CLAIM: Paul writes, “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet” (1 Tim. 2:12). Many people are offended at this passage, because it explicitly states that women are not allowed to teach or have authority in the church. Before we offer our interpretation, let’s consider the traditional interpretation of this passage, verse-by-verse.
Traditional view
(1 Tim. 2:12) But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
The traditional interpretation states that this is a universally binding command. Therefore, whether we’re offended or not, we need to follow what Scripture teaches.
(1 Tim. 2:13) For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
The traditional interpretation argues that Paul is backing up his point by appealing to the original human couple: Adam and Eve. Jesus made a similar argument when arguing about marriage (Mt. 19:4-5), quoting from Genesis (Gen. 1:27; 2:24). By appealing to God’s original human design, Paul is demonstrating that Adam was the leader in the relationship—being created first. Likewise, men should lead—not women. Moreover, in Genesis 3:16, we see that Adam ruled over Eve.
(1 Tim. 2:14) And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
Under the traditional view, Adam wasn’t deceived. Eve was. Therefore, because women are not as theologically strong as men (i.e. they are prone to deception more than men), women shouldn’t teach. Some traditionalists will even add that women are more emotionally driven, while men are more logical. This could be what Paul is pointing out here. Many Bible interpreters have bitten the bullet on the logical consequences of this interpretation. William Webb details the history of the view that women are more gullible than men in Appendix 2 of his book Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals.[1] Here are a few examples:
John Chrysostom (347-407): “For thus they will show submission by their silence. For the sex is naturally somewhat talkative: and for this reason he restrains them on all sides… [Eve] taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he saith, let her not teach. But what is it to other women, that she suffered this? It certainly concerns them; for the sex is weak and fickle, and he is speaking of the sex collectively” (Homilies on Timothy, 8-9, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Church, ed. Philip Schaff, 13:436).
Augustine (354-430): “And [Satan] first tried his deceit upon the woman, making his assault upon the weaker part of that human alliance, that he might gradually gain the whole, and not supposing that the man would readily give ear to him, or be deceived, but that he might yield to the error of the woman…. For not without significance did the apostle say, ‘And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression’” (City of God, 8-9, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Church, ed. Philip Schaff, 2:272).
Martin Luther (1483-1546): “Paul thus has proved that by divine and human right Adam is the master of the woman. That is, it was not Adam who went astray. Therefore, there was greater wisdom in Adam than in the woman. Where this occurs, there is the greater authority…. He [Adam] persevered in his dominion over the serpent, which did not attack him but rather attacked the weaker vessel … just as he does today” (“Lectures on 1 Timothy,” in Luther’s Works, ed. Hilton C. Oswald, 1973, 28:278-279)
Donald Guthrie: “Paul is concerned primarily with the inadvisability of women teachers, and he may have in mind the greater aptitude of the weaker sex to be led astray” (The Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957), p.77).
J. N. D. Kelly (Oxford): “His point [Paul’s in 1 Tim. 2:14] is that since Eve was so gullible a victim of the serpent’s wiles, she clearly cannot be trusted to teach. If we are to follow Paul’s reasoning, we must recall that like other exegetes, Jewish and Christian, he regards Adam and Eve as historical persons, but also as archetypes of the human race. Their characters and propensities were transmitted to their descendants, and in their relationship can be seen foreshadowed the permanent relationship between man and woman” (A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (London: A & C Black, 1963), p.68).
(1 Tim. 2:15) But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.
Traditionalists point out that women have an important role in raising children and taking care of the family. It isn’t that women are unimportant or unequal to men (Gal. 3:28). Instead, they simply have different roles. This is where we get the term “complementarian.” Men and women are equal, but they have complementary roles to one another.
Response to this reading: The Background in Ephesus
The key to understanding this difficult passage is to grasp the historical backdrop in Ephesus:
First, Gnosticism plagued the church in Ephesus. Paul told Timothy to “instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines” (1 Tim. 1:3). The Ephesian church must have been riddled with false teaching; otherwise, Paul wouldn’t have felt the need to open his letter in this way, and refer to this throughout his correspondence. Paul refers to this teaching as “fruitless discussion” (1 Tim. 1:6). When you read Gnostic writing, this matches Paul’s description. Gnostics wrote in non-sensical ways because only those with “special knowledge” were supposedly able to understand it. Kroeger and Kroeger explain, “Gnostic writings do indeed contain material which appears pure nonsense. Sometimes there are long strings of repetitious nonsense syllables, sometimes there are riddles and paradoxes; and yet they conveyed significance to the initiate.”[2]
Later, Paul states that these false teachers “forbid marriage” and advocated “abstaining from foods” (1 Tim. 4:3). Of course, ascetic Gnostics viewed marriage as sinful. Moreover, Paul spoke against the “empty chatter” and “what is falsely called ‘knowledge’” (gnōsis, 1 Tim. 6:20). Elsewhere, Paul describes the false teachers as having “a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words” (1 Tim. 6:4). In his second letter to Timothy, Paul tells him to “refuse foolish and ignorant speculations” (2 Tim. 2:23; c.f. 2:14, 16). Again, all of this describes what we know of proto-Gnosticism. This must’ve been what Timothy was confronting in his church.
