“I Do Not Permit a Woman to Teach…”: Paul & Women in 1 Tim 2

This is the third in a series of posts I’ve been writing on women in church leadership. If you are just now tuning in, I would urge you to read my first and second posts for context before continuing. In my previous post, I offered my interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34–35. In this post, I detail my interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:8–15. Because this passage lies at the heart of the complementarian–egalitarian debate, I want to treat it with particular care and thoroughness. For that reason, I have set aside the usual length constraints of a typical blog post. This will undoubtedly be my longest post yet—and possibly ever. Even so, I will not be able to address every interpretive puzzle in detail, nor will this function as a comprehensive defense of the egalitarian position. After all, countless hundreds of books have been written on this topic—and many of those have been written on these seven verses alone. In any case, I intend to offer as helpful of an overview of this difficult passage as I possibly can. Because the passage is particularly complicated, I will need to get more technical at times than I have in previous posts. But if you stick along for the ride, I’m hopeful you’ll find value in the study.

Let’s begin.

Therefore, I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument. Also, the women are to dress themselves in modest clothing, with decency and good sense, not with elaborate hairstyles, gold, pearls, or expensive apparel, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess to worship God. A woman is to learn quietly with full submission. I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.But she will be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with good sense. (CSB)

General Interpretive Challenges

Regardless of what side you’re on in the complementarian–egalitarian debate, there are aspects of this text that are unavoidably challenging. Interpreting the text in a responsible way requires close attention to detail, as well as rigorous exegetical and theological reflection. For a long time, I read this text only at a surface level. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I memorized 1 Tim 2:12 in elementary school so that I could offer a defense to friends who wondered why our church excluded women from visible participation in the worship assembly. I never investigated the cultural and/or literary context of the passage, nor did I attempt to discern the theological rationale undergirding Paul’s prohibitions. After critically examining the text 8 years ago, I realized that I did not know the passage nearly as well as I thought I did.

For instance, what setting does Paul have in mind? I used to assume that Paul was speaking only of the worship assembly—but this is never made explicit in the text. Some argue that “in every place” (v. 8) is shorthand for “in every place of meeting” or “in church.” [1] Others argue that prayer cannot be limited to the worship assembly—and that Paul’s concern for modest dress, good works, and “childbearing” indicates a broader focus.[2] There is also ambiguity as to whether Paul is speaking of men and women generally or of husbands and wives specifically in verse 12. The word gynaiki can refer to either a woman or a wife, and the word andros can refer to either a man or a husband. Most interpreters take this passage to be in reference to all men and women. But some argue that Paul’s transition from the plural in verses 8–10 (“men” and “women”) to the singular in verses 11–12 (“man” and “woman”) signals that Paul has shifted his focus to the household context—especially since he also references a woman’s submissive learning (v. 11), Adam and Eve’s marital relationship (vv. 13–14), and “childbearing” (v. 15).[3]

As in 1 Corinthians 14:34, Paul does not specify an object of submission in verse 11. He says only that women should “learn quietly with full submission.” Was Paul calling for women to submit to a) all men, b) their husbands, or c) official church leaders? Or, given the context of false teaching in Ephesus, was he simply calling for women to submit to sound teaching? Interpreters are divided.

There is also the challenge of discerning what it is that Paul is actually prohibiting in verse 12. The meaning of virtually every word in the verse is disputed by scholars. Here are some pertinent interpretive questions:

• Is Paul’s prohibition temporal (e.g., “I am not permitting”)? This is a possible rendering; but the word epitrepō does not inherently indicate temporality, so that must be determined by context.
• What kind of teaching is Paul prohibiting? Some argue that didaskein, Paul’s word for “teach,” refers here to positive authoritative teaching—i.e., the teaching of a pastor/elder/overseer.[4] Others argue that it refers to false teaching specifically—a meaning made possible by the word’s lexical flexibility and immediate context.[5] Still others argue that the term is broad enough to encompass all forms of teaching.[6] There is no interpretive consensus.
• What is the meaning of authentein, the word typically translated as “exercise authority” (ESV), “assume authority” (NIV), or “usurp authority” (KJV)? This is an exceedingly rare verb. It is used only this once in Scripture, and only five other times in extra-biblical literature throughout the first two centuries.[7] If Paul had a neutral or positive kind of authority in mind, he had no shortage of terms to choose from. His typical word for authority is exousia; and that word occurs over 100 times in the New Testament. Nevertheless, in this instance, Paul opts for a word that is remarkably rare. 
• Is Paul prohibiting two distinct things (teaching and exercising authority)? Or is he prohibiting only one thing (teaching in a way that domineers/usurps authority)? There is grammatical ambiguity surrounding Paul’s ouk…oude (“neither…nor”) construction; and either rendering is possible.

Finally, what is the nature of Paul’s reference to Adam and Eve in verses 13–14? Is Paul inferring a principle of male authority from the order of creation in Genesis 2? Or, given the situation of false teaching in Ephesus, is he offering a typological illustration of deception and its consequences? In any case, what are we to make of Paul’s enigmatic comments in verse 15? What on earth does he mean when he says, “she will be saved through childbearing”? And why does he shift from a singular pronoun to a plural pronoun (“she will be saved…if they continue in faith”)? Who is “she,” and who are “they”?

Already, then, there are numerous interpretive challenges to which readers must attend. With these challenges now in view, I want to consider how complementarians have tended to interpret the passage. Of course, complementarianism is not a monolith (in the same way that egalitarianism is not a monolith); so what follows does not necessarily represent the views of all complementarians. Nevertheless, I have tried to offer a fair and typical interpretation based on the work of some of the most prominent complementarian scholars.

