Name: Steve Belzner

Class: BIB352 Prison and Pastoral Epistles

Teacher: Sven Soderlund
Date: April 15, 2016

1 Timothy 2:8-15:
Comparison of Interpretations

Belzner 1

Introduction
Hundreds of pages have been written on this section of scripture, with many
interpretations, proving this to be one of the least understood and most contested passages of all
time. Because of the lack of consensus and obvious translation difficulties, we find the
arguments often falling into two main camps. We find traditionalists who will cite portions of 1
Timothy 2 as the foundation for their belief in male-only leadership in the church, and we find
egalitarians who will contest that traditionalists are misinterpreting the passage and, therefore,
are in favour of women being included in leadership positions.
This paper will examine two opposing viewpoints based on positions held by Andreas
Kstenberger (Traditionalist) and I. Howard Marshall (Egalitarian). It will also focus on the
strengths and weakness of each position to determine the more convincing viewpoint.

The Opposing Viewpoints

In reviewing both articles it becomes very clear, quite quickly which side of the fence each
author stands. While both authors root their arguments in exegesis, there are some significant
variations of method for each.
Kstenberger believes the natural reading of the passage is that Paul prohibits women from
serving as pastors or elders in the church, because he does not permit women to teach or exercise
authority over men. He arrives at this understanding of the passage by doing a verse by verse
exegetical analysis and focusing on the specific Greek words in the various verses. He begins
his argument by looking at verse nine and ten, which are about modesty, and ties this verse to
verses eleven and twelve where not being placed in a position of ultimate responsibility is part of
that modesty.1 He then focuses on the idea of women not teaching being applicable to all women
1 Andreas Kstenberger, Regarding Women (2:9-15), in Expositor's Bible Commentary: Ephesians Philemon. eds Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 516.

Belzner 2

and not just to wives and their husbands. Kstenberger is focused on the proper role of people
(specifically women) and connects quietness to this as well.2 An important concept for
Kstenbergers viewpoint is in the word authente (authority), and its parallelism with
teach. Kstenberger believes that the parallelism shows that authenteo does not have a
negative connotation.3
Another point Kstenberger makes is that there is no difficulty with women teaching as
long as they stick with ministering to other women, and uses the phrase over a man to put the
boundaries on how and when women may teach. His final key point for his argument is based on
the order of creation and that ultimate responsibility lies with man.4 Here again, he is basing his
argument on men and women having specific roles and that teaching is not one for women.
Kstenberger contends that Paul does not want women to teach or have authority over men, since
that would cause them to overstep the boundaries given by God but rather focus on domestic
responsibilities.5
Marshall, on the other hand, believes that the arguments set forth for rejecting the
possibility of women in leadership are compelling.6 According to Marshall, Paul is not
prohibiting women from these roles, but rather, dealing with a specific situation that was
2 Ibid, 517.

3 Ibid.
4 Ibid., 518.

5 Ibid., 519.

6 I. Howard Marshall "A Further Look at 1 Timothy 2" in Women, Ministry and the Gospel: Exploring New
Paradigms, eds. Mark Husbands and Timothy Larsen (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2007), 55.

Belzner 3

happening within the Ephesian church at the time. He bases his argument not only on exegesis
but on a look at the historical context of the time and the cultural of today. He contends by
asking whether the scriptural teaching was being done in a way that was suited for that specific
time and needs to be reinterpreted for a different situation.7
In his exegesis, Marshall looks at the situation into which the passage was written to serve
as the foundation of his argument. He alludes to the idea of contention within the congregation
and suggests that it was the teaching that was happening in mixed company that would be
unacceptable, and that this teaching was being accepted by women.8
Marshall rejects the traditionalist view that to exercise authority has no negative
nuances,9 and that the unusual word usage (conveying the idea of exercising domination)
connotes that the authority in question was of unacceptable character in the social context.10
Marshall believes that the idea of an incorrect kind of authority is being condemned rather than a
proper use of authority.11
For Marshall, the issue arose from a complicated situation that involved various factors
that led Paul to necessitate a ban on women behaving in unseemly ways (including flamboyant

7 Ibid., 56.
8 Ibid., 58.

9 Ibid., 59.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

Belzner 4

dress and inappropriate modes of teaching).12 His foundation is the social setting where the
Jewish and Hellenistic understandings of the place of women in society and marriage was being
threatened by certain women who behaved in a disruptive and domineering manner.13

