I TIMOTHY 2:9-15: WOMEN'S ROLE IN THE CHURCH
============================================

Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D.,
Professor of Theology and Church History,
Andrews University


NOTE: In the ongoing discussion over women's role in the church,
very little effort has been made to come to grip with what the Bible actually
says. We almost seem to be afraid to take a close look at some of the crucial
passages. I have proposed to examine together some of these passages, and
discuss our different methods of interpretation and conclusions. The fact that
we may disagree is less important than the fact that we are making an effort
to understand what the Scripture says rather than to verbalize what we think.
This analysis of I Timothy 2:9-15 is excerpted from chapter 6 of my book
"Women in the Church." I welcome your reaction.


1. Importance and Applicability of I Timothy 2:9-15

	Importance of Passage. In the contemporary debate over the role of women
in the church, one passage has polarized interpreters more than any others.
This passage is I Timothy 2:11-15, which says: "Let a woman learn in silence
with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over
men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was
not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman
will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and
holiness, with modesty."

	The significance of this passage lies in the fact that it addresses
specifically the question of the role of women within the church. Thus, it is
not surprising that this passage has been examined at great length by
evangelicals who oppose or limit1 or support the full participation of women
in the ministry of the church.2 Usually, the view taken by an author on this
passage reflects his or her views on the role of women in the church and vice
versa.

	The Purpose of I Timothy. Before examining the specific instructions
given by Paul in this passage, it is appropriate to consider whether such
instructions were intended exclusively for the local situation existing at
Ephesus or inclusively for the church at large. To answer this question, let
us look first of all at the overall purpose of the epistle.
	It is generally agreed that I Timothy was written to counter the
sinister influence of certain false teachers upon the church of Ephesus. The
exact nature of the erroneous teaching is not defined by Paul, but apparently
it included speculations about "genealogies" (1:4), prohibition of marriage
and abstention from certain foods (4:3). The result of such a teaching was
that some members had "wandered away into vain discussion" (1:6).
	Concerned over the disruptive influence of these false teachings in the
life of the church, Paul wrote to Timothy, his delegated representative,
giving him instructions on how to order and direct the life of a Christian
congregation: "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 of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and
bulwark of the truth (3:14-15).
	The precise wording used here by Paul indicates that he considered his
instructions to be normative beyond the local situation of the Ephesus church.
The impersonal verb dei ("one ought") generally emphasizes a strong necessity,
usually deriving from a divinely established moral obligation.3 Similarly the
present infinitive form anastrephesthai ("to behave"), which takes no person
or number, suggests a general rather than a restricted application.
	James Hurley rightly points out that "Paul did not say, 'Timothy, here
is how you personally ought to behave.' He deliberately said that he wished
Timothy to know 'how one ought to conduct himself in God's household.'"4
Paul's use of this generic language indicates a general application of the
instructions contained in I Timothy. This conclusion is
also supported by the fact that Paul's explicit purpose is to give advice on
how to order and direct not merely the church at Ephesus, but "the church of
the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (3:15). The implication
is clear. Whatever is said about church order in the epistle applies to the
universal church.

	Only Local Applicability? In spite of the obviously general stated
purpose, numerous recent writers have argued that the instructions given in I
Timothy, especially those regarding women, ought to be understood as relevant
only to that particular time and occasion.
	To determine the extent of applicability of a Biblical teaching or
command, four main criteria are helpful:6
	(1) Are the circumstances which occasioned the instruction apt to recur?
In the case of the passage in question, we may ask, Is there a temptation for
some "emancipated" women today, as in Paul's time, to forsake "domestic roles
such as raising children in order to assume such prominent roles in
congregational life as teaching"?7
	(2) Is the basis for a command or teaching a local, temporary situation
or a general principle? In the case of I Timothy 2:11-15, did Paul base his
command on the local problems caused by emancipated women or on the order of
creation?
	(3) Is the same teaching or command given in other situations? If so,
one can safely infer that such a teaching is meant to have a broader
application. In the case of I Timothy 2:11-15, similar instruction can be
found in I Corinthians 11:3-16 and 14:34-35.
	(4) Does the author indicate a general or limited applicability of his
teaching? In the passage in question Paul does not restrict the prohibition of
exercising improper roles in the church only to certain libertarian women, but
to women in general. As Susan T. Foh observes: "There is no mention of false
teaching, no word of correction in I Timothy 2:9-15. Paul says that women
should not teach or exercise authority over men, period. There are no
conditions attached which would allow exceptions to Paul's command."8

	General Applicability. Even a cursory reading of I Timothy suffices to
see that the instructions given by Paul were meant not merely for the local
church at Ephesus, but for the Christian church at large. While the epistle
was occasioned by the disruptive influence of certain false teachers (1:3-6;
6:3-5), Paul's concern is not to launch a detailed rebuttal of their false
teaching, but rather to explain to the congregation, its leaders, and to
Timothy himself, how Christians ought to live godly lives in the face of
unhealthy teachings and a depraved pagan environment.
	The general applicability of I Timothy is evident especially in the
nature of the subjects discussed. The opening chapter discusses the perverted
use of the law by false teachers, the proper use of the law to develop
character, the work of Christ and the challenge to Timothy to exercise
competent leadership. The second deals with prayers for rulers and worship
procedures for men and women. The third and fourth chapters discuss the
qualifications for church leaders and practical suggestions for a more earnest
ministry. The fifth and sixth chapters explain how Timothy should function in
relation to old and young members, widows, elected elders, false teachers, and
worldly riches.
	The topics discussed are not culturally relative, although they are
addressed within the context of the culture of Paul's time. Any attempt to
reduce the instructions of I Timothy to local and temporary applicability
cannot be legitimately supported from the intent of the letter itself.


