1 Timothy 213-15 in The Light

1 TIMOTHY 2:13-15 IN THE LIGHT OF VIEWS CONCERNING
EVE AND CHILDBIRTH IN EARLY JUDAISM
A Dissertation
Presented to
the Faculty of the Department of
New Testament Studies
Dallas Theological Seminary
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
by
Sariah Yau-wah Chan
August 2006
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3255586
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and im proper
alignm ent can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3255586
Copyright 2007 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Accepted by the Faculty of the Dallas Theological Seminary
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Examining Committee
ABSTRACT
1 TIMOTHY 2:13-15 IN THE LIGHT OF VIEWS CONCERNING

EVE AND CHILDBIRTH IN EARLY JUDAISM
by
Sariah Yau-wah Chan
Dallas Theological Seminary
Readers: Darrell L. Bock, Buist M. Fanning, Richard A. Taylor
This study evolved from the controversial and debatable question on 1 Tim
2:9-15: Is Paul’s prohibition in verse 12 a universal truth for all women in all ages, or
only a cultural correction of the Ephesian women? This question is directly related to
the function of 1 Tim 2:13-15 in the passage. The study is primarily a monograph on
Jewish views concerning Eve and childbirth as they relate to 1 Tim 2:13-15.
The study has six chapters. Chapter 1 is an introduction to the significance
of the study of 1 Tim 2:13-15. Chapter 2 summarizes and evaluates the unsolved
problems of the major extant views of 1 Tim 2:13-15. These views are: the “Reason”
view, the “Explanation/Illustration” view, and the “Saying” view.
Chapter 3 is a long chapter concerning the portraits of Eve in early
Judaism. It examines selected passages from the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, Philo,
Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Pseudepigrapha, the Babylonian Talmud, and the
Midrash Rabbah, concerning Eve’s creation, her relationship with Adam, her
transgression, and her punishment. The results show that Eve was both denigrated and
applauded in early Judaism, just as Adam was. However, on the whole, in Paul’s
times the sages and rabbis ultimately hold Adam responsible for bringing sin and
death into the world, even though Eve was involved in it.
Chapter 4 deals with the issue of childbirth in Judaism. It focuses on
iv
selected passages from the Old Testament, some Jewish writings of the Second
Temple period, the Mishnah, the Talmud, the Midrash Rabbah, and the Targums. The
rabbis believed that childbirth (or procreation) hastens the coming of the Messiah and
his salvation. The births of some significant figures are God’s means to protect and
preserve the nation Israel in order to fulfill his promises and plan in history. These
significant heroes also manifest some o f the characteristics of the coming Messiah.
Furthermore, the rabbis seem to believe that God’s prediction in Gen 3:15bc implies
the messianic redemption of humanity from sin. The Old Testament has a progressive
and historical development of the teaching of the promised “seed” (Gen 3:15; 12:3; 2
Sam 7:12).
Chapter 5 is a reconsideration of 1 Tim 2:13-15 in the light of views
concerning Eve and childbirth in early Judaism. This writer suggests that 1 Tim 2:13-
15 functions as a conclusion o f chapter 2. It is also an explanation (or an elaboration)
of Paul’s confrontations of the disruption caused by men and women in the Ephesian
church. Paul first states the roles of Adam and Eve in creation (v. 13), and then uses
their failures to remind the Ephesian men and women of their inadequacies (v. 14).
Thus, the usage of the preposition yap is explanatory. Since the Ephesian women
went astray from God’s word and caused most of the problems in the church, Paul
finally used verse 15 to direct the Ephesian women back to the right path. He
encourages them to manifest their salvific faith by accomplishing the significant and
honorable roles of childbearing, accompanied with good virtues. He uses the formula
tt io t o c o koyoc, (3:1a) to reinforce the significance of his final instruction to women.
Chapter 6 is the conclusion of the study. A summary of 1 Tim 2:8-3:la
with application in the light of the discussion and exegesis done in chapter 5. The
entire study proves that Paul is not a misogynist. He is consistent in his teachings.
CONTENTS
A B S T R A C T .......................................................................................................................... iv
A B B R E V IA T IO N S .................................... ix
A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S...................................................................................................... xii
Chapter
1. IN T R O D U C T IO N ............................................................................................... 1
Significance o f the Study
The Purposes and Methods o f the Study
2. RECENT INTERPRETATIONS OF 1 TIM 2 : 1 3 - 1 5 ................................. 11
Major Views o f 1 Tim 2:13-14
M ajor Views o f 1 Tim 2:15
Holmes’ Unique “Saying” View o f 1 Tim 2:13-15
3. THE PORTRAITS OF EVE IN EARLY JUDAISM ................................. 55
The Hebrew Bible
The Book o f Tobit
The Wisdom o f Ben Sirach
1 Enoch
The Book o f Jubilees
The Wisdom o f Solomon
Sibylline Oracles
Philo Judaeus
Flavius Josephus
The Dead Sea Scrolls
vi
2 Enoch
2 Baruch
4 Ezra
The Apocalypse o f Moses
The Latin Version o f Life o f Adam and Eve
The Armenian and Georgian Versions o f Life o f Adam and Eve
The Slavonic Version o f Life o f Adam and Eve
The Tar gums
M idrash Rabbah
The Babylonian Talmud
Conclusion
4. THE CONCEPT OF CHILDBIRTH IN EARLY JUDAISM 196
The Significance o f Childbirth
The Dangers in Childbirth
Uncleanness and Purification after Childbirth
Births o f Significant Figures
The Meaning o f Genesis 3:15
The Historical Development o f the Teaching o f the “Seed”

in the Old Testament
The Teaching o f the “Seed” in Judaism
Procreation and the Messianic Redemption
Summary
5. A RECONSIDERATION OF 1 TIM 2:13-15 IN THE LIGHT OF

VIEWS CONCERNING EVE AND CHILDBIRTH
IN EARLY JU D A IS M ............................................................................ 255
vii
Eve in Early Judaism
Childbirth in Early Judaism
Setting o f 1 Tim 2:13-15
The Meaning and Function o f 1 Tim 2:13-14: Issues and Exegesis
Paul’s Faithful Saying: 1 Tim 2 :1 5 -3 :la
Summary on 1 Tim 2:8-15
6. C O N C L U S IO N .............................................................................................. 339
Paul is Not a Misogynist
Paul is Consistent
Final Words
B IB L IO G R A PH Y .................................................................................................................. 347
ABBREVIATIONS
Ant. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities

Apoc. Mos. Apocalypse o f Moses
Armen.-Georg, The Armenian and Georgian versions o f Life ofA dam and Eve
b. Abod. Zar. Babylonian Talmud, Abodah Zarah
BAGD Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon o f the N ew Testament
and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated and edited by
William F. Arndt, F.Wilbur Gingrich, revised and augmented by
Frederick W. Danker. Chicago: University o f Chicago Press,
1979.
BDAG Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon o f the N ew Testament
and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Revised and edited
by Frederick W. Danker. Based on Walter B auer’s 2d ed. By W. F.
Arndt, F. W ilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker. Chicago:
University o f Chicago Press, 2000.
B. Bat. Baba Batra
b. Ber. Babylonian Talmud, Berakoth
Bib. Ant. Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities
BDF F. Blass and A. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar o f the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Rev. and trans.
by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University o f Chicago Press, 1961.
b. Ketub. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuboth
b. Kidd, Babylonian Talmud, Kiddusin
b. Meg. Babylonian Talmud, Megilta
b. Shab. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbath
b. Sot. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah
b. Yebam. Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth
CA Josephus, Contra Apionem
CD The Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Document
Deut. Rab. Midrash Rabbah, Deuteronomy Rabbah
Eccl. Rab. Midrash Rabbah, Ecclesiastes Rabbah
‘Ed. Eduyyot
Exod. Rab. Midrash Rabbah, Exodus Rabbah
Frg. Tg. Fragmentary Targum
Gen. Rab. Midrash Rabbah, Genesis Rabbah
ix
GLAE The Greek version o f Life o f Adam and Eve
Jub. The Book o f Jubilees
L.A. Philo, Legum Allegoriae
Lev. Rab. Midrash Rabbah, Leviticus Rabbah
m. Abot. Mishnah, Abot
m. Ker. Mishnah, Keritot
m. Ned. Mishnah, Nedarim
m. Nid. Mishnah, Niddah
m. Neg. Mishnah, Nega ’im
m. Pesah. Mishnah, Pesahim
m. Shebi. Mishnah, Shebi ’it
m. Shek. Mishnah, Shekalim
MT Massoretic Text
MPG Patrologia graeca. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris,
1857-1886.
M PL Patrologia latina. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 217 vols. Paris,
1844-1864.
m. Yebam. Mishnah, Yebamoth
Num. Rab. Midrash Rabbah, Number Rabbah
Op. Philo, D e opificio mundi
OTP Charlesworth, Janies H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha.
2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983 and 1985.
Pesah. Pesahim
4QFlor The Dead Sea Scrolls, Florilegium from Qumran Cave 4
QG Philo, Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin
1QH The Dead Sea Scrolls, Hodayot from Qumran Cave 1
QT The Dead Sea Scrolls, Temple Scroll
Ruth. Rab. Midrash Rabbah, Ruth Rabbah
Sanh. Sahnedrin
Sib. Or. Sibylline Oracles
Sir The Wisdom o f Ben Sirach
Slavonic The Slavonic version o f Life o f Adam and Eve
Songs. Rab. Midrash Rabbah, Song o f Songs Rabbah
t. Yebam. Tosepta, Yebamoth
TDNT The Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament. Edited by
Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W.
X
Bromiley, 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-1974.
Reprint, 1983-1987.
Tg. Onq. Targum Onqelos
Tg.N eof. Targum Neofiti
Tg. Ps.-J. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
TJ Trinity Journal
t. Miqv. Tosepta Miqva 'ot
Vita The Latin version o f Life o f Adam and Eve
War Josephus, Jewish War
Wis The Wisdom o f Solomon
y. Ta 'an. Palestinian Talmud, Ta 'anit
y. Yebam. Palestinian Talmud, Yebamoth
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First o f all, I would like to express my sincere thanks for all m y professors o f
the Dallas Theological Seminary. They faithfully taught me G od’s truth in words and in
deeds, and sincerely helped me in different areas during my study in the seminary.
The text o f 1 Tim 2:13-15 is very difficult and challenging indeed. The last
stage o f the work was full o f puzzles, conflicts, struggles, and pains. Here I must show
m y heartfelt appreciation for my examiners (readers), Dr. Darrell L. Bock, Dr. Buist M.
Fanning, and Dr. Richard A. Taylor. Their precious comments and crucial insight
directed me to a wider realm o f thinking and helped me do this work better. In particular,
I am very thankful and grateful for all that Dr. Bock, my adviser, has done for me.
Without his guidance and encouragement, this work would not be finished.
The person I will never forget to applaud and give thanks for is m y late father
Chun Shun Chan, a faithful deacon who seriously studied and practiced G od’s words in
his daily life. As his youngest daughter, I was greatly impressed, deeply touched, and
significantly influenced to follow in his steps. This work is dedicated to him, my hero
forever.
With all m y heart I thank God for all His love, grace, mercy, comfort, and
provision in the past. With all my soul I praise Him for amazingly putting all the
wonderful people mentioned above around me in the accomplishment o f this work. With
all my mind I honor Him, my King, in all I do.
xii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In the Western world, the role o f women in church m inistry is one o f the most
pressing and divisive issues in contemporary Christianity. The two opposing sides o f
North American evangelicalism (i.e., traditionalists and egalitarians) often make
insinuations about one another and accuse each other. The traditional camp condemns
their opponents as “biblical feminists” who confuse and pervert the roles o f male and
female, resulting in the deterioration o f family values and the authority o f the Scriptures.
Similarly, the egalitarian camp charges their opponents with “hermeneutical
gerrymandering,” o f choosing to defer to human tradition instead o f the true meaning o f
Scripture.1 In the battle between these two camps o f evangelicals, the most controversial
passage under fire is 1 Tim 2:8-15.
Contrariwise, the Asian churches seldom discuss or argue over this issue. For
example, in Hong Kong, most o f the churches have followed the traditions instructed by
the Western churches. However, the issue o f wom en’s role in church ministry has
become very significant today. There are many women claiming to be called by the Lord
as full-time ministers and entering the seminary for preparation. The number is always
1 Ronald W. Pierce, “Evangelicals and Gender Roles in the 1990s: 1 Tim 2: 8-15: A Test
Case,” Journal o f the Evangelical Theological Society 36 (September 1993): 333-34; A. Duane Litfin,
“Evangelical Feminism: Why Traditionalists Reject It,” Bibliotheca sacra 136 (July-September 1979):
258-59, 263.
greater than the number o f men. Unfortunately, these women are often under great
pressure after graduation because they feel confused and puzzled about their own role in
the church. There is inconsistency regarding women’s role in church ministry. The
churches have a real need for pastors, while many called and gifted women are left out o f
the ministry. Some women are permitted to teach men and to preach in the Sunday
service and even to lead a church as a senior pastor, since there are no men available.
However, they are excluded from ordination and administering the sacraments. Though
practically they are functioning as pastors, they have equality in service but inequality in
recognition. Consequently, they feel that the congregations see them as secondary
ministers in church.
Undeniably the issue o f women’s roles in church is controversial. It is
significantly and negatively affecting both eastern and western churches over the world.
The popular view o f Paul’s denigration o f Eve and women in the text negatively
influences and confuses the self-esteem o f many women. The ban o f women from taking
the post o f leadership hinders the expansion o f the ministry o f the gospel. The variety o f
the interpretation o f the text incurs discord and split among believers that consequently
becomes a stumbling block to unbelievers. Though the surface problems o f the issue
found in the eastern and western churches m ay be different, their cause and root are the
same on the basis o f the understanding o f the meaning o f 1 Tim 2:8-15. The crux o f the
solution o f women’s role in church is to re-examine and exegete the present text
(in particular the most controversial and difficult section from verse 13 to verse 15)
without a bias towards the traditional presumptions or personal assumptions o f the
passage and other related passages.
Significance of the Study of 1 Tim 2:13-15
First Timothy 2:8-15 is apparently one o f the primary passages in the whole
'y
Bible against women teaching and their ordination in the church. Though there are
numerous books and journals discussing the interpretation o f this passage, the difficulties
o f the text still remain unsolved, resulting in inconsistent policies, unavoidable disputes
and splits among evangelicals. What kind o f testimony is this for the Church, and will
this impress the unbelieving world?3 How will this deadlock affect believers’ views o f
God and His word?4 This is a very serious problem.
M any scholars have studied hard and made contributions to the interpretation
o f 1 Tim 2:9-12, particularly verse 12. It seems most evangelicals would agree that Paul
in verse 12 prohibits women to teach and to have authority over men (positively or
negatively). The m ain argument is whether Paul’s prohibitions are a universal norm
(i.e., G od’s designed creation order) for all churches in all ages or only a temporary ban
(i.e., ad hoc correction) for the Ephesian church in Paul’s times. Nevertheless, the study
o f 1 Tim 2:13-15 is still inadequate and inconclusive, though it is always held as the
basic ground for the prohibitions in verse 12.
2The command o f women’s silence in 1 Cor 14 deals with the disorder caused by some
Corinthian women who were speaking inappropriately during worship. Paul previously allows women to
pray and prophecy (11:5). Explicitly, Paul is not talking about women’s role in church.
3 The battles and splits among Christianity have set a very bad testimony before the world,
and because o f this, some unbelievers refuse to accept Christ, criticizing and laughing at the conducts o f the
church which are contradictory to her own teaching, namely, love and unity.
4 Some believers are afraid o f attending church for they are very confused (or very
disappointed) about the conflicts (the attacks and splits) between the extant different denominations (or
churches) that resulted in the various interpretations and practices o f the Bible. They prefer worshiping God
and reading His word at home in order to not be misled by the human church, nor to be involved in these
disputes.
4
Doubtless, the text o f 1 Tim 2:13-15 has many unsolved problems. Richard
Clark Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger take verse 15 to be “notoriously difficult”
and as giving interpreters “a new set o f perplexities.”5 The interpretation o f these three
verses is very difficult and controversial indeed. One o f the crucial unsolved problems is
the usage o f the term yap in verse 13. Traditionalists usually take it to be a causal clause
providing the reasons for the above prohibitions.6 If this is correct, then the prohibitions
must be universal. Egalitarians take it to be illustrative or explanatory, an illustration,
analogy, or explanation o f the prohibitions.7 I f this is correct, then the prohibitions may
5 See Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking
1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light o f Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 171.
6 Advocates include: William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary, ed.
Ralph P. Martin, vol. 46 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 148; Thomas R. Schreiner, “An Interpretation
o f 1 Timothy 2:9-15: A Dialogue with Scholarship,” in Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis o f 1
Timothy 2:9-15, ed. Andreas J. Kostenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1995), 134-46; Douglas Moo, “The Interpretation o f 1 Timothy 2:11-15: A Rejoinder,” Trinity
Journal 2 (1981): 202-6; idem, “1 Timothy 2:11-15: Meaning and Significance,” Trinity Journal 1 (1980):
68-73; R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation o f St. P a u l’s Epistles to the Colossians, the Thessalonians, to
Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon (n. p.: Lutheran Book Concern, 1937; reprint, Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1964), 564-71; Ernest Findlay Scott, The Pastoral Epistles, Moffatt New Testament Commentary, ed.
James Moffatt (N ew York: Harper and Brothers, 1936), 26-28; George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles.
A Commentary on the Greek Text, ed. I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1992),142—45; William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition o f the Pastoral Epistles
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1957), 109-11; Kenneth S. Wuest, The Pastoral Epistles in the Greek New
Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 49-51; Paul W. Barnette, “Wives and W omen’s Ministry: 1
Timothy 2:11-15,” Evangelical Quarterly (July 1989): 330-34; and James B. Hurley, Man and Woman in
Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 202-4.
7 Advocates include: Philip Payne, “Libertarian Women in Ephesus: A Response to Douglas J.

Moo's Article, ‘1 Timothy 2:11-15: Meaning and Significance,’” Trinity Journal 2 (1981): 175-81;
Timothy J. Harris, “The Buck Stops Where? Authority in the Early Church and Current Debate on
Women's Ministry.” Interchange 41 (1987): 32-33; idem, “Why Did Paul Mention Eve's Deception? A
Critique o f P.W. Barnett's Interpretation o f 1 Timothy 2,” The Evangelical Quarterly 62 (1990): 343-50;
Gilbert Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles: What the Bible Says About a Woman’s Place in Church and Family,
2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 179—84; Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women and Wives: M arriage and
Women’s Ministry in the Letters o f Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992), 113-20; Aida Besan?on
Spencer, Beyond the Curse: Women Called to Ministry (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1985), 88-94; Gordon
D. Fee, A G ood News Commentary: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984), 57-59;
David M. Scholer, “1 Timothy 2:9-15 & the Place o f Women in the Chinch's Ministry,” in Women,
Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986), 210-19; Alan
Padgett, “Wealthy Women at Ephesus: 1 Timothy 2:8-15 in Social Context,” Interpretation 41 (1987): 2 5 -
30; Kroeger and Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman, 117-25; Sharon Hodgin Gritz, Paul, Women Teachers,
and the Mother Goddess at Ephesus: A Study o f 1 Timothy 2:9-15 in Light o f the Religious and Cultural
be cultural and temporary. Only Joan M. Holmes takes it to be redundant and suggests it
not be translated. To her, verses 13-15 are probably a saying which is referred to by the
phrase Iliotoc o XoyoQ in 3:1a. The text o f 1 Tim 2:13-15 is the conclusion o f the entire
chapter, and is closely related to verses 8-12 in particular.9 If this is correct, then the
prohibitions would more likely be cultural. The details o f these three major views will be
synthesized and evaluated in chapter 2. As a whole, the interpretation o f 1 Tim 2:13-15
will crucially and significantly affect the interpretation and application o f verses 11-12.
Another unsolved problem is the source o f this passage. Does Paul simply
select the materials from the Genesis account in the Old Testament (the creation order
and Eve’s deception in particular) to support his prohibitions?10 Could Paul be following
or alluding to some Jewish ideas concerning women?11 Does this passage reflect Paul’s
inconsistency with his other teachings elsewhere (e.g., Gal 3:28) and that o f Jesus?12 Is
Paul only trying to confront and correct certain false teachings, which alleged that Adam
was derived from his instructor Eve and exalted w om en’s status over men? Or is Paul
merely trying to warn the Ephesian women not to be deceived and led astray by the false
teachers, just as was Eve deceived by the serpent?13
Milieu o f the First Century (Lanham, MD: University Press o f America, 1991), 136-44.
8 Apparently Joan M. Holmes is the first and only person advocating this view. See her book
Text in a Whirlwind: A Critique o f Four Exegetical Devices at 1 Timothy 2:9-15, Journal for the Study o f
the N ew Testament Supplement Series, ed. Stanley E. Porter, vol. 196 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic,
2000).
9 Holmes, Text in a Whirlwind, 266, 304.
10 Usually those who try to interpret the passage with this view agree that Paul did so.
11 Usually those who believe Paul was under the influence o f Judaism take it positively.
12 Usually those who deny Pauline authorship o f the Pastoral Epistles hold this to be true.
13 Usually egalitarians take these last two questions positively.
6
Furthermore, in the Old Testament and in Judaism, does the temporal priority
o f Adam ’s creation imply his authority over Eve? Why does Paul prohibit women from
teaching and having authority over men? Is it true that Judaism places blame on Eve’s
deception and transgression for bringing sin and death into the world? Does Paul follow
these rabbinic views on Eve and women? When Paul talks about Eve, what would his
first hand addressee(s) think of? How would the Jews portray Eve among Paul’s
contemporaries? How did they view the first transgression in Eden? Is it true that Eve’s
deception indicates that women in general are more vulnerable to deception and
unsuitable to be leaders? Is Paul a misogynist?
Finally, who is the subject o f ocoBijaetou in verse 15a—Eve in verses 13-14,
the generic “women” in verses 9-12, or any person? Does verse 15a contradict Paul’s
justification by faith? Who are the subjects o f peivcooiv in verse 15b, Adam and Eve or
the generic “women” or other option? What are the Jewish views o f the issue o f
•ceKi'oyovLccc? Is verse 15 alluding to Gen 3:15? How do the Rabbis interpret Gen 3:15
that is advocated by many Christian scholars as Protevangelium?14
Certainly, Paul’s readers in the first century understood what he was saying.
Nevertheless, readers in the twenty-first century must find out the answers to the above
questions in order to interpret the passage correctly and biblically. In fact, the extant
social, religious, cultural, and literary gaps greatly hinder the understanding and
exposition o f the text. Thus, this writer will attempt to work on the cultural and literary
background o f the themes o f Eve and childbirth in Judaism, which is very important but
14 See Walter Wifall, “Gen 3:15—Protevangelium?” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36 (1974):

361.
not yet fully explored,15 with the anticipation that the study will bring valuable insight to
the whole passage.
The Purposes and Methods of the Study
Daniel Doriani is correct to point out that the reason for the various
interpretations o f 1 Tim 2: 13-15 is not only due to its obscurity, but also because o f
personal convictions and presuppositions advocated by scholars and exegetes.16 Besides,
scholars and exegetes have spent too much time arguing over other related passsages
(especially Gal 3:28,1 Cor 11:1-12; 14:33-35), without thoroughly expounding the text.
They have explicitly reversed the priority. Therefore, this writer will primarily focus on
the study o f 1 Tim 2:13-15. She will not concentrate on 1 Tim 2:9-12 and other related
texts, though they do need to be dealt with to the extent that they help with the context.
This dissertation is a reconsideration o f 1 Tim 2:13-15 in the light o f views
concerning Eve and childbirth in early Judaism. It is a research on Eve and childbirth in
Jewish literature in order to provide a literary and cultural background for understanding
15 Most scholars have worked on the social and the religious backgrounds o f the passage, such
as Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger’s “Destination: Ephesus,” “The Feminine at Primal
Source,” “The Great Goddesses and Eve,” and “The Veneration o f the Serpent and Eve,” in I Suffer N ot a
Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light o f Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 47-58,
105-13, 153-60, and 161-70, respectively, mainly work on the religious background. Alan Padgett,
“Wealthy Women at Ephesus: 1 Timothy 2:8-15 in Social Context,” Interpretation 41 (1987): 19-30,
concentrates on the social aspect o f the passage; Ben Wiebe, “1 Timothy 2:11-15: Literary and Historical
Context,” in “Two Texts on Women (1 Tim 2:11-15; Gal 3:26-29): A Test o f Interpretation,” Horizons in
Biblical Theology 16 (June 1994): 55-57; Sharon Hodgin Gritz, “The Cultural Context o f Ephesus” and
“The Religious Context o f Ephesus,” in Paul, Women Teachers, and the Mother Goddess at Ephesus: A
Study o f 1 Timothy 2:9-15 in Light o f the Religious and Cultural Milieu o f the First Century (Lanham, MD:
University Press o f America, 1991), 11-29, 31-49; Krijn van der Jagt, “Women are Saved through Bearing
Children: A Sociological Approach to the Interpretation o f 1 Timothy 2:15,” in Issues in Bible Translation,
ed. Philip C. Stine (London: United Bible Societies, 1988), 287-95.
16 See Daniel Doriani, “Appendix 1: A History o f the Interpretation o f 1 Timothy 2,” in

Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis o f 1 Timothy 2: 9-15, ed. Andreas J. Kostenberger, Thomas R.
Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 214.
1 Tim 2:13-15.17 Passages related to Eve and childbirth will be selected from the Jewish
literature listed below. The meaning o f crucial and significant passages will be discussed
and evaluated with the help o f relevant commentaries and other secondary sources.
First o f all, recent interpretations o f the present text will be briefly synthesized
and evaluated in chapter 2. This chapter will include three sections: (1) major views o f
1 Tim 2:13-14, (2) major views o f 1 Tim 2:15, and (3) Holmes’ “saying” view o f 1 Tim
2:13-15. Chapter 3, a long chapter, will mainly examine and discuss the portraits o f Eve
in early Judaism. Selected passages from the Hebrew Bible, the Apocrypha, Philo
Judaeus, Flavius Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Pseudepigrapha, the Talmud, and
the Midrash Rabbah will be studied and summarized. Each category o f literature will
form an individual section. The chapter will include the following themes: (1) the nature
o f Eve, (2) the interpretation o f Gen 1:27-28, (3) the sin o f Eve, and (4) the interpretation
o f Gen 3:16, according to the extant materials. A summary will be made at the end o f the
chapter. The purposes o f this chapter are: (1) to evaluate the common belief o f Eve’s
denigration in Judaism, (2) to see whether Paul’s prohibition alludes to ideas parallel to
the rabbinic thoughts, and (3) to reconsider the interpretation o f 1 Tim 2:13-14.
Chapter 4 will deal with the issue o f childbirth in early Judaism. The study
will focus on selected passages from the Hebrew Bible, Jewish writings o f the Second
Temple period, the Mishnah, the Talmud, the Midrash Rabbah, and the Targums. It will
include the following sections: (1) significance o f childbirth, (2) dangers in childbirth,
(3) uncleanness and purification after childbirth, (4) births o f significant figures, (5) the
17 There is no mention o f Eve and the creation o f the first couple (at the beginning o f the
world) in Greco-Roman writings, so this writer has decided to focus on the Jewish background alone.
According to John L. McKenzie’s study, the account o f the creation o f a couple (Adam and Eve) as the
origin o f human beings is not found in any ancient literature except the Book o f Genesis. See his work,
“The Literary Characteristics o f Genesis 2 -3 ,” Theological Studies 15 (1954): 550.
9
meaning o f Gen 3:15, (6) the historical development o f the teaching o f the “seed” in the
Old Testament, (7) the teaching o f the “seed” in early Judaism, and (8) procreation and
the messianic redemption. A summary will be included at the end o f the chapter. The
purpose o f this chapter is to examine the relationship between 1 Tim 2:15 and Gen 3:15,
if there is any. Therefore, sections five, six, seven, and eight are particularly important
and will be discussed in detail in the chapter.
Chapter 5 will be a reconsideration o f 1 Tim 2:13-15 in the light o f views
concerning Eve and childbirth in early Judaism. It includes seven sections: (1) Eve in
early Judaism, (2) childbirth in early Judaism, (3) setting o f 1 Tim 2:13-15, (4) the
meaning and function o f 1 Tim 2:13-14: issues and exegesis, (5) the meaning and
function o f 1 Tim 2:15, (6) Paul’s faithful saying: 1 Tim 2:15-3:la, and (7) summary on
1 Tim 2:8-15. This chapter is going to discuss and exegete some unsolved issues o f the
present text, primarily from verse 11 to verse 15, in detail. The final chapter will be a
conclusion o f the dissertation. It mainly consists o f three sections: (1) Paul is not a
misogynist, (2) Paul is consistent, and (3) final words.
As a whole, the study indicates that views concerning Eve in early Judaism
are both positive and negative. In the light o f Adam being blamed for the first
transgression in Paul’s times and his dominant roles played in most Jewish literature,
Adam is assumed to be the leader, but Eve is his helper. Childbearing is seen as the most
significant and honorable role o f women on earth. Childbirth and spiritual salvation are
closely and significantly connected in early Judaism. The results o f the study in chapters
3 and 4 and the exegesis in chapter 5 lead this writer to take 1 Tim 2:13-15 to be Paul’s
explanation o f his entire confrontation and correction o f 1 Tim 2:8-12. Its purpose is to
10
remind the Ephesian men and women o f their different roles in G od’s design and their
inadequacies in reality, so that they might have respect and harmony with one another.
The saying in verse 15, the faithful saying mentioned in 3:1a, intends to instruct the
Ephesian women to fulfill the divinely assigned role o f childbearing accompanied with
good virtues, an outworking o f salvific faith in Christ.
As a whole, Paul uses the entire section to confront and correct the disruptions
happened in the Ephesian church (w . 8-15), so that both Christian men and women
might witness the gospel by leading a quiet and peaceable life with godliness and respect
before the unbelieving world, and their prayer for the unsaved would not be hindered (vv.
1-2). Consequently, their deeds would be acceptable to God, who desires salvation for all
humanity (v. 3-6). In sum, the assumptions o f Jewish views on Eve (women) and Eve’s
deception (women are more vulnerable to deceit), the creation order theory, and role
reversal o f Adam and Eve in the fall cannot be adequately attested in the present text and
in early Judaism. Paul is wrongly accused o f being a misogynist and inconsistent.
CHAPTER 2
RECENT INTERPRETATIONS OF 1 TIM 2:13-15
’A5a|i yap upwiog erTAaa0r|, etra Eua. Kal ’A8ap ouk r|TTaTr|0r|, f] 6'e yuvr]
eânaxriGeiaa kv trapaPaaei yeyovev awG'noetai 8e Sia tf|<; Tecvoyoviac, ecu'
petvooaiv kv itlo t6 l Kal ayaTrri Kal ayiaopw pexa ococ()poauvri<;.
For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it
was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved
through childbearing— if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety
(NIV).
This chapter will synthesize and evaluate both the traditional and egalitarian
views o f 1 Tim 2:13-15 among evangelicals. Undoubtedly, these two camps have a
strong commitment to the authority o f the Bible. Both camps have representatives who
are significant and influential scholars and exegetes. The extant problem o f the
authorship o f the epistle will not be discussed in this dissertation. Nonetheless, this writer
advocates Pauline authorship.1 Section one will focus on the m ajor views on verses 13
and 14, and section two the major views on verse 15. Section three m erely summarizes
Joan M. Holmes’ “saying” view,2 for apparently her idea is quite unique and different
from the two camps. This writer could not find another advocate for this position. An
evaluation will be drawn at the end o f each section.
1 William D. Mounce has a very good argument for this view; see his Pastoral Epistles, Word
Biblical Commentary, ed. Ralph P. Martin, vol. 46 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), xlvi-lxix.
2 Joan M. Holmes, Text in a Whirlwind: A Critique o f Four Exegetical Devices at 1 Timothy

2:9-15, Journal for the Study o f the N ew Testament Supplement Series, ed. Stanley E. Porter, vol. 196
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000).
11
Major Views of 1 Timothy 2:13-14
As mentioned above, 1 Tim 2:13-14 is always held as the basic ground for
Paul’s prohibitions in verse 12. The unsolved questions o f the present text will be the
usage o f the term yap, the interpretation o f the issues o f Adam’s prior creation and Eve’s
deception, and the origin o f the text.
The Traditional/Universal View
The proponents o f the traditional view usually believe that much o f the
teaching in First Timothy is a “church manual” written to the Ephesian church. Paul
primarily aims at instructing the Ephesian believers how to behave themselves properly
in the house o f God, so that they might glorify God before the pagan world. Although this
epistle seems to address specific issues among Paul’s contemporaries, it still can
constitute and provide permanent principles for all churches in all ages. According to the
context, the setting o f 1 Timothy 2 is explicitly in a public worship setting.3
Usage of the Term yap
Regarding the interpretation o f 2:13-14, traditionalists unanimously take the
term yap to be causal, introducing the creation order and the fall as the reason for
banning women from teaching and having authority over men universally (v. 12).
Douglas J. Moo points out that Dana and Mantey take yap to be “most frequently used in
3 See Walter Lock, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles,
International Critical Commentary, ed. S. R. Driver, A. Plummer, and C. A. Briggs (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1924), xiii-xvi; Thomas R. Schreiner, “An Interpretation o f 1 Timothy 2:9-15: A Dialogue with
Scholarship,” in Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis o f 1 Timothy 2:9-15, ed. Andreas J. Kostenberger,
Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 107-13; Mounce, Pastoral
Epistles, lviii-lix; Ernest Findlay Scott, The Pastoral Epistles, Moffatt New Testament Commentary (New
York: Harper and Brothers, 1936), 18; Ann L. Bowman, “Women in Ministry: An Exegetical Study o f
1 Timothy 2: 11-15,” Bibliotheca sacra 149 (April-June, 1992): 203-6.
13
the illative sense, introducing a reason.”4 BDF lists it under the heading “Causal
coordinating conjunctions;”5 and Liddell-Scott also classifies yap simply as “a causal
conjunction.” Moo him self also lists 21 times where “the imperative or imperatival idea”
is followed by the causal yap in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim 3:13; 4:5, 8, 16; 5:4, 11, 15;
2 Tim 1:7; 2:7, 16; 3:6; 4:3, 6, 10, 11,15; Titus 1:10; 2:11; 3:3, 9 ,1 2 ) introducing the
reason for the command. He concludes that the explanatory usage o f yap is rare.6
William D. Mounce basically follows M oo’s view. He found that the term yap
occurs 30 out o f 33 times expressing cause (1 Tim 2:5; 4:5, 8,10,16; 5:4, 11, 15; 6:7,10;
2 Tim 1:7,12; 2 :7 ,1 3 ,1 6 ; 3:2, 6, 9; 4:3, 6 ,1 0 ,1 1 , 15; Tit 1:7,10; 2:11; 3:3, 9,12). On
the contrary, only two o f the passages (1 Tim 3 :1 3 ;2 T im 2:11) seem to illustrate a
continuation or result that is a weakened and rare use o f yap. He points out that ouk
enLTpCTG) (“I do not permit”) in verse 12 has the force o f an imperative. According to
Paul’s style, usually he uses an imperative followed by yap in the same sentence, giving
the reason for the imperative (Rom 12:19; 14:3; 1 Cor 7:9; 15:34; Eph 5:8-9; Col 3:20;
2 T i m 4 :ll, 15; Tit 3:12). Thus, the causal usage o f yap here is the best interpretation.7
4 H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar o f the Greek New Testament (New
York: Macmillan, 1927), 242-43. Moo points out that BAGD cites only 12 examples o f the explanatory
usage o f yap in the New Testament; see Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon o f the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature, ed. and trans. William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, rev. and aug.
Frederick W. Danker, 2d ed. (Chicago: University o f Chicago Press, 1979), 151-52. There are 220
occurrences o f yap listed in the lexicon and 179 occurrences classified as cause or reason. Only 18
occurrences are explanatory.
5 F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar o f the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature, rev. and trans. Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University o f Chicago Press, 1961), 235.
6 See Douglas J. Moo, “The Interpretation o f 1 Timothy 2:11-15: A Rejoinder,” Trinity

Journal 2 (1981): 202-3.
7 Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 131-32. Advocates are such as: Schreiner, “A Dialogue with
Scholarship,” 134; Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, New American Commentary,
ed. David S. Dockery, vol. 34 (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 100, n. 35; H. Wayne House, The Role o f
Women in Ministry Today (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990), 136-37.
Adam’s Priority and Eve’s Deception
Despite the explanation o f the priority o f Adam ’s creation and the deception
o f Eve in verses 13-14 might vary, traditionalists usually appeal to the history o f the
straightforward interpretation o f church thinking. They assume Paul here gives two
reasons for his prohibitions o f women teaching and exercising authority over men (v. 12).
They believe that Adam and Eve are archetypes expressing man-ness and woman-ness.
Verse 13 states that since man (Adam) was created first and woman (Eve) was created for
man, God’s plan is to set man as a leader over woman and she has to submit to him.
Verse 14 indicates how the reversal o f this divinely ordained role brings disaster in the
fall. In order not to repeat the first couple’s mistake, therefore, women should not teach
(in public) or exercise authority over men. Then, the pre-fall order might be restored.8
Regarding verse 13, Moo takes the phrase irpcoToc . . . e lm (“firs t. . . then”) to
be Paul’s strong assertion o f Adam’s chronological priority implicating superiority,
according to the popular view among both Jews and Greeks o f Paul’s contemporaries.
Based on the parallel text found in 1 Cor 11:8-9, Paul substantiates this view by stating
that “for man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created
for woman but woman for man,” expressing wom en’s derivation and subordination.
Since Genesis 2 describes God making Eve from Adam ’s rib in order to be a “helper
corresponding to him,” women should be in a subordinate and helping role in public
8 George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, A Commentary on the Greek Text, ed. I. Howard
Marshall, and W. Ward Gasque (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 142; Moo, “A Rejoinder,” 202-3; idem,
“1 Timothy 2:11-15: Meaning and Significance,” Trinity Journal 1 (1980): 68; RobertD. Culver, “Let
Your Women Keep Silence,” in Women in Ministry: Four Views, ed. Bonnidell and Robert G. Clouse
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1989), 36; Bowman, “Women in Ministry,” 204-5; Schreiner, “A
Dialogue with Scholarship,” 132-45; Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 130; James B. Hurley, Man and Woman
in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 207-8; R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation o f St.
P a u l’s Epistles to the Colossians, the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon (n. p . : Lutheran
Book Concern, 1937; reprint, Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1964), 570; Lea and Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, 101.
15
worship as in creation order.9 The verb diraruto (“to deceive”) emphasizes Eve’s
deception by the serpent rather than on Eve’s influence over Adam. Verse 14 implies the
difference between Adam and Eve in the fall. Adam sinned openly whereas Eve was
deceived. Nonetheless, Eve reacted independently to the tempter and bypassed the
creation order, leading to the final disaster. And Paul sees women teaching and ruling in
the church as the role reversal o f men and women that needs to be corrected.10
Mounce emphasizes that Paul is explaining the relationship between Adam
and Eve. The fact Adam being created first and then Eve indicates God’s original
intention o f male leadership. Verse 13 refers to the period before the curse (Gen 3:16), so
male leadership is not a consequence o f the fall. Verse 14, grounded in Genesis 3 (in
which Eve herself confesses to her deception by the serpent), emphasizes Eve’s deception
and parallels verse 13. The main theme o f the text is: Adam, the dominant role, is created
first and he is not deceived. Historically, Eve is not only created second but also is
deceived, and these are reasons for the commands in verses 11-12.11
R. C. H. Lenski believes that Eve is formed from A dam’s rib and named by
Adam. Since both the rib and the name are derived from Adam, Eve is secondary
whereas Adam is first and primary. As a result, all women are secondary, whereas all
men are first and primary. This is God’s originally designed order. However, in the fall,
9 Moo, “Meaning and Significance,” 68.
10 See Moo, “Meaning and Significance,” 70; idem, “A Rejoinder,” 204. Other advocates o f
role reversal are: Knight, “The N ew Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship o f Male and Female
with Special Reference to the Teaching/Ruling Functions in the Church,” Journal o f the Evangelical
Theological Society 18 (1975): 85; Lenski, P a u l’s Epistles to Timothy, 568-70; Hurley, Man and Woman,
216; Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 137; Bowman, “Women in Ministry,” 205-6; Elisabeth Elliot, “The
Essence o f Femininity: A Personal Perspective,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A
Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991),
397.
11 Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 130-36.
16
both Adam and Eve not only disobey God to eat the fruit o f the tree but also violate
God’s designed positions, that is, Adam’s headship and Eve’s subordination. Paul here
1 *y
wants women to remain in a subordinate position in the church and let men rule.
Nevertheless, some traditionalists have a different interpretation about Eve’s
deception in verse 14. They in some sense denigrate the mind and character o f women as
by nature making them unsuitable to be leaders. Schreiner believes the use o f the verb
irA.aoaoi) in verse 13 indicates that Paul has in mind the account o f mankind’s creation
from Genesis 2 rather than from Genesis 1, because the Septuagint uses the verb TrAaooco
“to form” in Gen 2 (w . 7, 8,15, and 19) while it utilizes the verb Troiito “to make” in Gen
1 (vv. 26-27). From 1 Tim 2:13 (together with 1 Cor 11:8-9), he suggests that Paul is
interpreting Genesis 2, and believes that the creation order signaled an important role
difference o f men and women. It indicates male leadership. Therefore, Paul bans women
11
from teaching and exercising authority over men.
Schreiner argues that according to the historical view o f the interpretation, the
emphasis in verse 14 is on Eve’s deception by the serpent. The reference to Eve sinning
first, along with Adam bearing primary responsibility for the transgression (God asked
Adam first after the transgression in Genesis 3) makes verse 14 functioning as a second
argument for male leadership. Eve’s deception also implies that women are more liable to
deception, more gullible, more easily led astray than men, and have difficulty in
12 See Lenski, P a u l’s Epistles to Timothy, 568—70. See also Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 142—44;
William Hendriksen, / - / / Timothy and Titus, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1957),
109-10. Hurley explains that the firstborn son in the Old Testament obtains some particular privileges. He
will succeed his father as head o f the family to lead the family worship. He will receive a “double portion”
o f his father’s property (Deut 21:15-17). So Paul here appeals to the fact that Adam is a firstborn son who
has dominion over Eve. See his Man and Woman, 206-9. Advocates o f a similar view include: Bowman,
“Women in Ministry,” 205; Lea and Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, 101.
13 See Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 135-40.
17
discerning the doctrinal error or preserving the apostolic tradition. That is the second
reason that they are banned from teaching and leading in church.14
The Origin of the Passage
Generally, traditionalists advocate that the passage is selected from the story
o f Adam and Eve recorded in the Old Testament. The priority o f Adam ’s creation in
verse 13 is from Genesis 2, whereas Eve’s deception in verse 14 is from Genesis 3. Some
think that Paul’s statement here reflects his own interpretation o f the Bible, using a
certain kind o f rabbinic/Jewish interpretation, for example, analogy or typology.15 Some
think that Paul’s exposition o f Genesis 2 and 3 here follows after the rabbinical
interpretation o f his times, which is not entirely based on the literal words o f the Hebrew
Bible.16 Some suggest that the passage is probably from some Jewish Apocrypha that has
negative comments on women.17
14 Ibid., 140-6. Also see Scott, Pastoral Epistles, 27. Daniel Doriani takes this to be the
complementarian view. He comments: “God shaped the minds, proclivities and perhaps even the bodies o f
humans to reflect his decree. A few mark the size, bearing, voice, or aggressiveness o f the male . . . women
ordinarily do not pursue the counsels o f reason, but are more easily swayed by other factors.” See his work
“Appendix 1: A History o f the Interpretation o f 1 Timothy 2,” in Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis
o f 1 Timothy 2:9-15, ed. Andreas J. Kostenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1995), 263.
15 Advocates include: Lenski, P a u l’s Epistles to Timothy, 100-1, 564; Moo, “Meaning and
Significance,” 68—69; Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 130; Lea and Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, 100—1; Susan
T. Foh, Women and the Word o f God: A Response to Biblical Feminism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 123;
Paul W. Barnett, “Wives and Women’s Ministry: 1 Timothy 2:11—15,” Evangelical Quarterly 61 (1989):
234; Ben Wiebe, “Two Texts on Women (1 Tim 2:11—15; Gal 3:26—29): A Test o f Interpretation,”
Horizons in Biblical Theology 16 (June 1994): 60.
16 Advocates include: Scott, Pastoral Epistles, 27; Thomas C. Oden, First and Second
Timothy and Titus Interpretation: A Bible Commentary fo r Teaching and Preaching, ed. James Luther
Mays (Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1989), 99-100; Robert Falconer, “1 Timothy 2:14,15. Interpretative
Notes,” Journal o f Biblical Literature 60 (1941): 375-79; and Bowman, “Women in Ministry,” 203.
17 See Lock, Pastoral Epistles, 33. However, he does not suggest any specific texts.
18
Evaluation
There are several problems with this view. First, major lexicons and grammars
state that the usage of the term yap can be either causal or explanatory in general. A. T.
Robertson believes it is best to note the explanatory use first.18 Daniel B. Wallace
suggests that the function o f yap should be decided by the author’s style and the context
o f the text itself.19
Second, the Genesis account o f the priority o f Adam ’s creation does not
necessarily imply that Eve is under his authority, just as not all first bom sons inherit a
double portion from their fathers, and just as the human race is not under the authority o f
other animals which are created first.20 Even if Adam is assumed to be the leader, Eve is
his “help corresponding to him ” rather than his “subject” under his authority. Though
Paul mentions that woman is created for man and not the reverse, he reminds his
audience o f the interdependence between both sexes (1 Cor 11:8-12).21 The reference to
18 See A. T. Robertson, A Grammar o f the Greek New Testament in the Light o f Historical
Research, 4th ed. (Nashville: Broadman, 1934), 1190.
19 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax o f the New
Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 668.
20 See arguments o f the following scholars: Timothy J. Harris, “The Buck Stops Where?
Authority in the Early Church and Current Debate on Women’s Ministry,” Interchange 41 (1987): 33; idem,
“Why Did Paul Mention Eve’s Deception? A Critique o f P.W. Barnett’s Interpretation o f 1 Timothy 2,”
Evangelical Quarterly 62 (1990): 335-52; Phyllis Trible, “Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation,”
Journal o f the American Academy o f Religion 41 (March 1973): 35-39; Sharon Hodgin Gritz, Paul, Women
Teachers, and the Mother Goddess at Ephesus: A Study o f 1 Timothy 2:9—15 in Light o f the Religious and
Cultural Milieu o f the First Century (Lanham, MD: University Press o f America, 1991): 54-56; Alvera
Mickelsen, “There Is Neither Male Nor Female in Christ,” in Women In Ministry: Four Views, ed.
Bonnidell and Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1989), 185; Paul K. Jewett, Man as
M ale and Female: A Study in Sexual Relationship from a Theological Point o f View (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1975), 126-27.
21 L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte points out that in 1 Cor 11:2-16 Paul’s purpose is mainly to argue
that men should uncover their heads whereas women should cover theirs during prophesying or praying.
The reasons for that command are varied and will not be discussed here; see his work “Man, Woman, and
the Angels in 1 Cor 11:2-16,” in The Creation o f Man and Woman: Interpretations o f the Biblical
Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions, ed. Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, Themes in Biblical Narrative
19
the chronological order o f creation in 1 Cor 11:8 is invoked to justify appropriate dress,
22
not the hierarchical patterns o f m en’s authority over women. Even John Calvin points
out the order o f creation cannot be a very strong argument for Eve’s subjection for “John
the Baptist was before Christ in the order o f time, and yet was greatly inferior in rank.”23
Third, Eve’s deception in the fall does not indicate any theory o f role reversal.
Eve merely took the forbidden fruit, ate, and gave it to Adam. The Bible does not say that
she instructed him . H er actions cannot be construed as being that o f an official teacher,
nor does it indicate that she exercised authority over Adam in the fall.24 Eve’s sin is her
disobedience to God’s command rather than her usurping Adam ’s authority. She
disregarded God’s words and his authority. It is G od’s authority that was distorted by the
serpent. Adam’s sin is his disobedience to God’s command rather than his giving up o f
• • •
his male leadership. There is no such delineation (i.e., Adam as ‘head’=spokesman,
O ft
teacher, decision maker) found m Genesis passage.
The view that women in general are more susceptible or more vulnerable to
deception and not suitable to be leaders surely cannot sustain in today’s reality. David M.
Scholer points out that in 2 Cor 11:3 the negative example o f Eve’s deception is used to
warn both men and women against false teaching. If Eve’s deception indicates that
Jewish and Christian Traditions, ed. Philip S. Alexander and Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, vol. 3 (Leiden: Brill,
2000), 91.
22 See Harris, “Why Did Paul Mention Eve’s Deception?” 344.
23 See John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, trans.
William Pringle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 68.
25 See Andrew C. Perriman, “What Eve Did, What Women Shouldn’t Do: the Meaning o f
AY0ENTEQ in 1 Timothy 2:12,” Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1993): 131.
20
women are susceptible and vulnerable to deception, then men would have the same
weaknesses.27 The proponent o f this view needs to answer a question: What has Eve’s
deception to do with women assuming a teaching office?
Fourth, this view overemphasizes the teaching authority28 in church. Gilbert
Bilezikian points out that before the New Testament was written and canonized, the
authority o f teachers was “absolute and normative, provided that they were duly trained
and authorized.” However, when the New Testament canon was formed, the authority
“was displaced from the teacher to the teaching enscripturated in the New Testament.”
And today Scripture, rather than the authority residing in teachers, is “the only authority
for the church.”29 Furthermore, the New Testament mainly emphasizes the authority o f
God and his word. Even Paul him self seldom claims his authority over others. Instead,
he always emphasizes that his teachings (or instructions) are received from Jesus Christ
(Gal 1:12; 1 Thess 4:2; 1 Tim 1:11; 6:3). He stresses the spiritual qualifications (the
conduct) o f church leaders (1 Tim 3:1-13), who should set a good example for believers
in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity (1 Tim 4:12), not their authority over the
congregation.
27 See David M. Scholer, “1 Timothy 2:9-15 & the Place o f Women in the Church’s
Ministry,” in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,
1987), 210. Harris has similar view; see “Why Did Paul Mention Eve’s Deception?” 349.
28 Traditionalists believe a teaching office in the church indicates authority. If women hold
this office, then they have authority over men. This will violate male leadership in the family and in the
chinch.
29 Gilbert Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles: What the Bible Says About a Woman’s Place in
Church and Family, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 184.
30 When facing the current problems o f the Corinthian church, Paul was forced to claim his
apostolic authority in order to confront false apostles (who identified themselves as “super-apostles) and to
defend the gospel (2 Cor 10:8-18; 11:1-8, 22-29; 12:1-13). He wielded his authority merely because he
wanted to restore and build up the Corinthians. See David K. Lowery, “2 Corinthians,” Bible Knowledge
Commentary: New Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983), 577-83.
21
On the contrary, to Paul the church leaders (including himself) are servants o f
Christ (1 Cor 4:1) rather than rulers or masters. Paul does urge the congregation to show
the elders who direct well the affairs o f the church double honor (but not double authority;
cf. 1 Tim 5:3), especially those whose work is preaching and teaching (1 Tim 5:17). Here
Paul talks about elders not teachers. Elders could at the same time be teachers, but
teachers are not necessarily elders. Moreover, in light o f 1 Cor 12:28 and Eph 4:11 it is
difficult to see how teaching is a more authoritative ministry than prophecy or

o 1
evangelism, since teachers are listed after both prophets and evangelists. In 1 Cor 14:1
Paul admonishes believers to desire the particular spiritual gift o f prophesying. He also
allows women to prophesy (1 Cor 11:5).
Fifth, the view that in 1 Tim 2:13-15 Paul has used the typological or
analogical method (a Jewish interpretation) to interpret Genesis 2 and 3, in order to apply
to the Ephesian women, does not match Paul’s style in other places. When Paul uses the
Old Testament as typology, he usually elaborates its meaning (or teaching) and explains
how it relates to the addressees (e.g., 1 Cor 10:1-11; Gal 4:21-31). Actually, this view
has an unsolved question: How do Adam (who sinned deliberately) and Eve (who was
deceived to sin) typify men and women respectively in the fall (v. 14)?
Sixth, the appeal to the history o f the traditional interpretation o f the church is
implausible. No one will deny that church traditions are good, but not all are correct.
Ronald W. Pierce points out that “the Church could have been blind to the prejudices and
biases affecting our reading o f these texts” for many years. He gives the examples o f how
the Reformers firmly condemned Galileo based on their interpretation o f Psalms 104:5
31 This is not to say that the order o f the spiritual gifts implies the degree o f significance, but
to point out that the authority o f teachers traditionally advocated is questionable.
22
and Isaiah 51:16, and how women were forbidden by certain Church fathers to take pain
-j-}
medication during childbirth based on Genesis 3:16. The history o f the interpretation o f
the present text shows there are varieties and inconsistencies among Church fathers, the
Reformers, scholars, and exegetes.33 Moreover, no interpretation o f this passage from the
first and second centuries A.D. is found up to this moment. Though Cyprian cites 1 Tim
2:11-14 and 1 Cor 14:34-35 to state that “a woman ought to be silent in the church,” he
does not provide any explanation.34 In reality Church fathers are also inconsistent in the
practice o f wom en’s teaching and leadership in the church.35
The Egalitarian/Cultural View
Most egalitarians advocate that First Timothy on the one hand emphasizes that
Christians should have a godly and holy life before unbelievers (2:2—4; 3:7; 5:14; 6:1),
and on the other hand aims to combat false teachings in the Ephesian church (1:3-7, 18-
20; 4:1-8; 5:16; 6:3-10,20-21). They greatly emphasize that 1 Tim 2:13-15 should be
understood according to the purpose o f the epistle.36 The usage o f yap is explanatory. In
verses 13-14 Paul provides the explanation or illustration o f the previous prohibitions in
verse 12. Furthermore, they consider Gal 3 :28 as the foundation o f interpreting 1 Tim
32 See Ronald W. Pierce, “Evangelicals and Gender Roles in the 1990s: lTim 2:8-15: A Test
Case,” Journal o f the Evangelical Theological Society 36 (September 1993): 345.
33 See Doriani, “Appendix 1,” 220-62.
34 Ibid., 221. Apparently, Church Fathers quoted 1 Timothy 2 without interpreting the text.
35 Jerome assigned Paula and Marcella rather than men as his delegates while he was not in
Rome; see Doriani, “Appendix 1,” 224-26.
36 See Scholer, “1 Timothy 2:9-15,” 198-200; Gordon D. Fee, A Good News Commentary: 1
and 2 Timothy, Titus (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984), xx-xxiii; Alan Padgett, “Wealthy Women at
Ephesus: 1 Timothy 2:8-15 in Social Context,” Interpretation 41 (1987): 21-2; Harris, “Why Did Paul
Mention Eve’s Deception?” 339-40; Gloria Neufeld Redekop, “Let the Women Learn: 1 Timothy 2:8-15
Reconsidered,” Studies in Religion 19 (1990): 236-37; and others.
2:8-15 because they take the latter to be an ambiguous passage whereas the former is
clear and crucial.
Some scholars advocate that Eve’s deception is due to her being created after
God had given his instruction to Adam. What she got was a secondhand message from
Adam. Thus, she was not well-educated and lacked full knowledge o f G od’s word,
resulting in her being deceived by the serpent. Here Paul uses Eve’s failure as an
illustration to warn against inadequately educated women teaching and ruling in the
Ephesian church, until they got the full knowledge o f the truth. Such education would
-1*7
prevent them from acting like Eve, bringing disaster to the church. Nonetheless, some
scholars think Paul is confronting and correcting several popular misconceptions
concerning Adam and Eve taught by the false teachers among the Christians in Ephesus.
The false teachings allege the priority o f Eve (in particular that Eve was Adam ’s
instructor), resulting in female exaltation and superiority.38 As a whole, different
interpretations o f the text offer different explanations for the prohibitions due to current
problems o f the church in Ephesus.
Reflection and Illustration
Philip B. Payne cites Robertson’s comment on the explanatory usage o f the
term yap that is common in both Homer and the New Testament. Regarding verse 13,
37 See Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles, 179; Philip B. Payne, “Libertarian Women in Ephesus: A
Response to Douglas J. M oo’s Article, ‘1 Timothy 2:11-15: Meaning and Significance’,” Trinity Journal 2
(1981): 177; Aida Besan 5on Spencer, Beyond the Curse: Women Called to Ministry (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1985), 218-19; Scholer, “1 Timothy 2:9-15,” 211; Padgett, “Wealthy Women at
Ephesus,” 24; Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters o f
Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992), 111-13; and others.
38 See Gritz, Paul, Women Teachers, 308; Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine Clark
Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light o f Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids
Baker Books, 1992), 42-43, 50-52, 59-66, 70-74, 93,105-13.
24
“Adam was formed first, then Eve,” he believes that Paul is declaring “the essential
equality” o f Adam (the representative o f men) and Eve (the representative o f women) by
adding e lta “then” to correct the wrong idea o f the Judaizers on women. The Judaizers
advocate male superiority because they think the Old Testament particularly articulates
that God forms (the use o f uAaooeo) in LXX) Adam but never states that God forms
Eve.39 Payne parallels 1 Tim 2:14 to 2 Cor 11:3, the only other passage o fE v e ’s
deception in the entire New Testament, and concludes that Eve’s deception is only an
example to illustrate how critical the results can be when a woman deceived by false
teachings transmits it to others.40
Harris has studied some examples o f the dTratcca) word-group in the Pauline
epistles and finds that they are applied or referred to those who promote false teaching
(Rom 16:18; 2 Cor 11:3; 2 Thess 2:3, 9-10; Titus 1:10), to those who have gone astray
from faith (1 Tim 1:6, 9,2 0 ; 4:1; 5:15), to the deeds o f the false teachers (or Satan) and to
the danger o f apostasy (1 Tim 4:1; 5:15; 2 Tim 2:26). So he thinks that the use o f duaxdci)
indicates Paul here makes a parallel between Eve’s deception by the serpent’s guile
leading to the first transgression and the deception o f the Ephesian women by false
teachers bringing problems to the church. Thus, Eve’s deception in the fall functions as
“cautionary typology,” a negative example to be avoided.41
Bilezikian argues that Eve, “the lesser-informed person,” mistakenly exercised
an authoritative function for which she was not well prepared, resulting in falling into
39 See Payne, “Libertarian Women in Ephesus,” 176-77; cf. Harris, “Why Did Paul Mention
Eve’s Deception?” 349.
40 See Payne, “Libertarian Women in Ephesus,” 188-89.
41 See Harris, “Why Did Paul Mention Eve's Deception?” 48-50; cf. Redekop, “Let the
Women Learn,” 243. Spencer has a similar view; see Beyond the Curse, 91-94.
25
Satan’s trap. Similarly, some Ephesian women brought trouble to the church because they
unenlightened exuberance, spreading gossip from house to house, speaking the wrong
things, and trying to become teachers. Some even had already been led astray to follow
Satan just like Eve at the fall.42 Furthermore, the present tense o f eiuxpeTTw has the force
o f “I do not permit now a woman to teach.” In other words, Paul’s prohibition is
temporary. When women learned adequately under authorized teachers and became
competent, they could serve as teachers in the church.43
Refutation of Proto-Gnosticism
Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger suggest the present text
is a refutation to a proto-Gnostic belief combined with a devotion to Artemis o f
Ephesus44 that directly contradicts the biblical account in Genesis. The Gnostic stories
portray Eve’s pre-existence and her infusing Adam with life 45 Appealing to Hippolytus’
quotation from a book o f the Peratae and to some traditions,46 Kroeger and Kroeger point
out that Eve is portrayed as the creative force o f nature, mother o f all living, a “heavenly
Eve” who existed long before Adam. They cite two accounts o f tractates telling o f how
Adam was given life by Eve, “the spirit-filled” woman, as follows:
42 See Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles, 179-81 for details.
43 Ibid., 182-83. Advocates o f similar view include: Mark D. Roberts, “Woman Shall Be
Saved,” Reformed Journal 33 (1983): 20; Scholer, “1 Timothy 2:9-15,” 208, 211.
44 Gritz believes that under the influence o f the cult o f the Great Mother Artemis that exalts
women’s superiority, Ephesus became “the bastion and bulwark o f women’s rights.” The Ephesian women
believers “might confuse them with the devotees o f Artemis and their emotional excesses.” So Paul wanted
to cut down any practices among them; see Paul, Women Teachers, 4 1 ,4 3 , 308.
45 See Kroeger and Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman, 7-25.
46 Ibid., 232, n. 8, Hippolytus, Refutation o f All Heresies 16.6.12-13; 232, n. 10, Irenaeus,
Against Heresies 1.30.7.
26
The spirit-filled (TryeupauKri) woman came to him and spoke with him, saying
“Arise, Adam.” And when he saw her, he said, “You are the one who has given
me life. You will be called ‘the mother o f the living,’ because she is m y mother,
she is the female healer, and the wife and the one who gave birth.47
After the day o f re s t,. . . Sophia (oocjua) sent Zoe ((wf|) her daughter, who is
called Eve (Eua], as . . . an instructor so that she should raise up Adam, who had
no soul in him . . . When Eve saw her co-likeness lying flat, she showed pity upon
him and said, “Adam live! Rise up upon the earth.” Straightaway her word
became a deed . . . For . . . when Adam had risen up, he immediately opened his
eyes. When he saw her, he said, “You will be called ‘the mother o f the living,’
because you are the one who has given me life.”48
Here Paul affirms that “Adam was formed first, then Eve” in verse 13, in order to refute
the false teaching that contradicts the Genesis record.49
Kroeger and Kroeger also list some accounts o f tractates telling how the
powers or the archons intended to deceive Adam, but the beneficent serpent nullified the
deceit performed on Adam through Eve’s aid. The Apocalypse o f Adam (64.6-16) and
other Gnostic tractates tell that Eve’s knowledge was superior and Adam was under her
spiritual instruction about the knowledge o f the eternal god.50 So Paul uses verse 14 to
47 Kroeger and Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman, 121. See p. 232, n. 12, citing from The
Hypostasis o f the Archons 2.89.11-16. Roger A. Bullard dates this tractate in the third century C.E.; see
“The Hypostasis o f the Archons,” in The Nag Hammadi Library, rev. ed., ed. James M. Robinson (San
Francisco: Harper Collins, 1990), 161. The text is presented in p. 164.
48 Kroeger and Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman, 121. See p. 232, n. 13, citing from On the
Origin o f the World, Nag Hammadi Codex 2.5.115.31-116.8. Hans-Gebhard Bethge dates the tractate in
the early fourth century C.E.; see “On the Origin o f the World (11,5 and XIII,2),” in Nag Hammadi, 170.
The text is on p. 182.
49 Kroeger and Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman, 119.
50 Ibid., 123, 233, nn. 24-25, 27-30, Apocalypse o f Adam 64.6-16. George W. MacRae states,
“no clear indications o f its date have been perceived.” He suggests that perhaps it is around the first or
second century; see “The Apocalypse o f Adam,” in Nag Hammadi, 277. The text is on p. 279; Epiphanius,
Panarion 26.2.6, 37.3.1, 38.2.6; Apocryphon o f John 23.35-24.25. Frederik Wisse suggests that the main
teachings o f the tractate existed before 185 C.E.; see “The Apocryphon o f John (II,/, IH,7, IV ,/, and BG
8502,2),” in Nag Hammadi, 104. The passage is on pp. 118-19; On the Origin o f the World 113.33-34,
116.33-117.18 (Nag Hammadi, 180-81, 182-83)\ Hypostasis o f the Archons 88.17-30 (Nag Hammadi,
163-64); Testimony o f Truth, Nag Hammadi Codex 9.3.47.1-4. Birger A. Pearson thinks that it is most
plausibly dated to the end o f the second century or the beginning o f the third; see “The Testimony o f Truth
(IX, 3),” in Nag Hammadi, 448. The passage is on pp. 454-55.
27
correct the heresy, affirming that Eve did not have superior knowledge but was deceived,
leading to “darkness and alienation from God.”51
M any egalitarians advocate that Paul here refers to the historical fact o f the
story o f Adam and Eve recorded in the Hebrew Bible for the purpose o f illustration,
explanation, refutation, or correction.52 Some think that Paul follows the Jewish tradition
o f the interpretation o f Genesis.53
Evaluation
First o f all, this view commits the same mistake as the traditional view. It
interprets 1 Tim 2:13-14 under the lens o f some conviction and presumption o f the
meanings o f Gal 3:28 and other related passages. It primarily explains the passage from a
Hellenistic aspect, assuming the readers knew nothing about the story o f Adam and Eve
in Genesis, and were misled by the false teachings o f Gnosticism.
Second, on the whole this view overemphasizes that the main purpose o f First
Timothy is to combat the heresy that Timothy faced. Nonetheless, the heresy described in
51 See Kroeger and Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman, 124-25; see also Roberts, “Woman Shall
Be Saved,” 19-20.
52 See Jewett, Man as Male and Female, 119-27; Scholer, “1 Timothy 2:9-15,” 211; Padgett,
“Wealthy Women at Ephesus,” 26; Gritz, Paul, Women Teachers, 137-38; Spencer, Beyond the Curse, 89;
Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles, 179; Redekop, “Let the Women Learn,” 242-44; Kroeger and Kroeger, I
Suffer N ot a Woman, 117; Payne, “Libertarian Women in Ephesus,” 177; Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, 36; Keener,
Paul, Women and Wives, 116; Towner, 1 -2 Timothy, 78.
53 See Jewett, Man as Male and Female, 119-27; Krijn van der Jagt, “Women are Saved
Through Bearing Children: A Sociological Approach to the Inrerpretation o f 1 Timothy 2.15,” in Issues in
Bible Translation, United Bible Societies Monograph Series, vol. 3 (London: United Bible Societies, 1988),
290; Lorenz Oberlinner, D ie Pastoralbriefe: Auslegung, vol. 1 (Freiburg: Herder, 1994), 99; Lock, Pastoral
Epistles, 33; Arland J. Hultgren and Roger Aus, / - / / Timothy, Titus, II Thessalonians, Augsburg
Commentary on the New Testament (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1984), 69.
28
the epistle is difficult to specify. It contains both Jewish and Hellenistic elements.54 In
fact the Jewish element o f the heresy is more dominant than the Hellenistic in the
epistle.55 Thus, the idea that the influence o f the cult o f Artemis and pro-Gnosticism
caused Paul’s refutation in verses 13-14, is questionable and lacks evidence.56 Besides,
the date o f those pro-Gnostic accounts about Adam and Eve is too late for attestation.57
Third, the explanation o f Eve’s deception and fall, rooted in her inadequate
education lacks internal evidence. Schreiner points out that neither Genesis nor Paul ever
states that Eve taught Adam (wrongly), but both declare that Eve was deceived. The
serpent trapped Eve by promising her that she would act as a god, liberated from her God
(Gen 3:4-6). At last Eve chose to believe the serpent’s deceit.58 Mounce comments that
the text does not state that Eve was deceived because o f her “intellectual deficiency.”
Actually, the serpent never questioned Eve’s understanding o f G od’s command. The
54 Mounce defends that even some ancient sources seem to parallel Paul’s discussion, it does
not necessarily assume that Paul here is talking about those parallels. Since Paul particularly asserts that the
myths in the Ephesian church are Jewish (Titus 1:14), which might permit for gnostic influences in
Hellenistic Judaism, but argues against “a purely Gnostic heresy.” See his work Pastoral Epistles, 141.
55 The false teachers devoted themselves to “myths and endless genealogies” (1 :4), and
desired to be “teachers o f the law” (1:7); see Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament,
Anchor Bible Reference Library, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 665; Robert J.
Karris, “Background and Significance,” 562; Quinn and Wacker, Letters to Timothy, 74; Litfin, “1
Timothy,” 731; Vincent Cheung, The Pastoral Epistles, Bible Studies Series, ed. Siu-kwan Siu (Hong
Kong: Tien Dao, 1996, in Chinese), 90.
56 Scholer comments, “There is not sufficient evidence, to my judgment, to identify the false
teaching in Ephesus as Gnosticism in a complete enough sense to hold that, as in some forms o f developed
Gnosticism (Eve is depicted as a “hero” in Gnosticism), Eve was a ‘hero’ o f the false teachers and thus
account for Paul’s statements about Eve here.” See Scholer, “1 Timothy 2:9-15,” 211, n. 55.
57 Keener comments that Kroeger uses later Gnostic texts (most o f them dated in late second
to third century, see above p. 26, nn. 47, 48, 50) to support her suggested “nascent gnosticism” in the first
century A.D.; see Paul, Women and Wives, 128, n. 98.
58 See Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 141—43.
29
problem o f Eve is simply a “moral failing,” that is, questioning G od’s goodness and
believing that God is a liar.59
Summary
The above interpretations o f 1 Tim 2:13-14 are so various and controversial
that one can hardly decide which view is correct. Nevertheless, did the readers in the first
century A.D. understand the present text in those ways? Some scholars think Paul is
using analogy or (cautionary) typology to interpret Genesis 2 and 3.60 Adam and Eve are
the archetypes o f men and women. If this is correct, then how can one explain Paul’s use
o f the incident o f Eve’s deception by the serpent’s cunning (also from the Genesis
account) to warn the whole church against false teachers in 2 Cor 11:3? Is Eve the
archetype o f both men and women there? Some scholars believe Paul interprets Genesis 2
and 3 according to the Jewish tradition or rabbinical manner, rather than the facts o f the
literal words recorded in the Bible.61 Some think verse 14 is following the theology o f
Sirach 25:24.62 Does the woman in Sirach 25:24 refer to Eve in the author’s mind? Paul
also holds Adam responsible for the entering o f sin and death in Rom 5:12. W hy are men
not prohibited from teaching and ruling roles because o f Adam’s sin? Is Paul really under
the influence o f the Jewish traditional views on women in his contemporaries? Are all the
rabbinic comments on Eve and women in the mainstream o f Judaism negative?
59 See Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 134,139—40.
60 See this dissertation above p. 17, n. 15.
61 See this dissertation above p. 17, n. 16; 27, n. 54.
62 See Oberlinner, D ie Pastoralbriefe, 99.
30
Somehow, both traditionalists and egalitarians have construed 1 Tim 2:13-14
with sound reasons and possible logic. Nonetheless, due to the difficulty and obscurity o f
the passage, they read the text differently and left unsolved questions. What is the
function o f 1 Tim 2:13-14 in the context o f 1 Tim 2:8-15 (or that o f 1 Tim 2)? To this
writer, this question is still unsolved. It needs further exploration. The next section will
proceed to the study o f some o f the major views o f verse 15.
Major Views of 1 Tim 2:15
First Timothy 2:15 is well known as one o f the most puzzling and difficult
texts in the entire New Testament. Both traditionalists and egalitarians feel that the verse
ftX
is enigmatic. No extant interpretation is convincing and without problems.
Stanley E. Porter lists six primary unsolved issues o f the passage: (1) the
subject o f the future passive verb oco0f|oeTai, (2) the meaning o f 006(00 (physical
deliverance or spiritual salvation?), (3) the meaning o f try; teKvoyotuac; “(the)
childbirth/child-bearing,” (4) the function o f the preposition Sia followed by the genitive,
(5) the shift o f the singular “she” to the plural “they,” and (6 ) the use o f third class
conditional construction (the relationship between the protasis and the apodosis ) . 64 The
interpretations o f this verse are multiple and controversial. This writer would select only
five popular interpretations for discussion and evaluation in this section .65
63 Kostenberger offers the history o f the interpretation o f this verse from the Church Fathers to
the Modem Era in his article “Ascertaining Women’s God-Ordained Roles: An Interpretation o f 1 Timothy
2:15,” Bulletin fo r Biblical Research 7 (1997): 109-21.
64 See Stanley E. Porter, “What Does It Mean to Be ‘Saved by Childbirth’ (1 Timothy 2.15)?”
Journal fo r the Study o f the New Testament 49 (1993): 90-100 for details. Holmes lists ten different views
o f the passage in her book; see Text in a Whirlwind, 245-47.
65 Some interpretations presumed as less likely will not be discussed in this section, such as
the view o f psychological salvation advocated by David R. Kimberley, “1 Tim 2:15: A Possible
Physical Salvation through Childbirth
This view takes the meaning o f salvation in 1 Tim 2:15 to be a physical sense.
In other words, women will be kept safe (or delivered safely) through the process o f
childbearing.66 Craig S. Keener takes 1 Tim 2:15 to be the climax o f Paul’s previous
statement in 2:9-14.67 In linking with the preceding verse, the image o f Eve stays in
verse 15. The ancient literature shows that the verb “saved” more often means
“delivered” or “brought safely through” rather than “saved from sin.” An ancient reader
would naturally understand “saved” in the context o f childbirth to be “a safe delivery,”
for women usually called upon their deities to save them in childbirth.68 Furthermore, the
curse o f having a difficult childbirth because o f Eve’s sin (Gen 3:16) is developed in
Jewish tradition to include the possibility o f death in childbirth. Unrighteous women will
die in childbirth, whereas the righteous will give birth without any pain.69 Keener
believes that Paul’s promise here is partly to release women from the burden o f Eve’s
Understanding o f a Difficult Text,” Journal o f the Evangelical Theological Society 35 (December 1992):
495-96; van der Jagt, “Women are Saved,” 294; Hendricksen, I-II Timothy, 111-12; A. Duane Litfin, “1
Timothy,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck
(Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983), 736. The view o f Christian women being saved from sin (salvation o f God in
Christ) through good works designated metaphorically by “childbearing” is advocated by C. Spicq, Les
epitrespastorals, vol. 1, Etudes bibliques, 4thed. (Paris: Lecoffre, 1969), 382-83.
66 Advocates include: Jewett, Man as Male and Female, 60; Anthony Tyrrell Hanson, Studies
in the Pastoral Epistles (London: S.P.C.K., 1968), 74; Keener, Paul, Women and Wives, 118-19; Pierce,
“Evangelicals and Gender Roles,” 353; idem, “lTim 2:8-15: A Test Case,” 351.
67 Scholer has a similar view; see “1 Timothy 2:9-15,” 196.
68 See Keener, Paul, Women and Wives, 118, 131, n. 125, n.126, Plutarch, Roman Questions,
2, Mor. 264b. Also see Sharon Kelly Heyob, The Cult o f Isis Among Women in the Graeco-Roman World,
Etudes preliminaires aux religious orientales dans l ’empire romain, vol. 51 (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 70, 80,
128.
69 See Keener, Paul, Women and Wives, 118-19, see 131, n. 130, Ab. R. Nathan 4 2.117b,
9.25b; 119, 131, n. 134, Pes. Rab Kah 22.2; 132, n. 135, p. Taan. 4.3.2. Craig A. Evans dates Ab. R. Nathan
late third century C.E., Pes. Rab Kah ca. 500 C.E., and Palestinian Talmud-, p. Taan. ca. 400—425 C.E.
respectively. See Evans, Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation (Peabody: Hendrickson,
1992), 127, 119, and 126.
32
curse. If they remain in doing right, they will be kept safe through childbirth. The
promise will not be completely fulfilled until Christ’s return. It is as reasonable as Jam es’
70
promise that the sick will be healed (Jas 5:14).
Pierce suggests that verse 15 is an allusion to Gen 3:16 in which the burden o f
“multiplied pain in childbirth” is a result o f E ve’s sin. Paul assures the Ephesian women
that they can find deliverance “through” this affliction physically by believing in God and
living piously. The promise is offered as “a symbol o f hope” regarding the disaster
brought by the fall. Paul exhorts women to have humility, patience, and hope while they
are submitting willingly to the current leadership, in order to resist “the attitudes o f
71
prideful aggression and despair” that are being promoted by the false teachers.
Spiritual Salvation through the Birth o f Christ
This view claims to be the major interpretation o f 1 Tim 2:15 throughout the
history o f the Christian church. It always appeals to the authoritatively straightforward
interpretation o f the first statement “she shall be saved by means o f the child-bearing”
offered by the early church fathers, who identify M ary’s child-bearing, that is, the birth o f
Jesus Christ, the Savior, with tv \q t e K v o y o v i a c .72
70 See Keener, Paul, Women and Wives, 119, 132, n. 137.
71 See Pierce, “IT im 2:8-15: A Test Case,” 351-52.
72 The early church fathers are such as: Ignatius, Eph. 19; Irenaeus, Haer. 3.22; Justin, Dial.
100; and Tertullian, de Carne 17; see Payne, “Libertarian Women in Ephesus,” 177—78 for details. Current
advocates include: Lock, Pastoral Epistles, 33; Spencer, Beyond the Curse, 92-94; idem, “Eve at
Ephesus,” Journal o f the Evangelical Theology Society 17 (1974): 220; Philip H. Towner, 1 -2 Timothy and
Titus, IVP N ew Testament Commentary Series, ed. Grant R. Osbome (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,
1994), 79-80; Walter L. Liefeld, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus: The NIVApplication Commentary, NIV
Application Commentary Series, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 101,103; Roberts,
“Woman shall be Saved,” 6-7; Thomas C. Oden, First and Second Timothy and Titus, Interpretation: A
Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, ed. James Luther Mays (Louisville, KY: Knox, 1989),
100-102; Padgett, “Wealthy Women at Ephesus,” 27-30.
33
Payne argues for this view prim arily from three perspectives. Lexically, in
reference to several lexicons he affirms that the verb 000(00 refers to spiritual salvation
from sin and death. The term TOKVoyovLa can only simply mean “childbirth” because Paul
uses T€KuoTpocJ)60o for rearing children. Theologically, he believes that the most natural
reference o f “the childbirth” is the birth o f Christ by Mary, because “salvation by means
o f anyone or anything other than Christ” is inconsistent and incompatible with Paul’s
teaching o f salvation through God’s grace by faith.73 Contextually, 1 Tim 2:14-15
parallels Gen 3:13-15. Paul in verse 14 uses the term o f Gen 3:13 “was deceived.” Then,
in verse 15 he “closely reflects” the concept and terms o f Gen 3:15, where God curses the
serpent and announces the promise o f the seed o f Eve that will crush the serpent’s head.
God’s promise is “sandwiched” between the remark o f Eve’s deception (Gen 3:13) and
her curse after the fall (Gen 3:16). Both 1 Tim 2:15 and Gen 3:15 are to designate that
“salvation comes through the woman, not man, affirming her in a way that balances the
criticism o f her deception and fall.” In Gal 3:16 and 3:19 Paul refers to Christ as the
promised seed twice by using the singular definite article t o before oncppa.74
Grammatically, the main function o f 8 id with genitive is instrumental,
carrying the meaning o f “by means o f ’ or “through,” that is, an agent is anticipated. Since
there is no other agent by means o f whom God has accomplished salvation, Sict tf)C
TCKVoyovLac would, as anticipated, refer to Christ. This comprehension is reinforced by
the fact that “5id is often used with Christ in regard to our relation to God” (Rom 5:9;
73 Payne, “Libertarian Women in Ephesus,” 178-81; the lexicons are: LSJ, 1768; BAGD, 808;
Moulton-Milligan, 628; Thayer, 617.
74 Payne, “Libertarian Women in Ephesus,” 180.
34
nc # .
1 Thess 5:9; Tit 3:6). In Paul’s writings it occurs frequently that a reference to Christ in
the genitive case is preceded by the preposition 5 id.76 The particularizing use o f the
article is very frequent in the Pastoral Epistles (e.g., f] dlr|0eia, to euayye/Uov, r|
8i5aaKcdia, o loyoc,, to puaTipiov, f) TTKpayyeALa, and trot iq).77 Thus, Tf|C TeKvoyovtai;
78
is best taken as particularizing “the child-birth,” that is, a specific one.
Payne thinks the problems o f Judaizers (1:4, 9; 2:11, 13-14; 4:3, etc.) and
libertarians (1:8-11; 2:9-15; 3:11; 5:6-15, etc.) became two main opposing factions in
the church at Ephesus that Paul is trying to refute in chapter 2. In verse 15a Paul contrasts
the fall with Christ’s salvation, specifying and assuring the role o f woman in order to
counterbalance her role in the fall and to argue against the idea o f male superiority
advocated by the Judaizers. Verse 15b is to keep the errors o f the libertarians from the
church. “Faith, love, and holiness” are the outward evidence o f salvation in Christ.
W omen are the subjects o f both oco0f|oeTai and peivcoaiv.79
W alter Lock takes the subject o f ocoOqoeTai “she shall be saved” to be Eve
or f] yuvf| “the woman,” and Eve could be the representative o f women. He interprets the
phrase 5id Ttj<; TeKvoyovfoa; “through the childbirth” as “by the great child-bearing, by
that which has produced the Savior, the child-bearing o f Mary, which has undone the
work o f Eve.” The article Tf|c; is commonly used to specify a certain instance in the
75 Ibid. Here Payne refers to Robertson’s Grammar, 583.
76 The texts Payne cites are: Rom 1:5, 8; 2:16; 5:1, 2, 9, 11, 17, 21; 7:4, 25; 8:37; 16:27; 1 Cor
1:10; 8:6; 15:21, 57; 2 Cor 1:5,20; 3:4; 5:18; 10:1; Gal 1:1,12; 2:16; 3:26; 6:14; Eph 1:5; 2:18; 3:12; Phil
1:11; Col 1:16, 20; 3:17; 1 Thess 4:2; 5:9; 2 Tim 1:10; Titus 3:6.
77 See Payne, “Libertarian Women in Ephesus,” 180-81.
78 Also see Liefeld, 1 and 2 Timothy, 101, 103.
79 Ibid., 181, 185, 187-89.
35
Pastoral Epistles. He identifies the nominative o f |ieiv«oiv “they remain” as husband and
Rf)
wife based on verses 12-14.
Women will be Saved in Childbearing
This view believes Paul here affirms that Christian women will still receive
salvation from the eternal judgm ent against sin, in spite o f experiencing the temporal
judgment o f Eve’s curse, if they work out their salvation by remaining in Christian
virtues. The continued pain suffered in childbearing does not contradict salvation through
Jesus Christ for Christian mothers. This view takes the usage o f the preposition 5 La in the
verse as attendant circumstance, meaning “in the experience o f ’ (e.g., Rom 2:27; 8:25;
14:20; 2 Cor 2:4).81 The verb oo)0f|aeTai is guaranteed a salvific sense in the context. God
is the agent o f salvation implied in the passive voice, a divine or theological passive. The
word T€Kvoyouia denotes the particular action o f childbearing on the basis o f the
examination o f its usage in extra-biblical Greek literature.
This view primarily has two different positions. Ernest F. Scott translates the
verse as: “She will be saved even though she must bear children.” He suggests that Paul
uses this verse to balance what he has previously said about women, by encouraging and
assuring them that though the childbirth pain reminds them o f their sin, they have the
80 See Lock, Pastoral Epistles, 32-33. Advocates include: Norbert Brox, Die Pastoralbriefe,
4th ed., Regensburger Neues Testament, ed. Otto Kuss, vol. 7 (Regensburg: F. Pustet, 1969), 137; Kenneth
E. Bailey, “Women in the New Testament: A Middle Eastern Cultural View,” Anvil 11 (1994): 24.
81 See BAGD, 180, 1 Tim 2:15 is also listed under this category.
82 See Calvin, The Epistles to Timothy, 70-71; Scott, Pastoral Epistles, 28; Gottfried Holtz,
D ie Pastor albriefe, Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament, ed. Erich Fascher, Joachim
Rohde, und Christian Wolff, vol. 13 (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1980), 70; Jurgen Roloff, Der
erste B rief an Timotheus, Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, ed. Josef Blank,
Rudolf Schnackenburg, and Eduard Schweizer, vol. 15 (Zurich: Benziger, 1988), 141; Kenneth S. Wuest,
The Pastoral Epistles in the Greek N ew Testament fo r the English Reader (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953),
49-51; Kroeger and Kroeger,1 Suffer Not a Woman, 176; Falconer, “1 Timothy 2:14, 15,” 376; Gritz, Paul,
Women Teachers, 143.
36
offered salvation in Christ. He holds that 1 Tim 2:15 actually refers to the penalty o f
Eve’s sin, the condemnation o f painful childbirth that still affects women permanently
and reminds them o f G od’s displeasure. However, if Christian women work out their own
salvation by fulfilling the sacramental role o f childbearing, observing their main decorum
to be a faithful mother accompanied with faith, love, modesty, and other virtues, they will
be saved, no less than men, “in spite o f the continuing mark o f Divine displeasure.”83
Another view translates verse 15 as “she will be saved in experience o f
childbearing.” Proponents see Paul aims at contradicting the ascetic, anti-sexual beliefs o f
his opponents who taught against marriage (1 Tim 4:3), and promising Christian women
that childbirth would not endanger their salvation in Christ Jesus. I. Howard Marshall
explains that Paul is against a belief (probably a Gnostic view) that women should abstain
from bearing children just as they should abstain from marriage.
Salvation through Fulfilling Women’s Role
This view believes that verse 15 is encouraging women to have perseverance
in salvation by properly accepting and fulfilling God’s given roles by nature (the
domestic roles exemplified in motherhood). The false teachers very likely denigrate both
marriage and childbearing. So Paul has chosen childbearing as a synecdoche for wom en’s
roles given by God in order to argue against them. The subjects o f acoGfiaerai and
83 Scott, Pastoral Epistles, 28. See also Calvin, The Epistles to Timothy, 70—71.
84 See Gritz, Paul, Women Teachers, 143; I. Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles,
International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures o f the Old and New Testaments, ed. J. A.
Emerton, C. E. B. Cranfield, and G. N. Stanton (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999), 470.
85 See Marshall, P astoral Epistles, 470. Falconer has similar view; see “1 Timothy 2:14,15,”
378. Kroeger and Kroeger believe that the verse functions as an affirmation o f femininity in order to fight
against the Gnostic negative views o f procreation (which see childbearing as an obstacle o f salvation); see
their work I Suffer Not a Woman, 174-77.
37
peivcooiv refer to Christian women. This is an outworking o f genuine faith in Christ that
must be accompanied with “faith, love, and holiness, with modesty.”86
Mounce thinks Paul here establishes an analogy or typology between Eve and
the Ephesian women. Verse 15 functions as a qualification o f verse 14 to encourage the
Ephesian women that Eve’s disaster is remediable and hope is still available for them.
Both Eve and Christian women can be saved (spiritually) through accepting and fulfilling
• • • * 87 t
God-given roles, accompanied with continuous faith, and other virtues. The verb ocjCoo,
4 out o f 7 times in the Pastoral Epistles, refers to salvation from sin (1:15; 2:4; 2 Tim 1:9;
Titus 3:5). Both T D N 1 and BAGD89 indicate Paul uses ocoCco referring only to salvation
from sin. Besides, Paul uses pueoSou to denote the deliverance o f believers from evil or
persecution. In 2 Tim 4:18 he states that God “will rescue” (puoetat) him from all evil
and “will save” (ooooei) him for his heavenly kingdom. Explicitly, for Paul these two
verbs have different connotations. Thus, the verb ocoCw means eternal salvation.90
86 Advocates include: Moo, “Meaning and Significance,” 71; Scholer, “1 Timothy 2:9-15,”
196-97; Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 143—48; Harris, 1 -2 Timothy and Titus, 350; Fee, la n d 2 Timothy, 3 7 -
38; Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 146-47; Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 144; Marshall, Pastoral
Epistles, 470; Wiebe, “Two Texts on Women,” 61; Joachim Jeremias and August Strobel, Die Briefe an
Timotheus und Titus, D er B rief an die Hebrder, Das Neue Testament Deutsch, vol. 9 (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1936), 19. Luke Timothy Johnson takes the subject o f peivcocnv to be the
children; see Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, Anchor Bible, ed. William Foxwell
Albright and David N oel Freedman, vol. 35A (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 202-3.
87 See Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 143-48.
88 See Wemer Foerster, “o « (u , aurrpia, awTip, owtfipLoq,” in Theological Dictionary o f the

