Professional Documents
Culture Documents
What Is The Childbearing in 1 Timothy 2
What Is The Childbearing in 1 Timothy 2
IS “THE CHILDBEARING” IN 1 TIMOTHY 2:15?
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF
WESTERN SEMINARY
PORTLAND, OREGON
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE
MABTS
BY
ANTHONY DAW
MARCH 2016
APPROVAL PAGE
ANTHONY DAW
Master of Arts in Biblical and Theological Studies
APPROVAL
Patrick Schreiner, Assistant Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, First
Reader
____________________
Date
Jan Verbruggen, Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature, Second Reader
____________________
Date
Gerry Breshears, Professor of Systematic Theology, Program Director
____________________
Date
Rob Wiggins, Academic Dean
____________________
Date
DEDICATION
To Ali,
who is to me
what Eve was meant to be.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tables...................................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgement .............................................................................................................iii
List of Abbreviations .........................................................................................................iv
Glossary ............................................................................................................................vii
Abstract...............................................................................................................................ix
Introduction..........................................................................................................................1
A Survey of Current Scholarship....................................................................................2
The Purpose of This Paper..............................................................................................6
Chapter 1:
Eve's Creation, Deception, Transgression, and Childbearing...........................................8
Chapter 2:
The Meaning of τεκνογονια............................................................................................12
Chapter 3:
The Function of the Article.............................................................................................15
Chapter 4:
An Assessment of the 5 Views........................................................................................18
The “Birthing Babies” View.........................................................................................18
The “Raising Children” View.......................................................................................19
The “Domestic Duties” View........................................................................................20
The “Allegorical” View................................................................................................22
The “Birth of Christ” View...........................................................................................24
Chapter 5:
A Proposed Interpretation................................................................................................27
The Connection to Genesis 3:16...................................................................................28
The Reason For Choosing “τεκνογονια”......................................................................30
The Classification of the Article...................................................................................31
Conclusion.........................................................................................................................33
Bibliography......................................................................................................................35
ii
TABLES
Table 1. Genesis references...............................................................................................28
Table 2. Childbearing terms...............................................................................................29
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank Dr. Jim DeYoung, who taught me Greek and first alerted me
to the exegetical complexities of this passage. I am equally grateful to Dr. Bob Krupp,
who introduced me to The Intellectual Life and Thinking on Paper, Dr. Patrick Schreiner,
who continually encouraged me to focus my research, and Dr. Jan Verbruggen, who
taught me to interpret the NT in light of a sound exegesis of the OT. My research is a
product of the training I received from these men.
I am also grateful to the many brilliant scholars who have pored over this passage
over the past two millennia. Their research provided a solid foundation for my own.
I would like to thank my pastor, Geoff Hartt, who mentored me during the four
years I was in seminary. His guidance has been invaluable to me—both in training for
ministry and in academic writing. He is a true model of a man committed to making
disciples.
Finally, I am deeply grateful to my wife, Ali. Her life is a testimony to the
teachings of Scripture. I am not sure I would be able to grasp the biblical teachings on
men and women without such an example in my life. Any gains I have made here were
only possible due to her continual help in every area of life.
iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AB: Anchor Bible
BBR: Bulletin for Biblical Research
BDAG: Bauer, W., F. Danker, W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich. GreekEnglish Lexicon
of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3D ed. Chicago, 1999
BSac: Bibliotheca sacra
CTR: Criswell Theological Review
CBMW: Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
cf.: confer; compare
ed(s): editor(s); edited by
e.g.: exempli gratia; for example
ESV: English Standard Version
et al.: et alii; and others
etc.: et cetera; and the rest
ExpTim: Expository Times
HNTC: Harper's New Testament Commentaries
ICC: International Critical Commentary
i.e.: id est; that is
JBL: Journal of Biblical Literature
v
JETS: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JSNT: Journal for the Study of the New Testament
L&N: GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains.
Edited by J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida. 2d ed. New York, 1989
LTQ: Lexington Theological Quarterly
LXX: Septuagint (the Greek OT)
MM: Moulton, J. H., and G. Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. London,
1930. Reprint, Peabody, Mass., 1997
MNTC: Moffatt New Testament Commentary
MT: Masoretic Text (the Hebrew OT)
NAC: New American Commentary
NASB: New American Standard Bible
NIBCNT: New International Biblical Commentary on the New Testament
NICNT: New International Commentary on the New Testament
NICOT: New International Commentary on the Old Testament
NIDNTT: New International Dictionary of new Testament Theology. Edited by C.
Brown. 4 vols. Grand Rapids, 1975–1985
NIGTC: New International Greek Testament Commentary
NIVAC: NIV Application Commentary
no.: number
NPNF1: Nicene and PostNicene Fathers, Series 1
vi
NPNF2: Nicene and PostNicene Fathers, Series 2
NT: New Testament
OT: Old Testament
PGL: Patristic Greek Lexicon. Edited by G. W. H. Lampe. Oxford, 1968
TJ: Trinity Journal
TNTC: Tyndale New Testament Commentaries
trans.: translator; translated by
vol(s).: volume(s)
WBC: Word Biblical Commentary
ZPEB: Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Edited by M. C. Tenney. 5 vols.
Grand Rapids, 1975
vii
GLOSSARY
allegorical: of or pertaining to allegory; figurative.
allegory: the use of concrete symbols to convey abstract truth.
anaphoric: referring back to a preceding word.
articular: occurring in conjunction with the Greek article.
childbearing: the physical act of bringing forth children.
childrearing: the act of raising children.
conceptual domain: the range of a word's conventional usage.
congeries: a literary device in which words are piled up for the purpose of amplification.
division: a logical fallacy in which one reasons that what is true of the whole must also
be true of the parts.
exegesis: a method of interpretation in which meaning is deduced critically from the text.
exegetical: of or pertaining to exegesis.
generic (a classification of the Greek article): specifying a definite class for the purpose
of demarcating it and distinguishing it from all other classes.
hendiatris: a literary device in which three words are used to express one idea.
individualizing (a classification of the Greek article): specifying a definite member of a
class.
morphology: the pattern of word formation, including composition and derivation.
viii
parturition: the physical act of giving birth.
summary citation: a common rabbinic method of pointing one's audience to an entire
Old Testament pericope by use of a concise statement.
synecdoche: a literary device in which a part stands for the whole (or vice versa).
transgression: the act of overstepping an established boundary.
ix
ABSTRACT
In 1 Timothy 2:15 Paul makes a very perplexing statement to the effect that Eve
will be saved through “the childbearing” if they exercise good judgment and remain in
the Christian way. This statement has puzzled commentators for two thousand years. The
purpose of this Masters thesis is to help clarify Paul's meaning by explaining his
reference to “the childbearing.”
Chapter 1 carefully considers the relationship between the term and its immediate
literary context. Chapter 2 establishes the conceptual domain of the noun. Chapter 3
discusses the classification of the article. Five prominent interpretations are then assessed
in chapter 4 in light of the evidence presented in the first three chapters. Finally, in
chapter 5, a new solution is proposed which better accounts for the actual wording of the
Greek text.
1
INTRODUCTION
One of the most important questions facing the church today is what exactly the
Bible teaches regarding gender. Some passages of Scripture seem to suggest a
fundamental difference between men and women, ordained by God, which reaches even
to our roles within the church.1 Yet other passages seem to validate one of our society's
deepest commitments: that of unconditional equality. Every year, the debate grows more
intense, making it now more important than ever for the church to “accurately handle the
word of truth” in these passages.
At the center of the debate is 1 Timothy 2:8–15.2 Mounce translates the passage as
follows:
Therefore, I desire that the men should pray in every place by lifting up
holy hands, without anger and arguing. Likewise, I also desire that the women
should adorn themselves in respectable attire, with modesty and moderation, not
with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly clothing, but with what is
appropriate for women who are committed to godliness, namely, in good deeds.
A woman should learn in quietness, in all submissiveness; but I do not
permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but she is to be in
quietness. For Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but
the woman, having been deceived, has come into transgression; but she will be
saved through childbearing, if they remain in faith and love and holiness, with
modesty.3
It is this passage more than any other which argues for genderbased role distinctions in
1
For example, 1 Tim. 2:8–15, the passage in focus throughout this paper.
2
Stephen B. Clark, Man and Woman in Christ: An Examination of the Roles of Men and Women in Light
of Scripture and the Social Sciences (Ann Arbor: Servant, 1980), 191–192; Terri Darby Moore, If They
Remain: An Analysis of Approaches to 1 Timothy 2:15 (ThM thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary,
2003), 76–77.
3
William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, in WBC (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 102.
2
the church, making it supremely important to the discussion. However, modern
interpreters face a serious challenge in appealing to this text. After a brief instruction to
men, the passage contains six and a half verses of correction, prohibition, shame, and
regulation for women, and a half of a verse of hopeful encouragement to balance it out4—
but that half of a verse (“but she will be saved through the5 childbearing”) is the most
confusing part of the passage to modern interpreters.6 The result is that a text which was
intended to provide a balanced response to a sensitive issue comes across instead as being
largely negative, confusing, and generally discouraging to women who have a heart for
serving in the church. The purpose of this paper is to help alleviate this problem by
explaining the reference to “the childbearing” in 1 Timothy 2:15.
A Survey of Current Scholarship
There are currently five major views on “the childbearing” (“της τεκνογονιας”) in
1 Timothy 2:15.7 In the first view, “the childbearing” means “giving birth to babies.” This
4
Douglas J. Moo, “1 Timothy 2:11–15: Meaning and Significance,” TJ 1 NS (1980): 71; Thomas R.
Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9–15: A Dialogue with Scholarship,” in Women in the
Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and
H. Scott Baldwin (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 146; NET Bible, accessed October 21, 2015,
http://net.bible.org, note #25 on 1 Tim. 2:15.; E. F. Scott, The Pastoral Epistles, in MNTC (London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1936), 28.