2. Modesty and Submissiveness

	Prayer and Modesty. The first part of I Timothy 2 deals with prayer and
modesty. After urging that prayers be made "for all men," especially "for
kings and all who are in high positions" (2:1-2), Paul turns to discuss how
"men should pray," namely, by "lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling"
(2:8). This comment reminds us of Psalm 24:3-4 where David affirms that only
"he who has clean hands and a pure heart" shall stand in the holy place. Paul
was concerned that men would not mar their prayers by "anger and quarreling."
	Paul then expresses his concern for women, saying: "I desire . . . also
that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel,
not with braided hair or gold or pearl or costly attire but by good deeds, as
befits women who profess religion" (2:8-10).
	Paul's call for a high standard of modesty in dress and hair adornment
is obviously not culturally relative. What may be culturally relative are some
of the examples given: "braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire"
(2:9). It is noteworthy that numerous Jewish and pagan texts also favor
modesty and reject extravagant external adornment, arguing that the real
adornment of a woman should be her inner beauty.9

	Adornment and Insubordination. Ostentatious external adornment
apparently expressed a woman's independence from her husband. David Scholer
concludes his analysis of numerous texts regarding women's adornment and dress
in the Jewish and Greco-Roman cultures, by saying: "More important, in
virtually all the Jewish and pagan texts, the rejection of external adornment
was part of a woman's submission to her husband and a recognition of her place
among men in general. Using external adornments such as pearls, gold jewelry,
hair styling and expensive, provocative clothing indicated two undesirable
characteristics-material extravagance and sexual infidelity."10
	The connection between a woman's modest adornment and her submission to
her husband is also suggested by Peter's double exhortation that wives be
submissive to their husbands and that they be modest in their adornment (I Pet
3:1-4). Some argue that there is a progression of thought from Paul's concern
for women's immodest dress (vv. 9-10), which expressed insubordination, to his
injunction that women be submissive and silent in public worship (vv. 11-12).
The conclusion drawn from this is that it was not women in general that Paul
prohibited to teach in the church, but only those women in the church in
Ephesus who were indecently dressed. As Philip Payne puts it, "For such
indecently clad women to teach in the church would bring the gospel into
contempt."11
	This argument may be right in suggesting the existence of an underlying
unity between Paul's admonition against women's immodest dress and their
improper roles in the church. Presumably, both of them expressed
insubordination. But the argument is wrong in maintaining that a "contributing
factor to Paul's restriction on women in the church in Ephesus was indecent
dress."12 First, the problem appears to have been one of overdressing rather
than of underdressing, as indicated by the emphasis upon not dressing lavishly
(cf. I Pet 3:3-5). Second, the reason given by Paul for his prohibition of v.
12 is not indecent dress but the order of creation of Adam and Eve (v.13).
Thus, the attempt to relativize Paul's prohibition by appealing to the alleged
indecent dress of the Ephesian women must be rejected as devoid of contextual
support.

	Quiet Learning. From modesty in dress, Paul proceeds to discuss in
verses 11 and 12 the learning and teaching aspects of the lives of "women who
profess to worship God" (2:10, NIV): "A woman should learn in quietness and
full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a
man; she must be silent" (2:11-12, NIV). These two verses should be taken as a
unit, because they form an inverted parallelism. What is stated positively in
verse 11, is restated and amplified negatively in verse 12. Quiet learning is
paralleled by the command not to teach, and the attitude of submission is
paralleled by the command not to exercise authority.
	The first injunction is significant because it contains Paul's positive
command (manthaneto--an imperative verb): "Let a woman learn." This command
shows that Paul assumed that women can and must learn the truths of the
Gospel. His view of women, then, is not rabbinic but "quite radical for his
time."13
	The manner in which women are to learn is qualified by two phrases: "in
quietness (hesychia) and full submission (hypotage)." The word hesychia does
not require total silence as the word sigao used in I Corinthians 14:34, but
rather "quietness, peacefulness."14 As James Hurley points out, "Paul is not
just calling for 'buttoned lips' but for a quiet receptivity and a submission
to authority in his description of the manner of women's learning."15
	To appreciate the relevance of Paul's injunction it is important to
remember that a New Testament church service was rather different from ours.
The difference is well explained by N. J. Hommes: "The peculiar and most
striking difference between the church services then and now lies in the fact
that the sermon, the word spoken, was being discussed among the worshippers,
and that there was more than one preacher in the service. We can see this
clearly in I Corinthians 14:26ff. It is true that Paul is here bringing the
order of the worship service in line with the charisma of prophecy, but such
mutual discussion was, in apostolic time, always part of the worship
service."16

	Submissive Learning. Learning "in quietness" is recommended by Paul,
presumably not only because much of the talking that went on in conjunction
with the "discussion type" of worship service was not always conducive to
effective learning, but also because some women through their speaking may
have expressed insubordination to their husbands or to the officials of the
church. The latter is suggested by the second qualifying phrase "with all
submissiveness" (RSV). The concept of "submission" (hypotasso) recurs
regularly in the discussion of women in relation to men (Eph 5:21-24; I Pet
3:1-5). "Submission" appears to be the pivotal concept that unites the
learning of women in verse 11 with the issue of their teaching in verse 12.17


3. Teaching and Exercise of Authority

	Authoritative Teaching. After calling for women to learn "in quietness
and full submission," Paul moves to forbid the contrary: "I do not permit a
woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent" (2:12,
NIV). We noted earlier that this verse forms with the preceding one an
inverted parallelism. Therefore, it is important to look at the two verses
together, to grasp what Paul is emphasizing. The thrust of the parallelism is
well explained by James Hurley: "Verse 11 calls for quiet and submissive
learning. Verse 12 forbids teaching or exercising authority over men. The two
are visibly parallel. Quiet learning inversely parallels (verbal) teaching and
full submission inversely parallels exercising authority. Both verses have the
same situation in mind, one in which women are not to teach authoritatively
but are to learn quietly. The closing remark of verse 12 makes this clear by
summing up both verses with a single short statement: "she must be silent." We
conclude, therefore, that Paul intended that women should not be authoritative
teachers in the church."18

