Jesus Christ is Superior to Aaron as God’s High Priest (Hebrews 4:14–10:18): Part 4 of 7

While admittedly “hard to explain” (5:10-11), the significance of the Melchizedek priesthood is now laid out. The historical record of Melchizedek is found in Genesis 14:18-20; Psalm 110:4; and Hebrews 7:1-10.

Who was Melchizedek?

“For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated ‘king of righteousness,’ and then also king of Salem, meaning ‘king of peace,’ without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually” (Hebrews 7:1-3, NKJV).

The Hebrew name “Melchizedek” means “king of righteousness,” while the historical Melchizedek ruled as king of “Salem.” Shalom is the Hebrew word for “peace,” so Melchizedek was essentially the king of “peace.” The ancient city of Salem, at one time inhabited by the Jebusites, was the location of what later became known as Jerusalem (“Jebu” + “Salem”). Righteousness and peace are also qualities of the Messiah and his kingdom (cf. 1:8; Psa. 72:7; Isa. 9:6-7).

Melchizedek was “priest of the Most High God,” long before the Levitical priesthood of the Jews, and Abraham gave him “a tenth” (or “tithe”) of all the spoils of his victory (in rescuing Lot) after Melchizedek had blessed him (Gen. 14:20). Some form of priesthood has existed from earliest times:

o   Cain and Abel made offerings to the Lord (11:4; Gen. 4:3-4).

o   Noah “built an altar to the Lord ... and offered burnt offerings on the altar” (Gen. 8:20).

o   Job offered burnt offerings for his children (Job 1:5).

o   Abraham built an altar and offered a ram for a burnt offering (Gen. 13:18; 22:9-13).

o   Melchizedek was a “priest of the Most High God” (Heb. 7:1-2).

o   Jethro was “the priest of Midian” (Ex. 2:16; 3:1).

With respect to his priesthood Melchizedek was without father, mother, genealogy, beginning or end. Under the Law of Moses the office of priest was determined by ancestry (cf. Deut. 18:1-8). Melchizedek’s priesthood was conferred directly from God, perhaps based on personal credentials, but was not inherited from father, mother or genealogical descent. The Aaronic priesthood was passed on from generation to generation, thus there was a beginning and end in conjunction with the lifespan of each priest (cf. v. 23; Num. 20:24-29). Melchizedek’s priesthood was not inherited by a predecessor or passed on to a successor, thus there was no beginning or end in the sense of succession.

Melchizedek was “made like the Son of God” in that his priesthood abides “continually” (NKJV) or “perpetually” (NASB) or “forever” (NIV). Note the recurring emphasis: “he lives on” (v. 8), “an endless/indestructible life” (v. 16), “forever” (vv. 17, 21), “continues/abides forever … unchangeable/permanently” (v. 24), “always lives” (v. 25), “forever” (v. 28).

The Melchizedek Priesthood is Superior to the Levitical Priesthood

“Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils. And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham; but he whose genealogy is not derived from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better. Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives. Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him” (Hebrews 7:4-10).

The Melchizedek priesthood is superior to the Levitical priesthood because:

o   Melchizedek received tithes from Abraham (vv. 4-6), the acknowledged father of the Jewish people.

o   Melchizedek (the greater) blessed Abraham (the lesser) (v. 7).

o   Mortal (lit. “dying”) men (Levitical priests) receive tithes “here” (presently–at the time of writing),¹ but they eventually die and are succeeded; Melchizedek received tithes “there” (in the past) but he “lives on” (v. 8). As far as historical documentation, his death is unrecorded and he thus lives on in Scripture. Moreover, he lives on in the sense that his priesthood has no end (cf. v. 3).

o   Levi himself, in proxy through his great-grandfather Abraham, paid tithes to Melchizedek (vv. 9-10).

A New Priesthood was Needed

“Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law” (Hebrews 7:11-12).

“Therefore” [oun], since the new (Melchizedek) order of priest is superior (v. 11), “perfection” [teleíōsis] or “completeness” (being completely right with God) was not possible through the Levitical priesthood, the basis of the sacrificial system undergirding the Mosaic Law. Thus, another (Melchizedek) order is needed as opposed to the current (Aaronic) order still functioning at the time of writing (cf. 8:7; Gal. 3:21-25).

A change of priesthood necessitates a change of the Law (v. 12). The Law of Moses (the basis of the first covenant with Israel) is now changed, annulled, weak, and unprofitable (7:12, 18), obsolete (8:13), merely a foreshadowing of things to come (10:1), taken out of the way (10:9; cf. 2 Cor. 3:14; Col. 2:14). We are no longer under this Law nor are we justified by it (Gal. 2:16; 3:24-25).