5
There is an article present in the Greek which Mounce omits from his translation, but its significance
here should not be overlooked, as we will see.
6
David R. Kimberly, “1 Tim 2:15: A Possible Understanding of a Difficult Text,” JETS 35 (December
1992): 481: “Surely 1 Tim 2:15 ranks among the most problematic of texts in the entire NT.” Sakae
Kubo, “An Exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:11–15 and Its Implications,” in Symposium on the Role of Women
in the Church, Biblical Research Institute Committee, General Conference of SeventhDay Adventists
(1984): 78: “The major problem . . . is found in vs. 15–söthēsetai dia tēs teknogonias. The rest of the
passage is straightforward enough.”; Andreas J. Köstenberger, “Ascertaining Women's GodOrdained
Roles: An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:15,” BBR 7 (1997): 107: it “has puzzled commentators of all
ages to no end, and agreement can be found in one thing only: that this passage has consistently defied
attempts to interpret it”; Jerry L. Moan, A Biblical Understanding of Women in Ministry: An
Investigation of 1 Timothy 2:8–15 (STM thesis, Concordia Theological Seminary, 2009), 105: “It
appears to be a question which will not likely be settled this side of glory.”
7
For helpful surveys of different viewpoints on the verse, see Köstenberger, Roles, 116, Moo,
Significance, 71, and Moore, 3–22.
3
will therefore be referred to as the “Birthing Babies” view to differentiate it from the
others. These scholars believe Paul is saying that women will be saved (in some sense)
either by birthing babies (Porter; Hendricksen),8 while birthing babies (Kimberly),9 or in
spite of birthing babies (Scott; Alford; Coupland).10 Alford explains this latter variation
by comparing 1 Timothy 2:15 to 1 Corinthians 3:15:
Just as that man should be saved through, as passing through, fire which is his
trial, his hindrance in his way, in spite of which he escapes,—so she shall be
saved, through, as passing through, her childbearing, which is her trial, her curse,
her (not means of salvation, but) hindrance in the way of it.11
The second view will be referred to as the “Raising Children” view. These
scholars (MacArthur; Quinn; Kelly; Moore; Lewis; Falconer) believe that the meaning of
τεκνογονια includes more than just “birthing babies”; it includes the idea of raising the
children as well.12 In other words, women will be saved (in some sense) by mothering
children. While this motherhood does include childbirth, these scholars believe
τεκνογονια is primarily emphasizing the activity of raising the children after they are
born. MacArthur is a major proponent of this view:
A woman led the human race into sin, yet women benefit mankind by
replenishing it. . . . as a general rule, motherhood is the greatest contribution a
woman can make to the human race. The pain of childbearing was woman's
punishment for sin, but bearing and rearing children delivers woman from the
stigma of that sin. . . . women are to accept their Godgiven role. They must not
8
Stanley E. Porter, “What Does it Mean to be 'Saved by Childbirth' (1 Timothy 2.15)?” JSNT 49 (1993),
102; William Hendriksen, I–II Timothy and Titus, in New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1957), 111, seeing “saved” as attaining true happiness.
9
Kimberly, 482–486.
10
Scott, 28; Simon Coupland, “Salvation Through Childbearing? The Riddle of 1 Timothy 2:15,” The
ExpTim 112, no. 9 (June 2001): 302303.
11
Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, Volume 3 (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1897), 320.
12
Jerome D. Quinn and William C. Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, in Eerdmans
Critical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 232; J. N. D. Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles:
Timothy I & II, Titus, in HNTC (New York: Harper, 1963), 69–70; Moore, 58–61; Robert Mason
Lewis, An Exegetical Examination of Women and the Church in the Epistle of First Timothy (MA
thesis, Western Seminary, 1977), 49–51; Sir Robert Falconer, "1 Timothy 2 14, 15. Interpretative
Notes," JBL 60 (December, 1941): 376–377.
4
seek the leadership role in the church. Primarily they are to raise godly children.13
The third view, which has been promoted by a number of recent Evangelical
scholars (Schreiner; Moo; Blomberg; Lea; Kubo; White; Köstenberger; Towner;
Marshall), holds that while τεκνογονια does technically mean “childbearing” (contra the
“Raising Children” view), Paul is using the word as a synecdoche for “womanly
duties.”14 These “womanly duties” are seen as domestic in nature, and so this will be
referred to as the “Domestic Duties” view. In other words, these scholars take “saved
through the childbearing” to mean “saved through being good wives and mothers.”
Schreiner is a leading advocate of this approach:
Childbearing, then, is probably selected by synecdoche as representing the
appropriate role for women. This rounds out the passage because a woman should
not violate her role by teaching or exercising authority over a man; instead, she
should take her proper role as a mother of children.15
Each of the views mentioned so far have interpreted “της τεκνογονιας” as a
reference to a woman's works. These scholars believe that Paul is saying (in some manner
of speaking) that women will be saved through their activities of giving birth, raising
children, or being good wives and mothers. Other scholars have instead understood “της
τεκνογονιας” as Paul's way of introducing the woman's children into the discussion, with
the emphasis then being on her children. Several church fathers (e.g. Jerome;
13
John MacArthur, God's High Calling For Women: 1 Timothy 2:9–15, John MacArthur's Bible Studies
(Chicago: Moody, 1987), 49–50.
14
Moo, Significance, 71; Craig Blomberg, “Not Beyond What Is Written: A Review Of Aida Spencer's
Beyond The Curse: Women Called To Ministry,” CTR 2 (Spring 1988): 414–16; Thomas D. Lea and
Hayne P. Griffin, Jr., 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, in NAC (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 102; Kubo, 81;
Newport J. D. White, “The First and Second Epistles to Timothy and The Epistle to Titus,” in vol. 4 of
The Expositor's Greek Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton), 110; Philip H. Towner, The Letters
to Timothy and Titus, in NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 235; I. Howard Marshall, The
Pastoral Epistles, in ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 470; Rodney G. Fox, An Interpretation of 1
Timothy 2:15: 'She Shall Be Saved Through Childbearing' (ThM thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary,
1991), 60–61.
15
Schreiner, 151.
5
Chrysostom) understood the text this way, noting that “if they remain” (1 Tim. 2:15b)
seems to refer to the children implied by “the childbearing.”16 They believed Paul was
saying, “a woman will be saved through bearing children, if they (the children) remain in
the Christian way.” While this “salvation by godly kids” view has long been dismissed on
theological grounds, some of the exegetical observations of these church fathers have
lived on in the views that follow.
According to the “Allegorical” view (Augustine; Gregory; Waters), 1 Tim.
2:13–15 is an allegory in which Paul is repurposing language from Genesis 2–3 in order
to make an unrelated statement about Ephesian Christians.17 In this view, the
metaphorical children implied by “the childbearing” are good works or virtues. So, in this
view, women will be saved by producing good fruit if they remain in “faith, love,
holiness, and modesty.”18 It is by producing (“birthing”) these four virtues (“children”)
that women will find their salvation. Waters is the modern champion of this position:
My pivotal point is that the term “childbearing” is also an allegorical metaphor
just like all other terms in this passage. The children to be borne are not actual
human children, but rather metaphorical children. These children are four in
number. Their names are faith, love, holiness, and temperance, the very virtues
mentioned in the immediate context of the term “childbearing.”19
The “Birth of Christ” view is another major contender in modern Evangelical
scholarship. These scholars (Guthrie; Knight; Huizenga; Mann; Kent) believe the
offspring of “the woman,” Eve, is Christ, in whom all women, including Eve, will find
16
Jerome, Letter 107: To Laeta 6, NPNF2 6:192; John Chrysostom, Homily 9: 1 Timothy 2:11–15, NPNF1
13:436.
17
Kenneth L. Waters, Sr., “Saved Through Childbearing: Virtues as Children in 1 Timothy 2:11–15,” JBL
123/4 (2004): 704.
18
Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity 13, NPNF2 5:359; Aurelius Augustine, On The Trinity 12.7.11, NPNF1
3:159.
19
Kenneth L. Waters, Sr., “Revisiting Virtues as Children: 1 Timothy 2:15 as Centerpiece for an
Egalitarian Soteriology,” LTQ 42, no. 1 (2007): 38.
6
salvation.20 So they understand the verse to be saying, “she (Eve) will be saved through
the bearing of THE Child: Christ.” Kent explains how this fits with Paul's flow of
thought in the passage:
Having clearly stated woman's subordinate position in the public functions of the
church, does Paul wish to imply that she is too low to be saved? Does her
prominent place in the Fall render her incapable of salvation in the fullest sense?
Lest anyone should think that Paul had such an attitude toward women, the next
verse clearly answers any suspicions. There is salvation for women, even though
they are in subjection to men.21
The Purpose of This Paper
While each of these views have provided interpreters with valuable insights into
the exegesis of our passage, none of them fully explain the actual wording of the Greek
text. For example, τεκνογονια is a noun (parturition; the act of childbearing), and yet
several of these views treat it as if it were a participle (e.g. saved through birthing
babies.) Τεκνογονια is also an exceedingly rare and technical term, making it a strange
choice of wording for most of the views. In addition, the noun is articular and definite in
this context (the childbearing),22 yet only the “Birth of Christ” view incorporates this into
their interpretation—and even these scholars have to admit that Paul “could hardly have
chosen a more obscure or ambiguous way of saying it.”23
I believe there is a better explanation of Paul's meaning in 1 Timothy 2:15—one
20
Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles, in TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 89–90; George W.
Knight, III., The Pastoral Epistles, in NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 146–147; Hilde
Huizenga, “Women, Salvation, and the Birth of Christ: A Reexamination of 1 Timothy 2:15,” Studia
Biblica et Theologica 12 (April, 1982): 21–23; Randy T Mann, 1 Timothy 2:9–15 and the Evangelical
Debate on the Role of Women (ThM thesis, Grace Theological Seminary, 1992), 97–98.
21
Homer A Kent, Jr., The Pastoral Epistles: Studies in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus (Chicago: Moody,
1982), 111.
