The qualifications for overseers and elders in 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and Titus 1:5–9 are frequently regarded as the clearest New Testament evidence that the office of elder is reserved exclusively for men. Paul describes an overseer as “the husband of one wife,” repeatedly employs masculine grammar throughout his qualification lists, and roots his discussion within letters concerned with the order and health of the local church. For many readers, the conclusion appears self-evident. Yet careful exegesis asks a more fundamental question before reaching that conclusion: What question is Paul actually answering? Is the apostle establishing a universal qualification based upon gender, or is he describing the moral, spiritual, and doctrinal character expected of those entrusted with shepherding Christ’s church? The answer to that question significantly shapes how these passages are understood within the broader witness of Scripture.¹

Like every New Testament letter, both 1 Timothy and Titus are occasional documents. Paul writes to trusted coworkers serving difficult congregations threatened by false teaching, doctrinal confusion, and immature leadership. Timothy has been left in Ephesus specifically “to command certain persons not to teach any different doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:3), while Titus is instructed to appoint qualified elders in the newly established churches of Crete because false teachers are already “upsetting whole families” (Titus 1:10–11).² The pastoral concern throughout both letters is therefore not abstract ecclesiology but the preservation of sound doctrine through mature, trustworthy, and spiritually healthy leaders.

This context deserves careful attention because Paul’s qualification lists overwhelmingly emphasize character rather than status. Before mentioning marriage, Paul describes an overseer as above reproach, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money, spiritually mature, and well respected by outsiders (1 Tim. 3:2–7). Likewise, Titus highlights blamelessness, hospitality, holiness, discipline, and unwavering commitment to sound doctrine (Titus 1:6–9). The repeated emphasis falls not upon social position, ethnicity, education, or even gender, but upon Christlike maturity.³

This observation does not settle the debate, but it frames it correctly. If Paul intended to establish an absolute gender qualification for church leadership, one might reasonably expect that concern to receive sustained theological explanation. Instead, nearly every qualification describes virtues that should characterize every Christian, though especially those entrusted with pastoral oversight. The only phrase commonly understood to exclude women from eldership is the expression μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ (mias gunaikos anēr), traditionally translated “the husband of one wife.” Whether that phrase functions as a gender qualification or as an idiomatic description of covenant faithfulness becomes the central exegetical question of these passages.⁴

Character Before Category

One of the easiest mistakes interpreters can make is allowing a single debated phrase to overshadow the purpose of an entire passage. Both 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are qualification lists. Their function is not to define every possible aspect of church leadership but to identify the kind of people who should be entrusted with shepherding Christ’s church. When the lists are read as a whole, an unmistakable pattern emerges: Paul is overwhelmingly concerned with spiritual maturity, moral integrity, doctrinal faithfulness, and a life that visibly reflects the character of Jesus.⁵

In 1 Timothy 3, an overseer (episkopos) must be “above reproach,” sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, gentle rather than quarrelsome, free from the love of money, spiritually mature, and well thought of by those outside the church (1 Tim. 3:2–7). Titus repeats nearly the same themes while adding that an elder (presbyteros) must be upright, holy, disciplined, and firmly committed to the trustworthy message so that he—or, more accurately, the officeholder—can encourage others with sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it (Titus 1:6–9).⁶ In both letters, Paul’s concern is unmistakably pastoral. He is identifying leaders whose lives embody the gospel they proclaim.

This emphasis is particularly significant because these qualifications are given within the context of congregations threatened by false teaching. Timothy remains in Ephesus “so that you may command certain persons not to teach different doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:3), while Titus is instructed to appoint elders because “there are many rebellious people, full of empty talk and deception” who are “upsetting whole families” (Titus 1:10–11). The qualifications therefore function as safeguards for the church. Paul is not constructing an abstract theory of leadership; he is protecting vulnerable congregations by ensuring that those entrusted with teaching possess both theological fidelity and visible spiritual maturity.⁷