The Lord is High Priest after a New Order

“For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. For He testifies: “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.” For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God” (Hebrews 7:13-19).

Jesus was of the tribe of Judah (cf. Matt. 1:1-17; 2:1-6), from which no one had ever officiated at the altar (or served as priest) (vv. 13-14a). Of the tribe of Judah “Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood” (v. 14b). This is an argument from silence (a.k.a. rule of exclusion). The Law does not contain the explicit statement: “Priests shall not come from the tribe of Judah.” However, the Law does specify from which tribe priests were to come, viz. Levi (cf. v. 5; Num. 1:50; 3:6-13; Deut. 10:8-9; 18:1-5). Therefore, all other tribes are excluded by the principle of silence, i.e., no scriptural authority.²

To fulfill the OT prophecy of “a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (Psa. 110:4), the Levitical priesthood of mere mortals was insufficient (vv. 15-17). The “former commandment” or “law” has therefore had to be annulled/set aside because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for it makes nothing perfect (vv. 18-19a; cf. 8:7). No one could keep it perfectly (cf. Rom. 8:3; Jas. 2:10; 3:2; Gal. 3:10) or be justified by it (cf. Acts 13:39; Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16, 21; 3:11, 21). On the other hand, “there is the bringing in of a better hope” (v. 19b), something only Jesus can provide (cf. 6:18-20), “through which we draw near to God” (v. 19b; cf. v. 25; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2:5).

The Superiority of Jesus’s Priesthood

“And inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath (for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him: “The Lord has sworn And will not relent, ‘You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek’ ”), by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant. Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing. But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them” (Hebrews 7:20-25).

Jesus’s priesthood is superior because:

o   Unlike the Levitical priesthood, it is established on an immutable oath from God (vv. 20-21); quote again from Psa. 110:4; cf. 6:16-20.

o   Jesus has become “the guarantee of a better covenant” or “testament” (KJV) (7:22). A covenant is an agreement between at least two parties with conditions to be met and promises to be fulfilled (cf. 8:6).

o   The Levitical priesthood was under constant transition (death, succession), but Jesus “abides forever” and has an “unchangeable/permanent priesthood” (vv. 23-24).

o   Jesus is able to save eis tó pantelés (“to the entirety/uttermost”), whether completely or forever (v. 25a; cf. 2:3; 5:9; Luke 13:11), “those who come/draw near to God through him” (v. 25b; cf. v. 19b; 4:16; 10:19-22).

o   “He always lives to make intercession for them” (v. 25c; cf. 9:24; Rom. 8:34; 1 John 2:1)

The Once-for-All-Time Sacrifice

“For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever” (Hebrews 7:26-28).

Jesus as High Priest was fitting for us (v. 26; cf. 2:10) because he is:

o   Holy [hósios], devout, pious, pleasing to God.

o   Harmless/innocent [ákakos], guileless, uncorrupted by sin.

o   Undefiled [amíantos], morally pure.

o   Having been separated [kechōrisménos] (perfect passive participle) from sinners: not necessarily a reference to his sinlessness (cf. 4:15; 9:28) but to his removal from the sinful earth (as per the following).

o   Higher than/exalted above the heavens (cf. 1:3; 4:14; 9:24; Eph. 4:10; 1 Pet. 3:22).

Jesus provides the once-for-all-time sacrifice (vv. 27-28). The old (inferior) system of Judaism required daily sacrifices (cf. Lev. 6:8-13), including those for the high priests themselves (cf. Lev. 9:7; 16:6). The new (superior) way of Christ involved the sacrifice of himself once for all [ephápax] (cf. 9:12, 28; 10:10; Rom. 6:10). High priests were appointed by the Mosaic Law, but the Son is appointed directly by Father God and “the word of the oath” (cf. vv. 20-21; 6:16-20). And the Son has been perfected forever (cf. 7:16-17, 21, 24, 25).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ The verb lambánousin (present tense) indicates that the Levitical priesthood and tithing system were concurrent with the writing of Hebrews, thus prior to September AD 70.

     ² See K. L. Moore, “Musical Praise and Biblical Silence,” Moore Perspective (10 June 2015), <Link>.

Related Posts: Heb 6:9-18, Name of Jerusalem, Heb 8:1-13

 

Image credit: Abraham and Melchizedek by Juan Antonio de Frías y Escalante (1668), <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abraham_y_Melquisedec,_por_Juan_Antonio_de_Fr%C3%ADas.jpg>. 

