For all those that argue for the full inclusion of women in leadership in the church, 1 Timothy 2:12 holds a remarkable place of power in the argument. I have argued that the Bible and especially Paul elevate women in leadership, and that 1 Corinthians is a fine example of Paul’s argument for radically equal relationships between husbands and wives. But this passage has a way of trumping all others in this conversation.
I rather agree with Gail Wallace from her post with an enviable title, “Defusing the 1 Timothy 2:12 Bomb,” that this one passage is a little like throwing a grenade into the conversation. (You should check out her post if for no other reason than to explore the good work that is being done over at The Junia Project.) The reason this is so effective at stopping conversation is that it alone of all New Testament passages would seem to prohibit women’s leadership if read with a hermeneutic that is not aware of contextual matters. That is an important sentence for this discussion, so I will unpack it some more.
All other passages on this issue, if read within the full context in their own right, will show that women had various kinds of teaching and leadership responsibilities. A good example is the heavily contextual matters of 1 Corinthians 11. But as I explained in that post, neither this verse nor 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 can legitimately be taken in this way because 1 Corinthians 11:5 assumes that women will be leading and prophesying in the congregation. But this one passage from Paul (1 Tim. 2:12), if read on the surface can easily be mistaken for prohibiting women’s leadership and it has often been read that way.
So let’s begin by saying this: This one verse is the lynchpin in the entire complementarian argument. Before I get into the interpretation itself, it is an important principle of interpretation that we NOT build entire systems of theology upon a single verse. It is also a principle that we have to take the whole counsel of God’s word together, and that the bulk of the material that supports women in leadership at all levels cannot be undermined by a single passage to the contrary. Finally, it is also an important principle of interpretation that you do not build entire networks of theology off of passages that are unclear. While I will try to clarify the context and meaning of this passage as much as possible, there is still considerable ambiguity as to how it should be interpreted.
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety (1 Timothy 2, NIV).
The source of that ambiguity primarily rests on the ambiguity of a single word: authentein. This word appears no where else in the New Testament. It appears as a verb only here and about 4 other occurrences in all literature of the period (Payne, 361-397; it begins to occur more often several hundred years later). The noun forms appear more often in extra-biblical literature, however. “As Chantraine noted, the authent- root words are typically strong and emotionally-laden words with negative or dominating overtones such as: murderer, domestic murderer, perpetrator, or autocrat” (Payne, 363). The verb form is sometimes used for murdering someone or for “murdering one’s self” (suicide), but that is clearly not the application here.
The more applicable uses of this word have to do with something like the word “domineer.” According to Belleville, “In fact, all known extrabiblical instances of autothentein (rare though they may be) prior to the second century AD without exception have to do with power or domination” (Two Views On Women In Ministry, 95). For instance, in the context of a financial dispute over the price for ferrying cattle, “I had my way with him [kamou authentekotos pros auton], and he agreed to provide Calatytis the boatman with the full fare within the hour” (quoted in Two Views, 96). And then in a second century AD text on astronomy, Ptolemy says
If Saturn alone is ruler of the soul and dominates [authentes] Mercury and the moon, if he has a dignified position with reference to the universe and the angles, he makes his subjects lovers of the body, strong-minded, deep thinkers, austere, of a single purpose, laborious, dictatorial, ready to punish, lovers of property, avaricious, violent, amassing treasure, and jealous; but if his position is the opposite and without dignity… (Tetrabiblos, III.13, my emphasis)
Paul had several verbs at his disposal that would mean “to have authority” as the 1984 NIV improperly translates 1 Timothy 2:12 (the new edition is “assume authority,” only marginally better). Paul is concerned that women had started to “teach and domineer” over men in the same way that men had previously done to women. It’s not surprising that women in Ephesus would do so.
As many have argued, the permission for women to learn which is given in verse 11 is an innovation within Jewish circles. Here as in so many other places, Paul wasn’t affirming the patriarchy of his time. He was subverting it. Only men learned the Scripture in such a way. But women having religious authority was not unique in Ephesus (where Timothy is pastoring when the letter is written). In fact, the goddess Artemis, who’s temple was the most prominent religious feature in Ephesus, had a woman as high priestess. Unlike the “temple priestesses” in Corinth, the high priestess in Ephesus was not a “leader” with no real authority that was being abused for sex. The Artemis priest had real authority. So the women in Ephesus would be even more likely than the women in Corinth to take the permission to learn as a matter of privilege that could be lorded over the men. Other women in their city already held such religious authority. It’s likely (though not certain) that Paul is calling these women to learn in submission to God, not to men, just as the men would be called to do.