	Local or Universal Prohibition? Before attempting to define what
constitutes authoritative teaching, it is important to establish whether
Paul's prohibition is of a local or universal nature. Some writers argue that
Paul's command is neither universal nor permanent (transtemporal), because he
uses the first person present indicative active form of the verb: "I do not
permit...." This form of the verb, according to Philip B. Payne, "is Paul's
typical way of expressing his own personal opinion." To support this
contention Payne appeals to the fact that the verb "to permit" (epitrepo) "in
the NT only rarely occurs with reference to a continuing state" and that "Paul
in I Tim 2:12 does not claim that this restriction on women is from the Lord
or to be observed in all the churches."19
	The argument that the first person present active indicative is
generally used by Paul to express his own personal opinion rather than a
universally valid principle cannot be supported. Though this form is
relatively rare in Paul's writing, there are instances in which the apostle
uses the first person singular indicative to communicate what he believed to
be the will of God. For example, in Romans 12:1, Paul makes this appeal: "I
urge you, brothers, . . . to offer your bodies as living sacrifices" (NIV; cf.
I Cor 4:16; 11:2; 12:3; Gal 5:2,3; Eph 4:1; I Thess 4:1; 5:12,14). No one
would interpret this exhortation as being Paul's personal, presumptive opinion
merely because he uses the first person singular indicative without a
universal qualifier.
	The rare occurrence of the verb "to permit" (epitrepo) to express a
continuing state, is per se irrelevant because the verb in itself has no
temporal connotation. Similarly, the fact that Paul "does not claim that this
restriction on women is from the Lord or to be observed in all the churches,"
does not negate its universal applicability. Paul had just established the
ground of his authority in verse 7: "I was appointed a preacher and apostle."
	Only rarely does Paul clarify whether his instruction is personal advice
or a command from the Lord. This clarification is usually given only in a few
uncertain situations, as with regard to Paul's counsel to the married and
unmarried (I Cor 7:6, 10, 12, 25, 40). When in these instances Paul expresses
his own personal view, he explicitly says: "I say, not the Lord" (I Cor 7:12;
cf. vv. 6, 40). Thus, the absence of any qualifier in the prohibition of I
Timothy 2:12, suggests that Paul had no doubt as to the normative nature of
his instructions. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the similar
instruction given in I Corinthians 14:34-35 is followed by Paul's statement:
"What I am writing to you is a command of the Lord" (I Cor 14:37).

	Female False Teachers? What is the meaning of Paul's injunction: "I do
not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man" (2:12)? Obviously
Paul's intent here is not to prohibit all forms of women's teaching and
speaking in the church. We noted in chapter 5 that in I Corinthians 11:5 Paul
assumes that some women were praying and prophesying along with men in the
worship service. Moreover, Paul explicitly enjoins older women "to teach what
is good and so train the young women" (Titus 2:3-4).
	Some authors argue that Paul's injunction is only "directed against
women involved in false teaching who have abused the proper exercise of
authority in the church (not denied by Paul elsewhere to women) by usurpation
and domination of the male leaders and teachers in the church at Ephesus."20
This conclusion rests largely on two faulty assumptions: (1) Paul's injunction
was occasioned by and directed (exclusively) to "the false teaching plaguing
the church in Ephesus."21 (2) The verb authentein usually translated "to have
authority over" seems "rather clearly to carry the negative sense of
'domineer' or 'usurp authority.'"22 Thus, Paul is only forbidding teaching to
women who were false teachers and who were usurping the authority of male
leaders. Had the women been orthodox teachers and respectful of church
leaders, Paul would have had no objection to their teaching.
	The first assumption is discredited by the fact that, as we have shown
earlier, though the writing of I Timothy was occasioned by the disruptive
influence of certain false teachers (1:3-6; 6:3-5), Paul chose to counteract
such an influence not by addressing specifically the false teachers, but
rather by offering guidelines on how Christians should live in the world and
in the church in the face of unhealthy teachings and a depraved pagan
environment.
	If Paul intended to prohibit only the teaching done by certain female
false teachers, he would have surely alluded to it, as he does refer to young
widows who got "into the habit of being idle and going about from house to
house. . . . saying things they ought not to" (5:13, NIV). Moreover, the
reason given by Paul for his prohibition is not the sinister effect of certain
women's false teaching, but the priority of the creation of Adam and the
deception of Eve, both of which are unrelated to the problem of false
teaching.

	"Authority over" or "Domineer"? The second assumption that the verb
authenteo should be translated "to domineer, to usurp authority," instead of
"to have authority," is faulty for two main reasons. First, the recent study
by George Knight of all the major lexical occurrences of authenteo (published
in New Testament Studies, January 1984), has shown that "the recognized
meaning for the first century BC and AD documents . . . is 'to have authority
over.' The nuance is positive, or at least neutral, but in any case there is
no inherent negative overtone such as is suggested by the word 'domineer.'"23
	Second, the meaning "to have authority over" fits better in the text
with the verb "to teach" (didasko) with which it is joined, since the latter
has no negative implications. Moreover, we have seen that authority and
teaching in verse 12 are parallel to subordination and quietness in verse 11.
This suggests that the converse of authenteo is to be found in
the phrase "full submission." The concept of "submission," as we have seen
from our study of Ephesians 5, does not carry with it the meaning of "cringing
servility under a domineering person but of a willing submission to a
recognized authority."24 What Paul disallows, therefore, is not the abuse or
usurpation of authority, but simply the exercise of authority by women over
men in the church.

	Uneducated Women? Some maintain that the reason Paul prohibited women to
teach and to exercise authority over men in the church is because women were
uneducated. Since this is no longer true today, then Paul's prohibition is no
longer relevant. If the lack of education had been the reason for Paul's
prohibition, then he would have forbidden both men and women to teach, if they
were uneducated. Moreover, women as well as men could have been trained to
become good teachers. Deaconesses and workers in apostolic times must have
received some training.
	The real situation in Ephesus may have been just the opposite. Some of
the women may have been more educated than many of the men, and consequently
they may have felt justified to act as the teachers and leaders of the
congregation. Priscilla was well enough educated in the Christian faith to be
able to instruct an intellectual like Apollos when he went to Ephesus (Acts
18:26). Paul, as we have seen in chapter 2, commends several women for their
outstanding contribution to the life and growth of the church. All of this
suggests that the reason for Paul's injunction was not that women were
uneducated.