Jesus Couldn’t Be a Priest But a Woman Can Be a Preacher?

     Jesus’ actions and words demonstrate the kind of servant he was. “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work" (John 4:34).¹ “I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me” (John 5:30). “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me” (John 6:38). “He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who seeks the glory of the One who sent Him is true, and no unrighteousness is in Him” (John 7:18). “And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him” (John 8:29). “O My Father … not as I will but as You will .... Your will be done” (Matt. 26:39-42).

     The Lord Jesus Christ truly had the heart of a servant, humbly and wholly committed to the will of his Father. He was always ready to deny himself, make sacrifices, and go to extreme lengths to fulfill his heavenly purpose. Jesus never compromised or disobeyed (Phil. 2:8). His primary aim was to submit to the divine will, and he never said or did anything that was contrary to it (Heb. 4:15).

Jesus Couldn’t Be a Priest

     During his earthly ministry Jesus served his Father in many different ways, but never as priest. Why not? In the environment in which he lived, what greater honor could there have been than to serve as a recognized leader of God's people, religious teacher, spiritual mentor, worship facilitator, and designated link between frail humans and the heavenly throne? Surely Jesus was gifted enough and possessed the necessary talents, integrity, and attributes to do a stellar job. Moreover, in view of the comparatively inferior alternatives, who better to hold the distinguished position of high priest?

     But Jesus never served as priest or high priest on earth, and there is no indication that he ever aspired to do so. And it had nothing to do with whether or not he was capable of performing priestly duties, or whether he or others may have desired it. The bottom line is, the law of God did not allow it. “For He [Jesus] of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood” (Heb. 7:13-14).

     Jesus was not permitted to serve as an Israelite priest on earth because of something beyond his control, namely his status at birth. The divine will had decreed that priests were to be appointed from the tribe of Levi through the family of Aaron (Lev. 8:5 ff.; cf. Heb. 7:5), therefore Jesus (of Judah) was not qualified. From a human perspective with no consideration of biblical precepts, Jesus was more than qualified. But there was no divine authorization for a person of the tribe of Judah (even Jesus!) to serve as priest.

     It’s not that Jesus was incapable of being a priest or fulfilling priestly functions. There had been others who were not of Levi who had attempted to do priestly things (cf. 1 Sam. 13:9-14),² but in so doing the law of God was violated. Jesus could not be a priest because his faithfulness to God would not allow him to defiantly venture down that disobedient path.

Can a Woman Be a Preacher?

     There are no doubt many gifted women who are fully capable of doing the work of a preacher (in its customarily understood sense). The real question is, does the divine will permit them to engage in this avenue of leadership-service?

     “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence” (1 Timothy 2:11-12). Now in all fairness, before we rip this passage from its context and apply it to the modern-day issue of female preachers, we need to consider what the inspired writer was seeking to convey to his original audience, how they would have understood the message in the context in which it was written, and then determine how it applies to our current situation.³

     We have been told that there are multiple reasons this passage does not say what we think it says to the 21st-century church. Some claim that the apostle Paul did not actually pen these words, therefore we can’t take the biased admonition of a misogynistic pseudepigrapher as authoritative (cf. J. Veitch, Faith for a New Age 165-66).⁴ For those who are not willing to go this far, a more popular assertion is that Paul’s directives are culturally limited and therefore no longer applicable in modern, western societies (cf. G. Rogers, The Bible Culturally Speaking 196-214). At the risk of being summarily dismissed as “unscholarly” or as a “patternistic traditionalist,” when I remove the distorted lenses of 21st-century westernized thinking, I honestly have trouble reaching the same conclusions as my pro-female-preaching associates.
An Examination of the Text

     Before giving instructions to Christian women in 1 Timothy 2:9-15, the chapter begins with emphasis on prayer, particularly the content of prayer, with special focus in v. 8 on the ones praying.⁵ The apostle specifically instructs “the men” [tous andras], viz. adult males, to pray “in every place” [en panti topō], i.e. not just any place indiscriminately but contextually wherever Christian men and women assemble for prayer. This appears to be in reference to the men leading public prayers, contrasted with what is expected of the women (v. 9).

     The directive continues, “in like manner also, the women …” (v. 9a), in contrast to what is expected of “the men” (v. 8). “Let a woman learn [manthanō] …” (v. 11a), which is the opposite of teaching (v. 12).⁶ The word translated “silence” in vv. 11-12 is hēsuchía and has reference to a quiet, gentle disposition (cf. 2 Thess. 3:12), while “submission” [hupotassō] means to willingly sub-order oneself (v. 11b; cf. 1 Cor. 14:34; Eph. 5:21-22, 24; Col. 3:18; Tit. 2:5).