Remarkably, almost every qualification applies elsewhere in the New Testament to all believers, not merely church leaders. Christians are repeatedly called to hospitality (Rom. 12:13; Heb. 13:2), self-control (Gal. 5:23), gentleness (Phil. 4:5), holiness (1 Pet. 1:15–16), faithfulness (Matt. 25:21), and lives that are above reproach before the watching world (Phil. 2:15). Elders are not expected to possess a different kind of character than other disciples; they are expected to embody that character with exceptional consistency because they serve as examples to the flock. Peter later expresses this same principle when he exhorts elders not to lead by domination but by becoming “examples to the flock” (1 Pet. 5:3).⁸

This observation becomes increasingly important as the discussion turns toward gender. If Paul intended gender to function as the defining qualification for overseers, it is curious that he devotes so little attention to it. Instead, he repeatedly returns to questions of integrity, humility, reputation, hospitality, doctrinal competence, and spiritual maturity. The cumulative weight of these lists falls not upon biological identity but upon transformed character. This does not resolve every interpretive question, but it establishes the proper framework in which those questions must be asked. Whatever Paul means by “the husband of one wife,” that phrase should be interpreted within qualification lists whose dominant concern is covenant faithfulness and Christlike maturity rather than social identity alone.⁹

This broader emphasis also reflects the trajectory of leadership throughout Scripture. Again and again, God chooses leaders not because they fit conventional expectations but because their hearts are devoted to Him. David is chosen over his older brothers because “the LORD looks on the heart” (1 Sam. 16:7). The prophets repeatedly rebuke shepherds whose character has corrupted their leadership (Jer. 23:1–4; Ezek. 34:1–16). Jesus Himself teaches that greatness in His kingdom is measured not by status but by humble service (Mark 10:42–45). Paul stands firmly within this biblical tradition. Before discussing office, he discusses holiness. Before addressing authority, he addresses integrity. Before identifying who may shepherd the church, he describes what a shepherd must become.¹⁰

“A One-Woman Man”: Gender Qualification or Covenant Faithfulness?

The phrase that has shaped nearly every discussion surrounding elders and overseers appears only once in each qualification list. In describing an overseer, Paul writes that he must be μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ (mias gunaikos anēr), traditionally translated “the husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6). At first glance, the expression appears straightforward. Because the noun ἀνήρ (anēr) ordinarily means “man” or “husband,” many interpreters conclude that Paul is explicitly restricting the office of elder to males. This has long been the standard complementarian reading and should not be dismissed lightly.¹¹

Yet Greek idioms are rarely interpreted by individual words alone. Like every language, Koine Greek employed expressions whose meaning extended beyond a strictly literal translation. The phrase itself is unusual. Paul does not simply say an overseer must be married, nor does he command that an elder be male. Instead, he uses a compact expression that literally reads, “a one-woman man.” The emphasis falls upon the numeral μία (mia, “one”), suggesting exclusivity, fidelity, and covenant loyalty rather than merely marital status. For this reason, many commentators—both complementarian and egalitarian—agree that the expression at least condemns polygamy, marital unfaithfulness, and sexual promiscuity.¹²

The strongest evidence that Paul is using an idiom rather than constructing a formal gender formula appears only two chapters later. In 1 Timothy 5:9, when describing widows eligible for the church’s support, Paul employs the exact reverse expression:

ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή

henos andros gynē

Literally,

“a one-man woman.”

Virtually no interpreter argues that this phrase establishes a gender qualification or limits widows to some ecclesiastical office. Rather, it is almost universally understood as describing a woman known for covenant faithfulness toward her husband. In other words, Paul’s concern is moral reputation. The widow’s life demonstrates fidelity, integrity, and honorable conduct within marriage.¹³

The remarkable symmetry between these two expressions invites an important question. If “a one-man woman” describes covenant faithfulness in 1 Timothy 5, why must “a one-woman man” function differently in 1 Timothy 3? The grammatical forms are mirror images of one another. Both emphasize exclusive devotion to one’s spouse. Both appear within lists concerned primarily with character rather than status. While this observation does not, by itself, eliminate the possibility that Paul assumed male overseers, it does suggest that the phrase itself is fundamentally ethical before it is ecclesiological.¹⁴