	The Nature of Teaching. What is the nature of the teaching forbidden to
women? This question has been debated at great length. Some have assumed that
Paul prohibits women from participating in any kind of teaching or speaking,
including teaching in public schools and having a job in which a woman
exercises authority over man. Such a view is obviously unwarranted because, as
we have seen in chapter 2, in Paul's ministry women prayed, prophesied and
exercised a teaching ministry (I Cor 11:5; Acts 18:26; Phil 4:3; Rom 16:12).
	The nature of teaching forbidden to women in I Timothy 2:12 is
undoubtedly the authoritative teaching restricted to the pastor or
elder/overseer of the congregation. This conclusion is supported not only by
the meaning of the inverted parallelism discussed earlier but also by the use
of the verb "to teach" and the noun "teaching" in the pastoral epistles. The
teaching ministry is presented, especially in the pastoral epistles, as a
governing function performed by Paul, Timothy or appointed elders/overseers of
the congregation. Paul speaks of himself as "a teacher of the Gentiles" (I Tim
2:7; cf. II Tim 1:11). He charges Timothy to "Command and teach" (I Tim 4:11),
"Take heed to yourself and to your teaching" (I Tim 4:16), "teach and urge
these duties" (I Tim 6:2), "preach the word . . . in teaching" (II Tim 4:2).
	The restrictive meaning of the teaching ministry is especially evident
in II Timothy 2:2 where Paul gives this solemn charge to Timothy: "what you
have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be
able to teach others also." The "faithful men" are presumably the
elder/overseers of the congregation. A qualification for such an office was
"an apt teacher" (I Tim 3:2). Paul urges that special recognition be given to
"the elders who rule well . . . especially those who labor in preaching and
teaching" (I Tim 5:17).
	The importance attached to sound teaching in I Timothy and the other
pastoral epistles is illustrated by the fact that of the 21 occurrences of the
word "teaching, doctrine" (didaskalia) in the New Testament, 15 appear in I
and II Timothy and Titus.25 The teaching by appointed church leaders was most
important because it involved the careful transmission of the teachings of
Jesus Christ (cf. Gal 1:12) and their significance for the life of the church.
Before the existence and general availability of the writings of the New
Testament, the teacher (pastor, elder, overseer) served the congregation as a
kind of living Bible. He was the guardian of the body of teachings which had
been received by the churches and to which they were to remain true (Rom
16:17; Eph 4:21; Col 2:7; II Thess 2:15).
	In light of the restrictive use of the words "to teach" and "teaching"
in the pastoral epistles, it is reasonable to conclude that the teaching
forbidden to women is the authoritative teaching done by "leaders of the
congregation"26 such as Paul, Timothy, Titus, elder/ overseers. "Although
women are allowed an audible participation in the gatherings of the church,
they are not to aspire to the role of leadership as superintendents of the
local congregation."27 The teaching role of these leaders is emphasized
especially in the pastoral epistles, where destructive and demonic teaching (I
Tim 4:1) necessitated leaders who would
uphold "sound teaching" (II Tim 4:3). Paul forbids women to teach as the
leaders of the church because this would place them in a headship role of
authority over men. This role is inappropriate for women, not because they are
any less capable or competent than men, but because of the creational order
for men and women established by God (I Tim 2:13). These theological reasons
given by Paul will now be examined.


4. Theological Reasons

	Reason or Illustration? To justify his ruling about the exclusion of
women from teaching (as leaders) and exercising authority over men in the
church, Paul submits two reasons: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and
Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor"
(I Tim 2:13-14). Before examining these two reasons, attention must be given
to the conjunction "for" (gar).
	Some argue that "for" is illustrative and not illative, that is to say,
it is designed to introduce an example and not a reason for Paul's ruling.28
To defend this view they appeal to grammar and context. Grammatically, the
illustrative use of gar ("for") is a lexical
possibility. Contextually, they see Paul's reference to Eve as a historical
example of what once happened when, in a situation similar to that at Ephesus,
a deceived woman taught a man. Thus, Paul's statement does not offer reasons
for the general exclusion of women from teaching or exercising authority over
men in the church, but merely a historical example relevant only to the local
situation in the Ephesian church.
	This interpretation of gar ("for"), as Douglas Moo has cogently shown,
flounders both on grammar and context.29 Grammatically, the "illustrative" use
of gar ("for") is rare. All the major lexicons and grammars give the causal
meaning as the first and most common one. Contextually, the illustrative use
of gar ("for") fails to explain how, for example, the priority of Adam's
creation can illustrate what happens when women false teachers teach and
exercise authority over men in the church. Reasons such as these indicate that
the conjunction "for" is used to introduce not an illustration but a reason
for the ruling of verses 11-12.

	Priority of Adam's Creation. The first reason given by Paul to justify
his ruling is the priority of Adam's creation: "For Adam was formed first,
then Eve" (I Tim 2:13). The meaning of this statement is clearly expressed by
Paul Jewett: "The plain meaning of Paul's argument is that the subordination
of woman to the man is an essential part of the hierarchy which God himself
established to insure a proper order in the relationships of life."30
	According to several writers, Paul's argument from creation is faulty on
two counts. First, it is based on the wrong creation account. Instead of using
the creation account of Genesis 1 which accurately speaks of the simultaneous
creation of man and woman, Paul made the unfortunate mistake to use the
second, "poetic," account of creation.31 Second, it attaches hierarchical
significance to the fact that man was created before woman. "If beings created
first are to have precedence, then the animals are clearly our betters."32
Paul allegedly fell back on his rabbinic eisegesis, which caused him to argue
for a wrong doctrine from a wrong text.33 Therefore, the argument from
creation offers no valid support to Paul's ruling in verses 11-12.

	Authority of Scripture. The charges that have been leveled against Paul
on this issue are not inconsequential. If Paul made a mistake in interpreting
the meaning of Genesis for the role relations of men and women, he could have
been equally in error in interpreting the meaning of the life and death of
Christ, of the resurrection, of the Second Advent, or of the relation between
faith and works in the process of salvation. Ultimately what is at stake is
the authority of Scripture. If any part of the Scripture presents false
teachings through faulty exegesis or reasoning, then its normative authority
is discredited.
	Paul stated very clearly his own understanding of the authority of his
teaching and of those who would challenge it: "If any one thinks that he is a
prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is
a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not
recognized" (I Cor 14:37-38). Strikingly, Paul made this claim in the very
context of his teaching about the role of men and women in the church.
Therefore, it behooves us to accept his interpretation of Scripture.