22
cf. Chapter 3.
23
Guthrie, 89.
7
which fully accounts for his choice of wording—and I believe it is discoverable through
careful exegesis. This MA thesis will lay the groundwork for this explanation by
addressing the peculiar wording of “the childbearing.” In the first chapter, the Genesis
background to Paul's statement will be reviewed. Chapters 2 and 3 will explore the
meaning of τεκνογονια and the function of the article. Chapter 4 will assess each of the
five prominent views in light of this data, and then in chapter 5 a solution will be
proposed which better accounts for the wording of the Greek text. I will argue that “the
childbearing” is a direct literary reference to Eve's childbearing in Genesis 3:16.24 It is as
if Paul is pointing his finger at that verse as he speaks in order to explain to his readers
that Eve will be saved—through the very childbearing mentioned right there in her curse.
24
Genesis 3:16, NASB: To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain
you will bring forth children; yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
8
CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 1:
EVE'S CREATION, DECEPTION,
TRANSGRESSION, AND CHILDBEARING
The purpose of this chapter is to show that the statement concerning “the
childbearing” (1 Tim. 2:15a) occurs in the literary context of a summary citation of the
Genesis 3 narrative (1 Tim. 2:14),25 and that we must therefore carefully consider the
term's potential relationship to that narrative. Summary citation was a common rabbinic
method of pointing one's audience to an entire Old Testament pericope by use of a
concise statement.26 For example, Jesus' succinct warning, “Remember Lot’s wife” in
Luke 17:32 was meant to recall the entire OT story about the destruction of Sodom and
Gomorrah (Gen. 18:22–19:26) as it pertained to Lot's wife.27
To help establish that Paul was indeed using summary citation in 1 Timothy 2:14,
let us first review his use of this method in the verse immediately preceding it (2:13). The
literary connections between 1 Timothy 2:13 and the LXX of Genesis 2 are evident from
the very first word, “Αδαμ” (Adam), which occurred ten times in Genesis 2.28 That Adam
“επλασθη” (was formed), recalls “επλασε(ν)” from the LXX of Genesis 2:7–8 and 15.29
25
Ann L. Bowman, “Women in Ministry: An Exegetical Study of 1 Timothy 2:11–15,” BSac 149
(April–June 1992): 203–204; Towner 228; cf. Huizenga, 17; Towner, 225; Quinn and Wacker, 226.
26
Bowman, 203–204.
27
Bowman, 204n36; cf. John Nolland, Luke 9:21–18:34, in WBC (Dallas: Word Books, 1993), 861.
28
Alfred Rahlfs, Septuagint: Second Revised Edition, ed. Robert Hanhart (Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 2006), accessed November, 2015,
https://www.academicbible.com/en/onlinebibles/septuagintlxx/; Towner, 225; Quinn and Wacker,
202: “Adam begins to appear as a name abruptly in LXX Gen 2:16 and, after a couple dozen
appearances, ceases to be employed regularly after LXX Gen 5:5.”
29
Rahlfs; Moo, Significance, 68; Bowman, 203; Knight, 143; Luke Timothy Johnson, The First and
Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, in AB (New York:
9
In addition to these direct verbal links, there are also clear conceptual links to the Genesis
2 account:30 that Adam was formed “first” recalls the order of events in Genesis 2:7–22;
the reference to Eve is another example.31 Thus, the terse statement, “Adam was created
first, then Eve,” is meant to recall the entire Genesis 2 story—particularly as it pertained
to the woman's relationship to the man. So Paul is not teaching something new here; he is
merely reminding his readers of a story they are already familiar with.32
The literary connections to Genesis are equally evident in the next verse (1 Tim.
2:14), where Genesis 3 is now in view.33 “Αδαμ” begins the sequence once again, a name
mentioned nine times in Genesis 3.34 Next, Paul picks up the rare use of ηπατησε in the
LXX of Genesis 3:13 with his use of “ηπατηθη” (deceived) and “εξαπατηθεισα”
(thoroughly deceived).35 Eve is now referred to more precisely as “ἡ γυνη” (the woman),
as she was a total of thirteen times throughout the LXX of Genesis 3.36 Her deception is
followed immediately by her entrance into a state of transgression, as it was in Genesis
3.37 Thus, by noting that “Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived,
Doubleday, 2001), 201; Towner, 226; Marshall, 470n204; the word also appears in Gen. 2:19; Quinn
and Wacker, 201–202: “Of over four dozen appearances of plassein in the LXX, the most influential
upon later Jewish and Christian usage appear to be those in the narrative of the fashioning of 'the
man' . . . in Gen 2:7.”
30
Towner, 225–226; Bowman, 203.
31
Towner, 225–226: “In the LXX, the name 'Eve' does not actually occur until Gen 4:1 . . . But the name
was clearly well known, and so not surprisingly is backread naturally into the creation story here.” It is
also interesting to consider that “Eve” was only the woman's postFall identity, and that prior to the Fall
she shared a name with “Adam” (cf. Gen. 5:2.)
32
Quinn and Wacker, 227: “It is notable that its [verse 13's] argument is not expanded upon but, for all its
brevity, is taken for granted as familiar and immediately intelligible.”
33
Mounce, Pastoral, 135–136; Knight, 143.
34
Rahlfs: Gen. 3:8, 9 (2x), 12, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24.
35
Bowman, 203, 205; Moo, Significance, 69; Knight, 143, noting that this is the only occurrence of the
word in the LXX of Genesis; Towner, 228; Marshall, 470n204.
36
Rahlfs: Gen. 3:1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 13 (x2), 15, 16, 17, 20, 21; Knight, 144.
37
Towner, 228: “Paul's selection of this term [transgression] . . . is not determined by the language of
Genesis 3; but its depiction of sin as 'overstepping an established boundary' aptly characterizes Eve's
violation”. It is also interesting to consider the possibility that this “overstepping” may be reflected in
Gen. 3:16.
10
has come into transgression,” Paul recalls the entire Genesis 3 narrative as it pertained to
the fall of the woman. Again, Paul is not teaching something new, but rather, reminding
his readers of a story they are already familiar with.
What is too often overlooked is that the Greek sentence which began in 2:14
continues in 2:15 by use of the conjunction δε.38 As noted by Kent, this “has been
indicated with a comma between the verses by Alford, a semicolon by Nestle's Greek
text, and a colon by the ASV.”39 This means that Paul's next statement, “but she will be
saved through the childbearing,” appears in the same sentence as the summary citation of
the Genesis 3 narrative. In other words, Paul intentionally calls to mind the entire Genesis
3 story of the woman's fall, and then refers to “the childbearing” in the same breath. This
should lead us to suspect that this term may also be connected to the Genesis 3 story.
The literary connections to the Genesis 3 narrative continue in 2:15.40 The implied
subject of “σωθησεται” (she will be saved) is naturally “ἡ γυνη” (the woman, Eve) from
earlier in the sentence.41 “σωθησεται” suggests redemption from the “transgression” that
she “has come to be in” (2:14).42 Finally, “τεκνογονιας” calls to mind “τεξη τεκνα” from
the LXX of Genesis 3:16.43 Did Paul intend for his readers to make this connection?
Before we can answer that, the conceptual domain of the word τεκνογονια must be
38
Kurt Aland, et al., eds., The Greek New Testament: Fourth Revised Edition (Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 1998), 716; Kent, 114–115; Blomberg, 414; Moan, 102.
39
Kent, 114–115.
40
Kelly, 68–69; cf. Scott, 27.
41
Köstenberger, Roles, 122; Kent, 114; cf. Knight, 147; J. E. Huther, Critical and Exegetical Handbook
to the Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus, trans. David Hunter (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1881),
133; Porter, Childbirth, 90.
42
Porter, Childbirth, 94; Mounce, Pastoral, 144; Knight, 146–147; cf. Falconer, 376; S. Jebb, “Short
Comment: A Suggested Interpretation of 1 Ti 215,” ExpTim 81, no.7 (April 1970): 221–222; James B.
Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Academie, 1981), 221.
43
Scott, 27; NET, note #25 on 1 Tim. 2:15; Marshall, 470n204; Huther, 133; Quinn and Wacker, 231;
Towner, 233; Mann, 90; Waters, Saved, 705. That there are so many other literary connections between
this passage and the LXX of Genesis 2–3 suggests that Paul was using the LXX (and not the MT) as he
wrote, which makes this potential literary connection to the LXX even more likely.
11
established.
12
CHAPTER 2
CHAPTER 2:
THE MEANING OF ΤΕΚΝΟΓΟΝΙΑ
In this chapter the relevant data concerning the word τεκνογονια will be surveyed.
It will be shown that this data unanimously supports the definition “childbearing.” It will
also be shown that there is no evidence that the word τεκνογονια was ever used to signify
anything other than the physical act of parturition. It does not mean “raising children”; it
was not used to refer to “domestic duties”; it does not mean “a child's birth.”44
The noun τεκνογονια (with its cognate verb τεκνογονεω) is a compound word
formed by combining τεκνον (child) with γεν (γενναω; to beget).45 As its morphology
suggests, the word signifies childbearing (parturition); that is, the physical act of giving
birth to children.46 BDAG thus defines it as “the bearing of children.”47
Hippocrates (fifth century BC) used the noun to refer to “childbirths as events in
life similar to weddings or other important occasions.”48 Aristotle (fourth century BC)
used it to note that at 21 years of age women are physically ready to give birth.49
44
That is to say, τεκνογονια refers to the mother's activity of giving birth, not the children or their
experience. cf. Schreiner, 148; Marshall, 469; NET, note #25 on 1 Tim. 2:15; Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2
Timothy, Titus, in NIBCNT (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988), 75; Douglas J. Moo, “The Interpretation of
1 Timothy 2:11–15: A Rejoinder,” TJ 2 NS (1981): 205.
45
W. E. Vine, “Teknogonia,” in An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words: With Their Precise
Meanings for English Readers (London: Oliphants, 1953), 188; Vine, “Teknogoneo,” 188.