Strengths and Weaknesses in Arguments

No argument can be absolutely perfect and both authors in this issue have their strong
points and their weaknesses. Kstenberger is intelligent and this shows in his writing style as
well as in his in-depth analysis of each verse and the key words. For someone looking at the
importance of key words, Kstenbergers usage of the Greek and its transliteration, is a strength.
For someone who has not studied Greek, this comes across as a weakness due to the
overwhelming feeling of not understanding what the author is doing in using this as part of his
argument.
Kstenberger does a good job in including other verses as cross references but, in some
cases it seems like he is grasping at verses, that to the reader, may not seem to fit. An example of
this would be where he is arguing that womens focus in the outworking of the Christian religion
is to be on good works,14 and lists a number of passages, including 2 Timothy 2:21. When one
reads 2 Timothy 2:21, they may wonder why this verse is included and whether the author is only
including it because of the words good works.
12 Ibid., 60.

13 Ibid.

14 Kstenberger, 516.

Belzner 5

A strength that lends well to Kstenbergers analysis is that he goes in-depth with each
verse, which is opposite of Marshall who does a very general exegesis. Both authors seem to
have a priority in presenting their argument, and what may be a strength for one would be a
weakness for another. Kstenbergers presentation of his argument can come across as overly
chauvinistic. An example of this is where he discusses Pauls usage of functional terminology
and the author includes the word male before overseers and uses an exclamation mark.15 Another
example is discussing authority and wives teaching their husbands. Here, Kstenberger suggests
there should be a qualifier such as their own,16 which raises the question of why would you add
this qualifier? It seems he is implying the women had more than one husband.
One last weakness for Kstenberger is that he seems to rely on the opinion of his friends
such as Thomas Shreiner. This weakens his arguments as it portrays that he is simply
regurgitating someone elses beliefs.
Marshall in his presentation is not without his weakness though. While he could have used word
studies and deeper exegetical work, he chose to focus more on the context (then and now). This
gives the reader the concept of a flyover analysis rather than a comprehensive analysis.
Starting with pros and cons of womens ministry (leadership), Marshall gives the reader a
good basis and understanding of both sides before diving into the argument. Marshall does a
good job in outlining the three reasons the possibility of women in ministry is rejected before he
presents the opposite side of the coin.17 Marshall recognizes that an important part of
15 Ibid., 517.

16 Ibid., 516.

17 Marshall, 55.

Belzner 6

interpretation is recognizing the differences between our current culture and the culture in which
the text was written.18 He establishes how wide the river is before moving across it.
However, a weakness to his presentation is the lack of detailed exegesis. For anyone who
finds this area important, they may be disappointed that he is not as thorough as Kstenberger. It
seems like Marshall was in a hurry to get across the river and deal with application within the
church today.

18 Ibid., 56.

Belzner 7

Another strength to Marshalls argument is that he also provides an assessment to the

opposite (complementarian) viewpoint. This is something that Kstenberger does not do and as
a result Kstenbergers article one-sided.
Conclusion
This topic of women in leadership has been hotly contested for many years and will continue to
be as long there are churches to be led. I appreciated Kstenbergers verse-by-verse analysis but
found it disappointing that that is all he did. It seemed that he was stuck on the other side of the
river (then) and failed to cross the river (to now). I also found that his argument came across as
extremely condescending towards women and even though he states, Pauls teaching should not
be construed as confining women to the home; it aims at delineating womens proper focus, not
their exclusive sphere of involvement19 it comes across that way.
Marshall, on the other hand, did not go verse by verse which was disappointing, but I appreciated
the way he laid the foundation of arguments, presented them and finally analyzed the other side.
He also took into account the culture back when the passage was written and gives an application
for today. His conclusion was well laid out which made it easy to understand his position, and
while he did not agree with the opposite viewpoint, he gave reasoning for someone having it.
This is opposed to Kstenberger and others who, as Marshall states, argue that quite simply that
teaching and having authority over men is forbidden based on the implied ordinance of in the
creation story. No other considerations are relevant and no rationale for the divine command can
or need to be given.20

19 Kstenberger, 519.

20 Marshall, 71-72.

Belzner 8

This paper did not allow for an exhaustive personal exegesis of the passage, and therefore,
I cannot state clearly the intention of Paul when he was dealing with this issue. That being said, I
do believe that in reading both articles and based on the comments above, Marshall presented a
much more convincing argument.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kstenberger, Andreas. Regarding Women (2:9-15), In Expositor's Bible Commentary:

Ephesians Philemon, edited by Tremper Longman III, and David E. Garland. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2006.
Marshall, I. Howard. "A Further Look at 1 Timothy 2" In Women, Ministry and the Gospel:
Exploring New Paradigms, edited by Mark Husbands and Timothy Larsen. Downers Grove:
IVP Academic, 2007.5