	Priority of Creation and Subordination. Why does Paul appeal to the
prior formation of Adam to justify his injunction that women should not be
permitted "to teach or to have authority over men" (I Tim 2:12)? Primarily
because Paul saw in the priority of Adam's creation the symbol of the
leadership role God intended man to fulfill in the home and in the
church.
	From an empirical standpoint, it seems arbitrary and irrational that
leadership should be assigned on the basis of priority of creation. >From a
Biblical standpoint, however, the arbitrariness and irrationality disappear
because the priority of creation is seen not as an accident but as a divine
design, intended to typify the leadership and headship role man was created to
fulfill. The sanctification of the seventh day provides another example. From
an empirical standpoint, it seems arbitrary that God should choose to bless
and sanctify the seventh day instead of the first day or any other day. After
all, the seven days, each consisting of the same 24 hours, seem identical to
one another. From a Biblical standpoint, however, it is not arbitrary that God
should choose the seventh day as a symbol of creation and sanctification (Gen
2:2-3; Ex 31:13,17; Ezek 20:20).
	In the same way Paul sees the priority of Adam's formation and the
derivation of woman from man (I Cor 11:8) as typifying the role distinctions
between men and women. This typological understanding of the priority of
Adam's formation is reflected in the meaning both the Old and New Testaments
attach to primogeniture (being first-born). The first-born son inherited not
only a "double portion" of his father's goods, but also the responsibility of
acting as the leader of worship upon his father's death.

	Christ the "First-Born." The typological meaning of the first-born is
used by Paul also with reference to Christ in Colossians 1:15-18: "He is the
image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation; for in him all
things were created. . . . He is the head of the body, the church; he is the
beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he
might be pre-eminent." The rich imagery used in this passage presents Christ
as (1) the Image of God, (2) the First-born, (3) the Source of Creation, (4)
the Head of the church. All of these are drawn together to establish the
pre-eminent authority of Christ over everything.
	It is noteworthy that the headship and authority of Christ are tied in
with His being the "First-born." Our earlier study of Ephesians 5 has shown
how Paul used the headship and authority of Christ as the model for the
headship role a husband is to exercise for the sake of his wife. His use of
the "first-born" typology to express the headship and authority of Christ
suggests that he may have attached the same meaning to Adam's being "first
formed." In light of the Old Testament background, Paul may have seen in the
priority of the formation of Adam a type of the headship role God called man
to fulfill, and thus, a reason why men, rather than women, should exercise
teaching leadership authority in the church.

	Priority of Animals. The above observations help to show the weakness of
the argument which claims that Paul's reasoning leads to the conclusion that
animals should rule mankind by right of their temporal priority in creation.
Proponents of this argument overlook the fact that no typological significance
is attached in Scripture to the temporal priority of the animals. Moreover, in
I Corinthians 11:8-9 Paul clearly associates the priority of Adam's formation
with Eve's derivation out of man. The animals were created before mankind, but
mankind does not derive from animals.
	The significance that Paul attaches to Adam's priority of formation is
compatible with the central role of man in Genesis 2. We have shown in Chapter
3 that the leadership role of man is implied in Genesis 2, not merely by the
priority of his creation, but also by the fact that God provided him with a
garden, an occupation, and a wife to be "a helper fit for him" (v. 18).
Moreover God called man ha-'adam("the man," "the human"), the collective name
of mankind, and charged him with the responsibility of naming first the
animals and then the woman. Paul offers in I Timothy 2:13 an explicit
interpretation of these historical facts, applying them to the role of women
in the worship service, which should be in accordance with the subordinate,
helping role envisaged for them in creation.

	The Deception of Eve. The second reason given by Paul to support his
ruling is derived from the deception of Eve: "and Adam was not deceived, but
the woman was deceived and became a transgressor" (I Tim 2:14). This argument
is less developed by Paul, and it has produced many dangerous interpretations.
Some have assumed that this verse teaches that women are not qualified to
teach religious doctrine in the church, because they do not have the same
critical acumen as men and thus they are more susceptible to external
pressures.34
	This view is without warrant, because the text does not say that "the
woman is deceivable," but simply that "the woman was deceived." If it were
true that women are more susceptible to deception, it would ultimately make
God responsible for having created women less perfect than men. If Paul
believed that women are more prone to err than men, he would not have
admonished them "to teach what is good" to children and other women (Titus
2:3-4; cf. II Tim 1:5; 3:15).

	Typological Role of Eve. The best way to understand the statement "the
woman was deceived" is to look at it not empirically, that is, by asking how
Eve's deception affects the subordination of women; but rather typologically,
that is, by asking what Eve's deception represents for Paul. Stephen B. Clark
perceptively points out that we tend to think empirically, that is, in terms
of observable causes, while Bible writers are "more inclined to think
typologically,"35 that is, in terms of the symbolic meaning of an event.
"Typological thinking," explains Clark, "focuses on the concrete event-the
'type' which reveals the general purpose or intention of God. Empirical
generalizations focus on verifiable facts and observed regularities."36
	Typological thought assumes that if Adam was formed first, then
Scripture must be indicating something about the role of man. Similarly, if
the woman was deceived and not man, then Scripture must be indicating
something about the role of women. As Adam is a "type" man (Rom 5:12, 18), so
Eve is a "type" woman, and her being deceived points to what women should do
or not do.
	How could Paul view Eve's deception as a type of woman's subor- dination
to man? The text does not tell us. We can presume that Paul understood Eve's
deception to be the result of her attempt to assert her independence from man.
The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary supports this interpretation: "The
apostle's second argument for the submissiveness of women is that when Eve
tried to assert leadership she was beguiled."37 What happened to Eve at that
most historic and significant occasion becomes then a type of what can happen
when the order of creation is reversed. "In verses 13-14, then," as Douglas
Moo observes, "Paul substantiates his teaching in verses 11-12 by arguing that
the created order establishes a relationship of subordination of woman to man,
which order, if bypassed, leads to disaster."38