Understanding the Complementarian Position

According to the typical complementarian reading of this passage, Paul’s concern in verses 8–15 is with the public assembly, or conduct in ‘the household of God’ (cf. 3:14–15).[8] This context is signaled by Paul’s injunction for men to pray “in every place” (v. 8). As I mentioned above, several scholars argue that “in every place” is shorthand for “in every place of meeting” or “in church.”[9] While a broader focus than the assembly is sometimes entertained,[10] complementarian scholars almost universally reject a domestic context.[11]

A minority of complementarian scholars argue that Paul’s injunction for men to pray in the assembly in verse 8 implicitly excludes women from praying in the assembly.[12] The majority of complementarian scholars, however, recognize that the Greek text cannot bear the weight of this argument. Paul’s injunction for men to pray does not exclude women from praying any more than his injunction for women to dress modestly excludes men from dressing modestly. This is further supported by the fact that Paul allows women to pray in the assembly in 1 Cor 11:5.[13] Whatever Paul prohibits women from doing in this passage, then, does not include prayer. 

Paul’s injunction for women to dress modestly is informed by a particular concern for the Ephesian women dressing in a luxurious and seductive way.[14] This style of dress could signal loose morals and independence from one’s husband, and its adoption by women in the church in Ephesus could be informed by the false teaching Paul mentions earlier in the letter.[15] In verses 11–12, Paul offers an antidote to the disturbance affecting these women—namely, that they should learn quietly and submit to men. While some complementarians argue that submission to husbands is in view, most argue from the presumed assembly context that submission to (male) church leadership is in view.[16] Moreover, some have suggested that Paul’s instruction for women to “learn quietly” entails absolute silence;[17] but more recent complementarian scholarship has largely abandoned this interpretation. Schreiner notes that the use of the same word in 2:2 implies that Paul has in mind “not absolute silence but rather a gentle and quiet demeanor.”[18] This is further evidenced by the fact that Paul opts for the word hēsychia (“quietness”) rather than sigē, the word for literal silence.

Verse 12 lies at the heart of the complementarian–egalitarian debate. For complementarians, context is not sufficient to render epitrepō (“I do not permit”) as temporal; conversely, verse 13 points toward its universal applicability across all time (more on this below).[19] Additionally, complementarians understand the rare word authentein to mean “exercise authority” in a neutral sense. Among complementarian treatments of this term, the studies by H. Scott Baldwin and Al Wolters are widely considered the most comprehensive. Wolters argues that the verb generally has a neutral rather than negative connotation, often referring to the authority of a master.[20]  Köstenberger argues that when Paul joins two words together with the ouk…oude (“neither…nor”) construction, the two words must always carry the same connotative force, whether positive or negative. Because he interprets didaskein (“teach”) as referring to doctrinal instruction that is intrinsically positive, he deduces that authentein (“exercise authority”) must also be positive in this context. Therefore, Paul is prohibiting women from positive kinds of teaching/authority, not just negative kinds of teaching/authority.[21]

It is difficult to understate the importance of verse 13 for the complementarian argument. For complementarian scholars, verse 13 demonstrates that Paul’s prohibition in verse 12 is grounded in a transcultural and transtemporal principle of male authority established by the order of creation in Genesis 2.[22] The first word in verse 13, gar (“for”), is used here to express causality; in other words, women are prohibited from teaching and authority in verse 12 because Adam was created first—and man’s priority in creation signifies a universal and timeless principle of male authority over women. It is for this reason that scholars take verse 12 to describe a timeless rather than a temporary prohibition.[23] Verse 14, which describes Eve’s deception and sin, serves as an illustration of what can go wrong when women do not recognize male leadership.[24] Verse 15 ties Paul’s argument together by promising salvation to women who, unlike Eve, recognize their God-given role and “domestic calling.”[25] Paul uses the term “childbearing” as a figure of speech (called a “synecdoche”) to represent the domestic role of women.[26]

Evaluating the Complementarian Position

To begin, I would like to point out several points of agreement that I have with the complementarian position as it is described above:

• I agree that an exclusively domestic context is most likely not in view. “In every place” probably has a broader meaning than “in church,” but the term at least encompasses worship gatherings.[27]
• I agree that verse 8 does not exclude women from leading prayer in worship gatherings.
• I agree that Paul’s call to modesty in verses 9–10 is occasioned by a disturbance among the wealthy women of the church in Ephesus, and that this is likely related to the false teaching Paul is seeking to correct in the letter.
• I agree that Paul’s injunction for women to “learn quietly” does not entail absolute silence.

Despite these significant points of agreement, however, I find several issues with the complementarian interpretation. Some of these are relatively minor, but others are more significant. A first issue is that this interpretation does not make good sense of Paul and Timothy’s long-established ministry partnership. Paul met Timothy in Lystra during his second missionary journey (Acts 16:1–3); and Timothy was on Paul’s ministry team from that point forward. By the time 1 Timothy was written, Paul had likely been working with Timothy for close to fifteen years.[28] In 1 Thessalonians (written much earlier than 1 Timothy), Paul even implies that Timothy is an apostle (1 Thess 2:5–6; cf. 1:1). Nevertheless, Paul presents his prohibition in 1 Tim 2:12 as though it is new information. If this prohibition was indeed grounded in a universal, timeless principle that excluded the participation of women in all church gatherings, why would Timothy—an apostle who had worked alongside Paul for over a decade—not know about it until now?[29]

A second issue relates to the complementarian understanding of “in full submission” (2:11). As was noted above, many assume that Paul is referencing a woman’s submission to her husband, or to (male) church leadership; but the grammar of the text renders this unlikely. The phrase en pasē hypotagē (“in full submission”) is adverbial rather than adjectival. In other words, it does not describe the woman; it describes how the woman is to learn—i.e., submissively. To learn submissively, or with a submissive posture, indicates “a student’s willingness to take direction.”[30] If a woman’s subjection to someone/something is in view, no object of submission is explicitly identified—so all conclusions are inferential. Arguments have been made for 1) submission to husbands, 2) submission to church leaders, 3) submission to men in general, 4) submission to God, and 5) submission to sound teaching;[31] and no consensus has been reached. Interpreting the term as adverbial circumvents this ambiguity and makes good sense of the verse’s grammatical construction.  