     “And I [Paul] do not permit a woman to teach [didaskein] …” (v. 12). This is not a total prohibition (cf. Tit. 2:3-5) but is qualified.⁷ The instruction continues with oude, meaning “and not, nor, not even,” then authentein, meaning “to have authority, domineer” (BAGD 121). The object is andros (genitive of anēr), i.e. “of a man, over a man” (adult male). If authentein further explains or qualifies didaskein, the point is that a woman is not permitted to teach a man authoritatively, or to domineer/exercise authority over him by way of teaching.   

     The natural question to ask is, why is this proscription given? Is it because women are inferior? Is it because they are incapable of effective teaching? Is it because this particular cultural environment or unique situation dictated it?⁸ Let’s allow Paul himself to explain. The God-breathed explanation (gar = “for”) is that “Adam was formed first, then Eve” (v. 13). The stated reason is not local or temporary social convention; the pronouncement here is rooted in the unchangeable order of creation.⁹ Woman was created to complement man, not the reverse order (Gen. 2:18; 1 Cor. 11:3, 8-9).

     What if I don’t fully understand Paul’s explanation? What if I don’t agree with his reasoning? What if his teaching is adverse to ancient or modern cultural sensibilities? No matter how many alternative rationales are proposed, this biblical directive and the reason behind it are unchanging. Failure to comply while affirming allegiance to Christ is to either dismiss the Bible as our authoritative standard or view Paul’s teachings as inferior to other parts of scripture or claim that subjective “leadings” and feelings carry more weight than the objective (politically-incorrect) instructions of God’s sacred word.

Concluding Observations

     There are other relevant passages to consider, which we hope to address in future articles, as well as positive roles for women in the Lord’s work. But for now, let’s just ponder Christ-like servant-hood.

     While Jesus was fully capable of doing the job of a priest during his earthly ministry, he did not. The law of God would not allow it. Interestingly, this was not by means of explicit prohibition; there was none. Rather, Jesus could not function as priest with divine approval because of the prohibitive silence of scripture: “Moses spoke nothing” concerning it (Heb. 7:13-14). In other words, there was no divine sanction or biblical authorization for Jesus to have served as a Levitial priest. He was not qualified simply due to his status at birth. And because of his resolute allegiance to the Father’s will, there is no indication that he was ever discontent with his heavenly-appointed role void of priestly responsibilities.

     Whether or not a woman (gifted or otherwise) is capable of doing the work of a gospel preacher, does she possess the attitude of Jesus? None of us can judge sincerity or intentions, but we can observe actions. Not only is there no biblical authority or divine sanction for female church leaders, there are actually explicit prohibitions against it (1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:9-15).¹⁰ A godly woman with a Christ-like spirit will not decry her gender assignment at birth or bemoan the special role she has been designated, nor will she seek to be in an authoritative/leadership position in the church that has been delegated to others. To exhibit the mind of Christ and to follow his perfect example is to utilize one’s unique situation, within prescribed scriptural boundaries, to the glory of God.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, all scripture quotations are from the NKJV.

     ² In 1 Samuel 13, Saul (a Benjamite) offered a burnt offering that only a Levitical priest was authorized to do. When Samuel asked, “What have you done?” (v. 11), Saul replied, “I felt compelled …” (v. 12, emp. added). Notice that subjective feeling trumped the expressed will of God, which prompted the following response: “You have done foolishly. You have not kept the commandment of the Lord your God, which He commanded you” (v. 13).

     ³ See Biblical Interpretation: Asking the Right Questions. The context: “To Timothy … in Ephesus” (1:1-3a) around AD 62-64. Timothy is admonished to teach truth and stand against falsehood (1:3b-20), with specific instructions concerning public prayer (2:1-8), the demeanor of women (2:9-15), qualifications of elders and deacons (3:1-13), conduct in the church (3:14-16), dealing with false teaching (4:1-16), instructions concerning various members (5:1–6:2), and miscellaneous exhortations (6:3-21).

     ⁴ For a response, see K. L. Moore, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament 177-80; also Biblical Authorship: Challenging Anti-Conservative Presuppositions (Part 1).
     ⁵ Paul’s statement, “I desire” [boulomai], means “to will, decree, appoint” (cf. 5:14; 1 Cor. 12:11; Tit. 3:8) on the basis of reason rather than emotion. See BAGD 146; H. K. Moulton, Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised 72; K. Wuest, Word Studies 45. On the concept of men “lifting up holy hands,” see Lifting Up Holy Hands.