	Subordination and the Fall. Some contend that the argument from the
deception of the woman is untenable because it bases the subordination of the
woman to man on the results of the Fall. If Paul's ruling about the
subordination of women in the church is based on the "curses" which resulted
from the Fall, then such ruling has been reversed by the work of Christ.39
	The weakness of this reasoning is twofold. First, it ignores the fact
that Paul's primary appeal is to the priority of Adam's formation. Second, it
fails to distinguish between the cause of the Fall and the results of the
Fall. Eve's deception was the cause of the Fall but it occurred before the
human race faced the judgment of God and began suffering its consequences.
Paul does not ground the subordination of women on the Fall, but on creation.
The point of his argument is that "Adam was formed first" and "the woman was
deceived." (vv. 13-14). These two events, which occurred before the human race
faced the judgment of God, typify for Paul the headship role of man and the
subordinate role of women.

	Saved through Childbirth? To counteract any possible misunderstanding
derived from his negative statements in verses 11-14, Paul concludes his
argument with a positive statement: "Yet woman will be saved through bearing
children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty" (v.
15). This verse is clearly connected with the preceding by the preposition de
("yet") and forms the climactic conclusion to the whole argument introduced in
verse 9 with the phrase "likewise women." Therefore, an understanding of this
closing statement can further clarify the meaning of the whole passage.
	The interpretation of this verse poses some linguistic problems. The
major one has to do with the verb sothesetai, which can mean either "she will
be saved" or "she will be kept safe through childbirth." The second option has
been adopted by the New International Version.40 According to this translation
what Paul is saying is that woman will survive childbirth if she is pious.
This interpretation is not only irrelevant to the context but also empirically
untrue. Godly Christian women have died bearing children.
	The first translation is in harmony with the usage of the verb "to save"
in Paul's writings where it virtually always refers to salvation from sin. The
question is, in what sense will a woman be saved through childbirth? Some
believe that it means that Christian women will be saved through good works,
figuratively represented by childbearing.41 This would be a flat contradiction
of Paul's view of salvation by faith in Christ.
	Others believe that it means that Christian women will be saved through
the childbirth, that is, the coming of the Messiah.42 This interpretation
finds support especially in the presence of the article "the childbirth" (tes
teknogonia), which could suggest a particular childbirth, namely, that of
Christ. Such a view, however, is discredited first of all by the most likely
lexical meaning of teknogonia ("childbearing" or "child-rearing") which
denotes the woman's role in giving birth, not the birth as such (cf. I Tim
5:14). Second, this interpretation does not fit the context. How can Mary's
role in the birth of Jesus be the means of the salvation of women?

	Faithfulness to Proper Role. The interpretation which best fits the
vocabulary and the contextual location of verse 15--the concluding statement
to the whole discussion on the role of women in the church-is the following:
Women will be saved, not by aspiring to the leadership role of
teacher-superintendent of the local congregation, but through faithfulness to
their maternal and domestic roles, providing they continue in faith, love, and
holiness, with modesty.43
	This interpretation admirably suits the immediate context of verses
9-14, where the concern of Paul is to emphasize the proper sphere of women's
activities. It also finds support in the larger context of the pastoral
epistles where a recurring motif is the need for Christian women to devote
themselves to their maternal and domestic roles (I Tim 5:9-14; Titus 2:3-5).
	This admonition was apparently needed to counteract the sinister
influence of false teachers, who counseled women to abstain from marriage (I
Tim 4:3) and to seek fulfilment outside the home (I Tim 5:13-15), by assuming
leadership roles in the church (I Tim 2:12). To counteract this teaching, Paul
urges Christian women to maintain their modesty" (sophrosyne)-a term he uses
twice (vv. 9, 15), at the beginning and at the end of his admonition.
Christian women were to show their modesty and propriety by dressing sensibly,
by learning submissively, by refraining from aspiring to the role of teacher
(leader) of the congregation, and by fulfilling their maternal-domestic roles.

	Salvation through Childbearing? Our interpretation poses a problem: Did
Paul mean in verse 15 that all women should get married and bear children in
order to be saved? Obviously not. We know from I Corinthians 7 that Paul
considered both celibacy and marriage a divine calling. Moreover, this view
would reduce salvation to a human relationship and biological process, rather
than to a divine gift of grace (Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16). Therefore,it is more
likely that Paul mentions childbearing as a typical, but not exclusive, aspect
of a woman's role. This is supported by I Timothy 5:14 where Paul expresses
the wish that younger widows "marry" and "bear children" (teknogonein). It is
obvious that Paul did not expect all young women to marry. Rather, he expected
them to maintain their proper domestic roles.
	To remove any possibility of attributing meritorious value to
childbearing, Paul adds the essential Christian virtues women must maintain:
"faith and love and holiness, with modesty" (v. 15). Verse 15 ends by
emphasizing "modesty," the very quality mentioned at the beginning of the
passage (v. 9). This quality is emphasized by Paul because it expresses the
chief virtue of a Christian woman, manifested not in aspiring to be the
teacher-leader of the congregation, but in maintaining a submissive and
domestic role, which is in accordance with the role for women established by
God at creation.
	In its immediate and larger context, then, I Timothy 2:15 helps to
clarify why Paul forbids women "to teach or to have authority over men" in the
church, namely, because he sees such a role as a violation of the proper
domestic and subordinate role God has established for women at creation. By
maintaining this proper role in faith, love and holiness, women, like men,
become recipients of the gift of eternal life.