A third issue relates to the proper understanding of authentein; complementarians wrongly assert that the word is positive in 2:12. Recent studies have leveled serious criticisms against the work of Baldwin and Wolters.[32] Cynthia Westfall, for instance, surveys 60 occurrences of authenteō and its cognates within several centuries of Paul and demonstrates that the word group consistently refers to the “autonomous use or possession of unrestricted force.”[33] Within the texts sampled, personal recipients of the action are “abused and unloved, harmed, coerced, brutalized, destroyed, disrespected/dishonored, killed, and arrested.”[34] Wolters misses some of Westfall’s key insights because he overlooks broader semantic concepts, and does not give adequate attention to important contextual factors.[35] In cases where a person is the object of the verb, a negative evaluation of the term is almost always warranted.[36]

A close parallel to 1 Tim 2:12 can be found in Chrysostom’s tenth homily on Colossians, in which Chrysostom explicitly instructs husbands not to authentein their wives.[37] Given Westfall’s analysis, this usage is unsurprising.[38] In fact, ancient Greek lexicographers routinely defined the word negatively (e.g., “domineer”). Translations of 1 Tim 2 dating from the second century to the early twentieth century commonly render the word as “domineer,” “usurp authority,” “lord over,” or something similar. More neutral translations like “have authority” or “exercise authority” are of recent vintage (post-World War II) and are particularly prominent in patriarchal and complementarian circles.[39] The more ancient translation, “domineer,” is also the more accurate one. Paul has in mind a “dominating or imposing influence.”[40] This coercive style of authority is wholly incompatible with the New Testament’s vision for pastoral leadership; it has more in common with gentile models of authority critiqued by Jesus in Matthew 20:25–26: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in high positions act as tyrants over them. It must not be like that among you.”[41] This insight clarifies Paul’s choice of a rare word, authentein, over a more ordinary term like exousia; Paul was not describing a neutral kind of authority, but an abusive kind of authority.[42]

A fourth issue relates to the complementarian understanding of the syntax of verse 12. Köstenberger rejects my negative translation of authentein on syntactical grounds. As I mentioned above, he argues that when Paul joins two words together with the ouk…oude (“neither…nor”) construction, they always carry the same connotative force, whether positive or negative. Because didaskein (“teach”) is positive, he concludes that authentein must also be positive (“exercise authority”). This may seem reasonable at first blush, but his argument runs into several problems. First, it should be noted that what Köstenberger has identified is not a grammatical rule; it is, at best, a loose tendency. It is not officially recognized in any Greek grammar, and at least one standard grammar states that using oude to correlate “negative and positive members is…admissible.”[43] Stanley Porter has demonstrated that Köstenberger’s case is methodologically flawed and empirically exaggerated, often lacking clear criteria for what counts as “positive” or “negative.”[44] Second, even if Köstenberger were correct, his interpretation would still depend upon didaskein (“teach”) being positive; but the complementarian position over-defines didaskein in verse 12 and is unduly confident in its positive connotation.

Generally, complementarians argue that in the context of the Pastoral Epistles, 1) didaskein refers to authoritative doctrinal instruction rather than teaching in general, and thus 2) didaskein is an intrinsically positive word. But this is simply not the case. While didaskein is often positive and commonly references authoritative teaching, context is always the determining factor; interpreters cannot simply assume that didaskein is intrinsically authoritative and/or positive in 2:12. Paul actually uses didaskein in a negative sense elsewhere in the Pastoral Epistles, as when he describes rebellious people who are teaching falsely in Titus 1:10–11.[45] There are several contextual clues that it is used negatively in verse 12, as well. For instance, Paul follows a pattern of “negation” in 1 Timothy, where “oppositions are created between positive and negative statements.”[46] In 2:7, Paul speaks the truth (positive) and does not lie (negative). In 2:9, he wants women to dress modestly (positive), and not ostentatiously (negative).[47] 2:11–12 has the same basic structure. Paul wants women to learn submissively (positive)—the indication being that they should not teach domineeringly (negative). This sheds light on Paul’s pairing of didaskein with authentein, a term that refers to domineering authority. Evidence strongly suggests, then, that didaskein is not positive in 2:12.

Moreover, Philip Payne has made a convincing argument that Paul is not prohibiting two distinct actions in 2:12 (“teaching” and “domineering”), but one (e.g., “teaching in a domineering way”).[48] According to Payne, Paul is joining the two verbs with the coordinating conjunction oude to convey a single idea. This is not an unusual use of oude for Paul; it is, in fact, his typical practice.[49] For example, in Galatians 3:28, Paul says there is neither (ouk) Jew nor (oude) Greek in Christ. Paul does not mean that 1) there is no Jew in Christ, and 2) there is no Greek in Christ; rather, he means that there is no Jew–Greek dichotomy in Christ. He is conveying a single idea.[50] Understandably, then, some of the earliest interpreters of 1 Tim 2:12 understood Paul as prohibiting one single thing rather than two. For example, Origen, a native Greek theologian, describes 2:12 as “concerning woman not becoming a ruler over man in speaking.”[51]

Complementarian scholar Craig Blomberg has actually accepted this particular argument from Payne—noting that his interpretation comports with Paul’s propensity to pair words to convey a single idea throughout 1 Tim 2 (e.g., “kings and all those in authority,” “peaceful and quiet,” “godliness and holiness,” etc.).[52] Additionally, it should be noted that throughout 1 Tim 2, Paul demonstrates a concern for the Ephesian Christians’ manner of behavior: how they pray (vv. 1–8), how they dress (vv. 9–10), and how they learn (v. 11). It makes sense, then, that Paul would be concerned in verse 12 with how women teach (i.e., in a domineering way).[53] If this is the case, and Paul is using oude to convey a single idea (e.g., “I do not permit a woman to teach in a domineering way”), then Köstenberger’s argument is moot; it makes no sense to evaluate the verbs separately as positive or negative if there is only one idea being conveyed by the two verbs.