46
P. E. Adolph, “Childbearing,” ZPEB 1:794–795; Schreiner, 148; G. Braumann, “τεκνον,” NIDNTT
1:285–287; Moore, 60; Huther, 134; J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, “τεκνογονια,” MM 628; Joseph H.
Thayer, “τεκνογονια,” in Thayer's GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody:
Hendrickson, 2000), 617; J. E. Louw and E. A. Nida, “τικτω; γενναω; τεκνογονεω; τεκνογονια, ας,”
L&N 256–257 (#23.52); Marshall, 468.
47
W. Bauer et al., “τεκνογονια,” BDAG, 994.
48
Köstenberger, Roles, 140 commenting on Hippocrates, Epistulae 17; cf. Porter, Childbirth, 96.
49
Aristotle, De Animalibus Hist, ed. L. Dittmeyer, (Leipzig: Teubneri, 1907), 276 (Η.1.582a29); cf.
Aristotle, History of Animals: In Ten Books, trans. Richard Cresswell (London: Bell, 1878), 181; There
13
Chrysippus (third century BC) used it in commending those who were zealous to submit
even to marriage and to “childbirth,” despite the health risks posed by doing so.50
The noun also has a cognate verb, τεκνογονεω, which means “bear children.”51
BDAG lists “bear/beget children” as its sole definition.52 Paul uses this verb in 1 Timothy
5:14 when he instructs the younger Ephesian widows “to marry, to bear children, to keep
house,” etc.53 Again, the term here simply means “bear children.”54 Philippus (first
century) used the word in a poem about a pregnant heifer that was set free to “give birth”
once her birth pains began.55
In summary, τεκνογονια was consistently used to refer to “the physical act of
is a textcritical issue in which the word was confused with τεκνοποιια by a later scribe somewhere
along the way—“a term that refers unambiguously to the physical giving of birth” (Köstenberger, Roles,
141). This suggests, in light of the context, that either Aristotle or the later scribe viewed our term
τεκνογονια as the best word for the physical act of childbearing.
50
Chrysippus, “Fragmenta Moralia,” in vol. 3 of Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, ed. Ioannes Arnim
(Leipzig: Teubneri, 1903), 157–158 (#611).
51
Moulton and Milligan, “τεκνογονεω,” MM 628; Thayer, “τεκνογονεω,” in Thayer's GreekEnglish
Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000), 617; Louw and Nida, L&N 256–257;
Mounce, Pastoral, 145; cf. G. W. H. Lampe, “τεκνογονεω,” PGL, 1379.
52
Bauer et al., “τεκνογονεω,” BDAG, 994.
53
This is the only appearance of the verb in the NT, LXX, or Apostolic Fathers; Quinn and Wacker, 205;
Mounce, Pastoral, 145.
54
Marshall, 604; Towner, 356–357; Knight, 228; Porter, Childbirth, 96; Fox, 57; It is sometimes
suggested that “τεκνογονειν” is functioning as a synecdoche in this verse, but that is very unlikely for a
number of reasons: (1) The context suggests that in contrast to women who had lived lives of character,
these young, unstable women needed to “get married”, “have babies”, etc. The focus is not on their life
after childbirth, so much as it is on initiatory actions. Any claim to the contrary would need to explain
the difference between this list and the one in 5:9–10. (2) If the passage does suggest something more
general, such as “entry into domestic activities” it is because the list as a whole suggests it. Such a
listbased literary device (perhaps “hendiatris” or “congeries”) would not be evidence of an individual
term's meaning or function though. To claim so would be to commit the logical fallacy of “Division.”
(3) If “τεκνογονειν” were functioning as a synecdoche here, it would not include the concepts of
“marriage” or “housekeeping,” since these are listed separately. What then would it be standing as a
synecdoche for? (4) If τεκνογονεω can serve as a synecdoche, why not use it in 5:10 where Paul is
clearly attempting to describe general characteristics of the noble woman's life? (5) If Paul's intent were
synecdoche, why not use τεκνοτροφεω, as in 5:10, which literally points to motherhood, rather than a
term which literally points to parturition? Is not the former more representative of the Christian mother's
virtuous endeavor than the latter? (6) τεκνογονεω appears to be an exceedingly rare term. It seems
unlikely that Paul would have chosen such an obscure “representative” word for womanly duties.
55
Philip of Thessalonica, “A Sacrificial Cow Spared Because Pregnant,” in vol. 1 of The Greek
Anthology: The Garland of Philip and Some Contemporary Epigrams, ed. A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page
(Cambridge: University Press, 1968), 320–321 (36.2876); also reproduced in Philip of Thessalonica,
The Greek Anthology 3.9.22 (Paton, LCL), 14; Quinn and Wacker, 205.
14
giving birth to children.” The cognate verb likewise meant “bear children.” There is no
evidence of the term having any alternate definition or usage in Paul's day; the evidence
strictly limits the conceptual domain of this word to the physical act of parturition. Before
we examine the significance of these findings, we should first discuss the function of the
article, “της,” in “της τεκνογονιας.”
15
CHAPTER 3
CHAPTER 3:
THE FUNCTION OF THE ARTICLE
significant because prepositional phrases typically drop their article, as they are
considered definite enough without it.56 For example, in every other place in the NT
where this specific construction occurs (σωζω + δια + a genitive) the article is absent.57
Since Greek never uses the article needlessly,58 its use here must be accounted for.
Before addressing the specific function of the article, it is worth noting at the
outset that its presence here demands that τεκνογονια be understood as being definite.59
That is to say, “της τεκνογονιας” does not—and cannot—mean “a childbearing” or
“childbearing in general”;60 it must be understood as denoting “the childbearing” in some
sense. With that said, the article is never used merely to mark a noun as definite,61 and so
56
William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek: Grammar (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009) 60; A. T.
Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (New York:
Hodder & Stoughton, 1915), 791: “It is hardly necessary to mention all the N. T. examples, so common
is the matter.”; cf. F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other
Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 133 (#255).
57
Moore, 27, 53–57; Tit. 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:21; Jn. 3:17; Rom. 5:9; 1 Cor. 3:15; Eph. 2:8.
58
Robertson, 756: “The article is never meaningless in Greek.”
59
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 247: “when a noun is the object of a preposition, it does not require
the article to be definite: if it has the article, it must be definite; if it lacks the article, it may be definite.
The reason for the article, then, is usually for other purposes (such as anaphora or as a function
marker).”; cf. Wallace, 210; Robertson, 756; G. B. Winer, A Treatise on the Grammar of New
Testament Greek, Regarded as a Sure Basis for New Testament Exegesis, trans. W. F. Moulton, 9th ed.
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1882), 131.
60
cf. Kent, 115; Samuel A Dawson, A Difference in Function: The Role of Women in Relationship to Men
in the Context of the Local Church (1 Timothy 2:11–15) (ThM thesis, Detroit Baptist Theological
Seminary, 1992), 67.
61
H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Toronto:
Macmillan, 1927), 137; cf. Wallace, 209.
16
its specific function must still be explored.
When the Greek article is used with a noun it is either generic (specifying a
definite class) or individualizing (specifying a definite member of a class).62 The purpose
of using the generic article is to stress the identity of one specific class and mark it off in
distinction from all other classes.63 So, for example, in Matthew 8:20 when Jesus says
“The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has
nowhere to lay His head,” the underlined articles are generic; they set apart “foxes” as a
class and “birds of the air” as a class in order to distinguish them from “the Son of
Man.”64 Sometimes the class is particularized as an individual. For example: “The good
man brings out of his good treasure what is good” (Matt. 12:35); “the laborer is worthy of
his wages” (Luke 10:7); “the overseer must be above reproach” (1 Tim. 3:2).65 As
Wallace explains, “The key to determining whether or not the article might be generic is
the insertion of the phrase 'as a class' after the noun that the article is modifying.”66 For
example, we can confirm that the article in Matthew 8:20 is generic by reading “foxes as
a class have holes”; we confirm it in 1 Timothy 3:2 by reading “overseers as a class must
be above reproach”; etc. Our passage would read “she will be saved through 'physical
acts of giving birth to children as a class' if they remain,” making the sentence
nonsensical. We can therefore safely conclude that the article in 1 Timothy 2:15 is not
generic but individualizing.
According to Wallace, there are seven kinds of individualizing articles: simple
62
Wallace, 216, 227; James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Volume 3 (Edinburgh:
T. and T. Clark, 1963), 172.
63
Dana and Mantey, 144; Robertson, 756–757; Wallace, 209–210; 216, 227; James B. DeYoung, A
Syntax Reader for the Greek New Testament, (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2003), 84–85.
64
Robertson, 757; Dana and Mantey, 144; Wallace, 227.
65
Winer, 132; Wallace, 228; Robertson, 757.
66
Wallace, 227.
17
identification, deictic, anaphoric, wellknown, par excellence, monadic, and abstract.67
We can quickly rule out deictic,68 parexcellence,69 monadic,70 and abstract71 in this
context. This leaves wellknown,72 anaphoric,73 and simple identification.74 Regardless of
which of these three categories our article falls into, the basic thrust is the same: Paul is
referencing a particular instance of childbearing (either the word, the concept, or the act)
that would have been at the forefront of the reader's mind75—either because it was
obvious (wellknown), just mentioned (anaphoric), or easily deduced from the
background (simple identification). Paul is pointing to it, as with an index finger,76 as if to
say “I'm referring to that childbearing.”77
67
Wallace, 231.
68
This would suggest that there is a childbearing happening in Paul's presence as he writes, and his
readers are supposed to understand that he is referencing “this parturition right here!” cf. Wallace, 221.
69
This would have to mean “the best, most extreme physical act of giving birth”; “the parturition of
parturitions!” Even if the interpreter saw in “τεκνογονιας” a reference to the birth of Christ, this usage
would be ruled out, as it is not the quality of Mary's delivery that would be in focus. cf. Wallace, 222.