Second, women spread this particular false teaching in Ephesus. While the passages above refer to false teachers who are “men” (1 Tim. 1:6), this could be a case of gender-neutral language—just like when we read that God “desires all men to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4). Of course, passages like this apply to both men and women. This is why some translations render 1 Timothy 1:6 as “individuals,” rather than simply “men.” In addition to gender neutral language, Paul specifically mentions women false teachers. Yet, admittedly, translators downplay this considerably.
“Busybodies” (periergoi). Paul writes that younger widows “go around from house to house; and not merely idle, but also gossips and busybodies, talking about things not proper to mention… some have already turned aside to follow Satan” (1 Tim. 5:13, 15). Paul’s harsh language suggests that these widows were spreading more than merely “gossip” in the modern sense. After all, he states that they were “following Satan”! The term “busybodies” (periergoi) should actually be associated with occult practice. Commenting on this passage, Kroeger and Kroeger note, “They speak nonsense, a characteristic of Gnostic communication, and are called periergoi, often translated ‘busybodies’; but the Greek word might well be translated ‘workers of magic.’ The same term (ton to perierga praxanton) is used in Acts 19:19 for ‘those practicing magic.’”[3] Craig Keener writes, “A survey of every word in extant Greek literature translated ‘busybodies’ …as those spreading false or improper teaching.”[4]
“Malicious gossips” (diabolous). Regarding the women in Crete, Paul writes, “Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips (diabolous) …teaching what is good” (Titus 2:3). The term “malicious gossips” sounds harmless, but this is the same term used of Satan (i.e. “diabolical,” Satanic, accusatory, slanderous, etc.). Paul adds that they should be “teaching what is good.” This is the same argument that we’re making for 1 Timothy 2:12. Paul is “not allowing” Satanic teaching (Gnostic myths), but he is allowing “teaching what is good.”
Of course, Paul was writing to Titus in Crete—not Ephesus. However, Paul uses the same word (diabolos) to refer to the qualifications for women deacons (1 Tim. 3:11). Why is this one of the only four qualities specifically directed at female deacons? The presence of female false teachers in Ephesus makes perfect sense of this. Paul wanted to discern false teachers before recognizing them as leaders (cf. 2 Tim. 3:3, 6).
“Worldly fables” (bebēlos). Paul writes, “But have nothing to do with worldly fables (bebēlos) fit only for old women (graodeis)” (1 Tim. 4:7). Kroeger and Kroeger comment,
Interestingly enough, some English translations fail to note the Greek word graodeis (pertaining to old women). In antiquity old women had a reputation for storytelling which sometimes put the gods in an outrageous light. From earliest times in Anatolia, female religious officials known as “old women” kept alive the ancient myths. The tales, or myths, are said to be bebelos (opposed to God; 1 Tim. 4:7). Translators usually manage to give the impression that the tales were harmless, but the writer of the Pastorals viewed them as a serious threat. The ancient power of the “old women’s” myths was pitted against the power of the gospel.[5]
While these fables and myths might seem innocuous to the average reader, Paul elsewhere notes “[They] will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths” (2 Tim. 4:4). In other words, these “myths” were not harmless stories like Aesop’s fables; they were aberrations of the biblical stories that turned people away from the truth. Kroeger and Kroeger write,
Recent scholarship suggests that Gnostic-like myths opposed to traditional biblical values may have been afloat in Alexandria as early as the second or first century before Christ.’ Philo, who died in C.E. 45, utilizes the very theme which was to draw rebuttal by Paul: namely, mythologizing Eve as the one who brings knowledge and meaningful life to Adam.[6]
You can read these Gnostic texts for yourself in their book I Suffer Not a Woman (see Appendix 7). Therefore, the bottom line is this: Women teachers in Ephesus were distorting the creation account, and this was turning people away from following Christ. With this historical backdrop in mind, let’s interpret 1 Timothy 2:12-15.