In sum, then, Köstenberger’s argument has little relevance. It appeals to a tendency rather than a rule; it depends on a positive rendering of didaskein, which cannot be assumed; and it only applies if oude separates two distinct ideas (which, in this case, is unlikely). Nevertheless, even if Köstenberger’s rule is legitimate (which is doubtful), context would sooner suggest that both didaskein and authentein are negative than positive.[54]

A fifth issue relates to how complementarians understand Paul’s appeal to creation in verses 13–14. Even if my rendering of verse 12 is wrong and Paul is prohibiting a positive kind of teaching/authority, verse 13 does not automatically universalize the prohibition. Again, most complementarians believe that Adam’s priority in creation signals a universal and timeless principle of male authority; but this interpretation runs into many problems. I note several below.

• Nothing in Genesis 1–2 explicitly attributes ultimate authority to Adam over Eve.[55]
• As was previously mentioned, Timothy had been ministering with Paul for years by the time this letter was written. If Paul’s prohibition were grounded in a timeless, transcendent norm, why would Timothy not know about it already?
• It would be odd for Paul to appeal to Genesis to universalize the principle of primogeniture (i.e., man’s authoritative status as the firstborn of creation) given that God routinely overturns the priority of the firstborn in the book of Genesis (e.g., Isaac over Ishmael; Jacob over Esau; Judah over Reuben; etc.).
• Paul encourages both men and women to exercise their spiritual gifts (including teaching and leading) in Romans 12:6–8 without any gendered qualification. If women were barred from teaching or leadership by virtue of a transcendent norm, Paul would have likely communicated this in Romans 12 so that gifted women in Rome would not misapply his instruction.
• As Westfall points out, Paul regularly moves between universal truths and situational applications, in both directions. He “generalizes from particulars” (as when he applies Deut 25:4, about muzzling oxen, to wages for church leaders), and “particularizes from generalities” (as when he appeals to creation to establish a cultural principle of women veiling in the assembly). It is logically fallacious to assume that “only transcendent applications must be drawn from transcendent norms.”[56]
• The appeal to primogeniture to ground the prohibition proves too much.[57] If a transcendent principle of male authority is embedded in creation and requires transcendent application, males should be in authority in all contexts across creation. But complementarians argue that the principle is not applicable in society at large. Women may teach and lead in business, education, and political contexts; they are limited only in the church. This kind of limited application does not follow from their premise. And if there was an exception to the principle, it would most likely not be in society at large but in the church, “where creation is being overtaken by new creation.”[58] Furthermore, women like Deborah and Esther exercised both political and religious authority over men. When God raised these women up, was he violating his own creation-order principle?
• This explanation under-appreciates the significance of verse 14. Paul’s appeal to Genesis doesn’t end with creation order, but extends to the fall. In fact, the word “deceived” is repeated twice in verse 14, reinforcing Eve’s deception as particularly relevant to Paul’s train of thought. There is no indication that Paul moves from a universal principle (verse 13) to a general one (verse 14)—or from a reason (verse 13) to an illustration (verse 14). Verse 14 begins with the conjunction kai (“and”), indicating that it is a continuation of Paul’s thought in verse 13. As Preston Sprinkle notes, “it’s more exegetically compelling to take 2:13–14 together as giving a universal reason or providing an illustration.”[59] If these verses are taken together as a reason for the prohibition, this would indicate that Adam’s priority in creation and Eve’s deception are both transcendent norms. In other words, women are universally more prone to deception than all men. Few (if any) complementarians would be willing to argue for the ontological inferiority of women as a transcendent norm.[60]

A better and more exegetically consistent way to read verses 13–14, then, is to interpret the word gar (“for”) as setting up an illustration rather than a universal reason for Paul’s prohibition. Moving from a simple statement of creation order in 2:13 to a transcendent principle of male authority is a logical leap and an unnecessary inference.[61] The word gar can be used to set up an illustration (“for example”);[62] and Paul is likely appealing to creation to draw a parallel between Adam and Eve and the Christians in Ephesus. I will discuss this in more detail below.

A sixth and particularly significant issue is that the complementarian position severely abstracts Paul’s instructions from their broader context and underplays the task of the letter. Paul’s paramount concern in writing to Timothy is the false teaching happening in the church in Ephesus. The issue of false teaching is so urgent that Paul forgoes his typical thanksgiving at the start of the letter and cuts right to the chase: “As I urged you when I went to Macedonia, remain in Ephesus so that you may instruct certain people not to teach false doctrine or to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies. These promote empty speculations rather than God’s plan, which operates by faith” (1:3–4).[63] Paul elaborates on this concern throughout chapter 1; and it is restated in the letter’s conclusion, forming an inclusio and reinforcing once more that this is Paul’s overriding concern (6:2b–4a, 12). In 1:18–20, Paul condemns two false teachers in particular, and urges Timothy to “fight the good fight.”  This is immediately followed by chapter 2, which begins with the word “therefore.” Paul’s instructions in 2:1–15 are thus intended to guide Timothy’s fight against the false teaching. The word “therefore” appears again in verse 8, signaling that Paul’s instructions in 2:8–15 tie directly to his concern for false teaching in 1:1–2:7. Complementarians recognize these causal connections;[64] but the context of false teaching only factors into their exegesis of verses 8–15 when it proves convenient. For example, Moo suggests the instructions for modest dress may be informed by the false teaching happening in Ephesus;[65] and Schreiner suggests that Paul uses “childbearing” as a synecdoche in verse 15 in response to the false teachings described in 4:5.[66] Astonishingly, however, the situation of false teaching never factors into their exegesis of verses 11–14.