New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 7 (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans 1971; reprint, 1983), 992-95.
89 See BAGD, 798.
90 See Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 144-46; also see Spicq, Les epitres pastorals, 382-83 for
significant lexical data o f o w ( g j ; cf. Lock, Pastoral Epistles, 31; Moo, “Meaning and Significance,” 71;
Kimberly, “1 Tim 2:15,” 481-82; van der Jagt, “Women are Saved,” 293; Porter, “Be Saved by
Childbirth?” 93-94; Payne, “Libertarian Women in Ephesus,” 178.
38
Regarding the preposition 5 id, Mounce takes its usage to be instrumental,
denoting “the means o f salvation.” He believes the term xeKvoyovia accentuates the act o f
bearing children rather than the children who are borne. Paul does not advocate that
salvation is by the birth o f Christ (the Incarnation) or by Mary. He might either contrast
‘childbearing’ in verse 15 with ‘teaching’ in verses 11-12 or connect the hope o f
salvation (the remedy o f the fall) in verse 15 with women’s position caused by Eve’s
failure in the fall in verses 13-14. Mounce concludes that Paul is encouraging the
Ephesian women to work out their salvific faith by fulfilling God’s assigned role, though
“it does sound awkward to speak o f being saved through adopting a role.”91
Scholer believes verse 15 is Paul’s positive conclusion to his pessimistic
proclamation in verses 11-14. The verse opens an access for understanding the conduct
o f women in the church discussed in 1 Tim 2:9-15. It demonstrates that First Timothy
aims at combating the heresy in Ephesus that Timothy was dealing with, and expressing
serious concern for the public reputation o f the church within the Greco-Roman world. It
confirms “high standards o f cultural decency,” refuting the false teachers who attacked
and defamed what was held as proper and em inent conduct for women (particularly
O'?
maternal-domestic roles). Scholer thinks the shift o f the subject from singular to plural
manifests the clear association between verse 15 and 2:9-14. Eve in verse 13 represents
“woman” in verse 14 and “women” in verses 9, 10, and 11. Therefore, there is “the
grammatically natural shift in verse 15 from the singular (woman as womankind) to the
91 See Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 146-47. Moo has similar view; see his work “Meaning and
Significance,” 71-73.
92 See Scholer, “1 Timothy 2:9-15,” 198-99, 201 for details. Harris has similar view; see his
work “Why Did Paul Mention Eve’s Deception?” 350.
39
plural (individual women).” Verse 15b is an indicator o f the meaning o f og$(w, that is, the
eternal salvation o f God in Christ.93
Salvation fro m Committing E v e ’s Sin
This view advocates that verse 15 means women will be saved from Satan
(the power o f evil), or the false teachers, or wrongly seizing m en’s roles, through holding
God-given roles for women exemplified by motherhood (in particular bearing children).
It takes the term teicvoyovia to be synecdoche denoting women’s role, and the meaning o f
owCg) to be protection from being trapped b y Satan or false teachers and from falling into
the same mistake made by Eve in the fall.94
Andreas J. Kostenberger is a current representative o f this view. He identifies
the implied subject o f ooo0f|aeToa as Eve, who is the representative o f womankind at the
fall on the basis o f the transitional f) yuvfj in verse 14. This explains the omission o f any
explicit subject in the present verse. The last statement “if they remain in faith, love, and
holiness, with modesty” narrows the reference to women believers only. The verb
owGpaexoa is gnomic future.95
Kostenberger discusses the general meanings o f ow(w in classical Greek, the
LXX, and three pertinent lexicons (BAGD, Liddell and Scott, and Louw and Nida). He
parallels passages to 1 Tim 2:15a in the Pastoral Epistles and other Pauline writings, and
93 See Scholer, “1 Timothy 2:9-15,” 196.
94 Advocates include: Padgett, “Wealthy Women at Ephesus,” 27-30; Hurley, Man and
Woman, 221-23; Andreas J. Kostenberger, “Ascertaining Women’s God-Ordained Roles: An Interpretation
o f 1 Timothy 2:15,” Bulletin fo r Biblical Research 7 (1997): 122-44; S. Jebb, “Short Comment: A
Suggested Interpretation o f 1 Ti 2 15,” Expository Times 81 (1969-1970): 221-22; Rodney G. Fox, “An
Interpretation o f 1 Timothy 2:15 ‘She Shall Be Saved through Childbearing,”’ (S.T.M. thesis, Dallas
Theological Seminary, 1991), 49-61.
95 Kostenberger, “1 Timothy 2:15,” 122-23.
40
studies the meaning o f oto£w in the future passive, and the force o f 5ia with the genitive.
Finally, he concludes that the passive o f ogj( oo plus 8ia was, in the literature o f Paul’s
times, usually applied to “a person’s escape or preservation from danger in a certain
circumstance.” Therefore, 1 Tim 2:15 should refer to the woman’s escape or preservation
from a danger through childbearing. M ost likely, Satan’s temptation is the danger from
which the woman needs to escape or be preserved, because: (1) 1 Tim 2:14 refers to
Eve’s deception by the serpent at the fall; (2) 1 Tim 5:14-15 clearly mentions that some
women had already followed Satan; and (3) the Pastoral Epistles show consistent concern
for the preservation o f believers from Satan or evil forces (e.g., 1 Tim 1:20; 2:14-15; 3:6,
7; 4:1-5; 5:14-15; 6:9-10, 20-21; 2 Tim 2:26).96
Kostenberger thinks verse 15 aims to confront and correct a certain “proto
gnostic libertinism” (a synthesis o f Jewish and pagan religious characteristics) that
conspicuously opposed the consequences o f the fall and instructed that believers were no
longer bound by the normal family order. Perhaps the false teachers promoted an over
realized eschatology in the church. Thus, Paul declares that a Christian woman is “saved”
by cleaving to her appropriate biological and societal role, focusing her activities on
bearing children and the domestic field. This is consistent with the emphasis on the order
o f family relations in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim 3:4,12; 5:4; Titus 1:6). Here Paul’s
instruction for women intends to protect them from devastating teachings, for he sees
them as victims o f false teaching. This accords with how Paul interprets the Genesis
account o f the fall in 1 Tim 2:14. He holds Eve to be the victim o f the serpent’s deceit.
He uses the lesson o f the fall to charge Christian women to cleave to their God-ordained
96 Ibid., 124-33; cf. Fox, “1 Timothy 2:15,” 49-54.
41
domestic roles in order to be kept safe from Satan. Then they may avoid Eve’s mistake o f
Q7
leaving her divinely given realm.
Regarding the meaning o f xfjc teKvoyoviaq, Kostenberger searched the
Thesaurus Linguae Graecae database. He particularly appeals to the meaning o f the
reference in the Stoic philosopher Chrysippus’ Fragmenta moralia (third century B.C.),
taking the term teKvoyovta to be used as a synecdoche referring to married life and
having children. Thus, he concludes that in 1 Tim 2:15 the definite article xf\qjoins with
Paul’s choice o f the noun teKvoyovta in suggesting a general concept o f procreation. The
movement o f 1 Tim 2:13-15 is from creation (v. 13) to the fall (v. 14) and then to a
restoration o f the original creation design o f God (v. 15). Paul announces the appropriate
limitations o f women’s ministry in public worship in verse 12 and then sets the
acknowledged domestic roles for Christian women in verse 15. Thus, verse 15 is closely
associated with verse 12 for it amplifies Paul’s prohibitions.98
There are various views o f the source o f 1 Tim 2:15. Scholars o f the second
view think that Paul mainly alludes to Gen 3:15,99 whereas scholars o f the first and third
views suggest that the verse alludes to Gen 3:16.100 Scholars o f the fourth and fifth views
believe that this verse is simply Paul’s own consolation and exhortation for Christian
97 See Kostenberger, “ 1 Timothy 2:15,” 133-35, 138-39.
98 Ibid., 140-42.
99 Payne, “Libertarian Women in Ephesus,” 180; Oden, First and Second Timothy, 199-1;
Padgett, “Wealthy Women at Ephesus,” 27-28; Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles, 183; Redekop, “Let the
Women Learn,” 244.
100 Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 470, n. 204; Margaret Davies, Pastoral Epistles: I and II
Timothy and Titus (London: Epworth, 1996), 18.
42
women to hold fast to their God-given roles, regardless o f their status inherited from
Eve’s transgression, without alluding to Gen 3:15 or 16.101 Nevertheless, some scholars
take this verse to be “the Christian message” (derived from a Jewish Christian source on
the basis o f the awkward and bizarre Greek used in this verse) referred to by the phrase
ttlotoc o XoyoQ in 1 Tim 3:1a.102
Evaluation
Scholars have worked very hard and contributed greatly to the interpretation
o f the present text in light o f the grammatical, theological, contextual, and social-
historical aspects. Each view on the whole has its own good, meaningful and attractive
explanations that will not be mentioned in this dissertation. Unfortunately, the text itself
is really difficult for readers in modem times to understand. As a result, all these
interpretations could not offer a meaning o f 1 Tim 2:13-15 without leaving questions and
doubts. It needs further exploration for understanding the text from another aspect.
Regarding the weaknesses o f the first view, scholars argue that ogoCg) always
has the meaning o f spiritual salvation from sin for eternal life in the Pastoral Epistles and
other Pauline writings. I f it meant “being kept safe” physically, Paul would have used the
verb puopoa instead o f ocoCco (e.g., 2 Tim 3:11 and 4:18). Furthermore, it is questionable
101 Scholer, “1 Timothy 2:9-15,” 196; Moo, “Meaning and Significance,” 72-73; Harris,
“Why Did Paul Mention Eve’s Deception?” 350; Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 143, 148; Porter, “Be Saved
by Childbirth?” 102; Wiebe, “Two Texts on Women,” 61-62; Gritz, Paul, Women Teachers, 142-43; Fee,
1 and 2 Timothy, 37.
102 Lock, Pastoral Epistles, 33; Johnson, First and Second Letters to Timothy, 203; Jerome D.
Quinn and William C. Wacker, First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Notes and
Commentary, Eerdmans Critical Commentary, ed. David Noel Freedman (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000),
231-35.
43
to use the rendering o f oco(w from non-biblical writings.103 This may violate a principle
o f hermeneutics by interpreting ogS(o) apart from its context and the personal style o f
Paul. Scholars also comment that this view contradicts the real experience, namely, some
godly women have died in childbirth whereas the ungodly have passed through it safely.
It is unacceptable to say that any woman who dies during childbirth is ungodly.104
Moreover, no evidence has ever indicated that the death rate o f Christian women during
childbirth is lower than that o f non-Christians.105 Porter argues that the preposition 5id
hardly takes a temporal sense meaning “during the time of,” because the examples o f the
temporal use o f 8 id usually have clear temporal words, such as day, night, or year (Acts
1:3; 5:19; 24:17; Gal 2:1).106 Besides, why should Paul bring up the topic here? It is
apparently hardly relevant to the previous discussion in the context.107
Though the second view is the traditional interpretation o f the church, there
are still some unsolved problems. First o f all, Paul always puts the salvation event on the
death and resurrection o f Jesus Christ, but never states that salvation is by the Incarnation
(the birth o f Christ) or by Mary. If this view is correct, why did Paul make such an
ambiguous reference to Christ?108 Furthermore, the noun teKvoyovia accentuates the
action o f giving birth to a child rather than an instance o f childbirth. Marshall points out
103 See Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 147; Fee, / and 2 Timothy, 37-38; Porter,
93.
104 See Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 144; Bowman, “Women in Ministry,” 207, n. 47; Knight,
Pastoral Epistles, 145.
105 See Hilde Huizenga, “Women, Salvation, and the Birth o f Christ: A Reexamination o f
1 Timothy 2:15,” Studia biblica et theologia 12 (April 1982): 21.
106 See Porter, “Be Saved by Childbirth?” 97.
107 See Huizenga, “Women, Salvation,” 21.
108 See Towner, 1 -2 Timothy and Titus, 80.
44
that T€K voyovia is a medical term meaning “giving birth,” and connotes strictly the
physical act o f bearing children.109 The presence o f the article tfjc is not necessarily
referring to a particular event. It could also be generic in any instance.110 Kostenberger
points out that the presumption o f understanding Gen 3:15 as the “proto-evangelion” is
not found elsewhere in the New Testament. It occurs only in the second century A .D .111
The third view in some sense implies that all women are still under G od’s
displeasure in light o f Eve’s curse, that is, the pain o f childbirth, a permanent mark o f
women’s sin. Consequently, Christian women must fulfill their role o f being a faithful
and virtuous mother, giving birth to children, so that they might be saved. Apparently,
this view can avoid the problem that women will be saved by means o f childbearing, but
it falls into the difficulty that women are saved if they remain in faith, love, and other
Christian virtues. If this view is correct, the passage will become irrelevant to those
women who are single or barren. In addition, Porter points out that the most likely usage
o f 6ia here is instrumental, “by means o f ’ or “through the channel of,” particularly in
light o f Titus 3:5 (the only other passage in the Pastoral Epistles), where owCw is
collocated with 5ia and indicates the means o f salvation.112
109 Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 468. Fee, la n d 2 Timothy, 75; Porter have similar view; see
his “Be Saved by Childbirth?” 96, n. 28.
110 See Lea and Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, 102; Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 145; Ben Wiebe, “Two
Texts on Women,” 61; Bailey, “Women in the New Testament,” 23; Quinn and Wacker, First and Second
Letters to Timothy, 232, state that “the use o f the article may simply be a reproduction o f the inelegant
Greek o f the source, whose authors may have been thinking in a Semitic mode . . . while ostensibly writing
Greek.”
111 See Kostenberger, “1 Timothy 2:15,” 118; Keener, Paul, Women and Wives, 118. Davies,
Pastoral Epistles, 21; see also Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles, Tyndale New Testament
Commentaries ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 78, has similar view.
112 See Porter, “Be Saved by Childbirth?” 97-98; see also Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 147;
Moo, “Meaning and Significance,” 71; Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 147.
45
Currently, the fourth view is still the most popular interpretation among
evangelicals. However, the argument o f this view also has some extant questions. Porter
argues well against taking the term teKvoyouia to be synecdoche, simply a figure for good
works o f women. First o f all, the cognate verb TCKvoyoveiv in 1 Tim 5:14 clearly
indicates that childbearing is different from marriage, the management o f the household,
or any other duties. It is also illegitimate to add child-rearing to the meaning o f
tcKvoyovCa for Paul has used another word tcKvotpocficca to designate this function (1 Tim
5:10). On the other hand, the search o f the use o f teKvoyovia in non-biblical Greek
I i -5
literature by using the TLG confirms that the term denotes with certainty the specific
act o f bearing children.114 Regarding the third class conditional clause o f verse 15, Porter
admits the extant problem: “The conditional structure, especially the protasis, does draw
the comments o f v. 15 toward conformity with established authentic Pauline teaching
regarding salvation. But it still does not eliminate the ineluctable force o f the apodosis
regarding salvation by means o f childbearing.”115 It is correct that Paul does teach the
necessity o f the outworking o f salvation o f Christians. Nevertheless, w hy does
childbearing achieve this sort o f salvation? Is there any relationship between childbirth
and salvation in Paul’s mind?
113 See Porter, “Be Saved by Childbirth?” 96, n. 28, Hippocrates (fifth-fourth centuries B.C.),
Epistulae 17; Galen (second century A.D.), De instrumento odoratus 49; Joannes Philoponus (sixth
Century A.D.), D e opifici mundi 301; Simplicius (sixth century A.D.), Commentarius in Epicteti
enchiridion 96.
114 Porter has similar view; see his “Be Saved by Childbirth?” 95—96. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy,
75.
115 Porter takes it to be eschatological salvation or salvific reward. But still it is difficult to
harmonize with Paul’s teaching on salvation by God’s grace, not human works. See his work “Be Saved by
Childbirth?” 101. Roberts has similar view; see his “Woman Shall Be Saved,” 19. Mounce, Pastoral
Epistles, 146, also says, “However, it does sound awkward to speak o f being saved through adopting a
role.” Bowman refers v. 15 to be the consummation o f the process o f sanctification and the salvation here is
eternal reward; see her “Women in Ministry,” 207-9.
46
Finally, the fifth view commits the same mistake as the first view, failing to
interpret the usual meaning o f 000(00 in Pauline writings as eternal salvation.116 It also
commits the same mistake as the fourth view, taking the meaning o f xeKvoyovia to be
motherhood and other domestic duties. Moreover, the context does not mention from
whom or what women will be kept safe. Apparently, all the suggestions o f this view are
not found in the text. This writer believes that unless the contextual meaning o f the verb
is defined, the reference o f the salvation or deliverance could be to anything or anyone.
Summary
Besides the above problems, there are also some common problems among
the five views that need to be solved. First, why did Paul make such a shift in the number
o f verbs from singular to plural? Second, why does Paul particularly point out here how
women would be saved? Third, why did Paul choose childbearing to be a channel o f
women’s salvation? Is there any logical relationship between childbearing and salvation?
Fourth, what is the logical relationship between the protasis and the apodosis in verse
15— cause and effect, ground and inference, or others? Fifth, is verse 15 really Paul’s
rabbinic comment on women’s salvation?
Since 1 Tim 2:13-14 is explicitly selected from Genesis 2 and 3, the question
is whether Paul directly uses Genesis as his arguments for his prohibitions in verse 12. If
the answer is positive, why does Paul not clearly show or explain how the text relates to
his instructions here and to his addressees? Does verse 15 allude to Gen 3:15, or Gen
3:16, or simply is Paul’s own teaching? How does it relate to the entire section?
116 See Bowman, “Women in Ministry,” 207, n. 51.
47
On the whole, the above views on the interpretation o f 1 Tim 2:13-15 are very
good suggestions, but none o f them can be adequately proved. The meaning o f the
present text is inconclusive and begs for some alternative interpretation and exploration
in other areas. Perhaps the work o f Joan M. Holmes would be a starting point to think
about the meaning o f the text from a Jewish perspective. Her view will be discussed and
evaluated succinctly in the following section.
Holmes’ Unique “Saying” View of 1 Timothy 2:13-15
Holmes has offered a unique and distinct interpretation o f 1 Tim 2:13-15. She
denies the above views are what the Author117 intended to teach. She suggests that the
present text is the backward reference o f ‘the faithful saying’ ( ttioto; o A.oyo<;) in 1 Tim
3:1a, functioning as an apt conclusion to 1 Timothy 2, rather than the basic grounds for
1 1o
the prohibitions in 1 Tim 2:12. This renders the term yap in verse 13 to be redundant
(not a conjunction) requiring neither interpretation nor translation, just as the redundant
yap occurs in 2 Tim 2:11 when it links with ttiotoc o Xoyoq. T o Holmes, this is the key
for interpreting 1 Tim 2:13—15.119
Regarding verses 14-15, Holmes suggests that based on Eve’s creation and
transgression recorded in Genesis, some Jews who had a negative comment on women
m ay have asked: “Could Eve be saved?” It is hinted at by the adversative 8e in verse 15,
which functions as the answer for such a question. Eve would be saved by means o f
117 Holmes assumes that the Pastoral Epistles were written by the same author who is referred
to as ‘the Author’ throughout her book. She argues for her view regardless o f the identity o f the writer o f
the Pastorals.
118 Holmes assumes verses 11-12 are “non-congregational prohibitions.” See her Text in a
Whirlwind, 299.
119 Ibid., 248—49.
48
childbearing, bearing Adam ’s children. Thus, the subject o f oo)0f|oetai in verse 15 refers
to Eve alone and that o f \ieivuoiv refers to Adam and Eve. She thinks these three verses
may be in origin a Jewish saying about Adam and Eve. The saying is probably a Jewish
messianic interpretation o f Gen 3:15bc.120 In order to support her unique view, she
presents three markers summarized briefly in the following section.
Three Discerning Markers
Holmes argues for her unique view o f a redundant yap by the markers o f
context, aspectual choices, and Jewish character, in three chapters respectively.
The “Context” Marker
Holmes points out that 1 Tim 2:13-14 actually employs few details o f the
Genesis account o f Adam and Eve. The various interpretations are actually conjectures
derived from what is and what is not selected from Genesis. Various views are the results
o f various identifications o f the Author’s special emphasis by the interpreters. The
immediate context does not support the causal view (mainly relied on a theological basis)
or the illustrative view (based on background reconstruction) o f yap.121
Holmes uses the example o f the redundant yap linking with 'tnotoc o Aoyoc in
2 Tim 2:11. There the Author is sine that the addressee will recall the emphasis o f the
saying in the original context and appreciate the significance o f the quoted portion in the
new context. Thus, he keeps the original form o f the saying together with the redundant
yap. Besides, the saying formula at Titus 3:8 and 1 Tim 4:9 are also taken as backward-
120 Ibid., 293,295.
121 Ibid., 250-51.
49
referring by scholars. Though those who hold 1 Tim 3:1 a to be a backward-reference
are few, such as UBSGNT, Westcott and H ort,123 and M etzger,124 Holmes believes that
without 3:1a, 2:13-15 becomes disreputably difficult. Actually, the present text
resembles a ‘faithful saying,’ and its interpretation crucially depends upon its relation to
the formula ttiotoi; o Xoyoc, in 3:1a.125
The “Aspectual Choice” Marker
As to the second marker, Holmes questions the view that the perfect yeyovev
(in verse 14) implies an ongoing effect and indicates Eve to be the representative o f all
women.126 She points out that some perfects do not convey the perfect sense at all, such
as olSa, dpr|Ka, A.elalr|Kev, and yeyova. James Hope Moulton declares that yeyova does
not convey the perfect sense but “has obviously present time” in many New Testament
cases.127 Robertson identifies some perfects as ‘dramatic historical Present Perfect’ rather
than aoristic perfect (John 1:32, 41; 5:33; Acts 7:35; 21:28; 2 Cor 1:9; 11:25; James
122 See Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2d ed.
(London: United Bible Societies, 1994), 573. Also see Knight, The Faithful Sayings in the Pastoral Letters
(Kampen: Kok, 1968), 62-65. However, Knight takes 3:1a as a forward reference.
123 See Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, Introduction to the New
Testament in the Original Greek, with Notes on Selected Readings (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1882),
132.
124 See Metzger, A Textual Commentary 572-73. Actually there are some other advocates,
such as: J. Garrow Duncan, “iuotoc o Xoyot;,” Expository Times 35 (October 1923): 141; Falconer,
“1 Timothy 2:14, 15,” 377-78; Lock, Pastoral Epistles, 32-33.
125 See Holmes, Text in a Whirlwind, 251-55 for details.
126 Some scholars appeal to the perfect tense yeyovev to support that Eve is the representative
o f all women; see Moo, “Meaning and Significance,” 70; Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 142.
127 See James Hope Moulton, Prolegomena, vol. I, A Grammar o f New Testament Greek:
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906), 146.
50
1:24).128 Richard Francis Weymouth holds that “New Testament Perfects o f this type are
best translated as ‘historic presents.’”129 After pointing out that both 1 Cor 11:8 and Rom
5:14 use the ‘historic present’ in reference to the creation story, Holmes concludes that
yeyopev at 1 Tim 2:14 should belong to the ‘historic present’, focusing on “a perceived
transitional state o f transgression between deception and Fall.” 130
Holmes paraphrases verses 13-14: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived; but the woman— who had been led astray— came into a
i ■>1
state o f being in transgression.” She believes the purpose o f verses 13-14 primarily
highlights Eve’s condition, emphasizing her progression from innocence through
deception and disobedience to the fall. The historic present yeyovev directs the spotlight
and visualizes Eve’s state. Verse 14 is primarily concerned with the state o f Eve,
indicating that she needed to be saved and the solution is found in verse 15.132 According
to K. L. M cKay’s classification, the type o f conditional clause in verse 15 is an open
condition in which the protasis may be particular or general, and only the context can
clarify it.133 Holmes points out that “Every New Testament protasis with kav with the
128 See Robertson, Grammar, 896-903.
129 See Richard Francis Weymouth, The Rendering into English o f the Greek Aorist and
Perfect, 4th ed. (London: J. Clarke, 1890), 26.
130 See Holmes, Text in a Whirlwind, 259.
131 Ibid., 260.
132 Ibid., 256-62.
133 See K. L. McKay, A New Syntax o f the Verb in New Testament Greek (New York: Peter
Lang, 1994), 19.1; 21.1.3. See also Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek o f the New Testament, with
Reference to Tense and Mood: Studies in Biblical Greek, vol. 1 (New York: Peter Lang, 1989), 307-11.
51
Aorist subjunctive o f (ievw indicates perception o f whole action,” 134 rather than a definite
event occurring only once in the future.135 Thus, verse 15 does not necessarily suggest
that attention shifts from Eve to women in general.136 She uses Rom 10:9 (that closely
resembles the language and construction o f 1 Tim 2:15) as an example o f the Aorist
subjunctive indicating whole action,137 and paraphrases the verse as: “But she could
expect/could be expected to be saved . . . if they continue/continued . . .etc.” 138
The “Jewish Character” Marker
Holmes has made a brief survey o f the Jewish views about Adam and Eve
based on some extra-biblical Jewish literature, such as Sirach, the Apocalypse o f Moses,
and others. She cites some New Testament passages from Acts (7:35-44), Galatians
(3:15-20; 4:21-5:1), and Hebrews (7:3-9; 8:1-6; 11:9-12,17-19, 28) to demonstrate
how the New Testament writers or speakers use material from Jewish oral tradition by
using the perfect to highlight and emphasize the Old Testament narratives. This kind o f
emphasis is applied only when the readers are Jews or Christians essentially influenced
134 See Holmes, Text in a Whirlwind, 265. She refers to John Thorley who defines the Aorist
subjunctive o f protasis as indicating that the action is completed at the time o f the main clause. See Thorley,
“Subjunctive Aktionsart in New Testament Greek: A Reassessment,” Novum Testamentum 30 (July 1988):
201 - 2 .
135 Ibid., 263. Holmes refers to N. Turner, Syntax, A Grammar o f New Testament Greek, vol. 3,
ed. J. H. Moulton (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963; reprint, 1980), 114-15.
136 Ibid., 263-66.
137 Thorley defines protasis with khv and the Aorist subjunctive as indicating that the action o f
the verb is completed at the time o f the main clause (the apodosis); see “Subjunctive Aktionsart,” 201-2.
Tinner defines this kind o f protasis as “a definite event occurring only once in the future, conceived as
taking place before the time o f the action o f the main verb.” See Turner, Syntax, 114-15.
52
by Judaizers. Likewise, the Author o f First Timothy also uses the perfect, anticipating his
addressee to recognize the Jewish origin o f 2:13—14.139
Holmes is o f the opinion that the major emphasis o f 1 Tim 2:13-14 is on
“Eve’s entry into a state o f transgression.” The text o f verses 13-14 is probably a kind o f
citation from another source, but perhaps verse 15 is not a direct quotation from that same
source. The verb owCoo must be defined with consideration o f the context o f Genesis 1-3.
The Hebrew context o f Gen 3:15 implies messianic interpretation, and the translators o f
the LXX employ the possibility.140 The conjunction 5e connects the verb yeyovev (in v.
14) with the verb oo)0f|oetaL, indicating and introducing Eve to be the only subject o f
ocjoGrjoeToa. Since Eve and Adam appear together in verses 13-14, they should be the
most obvious and indisputable subjects o f the verb peivcootv.141 Both Eve and Adam
must live together in faithfulness, love, and holiness with modesty in order to generate
the seed that will bring them salvation. The term xf|<; xeicvoyovuac m ay be the ongoing
process o f the bearing o f children over generations.142
Holmes concludes that throughout chapter 2, the Author emphasizes that both
m en and women must live in a godly manner before the pagans so that their good
139 Ibid., 268-89.
140 Ibid, 316-30.
141 Quinn and Wacker are o f the opinion that the verb pefroxuv has its antecedents in Adam
and Eve in verse 14, and the final clause (v. 15b) explicitly urges the following virtues upon husband and
wife. They hold that 1 Tim 2:11-15 is a Christian liturgy o f marriage. See their Pastoral Epistles, 233, 239.
142 See Holmes, Text in a Whirlwind, 293. According to this writer’s understanding, Holmes
suggests that childbearing became the means o f salvation in the present verse. The termteKVoyovia better
refers to the activity (or activities) o f bearing children, which will be continued over generations by Eve
and her descendants. Eve was the first, but not the only nor the last, woman who gave birth to children.
Holmes does not explain how that can be true o f a ‘dead’ Eve. Perhaps if the term teKvoyovCa only refers to
the activity o f childbearing itself rather than the ongoing (continuous) process o f bearing children, the
problem can be reduced. Redekop also suggests that Eve was the beginning o f the line o f covenant seed,
and that God’s promise was accomplished through the activity (or process) o f childbirth. The term
teKvoyovLa does not refer to a particular childbirth. See his “Let the Women Learn,” 244.
53
behavior would draw them to Jesus Christ. He likely uses the original Jewish saying
(Adam and Eve had joint responsibility to live appropriately) to argue that all men and
women, right from the beginning, would be saved through the seed that would only result
from the harmonious union o f the first parents o f mankind.143 He wrote this Jewish oral
tradition (probably a well known saying in Paul’s time) in simple form, and presumed
that his audience would understand it w ell.144
Evaluation
As a whole, H olm es’ view is very unique. Her argument for the backward
reference o f 3:1a to 2:13-15 is contributive, making a certain breakthrough o f the extant
views o f the present text, despite the redundant usage o f the term yap is rare. However,
her argument for the view that 1 Tim 2:8-15 should be interpreted in light o f a non
congregation context is questionable. To this writer, the arguments o f the “Aspectual
Choice” marker are puzzling and unclear. It is difficult to see how she uses this marker to
support her ‘saying’ view. Besides, several questions still remain. First, if 1 Tim 2:15 is
an answer to a Jewish question (or argument) about Eve’s salvation implied in verses 13-
14, is there any concrete evidence for such a view found in extra-biblical Jewish literature?
Second, why did Paul conclude chapter 2 with such a saying? What is the relationship
between verses 13-15 and 1 Tim 2? Third, regarding the first transgression, why is only
Eve’s deception and transgression emphasized? Is not Adam also guilty o f being
143 Holmes, Text in a Whirlwind, 295-98. Here Holmes seems to be inconsistent. It is true that
the example o f Adam and Eve functions as an illustration, if Holmes’ interpretation is correct. However,
what Holmes argues is that the usage o f the preposition yap is neither causal nor explanatory/illustrative
(but redundant) in 1 Tim 2:13-15. She does not say that the function o f the present text is neither causal nor
explanatory (or illustrative). Thus, she emphasizes that the term yap should not be translated. It is just a
mark o f using certain (Jewish) sayings/traditions.
144 Holmes, Text in a Whirlwind, 299-304.
54
disobedient to God and falling into transgression? Or is Eve more sinful and
blameworthy for the first transgression in Judaism so that her salvation is questionable?
Fourth, if Gen 3:15 is a messianic salvation prediction, the promise o f salvation is for all
humanity, so why is only Eve mentioned to be saved by means o f childbirth? Is Eve the
representative o f all sinners? Does this contradict the fact that Paul apparently blames
Adam as the representative o f sinners in Romans 5?
Holmes’ work does provide some helpful insights into the interpretation o f
1 Tim 2:13-15 from a Jewish perspective. Even though she does not argue well in the
“Aspectual Choice” marker, she raises two good questions at the end o f that section:
“What is the connection in the Author’s mind between those prohibitions and the
Creation-Fall?” and “W hy should it inspire selections which both stress some parts o f the
Genesis story whilst ignoring others, and serve as a background for a colourful
highlighting o f Eve’s personal responsibility for a grievous entry into a state o f
transgression?”145 Considering all the unsolved problems o f the extant views o f 1 Tim
2:13-15, a survey o f the portraits o f Eve and the concept o f childbirth in the Jewish
cultural and literary perspective is significant to help decide the accuracies o f Holmes’
view and other extant views objectively. This is exactly what this writer seeks to examine,
discuss, and evaluate in the following chapters.
145 Ibid., 266.
CHAPTER 3
THE PORTRAITS OF EVE IN EARLY JUDAISM
Apart from Genesis 1-4, the Hebrew Bible never mentions the first woman
Eve.1 She appears only in some extant non-canonical Jewish literature after the second
century B.C.2 As a whole, the portraits o f Eve in Judaism occur much less than those o f
Adam. The portraits o f Adam in Jewish literature are varied in accordance with the
purpose and conviction o f the writer,3 as do those o f Eve.4 Nonetheless, the references to
1 The name mn never appears until Gen 3:20, but she is implicitly referred to and denoted by
the terms nnpj and nDx.
2 This writer primarily looked at out, nox, mn, and *6’ from James H. Charlesworth, Graphic
Concordance to the D ead Sea Scrolls (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1991), 6-7, 37; ’A8ap, Eua, and u k t g )
from Albert-Marie Denis, Concordance grecque des pseudepigraphes d ’ Ancien Testament: Concordance
corpus des textes indices (Louvain-la-Neuve: Universite Catholique de Louvain Institut Orientaliste, 1987),
104-5, 367, 740; Karl Heinch Rengstorf, ed., A Complete Concordance to Flalvius Josephus, vol. 1
(Leiden: Brill, 1983), 37,186; Gunter Mayer, Index Philoneus (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1974), 4, 67, 124;
Lester T. Whitelocke, Analytical Concordance o f the Books o f the Apocrypha, vol. 2 (Lanham, MD:
University Press o f America, 1978), 460-63; and Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, eds., “Appendix 1:
Greek Proper Names,” in A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions o f the Old
Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books), 2d ed. (Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 5, 63. The first
explicit occurrence o f Elia is found in Tobit 8:6, then nox in Sirach 25.24. She also looked at some Eve-
parallel characters from some classical Greek literature based on Sarah Roth Lieberman, “The Eve Motive
in Ancient Near East and Classical Greek Sources” (Ph.D. diss., Boston University Graduate School, 1975)
See also Marvin W. Meyer, ed., The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook: Sacred Texts o f the Mystery
Religions o f the Ancient Mediterranean World (Philadelphia: University o f Pennsylvania Press, 1987), 7 4 -
75; Carol Meyers, Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1988), 74-75.
3 See John R. Levison, Portraits o f Adam in Early Judaism from Sirach to 2 Baruch, Journal
for the Study o f the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series, ed. James H. Charlesworth, vol. 1 (Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1988), 14.
4 Joan M. Holmes comments that the variation is more or less the result o f different personal
presuppositions and cultural expectations. See Holmes, Text in a Whirlwind: A Critique o f Four Exegetical
Devices at 1 Timothy 2:9-15, Studies in N ew Testament Greek, Journal for the Study o f the New
55
56
Adam ’s priority in creation and Eve’s deception in 1 Tim 2:13-14 enhance the
significance o f interpreting the Genesis account in the Hebrew context.5
The Hebrew Bible
According to John L. McKenzie, no extant literature is found to be the source
o f the Paradise story recorded in the Book o f Genesis. In fact, only Genesis has the
account o f the creation o f a couple as the origin o f human beings. Other ancient
fi H
literatures, such as the Sumerian and Babylonian accounts, only have the record o f man
O Q
arising as a group. The portraits o f the first woman Eve are solely found in Judaism.
Although Sarah Roth Lieberman has made comparisons between Eve and Pandora,
Prometheus, Persephone, Oedipus, and others,10 these so-called “Eve m o tif’ observations
Testament Supplement Series, ed. Stanley E. Porter, vol. 196 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000),
324.
5 See Sharon Hodgin Gritz, Paul, Women, Teachers, and the Mother Goddess at Ephesus: A
Study o f 1 Timothy 2:9-15 in Light o f the Religious and Cultural Milieu o f the First Century (Lanham, MD:
University Press o f America, 1991), 53.
6 See Stephanie Dailey, Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh and
Others (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 4.
7 See S. H. Hooke, M iddle Eastern Mythology (n. p.: Penguin, 1963), 29-30; S. N. Kramer,
Mythologies o f the Ancient World (New York: Doubleday, 1961), 103-5.
8 See John L. McKenzie, “The Literary Characteristics o f Genesis 2 -3 ,” Theological Studies

15 (1954): 550. Furthermore, Lieberman’s work also attests to the correctness o f McKenzie’s view; see
Lieberman, “The Eve Motive,” 62, n. 1. Although some scholars advocate that the author o f Genesis 2-3
might have used the background o f Mesopotamian mythology, no evidence exists. According to the latter
accounts, the description o f the human creation and its purpose are totally different from that o f the Hebrew
Bible. For example, the creation o f the first man was bloody (Marduk, the Babylonian god, uses the blood
o f Kingu to form mankind, who was created solely for the purpose o f serving and relieving the gods’ hard
work connected with the land). See also A. E. Gardner, “Genesis 2:4b-3: A Mythological Paradigm o f
Sexual Equality or o f the Religious History o f Pre-Exilic Israel?” Scottish Journal o f Theology 43 (1990):
1-3; Victor P. Hamilton, The Book o f Genesis: Chapters 1-1 7 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 140. This
writer has not read any arguments against this view.
9 Hamilton, Genesis, 177, states, “None o f Israel’s neighbors had a tradition involving a
separate account o f the creation o f the female.”
10 See Lieberman, “The Eve M otif’ for details.
57
based on research o f Greco-Roman literature are forced and unconvincing. In fact, none
o f the above characters is similar to Eve at all. However, this section will discuss and
evaluate the interpretation o f the account o f the creation o f Eve, her status (i.e., the
relationship between Adam and Eve), and the first transgression in the context o f Genesis
1-3. The study will focus on the selected passages11 that are related to Eve. Nonetheless,
Gen 3:15 will be treated in chapter 4 concerning childbirth in Judaism.
The Creation o f Eve in Genesis 1:26-28
This writer prefers the traditional view that the author o f Genesis is M oses.12
The two accounts o f the creation o f humanity, Gen 1:26-28 and Gen 2:7-24, are
complementary to one another without contradiction.13 Concerning the interpretation o f
the creation o f the first human m x in Gen 1:26-28, there are three major views.
The Adam View
This view believes that only Adam, the representative o f the whole human
race, was created in Gen 1:26-28. David J. A. Clines argues that mx in Gen 1:26 is a
collective, just like the collectives o f bird and fish in general within the verse, referring to
humanity as a whole rather than to a male and a female. It refers to humanity as species
11 The passages are selected, after having screened the contexts o f all passages listed by the
concordances and indexes (see p. 55, n. 2) under the categories: Adam, Eve, and woman, on the basis o f
their relevance to the theme o f this chapter, that is, about Eve.
12 G. Maier, “How Did Moses Compose the Pentateuch?” S tu b s Theological Journal

(November, 1993): 158-159; Allen P. Ross, “Genesis,” in Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition o f
the Scriptures: O ld Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1985), 15-18;
G. J. Wenham, Exploring the O ld Testament, vol. 1 (Downers Grove: IVP, 2003), 124; Andrew Ping Chiu
Kwong, “Appendix 1: Who is the author o f the Pentateuch?” in Genesis 1: The God Who Creates and
Saves (Hong Kong: Ming Dao Press, 2004), 409-439, in Chinese.
13 M. Verenne, “Genesis 1, 1 -2 ,4 : The Compositional Texture o f the Priestly Overture to the

Pentateuch,” in Studies in the Book o f Genesis, ed. A. Wenin (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001), 51—
52; Kwong, Genesis 1, 74, 77-79.
58
that is the image o f God.14 The present text does not suggest that the image o f God will
exist in male and female for “the conceptualization male-female” is absent in verse 26.
The plural verb in verse 28 refers to the human race as a whole. Women do not have
dominion over other living creatures as much as men do. Genesis 1 is as “indefeasibly
androcentric” as Genesis 2-3. According to Genesis 1, man and woman are equal in some
respects, but not all. The text does not support the theory o f an equality o f both sexes.15
The “Male and Female” View
The proponent o f this view take mx to be represented by man and woman, the
first pair o f the human race. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch point out that Gen 1:27 is a
jubilant song with a “parallelismus membrorum.” The parallel between “in the image o f
God created He ‘him ’ (ink)” and “as man and woman created He ‘them ’ (onx)” indicates
that the man and the woman as two human beings were created by God.16 Allen P. Ross
also suggests that male and female “finitely and imperfectly” shared in God’s nature,
namely, in his “communicable attributes,” and so possessed the ability o f spiritual
14 David J. A. Clines, What Does Eve Do to Help? And Other Readerly Questions to the Old
Testament, Journal for the Study o f the Old Testament Supplement Series, ed. David J. A. Clines and Philip
R. Davies, vol. 94 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 42-44. John Skinner has similar view; see Skinner, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, 2d ed., International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark, 1930), 31-33.
15 See W. H. Bennett, The Century Bible: Genesis (Edinburgh: T. C. & E. C. Jack, 1904), 8 4 -
85. He argues: “Adam is the only one man originally created” in 1:27 just as in chapter 5. He is the ancestor
o f the entire human race.
16 C. F. Keil, and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: the Pentateuch,
trans. James Martin (reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 64-65; Hamilton, Genesis, 138-39. John
Peter Lange has similar view and particularly points out that the first m s was created as a pair (the male
and the female) in the image o f God. It is not merely good, but very good (Gen 1:31) because in this human
the keystone o f God’s creation is attained. See Lange, Genesis or the First Book o f Moses, A Commentary
on the Holy Scriptures, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Tayler Lewis and A. Gosman, vol. 1 (New York: 5 Bible-
House, 1868; reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960), 174.
59
fellowship with God. They were assigned to rule over the earth as a “representative” o f
God’s dominion and blessed to multiply and fill the earth.17
Sharon Hodgin Gritz suggests that in Gen 1:27 male and female, indicating
mankind as a unity, refers to sexual, anatomical differentiation. Verse 28 implies the
equality o f male and female in function. Only male and female together can achieve
God’s blessings “to be fruitful and multiply and to fill the earth” and to rule over other
creatures on earth.18
The Androgyny View
This view takes the “man” (ms) to be an androgyny. Ed Noort thinks Genesis
1:26-28 and 2:18-24 are two significant complementary accounts. The former states that
the first man was created as male and female. The latter describes how man was created
first, then the woman after him, and the relationship between them. He believes that oik
in Genesis 1:27 is very likely an androgyny.19 He cites Genesis Rabbah 8.1 “When the
Holy O ne.. .created the first man, He created him an androgyne as it is written ‘male and
17 Allen P. Ross, “Genesis,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition o f the

Scriptures: O ld Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1985), 29. Other
advocates armann Gunkel, Genesis, Mercer Library o f Biblical Studies, ed. Joseph Blemnkinsopp, Douglas
A. Knight, and Walter Brueggemann (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977; reprint, Macon, GA:
Mercer University Press, 1997), 114. See also U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book o f Genesis (Part 1):
From Adam to Noah (Genesis I-VI), trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes. The Hebrew University,
1961), 56-58; Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament
Commentaries, ed. D. J. Wiseman (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1967), 50-52; Gerhard von Rad,
Genesis: A Commentary, Old Testament Library, trans. John H. Marks, ed. G. Ernest Wright, John Bright,
and James Barr (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), 55-59.
18 See Gritz, Paul, Women Teachers, 55. Also see Andrew Kwong, Genesis, vol. 1 (Hong
Kong: Tien Dao Press, 1997), 122—24, in Chinese. Other advocates o f similar view are: Hamilton, Genesis,
139, n. 21; Meyers, Discovering Eve, 85-86.
19 See Ed Noort, “The Creation o f Man and Woman in Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern
Traditions,” in The Creation o f Man and Woman: Interpretations o f the Biblical Narratives in Jewish and
Christian Traditions, ed. Gerard P. Luttikhuizen (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 3-4. Also see Phyllis Trible, “Eve
and Adam: Genesis 2 -3 Reread,” Andover Newton Quarterly 13 (1973): 251-52; idem, “Depatriarchalizing
in Biblical Interpretation” Journal o f the American Academy o f Religion 41 (March 1973): 35; Friedrich
Schwally, “Die biblischen Schopfungsberichte,” Archiv fu r Religionswissenschaft 9 (1906): 171-75.
60
female He created them .’”20 The first d i k , both male and female, was offered by God to
rule over other creatures as God’s representative on the earth, and was also blessed by
"J 1
God to be fruitful and increase in number on earth.
Evaluation
Both the Adam View and the Androgyny View o f din in Gen 1:26-28 are
inaccurate in their scrutiny o f the passage. The parallel between ink (“him”) and onx
(“them”) and the phrase “male and female” stated in verse 27 overthrows the Adam View.
Though the alternation in language can also be exploited in support o f the androgynous
view, the three imperatives in plural form in verse 28 argue against the Androgyny
View.22 The text clearly presents that God created a pair o f humans, the male and the
female. Hamilton argues correctly that humanity is designated by sexuality: “male and
female he created them,” and is not broken down into species: “according to their kinds”
like animals. To suggest that the first humanity was an androgyne is to understand Gen
1:27 “male and female created he them” as “male and female created he him (or it).”23
Therefore, the creation o f Eve is also found in Genesis 1:26-28. She is (created in the
20 However, H. Freedman and Maurice Simon explain that the rabbis here imply that Adam
him self originally had two bodies, male and female, joined together since the rabbis describe that Adam
was created double-faced and had two backs. It is not the same as an “androgynos,” which normally means
one whose genitals are male and female. See their work The Midrash Rabbah: Genesis: Translated into
English with Notes, Glossary and Indices, vol. 1 (London, Britain: Soncino Press, 1977), 54, nn. 2 -3 .
Apparently, Noort misunderstood the meaning o f the rabbis.
21 See Ed Noort, “The Creation o f Man and Woman,” 4 -5. A. Dillmann has similar view; see
Dillmann, Genesis: Critically and Exegetically Expounded, trans. William B. Stevenson, vol. 1 (Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, 1897), 79, 84, 116.
22 See Lange, Genesis, 174; Keil and Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, 65; Skinner, Genesis, 33;
Cassuto, Genesis, 57-58; Mary Hayter, The New Eve in Christ: The Use and Abuse o f the Bible in the
Debate about Women in the Church (Plymouth, Britain: SPCK Press, 1987), 97; Gritz, Paul, Women
Teachers, 55; Gunkel, Genesis, 114.
23 See Hamilton, Genesis, 138, 178.
61
image o f God) the representative o f the female, just as Adam is the representative o f the
male. She received God’s assignment to rule over the earth and his blessing to be fruitful
in procreation as Adam did. The concept o f inferiority,24 or superiority25 o f the woman to
the man is not found in the first account at all.26
E v e ’s Nature and H er Relationship with Adam

in Genesis 2:7-24
W hen one comes to the second account o f the creation o f Eve and her
relationship with Adam in Genesis 2, the interpretations are more complicated and
disputed than the first account. There are five major views.
The Inferiority View
This view advocates that Eve’s derivation from Adam ’s rib indicates her
inferiority and subordination to him. Only Adam is the representative o f humanity.
Augustine believed Eve is not the image o f God when she is assigned as A dam ’s
helpmate alone, whereas Adam is by him self the image o f God.27 Clines takes the word
din (2:7) to be the first man Adam, who is the obvious and only representative o f the
human race. Eve is never called d ik . The word m x is never used as a collective noun to
include both the man and the woman. Eve, created to be Adam’s helper, is solely for
24 George W. Knight purports that the creation order implies Adam’s superiority and authority
over Eve; see Knight, “Male and Female Related He Them,” Christianity Today 9 (April 1976): 13-17.
25 See Mickelsen, “Appendix 1,” 245-50. Trible also in some sense denigrates Adam’s
features and exalts Eve’s character; see “Eve and Adam,” 256.
26 John H. Otwell advocates that the subordinate status o f woman finds no justification in Gen
1:26-28, though he believes that Genesis 2 and 3 have provided the basis for the depreciation o f woman in
the Old Testatament. See his And Sarah Laughed: The Status o f Woman in the O ld Testament (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1977), 15-16.
27 Augustine, D e Trin. 12.7. Also see Thomas Aquinas, S. Th. Ia.92.1.
62
fulfilling “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Gen 1:28a). Man can rule over the
earth by him self alone. Adam’s priority in creation and his naming o f the woman in 2:23
7o
and 3:20 indicates his authority over her.
The Subordinate View
This view sees that Adam and Eve are equal ontologically, that is, Eve is not
inferior to Adam before God.29 However, functionally the latter is subordinate to the
former (the assumed leader) according to G od’s design on the basis o f the creation order.
Keil and Delitzsch believe that the creation o f Adam first in verse 7 shows the pre
eminence o f man. The mode o f Eve’s creation was to lay the actual foundation for the
moral ordinance o f marriage, namely, the priority and superiority o f the man, and the
dependence o f the woman upon the man. This is an ordinance o f divine creation and the
TO
foundation o f the unity o f human race. However, after the fall sin has corrupted the
28 Clines, What Does Eve D o to Help? 34-41; Elizabeth Cady Stanton believes that Genesis 2
denigrates woman’s creation as “a mere afterthought,” implying the hierarchical system, from the top to the
bottom o f the pyramid, God first, then Adam, then Eve, and finally the animals. See Stanton, The Woman's
Bible, part 1 (New York: European, 1895), 20.
29 Keil and Delitzsch, Pentateuch, 90; Cassuto, Genesis, 135-37; Bruce E. Waltke, Genesis: A
Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 89, 94. See also John H. Walton and Victor H. Matthews,
The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Genesis—Deuteronomy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997),
22; Susan T. Foh, Women and the Word o f God: A Response to Biblical Feminism (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1979), 61-62; James B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981),
204-19; Raymond C. Ortlund, “Male-Female Equality and Male Headship,” in Recovering Biblical
M anhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem
(Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991), 95-103.
30 Keil and Delitzsch, Pentateuch, 90, Foh uses 1 Cor 11:8 and 1 Tim 2:13a (man is created
first and is the source o f woman, whose existence is for the sake o f man) to argue for this view; see Foh,
“What Is the Woman's Desire?” Westminster Theological Journal 37 (spring 1975): 379-83. James B.
Hurley also appeals to 1 Cor 11:7-9 to argue for male headship on the basis that “man is the image and
glory o f God and the woman the glory o f the man,” and “the man did not come from the woman but the
woman was created for the sake o f the man.” The passage focuses upon the headship o f the man in
marriage and worship. Woman has to honor her husband’s headship by being subordinate to him, just as
man has to honor the rale o f God by being subordinate to Him. Paul here in 1 Tim 2:13 uses the priority o f
Adam’s creation, for example, the supremacy and headship o f the firstborn recorded in the Old Testament,
and Adam’s naming o f both the animals and the woman indicating his authority over both o f them. The fact
Adam was addressed and questioned first by God after the fall shows that he was the family spokesman.
63
willing submission o f Eve on the one hand, and the loving headship o f Adam on the other
hand, as revealed in Gen 3:16b. E ve’s desire is to control Adam (Gen 3:16b; just as sin’s
desire is to control Cain in Gen 4:7), whereas Adam has to master her in order to sustain
-j 1
his headship (just as Cain was asked to overpower sm).
Raymond C. Ortlund argues for this view on the basis o f the fall recorded in
Genesis 3 and Paul’s teaching in the New Testament:
But if Adam and Eve fell into sin together, w hy does Paul blame Adam for our
fall in Romans 5:12-21? W hy doesn’t Paul blame both Adam and Eve? Why does
Genesis 3:7 say that it was only after Adam joined in the rebellion that the eyes o f
both o f them were opened to their condition? Why does God call out to Adam,
“Where are you?” (Genesis 3:9)? Why doesn’t God summon both Adam and Eve to
account together? Because, as the God appointed head, Adam bore the primary
responsibility to lead their partnership in a God-glorifying direction.
This may explain w hy Satan addressed Eve, rather than Adam, to begin with.
Her calling was to help Adam as second-in-command in world rulership. If the roles
had been reversed, if Eve had been created first and then Adam as her helper, the
Serpent would doubtless have approached Adam. So Eve was not morally weaker
than Adam. But Satan struck at Adam ’s headship. His words had the effect o f
inviting Eve to assume prim ary responsibility at the moment o f tem ptation. . . 32
To Ortlund male leadership (without male domination) and hierarchy in marriage are
permanently and beneficently designed by God at creation. Even after the fall, woman
wants to be insubordinate to man, God punishes her with domination by the man (Gen
3:16b) because nothing can change male headship that is designed by God in creation.
That Eve’s existence was taken out o f Adam and for the sake o f his need also imply Adam’s headship or
authority over Eve (Gen 2 and 1 Cor 11). See Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 204-19.
31 F o h , “Woman’s Desire,” 379-83. See also Ortlund, “Male Headship,” 95-103, 108-10;
Hurley, Man and Woman, 218.
32 See also Ortlund, “Male Headship,” 107-8. It is followed by Susan T. Foh, Women and the
Word o f God: A Response to Biblical Feminism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 65. Hurley adds the
following reasons for Adam’s authority over Eve: Eve was taken out o f Adam. In other words, Adam is her
origin. She was created for the sake o f Adam’s need and not vice versa. Adam named her. See Hurley, Man
and Woman, 207-13.
33 See Ortlund, “Male Headship,” 95,105, 109.
64
The Interdependent and Complementary View
This view holds that Adam and Eve were both created in the image o f God
and received the same mandate from God. The priority o f A dam ’s creation implies
nothing o f his authority over Eve. Eve’s formation out o f Adam indicates their close
relationship. Her existence shows her significance to Adam that no other creatures can
substitute. Without her Adam is imperfect, and without him Eve is also incomplete.
Adam focuses upon his task in the garden (v. 15), whereas Eve was his companion and
helper (v. 18). These non-hierarchical differences between them imply their oneness,
harmony, and unity for they were designed by the Creator to be interdependent and
complementary to each other in creation.34
Dillman is o f the opinion that Eve’s “help” refers to her aid in Adam ’s work
and consists o f all kinds o f mental and spiritual support and assistance from their
fellowship.35 Ross comments that the depiction o f the woman as “corresponding to
him”(v. 18) indicates that what was stated about the first man in verse 7, was also true o f
the first woman. They both had the same nature. What Adam lacked Eve supplied, and
what she lacked he supplied. There is no instruction on headship in the passage because
• • • • 'Xfk
Adam and Eve were “a spiritual unity, living in integrity without sin.”
34 Dillmann, Genesis, 118, 141,143; Skinner, Genesis 67; Kidner, Genesis, 60-66; Ross,
“Genesis,” 31; Holmes, Text in a Whirlwind, 319-21; Kwong, Genesis, 235-51. Different roles in function
do not necessarily imply hierarchy in function. Which function is more significant? Giving birth to children
or tilling the ground? Actually both male and female are commanded to accomplish both responsibilities
together with unity and oneness.
35 Dillmann, Genesis, 118, 141, 143.
36 Ross, “Genesis,” 31. See also Kidner, Genesis, 6 0 -6 1 ,6 5 -6 6 ; Skinner, Genesis 67. S. R.
Driver translates m » nu as “a help corresponding to him,” meaning the woman is “adequate to the man,
intellectually his equal, and capable o f satisfying his needs and instincts.” See The Book o f Genesis: with
Introduction and Notes (London: Methuen, 1920), 41. Noort states that the term - i t j j does not mean
superiority or inferiority on the part o f the person offering or obtaining the help. The term n u s “as in front
o f him, corresponding to him, matching him” confirms this. The two terms together means “mutual
65
Carol Meyers points out that to translate the word din as “man” here is to
ignore a Hebrew wordplay. The first human being is formed from ’adamah (translated as
“ground” or “earth”). The words for “human” and for “ground” are linked phonetically or
even etymologically. Thus, the term d in does not communicate “either the generic nature
o f ‘man’ or the integral connection o f humanity with its earthly matrix.” It m erely
expresses the essence o f human life, “its organic connection to the earth,” but not its
“eventual classification into gendered categories.” Thus, the text does not support the
traditional translation o f “man” leading to the views o f a priority for male existence and
the subordination o f female. The noun “helper” can refer to either a superior or a
subordinate. However, the phrase meaning “opposite,” or “corresponding to,” or “parallel
with,” or “on a par with,” establishes a nonhierarchical relationship (i.e., the helper stands
■yn
neither higher nor lower than the one being helped) between the man and the woman.
Gritz is o f the opinion that Gen 2:18-25 stresses that Adam, the male, alone
was incomplete, and only Eve, his female complement, quintessentially perfected his
being.38 The term itu applies to the God, in at least 15 out o f 21 times in the Hebrew
Bible, who helped the needy and the desperate. The entire text emphasizes the
interrelatedness and mutual dependence o f Adam and Eve. In the beginning the
relationship between Eve and Adam was “very unique and harmonious” (Gen 2:23-24),
> • -5Q
but the first transgression spoils the mutuality o f their relationship (Gen 3:12).
stimulation, helping each other as equals.” See Noort, “Creation o f Man and Woman,” 12-13. See also
Hayter, New Eve in Christ, 102.
37 Meyers, Discovering Eve, 81-82, 85.
38 Hayter, New Eve in Christ, 98.
39 Gritz, Paul, Women Teachers, 55-56.
66
Hamilton suggests that the new creation o f Eve to be Adam’s helper is an
equal to him essentially and functionally. This helper forms one-half a polarity. She is to
man “as the south pole is to the north.”40 The term nrs is masculine in gender which
always describes Yahweh, the stronger one, as Israel’s help. The LXX translates the term
-in? as potiQov, referring to help “from a stronger one, in no way needing help.”41 In other
words, the helper has superior military strength (Isa 30:5) or superior size (Ps. 121: l).42
Adam’s statement in verse 23 is an expression o f a relationship. It could also be like a
covenant statement o f Adam ’s commitment to Eve serving “as the biblical counterpart to
the modem marriage ceremony.”43 For instance, what the representatives o f the northern
tribes say to David at Hebron: “we are your bone and flesh” (2 Sam 5:1), is not a
statement o f relationship but a pledge o f loyalty meaning “we will support you in all
kinds o f circumstances.”44 In other words, Adam here has professed that circumstances
will not alter his loyalty and commitment to Eve. In summary, both Adam and Eve “share
the entire spectrum o f human characteristics, from strong to weak.”45 Even after the fall,
Adam called his w ife’s name “Eve,” the mother o f all living. His naming is merely an act
40 See Hamilton, Genesis, 175.
41 Ibid., 176.
42 Ibid.
43 See Hamilton, Genesis, 179-80. W. Brueggemann argues that Adam’s claim that Eve is
“bone o f my bones and flesh o f my flesh” is in fact a covenant speaking o f a common, reciprocal loyalty
rather than a common birth. See Brueggemann, “O f the Same Flesh and Bone (Gn 2,23a),” Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 32 (1970): 532-42.
44 See Hamilton, Genesis, 180.
45 Ibid.
67
o f his faith in the promise o f God in Gen 3:15.46 Adam believes that he and his wife are
not to be the first and last beings o f the human race. The action o f his naming speaks o f a
future for the couple beyond the miserable present. “Motherhood will emerge.”47
The Solidarity and Equality View
Joan M. Holmes advocates that G od’s purpose in taking the animals to Adam
to see what he would name them is to let the man learn that none o f them was apt to be
his corresponding companion. The act o f naming the animals here should be taken as
applying Adam ’s intelligence o f discernment, since name-giving in Hebrew culture does
not express authority or dominion (e.g., Ruth 4:17). Though the woman was created for,
and was derived from, the man, it is not a corollary meaning that Adam possessed a
subordinate, just as he him self was not subordinate to the earth, his source. Adam ’s
statement (Gen 2:23) expresses his jo y that Eve is just like him, a suitable/corresponding
helper prepared by God for him, contributing ideas and abilities. Though discernible
differences in the relationship o f Adam and Eve do appear in Genesis, mutual
dependence exists between them. After the fall, God neither charges Eve with acting
independently without consulting A dam ’s advice nor does He charge Adam with
46 Ibid., 177. Hamilton suggests that Adam only exhibits a quality o f discernment as he acts as
name-giver o f the animals. He does not exercise authority over them but only obediently follows through
the task o f naming them given by God.
47 See Hamilton, Genesis, 206, 207. Hayter has similar view; see Hayter, New Eve in Christ,
102, 112-15.
48 G. W. Ramsey suggests that the naming o f the animals (Gen 2:19) is only an act o f the
man’s “discerning something about these creatures,” whereas the naming o f the woman (Gen 2:23) is only
an exclamation and celebration o f his discovery and recognition o f God’s new creature. Therefore, it is
again “an act o f discernment,” rather than an act o f domination or exercising authority over the named. See
Ramsey, “Is Name-giving an Act o f Domination in Genesis 2:23 and Elsewhere?”Cat/*o//c Biblical
Quarterly 50 (1988), 34-35. Hamilton suggests that Adam only exercised the task o f assigning labels to
other living creatures offered by God in Gen 2:19; whereas Gen 2:23 is probably “a covenantal statement o f
his commitment” to Eve. The use o f nm and srx here is to emphasize the identity and equality o f the first
couple. See Hamilton, Genesis, 177-80. Also see Kwong, Genesis, 239-42.
68
malfunction o f his male leadership. Their only sin is disobedience to the divine command
o f Gen 2:17.49 Gen 3:16 is the consequence o f the fall in the sense that mankind’s
actions50 distort the pre-Fall normality and harmony between man and woman. Thus, God
does not delegate to husbands absolute authority over their wives.51
Phyllis Trible thinks there are two steps in the creation o f humans here. The
first step is the creation o f an androgyny, namely, one creature incorporating two sexes
(Gen 2:7); and the last step is the creation o f sexuality (the differentiation o f female and
male), namely, nox “woman” and o'x “man” (Gen 2:18-23). The creation o f Eve is
actually moving to the culmination o f God’s creation rather than its decline in the second
account.53 The description o f man being created first and woman last establishes “a ring
composition whereby the two creatures are parallel,” demonstrating that “the central
concerns o f a unit often appear at the beginning and the end as an inclusio device” in
Hebrew literature. The man took no part in making the woman. The woman owed her life
exclusively to Yahweh. “Adam ’s rib” is referring to solidarity and equality as the man
said in verse 23: “This at last is bone o f m y bones and flesh o f m y flesh. She shall be
called nm (woman) because she was taken out o f c k (man).” The term rrox is not a
49 See also Hayter, New Eve in Christ, 98-100; Kwong, Genesis, 242-52.
50 Holmes inconsistently suggests that the woman’s desire (Gen 3:16b) is her longing to bear
from her husband the promised seed, namely, the Seed which would bruise the serpent’s head. Meanwhile,
the rule o f the man over the woman does not focus on his power, but his responsibility for her. See Holmes,
Text in a Whirlwind, 329-30 for details.
51 See Holmes, Text in a Whirlwind, 319-28. Phyllis A. Bird has similar view; see her ‘“Male
and Female He Created Them’: Gen 1:27b in the Context o f the Priestly Account o f Creation,” Harvard
Theological Review 74 (1981): 158.
52 Gritz points out that hex is not a proper name. It is “a Hebrew pirn” acknowledging sexual
differentiation. The wordplay o f trx and rtox stresses the equality o f man and woman. See Gritz, Paul,
Women Teachers, 56,
53 See McKenzie, “Genesis 2 -3 ,” 559.
69
proper name, but only denotes gender. The words ncx and e x indicate that Adam
recognized sexuality. This is not an act o f naming, but an announcement o f two
individuals, male and female, coming from this one androgyny “man” mx. Then, in verse
24 the two (male and female) went back to their original unity as rrax and e x becoming
one flesh in marriage. This is another example o f an inclusio device.54
The Superiority View: A Satire55
Alvera Mickelsen suggests that Gen 1 tells how G od’s creation moved from
chaos to harmony and order, whereas Gen 2 further tells how God created man and
woman. Contextually, the creation o f Eve became the pinnacle o f the divine creation. On
the whole, the Genesis narrative speaks o f Eve’s superiority over Adam. First, Adam was
created in the same way as the animals and birds from the earth whereas Eve was not.
Second, the text clearly speaks o f A dam ’s inadequacy in fulfilling his responsibilities by
him self alone. Third, the Hebrew term nru is 15 times out o f 21 occurrences in the entire
Old Testament utilized to describe God’s supporting and helping humanity with his
superior power. Here in the same sense, Eve “helps” Adam with her “superior strength
and power and wisdom.” It implies that Adam was subordinate to Eve according to G od’s
54 Trible, “Eve and Adam,” 252-55. She concludes that “God is the helper superior to man;
the animals are helpers inferior to man; woman is the helper equal to man” (p. 251). See also idem,
“Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation,” Journal o f the American Academy ofReligion 41 (March
1973): 39. Noort believes the word -ip does not imply “superiority or inferiority on the part o f the person
giving or receiving the aid,” and the word rwa “counterpart/corresponding to him/matching him.” Together
it means “mutual stimulation, helping each other as equals.” See Noort, “Creation o f Man and Woman,”
11-13.
55 Alvera Mickelsen explains the purpose o f presenting this satire: “In light o f the persistent
emphasis on the assumed ‘order o f creation’ in Genesis 2, we present the following tongue-in-cheek look at
the ‘order o f creation, redemption, and climax’ to establish the subordination o f men to women. We believe
our case has as much validity as the historical approach that sees the subordination o f women in the order
o f creation. The validity o f both approaches, we believe, is equally nonexistent.” See Mickelsen,
“Appendix I: Does Order o f Creation, Redemption, and Climax Demand Female Supremacy?” in Equal to
Serve: Women and Men in the Church and Home, ed. Gretchen Gaebelein Hull (Old Tappen, NJ: Revell,
1987), 245.
70
design. Fourth, Gen 2:24 states that it is the male (not the female or both o f them) who
should leave his parents after marriage and should cleave56 to his wife (not both o f them
cleave to each other). It implies that the male is under his parents’ supervision before
marriage.57
Evaluation
The idea that m x is an androgyny in Gen 2:7 is very questionable. The fact is
that the term dik may refer either to “human race” (as a generic usage) or to the man
“Adam” in Genesis, but it never refers to an androgyny. Though sexual differentiation
only happened when the woman was created, m s could not be an androgyny.58 It must
refer to the first man, Adam in the context. The views that Eve is essentially inferior to
Adam and that procreation is the only help Eve provides for Adam are unacceptable. The
advocate apparently neglect the divine statement that both male and female are created in
the image o f God and are endowed with the blessings o f procreation and ruling over the
earth in Gen 1:28. They also do not give much consideration to the meaning and usage o f
the terms nun in? in Gen 2:18.59
56 According to Gritz, the verb “cleave” means “clinging to someone in affection and loyalty.”
See Gritz, Paul, Women Teachers, 55. Skinner suggests that the man’s attachment to the woman is stated in
Gen 2:24, whereas the woman’s affection to the man is found in Gen 3:16b. See Skinner, Genesis, 70.
57 See Mickelsen, “Appendix I,” 246-50. Actually, she only suggests a satire here. Her point
is that i f Eve is seen as inferior to Adam from the traditional perspective, she can also be seen as superior to
Adam from another perspective contextually. In fact Mickelsen advocates that Gen 1-3 implies neither
superiority nor inferiority o f Adam in both ontological and functional aspects. Thus, she calls her attempt
here a satire. However, it may reflect that the creation order can also imply the inferiority o f Adam. She
concludes, “Let’s stop assuming the ancient myth that “female subordination” is found in the “order o f
creation” and substantiated in Paul’s interpretation o f Genesis.”
58 The reference to Mensch also has the risk o f falling into the problem o f the view o f an
androgyny.
59 Hayter believes the creation ideal has “no blueprint for sex stereotyping.” See Hayter, New
Eve in Christ, 112.
71
The idea that A dam ’s (chronological) priority in creation,60 Eve’s derivation
from Adam, her existence for his need, and his naming her (Gen 2:23; 3:20)61 indicate
her subordination (functionally) to him is inadequately attested int the context. There are
counter arguments raised by opponents. Some take A dam ’s naming o f Eve does not entail
subordination (Hagar’s naming God in Gen 16:13) but is an ordering activity that is
coordinating with God’s naming. The naming o f both God and human beings “denotes a
discernment o f the creatures’ place within the creation, not authority.” The naming o f
Eve, the mother o f all the living, after the fall (Gen 3:20 implies that life will be going on,
though Adam and Eve are expelled from the Garden o f Eden and excluded from eating
the fruit o f the Tree o f Life.63
Besides, apparently the advocates o f the subordinate view do not give much
consideration to the meaning o f mas in?. Eve’s subordination to Adam seems to be the
result o f the fall mentioned in Gen 3:16b “Your desire will be for your husband, and he
will rule over you.”64 In fact, the creation order o f Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 neither
60 Eve being made in God’s image is what gives her the stature, not the timing o f her creation.
Therefore, she being formed after Adam does not imply that she is subordinate to him.
61 Nevertheless, Ramsey points out that even though Adam named his wife Eve after the fall
(Gen 3:20), it does not imply that Adam tried to dominate her, but simply to recognize her as “the mother
o f all living.” In other words, the act o f Adam’s naming her Eve is only the recognition o f Eve’s
characteristic assigned by God rather than a sign o f exercising authority over her. Furthermore, the act o f
naming (except by God) does not imply the exercise o f authority in the Old Testament. See Ramsey,
“Name-Giving,” 35, n. 38.
62 See Bruce C. Birch, Walter Brueggemann, Terence E. Fretheim, and David L. Petersen, A
Theological Introduction to the O ld Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1999), 49.
63 Ibid., 57.
64 Hayter points out that female subordination is a consequence o f the fall in Genesis 3, which
distorts the relation between men and women intended by the Creator described in Genesis 2. It was human
disobedience to God’s will that started the struggle for power between the two sexes, not the Creator’s
intention. Thus, the divine words in Gen 3:16 are descriptive, rather than causative or prescriptive. God
here only describes the consequence o f their disobedience but does not prescribe it as punishment. See
Hayter, New Eve in Christ, 93-94.
72
indicates his superiority over her nor the reverse. Eve was created to be a helper
correspondingto Adam, not an assistant or a servant. In Scripture, God always helped (the
term-iTi? is used, see Exod 18:4; Deut 33:7, 26, 29; Ps 33:20; 70:5; 115:9, 10,11; 121:1, 2;
124:8; 146:5; Ho 13:9)65 the needy and the desperate. Surely he is not subordinate to
those who received help. Likewise, Eve was indeed a helper assigned by God to complete
Adam’s incompleteness. Although the term - its ? is always applied to G od’s help to
mankind in the Old Testament, Eve is not God but a helper corresponding to Adam. Her
helping status does not necessarily imply her superiority over Adam. Eve was taken out
o f Adam and created as his companion and help, indicating that they were companions
supplementary to each other particularly in the light o f Gen 2:23, “This is now bone o f
my bones and flesh o f my flesh,” and verse 24 “For this reason a man will leave his
father and m other and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”66
As a whole, the creation o f Eve is significant, because without her existence
the man alone would not be good but incomplete. Consequently, G od’s commandments
in Gen 1:28 would never be accomplished unless they were mutually dependent on one
another, and were closely interrelated and united.
Furthermore, contextually neither does Genesis teach male-female equality.67
Genesis 2 records that the man and the woman are created differently, possess distinctly
65 See Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon o f
the O ld Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1907; reprint, Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 740.
66 See Hamilton, Genesis, 175-80. Hayter points out that man and woman can offer one
another the companionship that no animal can substitute. See Hayter, New Eve in Christ, 112.
67 Here this writer defines equality as sameness. Man and woman (even among the circle o f
men or that o f women) are not the same physically, psychologically, mentally, and functionally, but they
also have some characteristics in common. Nonetheless, these differences (male-female inequality) do not
imply that God has assigned hierarchy in mankind. So some egalitarians are over-sensitive to defend male-
female equality, whereas some traditionalists are over-reactive to argue against it.
73
different sexual identities, and play male and female roles respectively. Their sexuality is
not the same, nor their functions (or roles). Both o f them are appointed to rule over the
earth, but the woman is also particularly formed to be the man’s ‘help’. Without her
existence and ‘help’, Adam is imperfect and not good, and vice versa. As a whole, Adam
and Eve had the same status before God but different sexuality68 and different roles, in
order to accomplish God’s same mandate together. Therefore, no male-female hierarchy
exists in G od’s design. Otherwise, there w ill be competition, strife, and disputation. Nor
is there the message o f male-female equality, lest male and female refuse functioning in a
complementary way according to their particularly offered abilities and talents. Ortlund
correctly comments on this:
But the very fact that God created human beings in the dual modality o f male and
female cautions us against an unqualified equation o f the two sexes. This profound
and beautiful distinction, which some belittle as “a matter o f mere anatomy,” is not
a biological triviality or accident. It is God who wants men to be men and women to
be women; and He can teach us the meaning o f each, if we want to be taught. We
ourselves can feel intuitively the importance o f distinct sexual identity when we see,
for example, a transvestite. A man trying to be a woman repulses us, and rightly so.
We know that this is perverse. Sexual confusion is a significant, not a slight,
personal problem, because our distinct sexual identity defines who we are and why
we are here and how God calls us to serve Him.69
Nonetheless, different functions and different roles are not a corollary to the view o f
hierarchy. The terms inferiority, equality, superiority, and authority are all absent in the
texts. They are the products o f the secular world. The Creator ultimately wants men and
women to have mutual respect, cooperation, support, and unity (or oneness) in order to
fulfill his will and to reflect his nature perfectly on earth.
68 John H. Otwell believes that the view o f woman subordination finds no justification in Gen
1:26-28. Sexuality is a fundamental part o f human creation, but one sex is never elevated above the other.
Although Genesis 2 and 3 are always used as the primary Old Testament basis for woman depreciation, the
two sexes are actually equal in the descriptions o f the creation o f man and woman. See Otwell, And Sarah
Laughed: The Status o f Woman in the O ld Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977), 15-16.
69 Ortlund, “Male Headship,” 99.
74
Therefore, the Inferiority view and the Superiority view cannot be accepted.
Both the Subordinate view and the Solidarity and Equality view are questionable. This
writer is o f the opinion that generally the male has certain abilities and talents that the
female does not have, and vice versa. That is why the two sexes have to work together to
complement one another. However, in reality there are exceptions that the male possesses
the female’s abilities and talents (except childbearing) and the female possesses the
m ale’s. Thus, one should not frame a person’s potentiality on the basis o f his/her
sexuality. Actually, there is no absolute standard (or characteristic) for defining manhood
<7A
and womanhood (except the physical body). For instance, some men are illogical
thinkers and weak leaders, but some women are logical thinkers and good leaders. The
Bible encourages all God’s people to pursue gentleness and meekness (Prov 15:1; 25:15;
M att 11:28-30; 1 Cor 4:21; Phil 4:5; 1 Thess 2:6-9; 1 Tim 6:11; 1 Pet 3:4), which are
usually seen as female attributes (or characteristics). The differentiation o f sexuality is
primarily physical rather than mental. Perhaps this is why the Creator does not explicitly
mention who is the leader or if they are equal, within Adam and Eve because they are
designed to be interdependent upon and complementary to each other.
The Sin o f Eve
There are three major views on Eve’s character and her role in Adam’s sin in
regard to her deception by the serpent and the fall in Genesis 3 :l-6 a .
70 Hayter states, “There is no general agreement among psychologists and anthropologists

about what is trans-temporally, typically ‘male and ‘female’, and Genesis provides no such definitive
comment here.” See Hayter, New Eve in Christ, 93.
75
Eve: the Weaker and the First Temptress
Skinner emphasizes how the serpent craftily addressed the woman, who had a
more changeable personality (or character).71 The serpent purposely exaggerated the
range o f God’s prohibition to incite criticism and inquiry (v. 1), distorted the divine
veracity, made him a jealous God with an unworthy motive for his prohibition, and
declared the falsehood o f the divine threat o f death (w . 4 -5).72 At last, the woman was
n'y
trapped by her desire for receiving wisdom and ate the forbidden fruit. Then she gave
the fruit to Adam, who was w ith her,74 and he ate it (3:6). Concerning Adam ’s
transgression, Skinner is o f the opinion that Eve deceived and tempted Adam just as the
serpent had done to her. Thus, Eve was weak and became the temptress o f Adam.75
71 Gunkel comments that the woman is approached by the serpent because she is “livelier,
more appetitive, and awakens earlier than the man;” See Gunkel, Genesis, 16. Keil and Delitzsch explain
that Eve was weaker and vulnerable by nature. See Keil and Delitzsch, Pentateuch, 95.
72 Dillmann thinks that the statement “and you must not touch it” demonstrates that Eve was
completely aware o f the severity o f God’s command. See Dillmann, Genesis, 143.
73 Skinner, Genesis, 73-75.
74 Holmes argues that Adam is present throughout the entire process o f the fall. She offers two
reasons: (1) the word nna “with her;” and (2) the plural “you” addressed by the serpent and the “we”
answered by Eve. See Holmes, Text in a Whirlwind, 321. Keil and Delitzsch translate v. 6b as “and gave to
her husband by her (who was present), and he did eat.” See Keil and Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, 95. Jean M.
Higgins presents five reasons to support this view; see Higgins “The Myth o f Eve: The Temptress,”
Journal o f the American Academy o f Religion 44 (1976): 646 for details. Contra: Lange argues that “with
her” is adverbial, modifying the verb “gave.” It should be understood as “she gave it to her man along with
herself.” The Vulgate, the Revised Standard Version, and the N ew English Bible even omitted the term
“with her.” See Lange, 230.
75 Skinner, Genesis, 75. This can be traced back to the church fathers’ view o f Eve. For
instance, Tertullian parallels Eve with the serpent, holding her to be responsible for the entrance o f sin into
the world, regarding her as “the devil’s gateway,” and accusing her o f convincing Adam to sin; see D e
cultu feminarum 1.1.1-2. Keil and Delitzsch suggest that Eve had reversed her subordinate role and led
Adam into sin. As a result, she was punished to have desire for Adam who would rule over her in a
despotic way, crashing her into a slave. See Keil and Delitzsch, Pentateuch, 103. Other advocates include:
von Rad, Genesis, 87; Lange, Genesis, 249; Bennett, Genesis, 106.
76
Eve: No Weaker and No Temptress
Jean M. Higgins points out that the text never says Eve tempted Adam. It is
wrong to read “she gave some to her husband” as “she tempted and led him into sin.”
Otherwise, God too would have been guilty o f being the tempter and the cause o f sin. It is
because first o f all, he “gave” Adam Eve. Then he “gave” Adam Eden to care for. He is
also the one who planted the forbidden tree in the garden. Finally, the worst is that he
also created the serpent, the first tempter. God’s statement in 3:17 focuses upon Adam ’s
sin o f disobeying the divine command given to him alone in Gen 2:17. She further
explains this view:
W hy then is the woman mentioned in this verse? Because o f the self-defense

Adam has just offered. When God asked him: “Have you eaten o f the tree o f which
I commanded you not to eat?” Adam excused him self by blaming the woman: “The
woman, whom you gave to me to be with me, gave me and I ate” (3:12).
God’s reply picks up this defense: “Well, then, since [you say your excuse is
your wife gave it to you, implying that] you listened to the voice o f your wife [as if
that, or anything else, could be more important than listening to the voice o f your
God] and ate o f the tree, which I commanded you not to e a t.. . . Here is your
7 f\
punishment.”
Holmes asserts that Adam him self never said that Eve deceived or tempted
him. He only blamed God and confirmed that Eve gave him the fruit (Gen 3:12).77 This
writer notes that after Adam had presented his reason, God turned to ask Eve, “What is
this you have done?” And she answered, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate” (v. 13).
Immediately the narrative reads, “So the LORD God said to the serpent, ‘Because you
have done this, cursed are you above all the livestock. . . ’” (v.14). The text indicates that
God actually did not accept Adam ’s excuse, so he turned to hear Eve’s explanation. Right
76 Higgins, “The Myth o f Eve,” 639-42, 645. Ross does not take Eve to be the temptress, but
affirms that both Adam and Eve were punished because o f their disobedience to God’s command. See his
“Genesis,” 32-33.
77
after hearing Eve’s reason, God condemned and announced his punishment upon the
serpent without giving the serpent any chance o f defense, because he believed Eve’s
words. Therefore, Eve is not accused o f being A dam ’s temptress in the context.
Eve: the Stronger and No Temptress
According to Trible, the temptation demonstrates that Eve was more
intelligent and independent than Adam, who was passive and said nothing against the
serpent. After the transgression, Adam blamed the Creator who gave him Eve. However,
he never said that Eve seduced or tempted him. The word “gave” never implies seduction
in the text or in the lexicon. Moreover, God accepted Eve’s words as he cursed the
serpent immediately. Both Adam and Eve were judged in accordance with their
disobedience. Finally, Adam would rule over Eve (Gen 3:16b). This result is a
condemnation o f male supremacy, a human corruption after the first transgression.78
Mickelsen suggests that Satan approached Eve because he knew o f Eve’s
primacy. She was the divine chosen leader in Eden because she was the pinnacle o f
God’s creation. In the fall, she was clearly deceived by the serpent, whereas Adam
simply followed her instruction and ate the forbidden fruit immediately. She did not
tempt him but just gave him the fruit (3:6b, 12). This indicates Eve’s authority over
Adam. According to Eve’s punishment because o f her sin, Adam would rule over her
(3:16b). This is a terrible “role reversal” o f G od’s original order o f creation (female
78 See Trible, “Eve and Adam,” 256-58. See also Gritz, Paul, Women Teachers, 57. Higgins
thinks that Gen 3:6b says nothing about Adam’s temptation by Eve. See Higgins, “The Myth o f Eve,” 639.
Hayter takes Adam to be a willing accomplice in the fall. See Hayter, New Eve in Christ, 105. See also Jean
M. Higgins, “Critical Notes: Anastasius Sinaita and the Superiority o f the Woman,” Journal o f Biblical
Literature 97 (1978): 254-55.
78
domination). Nonetheless, God would assign her to be the exclusive human instrument
70
through which salvation would come to the world (3:15). This reflects her higher status.
Evaluation
W hy did the serpent address Eve and not Adam? Is it because Eve is weaker
(by nature she is vulnerable to be deceived) or stronger (she is the assigned leader o f the
pair) than Adam? There is no answer for this question because Genesis (and the entire
Hebrew Bible) has no clue for it. The fact that God addressed Adam after the fall (though
Eve sinned first) may imply that Adam is the leader o f the pair who is responsible for
Eve’s action. However, Eve’s role as “a helper corresponding to him” should not be
neglected and underestimated. Therefore, on the basis o f Gen 2:18 the “Interdependent
and Complementary” view is preferable.
The Genesis account never comments on Eve’s character. It only mentions the
serpent deceived Eve (3:13). She ate the forbidden fruit and gave it (not by deception or
temptation) to her husband (3:6b). Adam did not say that Eve had deceived or tempted
OA
him. He affirmed that Eve had given him the fruit (3:12). Neither did God condemn Eve
for deceiving or tempting Adam (3:13). In other words, the account o f Genesis does not
affirm that Adam was tempted or deceived by Eve. Regarding Eve’s response and that o f
Adam in the temptation, the latter seems to be so passive and even more vulnerable than
the former. It is doubtful to say that Eve is weaker in the context.81 The text does not
79 Mickelsen, “Appendix I,” 246-47.
80 If Adam was with Eve when the serpent tempted her (Gen 3:6), he heard the serpent’s
words. Eve did not have to deceive him.
81 Hamilton comments that in Gen 3 Eve acts as spokeswoman on behalf o f her husband,” and
in fact she is the more appealing one. She did not tempt Adam but simply gave him the fruit. She was
79
attest that Eve deceived and tempted Adam into sin (based on Gen 3:6b and 3:17). Thus,
the view o f “Eve: No W eaker and No Temptress” is preferable.
Summary
The portrait o f Eve in Genesis is very significant in Judaism. It demonstrates
that God purposely created Eve to be A dam ’s helper corresponding to him. She reflected
God’s image. She, together with Adam, constituted humankind, and shared everything
with him. Adam and Eve needed and depended on one another. They had differences but
they complemented each other without hierarchy. However, this harmonious relationship
was broken by the first transgression. Adam him self was responsible for his own failure
because Eve did not tempt or force him to eat the forbidden fruit. He never said that he
was deceived or tempted by Eve, but blamed both God and Eve, “The woman you put
here with me— she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it” (3:12). If Adam
blaming Eve implies that Eve had a role in his transgression, then his blaming God also
implies that God had a role in his transgression. Moreover, God never blamed his
transgression on Eve.82 Adam is responsible for and is punished on the basis o f his own
disobedience to God’s command (3:17). Likewise, Eve is ultimately held accountable for
0-3
her action. She reaped what she sowed.
guided by her mind and her own judgment. On the contrary, Adam neither raised nor challenged with
questions. Neither did he approve or rebuke. His sin is his acquiescence.” See Hamilton, Genesis, 188, 191.
82 See Gritz, Paul, Women Teachers, 57-58.
83 She believed in the serpent’s lies instead o f God’s love and grace, followed the desire to
become like god (the greedy lust), and chose to disobey God’s prohibition. Some believe that both Adam
and Eve, endowed with the neutral Yezer (the free will or the inclination) in creation, had followed the Evil
Yezer and chose to disobey God’s command (4QparaGen-Exod; 2 Enoch 30.8-16; 4 Ezra 3. 20-27; Gen.
Rab. 17.6), whereas some think that the devil’s envy caused the fall (Antiquities 1.41-42; 2 Enoch 31.3-
32.1).
80
According to G od’s announcement, the struggle between the first couple
began: Eve would try to control Adam, but he would rule over her (3:16b).84 No matter
how one interprets Gen 3:16b, apparently Eve’s subordination to Adam is one o f the
consequences o f the first transgression. However, it is noteworthy that God addressed
Adam first and held him responsible for the first transgression, even though Eve was the
first to eat the forbidden fruit (Gen 3:6, 9,11). Why? Is there any implication for Adam’s
role within the couple in the divine design before the fall? W hy does Paul mention
Adam ’s priority in creation and Eve’s deception in 1 Tim 2:13-14 right after his
prohibition in verse 12? How do the sages and rabbis in Judaism interpret the story o f
Adam and Eve in Genesis?
In summary, some scholars believe that the above negative views on Eve are
probably the results o f interpreting Gen 1-3 under the lens o f those negative comments
Of
on Eve and women alleged by the Fathers. Or it can also be traced back to some o f the
negative Jewish views on women in Judaism. Meyers comments on this:
After Genesis 2-3, the earliest writing that refers to Eve is probably
Ecclesiasticus,. . . Ben Sira apparently is alluding to Eve when he says, “From a
woman was the beginning o f sin. And because o f her we all died.” . . .
A century later, the unknown author o f a work called the Books o f Adam and
Eve picked on Ecclesiasticus’ reading o f the Adam and Eve sto ry . . . this
pseudepigraphical book leaves no doubt as to the role o f Eve in bringing about all
the sin and suffering in the world.86
84 The meaning o f Gen 3:16b is still debated and inconclusive, but this writer prefers this view
in the present.
85 Usually they used these misinterpretations to treat the current needs o f the Church regarding
their own special social and religious circumstances. But in some sense they were also under the influence
o f some o f the rabbinical bad comments on women, i.e., their personal presuppositions. See Daniel Doriani,
“Appendix 1: A History o f the Interpretation o f 1 Timothy 2,” in Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis
o f 1 Timothy 2:9-15, ed. Andreas J. Kostenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1995), 222-24.
86 See Meyers, D iscovering Eve, 75-76.
81
Is M eyers’s comment correct? How is Eve portrayed in the mainstream o f Judaism? The
following sections will examine the portraits o f Eve in the non-canonical Jewish literature.
The Book of Tobit
The Book o f Tobit is listed second among the Apocryphal books in the
Septuagint. Lancelot C. L. Brenton comments that it is “one o f the most perfect o f
Hebrew idylls.”87 Most scholars date the book between 250-175 B.C.88 It was
OQ
originally written in either Hebrew or Aramaic. Currently, the complete text exists only
in Greek. This version has a shorter text-form and a longer one.90 The book holds a time-
honored position in Jewish apocryphal literature. It contains the earliest Jewish source o f
a tender consideration for women.91 The author advocates that God rewards the righteous
and punishes the wicked (4.5-14; 14.8-11).92 He aims at assuring his audience, who are
87 See Lancelot C. L. Brenton, “The Apocrypha: Greek and English,” in The Septuagint with
Apocrypha: Greek and English (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1851; reprint, Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1998), i; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Tobit, Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature, ed. Loren T.
Stuckenbruck and Pieter W. van der Horst (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2003), 42-45.
88 Fitzmyer, Tobit, 50-54. Some scholars even date the book to the fourth or late fifth century
B.C. See J. T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, “The Creation o f Man and Woman in Early Jewish Literature,” in The
Creation o f Man and Woman: Interpretations o f the Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions,
ed. Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, Themes in Biblical Narrative Jewish and Christian Traditions, ed. Philip S.
Alexander and Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, vol. 3 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 36, n. 8.
89 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 18-27; Carey A. Moore, Tobit: A New Translation with Introduction
and Commentary, Anchor Bible, ed. William Foxwell Albright and David N oel Freedman, vol. 40A (New
York: Doubleday, 1996), 40. James C. VanderKam suggests that the book was originally written in
Aramaic and was translated into Hebrew at an early time. See VanderKam, An Introduction to Early
Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 69.
90 The shorter text-form is denoted by the Codex Sinaiticus, and the longer one is denoted by
Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and Venetus; see Fitzmyer, Tobit, 3-5; van Ruiten, “The Creation o f Man and
Woman,” 36.
91 See van Ruiten, “The Creation o f Man and Woman,” 36. Also see Frank Zimmermann, The
Book o f Tobit: An English Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Jewish Apocryphal Literature,
ed. Solomon Zeitlin (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958), 1,23.
92 R. Hanhart, Tobit, Septuaginta, vol. 8/1 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 8 8 -
93.
82
under Hellenistic domination in Palestine and the Diaspora, o f God’s gracious presence
and deeds, in order to summon them to be faithful to the Lord and to the Law, to repent,
to present God doxology, and to live a pious life.
The book mainly tells the story o f how righteous Tobit (a genuine Israelite
who did many acts o f cultic devotion and kindness to others; see 1.1-18; 2.1-14; 3.1-6)93
and innocent Sarah (a righteous widow whose seven husbands died in the marriage
chamber, for Asmodeus the evil spirit loved her and killed all who came unto her; see
2.7-8; 3.8-15; 5.13-14)94 experienced through suffering (for the sake o f their piety) to
divine healing and blessings. God heard the prayers o f Tobit and Sarah, and sent Raphael
to release them from sufferings. At last, Sarah married Tobias (Tobit’s only son), and
Tobit could see again. The theme o f the book is similar to the book o f Job, focusing on
the issue o f the suffering o f the righteous. The author answers this problem through
Tobit’s mouth: “For you have scourged me, but you have had mercy on me” (11.15).95
Eve and Her Relationship with Adam
In the entire book, there is only one passage concerning Eve96 found in the
prayer o f Tobias (8.4-9) on his wedding night with Sarah. Originally Tobias hesitated
to marry Sarah for he was afraid o f being killed by the evil spirit like Sarah’s late seven
husbands. Nevertheless, the angel Raphael affirmed to him that God would save him for
93 Ibid., 59-68, 71-80.
94 Ibid., 74-75, 81-85, 103.
95 See George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Stories o f Biblical and Early Post-Biblical and Early Post-
Biblical Times,” in Jewish Writings o f the Second Temple Period, 41. Also see Moore, Tobit, 24;
VanderKam, Early Judaism, 70; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 29-33.
96 According to this writer’s research, Tobit 8.6 is likely the earliest Jewish writing that refers
to Eve after the Genesis accounts.
83
07
he had destined their marriage before eternity. Sarah would bear him children (6.18).
After having overcome a complex chain o f events, Tobias finally followed Raphael’s
QQ
instructions to meet and marry Sarah (7.1-18). As he went into the marriage chamber,
he took the ashes o f the perfumes, put the heart and the liver o f the fish thereupon, and
made a smoke therewith. As a result, the evil spirit smelled it and fled to Egypt, and the
angel bound him (8 .2 -3 )." After that, when Tobias and Sarah were shut in the marriage
chamber together, they arose and prayed for G od’s mercy. Tobias began to say:
Thou made Adam, and gave him Eve his wife as helper and stay for him; o f them
there came the seed o f men, and thou said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone;
let us make him a helper like unto him .’ (8.6)100
Here Eve is mentioned by name. Carey A. Moore points out that, except in
Gen 3:20 and 4:1, this is the only passage where E ve’s name appears in the entire
Septuagint. The text emphasizes that Eve was made to be his wife and helper.101 Moore
translates the second sentence o f the text as “And you made his wife Eve his helper and
support” and the last sentence as “Let us make a partner for him like himself.” 102 This
makes the meaning clearer. Eve is not only a helper but also a supporter o f Adam.
Meanwhile, the author o f Tobit takes procreation o f descendants as from both Adam and
Eve. J. T. A. G. M. van Ruiten comments that here childbearing is directly associated
with the order o f the divine creation (Gen 1:28). Both husband and wife should share the
97 Hanhart, Tobit, 118.
98 Ibid., 119-27.
99 Ibid., 127-28.
100 Ibid., 129. The English translation is from this writer. See van Ruiten, “Creation o f Man
and Woman,” 39.
101 Moore, Tobit, 238.
102 Ibid., 234. Moore suggests that the author emphasizes the interdependent and interrelated
relationship o f the first couple.
84
responsibility o f procreation together. The author appears to emphasize the
1HT
interdependent and interrelated relationship o f the first couple.
Eve and the "Order o f Creation ”
It is noteworthy that the statement in Tobit 8.6def is almost like a direct
quotation o f Gen 2:18 in the Greek version:
L X X G en 2:18104
18ab K al eiTrov Kupiog o 0€O<;, Ou kccIov elvai tov auQpwirov \iovov
18c TToif|0(jopev autw por|06v Kat’ autov.
Tobit 8.6def (G77) 105

6de ou eliiac Ou KaAov etvai xou avOpanrov povou,
6f TTOiriooipeu auito por|06v opoiov autto.
Van Ruiten comments that this parallel indicates the author uses Adam and Eve (in
Genesis 2) to set an example for all married couples after them. This idea is supported by
Tobias’ confession: “And now, I take not this m y sister for lust, but in truth. Command
that I and she may find mercy, and that we grow old together” (8.7).106 It emphasizes that
Tobias was practicing after “the order o f Creation.” 107 Moore affirms Andre Dupont-
1OR
Sommer’s idea that here the author stresses the purpose o f sexual intercourse as for
103 Van Ruiten, “Creation o f Man and Woman,” 36-39.
104 John William Wevers, ed., Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum: Genesis.
Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis, vol. 1 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), 87.
105 Hanhart, Tobit, 129.
106 Ibid., 129-30.
107 See van Ruiten, “Creation o f Man and Woman,” 39. This writer suggests that here the
order o f creation refers to God’s design o f joining a male and a female together to complement each other
in marriage (because ‘It is not good that the man should be alone”) rather than the idea that woman
subordinates to man.
108 Andre Dupont-Sommer, L'essenisme a la lumiere des manuscrits de la mer morte;

Angelologie et demonologie; Le Livre de Tobie, Annuaire du College de France, vol. 68 (Paris: Marcelin-
Berthelot, 1968), 417,425.
85
procreation alone (cf. 4.12; 6.18).109 Tobias was presented to be a pious role model for
the non-celibate Essenes.110 He was ultimately rescued from the hand o f the evil spirit
because God had mercy upon him and appointed Sarah unto him from the beginning.
Every event in human history is under G od’s careful orchestration and control.111 Just as
the book teaches that God rewards the righteous, Tobit’s son Tobias found a fair and wise
woman (5.12)112 whereas Sarah was vindicated and married a righteous man at last.
Evaluation and Summary
On the whole, this w riter thinks that Tobit 8:6 is significant since it represents
111
a positive aspect o f the portrait o f Eve. The almost direct quotation o f Gen 2:18 (in the
Greek version) in the latter part o f this verse reflects that the author o f Tobit advocates
the Genesis account o f Adam and Eve. He omits many significant materials in the
Genesis account concerning the creation, the obligations, the prohibition, and the
transgression o f Adam and Eve, because he aims at stating his own attitude and belief o f
the foundation o f his marriage with Sarah.114 Thus, he selects succinct materials from
109 Hanhart, Tobit, 91-2, 118-19.
110 Moore, Tobit, 242-44. Based on the discovery o f fragments o f five Semitic texts o f Tobit
at Qumran, Moore affirms Dupont-Sommer’s idea that the Book o f Tobit is “an Essene” work that was
quite popularly circulated in the Qumran community. See also Quinn and Wacker, Pastoral Epistles, 2 4 1 -
42.
111 Nickelsburg, “Stories o f Biblical Times,” 43.
112 Hanhart, Tobit, 102-3.
113 The book also presents a positive view on women. The prayers o f Sarah (a suffering and
righteuous woman) and Tobit (a suffering and righteous man) simultaneously came to heaven and were
answered by God at the end. See L. H. Brockington, A Critical Introduction to the Apocrypha (London:
Duckworth, 1961), 39.
114 The author o f Tobit implies that evil results from sin; see 3.1-6. Alden Lloyd Thompson
comments that the thought and ethical teachings o f the book are quite similar to Sirach. See Thompson,
Responsibility f o r Evil in the Theodicy o f IV Ezra (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977), 24.
86
Genesis that are relevant to his purpose in his prayer. Maybe Tobias thinks that the way
God appoints Eve to be Adam ’s wife is similar to how he appoints Sarah to be his wife.
Both marriages reflect the m ercy and grace o f God the Creator.
The author o f Tobit succinctly emphasizes that God created Adam and Eve.
They, as partners to each other, shared the blessing o f marriage and the responsibility o f
procreation after God’s designed order. There is no inferiority (subjection) or superiority
(authority) existing between them. If the idea o f Moore and Dupont-Sommer is correct,
then the divine order o f creation refers to the union o f a husband and a wife to procreate
in marriage. Nonetheless, this writer wonders why the author o f Tobit talks about the
issue o f suffering o f the righteous, yet never draws on the event o f the first couple’s fall
that brings all kinds o f disasters to humankind. He does not blame them o f the first
transgression at all, but takes them to be a good example for setting the foundation o f
marriage according to G od’s will and design.
The Wisdom of Ben Sirach
The Wisdom o f Ben Sirach was written in Hebrew by Jesus ben Sirach
in about 180 B .C .,115 and was afterward translated into Greek by his grandson in about
132 B.C.116 It is a collection o f maxims or separate essays like the Book o f Proverbs in
the Hebrew Bible, describing daily life with exhortations and warnings on many relevant
115 Pancratius C. Beentjes states that nine Hebrew manuscripts o f Ben Sirach (MSS A, B, C, D,
E, F, X, Y, Z) have been recovered. See Beentjes, The Book o f Ben Sira in Hebrew, Supplements to Vetus
Testamentum, ed. J. A. Emerton, H. M. Barstad, and Phyllis A. Bird, vol. 68 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), vii, 3-6.
See also Brenton, “The Apocrypha,” ii.
116 See Craig A. Evans, Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation (Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson, 1992), 13; Mircea Eliade, A History o f Religious Ideas 2: From Gautama Buddha to the
Triumph o f Christianity, trans. Willard R. Trask (Chicago: University o f Chicago Press, 1982), 261; M.
Gilbert, “Wisdom Literature,” in Jewish Writings o f the Second Temple Period, 291-95.
87
117
themes. John Levison, following M. Hengel, believes that the purpose o f the writer is
to “establish unity between creation and the history o f Israel” as stated in the introduction
(1.1-10) and the centerpiece (chapter 24).118 Its prim ary message is: “All wisdom is the
fear o f the Lord/In all wisdom there is the fulfillment o f the law” (19.20).119 W. O. E.
Oesterley regards this book as an apologetic work, demonstrating the superiority o f
Judaism over Greek wisdom, and emphasizing the necessity o f following and obeying the
commandments o f the Law (which is exalted as the highest wisdom o f humanity). The
book is actually a consequence o f the Judaism o f the Dispersion, manifesting the

170
Hellenistic spirit. Tennant concludes that the book is regarded as “a reliable exponent
o f such theological as was orthodox” on the basis o f its uniqueness, namely, it has no
affinity or connection with the pseudepigraphic writings. Thus, he sees the book as a
171
useful guide to the views o f Ben Sirach’s time.
The Creation and Nature o f Eve
John Levison suggests that the entire book does not mention Adam’s
transgression, but exalts his glory instead. This is because the author sees death and
117 M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the
Early Hellenistic Period, vol. 1 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 139.
118 J. Ziegler, Sapientia Iesu filii Sirach (Septuaginta 12/2; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1965; 2d ed., 1980), 128-29, 238-41.
119 See John Levison, Portraits o f Adam, 33.
120 W. O. E. Oesterley, The Books o f the Apocrypha: Their Origin, Teaching and Contents
(London: Robert Scott, 1914), 77-78.
121 F. R. Tennant, The Sources o f the Doctrines o f the Fall and Original Sin (New York:
Schocken Books, 1968), 109.
88
mortality as a natural aspect o f life.122 Probably the only place Ben Sirach mentions Eve
(or the first couple) is found in Sir 17.1—4:
1 K u p io g eyT ioey 4k yhc aQpwTTov