70
This would require that there be only one “childbearing”—and Paul is referring to it. cf. Wallace, 223.
71
This would require that parturition be an abstract quality like “glory” or “wisdom.” cf. Wallace, 226;
Stanley E. Porter, Jeffrey T. Reed, and Matthew Brook O'Donnell, Fundamentals of New Testament
Greek (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 31; Moulton, Grammar, 180.
72
This would suggest that it would have been completely obvious which childbearing he was referring to.
An example of the “wellknown” article would be Gal. 4:22, where “the bond woman” clearly refers to
Hagar from the Genesis story he is discussing (Wallace, 225).
73
This would suggest that childbearing had been previously mentioned in the immediate literary context.
For example, “preach the word” in 2 Tim. 4:2 probably refers back anaphorically to “Scripture” from
two verses prior (Wallace, 220). While childbearing was not previously mentioned in 1 Timothy, it was
in the Genesis 3 story currently under discussion. Since the article is often anaphoric in a broad sense I
am leaving this possibility on the table even though it is probably not the ideal category in this instance.
74
This could suggest, for example, that it would have been clear from the background of the discussion
which childbearing he was referring to. An example of the article being used for “simple identification”
would be “Peter went up to the housetop to pray” in Acts 10:9; “in the background is the custom of
praying on a housetop” (Wallace, 217). Note that Wallace, 216 describes “simple identification” as a
“'drippan' category” for the individualizing article that should only be used as a last resort. It is
uncommon for an article to fall into only this category.
75
Winer, 132.
76
Robertson, 756: “The article is associated with gesture and aids in pointing out like an index finger. It is
a pointer.”; Wallace, 210, 231; Winer, 132; Moulton, Grammar, 173.
77
Wallace, 208: “The article was originally derived from the demonstrative pronoun. That is, its original
force was to point out something. It has largely kept the force of drawing attention to something.”; Dana
and Mantey, 139: “the article in the New Testament carries with it a pronounced heritage from its
demonstrative origin, and one would make a serious blunder to ignore this fact.”; Robertson, 755.
18
CHAPTER 4
CHAPTER 4:
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE 5 VIEWS
To summarize the data presented so far, Paul's intent in 1 Timothy 2:14 was to
recall the entire Genesis 3 narrative as it pertained to the fall of the woman. Then, in the
same breath—in the very same sentence in fact—he mentions “της τεκνογονιας.” The
word τεκνογονια means “childbearing.” The article “της” recalls a definite, particular
instance of this word, concept, or activity—and assumes that this instance is already at
the forefront of the reader's mind as he speaks, either because it is wellknown, just
mentioned, or easily deduced from the background. We will now evaluate each of the
five views outlined in the introduction in light of this data.
The “Birthing Babies” View
In this view, “της τεκνογονιας” means “giving birth to babies.” A major strength
of this view is that it interprets τεκνογονια according to its wellestablished definition:
“the physical act of giving birth to children.”78 This allows the interpreter to connect the
word to “τεξη τεκνα” in Genesis 3:16, which yields two additional benefits: it helps to
explain Paul's choice of such a rare and technical word and it connects 1 Timothy 2:15
with its immediate context (2:13–14) where Genesis is in focus. However, this view
misses the significance of the article. As we saw in chapter 3, “της τεκνογονιας” does not
78
Though it does seem strange to treat the noun (parturition) as a participle (giving birth).
19
—and cannot—refer to “childbearing in general”; it must refer to “the specific
childbearing” in some sense. The “Birthing Babies” view fails to account for this and
must therefore be deemed inadequate.
The “Raising Children” View
This view expands the definition of τεκνογονια to include childrearing as well as
childbearing, and sees the emphasis of the word as being on the former, parental role of
women. However, as Huizenga states plainly, “To interpret the word as both the bearing
and rearing of children is an extension of meaning the Greek itself does not support.”79
Altering the meaning and emphasis of the word τεκνογονια also makes for an
awkward explanation of its connection to the Genesis story. Genesis 3:16 discusses the
painful activity of birthing children (“τεξη τεκνα”), yet this view requires us to see in
τεκνογονια not only a pointed reference to Genesis 3:16, but also an emphasis on women
raising their children well80—but Genesis 3:16 is not about women raising their children
well.
The “Raising Children” view also overlooks the significance of the article. Even if
the meaning of τεκνογονια could be expanded to include childrearing, “της τεκνογονιας”
still would not refer to “childrearing in general”; it would have to refer to “the specific
childrearing,” rendering the statement unintelligible. The “Raising Children” view is
79
Huizenga, 18; cf. Schreiner, 149; Huther, 134; Kimberly, 482; cf. chapter 2.
80
For example, note how MacArthur intertwines the childbearing of Genesis 3:16 with the childrearing
he wishes to emphasize: “A woman led the human race into sin, yet women benefit mankind by
replenishing it. . . . as a general rule, motherhood is the greatest contribution a woman can make to the
human race. The pain of childbearing was woman's punishment for sin, but bearing and rearing children
delivers woman from the stigma of that sin. . . . women are to accept their Godgiven role. They must
not seek the leadership role in the church. Primarily they are to raise godly children.” (MacArthur,
49–50). Raising godly children is not, however, synonymous with the painful act of childbearing
mentioned in Genesis 3:16; the two activities are distinct.
20
therefore inadequate as well.
The “Domestic Duties” View
The “Domestic Duties” view holds that while the word τεκνογονια does mean
“childbearing,” Paul is using it as a synecdoche for “domestic duties.” However, even a
synecdoche must be legitimized by convention,81 which leaves us in the same place as the
“Raising Children” view: there is no evidence that the word was ever used that way.82 It
was only ever used to convey “the physical act of giving birth to children.” Of course,
proponents could argue that the word might have been a conventional synecdoche and
perhaps we just lack the exegetical evidence to prove it. However this seems unlikely
given the extreme rarity of the term83 and the availability of more representative terms.84
Regarding the article, proponents of this view label it “generic” and drop it from
the translation. They justify this by claiming that the article is there to distinguish
domestic duties as a class from the church activities of teaching and exercising authority
as a class (from verse 12). There are a number of problems with this explanation. First,
as we have seen, the purpose of the “generic” article is to draw a clear boundary around a
welldefined class in order to distinguish that class from all other classes.85 This would
81
When we say “nice wheels” to mean “nice car,” it only works as a synecdoche because that is a
conventional way of using the word “wheels.” If we were to say “nice wipers” or “nice kickpanels” it
would not mean “nice car” because these are not conventional ways of using the words “wipers” and
“kickpanels.” So, a synecdoche works by convention, just like any other word definition.
82
Huther, 134; cf. chapter 3.
83
If τεκνογονια were an established synecdoche for “domestic, womanly duties” it would be a very useful
term and we would expect it to appear more frequently than it does in extant sources.
84
For example, Paul could have used the word “marriage” (1 Tim. 4:3), or even “motherhood” (1 Tim.
5:10). It is worth noting at this point that not all women are able to bear children. Would childbearing
even work as a synecdoche in light of this, if it is not actually an essential component of the womanly
life? (To draw an analogy, it would be strange to say “nice wheels” to mean “nice helicopter” when not
all helicopters have wheels.)
85
“The foxes” in Matt. 8:20 cannot mean “all mammals”; the “good man” in Matt. 12:35 cannot refer
broadly to “all men”; the “the laborer” in Luke 10:7 does not mean “the laborer and the busybody”;
21
mean that “physical acts of giving birth to children” must at once be seen as a definite
class distinct from all other activities86 and yet at the same time be standing for a broad,
illdefined sphere of “domestic, womanly duties” including such things as being a good
wife and keeping house. The two literary devices would be opposing each other in
function.87 Second, “to teach or to exercise authority” (2:12) is not presented as a definite,
distinct class; it is neither articular nor substantival. How can “the childbearing” be
standing in distinction from this “class” when the latter is not a class? Third, the phrase
“to teach or to exercise authority” occurs back in verse 12, several verses prior to “the
childbearing,” before the Genesis citations begin. If Paul wanted to make a clear contrast
between two classes, it would be strange for him to put so much literary distance between
them.88 Lastly, for Paul to draw a clear line between “church activities like teaching and
leading” and “domestic duties as a class”—and then direct women away from the former
and toward the latter—would have suggested to the readers that a woman's place is in the
home and not in serving in the local church.89 Far from dampening the blow of the
“the overseer” in 1 Tim. 3:2 does not designate “all ministers in general”; etc.
86
Wallace, 228: “it is better to see the generic article as simply distinguishing one class from among
others, rather than as pointing out a representative of the class.” So, it wouldn't be so much
“childbearing as representing domestic duties”; it would be “physical acts of giving birth as a class” to
the exclusion of all other classes of actions, such as motherhood and housekeeping.
87
Even if someone were to try to defend this as a technical possibility, it is inconceivable that the original
readers would have come to such a conclusion upon reading “της τεκνογονιας.”
88
For example, in Matt. 8:20 when Jesus says “The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests,
but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head” it is only clear that the generic article sets “foxes” and
“birds” off in distinction from “the Son of Man” because they are all mentioned together in the same
breath. In 1 Timothy 2 “the childbearing” is mentioned several verses after “to teach or to exercise
authority”—and there is a very significant literary shift occurring between the two phrases.
89
This is especially true in light of the fact that the entire context in which “the childbearing” appears is
about how the church should operate when they are gathered together. 1 Tim. 2:8; 3:15; Moo,
Rejoinder, 203204: “the instructions in 1 Timothy 2 clearly involve the worship service.”; Lea and
Griffin, 94: “the context for Paul's appeal was not the world or the home front but the worship life of the
church. Paul was providing instructions for praying and teaching within the confines of the local
congregation.”; Towner, 190: “From 2:1 onward Paul has been preoccupied with activities and behavior
within the worship assembly. But this observation is somewhat more significant for the present
discussion.”; Schreiner, 113, 117n50; Marshall, 30; T. David Gordon, “A Certain Kind of Letter: The
Genre of 1 Timothy,” In Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, ed. Andreas J.