Köstenberger attempts to circumvent this inconsistency by appealing to a “dual purpose” in the letter; Paul desires to 1) address the false teaching (1:3–4), and 2) provide general instructions for conduct in “the household of God” (3:14–15). For Köstenberger, 2:1–3:16 are written in service to the second purpose (giving instructions on proper conduct in the church) rather than the first purpose (addressing false teaching).[67] However, the distinction between the two purposes is exaggerated. Paul is writing a personal letter, not a church manual; and he is concerned about conduct in the household of God because it has been impacted by the false teaching. Schreiner himself recognizes that Paul’s instructions to appoint deacons and overseers in 3:1–13 are “designed to make the church a bulwark against the false teaching.”[68] Moreover, Köstenberger’s proposal skates over Paul’s use of “therefore” in both 2:1 and 2:8, which clearly connect his instructions in 2:1–15 with what precedes them. It is irresponsible, then, to abstract Paul’s prohibition of women in 2:8–15 from the context of false teaching; Paul’s instructions in these verses are written in direct response to the false teaching.

An Egalitarian Reading

Now that I have offered a critical evaluation of the complementarian position, I would like to offer my own egalitarian reading of the text as an alternative. I already tipped my hand above on several of the key interpretive debates, so some of this will be familiar; but I will do my best to avoid needless redundancy. My goal is simply to show how the text flows from verse 8 to verse 15, in context.

As I have already demonstrated above, verses 8–15 are not a digression from Paul’s task, but are written in direct response to the false teaching happening in Ephesus. In 2:1–15, Paul is giving Timothy instructions on how to address the false teaching. Paul’s first prescription is prayer (2:1, 8). He calls the Ephesian Christians to godliness and holiness, which function as antidotes to the destructive impacts of the false teaching. In verse 8, Paul clarifies that he wants men in every place to pray, “lifting up holy hands without anger or dispute.” We are not told why the men in Ephesus are quarrelling; but given the immediate context, it is presumably related to the situation of false teaching in Ephesus. Again, the phrase “in every place” is important. But while it certainly includes church gatherings, it cannot be limited to them. There is nothing in the passage that signals a restriction of the setting to the worship assembly; and Jewish, Christian, and Greco-Roman prayer practices were not limited to sacred sites like temples, synagogues, and churches. If Paul wanted to signal that he had assemblies in mind, he likely would have opted for the word ekklēsia, his typical word for such gatherings.[69]

Paul is probably calling the women to pray in verse 9, also, although this is grammatically ambiguous. The word hōsautōs (“likewise”), which begins verse 9, does not have a verb clearly attached to it, and it likely implies the verb “to pray” from the previous verse. His concern is with the posture of men and women in prayer; just as he wants the men to pray with holy hands, he wants women to pray with proper adornment. The “holy hands” of the men correspond to the “modest clothing,” “decency,” and “good sense” of the women.[70] It should be noted that not every woman could afford to be adorned with “elaborate hairstyles, gold, pearls, or expensive apparel” (v. 9). Paul comments were thus prompted by a particular group of wealthy Ephesian women who were dressing immodestly. The fashion of these women matches that of wealthy courtesans in the Greco-Roman world.[71]

The women Paul is censuring in verses 9–12 are likely peddlers of the false teaching in Ephesus. Complementarians often suggest that men are the primary purveyors of this false teaching; but ample textual evidence suggests that women were involved, also. First, Paul uses gender neutral language (particularly in the form of the gender-neutral pronoun tis) in all of his references to the false teachers (e.g., 1:3, 6, 8, 19; 4:1; 6:3, 10, 21). Furthermore, Andrew Bartlett, John Mark Hicks, and several others have demonstrated that there are strong conceptual links throughout the letter between the wealthy women in 2:9–15, the false teachers in Ephesus, and the wealthy widows in 5:3–16. I have adapted the table below from John Mark Hicks in Women Serving God.[72]

Women in 1 Timothy 2:9-15	Women in 1 Timothy 5–6
Women are to pray (2:1, 9–10)	Widows devote themselves to prayer (5:5)
Women encouraged to godliness (2:10)	Widows encouraged to godliness (5:3)
Women should learn (2:11)	Since women learned to be idle (5:13)
Women should profess godliness (2:10)	Some professed false knowledge (6:21–21)
Wearing wealthy accessories (2:9)	Wealth and love of money (6:9–10)
Women should learn in quietness (2:11)	Widows are assertive meddlers (5:13)
Wearing seductive clothing (2:9)	Some widows pursue sensual desires (5:6, 11)
Devoted to good works (2:10)	Idle, not devoted to good works (5:9, 13)
Not permitted to teach (2:12)	Saying what they should not say (5:13)
Eve was deceived by the serpent (2:14)	Some have turned to follow Satan (5:15)

Note that the wealthy widows in chapter 5 are described as “self-indulgent” (5:6). They are “drawn away from Christ by [sexual] desire” and are looking for partners (5:11). This helps to explain their sensual and ostentatious dress in 2:9.[73] Throughout the letter, Paul cautions against sexual immorality (1:10) and the love of material possessions (6:15, 17). Moreover, the widows “talk nonsense” (5:13, NIV 2011), which matches the language used to describe false teachers in 1:6 (“meaningless talk”) and 6:20 (“godless chatter”).[74] The widows are “saying [or speaking] what they should not” in 5:13; Paul uses the word lalei (“speak”) elsewhere in the Pastoral Epistles to describe teaching (e.g., 2:1; 2:15). Additionally, the term typically translated “busybody” (periergos) in 5:13 means something like “meddler”—and the only other time it is used in the New Testament is in Acts 19:19, where it is used to describe magical practices. More than likely, the false teaching these women were peddling pertained in some way to magic/sorcery.[75] Scholars have proposed several explanations for this behavior among the women, rooted in the cultural context of ancient Ephesus. For instance, it may have been influenced by the “new woman” movement or by the Ephesian Artemis cult. But while these proposals offer additional explanatory power, they are not integral to the debate. The text of the Pastoral Epistles sufficiently evidences that the women in Ephesus were purveyors of false teaching.