Ka! iTaA.ii' diTeoTpeiJjei' a u to v e ’u; a u tf|v .
2 ppepac api0p,ou Kal K aipov ’48u)Kev a u to ic
Kal ’46cok€v auTote k ^ o vo ia v tw v 4tt’ auxriq.
3 Ka0’ eauxov evebuoev' autoix; Loyuy
K a l K a t ’ e ’lK ova a u io u eiTOLpoev au tou c
4 e0r)Kev t o v 4>6pov auxou 4rrl Traaric oapKoc
Kal KataKupieueLV 0ppia)v Kal TTeTeivwv.123
1 The Lord created man out o f the earth,

and turned him back to it again.
2 He gave them few days, and a short time,
also he gave them power over the things on it.
3He endued them with strength by themselves,
and made them according to his image.
4 He put the fear o f him upon all flesh
and gave him dominion over beasts and birds.124
The description o f humanity here in 17.1-4 is ambiguous. Is the author
referring to the first couple, the representatives o f the human race? Or is he only
talking about human beings in general?126 If the former is correct, then, apparently he
123 Ziegler, Sirach, 201.
124 The translation is from the writer o f this dissertation.
125 Jeremy Cohen advocates that the text refers to the first parents Adam and Eve. Here Ben
Sirach “acknowledged the link between creation in the divine image and the blessings o f Gen 1:28,
underscoring the convenantal significance o f those blessings in no uncertain terms.” See Cohen, “Be Fertile
and Increase, Fill the Earth and M aster I t T h e Ancient and M edieval Career o f a Biblical Text (Ithaca
and London: Cornell University Press, 1989), 69-70. Jack Levison suggests that Ben Sirach shifts from the
third person singular (in 17.1), which refers to Adam, to the third person plural (in 17.2a), which refers to
humanity; see his “Is Eve to Blame? A Contextual Analysis o f Sirach 25:24,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly
47 (1985): 618, n. 3. Also see Alexander A. Di Leila and Patrick W. Skehan, The Wisdom o f Ben Sira,
Anchor Bible, ed. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman, vol. 39 (New York: Doubleday,
1987), 227, 282; Oesterley, The Wisdom ofBen-Sira (Ecclesiasticus), Translations o f Early Documents,
Series 1, Palestinian Jewish Texts (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1916), 51.
126 See F. R. Tennant, The Sources o f the Doctrines o f the Fall and Original Sin (New York:
Schocken, 1968), 113-14; Samuel S. Cohon, “Original Sin,” H ebrew Union College Annual 21 (1948):
284-85; Chazon, “Creation and Fall o f Adam,” 19.
89
retells how God created avGpcoirov from the earth (recorded in Gen 2:7), and immediately
concludes with their127 mortality, namely, returning to the earth (God’s judgm ent in Gen
3:19). He stresses the brevity o f their existence because he believes that man is a limited
mortal creature. God also provided them w ith strength so that they had “power over the
things therein” (v. 2b), and gave “man” dominion over beasts and fowls (v. 4). Ben
Sirach seems to say that God had determined everything for Adam and Eve. He further
affirms the fact (recorded in Gen 1:26-27) that God formed them “according to his
image” (v. 3b). Unfortunately, he does not explain the meaning o f “according to his
image.” The statement made in verse 4 is unclear. W hy is there the shift o f the pronoun
amoiQ “them” to auxou “him” in the text? Does this only refer to Adam having dominion
over the animals and birds? Or does it simply refer to avGpooiTov (in v. 1)?
This writer has observed the parallels between v. 1 and v. 3 as well as v. 2 and
v. 4 as follows:
1 The Lord created man o f the earth, and turned him back to it again.
3 He endued them with strength by themselves, and made them according to his
image,
2 He gave them few days, and a short time, also he gave them power over the
things on it.
4 He put the fear o f him upon all flesh and gave him dominion over beasts and
birds.
The creation o f man (v. la) parallels the Lord making them in His image (v. 3b). It
indicates that the terms “man” and “him” in verse 1 refers to humanity in general, male
and female.128 The Lord gave them “power also over the things” (v. 2b) parallels Him
127 The third person plural pronoun “them” is used throughout the passage except in v. 4. This
may indicate the term avGpcoirov is generic, containing both male and female as that in Gen 1:27.
128 Eve was created from Adam’s rib that was created from the earth. Thus, she finally had to
return to the earth just as Adam. Although all men and women (except Adam and Eve) were bom from
90
giving him “dominion over beasts and birds” (v. 4b). This also indicates that the terms
“man” and “him” in verse 1 refer to humanity in general, male and female. Furthermore,
according to verse 1 “man” has to turn into dust again. If the terms “m an” and “him”
refer to Adam alone, Eve would be exempted from death. Surely this is not the fact. The
mention o f “He gave them few days, and a short time” in verse 2a seems to elaborate the
idea that “man” ultimately has to turn into dust again in verse lb. The description o f
shortness o f human life in verse 2b is more likely a phenomenon o f humanity in general,
not that o f Adam .129 Therefore, it seems to this writer that contextually the term “man” in
verses 1 and 4 more likely refers to humanity in general, male and female. Verses 1 and 4
use “man” and “him” functioning as an inclusion, whereas verses 2 and 3 use “them” to
explain what the terms “man” and “him” meant, namely, humanity in general.
John Levison suggests the book o f Ben Sirach uses Genesis 1-3 in three ways.
First, Adam is described as a glorious ancestor o f Israel in 49.16.130 Second, Adam is
described as lacking wisdom in 24.48.131 Third, Gen 1-3 is used to portray general
aspects o f human life in Sir 17, where he extracts the elements o f the biblical context and
assimilates its original meaning in order to support his own ideas. As a result, he
1
eliminates several elements from the biblical text: temptation, sin, and expulsion. If Sir
women, the Bible says that they are from the earth and will return to the earth just as the first parents (Gen
3:17; cf. ICor 11:12).
129 Adam lived 930 years (Gen 5:5). Nonetheless, Moses expresses the shortness o f human life,
“The length o f our days is seventy years— or eighty, if we have the strength; yet their span is but trouble
and sorrow, for they quickly pass, and we fly away” (Ps 90:10). Comparatively, Adam lived many days (a
very long life) rather than few days. It is likely that Ben Sirach here talks about humanity in general (not
Adam) has few days.
131 Ibid, 242.
91
17.1-4 merely speaks o f the human race in general, then Ben Sirach never mentions Eve
except in Sir 25.24 (if the traditional interpretation o f the text is correct).
Eve: the Origin o f Sin
The passage o f Sir 25.24 is always held by the majority o f scholars to be

1
the earliest extant Jewish literature that depicts the beginning or the origin o f sin and
death brought on by Eve.134 Nonetheless, the entire book emphasizes that mankind is
created mortal according to God’s design right at the beginning. All humans are
responsible for their own evil because they have the ability given by God to choose
between good or evil (15.14; 17.25-18.14).135
Bruce J. Malina points out that a major conviction that was contemporary with
Ben Sirach was that sin was derived from the evil angels who cohabitated with women,
133 Scholars include: Oesterley, Wisdom ofBen-Sira, 76; Warren C. Trenchard, Ben Sira's
View o f Women: A Literary Analysis, Brown Judaic Studies, ed. Jacob Neusner, Wendell S. Dietrich, and
Ernest S. Frerichs, vol. 38 (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1982), 81; John G. Snaith, Ecclesiasticus or The Wisdom
o f Jesus Son o f Sirach, Cambridge Bible Commentary, ed. P. R. Ackroyd, A. R. C. Leaney, and J. W.
Packer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 130; Di Leila and Skehan, Ben-Sira, 348-49;
Claudia V. Camp, “Understanding a Patriarchy: Women in Second Century Jerusalem Through the Eyes o f
Ben Sira,” in “Women Like This”: N ew Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World, 29;
L. H. Brockington, A Critical Introduction to the Apocrypha (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1961), 84; Bruce
J. Malina, “Some Observations on the Origin o f Sin in Judaism and St. Paul,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly
31 (1969): 24; Bernard P. Prusak, “Woman: Seductive Siren and Source o f Sin? Pseudepigraphal Myth and
Christian Origins,” in Religion and Sexism: Images o f Woman in the Jewish and Christian Traditions, ed.
Rosemary Radford Ruether (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974), 96; Henry John Thackeray, The
Relation o f St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought (London: Macmillan, 1900), 32; Cohon, “Original
Sin,” 284; and Moo, “Meaning and Significance,” 69.
134 Trenchard, Ben Sira's View o f Women, 81.
135 See Ziegler, Sirach, 194, 204-7; Snaith, Ecclesiasticus, 130. The issue o f an inclination
(the yezer, the freewill, the ability to choose good or evil) inside a person is sort o f mysterious and
controversial. Whether it is inherited from Adam and Eve or is a divine design from the beginning, the
answer is varied and debated. Nevertheless, if a person really has inherited a sinful nature by birth, then
he/she is destined to sin. Why then is he/she responsible for sinning since he/she has no choice?
Furthermore, did the first couples have the inclination respectively before the transgression? If not, how
could they sin? The issue needs further exploration.
92
based on the exposition o f Genesis 6 :1 -4 .136 Rabbinic theology constantly considered
Adam responsible for bringing sin and death into the world.137 As a result, 25.24 became
1TR
very significant to the portrait o f Eve in Judaism. This portion will focus on examining
two main interpretations o f the present text.
According to Pancratius C. Beentjes, only a portion o f the original Hebrew o f
Sirach exists. Fortunately, the text 25.24 is preserved in Manuscript C V verso.139 The
text reads:
i i t uim nbbm pr nbnn rraxn140
ktto ywocikoc a p x p apaptioci;,

x a l S i ’ auTT]v141 diToGvfioKopev Trame; .142
Alexander A. Di Leila and Patrick W. Skehan, proponents o f the popular view,
divide the first section o f the passage about the evil woman/wife (25.13-26)143 into three
stanzas: verses 13-18, verses 19-22, and verses 23-26. The first stanza talks about what
evils women are able to commit. Ben Sirach confesses that he “would rather d w e ll. . .
with a dragon or a lion . . . than with an evil woman” (v. 16). Stanza two lists the dreary
136 See ibid., referring to Jub 5.1-6; 10:1, 5-9; 1 Enoch 6.1-6; 7:1-6; CDC 2.16-18.
137 See also Trenchard, Ben S ira ’s View o f Women, 82,254, n. 224; Snaith, Ecclesiasticus,
130. Unfortunately, the reasons for blaming Adam are not mentioned in the rabbinic writings.
138 Malina, “Some Observations,” 22-24.
139 Beentjes, Ben Sira in Hebrew, 17.
140 Ibid., 99.
141 Trenchard appends that some Greek minuscules, such as John o f Damascus, Antonius
Melissa, and Antiochus Monachus, read Si’ atrrrji; “through her.” See Trenchard, Ben Sira's View o f
Women, 244, n. 81.
142 See Ziegler, Sirach, 245. Jack Levison refers to F. Vattioni, Ecclesiastico: Testo ebraico
con apparato critico e versioni greca, latina e siriaca, Pubblicazioni del Seminario di Semitistica, vol. 1
(Naples: Istituto Orientale di Napoli, 1968), 136. See Jack Levison, “Is Eve to Blame?” 617, n. 2.
143 Ziegler, Sirach, 244-47.
93
litany o f woes that a husband would suffer from his evil wife. Ben Sirach advises man
not to marry a woman merely because o f her beauty or her riches. The last stanza talks
about the distress the husband o f an evil wife would suffer from her. Ben Sirach suggests
the husband is better o ff divorcing her if she is out o f his control. Di Leila and Skehan
translate 25.24 as “In a woman was sin’s beginning, on her account we all die.” 144 They
believe that Ben Sirach alludes to Gen 3:6 because the woman was chronologically the
first person who ate the forbidden fruit.145
John G. Snaith believes that Ben Sirach has a prejudice against women that is
not representative o f Judaism. Rabbinic tradition usually considers Adam as primarily
responsible for the origin o f sin and death, but Ben Sirach holds Eve responsible for the
origin o f sin and death. Snaith observes that elsewhere in the book, death is considered
“the Lord’s decree for all living men” (41.4).146 Thus, death is part o f the natural order
for humans appointed by God, rather than a punishment for sin.147 However, he has no
further explanation or comment on the inconsistency o f such phenomena.148
Warren C. Trenchard suggests reading the distich o f 25.24 as a unit, because it
is independent in the distich pattern. Its topic is unrelated to the previous and the
following distiches apart from the common theme o f the section. He argues that Ben
144 Di Leila, Ben Sira, 343.
145 Ibid., 347-49.
147 Perhaps two passages can strengthen this view. First, God said to Adam, “. . . you return to
the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return” (Gen 3:19). Adam
would die physically because he was formed from dust (a mortal element). Second, God said, “The man has
now become like one o f us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take
also from the tree o f life and eat, and live forever” (Gen 3:22). In other words, the first couples remained
mortal if they could not eat the tree o f life. Apparently, the first parents lost the chance o f having
immortality because o f their first sin.
148 Snaith, Ecclesiasticus, 130.
94
Sirach here again has reflected the elements o f the Genesis 3 material as he had done
previously in verse 15.149 The text obviously refers to Eve as the origin or cause o f sin
and death for her descendants. Even though the usage o f the Hebrew term nbnn is only
temporal, designating “beginning,” the meaning o f verse 24b is definitely causal. Ben
Sirach mainly emphasizes the role o f the woman in the negative incident rather than the
details o f the incident itself. Verse 24 is placed here to be a climax to the whole section
about an evil wife, with following distiches as a denouement. It reflects that both sin and
death, accrued to all generations, originated from a woman, Eve.150
Samuel S. Cohon thinks Ben Sirach here definitely connects sin with Eve. Sir
25.24 completely contradicts the general view o f the book, which considers death as a
law from everlasting (14.17; 17.1-2; 40.11).151 According to the book, Ben Sirach
emphasizes the universality o f human sin (8.5),152 and death as a result o f individual sin
(21.1-3; 27.10).153 He alleges the doctrine o f the Yezer154 as the source o f human
sinfulness, and declares that sin is the consequence o f the human’s own wrong choice. At
the same time, he exhorts his audience to obey the Torah because anyone who keeps the
149 This writer suggests that though 25.15 might allude to the Genesis 3 material, it is not a
corollary to the implication that the woman in 25.24 refers to Eve. The context is not clear enough to
indicate that Ben Sirach moves the scene o f the verse to Eve’s incident. This view is also not supported by
the author’s view on the cause o f sin and death in the large portion o f the book. Besides, Ben Sirach
apparently never mentions the first woman, Eve, in his entire book. Regarding the interpretation o f v. 15,
see Trenchard, Ben Sira's View o f Women, 71-72 for details.
150 Trenchard, Ben Sira's View o f Women, 81-82.
151 See Ziegler, Sirach, 191, 201, 314 respectively; 284-86.
153 Ibid., 220-21, 251.
154 Cohon believes that to Ben Sirach "n is “the inclination o f flesh and blood” that contains
the capability to do good or bad, namely, the free will o f humanity. It is a neutral impulse. See Cohon,
“Original Sin,” 297-98. Also see John Levison, Portraits o f Adam, 48.
95
Law can control his Yezer (21.11).155 In sum, the book emphasizes the ideas o f human
free will, o f the saving power o f the Torah, and o f repentance.
Henry St. John Thackeray affirms that Eve was the first to sin, but she is also
the cause o f death to her posterity.156 The Hebrew term nbnn inclines toward the temporal
sense, so that the meaning o f the text is that Eve was the first to sin, but not the origin or
the cause o f all later sin. Besides, according to Ben Sirach, the real cause o f sin is the evil
Yezer. Nonetheless, mankind has freedom o f choice and is responsible for his actions
1e n
(See 15.15, 17; 16.12). The first part o f the passage does not attribute the origin o f sin
to Eve, but the second part asserts a causal bond between the primal sin and death.158
Tennant questions the traditional view after he determined that the Hebrew
term nbnn denoted by the Greek term dpxq has a predominantly temporal sense meaning
“beginning.” He suggests that the author connects Eve’s sin to the universal death in the
second clause o f the verse. The use o f nbnn in the first clause cannot preclude the idea o f
such a connection. He uses 17.1-14 to argue that Ben Sirach speaks o f mankind as
created by God as mortal. The first and the succeeding generations o f mankind have
possessed “undiminished freedom, responsibility, and capacity for righteousness.”
Human depravity is caused by one’s own natural and essential frailty (17.30-32).159 Each
156 Thackeray, St. Paul to Jewish Thought, 32—34.
157 Ziegler, Sirach, 194-95, 197-98.
158 Alden Lloyd Thompson, Responsibility fo r Evil in The Theodicy o f IV Ezra (Missoula, M T:
Scholars Press, 1977), 29.
96
human is responsible for his own sin (21.27).160 There is no doctrine o f original sin found
in Sirach.161 Thus, it is difficult to conciliate with the idea that Eve’s transgression is the
cause o f the sinfulness o f humanity. The emphasis o f 25.24 is placed on the woman
rather than on the introduction o f sin and death.162 He concludes, “The Fall was the cause
I /T T
o f death, but only the beginning o f sin.”
However, Jack Levison argues that the text attributes sin and death to the evil
wife who is discussed in the immediate context. He paraphrases the passage as: “From
the [evil] wife is the beginning o f sin, and because o f her we [husbands] all die.” He
presents three main points to argue against the traditional view o f the text. First, the
traditional interpretation explicitly contradicts Ben Sirach’s view that human mortality is
God’s original will for humanity in his creation.164 Death did not enter the world because
o f Eve’s sin (16.26-17.10).165 Second, according to Ben Sirach’s interpretation o f
Genesis 1-3, apparently he does not connect sin or death with Adam and Eve’s
disobedience. Contrariwise, he uses neutral depictions and positive comments on
humankind. The fall (eating from the forbidden tree), the expulsion from the garden, and
the punishment by death are not found in his composition. Third, the traditional
exposition contradicts the contexts o f the passage. The immediate context o f Sir 25.24 is
160 Ibid., 224.
161 Tennant, Doctrines o f the Fall, 112-13. Tennant also examines Ben Sirach’s teaching on
the introduction o f death; see 117-20.
162 Ibid., 117, n. 3.
163 Ibid., 121. Tenant seems to suggest that Eve was the first person to sin, but she is not the
cause or the origin o f human sin.
164 Ben Sirach advocates that death is “the decree o f the Lord to all flesh” and “the good
pleasure o f the Most High” (Sir 41 ,3b, 4a).
97
discussing the dreary consequences the bad wife brings to her husband. Ben Sirach’s
advice for husbands is either to control her appropriately or to divorce her immediately.
The larger context o f the present passage is within the discussion o f the evil wife and the
good wife. An insertion o f a statement concerning universal sin and death would interrupt
and disrupt the content o f the whole section.166
Then Jack Levison construes and scrutinizes the present text carefully. First,
he suggests the term rtm» must be translated “from the wife,” because Ben Sirach in this
section only talks about wives (not any woman or daughter) in relation to their husbands.
All the twenty-one occurrences o f the term nm should be translated as “wife” because
only one topic is treated here. Second, pa nbnn means the evil wife is “the beginning o f
sin” as her righteous husband is led into sin by her. The primary theme o f 25.21-26 is the
advice that a husband must control his wife. In Ben Sirach’s teaching, women are
regarded as the worst among all sinners (42.12-14). They are snares to men by being
capable o f controlling and leading them to destruction (9.2-6, 9).168 A wicked person
m ay lead a righteous man into sin, so the righteous man should avoid such kind o f person
(12.13-14).169 Putting these two beliefs together may explain how easy it is for Ben
Sirach to regard the evil wife as the beginning o f sin for her husband, and by means o f
her sin she will lead him into sin, resulting in death.170
166 Jack Levison, “Is Eve to Blame?” 617-19.
167 Ziegler, Sirach, 323. Ben Sirach is discussing wicked women (not about Eve or women in
general), who try to trap, control, and lead men to destruction.
169 Ibid., 182.
170 Jack Levison, “Is Eve to Blame?” 619-20.
98
Third, the subject o f the verb uina “we die” refers to husbands (including Ben
Sirach him self and his addressees) rather than the whole human race. In 25.16 Ben Sirach
171
says: “I would rather dwell with a lion and a dragon/than dwell with an evil wife.” This
indicates that he would like to include him self in the discussion. His shift to the use o f
second person later in verses 21 and 25-26 also can explain how natural it is for him to
maintain the personal address in verse 24. Besides, his advice for his audience to control
or divorce an evil wife shows that his addressees include husbands. He addresses them as
“a husband to husbands about good and evil wives.” The term nun (“we die”) is a
hyperbolic statement presenting the destructive consequence an evil wife can bring to her
husband. In 26.1 Ben Sirach says a good wife wills double her husband’s days (another
hyperbolic statement).172 He uses the doubling and the ending o f a husband’s life in the
last and the first o f two different portions to emphasize the significance o f having a good
wife and the necessity o f controlling or divorcing an evil w ife.173
Finally, Jack Levison appeals to a parallel found in a fragment from Qumran
4Q 184.8-9, which depicts the influences o f an evil woman upon men. These two verses
read as follows:174
4Q184/4Q07/£» o f the Wicked Woman175
172 Ibid., 246.
173 Jack Levison, “Is Eve to Blame?” 619.
174 The Hebrew version and the English translation are quoted from Florentino Garcia
Martinez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds., The D ead Sea Scrolls Study Edition: 1Q1-4Q273, vol. 1 (Leiden:
Brill, 1997), 376-77.
175 Regarding the reference to different views o f interpretation o f “the Wiles o f the Wicked
W ife,” see this dissertation, 101, n. 181.
99
[bijs1? rrrren rpbnu ‘pis1: mn ’in ‘pis s n Sis n’toxn rwm nm [.] ’tko 8
maoia rrmîna nrtan ’b’ao rrrnmiNi mo o n mom x’s no 'aom 9
8 those who shine [.] brightly. She is the start o f all the ways o f wickedness.
Alas! She is the ruination o f all who inherit her, and the calamity o f a[ll]
9 who grasp her. For her paths are paths o f death, and her roads are tracks to
sin. Her trails lead astray
Jack Levison points out the significance o f this depiction o f the wicked woman in two
aspects. First, it consists o f the ideas o f sin, death, starting, and woman, without alluding
to Eve. Second, it parallels Sir 25.24 in the sense that both writers depict the influences o f
an evil woman upon men. Both o f them warn that connection with evil women is “the
17f\
beginning o f the inexorable path toward death.”
I f Sir 17.1—4 is a reference to the first couple, then Eve has the same essence
and equal status as Adam (created in the image o f God and given dominion over other
creatures) before God. Contrariwise, if it is a reference to humanity in general, then Ben

177
Sirach actually does not make any comment on Eve at all. Apparently, all scholars will
agree that as a whole Ben Sirach does not mention the first parents’ transgression except
the text in 25.24. Chazon points out that the author de-emphasizes Adam’s sin in order to
argue for his view o f the universal condition o f humanity, “free will and knowledge.” 178
Furthermore, one can see the problems o f the traditional view easily from how
the proponents construe the passage. For instance, Trenchard notes that the traditional
176 Jack Levison, “Is Eve to Blame?” 622. Ben Witherington, Women and the Genesis o f
Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), points out that the rabbis actually recognize
the potential influence o f a woman over a man. They advocate: “if a pious man marries a wicked woman he
will become wicked, but if a wicked man marries a pious woman, she will make him pious.”
177 This writer prefers this latter option, because the immediate context focuses on the human
race in general. The first view is possible but not very likely.
178 Chazon, “Creation and Fall o f Adam,” 21.
100
view o f the text apparently contradicts the rest o f Ben Sirach’s teaching on the origin o f
sin and death, but has no explanation. He disagrees with Jack Levison’s view without
giving reasons. He ignores the fact that the temporal meaning o f the Hebrew term nbnn.
On the one hand, he suggests that verse 24 is a kind o f climax to the whole section on the
evil wife. On the other hand, he emphasizes that the present text must be interpreted
independently as a distisch without any connection to what precedes or follows it.179
Di Leila and Skehan do not really interpret the text, though they divide this
section well into three stanzas and point out the main theme o f each section. They simply
combine their own presuppositions o f the connotations o f the Genesis account o f Eve and
those debated passages o f Paul in the New Testament (2 Cor 11:3 and 1 Tim 2:14), and
conclude that Ben Sirach alluded to Genesis 3:6.
When considering Jack Levison’s view, his arguments are not without
problems. He neglects the variety o f thinkings on different issues in Judaism, for instance,
the tension between the consequence o f the first transgression and the personal
responsibility o f human free will. His appeal to the parallels between Sir 25.24 and
I OA
4Q184 is unconvincing. Perhaps there are similarities between these two texts, but they
are not parallels. M any scholars believe that the wicked woman in 4Q184 refers to Rome
and evil.181 Jack Levison needs to explain w hy the wicked wife causes “all” husbands to
179 Cohon and Thackeray have the same mistake.
180 Holmes agrees that 4Q184.8 parallels Jack Levison’s translation, but questions the idea
that an allusion to Eve having brought sin and death will cause an interruption to the section; see her work,
270-71.
181 For details see Rick D. Moore, “Personification o f the Seduction o f Evil: ‘the Wiles o f the
Wicked Woman,’” Revue de Qumran 10 (1981): 505-19; Anatole M. Gazov-Ginzberg, “Double Meaning
in a Qumaran Work ( ‘the Wiles o f the Wicked Woman’),” Revue de Qumran 6 (1969): 281-85; Hans
Burgmann, “‘The Wicked Woman’: Der Makkabaer Simon?” Revue de Qumran 8 (1974): 323-59; John M.
101
die. Even though the meaning o f the Hebrew term nbnn is only temporal, designating
“beginning” rather than “cause/origin,” the passage could still be understood as that sin
and death started with Eve, though not ended with her. Eve is still appealed to as the
example and lesson in both sin and death. Contextually, there is something about Eve that
causes Ben Sirach to warn about evil women.
Although Levison’s view is inadequate to remove the traditional view,
advocates o f the traditional view still have to explore better arguments to strengthen their
own view before completely denying the challenge made by Levison. This writer does
not think the traditional view is conclusive. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that in the
Wisdom o f Ben Sirach Adam comparatively is more predominant than Eve. As
mentioned above Adam is described as a glorious ancestor o f Israel (49.16) and as
lacking wisdom (24.48), whereas Eve’s existence in the entire book is controversial.
1 Enoch
The complete form o f 1 Enoch exists only in the Ethiopic version. E. Isaac
suggests that the original text may have been written partially in Aramaic and partially in
Hebrew.182 The book is significant and well known to many Jews (in particular the
Essenes) and early Christians (particularly the Church Fathers). The author transforms the
idea in Gen 6:1—4, that o f the sons o f God who cohabited with the daughters o f the people,
into a theology o f fallen angels in the first section, the Parable o f Enoch or the Book o f
Allegro, ‘“the Wiles o f the Wicked Woman’: A Sapiential Work from Qumran's Fourth Cave,” Palestine
Exploration Quarterly 96 (1964): 53-55.
182 E. Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in OTP, vol. 1, 6; Michael Edward Stone,
“Apocalyptic Literature,” in Jewish Writings o f the Second Temple Period, 396.
102
the Watchers (1-36).183 The beginning chapters o f this section are mainly a call for the
righteousness o f man (chaps. 2-5). This summon mainly emphasizes that the regularity o f
the natural phenomena is established on morality and provides a paradigm for human
action. It is followed by a large section dealing with the fall and o f the Watchers and its
consequences (chaps. 6-11) and with Enoch’s intercession on behalf o f the Watchers and
the announcement o f their final judgm ent (chaps. 12-16).184 The book does not have the
paradise story except a short and implicit account o f the transgression o f Adam and Eve
found in one verse (32.6). Tennant dates the Parable o f Enoch (1-36) around 167 B .C.185
The Sin o f Eve
According to the author o f 1 Enoch, the Watchers, the fallen angels described
in Genesis 6, have caused all human corruptness. They brought the Deluge, the post-
Deluge demons, and the present sinfulness into the world.186 Only when the angel
Raphael introduced Enoch to the tree o f knowledge was the story o f the fall o f the first
I 0*7
parents reshaped and retold very briefly in 32.3-6:
And I came to the garden o f righteousness and saw beyond those trees m any (other)
large (ones) growing there—their fragrance sweet, large ones, with much elegance,
and glorious. And the tree o f wisdom, o f which one eats and knows great wisdom,
(was among them). It looked like the colors o f the carob tree, its fruit like very
beautiful grape clusters, and the fragrance o f this tree travels and reaches afar. And
I said, “This tree is beautiful and its appearance beautiful and pleasant!” Then the
holy angel Raphael, who was with me, responded to me and said, “This very thing
183 Isaac, “1 Enoch,” 8-9.
184 See Stone, “Apocalyptic Literature,” 400-1.
185 See Tennant, Doctrine o f the Fall, 181. Also see Evans, Noncanonical Writings, 23; Isaac,
“ 1 Enoch,” 6-7 . VanderKam dates it between 200 and 150 B.C. See VanderKam, Early Judaism, 91.
186 See Isaac, “1 Enoch,” 5-6.
187 See Michael A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book o f Enoch: A New Edition in the Light o f the
Aramaic D ead Sea Fragments, vol.l (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978), 102-103.
103
is the tree o f wisdom from which your old father and aged mother, they who are
your precursors, ate and came to know wisdom; and (consequently) their eyes were
opened and they realized that they were naked and (so) they were expelled from the
garden.” 188
Here, Eve is recognized as the precursor o f humanity, as Adam. Both o f them ate the
forbidden fruit and were expelled. Nonetheless, their transgression is not considered as
the cause or origin o f human sinfulness and death. The author seems to empathize with
Adam and Eve as he repeatedly mentions the appearance o f the forbidden fruit is
beautiful, pleasant, elegant, and fragrant. Who could resist such an adorable tree?
Another passage, found in The Similitudes (37-71),189 states that Eve was
misled by one o f the chiefs o f the fallen angels:
The name o f the first is Yeqon; he is the one who misled all the children o f the
angels, brought them down upon the earth, and perverted them by the daughters o f
the people. The second was named A sb’el; he is the one who gave the children o f
the holy angels an evil counsel and misled them so that they would defile their
bodies by the daughters o f the people. The third was named Gader’el; this one is he
who showed the children o f the people all the blows o f death, who misled Eve, who
showed the children o f the people (how to make) the instruments o f death (such as)
the shield, the breastplate, and the sword for warfare, and all (the other) instruments
o f death to the children o f the people. Through their agency (death) proceeds
against the people who dwell upon the earth, from that day forevermore. (69.4—7)190
This section primarily speaks o f the names and misdeeds o f the fallen angels,
particularly the chiefs o f the fallen angels. The third chief angel Gader’el showed the
children o f the people all the blows o f death, namely, the sword for warfare and all
instrument o f death. He also misled Eve.
188 The translation is from Isaac, “1 Enoch,” 28.
189 Isaac, “1 Enoch,” 7, concludes that 1 Enoch consisted o f The Similitudes by the end o f the
first century A.D.
190 Knibb, Enoch, 200-201. The translation is from Isaac, “1 Enoch,” Ibid., 47—48.
104
Cohon points out the apparent inconsistency o f the origin o f sin in 1 Enoch.
On the one hand, the author blames sin on Satan, who misled the angels and used them to
lead God’s people by means o f human daughters (54.6; 69.5). He charges all sinfulness to
A za’zel, who taught humanity all kinds o f worldly unrighteousness and showed them all
heavenly secrets (8.1-4; 9.8; 10.8). On the other hand, he emphasizes that all sin is due to
one’s own devising. Everyone should be responsible for his own sin and is subject to
punishment. Nevertheless, sin is not unavoidable (98.4; 9.14).191 This writer understands
these two different perspectives o f human sin and death as two explicit tensions existing
in Judaism. They are not contradictory to each other but are two facets o f the issue o f sin
and death in the minds o f the sages and rabbis. The matter is how to balance these two
tensions appropriately.
In summary, the author o f 1 Enoch recognizes Eve (same as Adam) to be the
precursor o f the human race. She was misled by the fallen angel. Both Adam and Eve ate
the forbidden fruit and were expelled from Eden. There is no mention o f the transmission
o f sin and death from Eve (or Adam) to humanity. As a whole, the book holds Satan and
his subjects, the Watchers, to be the culprit o f all human sinfulness and death (6.1-6; 7 .1 -
6; 15.2-12; 16.1).192
The Book of Jubilees
The Book o f Jubilees was written in Hebrew by a Pharisee o f Palestine shortly
191 See Cohon, “Original Sin,” 286.
192 Tennant suggests that the Watchers, who are subjects o f Satan, are the cause o f human
corruption. See Tennant, Doctrine o f the Fall, 188—90 for details. Also see Thompson, Responsibility
forEvil, 30-3 1 ,4 2 ; Prusak, “Woman: Seductive Siren?” 90-91; Malina, “Some Observations,” 22-23;
Eliade, A History o f Religious Ideas, 268-69.
105
101
after 160 B.C. It is a rewritten version o f Genesis 1-Exodus 14 by a lot o f additions
according to the interests and purpose o f the author. It is considered to be a haggadic
commentary on Genesis.194 The author emphasizes that the Jewish Law is a universal
expression o f God’s will for eternity in order to defend “Judaism against the
disintegrating effects o f Hellenism.”195 Unfortunately, he does not provide many
materials concerning Eve. His focus is on Adam, one o f the honorable Patriarchs o f Israel
portrayed in the book (3.27-32).
The account o f the creation o f the first human being is stated in 2.14:
And after all o f this, he made man—male and female he made them— and he gave
him dominion over everything which was upon the earth and which was in the seas
and over everything which flies, and over beasts and cattle and everything which
moves upon the earth or above the whole earth. And over all this he gave him
dominion.196
John Levison follows M. Testuz, postulating that this passage originally refers only to the
creation o f Adam. The phrase “male and female” is a later interpolation.197 He presents
193 See van Ruiten, “Creation o f Man and Woman,” 40; O. S. Wintermute, “Jubilees,” in The
O ld Testament Pseudepigrapha: Expansions the “Old Testament" and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical
Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments ofLostJudeo-H ellenistic Works, ed. James H.
Charlesworth, vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 43-46.
194 Van Ruiten affirms that the book was originally written in Hebrew because o f the
discovery o f at least fourteen fragments in Qumran. At first, the Hebrew text was translated into Greek and
Syriac. See Van Ruiten, “Creation o f Man and Woman,” 40, n. 15. Also see James C. VanderKam, Textual
and Historical Studies in the Book o f Jubilees (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977), 283; Tennant,
Doctrine o f the Fall, 191; Evans, Noncanonical Writings, 31; Nickelsburg, “The Bible Rewritten and
Expanded,” 97, 103.
195 John Levison, Portraits o f Adam, 89.
196 The translation o f all citations o f Jubilees in this section is from Wintermute, “Jubilees.”
This passage is on p. 57.
197 M. Testuz, Les idees religieuses du Livre des Jubiles (Paris: Marcelin-Berthelot, 1960), 45.
He mainly argues that Adam’s creation happened in the first week whereas Eve’s formation occurred in the
second week.
106
four reasons for this view. First, the author simplifies the account by containing only one
version o f the creation o f man (2.14), the beasts (2.11-13), and then woman (3:4-7).
Adam was created on the sixth day o f the first w eek while Eve was created on the sixth
day o f the second week. Second, the use o f the singular masculine pronoun throughout
2.14 indicates this idea. Third, the privilege o f dominion over every other creature is
endowed to Adam alone. Fourth, the manuscripts B C M have the adjective “one” before
“man” in 2.14. The command to “be fruitful and multiply” is eliminated because only
Adam was created here.198
However, van Ruiten points out that the Qumran fragment o f Jubilees
(4Q216 Col. 7) overrules the view o f a later interpolation in 2.14. Based on
palaeographical reasons, the manuscript can be dated between 125-100 B.C. The text
reads: am nra napr ~cr mxn m xmu “he made mankind— male and female he made
them.” In addition, the author states that God completed all his works on the sixth day in
the first week (2.15-16,23).199 So actually Eve was created in the first week. The
formation o f Eve in the second week only concerns the presentation o f her to Adam (see
3.8). Although the text talks about one figure onxn, Eve is part o f this first human being,
and is also given dominion over all other creatures.200
198 John Levison, Portraits o f Adam, 90-91.
199 See van Ruiten, “Creation o f Man and Woman,” 46-48 for details. He has made a
comparison between Jub. 2:14 and Gen 1:26-28. R. H. Charles translates the text: “And after all this He
created man, a man and a woman created He them, and gave him dominion over all that is upon the earth.”
See Charles, The Book o f Jubilees or The Little Genesis, Translations o f Early Documents Series, vol. 1
(London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1927), 43.
200 Van Ruiten, “Creation o f Man and Woman,” 47, states further: “It is unlikely that the
author o f Jubilees envisages the first human being as androgyne. It is mainly a male being, but with a
female part. This female part is considered to be the wife o f the male, but it has still to be formed into a
concrete woman.”
107
An explicit account concerning the creation o f Eve is specified in 3.4-6:
4And the LORD said to us, “It is not good that the man should be alone. Let us make
for him a helper who is like him. 5And the LORD our God cast a deep sleep upon
him, and he slept. And he took one bone from the midst o f his bones for the woman.
And that rib was the origin o f the woman from the midst o f his bones. And he built
up the flesh in place o f it, and he constructed a woman. 6And he awakened Adam
from his sleep, and when he awoke, he stood up on the sixth day. And he brought
her to him and he knew her and said to her, “This is now bone o f m y bone and flesh
from m y flesh. This one will be called m y wife because she was taken from her
husband.”201
The account rewrites the biblical text o f Gen 2:18, 21-22 literally and closely except for
some insertions. It stresses that God took one o f Adam ’s bones to build the woman and
brought her to Adam on the sixth day. Eve is A dam ’s “helper,”202 like him. Adam clearly
stated that Eve was his wife because she was derived from him. One striking addition is
that when Eve was brought to Adam, they had sexual intercourse (3.6d: “he knew
her”).203
Another account o f the creation o f Adam and Eve is found in 3 .8 -9 ,1 2 :
sin the first week Adam was created and also the rib, his wife. And in the second
week he showed her to him . And therefore the commandment was given to observe
seven days for a male, but for a female twice seven days in their impurity. 9And
after forty days were completed for Adam in the land where he was created, we
brought him into the Garden o f Eden so that he might work it and guard it. And on
the eighth day his wife was also brought in. And after this she entered the garden o f
E d e n . . . . nA nd when she finished those eighty days, we brought her into the
garden o f Eden because it is more holy than any Land.204
This passage has no parallel in Genesis. Nonetheless, it affirms that both Adam and Eve
were created in the first week. God showed Eve to Adam in the second week. This
201 Wintermute, “Jubilees,” 59.
202 Charles translates the term itu as “helpmeet.” See Charles, Book o f Jubilees, 46-47.
203 Ibid., 43.
204 Wintermute, “Jubilees,” 59. According to Jubilees, Adam did not name the land.
108
overrules the view that Eve was created in the second week. Furthermore, the text
indicates that Adam and Eve were created outside the Garden o f Eden. The entrance o f
Adam into the garden was delayed by 40 days whereas for Eve it was delayed 80 days.
Van Ruiten suggests that the author uses this delay as “an etiological reason” for the
halakha o f the woman who is giving birth stated in Leviticus 12.205 John Levison points
out that the author is superimposing his Tendenz upon the Genesis narrative. The purpose
o f the entire passage (3.8-14) is to encourage and exhort the audience to holiness.206
The account o f the seven years o f inhabitation o f Adam and Eve in the Garden
o f Eden is uniquely found in 3.15-16:
isAnd during the first week o f the first jubilee Adam and his wife had been in the
garden o f Eden for seven years tilling and guarding it. And we gave him work and
we were teaching him to do everything which was appropriate for tilling. i6And he
was tilling. And he was naked, but he neither knew it nor was he ashamed. And he
was guarding the garden from the birds and beasts and cattle and gathering its fruit
and eating. And he used to set aside the rest for him self and his wife. And what was
being guarded he set aside.207
Only the first clause o f verse 15 mentions that both Adam and Eve tilled and guarded the
Garden o f Eden as they had dwelled in it for seven years. The rest o f the passage only
talks about how Adam received the knowledge o f tilling and guarding the garden. This
reflects that the author takes Adam to be the central person in Eden.
The Sin o f Eve and Her Judgment
Subsequently, the transgression o f the first couple is recorded in 3.17-22:
205 See van Ruiten, “Creation o f Man and Woman,” 48. See also VanderKam, The Book o f
Jubilees, Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, ed. Michael A. Knibb (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 2001), 30-31.
207 Wintermute, “Jubilees,” 59.
109
17At the end o f seven years .. . the serpent came and . . . said to the woman, “The
LORD commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from any tree which is in the
garden.’” lsAnd she said to him, “The LORD said, ‘Eat from all o f the fruit o f the
trees . . . ’ But the LORD said to us, ‘You shall not eat from the fruit o f the tree
which is in the midst o f the garden, and you shall not touch it lest you die.’” i9And
the serpent said to the woman, “It is not (true) that you shall surely die because the
LORD knows that on the day you eat o f it your eyes will become opened and you
will become like gods . . . ” 2oAnd the woman saw the tree th a t. . . it was pleasing
to the eye . . . and she ate. 2 iAnd she first covered her shame with a fig leaf, and
then she gave it to Adam and he ate and his eyes were opened and he saw that he
was naked. 22And he took a fig leaf and sewed it and made an apron for himself.
And he covered his shame.208
The author closely follows Genesis 3. However, he emphasizes that G od’s command was
given to Adam and Eve at the same time (in 3.18 the woman replied, “The LORD said to
us”). He elaborates and stresses how the first couple tried to cover up their shame after
the transgression. Eve covered her shame with a fig leaf before she gave the fruit to
Adam. After recognizing his nakedness, Adam also took a fig leaf to make an apron to
cover his shame. The author seems to relate shame to covering one’s nudity.209
After the fall, God was angry with Eve “because she had listened to the voice
o f the serpent” and had eaten the forbidden fruit (3.23). As a result, she would be ruled
over by Adam. Her grief and birth pangs would be multiplied (3.24). After Eve’s
punishment was announced, God said to Adam (without anger), “Because you listened to
the voice o f your wife and you ate from that tree from which I commanded you that you
should not e a t. . . ” (3.25). Apparently, Adam ’s problem is that he listened to Eve and
208 Wintermute, “Jubilees,” 59-60.
209 See Chazon, “Creation and Fall o f Adam,” 21; John Levison, Portraits o f Adam, 93. Both
o f them suggest that the insertion reshapes Adam as an honorable ancestor who establishes historical
precedent for the law o f nudity.
110
violated God’s command not to eat the forbidden fruit.210 Adam named his wife Eve after
they were expelled from the Garden o f Eden and dwelt in the land o f ’Elda (3.32-33).211
Is there any implication (or reason) for this new arrangement (the order) o f the event o f
Adam ’s naming Eve? If name giving implies exercising authority, then Eve’s
subordination to Adam did not occur in the Garden o f Eden in Jubilees. In other words,
Adam ’s dominion over Eve was one o f the consequences o f the first transgression.
Though the author o f Jubilees, on the whole, assimilates Genesis 1-3 without
important alterations, he colors the accounts in many ways, according to his own Tendenz,
by means o f adaptations, eliminations, and insertions. For instance, the creation o f the
first couple happened as a presentation o f obeying the Law (3.8-14). Eve was created by
God and was given dominion over everything on earth. She shared the same
responsibility o f tilling and guarding the Garden o f Eden.212
Eve was punished because she had listened to the serpent’s words, but she was
not held responsible for A dam ’s transgression. Her subordination to Adam happens as
one o f the consequences o f the first transgression. There is no mention o f sin and death or
any bad moral consequences transmitted from her (or Adam) to the human race. In fact,
the Creator (even though he was angry with her) did not curse Eve (or Adam) but the
210 There is no mention o f Gen 3:15. However, the author inserts a section about Adam’s
sacrifice on their expulsion-day and the law o f covering shame (3.26-31) that is not found in Genesis. See
Wintermute, “Jubilees,” 60 for details.
211 Genesis records that Adam named his wife Eve (Gen 3:20) after God had announced his
punishment (Gen 3:17-19) and before the expulsion from the Garden o f Eden (Gen 3:23).
212 See John Levison, Portraits o f Adam, 96-97; also Chazon, “Creation and Fall o f Adam,”
21; and Tennant, Doctrine o f the Fall, 192.
Ill
serpent.213 The author holds the Watchers to be responsible for the cause o f sin and
universal death (4.15,22, 23; 5.1-2, 6 -1 1 ).214
It is noteworthy that the author o f the Book o f Jubilees explicitly portrays and
exalts Adam as the first o f the virtuous Patriarchs o f Israel. Adam is the central person o f
the narrative (3.15-16). Eve is created to relieve A dam ’s aloneness (3.1-7). Adam ’s
active and predominant role o f ruling the land is emphasized, even as Eve shares in it. He
acts as a priest (or perhaps high priest), presenting his offering in the Garden o f Eden,
which is regarded as G od’s sanctuary (3.12-13; 8.19). All these might imply that the
author o f the Book o f Jubilees assumes Adam to be the assigned leader in the couple.
The Wisdom of Solomon
The W isdom o f Solomon was originally written in Greek before the time o f
Philo.215 Its purpose is to encourage Jews who yielded to Greek culture to take pride in
213 According to God’s announcement in Genesis, only the serpent and the earth are cursed
after the first transgression (Gen 3:14, 17). Procreation and working (tilling) the ground originally are
blessings (responsibilities) from the Creator (Gen 1:28; 2:15). Even when these two responsibilities are
added with pain and hardship because o f the punishment o f sin, still they are not cruses. The authors o f
Jewish literature do not advocate that the punishments o f Adam and Eve are curses (Gen 3:15-19; Jub.
3.23-25; Sib. Or. 1.54—58; 2 Enoch 31.3-32.1). The Bible says: “The Lord’s curse is on the house o f the
wicked but he blesses the home o f the righteous” (Prov 3:33). Only Cain is under God’s curse after having
killed his brother Abel (Gen 4:11) and is seen as the father o f the wicked in Judaism. For more information
see Richard S. Hess, “The Roles o f the Woman and the Man in Genesis 3,” Themelios 18 (April 1993): 17;
Adrien Janis Bledstein, “Was Eve Cursed?” Bible Review 9 (1993): 42-45.
214 See Prusak, “Woman: Seductive Siren?” 92.
215 Tennant thinks the date and the authorship o f the book are probably insoluble. See Tennant,
Doctrine o f the Fall, 123. Brenton suggests that the book is written by an Alexandrian Jew possibly a short
while earlier than the Christian era. See Brenton, “The Apocrypha,” ii. James M. Reese dates it after 28 B.C.
See see Reese, The Book o f Wisdom, Song o f Songs, Old Testament Message: A Biblical-Theological
Commentary, ed. Carroll Stuhlmueller and Martin McNamara, vol. 20 (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1983), 17.
Nickelsburg provides good introductory material o f the book. See Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between
the Bible and the Mishnah: A H istorical and Literary Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 175.
112
the Law,216 their traditional faith (18.4).217 John Levison suggests that the author
interprets the creation narratives o f Genesis 1-3 according to the Hellenistic conception
o f the immortality o f the soul (2.23-24).218 He argues that immortality is accessible to
mankind because mankind is created in the image o f God. He construes the “image” as a
capacity to live a holy life. To him, death only rules over the impious (1.16; 2.24).
Thus, righteous men exist in peace eternally through the immortality o f their souls, even
if they have been killed by the unrighteous (3.2-3).220
The Creation and N ature o f Eve
Possibly, there are two texts that m ay speak o f the first humanity in the
Wisdom o f Solomon. The first passage in 7.1 reads as follows:
E l p i (lev Kayo) 0 vt|t 6<; av0pouTO<;, looc, caraaiv,

Kal yriyeuoOc atToyovoq upcoto'TrAaoxou.221
216 This is the wisdom that is frequently emphasized in the entire book. It is what God uses to
save His people; see John Levison, Portraits o f Adam, 50. Also see Evans, Noncanonical Writings, 13;
Earnest G. Clarke, The Wisdom o f Solomon, Cambridge Bible Commentary, ed. P. R. Ackroyd, A. R. C.
Leaney, and J. W. Packer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 4-6; David Winston, The
Wisdom o f Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction Commentary, Anchor Bible, ed. William
Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman, vol. 43 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979), 63-64;
VanderKam, Early Judaism, 125.
217 J. Ziegler, Sapientia Salomonis, Septuaginta 12/3 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1962; 2d ed., 1980), 159-60.
218 Ibid., 101-102.
219 Ibid., 98,102.
220 Ibid., 102. John Levison suggests that the author (due to the influence o f Greek
anthropology) believes the soul, independent o f the body, is borrowed and will return to God when the
body deceases. See John Levison, Portraits o f Adam, 49-54. Tennant is o f the opinion that the author o f
Wisdom o f Solomon sees death as not God’s original purpose for humanity. Death entered into the world
as caused by “the envy o f the devil” (2.23). The bodily mortality o f humanity is not introduced by the
transgression o f Adam and Eve, but by the devil. See Tennant, Doctrine o f the Fall, 123-31. Also see
Oesterley, Books o f the Apocrypha, 83-84; Reese, Book o f Solomon, 19-21.
221 Ziegler, Sapientia Salomonis, 115.
113
I m yself also am a mortal man, like to all,
999
and the offspring o f him who was first made from earth.
On the basis o f the fact that Philo has used the words afroyovoc; (“earthbom”) and
upcoTOTTAaoTou (“protoplast”)223 to describe Adam, John Levison suggests that the present
text alludes to Adam in Gen 2:7. Here the author declares all human beings descendants
o f one ancestor, Adam, whom the Jewish tradition attests. However, the words
dboyovoc, 'FTpcoTO'irA.doTou is better taken to be the invention o f the author o f the W isdom o f
Solomon. Since Philo is a later text than the Wisdom o f Solomon,225 how the former uses
the terms is irrelevant to the latter.
Nevertheless, contextually when the author calls him self “a mortal man,” he
uses the term auGpcotroe, a term denoting either male or female. It is supported by the
addition o f the phrase loot; duaoiv (“like to all” including both male and female again). In
other words, like every human, the author is the offspring (also a generic term denoting
male and female) o f the first “earthbom.” The author o f the W isdom o f Solomon is a
male, and it is likely that he thinks o f him self as a man like Adam. However, it is also
possible that here he refers to him self as a mortal human being without specifying his
99/
sex. He addresses his audience (male and female), saying that all humans (men and
women) are mortal because he and the audience are alike the offspring o f Adam.
222 The translation is from the writer o f the dissertation.
223 The “protoplast” is first attested here. It is a new noun-formation by the author. See Clarke,
Wisdom o f Solomon, 50; Reese, Book o f Solomon, 77-78. Winston cites Philo QE 2.46: “differing from the
earthbom first moulded man” (cf. Op. 82,136; LA 1.79). See Winston, Wisdom o f Solomon, 163.
224 See John Levison, Portraits ofAdam , 54-55; Winston, Wisdom o f Solomon, 163.
225 In fact the Wisdom o f Solomon is dated before the time o f Philo.
226 See Clarke, Wisdom o f Solomon, 50.
114
The second passage is found in 9.1-3:
0 € 6 TTKTfTTGOy KCcl KUpi€ XOU kXko\)Q

o TTOifioac xa rravxa kv Aoyto oou
Kal xrj oocjHa oou KaxaoKeuaaac avOpwuov,
lv a ScottoCti xQ>v uito oou yevopevoov KxiapaxGov
Kal SiCTfl xov Koapov ev 6<noxr|xi Kal biKaioouvr]
Kal kv euGuxpxi K ptotv Kpivr)-227
O God o f m y fathers and Lord o f mercy,
who hast made all things with your word
and ordained man by your wisdom,
so that he should have dominion over the creatures which you hast made,
and order the world with equity and righteousness
and execute judgment with an upright heart:
John Levison also believes that the term avGpcotTov merely refers to Adam, who was
created by the personified wisdom and was mandated to rule over other creatures. Here
the author strengthens his appeal to pursue wisdom, because all descendants are created
by wisdom and are mandated to rule the earth as Adam. Thus, they need wisdom to
accomplish the mandate.229 However, Ernest G. Clarke advocates that here the term
avGpcoirov refers to the human race in general.230 The mention o f the mandate to be a
steward o f the world to rule over other creatures indicates that the author o f the present
text more likely alludes to Gen 1:28 than to Gen 2:7.
It is crucial and significant to remember that W isdom’s audience includes
male and female. This writer suggests that Adam is likely the reference o f the first
227 Ziegler, Sapientia Salomonis, 123.
228 This writer’s translation.
230 See Clarke, Wisdom o f Solomon, 63; also Winston, Wisdom o f Solomon, 201-2; Reese,
Book o f Solomon, 103.
115
“earthbom” mentioned in the first text. However, the “man” described in the second text
more likely refers to all humanity in general rather than to Adam alone on the basis o f the
context and the usage o f the term avepwiTov. The book teaches that mankind (formed in
G od’s image) was originally destined for an immortal existence (1.13), but death entered
into the world because o f “the envy o f the devil” (2.23).231 The book does not mention
the transmission o f the hereditary sinfulness from Eve (or Adam). It focuses on spiritual
death or sin (3.1-4; 5.3; 10.3), suggesting that ignorance produces death (30.15-16).232
M an is responsible for his own sin. The wicked will surely be punished (12.15; 16.9).233
In summary, Eve is not mentioned in the Wisdom o f Solomon. Adam plays a
predominant role in the descriptions o f the task o f having dominion over the creatures
and ordering the world (9.2-3). The book particularly emphasizes and exalts A dam’s
uniqueness and his celestial character (10.1-2). He is called as “the father o f the world”
who is assigned to m le all things. His knowledge and the power to rule over the world are
bestowed by wisdom.234 He is regarded as the first o f the seven righteous heroes on
whom wisdom’s saving power acted, but he is not called 5tKaiog. On the contrary, he is
depicted as the first man who was preserved out o f his fall (“from his own blunder”) by
wisdom.235 This might imply that although the author o f Wisdom tries to exonerate
Adam ’s first transgression, he still finds Adam to be responsible for that fall. Apparently,
231 Ziegler, Sapientia Salomonis, 101. See Prusak, “Woman: Seductive Siren?” 96. He
concludes that Wisdom o f Solomon holds the serpent to be the envious devil who brings death to the
human race.
232 See Cohon, “Original Sin,” 287, 297; Oesterley, Books o f the Apocrypha, 276-77. Also see
Tennant, 124-31. However, Tennant concludes that Wisdom o f Solomon provides the collected materials
for the elaboration o f the doctrine o f original sin.
233 Thompson, Responsibility fo r Evil, 27.
235 See Winston, Wisdom o f Solomon, 210-11.
116
Adam is assumed to be the leader in the couple as emphasized in the Book o f Jubilees and
predominated in the following Jewish literature.
Sibylline Oracles
Tennant classifies Sibylline Oracles as a writing o f Alexandrian Judaism. The
book purports to harmonize Old Testament teaching with Greek philosophy, and to
present it to those o f Hellenic culture.236 The story o f Adam and Eve is recorded in the
first book o f Sibylline Oracles (1.22-64), which is regarded as an original Jewish oracle.
J. J. Collins dates it to about the turn o f the era, no later than the time o f Augustus.237
The text o f Sib. Or. 1.22-64 is a very free retelling o f the Genesis
narratives, though its sequence o f the incidents follows that o f Gen 1-3.238 The
account o f the creation o f Eve and the reason for her existence are found in 1.22-30:239
And then later he again fashioned an animate object, making a copy from his own
image, youthful man, beautiful, wonderful. He bade him live in an ambrosial garden,
so that he might be concerned with beautiful works. But he being alone in the
luxuriant plantation o f the garden desired conversation, and prayed to behold
another form like his own. God him self indeed took a bone from his flank and made
Eve, a wonderful maidenly spouse, whom he gave to this man to live with him in
the garden.
236 Tennant, D octrine o f the Fall, 122.
237 J. J. Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” in The O ld Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic

Literature and Testaments, ed. Charlesworth, vol. 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 330-31; van Ruiten,
“Creation o f Man and Woman,” 48.
238 Van Ruiten, “Creation o f Man and Woman,” 48-54, has compared Sib. Or. 1.5-64 with
Gen 1-3 with detailed analysis.
239 All quotations o f Sibylline Oracles in this section are according to the translation o f Collin,
“Sibylline Oracles.”
117
According to the text, Eve’s creation was initiated and requested by Adam who desired to
have a companion like him self to converse with. God took a bone out o f A dam ’s flank,
and formed Eve. Strikingly, Eve is mentioned by name right from the beginning. She is
praised to be “a wonderful maidenly spouse,” just as Adam is applauded previously as
“beautiful” and ‘V onderful.”
The relationship between Adam and Eve is additionally depicted in 1.31-37:
And he, when he saw her, was suddenly greatly amazed in spirit, rejoicing, such a
corresponding copy did he see. They conversed w ith wise words which flowed
spontaneously, for God had taken care o f everything. For they neither covered their
minds with licentiousness nor felt shame, but were far removed from evil heart; and
they walked like wild beasts with uncovered limbs.
The author appears to construe the meaning o f “a help corresponding to him” in Gen 2:18.
He believes Eve was “a corresponding copy” o f Adam in essence. She had the same
intelligence as he had, so that they could share wise words together. They are “the
complete equivalent o f each other.”240 Eve’s existence gave Adam great rejoice and
amazement. They were harmonious, innocent, and sinless before the fall.
The Sin o f Eve
Subsequently, the records o f the divine prohibition, the tempter, and the
transgression o f the first couple are stated in 1.38-45:
To these did God then address commands and instruct them not to touch the tree.
But a very horrible snake craftily deceived them to go to the fate o f death and
receive knowledge o f good and evil. But the woman first became a betrayer to him.
She gave, and persuaded him to sin in his ignorance. He was persuaded by the
woman’s words, forgot about his immortal creator, and neglected clear commands.
The text stresses that G od’s commands (“not to touch the tree” is specified here) were
addressed to both Adam and Eve. The snake cunningly deceived both Eve and Adam “to
240 See van Ruiten, “Creation o f Man and Woman,” 54.
118
go to the fate o f death.” In 1.59, the snake is affirmed to be the cause o f the deceit, but
Eve is also portrayed as the first “betrayer” o f the Creator. The author o f Sibylline
Oracles seems to exonerate Adam’s fault, for he stresses twice that Eve persuaded Adam
to sin and reduces Adam ’s transgression to mere ignorance and negligence.
There is a lengthy addition about the events after the first sin in 1.46-54:
Therefore, instead o f good they received evil, as they had done. And then they
sewed the leaves o f the sweet fig tree and made clothes and put them on each other.
They concealed their plans, because shame had come upon them. The Immortal
became angry with them and expelled them from the place o f immortals. For it had
been decreed that they remain in a mortal place, since they had not kept the
command o f the great immortal God, and attended to it.
The text implies that Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. The consequences o f the
transgression are elaborated. For instance, the first couple endeavored to cover up their
shame. God was angry with both o f them. They were expelled from the place o f
immortals to a mortal place, implying that they were immortal before the fall. Strikingly,
the author omits Eve’s punishment in Gen 3:16.
After their expulsion from the immortal place, the immortal God mildly
addressed to Adam and Eve, “Increase, multiply, and work on earth with skill, so that by
sweat you m ay have your fill o f food” (1.58). Here the divine statement is actually a
combination o f the mandate o f procreation (Gen 1:28a) and A dam’s punishment (Gen
3:19). The book does not mention Eve’s subordination to Adam before or after the sin.
Eve, like Adam, has to procreate and work on the earth and sweat to survive.
According to Sibylline Oracles, Eve was created as a companion equal to
Adam in essence and in intelligence. She was A dam ’s “a wonderful maidenly spouse”
119
before the fall. Nonetheless, she betrayed the Creator first and persuaded Adam to sin.
The author minimizes Adam’s transgression and values Eve’s creation positively.
However, both o f them were guilty and were expelled from the immortal place. After the
fall, they still needed to share the responsibilities o f procreation (as emphasized in Tobit
8:6) and worked hard on earth as commanded in Gen 1:28.
Philo Judaeus
Philo Judaeus (a contemporary o f Jesus and Paul, who lived in Alexandria o f
Egypt from 20 B.C. to A.D. 50) is alleged to be “one o f the most important Jewish
authors o f the Second Temple period o f Judaism,” and is significant for the understanding
o f the New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism in first century A.D.241 Craig A. Evans
thinks that the main purpose o f Philo’s writings is to demonstrate that Judaism, especially
as perceived in the Scripture o f Judaism, composes “a superior world view.” Thus, Philo
focuses on how the Greco-Roman world could understand the Scripture o f Judaism.
Consequently, he interprets those writings allegorically.242
Philo makes numerous negative comments on women, identifying them with
the outward senses and regarding them as the beginning o f all misfortune and the cause
o f a faulty life for men. To him wickedness, corruption, unsteadiness, irrationality, lack
241 Most o f Philo’s treatises were written and survive in Greek. See G. P. Goold, ed., Philo,
the Loeb Classical Library 226, trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker (Cambridge: Harvard University,
1929), ix-x; Philo, The Works o f Philo: Complete and Unabridged, trans. D. D. Yonge (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1997), xi-xiii.
242 See Evans, Noncanonical Writings, 81.
120
o f understanding and good sense, weakness, and inferiority are w om en’s hallmarks.243
Surely, the first woman Eve cannot escape from his harsh remarks. This section will
focus on Eve’s portraits: the creation and nature o f Eve, and the sin o f Eve.244 Philo
draws the accounts o f the creation o f Eve in Gen 2:18-25 and the fall in Gen 3:1-21 from
the Septuagint. He basically treats the issues in D e opificio mundi (cited as Op. below)
and interprets them in more detail in Legum allegoriae (cited as L.A. below) and
Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin (cited as QG below). On the whole, he uses an
anthropological and ethical allegory to interpret Genesis 1-3.245
No God’s Image, No Understanding
According to Philo, Gen 1:26 records the creation o f an exemplary, undivided,
and asexual being,246 a heavenly av0pcoiTo<;, who was created in the image o f God247 and
was living according to reason. He reverses the phrase “male and female” in Gen 1:27 to
ouce appev oute GfjAu “neither male nor female” {Op. 69). Then, he puts man and woman
243 See Annewies van den Hoek, “Endowed with Reason or Glued to the Senses: Philo’s
Thoughts on Adam and Eve,” in The Creation o f Man and Woman: Interpretations o f the Biblical
Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions, ed. Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, Themes in Biblical Narrative
Jewish and Christian Traditions, ed. Philip S. Alexander and Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, vol. 3 (Leiden: Brill,
2000), 73-74; Dorothy Sly, Philo's Perception o f Women, Brown Judaic Studies, ed. Jacob Neusner, Ernest
S. Frerichs, and William Scott Green, vol. 209 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990), 216.
244 Related passages are selected from the terms ’A6ap, Em , and yw ii listed in Gunter Mayer,
Index Philoneus (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1974), 4, 124, and 67.
245 See Sly, Philo's Perception o f Women, 99; John Levison, Portraits o f Adam, 81.
246 See Richard A. Baer, “Appendix B: The Use o f the Term Androgynous in Reference to the
Generic Man o f Legum Allegoria II: 13 and De Opificio Mundi 76”; and idem, “Appendix D: Additional
Notes on Philo’s Use o f the Androgynous Man M otif and His Account o f the Creation o f Woman,” in
Philo's Use o f the Categories Male and Female, Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen
Judentums, ed. K. H. Rengstorf (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 83-84; 87-88 respectively.
247 See Baer, “Appendix A: The Relationship Between De opificio mundi and Legum
allegoria in Reference to the Man Created After the Image o f God,” in Philo's Use o f the Categories Male
and Female, 81-82 for details.
121
within the creation o f an earthly, divided ai'Gpoonoq in Gen 2:7 (L.A. 1.32; Op. 128). The
earthly man was living according to the flesh. Nonetheless, G od’s breathing into his nose
enabled him to pursue virtue. The earthly man Adam symbolizes the neutral, earthly
m ind that can become the heavenly man or a mortal.248 However, there is no hope for the
female to become the heavenly man unless she is a virgin (who is “the spiritual
equivalent o f the male”).249 Both the virgin and the male are asexual.250 Philo designates
vouc (“the mind”) as a male attribute and oaa0r|oi<; (“the outward senses/sense-
perception”) as a female attribute (Op. 165). The mind is superior and is the rational
aspect o f the soul (Suvapcu;),251 whereas the outward sense-perception is inferior and is
the irrational aspect o f the soul (L.A. 3.222).252 The female is derived from the mortal
aspect, and only has a part in aio0r|oi<;.253 All the above descriptions apply to Eve.
248 See Goold ed., Philo, the Loeb Classical Library, 226:166,100; Levison, Portraits o f
Adam, 81-82; van den Hoek, “Philo’s Thoughts on Adam and Eve,” 66-71. Tennant provides a detailed
analysis o f Philo’s view o f Adam’s unfallen state. See Tennant, Doctrines o f the Fall, 133-35.
249 Baer defines Philo’s view o f virgins as those who “forsake the realm o f pleasure, the body,
change, and mortality and to grant to the rational soul its rightful place o f sovereignty.” God will consort
with those who have abandoned the realm o f the female and are ranked as a “pure virgin.” A virgin can be
either a male or a female (De Cherubim 50). See Baer, “Appendix H: The Influence o f Hellenistic
Prophetism on Philo’s Use o f the Divine Impregnation Motif: A Critical Note on Hans Leisegang’s Book
Pneuma Hagion,” in Philo's Use o f the Categories M ale and Female, 96-98.
250 See Sly, Philo's Perception o f Women, 91.
251 Regarding Philo’s view on the soul, see Goold ed., Philo, the Loeb Classical Library,
226:130; Baer, “Appendix C: Additional Notes on Philo’s Understanding o f the Soul,” in Philo's Use o f the
Categories Male and Female, 84-87; Thomas H. Tobin, The Creation o f Man: Philo and the History o f
Interpretation, Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series, ed. Bruce Vawter, Schuyler Brown, and J.
Louis Martyn, vol. 14 (Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association o f America, 1983), 145-53.
252 See Goold, ed., Philo, Loeb Classical Library, 226:452—53; Baer, “Appendix E: Additional
Notes on Philo’s Attitude Towards Man’s Irrational Soul and the Created World,” in Philo's Use o f the
Categories Male and Female, 89-93.
253 Judith Romney Wegner, “Philo’s Portrayal o f Women—Hebraic or Hellentic?” in “Women