Complementarian scholars rightly respond that Paul’s use of ἀνήρ (anēr), together with the surrounding masculine pronouns, indicates that he envisioned men serving as overseers. That observation deserves careful consideration. Yet masculine grammar alone cannot bear the full weight of the argument. Throughout Koine Greek, masculine forms frequently function as the default grammatical convention when describing representative individuals or mixed groups. Jesus’ Beatitudes speak of the “man” who trusts God. James describes “the one” who perseveres. Paul regularly employs masculine participles and pronouns when addressing entire congregations that clearly include women. The presence of masculine grammar therefore establishes the literary form of the description but does not automatically answer the theological question of whether women are excluded from the office itself.¹⁵

This becomes even more significant when the qualification lists are read as a whole. Every other requirement describes observable Christian maturity: hospitality, gentleness, doctrinal soundness, self-control, a good reputation, faithful parenting, financial integrity, and spiritual stability. Paul never explains why one qualification should suddenly be understood as permanently excluding an entire class of otherwise qualified believers. If gender were intended as the defining qualification for eldership, it is striking that Paul spends no time defending or explaining it, while devoting considerable attention to virtues expected of every mature disciple.¹⁶

The question, then, is not whether Paul expected most first-century elders to be men. They almost certainly were. Jewish synagogue leadership, household authority, and civic administration throughout the Greco-Roman world were overwhelmingly male. The more difficult question is whether Paul was describing the recognized leaders of his own cultural context or establishing an unchanging qualification grounded in creation itself. That distinction cannot be answered by the phrase “a one-woman man” alone. It requires reading these pastoral qualifications alongside the broader witness of Scripture, where God’s calling repeatedly extends beyond the cultural expectations of the ancient world.¹⁷

Elders Before the Church: Office, Culture, and Calling

Neither the office of elder (presbyteros) nor overseer (episkopos) originated with the Christian church. By the time Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus, both terms already carried a long history shaped by Israel’s covenant life and the administrative structures of the Greco-Roman world. Recognizing this background helps us distinguish between the office itself and the cultural setting in which it functioned.¹⁸

The title elder (presbyteros) reaches deep into the Old Testament. Israel’s elders served as respected leaders within families, clans, cities, and eventually the nation itself. They witnessed covenants (Josh. 24:31), participated in legal decisions (Deut. 21:18–21; Ruth 4:1–12), represented the people before Moses (Exod. 3:16), and later assisted in governing Israel alongside judges and kings. Their authority arose not from sacramental office but from recognized maturity, wisdom, and communal trust.¹⁹ By the Second Temple period, every synagogue possessed its own body of elders, and the earliest Jewish Christians naturally adopted familiar patterns of local leadership as congregations spread throughout the Roman Empire.²⁰

The title overseer (episkopos) developed along a somewhat different path. In the wider Greek world, an episkopos was literally an “overseer,” “guardian,” or “supervisor”—someone entrusted with responsibility over people or civic affairs. The term was used in secular administration, municipal government, and even in the Greek translation of the Old Testament to describe various supervisory roles.²¹ When the New Testament applies the word to church leaders, it is less concerned with status than with stewardship. An overseer is one entrusted with the care of God’s household (1 Tim. 3:15), echoing Jesus’ own description of faithful servants who manage the master’s house while awaiting His return (Luke 12:42–48).

The New Testament itself appears to treat elder and overseer as complementary titles for the same office. In Titus 1:5 Paul instructs Titus to appoint elders in every town, and in the very next verse explains, “For an overseer must be above reproach” (Titus 1:7). Likewise, in Acts 20 Paul summons the elders of the Ephesian church (Acts 20:17) and tells them that the Holy Spirit has made them overseers to shepherd the flock of God (Acts 20:28). Peter likewise exhorts the elders to “shepherd the flock” while exercising oversight (1 Pet. 5:1–3). The three concepts—elder, overseer, and shepherd—describe different aspects of the same pastoral ministry rather than separate offices.²²

This history also explains why the earliest elders were ordinarily men. Israel’s civic structures, synagogue leadership, household authority, and municipal administration all developed within patriarchal societies in which public leadership generally belonged to older males. That historical reality should surprise no one. The question facing interpreters, however, is not whether first-century elders were typically men—they almost certainly were—but whether Paul intended to preserve that inherited cultural pattern permanently or whether he sought to preserve the spiritual qualifications that made those leaders worthy of imitation.²³