Paul is not concerned with women teaching, but rather misusing their new permission to learn as a permission to lord over the men as teachers. Most of them simply would not have been ready for this kind of role, given that few would be educated at a very high level. And given that the point of Paul’s writing is concern with false teachers (1 Tim 1:3-7), it’s not surprising that he would chasten the domineering authority of women that were largely uneducated.
Some have argued that the reason given for the subordination of women is not a cultural one, but is rather based on primal man and women (Adam and Eve). They would suggest that this is about the way things always are between man and woman. But notice the argument: Adam was born first, then Eve, and it was Eve that was deceived. Why was Eve able to be deceived in Genesis? The text isn’t explicit, but notice that Eve isn’t there when God gives commands about the garden to Adam. She only had these commands second hand, and therefore is easily deceived about what God actually said to Adam. Like the women in Ephesus, she was easily deceived because she had not been taught. As Paul instructs a community dealing with false teachers, he instructs them to not let uneducated women become deceived and then perpetuate false teaching.
It seems unlikely that any modern person could argue theologically or practically that women are any more open to deception than men in respect to false teaching. Women today are not only educated as well as men, younger women are on average more educated than younger men. The implications of this passage are (at least) a warning not to allow those that are of inferior teaching ability to domineer over the congregation in their ignorant zeal, whether they are men or women.
I do not think that Paul intended his words to mean that women could not teach men, in his time or ours. I think he was concerned that women were domineering men, and were often (in his time) doing so from a place of ignorance.
Some have read the list of qualifications for elders in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 as prohibiting women from these positions. The argument goes something like this: “An elder has to be a ‘husband of one wife.’ A husband can’t be a woman, so elders must be men.” This argument is such a bad interpretation that I know very few scholars that even bother with countering it. Even the two complementarian scholars of Two Views On Women In Ministry do not make an argument from these passages. To insist that this construction means that an elder must be a man would also mean that an elder must be married and have children. Obviously this would exclude Jesus, likely Paul, and most of the men that have been called to lead the church throughout her history. It would also contradict Paul’s own instructions to remain single for the sake of the Gospel (1 Cor. 7).
These instructions, quite simply, are about the lifestyle of the potential leader. It is telling that Paul gives no other demographic information about potential leaders. He isn’t concerned with demographics in these passages, but ethics.
I have not written in such a manner to finally convince those that disagree with me. I only hope to scratch the surface of assumptions about these passages (and those from previous posts) to provoke an interest in you that will cause you to probe into the sources cited here. After many years of study, I’m more convinced than ever that Paul never intended to limit the leadership of women in any way, in spite of too many claims to the contrary.
The scholarship is readily available. The one that has ears, let them hear.
Previous Posts: The Bible Says Women Should Lead – Part 1
The Bible Says Women Should Lead – Part 2 (1 Corinthians)
Related Post: 4 Reasons Why Ordaining Women Is No Longer An Option
Click here to see all that I’ve written on women in ministry.
In addition to the sources cited in this article, I also recommend these sources for more help with 1 Timothy:
Discovering Biblical Equality (IVP anthology)
Paul, Women, and Wives (Craig Keener)
Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes (Kenneth Bailey)
Women Leaders and the Church: Three Crucial Questions (Linda Belleville)
Dr. Jeremiah Gibbs 
Here I share my own understanding:
1. Mt 19:4;mk10:6; ‘At’ the begining God made them Male and Female and in Gen1:27 says God created male and female. The first is MALE.
2. Gen2:18 says I will make a HELPER for him.
Think: Are they (both) equal in God sight? Or is there any superiority or inferiority before God? Who is greater Helper and one who is Being Helped?
3.Gen.3:16 God says your desire will be your husband and he(husband) will Rule over you (female-wife)
Think: To whom God has given a Ruling power to Women ? By whom female-wife would be Rule ? What does RULING include -teaching preaching and leading.
Pauzakham, just briefly, here are my reactions to your list:
1. There is no indication in the text that being created first has any relevance for authority. Often it is the second or even last-born chosen by God for special tasks (like Jacob or King David). The text clearly says both man and woman were given the mandate to nurture and rule.
2. The word translated as helper here is the Hebrew “ezer”, which means a partner corresponding to or equal to. The English term “helper” is a poor substitute, since ezer is used in the rest of the Old Testament over a dozen times referring to God as the ezer (rescuer) of Israel.
3. Genesis 3:16 is a description of the consequence of SIN, not a proscription for how men and women should relate.
Think: What did Jesus say about RULING over others? I would start with Matthew 20:25-26. “But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 26“It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant”.