In verse 11, then, Paul encourages these women to learn submissively—that is, with a willingness to take direction. They are not to continue in their disruptive and destructive patterns of behavior—which include dressing seductively (2:9–10), and teaching/domineering men (2:12). Instead, they are to quietly and peaceably submit themselves to sound teaching, pursuing godliness and holiness. Again, Paul is prohibiting a negative kind of teaching and authority in this text, as is indicated by the context and the use of the word authentein. These women had been talking nonsense, saying things they ought not say—and were likely engaged in magic and sorcery. Even more, men were the target of their desires and interests (5:11–12). Paul has already censured male false teachers (e.g., Hymenaeus and Alexander in 1:18–20); here, he censures the women, whose sensuality and destructive teaching habits directly involve and impact the men.

In verses 13–15, Paul appeals to Adam and Eve to illustrate the situation in Ephesus. Again, Paul does not have in mind here the authoritative status of Adam as firstborn of creation; I offer several lines of evidence against this interpretation in the section above. More likely, Paul is engaging in a type of midrashic reading of the creation narrative. (Midrash is an imaginative and figurative method of interpreting Scripture used by many Jewish interpreters in Paul’s day.) This is not unusual for Paul; he engages in midrash in several other places throughout the NT (e.g., 1 Cor 10:1–13; 2 Cor 11:3–4). Verse 15 offers the strongest indication that he is doing the same here. In verse 15, Paul subtly transitions from the singular “she” to the plural “they.” “She” most naturally refers to Eve, while “they” refers to the wealthy women of verses 9–10.[76] Paul thus identifies Eve with the wealthy women, portraying Eve as a “type” of the wealthy women. Interestingly, Adam and Eve always appear as types or figures throughout the New Testament—with the exception of Luke 3:38 (e.g., 2 Cor 11:3).[77] Most likely, then, Paul is referring to Adam and Eve as types in 2:13–14, which comports with the use of gar (“for”) to set up an illustration.

Paul’s compressed narrative begins with the creation of Adam before Eve (2:13).[78] As the first one formed, Adam was not deceived (2:14), but knew the command of God concerning the forbidden fruit (cf. Gen 2:15–17). Eve was then formed and was deceived by the serpent (cf. Gen 3:13), becoming a transgressor by eating the forbidden fruit (2:14; cf. Gen 3:6). Eve is thus a type of the deceived women in Ephesus, who have turned to follow Satan (cf. 5:15). Moreover, Eve persuaded Adam to eat of the fruit through her imposing influence. For this reason, the women in Ephesus are (temporarily) proscribed from teaching/authent-ing men (2:12)—the target of their desires and interests (5:11–12). In any case, salvation is possible through Eve’s seed, the Christ, for those women who continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control (2:15). The reference to “the childbirth” in 2:15, then, is most likely a reference to Christ as the seed of Eve. This makes sense of the definite article before “childbirth,” and it makes sense of the typological reference to Eve in verses 13–14. It harkens back to Genesis 3:15, where the LORD promises that Eve’s offspring will crush the serpent’s head. Genesis 3:15 is commonly understood Christologically, and Paul offers midrashic readings of it elsewhere (Rom 16:20). This understanding of verses 13–15 makes better sense of the broader context (false teaching) and of Paul’s concern with deception (verse 14).  

In sum, Paul is distressed by the false teaching happening in Ephesus. He prescribes prayer as a primary means of “fighting the good fight.” Men should pray without quarreling and women should pray with decency and propriety. One particular group of deceived wealthy women are causing a disturbance in the Ephesian church community with their immodesty and false teaching. These women are called to dress modestly and to learn sound teaching, with a quiet and submissive demeanor that is open to direction. For the time being, Paul restricts them from leading men astray through their imposing teaching and influence. He draws a useful analogy from the creation/fall narrative: just as Eve was deceived and persuaded her husband to sin, this group of deceived wealthy women in Ephesus are now negatively influencing the Ephesian men. This is a dire situation, and the behavior of the women must be addressed. Fortunately, there is hope of salvation through Christ if these women continue in faith, love, and holiness, with all propriety.

This is not a universal and timeless prohibition, then; it is a temporary prohibition occasioned by the precarious situation in Ephesus. These deceived women will be afforded the opportunity to teach once they prove themselves reliable and qualified. This is evidenced by 2 Timothy 2:2, where Paul tells Timothy to entrust the gospel to “reliable people [anthrōpois] who will also be qualified to teach others” (NIV 2011); the word anthrōpois always refers to both men and women in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim 2:1, 4; 4:10; 5:24; 6:5, 9, 16; 2 Tim 3:2, 8, 13, 17; Titus 1:14; 2:11; 3:2, 8, 10).[79] Unfortunately, misguided interpretations of 1 Tim 2:9–15 are often weaponized against gifted women—suppressing their God-given gifts, including teaching and leadership. In truth, the Spirit gifts men and women indiscriminately, according to the grace given to each of us (Rom 12:6). These gifts are not gendered; and the biblical text gives us no indication that they are. To both men and women, then, Paul extends the same invitation: “If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully” (Rom 12:6–8). May God guide all of us, men and women, in answering this call.

---

[1] E.g., Everett Ferguson, Women in the Church: Biblical and Historical Perspectives, 2nd ed. (Abilene: ACU Press, 2015), chap. 1, ““Limitations on Women’s Activities in the Assembly—1 Timothy 2:1-15,” para. 2

[2] E.g., Cynthia Long Westfall, Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle’s Vision for Men and Women in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016), 286–90.