22
passage, this would have been a devastating blow to the Christian women of Ephesus.90 It
also would be difficult to reconcile with Paul's other teachings; he was a strong adovcate
of women serving in the church91—and of men serving in the home.92
It is also difficult in this view to explain exactly how the term “της τεκνογονιας”
relates to its Genesis background. On the one hand, the term is seen as a reference to
“τεξη τεκνα” in Genesis 3:16. On the other hand, τεκνογονια is said to serve in this
context as a synecdoche for the entire sphere of womanly, domestic duties—a meaning
clearly foreign to “τεξη τεκνα” and its Genesis context.
To summarize, this view employs a novel interpretation of the noun, requires a
highly problematic explanation of the article, and leaves the connection between “the
childbearing” and its Genesis background murky. This interpretation must therefore be
considered inadequate as well.
The “Allegorical” View
In this view Paul is using language from Genesis 2–3 to say something new about
the situation in Ephesus; the only connection between the two passages is one of shared
vocabulary.93 This misses the purpose of the summary citations in 2:13–14 though, which
Köstenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 59–60; Kent,
20; Guthrie, 79; Huizenga, 17; Hendriksen, 105; MacArthur, 23.
90
As noted in the Introduction, whatever else is said about 1 Tim. 2:15a, it is clear that the statement was
meant to dampen the blow of the rest of the passage. Yet the “Domestic Duties” view would have had
the same impact in Paul's day as it does today, suggesting to Christian women in Ephesus with a heart
for serving the church that they should abandon that dream and go pursue homemaking instead. That
hardly would have dampened the blow of the passage!
91
e.g. 1 Cor. 11:1–16; Rom. 16:1–4, 7; Phil. 4:2–3; Paul even told unmarried women (1 Cor. 7:8, 25–35)
that they could be more effective at serving the Lord if they abandoned their pursuit of the domestic life
altogether!
92
e.g. Eph. 5:28–29; 6:4; In fact, 1 Tim. 3:4–5 suggests that a man's involvement in the home is the
prerequisite for his involvement in the church.
93
Waters, Saved, 704.
23
results in a disconnect between Paul's statement in 2:15 and its OT background. Paul was
recalling a wellknown story in 2:13–14 using a common rhetorical technique; he was not
teaching something new. Verse 15 continues the same themes in order to offer an
explanation of how “she” will be saved from her “transgression”: it will be through “the
childbearing.” The “Allegorical” view misses all of this.
Τεκνογονια, like so many other terms in 1 Timothy 2:13–15, is regarded by this
view as a simple repurposing of the words from the early Genesis narratives—in this case
τεκνον, respectively) and τεκνογονια are different words. How can τεκνογονια be a
repurposing of the words from Genesis 3:16 when it does not use the same words?94 This
becomes even more problematic when it is recognized that in this interpretation τικτω
actually would have fit better in 1 Timothy 2:15 than τεκνογονια95—and yet Paul chose
the latter.
Τεκνογονια is then interpreted as meaning “producing good virtues.” The problem
here is that, again, there is no evidence that the word was ever used that way. Τεκνογονια
does not mean “producing virtues”; it is a medical term meaning “parturition” and
consistently refers—very explicitly and directly—to the physical act of giving birth to
children. Proponents could argue that since it is an allegory, the children could be virtues.
However, the very nature of childbearing is that like begets like, and so even if it were
94
It is important to remember, the “Allegorical” view is not claiming that Paul was arguing from the
meaning of Genesis 3:16; the claim is that Paul was merely reusing the words of Genesis 3 in order to
create a new meaning for his audience; cf. Waters, Saved, 731.
95
(1) The “Allegorical” view interprets “childbearing” it as if it were a participial verb. Τικτω is a verb.
However, τεκνογονια is a noun. (2) Τικτω was a far more common word than τεκνογονια. (3)
Τεκνογονια is more expressly about the physical act of parturition than τικτω.
24
allegorical it would still be a strange way to use the term.96
Another difficulty with this view is that it too reads “της τεκνογονιας” as if it
conveyed the general, verbal idea of “giving birth” (allegorically speaking, of course).
However, as explained in chapter 3, this cannot be the meaning of the term in this
context. The presence of the definite, individualizing article—with the noun (not the
participle)—must be accounted for. In summary, this view seems to be significantly at
odds with the actual Greek text of 1 Timothy 2:15.
The “Birth of Christ” View
This view interprets “she will be saved through the childbearing” as “Eve will be
saved through Mary's bearing of the Child, Christ.” The strength of this view is that it
recognizes the individualizing function of the article and the definiteness of the noun.
However, the view assumes that it would have been clear to the reader that “the
childbearing” referred to “Mary's physical act of giving birth to Christ,” which is hard to
imagine.97 First, Mary's actual parturition was not previously mentioned, wellknown, or
exemplary—her Child was. This makes the presence of the article puzzling. Second,
there is no evidence to suggest that “the childbearing” ever served as a technical term for
“Mary's birth of Christ.”98 Again, verbal references work by convention. If there is no
evidence to suggest that a verbal reference was conventional, it should not be considered
96
If “the woman, Eve” is to be understood as a metaphor for human women, why should her “children” be
interpreted as a metaphor for abstract virtues? We would expect that the children of a human would be
human. Even Waters' own supporting examples of demons birthing demons illustrates this point
(Waters, Saved, 713716).
97
Marshall, 469; Guthrie, 89; Fee, 75; NET, note #25 on 1 Tim. 2:15; Porter, Childbirth, 92; Coupland,
303; Kelly, 69: “it is true, of course, that the childbearing of Mary has undone the mischief of Eve, but
it seems incredible that Paul should have expected his vague ‘through the childbearing’ to be
understood, without further explanation, of Christ’s nativity.”
98
Moore, 61
25
a viable interpretation.
The entire statement (“she will be saved through the childbearing”) is then taken
as an allusion to Genesis 3:15 (not 3:16) where God refers to “the woman” and “her
seed” as He is cursing the serpent:
And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel.99
There are at least three problems with interpreting Paul's words in 1 Timothy 2:15 as a
reference to this curse though. First, in Genesis 3:15 God is not addressing the woman at
all—or her salvation100—nor is He promising her anything; He is cursing the serpent.101
Second, if Paul meant to recall the socalled “protoevangelium” of Genesis 3:15,102 why
not just say “she will be saved through her seed”?103 With so many other direct
connections to the Genesis 2–3 narrative in this passage, it would be strange for Paul to
miss the opportunity to do the same thing again here—and to choose instead to refer to
the woman's seed as “the childbearing.” Third, the statement as a whole is seen as
pointing to Genesis 3:15 (Eve's seed) while the article is seen as pointing to something
that happened thousands of years later (Mary's bearing of the Christ child), making it
99
Genesis 3:15, NASB.
100
Scott, 28.
101
Paul clearly meant to call to mind the story of Genesis 3 as it pertains to the woman. It is doubtful this
would leave the curse on the serpent lingering in the reader's mind.
102
The “Birth of Christ” view holds that Gen. 3:15 was meant as a prophetic prediction of Christ's victory
over Satan—and that such an interpretation would have been rather straightforward to Paul's readers.
However, this has been questioned in recent times by a number of noteworthy bible scholars. cf.
Köstenberger, Roles, 118; Fee, 75; Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, in WBC (Waco: Word, 1987),
80–81; John H. Walton, Genesis, in NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 233–236. Even if these
scholars are mistaken, and Gen. 3:15 was in fact meant as a prediction of Christ, it is doubtful Paul
would allude to this interpretation vaguely, in passing, without further explanation; to do so would
require that Paul's audience already be familiar enough with this reading of the Genesis passage to take
it as a given, and yet we have no evidence to suggest they were.
103
Coupland, 303.
26
difficult to follow the logic of the sentence. Paul makes no clear transition from “Eve” to
“Mary” here, and yet this view demands that such a transition be read into the text.104 All
things considered, it seems unlikely that the original readers would have understood this
as a legitimate reading of Paul's words.
104
Porter, Childbirth, 92.
27
CHAPTER 5
CHAPTER 5:
A PROPOSED INTERPRETATION
I propose that when Paul says Eve's salvation will come through “the
childbearing” (1 Tim. 2:15) he means the childbearing mentioned in Genesis 3:16:
To the woman He said,
“I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will bring forth children [τεξη τεκνα] . . .”105
He uses the article because he wants to point back to something definite and familiar. He
uses the rare word “childbearing” because that is what he is pointing back to. He can
expect his readers to make this connection because he has already been discussing Eve's
fall in Genesis 3 and childbearing was only mentioned once in that story. Whereas all five
prominent views fall short in their explanations of the exegetical data, this proposal
accounts for all of it.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a detailed assessment of the proposed
interpretation. First, the connection to Genesis 3:16 will be examined. It will be shown
that this verse is not merely a part of the story Paul is discussing, it is in fact the very
point in that story that the reader is left thinking about by the time they get to the
statement about childbearing. Second, Paul's choice of the rare word τεκνογονια will be
considered. Far from being a strange choice of wording, we will find that this was
precisely the right term to use to recall the childbearing mentioned in Genesis 3:16.
105
Genesis 3:16a, NASB.
28
Third, an attempt will be made at classifying the article. By process of elimination I will
argue that it is best taken as a reference to a “wellknown” mention of childbearing, with
the most likely referent being God's statement to Eve on the matter in Genesis 3:16.
The Connection to Genesis 3:16
Paul not only reminds his readers of Eve's story from Genesis 2–3, he does so by
walking them through key events in that story in order. He begins with Adam's formation
(Gen. 2:7), followed by Eve's (Gen. 2:22)—emphasizing that she was formed after
Adam. He then recalls the woman's subsequent deception (Gen. 3:13), reminding the
reader that as a result of this deception she “has come to be in transgression.” (Note that
this “transgression” is portrayed as the subsequent result of the deception.) Thus we have
Adam's formation (Gen. 2:7), followed by Eve's (Gen. 2:22), followed by her deception
(Gen. 3:13), followed by her entrance into “transgression”; Paul is stepping his readers
through the story in order.