	Contemporary Relevance. How relevant for us today is Paul's teaching
about the role of women in the home and in the church? Some argue that it is
totally irrelevant because today many married women find their fulfilment not
in rearing a family, but in pursuing a professional career. They argue that
had Paul lived in our age, he would have taken a much
different stand. Consequently, to be faithful to the "central thrust" or
"greater vision" of Paul, we must reject his restrictions and allow women to
function as leaders not only in the secular world, but also in the church
where they ought to be ordained as pastors/elders of the congregation. This
reasoning is unacceptable for three main reasons.
	First, Paul's conviction on the role of women in the church and in the
home derives not from cultural perceptions, but from his understanding of the
special role God has called women to fulfill. Rearing a family and being
subordinate were for Paul central elements of the Biblical definition of
womanhood and of her fulfilment of God's calling to mankind. Therefore, if
Paul lived today he would still admonish women to be true to their divinely
established roles.
	 A second reason why Paul's teachings on the role of women are relevant
today is because in some ways the contemporary emancipation of women may be
strikingly similar to that of his time.44 If, as numerous writers argue,
Paul's opponents in the pastoral epistles included "women [who] were in the
forefront of the libertarian trend,"45 as evidenced by their extravagant
dress, the "forsaking of domestic roles such as raising children in order to
assume such a prominent role in congregational life-as teaching,"46 then Paul
was addressing a situation rather similar to the one existing today.
	The existence of a "women's liberation" movement in early Christianity
is implied not only by Paul's strictness (I Tim 2:11-12; 5:13; II Tim 3:6; I
Cor 11:5-10; 14:34), but also by such post-NewTestament documents as the
apocryphal Acts of Paul (about A.D. 185). In the latter, Paul commissions a
woman, Thecla, to be a preacher and teacher of the word of God: "Go and teach
the word of God." Thecla obeyed by going away to Iconium. There she "went into
the house of Onesiphorus . . . and taught the oracles of God."47
	The attempt of this apocryphal document to present Paul, not as
forbidding, but as commissioning a woman to be an official teacher of the Word
of God in the church, offers an additional indication of the possible
existence of a feminist movement already in Paul's time.48 If such a movement
existed at that time, then Paul's instruction on the role of women in the
church would be particularly relevant to our time, when a feminist movement
within the church is gaining strength.

	The Witness of the Text. A third reason for accepting Paul's teaching in
I Timothy 2:11-15 as relevant for today is the fact that the text contains no
cultural elements that should be modified in the light of our new historical
situation. If Paul had said "I do not permit a woman to teach as the leader of
the church or to have authority over man because women are uneducated and
culturally unacceptable as leaders in the church," then there would be a
legitimate reason for rejecting his injunction as culturally relative.
	Paul, however, grounds his ruling not on cultural factors, but on the
events of the opening chapters of Genesis. He makes no reference whatsoever to
cultural factors such as lack of education and any possible cultural offense
which might result if women were allowed to teach as the leaders of the
congregation. His argument precludes the introduction of "new cultural
factors" which would cause him to take a different stand today on the role of
women in the church.

	Conclusion. The conclusion of our examination of I Timothy 2:9-15 is
that the intent of this passage, in the light of its immediate and wider
context of the pastoral epistles, is not to prohibit women from participating
in the general teaching ministry of the church ("they [women] are to teach
what is good"-Titus 2:3), but rather to restrain women from aspiring to the
restricted teaching role of the leader of the congregation. The reason for
Paul's ruling is that for a woman to exercise such a leadership role is
incompatible with the subordinate role which God at the beginning assigned to
women in the home and in the church. Essentially the same view is expressed by
Paul in I Corinthians 14:33b-36, a passage which we shall now examine.


NOTES

	1. Some of the studies which view I Timothy 2:9-15 as limiting or
prohibiting the full participation of women in the ministry of the church,
are: George. W. Knight III, "Authenteo in Reference to Women in I Timothy
2:12," New Testament Studies 30 (1984): 143-157; Douglas J. Moo, "The
Interpretation of I Timothy 2:11-15: A Rejoinder," Trinity Journal 2 (1981):
198-222; Carroll D. Osburn, "Authenteo (I Timothy 2:12)," Restoration
Quarterly 25 (1983): 1-12; A. J. Panning, "Authentein--A Word Study,"
Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 78 (1981): 185-191; B. W. Powers, "Women in the
Church: The Application of I Timothy 2:8-15," Interchange 17 (1975): 55-59;
Susan T. Foh, Women and the Word of God (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 1979), pp.
122-128; James B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 1981), pp. 193-228.

	2. Some of the studies which view I Timothy 2:9-15 as supporting the
full participation of women in the ministry of the church, are: J. J. Davis,
"Ordination of Women Reconsidered: Discussion of I Timothy 2:8-15,"
Presbyterian Communique 12 (November/December 1979): 1-15; N. J. Hommes, "Let
Women Be Silent in the Church: A Message Concerning the Worship Service and
the Decorum to Be Observed by Women," Calvin Theological Journal 4 (1969):
5-22; Catherine C. Kroeger, "Ancient Heresies and a Strange Greek Verb,"
Reformed Journal 29 (March 1979): 12-15; "1 Timothy 2:12--A Classicist's
View," in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen (Downers Grove,
Illinois, 1986), pp. 225-244; 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): 169-197; David M. Scholer,
"Exegesis: I Timothy 2:8-15," Daughters of Sarah 1 (May 1975): 7-8; also "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, Illinois 1986),
pp. 193-224; Aida D. B. Spencer, "Eve at Ephesus (Should Women Be Ordained As
Pastors According to the First Letter to Timothy 2:11-15?)," Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 17 (1974): 215-222.

	3. See, for example, Rom 1:27; I Cor 15:25, 53; II Cor 5:10; I Thess
4:1; I Tim 3:2; II Tim 2:6, 24; Titus 1:7, 11).

	4. James B. Hurley (n. 1), p. 196.

	5. David M. Scholer, "1 Timothy 2:9-15 and the Place of Women in the
Church's Ministry" (n. 2), pp. 200, 218. The same view is strongly defended by
Philip B. Payne (n. 2), pp. 190-194; Catherine C. Kroeger, "1 Timothy 2:12 - A
Classicist's View," (n. 2), pp. 225-244.

	6. I am indebted for some of the criteria to Douglas J. Moo, "The
Interpretation of I Timothy 2:11-15: A Rejoinder" (n. 1), pp. 220-221.

	7. Carroll D. Osburn (n. 1), p. 11.

	8. Susan T. Foh (n. 1), p. 123.

	9. For an extensive documentation of this point, see David M. Scholer,
"Women's Adornment: Some Historical and Hermeneutical Observations on the New
Testament Passages," Daughters of Sarah 6, (January/February 1980):3-6.