[3] Ibid., 305.

[4] E.g., Thomas R. Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9–15,” in Women in the Church: An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, 3rd ed., ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. Schreiner (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), 192; Douglas J. Moo, “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority over Men?: 1 Timothy 2:11–15,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem, rev. ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2006), 241–42.

[5] Stanley E. Porter, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2023), 314.

[6] Andrew Bartlett, Men and Women in Christ: Fresh Light from the Biblical Texts (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2019), 224–27.

[7] Philodemus, Rhetorica 2.133; BGU 1208.38 (Letter from Tryphon); Aristonicus Alexandrinus, De signis Iliadis 9.694; Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos 3.13.10; Moeris Atticista, Lexicon Atticum.

[8] Andreas J. Köstenberger and Margaret Elizabeth Köstenberger, God’s Design for Man and Woman: A Biblical-Theological Survey (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014), 201–02.

[9] Ferguson, Women, chap. 1, ““Limitations on Women’s Activities in the Assembly—1 Timothy 2:1-15,” para. 2; Schreiner, “Interpretation,” 175; Moo, “What Does It Mean,” 237.

[10] E.g., Knight entertains the idea that verses 9–10 may not be limited to assemblies given the necessity of modesty in all contexts. See George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992), 130–31.

[11] E.g., Schreiner argues against this at length in “Interpretation,” 177–80.

[12] Ferguson, Women, chap. 1, ““Limitations on Women’s Activities in the Assembly—1 Timothy 2:1-15,” para. 4.

[13] Schreiner, “Interpretation,” 177.

[14] Ibid., 181–83; Moo, “What Does It Mean,” 237–38; Köstenberger, God’s Design, 205–06.

[15] Moo, “What Does It Mean,” 237.

[16] Ibid., 238–39; Schreiner, “Interpretation,” 187.

[17] Moo, “What Does It Mean,” 238.

[18] Schreiner, “Interpretation,” 186.

[19] Ibid., 190; Köstenberger, God’s Design, 207.

[20] Al Wolters, “The Meaning of Αὐθεντέω,” in Women in the Church: An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, 3rd ed., ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. Schreiner (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), 65–116; “A Semantic Study of αὐθέντης and its Derivatives,” JGRChJ 1 (2000), pp. 145-75; “An Early Parallel of Αὐθεντεῖν in 1 Tim 2:12,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 54, no. 4 (2011): 673–84.

[21] Andreas J. Köstenberger, “A Complex Sentence: The Syntax of 1 Timothy 2:12,” in Women in the Church: An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, 3rd ed., ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. Schreiner (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), 117–61; Köstenberger, God’s Design, 208.

[22] Schreiner, “Interpretation,” 199–210; Moo, “What Does It Mean,” 248; Köstenberger, God’s Design, 210–11; Ferguson, Women, chap. 1, “Limitations on Women’s Activities in the Assembly—1 Timothy 2:1-15,” para. 13.

[23] Wayne A. Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More Than 100 Disputed Questions (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 69. Schreiner, “Interpretation,” 190; Köstenberger, God’s Design, 207.

[24] Schreiner, “Interpretation,” 209–16; Moo, “What Does it Mean,” 247–48; Köstenberger, God’s Design, 211.

[25] Köstenberger, God’s Design, 214.

[26] Schreiner, “Interpretation,” 216–24; Moo, “What Does It Mean,” 250–51; Köstenberger, God’s Design, 213–16. Schreiner argues Paul’s use of ‘childbearing’ as a synecdoche is in direct response to the false teachers who were forbidding marriage and thereby forbidding childbearing (cf. 1 Tim 4:1–5). 

[27] For more discussion on the domain of “in every place,” see Westfall, Paul, 286–87; Bartlett, Men, 231–35.

[28] Westfall, Paul, 285.

[29] As Keener notes, “Paul often reminds readers of traditions they should know by saying, ‘You know,’ or ‘Do you not know?’ or ‘According to the traditions which I delivered to you.’ In his letters to Timothy Paul appeals to ‘we know’ (e.g., 1 Tim. 1:8), ‘faithful sayings’ (e.g., 1 Tim. 1:15), and cites Timothy’s knowledge of Paul’s own life (2 Tim. 3:10–11).” See Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women, and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1992), 171.

[30] The adverbial nature of en pasē hypotagē mirrors that of en hēsychia, used in the same verse. Linda L. Belleville, “Teaching and Usurping Authority: 1 Timothy 2:11–15,” in Discovering Biblical Equality: Biblical, Theological, Cultural, and Practical Perspectives, ed. Ronald W. Pierce, Cynthia Long Westfall, and Christa L. McKirland, 3rd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2021), 208–9. See also Bruce W. Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 114.

[31] If I were forced to choose from these options, I would feel most confident in Option 5. Given that Paul is actively concerned with false teaching, and with deceived women who have turned away to follow Satan (2:14; cf. 5:15), it makes sense that he would want such women to submit to sound teaching, or the “mystery of godliness” (3:16).  

[32] E.g., Cynthia Long Westfall, “The Meaning of αὐθεντέω in 1 Timothy 2:12,” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 10 (2014): 138–73; Jamin Hübner, “Translating αὐθεντέω in 1 Timothy 2:12,” Priscilla Papers 29, no. 2 (2015): 16–26; “Revisiting αὐθεντέω in 1 Timothy 2:12: What Do the Extant Data Really Show?” JSPL 5, no. 1 (2015): 41–70.

[33] Westfall, “αὐθεντέω,” 171.

[34] Ibid., 160.

[35] For example, Wolters identifies three meanings for the noun authenteō (“doer,” “murderer,” “master”) and assigns them to different registers. Westfall, however, recognizes that these share a “basic semantic meaning of an ‘autonomous user or possessor of unrestricted force/power.’” Ibid., 170. Westfall also appeals helpfully to transitivity—a linguistic framework in which actors, processes, goals, and circumstances are analyzed to help determine functional meaning.