The question is, where exactly is Eve's “transgression” mentioned in the Genesis
narrative? We might assume it was back in 3:6 (or earlier) when she first sinned.
transgression) he is not simply saying “she sinned” (i.e. by eating the forbidden fruit, or
by erring in her conversation with the serpent); rather, he is making a statement about the
permanent state she entered into as a result of her deception—a state she is still in
today.106 As we search the Genesis narrative for a referent to this claim, Genesis 3:16
seems to be the most likely candidate; it was, after all, written for just such a purpose: to
106
Moo, Significance, 70; Mounce, Pastoral, 143; Towner, 229; Knight, 144; Guthrie, 88; Marshall, 464;
NET, note #24 on 1 Tim. 2:14; Quinn, 204.
29
describe the enduring state of the woman, which she came into as a result of her
deception.107 Commentators often explain the permanent state of the woman described in
Genesis 3:16 as one involving transgression—that is, the woman overstepping her
boundaries in relation to the man.108 If that is correct, it would make sense for Paul to
refer back to that verse, since that is precisely the situation he is facing in Ephesus.109
readers of God's pronouncement in Genesis 3:16, where the woman, after being deceived,
entered into a perpetual state of “overstepping boundaries.”110 Paul's summary journey
through Genesis 2–3 can therefore be outlined as follows:
Table 1. Genesis references
1 Timothy 2:13–15 Genesis reference
For it was Adam who was formed first Gen. 2:7
—then Eve. Gen. 2:22
And it was not Adam who was deceived,
but the woman, being deceived, Gen. 3:13
has come to be in [a state of] transgression Gen. 3:16
107
U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part 1: From Adam to Noah (Jerusalem: Magnes
Press, 1961), 164; Claus Westermann, Genesis 1–11: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984),
256–257, 262; cf. Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26, in NAC (Broadman & Holman, 2002), 248.
108
In the second part of Genesis 3:16 God says “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule
over you” (ESV). In light of the parallel statement in Genesis 4:7, this “desire” is understood as a desire
to control or usurp. Susan T Foh, “What is the Woman's Desire?” The Westminster Theological Journal
37 (1974/75), 376–83; Mathews, 251; Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2001), 94; Victor P. Hamilton, The book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17, in NICOT (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 202; Lewis, 44–49; Johnson, 202; cf. Wenham, 77–78.
109
The Christian women of Ephesus were attempting to overstep their boundaries in relation to the men in
leadership roles. As Paul addressed this issue he was reminded of the ominous statement in Genesis
3:16 which foretold just such a struggle between women and men. Marshall, 437; John Piper and
Wayne Grudem. 50 Crucial Questions About Manhood and Womanhood: Answered By The Editors of
Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Wheaton: CBMW, 1992), 30; Lewis, 42, 60; Moo,
Rejoinder, 218; Schreiner, 137.
110
Kelly, 69; Raymond C. Ortlund Jr., Gender, Worth, and Equality: Manhood and Womanhood
According to Genesis 1–3, in CBMW Practical Living Series (Wheaton: CBMW, 1990), 34; Wayne
Grudem, ed., Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood (Wheaton: Crossway, 2002), 3233.
30
Paul's retelling of the story leads his readers right up to Genesis 3:16—where the doom of
Eve's curse looms over their heads—and then he references “the childbearing.” It is
therefore not hard to see how Paul could expect his readers to know that he was referring
to that childbearing right there in Genesis 3:16 without further explanation; he has
already shown them he is at that point in the story in his own thinking.
The Reason For Choosing “τεκνογονια ”
The next issue worth exploring is whether “τεκνογονιας” (1 Tim. 2:15) can
legitimately be understood as a reference to “τεξη τεκνα” (Gen. 3:16)—and if it can,
whether it is really the best way of referencing the activity mentioned in Genesis 3:16.
Τεκνογονια is an exceedingly rare and specific word, so we must ask why Paul chose to
use it—especially if better words were available to him.
The word τεξη is a form of the verb τικτω,111 which means “to bear,” as in “to
bear children.”112 BDAG provides a summary definition of “give birth (to), bear.”113 The
word “τεκνα” is a plural form of τεκνον, which means “child.” Thus, “τεξη τεκνα” (Gen.
3:16) literally means “you will bear children.” As noted in chapter 2, “τεκνογονιας” (1
Tim. 2:15) is a form of the noun τεκνογονια, which means “childbearing.” The two terms
clearly refer to the same idea:
111
It is the second person singular future middle indicative.
112
Moulton and Milligan, “τικτω,” MM 634; Thayer, “τικτω,” in Thayer's GreekEnglish Lexicon of the
New Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000), 623; G. W. H. Lampe, “τικτω,” PGL, 1393.
113
Bauer et al., “τικτω,” BDAG, 1004.
31
Table 2. Childbearing terms
The two terms are so close in meaning that Louw and Nida combine τεκνογονια
(from 1 Tim. 2:15), τεκνογονεω (its cognate verb), γενναω (the “bearing” component of
τεκνογονια), and τικτω (from Gen. 3:16) all under a single heading, defining the word
group as “to give birth to a child.”114 Note that τεκνογονια is not only in the same word
group as τικτω, it is also the only noun in the group. This means that if one wished to use
a noun to refer to the activity mentioned in Genesis 3:16, τεκνογονια would be precisely
the right word to use. In order for Paul to point his readers back to the activity of bearing
children mentioned in Genesis 3:16 it was necessary to use a noun. So we see that the
proposed interpretation offers the perfect explanation for this otherwise strange word
choice.
The Classification of the Article
There is one last point that needs to be made in support of the proposed view. We
saw in chapter 4 that the article in 1 Timothy 2:15 functions as some sort of pointer back
to a definite and particular instance of either the word, concept, or act of childbearing and
that the author is assuming that this 'childbearing' is already at the forefront of the
reader's mind—either because it is obvious (wellknown), just mentioned (anaphoric), or
easily deduced from the background (simple identification). It is time to get a bit more
114
Louw and Nida, L&N 256–257.
32
precise in our classification of this article.
Technically the article cannot be classified as “anaphoric” since childbearing is
not mentioned in the immediate literary context leading up to 1 Timothy 2:15.115 If the
article were “simple identification” we would expect it to be obvious from the
background which childbearing he was referencing. However, this does not seem to be
the case here.116 Could the article be “wellknown” though? An example of a
“wellknown” article would be “the bondwoman” and “the free woman” in Galatians
4:22.117 The background is the Genesis narrative about the sons of Abraham and their
mothers. In light of that, when Paul says “the bondwoman” it is clear that he means
Hagar—and “the free woman” is Sarah. Paul can refer to these women using the
“wellknown” article plus a simple identifier because (A) the story is famous, and (B) he
has already been discussing this narrative in the immediate context. In the case of “the
childbearing” (1 Tim. 2:15) we might start by looking for a famous mention of
childbearing in the Genesis 3 narrative since that is the OT story under discussion—and
of course there is one: in Genesis 3:16. It is therefore reasonable to think that the article
in 1 Timothy 2:15 could be “wellknown.” With two of the three options ruled out and
the third finding clear support in the text, it seems safe to consider the article
“wellknown,” as the proposed interpretation advocates.
115
Wallace, 218.
116
When Luke wrote that Peter went up to pray on “the housetop” in Acts it was obvious to his readers
what he meant because they all knew that houses had tops where people went up to pray. It would be
akin to saying in our day “I spent all day up on the roof repairing shingles”; “the roof” is a normal way
of referring to “the roof of the house.” It is difficult to conceive of a similar usage of the article in the
case of “the childbearing.”
117
Wallace, 225.
33
CONCLUSION
Many attempts have been made at identifying “the childbearing” of 1 Timothy
2:15. Unfortunately, none of the current proposals fully explain the actual wording of the
Greek text. The proposal set forth in this paper, however, does account for the exegetical
data: “the childbearing” is Eve's childbearing, mentioned in Genesis 3:16.
The statement concerning the childbearing appears on the heels of a retelling of
Eve's story from Genesis 2–3. Paul recounts her creation, her deception, and her entrance
into a perpetual state of transgression. He walks his readers through the story, right up to
Genesis 3:16, where the present, fallen state of the woman is described. Then, in the same
breath, he says, “but she will be saved, through the childbearing, if they remain” in the
Christian way. The word for “childbearing” is the rare medical term τεκνογονια, which
designates the physical act of giving birth to children—the perfect word to use to recall
the activity mentioned in Genesis 3:16. The article is used to recall a definite and
particular mention of 'childbearing.' Paul assumes the referent will be obvious to his
readers; it is “well known,” not only because of the fame of Eve's story, but also because
he is in the midst of a discussion about that story. “The childbearing” he is referring to is
Eve's childbearing, mentioned right there in Genesis 3:16.
It remains to be seen how Paul's reference to Genesis 3:16 fits in with the rest of
his discussion in 1 Timothy 2. Perhaps he means that Eve will be redeemed somehow
through the Christian women of Ephesus (her children) if they continue in the Christian
34
way. However, that explanation will require a fuller treatment of the text. For now, it is
sufficient to have shown that “the childbearing” is in fact “the childbearing of Genesis
3:16.” This explains all of the exegetical evidence and follows naturally from it.
35
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aland, Kurt, Barbara Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M.
Metzger, eds. The Greek New Testament: Fourth Revised Edition. Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1998.
Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament, Volume 3. New York: Longmans, Green, & Co.,
1897.
Aristotle. De Animalibus Hist. Edited by L. Dittmeyer. Leipzig: Teubneri, 1907.
________. History of Animals: In Ten Books. Translated by Richard Cresswell. London:
Bell, 1878.