Further Difficulties for the Traditional Interpretation
The traditional interpretation has the benefit of being a straightforward reading of the text. Yet, it is fraught with problems. This indicates that the plain sense reading is incorrect. Consider a few questions to see this:
- Why is there only one passage on women being more theologically gullible and more easily deceived? Wouldn’t we expect such a significant doctrine to have more coverage in the NT?
- Why is Paul reading irrational inferences from Genesis 3? Why is the creation order important? (plants > animals > humans) According to this alleged logic, plants would be more important than humans!
- Why does Paul blame Eve for being deceived, when elsewhere he blames Adam? (Gen. 3:6; Rom. 5:12ff; 1 Cor. 15:21-22) Yet, why is no doctrine is built on men being disqualified to teach based on these passages? Why are all women gullible because Eve was deceived? (cf. 1 Cor. 11:3ff)
- What about the mention of women leading and teaching? Many women are leaders and teachers throughout the Bible, and they are supported by God (e.g. Deborah, Priscilla, Phoebe, Junia, Lois, Eunice; 1 Cor. 11:5; Acts 2:17; 21:9).
- Why don’t we have gender qualifications for teaching/leading? Instead, the imperatives and gifts are gender neutral throughout the NT (Col. 3:16; Rom. 12:7-8; 1 Cor. 12:28; 14:26)
- Why would we base a significant doctrine on one passage? Christians quickly recognize the error of building a significant doctrine on a single passage. For example, Mormons build their doctrine of baptism for the dead on 1 Corinthians 15:29, and Roman Catholics build their doctrine of mortal sins on 1 John 5:16. Surely, this is mistaken. But why can’t traditionalist interpreters see that they are making the same error with regard to women leaders and teachers?
- Where do we draw the line for women teachers? Wayne Grudem states that women cannot teach a college Bible study, but they can teach a high school Bible study. Moreover, women can write books on Bible doctrine and commentaries, but they cannot teach these same doctrines in an adult classroom.[7] Can’t we see that this theology leads to arbitrary conclusions?
As you can see, the traditional reading has significant problems. This leads us to an alternate reading of the text.
Alternate Interpretation
(1 Tim. 2:11) A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.
Women were not the only ones to “quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.” Even the “rabbinic scholar himself was required to learn in silence.”[8] Indeed, this is what we read for the people of Israel (Acts 15:12; 21:40; 22:2; Isa. 41:1; Hab. 2:20; Zech. 2:13). We cannot know God when we are busy talking (Ps. 46:10).
(1 Tim. 2:12) But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
Paul normally tells Timothy “we know” (1 Tim. 1:8) or reminds him of “faithful sayings” (1 Tim. 1:15). But this passage appears to be a novel teaching for Timothy. Keener observes, “Had this rule been established and universal, is it possible that Timothy, who had worked many years with Paul, would not have known it already?”[9]
In the original Greek, the phrase “I do not allow” should be translated “I am not allowing,” because it is in the present indicative verb.[10] Therefore, Paul could be pointing out that he is currently not allowing women to teach in Ephesus because of the rise of false teaching among women. However, this grammatical argument carries little weight on its own because Paul often uses the present indicative verb to be universally binding.[11] That being said, when we combine this grammatical argument alongside the historical backdrop in Ephesus, it’s possible that in this circumstance the present indicative limits his command to this particular situation.
“Exercise authority” (authentein) is an unusual word—used only here in the NT. Typically, Paul uses another word to describe “authority” (exusia), but not here. Consequently, this word “authority” (authentein) has a disputed meaning. It can be rendered as “domineer” or to “take control of.” (Similar to our word “authority.”) However, the term can also be rendered “author” or “originate.” (Similar to our word “author.”) Kroeger and Kroeger track the uses of this term in the extra-biblical sources, and they demonstrate that “author” or “authentic” or “originator” has the best lexical evidence.[12] However, context is king: How is Paul using this term in 1 Timothy 2? From all indications, the concept of “authorship” or “originator” fits best within the context, where Paul refers to Adam being the originator of Eve.
“Remain quiet” (hēsuchia) doesn’t refer to permanent silence. Rather, Paul is saying that these women should remain quiet for the purpose of learning, which is true for all believers (Acts 15:12; 21:40; 22:2). Paul tells others to be quiet, but this is not universally binding (1 Cor. 14:28, 30). Indeed, earlier in the chapter, the same word for “quiet” (hēsuchia) is used in verse 2 to refer to all believers (“we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity”). Paul could also be saying that he is prohibiting “disruptive behavior rather than enforcing complete silence.”[13]
(1 Tim. 2:13) For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
When we read this verse, we should ask ourselves a pressing question: Why is the order of creation important to the subject of women teaching? Paul cannot be saying that Adam had authority because he was created first. Guthrie states that “chronological order alone cannot in this case be regarded as significant since Adam was created after the animals and was nevertheless given dominion over them.”[14] So true! Moreover, if creation order was this important, why are women still permitted to prophesy (1 Cor. 11:5), which is an important gift?