Like This ” New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World, ed. Amy-Jill Levine, Society
o f Biblical Literature: Early Judaism and Its Literature, ed. William Adler, no. 01 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars
Press, 1991), 45. John Levison suggests that Philo here assumes Eve was created by the division o f an
originally androgynous being, in regard to Philo’s statements in QG 1.25: “that woman was made from the
122
The Weaker and the Inferior
Philo does not interpret Adam and Eve as historical characters, but as
“bidding us resort to allegorical interpretation” {Op. 157).254 According to Philo, Eve is
the prototype o f the female, who was formed out o f A dam ’s rib, indicating that she was
imperfect, just a half section o f the man.255 She might not be o f equal dignity with
Adam 256 She was unable to understand and comprehend things, for she was symbolically
the outward senses (the weaker and the inferior). Only Adam, who symbolizes the mind
(the stronger and the superior), can understand things. Thus, the mind is better than the
‘J G ‘7
outward senses. Philo defines the female thought as “irrational and akin to bestial
passions, fear, sorrow, pleasure, and desire, from which ensue incurable weaknesses and
indescribable diseases” (QG 4.15).258 According to the principle o f justice “the strong
side o f man, intimating that woman is a half o f man’s body;” and in QG 1.28: “Truly this is a creature o f
my bone and my flesh, for she has been separated and put together from these several parts o f mine.” See
John Levison, Portraits o f Adam, 75-76.
254 See Philo, Loeb Classical Library, 226:124-25.
255 QG 1.25: “Accordingly the lawgiver says that woman was made from the side o f man,
intimating that woman is a half o f man’s b o d y . . . Inasmuch as the moulding o f the male is more perfect
than, and double, that o f the female.” See Philo, Loeb Classical Library, vol. 380, trans. Ralph Marcus
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953), 15.
256 QG 1.27: “Why was not woman, like other animals and man, also formed from earth,
instead o f the side o f man? First, because woman is not equal in honour with man. Second, because she is
not equal in age, but younger. Wherefore those who take wives who have passed their prime are to be
criticized for destroying the laws o f nature. Third, he wishes that man should take care o f woman as o f a
very necessary part o f him; but woman, in return, should serve him as a whole. Fourth, he counsels man
figuratively to take care o f woman as o f a daughter, and woman to honour man as a father.” See Philo,
Loeb Classical Library, 380:16.
257 L.A. 3.50: “Included then in the call o f Adam, the mind, is that o f sense-perception, the
woman; but God does not call her with a special call; why? Because, being irrational, she has no capacity
derived from herself to receive reproof. For neither sight nor hearing nor any o f the senses is susceptible o f
instruction,so that it cannot perform the act o f apprehending subjects. But He who made sense-perception
made it capable o f distinguishing between material forms only: but the mind it is that receives instruction,
and that is why He challenged it but not sense-perception.” See Philo, Loeb Classical Library, 226:335.
Also see D e Cherubim 2.57, 60.
258 See Philo, Loeb Classical Library, 380:288.
rules and the weak follows” (L.A. 1.70-72). As a result, Eve was in the rank o f a servant,
being inferior and subordinate to Adam.259 The form o f Eve was called “a building” (God
‘builds’ the woman in Gen 2:22), indicating that her only place to stay and act was inside
the house where her particular affairs would take place.260 The outside world, the public
affairs o f the state, belonged solely to the man. This is the divine order.261 Dorothy Sly
concludes that Philo sees Eve, the archetypal female, in two ways:
As the lower element in Everyman, Eve is sexual passion which causes destruction,
even death, if uncontrolled. She is irrationality, which must be overruled by
masculine reason. But she is also sense-perception, which, when it functions
properly, is essential to the well-being o f mind. As Everywoman, Eve is incapable
o f self-control. Her inner imbalance, i.e. the predominance o f sense over mind,
renders her destructive o f herself and others. Her place in society is in subordination
to her husband. Her function is to contribute to his welfare.262
The Sin o f Eve
According to Philo, Eve’s existence merely ruined Adam’s life: “when
woman too had been made . . . he was gladdened . . . this desire begat likewise bodily
pleasure. . . for the sake o f which men bring on themselves the life o f mortality and
wretchedness (KaicoSoupovoe) in lieu o f that o f immortality and bliss (euboupovog).” (Op.
259 L.A. 3 .3 8 ,4 0 -4 1 , 44-45, 50, 73-74, 223; D e Cherubim 2.61; QG 1.29. John Temple
Bristow suggests that the teachings o f Aristotle emphasize women’s inferiority to men. Therefore, women
are supposed to be commanded by men and used for their pleasure. See Bristow, What Paul Really Said
About Women (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 9.
260 However, Proverbs 31 describes an ideal wife who is not only a homemaker, but also an
administrator, and entrepreneur, working day and night with an industriousness that gains the admiration
and applause o f her family. Bristow comments that Philo’s denigrating Eve and women actually follows
Greek thought about women rather than Jewish ideas. See Bristow, What Paul Really Said, 15.
261 QG 1.26: “Why does Scripture call the likeness o f the woman ‘a building?’ The
harmonious coming together o f man and woman and their consummation is figuratively a house. And
everything which is whithout a woman is imperfect and homeless. For to man are entrusted the public
affairs o f state; while to a woman the affairs o f the home are proper.” See Philo, Loeb Classical Library,
380:15.
262 See Sly, P h ilo ’s Perception o f Women, 110.
124
151-152).263 Eve became the cause o f all evil and the beginning o f sinning and
prevaricating (QG 1.37, 45). Philo blames all the faults o f the fall in Eden on Eve alone.
Eve was Adam ’s death (L.A. 1.105-108). Through her the devil got to Adam (QG 1.26).
Sexual desire was the cause o f the fall o f the first couple because sexual intercourse is the
most intense pleasure experienced by a man (L.A. 2.1 A).
The Depraved and Seducer
Philo explains why the serpent accosted Eve instead o f Adam: “And woman is
more accustomed to be deceived than man . . . the judgment o f woman is more feminine,
and because o f softness she easily yields way and is taken in by plausible falsehoods,
which resemble the truth.” (QG 1.33).264 Another reason is that the power o f the outward
senses (Eve) is over the mind (Adam) (Op. 165). W hy did Eve eat the forbidden fruit first,
and Adam afterwards in Gen 3:6? He answers: “For it was fitting that man should rule
over immortality and everything good, but woman over death and everything v ile .. . for
sense is moved by objects, while the mind is moved by sense.” (QG 1.37).265 Therefore,
“life” is attributed to Adam, and “death” to Eve.
After the fall, why did God speak to Adam first in Gen 3:9? Philo explains: “It
was the more imperfect and ignoble element, the female, that made a beginning o f
transgression and lawlessness, while the male made the beginning o f reverence and
modesty and all good, since he was better and more perfect.” (QG 1.43).266 In other
263 See Philo, Loeb Classical Library, 226:118-121.
265 Ibid., 22.
266 Ibid., 25.
125
words, Eve initiates sin, but Adam initiates atonement. He sinned only because Eve
seduced him,267 Nevertheless, Adam was the first to repent. God did not ask Eve “Where
are you?” as he asked Adam in Gen 3:9, because he looked upon her as “the beginning o f
evil and led him (man) into a life o f vileness” (QG 1.45). To Philo, the answers made
by Adam and Eve in verses 12 and 13 respectively support the view that “for woman is o f
a nature to be deceived rather than to reflect greatly, but man is the opposite h e re .. . And
sense is deceived and deluded by a sense-perceptible object, but the senses o f a wise man,
like the reflections o f his mmd, are not to be deceived” (QG 1.46).
On the other hand, Philo uses the details o f Genesis 2 -3 as a record o f how the
rational mind is trapped by pleasure (nSovp) or desire (epwc) through the outward senses.
He identifies the serpent as pleasure or desire, Eve as the outward senses, and Adam as
the mind. The process o f the fall is that pleasure or desire (the serpent) deceived the
outward senses (Eve), and these two, in turn, enticed and captured the mind (Adam) (De
agricultura 97; QG 1.47; 3.14-17). Eve’s mind is uncontrolled and her judgm ent is very
weak.270 She is designed to be Adam ’s helper. He must control her well, but he failed to
do so. Adam ’s error is that he listened to Eve (Gen 3:17). His life lost balance because
the mind should not listen to the outward senses. He upset the normal pattern (or the
267 Bristow points out that Stoic philosophers advocate that women are always a distraction
and temptation to men. Therefore, women should be avoided by men who want to pursue superior qualities.
See his work What Paul Really Said, 10.
269 Ibid.
270 Op. 156 reads: “It is said that she, without looking into the suggestion, prompted by a mind
devoid o f steadfastness and firm foundation, gave her consent and ate o f the fruit, and gave some o f it to
her husband; this instantly brought them out o f a state o f simplicity and innocence into one o f
wickedness . . . ” See Philo, Loeb Classical Library, 226:124-125.
126
971
proper order o f things), namely, he, the mind, should rule Eve, the outward senses, and
not the reverse (L.A. 2.49,3.50). Moreover, Philo takes Gen 2:24 to be a description o f
m an’s fallen state:
“For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his
wife, and the twain shall be one flesh” (Gen, ii. 24). For the sake o f sense-
perception the Mind, when it has become her slave, abandons both God the Father
o f the universe, and God’s excellence and wisdom, the M other o f all things, and
cleaves to and becomes one with sense-perception and is resolved into sense-
perception so that the two become one flesh and one experience (iraGoc;).272
John Levison comments that Philo elaborates the meaning o f Genesis by
allegorizing the soul in order to support his own ideas and Tendenz. He lays his own
anthropology and ethical theory over Genesis 1-3. As a result, inconsistency is found in
his ideas, particularly his view on the heavenly man and the earthly man.273 Judith
Romney W egner thinks Philo sees women through the lens o f Hellenistic culture rather
than the Hebrew Bible. His portraits o f Eve (the female) are actually Greek ideas.274
Sly also points out Philo’s proposition that man symbolizes mind and woman
the outward senses is derived from Aristotle’s opinion: “the soul is from the male, the
271 L.A. 3.222 reads: “Because thou hast listened to the voice o f thy wife . . . Most profitless is
it that Mind should listen to Sense-perception, and not Sense-perception to Mind: for it is always right that
the superior should rule and the inferior be ruled; and Mind is superior to Sense-perception.” See Philo,
Loeb Classical Library, 226:453.
272 L.A. 2.49. See Philo, Loeb Classical Library, 226:254-55.
273 John Levison, Portraits o f Adam, 77, explains that Philo’s allegory o f the soul aims to
make a quintessential exhortation to virtue. Such an exhortation is necessary because the human race is
mortal. Nonetheless, the human being is a borderline creature who is capable o f pursuing virtue or vice.
Therefore, it is significant to encourage the human race to pursue virtue. Also Scholer, “Foreword,” xii,
comments that Philo has paraphrased and expanded the biblical texts o f the Pentateuch in order to give his
own ideas on different matters.
274 See Wegner, “Philo’s Portrayal o f Women,” 62.
127
body is from the female.”275 In fact, his view on the passivity, softness, and imperfection
o f women had been circulated since the epoch o f Aristotle. The superiority o f Adam over
Eve can be found in the Middle Platonic idea that places man one link higher than woman
on the Great Chain o f Being.276 Wegner is o f the opinion that Philo’s interpretations o f
those ideas cannot be Hebraic. For instance, both the rabbinic and the patristic literatures
take the “man” in Genesis 1:26—28 to be referring to both the male and the female, who
are equally created in the image o f God.277 Contrariwise, the Greco-Roman world always
'yno
classifies men as rational “thinkers” and women as emotional “feelers.” Besides, Philo
never mentions his acquaintance with the rabbis o f Jesus’ contemporaries or with their
ideas. Mishnah and Talmud never mention Philo. There is no evidence that Philo
• * 970
represented a certain class o f Alexandrian Jewish scholarship.
Tennant comments that Philo mingles biblical exegesis with Greek philosophy
in order to elaborate his apologetics. His allegorical interpretation is mainly resolved into
275 Generation o f Animals, 738b, 25.
276 See Sly, Philo's Perception o f Women, 105. The theory o f the Great Chain o f Being:
“Everything except God has some natural superior; everything except unformed matter has some natural
inferior. The goodness, happiness, and dignity o f every being consist in obeying its natural superior and
ruling its natural inferiors.” This theory is traced back to a coalition o f views from Plato and Aristotle. See
also Peder Borgen, “Philo o f Alexandria,” in Jewish Writings o f the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha,
Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. Michael E. Stone, Compendia remm
iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, ed. W. J. Burgers, H. Sysling, and P. J. Tomson, vol. 2 (Assen: van
Gorcum, 1984), 236.
277 See Wegner, “Philo’s Portrayal o f Women,” 62-63, 65.
278 In Philo’s terms are “the mind” and “the outward senses.” Harry A. Wolfson suggests that
all the important roots o f Philo’s ideas are Jewish and the Hellenistic elements are only found in the
language he uses. He holds to faithfully “rendering o f the Hebrew text into Greek and not a philosophic
interpretation o f it.” See his work Philo, Foundations o f Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam,
vol. 1 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968), 94, 114-15.
279 David M. Scholer points out that Philo “was virtually unknown in the Jewish tradition after
his own time until the sixteenth century A.D.” See his work “Foreword: An Introduction to Philo Judaeus
o f Alexandria,” in The Works o f Philo, xiii.
128
?sn
figurative psychology. Under the Platonic influences, to him there is neither original
sin nor the fall. Man is mortal and death is normal in the world order. Adam’s death is
ethical, “the death o f ‘the soul’ buried in evil.” Adam ’s sin results in “the loss o f the
untroubled and happy life in Eden.”281 Baer comments that Philo not only uses pagan
terminology (or language), but also adopts pagan philosophy.282 Alden Lloyd Thompson
believes Philo still advocates that man is free to make decisions and be responsible for his
283
own actions.
In summary, Philo’s comments on Eve (and women) are very depreciatory
compared to that o f other contemporary Jewish writers. He has created many ideas about
Eve that are not found in the context o f the Hebrew Bible. His explanations o f the fall are
mainly allegories based on his own anthropology or philosophy.284 First, he denies that
Eve was also created in the image o f God (Gen 1:26-28). The “man” in Gen 1:27 taken
as asexual contradicts the bisexual idea o f “male and female He made them” in the
context. Second, the creation o f Eve by God is “very good” (Gen 1:31), but Philo holds
Eve’s features (the outward senses) to be very bad indeed. Third, Philo uses Eve’s later
280 Erwin R. Goodenough suggests that Philo uses the philosophical knowledge o f Platonism
and Neo-Pythagoreanis to illuminate and support his religious understanding o f pagan ideas o f salvation:
“The spirit be released from the flesh in order to return to its spiritual source in God.” He argues that
Philo’s work on the whole is not a fundamental Judaism with Hellenistic veneer, but a Hellenistic Judaism
that is thoroughly paganized by Hellenistic mysteries and presented in Jewish symbols and allegories. See
Goodenough, By Light, Light: The M ystic Gospel o f Hellenistic Judaism (Amsterdam: Philo, 1969), 235-63.
281 See Tennant, Doctrines o f the Fall, 135-36.
282 Baer, “Appendix I,” 103.
283 See Thompson, Responsibility fo r Evil, 27.
284 Scholer states: “In Philo’s time much o f Judaism was significantly Hellenized . . . Philo,
too, drank deeply at the philosophical well o f the Platonic tradition and saw it as strengthening and
deepening his understanding o f the God o f Moses. Philo probably represents Middle Platonism (the
Platonic tradition between Plato’s immediate successors and the rise o f third century A.D. Neoplatonism),
although some scholars debate this classification.” See his work “Foreword,” xiii.
129
creation and her derivation from A dam’s rib to deprecate Eve’s status as A dam ’s slave at
home. Adam is assumed to be the primary and the extraordinary o f the divine creation,
whereas Eve is secondary and inferior. Adam is the divinely appointed leader and master
o f the woman Eve. Fourth, he exonerates A dam ’s sin and alleges Eve to be totally
responsible for the fall. He appends that Adam initiates atonement and repentance. Fifth,
he blames Eve’s existence for merely bringing death to Adam. Sixth, the answers he
offered to those “why” questions o f Genesis 3 raised by him are exclusively reflections o f
his own negative views on Eve.
Though Philo might have been under the influences o f Aristotle and Plato
concerning man and woman, his negative views on Eve indicate how he reads the story o f
the first couple in Genesis. Though Mishnah and Talmud never mention Philo, Philo’s
work still reflects a certain class o f Alexandrian Jewish scholarship. The issue is how his
views on Eve were held by others at his time and whether they had any significant
influence on his and the following generations. As a whole, his views on Eve should be
taken as one o f the varied views on the first woman in early Judaism.
Flavius Josephus
Flavius Josephus (from A.D. 37/38 to the early years o f the second century)
was a very important contributing Jewish writer. His writings (originally published in
Greek, which was not his mother-tongue) consist o f invaluable materials including
history, religious thought, Jewish divisions, biblical exposition, and politics. Some topics
treated in his writings are particularly relevant to New Testament study.285
285 See Evans, Noncanonical Writings, 86-87; Harold W. Attridge offers good materials
concerning the date and tendency o f the book. See Attridge, “Josephus and His Works,” in Jewish Writings
o f the Second Temple Period, 210-17.
130
The portrait o f Eve is mainly found in The Antiquities o f the Jews (as
Ant. below). In the preface Josephus clearly states the purpose o f his book: “And now I
have undertaken this present work in the belief that the whole Greek-speaking world will
find it worthy o f attention; for it w ill embrace our entire ancient history and political
constitution, translated from the Hebrew records” (Ant. 1.5).286 Josephus also points out
the main lesson to be learned from Jewish history in 1.14:
But, speaking generally, the main lesson to be learnt from this history by any who
care to peruse it is that men who conform to the will o f God, and do not venture to
transgress laws that have been excellently laid down, prosper in all things beyond
belief, and for their reward are offered by God felicity; whereas, in proportion as
they depart from the strict observance o f these laws, things (else) practicable
become impracticable, and whatever imaginary good thing they strive to do ends in
987
irretrievable disasters.
As a whole, Josephus follows this main theme, that obedience to God’s laws
leads to a good life and disobedience brings misfortune. He retells the Jewish stories by
reorganizing and condensing the biblical accounts, and adding his own materials to the
988
stories in order to demonstrate his contemporary lessons.
Adam’s Companion, Mother of All Living
First o f all, Josephus only uses one short sentence “on this day also He formed
m an” (1.32) to retell the narrative o f Gen 1:26-28. There are no references to the creation
o f “man” in the image o f God and the issue o f “male and female He created them,” and
286 The translation o f all citations o f Josephus in this section is taken from: Josephus, Josephus:
Jewish Antiquities, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, Loeb Classical Library, vol. 242, ed. G. P. Goold
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1930). The text is in Loeb Classical Library, 242:4-5.
287 See Loeb Classical Library, 242:8-9.
288 See John Levison, Portraits o f Adam, 99-101.
131
ÔQ
no mention o f the divine blessings o f propagation and ruling. W ith regard to Genesis 2,
he merely confirms that the first man Adam was created from red soil and was inserted
with both a spirit and a soul. He seems to suggest that man is composed o f body, spirit,
and soul (1.34).290 As a whole, Eve (the female) is not found in these two accounts o f
creation. This indicates that Josephus takes Adam to be the main character in the paradise
story, and reflects a pattern o f male predominance in Jewish portrayal.
Eve’s creation and the reason for her existence are briefly described in 1.35:
And God brought before Adam the living creatures after their kinds, exhibiting both
male and female, and gave them the names by which they are still called to this day.
Then seeing Adam to be without female partner and consort (for indeed there was
none), and looking with astonishment at the other creatures who had their mates, He
extracted one o f his ribs while he slept and from it formed woman . . . 291
Josephus emphasize Adam’s need by adding that God presented to Adam both male and
female animals and observed that Adam had no female companion. A dam ’s amazement
at the animals having their own partners also stresses the necessity o f Eve’s existence.
Eve was created from one o f Adam ’s ribs as a female companion for Adam just like
every kind o f male animal has his own female companion,292 rather than “a helper
corresponding to him.” Instead o f A dam ’s joyful statement “This is now bone o f my
289 To Josephus, although the creation demonstrates God’s might, no creature is properly said
to be in God’s image because God's essence cannot be known {Against Apion 2.166-167). Furthermore, he
highly regards the first commandment o f the Decalogue: “All materials, let them be ever so costly, are
unworthy to compose an image for him; and all arts are unartful to express the notion we ought to have o f
him. We can neither see nor think o f anything like him, nor is it agreeable to piety to form a resemblance o f
him” {Against Apion 2.191). See John Levison, Portraits o f Adam, 101. However, Josephus particularly
points out that the animals were created “male and female” (1.32, 35). He asserts that God commanded
Adam and Eve to “tend the plants” in 1.38.
290 In 1 Thess 5:23 Paul also mentions spirit, soul, and body in his final benediction.
291 Loeb Classical Library, 242:16-19.
292 John Levison suggests that Josephus de-emphasizes the feature o f correspondence between
Adam and Eve and denies Eve as an equal partner o f Adam. See John Levison, Portraits o f Adam, 103.
This writer thinks that this view lacks evidence.
132
bones and flesh o f my flesh” (Gen 2:23), Josephus interprets the name Eve to be “the
mother o f all living” and states: “and when she was brought to him Adam recognized that
she was made from himself. In the Hebrew tongue woman is called ess a; but the name o f
that first woman was Eve, which signifies ‘mother o f all (living)’” (1.35).
Adam’s Wife and Co-Partaker
Afterwards, Josephus uses the phrase “Adam and his wife”293 to describe the
first couple. In 1.38 he uniquely reorganizes the Genesis account and describes that God
brought the couple into the paradise previously planted by him, and commanded them to
take care o f the plants alone (without including the animals and others). Then he further
retells G od’s prohibition to both Adam and Eve: “Now God bade Adam and his wife
partake o f the rest o f the plants, but to abstain from the tree o f wisdom, forewarning them
that, if they touched it, it would prove their destruction” (1.40). Josephus emphasizes that
the prohibition was given to Adam and Eve at the same time because he wants to account
more normally for Eve’s knowledge o f the divine warning.294 He adds the warning o f not
touching the tree, and changes the consequence o f death to destruction.295 On the whole,
Eve, Adam ’s wife, was endowed with all that Adam had, the blessings and prohibition.
293 John Levison comments that the reference to “Adam and his wife” indicates Adam (not
Eve) is the chief character o f the entire story in Josephus’ mind. See his work Portraits o f Adam, 219, n. 29.
294 In the Hebrew Bible Eve seemed to be absent when God gave the command for she was
not yet created (Gen 2:16-18). See Thomas W. Franxman, Genesis and the "Jewish Antiquities” o f Flavius
Josephus, Biblica et orientalia, vol. 35 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979), 55.
295 It seems that Josephus lessens the severity o f the consequence o f disobedience, since the
word oAeGpog means “destruction” or “calamity” whereas the terms Gavdtw diroGaveloGe “you will surely
die” are used in the LXX. See Levison, Portraits o f Adam, 104. However, it might also simply an
interpretive translation o f the Hebraism.
The Sin o f Eve
Regarding the incident o f the temptation, Josephus omits the direct dialogue
between Eve and the serpent, but inserts the malicious motive o f the tempter:
At that epoch all the creatures spoke a common tongue, and the serpent, living in
the company o f Adam and his wife, grew jealous o f the blessings which he
supposed were destined for them if they obeyed G od’s behests, and, believing that
disobedience would bring trouble upon them, he maliciously persuaded the woman
to taste o f the tree o f wisdom, telling her that in it resided the power o f
distinguishing good and evil, possessing which they would lead a blissful existence
no whit behind that o f a god. (1.41—42)
The serpent tempted Eve because he was envious o f the happy life the first couple had.
The serpent seems to know o f God’s retributive device— obedience would lead to his
blessing and disobedience to calamity. In fact, the serpent only promised them o f a good
9Q(\
life that is “not inferior to that o f a god,” but not that they would be like the divine.
The Persuader
Regarding the first transgression Josephus states: “By these means he misled
the woman to scorn the commandment o f God: she tasted o f the tree, was pleased with
the food, and persuaded Adam also to partake o f it” (1. 43). After they had eaten the
forbidden fruit, Josephus adds the following description in 1.44-45:
And now they became aware that they were naked and, ashamed o f such exposure
to the light o f day, bethought them o f a covering; for the tree served to quicken their
intelligence. So they covered themselves with fig-leaves, and, thus screening their
persons, believed themselves the happier for having found what they lacked before.
But, when God entered the garden, Adam, who ere then was wont to resort to His
company, conscious o f his crime withdrew; and God, met by action so strange,
asked for what reason he who once took delight in His company now shunned and
avoided it.
Josephus ironically adds that the first couple at the beginning thought that they were
296 John Levison thinks that here Josephus has made “a psychological analysis o f motivation”
o f the serpent that is a characteristic o f Greco-Roman historiography. See John Levison, Portraits o f Adam,
105. However, the Genesis narrative gives no motivation.
134
living a better life after eating the forbidden fruit. Nonetheless, this false feeling is in fact
correspondent to the “imaginary good thing” that ends in misfortunes (1.14). It is true that
they obtained discernment, but they lost God’s companionship. Their false impression
vanished. They finally recognized the reality when God appeared in the garden.297
Josephus adds a unique confrontation between God and the guilty Adam:
God said, “Nay, I had decreed for you to live a life o f bliss, unmolested by all ill,
with no care to fret your souls; all things that contribute to enjoyment and pleasure
were, through m y providence . . . But now thou hast flouted this my purpose by
disobeying m y commands; for it is through no virtue that thou keepest silence but
through an evil conscience.” (1.46-47)
God’s small speech and A dam ’s silence assume A dam ’s guilt. Josephus appears to point
out how foolish the couple was. Since God had already planned a good life for them and
would provide them with everything they needed, they did not have to seek for it
themselves, but had only to obey God. However, they wrongly believed in the serpent’s
words and endeavored to seek a better life, and instead ruined their divinely designed
90S
happy life by disobeying G od’s command. John Levison takes this addition again to
prove Josephus’ Tendenz and the main theme o f Antiquities—obedience to God results
in the “good life” and disobedience brings misfortune.299
Adam did not repent but excused his own sin. He blamed his wife Eve and
alleged that she had deceived him and made him an offender. Eve in her turn accused the
serpent (1.48). Josephus modifies Gen 3:13 and defines the essence o f Adam’s sin:
298 Franxman thinks the author here emphasizes Adam’s folly in surrendering to a woman
instead o f the divine command. See Franxman, Genesis and Josephus, 61. However, this view is not
indicated in the text.
135
“Thereupon God imposed punishment on Adam for yielding to a woman’s counsel”300
(1.49a). He also asserts the crux o f Eve’s sin: “she had deluded Adam, even as the
serpent had beguiled her, and brought calamity upon him” (1.49b). Strikingly, Josephus
mentions the first part o f Eve’s punishment that she would have sharp pains in
childbearing (Gen 3 :16a), but omits the last part that Adam would rule over her (1.49b).
As a whole, the portrait o f Eve is very succinct in Antiquities as compared to
that o f God, Adam, and the serpent. Obviously, Adam is the central person in the
modified story. Josephus does not mention the relationship between Adam and Eve
except in affirming that Eve, Adam ’s wife, is his female companion. He points out
Adam’s sin was that he “yielding to a wom an’s counsel” (1.49a), though he does not
mention that Eve was subordinate to Adam even after the first transgression. Besides, it is
difficult to know how he sees Eve because he does not clearly make any positive or
negative comment on her character or personality. The bad statement about Eve is that
she persuaded Adam with the same arguments presented by the serpent, and led him into
the calamity (1.49b). Josephus does not declare her the temptress o f Adam as Philo does.
Furthermore, it is noteworthy o f two issues. First, the fact that Eve (the female) is not
mentioned in two accounts o f creation (1.32, 34) might indicate that Josephus takes
Adam to be the main character in the paradise story. Second, God confronted Adam alone
even though Eve had sinned first and persuaded Adam to eat the forbidden fruit (1. 4 6 -
47). Apparently, Adam is ultimately held responsible for the first transgression. In
300 Ibid., 106. John Levison points out that Josephus’ presupposition, that female counsel must
not be heeded (Ant. 15.168,219; 17.121; 19.29; see p. 219, n. 40), has caused him to suggest that God
punished Adam because he listened to Eve’s counsel.
136
summary, Josephus’ emphasis on Adam also reflects a pattern o f male predominance in
Jewish portrayal. It indicates a patriarchal structure in Judaism.
The Dead Sea Scrolls
Surprisingly, in the Dead Sea Scrolls the remains o f the Eden narratives are
extremely scarce, though about twenty copies o f the book o f Genesis have been
recovered. There are no non-biblical compositions that reshape, expand, or comment on
the Eden stories. On the contrary, many materials found in Qumran are devoted to
expanding, commenting on, and reshaping other protagonists (such as Noah) o f other
Genesis narratives. Regarding this phenomenon, Florentino Garcia M artinez suggests that
the Qumran community possibly advocated another view o f the origin o f evil different
from the Genesis account, that is, human sin introduced and caused by the Watchers o f
the heavens who fell and cohabitated with women o f the earth.301
The Creation o f Eve
On the whole, there are several accounts o f the creation o f humankind, but
Adam is dominantly the central person described. He is exalted as “all the glory o f
Adam” (IQ S 4.22-23; 1QH 17.15; CD 3.20) and “all the inheritance o f Adam” (lp P S a
1+3.2) in an eschatological sense. The sole statement o f sexual differentiation o f human
creation quoted from Gen 1:27 is found in CD 4.20-21:
301 Florentino Garcia Martinez, “Man and Woman: Halakhah Based Upon Eden in the Dead
Sea Scrolls,” in Paradise Interpreted: Representations o f Biblical Parardise in Judaism and Christianity,
ed. Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, Themes in Biblical Narrative: Jewish and Christian Traditions, ed. Philip S.
Alexander and Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 95-97. See CD 4.17-19. This view is
similar to that o f 1 Enoch, holding Satan and the Watchers to be the culprits o f all human sinfulness and
death (7 Enoch 6.1-6; 7.1-6; 15.2-12; 16.1).
137
. . . o f whom he said: Me 2:6 ‘Assuredly they will preach’-are caught twice in
fornication: by taking two wives in their lives, even though the principle o f creation
is Gen 1:27 ‘male and female he created them.’302
Garcia Martinez suggests that the author uses the principle o f creation “male
and female He created them” (Gen 1:27) to found and support a halakhic rule (regarding
marriage and divorce) peculiar to the sect.303 Somehow, this indicates that the Qumran
community followed and affirmed the statement o f Gen 1:27.
One explicit portrayal o f Eve in the Qumran is found in the text o f 4Q265,
fragment 7, column ii, line 11-13:
i i Blank In the fir[st] week [Adam was created . . . be-] 12 fore he was brought into the
garden o f Eden, Blank And bone [from his bones . . . ] 13 [w]as for her before she was
brought to his side [in the second week . . . ].304
Here the author adds that Adam was created in the first week, and emphasizes
that Eve, the “bone” from bones o f Adam, was brought to him in the second week.305
This does not necessarily imply that Eve was created in the second week. The context is
ambiguous.
The Sin o f Eve
Esther Glickler Chazon has worked on the creation and fall o f Adam in three
liturgical collections o f the Dead Sea Scrolls preserved at Qumran, entitled Dibre
H am m e’orot (4Q504), the Paraphrase o f Genesis and Exodus (4Q422), and Sapiential
Work A (4Q423). According to Chazon, the first work is a weekly liturgy. The creation
302 The translation o f all citations o f the D ead Sea Scrolls in this section is drawn from:
Florentino Garcia Martinez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds., The D ead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2 vols.
(Leiden: Brill, 1997-1998). The text is found in vol. 1, 556-57.
303 See Garcia Martinez, “Man and Woman,” 100, 109.
304 See Garcia Martinez and Tigchelaar, D ead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, vol. 1, 549.
305 The statement is similar to Jub. 3.7-8.
138
and fall o f Adam are depicted at the beginning o f the first-day prayer (4Q504 fragments
8+9). It retells Adam’s creation in G od’s image, his ruling over other creatures, God’s
prohibition, and his disobedience (derived from evil inclination) and punishment. The
second text (4QparaGen-Exod) retells Adam ’s dominion over creation, highlighting his
ingratitude, abuse o f power, and disobedience. It also implicitly suggests that his sin was
caused by evil inclination. The third text (Fragment 2 o f 4Q423) weaves the dominion
m otif into Adam ’s guardianship over Eden. Adam was instructed to cultivate the garden
w ith wisdom. In disobedience he failed to choose the correct way. If Chazon’s
interpretations are correct, then these texts say nothing about Eve.306
However, Torleif Elgvin has a different view on 4Q422. He suggests that the
text refers to creation, the ruling role, and the rebellion o f humanity in the Genesis
account, though they are not very clear contextually. He reconstructs and translates
4Q422 as: “9. [ . . . He set mankind on the earjth, He set him in charge to eat the fruit[s o f
the soil, 10.] that he should not eat from the tree that gives know ledge o f good and evil.]
11.] He rose against Him and they forgot [His laws 12.] in evil inclination and deed[s o f
injustice . . . ” A similar passage concerning Adam and Eve is found in 4Q381 fragment 1,
lines 7-8: “[his] w[ife.] And by his spirit he appointed them to rule over all o f these on
the earth and in all [ . . . ] [mo]nth by [mo]nth, feast by feast, day by day, to eat its
fr uit. . . ” If Elgvin’s reconstruction is correct, then Qumran has mentioned Eve, who
306 Esther Glickler Chazon, “The Creation and Fall o f Adam in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The
Book o f Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation: A Collection o f Essays, ed. Judith
Frishman and Lucas Van Rompay (Leuven: Aedibus Peeters, 1997), 13-24.
307 Torleif Elgvin, “The Genesis Section o f 4Q422 (4QParaGenExod),” D ead Sea Discoveries
1 (1994): 180-96.
139
was Adam’s wife and shared with him dominion over the earth and also transgessed
“together with him” against God due to evil inclination.
This writer has observed that the verb ins©1 (“they forgot”) in 4Q422.11 is not
reconstructed.308 The term lnoN (“his wife”) at the beginning o f line 7 in 4Q381 fragment
1 is reconstructed, but the following word OT»»n (“he appointed them”) at the same line
and the word ona (“among them”) at the beginning o f line 10309 are not reconstructed.
This indicates the inclusion o f Eve. Therefore, Elgvin’s view is justified. Eve is
mentioned in these two texts.
The Qumran literature shows little interest in the first couple, particularly in
Eve. On the whole, there is no mention o f human sinfulness and death transmitted from
the first couple to their posterity. No negative comment on Eve310 is found in these texts
at all. Eve is the same as Adam, created by God, endowed with dominion and
stewardship o f the earth, and finally disobedient to God, despite the fact that she is not
exalted as he is in the Qumran literature. Nevertheless, Adam is totally blamed and
responsible for the transgression o f disobeying God’s instructions, forgetting the Law,
and abusing his power, due to his evil inclination.
308 See Garcia Martinez and Tigchelaar, D ead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, vol. 2, 884.
309 Ibid., 754.
310 Most o f scholars think that the wicked woman o f “The Wiles o f the Wicked Woman” in
4Q184 symbolizes Israel’s enemies: Rome, or the Pharisees, or others. See Joseph M. Baumgarten, “On
the Nature o f the Seductress in 4Q184,” Revue de Qumran 15 (1991): 133—43; Hans Burgmann, “The
Wicked Woman”: der Makkabaer Simon?” Revue de Qumran 8 (1974): 323-59; Anatole M. Gazov-
Ginzberg, “Double Meaning in a Qumran Work (‘The Wiles o f the Wicked Woman’),” Revue de Qumran 6
(1969): 281-85; Rick D. Moore, “Personification o f the Seduction o f Evil: ‘The Wiles o f the Wicked
Woman’,” Revue de Qumran 10 (1981): 505-19; Yiphtah Zur, “Parallels Between Acts o f Thomas 6 -7 and
4Q184,” Revue de Qumran 16(1993): 103-7.
140
Explicitly, Adam is dominantly the central person described in several
accounts o f the creation o f humankind. On the one hand, Adam is exalted as “all the
glory o f Adam” (IQ S 4.22-23; 1QH 17.15; CD 3.20) and “all the inheritance o f Adam ”
(lpP S a 1+3.2) in an eschatological sense. The mention o f Adam’s dominion over creation
alone indicates his predominant role within the couple. On the other hand, he is primarily
blamed for the first transgression (4Q504; 4Q422; 4Q423), though Eve sinned first. All
these descriptions might indicate that the authors o f the Dead Sea Scrolls assume A dam ’s
male leadership in the divine creation. As a whole, in some sense these texts reflect how
Jewish people in Paul’s contemporaries understood the first couple in Genesis.
2 Enoch
The second book o f Enoch currently exists only in the Slavonic language (but
possibly Greek is the original language). It was composed in the first century A.D. The
entire book emphasizes that the Lord is the sole Creator and is monotheistic. It promotes
the pursuit o f the cardinal virtues, caring for the poor and needy and practicing sexual
purity. Mankind is believed to be the visible face o f God, thus, “any disrespect for any
human being is disrespect for God himself.”311
In 2 Enoch the Paradise story o f Adam and Eve is found in 30.8-32.1.
Concerning the creation and the nature o f the first man, 30.8-12 uniquely reads:312
311 See F. I. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in OTP, vol. 1, 91, 97. He
suggests that the book is primarily a Midrash and is an amplification o f Gen 5:21-32, covering the
incidents from the life o f Enoch to the outbreak o f the Deluge. Also see Tennant, Doctrine o f the Fall, 204;
Cohon, “Original Sin,” 55; Evans, Noncanonical Writings, 23; Stone, “Apocalyptic Literature,” 406-7.
312 All citations o f 2 Enoch in this section are taken from Andersen’s translations in “2
Enoch.”
141
And on the sixth day I commanded m y wisdom to create man out o f the seven
components . . . And I gave him seven properties . . . From invisible and visible
substances I created man. From both his natures come both death and life. And (as
my) image he knows the word like (no) other creature . . . And on earth I assigned
him to be a second angel, honoured and great and glorious. And I assigned him to
be a king, to reign on the earth, and to have wisdom. And there was nothing
comparable to him on earth . . .
According to this passage, God created the first “man” from invisible and visible
substances to be his image on the sixth day. The first “man” was endowed with glory and
wisdom, and was incomparable and transcendent to other creatures, like an angel and a
king to reign on the earth. Nonetheless, his dual natures, invisible and visible substances,
will bring both death and life. Van Ruiten suggests that the text contains elements o f Gen
1:26-28 and refers to the creation o f humanity including Adam and Eve.313 However, the
following description would suggest that the first humanity refers to Adam alone.
Subsequently, God named the man Adam and predicted his transgression:
And I assigned to him a name from the four components . . . I assigned to him four
special stars, called his name Adam. And I gave him his free will; and I pointed out
to him the two ways— light and darkness. And I said to him : ‘This is good for you,
but that is bad’; so that I might know whether he has love toward me or abhorrence,
and so that it become plain who among his race loves me. Whereas I have come to
know his nature, he does not know his own nature. That is why ignorance is more
lamentable than the sin such as it is in him to sin. And I said: ‘After sin there is
nothing for it but death.’314 (30.13-16)
This passage is quite ambiguous and is totally absent in the Genesis account. The
•lie
Creator called the man Adam who was endowed with free will. The Creator
showed him the knowledge o f two ways: light or good, and darkness or evil. He also
313 See van Ruiten, “Creation o f Man and Woman,” 58-60.
314 In other words, death is derived from sin.
315 Here the term “Adam” still can be a collective noun denoting the first man and the first
woman, since only “Adam” was expelled to the earth after the first transgression (see 32.1).
142
predicted that Adam would sin because o f ignorance about his own nature,316 even
though he had the free will to choose to love or abhor God according to his knowledge o f
discerning good and bad. The Creator announced that death would come after sin. He did
not define whose sin (Adam’s or an individual’s sin) and what kind o f death (physical or
spiritual death, individual or universal death). Apparently, Adam is held responsible for
his future sin and death.317
An explicit reference to the creation o f the woman is found in 30.17-31.2:
And while he was sleeping, I took from him a rib. And I created for him a wife, so
that death might come (to him) by his wife. And I took his last word, and I called
her name Mother, that is to say, Euva. God hands over paradise to Adam, and gives
him a command to look upon the heavens . . . Adam—Mother; earthly and life. And
I created a garden in Eden, in the east, so that he might keep the agreement and
preserve the commandment.
This passage retells that Eve was created out o f Adam ’s rib to be his wife. Strikingly, the
reason for Eve’s existence is that “by her” death might come to Adam. The question here
is whether the usage o f the phrase “by her” is causal or instrumental. Moreover, it is God
(not Adam) who named the woman M other (denoting Euva). The text states that
“Mother” symbolizes life whereas Adam means earthly. This might simply mean Eve is
the first to give birth to humans, and Adam was formed from the dust o f the ground (Gen
2:7). Nonetheless, life is from heaven contrasting that from earth. Metaphysically, the
former has a higher level than the latter. Does this imply Eve’s superiority over Adam?
316 Charles suggests that the ignorance here refers to man’s nature with its good and evil
impulses, that is, the yetzer, see R. H. Charles, ed., The Book o f the Secret o f Enoch, trans. from the
Slavonic by W. R. Morfill (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896), 42.
317 Thompson suggests that 3.15-16 teaches the concept o f individual responsibility for sin
and death. See his work, Responsibility fo r Evil, 27-28.
143
The Sin o f Eve
The descriptions o f the motive and the scheme o f the devil against Adam and
Eve and their expulsion from Eden are described subsequently in 31.3-32.1:
And the devil understood how I wished to create another world, so that everything
could be subjected to Adam on earth . . . The de v il . . . he will become a d e m o n . . .
his name was Satanail. . . he became aware o f his condemnation and o f his sin . . .
and that is why he thought up the scheme against Adam. In such a form he entered
Paradise and corrupted Eve. But Adam he did not contact. But on account o f (her)
nescience I cursed them. But those whom I had blessed previously, them I did not
curse; (and those whom I had not blessed i j o
previously, even them I- did
Q
not curse)—
31
neither mankind I cursed, nor the earth, nor any other creature, but only
m ankind’s evil fruit-bearing.320 This is why the fruit o f doing good is sweat and
exertion. After Adam’s transgression, God expels him into the earth from which he
had been ta k e n . . .
God here explains why Satan plotted against the first couple. He emphasizes that Satan
disguised him self in the form o f a demon to corrupt Eve alone, but did not contact Adam.
Regarding the meaning o f the demon “corrupted Eve,” Tennant emphasizes the meaning
o f the verb “entered,” denoting “come in unto,” which supports the view that Eve’s
temptation by the serpent is a temptation to infidelity. He takes this passage as another
example o f the tradition that Satan seduced Eve to commit the sin o f unchastity.321
However, God him self commented that Eve sinned because o f her ignorance,
the same reason he had previously predicted for Adam’s sin. He did not curse the first
couple because they were his blessed creatures. The only thing God cursed is “mankind’s
evil fruit-bearing.” The author does not explain the meaning o f “m ankind’s evil fruit-
bearing.” However, the next phrase “the fruit o f doing good” (or good fruit-bearing)
318 This contradicts God’s announcement “Cursed is the ground because o f you” (Gen 3:17).
319 However, the Hebrew Bible teaches that the serpent was cursed (Gen 3:14).
320 What is the meaning o f “mankind’s evil fruit-bearing?” Why is it cursed?
321 Tennant, Doctrine o f the Fall, 208-9. Advocates are: Prusak, “Woman: Seductive Siren?,”
95; Van Ruiten, “Creation o f Man and Woman,” 60; and Thackeray, St. Paul to Jewish Thoughts, 52.
144
apparently contrasts with “evil fruit-bearing.” It seems to this writer that what God curses
here is m ankind’s wickedness. In addition, the narrator emphasizes only Adam ’s
transgression and his expulsion from the garden.
In 41.1-2 Enoch grieves over the transgression o f Adam and Eve:
[And] I saw all those from the age o f m y ancestors, with Adam and Eve. And I
sighed and burst into tears. [And I said] concerning their disreputable depravity,
‘Oh how miserable for m e is my incapacity [and that of] m y ancestors!’ And I
thought in my heart and I said, ‘How blessed is the person who has not bom, or who,
having been bom, has not sinned before the face o f the LORD, so that he will not
come into this place nor carry the yoke o f this place.’
Tennant affirms that the passage implies the inherited depravity and infirmity o f Adam
and Eve transmitted to their posterity. The doctrine o f Original Sin is undeniably implied
in this passage. However, Thompson argues that the consequence o f the first parents’
transgression that is transmitted to their posterity is physical death, not moral evil or
sinfulness. He questions who actually caused the “depravity/ruin,” Adam and Eve, other
forefathers, or all o f them? It is unclear in the present text.323
If it is correct that 2 Enoch 30.8-16 is the account o f the creation o f the man
Adam alone, then he alone is highly exalted as “a second angel,” “a king” ruling on earth
with honor, glory, and superiority. Undeniably, the focus o f the text is on the man Adam.
On the one hand, Eve was created to bring Adam death. On the other hand, Adam’s
transgression was due to his ignorance o f his own nature as indicated in 30.10c: “From
322 Tennant, Doctrine o f the Fall, 210. Also see Cohon, “Original Sin,” 288; Norman Powell
Williams, The Ideas o f the Fall and o f Original Sin: A Historical and Critical Study (London: Longmans,
1927), 55.
323 Thompson, Responsibility fo r Evil, 33-34.
invisible and visible substances I created man. From both his natures come both death
and life.”324 The book states that A dam ’s own sin caused his own death (30.16b). His
ignorance o f his own nature led him to sin (30.16a). He was expelled because o f his sin.
Regarding Eve’s sin, the idea that she committed the sin o f infidelity to Adam
lacks contextual evidence and needs further exploration. Considering the hereditary
sinfulness o f humanity, it could mean that Adam and Eve were depraved and ruined in
the past just as Enoch him self is also depraved and ruined in the present. This kind o f
depravity could be due to the two natures (the invisible and visible substances) created
inside each human. However, the phrase “concerning their disreputable depravity” and
the phrase which followed, “How blessed is the person who has not bom . . . has not
sinned before the face o f the Lord, so that he will not come into this place nor carry the
yoke o f this place” (41.1-2), more or less might imply the inherited depravity and
infirmity o f the first parents transmitted to their posterity as Tenant suggests above.
Nonetheless, despite how despairing Enoch is, at the end o f the passage he
still believes that sin is not unavoidable, though human beings are descendants o f Adam
and Eve and can sin ju st as their ancestors did. Each person has to bear individual
responsibility for his or her destiny because o f the endowed capability (the free will) to
choose good or evil.325 Therefore, he concludes that blessed is the person who has not
sinned before God. If mankind were bom with hereditary sinfulness, then it would be
impossible for him or her to avoid sin. Norman Powell Williams comments: “the
324 See van Ruiten, “Creation o f Man and Woman,” 60.
325 Ibid., 27-28.
146
Slavonic Enoch holds strongly that the taint inherited from Adam and Eve is not so
powerful as to destroy the individual’s responsibility for his own fate.”
In summary, the author o f 2 Enoch blames Eve and Adam for the first
transgression. However, the focus o f all these texts is on Adam, who is exalted as the
king o f the divine creation, being given the wisdom o f ruling on the earth (30.8-16). He
is the target that the devil schemed against (31.6). The book states, “After Adam ’s
transgression, God expels him” (32.1). Only A dam ’s sin and his expulsion are
emphasized in the text. In other words, Adam took the fall and the punishment alone.
Adam is the one who is ultimately held responsible for the sin in the Garden o f Eden,
even though the devil corrupted Eve but did not contact Adam (31.6). He plays a
predominant role, and is assumed to be the leader over Eve in the divine creation.
2 Baruch
Second Baruch was written about the first or second decade o f the second
century A.D. by a Jew who tried to encourage and exhort his fellow Jews during the
Dispersion after the fall o f Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The heading o f the Syriac text says that
it was translated from Greek.327 The purpose o f the book is to assure that everyone can
determine his or her destiny in the coming age. Those who obey the Law very earnestly,
focusing on the incorruptible world (the age to come) rather than the corruptible world
(the present age), will ultimately and undoubtedly obtain the eternal inheritance (the
326 Williams, The Ideas o f the Fall, 55, n. 2.
327 See A. F. J. Klijn, “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch,” in OTP, vol. 1, 615-16; Evans,
Noncanonical Writings, 26-27.
147
reward) in the coming age (48.30-41; 48.48-52.7; 54.17-19).328
The Sin o f Eve
The book has no mention o f the creation and the temptation o f Adam and Eve.
Regarding the issues o f sin and death, Baruch mainly blames Adam who sinned first
(54.15) and brought untimely death, all misfortune, and all afflictions to the human race:
For what did it profit Adam that he lived nine hundred and thirty years and
transgressed that which he was commanded? Therefore, the multitude o f time that
he lived did not profit him, but it brought death and cut o ff the years o f those who
were bom from him. (17.3)329
For when Adam sinned and death was decreed against those who were to be bom,
the multitude o f those who would be bom was numbered. (23.4)
And as you first saw the black waters on the top o f the cloud which first came down
upon the earth; this is the transgression which Adam, the first man, committed. For
when he transgressed, untimely death came into being, mourning was mentioned,
affliction was prepared, illness was created, labor accomplished, pride began to
come into existence, the realm o f death began to ask to be renewed with blood, the
conception o f children came about, the passion o f the parents was produced, the
loftiness o f men was humiliated, and goodness vanished. (56.5-6)
Only in one passage does the author also take Eve to be responsible for human corruption:
O Adam, what did you do to all who were bom after you? And what will be said o f
the first Eve who obeyed the serpent, so that this whole multitude is going to
corruption? And countless are those whom the fire devours. (48.42—43)33
328 See John Levison, Portraits o f Adam, 129; Stone, “Apocalyptic Literature,” 408-10.
329 The translation is from Klijn, “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch,” 627. The text is found in
S. Dedering, ed., “Apocalypse o f Baruch” in The O ld Testament in Syriac According to the Peshitta
Version (part 4/3): Apocalypse o f Baruch, 4 Esdras (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 9.
Dedering, “Apocalypse o f Baruch,” 13.
148
Here the author first o f all accuses Adam o f bringing destruction to mankind. Then he
particularly mentions that Eve’s obedience to the serpent caused human corruption.
Nonetheless, Baruch also emphasizes mankind’s personal responsibility for their own sin
and death derived from their evil deeds:
For although Adam sinned first and has brought death upon all who were not in his
own time, yet each o f them who has been bom from him has prepared for him self
the coming torment. And further, each o f them has chosen for him self the coming
glory. For truly, the one who believes will receive reward. But now, turn yourselves
to destruction, you unrighteous ones who are living now, for you will be visited
suddenly, since you have once rejected the understanding o f the M ost High . . .
Adam is, therefore, not the cause, except only for himself, but each o f us has
become our own Adam. (54.15-19)
The passage clearly states that Adam ’s transgression brought death to his posterity.
However, it also states that Adam ’s sin is the cause for his own death alone. The death o f
his posterity is the result o f their personal transgressions, their own unrighteousness.
In 2 Baruch the issues concerning the transmission o f hereditary sinfulness
and death, human free will, and individual responsibilities for choosing good and evil are
not easy to solve. The meaning o f sin and death is also very difficult to define. However,
Adam is denigrated to be the first big sinner, who brought humanity all misfortunes—the
untimely death, diseases, hard labors on earth, and the discord or struggle between men
and women. He is primarily accused o f bringing death into the world and ultimately held
responsible for the first trangression (17.3; 23.4; 48.42; 56.5-6). Why? This might
indicate that the author o f 2 Baruch assumes A dam ’s predominant role and male
leadership in the team as other writers do, though he also emphasizes human free will and
Dedering, “Apocalypse o f Baruch,” 30-31.
149
personal responsibilities for individual sin and death.
4 Ezra
Most scholars advocate that the original Jewish document o f the fourth book
o f Ezra was composed about A.D. 100.334 There is no mention o f Eve in the entire book.
However, it is significant to be discussed here because, according to the traditional view,
4 Ezra portrays Adam (not Eve) very negatively and attributes both sin and the death o f
the human race to his transgression.335 The most crucial passage concerning this is found
in 7.116-118:
It would have been better if the earth had not produced Adam, or else, when it had
produced him, had restrained him from sinning. For what good is it to all that they
live in sorrow now and expect punishment after death? O Adam, what have you
done? For though it was you who sinned, the fall was not yours alone, but ours also
who are your descendants.
The text states that Adam’s sin brought to his posterity sorrow in the present age and
punishment in the coming age (after death). Adam ’s fall simultaneously becomes the fall
o f his descendants, who have to bear the consequence o f his transgression.337
334 See Bruce M. Metzger, “The Fourth Book o f Ezra,” in OTP, vol. 1, 520; Stone,
“Apocalyptic Literature,” 412.
335 Metzger, “The Fourth Book o f Ezra,” 521; Oesterley, The Books o f the Apocrypha, 275;
Cohon and Thackeray suggest that 4 Ezra is the first rabbinic writing attributing human sinfulness to
Adam’s transgression, and 2 Baruch is written to counter it. See Cohon, “Original Sin,” 288-89; Thackeray,
St. Paul to Jewish Thoughts, 34-35. However, Tennant suggests that the author regards Adam to be the
cause o f physical death to his posterity but not their spiritual sinfulness. See Tennant, Doctrine o f the Fall,
224. The issues here would not be discussed or explained because this dissertation focuses on the portraits
o f Eve (not Adam) in early Judaism.
336 The translation is drawn from Metzger, “The Fourth Book o f Ezra,” 541. The Syriac text is
found in R. J. Bidawid, ed., “4 Esdras,” in The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshitta Version
(part 4/3); Apocalypse o f Baruch, 4 Esdras (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 22-23.
337 Thompson suggests that Ezra sees Adam’s sin as the cause o f the world’s physical
problems and the cause o f death for every man. However, he considers these disasters happening to most o f
the people but not all humanity. See Thompson, Responsibility fo r Evil, 328-30.
150
However, several passages concerning Adam’s creation and transgression and
the endowment o f an evil heart in human creation might challenge the traditional view:
O sovereign Lord . . . when you formed the earth. . . and commanded the dust and
it gave you Adam . . . And you laid upon him one commandment o f yours; but he
transgressed it, and immediately you appointed death for him and for his
descendants . . . And every nation walked after its own will and did ungodly things
before y o u . . . But again, in its time you brought the flood upon the inhabitants o f
the world and destroyed them. And the same fate befell them: As death came upon
Adam, so the flood upon them. But you left one o f them, Noah with his household,
and all the righteous who have descended from him. (3 .4 -1 1)338
For the first Adam, burdened with an evil heart, transgressed and was overcome, as
were also all who were descended from him . . . and you raised up . . . David . . . to
build a city for your name . . . but the inhabitants o f the city transgressed, in
everything doing as Adam and all his descendants had done, for they also had the
evil heart. So you delivered the city into the hands o f your enemies. (3.21-27)339
For a grain o f evil seed340 was sown in Adam’s heart from the beginning, and how
much ungodliness it has produced until now, and will produce until the time o f
threshing comes! (4.30)3 1
The deliverance o f the righteous Noah from death indicates that Adam’s
transgression did not bring universal death into the world.342 After the fall, humanity can
still choose to live righteously. Every person is still responsible for his or her death. The
338 The translation is drawn from Metzger, “The Fourth Book o f Ezra,”528. The Syriac text is
found in Bidawid, “4 Esdras,” 1.
340 Tennant points out that the “grain o f evil seed” implies the evil yetzer was implanted in
Adam when God created him. He sinned because he yielded to this implanted “seed.” Thus, human
sinfulness is not caused by his first transgression, but each person’s own yetzer. See Tennant, Doctrine o f
the Fall, 227-28. Also see Oesterley, The Books o f the Apocrypha, 275-76; Thompson, Responsibility fo r
Evil, 62, 323.
342 The texts imply that Adam’s transgression neither transmitted sinful nature to his
descendants nor shortened the years o f their physical life on earth. Humanity is created from dust and will
return to dust (Gen 3:19). Perhaps i f the first parents had not sinned, they would have been given
immortality. However, death is the result o f sin. That is why Noah was saved whereas all wicked perished
in the flood. Enoch and Elijah were taken by God without going through the process o f physical death on
151
cause o f sin is derived from the evil heart endowed in each person.343 It is not inherited
from Adam’s sin. Tennant suggests that the author o f 4 Ezra only states that every man
has a corrupt heart (or the evil inclination) by nature just as Adam had before his first
transgression. Human sinfulness is not the consequence o f Adam ’s sin. Despite the
corrupted human nature, mankind still has free will and is responsible for his personal
actions.344 John Levison comments on this:
Despite the intensity o f his desire to defend Israel by attributing sin to Adam ’s
transgression and the evil heart, Ezra never successfully attributes physical death,
sin, and eschatological damnation to Adam. Instead, he attributes sin to the evil
earth (Gen 5:21-24; 2 Kgs 2:1-11), whereas Aaron and Moses died because o f their own sins in the Desert
o f Zin (Deut 32:48-52). The Bible clearly teaches two kinds o f people in this world: the righteous and the
wicked (e.g., Psalms; Proverbs; Ecclesiastes). The Lord says: “The soul who sins is the one who will d ie .. .
The son will not share the guilt o f the father, nor will the father share the guilt o f the son.” (Ezek 18:4b, 20),
343 Here “the evil heart” is not the same as Yezer. Apparently, Yezer denotes imagination, or
desire, or inclination. It is endowed in each person’s heart in the divine creation. Its nature may be good and
evil. Some Rabbis explain it as two hearts and two Yezers, the bad heart with the Evil Yezer, the good heart
with the Good Yezer (Gert. Rab. 14.7; Eccles. Rab. 1.16; m. Berachoth 61a). Each person is at the same
time endowed with the ability (human freewill) to choose good instead o f bad through the study o f Torah
and the divine grace (Gen. Rab. 34.10; Num. Rab. 14.6; Deut. Rab. 2.33; Eccles. Rab. 9.1; m. Baba Bathra
17a). Thus, the people o f God are exhorted and urged to study the Torah, to obey God’s word, and to ask
for God’s grace and mercy, in order to establish the throne for the Good Yezer rather than the Evil Yezer
(Gen. Rab. 22.6; Lev. Rab. 29.17; 34.1; Eccles. Rab.2.11; m. Berachoth 65a; m. Sukkah 52b). Every person
has freewill to make the choice between good and evil and is responsible for its consequences. Nonetheless,
the battle between the Good Yezer and the Evil Yezer never ceases until the coming o f the Messiah (Tg. Ps.-
J. Deut. 30:4; m. Sukkah 52a; Gen. Rab. 48.11; Ex. Rab. 41.7; Num. Rab. 17.6; Deut. Rab. 2.28. Cf. the
struggle between two laws described by Paul in Rom 7). Therefore, God creates Yezer but not the Evil
Yezer (or “the evil heart”). The latter is not from God for He does not create evil (Eccles 7:29). Neither is it
inherited from Adam who sinned because o f his choice o f evil. Moreover, some righteous figures do exist
in this world. It is man who breeds the Evil Yezer. See S. Schechter, Some Aspects o f Rabbinic Theology
(New York: MacMillan, 1923), 242-43, 2 5 5 -5 8 ,2 6 4 ,2 6 8 -7 3 , 286-91. See also Murphy, “Yeser in the
Qumran,” 334-44.
344 See Tennant, Doctrine o f the Fall, 220-32 for details. Regarding the evil heart possessed
by humanity, see 4 Ezra 3.20-27; 4.26-32; 7.127-31. John Levison has a detailed interpretation o f these
passages; see his work Portraits o f Adam, 117-19, 123-25. Oesterley comments that though the origin o f
sin is attributed to Adam, at the same time each man’s personal responsibility for his individual sin is also
stressed in the book. Besides, according to the author, the evil is from the heart o f the person, not from
external agents or forces. See Oesterley, The Books o f the Apocrypha, 274-76. Thompson has analyzed and
summarized the issue o f personal responsibility for sin in 4 Ezra in details; see Thompson, Responsibility
fo r Evil, 296-303, 322-23.
152
heart, as does Uriel, without exploring precisely how Adam transmitted it to his
descendants.345
In summary, the negative portrait o f Adam in 4 Ezra reflects that not all
Jewish writers denigrate Eve and hold her to be guilty o f bringing sin and death into the
world. However, no mentions o f Eve might imply that Eve is not as important as Adam in
the team for Adam is seen as the representative o f humanity. Moreover, the book
exclusively blames Adam for bringing sin and death to humanity, even though Eve was
the first person who sinned in Genesis. That might imply Adam’s significant and
predominant role in the couple. The author o f 4 Ezra likely assumes Adam as the leader
over Eve, so that he is responsible not only for his sin but also for hers. The negative
portrait o f Adam in 4 Ezra strongly contrasts the emphases o f the Books o f Adam and
Eve that will be discussed in the following sections.
The Apocalypse of Moses
There are five major versions o f Life ofA dam and Eve: the Greek, the
Latin, the Armenian, the Georgian, and the Slavonic versions. According to M ichael E.
Stone’s study, each version has its own peculiarities. They probably share some common
materials, but they are not derived from any o f the others. They are all translated from
Greek.346 Each o f them has its own purpose in stating the life o f Adam and Eve based on
345 See John Levison, Portraits o f Adam, 126. To this writer, perhaps Ezra does not explain
how Adam transmitted the evil heart to his descendants because he does not believe that it is inherited from
Adam. As a whole, he emphasizes that every person sins like Adam did, but not because o f Adam. Every
sinner has the evil heart like Adam had, but not because o f Adam’s transmission. Therefore, every person is
responsible for his/her own sin since mankind still has free will to choose good and evil after the fall.
346 Stone, A History o f the Literature o f Adam and Eve, Society o f Biblical Literature: Early
Judaism and Its Literature, ed. William Adler, vol. 3 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1992), 6.
153
its own blend o f traditional source.347 The date o f these books is probably between A.D.
100 and A.D. 400.348 The Greek version o f Life o f Adam and Eve is also called
Apocalypse o f M oses.349 It is assumed to be the oldest version.350 The purpose o f the book
is to emphasize that physical death in the present world is an unavoidable result o f the
first parents’ transgression, but God has m ercy on those who repent, providing them with
salvation in the life after death,351 and promises resurrection for the righteous in the
coming age. Adam is a good example. He sinned and endured the pain o f existence, faced
death with uncertainty, but ultimately received mercy and forgiveness from God after
death because o f repentance.352
The book significantly mentions that Eve and Adam were guarding Paradise
separately before the fall:
347 For a succinct comparison o f the content o f each book, see Marinus de Jonge and Johannes
Tromp, The Life o f Adam and Eve and Related Literature, Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, ed.
Michael A. Knibb (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 11-27 for details.
348 Ibid., 65-77; M. D. Johnson, “Life o f Adam and Eve,” in The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha: Expansions o f the "Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature,
Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments o f Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works, ed. James H. Charlesworth, vol. 2
(New York: Doubleday, 1985), 252.
349 It is C. von Tischendorf who named the book Apocalypse o f Moses. See Stone, A History
o f Adam and Eve, 6.
350 Stone, A History o f Adam and Eve, 43; Johnson, “Adam and Eve,” 249,251; Gary A.
Anderson, “The Original Form o f the Life o f Adam and Eve: A Proposal,” in Literature on Adam and Eve:
Collected Essay, ed. Gary A. Anderson, Michael E. Stone, and Johannes Tromp (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 215.
351 See Johannes Tromp, “Literary and Exegetical Issues in the Story o f Adam’s Death and
Burial (GLAE 31—42),” in The Book o f Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation: A
Collection o f Essays, ed. Judith Frishman and Lucas van Rompay, Traditio Exegetica Graeca 5 (Louvain:
Peeters, 1997). He has a very good analysis o f this. A lso see Nickelsburg, “The Bible Rewritten and
Expanded,” 111-12.
352 See John Levison, Portraits o f Adam, 164; Marinus de Jonge, “The Christian Origin o f the
Greek Life o f Adam and Eve,” in Literature on Adam and Eve: Collected Essay, 349.
154
It happened while we were guarding Paradise, each his portion allotted from God.
Now I was watching in m y share, the South and the West, and the devil came into
Adam ’s portion, where the male animals were, since God divided the animals
among us, and all the males he gave to your father, and all the females he gave to
me, and each o f us kept his own. (15.2—4)
Eve recalls that she was watching her portion, the South and W est o f the garden. God
gave her all the female animals to keep whereas Adam was given the males. She has the
same dominion over the earth as Adam.
The Sin o f Eve
The author o f Apocalypse o f Moses points out that the reason for Satan to
tempt Adam and Eve is envy (16.1-5). Satan came to Eve in the form o f an angel (17.1-2)
and promised her that the forbidden fruit would make her become like the gods (18.2-3).
He forced Eve to swear that she would also give the fruit to Adam before he allowed her
to eat the fruit. Eve thoroughly did what Satan told her (19.1-2). Consequently, she ate
the forbidden fruit, which resulted in losing her glory and righteousness:
W hen he had received the oath from me, he went, climbed the tree, and sprinkled
his evil poison on the fruit which he gave me to eat which is his covetousness . . .
And I bent the branch toward the earth, took o f the fruit, and ate. And at that very
moment m y eyes were opened and I knew that I was naked o f the righteousness
with which I had been clothed. And I wept saying, ‘Why have you done this to me,
that I have been estranged from m y glory with which I was clothed?’ (19.3-20.2)
Scholars suggest that here Eve’s temptation by the devil is seen as associated
with sexual passion. First, Eve identified the action o f the serpent who put its poison on
the fruit as desire or covetousness eTuGupia (19.3). Second, God indicted Eve o f turning
to the “sin o f flesh” (25.3). The immediate effect o f Eve’s sin was her loss o f “glory” and
353 All citations o f the Apocalypse o f Moses in this section are according to the translation o f
Johnson, “Life o f Adam and Eve.”
155
“righteousness.”354 However, John Levison takes “glory” and “righteousness” to refer to
immortality.355 This view is better attested by what Adam said to Eve: “W hy have you
wrought destruction among us and brought upon us great wrath, which is death gaining
rule over all our race?” (14.2-3) Moreover, Adam also lost the clothing o f glory after
eating the forbidden fruit (21.6).
Regarding the cause o f A dam ’s transgression, Eve was the culprit repeating
the serpent’s words to persuade Adam to eat the forbidden fruit:
And I cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Adam, Adam, where are you?” . . . For
when he came, I opened my mouth and the devil was speaking, and I began to
admonish him, saying, “Come, m y lord Adam, listen to me and eat o f the fruit o f
the tree o f which God told us not to eat from it, and you shall be as God.” Your
father answered and said, “I fear lest God be angry with me.” And I said to him,
“Do not fear; for as soon as you eat, you shall know good and evil.” Then I quickly
persuaded him. He ate, and his eyes were opened, and he also realized his
nakedness. (21.1-5)
However, Eve emphasized that it was the devil who utilized her to speak and deceive
Adam.356 Right from the beginning, and at the end o f her story o f the fall, Eve stressed
that the devil deceived her and Adam both. In 15.1 she started the story: “I will tell you
how our enemy deceived us.” In 30.1 she ended the story with a warning: “I have shown
you the w ay in which we were deceived. But you watch yourselves so that you do not
forsake the good” (cf. 39.2).357 Undeniably, Eve was the one who convinced Adam to eat
354 See John Levison, Portraits o f Adam, 169. Tennant suggests this also happens in 4
M accabees 18.7-8, Apocalypse o f Abraham 23.1, and 2 Enoch 31.6 (longer version/)- See Tennant,
Doctrine o f the Fall, 196,97, n. 1.
356 John Levison, “The Exoneration and Denigration o f Eve in the Greek Life o f Adam and
Eve,” in Literature on Adam and Eve: Collected Essay, 254. He analyzes that Eve was “the unwilling
vessel” o f Satan’s voice. Satan was at that time pretending to be an angel, and Eve believed that she was
obeying a messenger sent by the Creator.
357 John Levison suggests the fact that Eve gave her children the farewell discourse (the
instruction) indicates her anomalous authority. See “The Exoneration and Denigration o f Eve,” 254.
156
the fruit, though she was under the devil’s control. Adam blamed her for this (21.6; 23.5).
ICO
Nevertheless, one striking element o f the book is the repentance o f Eve,
which reduces the intensity o f her negative image in the entire account:
Then Eve rose and went out and fell on the ground and said, “I have sinned, O G od’
I have sinned, O Father o f all; I have sinned against you, I have sinned against your
chosen angels, I have sinned against the cherubim, I have sinned against your
steadfast throne; I have sinned, LORD, I have sinned much; I have sinned before
you, and all sin in creation has come about through me.” (32.1-2)
At first glance the book seems to exonerate Adam as innocent. However, he
was still responsible for his own transgression. This can be attested by Adam’s own
confession, God’s allegation o f Adam ’s transgression, and the affirmation o f God’s
upright judgment by the angels in the following passages:
. . . your father Adam begged the angels, ‘Let me be a little while so that I may
beseech God that he might have compassion and pity me, for I alone have
sinned.’ . . . And Adam cried out with weeping and said, ‘Forgive me, LORD, what
I have done’ Then the LORD said to his angels, ‘Why have you stopped driving
Adam out o f Paradise? Is the guilt mine, or did I judge badly?’ Then the angels fell
on the ground and worshiped the LORD, saying, ‘You are righteous, LORD, and
you judge uprightly.’ (27.2-5)
God said to Adam, “Because you transgressed my commandment and listened to

your wife, cursed is the ground in your labors.” (24.1)
And the LORD God said, “Adam, why did you do this? If you had kept my
commandment, those who brought you down into this place would not have
rejoiced.” (39.1)
Besides, according to E ve’s account, Adam did not guard his portion o f the garden
carefully, enabling Satan to enter it and use a male animal, the serpent, from his portion
to deceive Eve (15.3; 16.1-5). Adam also admitted that it was his absence that allowed
Satan to take advantage o f Eve (7.2-3). Thus, he was also responsible for Eve’s sin.
358 The book only provides a very brief description o f Adam’s repentance before God. Ibid.,
John Levison also points out that Eve is exonerated, as the book states that during the temptation she
“desires for the righteous glory o f the tree and also fears o f God.”
157
Nevertheless, the book strongly emphasizes Eve’s sole responsibility for
the first transgression through her self-condemnation, the wild beast’s accusation, and
Adam’s direct accusation as follows:
And Eve also wept and said, “M y lord Adam, rise, give me h alf o f your illness and
let me bear it, because this has happened to you through me; because o f me you
suffer troubles and pains.” (9.2)
Eve wept, saying, “Woe is me! For when I come to the day o f resurrection, all who
have sinned will curse me, saying that Eve did not keep the commandment o f God.”
( 10.2)
Then the beast cried out, saying, “O Eve, neither your greed nor your weeping are
due to us, but to you, since the rule o f the beasts has happened because o f you. How
is it that your mouth was opened to eat from the tree concerning which God
commanded you not to eat from it? Through this also our nature was changed.
Therefore now you would not bear it if I begin to reprove you.” (11.1-3)
He ate, and his eyes were opened, and he also realized his nakedness. And he said
to me, ‘O evil woman! W hy have you wrought destruction among us? You have
estranged me from the glory o f God.’ (21.5-6)
Seth and Eve came into the tent where Adam was lying. Adam said to Eve,
“Why have you wrought destruction among us and brought upon us great wrath,
which is death gaining rule over all our race?” (14.1-2)
Tennant thinks the book holds Eve as the cause o f humanity’s sinful nature, the
traditional view that woman is the origin o f sin. Adam is held much less responsible than
•5CQ
Eve. However, John Levison suggests that Eve is exonerated in chapters 15-30
whereas she is denigrated in the rest o f the book.360 Though in the narrative Adam seems
to be innocent and Eve is fully to blame, Eve is not the cause or origin o f human
sinfulness. Eve is only “culpable for pain and for the enmity which exists between
animals and the human race” (see above 11.1-3 concerning the loss o f dominion over the
359 See Tennant, Doctrine o f the Fall, 198-99. Scholars o f similar view are: Thompson,
Responsibility fo r Evil, 34; Meyer, The Ancient Mysteries, 75; Malina, “Some Observations,” 24.
360 John Levison offers a good argument for this respectively; see his work “The Exoneration
o f Eve in the Apocalypse o f Moses 15-30,” Journal fo r the Study o f Judaism 20 (1989): 135-50, 254-55.
158
animal world). The idea o f hereditary sinfulness is not in the text. Eve probably confessed
her sin and accepted all the blame in her emotional frenzy, a response to A dam ’s
suffering and agony, just as Adam’s confession was from his own point o f view.361
On the whole, according to Apocalypse o f Moses Eve was created in the image
o f God362 and offered dominion over other creatures on earth, just like Adam. She was
weak in committing the first sin, but she was also strong in repenting genuinely before
the Creator. The idea that Eve transmitted sinfulness to her posterity is not as clear as that
she brought death into the world. According to 10.2, when Eve comes to the day o f
resurrection, all who have sinned will curse her, saying that Eve did not keep the
commandment o f God. Eve brought sin into the world for she ate the forbidden fruit first
and became the first transgressor. However, Eve does not say that she is the origin o f all
sin and has transmitted sinfulness to all humanity.
Eve is severely and almost fully blamed for bringing sin and death into the
world, but the origin o f sin or the transmission o f human sinfulness from Eve to all
humanity is not clearly attested in Apocalypse o f Moses. The author does not blame Eve
alone. Adam is also accused o f being guilty, though he is much more respected.
Nonetheless, the entire book focuses on Adam ’s death and the reality o f universally
inevitable death. Repentance is the way to receive God’s mercy, forgiveness, and
salvation. Perhaps that is why the first couple, in particular Eve, has grievous statements
361 See ibid., 166-67 for details. Moreover, God said to Adam in his punishment: “And the
animals over which you ruled will rise up against you in disorder, because you did not keep my
commandment” (24.4). This also indicates that Adam was punished because o f his own sin.
362 See 10.3; 12.1,2; 33.5; 35.2.
159
o f sin-confession and self-condemnation. Marinus de Jonge and Johannes Tromp assess
the portraits o f Adam and Eve in the book as follows:
Adam is condemned for transgressing the commandment and listening to his

wife . . . Eve is condemned for listening to the serpent and transgressing the
com m andm ent. . . Eve goes to great lengths in taking all the blame . . . A dam ’s
confession in 27.2 that ‘I alone have sinned’ . . . Adam is said to blame Eve . . .
however, Adam excuses her. She was seduced when she was left unguarded . . . If
we would ask who, according to the authors o f GLAE, was more to blame, Adam or
Eve, we receive no answer from the writing.363
However, undeniably Eve is seen as the major culprit o f the first transgression
that is confirmed by Adam ’s direct accusation (14.1-2; 21.5-6), the beast’s statement
(11.1-3), and Eve’s self-condemnation (9.2; 10.2; 32.1-2). In addition, the impact o f the
first transgression and its sequence, that is, the loss o f glory, the corruption or destruction
or death is presented in the book (14.1-2; 21.5-6). Sin and death enter the world
primarily by means o f Eve. Nevertheless, it is God who blames Adam for the first
transgression and affirms his upright judgm ent upon Adam, not upon Eve (24.1; 27.2-5;
39.1). It is Adam who suffered from very painful disease until death, even though it is
Eve who had sinned first and tempted Adam to sin. W hy does God ultimately hold Adam
responsible for the first transgression? Does it indicate Adam’s male leadership? It is
worthy o f further consideration.
The Life of Adam and Eve
Life ofA dam and Eve ( Vita Adae et Evae), the Latin version o f Life ofAdam
and Eve, is a longer version than Apocalypse o f Moses. De Jonge and Tromp suggest that
the book is a further development and complete redaction o f the Armenian and Georgian
versions o f Life o f Adam and Eve. No account o f human creation is found in the entire
363 See de Jonge and Tromp, Life o f Adam and Eve, 53-54.
160
book. The author teaches that all people possess the image o f God, the physical
representation o f God, which is the foundation for Satan’s enmity against the human race
(10-17).364 Thus, like Adam, Eve was also created in the image o f God, but her sin was
amplified in the book. On the whole, the author is concerned mainly with the questions o f
guilt and penitence.365
The Sin o f Eve
Adam put all the blame on Eve for the first transgression:366
W hat have you done? You have brought upon us a great wound, transgression and
sin in all our generations. And you shall relate what you have done to your children
after m y death, for those who rise up from us shall labor, not being adequate, but
failing, and they shall curse us, saying, ‘Our parents who were from the beginning
have brought upon us all evils.’ (44.2-4)
John Levison points out that the accusation Adam laid on Eve here is very harsh indeed.
He indicted her o f culpability for all sin and death, causing all toil and hardship. He never
admitted his own transgression.367 Apparently, the author exalts Adam as a perfect
penitent, a righteous figure who obtained G od’s mercy during life and after death. Adam
was the one who sought God’s mercy in forgiveness, and the one who initiated and
accomplished the penitence splendidly (4.1-3; 8.1-3). On the contrary, Eve is denigrated
as a foolish woman who was the first to sin, and then failed a second time as Satan
deceived her again during her penitent period (9.1-11.17). Her first quest for God’s
364 John Levison, Portrait o f Adam, 185.
365 See Gary Anderson, “The Penitence Narrative in the Life o f Adam and Eve,” in Literature
on Adam and Eve: Collected Essays, 3—42. They have a very detailed discussion o f the penitence in all five
books.
366 All quotations o f Life o f Adam and Eve in this section are taken from the translation o f
Johnson’s “Life o f Adam and Eve.”
161
mercy was only for food. The entire account demonstrates Eve’s foolishness, ignorance
■i/'t)
and self-deprecation in the first transgression (chapters 1-8).
On the whole, Eve blamed herself seriously for causing Adam ’s sufferings.
She took over all responsibility for the first (and second) transgression and denied
Adam ’s culpability (3.1; 5.2; 18.1-2; 35.3). Even God stood for Adam, listening to his
prayer for Eve’s sake but refusing to listen to Eve’s petition during her birth pangs (19.1-
2). Eve’s sin is that she actively caused Adam to listen to her and led him to neglect
G od’s command (18-29). One striking element is God’s statement concerning the reason
for Adam’s death, found in 26.2:
And God said to me, ‘Behold, you shall die, because you have disregarded the
command o f God, since you have listened rather to the voice o f your wife, whom I
gave into your power, that you might keep her in your will. But you listened to her
and disregarded m y words.
The text states that Eve was supposed to be under Adam ’s power (given by God) and
should have acted within his will. However, Adam did not control Eve well, but listened
to her, resulting in disregard for God’s command.
Life o f Adam and Eve portrays Eve as foolish, weak, and vulnerable to
deception (two times), who was under Adam ’s power in God’s original design (26.2).
She was the worst sinner who not only caused A dam ’s sufferings but also brought sin and
death to the human race. The author pinpoints several consequences o f Eve’s sin. First,
the first couple was expelled from Paradise without being provided with angel’s food any
longer (1-4). Second, they suffered from guilt and unclean lips (6). Third, Eve
368 Ibid., 174-79.
162
experienced dreadful pain in childbearing the first time (18-21). Fourth, God pronounced
death (26).369 The book presents a very negative portrait o f Eve. Adam is exalted whereas
Eve is denigrated. Adam had to die because he listened to Eve (whom should be under
his power and control) and disregarded God’s command. Explicitly, Adam is assumed to
be the leader within the couple according to G od’s original design in creation.
The Armenian and Georgian Versions

of Life of Adam and Eve
According to de Jonge and Tromp, both the Armenian and the Georgian
37ft
versions o f Life o f Adam and Eve basically use and follow Apocalypse o f
Moses but with different purposes.371 These two versions primarily emphasize the
penitence o f Adam and Eve. They describe how the first couple searched for appropriate
food after being expelled from the paradise (2.1; 3.1, 3; 4.1-3), and how they made their
penitence (6.2; 8.2).
The Sin o f Eve
Eve’s transgression and weaknesses are stressed in the entire book. First, Eve
was seduced by Satan and failed again during her penitence (9-10), whereas Adam
succeeded and was rewarded immediately with seeds and instructions o f how to plant
them (6-8; 20.1). Second, Eve herself admitted her sole responsibility for the first and
369 Ibid, 188-89.
370 These two versions are very similar to one another, so they are being discussed together.
The references and quotations o f these two books in this section are according to Gary A. Anderson and
Michael E. Stone, e d s, A Synopsis o f the Books o f Adam and Eve, 2d rev. e d . Society o f Biblical Literature:
Early Judaism and Its Literature, ed. John C. Reeves, vol. 17 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1999).
371 See de Jonge and Tromp, Life o f Adam and Eve, 35-43 for details.
163
second transgressions.372 Third, she experienced the pain and danger o f childbirth and
had little faith in God. After having sinned the second time, she went to the west with her
pregnancy o f Cain. During the perilous process o f childbirth, she did not pray to God
directly to deliver her from pain and death, but only hoped that Adam would know about
her afflictions and come to help her out o f the disaster (18.2-19.2). She believed in Adam
rather than in God. It is Adam who heard her cry373 and prayed on her behalf before God
'l~ JA .
according to her request. Finally God heeded his prayer. As a result, Eve was saved
and Cain was bom (2 0 -2 1).375
Explicitly, the Armenian and Georgian versions o f Life o f Adam and Eve
empasize Adam ’s innocence but blame Eve solely for the first transgression. Eve, the rib
and the flesh o f Adam, is portrayed as a vulnerable person who was twice easily deceived
by Satan, full o f self-guilt, and lack o f faith and courage to ask for G od’s help in her peril.
She was cursed and rejected by the Creator after her transgressions. In summary, the
authors exonerate Adam and denigrate Eve while emphasizing the penitence after
transgression.
372 She said to Adam, “You are innocent o f the first sin and o f this second one. Only me alone
did Satan overcome, as a result o f God’s word and yours” (18.1). See Anderson and Stone, A Synopsis, 19E.
373 When Adam heard Eve’s voice, he said to himself, “This is the voice o f my rib” (Georgian
20.1c), “That voice and weeping are o f my flesh” (Armenian 20.1c). Eve is acknowledged as his flesh and
rib as in Gen 2:23. Citations are from Anderson and Stone, A Synopsis, 21E.
374 Eve said to Adam, “Now arise, entreat your Creator to deliver me from these pains”
(Armenian 20.2b). See Anderson and Stone, A Synopsis, 23E.
375 See de Jonge and Tromp, Life o f Adam and Eve, 56-57.
164
The Slavonic Version of Life of Adam and Eve
The Slavonic version o f Life o f Adam and Eve differs from the above
versions. According to de Jonge and Trom p’s opinion, the book focuses on the
sustenance m otif rather than the theme o f death and life after death or immortality.376
This version clearly mentions that God created Eve from Adam ’s rib (37.3).
Before the first transgression, Eve was in Paradise and had everything she wanted, and
everything happened according to her will. All the animals were under her control. She
received the same authority as Adam (1.1-4;377 29.5b). She watched the western and
southern sides o f paradise and tended the female animals, whereas Adam guarded the
eastern and northern sides and watched the male animals (20.3-4). She used to feed the
animals with her own hands (15.7).
The Sin o f Eve
Regarding Eve’s deception by the devil, the author appears to lessen her guilt
by emphasizing how the devil disguised him self as an angel to deceive her: “And the
Devil had changed to the form o f an angel and came here with radiance, singing an
angel’s song, just like an a ngel . . . at that time I took him for an angel because he had
come from A dam ’s side . . . ” (20.8-9; Adam also affirms this in 10.3). Furthermore,
after eating the forbidden fruit, she “cried bitterly” about what she had done (20.12b).
376 Ibid., 61-63. For example, the author stresses what Adam and Eve had to eat after being
expelled from the paradise rather than penitence after the transgression.
377 It reads: “Before the trespass, Adam was in Paradise and had everything he wanted and
everything happened according to his will: the wild animals and the domestic animals and all the feathered
birds—all drew near, left and fled at his command . . . It was the same with Eve.”
165
She was just a vessel o f the Devil; through her mouth he spoke to Adam to persuade him
to eat the fruit:
And Adam came to me and I opened m y mouth and the Devil spoke through me
about the tree and about knowledge, so that he would also want to taste o f it. And
Adam tasted, and his eyes were opened, and he saw his and m y nakedness, and he
said to me, ‘O wife, what have you done to me? Why have we departed from the
grace o f God? (22.7a-8)
Here A dam ’s words are much less harsh than in other books. He admitted that he him self
(not just Eve) had also departed from G od’s grace. He was as guilty as Eve. However, he
also blamed Eve for the loss o f immortality and paradise:
And Seth said, “In what w ay are you ill, how did it come over you?” And Adam
said, “When God created me and your mother, through whom we die and through
whom you will all be mortal, he gave us the Garden in Paradise, which we lost on
account o f Eve.” (10.1-2)
Nonetheless, the narrator states that Adam was expelled from Paradise because “he
committed the trespass and violated the command o f the Lord” (2.1). According to the
words o f the archangel Joel, God accused Adam o f obeying Eve, who was created to obey
Adam and not the reverse (32.6).
After the fall, Eve lost power over the animals (15.8). She confessed her
transgression when a huge animal was trying to devour Seth: “Woe is me, m y sweet child,
from now on until the end and until the second coming all will curse me, because it is on
m y account all sorts o f evil have multiplied” (15.61).378 Here Eve took her responsibility
for the multiplication o f evil. Eve expressed her remorse and begged for G od’s pity (29.3).
On the other hand, Adam positively defended Eve’s dignity as God’s creation and further
affirmed her remorse:
378 See Anderson and Stone, A Synopsis, 4 IE.
166
Then Adam said to me, “Eve, I have half a mind to give you over to death, but I am
afraid to do so, because God created your countenance. Thus, I cannot destroy the
creation o f God. On the contrary, because you now are filled with remorse and pray
to God, my heart can never part from you. (29.5a-b)
There are several positive depictions o f Eve in the book. First, regarding her
penitence, Eve willingly suggested that she would fast for more days than Adam (37.5) and
claimed with faith that she would call out to God with her whole heart (37.7). This
indicates her repentance was earnest. Second, during her penitence, though the devil again
changed him self into the form and radiance o f an angel, trying to deceive her a second time,
she discerned him as the devil and overcame him. When Adam knew that, he rejoiced
greatly because o f her steadfastness (39.1-5). Exclusively, the author exalts Eve by
emphasizing her big victory over Satan’s second deception. Somehow, Eve acknowledged
her responsibility for Adam ’s agony (15.2) and the multiplication o f all sorts o f evil in the
world (15.6). Nevertheless, as compared with other versions o f Adam and Eve, the
Slavonic version presents a more positive portrait o f Eve. Her faith in God, her repentance,
and her final victory over Satan’s second deception after the fall lessen the intensity o f her
first transgression. However, it is noteworthy that according to the words o f the archangel
Joel, God accused Adam o f having committed the trespass and violated his command (2.1).
He had obeyed Eve, who was created to obey him and not the reverse (32.6). This parallels
the Latin version, indicating A dam ’s male leadership in the divine creation.
As a whole, these five versions o f Life o f Adam and Eve do not really
interpret nor rewrite Genesis 1-3. Apparently, the authors try to continue the story o f the
first couple after the expulsion from Eden by their conjectures, in order to accomplish
167
their own purposes and emphasis. Nonetheless, they generally exonerate Adam but
denigrate Eve. They advocate that Eve had the same dominion over the earth as Adam
had before the fall. After the fall she was still free to do what she wanted to do.379
However, theses texts show that the first couple plays different roles between
themselves. They record that Eve is the chief culprit o f the fall and accused by Adam, the
beast, and all other animals. God did not listen to her prayers while she was in the danger
o f giving birth to her first child. Eve was delivered from death only because o f Adam ’s
prayers. Strikingly, God solely blamed Adam for the first transgression. Adam alone had
to suffer serious and painful diseases unto death. Two versions clearly mention that
Adam’s power over Eve (who should obey him) is God’s original design ( Vita 26.2;
Slavonic 32.6). Nonetheless, Adam had failed to fulfill his role o f male leadership.
The Targums
According to Evans’ work, the discovery o f Targum fragments at Qumran
indicates that the Targums possess some traditions that can date to the time o f the
New Testament. They are significant in providing a paraphrase and interpretive
translation o f the Pentateuch o f the Hebrew Bible.380 Martin M cNamara points out that
from a very early date, Jewish tradition advocated that targums were used in the times o f
379 For instance, she left Adam and went to live in another place before Cain’s birth.
380 See Evans, Noncanonical Writings, 97-99; also see Darrell L. Bock, Blasphemy and
Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination ofJesus: A Philological-Historical Study o f the Key
Jewish Themes Impacting Mark 14:61-64, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, ed.
Martin Hengel and Otffied Hoflus, vol. 106 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 72. Martin McNamara thinks
that a Palestinian targum “found in its entirety in Codex Neofiti, and in part in the texts o f Pseudo-
Jonathan” may have existed even earlier than NT times. See his work, Targum and Testament: Aramaic
Paraphrases o f the Hebrew Bible: A Light on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 12.
Evans agrees with this view. See his work, Noncanonical Writings, 98.
168
-JOI
Ezra. Regarding the relation o f the Palestinian Targum to the New Testament, he
comments as follows:
In recent years special attention has been devoted to the bearing o f targumic
evidence on the understanding o f the New Testament writings. The parallels
between them seem to favour an early date for the tradition found in the Palestinian
Targum.
The convergence o f all these arguments provides a very strong indication that the
bulk o f the material which we have in the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch
comes from pre-Christian times. It likewise permits us to assume that by the days o f
Christ the tradition enshrined in this paraphrase was already formed and has, in the
main, been faithfully transmitted.382
Targum Onqelos
Targum Onqelos, also called the Babylonian Targum, is regarded as the
official and the most literal Targum to the Pentateuch, but with “occasional paraphrase,
and indications o f curtailed paraphrase.”383 The close relationship between Targum
Onqelos and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (particularly Neofiti) indicates the
Palestinian origin o f the former. On the basis o f the discovery among the Qumran
writings o f targums to Job and Leviticus, Evans suggests that Targum Onqelos possibly
existed in as early as the first century A.D. The author was Onqelos the Proselyte, Rabbi
Eliezer ben Hyreanus’s disciple (cf. b. Git. 56b; b. Meg. 3a).385 There is no tradition on
381 McNamara, Targum and Testament, 79.
382 Ibid., 88. Moses Aberbach and Bernard Grossfeld believe that “the Targum Onqelos on the
Pentateuch is probably the oldest and certainly the most accurate Aramaic translation o f the Hebrew
Scriptures.” See their work Targum Onkelos to Genesis: A Critical Analysis Together with an English
Translation o f the Text (Based on A. Sperber’s Edition) (Denver, CO: Ktav, 1982), 9.
384 Ibid., 175.
385 Evans, Noncanonical Writings, 99.
169
the rendering associated with Onqelos, and this makes its presence at a later date.
Many Targum scholars believe the final redaction o f the Targum Onqelos was formed
towards the end o f the third century A.D.
The Creation and Nature of Eve
And the Lord said, “Let us make Man in our image, according to our
likeness: and they shall rule over the fish o f the sea, and over the fowl o f the
heaven, and over the cattle, and over all the entire earth, and over all the crawling
things that crawls upon the earth.” And the Lord created Adam in His image, in the
image o f God He created him; male and female He created them. And the Lord
blessed them, and said to them, “Be m any and increase, and fill the earth, and have
power over it, and rule over the fish o f the sea and over the fowl o f the heaven and
over all the living creatures that crawl upon the earth.” {Tg. Onq. Gen 1:26-28)
Basically, the text follows the Hebrew text literally. Bernard Grossfeld
suggests that the Targum takes the terms “man” and “Adam” referring to an actual
-}O Q
individual, Adam. However, this view needs to explain the occurrences o f the phrase
“male and female” and the plural pronouns “they” and “them” (“He created them . . . the
Lord blessed them . . . and the Lord said to them”). The text states that the creation
includes both male and female and the divine mandates are given to both o f them. All
these apply to Eve here. She is the same as Adam in essence and status.
Regarding the reason for Eve’s creation, Tg. Onq. Gen 2:18-24 reads:
And the Lord God said, “It is not right that Adam should be alone; I will make
387 Aberbach and Grossfeld, Targum Onkelos, 9.
388 The texts in this section are taken from Aberbach and Grossfeld, Targum Onkelos. The
present text is on pp. 24-27.
389 See Bernard Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis: Translated, with a Critical
Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes, Aramaic Bible, ed. Kevin Cathcart, Michael Maher, and Martin
McNamara, vol. 6 (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1988), 43, n. 11.
170
him a support alongside o f him.” . . . And Adam gave names to all the cattle . . .
but for Adam no support alongside o f him was found. And the Lord cast a sleep
upon Adam . . . and He took one o f his ribs . . . And the Lord God fashioned the
r i b , . . . into a woman, and he brought her to Adam. And Adam said, “This time it is
the bone o f m y bones and flesh o f m y flesh; this one shall be called Woman,
because from her husband was this one taken.” Therefore, a man leaves the
sleeping-abode o f his father and mother, and clings to his wife, and they become
one flesh.390
According to this passage, God took Adam ’s rib to build Eve to be “a support alongside
o f Adam.” The author interprets the terms “a helper corresponding to him” to be Adam ’s
support alongside o f him (that is, equal to him), not his subordinate under him (that is,
not under his dominion/authority). The targumist considers Eve to be A dam ’s wife rather
than his subordinate when he emphasizes: “from her husband was this one taken.”
The Sin of Eve
In Tg. Onq. Gen 3,391 the serpent tempted Eve, who finally ate the forbidden
fruit and gave it to Adam. Eve accused the serpent o f leading her astray (cf. Gen 3:13
“the serpent deceived me”). God punished Adam because he had obeyed E ve’s word (cf.
Gen 3:17 “Because you listened to your wife”). As a result, Adam shall be Eve’s desire
and he shall dominate over her (cf. Gen 3:16b). Then Adam named the woman Eve, the
mother o f all humanity. Explicitly, the arrangement (the order) o f the events here is
different from the MT. The targumist put Eve’s punishment (Gen 3:16) after G od’s
announcement o f Adam’s sin and punishment (Gen 3:17-19), and A dam ’s naming his
wife (Gen 3:20) right after Eve’s punishment (Gen 3:16).392 Does this new order imply
390 Aberbach and Grossfeld, Targum Onkelos, 30-32.
391 Ibid., 32-9.
392 This is different from Jub. 3.33 in which it states that Adam named his wife Eve after they
were expelled from the Garden o f Eden and dwelt in the land o f ’Elda. That is far away from God’s
171
that the targumist believes the act o f A dam ’s naming indicates his dominion over Eve?
Pseudo-Jonathan
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan consists o f a diversity o f traditions. It is difficult to
date the book. However, according to Evans part o f it parallels the New Testament (e.g.,
Lev 22:28 parallels Matt 5:48; Luke 6:36; Ex 7:11-12 parallels 2 Tim 3:8).393 It is
unlikely that the rabbis would have used Christian materials. The rabbis and the Christian
writers might have used certain common (or similar) Jewish sources. I f this is correct,
then Targum Pseudo-Jonathan might have ancient ancestors before NT times. Apart from
this, there are numerous paraphrases and midrashim that are not found in other text o f the
Palestinian Targum, some o f them illustrating certain texts o f the New Testament.394
Therefore, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan deserves special attention, even though it by no
means traces the formation o f the composite text convincingly.395
The Creation of Eve
A nd God said to the angels who minister before him and who were created on
the second day o f the creation o f the world, ‘Let us make man in our image,
after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish . . . ’A nd God created
man in his own likeness, in the image o f God created he him with 248 members and
365 sinews,. . . male and fem ale in their way created he them. A nd God blessed
them, and God said unto them, ‘Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth with sons
announcement o f Eve’s judgment in 3.24, which is followed immediately by the announcement o f Adam’s
judgment instead (3.25-27).
393 Evans .Noncanonical Writings, 100.
394 For instance, the paraphrase o f Lev 22:28 in Pseudo-Jonanthan, “My people, children o f
Israel, as our Father is merciful in heaven, so shall you be merciful on earth,” is practically the text o f Luke
6:36 (Cf. Matt 5:48). The midrash on Jannes and Jambres uniquely found in Ps.-J. Ex 7:11 is referred to in
2 Tim 3:8. See McNamara, Targum and Testament, 179.
395 Ibid., 180.
172
and daughters, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish .. . and over every
living thing that moveth upon the earth. ’ (Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 1:26-28)396
The text demonstrates that the first human comprised o f male and female, is
created in the image o f God and is blessed by God to propagate on the earth and to rule
over the earth. The human race (the descendants o f the first human) includes sons (males)
and daughters (females). Thus, Eve, the representative o f the female, is created in the first
account, same as Adam.
Regarding the first couple’s creation in Gen 2, the Targum reads:
A nd the Lord God created man with two inclinations. And he took dust from the
place o f the Temple and from the four winds o f the w or ld ,. . . A nd the Lord God
said, ‘I t is not right that Adam should sleep alone; I will make him a wife that she
may be an help before him .’ . . . And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fa ll upon
Adam . . . and he took one o f his ribs— it was the thirteenth rib on the right side . . .
and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from Adam, builded he into a woman,
and brought her unto Adam. And Adam said, ‘This time and not again woman is
created from man. As she was created from me, she is bone o f my bones, and flesh
o f my fle sh ; this is rightly to be called Woman, because she was taken out o f M an.’
(w . 7, 18, 21-23)397
John Bowker points out that the “two inclinations” is basically a Jewish idea. It means
humankind’s ambivalence (or the inclination to) between good and evil (yezer haRa).
The Targum uses “it is not right” instead o f “it is not good” (Gen 2:18), which seems to
be different from what God says: “it was very good” in Gen 1:31.398 Nonetheless, such a
change could simply be a paraphrase o f the Hebrew text. Eve here is described as Adam’s
“wife” and “help.” The text emphasizes three times that Eve was created from Adam.
396 The translation o f the texts o f Targum Pseudo-Jonathan in this section is taken from John
Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature: An Introduction to Jewish Interpretations o f Scripture
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 97-98.
397 Bowker, Targums and Rabbinic Literature, 111-12.
398 Ibid., 119.
173
The Sin of Eve
When coming to the temptation and the fall in Genesis 3, the Targum follows
the Genesis account closely but also presents some variants:
A nd the serpent acting as an informer to its creator said unto the woman: ‘You will
not die at all for every craftsman hates his fellow-craftsman. It is revealed before
the Lord that in the day on which you eat o f it, your eyes shall be enlightened, and
y e shall be as the mighty angels who are wise (enough) to distinguish between good
and evil.’ A nd the woman saw Sammael,399 the angel o f death, and she was afraid,
and she knew that the tree was good fo r food, and that it was a remedy for the
enlightenment o f the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she
took o f the fru it thereof, and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her,
and he did eat. (Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 3:4—6)
The text uniquely adds that Eve saw the angel o f death and was afraid before she took the
forbidden fruit. She ate the fruit because she wanted to be enlightened like the mighty
angels. She wished to be an angel because she was afraid o f death. Apparently, the desire
for immortality could be one o f the reasons that prompted Eve to disobey God’s
command. She also gave the fruit to Adam, who was with her at that time, and he ate it.
After the first transgression, God called unto Adam: “Is not all the world
which I have created open before m e , . . . So how can you think in your heart to hide
yourself from before me? Can I not see the place in which you are hiding? And where are
the commandments which I commanded you?” Adam answered, “/ heard the voice o f
your word in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and the Laws which you
commanded me I have transgressed, and I hid m yself for shame” (Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 3:10).
Here the text elaborates on G od’s question by emphasizing God’s omniscience. It adds
that Adam admitted his transgression o f God’s Laws. God accused him o f having
“hearkened unto the word o f thy wife.” The book also elaborates on Eve’s statement:
399 Ibid., 125-26. Bowker notes that according to the Jewish legend, Sammael (another name
o f Satan) was the great adversary o f both men and God, who devised against Adam and Eve and caused
their fall.
174
“The serpent beguiled me with his cleverness and deceived me with his wickedness, and I
did eat” (Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 3:13). Eve’s judgment o f Gen 3:16b is paraphrased as: “and thy
desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee for good and for ill.”400 This
refers to dominion in a negative sense.
On the whole, these Targums in these passages paraphrase the biblical texts
very closely. In the eyes o f the targumists, Eve was created in the image o f God,
endowed with G od’s blessings o f procreation and o f dominion over other creatures on
earth, same as Adam. She was Adam ’s wife, help, and support alongside o f him, to
complete his inadequacy. Eve was deceived by the serpent and sinned, but was not
Adam’s deceiver, temptress or seducer. The targumists follow the Hebrew Bible stating
that Eve gave the fruit to Adam, and he ate it. The announcement that Adam would rule
over Eve occurs after the fall. Apparently, both o f them admitted their sin (that is not
found in the Hebrew Bible). They were held responsible for their own sin o f being
disobedient to God’s command and reaped the consequences o f their transgression.
Midrash Rabbah
Although the Midrash Rabbah texts are late, they reflect the existence o f
an older tradition.401 The portraits o f Eve are primarily found in Genesis Rabbah
400 Bowker appends that literally the phrase means “for righteousness and for sin.” See his
work Targums and Rabbinic Literature, 122, n. d. A parallel is found in Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 4:7.
401 Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism, 8. According to Evans, the Midrash Rabbah
texts are Amoraic Midrashic literature. Much o f the material is tannaic and amoraic similar to other
Midrashim and Talmudic writings. See Evans, Noncanonical Writings, 133-34.
175
(probably completed in about A.D. 350-450),402 the earliest and well-known M idrash on
the Book o f Geneisis 403 The purpose o f Genesis Rabbah is to turn the message o f
Genesis into a message for Israel’s present and future life. The theme is that what
appended to their ancestors in the past indicates what will happen to the children o f Israel
in the future. The author tries to transform the incidents o f the past into prophesies o f the
future o f his audience 404
The accounts o f the creation o f Eve405 are found in several texts:
And God said: L et us make man, etc. (I, 26) . . . R. Jeremiah b. Leazar said: When the
Holy One, blessed be He, created Adam, H e created him an hermaphrodite [bi
sexual], for it is said, Male and fem ale created H e them and called their name Adam
(Gen v, 2). R. Samuel b. Nahman said: When the Lord created Adam He created him
double-faced, then He split him and made him o f two backs, one back on this side and
one back on the other side. To this it is objected: But it is written, A nd H e took one o f
his ribs, etc. (Gen. II, 21)? (Gen. Rab. 8.1)406
Then the Lord God form ed man, etc. (II, 7 ) . . . . WayyiyzerA0? (He form ed). This
connotes two formations, viz. that o f Adam and that o f Eve . . . Then the Lord God
402 See Jacob Neusner, Confronting Creation: How Judaism Reads Genesis: An Anthology o f
Genesis Rabbah (Columbia, SC: University o f South Carolina, 1991), 3. Evans dates it about A.D. 425-450;
see Noncanonical Writings, 133.
403 See L. Teugels, “The Creation o f the Human in Rabbinic Interpretation,” in The Creation
o f Man and Woman: Interpretations o f the Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions, ed.
Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, Themes in Biblical Narrative Jewish and Christian Traditons, ed. Philip S.
Alexander and Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, vol. 3 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 108.
404 See Neusner, Confronting Creation, 2, 9.
405 The story o f Lilith, the woman o f the first account o f creation, is found in Gen. Rab. 18.4;
22.7; see Teugels, “The Creation o f the Human,” 113-16. However, Lisa Aiken assumes the story o f the
creation o f Lilith before Eve is not the mainstream o f Jewish thinking; see her work, To Be A Jewish
Woman (London: Jason Aronson, 1992), 23. Thus, it will not be discussed here.
406 A ll citations o f Midrash Rabbah in this section are according to the translation o f H.
Freedman and Maurice Simon, eds., The Midrash Rabbah: Translated into English with Notes, Glossary
and Indices, 10 vols. (London: Soncino, 1977). Quotations from the Bible in the Midrash are in italics.
407 Freedman, Genesis, Midrash Rabbah, 111, n. 4, comments that this explains why the
Hebrew Bible writes ns”! with two yods, not i n with one yod.
176
form ed the man . .. afar o f the d u s t . . . R. Huna said: iAfar (dust) is masculine, while
adamah (ground) is feminine: a potter takes male dust [coarse earth] and female earth
[soft clay] in order that his vessels m ay be sound. (Gen. Rab. 14.1-7)
R. Simlai said . . . They asked him again: ‘What is meant by, And God said: Let us
make m anV . . . Said he to them: ‘In the past Adam was created from dust and Eve
was created from Adam, but henceforth it shall be in our image, after our likeness',
neither man without woman nor woman without man, and neither o f them without
the Divine Spirit.’ (Gen. Rab. 8.9; see parallel at Gen. Rab. 22.2)
L. Teugels comments that the rabbis used the myth o f the primeval androgyne408 split in
two, disseminated in the Hellenistic world, in their own way, in order to harmonize the
extant problems between the first and the second accounts o f human creation (Gen 1:27;
2:7, 18-23). The singular “adam” refers to the undifferentiated human in the first account
whereas the plural “them” refers to the condition after the division into “male and
fem ale” in the second account. Such an interpretation retains the female being created in
the image o f God. The rabbis see the two Genesis accounts as one that depicts two
aspects o f human creation.409 They also advocate that Eve is one part o f the first human
created in “the image o f God.”410 She shares the same essence and equal dignity with
Adam, and is not a secondary creature under him. They are interdependent on each other.
The Midrash Rabbah also has some positive descriptions o f Eve’s nature:
And the Lord God built (wayyiben) the rib, etc. (II, 22). R. Eleazar said in the name
o f R. Jose b. Zimra: She was endowed with more understanding (binah) than a
man.411 . . . R. Aibu . . . said: He [God] adorned her like a bride . . . R. Hama b. R.
Hanina s aid:. . . Surely He first decked her out with twenty-four pieces o f finery
408 Teugels traces the origin o f the primeval androgyne back to Greek mythology; for example,
it is mentioned in Aristophanes’ eulogy on Eros in Plato’s Symposium. See his work, “The Creation o f the
Human,” 109.
409 Ibid., I l l , 113.
410 Num. Rab. 16.24 and Exod. Rab. 32.1 refer “the image o f God” to immortality.
411 Freedman suggests that the connection o f ‘wayyiben’ with binah renders that God “made
the rib into an understanding intelligent) woman.” See Freedman, Genesis, 140, n. 1. On the contrary, o f
Adam it is said that he lacked understanding (Lev. Rab. 11.1).
177
and then brought her to him . . . R. Joshua o f Siknin said . . . Said He: ‘I will not
create her from [Adam’s] h e a d , . . . but from the modest part o f man, for even when
he stands naked, that part is covered.’ And as He created each limb He ordered her,
‘Be a modest woman.’ . . . {Gen. Rab. 18.1-2)
R. ‘Azariah and R. Jonathan in R. Isaac’s name said: Eve’s image was transmitted
to the reigning beauties o f each generation. Elsewhere it is written, and the damsel
was very fa ir— ‘ad m e’od (1 Kings 1,4), which means that she attained to Eve’s
beau ty; . . . the Egyptians beheld the woman412 that she was very f a i r . . . {Gen. Rab.
40.5)
R. Hanina . . . said: From the beginning o f the Book until here no samech is written,
but as soon as she [Eve] was created, Satan413 was created with her. {Gen. Rab. 17.6)
Eve was taken from Adam’s rib, and was formed by God in a beautiful way. She was
cautiously made and beautifully adorned by the Creator. She and Adam were also
designated with a divine nature like angels before they transgressed {Exod. Rab.414 32.1;
Lev. Rab .415 11.1). Meanwhile, she had evil inclinations. As a whole, the rabbis do not
denigrate Eve’s nature. R. Eleazer even comments that she was bestowed with more
understanding than Adam.
The reason for the creation o f Eve is that Adam is incomplete without her:416
A nd the Lord God said: It is not good that the man should be alone (II, 8 ) . . . It was
taught: He who has no wife dwells without good, without help, without joy, without
blessing, and without atonement. ‘Without good’: I will make him a help meet fo r
him . . . R. Simon said in the name o f R. Joshua b. Levi: W ithout peace too . . . R.
Joshua o f Siknin said in the name o f R. Levi: Without life too . . . R. Hiyya b.
Gomdi said: He is also incomplete, for it is written, A nd H e blessed them, and
412 The woman here refers to Sarah. Her beauty was transmitted from Eve. Two texts also
describe how God adorned Eve like a bride and “decked her out with 24 pieces o f finery” {Gen. Rab. 53.5;
S. Songs. Rab. 18.2).
413 Freedman interprets that here Satan is referring to “the evil passions.” See Freedman
Genesis, 137, n. 4.
414 Evans dates it ca. A.D. 1000; see his 'work Noncanonical Writings, 133.
415 Ibid., Evans dates it ca. A.D. 550.
416 Neusner suggests: “The complete image o f man is attained in a divine union between man
and woman.” See his work Confronting Creation, 61.
178
called their name Adam— i.e. man (Gen v, 2).417 Some say: He even impairs the
Divine likeness: thus it is written, For in the image o f God made He man {ib. ix, 6),
which is followed by, A nd you, be y e fruitful, and multiply {ib. 7).
{Gen. Rab. 17.1-2)
R. Hiyya said . . . And why did He not create her for him at the beginning? Because
the Holy One . . . foresaw that he would bring charges against her, therefore, He did
not create her until he expressly demanded her. {Gen. Rab. 17.4)
And the man called his w ife’s name Eve— Hawwah, i.e. life (III, 2). She was given
to him for an adviser. . . Because she was the mother ( ’em) o f all living. R. Simeon
b. Eleazar said: That means that she is associated with ( ‘im) all living. {Gen. Rab.
20 . 11)
R. Jose b. Halafta said . . . The inside thereof being inlaid with love . . . That alludes
to the fact that after all the rest o f the work o f creation was accomplished He created
Adam and Eve to rule over a l l . . . all created beings will be afraid o f them and wholly
devoted to (mushlamim) them . . . Because He created world that men may be fruitful
and multiply in it. {Num. Rab.4n 12.4)
These texts teach that Eve’s creation is the Creator’s original plan on the basis o f his own
reasons. Eve is to be A dam ’s helpmeet {Gen. Rab. 17.1-2), and an adviser for him
{Gen. Rab. 20.11) in order to become complete. She has the same divine blessing to be
fruitful and multiply on earth, and is endowed with dominion over other creatures on
earth. She is as important as Adam, not only because she is connected to all living, but in
fact, without her existence the image o f God would be impaired and incomplete.
The Sin o f Eve
The Midrash Rabbah interprets the Genesis account o f the cause o f the first
couple’s sin in various ways:
A nd they were not ashamed. Now the serpent was more subtle . . . Said R. Joshua b.
Karhah: It teaches you through what sin that wicked creature inveigled them, viz.
417 Freedman interprets that only Adam and Eve together are ‘man.’ See his work, Genesis,
133, n. 1.
418 Evans dates it ca. A.D. 1100. See his work Noncanonical Writings, 133.
179
because he saw them engaged in their natural functions, he [the serpent] conceived
a passion for her.419 (Gen. Rab. 18.6)
R. Jeremiah b. Ila‘i expounded the passage as referring to the creation o f the

wo rld.. . . Wisdom hath builded her house . . . She calleth her servants . . . alluding
to Adam and E v e . . . . the Holy One . . . enabled them to fly and designated them
divinities, as is written, A nd ye shall be as G o d . . . After all this excellence
[assigned to man] ‘ Who is the easily persuaded person that turneth aside here’;
[this applies to Adam and Eve] since they neglected the wishes o f the Holy One . . .
and conformed to the wishes o f the serpent. Because he [Adam] thus ‘Lacketh
understanding, she said to him ’ (Lev. Rab. 11.1)
‘He is terrible and dreadful’ alludes to Adam, the first man. R. Judah b. R. Simon
said in the name o f R. Joshua b. L e v i . . . ‘His judgm ent and his destruction proceed
from h im self refers to Eve, this being indicated in what is written, And the man said:
‘The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me o f the tree, and I did
eat. ’ (Lev. Rab. 18.2)
Another explanation . . . A t the last it biteth like a serp en t. . . The Holy One . . .
says to them: ‘What was the end o f Eve? Because she went where her eyes led her,
taking the advice o f the serpent’420 . . . she was cursed, on account o f the serpent. . .
As the serpent, by enticing Eve to drink wine, was the cause for which the ground
was cursed. (Num. Rab. 10.2)
A nd the man called his w ife ’s name Eve— Hawwah, i.e. life . . . She was given to
him for an adviser, but she played the eavesdropper like the serpent. [Another
interpretation]: He showed her how many generations she had destroyed. R. Aha
interpreted it: The serpent was thy [Eve’s] serpent [i.e. seducer], and thou art
Adam’s serpent.421 (Gen. Rab. 20.11; see parallel at 22.2)
The Rabbis say: You find occasions when a man listened to his wife and lost
thereby, and when a man listened to his wife and profited thereby. For example,
Adam listened to his wife and lost thereby... .R. Isaac said . . . What did Eve do”
She did give him to eat o f if. R. Abin said: She merely had to weep and wail over
him, whereupon he ate o f i t . . . He replied: ‘Sire, Thy maidservant gave it to m e ’. ..
419 Freedman states that for this reason the serpent endeavored to kill Adam by getting him to
sin. Also R. Hoshaya says: [The Almighty said to the serpent:] ‘All that thou didst do was on account o f
this woman; was not all thy labour for her sake?’ {Gen. Rab. 20.4). See Freedman, Genesis, 147, n. 3.
420 Gen. Rab. 19.3 mentions that the serpent took Eve and pushed her against the tree, and
then said to her, “Have you now died? Just as you did not die for touching it, so you will not die from
eating it.”
421 Gen. Rab. 19:5 reads: “R. Aibu said: She squeezed grapes and gave him. R. Simlai said:
She came upon him with her answers all ready, saying to him: ‘What think you: that I will die and another
Eve will be created for you? . . . Or do you think that I will die while you remain alone? . . . ’ The Rabbis
said: She began weeping and crying over him.”
180
Whereupon [God] replied: ‘And have you listened to Eve rather than to M e?’ He
was immediately driven out [of the Garden o f Eden]. (Deut. Rab.422 4.5)
One view takes the serpent, which desired to have Eve, to be responsible for the
transgression o f Adam and Eve. Eve was enticed by the serpent, taking its advice and
eating the fruit (“drink wine”). She acted like the serpent to seduce Adam to sin. Another
view explains that the first couple followed the serpent’s advice because Adam lacked
understanding. Adam accused Eve o f giving him the fruit, and blamed God who gave him
the woman. However, he did not say that Eve seduced him. God accused Adam o f
listening to Eve rather than to him.423 As a whole, Adam, Eve, and the serpent are guilty.
Regarding Eve’s transgression, she is blamed for bringing death to Adam and
the entire world, and so are all women blamed and punished for that:
R. Joshua was asked . . . ‘W hy does a m an go out bareheaded while a woman goes

out with her head covered?’ ‘She is like one who has done wrong and is ashamed o f
people . . . ’ ‘W hy do they [the women] walk in front o f the corpse [at a funeral]?’
‘Because they brought death into the w o r l d . . . ’ ‘And why was the precept o f
menstruation given to her? ‘Because she shed the blood o f Adam [by causing
death]. . . ‘And why was the precept o f “dough” given to her?’ ‘Because she
corrupted Adam, who was the dough . . . o f the w o r l d . . . ’ ‘And why was the
precept o f the Sabbath lights given to her?’ ‘Because she extinguished the soul o f
Adam . . . ’ (Gen. Rab. 17.8)
On the other hand, the rabbis emphasized Adam ’s un-repentance after the fall:424
R. Jose s a i d . . . So when Adam ate o f that tree, God expelled him and cast him out
o f the Garden o f Eden; and he appealed to all the trees but they would not receive
him. What did they say to him? Said R. Berekiah: ‘Behold, a deceiver who deceived
his Creator, who deceived his Master! (Gen. Rab. 15.7)
422 Evans dates it ca. A.D. 900. See his work Noncanonical Writings, 133.
423 The rabbis also state how Abraham listened to Sarah and profited thereby right after
Adam’s negative example. Thus, they do not teach men not to listen to any woman.
424 Roy A. Stewart, Rabbinic Theology: An Introductory Study (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd,
1961), 77, points out that the rabbis accused Adam o f being ungrateful to God (A. Zar. 5b), a complainer
(Lam. Rab. 3.34-39), stubborn and blasphemous without repentance (Num. Rab. 13.3), a bringer o f death
who deserved immediate annihilation (Num. Rab. 23.13).
181
And a river went out o f Eden. R. Simon commenced: Thou makest him strong
forever (Job 14:20): the strength with which the Holy One, blessed be He, endowed
Adam was intended ‘forever’, for all time; But he goeth: because he ignored G od’s
wishes and followed the counsel o f the serpent,425 Thou changest his countenance
and sendest him away . . . {Gen. Rab. 16.1)
R. Tanhuma b. Abba expounded: ‘A m a n ’s pride shall bring him low ’ applies