So should we live under the conditions of a curse (Gen 3:16) or should we strive to live “on earth as it is in heaven”?
Thank you for that explanation and Dr. Gibb’s for his thorough discussion. I’ve struggled to understand this as well, being pretty much finding out on my own or the small stent at several churches across the board; Church of Christ, Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, and other non-denominational churches as well. Knowing throughout the Bible both male and female’s were God’s chosen ones and either could preach, teach, and five prophesies. I knew from reading, studying, and cross referencing Hebrew and Greek throughout the Bible many misinterpretations lies within our English translation’s poor attempt to describe another language for what it truly was meant to be. We are equal human beings and should be help mates to each other and work together to promote Jesus Christ. We all have an array of different talents. Those that close themselves off to what God does through ANY person willing to preach the love, sacrifice, forgiveness, and hope of Jesus Christ may continue to do so. I hope and pray the Spirit will speak to their hearts instead of their ego’s and not ridicule others for what God puts on anyone’s heart to do. We may find out in the end Jesus would be still talking to all those Religious Pharisees in our time as being on the wide gate instead of them looking at everyone else as being on that wide gate.
Excellent, thorough discussion, Jeremiah. Thanks for the shout-out for The Junia Project!
Thanks for another great post Jay. I love that you are writing and passionate about women in ministry!
You write, “I do not think that Paul intended his words to mean that women could not teach men, in his time or ours. I think he was concerned that women were domineering men, and were often (in his time) doing so from a place of ignorance.” My problem is that in the end your opinion is set against Holy Tradition. I have a deep skepticism of any hermeneutic born of our age because of the likelihood that it is tainted by our own cultural context and so I find that it is most secure to defer to that Holy Tradition that spans across times and cultures holding those things most common and universal. Our core crisis today is not one of male and female equity but one of authority.
Matthew, I take this critique very seriously. In fact, an argument from the tradition is pretty common for me. I usually base that on the sense that the Church has not been making decisions only from the sinfulness of her leaders, but most often from the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We are where we are because God has brought us to this place as a community. I also do not disagree with you that our “core crisis” is one of authority. That seems right to me. But that does not mean that we do not also have secondary crises. The role of women in the church is the one place (and only place) where I argue that the tradition of the church (speaking of “the tradition” as one giant stream and not the various traditions that make up that larger whole) has largely gotten it wrong. In this one issue I am inconsistent with how I argue on most issues. That said, I do not think that I am wrong here.
The only way that I can account for that is that the cultural influences of the church missed a key biblical move toward women’s leadership. In that sense I am thoroughly Protestant, but more in a Lutheran sense than in an Anabaptist one. I think the church should always be reforming, but that does not mean that the Tradition is set aside.
I used to use Pauls instruction (to those women in that day), as a way to say, see that’s right, the bible say to keep quiet, until it was my turn to lead. I have been brought up under some rough, harsh, insensitive women leadership. I’m talking about in the church. I vowed that I would never join a womens group, attend a luncheon, a prayer meeting, fashion show or a spa trip. I wanted no part of it because I’ve been hurt.
God had taken that hurt and turned it into something wonderful. Once I accepted healing I was placed in a position to lead with love, gudience. I found myself showing them the genuine love God showed me. I greeted every lady with “Hey Beautiful!” -words that I had never heard spoken over me! I love the awesome power of God and his design for women. There’s something like a woman’s touch, her words, her presence. We were created to help to bear and to bring praises to our King. There’s not enough honor for true women in leadership. We don’t wish to heap on ourselves a badge of perfection, but a badge of service. Maybe now we’ll give every young lady an opportunity to share the knowledge of God in her own way! innerbeautyministries.webs.com is my gift I give back to women.
God bless,
Lady V.
St. John Chrysostom says:
“Great modesty and great propriety does the blessed Paul require of women, and that not only with respect to their dress and appearance: he proceeds even to regulate their speech. And what says he? Let the woman learn in silence; that is, let her not speak at all in the church; which rule he has also given in his Epistle to the Corinthians, where he says, It is a shame for women to speak in the church 1 Corinthians 14:35; and the reason is, that the law has made them subject to men. And again elsewhere, And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. 1 Corinthians 14:35 Then indeed the women, from such teaching, kept silence; but now there is apt to be great noise among them, much clamor and talking, and nowhere so much as in this place. They may all be seen here talking more than in the market, or at the bath. For, as if they came hither for recreation, they are all engaged in conversing upon unprofitable subjects. Thus all is confusion, and they seem not to understand, that unless they are quiet, they cannot learn anything that is useful. For when our discourse strains against the talking, and no one minds what is said, what good can it do to them? To such a degree should women be silent, that they are not allowed to speak not only about worldly matters, but not even about spiritual things, in the church. This is order, this is modesty, this will adorn her more than any garments. Thus clothed, she will be able to offer her prayers in the manner most becoming.”