This distinction is important because the New Testament repeatedly demonstrates that the gospel transforms existing social structures without always abolishing them immediately. House churches met within the framework of the Roman household yet redefined authority through mutual service (Eph. 5:21–33). Slaves and masters remained within existing legal structures while being called to recognize one another as brothers in Christ (Philem. 15–16). Jews and Gentiles retained their ethnic identities while becoming “one new humanity” in Christ (Eph. 2:14–16). Throughout Paul’s letters, the gospel consistently redirects authority away from privilege and toward sacrificial service modeled after Christ Himself.²⁴

For that reason, the qualification lists should not be read merely as descriptions of who commonly occupied leadership in the first century but as theological portraits of the kind of leaders Christ desires for His church. The repeated emphasis on holiness, gentleness, hospitality, sound doctrine, and faithful stewardship suggests that Paul’s deepest concern lies not with preserving existing social hierarchies but with ensuring that those entrusted with God’s people visibly reflect the character of the Chief Shepherd.²⁵

It is within that broader biblical framework that the examples of Deborah, Huldah, Priscilla, Phoebe, and Junia become significant. They do not overturn Paul’s qualifications; rather, they help us discern how those qualifications function alongside the wider testimony of Scripture. If God repeatedly entrusted women with profound spiritual responsibility under both the old and new covenants, then interpreters must carefully consider whether 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 were intended to prohibit such leadership or simply to ensure that every leader—regardless of background—possessed the maturity and faithfulness necessary to shepherd God’s people well.

Reading the Qualifications Within the Whole Counsel of Scripture

One of the enduring principles of biblical interpretation is that clear passages help illuminate difficult ones, and no individual text should be interpreted in a way that unnecessarily creates tension with the broader testimony of Scripture. This principle does not diminish the authority of 1 Timothy 3 or Titus 1; rather, it honors the unity of God’s revelation. Paul’s pastoral qualifications must therefore be read alongside the many places where Scripture records God calling, equipping, and publicly affirming women for significant spiritual leadership.²⁶

The Old Testament consistently portrays leadership as the result of God’s calling rather than human expectation. Deborah is introduced not as an exception reluctantly tolerated because no men were available, but as both a prophet and the judge of Israel, exercising judicial authority, proclaiming the word of the Lord, and leading the nation during one of its darkest periods (Judg. 4–5). The narrative offers no criticism of her leadership. Instead, she is celebrated as “a mother in Israel,” a poetic expression describing covenant care and faithful leadership over God’s people.²⁷ Likewise, Huldah the prophetess becomes the authoritative interpreter of the rediscovered Book of the Law during King Josiah’s reforms. Although Jeremiah and Zephaniah were contemporaries, the king’s delegation sought Huldah’s prophetic judgment, and Scripture records no hesitation regarding her authority to declare the word of the Lord to priests, officials, and the king himself (2 Kgs. 22:14–20).²⁸

The New Testament presents a similarly rich picture. Priscilla, together with Aquila, instructs the eloquent Apollos more accurately in the way of God (Acts 18:26). Phoebe is commended by Paul as a διάκονος (diakonos) of the church in Cenchreae and a προστάτις (prostatis), a term commonly associated with patronage, leadership, and the protection of others (Rom. 16:1–2). Junia is described as “outstanding among the apostles” (Rom. 16:7), a phrase that has generated extensive scholarly discussion but is now widely recognized as referring to a woman known and esteemed within the apostolic mission of the early church.²⁹ Even within 1 Corinthians itself, Paul regulates how women pray and prophesy in the gathered assembly rather than prohibiting those activities altogether (1 Cor. 11:5). Whatever one concludes about the precise nature of these ministries, they demonstrate that women exercised public and spiritually significant roles within the earliest Christian communities.³⁰

None of these examples independently resolves the question of eldership. That is not their purpose. Rather, they establish an important hermeneutical boundary. If Scripture repeatedly records women exercising prophetic, instructional, diaconal, apostolic, and judicial ministries under God’s blessing, then any interpretation of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 that categorically excludes women from every form of pastoral oversight must explain why those passages should outweigh or redefine this broader canonical witness. The burden is not merely to identify masculine grammar but to demonstrate that Paul intended these qualification lists to overturn a pattern of divine calling already evident throughout redemptive history.³¹