Augustine, Aurelius. On The Trinity. Translated by Arthur West Haddan. In vol. 3 of A
Select Library of the Nicene and PostNicene Fathers of the Christian Church,
First Series. Edited by Philip Schaff. 1886–1889. 14 vols. Repr. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1978. 1–228.
Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. A GreekEnglish Lexicon of
the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Blass, F. and A. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.
Blomberg, Craig. “Not Beyond What Is Written: A Review Of Aida Spencer's Beyond
The Curse: Women Called To Ministry.” Criswell Theological Review 2 (Spring
1988): 403–421.
Bowman, Ann L. “Women in Ministry: An Exegetical Study of 1 Timothy 2:11–15.”
Bibliotheca Sacra 149 (April–June 1992): 193–213.
Brown, Colin, ed. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. 4 vols.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975–1986.
Cassuto, U. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part 1: From Adam to Noah.
Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1961.
Chrysippus. “Fragmenta Moralia.” In vol. 3 of Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta. Edited by
Ioannes Arnim. Leipzig: Teubneri, 1903.
36
Chrysostom, John. Homily 9: 1 Timothy 2:11–15. In vol. 13 of A Select Library of the
Nicene and PostNicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series. Edited by
Philip Schaff. 1886–1889. 14 vols. Repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.
435–437.
Clark, Stephen B. Man and Woman in Christ: An Examination of the Roles of Men and
Women in Light of Scripture and the Social Sciences. Ann Arbor: Servant, 1980.
Coupland, Simon. “Salvation Through Childbearing? The Riddle of 1 Timothy 2:15.”
The Expository Times 112, no. 9 (June 2001): 302303.
Dana, H. E. and Julius R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament.
Toronto: Macmillan, 1927.
Dawson, Samuel A. A Difference in Function: The Role of Women in Relationship to
Men in the Context of the Local Church (1 Timothy 2:11–15). ThM thesis, Detroit
Baptist Theological Seminary, 1992.
DeYoung, James B. A Syntax Reader for the Greek New Testament. Eugene: Wipf &
Stock, 2003.
Falconer, Sir Robert. "1 Timothy 2 14, 15. Interpretative Notes." The Journal of Biblical
Literature 60 (December, 1941): 375–380.
Fee, Gordon D. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. In New International Biblical Commentary on the
New Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988.
Foh, Susan T. “What is the Woman's Desire?” The Westminster Theological Journal 37
(1974/75): 376–83.
Fox, Rodney G. An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:15: 'She Shall Be Saved Through
Childbearing.' ThM thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1991.
Gordon, T. David. “A Certain Kind of Letter: The Genre of 1 Timothy.” In Women in the
Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9–15. Edited by Andreas J.
Köstenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin. Grand Rapids: Baker,
1995. 53–63.
Gregory of Nyssa. On Virginity. In vol. 5 of A Select Library of Nicene and PostNicene
Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series. Edited by Philip Schaff and
Henry Wace. 1890–1899. 14 vols. Repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.
343–371.
Grudem, Wayne, ed. Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood. Wheaton:
Crossway, 2002.
37
Guthrie, Donald. The Pastoral Epistles. In Tyndale New Testament Commentaries.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.
Hamilton, Victor P. The book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17. In The New International
Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.
Hendriksen, William. I–II Timothy and Titus. In New Testament Commentary. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1957.
Huizenga, Hilde. “Women, Salvation, and the Birth of Christ: A Reexamination of 1
Timothy 2:15.” Studia Biblica et Theologica 12 (April, 1982): 17–26.
Hurley, James B. Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective. Grand Rapids: Academie,
1981.
Huther, J. E. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and
Titus. Translated by David Hunter. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1881.
Jebb, S. “Short Comment: A Suggested Interpretation of 1 Ti 215.” Expository Times 81,
no. 7 (April 1970): 221–222.
Jerome. Letter 107: To Laeta. In vol. 6 of A Select Library of Nicene and PostNicene
Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series. Edited by Philip Schaff and
Henry Wace. 1890–1899. 14 vols. Repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.
189–195.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. The First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation
with Introduction and Commentary. In The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday,
2001.
Kelly, J. N. D. The Pastoral Epistles: Timothy I & II, Titus. In Harper's New Testament
Commentaries. New York: Harper, 1963.
Kent, Homer A, Jr. The Pastoral Epistles: Studies in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. Chicago:
Moody, 1982.
Kimberly, David R. “1 Tim 2:15: A Possible Understanding of a Difficult Text.” Journal
of the Evangelical Theological Society 35 (December 1992): 481–486.
Knight, George W., III. The Pastoral Epistles. In The New International Greek
Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.
Köstenberger, Andreas J. “Ascertaining Women's GodOrdained Roles: An Interpretation
of 1 Timothy 2:15.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 7 (1997): 107–144.
Kubo, Sakae. “An Exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:11–15 and Its Implications.” In Symposium
38
on the Role of Women in the Church. Biblical Research Institute Committee,
General Conference of SeventhDay Adventists (1984): 78–85.
Lampe, G. W. H., ed. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976.
Lea, Thomas D. and Hayne P. Griffin, Jr. 1, 2 Timothy, Titus. In The New American
Commentary. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.
Lewis, Robert Mason. An Exegetical Examination of Women and the Church in the
Epistle of First Timothy. MA thesis, Western Seminary, 1977.
Louw, Johannes E. and Eugene A. Nida, eds. GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New
Testament Based on Semantic Domains. 2d ed. New York: United Bible
Societies, 1989.
MacArthur, John. God's High Calling For Women: 1 Timothy 2:9–15. John MacArthur's
Bible Studies. Chicago: Moody, 1987.
Mann, Randy T. 1 Timothy 2:9–15 and the Evangelical Debate on the Role of Women.
ThM thesis, Grace Theological Seminary, 1992.
Marshall, I. Howard. The Pastoral Epistles. In The International Critical Commentary.
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999.
Mathews, Kenneth A. Genesis 1–11:26. In The New American Commentary. Broadman
& Holman, 2002.
Moan, Jerry L. A Biblical Understanding of Women in Ministry: An Investigation of 1
Timothy 2:8–15. STM thesis, Concordia Theological Seminary, 2009.
Moo, Douglas J. “1 Timothy 2:11–15: Meaning and Significance.” Trinity Journal 1 NS
(1980): 62–83.
________. “The Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11–15: A Rejoinder.” Trinity Journal 2 NS
(1981): 198–222.
Moore, Terri Darby. If They Remain: An Analysis of Approaches to 1 Timothy 2:15. ThM
thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2003.
Moulton, James Hope. A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Volume 3. Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1963.
Moulton, J. H. and G. Milligan. Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. London: Hodder &
Stoughton, 1930. Repr. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997.
Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek: Grammar. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
39
2009.
________. Pastoral Epistles. In Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson,
2000.
NET Bible. Accessed October 21, 2015. http://net.bible.org.
Nolland, John. Luke 9:21–18:34. In Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books,
1993.
Ortlund, Raymond C., Jr. Gender, Worth, and Equality: Manhood and Womanhood
According to Genesis 1–3. CBMW Practical Living Series. Wheaton: CBMW,
1990.
Philip of Thessalonica. “[Epigram of Philippus of Thessalonica.]” In vol. 3 of The Greek
Anthology With an English Translation. 5 vols. Translated by W. R. Paton. In
Loeb Classical Library. London: Harvard University Press, 1968.
________. “A Sacrificial Cow Spared Because Pregnant.” In vol. 1 of The Greek
Anthology: The Garland of Philip and Some Contemporary Epigrams. Edited by
A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page. Cambridge: University Press, 1968.
Piper, John and Wayne Grudem. 50 Crucial Questions About Manhood and
Womanhood: Answered By The Editors of Recovering Biblical Manhood and
Womanhood. Wheaton: CBMW, 1992.
Porter, Stanley E. “What Does it Mean to be 'Saved by Childbirth' (1 Timothy 2.15)?”
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 49 (1993): 87–102.
Porter, Stanley E., Jeffrey T. Reed, and Matthew Brook O'Donnell. Fundamentals of New
Testament Greek. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.
Quinn, Jerome D. and William C. Wacker. The First and Second Letters to Timothy. In
Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Rahlfs, Alfred. Septuagint: Second Revised Edition. Edited by Robert Hanhart. Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. Accessed November, 2015.
https://www.academicbible.com/en/onlinebibles/septuagintlxx/
Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical
Research. New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915.
Schreiner, Thomas R. “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9–15: A Dialogue with
Scholarship.” In Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9–15.
Edited by Andreas J. Köstenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995. 105–154.
40
Scott, E. F. The Pastoral Epistles. In The Moffatt New Testament Commentary. London:
Hodder & Stoughton, 1936.
Tenney, Merrill C. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. 5 vols. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.
Thayer, Joseph H. Thayer's GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament. Peabody:
Hendrickson, 2000.
Towner, Philip H. The Letters to Timothy and Titus. In The New International
Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.
Vine, W. E. An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words: With Their Precise
Meanings for English Readers. London: Oliphants, 1953.
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
Waltke, Bruce K. Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.
Walton, John H. Genesis. In The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2001.
Waters, Kenneth L., Sr. “Revisiting Virtues as Children: 1 Timothy 2:15 as Centerpiece
for an Egalitarian Soteriology.” Lexington Theological Quarterly 42, no. 1
(2007): 37–49.
________. “Saved Through Childbearing: Virtues as Children in 1 Timothy 2:11–15.”
The Journal of Biblical Literature 123/4 (2004): 703–735.
Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1–15. In Word Biblical Commentary. Waco: Word, 1987.
Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1–11: A Commentary. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984.
White, Newport J. D. “The First and Second Epistles to Timothy and The Epistle to
Titus.” In vol. 4 of The Expositor's Greek Testament. London: Hodder &
Stoughton.
Winer, G. B. A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, Regarded as a Sure
Basis for New Testament Exegesis. Translated by W. F. Moulton. 9th ed.
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1882.