My take on 1 Tim. 2:11-15 is that women are clearly forbidden from giving the sacred homily by tradition. I could be wrong but this does seem to have Biblical and traditional support for it.
Dr. Jeremiah Gibbs,
I am doing a dissertation on female pastors’ experiences and would like to know if I have your permission to use your list of female pastors in Minnesota. I would like to contact them once I have permission to start my research. Please advise.
Thank you.
Christine Cole
Hi Christine, all of these contacts were publicly submitted to me. I think you are free to contact anyone you see there. I have no reservations. I hope it goes well.
1 Tim 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Please don’t go back to the Greek unless you can fully understand the language and have a full conversation in Greek, if not stay away from it. Its just like any other language that you don’t understand. Just pick up a Greek New Testament and it will say the same thing as a KJV New Testament. God is not the author of confusion. He allowed the bible to be translated to our languages, so just use it. There is no need to go back to the greek. If you don’t believe me, watch this video explaining that the modern greek is the same language as the greek in the bible. there is no such thing as biblical greek. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qCfinsgmvw
The reason that Paul gave the rules to keep women silent has nothing to do with cultural or patriarchal reasons. It was only because Adam was first formed then Eve. Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Principle wise, the relationship between the husband and wife is that the husband rules over his wife also in Ephesians 5. If women aren’t supposed to lead their husbands, why should they lead a church? It is not coherent.
1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Clearly this has nothing to do with how learned women are or were in those times. Regardless of their intellect, it is commanded that they should go home and ask their husbands if they have a question or opinion. If women should not lead in the past just because they were uneducated in the past, why did they have to be quiet in the church during preaching time? Again, this has nothing to do with their intellect. Are you going to tell me its a shame for a woman to speak in the church unless she’s intellectual or smart? Or is it simply shameful for her to speak just because she’s a woman?
Another principle we can get from the bible, is the image of God on men. Many people are under the impression that both men and women are created in the image of God which is a lie.
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
God only created the man in his image. and the woman was created based on the man.
1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
another principle is the fact that God always chose men to be prophets and apostles. some of the disciples only knew how to fish so again it has got nothing to do with men being more intellectual. and though paul was learned man, his counted his knowledge as dung.
Phil 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
The whole purpose of God creating women is to be wives for their own husbands. throughout scripture that’s what you see. when you have a feminist generation, you become confused and you try hard to justify that women should lead and all that. just take a step back and realize that you are not greater than God and God has used his apostle to give appropriate rules in how a church should be run. When it comes to the word of God, there is no need to seek an outside literary source to backup the bible or to give clarifications for the bible. the bible proves itself. im sorry if I sound harsh, but you don’t need a PhD to understand the bible. God bless
You say that God allowed the Greek to be translated to our language, but He also allowed it to be originally written in Greek. Why would God allow it to be written in a language we should disregard? And there is tons of value in looking at the original language. Take the English word “love”, there are four Greek words for love (agape, eros, phileo, storge), each with a more specific meaning. These are important to differentiate and understand.
I didn’t read your whole post because I rolled my eyes from that one paragraph, but I can see your statement that “The whole purpose of God creating women is to be wives for their own husbands”. Just wow… How amazing it must be for you, a mere man, to know God’s purpose in creation. Sounds like someone’s forgetting Isaiah 55:9.
The implication with your line of thought is that women without husbands are worthless. They are made for man’s pleasure and use so without a man they have no value. Which is so clearly against the heart of Jesus (just read the Gospels).
So many men like you want women to know that they should submit and be inferior. And you use references to our obviously degenerate culture to say that if this corrupt culture is saying that women are equal well then obviously that’s wrong. But Jesus went and turned Jewish patriarchal culture on it’s head. He was a revolutionary. He was for women (again, just read the Gospels).
In Matthew 20 it says, “Jesus called them together and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles LORD IT OVER THEM, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.'” Too many men use the Bible to elevate themselves, but Jesus is very clear: “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.” (Mark 9:35). I wish more men like you remembered that.
You don’t need a PhD to understand the Bible, but maybe you should sit down when they’re talking and try to learn. God Bless.