passage in light of what this verse has to say about authority between genders, it is important to recognize that whilst Paul forbids a woman to authentein a man, nowhere does he permit a man to authentein a woman, in reality, it may be just as sinful for a man to authentiein a woman as it is for a woman to authentein a man.[25] This understanding would set Paul’s instruction in a negative context meaning that Paul is instructing the women not to domineer men in the context of public worship, possibly something that was taking place due to the cultural dilemma any woman teaching in those days would have presented. In noting the order of creation in 1 Timothy 2:13, scholars have differed over the point that Paul was attempting to make. Complimentarians believe that a correct interpretation is that Paul is suggesting that God himself intended for Adam to be in authority over Eve. The specific application then is that Ephesian women should not try to reverse the created order by being in authority over men.[26]. Paul is not stating a general principle about the order of creation, otherwise the animals would be given authority over Adam. Rather Paul is explaining the nature of the relationship God created for Adam and Eve. Egalitarians however, would argue that Paul was merely continuing to correct the teaching of the false teachers that had been disrupting the church in Ephesus. Paul’s instruction throughout this passage as a whole has been corrective in light of the ecclesiastical brokenness, therefore it could be read that this statement in and of itself was a correction of false teaching that had perpetuated Eve was created first and not Adam[27]. It is heresy to proclaim that Eve was created first because Christ is not “the last Eve.” The first man on earth was a man, not a woman, and if false teachers had been teaching that the first person was a woman, then the church in Ephesus would have lost the parallel between the “first man” who is “earthly” and the “second man”, Jesus Christ, who is “from heaven” (1 Cor 15:46-47), meaning that they would have lost a major indicator that Jesus was the Messiah. Scholar’s who hold this view emphasize that Paul’s main concern was for everyone to know that the Savior of the world is not a woman but was in fact a man[28]. This interpretation can be carried further into verse 14 in which egalitarian’s could maintain that Paul was continuing to correct false teaching, stating facts that Eve was deceived before Adam and not the other way around, although deeper insights can also be found in verse 14. In verse 14 Paul picks up the Genesis story at the episode of Eve’s temptation given in Genesis 3. Sequence of action is again important, this time the sequence is reversed to emphasize the priority of the woman’s deception and action of sin in relation to Adam’s. Once again, scholars differ on the point that Paul seeks to make. It could be that the emphasis that Paul has here is on the deception, with which he credits Eve and not Adam. This does not suggest that Adam did not sin in eating the fruit, only that he was not the one deceived[29] (which could be a corrective statement in light of the false teaching). Paul’s comparison of the unlearned women of the Ephesian church with Eve is clear; his earlier letters also compare the whole church of Corinth, both men and women, with Eve (2 Cor 11:3), the Corinthian church with Israel (1 Cor 10:1–22) and his opponents in Galatia with Ishmael (Gal 4:24–25). That he would actually apply this illustration to all women in all times, as some have thought, is less likely (if he did, he would be implying that all women are more easily deceived than men, and his illustration in 2 Cor 11:3 would lose its force; moreover, the local false teachers themselves were men—1 Tim 1:20; 2 Tim 2:17).[30] Therefore it is unlikely that this passage is seen as a description of the innate virtues or character of women, rather it is possible and likely that the verse is actually addressing the consequences of women’s deception as the main problem to be avoided. The main implications of the passage as a whole, point towards problems within the church of women being deceived and so causing disruption, particularly in the office of marriage. There are various interpretations of 1 Tim 2: 15. First, some scholars have suggested that this verse implies women can receive spiritual salvation through childbearing. Nowhere else in scripture is this mentioned and therefore it is an unlikely conclusion. Another option is that the verse could be translated “women will be kept safe through childbearing.” This is again highly unlikely due to the dangers of death through childbirth at that time and that still exists today. The third option sees a reference to the messiah in this text, using the article before “childbirth” to read the passage as “the childbirth” thus alluding to the virgin birth of Jesus. However, Paul located the salvation event in Jesus death (1 Timothy 2:6) not in his birth. Also the noun “childbirth” refers to the act of bearing children, not to a single birth of a child. A fourth option is women would avoid the errors of 1Tim 2:11-12 by childbearing, however this too falls flat. Giving birth to a child does not necessarily affect a woman’s theology (other than increasing her understanding of suffering, as well as new life). Furthermore, fulfillment of motherhood alone does not assure the woman’s salvation, for she much continue in faith, love, and holiness combined with good judgment[31]. Both egalitarians and complimentarians have agreed that it would appear that Christian women were not to forego or avoid pregnancy. Willingness to become pregnant was obviously a very real concern in the Church in Ephesus otherwise it seems unlikely Paul would have responded to it so directly.