     ⁶ While the Greek third person imperative is typically rendered, “Let him/her,” this should not be equated with the permissive idea in English. “Its force is more akin to he must, however, or periphrastically, I command him to …” (D. B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics 486). That a Christian woman is even permitted to “learn” is revolutionary considering the patriarchal environment that discouraged the education of women (D. McNamara, FHU University's Scholars' Day, 26 Oct. 2018). Further, women are to adorn themselves en katastolē kosmiō … (v. 9b), lit. in respectable deportment. Reading this passage through first-century Ephesian glasses makes sense of the culturally-relevant “braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing” (v. 9c), but please note that the stated reason for the subsequent female-teaching prohibition goes beyond local custom (vv. 12-15). See K. L. Moore’s “Divine Regulations and Cultural Conventions,” in Getting to Know the Bible 69-73.

     ⁷ K. Wuest, citing Dana and Mantey (Manual Grammar of the Greek NT 199), observes that the present imperative “to teach” here carries the force of “teacher,” thus Paul is not allowing a woman to be a teacher of men (Word Studies 48-49).

     ⁸ G. Rogers alleges that the reason is “not because there was anything inherently wrong with women teaching men, but because of the unique situation (which we do not fully understand) here in Ephesus” (The Bible Culturally Speaking 210). Others are more confident in their explanation, affirming that the unique situation in Ephesus involved cult prostitution (cf. S. H. Gritz, Paul, Women Teachers 39-40), but there is no historical justification for this baseless assertion (see esp. S. M. Baugh, “Cult Prostitution” 443-60).

     ⁹ D. B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics 525. The secondary reason given is the following: “And Adam was not deceived [hapatáō], but the woman being deceived [exapatáō], fell into transgression” (v. 14). The verb hapatáō, used passively here of Adam, means to “deceive, cheat, mislead,” whereas exapatáō, used passively of Eve, is an intensified form meaning “thoroughly deceived.” The woman gegonen (perfect tense of ginomai), lit. “stands in a position of having become” thoroughly deceived; i.e. she was in the past and continues to be in the present [recognized as one] thoroughly deceived. Note that the pronominal reference to “she” in v. 15 (lit. “she will be saved through the childbearing”) has “the woman” (v. 14) as its nearest antecedent, identified as “Eve” in v. 13.   

     ¹⁰ For responses to commonly raised objections, see Questions Concerning Woman's Role. The oft-cited biblical examples of women serving the Lord (e.g. Luke 2:36-38; John 4:28-29; 20:1-2; Acts 2:17-18; 21:9; Rom. 16:1-3, 6, 7, 12; Phil. 4:2-3) are a far (anachronistic) cry from the modern concept of female preachers. On the role of prophetesses in the early church, see Female Head-coverings (Part 2).

Works Cited:

BAGD: Bauer, Walter, W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Baugh, S. M. “Cult Prostitution in New Testament Ephesus: A Reappraisal,” in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:3 (1999): 443-60, <Link>. 

Gritz, Sharon Hodgin. Paul, Women Teachers, and the Mother Goddess at Ephesus: A Study of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 in Light of the Religious and Cultural Milieu of the First Century. Lanham; New York; London: University Press of America, 1991.

Moore, Kevin L. A Critical Introduction to the New Testament: Study and Lecture Notes. Henderson, TN: Hester, 2009.

---. Getting to Know the Bible: A Concise Introduction and Study Guide. Winona, MS: Choate, 2002.

Moulton, Harold K., ed. The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978.

Rogers, Glenn. The Bible Culturally Speaking: the Role of Culture in the Production, Presentation and Interpretation of God’s Word. By the author: Mission and Ministry Resources, 2004.

Veitch, James. Faith For a New Age: the Story of Christianity in the first half of the Second Century. Vol. 4 of The New Testament in modern translation arranged in chronological order. Hibiscus Coast, NZ: Colcom, 1994.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Wuest, Kenneth. Word Studies: The Pastoral Epistles in the Greek New Testament for the English Reader. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Related Posts: A Woman's Service in the Church, Let the Women "Keep Silent", The Bible's Radical View on Women

Related Articles: Wes McAdams' People Demeaning Women; Adam Faughn's The Main Issue; Michael Burer, "Well Known to the Apostles," JETS 58/4 (2015): 731-55; Scott Elliott, Gender & Justice,  Patrick Swayne, Go Back Further

Videos: Dr. Richard Oster's exegesis of Gal. 3:28 <Link>.

Image credit: http://www.clker.com/cliparts/f/T/8/t/a/R/faith-arise-jesus-hi.png