	10. David M. Scholer, "1 Timothy 2:9-15 and the Place of Women in the
Church's Ministry" (n. 2), pp. 201-202; see also n. 9.

	11. Philip B. Payne (n. 2), p. 191; see also David M. Scholer, "1
Timothy 2:9-15 and the Place of Women in the Church's Ministry," (n. 2), p.
202.

	12. Philip B. Payne (n. 2), p. 192.

	13. Aida Spencer, "Eve at Ephesus," The Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 17 (1974): 217.

	14. Philip B. Payne offers very compelling reasons for translating
hesychia as "quiet" and not "silence" (n. 2), pp. 169-170.

	15. James B. Hurley (n. 1), p. 200.

	16. N. J. Hommes, "Let Women Be Silent in Church," Calvin Theological
Journal 4 (April 1969): 7.

	17. Douglas J. Moo sees in verses 11 and 12 a chiastic structure
(inverted parallelism) with the word "submission" (hypotage) functioning as
the pivotal point of the verses ("1 Timothy 2:11-15: Meaning and
Significance," Trinity Journal 1 [1980]: 64).

	18. James B. Hurley (n. 1), p. 201.

	19. Philip B. Payne (n. 2), p. 172; also G. Osborne, "Hermeneutics and
Women in the Church," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20
(1977): 347.

	20. David M. Scholer (n. 10), p. 205; also Grant Osborne (n. 18), p.
346; Richard and Joice Boldrey, Chauvinist or Feminist? Paul's View of Women
(Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976), p. 62; Philip B. Payne (n. 2), pp. 173-175;
Catherine C. Kroeger (n. 2), pp. 225-232.

	21. David M. Scholer (n. 10), p. 203.

	22. Ibid., p. 205; the same view is defended by Philip B. Payne (n. 2),
p. 175. A similar conclusion is reached by Catherine C. Kroeger who interprets
I Timothy 2:12 as follows: "I do not allow a woman to teach nor to represent
herself as the originator or source of man" ("1 Timothy 2:12 - A Classicist's
View" [n. 2], p. 232).

	23. George W. Knight III, "Authenteo in Reference to Women in I Timothy
2:12," New Testament Studies 30 (January 1984): 152. The same view is
expressed by Fritz Zerbst, The Office of Woman in the Church (St. Louis,
Missouri, 1953), p. 53 (Zerbst gives an extensive list of other authors who
hold the same view); J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles
(London, 1963), p. 68; James B. Hurley (n. 1), p. 202; Stephen B. Clark, Man
and Woman in Christ (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1980), pp. 197-198.

	24. George W. Knight III (n. 23), p. 152.

	25. See I Tim 4:6, 13, 16; II Tim 3:14-17; 4:1-4; Titus 1:9; 2:1, 7.

	26. Karl H. Rengstorf, "Didasko," Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1974), vol. 2, p. 147;
also Douglas J. Moo, "1 Timothy 2:11-15: Meaning and Significance" (n. 1), pp.
65-66; "The Interpretation of Timothy 2:11-15: A Rejoinder" (n. 1), pp.
200-202; R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles to the
Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon
(Minneapolis, 1937), p. 564; David P. Scaer, "May Women Be Ordained as
Pastors?" The Springfielder 36-2 (September, 1972): 104; Susan T. Foh (n. 1),
p. 125.

	27. J. Keir Howard, "Neither Male nor Female: An Examination of the
Status of Women in the New Testament," The Evangelical Quarterly 55, 1
(January, 1983): 41.

	28. Aida Spencer, (n. 2), p. 219; Philip B. Payne (n. 2), pp. 175-177.

	29. Douglas J. Moo provides a most compelling critical refutation of
this interpretation in ("The Interpretation of I Timothy 2:11-15: A
Rejoinder," Trinity Journal 2 (1981): 202-204.

	30. Paul K. Jewett, Man as Male and Female (Grand Rapids, MI, 1975), p.
57.

	31. Virginia Mollenkott, Women, Men and the Bible (Nashville, 1977), p.
99; Arlene Swidler, Woman in a Man's Church (New York, 1972), pp. 34-35; Karl
Schelkle, The Spirit and the Bride (Collegeville, Minnesota, 1979), p. 90.

	32. Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty, All We're Meant to Be: A Biblical
Approach to Women's Liberation (Waco, Texas, 1974), p. 28; see also Paul K.
Jewett (30), pp. 126-127; Karen Hoover, "Creative Tension in I Timothy
2:11-15," Brethren Life 22 (1977): 164; Margaret Howe, Women and Church
Leadership (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1982), pp. 46-47.

	33. Elizabeth Fiorenza, in The Liberating Word: A Guide to Nonsexist
Interpretation of Scripture, ed. Letty Russel (Philadelphia, 1976), p. 49.

	34. Paul K. Jewett (n. 30), p. 61; Francis Cleary, "Women in the New
Testament," Biblical Theology Bulletin 10 (1980): 81; Donald Guthrie, The
Pastoral Epistles: an Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan,
1957), p. 77; H. P. Liddon, Explanatory Analysis of St. Paul's First Epistle
to Timothy (Minneapolis, 1978), p. 19.

	35. Stephen B. Clark, Man and Woman in Christ (Ann Arbor, MI, 1980), p.
204.

	36. Ibid.

	37. The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, D. C.,
1957), vol. 7, p. 296; see also George W. Knight III, The Role Relationship of
Men and Women (Chicago, 1985), p. 32.

	38. Douglas J. Moo (n. 17), p. 70.

	39. See, for example, Ida Ramig, Exclusion of Women from the Priesthood:
Divine Law or Sex Discrimination? (Metuchen, 1976), pp. 111-116; A. M.
McGrath, O. P., What a Modern Catholic Believes about Women (Chicago, 1972),
pp. 36-37.

	40. This translation has been adopted also by Moffat and NASB.

----------------------------------

Christian regards

Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D.,
Professor of Theology and Church History
Andrews University
4990 Appian Way
Berrien Springs, MI 49103
samuele@andrews.edu