In our reading of the text, we appeal to the historical background of false teaching in Ephesus. Paul must be bringing up the creation order because this was a common Gnostic heresy that was being propagated by female false teachers in Ephesus. Kroeger and Kroeger write, “Most Gnostic accounts show Eve as pre-existing Adam; in one account she is actually the hermaphrodite from whom Adam is drawn.”[15] For instance, one text states, “Sophia sent [Eve] her daughter… that she should raise up Adam, who had no soul in him… When Eve saw her co-likeness lying flat, she showed pity upon him and said, ‘Adam live!’”[16] Likewise, both “Tertullian and Irenaeus rebuked the Gnostics for their belief that a female could produce a living being without aid of the male.”[17] In other words, these Gnostic texts state that Eve wasn’t created first; Adam was! This false teaching existed in Paul’s day, and this is what Paul was responding to.
Consequently, Kroger and Kroger translate this section in this way: “I do not permit woman to teach nor to represent herself as originator of man but she is to be in conformity [with the Scriptures] [or that she keeps it a secret.] For Adam was created first, then Eve.”[18]
(1 Tim. 2:14) And it was not Adam who was deceived (apataō), but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression (parabasis).
When we read this verse, we need to ask ourselves another important question: If women are so easily deceived, then why isn’t an important doctrine like this mentioned somewhere else in the Bible? If women are biologically prone to being deceived, we would expect much more teaching on this subject. (Indeed, this is the only passage in the Bible that teaches this!) Moreover, there is no empirical evidence to support that women are worse in interpreting Scripture. Women do not get lower grades on seminary exams. In fact, as we look through the history of the church, we see that male theologians have been just as deceived as female. In Appendix C, Webb details scientific research that demonstrates the obvious: Women are not more easily deceived than men.[19]
“Deceived” (apataō). This term also relates to Gnostic literature. The Gnostic literature uses “the comment that the archons ‘intended to deceive him.’ Although the text which survives is a Coptic translation of the original Greek document, the translator retained the Greek word apate for ‘deceit.’ The verbal form appears in 1 Timothy 2:14, which says that Adam was not deceived (apatao).’[20]
“Transgression” (parabasis). Paul ascribes the guilt of this situation to Adam—not Eve (Rom. 5:12-19; 1 Cor. 15:21-22), and Paul uses the same Greek term (parabasis) to describe Adam’s “offense” (Rom. 5:14) and Eve’s “transgression” (1 Tim. 2:14). In other words, Paul uses the same term to describe both Adam and Eve. Moreover, the Genesis account itself states that Eve gave the fruit “to her husband with her, and he ate” (Gen. 3:6). In other words, Adam was standing with Eve, and they were both deceived at the same time.
Why does Paul appeal to the creation narrative? Keener gives an alternate suggestion that Paul is making an analogy—not the basis of gender—but on the basis of general gullibility. He cites 2 Corinthians 11:3 which refers to both men and women.[21]
Why can women teach other (gullible) women? Other logical consequences of the traditional view don’t accord with the Scriptures. For example, if women are so easily deceived, then why are they allowed to teach other women and kids? Titus 2:3-4 states: “Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, 4 so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children.” Virtually all commentators agree that this passage permits women to teach other women. However, if women are more easily deceived, then this would be the worst venue for them to teach! Why would they be allowed to teach other women who are equally and easily deceived? Furthermore, why did Paul affirm the teaching ministry of Timothy’s mother and grandmother, if women are so easily deceived? (cf. 2 Tim. 1:5; 3:15)
Why did God lead the modern mission’s movement through women. Ruth Tucker writes, “Women—single and married—constituted about two thirds of the North American missionary force.”[22] Mark A. Noll notes, “A major factor in the rising missionary interest was the participation of women… Single women in their own missionary societies combined with the wives of male missionaries to make up 60 percent of the nation’s missionary force in the late nineteenth century.”[23] Perhaps traditionalists would respond that God works through sinful means all the time. But not so fast! There’s nothing sinful with being a woman.
Conclusion. Paul is responding to a very specific heresy in Ephesus. This is why in the next chapter he writes, “I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; 15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God” (1 Tim. 3:14-15). There must have been something happening in Ephesus that Paul was specifically writing to.