This is where the distinction between description and prescription becomes especially important. The qualification lists undoubtedly describe the leaders who ordinarily served first-century congregations. Those leaders were almost certainly men, just as synagogue rulers, household heads, and civic elders throughout the Roman world were overwhelmingly male. Yet description alone does not necessarily establish perpetual prescription. Scripture often describes God’s work through existing cultural structures while simultaneously planting theological seeds that ultimately transcend them. The inclusion of Gentiles, the redefinition of family around allegiance to Christ, and the recognition of slaves and masters as brothers and sisters in the Lord all illustrate the gospel’s capacity to reshape inherited social patterns without immediate institutional revolution.³²

Seen within this larger biblical framework, the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 appear less like a restrictive list defining who may never serve and more like a portrait describing the kind of shepherd Christ desires for His church. The emphasis remains remarkably consistent from Genesis to Revelation: God entrusts His people to those whose lives demonstrate humility, holiness, wisdom, courage, and unwavering faithfulness. Those qualities transcend culture because they reflect the character of the Chief Shepherd Himself.³³

Recognizing the Shepherds Christ Has Called

The discussion surrounding elders and overseers is ultimately not about preserving a modern label, defending a theological tribe, or winning an ecclesiastical debate. It is about faithfully recognizing those whom Christ has called to shepherd His church. Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus because false teachers threatened the life of the church, not because the churches were debating twenty-first century questions about gender. His concern was profoundly pastoral. The people entrusted with God’s flock needed to be spiritually mature, doctrinally sound, morally above reproach, and capable of reflecting the character of Jesus before a watching world.³⁴

Read in that light, the qualification lists become remarkably beautiful. Paul is not constructing a hierarchy of privilege but describing a pattern of servant leadership. The overseer must be hospitable because Christ welcomed the stranger. He must be gentle because Christ was gentle. He must be self-controlled because Christ perfectly embodied the fruit of the Spirit. He must not be domineering because the Chief Shepherd Himself came “not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). Every qualification ultimately points beyond the leader to the One whose character the leader is called to imitate.³⁵

This is precisely why the New Testament consistently measures leadership by spiritual maturity rather than worldly status. Again and again, God calls people whom society would have overlooked. Moses was a fugitive. David was the youngest son. Amos was a shepherd. Mary was a young woman from an obscure village. The apostles included fishermen, tax collectors, and political zealots. Deborah judged Israel. Huldah spoke the word of the Lord to a king. Priscilla instructed one of the church’s most gifted preachers. Phoebe carried Paul’s greatest theological letter to Rome. Throughout Scripture, God’s calling repeatedly transcends the expectations of the surrounding culture while remaining perfectly consistent with His own holy character.³⁶

This does not diminish the importance of 1 Timothy 3 or Titus 1. On the contrary, it allows those passages to accomplish exactly what Paul intended. Rather than reducing the qualifications to a single debated phrase, we hear the apostle’s larger concern. The church must never compromise when selecting its shepherds. Character matters. Sound doctrine matters. Hospitality matters. Humility matters. Faithfulness matters. Shepherds should lead not because they seek authority but because their lives have already become trustworthy examples of the gospel they proclaim.³⁷

For that reason, the central question facing the church may not be, “Can a woman serve as an elder?” A more faithful question may be, “Whom has the Holy Spirit prepared to shepherd Christ’s people according to the qualifications Paul actually gives?” If the church encounters a believer whose life consistently displays the maturity, holiness, wisdom, doctrinal fidelity, humility, and servant-hearted leadership described in these pastoral letters, then Scripture calls us to take that evidence seriously. The burden of proof rests not merely on grammar or inherited tradition but on the whole counsel of God interpreted faithfully and humbly.³⁸

The church has always needed faithful shepherds. It still does. In a world marked by division, celebrity, and the pursuit of power, Paul’s vision of leadership remains refreshingly countercultural. The greatest leaders in Christ’s kingdom are not those who possess the greatest authority, but those who most faithfully resemble the Chief Shepherd. As the church continues to wrestle with these important questions, may our commitment to biblical authority be matched by an equally deep commitment to biblical humility, careful exegesis, and joyful recognition of the gifts that the risen Christ continues to pour out upon His people through the Holy Spirit.³⁹

Conclusion

The conversation surrounding women in ministry has often become a conversation about positions, policies, and boundaries. Yet when we slow down long enough to listen to Paul’s heart, we discover that his greatest concern was never the preservation of power but the formation of faithful shepherds. The church has always been healthiest when its leaders resemble Jesus more than they resemble the culture around them. Holiness before influence. Character before charisma. Servanthood before authority.