to Adam. How? When Adam transgressed the commandment o f the Holy
One . . . the Holy O n e . . . desired that he should repent, and He gave him an
opening, but Adam did not do so . . . As soon as Adam came away from the
judgment he began to revile and blaspheme. . . Since Adam was too proud in the
face o f God to repent, He brought him low and drove him from the Garden o f Eden.
{Num. Rab. 13.3)
One view sees the first sin as only upsetting the world, bringing death to all
humanity. There is no hereditary sinfulness. Human death is due to a person’s own sin:
Why did He command the women first? . . . R. Tahlifa o f Caesarea said that God
said: ‘W hen I created the world, I only commanded Adam first, and then Eve too,
was commanded, with the result that she transgressed and upset the world; if I do
not now call unto women first, they will nullify the Torah. {Exod. Rab. 28.2)
The Holy One . . . said to them: ‘I thought you would not sin and would live and
endure for ever like Me . . .Y e t. . . Indeed, y e shall die like men— Adam, i.e. like
Adam whom I charged with one commandment which he was to perform and live
and endure for ever’ . . . Similarly, A nd God created man in His own image (Gen
3:22) that is to say that he should live and endure like Himself. Yet [says God] he
corrupted his deeds and nullified M y decree. For he ate o f the tree, and I said to him:
F or dust thou art (Gen 3:19). So also in your case, ‘I said: Ye are godlike beings,’
but you have ruined yourselves like Adam, and so, ‘Indeed, ye shall die like Adam. ’
{Num. Rab. 16.24; see parallel at Exod. Rab. 32.1)
R. Judah explains: If a man should tell you that if Adam had not sinned and eaten
from that tree, he would have lived and endured forever, tell him that there has
already been the case o f Elijah who did not sin, and lives and endures forever.
{Lev. Rab 27.4; see parallel at Eccl. Rab , 4 2 6 3.14)
Another view holds that the first parents’ sin brought death into the world:427
425 Here the rabbi uniquely states that Adam sinned because he had followed the counsel o f
the serpent rather than the counsel or the voice o f his wife Eve (Deut. Rab. 4.5).
426 Evans dates it ca. A.D. 650. See his work, Noncanonical Writings, 133.
427 Another view takes the tree to be responsible for the present plight o f the world: The wine
(i.e., the tree o f grapes) divided Adam and Eve and brought bitterness to the world. {Esther Rab. 5.1)
182
But o f the tree o f the knowledge o fg o o d and evil, thou shalt not eat o f it; fo r in the
day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (moth tamoth) (Gen 2:17): [this
intimated] death for Adam, death for Eve, and death for his descendants. (Gen. Rab.
16.6)
R. Levi said . . . So Moses pleaded: ‘M aster o f the Universe, there are thirty-six
transgressions punishable by extinction enumerated in the Torah, for the
commission o f any one o f which a m an is liable to be put to death. Have I then
transgressed any one o f them? W hy dost Thou decree death upon m e?’ God replied:
‘You are to die because o f the sin o f the first man who brought death into the
w orld.’(Deut. Rab. 9.8)
R. Abbahu s a i d . . . Thus the word is spelt fully [with a waw] in the case o f ‘These
are the generations o f the heaven and the earth', because when God created His
world, there was no Angel o f Death in the world, and on this account is it spelt fully;
but as soon as Adam and Eve sinned, God made defective all the ‘toledoth’
mentioned in the Bible. (Exod. Rab. 30.3)
Consider the work o f God; fo r who can make that straight which H e hath made
crooked (Eccl. 7.13)? When the Holy One . . . created the first man, He took him
and led him round all the trees o f the Garden o f Eden, and said to him, ‘ . . . All that
I have created, for your sake I created it. Pay heed that you do not corrupt and
destroy M y universe; for if you corrupt it, there is no one to repair it after you. Not
only that, but you will cause death to befall that righteous man [M oses].’ (Eccl. Rab.
7.13.1)
In Gen. Rab. 20.7, the rabbis interpret Gen 3:16b as follows:
A nd thy desire shall be to thy husband. There are four desires: the desire o f a
woman is for none but her husband . . . The desire o f the Tempter428 is for none but
Cain and his associates: Sin coucheth at that door, and unto thee is its desire (Gen.
IV, 7). The desire o f rain is for nought but the earth: Thou hast remembered the
earth, and them [sc. the rains] that desire her (Ps. LXV, 10). And the desire o f the
Holy One . . . is for none but Israel: A nd His desire (teshukatho) is toward me
(S.S. VII, 11) . . .
Another interpretation . . . W hen a woman sits on the birthstool, she declares, ‘I
will henceforth never fulfill m y marital duties,’ whereupon the Holy One . . . says to
her: ‘Thou wilt return to thy desire, thou wilt return to the desire for thy
husband.’ . . .
A nd he shall rule over thee. R. Jose the Galilean said: You might think that his
dominion holds good under all conditions: therefore it is stated, No man shall take
the mill or the upper millstone to pledge (Deut. xxiv, 6).429 It is related that a certain
428 Freedman thinks the Tempter refers to personified sin. See Freedman, Genesis, 165, n. 6.
429 Ibid., 166, n. 5, Freedman suggests that here it implies that the life o f the woman is
destined.
183
woman o f the house o f Tabrinus430 was married to a mean beggar. When he came to
the Sages he produced a golden candelabrum with an earthen lamp standing upon it,
in fulfillment o f the verse, A nd thy desire shall be to thy husband.431
One o f the consequences o f Eve’s transgression is that she will desire her husband.
The term “desire” is used to describe how sin trapped Cain and his associates in a
negative sense. It is also used to describe the desire o f God for Israel in a positive sense.
Thus, it is difficult to determine whether the desire o f Eve to Adam is positive or negative.
Another consequence is that her husband will rule over her. This kind o f dominion o f
husband over wife always holds firmly, no matter under what circumstances is the
husband, because her desire is to him. This is the destiny o f Eve (and women).
The plurality o f interpretation o f the two accounts o f human creation in
Genesis among rabbis reflects the existence o f difficulties in understanding the biblical
texts. Despite the unsolved problem o f the androgynous view o f the first human, the
rabbis believe the essence o f Eve is no different from Adam. She contains “traits o f God
and traits o f earth.”432 Regardless o f some rabbis’ negative comments on women, they
still honor them as being created in G od’s image, just as men are. This is because they
believe Eve was created in God’s image. Eve’s existence, completing G od’s image in
Adam, indicates her significance. Adam and Eve are interdependent upon one another
just as they depend upon God. On the basis o f Gen. Rab. 17.2-3, Jacob Neusner explains
430 Ibid., 166, n. 6, Freedman construes that the house o f Tabrinus refers to the woman’s noble
birth from a wealthy family.
431 Ibid., 166, n. 8, Freedman explains that the mean beggar, though o f lower status in birth
than his wife, yet ruled over her.
432 The first human is formed from the dust o f the ground and God breathed into his nostrils
the breath o f life (Gen 2:7; Gen. Rab. 14.1-2). See Neusner, Confronting Creation, 60.
184
why the text calls one’s wife “his house” and makes the following comment on how the
rabbis saw the relationship between man and woman:
The main point is that where scripture speaks o f “house” it means one’s wife.
The rest then follows. Our sages view the world from the viewpoint o f women who
maintain life by building the home, men who sustain life by keeping the household
in all ways. True, in our own day women do more than keep the home, and men do
more than make a living but also make a contribution to the home and family. But
in the sages’ world the division o f labor by gender was a given. What they
contribute should not be missed: the recognition that man is incomplete without
woman, as much as woman without man. In this sense they see the two as
complementary and essential, so they do not maintain that one gender takes priority
over the other.433
It is true that most rabbis advocate the interdependent and complementary relationship
between Adam (men) and Eve (women). They do respect Eve’s creation as God’s good
plan for Adam, and see her existence as completing Adam ’s imperfectness. Eve is God’s
special and great creation with his image. Though the above texts do blame both Adam
and Eve for bringing death into the world, Adam is primarily blamed for the first
transgression, particularly his un-repentance after the fall. Eve sinned first, showing no
repentance as recorded in the Hebrew Bible, but the rabbis do not mention it. Adam is the
central character discussed and described in these texts. This indicates his predominant
role within the team. The rabbis assume A dam’s male leadership in the divine creation.
The Babylonian Talmud
The Babylonian Talmud (completed ca. A.D. 500-550) is longer (in content)
and smoother (in language) than that o f the Palestinian Talmud. About one-third o f the
Babylonian Talmud is haggadic.434
433 Neusner, Confronting Creation, 73-74.
434 See Evans, Noncanonical Writings, 126-27.
185
God took a rib from Adam and used it to build Eve:
A nd the rib which the Lord God had taken from man made he a w o m a n ... . No
difficulty arises for one who says that Eve was created from the face . . . As
explained by R. Simeon b. P a z z i . . . For R. Abbahu contrasted two texts. It is
written, ‘M ale and fem ale created H e them ’, it is also written, For in the image o f
God made H e man . . . A t first the intention was to create two, but in the end only
one was created . . . God plaited Eve’s hair and brought her to Adam . . . God built
Eve after the fashion o f a storehouse. Just as a storehouse is narrow at the top and
broad at the bottom so as to hold the produce [safely], so a woman is narrower
above and broader below so as to hold the embryo. And he brought her to the man.
R. Jeremiah b. Eleazar said: This teaches that [God] acted as best man to Adam.
(b. Berakoth 61a)435
This complicated passage indicates that Eve is created in the image o f God (Gen 1:27).
She is derived from the m an’s rib. However, God ‘built’ her in a special way for
procreation (Gen 1:28a). God, the first best man, adorned her and brought her to Adam.
The reason for Eve’s creation and her close relationship with Adam is found
in b. Yebamoth 62b-63a:
R. Eleazar said: Any man who has no wife is no proper man; for it is said, M ale and
fem ale created H e them and called their name Adam.436 R. Eleazar further stated:
What is the meaning o f the Scriptural text, I will make him a help meet fo r him? If
he was worthy she is a help to him; if he was not worthy she is against him. Others
s a y :. . . I f he was worthy she is meet fo r him; if he was not worthy she chastises
h i m . . . .R. Eleazar further stated: What is m eant by the Scriptural text, This is now
bone o f my bones, and flesh o f my flesh ? This teaches that Adam had intercourse
with every beast and animals but found no satisfaction until he cohabited with
Eve.437
This passage demonstrates the significance o f Eve’s existence. First, without her Adam is
no proper man and cannot be called “man.” Second, Eve is not only Adam’s help but also
435 The texts for this section are from Isidore Epstein ed., The Babylonian Talmud: Translated
into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices, 18 vols. (London: Soncino, 1978). This passage is found in
Seder Zera'im, vol. 1, 381-83. See parallels at b. Erubin 18a; b. Shabbath 95a; b. Niddah 31b, 45b.
436 Epstein states: “Gen. V, 2 Adam = man. Only when the male and female were united were
they called Adam." See Epstein, Seder Nashim, Babylonian Talmud, vol. 6, 419, n. 10.
437 Ibid., 419-20.
186
functions as his guardian to whom he is accountable. She even would chastise him when
he was not worthy. Third, only after Eve was created did Adam find real satisfaction.
Nonetheless, the status o f Eve seems to be placed above all women but below Adam:
R. Bana’ah said: I discerned his [Adam’s] two heels, and they were like two orbs o f
the sun. Compared with Sarah, all other people are like a monkey to a human being,
and compared with Eve Sarah was like a monkey to a human being, and compared
with Adam Eve was like a monkey to a human being, and compared with the
Shechinah Adam was like a monkey to a human being. (b. Baba Batra 58a)438
On the other hand, Eve is endowed with greater understanding and
comprehension o f people’s emotions and o f relationships than Adam:
Our Rabbis taught: These439 are the rulings o f R a b b i . . . R. Hisda stated: W hat is
Rabbi’s reason? Because it is written in Scripture, A nd the Lord God built the rib
which teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, endowed the woman with more
understanding than the man. (b. Niddah 45b)440
The Sin o f Eve
Several passages speak o f Eve’s transgressions as follows:
R. Joseph recited. . . Why are idolaters lustful? Because they did not stand at
Mount Sinai. For when the serpent came upon Eve he injected a lust into her: [as for]
the Israelites who stood at Mount Sinai their lustfulness; the idolaters, who did not
stand at M ount Sinai, their lustfulness did not depart. (b. Shabbath 145b-146a)441
Hezekiah said: “Whence do we know that he who adds [to the word o f God]
subtracts [from it]? From the verse, God hath said, Ye shall not eat o f it neither
shall ye touch it.” (b. Sanh. 29a)
438 Ibid., Seder Nezikin, Babylonian Talmud, vol. 11, 233.
439 Epstein explains that the statements about limits o f the age o f a boy and a girl are because
the latter matures earlier than the former. See his work Seder Tohoroth, Babylonian Talmud, vol. 17, 315,
n. 7.
440 Epstein, Seder Tohoroth, 315.
441 Ibid., Seder Mo 'ed, Babylonian Talmud, vol. 5, 738. See parallels at b. Yebamoth 103b; b.
Abodah Zarah 22b.
187
[They proved themselves] ungrateful by saying, Our soul loatheth this light bread',
‘the offspring o f an ungrateful ancestor’442, for it is written, The woman whom Thou
gavest to be with me, she gave me o f the Tree, and I did eat.’ (b. Abod. Zar. 5a-5b)
According to these texts, Eve is accused o f three sins. First, the serpent infected her with
lust that was apparently transmitted to her posterity. Nonetheless, the text might also
mean that the Israelites acted just like her rather than inherited lust from her. Second, she
added her own words “not to touch it” to G od’s command when she answered the
serpent’s question. Third, she gave the forbidden fruit to Adam. However, A dam ’s sin is
not exonerated here. He is called an ungrateful ancestor who blamed the Creator and Eve
after sinning. Apparently, his ungrateful attitude also passed on to his offspring who
loathed the light bread. However, the text might also mean that his descendants were
ungrateful to God just like him rather than inherited ungratefulness from him.
Adam admitted his sin has caused the world to go back to chaos and darkness:
Our Rabbis taught: When primitive Adam saw the day getting gradually shorter, he
said, ’Woe is me, perhaps because I have sinned, the world around me is being
darkened and returning to its state o f chaos and confusion; this then is the kind o f
death to which I have been sentenced from Heaven!’ . . . Our Rabbis taught: When
Adam, on the day o f his creation, saw the setting o f the sun he said! ‘Alas, it is
because I have sinned that the world around me is becoming dark; the universe will
now become again void and without form .. .this then is the death to which I have
been sentenced from Heaven!’ So he sat up all night fasting and weeping and Eve
was weeping opposite him. (b. Abod. Zar. 8a)443
Here Adam began with “Woe is me!” a self-condemnation indicating his self-guiltiness.
He repeated twice that he was sentenced to death for he had sinned. The rabbis do not
ignore Adam ’s sin.444 However, Adam ’s sin caused his own sentence o f death alone.
442 Contextually, the ungrateful ancestor here explicitly refers to Adam.
443 See Epstein, Seder Nezikin, Babylonian Talmud, vol. 13, 37.
444 This is quite similar to Eve’s confession in the Books o f Adam and Eve.
The above texts indicate that Eve is derived from the m an’s rib and created in
the image o f God. However, the Creator, the first best man, ‘built’ her in a special way
for procreation, adorned her, and brought her to Adam (b. Ber. 61a). This indicates Eve’s
major role for childbearing is G od’s particular design. The significance o f Eve’s
existence and her close relationship with Adam are emphasized. Without Eve Adam is no
proper man and cannot be called “man.” She is not only his help but also functions as his
guardian to whom he is accountable. She even would chastise him when he was not
worthy. Only after Eve was created did Adam find real satisfaction in his life (b. Ber.
62b-63a).445 Nonetheless, Eve is commented as being inferior to Adam but having been
endowed with greater understanding and better comprehension (b. B. Bat. 58a; b. Nid.
45b). She is accused o f having added her own words to God’s command and given the
forbidden fruit to Adam.
Adam is seen as the chief culprit. He is so ungrateful to blame the Creator and
Eve after sinning (b. Abod. Zar. 5a-5b), and is ultimately held responsible for the first
transgression. He condemned himself: “Woe is me!” (b. Abod. Zar. 8a). The rabbis seem
to accuse him o f bringing darkness, chaos, and confusion to the entire world. Again the
implication o f Adam’s male leadership is shown in these texts. In addition, I f Adam is the
assigned leader within the couple, he totally failed to function his role. He did not say a
word against the serpent’s temptation. He did not protect Eve from eating the forbidden
fruit. Neither did he restrain him self from eating it. After the transgression, he did not
repent but tried to escape and even to blame God and Eve, except himself. Perhaps these
445 This is quite a contrast to Philo’s view on Eve, who sees Eve’s existence as Adam’s
misfortune and disaster.
189
are also the reasons that the rabbis in Paul’s time ultimately held him responsible for
bringing sin and death into the world, even Eve first sinned.
Conclusion
Generally speaking, the portraits o f Eve are varied in early Judaism. Eve is
applauded, but is also denigrated in the texts. She is seen as inferior to Adam in status,
but is also assumed to be superior to Adam in understanding and comprehension. She is
seen as “the help” who makes Adam perfect and complete, but is also accused o f bringing
death to Adam. She is blamed for the first transgression, but Adam is ultimately held
responsible for that. Adam and Eve share God’s blessing and command, but they play
different roles in the team. The relationship between Adam and Eve’s roles is not
explicitly informed or presented in these Jewish texts.
On the whole, Eve is seen just the same as Adam, created in the image o f God,
endowed with the divine blessings o f procreation and dominion over other creatures on
earth (Gen 1:26-28; Tobit 8.6-7; Sib. Or. 1.54-58; Num. Rab. 12.4; Tg. Onq. Gen 1.26—
28; 12.4; Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 1.26-28; Apoc. Mos. 15.2-4). She is advocated as the ancestor o f
humanity as Adam (7 Enoch 32.3-6; 2 Enoch 41.1). Her existence is to make Adam
complete (Gen 2:18; Tobit 8.6; Jub. 3.4; Gen. Rab. 8.9; 17.1-2; 22.2; b. Yebam. 62b).
The above study indicates that Eve is recognized to be Adam’s helper (Gen 2:18; Tobit
8.6; Jub. 3.4; Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 2:18), supporter (Tobit 8.6-7; Tg. Onq. Gen 2:18), adviser
(Gen. Rab. 20.11), guardian (b. Yebam. 62b-63a), companion and wife and co-partaker
(Tobit 8.6; Jub. 3.6, 8, 16; Ant. 1.32-35, 38—40). Eve is applauded to be wonderful and
beautiful (Sib. Or. 1.30; Gen. Rab. 40.5), endowed with more understanding than Adam
190
(Gen. Rab. 18.1-2; b. Nid. 45b). However, Philo446 harshly humiliates Eve as not having
G od’s image (Op. 69,128; L.A. 1.32), having no understanding (Op. 165; L.A. 3.222),
being secondary, inferior, imperfect and weak (Op. 157; QG 4.15; L.A. 1.70-72).
Eve was deceived by the serpent, disobeyed God’s prohibition, and bore the
consequences o f her own transgression (Gen 3 :1 -6 ,1 3 , 16; 7 Enoch 69.4—7; Jub. 1.38—45;
Apoc. Mos. 15.1; 30.1). The Hebrew Bible never blames her for bringing sin and death
into the world. Some rabbis blame her (Sir 25.24 [?]; 2 Baruch 48.42-43; Apoc. Mos.
10.2; 11.1-3; 14.1-2; 21.5-6; Vita 44.2-4; Armen.-Georg. 18.1; Gen. Rab. 17.8; 20.11;
22.2; 28.2) and Adam (2 Baruch 17.3; 23.4; 56.5-6; 4 Ezra 3 .2 0 -2 2 ,2 5 ,2 6 ; 4.30-31;
7.92,116-118; Apoc. Mos. 24.1; 27.2-5; 39.1; Gen. Rab. 16.6; Exod. Rab. 30.3; Deut.
Rab. 9.8; Eccl. Rab. 7.13.1) for bringing death to the human race, but some blame Satan
(1 Enoch 54.6; 69.5; Wis 2.23; Apoc. Mos. 21.1-5), the Watchers (1 Enoch 6.1-6; 7.1-6;
15.2-12; 16.1; Jub. 4.15, 22, 23; 5.1-2, 6-11; CD 2.16-18), and the evilyezer (Sir
17.30-32; 21.11; 2 Enoch 30.8-16; 2 Baruch 54.15,19; 56.6; 4 Ezra 3 .4 -1 1 ,2 1 -2 7 ; 4.30;
Gen. Rab. 17.6; b. Shab. 145b-146a). Nonetheless, they also emphasize human free will
and individual responsibility for personal actions (Ezek 18; Sir 15.15, 17; 16.12; 21.27;
27.10; 1 Enoch 16; 98.4; 9.14; Wis 11.16; 12.15; 16.9; 30.15; 2 Enoch 30.13-16;
2 Baruch 17-19). The theory o f original sin or individual hereditary sinfulness derived
from Eve (or Adam) cannot be adequately traced or justified in early Judaism.447 Most
446 The authors o f the Books o f Adam and Eve (and other Jewish writings) present negative
views on Eve’s transgression but not on her nature and status. As a whole, they blame Eve for the first
transgression. Nevertheless, Philo denigrates her nature, status, and sin.
447 The contexts o f the texts in 2 Enoch 41.1-2; b. Shab. 145b-146a; and b. Abod .Zar. 51-5b
are unclear and inadequate to indicate the transmission o f sinfulness from the first parents to all humanity.
Many scholars deny the view o f the transmission o f sinfulness. See Tennant, Doctrines o f the Fall, 211-20;
John Levison, Portraits o f Adam, 139.
191
texts meanwhile emphasize the divine endowment o f human free will (the yezer, not the
evil heart) in each person to choose good and evil, and stress on personal responsibilities
for one’s own sin and death. What is the balance between the views on the impact o f the
first transgression o f Adam and Eve and the views on the free will and individual
responsibility o f humanity for sin?
According to some texts, Eve’s subordination to Adam is on the basis o f
God’s punishment for her sin announced in Gen 3:16b. In other words, wom en’s
subordination to men apparently is the consequence o f Eve’s transgression.448
Nevertheless, the Latin version and the Slavonic version o f Life o f Adam and Eve
explicitly state that A dam ’s power over Eve is G od’s original design in creation.
However, another view suggests that the divine order o f creation is the joining together o f
a man and a woman to become one flesh to share the responsibilities o f procreation and
rule the earth in marriage (Genesis and Tobit clearly teach that). Men and women are
interdependent on one another just as they both depend upon the Creator (Gen. Rab. 8.9;
22.2). These texts do not teach that Adam’s temporal priority in creation indicates his
male leadership over Eve (women), or that Eve’s deception implies that she (women) is
more vulnerable to deception, so that she should be subordinate to Adam.449 Meanwhile,
they emphasize the divine endowment o f human free will (th q yezer, not the evil heart) in
each person to choose good and evil, and personal responsibilities for one’s own sin and
death.
448 Adeline Fehribach, “Between Text and Context: Scripture, Society and the Role o f Women
in Formative Judaism,” in Recovering the Role o f Women: Pow er and Authority in Rabbinic Jewish Society,
ed. Peter J. Haas, South Florida Studies in the History o f Judaism, ed. Jacob Neusner, William Scott Green,
and James Strange (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1992), 58.
449 Philo is the exception, as are the authors o f Life ofAdam and Eve.
192
Furthermore, the ideas o f the origin o f sin and death are varied in Judaism.
Who is the culprit who brought sin and death into the world? From the historical flow o f
the portraits o f Eve in early Judaism as discussed above, one can see that m ost writers o f
the non-biblical Jewish literature before Paul’s time mainly blame the W atchers and
Satan for bringing humanity sin and death (except Sir 25.24), whereas those in P aul’s
time primarily blame Adam for causing all human misfortunes and afflictions (including
sin and death). In many o f these early Jewish texts, Adam is the main character and is
primarily addressed to. He is also ultimately held responsible for bringing sin and death
into the world, even Eve plays a role in it. W hat is the cause for Adam ’s predominant role
in these texts? Besides, God addressed Adam first and held him responsible for the first
transgression even though Eve sinned first (Gen 3:9; Apoc. Mos. 27.2-5; 24.1; 39.1).
Why does God hold Adam responsible ultimately? The traditional view is likely justified.
Adam is assumed to be the leader within the couple. His male leadership leads to his
predominant role and his ultimate responsibility for the first transgression.
Moreover, Eve is also primarily blamed for the first transgression after Paul’s
times. Undeniably, the five versions o f Life ofA dam and Eve present a negative view on
Eve and accuse her o f bringing destruction to her descendants, though the authors find
both Adam and Eve guilty o f the first sin. W hy has the main accusation been changed
from Adam to Eve? Is she ultimately responsible for the first transgression? Why? The
issues raised here are very complex indeed.
As a whole, the above study in some sense corrects and balances the
traditional assumptions o f negative views coneming Eve, the relationship between men
and women, and Eve’s deception in early Judaism. The portraits o f Eve are both positive
193
and negative. Even though Adam is the assumed leader in the team, the rabbis see Eve as
Adam’s partner, supporter, and adviser, rather than his subordinate or servant.450 The
rabbis do not teach any role reversal o f Adam and Eve in the first transgression. Actually,
the rabbis in Paul’s times have more negative views on Adam than Eve. They do not
exonerate Adam but primarily accuse him o f bringing sin and death into the world, as
does Paul in Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15.
Not all rabbis denigrate Eve and women. Even though some later rabbis
express a more negative view on women (not Eve), they still assume w om en’s equal
status451 with men before God and their significance in m en’s life. This view is strongly
supported by how they teach on wifelessness in Gen. Rab. 17.2:
It is not good. It was taught: He who has no wife dwells without good, without help,
without joy, without blessing, and without atonement. ‘Without good’: It is not
good that the man should dwell alone.' ‘W ithout help’: I will make him a help meet
fo r him. ‘Without jo y ’: A nd thou shalt rejoice, thou and thy household (Deut. XIV,
26).452 ‘Without a blessing’: To cause a blessing to rest on thy house (Ezek. XLIV,
3 0 ) 453 ‘Without atonement’: A nd he shall make atonement fo r himself, and fo r his
house (Lev. XVI, 11). R. Simon said in the name o f R. Joshua b. Levi: Without
peace too, for it is said: A nd peace to thy house (1 Sam. XXV, 6). R. Joshua o f
Siknin said in the name o f R. Levi: W ithout life too, for it is said, Enjoy life with the
wife whom thou lovest (Eccl. IX, 9). R. Hiyya b. Gomedi said: He is also incomplete,
for it is written, A nd He blessed them, and called their name Adam —i.e. man (Gen.
450 As a whole, the five versions o f the Books o f Adam and Eve, except the Slavonic version,
portray Eve in a negative way, but the authors describe she has her freedom to do things according to her
own wish. She is not under Adam’s authority or control at all. For instance, she took care o f all female
animals on her own before the fall (Apoc. Mos. 15.2-4; Slavonic 1.1-4; 20.3—4). She chose to move to
another place in order to give birth to her first child after the fall ( Vita. 19.1-2; Armen.-Georg. 18.2-19.2).
451 Apparently the rabbis did not divide the status o f Eve into the ontological and functional
aspects. They discuss it as an entirety. Nor did they hold Eve’s roles as secondary.
452 H. Freedman explains that ‘household’ here refers to a wife. See Freedman, Genesis, The
Midrash Rabbah: Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices, ed. H. Freedman and Maurice
Simon, vol. 1 (London: Soncino, 1977), 132, n. 4.
453 Freedman translates the text: “to cause a blessing to rest on thee for the sake o f thy house,”
and suggests that ‘thy house’ refers to wife again. See Freedman, Genesis, 132, n. 5.
194
V,2).454 Some say: He even impairs the Divine likeness: thus it is written, For in the
image o f God made H e man ( ib . IX, 6 ), which is followed by, A nd you, be ye fruitful,
and multiply (ib. 7).455
In fact, many women are praised and exalted even above men, such as
Sarah, Rebecca, Deborah456 (Judges 4-5; Bib. Ant. 30-33), Hannah457 (2 Sam 1-2;
Bib. Ant. 50-51), Huldah458 (2 Kgs 22-23), and Judith 459 Only Philo likely under
the influence o f the Greek negative views on women460 denigrates Eve’s nature as
secondary and inferior to Adam and her existence as his disaster. Therefore, the meaning
o f Paul’s statement in 1 Tim 2:13-14 should be reconsidered apart from the traditional
assumptions o f negative views concerning Eve in early Judaism. That will be thoroughly
discussed and exegeted in chapter 5.
454 Freedman adds that: “Thus only both together are they ‘man’.” See Freedman, Genesis,
133, n. 1.
455 Freedman, Genesis, 132-33.
456 See Chery Anne Brown, No Longer Be Silent: First Century Jewish Portraits o f Biblical
Women: Studies in Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities and Josephus's Jewish Antiquities (Louisville, KY:
John Knox, 1992), 82-83.
457 Brown points out that Deborah is portrayed as “the feminine counterpart” to the greatest
prophet and leader Moses, a Wisdom figure, a woman o f God, and the mother o f the race in Biblical
Antiquities. The author o f Pseudo-Philo portrays Hannah as an exemplary character, a Wisdom figure, and
a model o f faith and piety in the desperate circumstances. Brown concludes that the author o f Pseudo-Philo
recognizes the special gifts and callings o f God’s women o f as well as God’s men. See her work No Longer
Be Silent, 2 13-14,218.
458 Both Josiah (the king) and Hilkiah (the high priest) accepted her evaluation o f the scroll as
the authentic words o f God and entered into a covenant with God to obey all the commandments and
decrees in the scroll. See Leonard J. Swidler, Biblical Affirmations o f Woman (Philadephia: Westminster,
1979), 8.
459 Kraemer points out that Judith is portrayed as a heroine in the Book o f Judith (around
second century B.C.). Her practices are even seen as a model o f piety and virtue for Christians. See his
work H er Share, 107-8.
460 John Temple Bristow points out that from the teachings o f Aristotle came the belief that
women (the physical body) are inferior to men (the soul). Aristotle assumes male leadership and teaches
that the man (i.e. the soul) commands and guides the woman (i.e. the body) with wisdom and intelligence.
From the Stoic philosophy came the belief that women are a distraction and temptation to men. See his
work What Paul Really Said About Women (San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1988), 5-14.
195
Nonetheless, the issues o f salvation and childbearing in 1 Tim 2:15, one o f the
most difficult texts in the New Testament, seems to be an immediate solution to the
transgression just mentioned in verse 14. Is this verse also Paul’s own statement on the
basis o f his own belief or a Jewish oral tradition about Eve’s salvation (advocated by
Holmes)? What is the most likely relationship between 1 Tim 2:15 and 1 Tim 2:13-14?
The various interpretations o f the passage are very controversial indeed. Is there any
relationship between childbearing and salvation? The following chapter will discuss the
views coneming childbirth in early Judaism in order to solve the above questions and to
reconsider the meaning o f 1 Tim 2:15.
CHAPTER 4
THE CONCEPT OF CHILDBIRTH IN EARLY JUDAISM
In Judaism motherhood is regarded as “the most creative human act” and “the
very essence o f femaleness.” 1 It exerts a great influence on the survival, the direction and
the destiny o f the Jewish nation as a whole. Childbirth directly affects a Jewish woman’s
position in her home, particularly in giving birth to a son who would carry on the family
name and inheritance. Children are commanded to honor and respect mothers (1 Kgs
2:19), like they are expected to treat their fathers (Exod 20:12; Lev 19:3). So childbirth is
a great joy to all, especially to barren women (Ps 113:9). Barrenness is seen as shame,
sinfulness, and as death. However, childbirth also brings the parturient uncleanness, pain,
and even death. The accounts o f the births o f several significant figures in the biblical and
non-biblical Jewish writings indicate God’s control and intervention in conception and
childbirth for the purpose o f fulfilling his promises to humankind and his plan in history.
Procreation is closely related to and directly affects the messianic redemption in the Age
to come, though the rabbis have various views on the interpretation o f Gen 3:15.
1Michael Kaufman, The Woman in Jewish Law and Tradition (London: Jason Aronson,
1993), 47.
2 After giving birth to Reuben, Leah said, “It is because the LORD has seen my misery.
Surely my husband will love me now” (Gen 29:32; cf. Ant. 1.303-5). In Gen. Rab. 22.2 R. Isaac said:
“When a woman sees that she has children she exclaims, ‘Behold, my husband is now in my possession’”;
Gen. Rab. 71.5, R. Ammi said: “Who secures the woman’s position in her home? Her children.” All texts
from the Midrash in this chapter are taken from H. Freedman and Maurice Simon, eds., The Midrash
Rabbah: Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices, 10 vols. (London: Soncino, 1977).
3 Kaufman, Woman In Jewish Law, 45—47.
196
197
The Significance of Childbirth
Procreation is almost seen as the sole purpose o f marriage and listed to be the
first o f the 613 mitzvot (ordinances) o f the Torah. Children are seen as the highest o f
human treasures. Motherhood is the primary and honorable role o f women in Judaism for
mothers can powerfully influence and shape their children, who are the future o f the
Jewish nation.4 The rabbis considered a child as a Jew only if the mother was a Jewess,
for a mother’s spiritual influence at home was very significant.5 In the Talmud,
childlessness will diminish the Divine image and drive away the Divine presence:
R. Eliezer said, Anyone who does not engage in the propagation o f the race is as
though he sheds blood; for it is said, Whoso sheddeth m a n ’s blood, and close upon
it follows, A nd you, be y e fruitful etc. R. Eleazar b. Azariah said: As though he
diminished the Divine Image, (b. Yebam. 63b)
Our Rabbis taught:. . . Should the number o f Israelites happen to be two thousand
and two myriads less one, and any particular person has not engaged in the
propagation o f the race, does he not thereby cause the Divine Presence to depart
from Israel! Abba Hanan said . . . He deserves the penalty o f death; for it is said,
A nd they had no children but if they had children they would not have died.
Others say: He causes the Divine Presence to depart from Israel; for it is said, To
be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee . . . (b. Yebam. 64a)
Raba said, When man is led in for judgm ent he is asked, Did you deal faithfully
[i.e., with integrity], did you fix times for learning, did you engage in procreation,
did you hope for salvation . . . (b. Shab. 31a)
Thus, the duty o f procreation is set forth by the Talmud to be o f first-ranked
importance. Pregnancy and childbirth are regarded as a blessing among the Jewish people.
They bring great jo y and are under God’s control.6
4 See Kaufman, Woman in Jewish Law, 47.
5 See m. Sota 3.4; Ned. 4.3; Ben Witherington, Women and the Genesis o f Christianity
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 6-7.
6 Isidore Epstein, ed., Seder Nashim, The Babylonian Talmud: Translated into English with
Notes, Glossary and Indices, part 1 (London: Soncino, 1978), xiii-xiv; S. Saffai and M. Stem, The Jewish
People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life
198
Marriage and Procreation
In Judaism procreation is central and derived from the statement “be fruitful
and multiply” (Gen 1:28).7 Even though the Qumran community exalted celibacy for the
• • 8
purpose o f aspiring to the ‘perfection o f holiness’ (CD 6.11-7.6; 11QT 45), they never
made it into a universal norm. They held marriage to be an exclusive covenant between
one man and one woman, derived from the statement “male and female he created them”
(Gen 1:27). They called marriage “the foundation o f creation” and “the order o f the
land.” Josephus reports that the Essenes gave their wives a three years’ probation to
prove fecundity. They did not have sexual intercourse with their wives during their
pregnancy ( War 2.161). This indicates that their motive for marriage is for procreation
alone.9 Philo him self also justifies the major purpose o f marriage to be procreation:
Therefore, before our lawful marriage we know nothing o f any connection with any
other woman, but, without ever having experienced any similar cohabitation, we
approach our virgin brides as pure as themselves, proposing as the end o f our
marriage not pleasure but the offspring o f legitimate children.10
and Institutions, Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, ed. Y. Aschkenasy, R. Le Deaut,
and D. Flusser, vol. 2 (Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1976), 764.
7 Jeremy Cohen points out that “the definitive intertestamental allusions to Gen 1:28 are
strikingly few,” such as Ben Sirach, the author o f Jubilees, and Philo showed more interest in the dominion
o f the first humans over other creatures than their procreation ability. Contrariwise, the literature o f
Midrash hinges mainly on the divine charge to “be fertile and increase.” See Cohen, “Be Fertile and
Increase, F ill the Earth and M aster I t”: The Ancient and M edieval Career o f a Biblical Text (Ithaca and
London: Cornell University Press, 1989), 70-76.
8 See Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The Qumran-Essene Restraints on Marriage,” in Archaeology

and History in the D ead Sea Scrolls, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman, Journal for the Study o f the
Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series, ed. James H. Charlesworth, vol. 8 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 18-
19. Baumgarten also points out that 4Q502 also is possibly attributed to the celibate o f the celibate Essenes.
See Baumgarten, “4Q502, Marriage or Golden Age Ritual?” Journal o f Jewish Studies 34 (1983): 135.
9 lQIsa 1.11; 4Q502; 11QT 57.17-19; CD 6.11-7.6; Josephus: CA 2.199; £ 7 2 .1 6 0 -1 6 1 . See

Baumgarten, “The Qumran-Essene,” 15, 20. Also see Ilan, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine, 105;
Safrai and Stem, Jewish People in the First Century, 765.
10 Philo, D elosepho 9.43; cf. D e VitaM osis 1.28, 6.290-91; D e specialibus legibus 3.6.32-36,
7.494-97. All texts from Philo in this chapter are according to the translation o f The Works o f Philo:
Complete and Unabridged, trans. D. D. Yonge, new updated ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993).
199
However, the rabbis o f the Talmud take marriage to be an indispensable
component o f childbirth and highly value the priority o f marriage. For instance, there is a
rule that a man is not allowed to live without a wife (t. Yebam. 8.4). They advocate that
“any man who has no wife is not a man,” and he will live “without happiness, without
blessing, and without goodness” (b. Yebam. 61b, 62b-63b). Though a man may
legitimately postpone his marriage in order to study the Torah, this can only be temporary
(b. Kidd. 29b). One may even be allowed to sell a Torah scroll in order to get money to
marry (b. M eg 27a).11
The rabbis encourage procreation, but some o f them hold the fulfillment o f
this commandment as obligatory only to the male (m. Yebam. 6.6, “No man may abstain
from keeping the law Be fruitful and multiply, unless he already has children” ; see also b.
1^
Yebam. 65b-66a; y. Yebam. 6.6, 7c; t. Yebam. 8.4). Although a woman is not
commanded to procreate, her reward for bearing and raising children in marriage is even
11
greater than her husband’s (b. Kidd. 41a; b. B. Bat. 9a). The purpose o f marriage is for
posterity and companionship {Gen. Rab. 22.2). A husband can divorce his wife after her
barrenness for ten years (m. Yebam. 6.6; t. Yebam. 8.4; Biblical Antiquities 42.1).14
11 See Cohen, “Be Fertile and Increase,” 134, 140.
12 Thus, a man is not permitted to use any contraceptive devices, whereas a woman may use
them if conception poses a hazard to her. A man may not have himself sterilized, whereas a woman is
allowed to have herself sterilized (Ex 20:12; Lev 19:3; 1 Kg 2:19; Gen 16:2; 18:9; Gen. Rab. 39.15 Judith,
R. Hiyyah’s wife, tried to have herself sterilized by taking a sterilizing potion based on the view that the
woman is not commanded to observe the precept o f piryah verivyah, to be “fruitful and multiply”).
However, in m. Yebam. 6.6 R. Yohanan points out: “Regarding both man and woman it says: ‘And the Lord
blessed them and said to th em . . . Be fruitful and multiply’ (Gen 1:28)” In other words, both male and
female have the obligation. In b. Yebam. 65b-66a, R. Johanan B. Beroka also suggests that the command o f
propagation applies to women as to men. Therefore, the view that the fulfillment o f procreation is
obligatory only to the male is debatable.
13 Lisa Aiken, To Be A Jewish Woman (London: Jason Aronson, 1992), 179.
14 See Epstein, Seder Nashim, xiii-xv; Ilan, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine, 105-7.
200
However, if the couple insists on remaining in the relationship, they are also blessed to do
so (Philo: D e specialibus legibus 3.34, 36; b. Pesah. 113b; b. Yebam. 20a). It is because
marriage is not only for procreation (b. Yebam. 61b). It is also for happiness and
completeness {Gen. Rab. 17.2; Ruth Rab. 2.15; b. Yebam. 63a, 118b; Kidd. 7a, 41a; Sank.
22b; y. Ta ’an. 4.6), and for avoiding sins (b. Kidd. 29b; m. Kidd. 82a; b. Yebam. 62b).15
Procreation is the command, whereas marriage is a religious duty. The latter is an
observation and is optional. A person may be celibate because o f devotion to the study o f
the Torah {b. Yebam. 63b; Gen. Rab. 34.20; b. Sota 4b; t. Yebam. 63b).16 Marriage is seen
to be more important than procreation when the two are in conflict.17
Childbirth: Blessing and Joy
Both the Hebrew Bible and the non-canonical Jewish writings show that
childbirth is considered to be a great event in the Jewish community. It is significantly
related to the future o f a family and the destiny o f the whole race. It brings happiness and
great jo y to all family members, particularly the barren. It is seen as a blessing o f God’s
favor upon the righteous. Although some non-canonical Jewish writings teach that the
birth o f a son will be more joyful than the birth o f a daughter, the latter’s birth is still
15 See Tal Ilan, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine: An Inquiry into Image and Status,
Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum, ed. Martin Hengel and Peter Schafer, vol. 44 (Tubingen: J. C. B.
Mohr, 1995), 106; Aiken, To Be A Jewish Woman, 178-79; David M. Feldman, Birth Control in Jewish
Law: M arital Relations, Contraception, and Abortion as Set Forth in the Classic Texts o f Jewish Law
(Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1968), 53-55.
16 The Qumran community is an exception. They advocate celibacy but allow marriage for the
purpose o f the propagation o f the race.
17 See Feldman, Birth Control in Jewish Law, 2 1 ,2 7 —42; Epstein, Seder Nashim, xiii-xv,
xxx-xxxv. On the contrary, the aim o f marriage between men and women was the production o f legitimate
children in the Roman world; see Sarah B. Pomeroy, Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in
Classical Antiquity (New York: Schocken Books, 1975), 86.
201
regarded as a blessing from God. On the contrary, barrenness is considered to be
disgraceful, a punishment from God because o f human transgressions in Judaism.
Exodus 23:26
God promised the Israelites that he would bless them so that they would not
miscarry or be barren after entering the Promised Land, if they continued worshipping
and following him. So childbirth is God’s blessing and favor upon his faithful believers.
Psalm 128:1-6
Blessed are all who fear the LORD, who walk in his ways. You will eat the fruit o f
your labor, blessings and prosperity will be yours. Your wife will be like a fruitful
vine within your house; your sons will be like olive shoots around your table. Thus
is the man blessed who fears the LORD. M ay the LORD bless you from Zion all the
days o f your life; m ay you see the prosperity o f Jerusalem, and may you live to see
your children’s children. Peace be upon Israel (NIV).
The psalmist here appreciates and exalts childbirth (or children) as one o f the most
significant blessings given to the man who fears the Lord.
Psalm 113:9
The psalmist praises the Lord because o f his greatness and grace upon the
barren woman: “He settles the barren woman in her home as a happy mother o f children.
Praise the LORD.” This is a mark o f God’s gracious blessing particularly to the barren
woman, who is described as settling happily in her family because o f bearing children.18
18 See Willem A. VanGemeren, “Psalms,” in Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E.

Gaebelein, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 715; William S. Plumer, Psalms: A Critical and
Expository Commentary with Doctrinal and Practical Remarks (Edinburgh, PA: The Banner o f Truth Trust,
1975), 989; Allen P. Ross, “Psalms,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition o f the Scriptures:
O ld Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1985), 875.
Genesis 21:6
After the birth o f Isaac (the name means: “he laughs”), Sarah said, “God has
brought me laughter, and everyone who hears about this will laugh with me.” She
rejoiced greatly because the Lord gave her a son.19
1 Samuel 1-2
Hannah is the only woman in the entire Bible who prayed to God for a son to
serve him. She was so happy and grateful that God gave her Samuel. Her great jo y and
bliss can be seen in how she extolled God’s attributes such as holiness, strength,
sovereignty and mercy, and his almightiness in her magnificent poem (2:1-10).
Leviticus Rabbah 14.4
And here shall be stayed the pride o f thy waves— galleka . .. R. Aibu said: [This
means: Here is set] the [object of] pride among thy ordure (gelaleka). When the
foetus issues forth it is full o f ordure and all manner o f nauseous substances, and yet
everybody embraces it and kisses it, particularly if it be a male. This is [indicated in]
what is written, I f a woman produce offering, and bear a male.20
The text indicates that childbirth, particularly the birth o f a boy, brings great
jo y to everybody, who would like to embrace and kiss the newborn child regardless o f his
or her ordure and nauseous conditions. Some rabbis think the birth o f a son (who can
carry on the family name) is more important and blessed than that o f a daughter.
Genesis Rabbah 26.4
Another passage about giving birth to a daughter is found in Gen. Rab. 26.4:
The wife o f R. Simeon b. Rabbi gave birth to a daughter. When R. Hiyya the Elder
19 See C. F. Keil, and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: the
Pentateuch, trans. James Martin (Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 243; Ross, “Genesis,” 62.
20 Freedman and Simon, eds., Exodus, Leviticus, Midrash Rabbah, vol. 2, 183.
203
met him he said to him: ‘The Holy One, blessed be He, has begun to bless you’ . . .
‘Because it is written, And it came to pass, when man began to m ultiply. . . and
daughters were born unto them’ . . . ‘Did the Babylonian congratulate you?’ ‘Y es,’
he answered, ‘and he said thus to m e.’ ‘Nevertheless,’ he [Rabbi] observed, ‘both
wine and vinegar, are needed, yet wine is more needed than vinegar; both wheat
and barley are needed, yet wheat is more needed than barley.21 W hen a man gives
his daughter in marriage and incurs expense he says to her, “M ay you never return
hither.’” 22
The text talks about when R. Simeon’s wife gave birth to a daughter, R. Hiyya
comforted him that the birth o f a daughter is a sign o f blessing, fertility and an increase o f
members in the family. It is a prediction o f the birth o f a son in the future. However,
Rabbi reminds him o f the essential need for daughters in the world, as opposed to sons.23
This might balance the negative view on the birth o f a daughter in Judaism.
b. Berakoth 59b
Blessed is He who is good and does g o o d . . . Who is good and does good? Has it
not been taught: I f a man is told that his wife has borne a son, he says: Blessed is
He that is good and does good?— In that case, too, his wife is associated with him,
because she is glad to have a son.24
The text explicitly declares that the birth o f a son is good and joyful and that
one should praise the Lord. Therefore, childbirth is not a curse, but a blessing from God.
Genesis Rabbah 59.7
R. Judah interprets the meaning o f “A nd the Lord had blessed Abraham in all
21 Ilan explains that here sons are compared to wine and wheat, and daughters to vinegar and
barley. Though the former are more needed than the latter, both are needed. See his work, Jewish Women in
Greco-Roman Palestine, 45.
22 Freedman explains that the preference for sons was because o f the eventual loss o f a
daughter to her family after she married, rather than because o f a lower opinion o f women. See his work,
Genesis: Midrash Rabbah, vol. 1, 212, n. 5.
23 See Ilan, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine, 45.
24 See Epstein, Seder Zera ’im, The Babylonian Talmud, 372-73.
204
things ’’ as that God had not given Abraham a daughter. H. Freedman comments that it is
because a daughter is “a source o f constant anxiety” to her father, not because she is less
important or inferior.25
Barrenness and G od’s Control
N ot every woman is able to bear children. In the Hebrew Bible, there are well-
known stories o f barren women who struggled with their infertility (e.g., Sarah, Rebecca,
Leah, Rachel, Hannah). In Ben Sirach’s eyes a daughter constantly annoys her father,
who worries that she may become pregnant before getting married, or that she may turn
out to be infertile after marriage (Sir 42.10). Nonetheless, fertility is under God’s control.
Barrenness Incurs Shame and Disgrace
To a woman infertility is seen as a shame and disgrace. For instance, Hagar
despised barren Sarah when she was pregnant (Gen 16:5). Peninnah provoked and
irritated Hannah because o f her barrenness (1 Sam 1:1-7). This is described extensively
in Pseudo-Philo, where Peninnah taunted and humiliated Hannah:26
What does it profit you that Elkanah your husband loves you, for you are a dry tree?
And I know that m y husband will love me, because he delights in the sight o f my
sons standing around him like a plantation o f olive trees. (50.1)
25 See Freedman, Genesis, 520. Ilan concludes that the rabbinic sources indicate that the birth
o f a daughter is always seen as a disappointment, whereas the birth o f a son is more important and
preferable. However, there is no instruction or theory o f reducing the number o f daughters in a family.
Even non-Jewish sources confirm that Jews accepted and raised all infants bom to them. On the contrary,
the Hellenistic and Roman sources abound with discussions about getting rid o f unwanted children,
particularly daughters. On the whole, childbirth (whether the child is a son or a daughter) is joyful and a
blessing to a family. See Ilan, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine, 46—47.
26 The citations are taken from D. J. Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo,” in The O ld Testament

Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, ed. James H. Charlesworth, vol. 2 (New York:
Doubleday, 1985), 364. Craig A. Evans suggests that Biblical Antiquities was probably written in Hebrew
and later translated into Greek. Most scholars date it toward the end o f the first century A.D. See Evans,
Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992), 33.
Harrington dates it before A.D. 70, most likely “around the time o f Jesus.” See his work, “Pseudo-Philo,”
299.
205
A wife is not really loved even if her husband loves her or her beauty. Let Hannah
not boast in her appearance; but she who boasts, let her boast when she sees her
offspring before her. And when among women the fruit o f her womb is not so, love
will be in vain. For what did it profit Rachel that Jacob loved her? And unless the
fruit o f her womb had been given to him, his love would have been in vain. (50.2b)
When Rachel became pregnant, she said: “God has taken away m y disgrace”
(Gen 30:22). Barrenness is also seen as punishment for a woman’s unrighteousness. The
rabbis take Leah and Rachel as examples. They accuse that the former deceived the latter
and had a double life pretending to be righteous, whereas the latter envied the former
(Gen. Rab. 71.1-2, 6; cf. Deut 7:14; 1 Enoch 98.5). There are several other reasons for
the barrenness o f the matriarchs found in Gen. Rab. 45.4 (cf. Songs. Rab. 2.14.8). R. Levi
said: “Because the Holy One, blessed be He, yearns for their prayers and supplications.”
R. ‘Azariah said: “So that they might lean on their husbands in spite o f their beauty.” R.
Huna and R. Jeremiah said: “So that they might pass the greater part o f their life
untrammeled.” Therefore, barrenness is not caused by human unrighteousness alone, but
sometimes is under God’s good will and purpose for his people.
A childless person is as desperate and sad as death (Gen. Rab. 45.1-2). Rachel
said to Jacob: “give me children, or I ’ll die” (Gen 30:1; Gen. Rab. 71.6). Gen. Rab. 45.2
reads: “It was taught: He who has no child is as though he were dead and demolished.”
Regarding the barrenness o f Leah, R. Johanan comments that she was as a prisoner in her
house, because she was ashamed to face people. She was barren because she led a double
life: pretending to be righteous, yet having deceived her sister. Jacob hated her and
originally decided to divorce her, but only because God visited her with children, he gave
thanks for her bearing him children first (Gen. Rab. 71.1-2).
206
Nonetheless, childlessness is unnecessarily seen as a problem only caused by
a barren wife, but also possibly by an infertile husband. In Pseudo-Philo, Samson’s
parents argued about whose fault it was that they had no children. They related
childlessness to their personal transgressions. Samson’s mother Eluma prayed:
Behold you, LORD God o f all flesh, reveal to me whether it has not been granted to
my husband or to me to produce children, or to whom it may be forbidden or to
whom it may be allowed to bear fruit in order that whoever is forbidden may weep
over his sins because he remains without fruit. Or if both o f us have been deprived,
then reveal this to us also so that we might bear our sins and be silent before you.
{Bib. Ant. 42.2)27
Nonetheless, the Hebrew Bible never mentions the reason for childless couples or barren
women to be the consequences o f his, her, or their sins.
Human Prayers and God’s Control
And because you give life to the body which is now fashioned in the womb,
and furnish it with members, what you have created is preserved in fire and water,
and for nine months the womb that you have fashioned bears your creation which
has been created in it. But that which keeps and that which is kept shall both be kept
by your keeping. {4 Ezra 8.8)28
She said to me, “Your servant was barren and had no child, though I lived with my
husband thirty years. And every hour and every day during those thirty years I
besought the most High, night and day. And after thirty years God heard your
handmaid, and looked upon m y low estate, and considered m y distress, and gave
me a son. And I rejoiced greatly over him, I and my husband and all my neighbors,
and we gave great glory to the M ighty One. {4 Ezra 9.43-45)29
The Holy One, blessed be He, said: ‘. . . I am He who will remember the barren
women, and have already done such a thing; as may be inferred from the text, And
the Lord remembered Sarah . . . ” {Lev. Rab. 27.4)
27 The text is cited from Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo,” 355.
28 The text is from B. M. Metzger, “The Fourth Book o f Ezra,” in The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, ed. James H. Charlesworth, vol. 1 (New York:
Doubleday, 1985), 542.
29 Ibid., 546.
207
Another exposition: I f a woman produces offspring, and bears a man-child, etc.
This is alluded to in what is written: Thou hast granted me life and lovingkindness,
and Thy providence hath preserved my spirit (Job x, 12). R. Abba b. Kahana said . . .
Now the embryo has its abode in the m other’s womb, but the Holy One, blessed be
He, guards it that it shall not fall out and dies. Is this not a matter for praise? This,
then, is the meaning of, ‘Thou hast granted me life and lovingkindness, etc.’
{Lev. Rab. 14.3)
The only cure for barrenness is to pray for G od’s grace and mercy, because he
is the one who controls childbearing. He is the one who closes a woman’s womb (God
restrained Sara from bearing children in Gen. Rab. 45.2; God withheld from Rachel the
fruit o f the womb in Gen. Rab. 71.6), but he is also the one who opens a wom an’s womb
and protects the embryo {Lev. Rab. 14.3-4). Therefore, barren women prayed earnestly
for having children before the Lord (Hannah prayed for herself in 1 Sam 1:20; Bib. Ant.
50.4—5; Num. Rab. 10.5; cf. the prayer o f Samson’s parents in Bib. Ant. 42.1-3; Ant.
5.277), husbands prayed on behalf o f their barren wives (Isaac prayed for Rebecca; Gen
25:21), and sages and rabbis prayed for barren women in the community (R. Levi said
that Abraham used to pray for barren women who were remembered and who conceived
in Gen. Rab. 39.11; the righteous can make barren women fertile just as God makes
barren women fertile in Songs. Rab. 1.4.2; b. Ketub. 62b).
When God heard their prayers, he opened the barren woman’s womb, and her
husband impregnated her. Consequently, she gave birth to a significant child who was
going to be part o f God’s plan in human history. “R. Johanan said: Three keys the Holy
One, blessed be He, has retained in His own hands and not entrusted to the hand o f any
messenger, namely, the key o f Rain, the key o f Childbirth, and the key o f the Revival o f
the Dead” {b. Ta ‘an. 2a-2b). There are mainly six significant childbirth incidents (Isaac,
Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Samson, and Samuel) recorded in the Hebrew Bible. Five o f them
208
(Isaac, Joseph, Moses, Samson, and Samuel) are retold in non-biblical Jewish literature.
These will be discussed below.
The Dangers in Childbirth
Pain, miscarriage, and death are the dangers in childbearing. The rabbinic
writings have a detailed discussion o f this.
Pain and Painlessness in Childbirth
Childbirth is a blessing from God. However, the parturient will experience
great pain in the process o f giving birth to children because o f Eve’s punishment
announced in Gen 3:16a. The rabbis interpret this text in an extensive sense.
Genesis 3:16a
The text o f Gen 3:16a reads: “To the woman He said, ‘I will greatly increase
your pain 0]?tosy) and your conception Cpnm); in pain (asin) you shall give birth to
children.’”30 Some scholars hold Gen 3:16 to be Eve’s curse because o f her sin.31 Some
30 C. L. Meyers lists out different translations o f this verse: “I will greatly multiply thy pains
and thy moanings; in pain shall you bring forth children” (the Septuagint); “I will multiply your toils and
your conceptions; in grief you will bear children” (the Vulgate); “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy
conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children” (the King James in 1611); “I will greatly multiply
your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children” (the Revised Standard Version in 1952);
“I will make most severe your pangs in childbearing; in pain shall you bear children” (the new Jewish
Publication Society in 1962); “I will multiply your pain in childbearing, you shall give birth to your
children in pain” (the Jerusalem Bible in 1960s); “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with
pain you will give birth to children” (the New International Version in 1978); She translates the phrase as
“I will greatly increase your toil and your pregnancy. (Along) with travail shall you beget children.” See
Meyers, Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988),
95-96, 118.
31 Advocates include: Aida Besanfon Spencer, Beyond the Curse: Women Called to Ministry
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1985), 36-37; Susan T. Foh, Women and the Word o f God: A Response to
Biblical Feminism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 69; Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women and Wives: M arriage
and Women’s Ministry in the Letters o f Paul (Peabody, M A: Hendrickson, 1992), 119-20; Robert I.
Vasholz, ‘“He (?) Will Rule over You’: A Thought on Genesis 3:16,” Presbyterion 20 (1994): 52.
209
see it as Eve’s punishment.32 Some take it as a decree.33 This will not be discussed here.
The main concern in this section is the greatly increase o f pain in childbirth (on account
o f Eve’s sin)34 announced in Gen 3:16a extends to all women who give birth to children.
Isaiah 13:8; 21:3
Terror will seize them, pain and anguish will grip them; they will writhe like a
woman in labor. They will look aghast at each other, their faces aflame (13:8).
At this m y body is racked with pain, pangs seize me, like those o f a woman in labor;
I am staggered by what I hear, I am bewildered by what I see (21:3).
Isaiah uses the familiar image o f a woman experiencing great distress, fear
and pain in childbirth to describe Israelites’ terrible experiences before their enemies. In
the Hebrew Bible, the prophets always use labor pains to describe the worst agony
experienced by Israel and other nations in the future because o f their sins against Yahweh.
Targum Onqelos to Genesis 3.16
The passage paraphrases the biblical text as: “And to the woman He said,
‘I will greatly increase your pregnancy pains and inconveniences; with pain you shall
32 Advocates include: Phyllis Trible, “Eve and Adam: Genesis 2 -3 Reread,” Andover Newton
Quarterly 13 (1973): 257; C. L. Meyers, “Gender Roles and Genesis 3:16 Revisited,” in The Word o f the
Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor o f D avid Noel Freedman, ed. C. L. Meyers and M. O ’Connor
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 337; Sharon Hodgin Gritz, Paul, Women Teachers, and the Mother
Goddess a t Ephesus: A Study o f 1 Thimothy 2:9-15 in Light o f the Religious and Cultural Milieu o f the
First Century (Lanham, MD: University Press o f America, 1991), 38; Richard S. Hess, “The Roles o f the
Woman and the Man in Genesis 3,” Themelios 18 (April 1993): 17; Adrien Janis Bledstein, “Was Eve
Cursed?” Bible Review 9 (1993): 43; Joan M. Holmes, Text in a Whirlwind: A Critique o f Four Exegetical
Devices a t 1 Timothy 2.9—15, Studies in New Testament Greek, Journal for the Study o f the N ew
Testament: Supplement Series, ed. Stanley E. Porter, vol. 196 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000),
324.
33 Advocates include: Raymond C. Ortlund, “Male-Female Equality and Male Headship,” in

Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and
Wayne Grudem. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991), 108; Anthony Tyrrell Hanson, The Pastoral
Epistles, N ew Century Bible Commentary, ed. Matthew Black (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 76.
34 Bledstein offers some reasons for why God uses pain in childbirth as Eve’s punishment,
related to the concept o f the goddess’ painless childbirth. See her work, “Was Eve Cursed?” 43-44.
210
-3 C
bear children, yet to your husband shall be your desire and he shall dominate you.”
Ps. Jonathan on Genesis 3.16
The text reads: “Unto the woman he said, ‘I will greatly multiply thy sorrow
by the blood o f your virginity and thy conception; in sorrow thou shall bring forth
children; and thy desire shall be to thy h u sb an d . . .”36 It uses the word “sorrow” in a
broader sense, including physical, psychological and mental aspects o f difficulties in the
processes o f a wom an’s virginity, conception, and giving birth to a child.
Latin 19.1a; Armenian-Georgian 19.1-2
The different versions o f the Books o f Adam and Eve describe how Eve first
experienced the distress o f great pain and almost died in her first childbirth. She was
saved only because Adam prayed to God for her sake.
b. Yebamoth 65b
The wife o f R. Hiyya, Judith, suffered such agonizing pains o f childbirth that
she sought to become sterile by drinking a sterilizing potion.
Genesis Rabbah 20.6
The rabbi interprets Gen 3:16a as follows:
Thy pain refers to the pain o f conception; thy travail, to the discomfort o f
35 See Bernard Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis: Translated, with a Critical
Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes, The Aramaic Bible, ed. Kevin Cathcart, Michael Maher, and Martin
McNamara, vol. 6 (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1988), 46. Moses Aberbach and Bernard Grossfeld translate
it as “And to the woman He said, ‘I will greatly increase your pangs o f pregnancy; in pain you shall bear
children yet to your husband shall be your desire, but he shall rale over you.’” See their work, Targum
Onkelos to Genesis: A Critical Analysis Together with an English Translation o f the Text (Denver, CO:
Ktav, 1982), 36.
36 John Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature: An Introduction to Jewish

Interpretations o f Scripture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 122.
211
pregnancy; in pain, to the sufferings o f miscarriages; shall thou bring forth, to
the agony o f childbirth; children, to the suffering involved in the upbringing o f
-3 7
children. R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon said: It is easier for a man to grow myriads o f

olives in Galilee than to rear one child in Eretz Israel.
The pain described in Gen 3:16a is not only in childbirth but extends to the conception,
pregnancy, miscarriage, and the process o f raising children afterwards.
Antiquities 2.218
Josephus describes the labor o f Jochebed as so easy (without pains) that
even those who watched her did not know when she had had her labor and delivery.
Exodus Rabbah 1.20
R. Judah also mentions that the mother o f Moses, Jochebed, had no pain in her
pregnancy and also in her giving birth to Moses. It is because she was a righteous woman
who was excluded from the decree pronounced on Eve in Gen 3:16.
M iscarriage in Pregnancy
The rabbinic writings frequently mention miscarriage. It is seen as the greatest
risk in pregnancy. Jewish women very commonly wore a small stone amulet, called
“stone o f preservation” to avoid miscarriage (t. Shab. 4.2). The Thursday prayers were
particularly for the pregnant women, that they might not miscarry (y. Ta ‘an. 4.68b;
-5 0 . . . .
b. Ta ‘an. 27b). Besides, Miscarriage is seen as unclean because o f the flow o f blood
(11QT 5 0 .1 0 ,11; m .Nid. 3.1).
37 Cf. b. ‘Erubin 100b.
38 See S. Safrai and M. Stem, eds., The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical
Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, Compendia reram
iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, ed. Y. Aschkenasy, R. Le Deaut, and D. Flusser, vol. 2 (Amsterdam:
Van Gorcum, 1976), 764-65.
212
According to R. Nehemiah, a woman’s miscarriage is “a punishment for
causeless hatred, strife multiplies in a m an’s house” (b. Shab. 32b). Various regulations
are set to diminish the chances o f miscarriages. For instance, pregnant women are exempt
from all fasts except those o f the Day o f Atonement and the ninth o f Ab (m. Abot. 5.5;
t. Ta'an. 3.2; t. Shab. 4.2; y. Ta ‘an.1.5, 64c; y. Shab. 6.2, 8a; cf. t. Miqv. 7.6).39
Though miscarriage was very common in the rabbinic era, the suffering o f the
righteous could keep pregnant women from it:
Our Teacher suffered toothache for thirteen years, during which time no woman
died in childbirth in Eretz Israel and no woman miscarried in Eretz Israel. A t the
end o f the thirteen years our Teacher once became angry with R. Hiyya the Elder.
Elijah o f blessed memory visited our Teacher in the guise o f R. Hiyya and laid his
hand on his tooth, whereupon it was immediately c ur e d. . . A t that R. Hiyya
exclaimed, ‘Woe to you, ye women in childbirth and ye pregnant women in Eretz
Israel.’40 {Gen. Rab. 96.5; see also 33.3)
Why is the suffering o f the righteous able to preserve pregnant women from miscarriage?
Tal Ilan suggests that the idea is that the Messiah is to suffer for others’ sins and to keep
them from experiencing their punishment, as the Rabbi sees him self in this story 41
Nonetheless, these views are not found in the Hebrew Bible.
Death in Childbirth
The rabbis see the moment o f childbirth as the time for the parturient to die:
It is written, To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under
the heaven: A time to be bom , and a time to die (Eccl 3: If). It is from this verse
39 Ilan, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine, 114.
40 Freedman explains that the Rabbi’s suffering has acted as a prophylactic so that women
were spared death in childbirth and miscarriage in pregnancy, but now it will not be so anymore. See his
work, Genesis, 891, n. 1.
41 Ilan suggests that this is the same explanation provided for the crucifixion and death o f
Jesus (Mark 14:23-4; Matt 26:27-8; Luke 22:17-20). See Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine, 114.
213
that the Sages, o f blessed memory, inferred that when a woman is giving birth to a
child there are ninety-nine chances that she may die and only one that she m ay live,
for it says, lA time to be born which is a time to die.’ (Exod. Rab. 46.2; see also
Lev. Rab.21.1)
R. Berekiah s a id :. . . A time to be born, and a time to die\ when a woman is at the

time o f childbirth they call her lhayetha\ W hy do they call her that? Because she is
nearly dying but revives . . . And why do they call her ‘m ehabbalta'l Because she is
given in pledge in the hand o f death,. . . R. Simon said in the name o f R. Nathan o f
Beth Gubrin: It is written, The grave and the barren womb (Prov. 30:16) . . . To tell
you that as [the child] is brought forth from the womb with loud cries, so will [the
dead] be brought forth from the grave [at the resurrection] with loud cries.
(Eccl. Rab. 3.1.1)
According to the Mishnah, women die during childbirth because o f three transgressions:
heedlessness o f the laws o f the menstruant (niddah), the Dough-offering Qiallah), and the
lighting o f the [Sabbath] lamp (m. Shab. 2.6; see parallels at b. Shab. 31b, 32a). These are
punishments for Eve’s having caused Adam ’s death.42 R. Nathan adds that women die in
childbirth because they did not fulfill their vows (t. Shab. 2.10; b. Shab. 3 2 b )43
The Hebrew Bible records two incidents o f death in childbirth: Rachel (Gen
35:15-16) and the wife o f Phinehas (1 Sam 4: 19-22). It never explains why they had to
die in childbirth. Nonetheless, the rabbis mention three incidents o f death in childbirth:
Three experienced hard labour and died: Rachel, the wife o f Phinehas, and Michal
the daughter o f Saul. Rachel: A nd Rachel travailed, and she had hard', the wife o f
Phinehas: A nd his daughter-in-law, P hinehas’s wife, was with child, near to be
42 Judith Romney Wegner explains that the three commandments (or precepts) were in fact
ritual obligations incumbent on men and are time-bound that women should be exempt from them.
However, in the rabbinic view, the main role o f religious observance for women is to enable men to
accomplish their covenantal obligations. Therefore, the three precepts devolve on women. They separate
the dough offering because they normally bake bread. They have to light Sabbath candles to prevent men
from forgetting their obligation as they have gone o ff to the synagogue. Besides, only women themselves
can know the pertinent details o f their menstrual cycles, so they must observe the purity in order to prevent
men from any inadvertent sin. See Wegner, Chattel or Person? The Status o f Women in the Mishnah (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 155. Ross Shepard Kraemer also points out that the practices o f
these three precepts find no evidence in Jewish women’s religious lives, except for the prescriptions made
by the rabbis themselves. See Kraeme, H er Share o f the Blessings (New York: Oxford University Press,
1992), 99-100, 107,
43 Ilan, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine, 116.
214
delivered ,44 ... Michal, for it is written, A nd M ichal the daughter o f Saul had no
child unto the day o f her death (II Sam. VI, 23); this shows that she did have one
after d e a t h . . . {Gen. Rab. 82.7; cf. Gen 35:15-16; 1 Sam 4:19-22)
Apparently, the rabbis believe that the sufferings o f the righteous can preserve women
from death in childbirth (see above Gen. Rab. 96.5), but that is not taught in the Hebrew
Bible. Although the rabbis do not indicate why these three women died in childbirth, they
believe that if women do not heed the three commandments: the laws o f the menstruant
(niddah), the dough-offering (hallah), and the lighting o f the [Sabbath] lamp, they will
die in childbirth. They do not trace their death to E ve’s sin, though these commandments
are assumed to be her punishment. The parturients themselves (not Eve) are responsible
for their own death.
Uncleanness and Purification after Childbirth
In the Hebrew Bible the rules concerning uncleanness and purification o f
women after childbirth are mainly found in Leviticus 12. After giving birth to a son, a
woman will be ceremonially unclean for a week and has to wait thirty-three days to be
purified from her bleeding. However, if she gives birth to a daughter, she will be unclean
for two weeks and has to wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding. After the
days o f her purification, she has to bring a burnt offering and a sin offering to the priest
who will make atonement for her before God. The text emphasizes that her uncleanness
is her flow o f blood after childbirth (vv. 4, 5, and 7). W hy is a woman who gave birth to a
daughter considered to be ritually unclean for twice as long as a woman who gave birth to
a son? Is it due to Eve’s transgression transmitted to all females? Or is it due to male
44 In Ant. 5.360 Josephus mentions that Phinehas’s wife died as she was in labor because she
was not able to survive her husband’s misfortune.
215
superiority and female inferiority based on the priority o f Adam’s creation? The Bible
never offers any reasons.
Nonetheless, Jubilees 3.8-12 strikingly and uniquely answers the question
based on the story o f Adam and Eve in the Garden o f Eden. The author states that Adam
was created in the first week, whereas Eve was brought to him in the second week (twice
as long as Adam ’s days). Thus, if a woman bears a boy, she will remain seven days in
impurity; but if she bears a girl, she will be unclean for two weeks. Furthermore, Adam
was brought to the Garden o f Eden after he stayed in the land for forty days, whereas Eve
was brought to the Garden o f Eden after she completed eighty days (twice as long as
Adam’s days) outside. Thus, the birth o f a son will take thirty-three days o f impurity,
whereas the birth o f a daughter will take sixty-six days. Conclusively, according to
Jubilees the difference is neither because o f the superiority o f the male or the inferiority
o f the female nor because o f punishment for Eve’s first transgression.
According to Joseph M. Baumgarten, Jubilees 3 is now identified in 4Q265.
The etiological explanation found in 4Q265 and Jubilees indicates that the Garden o f
Eden is taken to be a prototype o f the sanctuary. It is described as a holy sanctuary since
all trees planted in it are holy (Jub. 3.12-13; 4Q265 line 4; 1QH 8.10-13). He construes
the phrase oik onpa found in 4QFlor as a “sanctuary o f Adam” which is identified with
Paradise. He points out that the Garden o f Eden is the site o f the Temple by citing T. Dan
5.12: “And the saints shall refresh themselves in Eden; the righteous shall rejoice in the
New Jerusalem, which shall be eternally for the glorification o f God.”45 He concludes:
45 See Joseph M. Baumgarten, “Purification after Childbirth and the Sacred Garden in 4Q265
and Jubilees,” in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings o f the First Meeting o f the International
Organization fo r Qumran Studies, Paris 1992, ed. George J. Brooke, Studies on the Texts o f the Desert o f
Judah, ed. F. Garcia Martinez and A. S. van der Woude, vol. 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 3-9.
216
In sum, both 4Q265 and Jubilees view the purifications required o f a parturient
after the birth o f a male or female child before being allowed access to the Temple
as patterned after the respective preparatory periods o f Adam and Eve before their
entrance into the garden o f Eden. This etiology is clearly based on the concept o f
Eden as a sanctuary. It provides the m ost natural explanation for the much
discussed b t x anpo found in 4QFlorilegium. The eschatological reflex o f this
concept is the vision o f a future restoration o f the Eden sanctuary in which the
purified saints will offer “deeds o f Torah” . . ,46
The Mishnah also assumed that a woman after childbirth became unclean
because o f the flow o f blood (m. ‘Ed. 5.4; cf. b. Nid. 33b-34a). She was not allowed to
eat the Passover offering (m. Pesah. 9.4), or to enter the Temple M ount (m. Kelim 1.8;
b. Kelim 1.8). She had to go through three stages o f purification for a total o f forty days
after giving birth to a son, or eighty days to a daughter (m. Neg. 14.3; cf. b. Nid. 3 5 b -
36b). After that, she needed to bring the prescribed offerings (m. Shebi. 8.8; m. Shek. 1.5,
2.5; m. Ned. 4.3; m. Ker. 1.3; cf. b. Nid. 31b).
Births of Significant Figures
In the Hebrew Bible, there are six significant stories o f childbirth: Isaac, Jacob,
Joseph, Moses, Samson, and Samuel, for all o f which God intervenes in the lives o f
barren women and causes the conceptions o f significant and influential figures, except in
the conception o f Moses. The post-biblical Jewish literature has retold them except that
o f Jacob.47 The survey o f the births o f these Jewish heroes indicates how childbirth is
closely related to and affects the fulfillment o f God’s promises to Israel and his salvific
plan for all humanity.48
46 See Baumgarten, “Purification after Childbirth,” 9-10.
47 Since tragic childbirth in Judaism is o f little relevance to the study o f 1 Tim 2:15, it will not
be discussed in this dissertation.
48 Contrariwise, the pagan or the Greek world does not have such a concept; in particular the
proto-Gnostics see childbirth as a hindrance to the human body’s salvation.
217
The Birth o f Isaac
The birth o f Isaac serves as a sign o f the fulfillment o f God’s promises to
Abraham, and is recorded in Genesis 16-21, Jubilees 14—17, Philo: D e Abrahamo 107—
118,247-54, Josephus: Antiquities 1.183-231, and Gen. Rab. 45.1-10, 47.1-6, 48.15-20,
and 53.1-9. The author o f Jubilees uniquely states that the angels repeated the promise o f
a son to Sarah. Her son would be named Isaac as it was ordained and written in the
heavenly tablets (16.3). W hen Isaac was bom, the angels told Abraham that Isaac’s
descendants would become nations, and one o f them would become “a holy seed,” “a
kingdom o f priests and a holy people” (16.17-18). The feast on the day Isaac was weaned
was prescribed in the heavenly tablets as an eternal law (16.20-31). All these indicate
that the birth o f Isaac is superior and transcending according to God’s plan.49 Gen. Rab.
53.7 corresponds the meaning o f the name Isaac to the Ten Commandments and the Law,
emphasizing that he is a blessing (a gift/the Law) to the world from God.
The Birth o f Jacob
Strikingly, the birth o f Jacob is only found in Gen 25:20-26. Isaac and
Rebekah remained childless for many years. God heard Isaac’s prayer and Rebekah
conceived. The significant role o f Jacob (not the older son Esau) was announced before
his birth to be the third heir to God’s promise to Abraham that his descendants would
become a great nation.50 The birth o f Jacob, who was renamed Israel, the father o f the
twelve tribes, is cmcial in implementing the promise o f becoming a great nation.
49 See Beverly Ann Bow, “The Story o f Jesus’ Birth: A Pagan and Jewish Affair” (Ph.D. diss.,
Graduate College o f the University o f Iowa, 1995), 198-203.
50 Keil and Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, 267-68; Ross, “Genesis,” 69; Bow, “Story o f Jesus’
Birth,” 132-35. Victor P. Hamilton comments that the announcement here indicates that the factor in God’s
218
The Birth o f Joseph
The birth o f Joseph is in Gen 30:22-24, Jubilees 28, and Antiquities 1.297-
308. In the Hebrew Bible Joseph reassured his brothers that all that had happened to him
were part o f G od’s plan in order to fulfill His promised blessing (Gen 50:15-21). He is
the one to fulfill God’s prediction o f the fate o f Abraham’s descendants (Gen 15:13-14;
45:5-8; 46:3-4; 50:24; parallel at Ant. 2.161, 162, 164, 174). God uses him to preserve
the people o f Israel from famine, and to prepare the w ay for them to dwell in Egypt and
be liberated from it after their bondage o f four hundred years.51 The author o f Jubilees
adds a vision in which an angel showed Jacob heavenly tablets and told him that he
would die peacefully in-Egypt {Jub. 32.20-26). Joseph told his brothers that it was God
who sent him to Egypt so that they might all survive {Jub. 43.18).52 Josephus emphasizes
Joseph’s superior virtue {Ant. 2.9, 41, 60, 74,174).
The Birth o f Moses
The birth o f Moses is recorded in more detail than other significant figures o f
Israel in Exodus 2:1-10, Philo: Moses 1.1-31, Pseudo-Philo: Biblical Antiquities 9,
Josephus: Antiquities 2.205-237, and Exodus Rabbah 1.9-26. His birth is very unique in
Exod 2.1-10 (not to be mentioned further here). Philo thinks Moses was an extraordinary
individual.53 As soon as Moses was bom, he “displayed a more beautiful and noble form
than usual” {Moses 1.9). Moses was excellent in character, knowledge and others. All the
choice is not age but God’s sovereign will. See Hamilton, The Book o f Genesis: Chapters 1—17 (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 177.
51 Ross, “Genesis,” 77, 100; Keil and F. Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, 290-91; Bow, “Story of
Jesus’ Birth,” 135, 138-39, 142.
52 See Bow, “Story o f Jesus’ Birth,” 237-39.
53 Ibid., 295, 297.
219
than usual” {Moses 1.9). Moses was excellent in character, knowledge and others. All the
actions that Moses performed were in accordance with virtue and kingly power. Under
God’s protection and provision he was successful as the greatest and most perfect man o f
the world, a chief priest, a lawgiver (a prophet), and a king {Moses 1.12,14, 19, 34).
The author o f Biblical Antiquities begins with an extended story about
M oses’ father Amram,54 who confidently expressed his faith in God’s promises, whereas
other Israelite elders lost their faith and set up rules against a man approaching his wife
because o f Pharaoh’s persecution (9.3). Amram strongly believed and encouraged others
that the Israelite would not be wiped out according to G od’s covenant and promises. Thus,
he would not consent to the king’s command, but would go in and take his wife and
produce sons (9.4). A m ram ’s thought was pleasing to God, and he said:
Because Amram’s plan is pleasing to me, and he has not put aside the covenant
established between me and his fathers, so behold now he who will be bom from
him will serve me forever, and I will do marvelous things in the house o f Jacob
through him and I will work through him signs and wonders for m y people that I
have not done for anyone else; and I will act gloriously among them and proclaim
to them my ways. And I, God, will kindle for him my lamp that will abide in him,
and I will show him my covenant that no one has seen. And I will reveal to him my
Law and statutes and judgments, and I will bum an eternal light for him . (9. 7-8)
God’s annunciation indicates the significance o f M oses’ birth and his future roles (as a
servant o f God, a doer o f signs and wonders, a receiver and a mediator o f God’s light, his
special revelation, and the Law) in the fulfillment o f G od’s covenant and promises to the
fathers o f the people Israel.
In a dream God directed Miriam to tell her parents about their coming child’s
destiny after birth and his life ministry among the Israelites foreordained in God’s plan:
And the spirit o f God came upon Miriam one night, and she saw a dream and told it
to her parents in the morning, saying, “I have seen this night, and behold a man in a
54 Ibid., 297-98.
220
linen garment stood and said to me, ‘Go and say to your parents, “Behold he who
will be bom from you will be cast forth into the water; likewise through him the
water will be dried up. And I will work signs through him and save m y people, and
he will exercise leadership always.’” (9.10)
In summary, Amram’s belief and M iriam ’s dream indicate that the author anticipates the
coming o f the deliverer or the savior for the nation by means o f childbirth on the basis o f
the divine promise.
Josephus emphasizes M oses’ uniqueness and God’s role in the events.
Pharaoh issued the decree o f death for male Hebrew babies because one o f the sacred
Egyptian scribes had foretold that a child would be bom to exalt the Israelites but bring
the Egyptian dominion low. M oses’ virtue would excel all men and his glory would be
remembered through all ages (Ant. 2.205). Then, Amram prayed to God for deliverance
o f the people o f Israel from the miseries they were enduring. As a result, in a vision God
announced the birth o f Moses and his future role to him (2.215-216). Josephus reports
that Jochebed gave birth to Moses without any labor pains (cf. Exod. Rab. 1.20), and
Amram believed that God would procure M oses’ safety in order to secure the accuracy o f
his predictions (2.219-221). Josephus also elaborates that God had formed M oses with
remarkable beauty and impressive intelligence. W hen the king’s daughter Thermuthis
saw him, she was greatly in love with him, and wanted to adopt him as her son and the
heir o f the kingdom (2.224-225). Even the Egyptian king helped his daughter to protect
Moses, as the sacred scribe recognized that M oses was the predicted child who would
bring Egypt low, and attempted to kill him (2.230-236).55
In Exodus Rabbah, the Egyptian astrologers o f Pharaoh predicted that the
mother o f Israel’s savior (an Israelite) was already pregnant with him . They also foresaw
55 Ibid., 301, 303-5.
221
Hebrew newborn males into the river (1.18). In addition, M oses’ sister Miriam
prophesized before M oses’ birth: “M y mother is destined to give birth to a son who will
save Israel” (v. 22; cf. b. Sot. 1 lb, 12a). When Moses was bom, the entire house became
“flooded with light.” The rabbis link the claim o f Exod 2:2 “When she saw him that he
was a goodly child” to Gen 1:4 “God saw the light, that it was good” (v. 20). Baby Moses
possessed such a good-looking appearance that everybody wanted to see him (v. 26).56
All these imply the supernatural circumstances surrounding M oses’ conception and birth.
He is extraordinarily sent by God into the world to be the light o f the Israelites.
The Birth o f Samson
The birth o f Samson is primarily found in Judges 13, Biblical Antiquities 4 2 -
43, Ant. 5.275-285, and Num. Rab. 10.5. Judges 13 reports that Samson grew up under
the blessing o f God. He was chosen and empowered by God to fulfill his plan o f
deliverance and perseverance o f the Israelites from the Philistines before the nation was
established in the Promised Land. Josephus describes Samson after his birth: “the child
grew apace; and it appeared evidently that he would be a prophet, both by the moderation
o f his diet, and the permission o f his hair to grow” (Ant. 5.285).58
The Birth o f Samuel
The birth o f Samuel is very briefly described in 1 Samuel 1-2, Biblical
56 Ibid., 308-10.
57 See Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament.Joshua, Judges, Ruth,
trans. James Martin (Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 399-400; F. Duane Lindsey, “Judges,” in
Bible Knowledge Commentary: O ld Testament, 403-4; Bow, “Story o f Jesus’ Birth,” 144, 156.
58 See Bow, “Story o f Jesus’ Birth,” 255-56.
222
Antiquities 49-51, and Ant. 5.342-347. Samuel’s mother Hannah is the main character in
all these accounts, whose virtues are highly exalted. In 1 Samuel, the author describes
that Samuel “continued to grow in stature and in favor with the LORD and with men”
(2:26).59 Samuel functioned as judge over Israel throughout his lifetime, with God on his
side, to deliver G od’s people from the power o f the Philistines (3:13-14). He is the last
judge and the first prophet, who delivered the Israelites from the Philistines, instituted
Israel’s monarchy, and anointed God’s chosen kings (Saul and David).
In Biblical Antiquities Eli assured Hannah would have a son because he
previously heard about G od’s announcement that a ruler (and also a prophet) o f Israel
would be bom from her (50.8). Samuel (meaning “mighty one”) was very handsome and
God was with him (51.1). Eli said to Hannah, “You have not asked alone, but the people
have prayed for this. This is not your request alone, but it was promised previously to the
tribes” (51.2). Eli and the Israelite anointed Samuel before God, saying, “Let the prophet
live among the people, and may he be a light to this nation for a long time!” (51.7).60
Summary
This section shows that in Judaism childbirth is never seen as a curse or a sign
o f God’s anger upon E ve’s transgression transmitted to all her female descendants
(women). The births o f these significant figures are great blessings from God,
demonstrating His grace and mercy, protection, and deliverance. They were under G od’s
59 See Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: The Books o f Samuel,
trans. James Martin (Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 25-28; Eugene H. Merrill, “1 Samuel,” in
Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition o f the Scriptures: Old Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and
Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1985), 434-35. This description is similar to that o f Jesus stated in
Luke 2:52.
60 Ibid., 272-74.
223
control and design for the purpose o f preparing the way for the coming o f the Messiah.
The birth o f Isaac is to fulfill G od’s promises to Abraham that he will become a great
nation, that he will have an heir from his own seed by Sarah, and that his posterity will
become a nation (Gen 12:1-3; 15:4-5; and 17:3-8). Jacob is the father o f the twelve
tribes o f Israel. Both o f them are the direct heirs in the line o f the seed o f Abraham
(Genesis 12) and that o f the promised seed (Genesis 3), preparing for the coming o f the
Messiah. Moses, Samson, and Samuel are great deliverers o f the people Israel chosen and
empowered by God, foreshadowing the deliverance o f the coming o f the Messiah.
Furthermore, the above study shows that the people o f Israel have been
earnestly praying and waiting for the coming o f a deliverer, the Messiah. They
desperately expected and anticipated that “the seed o f the woman” would be bom to them
to triumph over Satan one day. Therefore, childbirth becomes a significant channel to
accomplish their hope for immediate deliverance but also the hope o f the M essiah’s
salvation. The rabbis see Moses as the servant o f God, a doer o f signs and wonders, a
receiver and a mediator o f G od’s light, the greatest ruler, judge, and prophet that no one
can compare with. Perhaps they hold him to be the most likely candidate for the Messiah.
Nonetheless, Moses knew that he was not the Messiah, and they still had to wait for the
real Servant, Mediator, Judge, and Prophet. Moses has predicted the coming o f “the Great
Prophet” (Deut 18:15), the most significant incident o f childbirth, namely, “the seed o f
the woman” announced by God in Gen 3:15c.
Nonetheless, the births o f the significant figures o f Israel not only preserve
and sustain the existence o f the nation Israel, but also prepare the w ay for the coming o f
the Messiah. Thus, childbirth is closely related to and significantly affects the fulfillment
224
o f God’s promises to Israel and his salvific plan for all humanity in Judaism.61
The Meaning of Genesis 3:15
The interpretations o f Gen 3:15 are diverse. Is it a threat/curse or a
promise/prophecy? What does “the seed o f the woman” mean? Is it collective or
individual? What does the struggle between the seed o f the woman and that o f the serpent
mean? Should it be interpreted literally or allegorically? The LXX refers to the term
“seed” in v .1 5 c as an individual “he” (autoq),63 whereas texts o f Palestinian Targum
interpret it as collective. As a whole, some scholars traditionally construe that the
struggle is between Christ and Satan, and take the text to be a protevangelium, whereas
some scholars avoid it.64 Some reject the virgin birth prediction view.65 However, the
rabbis interpret the struggle as between the Israelite and Satan, focusing on obedience or
disobedience to the Torah. Some modem commentators believe that there is no messianic
interpretation o f Gen 3:15 found in rabbinic sources.66 Some suggest that the messianic
61 Contrariwise, the pagan or the Greek world does not have such a concept; in particular the
proto-Gnostics see childbirth as a hindrance to the human body’s salvation.
62 Jack P. Lewis has made a trace o f the history o f the interpretation o f Gen 3:15. See Lewis,
“The Woman's Seed (Gen 3:15),” Journal o f Evangelical Theological Society 34 (September 1991): 3 0 0 -
18.
63 R. A. Martin concludes that the LXX is “the earliest evidence o f an individual messianic
interpretation o f Gen 3:15 based on the fact that the quality o f the LXX o f the Pentateuch is higher than the
rest o f the OT, and the use o f the masculine aoroc rather than the required feminine or neuter pronoun
indicates that the translator o f the LXX understood this verse in a messianic way.” See Martin, “The
Earliest Messianic Interpretation o f Genesis 3 i5,” Journal o f Biblical Literature 84 (1965): 427. Also see
Hamilton, Genesis, 197; Lewis, “Woman’s Seed,” 300; Andrew Kwong, Genesis, vol. 1 (Hong Kong: Tien
Dao, 1998), 31 in Chinese.
64 See Wifall, “Gen 3:15,” 361.
65 See Lewis, “The Woman’s Seed,” 317-18.
66 See Martin McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch
(Rome: Biblical Institute Press 1978), 217, 219-20.
225
interpretation o f the “seed o f the woman” appears in the Targums.67
Genesis 3:15 in the Hebrew Bible
Regarding the interpretation o f Gen 3:15, commentators are divided into two
different views, the Protevangelium view (the promise o f the messianic salvation) and the
non- Protevangelium view (the hostility between the serpent race and the human race).
The Protevangelium View
Proponents o f this view suggest that there is irreconcilable enmity between the
serpent brood (i.e., Satan and his brood) and the human race in a spiritual sense. The
ultimate victory will be brought by the seed o f the woman, that is, the Messiah, who will
conquer Satan at the end o f time.68 Thus, Gen 3:15 is a curse to the serpent but a promise
(or an act) o f grace and preservation to the human race.69 Irenaeus, the first exegete,
explicitly interprets the text as being messianic. He connects the “seed” o f Gen 3:15 with
67 See John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, 2d ed. (Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark, 1980), 80-81.
68 See Walter Wifall, “Gen 3:15—A Protevangelium?” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36 (1974):
361-65; Keil and Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, 100-101; Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 93-94; Kwong, Genesis, 30-32; W. C. Kaiser, Towards an Old Testament
Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), 78-79; Ben Witherington, Women and the Genesis o f
Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 195; Alvera Mickelsen, “Appendix I: Does
Order o f Creation, Redemption, and Climax Demand Female Supremacy?” in Equal to Serve: Women and
Men in the Church and Home, ed. Gretchen Gaebelein Hull (Old Tappen, NJ: Revell, 1987), 247; W. H.
Bennett, ed., The Century Bible: Genesis (Edinburgh: T. C. & E. C. Jack, 1904), 108-10; Ross, Genesis, 32;
Holmes, Text in a Whirlwind, 324-25.
69 Holmes suggests that from the human point o f view, the enmity o f the woman and her
offspring for the serpent is actually an act o f preservation and grace, not a curse. It is a comfort for the
human race that they will not only survive but will have final victory through the particular seed o f the
woman, an individual who denotes the whole line o f descendants. See Holmes, Text in a Whirlwind, 3 2 4 -
25. Hamilton, believes that whether the term “seed” is singular or collective, Gen 3:15 is good news. He
argues that the punishment for the first couple actually includes both divine grace and divine judgment.
Although there will be pain in childbirth for Eve, she is promised the bearing o f children and not being
sterile. Although the land will produce thorns and thistles for Adam, he is promised having food to eat and
not starving to death. Thus, even though God’s speech to the serpent is a curse, it could also be God’s
promise for humanity again. Hamilton suggests, “The promise is that some unspecified member(s) o f the
human race will one day lash out against this serpent’s seed.” See Hamilton, Genesis, 199-200.
226
the “seed” o f Gal 3:19 and the phrase “bom o f woman” (Gal 4:4), holding that the
woman in Gen 3:15 is a prophecy o f Mary, the m other o f Jesus, not Eve. The present text
is a reference to the unceasing moral conflict and hostility between humanity and Satan
until the promise o f final human victory over Satan fulfilled by Jesus Christ.70 This view
contrasts Eve’s disobedience with M ary’s obedience.
C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch point out that the first half o f the passage indicates
that the enmity is not only between the serpent and the woman, but also between
humanity (the “seed” o f the woman here as generic) and the serpent race. This is an
unceasing spiritual battle. However, the second h alf o f it states that the seed o f the
woman “he” will crash the head o f the serpent itself, not o f its seed ( v . 1 5 c). The term
“you” refers merely to the serpent, that is, Satan, who can only be met w ith spiritual arms.
Thus, the idea o f the “seed” o f the woman is modified by the nature o f this foe, referring
to one solitary person, one individual only. The word “crush” is used to connect both
head and heel, indicating that the intention o f both sides is to destroy the opponent.
Nonetheless, the crushing o f a serpent’s head is an immediately fatal and utterly incurable
defeat, while the bite o f a serpent in the heel is not. Therefore, the final victory belongs to
this particular seed o f the woman. They trace the promised “seed” from Seth, Shem,
Abraham, Isaac, and others, and finally to Christ. Those who are united to Christ by faith
belong to the seed o f the woman (Rom 16:20), whereas those who have fallen into the
power o f Satan belong to the seed o f the serpent (Matt 23:33; John 8:44; 1 John 3:8).71
70 See Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, Library o f Christian Classics, ed. Cyril C. Richardson,
vol. 1 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953), 390-91. Also see Wifall, “Gen 3:15,” 361, n. 2; Lewis,
“Woman’s Seed,” 306-7.
71 Keil and Delitzsch, Genesis, 100-102. Also see A. Dillmann, Genesis: Critically and
Exegetically Expounded, trans. William B. Stevenson, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1897), 158-60.
227
Furthermore, Keil and Delitzsch stress the fact that the final victory over the
serpent is given to the descendant o f the woman, not o f the man as follows:
. . . as it was through the woman that the craft o f the devil brought sin and death
into the world, so it is also through the woman that the grace o f God will give to the
fallen human race the conqueror o f sin, o f death, and o f the devil.. . . to the fact that
the woman had been led astray by the serpent, yet in the fact that the destroyer o f
the serpent was bom o f a woman . . . they were fulfilled in a w ay which showed that
the promise must have proceeded from that Being, who secured its fulfillment not
only in its essential force, but even in its apparently casual form.72
Walter Wifall suggests that the text should be interpreted as “messianic” or
“Davidic” in the context o f Israel’s royal ideology. He parallels the text with the Davidic
covenant in 2 Sam 7:12, and argues that the term “seed” is also applied “individually” to
each o f the sons o f David who sits on his throne. In light o f “royal” Psalms 89 (w . 5,10,
11, 21, 30, 37, 39) and 2 Sam 22 (w . 37-43, 51), David is addressed as G od’s “anointed”
or “messiah” and whose “seed” will last forever under God’s grace and power. David and
his sons will crush their enemies in the dust under their feet (cf. Ps 72:9; 110:1), just as
God has crushed Rahab. Wifall further points out that “the picture o f the god or king
treading with his feet upon the heads o f his enemies was common in ancient N ear Eastern
• j 'y
art and literature,” and this is apparently the picture behind Gen 3:15c. Such a picture
indicates that the “seed” o f the woman will finally conquer the serpent, the enemy o f the
human race. Besides, in the New Testament, the apostle Paul did trace Jesus as the
consummated “seed” and the fulfillment o f the Old Testament promises back to Abraham
in Gal 3:16. He also mentions that God has sent a Son “bom o f a woman” in Gal 4:4, that
72 See Keil and Delitzsch, Genesis, 102.
73 See Wifall, “G en3:15,” 363. JohnH. Walton and Victor H. Matthews point out that “the
Egyptian Pyramid Tests (second half o f third millennium) contain a number o f spells against serpents . . .
Treading on the serpent is used in these texts as a means o f overcoming or defeating it.” See their work,
The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Genesis-Deuteronomy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
1997), 21.
228
could also refer to Gen 3:15 the “seed” o f the woman. Therefore, although Gen 3:15 does
not directly predict Jesus to be the M essiah o f humankind, its “messianic” implication
cannot be denied when read in the light o f all o f Scripture.74
The Non-Protevangelium View
This view mainly sees the story as an etiological myth that explains why
there is hostility between the serpent world and humanity. Advocates o f this view
take Gen 3:15b as the enmity only between the serpent brood (the snakes) and the human
race, and Gen 3:15c as merely depicting differing modes o f contest between these two
parties.75 The strife emphasized is unceasing without specific promise about the outcome.
It is a curse rather than a prophecy or a promise.76 On the basis o f the historical exegesis,
they deny the traditional views: the singular reference o f the “seed” o f the woman to the
77
Messiah and the identification o f the serpent with Satan.
John Skinner argues that the term mr is nearly always collective.78 Only in a
few cases is it used o f an individual child (Gen 4:25; 21:13; 1 Sam 1:11), to designate the
74 See Wifall, “Gen 3:15,” 363-65; also see Kwong, Genesis, 32; Lewis, “The Woman’s
Seed,” 319.
75 See Skinner, Genesis, 79-81; S. R. Driver, The Book o f Genesis: With Introduction and
Notes (London: Methuen, 1920), 49; S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh (Oxford: Blackwell, 1956), 362;
Jurgen Roloff, D er erste B rief an Timotheus, Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament,
ed. Josef Blank, Rudolf Schnackenburg, and Eduard Schweizer, vol. 15 (Zurich: Benzinger Verlag, 1988),
140; C. Westermann, Genesis 1-11, trans. J. J. Scullion (London: SPCK, 1984), 260-61; Bruce Vawter, On
Genesis: A New Reading (New York: Doubleday, 1977), 83; Richard S. Hess, “The Roles o f the Woman
and the Man in Genesis 3,” Themelios 18 (April 1993): 17; Gordon D. Fee, A Good News Commentary: 1
and 2 Timothy, Titus (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984), 38.
76 See Driver, Genesis, 49.
77 See Mowinckel, He, 11.
78 Westermann argues for this view on the basis o f form criticism; see his work, Genesis, 260.
229
70
immediate descendant as the pledge o f offspring, but not a remote offspring. Hence, the
term xin is the “seed” o f the woman collectively, and the term nnx denotes the serpent
himself, acting through his “seed.” The enmity is actually the deadly feud and war
between humans and serpents. The former will crush the head o f the latter, and the latter
will wound the heel o f the former. Nonetheless, there is no promise o f victory to either
party, but only continuous warfare between them. The text cannot be considered as a
Protevangelium in any aspect, since the serpent is only an incarnation o f the devil, but
not Satan himself.80 The text probably intends to protest the unnatural fascination o f
snake-worship. He further comments on this view:
The essence o f the temptation is that the serpent-demon has tampered with the
religious instinct in man by posing as his good genius, and insinuating distrust o f
the goodness o f God; and his punishment is to find him self at eternal war with race
whom he has seduced from their allegiance to their Creator. And that is very much
the light in which serpent-worship must have appeared to a believer in the holy and
righteous God o f the OT.81
Evaluation
Regarding the problems o f the Protevangelium view, first, there is no clear
evidence to indicate that the idea o f Protevangelium was in Gen 3:15. Second, when the
term “seed” refers to an individual child, it usually refers to an immediate descendant
instead o f a distant descendant. For instance, Seth is Eve’s “another seed” (4:25);
Abraham laments that he still has no seed (15:3); Lot’s two daughters attempt to bear
seed from their father (19:32, 34); Ishmael is also Abraham’s seed (21:13); Samuel is
79 For details see Th. Noldeke, “I Abandlungen: Mutter Erde und Verwandtes bei den
Semiten,” Archiv fu r Religionswissenschaft 8 (1905): 164.
80 Skinner, Genesis, 79-80.
81 Ibid., 81-82.
230
Hannah’s seed (1 Sam 1:11; 2:20); Solomon is David’s seed (2 Sam 7:12). When the
term “seed” is used as a collective, it always refers to distant offspring or a large group o f
descendants (Gen 9:9; 12:7; 13:16; 15:5,13,18; 16:10; 17:7-10,12; 21:12; 22:17-18).
Therefore, it is wise not to see the term “seed” as a clear-cut reference to some remote
individual. Third, the text itself does not indicate that the serpent symbolizes Satan, Eve
the Virgin M ary,82 and “her seed” Jesus Christ. The Bible does not reveal these until in
the New Testament. God shows His revelation progressively. Here Gen 3:15 contextually
does not reveal all o f the above.
The major problem o f the Non-Protevangelium view is that it is difficult to
interpret the text as merely the enmity between the snakes and the human race in a
physical sense. First, G od’s decree to the serpent in verse 14 indicates that this passage
should be interpreted symbolically rather than literally. For instance, snakes obviously do
not eat dust (3:14). Neither does the snake’s mode o f locomotion change from walking on
legs to crawling on their bellies. The author uses these two facts to express humiliation
and subjugation as in other places in the Old Testament (e.g., Ps 72:9; Isa 49:23; Mic
7:17).83 Second, not all snakes are poisonous84 and enemies o f mankind. Some snakes are
raised as pets. Moreover, the description that the serpent “will crush his heel” is not an
appropriate designation o f what a snake would do to a person in order to hurt him/her.85
82 Hamilton comments that the view sees the virgin birth o f “her seed” in Gen 3:15 as forceful.
It has no support in the text. Gen 4:25 would invalidate that suggestion, for Eve surely was not a virgin
when she gave birth to her “another seed” Seth. See Hamilton, Genesis, 198.
83 See Hamilton, Genesis, 196-97.
84 Walton and Matthews point out that “O f thirty-six species o f snake known to the area, the
viper (vipera palaestinae) is the only poisonous snake in northern and central Israel. See their work,
Genesis-Deuteronomy, 21.
85 Hamilton, Genesis, 198.
231
Thus, the enmity between the serpent race and the human race as nature shows is not
completely correct and does not make good sense in Gen 3:15 contextually. Explicitly,
the text tells something more than that. Third, the conflict between the serpent and “her
seed” described in the last clause indicates that the former will receive a lethal blow (its
head will be crushed), whereas the latter will suffer, but not a mortal death (his heel will
be crushed/seized). Thus, the conflict will have an outcome, and the consequences o f the
fighters in the battle will be different. The final victory apparently belongs to “her seed”
and not to the serpent. Fourth, what is the real purpose o f the author to choose to record
this announcement after the transgression? Is it true that the author merely wants to
explain why mankind and snakes always try to kill each other whenever they meet in
nature? If the text is not messianic, there is no hope, but punishment alone, for the first
couple and their offspring after the fall.
Perhaps the war between mankind and the serpent in Gen 3:15ab has both
physical and spiritual meanings. On the one hand, it refers to the enmity between
mankind and snakes in nature. On the other hand, it symbolizes the conflict between good
and evil in the world. However, contextually the implication o f the messianic promise in
Gen 3:15c cannot be ignored or denied. According to Max Wilcox, the “seed” in the
Abrahamic covenant refers to Isaac exclusively in Abraham’s time (Gen 12:7; 21:12;
26:3,4). In the Davidic covenant it refers to Solomon exclusively in D avid’s time (2 Sam
7:12). This shows that in the Old Testament the term “seed” could also be used in an
individual sense.86 The message o f the promised seed can be traced in the Bible.
86 See Max Wilcox, “The Promise o f the ‘Seed’ in the New Testament and the Targumin,”
Journal fo r the Study o f the New Testament 5 (1979): 14-5 for details. M. Weinfeld classifies both the
Abrahamic and Davidic covenant as the ‘royal grant,’ which is regularly made with an individual, the
benefits and provisions o f which will be passed on to his line o f successive individual heirs, namely, son, or
232
Jack P. Lewis comments well, “To say that the passage is messianic does not
necessarily imply that it is virgin-birth messianic.”87 He also emphasizes the significance
to pay attention to the uniqueness o f the phrase “her seed,” the seed attached with a third
person singular feminine possessive pronoun, which might be the key for interpretation.
He points out that in Genesis there are 15 occurrences o f the term “seed” without
possessive pronouns; 26 occurrences have masculine possessive pronouns; and 3 o f the 5
occurrences attached with feminine possessive refer to Eve’s (3:15), H agar’s (16:10), and
Rebekah’s descendant (24:60). The last two have the second person singular feminine.
Only Eve has the third person singular possessive pronoun.88 This observation is worthy
o f further exploration.
Ham ilton’s comment is a fair conclusion for the meaning o f Gen 3:15:
We may want to be cautious about calling this verse a messianic prophecy. At

the same time we should be hesitant to surrender the time-honored expression for
this verse— the protevangelium, “the first good news.” The verse is good news
whether w e understand zera ‘ singularly or collectively. The following words o f
God to the woman and the man include expressions both o f divine grace and o f
divine judgment. Yes, there will be pain for Eve, but she is promised children.. . .
yes, there will be frustration for Adam because o f intractable soil, but he will eat
and not starve to death.
One may surmise, therefore, that G od’s speech to the serpent contains both
judgm ent and promise. Indeed, the serpent is banned and he becomes a crawler. He
is under judgment. The promise is that some unspecified member(s) o f the human
trace will one day lash out against this serpent’s seed. More than a change in the
serpent’s position is involved here— it is now a question o f his existence.
Would this individual, or these individuals, be among the kings o f Israel and
Judah who are the “offspring” o f their father (2 Sam 7:12; Ps 89:5 . . . who “crush”
their enemies (Ps 89:24 . . . “under their feet” (2 Sam 22:39), so that these enemies
grandson. Moreover, there can only be one king at a time over a land. See Weinfeld, “The Covenant o f
Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” Journal o f the American Oriental Society 90
(1970): 184-96. The issue o f the promised “seed” in the Old Testament will be discussed in detail below.
87 See Lewis, “The Woman’s Seed,” 319.
88 Ibid., 317-18.
233
“lick the dust” (Ps 72:9)? Later revelations will state that it is Jesus who reigns until
he puts all his enemies under his feet (1 Cor 15:25).89
In the Non-Canonical Jewish Literature
M artin McNamara suggests that there is no messianic interpretation o f Gen
3:15 found in the rabbinic writings.90 However, Skinner believes that the messianic
interpretation o f the “seed o f the woman” occurs in the Targums.91 According to R. A.
M artin’s study, the fact that the translator o f the LXX uses the masculine form o f the
pronoun auxog instead o f the neuter form auto in Gen 3:15 indicates that he is the earliest
09
to advocate a messianic interpretation o f the verse. He concludes after having analyzed
the usage o f the masculine pronoun autoq employed by the LXX for the translation o f the
masculine personal pronoun kw in Genesis:
Thus it is clear that the LXX o f Genesis evidences a good deal o f freedom in
translating the Hebrew masculine personal pronoun ton— in nearly h alf o f the
instances avoiding a literalistic translation and preferring a different and better
Greek idiom. Further, in none o f the instances where the translator has translated
literally does he do violence to agreement in Greek between the pronoun and its
antecedent, except here in Gen 3 15.
It seems unlikely that this is mere coincidence or oversight. First o f all, the
quality o f the Greek translation o f the Pentateuch is, generally speaking, higher than
that o f the other parts o f the OT. Second, in all other instances where such
literalness would have resulted in violence to agreement in Greek between the
pronoun and antecedent, the translator avoided such literalness and used the
required feminine or neuter pronoun. The most likely explanation for the use o f
autoc in Gen 3 15 to refer back to cm eppa is that the translator has in this way
indicated his messianic understanding o f this verse.93
89 See Hamilton, Genesis, 199-200.
90 See McNamara, New Testament and Palestinian Targum, 220.
91 See Skinner, Genesis, 80-81.
92 See R. A. Martin, “The Earliest Messianic Interpretation o f Genesis 3 15 ” Journal o f