[32] Paul’s words reject these false teachings by emphasizing the importance of the domestic role of women. Paul’s conclusion returns where he started from, ending his thoughts by reminding the women of the need for Godly living. The pairing of “faith” and “love” summarized the whole Christian life. Holiness indications separation from sin and probably implies sexual purity in contrast to the promiscuity associated with the prohibited dress code.[33] The implications of this passage are of incredible significance in Christian theology. Depending upon your interpretation, you can effectively create two completely different church structures, one that limits the role of women, and one that doesn’t. I have found it particularly interesting to observe the spectrum of application that exists, with egalitarians promoting female pastors and elders, to complimentarians who exclude women from leadership opportunities all together. Most interesting to me has been the comfortable middle that many complimentarians practice, excluding women from the office of pastor or elder but permitting them to serve in significant roles of leadership under different titles such as ‘director’ or ‘co-ordinator.’ This continues to be an incredibly difficult subject to interpret, not because one side is more stubborn than the other, but because both perspectives hold valid hermeneutical understandings that lead the text in different directions. Paul’s limitations on the role of women is scattered throughout his letters with his call for their silence as seen in 1 Cor 14:34 made confusing against the backdrop of his affirmation of various women in Pauline ministry. Largely our interpretation today relies heavily on how we discern what is the exception and what is the rule in his teaching. I believe that both complimentarians and egalitarians can uphold a conservative biblical interpretation that supports their views. Careful extended study should be taken to determine which is God’s desire for our church structure and how we should communicate this debate to our congregations. After careful observation and interpretation of this text, I have come to create the following principle statement:
Christian women should be biblically literate in order that they may appropriately refute false teaching and live out of sound doctrine, practice good works and cultivate a heart attitude that reflects the purposes of God. The practical application that this principle holds in my life is of utmost importance. From these verses I see a high priority placed upon women learning scripture correctly and appropriately. I believe that for me this is a call to diligently study scripture and practice sound doctrine so that false teaching about God will be refuted by my understanding and thorough understanding. I believe that this is practically done through inductive bible study, where I seek to not only learn about scripture from others, but seek to sit with and from scripture for myself. I will do this by taking my education at Moody Bible Institute seriously, learning a thorough hermeneutical process that allows me to study different perspectives with humility and discern the scriptures in a way that holds them up to be inspired, infallible and authoritative. In the process of my learning, I have learned from this passage that I should learn with an appropriate attitude that does not seek to disrupt, perpetuate false teaching or dominate the teachers that I will be learning from. This will best be seen in an attitude of thoughtfulness that seeks to listen quietly and think before I speak in teaching situations where my knowledge is being developed. I further believe that in studying the scriptures with diligence that I will learn principles and teachings that once applied in my own life, will cultivate good works that will be visible to others around me as a witness of Christ. I seek to do this by cultivating a spirit of obedience to the Word of God that among many other teachings, seeks to love God and others. This will naturally overflow into good works that will be seen in a variety of different ways as I live life out of this desire. Similarly I believe that an application of this principle will be actively cultivating a holy heart attitude that assures my desires are above reproach as I live my life. Specifically in these verses I can see a call to modesty that should come from a holy heart attitude that upholds God over self. I will practically do this by assessing my self presentation in every context I find myself in. Rather than drawing attention to my physical beauty I will seek to make God beautiful through my actions and prevent others from stumbling by avoiding immodest clothing that causes my motives of dress to be questioned. In specific relation to verse 12 that gives thought to women teaching and holding authority, I truly believe that Paul was addressing a very specific situation from which we can draw universal principals but which in itself should not be applied universally. What I mean by this is that I do not see this verse as a prohibition on women teaching today, rather it is an example from which I should learn from. The women Paul was addressing were biblically illiterate and therefore easily led astray by false teachers and not fit to be teachers in the church. Today, I see it a privilege that I am as intelligent and educated in sound doctrine as I am and because of this I do not believe Paul’s prohibition to be universally applied to me. Rather I will seek to apply verse 12 by teaching and holding authority in ministry settings in a way that upholds sound doctrine and honors God by not dominating in sinful ways. I wholeheartedly intend to use my gifting as an exegete and a teacher to communicate the word of God to both men and women who are in need of sound teaching. Finally, a direct application from this passage that I hope to apply in my life will be to hold a positive perspective on motherhood and marriage. Something I seek to pursue with a Godly attitude to value as good and from Him.