Perhaps that is the invitation these passages leave with us today. Before asking who is qualified to lead, we should first ask whether our churches are cultivating the kind of people Paul describes. Are we raising disciples who are gentle in a harsh world? Hospitable in an isolated one? Faithful in a distracted one? Men and women whose homes reflect the peace of Christ, whose words build up rather than divide, whose lives quietly testify that the gospel has truly transformed them? Those are the kinds of leaders every congregation desperately needs.

The church has always wrestled with recognizing the people God calls. Throughout Scripture, the Lord repeatedly worked through those others overlooked or underestimated. He delights in raising up humble servants whose confidence rests not in themselves but in Him. Our responsibility is not to defend our traditions at all costs, nor to chase every cultural trend that comes along, but to remain humble enough to recognize the work of the Holy Spirit wherever He chooses to bear His fruit.

That kind of humility requires courage. It asks us to hold our convictions with confidence while holding one another with grace. Faithful believers have arrived at different conclusions on these passages because they sincerely desire to honor the authority of Scripture. That reality should move us toward deeper study, greater charity, and more careful listening—not suspicion or division. The unity of Christ’s body has never depended upon uniformity in every secondary question, but upon our shared submission to the Lord who is Himself the Head of the Church.

In the end, every elder, every overseer, every pastor, every teacher, and every disciple will stand before the same Chief Shepherd. On that day, I do not believe the first question will be whether we successfully defended our preferred system of church governance. I believe the question will be whether we faithfully loved His people, faithfully proclaimed His gospel, faithfully guarded His truth, and faithfully reflected His heart.

May we never lower the qualifications Christ has given for those who shepherd His flock. But neither should we add qualifications that He Himself has not clearly required. Instead, may our churches become communities where the fruit of the Spirit is treasured above personal ambition, where humility is valued above position, where giftedness is always anchored in godly character, and where every believer is encouraged to use the gifts God has entrusted to them for the building up of His Church and the glory of His name.

For the Church has never belonged to its leaders. It belongs to Jesus. He alone calls. He alone equips. He alone is the Good Shepherd. Our greatest privilege is simply to recognize His voice, follow where He leads, and joyfully serve alongside all those whom He is forming into the likeness of His Son.

---

Notes

1. Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988), 72.
2. Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 65.
3. Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women & Wives (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992), 103.
4. Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2009), 291.
5. Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 247.
6. William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary 46 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 169.
7. Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988), 78.
8. Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women & Wives (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992), 108.
9. Cynthia Long Westfall, Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle’s Vision for Men and Women in Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), 297.
10. Andreas J. Köstenberger, God, Marriage, and Family, 2nd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 170.
11. George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 157.
12. Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 252.
13. Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988), 81.
14. Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2009), 294.
15. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 331.
16. Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Volume 1 (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 243.
17. Gordon D. Fee, Listening to the Spirit in the Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 52.
18. Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 248.
19. Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 69.
20. Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years, 2nd ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), 124.
21. Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 379.
22. I. Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 493.
23. Ben Witherington III, Women and the Genesis of Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 191.
24. N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 2 vols. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013), 2:1417.
25. Gordon D. Fee, Listening to the Spirit in the Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 58.
26. Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 25.
27. Daniel I. Block, Judges, Ruth, New American Commentary 6 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 199.
28. Richard D. Nelson, First and Second Kings, Interpretation Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1987), 270.
29. Richard S. Cervin, “A Note Regarding the Name ‘Junia(s)’ in Romans 16:7,” New Testament Studies 40 (1994): 464.
30. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 517.
31. Craig L. Blomberg, From Pentecost to Patmos (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2006), 219.
32. N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 2 vols. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013), 2:1431.
33. Christopher J. H. Wright, Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1992), 198.
34. Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 217.
35. Andreas J. Köstenberger, The Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 468.
36. Christopher J. H. Wright, Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1992), 198.
37. Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Volume 1 (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 247.
38. Cynthia Long Westfall, Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle’s Vision for Men and Women in Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), 318.
39. Gordon D. Fee, Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 63.