Biblical Literature 84 (1965): 425-27 for details.
93 Ibid., 427.
234
Martin objectively points out that though the LXX takes the “seed” to be a
masculine individual, implying a messianic interpretation, it does not mean that this is the
correct understanding o f Gen 3:15. However, “this LXX translation is further evidence o f
the intensification o f messianic expectations among the Jews in the centuries immediately
preceding the birth o f Jesus.”94 This will be further supported by how the rabbis have
interpreted the present text in this section.
Philo: Legum Allegoriae 1.182-199
Though Philo describes the fall o f humanity in De opificio mundi, he does not
speak o f Gen 3:15 there. Even though he asks why the serpent is to have enmity toward
the woman, he mentions neither the wom an’s descendants nor “her seed.”95 In L.A.
1.182-199 Philo allegorizes Gen 3:15, emphasizing the hostility between pleasure (the
serpent) and the external sense (woman), with the mind (man) involved in the middle o f
the battle. Therefore, the mind should watch (i.e., “shall watch for the purpose o f
destroying”) the principal and predominant doctrine o f pleasure, whereas pleasure should
watch the traces o f the mind itself. The good man is an enemy to pleasure, and “he will
be able utterly to destroy it.” On the contrary, the bad man thinks the things o f the body
are more important, rejoices in it and finally will be defeated by pleasure.
Josephus: Antiquities 1.50
In Ant. 1.50 Josephus interprets Gen 3:15 in a plain zoological sense, that is,
the hostility between snakes and humans in daily life:
94 Ibid.
95 See Lewis, “The Woman’s Seed,” 304.
235
He also deprived the serpent o f speech, out o f indignation at his malicious
disposition towards Adam. Besides this, he inserted poison under his tongue, and
made him an enemy to man; and suggested to them that they should direct their
strokes against his head, that being the place wherein lay his mischievous designs
towards men, and it being easiest to take vengeance on him that way: and when he
had deprived him o f the use o f his feet, and made him go rolling all along, and
dragging him self upon the ground.96
Targum Onqelos to Genesis 3.15
The text reads: “And I w ill place enmity between you and (between) the
woman, and between your children and (between) her children; it will remember what
you did to it in ancient time and you will sustain (your hatred) for it to the end [of
07
time].” The commentator translates the Hebrew words for “head” and “heel” into their
secondary temporal meanings “beginning” and “end,” referring to the time o f the fall and
08
the time o f the coming o f the Messiah.
Ps. Jonathan on Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between the seed o f your
offspring and the seed o f her offspring; and it shall be that when the offspring o f the
woman keep the commandments o f the Law, they will aim right (at you) and they
will smite you on the head; but when they abandon the commandments o f the Law,
and you will aim right (at them), and you will wound them in the heel. However, for
them there will be a remedy, but for you there will be none, and in the future they
will make peace with (or ‘a cure for’) the heel in the days o f the king, Messiah.9
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, between the offspring o f your
children and the offspring o f her children. A nd when the children o f the woman
96 The citation is from Flavius Josephus, Josephus the Complete Works, trans. William
Whiston (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 35.
97 Grossfeld, Targum Onqelos to Genesis, 46. Aberbach and Grossfeld translate the verse as
“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your children and her children; they (lit.
“he”) will remember what you did to them (lit. “him”) in ancient times, and you will preserve (your hatred)
for them to the end (o f time).” See their work, Targum Onkelos to Genesis, 36.
98 Grossfeld, Targum Onqelos to Genesis, 47, n. 9.
99 The citation is from Bowker, Targum and Rabbinic Literature, 122.
236
keep the commandments o f the Law, they will take aim and strike you on yo u r head.
But when they forsake the commandments o f the Law you will take aim and wound
them on their heels. For them, however, there will be a remedy; but fo r you there
will be no remedy; and they are to make peace in the end, in the days o f the King
M essiah.100
According to McNamara, here the Targumist interprets the “seed” o f the
biblical text as a collectivity referring to the offspring o f the woman in general. It
unlikely refers to the Messiah, because the text implies that this “seed” might forsake the
commandments o f the Law. It is inconceivable for the Messiah not to observe the
precepts o f the Law. The term apu (“the heel”) is first construed literally and then taken as
“end o f the days,” that is “the day o f the Messiah.” When the Messiah comes, the serpent
will no longer be able to overpower the sons o f the woman. They will have a
“cure/remedy” for the heel. The serpent should be understood as a symbol, denoting
Satan, who will overcome humans occasionally until the Messiah comes to supply a
remedy against his attacks. Therefore, no messianic interpretation o f Gen 3:15 is found in
the present text.101
However, Skinner argues that the remedy or cure made by the Messiah at the
end o f the days indicates the messianic interpretation o f the “seed o f the woman” in the
present text.102 To this writer, although the Targumist construes verse 15c as the
consequences o f the Israelites who obey or disobey the Law, he understands the Hebrew
text beyond this. At least, he believes that in the days o f the Messiah, the Israelite will
have a final victory over the devil. Why? It is just because the Messiah would never
100 Michael Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1992),
27-28. The italics in the translation denote words not found in the Hebrew Bible.
101 See McNamara, New Testament and Palestinian Targum, 219-20.
102 See Skinner, Genesis, 80-81.
237
disobey the Law. He would surely aim at smiting the serpent’s head and would conquer
and destroy it forever. Thus, Skinner’s view is justified.
Targum Neoflti Gen 3:15
The Targum N eofiti103 clearly has the statement addressed to the serpent:
And enmities will I put between you and the woman and between your sons and her
sons. And it shall be when her sons observe the Law and put into practice the
commandments they will aim at you and smite you on the head and kill you; but
when they forsake the commandments o f the Law you will aim at and wound him
on the heel and make him ill. For her son[s], however, there will be a remedy, but
for you, serpent, there will be no remedy, for they will make peace in the future, in
the days o f King M essiah.104
Here the Targumist also interprets the passage collectively. He particularly interprets the
meanings o f “smite the head” by adding on “and kill you” and “wound on the heel” with
“and make him ill.” Surely the former consequence is lethal and has no remedy. The
addition indicates that he attempts to emphasize that the final victory will belong to the
sons o f the woman. Furthermore, the subject o f smiting and killing the serpent is “they,”
that is, the wom an’s descendants who observe the Law and practice the commandments.
However, when they forsake the divine commandments, the serpent will wound “his”
(not “their”) heel(s). Why are the third person plural pronouns “they” and “them”
changed to the third personal singular pronoun “him ” here? Does this shift imply that the
sufferer will be an individual rather than the entire group? Is he a representative o f the
103 Martin McNamara points out that the date o f Targum Neoflti is less certain. Nonetheless,
he follows A. D iez Macho’s view and suggests that it is a pre-Christian version. See his work, Targum and
Testament: Aramaic Paraphrases o f the Hebrew Bible: A Light on the New Testament (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1972), 186. Some scholars date it in the second century A.D. or even earlier. See Evans,
Noncanonical Writings, 101.
104 See A. Diez Macho, Neofiti 1 (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas,
1968), 503-4.
238
group in the mind o f the rabbi? Contextually, the singular pronoun could be either as a
singular (an individual) or as a collective (the entire group).
Fragment-Targums Gen 3:15
A nd enmity: “And I will put enmity between the serpent and the woman, and
between the offspring o f your children and the offspring o f her children; and it will
come to be that when the wom an’s children toil in the Torah and keep the
commandments they will take aim and strike you on your head and kill you; and
when the wom an’s children refrain from toiling in the Torah and from keeping the
commandments you will take aim and bite them on their heels and afflict them;
however, there will be a remedy for the children o f the woman, whereas for you
there will not be any rem ed y ; for indeed they shall appease one <another> in the
final end o f days, in the days o f the King Messiah.”105
Fragment-Targums have the longest paraphrase o f the verse in the Targums.
They interpret “your seed” and “her seed” as the offspring o f the serpent’s children and
the offspring o f the woman’s children. They are quite parallel to Targum Neofiti except
they take the seed o f the woman to be plural throughout the verse. Nonetheless, i f the
singular pronoun in Targum Neofiti is collective, these two texts have the same sense.
McNamara believes that the Palestinian Targum, on the whole, intends to
bring out all the possible meanings and implications o f Gen 3:15. The targumist
advocates that the outcome o f the struggle between the seed o f the woman and that o f the
serpent will depend on the attitude o f the w om an’s descendants towards the Torah.
Nonetheless, the final victory will come w ith King Messiah. At that time the children o f
the woman will have a crushing victory over the serpent. “In the end o f the days” or its
105 From Michael L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums o f the Pentateuch According to Their
Extant Sources, vol. 2: Translation, Analecta biblica, vol. 76 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), 7.
Evans is o f the opinion that Fragment-Targums contains some unique readings and some o f them appear to
be quite early. Therefore they are valuable. See Evans, Noncanonical Writings, 100. Klein points out that
the Fragment-Targums collections are substantially later than the complete Palestinian Targums. See Klein,
Fragment-Targums o f the Pentateuch According to Their Extant Sources, vol. 1: Texts, Indices and
Introductory Essays, Analecta biblica, vol. 76 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), 25. McNamara thinks
that the texts denote a genuine Palestinian Targum and have great value for the study o f it. See his work,
Targum and Testament, 182.
239
equivalent refers to the end o f the world, or the coming o f the Messiah, in an
eschatological sense.106
Genesis Rabbah 20.5
. . . thou didst desire to kill the man [Adam] and take his wife: therefore, ‘A nd I will
p u t an enmity between thee and the woman.' Thus what he desired was not given
him, and what he possessed was taken from him . And we find the same in the case
o f Cain, Korah, Balaam, Doeg, Gehazi, Absalom, Adonijah, Uzziah, and Hainan:
what they desired was not given to them, and what they possessed was taken from
them.
The rabbis do not mention and discuss the last two clauses o f the verse
(v. 15bc) at all. They stress enmity between the serpent and the woman (v. 15a),
indicating that the serpent could never possess the woman. The serpent was envious o f
Adam having Eve and desired to possess her as a wife. He deceived the first couple and
led them into sin in order to kill Adam and take Eve away from him. However, God has
taken what he desired to possess.
The Historical Development of the Teaching of

the “Seed” in the Old Testament
The promise o f the “seed” first appears in Gen 3:15 as the Creator announced
his final victory over Satan through the “seed” o f the woman in the future. Then, the
promised “seed” was revived again and administered to Abraham as the Lord spoke to
him at Shechem (Gen 12:7).107 Then the promise o f the “seed” seems to be silent again
until the Davidic covenant directed to David (2 Sam 7:12). Finally, the promised “seed”
refers to the coming Messiah.
106 See McNamara, Targum and Testament, 75-76.
107 The “promised” seed also refers to the “seed” o f Israel as the stars o f the heavens and the
sand o f the sea and the dust o f the earth (Gen 15:5; 22:17; 26:4,24; 28:13-14; 32:12; 48:11; Exod 6:1-9;
13:15; 19:6; Deut 28:59; 30:6).
240
The “S eed ” in Pre-patriarchal
and Patriarchal Eras
The teaching o f the promised “seed” is inaugurated in Gen 3:15 after the fall
o f Adam and Eve. God promised Eve that “her seed” would be delivered from the serpent
and would ultimately defeat the serpent. Cain was bom and became the serpent’s seed
(though Eve expected him to be the promised “seed,” cf. Gen 4:1) for he had chosen to
act in the power o f sin, and killed Abel. Abel is the promised seed but his death shows
that he was not delivered from dominion (Gen 4:8). Then, Seth was appointed by God as
the seed to replace Abel (Gen 4:25). Noah (the seed o f Seth or Lamech) was chosen and
delivered by God (Genesis 6-9). Shem (the seed o f Noah) was chosen to follow this
genealogical line (Genesis 1 0 -1 1).108
Then Abraham (the seed o f Shemite Terah) was placed in the line o f the
promised seed (Gen 11:27-32). God made a covenant with him, including the promise o f
the “seed” (as in Gen 3:15) added with the promises o f the “land” and the “nation”
(Genesis 1 2 ,1 3 ,1 5 ,1 7 ). Isaac was the promised “seed” o f Abraham (Gen 21:1-3), with
whom God confirmed the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 26:1-6). Jacob was the “seed” o f
Isaac (Gen 25:24; 28:1-4), and God repeated to and assured him o f almost the same
promises made to Abraham (Gen 28:10-15; 35:9—15).109 Finally, the line o f the promised
“seed” was transmitted to Judah when Jacob blessed him, “The scepter will not depart
108 Elliott E. Johnson, Expository Hermeneutics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

1990), 164,180,218; idem, “Typology” (unpublished class notes in 3100 Hermeneutics, Dallas
Theological Seminary, 1998), 3-4; Dale Mark Wheeler, “Paul’s Use o f the Old Testament in Galatians
3:16” (Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1987), 281-82.
109 See Johnson, Expository Hermeneutics, 164, 180, 218.
241
from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs
and the obedience o f the nations is his” (49:10).110
Walter Kaiser is o f the opinion that Eve had been promised both a ‘seed’ and
a male individual in Gen 3:15. The latter (the representative aspect o f this promise)
apparently is derived from the former (the corporate aspect o f this promised seed). On the
basis o f the progress o f revelation in the Old Testament, this seed was also bom to
Abraham, then bom to his son Isaac, and then to Isaac’s son Jacob. Thus, “a line o f
successive representative sons o f the patriarchs who were regarded as one with the whole
group they represented” corresponded to the seminal idea advocated in Gen 3:15. He
further explains the concept o f “seed” in two aspects: the “seed” as a future benefit and as
the present beneficiaries o f God’s temporal and spiritual gifts. As a result, “seed” always
appeared in a collective singular noun and not a plural noun (such as in “sons”). Thus, the
“seed” denoted a unit with a flexible reference either to the one person or to the many
descendants o f that whole group or family.111
The “S eed ” in the Davidic Era
During the Pre-monarchical Era, the partial fulfillment o f the promise o f the
“land” was inaugurated when Israel conquered the land o f Canaan and settled there,
under the leadership o f Joshua and the following judges (Josh 1-24; Judges 1-21; and
1 Sam 1-7). As a whole, the teaching o f the promise o f the “seed” was silent. It was not
until the Davidic Era that the promise o f the “seed” was revived. The prophet Nathan
110 Kaiser argues that “Joseph did receive a double portion in the inheritance . . . but Judah
became the “leader” . . . among his brethren. . . As Isaac had blessed Jacob in Genesis 27:29, so Jacob now
transmitted the same supremacy over his brothers to Judah in 49:8.” Also cf. 1 Chr 5:2; 28:4. See Kaiser,
O ld Testament Theology, 96. That “seed” is also Israel (Exod 6:1-9; 13:15; Deut 1:8—11; cf. Rom 9:7).
111 Kaiser, O ld Testament Theology, 88.
242
came and said to the Judahite David, “The LORD declares to you that the LORD him self
will establish a house for you: When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I
will raise up your ‘seed’ to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will
establish his kingdom” (2 Sam 7:11-12).112 The Davidic covenant is also a “royal grant,”
as is the Abrahamic covenant, so the promised kings (who would rule over as G od’s
‘regents’) coming forth from Abraham (Gen 17:6, 16) would begin to reign through the
111
throne o f David. David and his “seed” are the next step in the progress o f revelation
which begins with the promise o f the “seed” made to Abraham in Gen 12:7 (or tracing
even further back to the promise o f the “seed” o f the woman announced in Gen 3:15).114
Therefore, the promise to Abraham was continued as a blessing to David.115
The “seed” o f David is certainly referring to Solomon historically at that time. Yahweh
promised to establish the throne o f Solomon’s kingdom forever, and the Davidic
kingdom would last forever (2 Sam 7:13; 16: cf. 1 Chr 22:6-10), that is, the kingdom
would never lack a descendant to sit on the throne o f David. In other words, the “seed” o f
112 Richard B. Hays thinks this passage treats the singular noun “seed” not as a collective
singular, but “as a reference to a specific royal successor to David, thus, it bears evident potential for
messianic interpretation.” This can be attested by the discovery o f the Dead Sea Scrolls. He concludes,
“Paul can therefore interpret the promise to Abraham’s seed as a promise made to the Messiah {Christos),
who is to be the heir o f God’s promised blessing.” See Hays, Echoes o f Scripture in the Letters o f Paul
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 85.
113 See Weinfeld, “The Covenant o f Grant,” 188, 190-95 for details.
114 See Wheeler, “Galatians 3:16,” 272-74.
115 See Kaiser, O ld Testament Theology, 153. W ilcox points out that the figure o f speech “I
shall assuredly multiply your seed like the stars o f the heavens and like the sand which is on the sea
shore . . . ” (appears in Gen 22:17 and elsewhere in the OT) is used to apply to David rather than to
Abraham in Jer 33:21-22, so he concludes that “the covenant to David that his son would mle upon his
throne etc. is exemplified as an eternal covenant on the pattern o f that referred to in Gen 22:17.” See his
work, “The Promise o f the Seed,” 5.
243
David simultaneously points to “the one person who represented the whole group and
was the earnest o f a line o f descendants yet to come.” 116
God extended the promise about David’s dynasty far into “forever.” David
was the “anointed” king and was called the Lord’s “anointed” (2 Sam 2:4; 5:3; cf. 1 Sam
16:3,12-13). Gradually, the title o f “the anointed one” (the substitute or another term for
the promised “seed”) was only used absolutely o f the king. Subsequently, it became the
title for “the great Davidide who was to come and to complete the expected kingdom o f
God,” that is, the promised “seed” o f David in the future (that chosen Man in the line o f
the “seed” who was entitled to sit as God’s regent on David’s throne forever). This
promised “seed” o f David was the Lord’s king ruling over his everlasting kingdom on
earth, in other words, the Messiah (the expected King) in the Old Testament.117
This line o f thinking is particularly found in the Royal Psalms (Psalms 2, 18,
2 0 ,2 1 ,4 5 , 72,110) that are “steeped in the ideology o f the Davidic dynasty and
presuppose the promise and oath made to him.” These psalms “formed a unity centering
on the Davidic king who, as Yahweh’s son, resided in Zion, the chosen city, ruled over
i in
Yahweh’s people, and was heir to the promise.” Max Wilcox equates the term “the
seed o f David” in 2 Sam 7:12 to that in Psalm 89 and suggests that “the seed” is “the
anointed one,” and hence “the Messiah.” 119 Besides, the prophets o f the Old Testament
also looked forward to the appearance o f this “Anointed One,” the promised “Seed” (Isa
9:6-7; Jer 3:16-17; Ezek 34:23,24; 37:24; Hos 3:5). They used different terms, for
116 See Kaiser, Old Testament Theology, 151.
117 Ibid., 148-49.
118 Ibid., 159-62.
119 See Wilcox, “The Promise o f the Seed,” 10.
244
example, “shoot” or “branch” as descriptive designations for the coming Messiah (Isa
11:1; Jer 23:5; 33:15; Ezek 34:23,24; 37:24; Hos 3:5).120
The Teaching of the “Seed” in Judaism
The development o f the promises o f the “seed” to Abraham and to David

10 1
seems to have already begun within Jewish thought and exegesis. Though the written
forms o f the Targums date from the fifth century A.D., much o f the material in oral form
m aybe pre-Christian.122 Francis Pereira believes that the Targums, as compared to the
rabbinic writings or the apocalyptic and Qumran literature, can also be considered to
consist substantially o f the traditions that represent the manner in which the Old
Testament message was transmitted to the entirety o f the Jewish people, during their
liturgical services every Sabbath.123 Thus, it is significant to know about the
interpretation o f the Targums concerning the teaching o f the promised “seed.”
Rendering irir “S eed ” in the Plural jvj “S o n s”
The study o f Wilcox on this issue will be used as a basic reference in
this section. The Targums thoroughly use the Aramaic p a “sons” instead o f the Hebrew
word ant “seed.” They strengthen this by altering the related verbs and pronouns o f the
Hebrew text from singulars to plurals (e.g., Gen 12:7; 14:15,16; 15:5,13,18; 17:19;
22:17). The Targumists interpret the term “seed” as a plural o f sense or collective,
120 See J. Barton Payne, The Theology o f the Older Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1962), 260-61; also see Horst Dietrich Preuss, Old Testament Theology, vol. 2 (Louisville, KY: Knox,
1992), 34-38.
121 Wilcox, “The Promise o f the Seed,” 16.
122 Martin, “The Earliest,” 427, n. 8.
123 Francis Pereiar, “The Galatian Controversy in the Light o f the Targums,” Indian Journal o f
Theology 20 (1971): 16.
245
designating “descendants,” and thus “Israel.” In Jub. 16.17 the “seed” was stressed and
the promise to Abraham was elaborated thus: “all the seeds o f his sons would be Gentiles
and be reckoned among the Gentiles; but from the sons o f Isaac one would become a holy
s e e d . . . for he would become the portion o f the Most High.” 124
Eschatological and Messianic Sense

In Gen 3:15 and 4:25
Regarding Gen 3:15, besides rendering the term “seed” in the plural “sons” as
usual, Targum Onqelos has the midrashic equation o f ap» (“heel”) with xaio (“end”),
implying a messianic interpretation. Both Targum Neofiti and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
suggest that this event will happen “in the Day o f King Messiah.” The m otif in the
Palestinian Targums as a group is that “if the sons o f the woman keep the Torah, they
will be protected from the serpent’s bruising, but if not, they will not be so
protected. . .” 125 Therefore, it is peculiarly eschatological and messianic.126
In Gen 4:25, Targum Onqelos and Targum Neofiti, as well as Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan, have pmN -a (“another son”) instead o f “seed.” Wilcox believes that “ ‘another
son” in Gen 4:25 means “a seed from another source or parentage.” 127 It is thus a hint that
King Messiah would be partly o f non-Jewish ancestry (i.e., through Ruth the
124 See Wilcox, “The Promise o f the Seed,” 2 -3 , 15, 20.
125 See Maher, Genesis, 27-28; Grossfeld, Targum Onqelos to Genesis, 46-47; Bowker,
Targum and Rabbinic Literature, 122; D iez Macho, Neofiti 1, 503-4.
126 See Wilcox, “The Promise o f the Seed,”13-14. See also Martin McNamara, The New
Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978), 219-20.
127 Wilcox, “The Promise o f the Seed,” 14.
246
Moabitess).128 He reinforces this by quoting Jub. 4.7: “God has raised up a second seed
1 ”7 0
unto us on the earth instead o f Abel; for Cain slew him,” and points out that the added
phrase “on the earth” may indicate the intention o f giving some messianic hint, that is,
“the seed” is not a merely supernatural one, but one who will enter history and is related
to the M essiah.130
The Inconsistency in the Targums
In 2 Sam 7:12-14 the Targums have: “I shall establish your sons (p a ) after
you, whom you shall beget. And I shall set up his kingdom (rrmabo) forever. He shall
build the House for my N am e,131 and I shall set up the throne o f his kingdom forever. I
shall be to him as a Father, and he shall be to me a Son.” Wilcox suggests that the
Targumists intend to endorse and follow the Tannaitic rule that “your seed” means “your
sons,” that is, “Israel.” However, according to Wilcox, the Samaritan Pentateuch Targum
frequently renders the Hebrew term air (“seed”) by the singular Aramaic word *]u
(“seed,” “germ”) instead o f the plural form “sons.” It also agrees with the MT, having the
singular *)U in Gen 3:15 and 4:25.132 Perhaps this implies that the Samaritan Pentateuch
128 See Maher, Genesis, 35; Grossfeld, Targum Onqelos to Genesis, 46—47; Bowker, Targum
and Rabbinic Literature, 122; D iez Macho, Neofiti 1, 503-4.
129 O. S. Wintermute translates the text as: “And he named him Seth because he said, ‘The
LORD has raised up another seed for us upon the earth in place o f Abel because Cain killed h im ’” He
points out that the author o f Jubilees has changed the addresser Eve (in the Hebrew text) to Adam, the
phrase “for me” to “for us” and added the phrase “upon the earth.” See his work, “Jubilees: A New
Translation and Introduction,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Expansions o f the ‘‘Old Testament"
and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments o f Lost Judeo-
Hellenistic Works, ed. James H. Charlesworth, vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 61.
130 See Wilcox, “The Promise o f the Seed,” 14-15, 20, n. 39.
131 Historically, only Solomon is the one who built the Temple for God. Therefore the son (or
the seed) here must be an individual and not a collective singular.
132 See Wilcox, “The Promise o f the Seed,” 10, 14.
247
Targum takes the singular “seed” to be an individual (a representative o f Israel) rather
than Israel (the whole nation). It is possible that the Targumists o f the Samaritan
Pentateuch Targum are thinking o f the coming Messiah, the promised seed, who will sit
on the throne o f David forever in the messianic kingdom.
The Rabbis ’ View o f the “Seed”
The rabbis understand and treat the “seed” in Abraham’s promise as a specific
singular referring to Isaac exclusively. For example, they argue that the phrase “thy seed
shall be a stranger” in Gen 15:13 signifies “Isaac shall be a stranger.” Regarding the
phrase finix -a (“another son”) in Gen 4:25, they suggest that it alludes to the King
Messiah who, as Eve foresaw, will come “from another place,” from a strange place, that
is, from Ruth, a Moabite woman, or even from God.133 In sum, the rabbis seem to
separate the promised “seed” o f Abraham in Gen 12:7 from the rest o f the promised
“seed” in Scripture, particularly the “seed o f the woman” in Gen 3:15. They interpret the
“seed” o f Abraham as referring to the nation Israel. However, they treat other passages o f
the “seed” as the hope o f the Messiah in an eschatological sense and this is exactly the
meaning o f the prophecy o f the promised “seed” in the whole Old Testament.134
According to the above discussion, apparently in Judaism Gen 3:15 is not seen
as an explanation for the enmity between mankind and snakes in nature, but rather as a
divine promise o f the messianic salvation in an eschatological sense. The Palestinian
Targums in particular understand the serpent as a symbol o f Satan, who will triumph
133 See Gen. Rab. 23.5 on Gen 4:25; 51:8 on Gen 19:32; cf. Jub. 4.7.
134 David Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London: Athlone, 1956), 440,
442.
248
occasionally over humanity until a remedy (a cure o f the heel) is provided against his
attacks “in the days o f King Messiah.” 135
To the Jews, the “seed o f the woman” in Gen 3:15 is the promise o f the
coming o f the salvation o f the Messiah, for whom they have been waiting and expecting.
Thus, childbearing is a significant means to the accomplishment o f the divine salvation.
Such a belief is uniquely and exclusively found in Judaism. Neither the Greco-Roman
cults nor the Ancient M ysteries has ever advocated it. On the contrary, the pagan usually
■I
looks down on childbirth, or even sees it as a hindrance to salvation.
Procreation and the Messianic Redemption
Regarding procreation, the rabbis refer to Gen 1:28 rather than to Gen 3:15.
In the eyes o f the rabbis, procreation is a distinctively human responsibility that should
not be neglected or evaded,137 because it is very significant to fulfill two purposes. First,
it aims to develop God’s creation o f this world. God did not create his world “a waste,
but formed it for habitation” (Isa 45:18). Procreation defines human nature and is the
135 See McNamara, N ew Testament and Palestinian Targum, 220.
136 See Richard Clark Kroeger, and Catherine Clark Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman:
Rethinking 1 Timothy 2 :1 1 -1 5 in Light o f Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992), 238,
nn. 3-4 , 8, 12-13, 15-17. On the Origin o f the World 2.5.109.21-25; Dialogue o f the Savior 144.17-22;
Sophia o f Jesus Christ 107.10-12. See also the quotations made by Clement o f Alexandria Miscellanies
3.45, 63-64; Hippolytus, Refutation o f All Heresies 5.8.19, 22; Epiphanius, Panarion 26.13.2-6, 26.5.
137 b. Ber. 10a says that King Hezekiah was punished with a nearly fatal disease because he
did not procreate deliberately. The prophet Isaiah told him that he would die and would have no part in the
coming world. Hezekiah defended himself, saying that he did not have children because he knew that his
children would not be righteous. However, Isaiah reproved him for not doing what God commanded.
Finally, Hezekiah married and procreated children, and he lived fifteen more healthy years. See Lisa Aiken,
To Be a Jewish Woman (London: Jason Aronson, 1992), 179.
249
1
means and privilege for humans to fulfill G od’s universal plan. Second, procreation
prepares for the salvation o f the Messiah who will come only when enough people have
been bom, to let all souls that are waiting to come into this world be put into bodies.
Therefore, those who abstain from procreation will cause the delay o f the ultimate
1 -5Q
redemption o f the Messiah.
2 Baruch 23.4-7
For when Adam sinned and death was decreed against those who were to be bom,
the multitude o f those who would be bom was numbered. And for that number a
place was prepared where the living ones might live and where the dead might be
preserved. No creature will live again unless the number that has been appointed is
completed. For my spirit creates the living, and the realm o f death receives the dead.
And further, it is given to you to hear that which will come after these times. For
truly, m y salvation which comes has drawn near and is not as far away as before.140
The text indicates the belief that there was a place for storing a predetermined
number o f human souls that had to be bom into bodies. Only when this appointed secret
number had been completed might the final redemption o f humanity occur.141 In other
words, the messianic salvation will only come when the number o f appointed souls have
been placed into bodies. To the sage, since more souls were bom into bodies than before,
surely the day o f the messianic redemption was nearer than before.
138 According to 1 Enoch 15.4-7, procreation is the line o f demarcation between mortal and
immortal beings. Only the former can procreate. Besides, Gen. Rab. 8.11-12 teaches that procreation
denotes “the essence o f the singular perfection that allows humans, and humans alone, to choose between
life and death.” Thus, humans are unlike the angel and the beast, as they can determine their own destiny.
See Cohen, “Be Fertile and Increase,” 86-88.
139 See Cohen, “Be Fertile and Increase,” 84-85, 115; Aiken, To Be A Jewish Women, 179;
Feldman, Birth Control in Jewish Law, 49.
140 The citation is from the translation o f A. F. J. Klijn, “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch,” in
OTP, 1:629.
141 See Cohen, “Be Fertile and Increase,” 115-16.
250
Genesis Rabbah 24.4
The Messiah will never come unless all those predetermined souls intended
for creation by the Creator from the beginning o f time have been bom into bodies:
R. Tanhum—others state this in the name o f the Rabbis— said: The royal Messiah
will not come until all the souls which [God] contemplated creating have been
created. What is the proof? A nd the souls which I have made (Isa. LVII, 1 6 ), i.e. for
the sake o f the souls which I have made. And the souls are those referred to in the
book o f Adam, v iz .. . .142
b. Sot ah 12a
R. Tanna taught that M oses’ father Amram was the greatest man o f his
generation. However, he divorced his wife in order to not have a child, because Pharaoh
had decreed that every newborn boy ought to be cast into the river. As a result, other
Israelites followed him in divorcing their wives. Consequently, Miriam, Am ram’s
daughter, reproached him for his deed:143
‘Father, thy decree is more severe than Pharaoh’s; because Pharaoh decreed only
against the males whereas thou hast decreed against the males and females. Pharaoh
only decreed concerning this world whereas thou hast decreed concerning this
world and the World to Come.144 In the case o f the wicked Pharaoh there is a doubt
whether his decree will be fulfilled or not, whereas in thy case, though thou art
righteous, it is certain that thy decree will be fulfilled, as it is said, Thou shalt also
decree a thing, and it shall be established unto thee!
Miriam confronted Amram’s action as affecting “this world and the W orld to Come.”
Finally, Amram went to remarry his divorced wife Jochebed, and the whole family
rejoiced for this. Then, Jochebed conceived and gave birth to Moses.
142 Cf. Lev. Rab. 15.1.
143 See Feldman, Birth Control in Jewish Law, 49.
144 Epstein explains, “the drowned babes would live again in the Hereafter; but unborn
children are denied that bliss.” That is why Miriam accused Amram of being more severe than Pharaoh.
Meanwhile, Amram’s action would delay the coming o f the Messiah because the waiting souls could not be
bom. See Epstein, Seder Nashim, part 3, Babylonian Talmud, 60, n. 4.
251
b. Yebamoth 62a
R. Huna suggests that a man has fulfilled his obligation o f procreation even if
his children predecease him. It is the predetermined souls that have been bom into bodies
that directly affect the consummation o f the coming o f the M essiah:145
It was stated: If a man had children and they died, he has fulfilled, said R. Huna, the
duty o f propagation,. . . because [he follows the tradition] o f R. Assi. For R. Assi
stated: The Son o f David146 will not come before all the souls in G u f will have been
disposed of, since it is said, For the spirit that unwrappeth itself is from M e e tc .147
b. ‘A bodah Zarah 5a
The Messiah will come after the predestined souls are bom into the world:
Also, what o f the teaching o f R. Jose: The Son o f David will only come when all
the souls destined to [inhabit earthly] bodies will be exhausted, as it is said, For the
spirit should fa ll before me and the spirits which I have made?— Do not take Resh
Lakish’s saying to mean that [if our ancestor had not sinned] we should not have
come to the world, but that [they would have become immortal and] we should have
1 AS
been [disregarded] as if we had never come to the world.
b. Niddah 13b
R. Jose claims that those who marry maidens too young to bear children
actually delay the coming o f the M essiah. Without procreation, the human souls waiting
for creation cannot be bom, and the Messiah will not come.149
145 See Cohen, “Be Fertile and Increase,” 117.
146 That is the Messiah; see Epstein, Seder Nashim, part 1,415 n. 14.
147 Ibid. Epstein appends: “Lit., ‘body’, the region inhabited by the souls o f the unborn;” 415,
n. 16, he states: “This being the reason for the duty o f propagation, the duty is fulfilled as soon as a child is
bom, i.e., as soon as his soul has left the region o f G«/irrespective o f whether he survives or not.” See
Epstein, Seder Nashim, part 1,415, n. 15. See also b. Yebam. 63b.
148 Epstein, Seder Nezikin, part 4, Babylonian Talmud, 20.
149 Cohen, “Be Fertile and Increase,” 117.
252
Evaluation
Even though the rabbis do not explicitly construe Gen 3:15 in a messianic
sense, their interpretations imply the idea that the Messiah, the “seed o f the woman,” will
make a remedy for the human race in his coming day. They primarily construe the verse
as the consequences o f the Israelites who obey or disobey the Law, but they do
understand the Hebrew text beyond this. They believe that in the days o f the Messiah, the
Israelite will have a final victory over the devil. Only the Messiah will and can obey the
Law thoroughly and perfectly. He will surely and ultimately smite the serpent’s head, and
conquer and destroy it forever.150 The rabbis suggest that the M essiah’s advent will
happen only when the divinely predestined number o f human souls to be bom into the
world (Gen 1:28; 2 Baruch 23.4-7; Gen. Rab. 24.4; b. Yebamoth. 62a; b. ‘A bodah Zarah
5a; b. Niddah 13b) is attained. Therefore, procreation is very significant to the messianic
salvation that no one should neglect or evade.151 Jeremy Cohen comments well on this:
Gen. 1:28 expressed divine providence in a universal sense; God did not create his
world “a waste, but formed it for habitation.” Yet the goal o f that civilization was
its messianic redemption— in particular, the fulfillment o f God’s promises to
Isra e l. . . Subsequent generations o f sages endeavored to resolve the tension by
recasting procreation as prerequisite to the arrival o f the son o f David—that is, to
the liberation and salvation o f God’s elect. Just as it did in Scripture, in rabbinic
Judaism Gen. 1:28 related directly to the issue o f divine covenant, that with all the
descendants o f Adam and Noah and that with Israel alone.152
150 See the discussion o f Ps. Jonathan Gen 3:15; Targum Neofiti Gen 3:15; Fragment-
Targums Gen 3:15 above (pp. 2 3 5 -2 39) for details.
151 Though these texts are late, some o f them reflect the existence o f an older tradition.
Genesis Rabbah has some traditions even older than the New Testament. For instance, the parallels and
similarities between the text o f 1 Cor 11:11-12 and that o f Gen. Rab. 8.9 (parallel at Gen. Rab. 22.2)
indicate that the latter is an old tradition before the New Testament. 2 Baruch (the Syriac Apocalypse o f
Baruch) was originally written in Hebrew by a Jew who lived during the Dispersion after the fall o f
Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The text was later translated into Greek and later into Syriac. Thus, the tradition o f
the book is around Paul’s time. See Evans, Noncanonical Writings, 26-27.
152 For details see Cohen, “Be Fertile and Increase,” 122-23.
253
Summary
According to the above study, in Judaism childbirth is always seen as a jo y
and blessing from God (Ps 113:9; 128:1-6; Gen. Rab. 26.4; Lev. Rab. 14.4; b. Ber. 59b),
based on the divine announcement in Gen 1:28. G od’s intervention in procreation mainly
ordains some significant figures to fulfill his plan in human history. It reveals that he
controls procreation and is the Life-Giver (Bib. Ant. 42.1-3; 50.4-5; Ant. 5.277; 4 Ezra
8.8; Gen. Rab. 39.11; 45.2; 71.6; Num. Rab. 10.5\ Lev. Rab. 14.3—4; 27.4; Songs. Rab.
1.4.2; b. Ketub. 62b; b. Nid. 13b). The ministries o f these significant figures show that
God is faithful to keep and fulfill his promises to mankind regardless o f any
circumstances.
The Old Testament does not teach that righteous women will be delivered
from pain or death in childbirth, but emphasizes the promised “seed” o f God. It starts
from Gen 3:15, the “seed” o f the woman, then extends to the “seed” o f Abraham (Gen
12:7), and narrows down to the “seed” o f David. Finally, the New Testament writers
identify the promised “seed” with Jesus Christ (Gal 3:15; 4:4; Matt 1:1; Rom 1:3—4).
The rabbis teach that righteous women will experience painlessness and safety
in childbirth (Ant. 2.218; Exod. Rab. 1.20). They also relate the messianic salvation to
childbirth (2 Baruch 23.4—7; Gen. Rab. 24.4; b. Sotah 12a; b. Yebam. 62a; b. ‘A bod. Zar.
5a; b. Nid. 13b). They emphasize the significance o f obeying the Torah as they interpret
Gen 3:15, but they do not deny its messianic implication (Tg. Onq. Gen 3:15; Tg. Ps.-J.
Gen 3:15; Tg. Neof. Gen 3:15; Frg. Tg. Gen 3:15). They see it as the divine promise o f a
remedy for human sins, and wait for “another seed” (Gen 4:25; Gen. Rab. 23.5), the
Messiah, who will redeem mankind. The elaboration o f the stories o f the births o f those
254
significant figures reveals that they have been earnestly expecting the coming o f the
Messiah to save them (particularly the birth o f Moses, Moses 1.1-31 ;Ant. 2.205-237;
Bib. Ant. 9; Exod. Rab. 1.9-26). Therefore, procreation is an inevitable responsibility o f
all mankind (b. Yebam. 63b, 64a; b. Shab. 31a).
As a whole, in Judaism procreation is held a significant and an inevitable
responsibility o f all mankind grounded on G od’s command “Be fruitful and increase in
number; fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen 1:28; 9:7; b. Yebam. 63b, 64a; b. Shab. 31a).
Childbearing is closely related to the divine salvation, since the M essiah’s advent would
be implemented by means o f a particular childbirth through “the woman” in human
history (Gen 3:15). It also directly affect the timing o f human redemption, since the
Messiah will not come until all the souls assigned by God in creation were bom into the
world (2 Baruch 23.4—7; Gen. Rab. 24.4).
In the light o f the above views concerning childbirth in early Judaism, Paul’s
mention o f salvation through childbearing in 1 Tim 2:15 does not sound bizarre to his
readers at all. Neither should the modem readers take his statement as awkward. The
dilemma o f the text is how one understands the meanings o f the verb ooo0r|a€Toa and the
term TCKvoyovuac. Who are the subjects o f the verbs in the text? Why does Paul mention
salvation through childbearing? What is the function o f the text? The following chapter
will discuss and exegete on these issues as well as the meaning o f the entire text
(1 Tim 2:13-15) in detail.
CHAPTER 5
A RECONSIDERATION OF 1 TIM 2:13-15 IN THE LIGHT

OF VIEWS CONCERNING EVE AND CHILDBIRTH
IN EARLY JUDAISM
/
This study indicates that there are both positive and negative views on Eve in
early Judaism. Regarding the first transgression in Eden, from the historical flow o f the
portraits o f Eve in the mainstream o f Judaism as discussed in chapter three, one can see
that most writers o f the non-biblical Jewish literature before Paul’s time mainly blame the
Watchers or Satan for bringing to humanity sin and death. Nonetheless, they also
emphasize human free will and individual responsibility for personal actions. However,
at Paul’s time Adam was primarily blamed for bringing sin and death into the world. His
predominant roles in most texts show that he is assumed to be the leader o f the couple on
the basis o f God’s election and design. Eve’s role o f being Adam ’s “helper” is significant
in complementing Adam and making him perfect. She is not his servant or subordinate.
In the fall, Adam and Eve are guilty because o f their disobedience to God’s command.
The view o f role reversal o f Adam and Eve in the fall is not attested in early Judaism.
Furthermore, Eve and childbirth are related to the messianic salvation in
Judaism. Eve, being called the mother o f all living, plays a very significant role in
childbearing and also suffers for it because o f sin. Procreation is the divine means o f
replenishing the earth (Gen 1:28) and preparing the w ay for the M essiah’ advent to bring
human salvation promised by God (Gen 3:15). It controls the destiny o f all humanity, and
is highly encouraged and applauded. Thus, the roles o f childbearing and motherhood are
255
256
honorable and inevitable to all women in general. Childbearing is hardly a curse for
women since it is the channel for the coming o f the M essiah.1 Contrariwise, the woman
who has borne the Savior is the most blessed.
In the light o f views concerning Eve and childbirth in early Judaism this
writer reconsiders the meaning o f 1 Tim 2:13-15 by exegesis, apart from the assumptions
o f the popular views. In summary, Paul uses 1 Tim 2:13-14 to further explain his
previous instructions for the Ephesian men and women (2:8-12) by pointing out the
relationship o f Adam and Eve in the creation and their inadequacies in the fall. He uses
1 Tim 2:15 (the faithful saying o f 3:1a) to encourage the Ephesian women to fulfill their
exclusive and significant role o f childbearing, so that they ultimately will be saved in
Christ’s return. When he takes childbearing as representative o f women’s roles, he simply
follows God’s will and design. The accomplishment o f childbearing accompanied with
good virtues is merely an expression o f women’s salvific faith. Both Jesus and Paul teach,
accompanied with promises, the significance o f Christian’s virtues and perseverance for
the sake o f Christ Jesus and the gospel unto the end (Matt 24:27-28; Rom 8:18).
Eve in Early Judaism
In the mainstream o f early Judaism, Eve is held as one o f the ancestors o f the
human race. She was created in the image o f God, and endowed with God’s blessings, as
Adam was. Genesis 1:26-28 is taken to be the foundation o f the creation order in Judaism,
where the themes o f “male and female He created them,” procreation, and dominion over
other creatures on earth are emphasized (Jub. 2.14; Tg. Onq. Gen 1.26-28; Tg. Ps.-J. Gen
1 At least the Bible never teaches that childbearing is a curse.
257
1.26-28; Num. Rab. 12.4; b. Yebam. 6.65b). Eve is applauded (Tobit 8.6-8; Jub. 2.14;
3.4-6; 3.8-9, 12; Sib. Or. 1.22-30, 31-37; Gen. Rab. 18.1; 40.5; Exod. Rab. 32.1;
Lev. Rab. 11.1), but is also denigrated {Jub. 3.23; Sib. Or. 1.38-45; L.A. 1.70-72, 3.222;
Op. 157; Ant. 1.42-43, 49; Life o f Adam and Eve). She is seen as inferior to Adam in
status {Op. 69, 128, 157, 165; L.A. 1.32, 70-72; 3.222; QG 4.15; b. B. Bat. 58a) but is
also assumed to be superior to Adam in understanding and comprehension {Gen. Rab.
18.1-2). Adam and Eve share God’s blessing and command (Gen 1:28; Tobit 8.6-8; Ant.
1.38-40; Apoc. Mos. 15.2—4; Vita 10-17; Slavonic 1.1—4; 15.7; 20.3—4; 29.5b). Some
Jewish writers emphasize that without Eve Adam is imperfect and not good {Gen. Rab.
17.1-2). Eve is assigned to be Adam’s “helper corresponding to him” (Gen 2:18; Tobit
8.6; Jub. 3.4; Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 2.18; Gen. Rab. 17.3), his supporter (Tobit 8.6; Tg. Onq.
Gen 2:18), his companion and co-partaker {Ant. 1.35, 38), and even his adviser {Gen. Rab.
20 . 11; 22 .2 ).
Some rabbis teach that Eve was called “the mother o f all living” before the
fall {Ant. 1.32; 2 Enoch 30.17-31.2), but some record that Adam named Eve after it (Gen
3:20; Jub. 3.32-33; Tg. Onq. Gen 3:17). Some assume that Adam’s dominion over Eve,
derived from E ve’s punishment in Gen 3:16, occurs after the fall {Jub. 3.32-33; Tg. Onq.
Gen 3:16; Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 3:16).2 Some see her subordination to Adam as G od’s design in
creation {Vita 26.2; Slavonic 32.6). Significantly, some teach that the complementary and
interdependent relationship between man and woman in marriage and procreation is the
foundation o f the creation order (not in a chronological sense) assigned by the Creator
(see Gen 2:18-24; Tobit 8.6-7; Sib. Or. 1. 31-37, 54-58; Gen. Rab. 8.9; 22.2).
2 See Ross Shepard Kraemer, Her Share o f the Blessings (New York: Oxford University Press,
1992), 105.
258
Some texts take Eve to be more vulnerable to deceit (1 Enoch 69.5-6; QG
4.15; Vita 1-8; 9.1-11.17; Armen.-Georg. 9-10), but some do not {Slavonic 39.1-5). Eve
is accused o f having persuaded Adam and brought him death {Sib. Or. 1.38—45; L.A.
1.105-108; QG 1.26,45;Ant. 1.42-43,49b; Apoc. Mos. 21.1-6; 23.5; Vita 18-29;
Slavonic 22.7a-8; Gen. Rab. 17.8; 20.11; 22.2; Num. Rab. 10.2). She is also blamed for
bringing sin and death into the world (Sir 25.24 [?]3; Op. 151-152; QG 1.37,45;
2 Baruch 48.42-43; Apoc. Mos. 9.2; 10.2; 11.1-3; 14.1-2; 21.5-6; 32.1-2; Vita 44.2-4;
Armen.-Georg. 18.1; Slavonic 10.1-2; 15.61; Gen. Rab. 17.8; 20.11; 22.2; 28.2). Some
texts hold both Adam and Eve responsible for the first sin (7 Enoch 32.5-6; 2 Enoch
41.1-2; 2 Baruch 48.42—43; Gen. Rab. 16.6; 17.8; 19.9; Exod. Rab. 30.3; Deut. Rab. 9.8).
Nevertheless, Adam is predominant in most o f the texts. His creation is
emphasized and portrayed in detail, whereas Eve is unclearly implied or even omitted
(Sir 17.1-4; Jub. 2.14; Wis 7.1; 9.1-3; Sib. Or. 1.22-30; IQS 4.22-23; 1QH 17.15; CD
3.20; lpPSa 1+3.2; 2 Enoch 30.8-32.1; 4 Ezra 3.4—11,21-27; 4.30). His dominant role o f
ruling over the earth is stressed in some texts {Jub. 3.15-16; Wis 9.1-3; 4Q504 fragments
8+9; 4Q422 fragment 9-12; 4Q423 fragment 2; 2 Enoch 31.1). He is accused o f having
listened to Eve {Jub. 3.25; L.A. 3.222; Ant. 1.49a; Tg. Onq. Gen 3:12; Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 3:12;
Deut. Rab. 4.5). Some texts assume that Eve is designed to be under his power in creation
{L.A. 3.38, 40-41, 44-45, 50, 73-74, 223; D e Cherubim 2.61; QG 1.29; Vita 26.2;
Slavonic 32.6).
However, Adam is also denigrated. Some rabbis list him among the wicked
{Gen. Rab. 19.7). Some accuse him o f being ungrateful to God, having reviled and
3 This writer thinks that the traditional view o f Sir 25.24 is questionable because o f lacking
both internal and external evidences for support. Thus, the meaning o f the text is not conclusive.
259
blasphemed God, and showing no repentance after the fall (Gen. Rab. 19.11; Num. Rab.
13.3; 16.24; Eccl. Rab. 7.12§1; b. Abod. Zar. 1.5a-5b). Most rabbis hold him to be
responsible for the fall (Gen 3:9 God addressed him first; Wis 10.1-2; Ant. 1.46—47 God
confronted him alone; 4Q504 fragments 8+9; 4Q422 fragment 9-12; 4Q423 fragment 2;
2 Enoch 32.2; 2 Baruch 17.3; 23.4; 56.5-6, 15-19; 4 Ezra 3.20-22, 25, 26; 4.30-31; 7.92,
116-118; Apoc. Mos. 24.1; 27.2-5; 39.1; Slavonic 2 .1; Gen. Rab. 11.2; 12.6; 15.7; 16.1, 6;
Exod. Rab. 32.1; 38.2; Deut. Rab. 9.8; Eccl. Rab. 7.13.1; b. Abod. Zar. 1.8a; b. Sanh.
5.38b; A dam ’s sin caused death into the world). Conclusively, Adam is assumed to be the
leader within the couple in creation before and after the fall in early Judaism.
Childbirth in Early Judaism
According to the study o f non-canonical Jewish literature, procreation is listed
as the first o f the 613 ordinances o f the Torah. The rabbis almost see it as the sole
purpose o f marriage (CD 6.11-7.6; 11QT 45 \D eIo sep h o 9.43; cf. D e VitaM osis 1.28,
6.290-91; D e specialibus legibus 3.6.32-36, 7.494-97; CA 2.199; War 2.161). Children
are regarded as the highest o f human treasures. Childbearing affects a Jewish wom an’s
position at home (Gen 16:4—5; Gen. Rab. 71.6). Motherhood becomes wom en’s primary
and honorable role in Judaism, for mothers can powerfully influence and shape their
children (who are the future o f the Jewish nation). In the Jewish community, procreation
is greatly encouraged. Men are obligated to fulfill the commandment o f “Be fruitful and
multiply” in Gen 1:28 (m. Yebam. 6.6; b. Yebam. 65b-66a; y. Yebam. 6.6, 7c; t. Yebam.
8.4), whereas women are rewarded for bearing and raising children in marriage (b. Kidd.
41a; b. B. Bat. 9a). Childbirth is always seen as a great jo y and a blessing from God (Gen
21:6; Exod 23:26; 1 Sam 1-2; Psalm 113:9; 128:1-6; 4 Ezra 9.43-45; Gen. Rab. 26.4;
260
59.7; Lev. Rab. 14.3-4; 27.4; b. Ber. 59b), though it is full o f difficulties (Gen 3:16a; Isa
13:8; 21:3; Tg. Onq. Gen 3.16; Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 3.16; Vita 19.1a; Armen.-Georg. 19.1-2;
Gen. Rab. 20.6, 9; 33.3; 97.3; b. Yebam. 65b) and danger o f death (Gen. Rab. 96.5;
Exod. Rab. 46.2; Lev. Rab. 27.7; Eccl. Rab. 3.1). Barrenness incurs wom en’s shame and
disgrace and is as sad as death (Gen 16:5; 30:1,22; 1 Sam 1:1-7; Bib. Ant. 50.1-2b;
Gen. Rab. 45.1-2; 71.1-2, 6). The pain and danger o f childbirth is seen as Eve’s
punishment (Gen 3:16).4 However, it can be avoided by means o f the prayers and good
deeds o f the righteous (Ant. 2.218; Gen. Rab. 33.3; 96.5; Exod. Rab. 1.20). Women die in
the time o f childbearing because o f their own sins (Gen. Rab. 82.7; Eccl. Rab. 3.2;
b. Shab. 2.31b; 32a-32b).5
The study has already shown that procreation is a very important event in the
Jewish community for at least three purposes. First, it develops God’s creation o f this
world, defines human nature, and the means and privilege for humans to fulfill God’s
universal plan (Gen 1:26-28; 9:1-7; Is 45:18; 1 Enoch 15.4-7; Gen. Rab. 8.11-12; 34:20;
Num. Rab. 12.4; b. Yebam. 63b; b. Sot. 4b; t. Yebam. 63b). Second, it exerts a great
influence on the survival, both the direction and destiny, o f the Jewish nation (b. Yebam.
63b; b. Yebam. 64a; b. Shab. 31a). Third, it is significantly related to the advent o f the
Messiah, who will appear only when the number o f souls that were predestined by the
4 The rabbis hold the pain o f childbearing to be a suffering rather than a curse. Thus, they
believe the sufferings o f the righteous can protect women from the punishment o f miscarriage or death o f
childbearing {Gen. Rab. 33.3; 96.5; m. Pes. 10.118a; m. Yeb. 6.65b-66a). Adrien Janis Bledstein has a good
argument for the view o f Eve’s punishment. See Bledstein, “Was Eve Cursed?” Bible Review 9 (1993): 4 2 -
44.
5 Strikingly, they do not mention Eve’s transgression or Eve’s curse at all.
261
Creator to be bom into the world is attained (2 Baruch 23.4-7; Gen. Rab. 24.4).6 In other
words, corporate pursuit o f childbirth can accelerate the coming o f the Messiah. Thus, the
responsibility o f procreation is inevitable to everyone. Even the Qumran community,
which advocates celibacy, dares not neglect it but takes it to be the only purpose o f
marriage (lQ S a 1.11; 4Q502; 11QT 57.17-19; CD 6.11-7.6).
Procreation is seen as a means for the coming o f the Messiah, the “seed” o f
the woman, who will bring spiritual salvation to all humanity (Gen 3:15). The stories o f
the births o f some significant figures retold and elaborated in the Jewish literature do not
merely indicate God’s control and intervention in conception and childbirth for the
purpose o f fulfilling his promises to humankind and his plan in history. They also show
that the Jewish people (as a whole) have been earnestly expecting the Messiah to deliver
them from their adversities, particularly in the dream and the words o f M oses’ sister
Miriam (Bib. Ant. 9.10; Ant. 2. 215-216; Exod. Rab. 1.22; cf. b. Sot. li b , 12a).
The concept that childbearing and salvation are significantly and closely
related and connected to one another in Judaism is very unique. On the contrary, the
Greco-Roman literature primarily focuses on the stories o f the births o f heroes, kings and
divinities, who were the products o f mixed unions between human and divine or semi-
’1
divine parents. The births o f these particular figures happen randomly without divine
6 Though these texts are late, some o f them reflect the existence o f an older tradition. Genesis
Rabbah has some traditions even older than the New Testament. For instance, the parallels and similarities
between the text o f 1 Cor 11:11-12 and that o f Gen. Rab. 8.9 (parallel at Gen. Rab. 22.2) indicate that the
latter is an old tradition before the N ew Testament. Evans is o f the opinion that 2 Baruch was originally
written in Hebrew by a Jew who lived during the Dispersion after the fall o f Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The text
was later translated into Greek and later into Syriac. Thus, the book has old traditions. See Evans,
Noncanonical Writings, 2 6 -2 7 2,
7 Furthermore, the Greco-Roman world does not show concern or respect to children whom
are seen as common as women; see Plato, The Republic 457A -D .
262
o
purposes or plans at all. It has nothing to do with human salvation indeed. The idea o f
being saved through childbirth frequently refers to women praying to their gods or
goddesses to deliver them from the danger and death o f childbearing, in a physical sense.9
There is no belief found in the Hellenistic world that a woman (or a person) will be saved
spiritually by means o f childbirth (1 Tim 2:15a).
Setting of 1 Tim 2:13-15
The chinch at Ephesus was probably established at the end o f Paul’s second
missionary journey. Paul likely had chosen Ephesus as a pivotal point to spread the
gospel. He spent three more years there on his third missionary journey, making a great
impact on the city, and many converted to Christianity. However, the Christian church
was indeed in danger o f being corrupted by the cultic beliefs and practices that had
already existed in Ephesus. The new Christians did not easily forsake completely their
former cultic concepts and rituals as well as their behavior. Actually, Paul had warned
about these before he left the city (cf. Acts 20:17—3 1).10
Paul wrote First Timothy primarily to instruct Timothy the essentials o f the
Christian faith and the model o f godly leadership in pastoring the Ephesian church under
the influence and impact o f some false teachers (1 Tim 1:3-7, 19; 3:1-13; 4:1-6). The
nature o f the false teaching is not clearly mentioned, but Paul described it as “a morbid
interest in controversial questions and disputes about words” (6:4), “giving heed to fables
8 See Beverly Aim Bow, “The Story o f Jesus’ Birth: A Pagan and Jewish Affair” (Ph.D. diss.,
Graduate College o f the University o f Iowa, 1995) for details.
9 See Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women and Wives: Marriage and Women's Ministry in the
Letters o f Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992), 118.
10 Sharon Hodgin Gritz, Paul, Women Teachers, and the Mother Goddess at Ephesus: A Study
o f 1 Timothy 2:9-15 in Light o f the Religious and Cultural Milieu o f the First Century (Lanham, MD:
University Press o f America, 1991), 13-14.
263
and endless genealogies” (1:4); and delighting in a secret system o f knowledge (6:20).
The false teachers are depicted as some who wanted to be teachers o f the law (1:7). These
false teachings were probably derived from some deviated Judaism that combined with
elements o f the Proto-Gnosticism and Christianity, and seemed to have influenced
Christian women most seriously (5:15).
Themes o f First Timothy
First Timothy is a letter from Paul to Timothy for the purpose o f instructing
Timothy, a young and apparently timid minister who was facing false teachings and
disruption o f some church members within the church, how to lead the church in Ephesus
after Paul’s departure (1:1-7). To this writer the theme o f the epistle is that G od’s word
(the gospel/apostolic tradition/sound teaching) is the essence o f pastoring. W hat Paul
emphasizes is the significance o f a minister (G od’s man) who must personally study and
understand God’s word accurately and honestly w ith all diligence so that he might have
good discernment to defend against heresies with surety and bravery. He has the
responsibility to proclaim and teach God’s word so that the congregation might be
equipped to stand firm on the truth (1:3—4 ,1 8 -1 9 ; 4:7,14; 6:20). Besides, his teaching
and his behavior must be consistent. He him self must be able to apply God’s word to
pursue godliness in his personal daily life, so that he might set a good and blameless
example for the believers inside the church and bear a good reputation and testimony
before the unbelievers outside the church (1 :5,18-19; 4 :8 ,1 2 ,1 5 -1 6 ; 6 :6 ,1 1 ,1 4 ).
P a u l’s Corrections (1 Tim 2:8-10)
At first glance, prayer seems to be the focus o f chapter 2. However,
contextually the theme is more likely the universal offer o f salvation to all people. The
264
conjunction o w (2:1) indicates this theme o f salvation for all comes out o f the purpose o f
Christ Jesus coming into the world (1:15). Paul urges all Christians to pray for all people,
particularly for kings, rulers, and all that are in authority (v. 2a).11 He also charges all
Christians to live a tranquil and quiet life in order to witness the gospel in front o f the
10
unbelieving world (v. 2b). He affirms that such good deeds are acceptable to God (v. 3),
who wishes all men to be saved and to understand his truth (v. 4). God’s truth is that there
is only one God and one mediator between God and men, the real man Christ Jesus (v. 5).
According to the appointed time, Christ Jesus gave up his own life as a ransom for all
humanity (v. 6). Paul testifies that he was ordained to be a preacher, an apostle, and a
teacher o f G od’s truth among the Gentiles (v. 7). He seems to remind the congregation
that they also are entrusted by God to be witnesses o f his truth. Christians’ prayer and
godly living are essential for leading unbelievers to God’s truth unto salvation.
Then, Paul moves to deal with the current issues taking place in the Ephesian
church that would hinder the testimony o f the church (1 Tim 2:8-12). The conjunction
ouv (2:8) indicates that there is a connection between the present statement (2:8-15) and
the preceding statement (2:1-7). It has the force o f beginning a new but related issue, as
11 See William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Ralph P.
Martin, vol. 46 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 78-80 for detailed interpretation.
12 Mounce takes this to be a wish that the believers’ conduct not having unnecessary disrepute,
so that it might facilitate the spread o f the gospel, rather than a wish that they might live “conflict-free”
lives; see Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 82. Gordon D. Fee has similar idea; see Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus,
N ew International Biblical Commentary, ed. W. Ward Gasque, vol. 13 (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1984), 63.
This writer suggests that the term iva followed by a subjunctive in v. 2b is imperative iva (see Daniel B.
Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax o f the New Testament (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1996), 476-77 for details o f this usage), functioning as Paul’s second urge. The instruction in
v. 2b is not the purpose or the result o f the urge o f the pray in v. 2a. In other words, Paul urges his readers
to pray for the unbelievers and to live a quiet and peaceable life with godly and rreverence in all things.
265
that in 2:1.13 Apparently, men and women were not getting along harmoniously in the
church. Paul’s instructions imply that some men were acting in anger and dispute,
whereas some women were dressing immodestly, paying too much heed to their outward
appearances, and neglecting godly behavior. Probably some o f them were even
attempting to teach and domineer over men. All this misconduct could produce anger and
all kinds o f discord between men and women.
Men’s Disruption
Some scholars divide verses 8-15 between verse 8 and verse 9,14 but at least
three factors show that verses 8-10 should be seen as a unit. First, verse 9 depends on
verse 8 because it has no finite verb. Second, verse 10 cannot be read without the
preceding verse 9.15 Third, the shift in number from the plural o f men and women
(w . 8-10) to the singular o f woman and m an (w . 11-12) is another sign o f the break.
Thus, the grammar and the context show the break at verse 10 rather than at verse 8.
First o f all, Paul wants m en to pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without
anger and dispute (v. 8). To pray with uplifted hands is the assumed praying posture
found in both Judaism (see 1 Kg 8:54; Pss 63:4; 141:1; 2 Macc 14.32; Philo, Flac. 121;
Josephus, Ant. 4.40) and early Christianity (Tertullian, On Prayer 17).16 Here the focus o f
lifting up holy hands in prayer refers to the purity and holiness o f the person who prays.
13 See Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 76-77, 106; Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, 6 2 ,7 0 -7 1 ; George W.
Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, Commentary on the Greek Text, ed. I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward
Gasque (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 127.
14 See William Hendriksen, I—II Timothy and Titus, New Testament Commentary (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1957), 102; Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 130.
15 See Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 103—4.
16 See Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, 71, 76, additional notes 6.
266
Certainly, anger and dispute will hinder one’s prayer. Paul’s desire is that men should
have a holy attitude, without anger and dispute, during the time o f prayer. Apparently,
some Ephesian men had the problem o f being angry and disputing while they were
1
praying. The reason for the m en’s anger and dispute is not clearly stated. Some scholars
believe that the false teachers had badly influenced some weak-willed women who
ultimately brought disruption and disrepute to the church (1 Tim 5:3-16; 2 Tim 3:5—9).18
However, the content o f the false teachings that misled these women is not explicitly
stated in First Timothy.19 This writer is o f the opinion that the misbehavior o f some
women in the church described in verses 9-12 is more likely the cause.
Women’s Disruption
William D. Mounce points out that Paul’s emphasis is on the necessity that
men should not be angry during the times o f prayer, rather than on the demand that only
men can pray or that they must pray with lifting up hands. Nonetheless, he thinks Paul
here only talks about the need o f wom en’s concentration on doing good deeds and
dressing modestly. The term u>oocut«<; (“likewise”) merely emphasizes that women have
to stop the disruption in the church, as men are demanded to do previously. Thus, it is
awkward to assume the verb tTpooeuxeoGai (“to pray”) being with the term yuvaiKac
17 See Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 106.
18 See Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, 70.
19 Douglas J. Moo suggests that the false teachers were encouraging the women to give up
“traditional female roles in favor o f a more egalitarian approach.” See Moo, “What Does It Mean Not to
Teach or to Have Authority over Men? (1 Timothy 2:11-15),” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and
Womanhood, ed. J. Piper and W. Grudem (Wheaton/IL: Crossway, 1991), 181. However, contextually this
view lacks adequate and explicit evidences.
267
(“women”).20 However, when he interprets the same term «oautw<; elsewhere in the
Pastoral Epistles, he holds that the term grammatically indicates the close connection
between the present statement and the preceding statement. For instance, deacons, like
overseers, are required to be above reproach (1 Tim 3:8; see parallels at 1 Tim 3:11; 5:25;
Titus 2:3, 6).21
This writer thinks M ounce’s view is unconvincing. The emphasis o f verse 8 is
not the demand that only men can pray in worship (Paul urges both men and women to
pray in verse 1; in 1 Cor 11:5 women are clearly permitted to pray in worship). Since the
meaning o f the word cooautox; grammatically indicates the close connection between the
present statement and the preceding statement in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim 3:8,11;
5:25; Titus 2:3, 6), it is better to see that here Paul also desires women, like men, to pray
00
without anger and dispute. Here Paul particularly instructs women to adorn themselves
in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and modesty instead o f braided hair, or gold, or
pearls, or costly attire (v. 9). He emphasizes that they should be decorated with their good
deeds to show that they really are God-fearers (v. 10). In other words, women not only
outwardly should have appropriate dressing, but also inwardly should have good virtues
manifested by their good deeds. All these show that they are godly women. Subsequently,
Paul turns to the disruption caused by some women alone— the command o f women to
learn in quietness with all submission and the prohibition o f women from teaching or
domineering over men (vv. 11-12).
20 See Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 105, 112-3.
21 Ibid., 197, 202; 320, 409, and 412 respectively.
22 See Philip H. Towner, 1—2 Timothy and Titus, IVP New Testament Commentary Series, ed.
Grant R. Osbome (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994), 70; David M. Scholer, “1 Timothy 2:9-15 and
the Place o f Women in the Church’s Ministry,” in Women, Authority & the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1987), 200-201.
268
P a u l’s Command and Prohibition (1 Tim 2:11-12)
Mounce is o f the opinion that Paul changes the topic from the disruption
caused by women’s dressing (w .9 -1 0 ) to “the question o f leadership” (w . 11-12), “a
central concern in the PE since the opposition to Timothy is coming from the Ephesian
leaders. The topic continues mto chap. 3 . . . ” Thus, he takes these two verses to be the
statement o f a general truth.24 He argues that Paul focuses on the subject o f “salvation is
for all people” in 1 Tim 2:1-7 and then changes to another subject on “questions o f
disruption and leadership” in 1 Tim 2:8-15.
However, the contexts o f the whole epistle and chapter 2 do not justify
M ounce’s view. First, the main concern o f First Timothy is how to be a good servant o f
God inside and outside the church. Explicitly, in First Timothy Paul has clarified his
purpose and concern, “I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to
you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household o f
God, which is the church o f the living God, the pillar and bulwark o f the truth” (3:14-15).
Thus, Paul is not discussing or defending the issues o f authority and leadership in church.
Second, M ounce’s interpretation shows little heed to the function o f the
conjunction ofiv (v. 8) that builds up a connection between the first section (w . 1-7) and
the second section (w . 8-15). This breaks the unity and the theme o f chapter 2. The flow
o f the context, from the urge to praying for the unbelievers unto salvation and living a
quiet and peaceful life that is godly and respectful in all ways as good witnesses o f Christ
24 Ibid., 118.
269
and the gospel (vv. 1-3)25 to the confrontation and correction o f the disruptions caused by
men and women in the Ephesian church (w . 8-10), is clearly presented in the contexts.
No matter how one interprets the usage o f yap in verses 13 (causal or explanatory or even
redundant), the implication o f certain disruption caused by some women in verses 11-12
is undeniable. Paul’s main concern is to correct the current disruption. Furthermore, the
recurrence o f the term oa)(j)poawr|<; in verse 15 forms an inclusio, linking the entire
section (vv. 11-15) to the foregoing statement (vv. 8-10). Paul’s confrontation and
correction in this section is directly related to his urge “to lead a quiet and peaceable life,
godly and respectful in every way” (v. 2b).
Third, there is no concrete statement about authority or leadership in the
context o f verses 8-15. The traditional interpretation o f the rare verb auGevxew as
“exercising authority” is questionable. There is no parallel found in the entire New
Testament. It is more likely that Paul here is still dealing with the disruption caused by
some Ephesian women in the church, rather than is presenting a general statement for all
churches in all ages. Besides, the central concern o f chapter 3 is the qualifications o f
church leaders, not the issue o f the authority o f leadership. Mounce him self takes 1 Tim
3: 1-7, 8-13 (Titus 1:5-9) to be “lists o f qualities for church leadership.”27 This writer is
25 Mounce himself, Pastoral Epistles, 74, entitles vv. 1-7 “salvation is for all people.”
26 Towner, is o f the opinion that 3:15 sums up the main theme o f proper conduct within God’s
household in 2:1-3:16. See Towner, 1 -2 Timothy and Titus, 6 1 .1. Howard Marshall takes the entire chapter
2 to be “an instruction on prayer.” See Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, International Critical Commentary
on the Holy Scriptures o f the Old and New Testaments, ed. J. A. Emerton, C. E. B. Cranfield, and G. N.
Stanton (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999), 415. John Norman Davidson Kelly thinks the central concern o f
chapter 2 is “the ordering o f public worship.” See Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Harper's
N ew Testament Commentaries (New York: Harper & Row, 1963). Knight entitles chapter 2 as “prayer for
all; conduct o f women.” See Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 113. Hendriksen has the subject o f chapter 2
“directions for public worship.” See Hendriksen, / - / / Timothy, 91.
270
o f the opinion that here Paul is not defending the authority o f leadership. He focuses on
the leaders themselves— how they equip themselves for proclaiming and teaching G od’s
word and how they apply the truth to their daily lives as a good example for the
congregation and as a witness before the unbelieving world. The context and the shift o f
the plural number o f men and women (vv. 8-10) to the singular number o f man and
woman (vv. 11-12) indicate that Paul has come to deal with another issue o f disruption,
the domination o f some women in the Ephesian church.
Based on the presumption o f the theme o f 1 Tim 2:11-15 to be the issue o f
leadership in church, Mounce tries to parallel verse 11 and verse 12 by contrasting
“learning quietness” (v. 11) with “I do not permit a woman to teach” (v. 12), “in all
submissiveness” (v. 11) with “to exercise authority over a man” (v. 12). He believes that
even if there is no parallelism, verse 12 defines the meaning o f learning in quietness and
submission in verse l l . 28 This view is questionable for he abandons the flow o f the entire
section o f verses 8-15 and its relation to the theme o f verses 1-7. He simply takes the
rare verb auSevm v to be “to exercise authority,” a controversial and unconvincing
interpretation. Paul’s command o f woman’s learning in verse 11 is related to his
prohibitions for woman in verse 12. The term f|ouxia occured in verse 11 and verse 12
forms an inclusio o f these two verses. The contrast between the verbs “learn” and “teach”
also links up verse 11 and verse 12, indicating that these two verses should be interpreted
as a unit; but they are not parallellism. The thrust o f verse 12 is the disruption o f some
incompetent women who tried to teach and domineer over men and verse 11 might imply
the cause o f the problems— they were bad learners. The following will further discuss
and interpret the meanings o f these issues respectively in more details.
28 Ibid., 117.
“Let Woman Learn. . . ”
Undoubtedly, Paul here commands women to learn in quietness and
submission in all things. Mounce is correct to say that “the Greek word order and use o f
inclusio29” indicate the emphasis is how women should learn and not they should learn.30
Nonetheless, the emphasis implies that women were allowed to learn G od’s word in the
Ephesian church. Paul actually contrasts to segments o f Judaism that banned women
from learning Torah (y. Sot. 3.19a; m. Sot. 3.4; b. Qid. 29b; 34a; b. Sank. 94b) as he
commands women to learn.31
The verb pavSavecw, an imperative, simply means “to learn.” Marshall
correctly suggests that the word T)ouxCoc better refers to a deferent attitude to teachers, that
is “o f being at peace, enjoying solitude and tranquility. . . or o f keeping silent while
somebody is speaking.”32 Since the word pouxta also occurs in 1 Tim 2:2 and 2 Thess
3:12 (cf. Acts 22:2), there its meaning could not be absolute ‘silence’. Furthermore, Paul
elsewhere uses the word oiyao) to denote “be silent“ (1 Cor 14:30, 34). The confrontation
o f the attitude and manner o f women’s learning implies that wom en’s learning has
already been promoted and held inside the Ephesian church.33 However, some o f them
did not have the manner o f quietness and the attitude o f submission that a learner should
possess. As a result, they could not learn well but brought disruption to the church as they
were trying to teach and to domineer over m en (v. 12).
29 The inclusio refers to the occurrences o f the instruction o f women’s quietness in v. 11a and
v. 12c.
30 Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 119.
31 Ibid.
32 See Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 453.
33 Ibid.
The Meaning of 6i8aoK «
Mounce holds that the word 5i8aoKeiv here refers to teaching the truth o f the
gospel (1 Tim 4:11; 6:2; 2 Tim 2:2) by a person in authority (1 Tim 5:17; 2 Tim 2:2;
Titus 1:9). Paul disallows women to teach men because it will violate the principle o f
male leadership assigned by God.34 However, the above texts show that Paul’s concern is
the need o f instructing and teaching the congregation God’s truth (or sound teaching),
even though sometimes he uses the verb SiSaaKW along with the verb napayykXXu
(“command”) (1 Tim 4:11; 6:2; 2 Tim 2:2 does not have the verb TTapaYYeAAo)). In 1 Tim
5:17 Paul is talking about faithful elders, in particular those who work hard in preaching
and teaching, should be given double honor rather than double authority. In Titus 1:9
Paul is discussing one o f the qualifications o f an overseer, who must hold fast to God’s
word in order to encourage others with sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
According to BDAG (241) the word 5i5aoK€iv in verse 12 simply means “to
tell, teach or instruct.” N. J. Hommes notes that Paul treats “teaching” as “an
intercommunal function” o f the church’s members.36 Paul connects “to teach” with “to
admonish” several times (cf. Col 1:28; 3:16; 1 Tim 4:11; 6:2). He instructs his readers to
teach and admonish one another in church meeting (Col 3:16). The Christian worship
service was patterned after the model o f the Jewish synagogue service, that is, good and
able members o f the congregation (without a certain office) took turns to read the
34 See Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 125-26. Other advocates include: Thomas R. Schreiner,
“An Interpretation o f 1 Timothy 2:9-15: A Dialogue with Scholarship,” in Women in the Church: A Fresh
Analysis o f 1 Timothy 2: 9-15, ed. Andreas J. Kostenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin
(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), 127; Moo, “Meaning and Significance,” 65-66.
35 Paul also instructs Timothy to treat real widows with honor (1 Tim 5:3).
36 N. J. Hommes, “Let Women Be Silent in Church: A Message Concerning the Worship

Service and the Decorum to Be Observed by Women,” Calvin Theological Journal 4 (1969): 9.
273
Scripture, to preach, to exhort and to pray during the service (Heb 5:12; James 3:1).37
This writer follows Homm es’ view to conclude that the role o f teaching in the
New Testament does not necessarily imply exercising authority. Teaching actually “was a
• » 10
mutually interchangeable function o f the members o f the congregation.” Apart from the
apostolic authority, the Bible does not explicitly mention the authority o f the person who
teaches. The Bible emphasizes the authority o f the word o f God, that is, the content o f
teaching (2 Tim 3:16). I f Paul here refers to the authoritative teaching possessed by the
apostles or elders,40 why are only women disallowed to teach? Although the elders or
overseers should be able to teach (1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:9), Paul does not specify that they
must have the particular gift o f teaching. The New Testament does not say that the gift o f
teaching is restricted to people with special office.41
In the first century women generally were not as well educated as men in
Christian doctrine. So Paul urges women to learn in an attitude o f quietness and
submission. If the Ephesian women were still in the learning stage, surely they were not
competent to teach others 42 Besides, Paul commands them to learn in quietness and
submission in all things, implying these women were bad learners who had bad attitudes
37 Ibid., 10.
38 Ibid., 11.
39 The learner should show his respect or submission to the teacher not because o f the
authority he possesses, but because o f the appropriate attitude a good learner should have.
40 See Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 127.
41 Philip B. Payne, “Libertarian Women in Ephesus: A Response to Douglas J. Moo’s Article,

‘1 Timothy 2: 11-15: Meaning and Significance,”’ Trinity Journal 2 (1981): 173.
42 See Gilbert Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles: What the Bible Says about a Woman’s Place in
Church and Family, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1985), 178-84.
274
in the learning process.43 When Paul commands women to learn, it unnecessarily implies
that women can teach men after they have learned competently 44 Paul here does not
instruct who should take the position o f teaching.
The Meaning of atiGevueto
The infinitive auGevxeXv in verse 12 is traditionally translated as “exercise
authority” in a positive sense.45 Nevertheless, BDAG interprets the verb auGevuew as “to
assume a stance o f independent authority, give orders to, dictate to,” whereas the noun
au0evTr|<; is rendered “master.”46 LN defines the verb “to control in a domineering
manner.”47 However, the term efrnxua is always used for “authority” in the New
Testament. Paul uses the noun eôixua 27 times (Rom 9:21; 13:1 [2x], 2 ,3 ; 1 Cor 7:37;
8:9; 9:4, 5, 6 ,1 2 [2x], 18; 11:10; 15:24; 2 Cor 10:8; 13:10; 2 Thess 3:9; Col 1:13,16;
2:10, 15; Eph 1:21; 2:2; 3:10; 6:12; Titus 3:1) and the verb 4£ouoia£(o 3 times (1 Cor 6:12;
7:4 [2x]) to mean “having authority or power” in his writings. The choice o f the word
auGevmv rather than eôuaiaCeiv in 1 Tim 2:12 might indicate that Paul had a special
nuance o f meaning in his mind. I. Howard Marshall thinks the choice o f such an unusual
word indicates that there is a nuance not conveyed by more common words 48
44 Ibid., 118.
45 See George W. Knight, “Authenteo in Reference to Women in 1 Timothy 2:12,” New

Testament Studies 30 (1894): 143-57; Douglas J. Moo, “1 Timothy 2: 11-15: Meaning and Significance,”
Trinity Journal 1 (1980): 67.
46 See BDAG, 150.
47 J. P. Louw, E. A. Nida et al., Greek-English Lexicon o f the New Testament Based on

Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988), §37.21; see Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 456.
275
The study o f Leland Edward W ilshire supports the negative meaning o f the
verb oo)0evT6G). The examples he lists are as a whole closer to Paul’s time. According to
Wilshire, Diodorus Siculus (c. BC 60-c. 20 AD) uses the term three times (Bib. Hist.
16.61.1.3; 17.5.4.6; Pho. Frag. 35.25.1) in the context o f criminal behavior: xoi<;
aeGeviau; xf|<; lepoouAaac; (“upon the perpetrators o f the sacrilege”), xov auSevxriv xtov
avopr)|iaxcov (“the author o f the crimes”), and aXXa KocSauep abQkvzac, ei£e xouxoug un'ep
xpq 15tag xoAppg (“but, as it were, sponsors o f his own daring plans”) respectively.49
Flavius Josephus uses the word twice in Jewish Wars ( f t / 1.582.1; 2.240.5) and both have
“the connotation o f a doer or perpetrator o f a crime.”50 Philo Judaeus uses the term once
in Quod deteriuspotiori insidiari soleat, meaning “murderer” (Det. 78.7).51 Wilshire
concludes that the recognized meaning o f the word auGevxew as “to have authority over”
is increasingly questionable for it is not found at the first century BC and AD
documents.52
Scott Baldwin tries to argue against W ilshire’s analysis through a detailed
study o f the verb from some modem lexicographers and summarizes the meanings o f
auGevxew in ancient Greek literature as follow s:53
49 See Leland Edward Wilshire, “The TLG Computer and Further Reference to Authenteo in
1 Timothy 2: 12,” New Testament Studies 34 (1988): 123.
50 Ibid., 123-24.
51 Ibid., 124.
52 Ibid.; idem, “1 Timothy 2: 12 Revisited: A Reply to Paul W. Barnette and Timothy J.

Harris,” Evangelical Quarterly 65 (1993): 43-55.
53 See H. Scott Baldwin, “A Difficult Word: auGevteco in 1 Timothy 2: 12,” “Appendix 2:

auGevreci) in Ancient Greek Literature,” in Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis o f 1 Timothy 2: 9-15, ed.
Andreas J. Kostenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995),
272-4. The writer o f this dissertation only chooses and discusses the first text o f each category listed by
Baldwin in his work, for they are assumed to be the earliest text in each category.
276
1. To rule, to reign sovereignly; [1st cent. B.C.] Philodemus, Rhetorica, [ref:
133.14], “those in authority” {oa)0evx[ouoiv]
The text reads:
’AXXa el Se[i xaAr|0f| kcc[1 Yi]v6|i€va [Aeyetv, ol p[f|x]ope<; kcu pfeyaAa pAcarx[ouai]
ttoAAouc [ kcu payaAoix; Kod trepi xcov [fieivoic epcooi xo[£]euop6VU)V npoc xouc
€TTL0av[6atC6Ttou^ 6KCCOTOT6 biapaxovxa tv Kal ouv odiQeuxFouotv av[a£iv] UTTep xaiv
opotcjv (oaauxax;.54
To tell the truth the rhetors do a great deal o f harm to many people, and incur the
enmity o f powerful rulers, whereas philosophers gain the friendship o f public men
by helping them out o f their trouble. Ought we not to consider that men who incur
the enmity o f Fthose in authority! are villains, and hated by both gods and men.55
This is the earliest text o f the occurrences o f auOevxew in literary Greeks under
the first category listed by Baldwin. Its existence should be very significant to attest the
meaning o f the word <u)0€vxeo). However, it is noteworthy o f Baldwin’s comments on the
footnote. First, he points out the assertion o f Kroeger that suggests that the term here has
an erotic sense for it was “penned by the rhetorician and obscene epigrammatist” is not
apposite.56 Second, he reminds readers that the text is a reconstruction by S. Sudhaus. It
is absolutely possible that the verb c o )0 e v x o u o L v could be read as o o ) 0 e v x c a o iv (the Old
Attic dative plural o f ai)0evxrjc), namely, a noun and not a verb at all. This reduces the
reliability o f the accuracy o f the text. Third, the fact that C. J. Vooys gives the Latin
equivalent, dominor (i.e., “to be lord and master”) for the Greek verb as Baldwin points
54 See Baldwin, “Appendix 2: auOevxeco,” 275. The text is from Philodemus, Philodemi:
Volumina Rhetorica, vol. 3, ed. S. Sudhaus (Leipzig: Himrichs, 1896), 133. In addition, Baldwin does not
explain the function o f the brackets [ . . . ] . They seem to indicate the reconstructions o f the text.
55 Ibid. The translation is from H. H. Hubbell, “The Rhetorica o f Philodemus,” Transactions

o f the Connecticut Academy o f Arts and Sciences 23 (1920): 306.
56 Kroeger, “A Strange Greek Verb,” 12-14.
277
out57 does not attest its meaning is equivalent to that o f the Greek word eôuoidCoo or
eôucua (“having authority” or “authority”). Under such circumstances, it is very
questionable to take its meaning as “exercise authority over.”
2. To control, to dominate; [2nd cent. A.D.] Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, [ref: III. 13],
“dominates Mercury and the moon” {atj0€vxf|oa<;}
The text reads:
'0 p e v o u v xoO K p o v o u a o x f i p povo<; x fiu o iK oS eaiT O T Lo a’ x fjc K a l auG cuxhaac

x o u x e 'E p p o u x a l x q c o e A q u ric , e a u p e v kv So^wc e x t) irp o o K O V So d Keuxpa, T ro ie i
(Ju A ooG opaxoix; , , , e v a v x io x ; 6k K al a S o ^ a x ; K e ip e v o e p w r a p o u c , , ,58
If Saturn alone is ruler o f the soul and dominates Mercury and the moon, if he has a
dignified position with reference to the universe and the angels, he makes his
subjects lovers o f the b o d y . . . but if his position is the opposite and without dignity,
he makes them sordid, (same as the text)
Explicitly, the term auSevxpoag has the meaning o f “to control.” W. G.
Waddell translates the verb au0evxf|aa<; as “dominates.” It seems to present an idea o f the
ability o f Saturn to hold the destiny o f M ercury and the moon. This indicates the meaning
o f the verb auGevxew is not the same as e£ouoia(co. Baldwin him self puts the text under
the category o f “to control, to dominate,” though he also asserts that E. A. Sophocles has
listed this use under “be in power over, to have authority over.”59
Significantly, Baldwin classifies this category into four sub-categories as
follows:
57 See Baldwin, “Appendix 2: od>0evT6co,” 275, n. 2.
58 See Baldwin, “Appendix 2: auGevxIa),” 275. The text is from W. G. Waddell, ed., Manetho,
and F. E. Robbins, ed., Ptolemy Tetrabiblos, combined volume, Loeb Classical Library (London:
Heinemann, 1964), 338.
59 See Baldwin, “Appendix 2: auGevxeco,” 275, n. 3.
278
a. To compel, to influence someone/something; [27 B.C.] B G U U 1208, [ref: line
38], “I exercised authority over him” {ctuGevxriKOToc}
The text reads:
Kapou KuQeranKoxoc rrpog auxov uepiiToifiaai KaAaxuxei xtp vauxiKcp enl top
aux(pc()6poa)€V tf) copai eirextopriaev.60
I exercised authority over him, and he consented to provide for Calatytis the
Boatman on terms o f full fare, within the hour.61
This is the earliest text o f occurrences o f ocuGevtew in nonliterary papyri listed
by Baldwin. Nonetheless, Baldwin asserts that the translation o f this text is debated. The
passage is about a hostile relationship; the action is called “insolence” in the text.
Baldwin believes that the verb has the meaning o f “compel.”62 In other words, according
to Baldwin’s understanding the passage better reads: “I compel him, and he consented
to . . . ” Since the action is insolent, the word auGevxriKOToe more likely means to compel
someone to do something by authority or by force in a negative sense. Again it attests
that the verb auGevxeco does not have the same meaning as that o f ôixhoCw.
b. To be in effect, to have legal standing; [d. A.D. 235] Hippolytus, On the End o f
the World, [ref: 7.5] “have legal authority over” { auGevxpaovxai}
This is the earliest text o f occurrences o f auGevxeco in the Church Fathers listed
by Baldwin. The text reads:
6io TTcaaec tco i5up 0eXv|i(m 4|iTrepLTTatf|0 0 uoiv, kk'l tcc t€Kua xol<; yveuoLu
eppcdouvTOi xCtpag, yuvri xov TSiov avSpa TrapaScoaei el<; Gavaxou Kal avrip xpu
60 See Baldwin, “Appendix 2: auGevteco,” 27. The text is from F. Schubart et al., eds.,
Aegyptische Urkunden aus den koniglichen Museen zu Berlin, vol. 4 (Berlin: Weidmannsche, 1912), 351.
61 Ibid. The translation is from John R. Werner, WyclifFe Bible Translators, International
Linquistic Center, Dallas, Tex., letter as quoted by George W. Knight III, “AY0ENTEQ in Reference to
Women in 1 Timothy 2:12,” New Testament Studies 30 (1984): 143-57.
62 See Baldwin, “Appendix 2: auGevteco,” 276, n. 5.
279
4k u t o u y r n tK a e iu K p ix r ip L o v a £ e l wc {n re u G u v o v , S e c n T o x ai e l? xouc; U h o u <; S o u lo u g
d T ra v G p a m o L a u G e y x n a o u x a t koc'i 6 o u A.o l -npot; x o u g S eo T to x a g a v u iT o x x a K x o v S i a G e o i v
iT e p ip a k o u v x a i. 63
Wherefore, everyone all shall walk after their own will. Children will lay hands on
their parents. The wife will give up her own husband to death, and the husband will
bring his own wife to judgm ent like a criminal. Masters will lord it over their
servants savagely, and servants will assume an unruly demeanor toward their
masters.” (A. Roberts’ translation)64
Therefore, everyone will walk according to his own desire, and the children will lay
hands upon their parents, a wife will hand over her own husband to death and a man
his own wife to judgm ent as deserving to render account. Inhuman masters will
have legal authority over their servants and servants shall put on an unruly
disposition toward their masters.” (Baldwin’s translation)
Although Baldwin correctly translates the adjective tnravGpcoTToi as
“inhuman,” the translation o f the verb au0evxf|aovxai as “have legal authority over” is
unconvincing in the context. Since the masters are described as inhuman, their lordships
are hardly believed to be positive. That is why the term au0€vxf|aovxai was used by the
author. To this writer the translation o f the term as “to control” or “to dominate” fits the
context better. Even Baldwin him self puts the text under the category o f “to control, to
dominate.” He seems to be inconsistent here.
c. To domineer/to play the tyrant; [c. A.D. 390] John Chrysostom, Homilies on
Colossians, [ref: 62.366.29], “act the despot” {auGevxei}
The text is John Chrysostom’s homiles on Colossians on the relationship
between husbands and wives. The last portion o f the text reads:
63 See Baldwin, “Appendix 2: auGevteco,” 278, the text is from Hippolytus, “De
consummatione mundi,” in H ippolyt’s kleinere exegetische und homiletische Schriften, ed. H. Achelis, Die
griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller, 1.2 (Leipzig: Himrichs, 1897), 289-309.
64 See A. Roberts, Discourse on the End o f the World, The Ante-Nicene Fathers o f the
Christian Church Series, vol. 5, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952),
243; see Baldwin, “Appendix 2: auGevteu,” 276, n. 10.
280
Do not therefore, because thy wife is subject to thee, act the despot fauQevTei); nor
because thy husband loveth thee, be thou puffed up. For this cause hath He
subjected her to thee, that she may be loved the more. For this cause He hath made
thee to be loved, O wife, that thou mayest easily bear thy subjection.65
The verb KuOcvTct clearly refers to an act o f tyranny. This is a clear example to
argue against the view that the verb auOevrew has the same meaning o f eôuotaCw.
d. To grant authorization; [c. A.D. 350] Athanasius, The Synod o f theArians in
Italy, [ref: 27.3.26], “the Father authorizing” {au O evT ou vrae}
The last portion o f the text reads:
For we do not place the son in the Father’s order, but as subordinate to the Father;
for he did not descend upon Sodom without the Father’s will, not did he rain [fire]
from Himself, but from the Lord, that is the Father authorizing fauQevTouuxoc) it.
Nor is He o f Himself set down on the right hand, but he hears the Father saying,
“Sit thou on M y right hand.”66
The term auSeuteco here refers to the grant o f authorization that is not the
same as the meaning o f 4£ouoia(o), though it seems to be close to.
3. To act independently; [c. A.D. 390] John Chrysostom, Homilies on Saint Matthew,
[ref: 57.239.50] “acted by His own power” {auOev-ccov}
The last half portion o f the text reads:
And neither doth He work all things as one who acted by His own power
fauOeuTcou), that He might thoroughly correct their weakness; nor doth He all things
with prayer, lest He should leave matter o f evil suspicion to them that should follow,
65 See Baldwin, “Appendix 2: aiiGevtew,” 286. The translation is from John H. Parker, The
Homilies o f S. John Chrysostom on the Epistle o f St. Paul to the Philippians, Colossians and Thessalonians
(Oxford: J. H. Parker, 1879) 295. The text is found in John Chrysostom, In Epistulam ad Colossenses,
MPG 62:366.
66 See Baldwin, “Appendix 2: auOevteco,” 280. The translation is from Athanasius, Selected
Treatises o f S. Athanasius, Archbishop o f Alexandria, in Controversy with theArians, trans. J. H. Parker
(Oxford: J. H. Parker, 1842). 121. The text is found in Athanasius, “De Synodis Arimini in Italia et
Seleuciae in Isauria,” in Athanasius Werke, ed. H. G. Opitz, vol. 2.1 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1940).
281
as though He were without strength or power: but He mingles the latter with the
former, and those again with these.67
Here the term auGevxeoo refers to an independent act o f exercising one’s own
power as the context indicates. It is not the same as ôuoidCco.
Baldwin divides this category into three sub-categories as follows:
a. To assume authority over; [c. A.D. 390] John Chrysostom, By the Lake o f
Genesareth, [ref: 64.52.15], “take charge!” {auGevxioov}
The second h alf o f the text reads:
W hy the infamous reproach o f the leper, “Lord, if you wish you are able to heal
me”? I do not say, “comfort!” but “take charge (auGevxiaoy)!”; I do not say “to
pray!” but “to heal!” To heal his own by G od’s own will, but not by another spirit.
“Lord, if you will, you are able to make m e clean.” For he heard the word o f the
prophet, “Our God does what ever he has willed in heaven and all earth.”68
Again here the auGevxeu) refers to an independent act o f exercising one’s own
power. Thus, its meaning is not the same as ôuoidCw.
b. To exercise one’s own jurisdiction; [2nd cent. A.D.] Moeris, Attic Lexicon, [ref: 54],
“to have independent jurisdiction” {cei>0evxr|v}
A u x o 5 lx t |V , ’ A x x l k w <;. a u 0 e v x r iv /E A X n v iK ( 3 < ;69
AuxoSixeXv, Attic, auGcvxelv, Hellenistic ((Baldwin’s translation, on p. 276)
This is the only text drawn from a lexicon. The term auGevxeoo refers to an
administration o f justice that is not the same as eôuoidCoo.
67 See Baldwin, “Appendix 2: auOevteo,” 284. The translation is from John H. Parker, The
Homilies o f S. John Chrysostom on the Gospel o f St. Matthew (Oxford: J. H. Parker, 1843), 225. The text is
found in John Chrysostom, In Mattaeum, MPG 57:239.
68 See Baldwin, “Appendix: auSevxew,” 288. The translation is from Baldwin. The text is
found in John Chrysostom, In lacum Genesarth et in Sanctum Petrum Apostolum, MPG 64:52.
69 Ibid., 276. The text is from Moeris, Lexicon Atticista, ed. Johannes Pierson and Georg Koch
(Lipsiae: Sumptibus, 1830; reprint, Hildesheim: Olm, 1969), 54.
282
c. To flout the authority of; [A.D. 690] John Malalas, Chronicles, [ref: 257.15]
“overruling the senate” {au9evxf|oavTe;}.
The text reads:
The emperor Nero sent an expedition against Judea and Jerusalem and treated all
the inhabitants badly, killing many in a pitched battle, sincethey had behaved
rebelliously and had shouted insults against Nero, because he had beheaded Pilate
to avenge Christ. Pilate had come before Nero for no other reason than that they had
put pressure on (ccuGevTfjoocvTec) their governor when they had crucified Christ. So
Nero was angry with them because they were rebels.70
Baldwin asserts that Sophocles lists the word au0€v-cf|oavT€<; under the heading
“to compel.”71 Explicitly here the term anGevteo) is not the same as &;ouoi«Co).
4. To be primarily responsible for or to instigate something; [c. A.D. 325] Eusebius,
The Life o f Constantine, [ref: 2.48.1.8] “God is him self the administrator o f judgm ent”
{auGevrei}
The text reads:
Accordingly no wise man will ever be surprised when he sees the mass o f mankind
influenced by opposite sentiments. For the beauty o f virtue would be useless and
unperceived, did not vice display in contrast with it the course o f perversity and
folly. Hence it is that the one is crowned with reward, while the most high God is
him self the administrator (auGgvm) o f judgment to the other.72
Baldwin believes that the term auGevxet here has the sense o f “be primarily
responsible for,”73 that is different from eôuoLaCw.
70 See Baldwin, “Appendix 2: ocbGevcew,” 297. The translation is from Baldwin. The text is
found in Hoannes Malalae, Chronographia (Bonnae: Weberi, 1831).
71 See Baldwin, “Appendix 2: auGev-ceco,” 297, n. 19.
72 Ibid., 279-80. The translation is from Eusebius, Church History, Life o f Constantine the
Great, and Oration in Praise o f Constantine, trans. E. C. Richardson, A Select Library o f Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers o f the Chrsitian Chinch Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (reprint, Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1952), 512. The text is found in Eusebius, Vita Constantini, ed. F. Winkelman, vol. 1.1 o f
Eusebius Werke, 2.48.1.8.
73 See Baldwin, “Appendix 2: auGevreco,” 280.
283
5. To commit a murder; [10th cent. A.D.] Scholia Vetera on Aeschylus’ Eumenides,
[ref: line 42a],74 “murder” {puGevrriKora}
The last text is too late to discuss. The meaning o f the term auGevrea)
explicitly is in a very negative and violent sense, “to commit a murder.”
The following texts would show the occurrences o f both e£ocoid(oj (or eôuota)
and auGevrea) (or auGevrta) at the same time proving that they are not the same:
a. [A.D. 375] Epiphanius, Bishop o f Salamis (Constantia), Medicine Chest Against A ll
Heresies, [ref: 224.2] “ruling and exercising authority” (auGcurouvroc kcu
eyOlXHKCoVTOc}
o p w y e v y a p kcu e v r a u G a cue iT e p ia u r o u r o u u i o u eLpTyrai o n “ o r o v n a p a 6 i8 c o T p y

fiaoiXeiav rep Gecp K a l u a r p i , o r a n K a r a p y r |o r | T ra o a v a p y f i y kccI eEou a lav kccI
S w a y r y ” , ax; a u r o u r o u u l o u r a p a b i S o u r o : ; r f | y p a o i A e l a v K a l K a r a p y o u v r o g t r a o a v
apxpv Kal ra e£f|C , K a l r o 5 e l a u t o y p a o L lc u c L y a y p y ; o u Gf) vavxac, r o u e e y G p o u e
utto r o u e tTofiae a u r o u , cue t o t ) u l o u r a TTayra T r o io u r o e K a l avBeurovuzoc K a l
c y o u q t a C o y r a e K a l rep T T a p rt u a p a 5 i 5 6 y r o c o u y r f i p a o i A c t a r o u e T r o r a a a o y e u o u e .75
For we see even here [i.e., in this passage] concerning with the Son himself, it says,
“when he shall hand over the kingdom to the God and Father, then shall he make
powerless all rule and authority and power.” This means the Son him self is handing
over the kingdom and rendering powerless all rule. The next, “He must reign until
he should put all his enemies under his feet,” means the Son is doing all things and
ruling and exercising authorityand handing over to the Father the ones who are in
submission along with the kingdom.”
It i s n o t e w o r t h y t h a t t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f t h e p h r a s e Traoav a p x p y K a l e g o u q ia u
Kal Suvayiu implies the term eôuqia is different from apxp and Suvayi. There are four
participles, noiouroc, auGeurouuroc, cxouoid(ovra<;, and TrapaSiSovroc; in the last sentence,
74 The text may be found in Aeschylus, Aeschylus, Loeb Classical Library, ed. Herbert W.
Smyth (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1963), 275.
75 See Baldwin, “Appendix 2: auGevrew,” 282. The text may be found in Epiphanius
Constantiensis, “Panarion,” in Epiphanius, vol. 2, ed. K. Holl (Leipzig: Himrichs, 1922), 224.
76 See Baldwin, “Appendix 2: auGevteu,” 282.
284
that makes it impossible to see auGevTouvioc and 6xmma(ovTa<; as a hendiadys here.
Furthermore, in the context o f the kingdom and the previous statement “the Son must
reign until he should put all his enemies under his feet,” the meaning o f auGeview more
likely refers to the conquer and rule o f a king, that is different from that o f eôixnaCw.
b. [A.D. 390] John Chrysostom, On the Holy Pentecost, [ref: 50:464.35], “exercising
authority” (auGevTta . . . eôixriav}
K al poa IlaOAoc; Aeywv Tauta navta evepyei t o ev Kal t o auTo