Bibliography
Baugh, Steven. M. "1 Timothy." Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary: 3. Ed. Clinton E. Arnold. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002. Print.

Craig S. Keener and InterVarsity Press, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Print.

Lea, Tomas D., and Hayne P. Griffin, Jr. “1, 2 Timothy Titus.” The New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992. Print.

Liefeld, Walter L. “1 & 2 Timothy/Titus.” The NIV application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999. Print.

Mounce, William D. “Pastoral Epistles.” Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2000. Print.

Schreiner, Thomas R.. "Another Complimentarian Perspective: Schreiner." Two Views on Women in Ministry. Comp. Stanley N. Gundry and Ed. James R. Beck. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan , 2005. 308. Print.

Sumner, Sarah. Men and Women in the Church. 1st ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003. Print.

Towner, Phillip H. “The Letters to Timothy and Titus.” The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006. Print.

-----------------------
[1]Lea, Tomas D, and Hayne P. Griffin, Jr. “1, 2 Timothy Titus.” The New American Commentary. 34. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992. Pg 23. Print
[2] Liefeld, Walter L. “1 & 2 Timothy/Titus.” The NIV application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999. Pg. 20 Print.
[3] Lea, Pg. 28
[4] Baugh, Steven. M. "1 Timothy." Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary: 3. Ed. Clinton E. Arnold. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002. 448. Print.
[5] Liefeld, Pg. 31
[6] Lea, Pg. 31
[7] Lea, Pg. 43
[8] Mounce, Pg. 109
[9] Mounce. Pg. 113
[10] Towner, Phillip H. “The Letters to Timothy and Titus.” The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006. Pg. 206. Print.
[11] Baugh, Pg. 456.
[12] Mounce, Pg. 116.
[13] Mounce, Pg. 116.
[14] Mounce. Pg. 119
[15] Liefield, Pg. 26
[16] Schreiner, Thomas R.. "Another Complimentarian Perspective: Schreiner." Two Views on Women in Ministry. Comp. Stanley N. Gundry and Ed. James R. Beck. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan , 2005. 308. Print.
[17] Schreiner, Pg. 311
[18] Sumner, Sarah. Men and Women in the Church. 1st ed. . Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003. Pg. 252. Print.
[19] Lea, Pg. 98
[20] Mounce, Pg. 119.
[21] Towner, Pg. 214.
[22] Sumner, Pg. 241
[23] Lea, Pg. 100
[24] Mounce, Pg 126-127
[25] Sumner, Pg. 249
[26] Mounce, Pg. 130
[27] Sumner, Pg. 260
[28] Sumner, Pg. 260
[29] Lea, Pg. 101
[30] Craig S. Keener and InterVarsity Press, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove, IL. InterVarsity Press, 1993. Pg. 345. Print.
[31] Lea, Pg. 103
[32] Towner, Pg. 235
[33] Towner, Pg. 236