[36] The only time this rule does not apply is when an actor has an ultimate or divine kind of authority. See Ibid., 167–68, 71.

[37] John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Epistolam ad Colossenses 10, Patrologia Graeca 62:353–60. The relevant sentence reads as follows: Μὴ τοίνυν, ἐπειδὴ ὑποτέτακται ἡ γυνὴ, αὐθέντει. For further discussion, see Westfall, Paul, 293.

[38] Contra Baldwin, who hastily dismisses this usage as exceptional and hyperbolic without compelling evidence. H. Scott Baldwin, An Important Word: αὐθεντέω in 1 Timothy 2:12,” in Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, 2nd ed., ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. Schreiner (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 47, 51.

[39] For extended discussion, see Belleville, “Teaching,” 209–13.

[40] John Mark Hicks, Women Serving God: My Journey in Understanding Their Story in the Bible (Nashville: John Mark Hicks, 2020), 190.

[41] Westfall, Paul, 293; See also Preston Sprinkle, From Genesis to Junia: An Honest Search for What the Bible Really Says About Women in Leadership (Colorado Springs: David C Cook, 2026), 252–53, 257.

[42] Complementarians wrongfully discount the significance of the verb’s rarity. Hübner establishes the significance of Paul using a rare verb in “Revisiting,” 44–53.

[43] BDF § 445. See further discussion in Payne, “Further Insights,” 25, 33n22.

[44] Porter, Pastoral, 317–18. He also criticizes Köstenberger’s definition of the syntactical pattern, which is insufficiently precise: “The pattern in 1 Tim. 2:12 is the negated finite verb of a catenative construction + infinitive + οὐδέ + ellipsis of the finite verb + infinitive. The compound negation οὐδέ (οὐ + δέ)—the conjunction and negation being the appropriate negation for an indicative verb…—negates the elided finite verb in the catenative construction and hence the entire catenative unit.” 

[45] See also 1 Tim 4:1, where Paul warns about the ‘teachings’ of demons using a cognate of didaskein. Several additional examples exist outside of the Pastoral Epistles. Complementarians often concede these exceptional uses but suggest that context is insufficient to render the usage in 2:12 as exceptional. I will argue this is not the case; context actually points toward a negative rendering of didaskein.

[46] Porter, Pastoral, 314.

[47] Similar negations are found in 1:3–4; 1:7; and elsewhere.

[48] Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 337–59; “1 Timothy 2.12 and the Use of οὐδέ to Combine Two Elements to Express a Single Idea,” New Testament Studies 54, no. 2 (2008): 235–53; “Οὐδέ Combining Two Elements to Convey a Single Idea and 1 Timothy 2:12: Further Insights,” Priscilla Papers 28, no. 4 (2014): 24–34.

[49] Some examples include Romans 2:28–29; 9:6–7, 16; 1 Corinthians 2:6–7; Galatians 1:1, 11–12, 16–17; 4:14; and Philippians 2:16–17. See further discussion in Payne, Man, 339–45.

[50] Discussed further in Ibid., 340.

[51] Translation by Claude Jenkins in “Documents: Origen on 1 Corinthians IV,” Journal of Theological Studies 10 (1909), 42.

[52] Craig L. Blomberg, “Women in Ministry: A Complementarian Perspective,” in Two Views on Women in Ministry, ed. James R. Beck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 169. Nevertheless, as a complementarian, Blomberg disagrees with Payne’s negative translation of authentein.

[53] Hübner, “Revisiting,” 67; see also Sprinkle, From Genesis, 260.

[54] The same argument is made in Porter, Pastoral, 313–19; and Sprinkle, From Genesis, 258–61.

[55] For an extended analysis, see Sprinkle, From Genesis, 19–37

[56] Westfall, Paul, 295, 296n47.

[57] Bartlett, Men, 227; Hicks, Women, 194.

[58] Bartlett, Men, 229.

[59] Sprinkle, From Genesis, 266.

[60] This is, however, pervasive in the thought of many throughout church history. See William G. Witt, Icons of Christ: A Biblical and Systematic Theology for Women’s Ordination (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2021), 21–29.

[61] Westfall, Paul, 295n45.

[62] Thirty-eight such uses are noted in Walter Bauer, rev. and ed. Frederick William Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 189–90. Philip Payne notes more in Man, 399–401.

[63] Belleville, “Teaching,” 206.

[64] E.g., Schreiner, “Interpretation,” 175.

[65] Moo, “What Does It Mean,” 237.

[66] Schreiner, “Interpretation,” 221.

[67] Köstenberger, God’s Design, 202–03.

[68] Schreiner, “Interpretation,” 179.

[69] For further discussion, see Westfall, Paul, 286–88.

[70] Keener, Paul, 195.

[71] Bartlett, Men, 246–47.

[72] Hicks, Women, 185.

[73] See further discussion in Bartlett, Men, 248.

[74] Some translations use “gossip” instead of “talk nonsense,” but this is imprecise. There is no clear instance in ancient Greek literature where phluaros refers to gossiping in the modern sense of the word. See further discussion in Ibid., 253.

[75] Ibid., 254.

[76] This is further evidenced by Paul’s call to sōphrosynēs (“propriety”) in verse 15. Paul begins and ends the section by calling the wealthy women to propriety.

[77] Alan G. Padgett, As Christ Submits to the Church: A Biblical Understanding of Leadership and Mutual Submission (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 92.

[78] What follows is a relatively brief typological analysis of 2:13–15. For an extended analysis, see Ibid., 90–100.

[79] Hicks, Women, 188–89. Several translations with a complementarian bias render the term as “men” rather than “people,” though they typically include a footnote indicating that “people” is also possible.