Ilveupa, Siaipouv l6ia eKaoTw KaGcbc; pouAerai.. KaGdx; pouAerai, Grjalv, ou Ka0w<;
upooTaTTeTai" Siaipouv, ou Siaipoupevov auGevTouv, o u k auGevTia utTOKeipevov.
Tqv yap aurnv e£ouaiav. qviTep epapTupqae t w IlaTpl, TauTqv Kal t w ay up
IIveupaTL avaTiGqoiv o IlauAoc.77
And Paul cries out saying, “All these the one and the same spirit works, distributing
to each one just as he wills.” “Just as he wills,” he says, not “just as it has been
determined”; “distributing,” not “being distributed”; “exercising authority.” not
“being subject to authority.” For where Paul bears witness to the Father o f his own
authority, he attributes it even to the Holy Spirit.78
Since John Chrysostom uses the term ouoia to denote authority, Baldwin’s
translations o f the verb auGevrelv as “exercising authority” and the noun auGevTia as
“authority’ are questionable. Baldwin is also inconsistent as he lists the text under the
category o f “to rule, to reign sovereignly.” Even the terms auGevrouv and auGevua have
the meaning o f ruling or reigning, the context shows that they are not the same as
eôuoiaCw an d eôu oia.
c. [A.D. 390] John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, [ref: 60.525.41], “have even
that [be] independent” {auGevTeiv . . . eôuatav }
[With reference to Rom 8:14] O u to c yap TraA.iv ttoA.Au t o u TtpoTepou pdCwv o

ooT&jjavoc;. Aio ouSe aTTAcog elirev, "Oooi yap IIveupaTi Qeou ( g x j i v , , "Oooi
77 Ibid., 282. The text is from John Chrysostom, D e Sancta Pentecosta, MPG 50:464.
78
See Baldwin, “Appendix 2: ociiGevteco,” 282.
285
IIveupaTi 0eou ayovtai, beiKvug o ti outco PouAerai auto Kupioy etyai xf|<;
riperepag (cof)g, cog toy Kupepvrpriv too ttAoiou, Kal toy tjvioxou too Cef>Y0UC tcjy
iTTTTcoy Kal oux'i to ocnpa povov, aAAa Kal aurf|v xr\v i|juxt)v unopaAAei rafg
toiautatg fjviaig. Ou6e yap eKeivr)v PouAerai au0eureXu, aXXa Kal eKeivr|g tf)y
eSouolay utto tf) too Ilveuparog e0r)Ke 8uuapei.79
Now this is again a much greater honor than the first. And this is why he does not
say merely, “as many as live by the Spirit o f God,” but, “as m any as are led by the
Spirit o f God,” to shew that he would have Him use such power over our life as a
pilot doth over a ship, or a charioteer over a pair o f horses. And it is not the body
only, but the soul, itself too, that he is for setting under reins o f this sort. For he
would not have even that independent, but place its authority also under the power
o f the Spirit.80
The translation o f John H. Parker clearly shows the differences between
auOeurelv and e£ouoiav. Furthermore, to Chrysostom the term eôucuais also different
from Suvapei as indicated in the text.
d. [A.D. 390] John Chrysostom, the Heavenly Reign, [ref: 59.583.46], “rule absolutely”
{af>0evrco . . . &;ouaiag}
[The householder o f M att 20 addresses the others about the eleventh-hour worker]
Ou Suuapai ouu toy outco pe -rTO0f|oauTa, toy outco poi -iTiareuaaura, pf| u p f|aai
itaofl oTTOuSr) Kal upf). 'Qg eTuareuaag, eTuareuaey cog ewroppoag, eunoprioev cog
TrpoocKuyrioag, rrpoaeKuvnaev cog epacuAeuoag- epaaiAeuaev cog eKapeg, ouk
eKapeu, aAA’ eyeo tf) x^pitL to AeiTroy aueirAripcoaa. "H ouk eKêoti poi
ttoLf|aoct,, o 0eAco, ev tolg epofg; pf| yap ra oa 6airayco; Ta epa Xopryycd. Mf) yap
ev roXg ootg (JuAoupoupai; ’Ev tolg epoXg auOevrco Mf) yap eTurpotrov oe tr)g epfig
Kateotrioa yycoppg; Mia0cotoy oe eXafiov cog el, apxhe. Mr) yap Kupiov ae tpg epfjg
eSouoiac exeiporovriaa; 'Qg (jjiAavOpcoTTog koivcovov eiToir|aapr|v rcov epaurou.81
Therefore, am I not unable not to honor, by every honor and with all diligence, the
one desiring me thus, the one believing in me thus? As you believed, he believed; as
you abounded, he abounded; as you worshipped, he worshipped; as you reigned, he
reigned; as you were afflicted, were we not afflicted? But I, by grace, will fill up
what is lacking. Is it not lawful for me to do, what I will among my own? Do I take
79 Ibid., 285. The text is from John Chrysostom, In Epistulam ad Romanos, MPG 60:525.
80 See Baldwin, “Appendix 2: avBeuveu,” 285. The translation is from John H. Parker, The
Homilies o f S. John Chrysostom on the Epistle o f St. Paul to the Romans (Oxford: J. H. Parker, 1841), 587.
81 Ibid., 287. The text is from John Chrysostom, In Illud: Regnum Caelorum Patri Filius,
MPG 59:583.
286
what is yours? I provide out my own resources. For not by means o f your property
do I seek glory. I rule absolutely by means o f my own. For I did not appoint you as
a guardian o f my opinion. I received you as a hireling from the beginning. For I did
not appoint you as lord o f m y authority. As a lover o f mankind I share with m y
own.
Here the meaning o f the term auGevxeoo has a sense o f an independent act o f
ruling. Only the term eôuoiae is translated as “authority.”
e. [A.D. 449] Leo I, Pope, Epistle #30 (To Pulcheria), [ref: 54.788 A], “a certain dispute
instigated by Eutyches” {k&voluv . . . auGevxouvxoqptc}
Touxou xou ayiou flveupaxot; olSaoKovxoc pepa0f|Kaxe. Touxq> xpv upexepov

eEouoiav utTexaCccxe. A la xauxpc xpc Soapeac, Kal xfjc €K5tKia<; paaiAeuexe, "OGev
6TTeiuep Kaxa xrjc ccKcpaiou tuoxewc xgjv xpioxLavwv Sixovoiav xiva ev xfj
’EKKAr|otat xp Kaxa KoovoxavxivoiJTToA.lv Euxiyouc auGevxouvxoc yeyevfjaGai, xou
aSeAcjiou poo, Kal auveiuaKoiTou <FA.aulav ou 6 ia xfjc avac|)opa<; eyvoov.83
You have been taught by this vaunting Holy Spirit. To him you have submitted your
authority. Through his gifts and his favors you rule. Hence, seeing that, I knew
through the report o f m y brother and fellow bishop Flavian, a certain dispute,
instigated by Eutyches, in the Church o f Constantinople, has arisen against the pure
faith o f Christianity.84
Here the verb auGevxeco means “to instigate.” Only the term 4£oucria means
“authority” as it always is.
f. [5th cent. A.D.] Eusebius o f Alexandria, Sermon, #5, [ref: 86.348 D], “to exercise
authority over the people” {auGevxeiv . . . eôuoiav}
A oittov Kai uepl SiaKovwv xov Aoyov TTapaGrjoopai. ' 0 SiaKovog xoivuv ocfieiAei
navxa Kaxa yvwppv irpeapuxepou TTpaxxeiv, Kal elg xov Kavova Kal e ’u; xac
€KKArioiaoxiKac xpeiac etc xov Aaov 8e pf) auGevxetv. aAAa uavxa xfj KeAeuoei xou
trpcapuxepou iroieiv. napovxog 8e xou Trpeapxepou, ou8e a<j)optaai xiva eEouoiav
cxei p xi exepov iroifjoaf85
82 See Baldwin, “Appendix 2: au0evxeu,” 287. The translation is from Baldwin.
83 Ibid., 290. The text is from Leo Magni, EpistulaeXXX, MPL 54.788A.
84
See Baldwin, “Appendix 2: ai)0evteco,”29O-91. The translation is from Baldwin.
85 See Baldwin, “Appendix 2: auOevieo),” 294. The text is from Eusebius Alexandriini,
Sermones, V, MPG 86:348D.
287
And finally I will set forth the word concerning deacons. The deacon ought to
accomplish everything in accordance with the intention o f the elder, and for the
rules and for the needs o f the church; not to exercise authority over the people, but
to do everything by the command o f the elder. But the elder being at hand, neither
does he have authority to banish or to do the like.86
The Apostle Peter says, “So I exhort the elders among you . . . Tend the flock
o f God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but
eagerly, not as domineering over those in your charge but being example to the flock”
(1 Pet 5:1-3). Peter does not deny the authority but domination. The present text presents
a similar teaching to that o f Peter. The deacon is charged to accomplish all things for the
rules and for the needs o f the church according to the intention and the command o f the
elder, and not to auGevTelv the people. Baldwin’s translation o f the verb auGevxetv as “to
exercise authority” does not match with that idea. Here it is more accurate to translate the
verb as “to domineer over” since only the term k&voiav means authority. This proves that
these two terms are not the same.
g. [6th cent. A.D.] PM asp 67151 {ref: line 174}, “to have authority in any
fashion” {eljouaiaCeiv . . . auGevxriaou}
BouAopou 6e kou KeAeixo xpv euyeveaxocTpv aupCiov pou yapexpv rilouaiaCgiy tgov
eauxpg kcu povgjv tgov vtt epou autpTTpoboGevTGOv ev copa tgov auxp<; cuoigov yapoov
Trpo piêooc, kou toutok; apKeoGpai kcu |ir| SuvaoGou TTepaiTepco toutgov eiuCpxeiv
tTpoc; oiovSpiToxe K/lppovopov epov p auyKAppovopov, ppxe ppv auGevTnaou kou
olov bptroTe TpoTrov aiTocnTaaaaGou TravTeAGoc oiovSptroTe upaypa ck navToiGov epcov
87
TrpaypaTGOv.
I will and command m y wife, m y noble-born life partner, to have authority over her
own things and solely over the dowry given by me to her in the hour o f our suitable
wedding before our union; and that she be content with these things and not to be
86 The translation is from Baldwin. See Baldwin, “Appendix 2: auGevteco,” 294.
87 Ibid., 277. The text is from Jeanne Maspero, ed., Papyrus Grecs d ’Epoque Byzantine,
Catalogue G eneral des Antiquites Egyptiennes du musee Caire, vol. 2 (Cairo: Imp. de l’institute francois
d’archeologie orientale, 1913; reprint, Osnabruck: Otto Zeller, 1973).
288
able to seek anything further with regard to my heirs o f any kind or joint heirs
neither to have authority in any fashion to detach outright goods o f any kind from
any manner o f my estate.88
Apparently, the husband commands his wife to be content with what she has
already had and she absolutely has the authority over (e£ouoiaC€iv) her own properties.
However, she is commanded not to seek to auGevxpoai any o f his estate in any fashion or
any manner. Thus, the verb au0evxf|aai implies a negative sense o f “taking over or ruling
over.” Baldwin’s translation o f “to have authority” is questionable. Contextually, these
two infinitives have different meanings.
The above texts show that the term e£oixudCa) (or eôuoia) always means “to
have/exercise authority” in a positive sense. However, the term auGevxeco (or auGevxioc)
sometimes means ruling or reigning in a positive sense and sometimes means controlling
(compelling) or dominating (or even instigating) in a negative sense. Explicitly, these two
terms are neither parallel nor interchangeable. Their occurrences in the same passage
indicate that actually they have different meanings. Therefore, the term auGevxeoo should
not be translated as “to exercise/have authority” as be the term eôuoLaCco. As a whole, the
texts Baldwin cites as the examples o f the meaning o f the term as “having authority over”
are late texts. He does not mention the texts o f Josephus or Philo listed by Wilshire.
Actually he could not provide one clear text around Paul’s times to support his view.
Conclusively, the fact Paul using the verb auGevxeco instead o f eôuoiaCco in
1 Tim 2:12 and the occurrences o f auGevxew and e£ouoia£oo in the texts listed by Baldwin
show that the meaning o f the verb auGevxeco is not the same as that o f eôuoiaCw. Besides,
the study o f Wilshire and that o f Kroeger support the negative sense o f the meaning o f
88 See Baldwin, “Appendix 2: auGevtew,” 294. The translation is from Baldwin.
289
ctuGeivxeto. Thus, this writer prefers the negative meaning, that is, Paul here in 1 Tim 2:12
bans women from controlling or domineering over men. He is trying to stop the
disruption caused by these problematic women in the church.
The Meaning and Function of 1 Tim 2:13-14:

Issues and Exegesis
Some scholars advocate that Paul uses yap as causal very frequently in the
Pastoral Epistles. They suggest that Paul likely follows the rabbinic negative views on
Eve (and women), using the creation order (i.e., Adam’s priority in creation assumes his
male leadership) and Eve’s deception (i.e., women are more vulnerable to deceit than
men) as the reasons to ban women from teaching or having authority over men. Here Paul
tries to correct the problem o f the role reversal o f Adam and Eve in the fall.89
Nonetheless, according to the above study on views concerning Eve in early
Judaism (see chapter 3) the rabbis assume Adam to be the leader within the couple not
because o f the creation order. They do not teach any role reversal o f Adam and Eve
taking place in the first transgression. Neither do they teach that women are more
vulnerable to deception than men. Therefore, even if Paul follows the rabbinic views,
Adam ’s priority in creation and Eve’s deception are unlikely the reason for Paul’s
prohibition (v. 12). Besides, the usage o f yap can be either causal or explanatory. The
interpretation o f 1 Tim 2:13-14 should not depend on the determination o f the usage o f
yap in verse 13 but the reverse.
The Explanatory Usage o f yap
The usage o f the term yap in 1 Tim 2:13 is crucial to the interpretation o f the
89 See Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 131-32, 135-37,148—49.
290
entire section (vv. 8-15), particularly the meaning o f verse 12. Mounce argues for the
causal usage o f yap. He thinks Paul’s emphasis is on the relationship between Adam and
Eve based on his understanding o f the account o f Genesis 2. There it states that Adam
was created first, and then Eve. The priority o f Adam ’s creation indicates male authority
is God’s intention. Eve’s deception by the serpent also excludes women from teaching
and leading.90 He points out that the most frequent use o f yap is to present cause or
reason. He believes that there are thirty out o f thirty-three times o f its occurrence
expressing cause or reason in the Pastoral Epistles.91 He is o f the opinion that “I do not
permit” in verse 12 carries the force o f an imperative. He follows Douglas J. M oo’s view
that in every case o f an imperative or an imperatival idea followed by a clause introduced
with yap in the Pastoral Epistles has the causal idea (1 Tim 3:13; 4:5, 8 , 16; 5 :4 ,1 1 ,1 5 ;
2 Tim 1:7; 2:7,16; 3:6; 4:3, 6 ,1 0 ,1 1 ,1 5 ; Titus 1:10; 2:11; 3:3, 9 , 12).92He concludes
that 1 Tim 2:13-14 are Paul’s reasons for his prohibitions (v. 12) that are universal for all
churches in all ages.93
Nevertheless, the major lexicons and grammars state that the usage o f yap can
be either causal or explanatory in general.94 Only A. T. Robertson holds that the common
usage o f yap is explanatory as follows:
90 See Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 130,148.
91 Ibid., 131-32; the texts listed by Mounce are: 1 Tim 2:5; 4:5, 8, 10, 16; 5:4, 11,15; 6:7, 10;
2 Tim 1:7, 12; 2:7, 13, 16; 3:2, 6, 9; 4:3, 6, 10, 11, 15; Titus 1:7, 10; 2:11; 3:3, 9, 12.
92 Ibid., 132; the texts listed by Mounce are M oo’s citing in “The Interpretation o f 1 Timothy
2:11-15: A Rejoinder,” Trinity Journal 2 (1981): 203.
93 See Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 132, 148.
94 BDAG, 189-90; H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar o f the Greek New
Testament (Toronto, Ontario: Macmillan, 1957), 242.
291
It is a mistake, therefore, to approach the study o f yap with the theory that it is
always or properly an illative, not to say causal, particle. It is best, in fact, to note
the explanatory use first. Thayer wrongly calls the illative use the primary one. The
word is common in all the larger books o f the N.T. It is least common in the Gospel
o f John and in Revelation. In Matthew and Luke it is much more frequent in the
discourses and is rare in the strict narrative. In M ark and John it is about half and
half. In general the N. T. use o f yap is accord with that o f the classic period. The
explanatory use is common in Homer.95
However, Robertson concludes, “The precise relation between clauses or sentences is not
set forth by yap. That must be gathered from the context if possible.”96 In other words, it
is the context that determines the use o f yap, not the frequency o f the use o f yap.
Daniel B. W allace lists yap (and others) as explanatory conjunction under the
category o f logical conjunctions (which has no causal conjunction), though he also lists
yap and o u (and others) as causal conjunctions under the category o f adverbial
conjunctions.97 He holds that a key to decide the use o f conjunctions is to identify the two
sets o f ideas that the conjunction links together and to decide the controlling idea the
conjunction modifies. In other words, one must determine whether larger literary unit or
the element in the sentence to which the conjunction is to be connected. He points out
that more than one possible connection often occurs. In such situation the key to decide
the most likely connection is by its context and authorial expression.98 To this writer the
works o f Robertson and Wallace are complementary to each other. Wallace even moves
forward to a more cautious step by adding the significance o f considering authorial
95 See A. T. Robertson, A Grammar o f the Greek New Testament in the Light o f Historical
Research, 4th ed. (Nashville: Broadman, 1934), 1190.
96 Ibid., 1191.
97 See Wallace, Greek Grammar, 673, 674.
98 Ibid., 668.
292
expression. In fact both grammarians’ suggestions are significant and crucial to determine
the use o f yccp in 1 Tim 2:13.
Regarding Paul’s expression in the Pastoral Epistles, there are eight times that
Paul uses o ti as causal conjunction (1 Tim 1:12, 13; 4:4, 10; 5:12; 6:2 [2x]; 2 Tim 1:12).
Two o f them have the conjunctions yap and oil occur at the same time (1 Tim 4:4-5, 10),
where the former is translated as “for” and the latter as “because.” Elsewhere Paul uses
6 loti as causal conjunction seven times (Rom 1:19,21; 3:20; 8:7; 1 Cor 15:9; Phil 2:26;
1 Thess 4:6). Four o f them have both yap and 6 lotl occur at the same time (Rom 1:19;
3:20; 8:7; 1 Cor 15:9), where yap functions as “for” and S io u as “because.”
Some o f the texts Mounce lists as causal yap in the Pastoral Epistles actually
are non-causal (1 Tim 2: 5 ;" 4:5,10). I. Howard Marshall thinks that 1 Tim 2:5-6 might
be a traditional formulation100 or a combined materials that were well known to the
readers to make a further explanation for the previous statement. He thinks the term yap
in 1 Tim 2:5 has the force “indeed, to be sure,” that is explanatory rather than causal.101
John Norman Davidson Kelly takes the usage o f yap in 1 Tim 4:5 to be
explanatory. He thinks verse 5 does not claim that an additional sanctification is imparted
to food by saying grace. It aims at explaining “provided it is received with thanksgiving”
99 BDAG, 189, lists it under category 2 “marker o f clarification” rather than category 1
“marker o f cause or reason.”
100 Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann have the same view; see their work The Pastoral
Epistles: A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, translated by Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro,
Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible, ed. Helmut Koester, Eldon Jay Epp and
George W. MacRae (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 41.
101 See Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 42 8 ,4 2 8 , n. 49. R. C. H. Lenski has similar view; see his
work, The Interpretation o f St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus
and to Philemon (n.p.: Lutheran Book Concern, 1937; reprint, Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1964), 545. Knight
takes verse 5 as the basis (rather than the reason) for the preceding argument (v.4); see his Pastoral
Epistles, 120.
293
(v. 4).102 Lenski believes that yap “explains what Christian thanksgiving does: for it is
sanctified by means o f God’s Word and prayer.” 103 Thus, the use o f yap is not causal.
Lenski believes that the term yap in 1 Tim 4:10 neither presents a reason for
the previous statement nor offers another reason that should move Timothy to serve
faithfully and diligently. He states well, “Subjective actions cannot prove or establish
objective facts, i.e., the fact that godliness is what it is whether we toil and agonize about
it or n o t . . . This is folgernd and not begruendend. It does not state a reason but a
consequence and is often used with exclamatory force.” 104 The use o f yap is non-
causal.105
Some o f the texts Mounce lists as imperative106 followed by yap also are non-
causal (2 Tim 2:7; 4:6; Titus 3:3). Hendriksen advocates that in 2 Tim 2:7 Paul tells
Timothy to ponder on what he has just said. Timothy needs not fear that his ponderance
will be fruitless. He can be sure that God will give him understanding that he needs. Thus,
verse 7b is an encouragement or a prom ise.107 This writer is o f the opinion that verse 7b
is unlikely the reason for verse 7a. In fact, “Think over what I say and the Lord will give
you understanding in everything” sounds better and is more reasonable than “Think over
102 See Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 97.
103 See Lenski, Paul's Epistles to Timothy, 625.
104 Ibid., 637.
105 Advocates o f the explanatory yap are such as: Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 202; Kelly,
Pastoral Epistles, 101-2; Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 555; Hendriksen, / - / / Timothy, 152.
106 The term enupCTO occurs 18 times in the NT (Matt 8:21; 19:8; Mark 5:13; 10:4; Luke
8:32 [2x]; 9:59, 61; John 19:38; Acts 21:39,40; 26:1; 27:3; 28:16; 1 Cor 14:34; 16:7; 1 Tim 2:12; Heb 6:3).
Most o f them are without the force o f a command. BDAG, 384-5, lists 1 Tim 2:12 under category 1 o f the
term eirupeirw meaning “to allow someone to do something; allow, permit.” Apparently, the term has a
mild sense and is different from an imperative, a command.
107 See Hendriksen, / - / / Timothy, 249-50. Other advocates include Lenski, P a u l’s Epistles to
Timothy, 784; Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 176; Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 107.
294
what I say because the Lord will give you understanding in everything.” Paul’s belief in
verse 7b is an encouragement, rather than a reason, for Timothy to ponder on his
instructions. The text is more likely an assurance (a further elaboration or an explanation)
rather than a reason for Paul’s command in 2 Tim 2:7a. Strikingly, Mounce translates
verse 7 as “Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight in all this,”
and does not make any comment on the use o f yap in the text. He simply states that verse
7 is “a call for Timothy also to reflect on the practical implications o f these metaphors on
his life . . . There is no question in Paul’s mind that the Lord, ‘will give,’ Timothy
insight.” 108 Furthermore, this writer wonders why he translates the term yap as “for”
instead o f “because,” a clearer expression o f causal yap.
Some scholars take the function o f yap in 2 Tim 4:6 as causal and suggest
Paul’s departure to be the reason for his foregoing charge (vv. 1-5).109 This view assumes
Timothy was chosen to be Paul’s successor, so there is an urgent request for Timothy to
be diligent and perseverant in his role. Nonetheless, Marshall takes 2 Tim 4:6-8 as a
round-up exhortation110 o f Paul to Timothy. The message has a threefold purpose: to put
an example before Timothy to follow; to indicate that Timothy must take the place now
being vacated by Paul; and to hold out the promise o f reward for faithful service.111 To
this writer even if Paul’s life is not coming to an end soon, Timothy still has to be diligent
in his ministries. A true God’s servant must be a faithful servant. That is exactly what
109 See Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 207; Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 458.
110 Dibelius and Conzelmann have similar view; see their work Pastoral Epistles, 121.
111 See Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 805. Lenski states, ‘Tap is explanatory o f the strong
coordination: thou—I on my part. All that is urged upon Timothy is done in view o f what is happening to
Paul”; see his Paul's Epistles to Timothy, 857.
295
Jesus and Paul teach. Even if Timothy is Paul’s successor, he has to be faithful not
because o f being Paul’s successor but because o f being God’s true servant. Furthermore,
Paul is not the only servant God has appointed. Timothy is not Paul’s only successor. I f
Timothy is, also is Titus. Thus, Paul’s final words in 2 Tim 4:6-8 more likely are his own
testimony or example o f standing firm on the gospel and being a faithful servant o f Christ
unto the end (with perseverance) in order to encourage and motivate Timothy to be a
faithful servant o f Christ and the gospel. Here the use o f yap in verse 6 is non-causal.
Knight advocates that Titus 3:4-7 is the content o f the formula tuoto<; o Xoyoq
o f verse 8 and verse 3 functions as introducing the reason for the previous instructions.112
However, the context and the use o f the first person plural indicate a certain unity and
continuity from verse 3 to verse 7. W ithout verse 3 readers do not know why God has to
save “us” through Jesus Christ the Savior. Thus, here if the use o f yap is causal, then it is
the reason for the following saying (w . 4 -7 ) rather than for the preceding instructions
(w . 1-2). Marshall takes verses 3 -7 to be the backward reference o f the faithful saying
o f verse 8a. He suggests the function o f yap is to introduce doctrinal motivation. The
particle -rroxe o f verse 3 probably functions with ore 5e o f verse 4 to form the transition
formula “form erly. . . but now” (Rom 6:20-22; 11:30-32; Gal 123; 4:8-9; Eph 2:1-22;
5:8; Col 1:21-22; 3:7-8; Phlm l l ) . 113 Thus, verse 3 is not the reason o f Paul’s
instructions in verses 1-2. The function o f yap in this saying is non-causal.
In the Pastoral Epistles Paul quite often gives reasons for his commands
immediately, but he does not always do it (e.g., 1 T im 4 :ll-1 5 ; 6 :ll- 1 2 ;2 T im 1:14;
112 See Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 335. He does not take v. 3 to be part o f the faithful saying.
113 See Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 303, 304, and 326. Advocates include: Dibelius and
Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 147; Lenski, Paul's Epistles to Timothy, 928.
296
2 :8 -9 ,1 4 -1 5 ,2 2 ; Titus 2:15). Therefore, in Paul’s expression an imperative followed by
yap is not necessarily causal. As discussed above Paul quite often uses oil and 6 io n to
express reason instead, the context is crucial to determine the use o f yap, not the reverse.
If yap in 1 Tim 2:13 is taken as causal, it will function as an adverbial
conjunction, expressing the ground o f Paul’s prohibition (v. 12). Adam ’s priority and
Eve’s deception would be the reason for banning women from teaching and having
authority over men (positively or negatively). This interpretation gives little heed to the
function o f verse 11 and affects the unity o f verse 11 and verse 12. Since the phrase kv
fiouxta occurs in verse 11 and verse 12 as an inclusio o f the passages and the contrast
between “learn” (pavGavw) and “teach” (6 i 6ccok(o) indicate their unity.114
The view o f causal yap also raises some unsolved questions. For instance: Are
women more vulnerable to deceit than men, as is Eve, so that Paul bans them from the
role o f leadership? How about the likelihood that the negative example o f Eve’s
deception is used to warn both men and women against false teaching in 2 Cor 11:3? If
Eve’s deception indicates that women are susceptible and vulnerable to deception, then
men would have the same weaknesses.115 Is the transgression o f being deceived into sin
worse than the transgression o f sinning deliberately? Is one who deliberately disobeys
God more suitable to be leader than one who is deceived to disobey God?
In summary, the advocates o f the causal usage o f yap need to explain why
Paul mentions Adam’s non-deception and Eve’s deception here (v. 14). Furthermore, if
the causal view is correct, then there is only one verse talking about the disruption o f the
114 The command to let woman learn (in quietness with all submission) in verse 11 is naturally
(likely) the reason for not allowing her to teach (men?) in verse 12.
115 See Scholer, “1 Timothy 2:9-15,” 210.
297
Ephesian men (v. 8). Paul just leaves the issue there without any further follow-up
(explanation or encouragement) as he does to women. Nevertheless, both men and
women are involved throughout the whole section: from men and women (vv. 8-10) to
woman and man (vv. 11-12) and to Adam and Eve (w . 13-14). As mentioned above the
study o f views on Eve in early Judaism does not support this view.
However, if yap is taken as explanatory, it would be a logical conjunction,
giving additional information for what is being described in 1 Tim 2:8-12. In other words,
Paul uses 1 Tim 2:13-14 as an explanation for his confrontation and correction o f the
disruption caused by both Christian men and women in the Ephesian church (1 Tim
2:8-12). He points out the different roles o f Adam and Eve in creation and their
inadequacies in the fall in order to exhort the congregation to have appropriate attitudes
towards one another. Functionally Adam (as representative o f men) was formed to be the
leader within the couple, whereas Eve (as representative o f women) was formed for
Adam as help to fulfill his leadership. Unfortunately, both o f them failed to accomplish
their roles in the fall. The key for the explanatory usage o f yap mainly depends on the
interpretation o f 1 Tim 2:13-14 and the function o f verse 15. The following section will
further argue for this view.
The Phrase ttp&toq . . . e h a in 1 Tim 2 :1 3
Scholars unanimously advocate that the theme o f 1 Tim 2:13 is “Adam was
created first, then Eve.” Consequently, the meaning o f Adam ’s priority in creation and
Eve’s subordination and the application to the roles o f men and women in church are
under much debate, controversy, and diversity. For instance, traditionalists argue that
male leadership is grounded in God’s intent on Adam ’s being created first (or the creation
298
order), the firstborn in human creation;116 whereas egalitarians argue against it by giving
examples o f the firstborn who were not the heir (or leader) in the family from the
117
Scripture, and animals were created before Adam. Both camps seem to argue well for
their own views but with unsolved problems.
Although the phrase TTpwxot; . . . elxa (“first. . . then”) seems to express a
chronological order, the Greek grammar o f the text questions this view. BDAG defines
the meaning o f the term TTpwxoc;: 1. Be first in a sequence, inclusive o f time, set (number),
or space, first; 2. Be prominent, first, foremost, most important, most prominent. The
11 o
term trpokoc functions as adjective and the neuter irpcoxov as adverb. Wallace lists the
term irpcStov under the category o f the adverbial use o f the adjective. He provides two
illustrations for this usage (Matt 6:33 Cftteixe 8 e ttpgjxov: John 1:41 e u p io K e i ouxoc
ttpojtov) . 119 The term irpwxov occurs 65 times (Matt 5:24;120 6:33; 8:21; 12:29;121 and
177 177
others ). Most o f them are before or after the verb that is modified, except 10 texts.
116 See Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 130-31; Thomas R. Schreiner, “An Interpretation o f
1 Timothy 2:9-15: A Dialogue with Scholarship,” in Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis o f 1 Timothy
2:9-15, ed. Andreas J. Kostenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1995), 134; Douglas J. Moo, “The Interpretation o f 1 Timothy 2:11-15: A Rejoinder,” Trinity Journal 2
(1981): 204; James B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981),
206-9; Ann L. Bowman, “Women in Ministry: An Exegetical Study o f 1 Timothy 2: 11-15,” Bibliotheca
sacra 149 (April-June, 1992): 205.
117 Timothy J. Harris, “The Buck Stops Where? Authority in the Early Chinch and Current
Debate on Women’s Ministry,” Interchange 41 (1987): 33; idem, “Why Did Paul Mention Eve’s Deception?
A Critique o f P.W. Barnett’s Interpretation o f 1 Timothy 2,” Evangelical Quarterly 62 (1990): 335-52;
Phyllis Trible, “Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation,” Journal o f the American Academy o f
Religion 41 (March 1973): 35-39; Sharon Hodgin Gritz, Paul, Women Teachers, and the Mother Goddess
a t Ephesus: A Study o f 1 Timothy 2 :9-15 in Light o f the Religious and Cultural Milieu o f the First Century
(Lanham, MD: University Press o f America, 1991): 54-56; Alvera Mickelsen, “There is Neither Male Nor
Female in Christ,” in Women In Ministry: Four Views, ed. Bonnidell and Robert G. Clouse (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1989), 185; Paul K. Jewett, Man as M ale and Female: A Study in Sexual
Relationship from a Theological Point o f View (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 126-27.
118 See BDAG, 892-94.
119 See Wallace, Greek Grammar, 293.
299
In the NT the term TTpwiot; occurs 30 times.124 When the term means “first”
chronologically (in sequence or in number), it usually has an article o before it referring
to “the first person” or “the first thing.”125 For instance, the passage “Now there were
with us seven brethren: and the first (o Trpwxoc;), when he had married a wife, deceased,
and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother” (Matt 22:25; parallel at Luke 20:29)
clearly shows that the term TTpakoc; with the article o refers to “the first” in a sequence o f
number, particularly followed with the phrase o 6€UT€poc Kal o tq Itoq ewe twv errta
(“the second and the third down to the seventh”) in verse 26. The arthrous tTpwxov in Acts
1:1 Tov |i€v Trpwxov Aoyov eTToiriaap.T]v irepl rravtwv (“The first book I have made about
all”) functions as an attributive adjective, modifying the accusative noun Xoyov and
referring to “the first” in a sequence o f number.
The following texts indicate that the anarthrous upwxoc means “to be first” in
rank and status— to be “great/chief/the foremost/the most prominent” :
120 “Leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then
come and offer your gift.” (acpec ecet to 8wpov aou epupooGev toO Gimacmplou Kal wraye irpuxov
6LaAAdyr|0i tq dcSeXcpcp oou, Kal tote eAGcov Trpoac()6p6 to Swpov aou.)
121 “Or how can one enter into a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first
binds the strong man? Then indeed he will plunder his house.” (rj uc3i; Suvaxat ti? ei.oeA.06iv etg t t ) v
o’lKiav too layupoG Kal xa oKeup auxou apiraaai, eav piri itp(3tov 6han xov loyupov; Kal tote xi)v oi.KLav
auxou 6iapiraaei.)
122 They are: Matt 13:30; 17:10, 27; 23:26; Mark 3:27; 4:28; 7:27; 9:11, 12; 13:10; 16:9; Luke
6:42; 9:59, 61; 10:5; 11:38; 12:1; 14:28, 31; 17:25; 21:9; John 1:41; 2:10; 7:51; 10:40; 12:16; 15:18; 18:13;
19:39; Acts 1:1; 3:26; 7:12; 13:46; 15:14; 26:20; Rom 1:8, 16; 2:9, 10; 3:2; 15:24; 1 Cor 11:18; 12:28;
15:46; 2 Cor 8:5; 1 Thess 4:16; 2 Thess 2:3; 1 Tim 2:11; 3:10; 5:4; 2 Tim 1:5; 2:6; Heb 7:2; 10:9; James
3:17; 1 Pet 4:17; 2 Pet 1:20; 3:3; Rev 4:7; and 13:12.
123 They are: Rom 15:24; 1 Cor 11:18; 12:28; 15:46; 1 Tim 2:11; Heb 7:2; 10:9; James 3:17;
Rev 4:7; and 13:12.
124 Matt 10:2; 20:27; 22:25; Mark 9:35; 10:44; 12:20; Luke 14:18; 19:16: 20:29; John 1:15;
1:30; 8:7; 20:4, 8; Acts 26:23; Rom 10:19; 1 Cor 14:30; 15:45,47; 1 Tim 1:15; 2:13; 1 John 4:19; Rev 1:17;
2:8; 8:7; 16:2; 21:1, 19; and 22:13.
125 Matt 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 14:18; 19:16; 20:29; 1 Cor 14:30; 15:45,47; Rev 1:17; 2:8;
8:7; 16:2; 21:1, 19; and 22:13.
300
1. Matt 20:27 (parallels Mark 9:35; 10:44)
And whoever wishes to be first/great (ttpcjtoc) among you, he will be your servant.
Matt 20:26b and 20:27 are parallel. The meaning o f irpwio^ in verse 27 is
clearly indicated by the word piyac (“great”) in verse 26b.
2. John 1:15 (parallels John 1:30)
John bore witness about him, and cried, saying, “This was he o f whom I
spoke, ‘He who comes after me has become before me (e|iTipoo06v), because he was
first (ttogjtocJ b efore m e .’”
Lenski suggests that the first two clauses (in Greek) “He who comes after me,
has become before me” is a paradox functioning as a riddle or an enigma. The enigma
deals with the priority o f time. The third clause “because he was first before me”gives the
solution, that deals with the priority o f time and status. The priority o f time is the pre
existence o f Jesus that goes back to John 1:1,2. This pre-existence also indicates the
highest superiority in rank.126 Lenski’s view is preferable.
3. 1 Tim 1:15
The saying is faithful and worthy o f full acceptance that Christ Jesus entered into
the world to save sinners, among whom I am the foremost/the worst (TTpdkoc).
Knight points out that the term irpcoTog could not mean “first’ in a sequence, because Paul
101
was not the first one saved by Christ. He is “the foremost” in the category o f sinners.
According to BDAG (295) the term e lia has two major meanings: 1. pertinent
to being next in order o f time, then, next; 2. a transition word to mark an addition to
126 See Lenski, The Interpretation o f St. John’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MA: Augsburg, 1961),
84-7. George R. Beasley-Murray thinks that epirpooGev pou ykyovev (“he has become before me”) refers to
“a priority o f status,” whereas irpokoc pou fjv (“he was first before me”) refers to a priority in time; see his
John, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Ralph P. Martin, vol. 36 (Martin. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), 15.
However, John the Baptist later witnesses, “I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before (epirpooGev)
him” (John 3:28). This indicates that the word epirpooGev can only refer to a priority in time.
127 See Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 102. Marshall also translates the term as “foremost.” See his
301
something just stated, furthermore, then, next. There is one text that the term e lia has the
meaning o f “then,” or “furthermore.” It reads: “Furthermore (elta) we have had fathers o f
our flesh that corrected us, and we gave them reverence . . . ” (Heb 12:9).
In the New Testament there are two texts having the phrase “trpcoTov . . .
e lta ” The first reads: “For the earth brings forth fruit o f itself; first (ttocjtov) the blade,
then (elta) the ear, then (etta) the full com in the ear” (Mark 4:28). The second reads:
“And let these men also first (updfroiA be proved; after (etxa) they prove themselves
blameless let them serve as deacons” (1 Tim 3:10). The phrase “iTpwtov . . . e tia ” in
these two texts refers to a temporal sequence.129
In the New Testament, there are three texts having the phrase “Trpdkov . . .
eTretta.”130 The first reads: “Nevertheless, the spiritual is not first (ttp(2>tov). but the
physical; then (ct€Itk) the spiritual” (1 Cor 15:46).131 The term upokov functions as an
adverbial adjective. Explicitly, the phrase “updkov . . . eneira” has a chronological order.
The second reads: “To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part o f all; first (TTpdkov) his
name being translated as King o f righteousness, and then (enenroO also King o f Salem,
which is, King o f peace” (Heb 7:2). Lenski suggests reading the following as an
128 See R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation o f the Epistle to the Hebrews and o f the Epistle o f
James (Columbus, OH: Wartburg, 1938), 443; James Moffatt, A Critical andExegetical Commentary on
the Epistle to the Hebrews, International Critical Commentary, ed. Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred Plummer,
and Charles Augustus Briggs (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1924), 203 for details.
129 See John R. Donahue, Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel o f Mark, Sacra Pagina Series, ed.
Daniel J. Harrington, vol. 2 (Collegeville, MA: Liturgical Press, 2002), 151; William Hendriksen, New
Testament Commentary: Exposition o f the Gospel According to M ark (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975), 168-69;
Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 170 for details.
130 BDAG, 361, lists two major meanings o f the term erreiToc: 1. being next in order o f time,
then, thereupon; 2. being next in position o f an enumeration o f items, then.
131 See R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation o f St. P au l’s First and Second Epistle to the
Corinthians (Columbus, OH: Wartburg, 1946), 723-24 for details.
302
apposition: “first, by interpretation, ‘king o f righteousness,’ and then also king o f Salem,
which is ‘king o f peace.’” 132 His interpretation implies that the phrase “TTpooxoy . . .
etreiTa” is not a sequence in time or order. To this writer the term erreita is better
translated as “furthermore,” an addition, since there is the particle Kal (“also”) after it.
The third reads: “But the wisdom that is from above is first pure (ttpg)tov ply ayvf|
eoTiv), then peaceable (eneiTa elpr|viKTi), gentle, open to reason, full o f mercy and good
fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy” (James 3:17). Lenski is o f the opinion
that James talks about the wisdom “from above,” from God, will grace one’s heart and
affect others. The divine wisdom should consist o f these inner and outward qualities.133
Certainly, the order o f these qualities is not the emphasis here. The term npco-rov likely
means “first o f all” (as 1 Cor 11:18), and eirei/ra refers to “furthermore.”
Paul uses the term iTpdjTo<; with an article o three times and all o f them refer to
the “first” person. The first text reads: “If a revelation is made to another sitting by, let
the first be silent (o ttpojtqc oiyara))” (1 Cor 14:30). Regarding the order o f the church
the number o f speakers is to be limited and the edification given by speakers has to be
taken in turn.134 The structure “aiUcp . . . Trpcotoc;” indicates a sequence o f order. The
second reads: “Thus, it is written, the first man Adam (o ttpojtoc av0pcnTTO<; ’ASap)
became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit” (1 Cor 15:45). The
arthrous iTpdrcot; functions as an attributive adjective, modifying the following noun
avGpwTToe. The phrase o updkoc avSpwuoc emphasizes that Adam is the progenitor o f all
132 See Lenski, Hebrews and James, 212.
133 Ibid., 628. Ralph P. Martin, James, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. David A. Hubbard and
Glenn W. Barker, vol. 48 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1988), 133-34 has similar view.
134 See Lenski, Corinthians, 612.
303
humanity. The third reads: “The first man (o upwTcx; avGpcjTTog) was from the earth, a
man o f d u s t . . . ” (1 Cor 15:47). Again the phrase o TTpwxo; ayGparrroc; emphasizes that
Adam is the progenitor o f all humanity.
In the Gospel o f John, the anarthrous Trpwioc; occurs twice right after the verb,
meaning “the first” in a temporal sense. John 20:4 reads: “And the two were running
together, and the other disciple did run ahead, faster than Peter, and came as the first
(riAGev TTpdjtocl to the tomb.” 135 Lenski’s translation shows that he takes the anarthrous
• • • • 11/:
-tTpcoToc to be a predicate adjective. He has the same view on John 20:8.
Paul uses the term Trpdkoc; without an article three times (Rom 10:19; 1 Tim
1:15; 2:13). The first text (Rom 10:19) has the anarthrous irpuxoc right before a proper
name. Its structure parallels that o f Matt 10:2 as follows:
But I ask, did Israel not know? As the first Moses ( ttpcjtoc Mcjtiofk) says . . .
(Rom 10:19)
The names o f the twelve apostles are these: as the first Simon (irpcotoc 2 l u g jv ) who
is called Peter, and Andrew his brother. . . (Matt 10:2)
Usually scholars interpret the term iTpwtoc in these two texts as “first” in a priority o f
time.137 BDAG (894) states that the phrase TTpwioc 2ip.Gov in Matt 10:2 does not “indicate
the position o f Simon in the list (for there is no other numbers following) but to single
him out as the most prominent disciple among the Twelve. Undeniably, the portrait o f
135 See Lenski, John’s Gospel, 1339.
136 Ibid., 1343.
137 William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition o f the Gospel According to
Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973), 450. Thomas R. Schreiner is o f the opinion that in Rom 10:19 Paul
introduces two witnesses, first Moses and then Isaiah, to testify about Israel. See Schreiner, Romans, Baker
Exegetical Commentary on the N ew Testament, ed. Moises Silva (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 573.
304
11S
Peter in the Gospels is dominant (Matt 8:14 plus 30 more passages). Nonetheless, only
Matt 10:2 consists o f the term T tp w io c right before the word Eipwv. Brendan Byrne takes
TipwToc to be a priority in time and in rank.139 In the light o f the usage o f the term TTpwxog
in Matt 10:2, this writer suggests that the term iTptoxoc in Rom 10:19 also refers to a
priority in time and in rank.
There is only once that the anarthrous Trpwxoq occurs right after a pronoun and
before a verb. It reads: “We love, because he as the first loved (ai)xo<; ttpojtoc fiyaTirioev)
us” (1 John 4:19). This writer takes the meaning o f “the first” to be a priority in time, just
as that in John 20:4 and 20:8.140 It is noteworthy that the anarthrous Trpdkoi; is laid
between the subject auxoi; (a pronoun) and the verb riYcb'naev. The structure o f 1 John
4:19b is quite similar to that o f 1 Tim 2:13a.
The phrase “Trpcoxo<; . . . elxa” is only found in 1 Tim 2:13. Although the verse
is best translated as “for Adam was formed first, then Eve” 141 (the term trpaixog seems to
function as an adverb in English), here Paul has used the adjective TTpcnxoc; rather than the
138 The three disciples, Peter and James and John were chosen to be with Jesus at important
revelatory moments, such as, the miracle o f raising the dead (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51); transfiguration (Matt
17:1; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28); Gethsemane (Mark 14:33). See R. T. France, The Gospel o f Mark: A
Commentary on the Greek Text, N ew International Greek Testament Commentary, ed. I. Howard Marshall
and Donald A. Hagner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 239; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 177;
Frederick Dale Bruner, The Christbook: Matthew 1-1 2 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), 369.
139 See Brendan Byrne, Romans, Sacra Pagina Series, ed. Daniel J. Harrington, vol. 6
(Collegeville, MA: Liturgical, 1996), 327.
140 Stephen S. Smalley interprets the text: “We love, because he loved us first.” He suggests
the word irpuxoq includes a comparative sense, that is equivalent to the word xpoxepoi;. See Smalley, 1, 2, 3
John, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Ralph P. Martin (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1984), 262. However,
here John uses the word iTpcoxoc rather than the word irpoxepo*;. These two words have different usages (see
BGAD, 888).
141 See Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 130; Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 461-62; Kelly, Pastoral
Epistles, 68; Hendriksen, / - / / Timothy, 109.
305
neuter adverb irpwiov. The term npdhroc modifies the noun ’ASap, not the verb ctAcmjSti.142
It functions as an adjective, refering to a priority in time. Parallels are found in John 20:4,
John 20:8, and 1 John 4:19 (see above discussion).143 This might indicate that here Paul
simply focuses on the relationship between the first couple, as Gen 2:18 states, “It is not
good for the man to be alone, I will make a help corresponding to him.” This parallels
Paul’s teaching on the relationship o f men and women in creation. He states, “the head o f
a woman is her husband, and the head o f Christ is God” (1 Cor 11:3). He also says, “For
man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for
woman, but woman for man” (1 Cor 11:8-9).
This view also matches with the study o f views concerning E ve’s roles in
early Judaism. M ost rabbis assume Adam to be prominent and a chosen leader over Eve
(who is assigned as his help, support, and adviser) because o f God’s design, but not
because o f Adam ’s being created first.144 Paul here does not emphasize the creation order
o f Adam and Eve in a chronological sense, but the different roles played by Adam and
Eve in creation. Paul teaches that Adam, the representative o f all humanity, as the first
one was formed, after that was Eve formed to be his “help.” His view is simply based on
the revelation that God formed Eve to be A dam ’s “help corresponding to him ” in
142 Lenski also notes that the term irpwioc; is the predicate adjective and not the adverb and
translates the text as “For Adam was formed as the first.” See his work, Paul's Epistles to Timothy, 565.
However, the term eixa makes it unlikely.
143 BDAG, 893, classifies the term TTpwtoc in John 20:4, 8, and 1 Tim 2:13 to be a predicate
adjective, referring to a priority in time. Wallace takes the term -rrptotoc in John 20:4, 8, and 1 Tim 2:13 to
be a superlative adjective, under the category o f “Superlative for Comparative.” See Wallace, Greek
Grammar, 303.
144 Only Philo teaches that since Eve was created after Adam, she is secondary (as God’s
second thought) and is subordinate to Adam in both ontological and functional sense. Robin Scroggs points
out that Philo refuses to take Gen 2:8-3:24 as an historical event for he writes: “This description is, I think,
intended symbolically rather than literally” {Op. mundi 154). See Scroggs, The Last Adam: A Study in
Pauline Anthropology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), 120.
306
Gen 2:18. Therefore, male leadership is grounded on God’s sovereign election, rather
than on A dam ’s priority in creation or his merit. Eve’s (or wom en’s) role is to help Adam
(or men) accomplish his male leadership, rather than to control or domineer over him (or
them). The relationship between man and woman is further defined as “In the Lord,
however, woman is not independent o f man, nor is man independent o f woman” (1 Cor
11:11; cf. Gen. Rab. 8.9; 22.2), that is always overlooked or underestimated. This will be
discussed in the final chapter.
Teaching and Domineering Over Man
It is noteworthy that the prohibition to teach and the prohibition to domineer
over men are two different issues. The reason for the prohibition o f teaching is likely
indicated in verse 11, where Paul commanding women to learn in quietness with all
submission indicates that the attitude the Ephesian women had in learning was not
appropriate, that probably had affected the outcome o f their learning. Another possible
reason is that some women, who were also bad learners o f G od’s word (2 Tim 3:6-7),
were deceived by the false teachers and tried to teach the false teaching in church. If
these women had such problems, it would be wise to stop them from teaching in church.
In fact, they were inappropriate, incompetent, and very dangerous to be teachers. In the
New Testament spiritual leaders are warned not to domineering over those whom he
leads but to serving them as servants with humility (1 Pet 5:2-5; Matt 20:27; Mark 9:35).
Certainly, Paul would not permit women domineering over men.
In Life o f Adam and Eve, two versions clearly mention that A dam ’s power
over Eve (who should obey him) is G od’s original design {Vita 26.2; Slavonic 32.6).
Unfortunately, Adam had failed to fulfill his role o f male leadership. Nonetheless, no
307
leader is so knowledgeable that he needs no teachers. The role o f teaching unnecessarily
implies authority. For instance, the American President needs a committee o f advisers
who are his teachers in some sense. However, it is incorrect to say that these advisers are
exercising authority over the President while they are offering the President different
advice and ideas.
When Adam was assigned to be the leader within the couple, it does not
necessarily mean that Eve could not give Adam any suggestions, opinions or advice.
Even the rabbis recognize Eve’s significant role to be Adam ’s help corresponding to him
(Gen 2:18; Tobit 8.6; Jub. 3.4; Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 2.18), his companion and co-partaker (Ant.
1.35, 38), supporter (Tobit 8.6; Tg. Onq. Gen 2:18), guardian (b. Yebam. 62b-63a), and
adviser (Gen. Rab. 20.11; 22.2). W ithout Eve Adam is imperfect and not good (Gen. Rab.
17.1-2). Furthermore, another Jewish view advocates that the divine order o f creation is
the joining together o f a man and a woman to become one flesh in order to share the
responsibilities o f procreation and to rule the earth in marriage (Genesis and Tobit clearly
teach that). Men and women are interdependent on one another just as they both depend
upon the Creator (Gen. Rab. 8.9; 22.2). Some rabbis applaud that Abraham wisely
listened to his wife Sarah (Deut. Rab. 4.5-6).
Therefore, A dam ’s male leadership should not be taken as a king or a ruler,
exercising absolute and irresistible authority over Eve. Neither should Eve act as a silent
servant without her own ideas or objections.145 Otherwise, Eve can neither act as Adam ’s
145 The Books o f Adam and Eve describe Eve has her freedom to do things according to her
own wish before and after the fall. She is not under Adam’s authority or control at all (Apoc. Mos. 15.2-4;
Vita 18.1-3; 19.1-2; Armen.-Georg. 18.2-3; Slavonic 35-37.4, 5).
308
counterpart nor function in her role as his adviser and helper.146 Furthermore, it is
noteworthy that Eve’s role is more than that o f childbearing. Both men and women are
endowed with the blessings o f procreation and ruling over the earth (Gen 1:28). Even the
Books o f Adam and Eve teach that both Adam and Eve were appointed to take care o f all
male and female animals respectively (Apoc. Mos. 15.2—4; Slavonic 1.1-4; 15.7; 20.3—4;
29.5b). If Paul here follows the Jewish views on Adam and Eve, verse 13 is better
understood on the basis o f the above discussion.
E v e ’s Deception in 1 Tim 2:14
The traditional view focuses on Eve’s deception in verse 14. Some scholars
take this to be one o f the reasons for Paul’s prohibition in verse 12. They assume that
Paul follows the rabbinic view on Eve and women, taking them to be more vulnerable to
deceit. Thus, they are not suitable to be leaders.147 However, the Greek sentence shows
that verse 14 is parallel to verse 13. Adam is the subject o f the indicative verbs. The term
’A5cqj, is put at the beginning o f theses two verses. Thus, the emphasis also is on Adam
148
though the theme o f deception is the focus. Adam was not deceived, implying that he
sinned deliberately with his eyes wide open. It is questionable to assume that the sin o f
146 This writer once heard Philip Tang, the emeritus president o f the Alliance Bible Seminary
o f Hong Kong, describe the relationship o f husbands and wives, saying that if the former were heads, then
the latter were necks. This illustration is biblical and makes good sense. Though Paul exhorts wives to
submit themselves to their husbands, he never tells husbands to lead their wives but to love them as
themselves (Eph 5:22-31). It is noteworthy that how Paul concludes his instruction, “however, let each one
o f you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband” (v. 33). Apparently, he
parallels “submit” and “respect” implying a connection between these two words. The latter likely
interprets the former.
147 See Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 141; Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 144-46.
148 Mounce is o f the opinion that the emphatic negation o f Adam’s deception in v. 14 parallels
the emphasis o f Adam’s priority in creation in v. 13. See his Pastoral Epistles, 141.
309
being deceived unto transgression is greater than the sin o f disobeying God
deliberately.149 Adam fell into transgression just as Eve did.
Furthermore, according to the above study in chapter 3, Eve’s deception is not
emphasized in early Judaism. No rabbis ever doubt or question Eve’s salvation as is
suggested by Joan M. Holmes. Some rabbis teach that Jewish women are punished and
are demanded to accomplish three significant duties because o f Eve’s transgression
(Gen. Rab. 17.8). Some rabbis negatively comment that women possess four
characteristics: they are greedy (when the woman saw that the tree was good for food;
Gen 3:6), inquisitive (Sarah heard in the tent door; Gen 18:10), envious (Rachel envied
her sister; Gen 30:1), and indolent (Abraham had to hurry Sarah: Make quickly three
measures o f fine meal; Gen 18:6).150 However, they do not comment that women as Eve
are more vulnerable to deception.
In addition, the view that women are banned from the roles o f teaching or
leading because o f Eve’s deception is not found in early Judaism. The Jewish women
cannot teach the Torah because they are not taught at all. What they learn are primarily
relevant to their domestic roles. They are exempted to observe many laws assigned for
men for they have more significant and honorable roles to accomplish—bearing and
raising children, managing the household and others. This is the main reason that they are
not taught with Torah. Thus, when Paul commands women “to learn in quietness and
149 Saul was removed from the throne because o f his disobedience to God’s commands
(1 Sam 13:13-14; 15:22-23). Kelly states, “Paul is o f course not questioning Adam’s g u ilt. . . and which
in the final assessment must have been all the greater since he sinned with his eyes open.” See his Pastoral
Epistles, 68.
150 Deut. Rab. 6.11.
310
submission,” in some sense he violates the tradition o f Judaism. The Jewish women do
not lead because men are the assumed leaders.
Moreover, the accounts o f Genesis 3 and 1 Tim 2:14 do not mention role
reversal o f Adam and Eve. The serpent initiated to approach Eve and not the reverse.
Though Adam was the leader, Eve had the right to respond without Adam ’s consent for
she was Adam ’s help rather than his slave. God never condemned Eve for having
interacted with the serpent by herself. The first couple sinned and were punished simply
because they disobeyed God’s command in Gen 2:16-17.151 Paul here in 1 Tim 2:14
emphasizes that Adam was not deceived, but Eve was and fell into transgression. He does
not mention any role reversal at all.
However, why does Paul particularly mention Eve’s deception? Some
scholars suggest that Paul uses Eve’s deception having caused disaster in the first
transgression as an example to warn the Ephesian women against the false teachers,
because some Ephesian women had followed the false teachers and had already strayed
after Satan (5:15). Paul might also imply that the activity o f the false teaching by these
women was sinful.152 In the light o f the above discussion (vv. 8-13) and the larger
context o f First Timothy, this writer is o f the opinion that Paul’s purpose o f mentioning
Eve’s deception here is the same as that in 2 Cor 11:3. There he mainly tries to
151 I f Eve had no right and freedom to respond to the serpent even it approached her initially
and directly, then her role is Adam’s servant (or even his burden) rather than his help. The view o f role
reversal seems to make conjecture without concrete evidence from the texts. This writer has a hypothesis
concerning the reason for why the serpent approached Eve instead o f Adam. The serpent might have
thought that since Eve was formed as Adam’s help, if Eve was defeated, then Adam would have become
helpless. Apparently, this has come true in the history as Eve ate and gave Adam the fruit, and he ate it
without a word.
152 See Towner, 1 -2 Timothy and Titus, 73, 79.
311
demonstrate the dangers posited to the church by the false teachings in order to warn both
men and women against the false teachers.
It is correct that some Ephesian women had already strayed after Satan (5:15).
Paul describes that they learned to be idle, wandering about from house to house, tattling,
and speaking things that they ought not (5:13). Perhaps they were those bad learners, who
never really understood God’s truth and were misled by the false teachers (2 Tim 3:6-7).
The astray o f these women demonstrates their disobedience to God and their mistrust o f
his word. Paul also mentions that some Ephesian men had made shipwreck o f faith, so
that he delivered them (including Hymenaeus and Alexander) unto Satan (1:19-20).
Likewise, the shipwreck o f faith o f these men indicates their disobedience to God and
their mistrust o f his word. These Ephesian men and women committed the same sin o f
the first couple, disobeying God and mistrusting his word, and turning to follow Satan’s
falsehood.
This writer is o f the opinion that in verse 13 Paul emphasizes the roles o f
Adam and Eve in the divine creation (Genesis 2), whereas in verse 14 he points out their
failures in the first transgression— disobeying God and mistrusting his word (Genesis 3).
If one asks why Paul here mentions Eve’s deception, one should also ask why Paul
mentions Adam ’s non-deception. The Greek structure shows the emphasis is on Adam’s
non-deception and then Eve’s falling into transgression.153 The non-deception o f Adam
and the deception o f Eve make no difference in the definition o f transgression. The fact is
both o f them sinned. Though Adam and Eve are representatives o f m en and women
respectively, their forms o f sin do not transmit to their descendants according to the sex.
153 Paul uses an active indicative to describe Adam’s non-deception but a passive participle to
describe Eve’s deception. Finally, he uses a perfect indicative to describe Eve’s falling into transgression.
312
Here (and elsewhere) Paul does not stereotype women to be more vulnerable to deceit.
Neither does he stereotype men to commit sin deliberately. However, since the Ephesian
women brought quite a lot o f problems into the church, Paul might particularly use Eve’s
deception by the serpent to warn them against the false teachers and their teachings. This
is not to say that women are more vulnerable to deceit than men. In reality every believer
will commit sin deliberately or by deceit. Therefore, the warning o f Eve’s deception is
not only applied to women but also to men. Likewise, the warning o f A dam ’s deliberate
sin is not only applied to men but also to women. The failures o f Adam and Eve function
as an example and a warning for the Ephesian men and women not to fall into the trap o f
Satan, going astray from God and his truth.
In summary, Paul neither exonerates Adam’s sin nor denigrates Eve’s status in
1 Tim 2:13-14. This writer suggests that here Paul is trying to balance the relationship
between Adam (men) and Eve (women). The disruption o f men and women in the
Ephesian church implies their failure in following God’s demands (w . 1-2), just like the
first couple failed in the fall. Nonetheless, the Ephesian women seem to have more
problems than men. As a whole, they went astray from their roles as women assigned by
the Creator. This is w hy Paul adds a further instruction to exhort and encourage them
going back to the right track—to fulfill the most significant and honorable role o f women
designed by God in creation. The following section will focus on the instruction.
The Meaning and Function of 1 Tim 2:15
The shift from Eua in verse 13 to f) in verse 14 might connect Eve back
to the women o f verses 9-12 and prepare for the reference to Christian women in verse
313
15.154 The term napapaoei (transgression) at the end o f verse 14 significantly defines the
context o f verse 15 concerning wom en’s spiritual salvation. Paul’s use o f the verb ocoCw
only refers to spiritual salvation. Here he teaches that Christian women will be saved
ultimately through fulfilling their exclusive and honorable role o f childbearing
accompanied with faith, love, and holiness with modesty. Explicitly some Ephesian
women focused on the wrong directions. They paid too much attention to their outward
beauty without being concerned for their good deeds and godliness. They learned with
wrong attitude. They even tried to teach and control men. This misconduct brought
disruption to the church. Such behavior might cause m en’s anger and dispute in the
church (v. 8). Thus, after having confronted their problems, Paul was trying to instruct
and bring them back to the right w ay they should have aimed at. A t the end o f this last
instruction he particularly emphasized and affirmed that his saying was trustworthy (3:1a).
The M eaning o f o g j(c o in 1 Tim 2:15
The meaning o f the verb ogj(o) is very important and crucial for interpreting
1 Tim 2:15. There are ninety-five occurrences o f the verb ooiCw in the New Testament.
The verb ocoCco generally has two major meanings: physical salvation or spiritual
salvation. Physical salvation in passive voice occurs eleven times and in active voice
eighteen times.155 Spiritual salvation in passive voice occurs forty-two times and in active
154 See Marshall, Pastoral, 46.
155 Passive voice texts are: Matt 9:21, 22; Mark 5:23, 28; Luke 8:50; John 5:34; 11:12; Acts
4:9; 14:9; 27:20,31. Active voice texts are: Matt 8:25; 14:30; 16:25; 27:40,42 [2x]; Mark 3:4; 8:35; 15:31
[2x]; Luke 6:9; 9:24; 23:35 [2x]; Acts 2:40; Heb 5:7; James 5:15; Jude 1:5.
314
voice twenty-four times. Paul uses the verb ooo(u) seventeen times in passive voice and
nine times in active voice.156 All refer to spiritual salvation.
The verb oco0f|O€Tai occurs thirteen times in the New Testament and only two
times out o f them refer to physical salvation (Luke 8:50 the raising o f Jairus’ daughter
from death; John 11:12 the raising o f Lazarus from death). Paul uses the verb aooSfjaeToa
five times (Rom 9:27; 10:13; 11:26; 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Tim 2:15) in his writings. All o f them
(excluding 1 Tim 2:15) explicitly refer to spiritual salvation. Three o f these texts are
predictive future rather than gnomic future.157 Two out o f these three texts predict future
salvation for Israel in the second coming o f Christ (Rom 9:27; 11:26).158 The third text
reads: “If any m an’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, and he him self will be saved
(owGrjoeroa), but only as through fire” (1 Cor 3:15). Despite the foolish builder’s
wretchedly faulty work, he will be saved ultimately for he remained on the great
foundation Jesus Christ.159 This is a clear example o f the verb owGfperai. referring to the
consummation o f salvation o f believers in the future.
According to Paul’s teachings, the day o f Christ’s second coming is the day o f
the consummation o f salvation for Christians who w ill be saved completely from the
power o f sin and Satan and their physical decay. It is also the day o f glorification for
156 Passive voice texts are: Rom 5:9, 10; 8:24; 9:27; 10:9,13; 11:26; 1 Cor 1:18; 3:15; 5:5;
10:33; 15:2; Eph2:5, 8; 1 Thess 2:16; 2 Thess 2:10; 1 Tim 2:4, 15. Active voice texts are: Rom 11:14; 1
Cor 1:21; 7:16 [2x]; 9:22; 1 Tim 1:15; 4:16; 2 Tim 1:9; Titus 3:5.
157 See Wallace, Greek Grammar, 568, 571. Only Rom 10:13 is gnomic future, a common
statement for all to salvation by faith.
158 See William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition o f P au l’s Epistle to the
Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 331-32, 382; Schreiner, Romans, 619-20; Byrne, Romans, 350 for
details.
159 See Lenski, Corinthians, 144.
believers (Rom 8:18-27) based on the fact that believers have already been saved by
God’s grace in Christ (Eph 2:5, 8; cf. 1 Cor 6:11; 2 Tim 1:9; the perfect and aorist tenses
o f ocoCw are used). The salvation o f Christian is an ongoing process when it refers to the
process o f sanctification in believers’ daily experience on earth (1 Cor 1:18; cf. Heb
10:14; the present tense o f owCto is used). The Corinthians are placed into a position o f
security in salvation because o f their standing firm in faith continually (1 Cor 15:1-2).
Spiritual salvation is also described as in future. Mark 16:16160 states: “He
who believed and was baptized will be saved (goGgpexcu); but he who believed not will
be damned (KataKpiGpoetaL).” Both o Trtoteuoag and pairuaGelc are aorist participles.
Both oo)0r|O€T(u and KataKpiGrioetai are future indicatives. Since the believer not only
believed but also was baptized, why he “will be saved” and not “was saved” or “is saved”
And why the unbeliever “will be damned” but not “was damned” or “is damned”? Thus,
both the context and the tense used in the text indicates that the use o f the verb ow£oo is a
predictive future rather than a gnomic future. Explicitly, here the salvation refers to the
consummation o f salvation o f believers, whereas the damnation refers to the final
judgement o f unbelievers in Christ’s second coming.161
In Rom 5:9-10 Paul states, “Since we were now justified by his blood, much
more shall we be saved (o(o9no6u.60K) by him from the wrath o f God. For if while we
160 Some scholars regard Mark 16:9-20 (the so-called Long Ending) found in some
manuscripts as non-Markan additions because the two oldest and best manuscripts (codices B and Aleph)
do not have them. They assume verse 8 is the ending o f Mark. However, the ending at 16:8 seems to be
very abrupt (or sudden) and also very pessimistic (awkward), and needs to be explained. Furthermore, the
Long Ending also has its strong arguments defended by forceful scholars. Thus, it is inconclusive. Even if
the text is non-Markan, it contains some obvious elements that are found in other Gospels and Acts; see
Craig A. Evans, M ark 8:27-16:20, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Brace M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard
and Glenn W. Barker, vol. 34B (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 545-47 for details. Regardless o f
whether this is from Mark or not, the usage can be studied.
161 It is unlike that o f John 3:18, where all the verbs concerning salvation o f believer and
condemnation o f unbeliever are in present tense.
316
were enemies w e were reconciled to God by the death o f his Son, much more, now that
we are reconciled, shall we be saved (oojQriooudte) by his life.” Hendriksen points out that
verse 9 parallels verse 10.162 The future indicative “ooo9r]o6p.e9o'” shows the salvation
•I
mentioned here is eschatological, the consummation o f salvation in Christ’s return.
It is noteworthy how John 3:36 interprets the meaning o f true faith in Jesus:
“He who believes (o TrioTeuoov) in the Son has eternal life; He who does not obey (o bk
a-rreiGcov) the Son shall not see life . . . ” The present participles TrioTeuwv and aTreiSwv
indicate belief or disobedience in a continuous sense.164 The parallel o f the first and
second clauses implies that a true believer o f Christ obeys him continuously. Lenski
believes this is “obedience o f faith” (Rom 1:5).165
In the Gospels, Jesus teaches the significance o f true believers living a godly
life on earth (e.g., Matt 5-7; Luke 6:17-49). Jesus also warns and reminds his followers
o f being his watchful and faithful servants before his return (the parables on faithfulness
Matt 24:45-51; 25:14-30; Mark 13:34-37; Luke 12:41-48). Furthermore, Jesus clearly
promises the spiritual salvation (in future) for believers who continue to stand firm and
remain faithful to the Lord with perseverance unto the end. In Matt 24:13 he clearly states,
“But he who endures unto the end (el<; xkXoc,) will be saved (ocaSpoeTai)” (parallels at
Mark 13:13; M att 10:22). Bruner interprets the phrase o bk fnropeLvac eu; xkkoc, (Matt
24:12) as “who sticks to” or “hung in there” unto the very end. He points out that this
162 See Hendriksen, Romans, 174.
163 See Schreiner, Romans, 262-63. Byrne, Romans, 56, 171, comments that salvation in Paul
has a dominant reference to the future deliverance (Rom 10:9; 13:11; 1 Cor 3:15; 5:5).
164 See Bernard, John, 126.
165 See Lenski, John's Gospel, 294 for details.
317
“sticking” is the faith under pressure which does not freeze to death in the m idst o f a
lawless and loveless world. This true faith becomes a love that moves out into such a
world in ardent and loving mission (Matt 24:14).166
Regarding Mark 13:13 R. T. France believes that the text is a call to
endurance and a promise o f the assurance for those who suffer for Jesus (whatever may
come without giving up) will not be ultimately the losers, rather than a prediction about
the end o f the age.167 This writer is o f the opinion that Matthew 24:13 emphasizes the
significance o f evangelism through Christian love (a reflection o f truly salvific faith)
during persecution, whereas Mark 13:13 (cf. Matt 10:22) emphasizes the significance o f
being loyal to Christ with perseverance in all kinds o f sufferings during persecution (cf.
Matt 5:11-12; Luke 6:22-23). Thus, true Christians not only persevere in sufferings or
persecutions, but also faithfully fulfill their Christian roles assigned by God on earth.
Jesus explicitly teaches that his true disciple will continue loving him and
remaining in him by obeying his words resulted in glorifying God (John 15:7-10). A true
disciple is one who does God’s will (Matt 12:50; Mark 3:35; Luke 8:21). In Matt 16:24—
26 Jesus challenges his followers to give up on themselves as lord but to let Christ rule
their lives and to suffer the consequences o f being his true disciples even unto death. To
live a life following Jesus is an indication o f being his true disciples (cf. James 2:14-
20).168
Jesus also promises that his faithful servants will be applauded and rewarded
166 See Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary. The Churchbook: Matthew 13-28,
revised and expanded ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 489-90.
167 See France, Mark, 519.
168 See Bruner, Matthew1 3 - 1 8 ,148-52, 154-57 for details.
318
(Matt 24:47; 25:21,23; Luke 19:17,19). The meaning o f faithful is loyal, trustworthy,
and true to what one is assigned.169 A servant’s faithfulness will be evaluated by the
quality (not the quantity) o f his service. For those who are faithful will be greatly
170
promoted and honored according to the Lord’s perfect fairness (Matt 25:21, 23).
Paul’s instruction o f working out the salvific faith by being perseverant in
G od’s truth echoes with that o f Jesus concerning true disciples’ obedience to God’s
words with perseverance. He always exhorts believers to share in Christ’s sufferings in
this life with perseverance. The future glory is so splendid that present sufferings become
unimportant and slight by comparison. It is because the glory they will receive in Christ’s
return is forever, whereas their current sufferings are temporary (2 Cor 4:7-17; cf. Rom
2:6-10; 8:18).171 Paul also teaches that one day at the judgment seat Christ will evaluate
each believer’s life o f service and recompense him according to his faithfulness during
his earthly sojourn (Rom 14:12; 2 Cor 5:10). He clearly states that the quality o f each
believer’s work will be tested before the judgm ent seat o f Christ (1 Cor 3:13-15). For
those whose services are built up with good qualities on the foundation o f Christ Jesus
will be vindicated and receive G od’s reward and recommendation. Contrariwise, for
those whose services are built up with bad qualities will suffer loss. The worker him self
will be saved but as through fire (v. 15). The text shows that eternal salvation is not by
human works. Otherwise, those who have bad quality works will not be saved but
condemned ultimately.172 Hans Conzelmann comments well on the passage:
169 Ibid., 536, 538, 539.
170 Ibid., 558-59.
171 Lenski, Corinthians, 991.
172 See Lenski, Corinthians, 141; Fee, First Corinthians, 143.
319
Obviously the idea has to be understood in the wider context o f the doctrine o f
justification. The loss o f faith means the loss o f salvation. On the other hand,
unsatisfactory works performed by the Christian as a Christian do not cause his
damnation. This is the reverse side o f the fact that works do not bring about
salvation. But we remain responsible for our works before God (2 Cor 5:11); for the
life o f believers is service.173
In 1 Cor 9:19-27 Paul presents him self as an athlete whose life goal is striving
for winning an imperishable crown, aiming at doing all things to all men by all means
with self-control and wisdom and perseverance for the sake o f preaching the gospel
(1 Cor 9:25; cf. 1 Pet 1:4). He sets him self forth as an example that his readers might
follow.174 He shares that he has determined to forget the past but press on toward his goal
in order to win the heavenly prize from God (Phil 3:13-14). N ear to the end o f his time
on earth, he recites his spiritual legacy in the gospel ministry in order to encourage
Timothy to fight and suffer for the gospel with perseverance (2 Tim 4:6-8).175
In 1 Cor 7:16 Paul exhorts married believers who have unbelieving spouse,
“For what you know, wife, whether you will save (ocooei?) your husband? Or how you
know, husband, whether you will save (awoeie) your wife?” Explicitly, Paul here
encourages Christian husbands and wives to strive to preserve the union and keep the
peace with their unbelieving spouse. I f they fulfill this role with perseverance, the Lord
might use them as a channel o f leading (evangelizing or winning) their unbelieving
spouse to eternal salvation by words or deeds. Paul him self speaks o f becoming all things
173 Hans Conzelmann, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, trans. James W.
Leitch, Hermeneia— A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible, ed. George W. MacRae
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 77.
174 See Conzelmann, Corinthians, 163; Fee, First Corinthians, 437.
175 See Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 578-79. James and John also promise “the crown o f life”
as the award for believers who endure trial and tribulation unto the end (James 1:12; Rev 2:10). Though the
exact nature o f the reward is hardly identified, Gordon D. Fee simply calls the reward “the eschatological
prize” (see Fee, First Corinthians, 440).
320
17 f \
to all people in order to save them for the gospel (1 Cor 9:22). Somehow, this is an
example o f fulfilling a certain role by Christians in order to save some one.177
In 1 Tim 4:16 Paul instructs Timothy to fulfill his works— take heed and hold
fast (eiupcve) to him self and to his teaching— so that he will save (awoei<;) him self and
those who hear him. The verb etTipeve refers to the virtues o f insistence and perseverance,
that are essential to salvation (Rom 11:22; Col 1:22, 23; 1 Cor 15:1, 2; cf. Heb 3:6, 14).178
The verb ou(w refers to spiritual salvation which is ultimately accomplished by Christ
alone. Mounce advocates that Paul here merely emphasizes human responsibility, the
• 170 • • •
intermediary, in the salvation process. Hendriksen suggests, “Holy living and sound
teaching are a fruit o f faith.” 180 The phenomenon here Timothy, a human being, is the
subject o f oco( oj is found in Paul (Rom 11:14; 1 Cor 7:16ab; 9:22;), also in James (5:20)
and in Jude (23). Just as Jesus teaches about a man by the decisive act o f “losing his life”
• 1o 1
for the sake o f Jesus and the gospel results in saving his life (Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24).
Lenski precisely summarizes:
God alone saves (v.10). Yet he saves by means (2:4), and it is thus that one who
uses and applies these means can very properly be said to save both him self and
others. Hence also Paul does not say merely “others” but “those hearing thee” (Rom.
10:13-15). Timothy is the mouthpiece for the Word, for all these churches
regarding all their doctrine and their practice, and he saves others only as God’s
instrument. In order to be such an instrument Timothy first applies the Word to
176 See Fee, First Corinthians, 305-6.
177 Cf. James 5:19-20 “Let him know that whoever brings hack a sinner from the error o f his
way will save a soul from death, and will hide a multitude o f sins.”
178 See Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 211.
180 See Hendriksen, / - / / Timothy, 160.
181 See Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 212.
321
himself. R., W. P., calls “will save “ an effective future; like others, also he is
thinking o f final salvation.182
As a whole, Paul urges Timothy to be perseverant in both his character and his
teachings so that he might become the channel o f leading the congregation to fulfill their
roles with perseverance resulted in eternal salvation. This is an example o f fulfilling a
certain role in order to be saved and save those who do the same.
Likewise, it is likely that in 1 Tim 2:15 Paul exhorts the Ephesian women to
fulfill their roles o f childbearing accompanied with faith, love, and holiness with modesty,
and they will be saved ultimately. It is because they do what God wants them to do on
earth. Childbearing is their most significant and honorable role assigned by the Creator.
Certainly, fulfilling the role is the expression o f their genuine faith in Christ. It is not
human efforts to earn eternal salvation. This harmonizes with Paul’s teachings o f
working out the inward faith by being perseverance in God’s truth and Jesus’ teaching o f
true disciples obeying and standing firm on G od’s words unto the end
In summary, every Christian should fulfill his/her role assigned by God during
his/her sojourn on earth, and what he/she has done will be accountable to God before the
judgment seat o f Christ. This will be held on the day o f the consummation o f the eternal
salvation. On that day, faithful believers will receive not only eternal salvation, but also
honor, glory and rewards. The unfaithful still w ill have eternal salvation but as through
the fire, namely, all the labor in vain (1 Cor 3:12-15). In the light o f the above study the
meaning o f the verb ooSCw in 1 Tim 2:15 most likely refers to the consummation o f
eternal salvation in Christ’s return. In other words, Christian women will be saved
(ultimately and completely) by means o f fulfilling the roles o f childbearing (in general)
182 See Lenski, P a u l’s Epistles to Timothy, 650.
322
accompanied with good virtues. Nevertheless, why has Paul chosen childbearing to be
the primary role o f women since not all women are married and bear children? The
following section will present a solution.
The M eaning o f veKvoyovCcc in 1 Tim 2:15
A t first glance, the interpretation o f 1 Tim 2:15 as “women will be saved
through fulfilling their role o f childbearing, if they remain in faith, love, and holiness
with modesty” is really awkward as some scholars suggest.183 The term te K v o y o tu a
occurs only here in the entire New Testament and rarely elsewhere. It means “the bearing
o f children” (BDAG 994; MM, 628). Its only biblical cognate is the verb TCKvoyovciv
occurred in 1 Tim 5:14, in which Paul exhorts young widows to marry, bear children, and
rule their household. According to some scholars’ study, the verb t e K v o y o v c lv
emphasizes the physical act o f bearing children rather than the children who are borne.184
Paul uses another term teKvotpoêQ to denote the meaning o f “bring up children” (1 Tim
5:10). This indicates that childbearing is different from marriage, the management o f the
household, bringing up children, or any other duties. Therefore, in 1 Tim 2:15 the term
183 See Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 146. This writer observes that the occurrences o f ocj(g)
with 6ta are found in 5 texts in the NT. The usage o f 6ia is “through/by means of.” The agent o f salvation
refers to Christ in three texts (John 3:17 “the world might be saved through Christ;” Rom 10:9 “he will be
saved through Christ;” Rom 5:9 “we will be saved through Christ”) and to the gospel in one text (1 Cor
15:2 “through the gospel you are saved”). 1 Tim 2:15 “women will be saved through childbearing”) is
really awkward to suggest that eternal salvation is obtained by fulfilling some roles (no matter what they
are). There is no parallel found in the Bible elsewhere.
184 See Andreas J. Kostenberger, “Ascertaining Women’s God-Ordained Roles: An

Interpretation o f 1 Timothy 2:15,” Bulletin fo r Biblical Research 7 (1997): 141; Howard Marshall, The
Pastoral Epistles, International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures o f the Old and New
Testaments, ed. J. A. Emerton, C. E. B. Cranfield, and G. N. Stanton (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999), 468;
Stanley E. Porter, “What Does It Mean to Be ‘Saved by Childbirth’ (1 Timothy 2.15)?” Journalfo r the
Study o f the N ew Testament 49 (1993): 96, n. 28; Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, 75; Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P.
Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, New American Commentary, ed. David S. Dockery, vol. 34 (Nashville:
Broadman, 1992), 102; Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 145; Ben Wiebe, “Two Texts on Women,” 61; Jerome
D. Quinn and William C. Wacker, First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Notes and
Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 232; Bailey, “Women in N ew Testament,” Anvil 11: 23.
323
x€Kvc>Yoina is unlikely a synecdoche or metaphor o f women’s domestic roles. In fact, Paul
encourages Christian women to bear children because this is their divine appointed role
according to the Creator’s design. If they fulfill this role accompanied with Christian
virtues, in the day o f the consummation o f salvation they will be saved with honor and
glory rather than only as through fire (1 Cor 3:13-15). They will be rewarded at the
judgment seat o f Christ. Though bearing children is only one o f the prim ary roles o f
women, it is the most honorable and significant one. Thus, Paul particularly exhorts
Christian women to accomplish such a role faithfully before Christ’s return.
Women will be ultimately saved by means o f bearing children, the most
honorable and exclusive role given by G od,185 and this must be accompanied with faith,
love, and holiness with modesty (1 Tim 2:15). The pursuit o f spiritual virtues is
1o z
demanded for all Christian deeds and services. Motherhood is no exception. The
significance o f childbearing (procreation) in early Judaism attests why Paul uses
childbearing as the primary God-given role for Christian women.
Childbearing is highly honored, applauded in Jewish society. The rabbis not
only try to encourage women to bear children, they also reward them. They deeply
believe that motherhood greatly influences and controls the destiny and future o f the
entire nation. Children are precious inheritance/blessing from God. They link procreation
and the messianic salvation together. The coming o f the Messiah is through childbearing
185 Eve (women) is the pinnacle o f God’s creation. She is not only Adam’s help on ruling over
the earth, but is the one who is assigned with the significant role o f procreation. It is only she can bear
children biologically. Adam (men) never has such privilege. In God’s salvific plan the Messiah is “her
seed, ” coming through her (women). How honorable such a role is!
186 Marshall states, “Perseverance in (and towards final) salvation in the proper role o f women:
‘She will be (finally) saved by fulfilling her domestic role (the bearing and nurture o f children).” See his
324
(“her seed” in Gen 3:15). Thus, childbearing is significantly affecting the fulfillment o f
the messianic salvation. Besides, some rabbis even teach that the M essiah will not come
until all the souls predestined by God in creation were bom unto the world, so
childbearing directly affects the timing o f the coming o f the Messiah. Therefore, the call
to childbearing is a necessary corollary to the messianic salvation. Bearing children has
become an honorable mission and gracious blessings endowed by God in women’s mind
(Gen 16:5; 21:6; 30:22; Exod 23:26; 1 Sam 2:1-7; Ps 113:9; 128:1-6; Bib. Ant. 50.1-2b
Gen. Rab. 26.4; 45.2-4; 71.1-2; Lev. Rab. 14.4; b. Ber. 59b; b. Yebam. 63b, 64a; b. Shab.
31a; b. Kidd. 41a; b. B. Bat. 9a; m. Sot. 3.4; m. Ned. 4.3).
In New Testament times childbearing was still the primary role o f women,
though it was not the only one. Barrenness was seen as disgrace and shame to married
women. When barren Elizabeth, Zechariah’s wife, conceived John the Baptist, she said
that God had shown her his favor and taken away her disgrace among the people (Luke
1:24-25). Mary, the physical mother o f Jesus, had great jo y and felt greatly blessed by
the Lord, even though she was a virgin engaged to Joseph and could anticipate her
difficult situations in future. H er song reflects that the anticipation o f the advent o f the
M essiah is already in her mind. Now she is the one who is going to give birth the
Messiah. There is no greater blessing and no more honorable mission than this one on
earth (Luke 1:46-55). That is why the angel Gabriel calls M ary “you who are highly
favored” (Luke 1:28) and Elizabeth exclaims “blessed are you among women” (Luke
1:42). Furthermore, Paul also exhorts young widows to remarry, bear children, and
manage their homes. Otherwise, they would spend their time on going about from house
to house, gossips and busybodies instead (1 Tim 5:11-13). Paul emphasizes the primary
325
and significant role o f childbearing again. He wants Christian women to walk on the right
track. Furthermore, if the view that the Messiah will not come until the amount o f souls
assigned by the Creator in creation are bom is advocated by Judaism, the issue o f
childbearing is still very crucial and important among Jewish Christians as they anticipate
Christ’s second coming. Since procreation is still going on after Christ’s first coming.
It is very difficult for m odem readers to interpret 1 Tim 2:15 from the above
perspective because w om en’s role o f childbearing is always denigrated and even
abandoned in modem societies. Apparently few people would see childbearing as a
greatly honorable and applauded achievement. Contrariwise, menstruation is seen as
Eve’s curse and so is childbearing. Motherhood is seen as a common and unpaid job o f
1 87
common women by women themselves. In particular when women are generally as
well educated as men, it is even more difficult for them to accept the roles o f bearing and
raising children. Perhaps that is why modem readers wonder w hy Paul mentions
childbearing as representative o f all women’s roles in 1 Tim 2:15.
The Function o f 1 Tim 2:15
Some scholars suggest that Paul uses 1 Tim 2:15 to argue against the false
teachers who are downplaying the importance o f marriage (1 Tim 4:3). This will
187 See Dorothy Patterson, “The High Calling o f Wife and Mother in Biblical Perspective,” in
Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper, and
Wayne Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway, 1991), 365-66. This writer has been working among women in
different churches for many years. She observes that many stay-at-home mothers have a lower self-esteem
than those who have a job in the society. The former regard their unpaid job at home is not as contributive
as that o f working mothers who get paid monthly and become more independent. The thrust is that they do
not receive explicit and adequate recognition or appreciation from their spouses and friends as well as the
modem society.
326
probably denigrate the role o f childbearing.188 Some think that Paul tries to combat a part
o f the Ephesian heresy, some forms o f Gnosticism, that deprecates distinctions between
male and female.189 These views are likely to be correct. Nevertheless, the immediate
context (vv. 8-14), the disruptions caused by the Ephesian men and women, and the flow
o f chapter 2 (vv. 1-7), in particular the urge o f praying and living a peaceable and godly
life (v. 2) show that Paul here is still dealing with the disruption o f the Ephesian church.
The disruption o f the Ephesian women is likely caused by the bad influence o f the false
teachers and the heresy. Thus, here Paul aims at redirecting the Ephesian women back to
the right path on the one hand, and combating the Ephesian heresy on the other hand.
The relationship between 1 Tim 2:15 to the entire section o f 1 Tim 2:8-14
should be given better attention. Paul exhorts men to pray without dispute and anger but
with holiness. Likewise, women should dress up with modest clothing and adorn
themselves with good deeds and godliness. He further commands woman to learn in
quietness and with all submission.190 Then, he prohibits woman from teaching or
domineering over (or controlling) man. If woman still needed to learn, surely she was
incompetent to teach. Moreover, no one should domineer over (or control) others even if
he is a church leader (1 Pet 5:2-3).
188 See Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 146; Fee, 1 and 2 Timoth, 74-5; Scholer, “1 Timothy 2:9—
15,” 197-8; Gritz, Paul, Women Teachers, 143.
189 See David R. Kimberley, “1 Tim 2:15: A Possible Understanding o f a Difficult Text,”
Journal o f the Evangelical Theological Society 35 (December 1992): 484—86; Bruce Barron, “Putting
Women in Their Place: 1 Timothy 2 and Evangelical Views o f Women in Church Leadership,” Journal o f
Evangelical Theological Society 33 (December 1990): 456-57.
190 Certainly, learning God’s word is a crux for developing inward beauty and godliness o f the
character o f the person. Paul teaches, “Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the
renewal o f your mind, that you may prove what is the will o f God, what is good and acceptable and
perfect” (Rom 12:2). Only God’s word can transform and renew a person’s mind according to the will o f
God.
327
Contextually, Paul’s instructions here reflect some o f the problems the
Ephesian women had. Some o f them did not behave well and brought disruption to the
church. Perhaps they did not know well about their roles since there were different kinds
o f false teachings influencing the society. Thus, at the end o f his confrontation Paul
particularly instructs and exhorts the Ephesian women to aim at the right goal o f their
lives. Childbearing is the most honorable and significant role that God has assigned
women to fulfill. I f Christian women accomplish this exclusive role with faith, love, and
holiness with modesty, they will be saved in the day o f the consummation o f salvation.
They will receive all the blessings o f the consummation o f salvation, including glory,
honor and rewards promised by Christ. Paul adds the formula “Faithful is the saying”
(3:1a) right after his instruction o f women’s role o f childbearing in order to emphasize
and strengthen the significance o f the statement he has just presented.
Paul’s Faithful Saying: 1 Tim 2:15-3:la
The formula ttiotoc o Xoyoc, “faithful is the saying” occurs five times in the
Pastoral Epistles. It can refer forward to what the writer is going to present or backward
to what he has just stated. Interestingly, the themes o f four out o f the five occurrences o f
the faithful sayings are concerning salvation.191 The first occurrence (a forward reference)
is about the purpose o f the coming o f Christ Jesus into the world, which is to save sinners
(1 Tim 1:15). The second occurrence (1 Tim 4:9) is a backward reference. The saying is
verse 8. It talks about godliness is o f value for the present life and also for the life to
191 See Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 28.
328
10^
come. Knight agrees with Guthrie’s view and argues well for this view. Marshall
believes that verse 10 is a personal statement, not a doctrinal statement. Thus, it is
unlikely to be the saying.193 The third occurrence (a forward reference) is that the
promise o f salvation demands perseverance but endures temporary unfaithfulness (2 Tim
2:11-13). The fourth occurrence (a backward reference) is about believers being saved
by God’s m ercy and justisfied by his grace (Titus 3:3—8).194
I f the statement o f 1 Tim 2:15 is the backward reference o f the formula ttiotoc
o XoyoQ “faithful is the saying” in 1 Tim 3:1a, then five faithful sayings are coincidently
related to the topic o f salvation. Therefore, it is significant and worthy to have further
discussion o f the meaning and function o f the formula.
The Formula TlLarbt; o Aoyot;
Regarding the meaning and the function o f the formula ttiotoc o Xoyoq,
J. Garrow Duncan suggests that the saying introduced forward or backward by the phrase
ttiotoc o Xoyoc is simply “a current expression o f the time,” rather than a quotation, since
none o f the sayings in the Pastoral Epistles can be accurately located. These sayings
could be “the w riter’s own faith and experience expressed in the language familiar to the
192 The main arguments for this view are: verse 10 is more theologically weighty than verse 8
and would be adapted for current catechetical purposes; verse 8 sounds and looks more like a proverbial
saying than verse 10; verse 8 has one hapax legomenon (yi>|ivaaia) and one word (oco|xatiKr|) not found
elsewhere in Pauline writings; the form o f verse 8 is more stereotyped and its application is wider than that
o f verse 10; the sense o f verse 10 and its introductory phrase elc t o u t o yap are best understood as referring
back to the thought presented in verse 8; the conjunction joins verse 10 to verse 8 showing that this verse
functions as a confirmation or a reason o f the thought that godliness is profitable for all things, having a
promise o f this and the coming life; the word “to labor” in verse 10 picks up the thought o f “exercise” in
verse 8 and the word t o u t o refers to the entire complex in view. See George W. Knight, The Faithful
Sayings in the Pastoral Letters (Kampen: Kok, 1968), 62-79 for details.
193 See Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 554. Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 101, has similar view.
194 See J. Garrow Duncan, “ttio to c o 7oyo<;,” Expository Times 35 (October 1923): 141.
329
brotherhood.” The phrase triotog o Xoyot; is used simply as a method to call attention to
or to stress the truth the writer states.195
Knight has made a good study on the words o Aoyoc in the New Testament.
He suggests that it usually means the truth o f God, the special saying, on the one hand,
referring to the oral form (Acts 11:22; 1 Cor 2:4; 2 Cor 10:10; 2 Thess 2 :2 ,1 5 ).196 On the
other hand, the saying (o A.6yoc) also refers to the written form (Acts 1:1; 2 Thess 3:14;
Heb 13:22). He concludes that only the contextual evidence can decide whether the
formula ttlotoc o A.oyo<; is in reference to the oral or written form. The formula can be a
citation or an emphasis, namely, “a combined citation-emphasis formula.” 197
Knight’s study is very significant to understanding the formula ttiotoc o loyoQ .
However, the texts he listed above apparently indicate that the word o loyoq primarily
refers to the saying in oral form. Whenever it refers to the saying in written form, it has a
further description after the word o Abyoc (All these oral words are described as having
been completed in written form, for instance: in Acts 1:1b “I composed” (eTToir|oa|j.T)v);
2 Thess 3:14 “in this letter” (6 La t f\Q 6TuaToA.fjc); Heb 13:22 “for I have written to you
briefly” (yap 5ta Ppa/emu eireoT6iA,a up.lv)). Conclusively, the formula more likely refers
to an oral saying than a saying in written form in Paul’s times. Perhaps that is why none
o f the faithful sayings in the Pastoral Epistles can be accurately located.
195 Ibid. Cf. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 48—49; Knight, Faithful Sayings, 52-55; Dibelius and
Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 29, 150.
196 See Knight, Faithful Sayings, 14-16. Knight, according to his own translation, does not
cite the whole content o f the texts in his book. The citations follow the translation o f NASB and are added
with Greek in parentheses in order to make the distinction between the words in oral form and in written
form.
197 See Knight, Faithful Sayings, 18-19.
330
1 Timothy 3:1a: A Backward Reference
The first problem in 1 Tim 3:1a is the variant dvSpomvot; o (“it is a