(1 Tim. 2:15) But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.
Admittedly, this is a difficult passage. However, three interpretations are plausible:
INTERPRETATION #1. Paul might be commenting on the prophecy of Genesis 3:15. In the original Greek, “women” is not there; this is inferred from the context (“if they continue…”). Moreover, the word “childbearing” is preceded by the article. For this reason, some translators render this verse: “The bearing of the Child” (see margins of NLT and NEB). Under this rendering, Paul is showing that sin came through Eve, but the savior came through Eve, as well. This would be perfectly consistent with Paul’s exposition of Genesis 3, which is the context of this passage. Stott[24] and Guthrie[25] find this view to be the most likely.
INTERPRETATION #2. Paul might be saying that women will be saved from the Curse. This would fit with the context as well, where Eve is cursed for childbirth. But she is also saved from the Curse through godliness. Keener writes, “It may thus be that Paul’s promise that the women will be brought safely through childbirth is seen as a relief from part of the curse, from which believers will not be completely free until they share fully in the resurrection.”[26]
INTERPRETATION #3. Paul might still be fighting Gnostic thought in this passage. Gnostic teachers considered child-bearing as sinful. For this reason, Paul could still be attacking this view.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the traditional interpretation has the benefit of a straightforward reading of the text. However, as you can see, this straightforward reading contains many problems. It fails to interact with the historical backdrop of Ephesus. Much like 1 Corinthians 11:5-6, we need to interpret Scriptural commands in light of their historical context.
Moreover, the traditional interpretation must consider the gravity of whether or not they are wrong in their view. If they are, they would have effectively cut their work force in half, because of misinterpreting a single verse of Scripture. This would mean that God’s church would be benching half of its gifting and talent, because of a misinterpretation of a single biblical passage. As Keener observes, “Perhaps if we do not know for certain whether we are right or wrong, we ought to give the ‘benefit of the doubt’ to those who claim that God called them and who evidence the fruits of that call in their lives, rather than passing judgment on them.”[27]
For further reading, see our earlier article “Christianity and Women.”
[1] William Webb, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), “Appendix B: Women are More Easily Deceived than Men.”
[2] Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992).
[3] Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992), 62-63.
[4] Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992), 54.
[5] Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992), 64.
[6] Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992), 65.
[7] Wayne Grudem, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Newsletter, (November 1995).
[8] Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992), 51.
[9] Craig Keener, Paul, Women, & Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 117.
[10] Craig Keener, Paul, Women, & Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 112.
[11] Mounce writes, “In his thirteen epistles, Paul uses 1,429 present-tense active indicative verbs (out of a total of 2,835 indicative verbs). If this objection is true, then almost nothing Paul says can have any significance beyond the narrow confines of its immediate context… When one looks at the use of the present tense in the Pastoral Epistles, the general, universal scope of the tense is continually illustrated. In the Pastoral Epistles there are 111 present-tense indicative verbs.” William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, vol. 46, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2000), 122.
[12] Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992), 87-103.
[13] Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, vol. 34, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 100.
[14] Donald Guthrie, Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 14, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 91.
[15] Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992), 122.
[16] On the Origin of the World NHC 2.5.115.31-116.8.
[17] Tertullian Against the Valentinians 10; Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.2.4. Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992), 110.
[18] Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992), 103.
[19] Stephen J. Dollinger (et al.), “Psychological-Mindedness, Psychological-Construing, and the Judgment of Deception,” The Journal of General Psychology 108 (1983): 183-191.
Mark Edward Comadena, “Examinations of the Deception Attribution Process of Friends and Intimates” (Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University, 1983).
Dilys James Sakai, “Nonverbal Communication in the Detection of Deception Among Women and Men” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, 1981).
Pamela Joy Kalbfleisch, “Accuracy in Deception Detection: A Quantitative Review (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1985).
[20] Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992), 123.
[21] Craig Keener, Paul, Women, & Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 117.
[22] R. A. Tucker, From Jerusalem to Irian Jaya (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), p.16. Cited in Craig Keener, Paul, Women, & Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 257.
[23] Howard Clark Kee (et al.), Christianity: A Social and Cultural History (New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1991), 697.
[24] See John R. W. Stott, Guard the Truth: The Message of 1 Timothy & Titus, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 87.
[25] It should be noted, however, that Guthrie doesn’t give this view a ringing endorsement. He simply states that it has “less difficulties” than alternate views! Donald Guthrie, Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 14, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 93.
[26] Craig Keener, Paul, Women, & Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 119.
[27] Craig Keener, Paul, Women, & Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 113.