1QO
human saying,” that is, “a popular or common saying”) found in some Western texts.
Knight suggests that both the external evidence and the internal evidence indicate the first
reading is correct.199 The second problem o f the text is whether the formula ttiot6 c o
Xoyoq refers to what precedes or to what follows. Knight advocates that it is a forward-
reference to 3:1b. The formula in 3:1a is to introduce the new subject matter on
leadership in chapter 3, whereas the saying200 in 3:1b is to underline the value o f the work
o f the office o f the overseer (or the bishop). Without 3:1a, 3:1b appears to be an abrupt
start. Furthermore, the term ouv in 3:2 referring to 3:1 supports this view.201
Nonetheless, Duncan believes that 1 Tim 3:1a is a backward reference to what
precedes it, because all o f the other four faithful sayings are dealing with eternal life or
salvation. Here 1 Tim 2:13-15 matches the features o f these faithful sayings.202
198 Barbara and Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, and Carlo M. Martini, eds., Nestle-
Aland: Novum Testament Graece, vol. 27 (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993), 544, lists out D* b
g m; Ambst (Ambrosiaster, 366-384) Spec (Speculum, Pseudo-Augustinus, V). Also see Bruce M. Metzger,
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (London: United Bible Societies, 1994), 572.
199 See Knight, Faithful Sayings, 50-51; Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 572-73 for details.
200 Kelly thinks that 3:1 b has all the fashion o f a proverbial saying, whereas 2:15 and what
precedes is by no means to be seen as a maxim; see his Pastoral Epistles, 51.
201 See Knight, Faithful Sayings, 52. Other advocates o f a similar view include: Anthony
Tyrrell Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles, New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982),
74-75; and Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 167.
202 See Duncan, “t t i o t o i ; o Xoyoc,,” 141. Other advocates with different explanations are:
Robert Falconer, “1 Timothy 2:14, 15. Interpretative Notes,” Journal o f Biblical Literature 60 (1941): 3 7 7 -
78; Walter Lock, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, International Critical
Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1966), 32-33; Joan M. Holmes, Text in a Whirlwind: A Critique
o f Four Exegetical Devices at 1 Timothy 2.9-15, Studies in New Testament Greek, Journal for the Study o f
the New Testament Supplement Series 196, ed. Stanley E. Porter (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000),
273; Hilde Huizenga, “Women, Salvation, and the Birth o f Christ: A Reexamination o f 1 Timothy 2:15,”
Studia biblica et theologia 12 (April 1982): 26; Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 44.
331
On the basis o f the arguments o f these two views, this writer prefers the view
that the “faithful saying” formula in 3:1a is more likely referring to the preceding
statement o f 2:15. First, apparently most o f the faithful sayings in the Pastoral Epistles
are dealing with the issue o f salvation or eternal life. It is awkward to particularly
emphasize or call attention to the significance o f church administration and the
qualifications for bishops and deacons. Second, many scholars think that 3:1b is awkward
to be called a saying.203 In fact it is more likely to be a common saying o f the Hellenistic
world rather than specifically Christian or religious. It is likely the reason why the scribes
substitute duGpomvoc for ttiotoc in order to link the formula with 3:1b. Regarding the
variant reading dvSpomvoc o Xoyoc, Bruce M. M etzger has the following comment:
In any case, the Committee was impressed by the overwhelming weight and variety
o f witnesses that support ttiotoc, and thought it improbable that ttiotoc was
introduced as a substitute for dvGpomvoc by copyists who recalled the expression
ttiotoc o loyoc at 4.9; 2 Tim 2.11; and Tit 3.8, where the text is firm. In Titus the
words cannot be a formula introducing a quotation, but must be taken as a formula
o f asseveration, relating to what precedes. On the present passage, likewise, ttiotoc
must be taken with 2.15.204
R. Alastair Campbell thinks 3:1b is too obscure to be the saying that 3:1a
refers forward to, because “nothing within it readily strikes one as a likely aphorism.”205
It does not show the features o f “catechetical maxims” about faith and godly living.206
203 See Knight, Faithful Sayings, 51; C. K. Barrett, The Pastoral Epistles: in the New English
Bible with Introduction and Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), 57, n. 1; R. A. Campbell,
“Identifying the Faithful Sayings in the Pastoral Epistles,” Journal fo r the Study o f the New Testament 54
(June 1994): 73-86.
204 See Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 573.
205 See R. Alastair Campbell, “Identifying the Faithful Sayings,” 74, 80-81.
206 Ibid., 85, Campbell compares the faithful sayings in the Pastoral Epistles with those words
o f the wise in Eccl 12:11 (RSV): “The sayings o f the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly fixed are the
collected sayings which are given by one Shepherd.”
332
In the light o f the above discussion this writer takes 1 Tim 2:15 to be the
faithful saying, a backward reference o f the formula iuotoc o A.oyo<; in 3:1a. This faithful
saying could be simply a current oral (not written) tradition or expression in Paul’s times.
In fact, none o f the faithful sayings in the Pastoral Epistles can be accurately located. The
saying also could be Paul’s own faith and experience expressed in the language familiar
to the audience. Paul simply uses the formula ttiotoc o A.6yoc to affirm and to call
attention to the truth he has just stated in 1 Tim 2:15.
The Shift in Number o f the Verbs in 1 Tim 2:15
There is still an unresolved problem— the shift in number o f the verbs in
1 Tim 2:15. Mounce is o f the opinion that at first glance the shift is puzzling and the
grammar o f the argument is complex. However, it will make good sense if one notices
the logic o f Paul’s argument. Paul is shifting back and forth between the Ephesian
women and Eve throughout the paragraph. He begins the paragraph by instructing the
Ephesian men and women (in plural number) how to pray (w . 8-10). Then he states a
general principle, shifting into the singular for woman and man (w . 11-12). In order to
support this principle biblically, he shifts to discussing the singular Adam and Eve
(w . 13-14). Finally he shifts back to the present tense in stating the necessary
qualification (v. 15) in order to avoid any misunderstanding o f his last statement. This
last shift has two steps. In verse 15a Paul talks about the singular Eve, using awGqaeiou
(future tense, from the time perspectively o f Eve) to represent Eve and the Ephesian
women. Then he shifts to the clause kav peivcoaiv (the plural, present tense) to clarify this
idea. Here Paul is moving from human creation (Gen 2:4-25) to Eve’s and Adam ’s
transgression (Gen 3:1-7) and finally to their promised salvation (Gen 3:15). He is
333
'jf y j
making “an analogy or typological connection between Eve and the Ephesian women.”
However, if there is an analogy or typological connection between Eve and the Ephesian
women, then it will imply that the Ephesian women, as Eve, are more vulnerable to deceit.
The likelihood that the negative example o f Eve’s deception is used to warn both men
and women against false teaching in 2 Cor 11:3 shows this view questionable.
On the basis o f the above discussion this writer suggests that the flow o f the
entire section (w . 8-15) is from a general instruction concerning the disruptions o f both
men and women as a whole (both man and woman presented in plural number; in present
tense; w . 8-10), moving to a particular instruction concerning some wom en’s disruption
(both man and woman presented in generic singular; in present tense; w . 11-12). Then,
Paul uses the historical example o f Adam and Eve to further explain his instructions in
order to remind both men and women o f their roles and their inadequacies (in singular; in
aorist tense; w . 13-14). Nonetheless, the fact more disruptions are caused by women
(w . 8-12 inside the church; 5:6,11-13 outside the church) shows that these women were
out o f the right path, going astray from G od’s word. Therefore, Paul ends up with a
further instruction to redirect them back to accomplishing the divinely assigned role that
demonstrates their genuine salvific faith, a goal on earth that will ultimately lead them
unto eternal blessings (from “she” denoting woman in generic singular to “they” denoting
women in plural; in future tense; v. 15 and this showing the collective force o f the
singular).
It is likely that the shift from Eua (“Eve”) to f) yi)vrj (“the woman”) in verse
14 is intended to connect back to yuvaiKac (“the women”) in verses 9-12 and also to
334
908 •
prepare for a general reference to women in verse 15. The last statement concerning
the transgression o f the woman in verse 14 also provides the setting o f wom en’s spiritual
salvation in verse 15. Although the verb oco0f|aeToa indicates the connection with the
previous f] yw n in verse 14, the use o f future tense implies that the subject here in
verse 15 is no more Eve but Christian women. Paul is not talking about Eve’s
salvation.209 Eve was already dead long time ago.
Furthermore, the recurrence o f the term oooc|)poouvr)c; (“modesty”) that is
previously used to describe women in verse 9 also links up the idea o f Christian women
as the subjects o f the verbs in verse 15. According to M arshall’s study, the meaning o f
the oGocfjpov word-group mainly describes “a balanced demeanour characterised by self-
control, prudence and good judgem ent.”210 In the Pastoral Epistles Paul uses the word-
group ten times out o f sixteen occurrences in the New Testament (awcj)poauvr|<; 1 Tim 2:9,
15; oGocJjpQv 1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:8; 2:2, 5; oco^povea) Titus 2:6; owcJjpoviCco Titus 2:4;
owcjjpoviaiiog 2 Tim 1:7; owcfjpovuc Titus 2:12).211 Marshall points out that in Classical
Greek the term awc|>poauvn<; is related to and has the sense o f “intellectually sound, free
from illusion, purposeful, self-controlled, with prudent reserve, modest, decorous.”212
In the light o f funerary inscriptions the term ooxfjpoouvric applied to women refers to
208 See Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 464. Since Eve is denoted by the term “woman” before
and after the first transgression (Gen 2:18-3:19), one may explain that Paul here merely follows the
accounts o f Genesis using “the woman,” rather than using the name “Eve.” However, Paul previously
mentions E m and not f) yuvri in verse 13. It likely implies that Paul here intentionally changes “Eve” to
“the woman” in order to prepare for his direct address to women in verse 15.
209 See Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, 75. Knight has counter argument; see his Pastoral Epistles, 146.
211 Ibid., 182.
212 Ibid., 182-3; see Plato, Rep. 4 2 7 - 434; cf. Aristotle, Rhet. 1.9.
335
“chastity, self-control, and purity, not giving in to passion.” Marshall believes that the
word-group has no Hebrew equivalent and is only found in Greek texts (4 Macc 1.6,18;
5.23; 15.10; Wis 8.7, and so on).214 He concludes that the term in 1 Tim 2:15 as in verse 9
emphasizes the self-control o f Christian women expressed in behavior that is chaste.215
Nevertheless, this writer observes that though the awcjtpov word-group might
apply to both men and women in the New Testament and the Hellenistic world, as a
whole the term ou^pooijyTic seems to be applied to women in particular (1 Tim 2:9, 15;
Cicero, deFin. 2; Philo, Spec. leg. 1.102; 3.51; Josephus, Ant. 18.66-80).216 Moreover, in
Judaism some rabbis explain that God particularly took one o f A dam ’s ribs (that is
assumed to be the modest part o f Adam) in order to form a modest woman, Eve:
R. Joshua o f Siknin said in R. Levi’s name: W AYYIBEN is written, signifying that

He considered well (hithbonnen) from what part to create her. Said He: ‘I will not
create her from [Adam’s] head, lest she be swelled-head; nor from the eye, lest
she be a conquette; nor from the ear, lest she be an eavesdropper; nor from the
mouth, lest she be a gossip; nor from the heart, lest she be prone to jealousy; nor
from the hand, lest she be light-fingered; nor from the foot, lest she be a gadabout;
but from the modest part o f man, for even when he stands naked, that part is
covered.’ And as He created each limb He ordered her, ‘Be a modest woman.’
(Gen. Rab. 18.2; parallel at 80.5).218
In summary, the term ooocjtpoauvnc is used to describe women’s character in particular not
only in the Jewish world, but also in the Hellenistic world. The fact that Paul uses the
213 Ibid., 182-3,183, n. 94; see Cicero, deFin. 2; Philo, Spec. leg. 1.102; 3.51; Josephus, Ant.
18.66-80.
214 Ibid., 183.
215 Ibid., 471.
216 Dibelius and Conzelmann are o f the opinion that the term is frequently mentioned as a
woman virtue having aspecial nuance that is almost equivalent to chastity; see their Pastoral Epistles, 46.
217 Gen. Rab. 80.5 has “light-headed,” i.e., frivolous.
218 See H. Freedman and Maurice Simon, eds., Genesis, The Midrash Rabbah: Translated into
English with Notes, Glossary and Indices, vol. 1 (London: Soncino, 1977), 141-42, and 738 respectively.
336
term here in 1 Tim 2:15 might indicate that he is intentionally referring to women, though
he does not explicitly state it.
Undeniably, the shift in number o f the verbs within one statement is rare,
since the shifts that Paul makes above (w . 8-12) and elsewhere (1 Tim 3:1b and 3:2; 3:8
and 3:11-12; 5:1a and 5:2; 5:3 and 5:4; 5:9 and 5:11; 5:17 and 5:19; Titus 1:5, 6-9) occur
in nouns rather than in verbs. However, in 1 Cor 9:25 Paul makes a similar shift in
number o f the verbs, also from singular to plural, in one statement:
tt&g 5e o aY(avLC6(i€Voc udvxa cyKPcaeueim. eKeivoi pev ouv tva cj)0apt6v

ot4(jiavov Attpomv. fipeig 5e a<J)0apTov.
Every athlete exercises self-control in all things, they do that in order that they
might receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
Likewise, in 1 Tim 2:15 the subject o f the singular verb ocoOpoeiai might simply refer to
“a woman” or “any woman” in a generic sense, whereas the subject o f the plural verb
peivwoiv might refer to women in general. Paul does not use “every woman” as he uses
“every athlete” in 1 Cor 9:25, because not every woman will or can bear children. In
addition, since only women can bear children, the subjects o f the two verbs should be
identified as women. In sum, verse 15 is Paul’s further instruction for the Ephesian
women, that aims at helping, guiding, and encouraging them back to the right track o f
their life goals.
Summary on 1 Tim 2:8-15
As a whole, Paul is dealing with the disruption o f men and women in the
Ephesian church in 1 Tim 2:8-15. This section can be divided into three parts. First, Paul
instructs the Ephesian men and women to get along with each other with harmony and
modesty. No anger and dispute but good deeds exist among them (w . 8-10). Second,
337
Paul particularly tackles some serious problems o f some women in the congregation.219
Their misconduct includes not learning in quietness and in submission and attempting to
teach and even to domineer over (or control) men (w . 11-12). Third, Paul makes an
explanation (or an addition), by pinpointing the different roles o f Adam and Eve in the
divine creation (v. 13) and their failures in the fall (v. 14), in order to remind the
congregation o f the inadequacies o f both sexes. His purpose is to exhort them to respect
one another with humility and to get along in harmony.
In order to settle the disruption (mostly caused by women) in the congregation,
Paul particularly instructs the Ephesian women o f the most significant and honorable role
o f childbearing appointed by God right at the beginning o f creation throughout all ages. If
they fulfill their divinely assigned goal accompanied with good Christian virtues on earth,
they will be ultimately saved in the second coming o f Christ Jesus (v. 15). That is the
consummation o f salvation o f all believers, and the day o f glory, honor, and reward
promised in Christ (Matt 10:22; 24:13; Mark 13:13; Rom 8:18-25; 1 Cor 3:11-15; 2 Tim
4:18). At the end Paul adds the formula ttiotoc o loyoq (3:1a) to reinforce the
significance o f his last instruction (v. 15).
This writer paraphrases the text 1 Tim 2 :8 -3 :1a as follows:
Therefore, I want men to pray, in every place, lifting holy hands without anger and
dispute; likewise, I want women [to pray with holy hands and without anger and
dispute], and to adorn themselves in seemly apparel, with decency and modesty, not
with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire, but by good deeds that are
appropriate for women who are claimed to be godly. (2:8-10)
Let woman learn in quietness with submission in all things; I do not permit woman
to teach or to domineer over man, but to be in quietness. (2:11-12)
219 This writer advocates that the issues o f the office o f teaching and exercising authority is
not the focus o f Paul’s instructions in 1 Tim 2:11-12.
338
For Adam was formed first, then Eve [was formed after and for him]; and Adam
was not deceived, but the woman, being deceived, fell into transgression. (2:13-14)
But she (any Christian woman) will be saved through childbearing, if they
(Christian women) remain in faith and love and holiness, with modesty; the saying
is faithful. (2:15-3:1 a)
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
The reconsideration of the text in the light of views concerning Eve and
childbirth in early Judaism removes some wrong assumptions of Jewish views on Eve
and childbirth. As a whole, this study provides some answers to the unsolved
problems of 1 Tim 2:13-15. It vindicates that Paul is not a misogynist. He is
consistent with his teachings.
Paul Is Not a Misogynist
1 Tim 2:13-14 is misunderstood, so is Paul seen as a misogynist, because
of three primary causes. First, some scholars wrongly assume Jewish views on Eve
(and women) and her deception are only negative. Second, personal convictions and
cultural presumptions of women’s secondary status and role negatively affect the
comprehension of Paul’s meaning. Third, the incomplete study of the meaning of the
phrase rms nri? (“a help corresponding to him”) in Gen 2:18 undermines the
significance of women’s role in the divine creation.
The above study significantly shows that the rabbis in Paul’s times actually
have more negative views on Adam than on Eve. The authors of the Dead Sea Scroll,
2 Baruch, and 4 Ezra almost blame Adam alone for the first transgression. Some
rabbis emphasize the significance of women’s roles play in men’s life as designed by
the Creator (Tobit 8.6; Jub. 3.4; Ant. 1.35, 38; Tg. Onq. Gen 2:18; Tg. Ps.-J. Gen
2.18). Some hold the relationship between men and women as interdependent and
339
340
complementaiy to one another (Tobit 8.6-7; Sib. Or. 1. 31-37, 54-58; Gen. Rab. 8.9;
22.2). Their views parallel Paul’s teachings in Rom 5:12 and 1 Cor 11:11
respectively.
In 1 Tim 2:13 Paul has used the predicate adjective TTptuxoi; instead of the
neuter adverb Ttpotov after ’ASap and before the verb errlaa9r|. This significantly
indicates that Paul here does not talk about the creation order theory. He simply
follows and briefly retells the Genesis account of the creation of Adam and Eve. Since
Eve was formed for Adam to be his help (Gen 2:18), not the reverse, Adam was
naturally assumed to be the leader within the team. The Creator chose Adam (men) to
be leader according to his design in creation. Adam has no merits for such a role.
God’s election does not ground in the order of one’s birth but his sovereign plan
(Rom 9:10-15). Apparently, Paul and the rabbis have the same understanding of
Adam’s role on the basis o f God’s revelation in the Book of Genesis.
Though the authors of Life ofAdam and Eve uniquely add Eve’s second
deception by Satan after the expulsion, they, as other Jewish writers before and in
Paul’s times, do not teach that women are more vulnerable to deceit. Only Philo takes
both Eve and all women (as the outward senses) to be less understanding and more
vulnerable to deceit. He takes Eve’s existence to be Adam’s disaster. Nonetheless,
according to the Scripture, the creation of Eve is seen as “very good” (Gen 1:31) and
she is “a help” (a term used to describe the help from God to the needy) to make
Adam complete and perfect (Gen 2:18). The rabbis in the mainstream of early
Judaism agree with the teaching of the Hebrew Bible (Tobit 8.9; Gen Rab. 8.9; 22.2).
In the light of Paul’s teachings and practices in the New Testament, he
does not denigrate women. On the contrary, he honors women, just as he does men, as
Christ’s servants. He applauds female co-workers in prominent positions of service in
341
the church, such as Phoebe, Priscilla, Mary, Junia, Euodia, and Syntyche (Rom
16:1-7; Phil 4:2-3).' He has no partiality concerning men and women. He employs
women in the ministry of the gospel (Rom 16:1-3; Phil 4:3; 1 Tim 3:11; 5:9, 10), and
emphasizes that there is neither male nor female, but perfect equality in Christ (Gal
3 :28). His teachings on husbands (men) and wives (women) show that he bestows
upon women the full honor (1 Cor 7:4; 11:7, 11, 14; Eph 5:25-33).2
When Paul mentions Eve’s deception in 1 Tim 2:14, he does not imply that
women are more vulnerable to deceit than men, but simply retells the incident (Eve’s
confession in Gen 3 :13) to warn the Ephesian women against the false teachers. He
also uses the example of Eve’s deception by the serpent to warn the Corinthian men
and women of false teachers and their teachings (2 Cor 11:3). This shows he has no
prejudice against women. Actually, Paul does not exonerate Adam’s sin at all. He
mentions Adam’s problem first, emphasizing his deliberate sin in verse 14. Scholars
in general overlook the statement ’ASocp o u k f|uatf|0r| (“Adam was not deceived”).
Instead, they primarily focus on Eve’s deception. As a result, they mistakenly assume
Paul has followed the Jewish negative views on Eve (women) and Eve’s deception.
The view of role reversal of Adam and Eve in the first transgression is not
attested in early Judaism. Even Philo who greatly despises and denigrates Eve and
women does not teach this. It is true that some rabbis blame Eve of bringing death to
Adam. They also blame Adam o f wrongly listening to Eve. However, they do not
explicitly teach that Eve overtook Adam’s leadership in the temptation. Strikingly, it
is some modem scholars who suggest the view of role reversal of the first couple in
1 See Keener, Paul, Women and Wives, 237—43 for details. Also see Evelyn and Frank
Stagg, Woman in the World o f Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978),180-82; Kenneth E. Bailey,
“Women in the New Testament: A Middle Eastern Cultural View,” Anvil 11 (1994): 9-15.
2 See William Hendriksen, / - / / Timothy and Titus, New Testament Commentary (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1957), 113-4 for details.
342
the first transgression, though the Hebrew Bible does not say so. They see Eve’s
response to the serpent as an act of overtaking Adam’s leadership, because they think
Eve’s role is to be silent, like a servant before the master, in all circumstances. Only
Adam alone can take initiation or make decision under any situations. This indicates
how they interpret and change the meaning of eijoima (“authority”) into a kind of
dictatorship that contradicts Jesus’ teachings of being leaders (Matt 20:27; Mark 9:35;
10:44) and that of Peter (1 Pet 5:2-3). Such a view ignores the meaning of n a s iru in
Gen 2:18. This is another example of wrong assumption that has been brought into the
interpretation of 1 Tim 2:13-14.
To this writer, the present text is Paul’s further explanation, the example of
Adam and Eve, to remind both men and women of their different roles (v. 13) and
their personal inadequacies (v. 14). He tries to exhort them to treat the opposite sex
with respect and humility, without negative competition, disputes, and angers among
them (1 Tim 2:8-10). In other words, Paul’s statement in 1 Tim 2:13-14 is not the
reason for his antecedent prohibition (v. 12).
In fact, the prohibition in 1 Tim 2:12 is Paul’s correction of the disruption
caused by some Ephesian women, who were bad learners (or who were misled by the
false teachers), trying to teach (or to spread the false teachings) or even to domineer
over men. The choice of the rare term auGevxeco (not the term &;ouaiaCco) indicates that
here Paul is not talking about the issue of church authority or leadership. He simply
points out these women’s misconduct that might incur angers and disputes in church.
No one should be allowed to teach when he/she is incompetent and acting
inappropriately. Neither should anyone be permitted to domineer over others in
church. Contextually, the relationship between Adam and Eve in creation is stated in
343
verse 13. Adam’s male leadership was the Creator’s sovereign election in creation.
However, Eve’s role as Adam’s help should not be underestimated.4 Eve was not
Adam’s subordinate, but a helper who was appointed by God to make him complete
and perfect, so as are women to men. Men and women are interdependent upon and
complementary to one another (1 Cor 11:11; Gen. Rab. 8.9; 22.2; cf. Tobit 8.6). Such
a view indicates how Paul understands the meaning o f Gen 2:18. Male leadership in
Christianity is grounded in such a relationship between men and women and carried
out by love and respect.5 Conclusively, Paul is not a misogynist.
Paul Is Consistent
The study of views concerning childbirth in early Judaism explains well
why Paul uses childbearing as representative of women’s roles in 1 Tim 2:15.
As a whole, childbearing is not Eve’s curse.6 The promise of salvation by “the seed”
of the woman for all humanity announced in Gen 3:15 after the first transgression
indicates the significance of women’s role of childbearing. The line of the promised
seed progressively traced in the entire Bible shows God’s salvific plan by means of
3 Paul says, “Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad in order
that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by Him who calls—she was told, ‘The
older will serve the younger.’ . . . What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For He says to
Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have
compassion’” (Rom 9:11-15). God is sovereign to select men to be the leader, for he exclusively
entrusts women to take up the responsibility of childbearing, which men are incapable of doing. Thus,
God’s selection is according to his design of his creation right from the beginning. Christian women
should respect and obey his sovereignty.
4 Such an idea of male leadership is completely different from that of the Greco-Roman
world in Paul’s contemporaries.
5 Concerning leadership, Jesus clearly teaches that “Instead, whoever wants to become
great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave o f all. For even the
Son o f Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many” (Mark
10:43-45). Here humble service and sacrificial love are two requirements of spiritual leadership
emphasized by Christ. Peter reminds church leaders (the elders) to not lord over others but be examples
to them (1 Pet 5:1-3).
6 Childbearing is hardly seen as Eve’s curse for Gen 1:28 clearly states, “God blessed
them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth .. After the first
transgression only the serpent and the earth were cursed (Gen 3:14, 17), not Eve and Adam. The first
person cursed by God is Cain (Gen 4:11).
344
childbearing in human history. Childbirth is always seen as God’s favor and blessing
for women in the Hebrew Bible and non-canonical Jewish writings. Paul teaches that
in Christ all sinners, including women, are reconciled to God (Rom 5:10-11; Eph
2:16). He himself previously witnesses how God’s grace and mercy fell upon him, the
foremost of the sinners (1 Tim 1:15). Therefore, it is wrong to see childbearing as the
hallmark of God’s continuous displeasure at Christian women because o f Eve’s sin.
Such a view denigrates the efficacy of Christ’s work on the cross for all sinners.
The Ephesian women, as a whole, caused most of the disruptions in church.
They prayed with anger and caused disputes, and dressed up inappropriately. They
paid too much heed to their outward appearance, but overlooked the significance of
behaving like godly women as they claimed to be. Some of them did not learn in
quietness with all submission, but tried to teach regardless of their being incompetent.
Some even attempted to domineer over men. Thus, Paul further instructs and
encourages the Ephesian women to fulfill the role of childbearing, their divinely
appointed role on earth. This is a role no men can accomplish. It directly affects the
foundation of families and the future of societies. The meaning of the term teKvoyovaa
simply refers to the act of childbearing. It is not a synecdoche or metaphor of
women’s domestic roles. It could refer to women’s domestic or other roles in
application,7 but not in interpretation. The significant role of childbearing in fulfilling
God’s promises and his salvific plan in human history explains why Paul takes it to be
representative of women’s role on earth. Therefore, the instruction of childbearing in
verse 15a is not awkward.
7 Some Christian women are called by God to remain single, and some are barren. The
most important thing is that every Christian woman should faithfully accomplish her roles on earth
according to God’s particular plan assigned for her.
345
Nonetheless, the fulfillment of childbearing accompanied with good
virtues is merely an outworking o f true faith for the Christian women in Christ. As
mentioned above (see ch. 5), both Jesus and Paul clearly teach that true believers
manifest their salvific faith by obeying and standing firm on God’s word unto the end.
In the same epistle, Paul encourages Timothy to save himself and to save others
through holding fast God’s truth in teachings and in deeds with perseverance (1 Tim
4:16; cf. 1 Cor 7:16). The promise of salvation refers to the consummation of
salvation in the second coming o f Christ, in which faithful believers will receive glory,
honor, and rewards as promised in the Scripture. Thus, fulfilling a certain Christian
role in order to be saved is not awkward. Since Paul’s instruction is very significant to
direct women back to the right track, at the end he particularly adds the formula
t t l o t o i; o Aoyoi; (“the saying is faithful”) to draw their attention to i t .
Conclusively, the promise of ultimate salvation for Christian women who
faithfully accomplish the role of childbearing (1 Tim 2:15) does not violate the
doctrine of justification by faith. Paul is consistent with his teachings elsewhere and
that o f the New Testament.
Final W ords
Although in 1 Tim 2:8-15 Paul is dealing with the current disruptions of
men and women of the Ephesian church, his instructions are applicable to all churches
in all ages, just as his teachings on the universal salvation for all sinners (1 Tim
2:1-7). Although men and women play different roles in God’s design, their roles are
equally significant before him (Gen 2:18; Tobit 8.6). God’s will is that men and
women are interdependent upon and complementary to one another (1 Tim 2:13;
1 Cor 11:11—12; Gen. Rab. 8.9; 22.2). Thus, they should treat one another with
346
o
respect and harmony, rather than with negative competition and dispute (1 Tim
2:8—12).9 Both sexes have their own inadequacies (1 Tim 2:14), and they should be
truly humble before God and more open to opinions and help from the opposite sex.
Every believer should accomplish his/her Christian role on earth unto the end.
Christian women in particular should bravely embrace the divinely given role of
motherhood, seriously taking this role to be the most significant and honorable
mission from God (1 Tim 2:15), even though the secular world sees it the other way.
Since the interdependent and complementary relationship of men and
women is God’s design in creation, the most important thing Christian men and
women need to do is make a good partnership or an efficient team in the ministry of
the gospel. It is significant to reconsider the true meaning of male leadership (Mark
10:42-43a; 1 Pet 5:2-3; Eph 5:25, 28-29), the women’s role as a helper (Gen 2:18;
Tobit 8.6; cf. 1 Tim 2:13; 1 Cor 11:11; Gen. Rab. 8.9; 22.2), and how to serve Christ
according to the spiritual gifts imparted by the Holy Spirit in church (Romans 12;
1 Corinthians 12; Ephesians 4). The crux is the wisdom to balance these three main
components.
Finally, Christian men and women are exhorted to serve the Lord Jesus
Christ with love and submission (Eph 5:21), and to keep the unity o f the Holy Spirit
through the bond of peace (Eph 4:3). The battle between traditionalists and
egalitarians must stop. Instead, scholars of both parties should spend their time and
energy on amending (not defending) their views, objectively examining new options
for interpretations of the present text, and seriously exploring other areas related to it.
8 Men and women are equal before God in Christ (Gal 3:28).
9 This is the result of human sin (Gen 3:16b).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Aberbach, Moses, and Bernard Grossfeld. Targum Onkelos to Genesis: A Critical

Analysis Together with an English Translation o f the Text (Based on A.
Sperber’s Edition). Denver, CO: Ktav, 1982.
Aeschylus. Aeschylus. Loeb Classical Library. Ed. Herbert W. Smyth. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press, 1963.
Alexander Roberts, and James Donaldson, eds. Latin Christianity: Its Founder,
Tertullian: I. Apologetic; II. Anti-Marcion; III. Ethical. The Ante-Nicene
Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, vol.
3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957.
Aiken, Lisa. To Be a Jewish Woman. London: Jason Aronson, 1992.
Aland, Barbara, and Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, and Carlo M. Martini, eds.
Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 1993.
Albright, William Foxwell, and David Noel Freedman, eds. The Wisdom o f Ben Sira:
A New Translation with Notes by Patrick W. Skehan. Introduction and
Commentary by Alexander A. D i Leila. Anchor Bible, vol. 39. New York:
Doubleday, 1987.
Alexandriini, Eusebius. Sermones, V. MPG 86:309-50.
Anderson, Gary A., Michael E. Stone, and Johannes Tromp, eds. Literature on Adam
and Eve: Collected Essays. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Anderson, Gary A., and Michael E. Stone, eds. A Synopsis o f the Books o f Adam and
Eve. 2d rev. ed. Society o f Biblical Literature: Early Judaism and Its
Literature, ed. John C. Reeves, vol. 17. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1999.
Athanasius, “De Synodis Arimini in Italia et Seleuciae in Isauria.” In Athanasius

Werke. Ed. H. G. Opitz. Vol. 2.1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1940.
Baer, Richard A. Philo's Use o f the Categories Male and Female. Arbeiten zur
Literatur und Geschichte des Hellenistischen Judentums, ed. K. H.
Rengstorf. Leiden: Brill, 1970.
347
348
Balch, David L. Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter. Society of
Biblical Literature: Monograph Series, ed. James Crenshaw, no. 26. Chico,
CA: Scholars Press, 1981.
Barrett, C. K. The Pastoral Epistles: in the New English Bible with Introduction and
Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon, 1963.
Bartsch, Hans-Wemer. DieAnfange urchristlicher Rechtsbildungen: Studien zu den

Pastoralbriefen. Theologische Forschung: Wissenschaftliche Beitrage zur
Kirchlich-Evangelischen Lehre, ed. Hans-Wemer Bartsch, Herbert Braun
and Fritz Buri, vol. 34. Hamberg: Herbert Reich, 1965.
Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon o f the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature. Translated and edited by William F. Amdt, F. Wilbur
Gingrich, revised and augmented by Frederick W. Danker. Chicago:
__________ . A Greek-English Lexicon o f the New Testament and Other Early

Christian Literature. 3d ed. Revised and edited by Frederick W. Danker.
Based on Walter Bauer’s 2d ed. By W. F. Amdt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and
Frederick W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Baumgarten, Joseph M. “Purification after Childbirth and the Sacred Garden in

4Q265 and Jubilees.” in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings o f
the First Meeting o f the International Organization fo r Qumran Studies,
Paris 1992, ed. George J. Brooke. Studies on the Texts o f the Desert of
Judah, ed. F. Garcia Martinez and A. S. van der Woude, vol. 15. Leiden:
Brill, 1994: 3-9.
_________ . “The Qumran-Essene Restraints on Marriage.” In Archaeology and

History in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffinan. Journal for
the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series, ed. James H.
Charlesworth, vol. 8 . Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990: 15-20.
Beasley-Murray, George R. John. Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Ralph P. Martin,

vol. 36. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987.
Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book o f Ben Sira in Hebrew. Supplements to Vetus

Testamentum, ed. J. A. Emerton, H. M. Barstad, and Phyllis A. Bird, vol.
6 8 . Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Bennett, W. H., ed. The Century Bible: Genesis. Edinburgh: T. C. & E. C. Jack, 1904.
Bernard, J. H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St.

John. Vol. 1. International Critical Commentary, ed. A. H. McNeile.
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928.
Bethge, Hans-Gebhard. “On the Origin of the World (11,5 and XIII,2).” In Nag
Hammadi. Rev. ed., ed. James M. Robinson. San Francisco: Harper
Collins, 1990: 170-89.
349
Bidawid, R. J., ed. “4 Esdras.” In The Old Testament in Syriac According to the
Peshitta Version (part 4/3): Apocalypse o f Baruch, 4 Esdras. Leiden: Brill,
1973.
Bilezikian, Gilbert. Beyond Sex Roles: What the Bible Says about a Woman's Place in
Church and Family. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1985.
Birch, Bruce C., Walter Brueggemann, Terence E. Fretheim, and David L. Petersen. A
Theological Introduction to the Old Testament. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999.
Blass, F., and A. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar o f the New Testament and Other
Early Christian Literature. Revised and translated by Robert C. Funk.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.
Bock, Darrell L. Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination o f
Jesus: A Philological-Historical Study o f the Key Jewish Themes
Impacting Mark 14:61-64. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen
Testament, ed. Martin Hengel and Otffied Hofius, vol. 106. Tubingen:
Mohr/Siebeck, 1998.
Boice, J. M. Genesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982.
Borgen, Peder. “Philo o f Alexandria.” In Jewish Writings o f the Second Temple

Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo,
Josephus, ed. Michael E. Stone, Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum
Testamentum, ed. W. J. Burgers, H. Sysling, and P. J. Tomson, vol. 2.
Leiden: van Gorcum, 1984.
Bowker, John. The Targums and Rabbinic Literature: An Introduction to Jewish

Interpretations o f Scripture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1969.
Brenton, Lancelot C. L. The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English. London:
Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1851. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998.
Bristow, John Temple. What Paul Really Said About Women. San Francisco: Harper
& Row, 1988.
Brockington, L. H. A Critical Introduction to the Apocrypha. London: Dcukworth,

1961.
Brooke, A. E. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles. The

International Critical Commentary, ed. Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred
Plummer and Charles Augustus Briggs. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912.
Brooke, George J., ed. New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings o f the First
Meeting o f the International Organization fo r Qumran Studies, Paris,
1992. Studies on the Texts of the Desert o f Judah, ed. F. Garcia Martinez
and A. S. van der Woude, vol. 15. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
350
Brown, Cheryl Anne. No Longer Be Silent: First Century Jewish Portraits o f Biblical
Women: Studies in Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities and Josephus's
Jewish Antiquities. Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1992.
Brown, Raymond E. The Epistles o f John. Anchor Bible, ed. William Foxwell
Albright and David Noel Freedman. Vol. 30. Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1982.
Brox, Norbert. D ie Pastoralbriefe. 4 ed. Regensburger Neues Testament, ed. Otto

Kuss, vol. 7. Regensburg: Pustet, 1969.
Bruce, F. F. A Mind fo r What Matters. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.
Bruner, Frederick Dale. Matthew: A Commentary. The Churchbook: Matthew 13-28.

Revised and expanded ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.
__________ . The Christbook: Matthew 1-12. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987.
Bulfinch, Thomas. Mythology o f Greece and Rome (with Eastern and Norse Legends).
New York: Collier Books, 1962.
Bullard, Roger A. “The Hypostasis of the Archons.” In The NagHammadi Library.

Rev. ed., ed. James M. Robinson. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1990:
161-69.
Byrne, Brendan. Romans. Sacra Pagina Series, ed. Daniel J. Harrington. Vol. 6 .
Collegeville, MA: Liturgical, 1996.
Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. Trans.
William Pringle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948.
Cassuto, U. A Commentary on the Book o f Genesis (Part 1): From Adam to Noah
(Genesis I-VI). Translated from the Hebrew into English by Israel
Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1961.
Charles, R. H., trans. The Book o f Jubilees or the Little Genesis. Translations of Early
Documents Series 1. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,
1927.
_________ , ed. The Book o f the Secret o f Enoch. Translated from the Slavonic by
W. R. Morfill. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896.
Charlesworth, James H. Graphic Concordance to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Louisville,

KY: John Knox, 1991.
_________ , ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and

Testaments, vol. 1. New York: Doubleday, 1983.
_________ , ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Expansions o f the “Old

Testament ” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers,
351
Psalms and Odes, Fragments o f Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works, vol. 2. New
York: Doubleday, 1985.
Chazon, Esther Glickler. “The Creation and Fall of Adam in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In
The Book o f Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation: A
Collection o f Essays. Traditio Exegetica Graeca, ed. Judith Frishman and
Lucas Van Rompay, vol. 5. Leuven: Peeters, 1997.
Chrysostom, John. In Epistulam ad Colossenses, MPG 62:299-392.
__________ . In Mattaeum, MPG 57:13-772.
__________ . In lacum Genesarth et in Sanctum Petrum Apostolum, MPG 64:47-52
__________ . D e Sancta Pentecosta, MPG 50:453-70.
__________ . In Epistulam ad Romanos, MPG 60:391-682.
__________ . In Illud: Regnum Caelorum Patri Filius, MPG 59:577-86.
Clark, Stephen B. Man and Woman in Christ: An Examination o f the Roles o f Men
and Women in Light o f Scripture and the Social Sciences. Ann Arbor, MI:
Servant Books, 1980.
Clarke, Ernest G. The Wisdom o f Solomon. The Cambridge Bible Commentary, ed. P.
R. Ackroyd, A. R. C. Leaney, and J. W. Packer. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1973.
Clines, David J. A. What Does Eve Do to Help? And Other Readerly Questions to the
Old Testament. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement
Series, ed. David J. A. Clines and Philip R. Davies, vol. 94. Sheffield:
JSOT, 1990.
Clouse, Bonnidell & Robert G. ed. Women in Ministry: Four Views. Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity, 1989.
Cohen, Boaz. The Legends o f the Jews: Index. Vol. 7. Philadelphia: The Jewish
Publication Society of America, 1966.
Cohen, Jeremy. "Be Fertile and Increase, Fill the Earth and Master It ” the Ancient
and Medieval Career o f a Biblical Text. Ithaca and London: Cornell
Collins, J. J. “Sibylline Oracles.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic

Literature and Testaments, ed. James H. Charlesworth, vol. 1. New York:
Doubleday, 1983.
The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Translated by Geza Vermes. Baltimore,
MD: Penguin Books, 1998.
352
Constantiensis, Epiphanius. “Panarion,” in Epiphanius. Vol. 2. Ed. K. Holl. Leipzig:
Himrichs, 1922.
Conzelmann, Hans. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Translated

by James W. Leitch Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary
on the Bible, ed. George W. MacRae. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975.
Dailey, Stephanie. Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh and
Others. London: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Daly, Mary. The Church and the Second Sex. New York: Harper & Row, 1968.
Dana, H. E., and Julius R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar o f the Greek New Testament.
Toronto, Ontario: Macmillan, 1957.
Danby, Herbert, trans. The Mishnah: Translatedfrom the Hebrew with Introduction
and B rief Explanatory Notes. London: Oxford University Press, 1954.
Danielou, Jean. The Ministry o f Women in the Early Church. 2d ed. Edited by
Leighton Buzzard. London: Faith, 1974.
Daube, David. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. London: Athlone
Press/University of London, 1956.
Davies, Margaret. The Pastoral Epistles: I And II Timothy and Titus. London:
Epworth, 1996.
Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison. The Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Vol. 3.
International Critical Commentary, ed. J. A. Emerton, C. E. B. Cranfield
and G. N. Stanton. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997.
Dayton, Donald W. Discovering an Evangelical Heritage. Peabody, MA:

Hendrickson, 1976.
Dedering, S., ed. “Apocalypse of Baruch.” In The Old Testament in Syriac According
to the Peshitta Version (part 4/3): Apocalypse o f Baruch, 4 Esdras. Leiden:
Brill, 1973.
de Jonge, Marinus, and Johannes Tromp. The Life o f Adam and Eve and Related
Literature Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, ed. Michael A.
Knibb. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
Denis, Albert-Marie. Concordance grecque des pseudepigraphes d' Ancien Testament:

Concordance corpus des textes indices. Louvain-la-Neuve: Universite
Catholique de Louvain Institut Orientaliste, 1987.
Di Leila, Alexander A., and Patrick W. Skehan. The Wisdom o f Ben Sira. Anchor
Bible, ed. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman, vol. 39.
New York: Doubleday, 1987.
353
Dibelius, Martin. A Fresh Approach to the New Testament and Early Christian
Literature. London: Ivor Nicholson and Watson, 1937.
Dibelius, Martin, and Hans Conzelmann. The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the
Pastoral Epistles. Translated by Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro.
Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible, ed.
Helmut Koester, Eldon Jay Epp and George W. MacRae. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1972.
Diez Macho, A. Neoflti 1. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas,

1968.
Dillmann, A. Genesis: Critically and Exegetically Expounded. Translated by William

B. Stevenson, vol. 1. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1897.
Dimant, Devorah, and Uriel Rappaport, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years o f
Research. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, ed. F. Garcia
Martinez and A. S. van der Woude, vol. 10, Leiden: Brill, 1992.
Donahue, John R., Daniel J. Harrington. The Gospel o f Mark, Sacra Pagina Series. Ed.
Daniel J. Harrington. Vol. 2. Collegeville, MA: Liturgical Press, 2002.
Driver, S. R. The Book o f Genesis: With Introduction and Notes. London: Methuen,
1920.
Drummond, James. Philo Judaeus, or the Jewish-Alexandrian Philosophy in Its

Development and Completion. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1969.
Dupont-Sommer, Andre. L'essenisme a la lumiere des manuscrits de la mer m orte;

Angelologie et demonologie; Le Livre de Tobie. Annuaire du College de
France, vol. 6 8 . Paris: Marcelin-Berthelot, 1968.
Easton, B. S. The Pastoral Epistles. London: SCM, 1948.
Eisen, Ute E. Women Officeholders in Early Christianity: Epigraphical and Literary

Studies. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2000.
Eliade, Mircea. A History o f Religious Ideas 2: From Gautama Buddha to the

Triumph o f Christianity. Translated by Willard R. Trask. Chicago:
Elliott, J. K. The Greek Text o f the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. Studies and
Documents, ed. Jacob Geerlings, vol. 36. Salt Lake City, UT: University of
Utah Press, 1968.
Epstein, I., ed. The Babylonian Talmud: Translated into English with Notes, Glossary
and Indices. 18 vols. London: Soncino, 1978.
354
Etheridge, J. W. The Targums o f Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch
with the Fragments o f the Jerusalem Targum: Genesis and Exodus. New
York: Ktav, 1968.
Eusebius, Church History, Life o f Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise o f
Constantine. Trans. E. C. Richardson. A Select Library of Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church Series, ed. Philip Schaff and
Henry Wace. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952.
Evans, Craig A. Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation. Peabody,

MA: Hendrickson, 1992.
_________. Mark 8:27-16:20. Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce M. Metzger,

David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, vol. 34B. Nashville: Thomas
Nelson, 2001.
Fanning, Buist M. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990.
Fee, Gordon D. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. New International Biblical Commentary, ed.
W. Ward Gasque, vol. 13. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1984.
_________. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on

the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.
_________. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on

the New Testament, ed. F. F. Bruce. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.
Feldman, David M. Birth Control in Jewish Law: Marital Relations, Contraception,

and Abortion as Set Forth in the Classic Texts o f Jewish Law. Westport,
CT: Greenwood, 1968.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Tobit. Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature, ed. Loren T.

Stuckenbruck and Pieter W. van der Horst. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
2003.
Flavius, Josephus. Josephus: The Complete Works. Translated by William Whiston.

Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998.
_________. Josephus: Jewish Antiquities, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray. Loeb Classical

Library, vol. 242, ed. G. P. Goold. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1930.
Foerster, Werner. “ocpCo), ocjTrpia, acotrip, aarrnpioc.” in Theological Dictionary o f

the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Trans.
Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 7. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971. Reprint,
1983.
Foh, Susan T. Women and the Word o f God: A Response to Biblical Feminism. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1979.
355
France, R. T. The Gospel o f Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New
International Greek Testament Commentary, ed. I. Howard Marshall and
Donald A. Hagner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
Franxman, Thomas W. Genesis and the “Jewish Antiquities” o f Flavius Josephus.

Biblica et orientalia, vol. 35. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979.
Freedman, H., and Maurice Simon, eds. The Midrash Rabbah: Translated into
English with Notes, Glossary and Indices . 10 vols. London: Soncino, 1977.
Frishman, Judith, and Lucas van Rompay, eds. The Book o f Genesis in Jewish and
Oriental Christian Interpretation: A Collection o f Essays. Traditio
exegetica graeca, vol. 5. Louvain: Peeters, 1997.
Gaebelein, Frank E., ed. Ephesians, Phillippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians,

1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon. The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol.
11. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978.
Garcia Martinez, Florentino. “Man and Woman: Halakhah Based Upon Eden in the
Dead Sea Scrolls.” In Paradise Interpreted: Representations o f Biblical
Parardise in Judaism and Christianity, ed. Gerard P. Luttikhuizen.
Themes in Biblical Narrative: Jewish and Christian Traditions, ed. Philip S.
Alexander and Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, vol. 2. Leiden: Brill, 1999: 95-115.
Garcia Martinez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls
Study Edition: 1Q1-4Q273. Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
______ , eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition: 4 0 2 7 4 -1 1 0 3 1 . Vol. 2. Leiden:
Brill, 1998.
Giles, K. Created Woman. Canberra: Acorn Press, 1985.
Ginzberg, Louis. The Legends o f the Jews: Bible Times and Characters from the
Creation to Jacob, trans. Henrietta Szold, vol. 1. Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society of America, 1937.
Goodenough, Erwin R. By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel o f Hellenistic Judaism.

Amsterdam: Philo, 1969.
Goodwin, W. W. Syntax o f the Moods and Tenses o f the Greek Verb. New York: St.
Martin’s, 1965.
Goold, G. P., ed., Philo. Loeb Classical Library, trans. F. H. Colson and G. H.
Whitaker, vol.l. Cambridge: Harvard University, 1929.
Gritz, Sharon Hodgin. Paul, Women Teachers, and the Mother Goddess at Ephesus: A
Study o f 1 Timothy 2:9—15 in Light o f the Religious and Cultural Milieu o f
the First Century. Lanham, MD: University Press o f America, 1991.
356
Grossfeld, Bernard. The Targum Onqelos to Genesis: Translated, with a Critical
Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes. The Aramaic Bible, ed. Kevin
Cathcart, Michael Maher, and Martin McNamara, vol. 6 . Wilmington, DE:
Glazier, 1988.
Gryson, Roger. The Ministry o f Women in the Early Church, trans. Jean Laporte and
Mary Louise Hall. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1980.
Gunkel, Hermann. Genesis. Trans. Mark E. Biddle. Mercer Library of Biblical

Studies, ed. Joseph Blemnkinsopp, Douglas A. Knight, and Walter
Brueggemann. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. Reprint,
Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997.
Guthrie, Donald. The Pastoral Epistles. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries.

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
Haas, Peter J., ed. Recovering the Role o f Women: Power and Authority in Rabbinic
Jewish Society. South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism, ed. Jacob
Neusner et al. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992.
Hamilton, Victor P. The Book o f Genesis: Chapters 1-17. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1990.
_________. The Book o f Genesis: Chapters 18-50. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Hanhart, R. Tobit. Septuaginta, vol. 8/1. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983.
Hanson, Anthony Tyrrell. Studies in the Pastoral Epistles. London: S.P.C.K., 1968.
_________. The Pastoral Epistles. New Century Bible Commentary, ed. Matthew
Black. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.
Harrison, P. N. The Problem o f the Pastoral Epistles. London: Oxford University

Press, 1921.
Hatch, Edwin, and Henry A. Redpath, ed. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the
Other Greek Versions o f the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal
Books). 2d ed. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.
Hauke, Manfred. Women in the Priesthood? Translated by David Kipp. San Francisco:
Ignatius, 1986.
Hawkins, Robert Martyr. The Recovery o f the Historical Paul. Nashville: Vanderbilt
Hays, Richard B. Echoes o f Scripture in the Letters o f Paul. New Haven: Yale
Hayter, Mary. The New Eve in Christ: The Use and Abuse o f the Bible in the Debate
about Women in the Church. Plymouth, Britain: SPCK, 1987.
357
Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary: / - / / Timothy and Titus. Grand
Rapids: Baker Books, 1957.
_________. New Testament Commentary: Exposition o f the Gospel According to Mark.

Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975.
_________. New Testament Commentary: Exposition o f the Gospel According to

Matthew. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973.
_________. New Testament Commentary: Exposition o f Paul's Epistle to the Romans.

Hengel, M. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During

the Early Hellenistic Period. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974.
Heyob, Sharon Kelly. The Cult o f Isis among Women in the Graeco-Roman World.
Etudes preliminaires aux religions orientales dans i'empire romain, vol. 51.
Leiden: Brill, 1975.
Hippolytus. “De consummatione mundi.” InH ippolyt’s kleinere exegetische und

homiletische Schriften. Ed. H. Achelis. Die griechischen christlichen
Schriftsteller, 1.2. Leipzig: Himrichs, 1897: 289-309.
Holmes, Joan M. Text in a Whirlwind: A Critique o f Four Exegetical Devices at

1 Timothy 2.9-15. Studies in New Testament Greek: Journal for the Study
of the New Testament Supplement Series, ed. Stanley E. Porter, vol. 196.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
Holts, Gottfried. D ie Pastoralbriefe. Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen

Testament, ed. Erich Fascher, Joachim Rohde, and Christian Wolff, vol. 13.
Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1980.
Hooke, S. H. Middle Eastern Mythology. London: Penguin, 1963.
House, H. Wayne. The Role o f Women in Ministry Today. Nashville: Nelson, 1990.
Hull, Gretchen Gaebelein, ed. Equal to Serve: Women and Men in the Church and
Home. Old Tappen, NJ: Revell, 1987.
Hultgren, Arland J., and Roger Aus. I-II Timothy, Titus, and II Thessalonians.
Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis, MN:
Augsburg, 1984.
Hurley, James B. Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1981.
Huther, Joh. Ed. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles o f St. Paul to
Timothy and Titus. Critical and Exegetical Commentary, ed. by Heinrich
August Wilhelm Meyer. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1881.
358
Ide, Arthur Frederick. Woman as Priest, Bishop and Laity in the Early Catholic
Church to 440 A.D. Mesquite, TX: Ide House, 1984.
Ilan, Tal. Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine: An Inquiry into Image and
Status. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum, ed. Martin Hengel, and
Peter Schafer, vol. 44. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1995.
Jeremias, Joachim, and August Strobel. Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus: Der Brief
an die Hebraer. Das Neue Testament Deutsch: Neues Gottingen
Bibelwerk, ed. Gerhard Friedrich and Peter Stuhlmacher, vol. 9. Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1936.
Jewett, Paul K. Man as Male and Female: A Study in Sexual Relationship from a
Theological Point o f View. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.
Johnson, Elliott E. Expository Hermeneutics: An Introduction. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 1990.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. The First and Second Letters to Timothy. Anchor Bible, ed.
William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman, vol. 35A. New York:
Doubleday, 2001.
Kaiser, Walter C. Towards an Old Testament Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

1979.
Kassian, Mary A. Women, Creation, and the Fall. Westchester, IL: Crossway Books,
1990.
Kaufman, Michael. The Woman in Jewish Law and Tradition. London: Jason Aronson,
1993.
Keener, Craig S. Paul, Women and Wives: Marriage and Women's Ministry in the
Letters o f Paul. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992.
Keil, C. F., and F. Delitzsch. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: The
Pentateuch, trans. James Martin. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956.
_________. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, trans.
James Martin. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956.
_________. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: The Books o f Samuel, trans.
James Martin. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956.
Kelly, John Norman Davidson. A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. Harper’s

New Testament Commentaries. New York: Harper & Row, 1963.
Kent, Homer A. The Pastoral Epistles: Studies in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. Revised
edition. Chicago: Moody, 1986.
359
Kidner, Derek. Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament
Commentaries, ed. D. J. Wiseman. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1967.
Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich. Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament.
Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1964-1974. Reprint, 1983-1987.
Klausner, Joseph. The Messianic Idea in Israel: from Its Beginning to the Completion
o f the Mishnah. New York: Macmillan, 1955.
Klein, Michael L. The Fragment-Targums o f the Pentateuch: According to Their

Extant Sources. Vol. 1: Texts, Indices and Introductory Essays. Analecta
biblica, vol. 76. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980.
_________. The Fragment-Targums o f the Pentateuch: According to Their Extant

Sources. Vol. 2: Translation. Analecta biblica, vol. 76. Rome: Biblical
Institute Press, 1980.
Knibb, Michael A. The Ethiopic Book o f Enoch: A New Edition in the Light o f the
Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments. Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1978.
Knibb, Michael A., and Pieter W. van der Horst, eds. Studies on the Testament o f Job.
Society for New Testament Studies: Monograph Series, ed. G. N. Stanton,
vol. 6 6 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Knight, George W. The Faithful Sayings in the Pastoral Letters. Kampen: J. V. Kok,
1968.
_________. The New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship o f Men and Women.
_________. The Pastoral Epistles. Commentary on the Greek Text, ed. I. Howard
Marshall and W. Ward Gasque. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.
Knox, John. Chapters in a Life o f Paul. Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1946.
Kostenberger, Andreas J., Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin, eds. Women in
the Church: A Fresh Analysis o f 1 Timothy 2: 9-15. Grand Rapids: Baker,
1995.
Kraemer, Ross Shepard. Her Share o f the Blessings. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1992.
Kraemer, Ross Shepard, and Mary Rose d’ Angelo, eds. Women and Christian
Origins. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Kramer, S. N. Mythologies o f the Ancient World. New York: Doubleday, 1961.
Kroeger, Catherine Clark, and James R. Beck, eds. Women, Abuse, and the Bible:
How Scripture Can Be Used to Hurt or Heal. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.
360
Kroeger, Richard Clark, and Catherine Clark Kroeger. I Suffer Not a Woman:
Rethinking 1 Timothy 2 :1 1 -1 5 in Light o f Ancient Evidence. Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1992.
Kwong Andrew. Genesis, vol. 1. Hong Kong: Tien Dao Press, 1998 in Chinese.
__________ . Genesis 1: The God Who Creates and Saves. Hong Kong: Ming Dao
Press, 2004 in Chinese.
Lange, John Peter. Genesis or the First Book o f Moses. A Commentary on the Holy
Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical, ed. Philip Schaff; trans.
Taylor Lewis and A. Gosman, vol. 1. New York: 5 Bible-House, 1868.
Reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960.
Layton, Bentley. The Gnostic Scriptures: Ancient Wisdom fo r the New Age: A New
Translation with Annotations and Introductions. New York: Doubleday,
1987.
Lea, Thomas D., and Hayne P. Griffin. 1, 2 Timothy, Titus. New American
Commentary, ed. David S. Dockery, vol. 34. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.
Lefkowitz, Mary R. Women's Life in Greece and Rome. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1982.
Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation o f St. John's Gospel. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg,

1961.
__________ . The Interpretation o f St. P au l’s First and Second Epistle to the
Corinthians. Columbus, OH: Wartburg, 1946.
__________ . The Interpretation o f St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians, to the

Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon, n.p.: Lutheran Book
Concern, 1937. Reprint, Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1964.
Lemer, Gerda. The Creation o f Patriarch. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.
Levine, Amy-Jill, ed. "Women Like This ” New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the
Greco-Roman World. Society of Biblical Literature: Early Judaism and Its
Literature, ed. William Adler, vol. 101. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1991.
Levison, John R. Portraits ofAdam in Early Judaism from Sirach to 2 Baruch.

Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series, ed. James
H. Charlesworth, vol. 1. Sheffield: JSOT, 1988.
Liefeld, Walter L. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus: The NIVApplication Commentary. NIV

Application Commentary Series, ed. Terry Muck. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1999.
Lindsey, F. Duane. “Judges,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament.

Ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1985: 403.
361
Litfin, A. Duane. “ 1 Timothy,” in Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament. Ed.
John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983: 727-48.
Llewelyn, S. R. A Review o f the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1980-81.

New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol. 6 . Australia:
Macquarie University, 1992.
Lock, Walter. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles.

International Critical Commentary, ed. S. R. Driver, A. Plummer, and C. A.
Briggs, vol. 6 . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1924.
Lohse, Eduard. The New Testament Environment. Trans. John E. Steely. Bloomsbury,
London: S C M, 1974.
Louw, J. P., E. A. Nida, and et al. Greek-English Lexicon o f the New Testament Based
on Semantic Domains. New York: United Bible Societies, 1988.
Lowery, David K. “2 Corinthians,” in Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament.

Ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983: 551—
86 .
Luttikhuizen, Gerard P., ed. Paradise Interpreted: Representations o f Biblical

Parardise in Judaism and Christianity. Themes in Biblical Narrative:
Jewish and Christian Traditions, ed. Philip S. Alexander and Gerard P.
Luttikhuizen, vol. 2. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
________ , ed. The Creation o f Man and Woman: Interpretations o f the Biblical
Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions. Themes in Biblical
Narrative Jewish and Christian Traditions, ed. Philip S. Alexander and
Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, vol. 3. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
MacRae, George W. “The Apocalypse of Adam.” In Nag Hammadi. Rev. ed., ed.
James M. Robinson. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1990: 277-86.
Magni, Leo. Epistulae XXX, MPL 54.788.
Maher, Michael. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1992.
Malalae, Hoannes. Chronographia. Bonnae: Weberi, 1831.
Marshall, I. Howard. The Pastoral Epistles. International Critical Commentary on the

Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, ed. J. A. Emerton,
C. E. B. Cranfield, and G. N. Stanton. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999.
Martin, Ralph P. James. Word Biblical Commentary, ed. David A. Hubbard and
Glenn W. Barker. Vol. 48. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1988.
Maspero, Jeanne ed. Papyrus Grecs d ’Epoque Byzantine, Catalogue Gen&al des
Antiquites Egyptiennesdu muse Caire. Vol. 2. Cairo: Imp. De Tinstitute
362
francois d’archeepologie orientale. 1913; reprint, Osnabruck: Otto Zeller,
1973.
Mayer, Gunter. Index Philoneus. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1974.
McNamara, Martin. Targum and Testament: Aramaic Paraphrases o f the Hebrew

Bible: A Light on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.
. The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch. Rome:
Biblical Institute Press, 1978.
Merrill, Eugene H. “ 1 Samuel,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition

o f the Scriptures: Old Testament. Ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck.
Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1985: 431-55.
Metzger, Bruce M. A Concordance to the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books o f the

Revised Standard Version. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.
__________ A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2d ed. London:

United Bible Societies, 1994.
Meyers, Carol. Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context. Oxford: Oxford
Meyers, C. L. “Gender Roles and Genesis 3:16 Revisited.” In The Word o f the Lord
Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor o f David Noel Freedman , ed. C. L.
Meyers and M. O ’Connor. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983: 337-54.
Meyer, Marvin W., ed. The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook: Sacred Texts o f the
Mystery Religions o f the Ancient Mediterranean World. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1987.
Mickelsen, Alvera. “Appendix I: Does Order of Creation, Redemption, and Climax

Demand Female Supremacy?” In Equal to Serve: Women and Men in the
Church and Home, ed. Gretchen Gaebelein Hull. Old Tappen, NJ: Revell,
1987:247.
Mickelsen, Alvera, ed. Women, Authority and the Bible. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 1986.
Middleton, Thomas Fanshaw. The Doctrine o f the Greek Article Applied to the
Criticism and Illustration o f the New Testament. Second Edition Revised
by James Scholefield. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1828.
Moeris. Lexicon Atticista. Ed. Johannes Pierson and Georg Koch. Lipsiae: Sumptibus,
1830. Reprint, Hildesheim: Olm, 1969.
Moffatt, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews.
International Critical Commentary, ed. Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred
Plummer, and Charles Augustus Briggs. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1924.
363
Moo, Douglas J. “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or to Have Authority over Men?
(1 Timothy 2:11-15).” In Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood,
ed. J. Piper and W. Grudem, 179-93. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991.
Moore, Carey A. Tobit: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.

Anchor Bible, ed. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman,
vol. 40A. New York: Doubleday, 1996.
Motyer, J. A. “Name.” In The Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Edited by J. D. Douglas, 2:

1050-53. Lane Cove, NSW: Hodder & Stoughton, 1980.
Moule, C. F. D. An Idiom Book o f New Testament Greek. 2d ed. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1971.
Moulton, James Hope. Prolegomena. Vol. I. A Grammar o f New Testament Greek.

Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906.
Mounce, William D. Pastoral Epistles. Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Ralph P.

Martin, vol. 46. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000.
Mowinckel, S. He That Cometh. Oxford: Blackwell, 1956.
Neusner, Jacob, ed. Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book o f Genesis:
A New American Translation (Volume 1: Parashiyyot One through Thirty-
Three on Genesis 1:1 to 8:14). Brown Judaic Studies. Edited by Jacob
Neusner, Wendell S. Dietrich, and Ernest S. Frerichs, vol. 104. Atlanta,
GA: Scholars, 1985.
Neusner, Jacob. Ancient Judaism: Debates and Disputes. South Florida Studies in the
History of Judaism, ed. Jacob Neusner, Ernest S. Frerichs, and William
Scott Green, vol. 105. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1990.
_________. Confronting Creation: How Judaism Reads Genesis (an Anthology o f

Genesis Rabbah) . Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, 1991.
_________. The Judaism behind the Texts: The Generative Premises o f Rabbinic
Literature Iii. The Later Midrash Compilations: Genesis Rabbah, Leviticus
Rabbah, and Pesiqta Derab Kahana. South Florida Studies in the History
of Judaism, ed. Jacob Neusner, William Scott Green, James Strange,
Darrell J. Fasching, and Sara Mandell, vol. 99. Atlanta, GA: Scholars,
1994.
Nickelsburg, George W. E. Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A
Historical and Literary Introduction. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981.
_________. “Stories of Biblical and Early Post-Biblical and Early Post-Biblical

Times.” In Jewish Writings o f the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha,
Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. Michael E. Stone. Assen:
van Gorcum, 1984.
364
Noort, Ed. “The Creation of Man and Woman in Biblical and Ancient near Eastern
Traditions.” In The Creation o f Man and Woman: Interpretations o f the
Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions, ed. Gerard P.
Luttikhuizen. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Oberlinner, Lorenz. Die Pastoralbriefe: Auslegung, vol. 1. Freiburg: Herder, 1994.
Oden, Thomas C. First and Second Timothty and Titus Interpretation. A Bible
Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, ed. James Luther Mays.
Louisville: John Knox, 1989.
Oesterley, W. O. E. The Books o f the Apocrypha: Their Origin, Teaching and

Contents. London: Robert Scott Roxburghe House, 1914.
_________. The Wisdom ofBen-Sira (Ecclesiasticus): Translations o f Early

Documents Series 1 Palestinian Jewish Texts. London: Society for
Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1916.
O’Faolain, Julia, and Lauro Martines, eds. Not in G od’s Image: Women in History
from the Greeks to the Victorians. New York: Harper & Row, 1973.
Ortlund, Raymond C. “Male-Female Equality and Male Headship.” In Recovering

Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism,
ed. John Piper and Wayne Gmdem. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991.
Otwell, John H. And Sarah Laughed: The Status o f Woman in the Old Testament.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977.
Parker, John H. The Homilies o f S. John Chrysostom on the Epistle o f St. Paul to the
Romans. Oxford: J. H. Parker, 1841.
Payne, J. Barton. The Theology o f the Older Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1962.
Pearson, Birger A. “The Testimony of Truth (IX, 3).” In Nag Hammadi. Rev. ed., ed.
James M. Robinson. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1990: 448-59.
Philo. The Works o f Philo: Complete and Unabridged. Translated by D. D. Yonge.

Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997.
Philodemus. Philodemi: Volumina Rhetorica. Vol. 3. Ed. S. Sudhaus. Leipzig:

Himrichs, 1896.
Piper, John, and Wayne Grudem, eds. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood:
A Response to Evangelical Feminism. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books,
1991.
Plumer, William S. Psalms: A Critical and ExpositoryCommentary with Doctrinal

and Practical Remarks. Edinburgh, PA: the Banner of Truth Trust, 1975.
365
Pomeroy, Sarah B. Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical
Antiquity. New York: Schocken Books, 1975.
Porter, Stanley E. Verbal Aspect in the Greek o f the New Testament, with Reference to
Tense and Mood: Studies in Biblical Greek. Vol. 1. New York: Peter Lang,
1989.
_________ . Idioms o f the Greek New Testament. 2d ed. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1995.
_________ . Studies in the Greek New Testament: Theory and Practice. Studies in
Biblical Greek, ed. D. A. Carson, vol. 6 . New York: Peter Lang, 1996.
Preuss, Horst Dietrich. Old Testament Theology. Vol. 2. Louisville, KY: Knox, 1992.
Prusak, Bernard P. “Woman: Seductive Siren and Source of Sin? Pseudepigraphal

Myth and Christian Origins.” In Religion and Sexism: Images o f Woman in
the Jewish and Christian Traditions. Ed. Rosemary Radford Ruether. New
York: Simon and Schuster, 1974, 96.
Quinn, Jerome D., and William C. Wacker. The First and Second Letters to Timothy:
A New Translation with Notes and Commentary. The Eerdmans Critical
Commentary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2000 .
Rad, Gerhard. Genesis: A Commentary. Old Testament Library, ed. G. Ernest Wright,
John Bright, and James Barr. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956.
Raymer, Roger M. “ 1 Peter.” In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, ed.

John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983:
837-58.
Reese, James M. The Book o f Wisdom, Song o f Songs. Old Testament Message: A
Biblical-Theological Commentary, ed. Carroll Stuhlmueller and Martin
McNamara, vol. 20. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1983.
Rengstorf, Karl Heinch, ed. A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus. Vol. 1.

Leiden: Brill, 1983.
Roberts, A. Discourse on the End o f the World, The Ante-Nicene Fathers of the
Christian Church Series, vol. 5, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952.
Robertson, A. T. A Grammar o f the Greek New Testament in the Light o f Historical

Research. 4th ed. Nashville: Broadman, 1939.
Ross, Allen P. “Genesis.” In Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition o f the

Scriptures: Old Testament. Ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck.
366
________ . “Psalms.” In Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition o f the
Scriptures: Old Testament. Ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck.
Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. The Role o f Women in the Church. Chicago: Moody, 1958.
Safrai, S., and M. Stem, eds. The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical
Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and
Institutions. Compendia rerum iudaiscarum ad Novum Testamentum, ed.
Y. Aschkenasy, R. Le Deaut, and D. Flusser, vol. 2. Amsterdam: Van
Gorcum, 1976.
Schaeffer, F. A. Genesis in Time and Space. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1972.
Schechter, S. Some Aspects o f Rabbinic Theology. New York: Macmillan, 1923.
________ , ed. Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James H.
Charlesworth, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement
Series 8 . Sheffield: JSOT, 1990.
Scholer, David M. “1 Timothy 2:9-15 and the Place of Women in the Church's
Ministry.” In Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986.
________ , ed. Women in Early Christianity. Studies in Early Christianity: A

Collection of Scholarly Essays, ed. Everett Ferguson, David M. Scholer,
and Paul Corby Finney, vol. 14. New York: Garland, 1993.
Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament.

Ed. Moises Silva. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.
Schubart, F. et al., eds., Aegyptische Urkunden aus den koniglichen Museen zu Berlin.
Vol. 4. Berlin: Weidmannsche, 1912.
Schweitzer, Albert. The Mysticism o f Paul the Apostle. Translated by William

Montgomery. New York: Macmillan, 1956.
Scott, Ernest Findlay. The Pastoral Epistles. Moffatt New Testament Commentary, ed.
James Moffatt. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1936.
Scroggs, Robin. The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthropology. Philadelphia:

Fortress, 1966.
Skinner, John. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. International

Critical Commentary. 2d ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1980.
Sly, Dorothy. Philo's Perception o f Women. Brown Judaic Studies, ed. Jacob Neusner,
Ernest S. Frerichs, and William Scott Green, vol. 209. Atlanta, GA:
Scholars, 1990.
367
Smalley, Stephen S. 1, 2, 3 John. Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Ralph P. Martin.
Waco, TX: Word Books, 1984.
Snaith, John G. Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom o f Jesus Son ofSirach. Cambridge Bible
Commentary, ed. P. R. Ackroyd, A. R. C. Leaney, and J.W. Packer.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974.
Spencer, Aida Besangon. Beyond the Curse: Women Called to Ministry. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1985.
Spicq, C. Les Epitres Pastorales. Vol. 1. Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1969.
Stagg, Evelyn and Frank. Woman in the World o f Jesus. Philadelphia: Westminster,
1978.
Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. The Woman’s Bible. Vol. 1. New York: European, 1895.
Stendahl, Krister. The Bible and the Role o f Women: A Case Study in Hermeneutics.
Translated by Emilie T. Sander. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1966.
Stewart, Roy A. Rabbinic Theology: An Introductory Study. Edinburgh: Oliver and

Boyd, 1961.
Stine, Philip C., ed. Issues in Bible Translation. London: United Bible Societies, 1988.
Stone, Michael Edward, ed. Jewish Writings o f the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha,
Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Compendia
rerum iudaicarum Ad Novum Testamentum (Section Two): The Literature
of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud,
ed. W. J. Burgers, H. Sysling, and P. J. Tomson, vol. 2. Assen: Van
Gorcum, 1984.
_________. Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book o f Fourth Ezra. Hermeneia—A

Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible, ed. Frank Moore Cross.
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990.
_________. A History o f the Literature o f Adam and Eve. Society of Biblical Literature:
Early Judaism and Its Literature, ed. William Adler, vol. 103. Atlanta, GA:
Scholars Press, 1992.
Stott, T. Lynn. “Not Merely Chattel: Women as Guardians of Holiness in the

Mishnah’s Society.” In Recovering the Role o f Women: Power and
Authority in Rabbinic Jewish Society, ed. Peter J. Haas. South Florida
Studies in the History of Judaism, ed. Jacob Neusner, William Scott Green,
and James Strange et al. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992: 23-35.
Strack, Hermann L., and Paul Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus
Talmud und Midrasch, vol. 3. Miinchen: Beck’sche, 1926.
368
Streeter, Burnett Hillman. The Primitive Church: Studied with Special Reference to
the Origins o f the Christian Ministry. New York: Macmillan, 1929.
Swidler, Leonard J. Biblical Affirmations o f Woman. Philadephia: Westminster, 1979.
Taylor, Charles, ed. Sayings o f the Jewish Fathers Comprising Pirqe Aboth in
Hebrew and English with Notes and Excursuses. The Library of Jewish
Classics. Edited by Gerson D. Cohen. New York: Ktav, 1969.
Tennant, F. R. The Sources o f the Doctrines o f the Fall and Original Sin. New York:
Schocken Books, 1968.
Testuz, M. Les idees religieuses du Livre des Jubiles. Paris: Marcelin-Berthelot, 1960.
Thackeray, Henry St. John. The Relation o f St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought.
London: Macmillan, 1900.
Thayer, Joseph Henry. Greek-English Lexicon o f the New Testament. Translated,

revised and enlarged ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962.
Thompson, Alden Lloyd. Responsibility fo r Evil in the Theodicy ofIV Ezra. Missoula,
MT: Scholars Press, 1977.
Tobin, Thomas H. The Creation o f Man: Philo and the History o f Interpretation.
Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series, ed. Bruce Vawter, Schuyler
Brown, and J. Louis Martyn, vol. 14. Washington, DC: The Catholic
Biblical Association of America, 1983.
Torjesen, Karen Jo. When Women Were Priests. San Francisco: Harper, 1993.
Towner, Philip H. The Goal o f Our Instruction: The Structure o f Theology and Ethics
in the Pastoral Epistles. Journal for the Study of the New Testament
Supplement Series, ed. David E. Orton, vol. 34. Sheffield: JSOT, 1989.
_________. 1-2 Timothy and Titus. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, ed.
Grant R. Osborne. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994.
Trenchard, Warren C. Ben Sira’s View o f Women: A Literary Analysis. Brown Judaic
Studies, ed. Jacob Neusner, Wendell S. Dietrich, and Ernest S. Frerichs,
vol. 38. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982.
Tucker, Ruth A., and Walter L. Liefeld. Daughters o f the Church: Women and
Ministry from New Testament Times to the Present. Grand Rapids:
Academie Books, 1987.
Turner, Nigel Syntax. Vol. 3. A Grammar o f New Testament Greek. Ed. James Hope
Moulton. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963. Reprint, 1980.
369
Van der Jagt, Krijn. “Women Are Saved through Bearing Children: A Sociological
Approach to the Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2.15.” In Issues in Bible
Translation, ed. Philip C. Stine. London: United Bible Societies, 1988.
VanderKam, James C. The Book o f Jubilees. Guides to Apocrypha and

Pseudepigrapha, ed. Michael A. Knibb. Sheffield: Academic Press, 2001.
_________. An Introduction to Early Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.
_________. Textual and Historical Studies in the Book o f Jubilees. Missoula, MT:
Scholars Press, 1977.
VanGemeren, Willem A. “Psalms.” In Psalms-Song o f Songs. Expositions Bible

Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 5. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1991: 1-800.
Van Leeuwen, Mary Stewart. Gender and Grace: Love, Work and Parenting in a
Changing World. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990.
Van Ruiten, J. T. A. G. M. “The Creation of Man and Woman in Early Jewish

Literature,” in The Creation o f Man and Woman: Interpretations o f the
Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions. Ed. Gerard P.
Luttikhuizen, Themes in Biblical Narrative Jewish and Christian
Traditions, ed. Philip S. Alexander and Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, vol. 3.
Leiden: Brill, 2000: 36.
Vawter, Bruce. On Genesis: A New Reading. New York: Doubleday, 1977.
Verenne, M. “Genesis 1, 1-2, 4: The Compositional Texture of the Priestly Overture

to the Pentateuch.” In Studies in the Book o f Genesis. Ed. A. Wenin.
Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001: 51-52.
Von Rad, Gerhard. Genesis: A Commentary. Old Testament Library, trans. John H.
Marks, ed. G. Ernest, John Bright, and James Barr Wright. Philadelphia:
Westminster Press. 1961.
Waddell, W. G. ed. Manetho, and Robbins, F. E. ed. Ptolemy Tetrabiblos. Combined

volume. Loeb Classical Library. London: Heinemann, 1964.
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax o f the
New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
Waltke, Bruce K. Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.
Walton, John H., and Victor H. Matthews. The IVP Bible Background Commentary:
Genesis-Deuteronomy. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997.
Wegner, Judith Romney. Chattel or Person? The Status o f Women in the Mishnah.
New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
370
Wenham, G. J. Exploring the Old Testament. Vol. 1. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,
2003.
Westcott, Brooke Foss, and Fenton John Anthony Hort. Introduction to the New
Testament in the Original Greek, with Notes on Selected Readings. New
York: Harper & Brothers, 1882.
Westermann, C. Genesis 1-11. Translated by J. J. Scullion. London: SPCK, 1984.
_________. Creation. Translated by J. J. Scullion. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974.
Wevers, John William, ed. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum: Genesis.

Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis, vol. 1. Gottingen:
Weymouth, Richard Francis. The Rendering into English o f the Greek Aorist and
Perfect. 4 ed. London: Clarke, 1890.
Whitelocke, Lester T. Analytical Concordance o f the Books o f the Apocrypha. 2 vols.

Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1978.
Wilfred, G. E. Watson trans. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in
English. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Williams, Norman Powell. The Ideas o f the Fall and o f Original Sin: A Historical and
Critical Study. London: Longmans, 1927.
Winston, David. The Wisdom o f Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction

Commentary. Anchor Bible, ed. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel
Freedman, vol. 43. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979.
Wintermute, O. S. “Jubilees.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Expansions the

“Old Testament ” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature,
Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments o f Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works.
Ed. James H. Charlesworth, vol. 2. New York: Doubleday, 1985:35-142.
Wisse, Frederik. “The Apocryphon of John (11,7,111,7, IV,7, and BG 8502,2).” In Nag
Hammadi. Rev. ed., ed. James M. Robinson. San Francisco: Harper
Collins, 1990: 104-23.
Witherington, Ben, III. Women and the Genesis o f Christianity. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1990.
_________. Women in the Earliest Churches. Society for New Testament Studies:
Monograph Series, ed. G. N. Stanton, vol. 59. Cambridge: Cambridge
Wolfson, Harry A. Philo, Foundations o f Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and

Islam. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968.
371
Wuest, Kenneth S. The Pastoral Epistles in the Greek New Testament fo r the English
Reader. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952.
Young, Serinity, ed. An Anthology o f Sacred Texts by and About Women. New York:
Crossroad, 1994.
Zerwick, Max, and Mary Grosvenor. A Grammatical Analysis o f the Greek New
Testament. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979.
Ziegler, J. Sapientia Iesu filii Sirach. Septuaginta, vol. 12/2. 2d ed. Gottingen:
_________. Sapientia Salomonis. Septuaginta, vol. 12/3. 2d ed. Gottingen:

Zimmermann, Frank. The Book ofTobit: An English Translation with Introduction

and Commentary. Jewish Apocryphal Literature, ed. Solomon Zeitlin.
New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958.
Periodicals
Allegro, John M. ‘“the Wiles of the Wicked Woman’: A Sapiential Work from
Qumran’s Fourth Cave.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 96 (1964): 53-
55.
Bailey, Kenneth E. “Women in the New Testament: A Middle Eastern Cultural

View.” Anvil 11 (1994): 7-24.
Barnett, Paul W. “Wives and Women’s Ministry: 1 Timothy 2:11-15.” Evangelical

Quarterly 61 (1989): 225-38.
Barron, Bruce. “Putting Women in Their Place: 1 Timothy 2 and Evangelical Views
of Women in Church Leadership.” Journal o f Evangelical Theological
Society 33 (December 1990): 451-59.
Baumgarten, Joseph M. “4Q502, Marriage or Golden Age Ritual?” Journal o f Jewish

Studies 34 (1983): 125-35.
________ . “On the Nature of the Seductress in 4Q184T Revue de Qumran 15 (1991):
133^13.
Best, Ernest. “Prophets and Preachers.” Scottish Journal o f Theology 12 (1959): 145-
47.
Bird, Phyllis A. “‘Male and Female He Created Them’: Gen 1:27b in the Context of
the Priestly Account of Creation.” Harvard Theological Review 74 (1981):
129-59.
Bledstein, Adrien Janis. “Was Eve Cursed?” Bible Review 9 (1993): 42^15.
372
Bowman, Ann L. “Women in Ministry: An Exegetical Study of 1 Timothy 2: 11-15.”
Bibliotheca sacra 149 (April-June, 1992): 193-213.
Boyer, James L. “Third (and Fourth) Class Conditions.” Grace Theological Journal 3
(1982): 163-75.
Brueggemann, W. “Of the Same Flesh and Bone (Gn 2,23a).” Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 32 (1970): 532^12.
Burgmann, Hans. ‘“ The Wicked Woman’: Der Makkabaer Simon?” Revue de

Qumran 8 (1974): 323-59.
Campbell, R. Alastair. “Identifying the Faithful Sayings in the Pastoral Epistles.”

Journal fo r the Study o f the New Testament 54 (June 1994): 73-86.
Cohon, Samuel S. “Original Sin.” Hebrew Union College Annual 21 (1948): 275-330.
Davis, John Jefferson. “Some Reflections on Galatians 3:28, Sexual Roles, and
Biblical Hermeneutics.” Journal o f the Evangelical Theological Society
19-20 (1976): 201-208.
Duncan, J. Garrow. “Iliaiot; o A.6 yo<;.” Expository Times 35 (October 1923): 141.
Eakin, Frank. “The Greek Article in First and Second Century Papyri.” American
Journal o f Philology 37 (1916): 333-40.
Elgvin, Torleif. “The Genesis Section o f 4Q422 (4QParaGenExod).” Dead Sea

Discoveries 1 (1994): 180-96.
Falconer, Robert. “1 Timothy 2:14,15. Interpretative Notes.” Journal o f Biblical

Literature 60 (1941): 375-79.
Ford, J. Massyngberde. “Biblical Material Relevant to the Ordination of Women.”

Journal o f Ecumenical Studies 10 (1973): 669-94.
Fossum, Jarl. “Gen. 1,26 and 2,7 in Judaism, Samaritanism, and Gnosticism.” Journal
fo r the Study o f Judaism 16 (1985): 202-39.
Freedman, R. D. “Woman: A Power Equal to Man.” Biblical Archaeology Review

(January/February 1983): 56-58.
Gardner, A. E. “Genesis 1:4b-3: A Mythological Paradigm of Sexual Equality or of

the Religious History of Pre-Exilic Israel?” Scottish Journal o f Theology
43 (1990): 1-18.
Gazov-Ginzberg, Anatole M. “Double Meaning in a Qumaran Work (‘the Wiles of

the Wicked Woman’).” Revue de Qumran 6 (1969): 281-85.
Harris, Timothy J. “The Buck Stops Where? Authority in the Early Church and
Current Debate on Women’s Ministry.” Interchange 41 (1987): 21-33.
373
________ . “Why Did Paul Mention Eve’s Deception? A Critique of P.W. Barnett’s
Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2.” Evangelical Quarterly 62 (1990): 335-52.
Hayward, C. T. R. “The Figure of Adam in Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities.”

Journal fo r the Study o f Judaism 23 (1992): 1-20.
Hess, Richard S. “The Roles of the Woman and the Man in Genesis 3.” Themelios 18
(April 1993): 15-19.
Higgins, Jean M. “Critical Notes: Anastasius Sinaita and the Superiority of the
Woman.” Journal o f Biblical Literature 97 (1978): 253-56.
________ . “The Myth of Eve: The Temptress.” Journal o f the American Academy o f
Religion 44 (1976): 639^17.
Hinson, E. Glenn. “The Church: Liberator of Oppressor of Women?” Review and

Expositor 12 (1975): 19-29.
Hommes, N.J. “Let Women Be Silent in Church: A Message Concerning the Worship
Service and the Decorum to Be Observed by Women.” Calvin Theological
Journal 4 (1969): 5-22.
Hubbell, H. H. “The Rhetorica o f Philodemus,” Transactions o f the Connecticut

Academy o f Arts and Sciences 23 (1920): 306.
Hugenberger, Gordon P. “Women in Church Office: Hermeneutics or Exegesis? A

Survey of Approaches to 1 Tim 2: 8-15.” Journal o f the Evangelical
Society 35 (September 1992): 341-60.
Huizenga, Hilde. “Women, Salvation, and the Birth of Christ: A Reexamination of

1 Timothy 2:15.” Studia biblica et theologia 12 (April 1982): 17-26.
Hull, William E. “Women in Her Place: Biblical Perspectives.” Review and Expositor
72(1975): 5-17.
Hurley, James B. “Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women? A Consideration
of 1 Cor. 11:2—16 and 1 Cor. 14:33b—36.” Westminster Theological
Journal 35 (1972-73): 190-220.
Hyatt, J. Philip. “The View o f Man in the Qumran ‘Hodayot.’” New Testament
Studies 2 (1955-1956): 276-84.
Kaiser, Walter. “Paul, Women and the Church.” Worldwide Challenge 10 (September
1976): 9-12.
Karris, Robert J. “The Background and Significance of the Polemic of the Pastoral
Epistles.” Journal o f Biblical Literature 92 (December 1973): 549-64.
Kikawada, Isaac M. “Two Notes on Eve.” Journal o f Biblical Literature 91 (1972):

33-37.
374
Kimberley, David R. “ 1 Tim 2:15: A Possible Understanding of a Difficult Text.”
Journal o f the Evangelical Theological Society 35 (December 1992): 481—
86.
Knight, George W. “The New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship of Male
and Female with Special Reference to the Teaching/Ruling Functions in
the Church.” Journal o f the Evangelical Theological Society 18 (1975):
81-91.
“AY0ENTEQ in Reference to Women in 1 Timothy 2:12.” New Testament

Studies 30 (1984): 143-57.
________ . “Male and Female Related He Them.” Christianity Today 9 (April 1976):
13-17.
Kostenberger, Andreas J. “Ascertaining Women’s God-Ordained Roles: An

Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:15.” Bulletin fo r Biblical Research 7 (1997):
107-44.
Kroeger, Richard, and Catherine Clark. “May Women Teach?: Heresy in the Pastoral
Epistles.” The Reformed Journal 31 (October 1980): 14-18.
Kroeger, Catherine Clark. “Ancient Heresies and a Strange Greek Verb.” The
Reformed Journal 29-30 (March 1979): 12-15.
Leonard, Eugenie Andruss. “St. Paul on the Status of Women.” Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 12 (1950): 311-20.
Levison, Jack. “Is Eve to Blame? A Contextual Analysis of Sirach 25:24.” Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 47 (1985): 617-23.
Levison, John R. “The Exoneration of Eve in the Apocalypse of Moses 15-30.”

Journal fo r the Study o f Judaism 20 (1989): 135-50.
________ . “Judith 16:14 and the Creation ofWoman.” Journal o f Biblical Literature
114 (1995): 467-69.
Lewis, Jack P. “The Woman’s Seed (Gen 3:15).” Journal o f Evangelical Theological
Society 34 (September 1991): 299-319.
Liefeld, Walter L. “Women and the Nature of Ministry.” Journal o f the Evangelical
Theological Society 30 (March 1987): 49-61.
Litfin, A. Duane. “Evangelical Feminism: Why Traditionalists Reject It.” Bibliotheca

sacra 136 (July-September 1979): 258-71.
Maier, G. “How Did Moses Compose the Pentateuch?” Stulos Theological Journal
(November, 1993): 158-59.
375
Malina, Bruce J. “Some Observations on the Origin of Sin in Judaism and St. Paul.”
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 31 (1969): 18-34.
Mappes, David A. “The Heresy Paul Opposed in 1 Timothy.” Bibliotheca sacra 156
(1999): 452-58.
Martin, R. A. “The Earliest Messianic Interpretation of Genesis 3 15.” Journal of

Biblical Literature 84 (1965): 425-27.
McKenzie, John L. “The Literary Characteristics of Genesis 2-3.” Theological

Studies 15 (1954): 541-72.
McQuilkin, J. Robertson. “Limits of Cultural Interpretation.” Journal o f the

Evangelical Theological Society 23 (Junel980): 113-24.
Moo, Douglas J. “ 1 Timothy 2: 11-15: Meaning and Significance.” Trinity Journal 1

(1980): 62-83.
________ . “The Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2: 11-15: A Rejoinder.” Trinity Journal

2(1981): 198-222.
Moore, Rick D. “Personification o f the Seduction of Evil: ‘the Wiles of the Wicked
Woman.’” Revue de Qumran 10 (1981): 505-19.
Murphy, Roland E. “Animadversiones: Yeser in the Qumran Literature.” Biblica 39

(1958): 334-44.
Noldeke, Th. “I Abandlungen: Mutter Erde und Verwandtes bei den Semiten.” Archiv
fu r Religionswissenschaft 8 (1905): 161—66.
Osbum, Carroll D. “Authenteo (1 Timothy 2: 12).” Restoration Quarterly 19 (1976):

129-36.
Padgett, Alan. “Wealthy Women at Ephesus: 1 Timothy 2:8-15 in Social Context.”

Interpretation 41 (1987): 19-30.
Payne, Philip B. “Libertarian Women in Ephesus: A Response to Douglas J. Moo’s

Article, ‘1 Timothy 2: 11-15: Meaning and Significance.’” Trinity Journal
2 (1981): 169-97.
Pereiar, Francis. “The Galatian Controversy in the Light of the Targums.” Indian
Journal o f Theology 20 (1971): 13-29.
Perriman, Andrew C. “What Eve Did, What Women Shouldn’t Do: The Meaning of
Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching
Authenteo in 1 Timothy 2:12.” Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1993): 129-42.
Pierce, Ronald W. “Evangelicals and Gender Roles in the 1990s: 1 Tim 2:8-15: A
Test Case.” Journal o f the Evangelical Theological Society 36 (September
1993): 343-55.
376
Porter, Stanley E. “What Does It Mean to Be ‘Saved by Childbirth’ (1 Timothy
2.15)?” Journal fo r the Study o f the New Testament 49 (1993): 87-102.
Ramsey, G. W. “Is Name-Giving an Act of Domination in Genesis 2:23 and

Elsewhere?” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50 (1988): 24-35.
Redekop, Gloria Neufeld. “Let the Women Learn: 1 Timothy 2:8-15 Reconsidered.”
Studies in Religion 19 (1990): 235—
45.
Roberts, Mark D. “Woman Shall Be Saved: A Closer Look at 1 Timothy 2:15.”

Reformed Journal 33 (1983): 18-22.
Rogers, Cleon L. “The Dionysian Background o f Ephesians 5:18.” Bibliotheca sacra

136 (July-September 1979): 249-57.
Saldarini, Antony J. “Comparing the Traditions: New Testament and Rabbinic

Literature.” Bulletin fo r Biblical Research 7 (1997): 195-204.
Schiffman, Lawrence H. “Exclusion from the Sanctuary and the City of the Sanctuary
in the Temple Scroll.” Hebrew Annual Review 9 (1985): 301-20.
Schwally, Friedrich. “Die biblischen Schopfungsberichte.” Archiv fur

Religionswissenschqft 9 (1906): 159-75.
Scott, R. B. Y. “Is Preaching Prophecy?” Canadian Journal o f Theology 1 (April,

1955): 11-18.
Thorley, John. “Subjunctive Aktionsart in New Testament Greek: A Reassessment.”

Novum Testamentum 30 (July 1988): 193-211.
Trible, Phyllis. “Eve and Adam: Genesis 2-3 Reread.” Andover Newton Quarterly 13
(1973): 251-58.
________ . “Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation.” Journal o f the American

Academy o f Religion 41 (March 1973): 304 8 .
Walsh, Jerome T. “Genesis 2:4b-3:24: A Synchronic Approach.” Journal o f Biblical

Literature 96 (1977): 161—77.
Weinfeld, M. “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near
East.” Journal o f the American Oriental Society 90 (1970): 184-203.
Wiebe, Ben. “Two Texts on Women (1 Tim 2:11-15; Gal 3:26-29): A Test of
Interpretation.” Horizons in Biblical Theology 16 (June 1994): 54-85.
Wifall, Walter. “Gen 3:15a—Protevangelium?” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36 (1974):

361-65.
Wilcox, Max. “The Promise of the ‘Seed’ in the New Testament and the Targumin.”
Journal fo r the Study o f the New Testament 5 (1979): 2-20.
377
Wilshire, Leland Edward. “The TLG Computer and Further Reference to Authenteo
in 1 Timothy 2: 12.” New Testament Studies 34 (1988): 120-34.
. “ 1 Timothy 2: 12 Revisited: A Reply to Paul W. Barnette and Timothy J.

Harris ."Evangelical Quarterly 65 (1993): 43-55.
Winter, Paul. “Sadoqite Fragments Iv 20, 21 and the Exegesis of Genesis 1 27 in Late
Judaism.” Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 68 (1956): 71—
84.
Wuest, Kenneth S. “The Greek Article in New Testament Interpretation.” Bibliotheca

sacra 118 (January, 1961): 27-34.
Zuck, Roy B. “Greek Words for Teach.” Bibliotheca sacra 122 (April-June 1965):
158-68.
Unpublished Materials
Bow, Beverly Ann. “The Story of Jesus’ Birth: A Pagan and Jewish Affair.” Ph.D.
diss., Graduate College of the University of Iowa, 1995.
Fox, Rodney G. “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:15 ‘She Shall Be Saved through
Childbearing.’” S.T.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1991.
Gibbs, Duncan G. “The Third Class Condition in New Testament Usage.” Th.M.
thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1979.
Hemphill, Kenneth S. “Alumni News.” Office o f Institutional Advancement,

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, October 2000.
Johnson, Elliott E. “Typology.” Unpublished class notes in 3100 Hermeneutics.

Dallas Theological Seminary, 1998.
Lieberman, Sarah Roth. “The Eve Motif in Ancient Near Eastern and Classical Greek
Sources.” Ph.D. diss., Boston University Graduate School, 1975.
Wheeler, Dale Mark. “Paul’s Use o f the Old Testament in Galatians 3:16.” Th.D. diss.,
Dallas Theological Seminary, 1987.

1 Timothy 213-15 in The Light

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Timothy 213-15 in The Light

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 TIMOTHY 2:13-15 IN THE LIGHT OF VIEWS CONCERNING

EVE AND CHILDBIRTH IN EARLY JUDAISM

the Faculty of the Department of

New Testament Studies

Dallas Theological Seminary

of the Requirements for the Degree

Sariah Yau-wah Chan

Copyright 2007 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree