CAN WOMEN TEACH IN THE PUBLIC ASSEMBLY?: A COMPLEMENTARIAN INTERPRETATION OF 1 TIMOTHY 2:8-15

CAN WOMEN TEACH IN THE PUBLIC ASSEMBLY?:

A COMPLEMENTARIAN INTERPRETATION OF 1 TIMOTHY 2:8-15

By: Daniel McMillin

THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE CHURCH

Women are important to the Church. Their ministries are essential and God-honoring. Women have a role in the Church, and as such, we do not mean to minimize what they contribute to the assembly and our community when we speak of limitations to their ministries. These limitations do not mean that they are unimportant to the Church or that their work is insignificant. Instead, these respective roles that God has determined are designed to glorify God. Ultimately, the Christian assembly aims to worship God in a manner that He deems acceptable and delightful. As such, we will follow God’s pattern through Scripture on how the Church is to operate concerning the roles of men and women.

There are two major positions within this debate on the role of women: (1) Complementarians and (2) Egalitarians. The egalitarians maintain the equality of males and females, and complementarians emphasize the differences and compatibility between males and females. Now, it should be noted that it is not as though one side is for equality while the other is for differences. The complementarians uphold the equality of males and females just as much as the egalitarians and the egalitarians affirm the compatibility of males and females. The differences lie within their interpretive lens and application of the Scriptures.  The complementarian position is not that women have no role; it is that they have their God-ordained role in the life of the Church. Though egalitarians do not deny the distinctions between males and females, they do propose that those inherent differences do not define their roles. That is, biological differences do not necessarily constitute ecclesiastical roles. As Gavin Ortlund summarizes, “Complementarians affirm distinct roles for men and women in the church and home while egalitarians affirm the equality of both men and women for various roles in the church and in the marriage relationship.”[1] 

HAVE WE MISUNDERSTOOD PAUL?

After glossing over passages like 1 Corinthians 11 and 14, Ephesians 5, Colossians 3, 1 Timothy 2, and Titus 2 and evaluating the teachings of the complementarian groups the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Beth Allison Barr rhetorically asked, “Is it any wonder my students hate Paul?” Barr posits an egalitarian perspective and suggests that the traditional view of “biblical womanhood” has perpetuated the subjection of women. She seems to pin Jesus and Paul against one another as though Paul, at one point, departed from Jesus in his understanding of women. Or possibly, we have misinterpreted Paul and need to review our vision of biblical womanhood to see if it truly is biblical. She writes, “Christians in the past may have used Paul to exclude women from leadership, but this doesn’t mean that the subjugation of women is biblical. It just means that Christians today are repeating the same mistake of Christians in the past—modeling our treatment of women after the world around us instead of the world Jesus shows us is possible.”[2] The question remains: Have we misread Paul?

THE BATTLEGROUND IN THE COMPLEMENTARIAN AND EGALITARIAN DEBATE

I agree with Linda L. Belleville, who noted that the center of the egalitarian and complementarian debate is centered on 1 Timothy 2:11-15. She says, “This text continues to be perceived and treated has the great divide in the debate… the complexities of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 are many. There is barely a word or phrase that has not been keenly scrutinized.”[3] The egalitarian-complementarian debate has contributed an abundance of material on this pericope in scholarship. While I agree that this text is a bit of a challenge since there is so much material available on this text, I do believe that it is more challenging for the egalitarian position to exegete this text properly since they are inevitably left with a position that not only causes them to rethink the meaning of the text but reconstruct the text into something that Paul never intended to communicate to Timothy.[4] 

As Andreas Köstenberger and Margaret Köstenberger suggest: “First Timothy 2:9-15 poses a difficulty for those who argue for undifferentiated male-female roles in the church on biblical grounds. Nevertheless, the argument that scripture teaches male-female differences in role (particularly with regard to church leadership) is regularly challenged or ignored in the general culture. In our culture, a person doesn't have to work very hard to convince people of the egalitarian viewpoint because, by and large, many in the Western world are already predisposed toward this view. The burden, it appears, is largely to show why the church ought not to go the way of general culture. Increasingly, these advocating God-given, male-female roll the distinctions arbitrate us behind the times. In fact, the growing rejection of the biblical teaching on male-female relationships in our culture may increasingly turn into persecution for which believers ought to brace themselves, because the biblical text won't change period those affirming male-female role distinctions may increasingly be caricatured as dogmatic, intolerant individuals who are out to suppress and oppress women. Such believers ought not to be afraid or forced to apologize for what the Bible teaches regarding God's design for human relationships as they understand it.”[5] 

Regardless of where one stands on the debate, it is clear that the goal of the exegete is to properly understand Paul’s letter to Timothy for the church at Ephesus and how his instructions apply to the church today.[6] I am unconvinced that the basic meaning of the text is inaccessible to us today as modern readers.[7] I believe that we can know what Paul is saying to his son in the faith in 1 Timothy 2:11-15. However, due to the tension between the two positions, it seems incredibly difficult to notice this commonality due to the great divide. Gavin Ortlund says, “The concern that many complementarians have with egalitarianism is the hermeneutical trajectory it sets, just as egalitarians often regard complementarian hermeneutics as dangerous. Whether these concerns are valid or not, one cannot deny that this is part of the debate, and it escalates its divisiveness.”[8]

IS IT WORTH IT?

I wonder, since the church has exerted so much energy on the subject of the role of women, is it really worth it? Are we making a mountain out of a molehill? Are we creating unnecessary division in the church? Can’t we just all get along? I believe that the gender debate is not just something we can simply “get over.” Anthropology is meaningful, and it affects all areas of life, especially within the church and home. This ought to lead us to discover the divine design of human nature and the distinctiveness between the sexes. This debate is incredibly important. As D.A. Carson said, “It’s not a woman issue. It’s a family issue. It’s a societal issue; It’s a submission to God issue. It’s a where’s the Lordship of God issue. It’s a do we bow to the Bible when its convenient issue.”[9]

I might add, that just because this is not an issue where it is either all or nothing, it is still an important issue for the Christian life. As Ortlund writes, “while the complementarian-egalitarian discussion is not an issue on which the gospel is won or lost, it nonetheless influences in important ways how we uphold the gospel… Doctrines can be important to the gospel though not essential to it.”[10] 

The difficulty of this issue arises from our worldview. The Bible says what the Bible says but that doesn’t make these issues any easier to wrestle with in a modern context where vipers and lions want to devour us for appealing to the Scriptures and explaining our Christian worldview on this subject. Sadly, some have complied with the beasts’ scare tactics and compromised the Biblical text because they could not handle the pressure nor accept the truths they do not particularly like. Ralph Gilmore said, “The current cultural pressure is so overwhelming to be near the point of totally obscuring objective judgment on the matter.”[11] Our culture’s navigation with gender and identity seems to obscure the issues in question as our interpretations of the Scripture then begin to be reinterpreted in light of our cultural inquires and curiosities. We all bring our worldviews to the table when reading Scripture, and our worldviews can either make or break an accurate interpretation of Scripture when discovering the meaning of the text. Ortlund rightly noted, “Complementarianism versus egalitarianism is not simply about how we structure our churches and marriages but also about competing visions of faithfulness to Scripture amid the turbulence of late Western modernity.”[12] As we examine 1 Timothy 2:8-15, we see that this text answers the question: What are the roles of men and women?

THE EGALITARIAN INTERPRETATION OF 1 TIMOTHY 2:11-15

THE COMPLEMENTARIAN INTERPRETATION OF 1 TIMOTHY 2:11-15

INTERPRETIVE DECISIONS IN 1 TIMOTHY 2:11-15[15]

THE RECONSTRUCTED BACKGROUND OF EPHESUS

EPHESUS BACKGROUND—HOW SHOULD WE UNDERSTAND EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR 1 TIMOTHY 2:11-15?

Much of the debate on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is not necessarily about what is in the text but on the external circumstances or background information that influenced Paul’s letter.[16] When interpreting a text, it is important to know the background to appreciate the setting that influences the literature. Constructing the background of a New Testament letter is no easy task and requires rigorous research. However, one cannot fully reconstruct the events or information of the background for a given text, especially one that was written almost two thousand years ago. The primary interpretive background of any given text is located within the context of the document. The text sufficiently guides the reader on how to interpret the document. In reference to the present text of 1 Timothy 2:11-15, much of the discussion has centered on the Ephesian background of this letter. Many egalitarians examine the Ephesian background of the Artemis cult, which may lead the reader to consider a feminist movement that influenced the Church at Ephesus.[17] However, this background that has been constructed by the egalitarians puts too much weight on their interpretation of the external evidence at the expense of the internal evidence. Additionally, as many interpreters are well aware, this task of uncovering the external background information on any given text is not as easy or exact as some would like. Especially in regards with this text, as we will see. Here, as Robert J. Karris suggests, “it seems extremely difficult to infer from the polemic the nature of the opponents’ teaching.”[18] Gregg Allision raises an excellent question: “At what point does such background reconstruction move so far from the clues supplied by the biblical text that it enters into the realm of speculation, a perilous foundation upon which to build one’s interpretation?”[19] While it may be true that Artemis in some way shaped the attitude of the women in Ephesus, it is simply pure speculation to suggest that this is what influenced Paul’s instructions in 1 Timothy 2:8-15. Indeed, even if this were the case, it would not change the fact that somehow women are permitted to teach simply because the origin of these instructions are uncovered—that is what is often called the “genetic fallacy.” While background information is insightful, it should not guide us away from the text but aid or assist our interpretation of the text. Those who appeal to the background of Ephesus as their interpretive paradigm (which should be noted, is not as sure as most would assert) allow this information to shift the meaning of the text as they disregard the immediate context to their own demise. 

EPHESUS BACKGROUND—WAS PAUL ADDRESSING THE INFLUENCE OF THE FIRST-CENTURY ARTEMIS CULT?

The major assumption among egalitarians is that Artemis is the driving force of Paul’s letter and the influence of the Ephesian women. In light of Acts 19, which acts as a backdrop for the Ephesian polemic, many egalitarians highlight the influence of the Artemis cult since it mentions the prominence of the Greek goddess among the Ephesians. Notice verses 28 and 34, “When they heard this and were filled with rage, they began crying out, saying, ‘Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!’...But when they recognized that he was a Jew, a single outcry arose from them all as they shouted for about two hours, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”

Gupta suggests that “This central focus on Artemis along with the origin legend of the Amazons gave the city a unique quality of female empowerment.”[20] Additionally, according to Belleville, “They were influenced by the cult of Artemis, where the female was exalted and considered superior to the male…an Artemis influence would certainly explain Paul’s correctives in verses 13-14. While some may have believed that Artemis appeared first and then her male consort, the true story was just the opposite. For Adam was formed first, then Eve (v. 13).”[21] She suggests, “A probable explanation is that the women were influenced by the cult of Artemis, in which the female was exalted and considered superior to the male.”[22] This may, according to Belleville, explain the female Christians “usurping authority over men” at the Ephesian congregation. From an Egalitarian perspective, “an Artemis influence would help explain Paul’s correctives in 1 Timothy 2:13-15. It was believed that Artemis appeared first and then her male consort. However, the biblical story is just the opposite. Adam was formed first and then Eve (1 Tim 2:13). Then too, it was Eve who was deceived (1 Tim 2:14)—hardly a basis to claim superiority…Artemis was viewed as the protector of women. Maidens turned to her as the guardian of their virginity, barren women sought her aid, and women in labor turned to her for help…Paul’s corrective is that the Ephesian women no longer place their trust in Artemis but in Christ—their true Savior.”[23] Baugh helpfully notes, “Ephesus’ society and religion—even the cult of Artemis Ephesia—shared typical features with many other contemporary Greco-Roman cities. Ephesus was thoroughly Greek in background and character and showed the beginnings of Roman influence.… Hence we have every reason to expect that when Paul restricted women from teaching and exercising rule through special office over a man, he applied it to ‘every place’ (v. 8).”[24]

EPHESUS BACKGROUND—WAS PAUL ADDRESSING FEMALE FALSE TEACHING?

Payne suggests that “Paul’s primary concern in 1 Timothy is not the original false teachers, but with the impact they have made, especially on women. Paul wants Timothy to address a second round of false teaching particularly by women in the Ephesian church. Thus, although Paul’s letters affirm many women in church leadership, here in Ephesus false teaching by women was a big enough threat that Paul restricts teaching by women.”[25] Many egalitarians, along with Payne, appeal to the broader context of 1 Timothy and rightfully note that this book addresses false teaching and should be read within this framework. However, I would note that not every single verse in this letter is immediately directed at the issues of false teaching. For instance, in chapter 3, Paul does not give these “trustworthy” instructions to Timothy because there are false teachers but because the congregation in Ephesus required such sound leadership. Now, an implication of establishing eldership and deacons within the local church would certainly strengthen the resolve of the church and protect them from false teaching. But this is not the direct function of this text. Instead, Paul’s main thrust is to ensure that Timothy’s church is organized as God has designed the church to be designed. Blomberg helpfully notes, “Egalitarians correct stress that posture actions on women in 2:11-12 must be interpreted in light of the dangers of heresy afoot in the church. But some reconstructions read back into the first century developments for which we have secured evidence only from one or two centuries later, and it is telling that none of the references to false teachers in the pastoral epistles ever explicitly number women among them. Is true the heretics seem to have an inordinate influence over certain particularly gullible women (5:15; 2 Tim. 3:6-9), but it is a big jump from men teaching women heresy to the conclusion, never stated in the text, that those women in turn became (false) teachers, so that the only thing pause for bidding in  2:11-12 is the teaching of heresy.”[26] My major concern is this: How does forbidding women to teach annihilate the problem of false teaching? Note, in this view, the men are certainly the source of false teaching who would have influenced the women who then would become false teachers. So how does this solve the problem by taking the women off the pulpit? There is still false teaching, and the women are left solely unprepared. “One could hardly argue seriously that only women have been misled by false teachers and make that the reason for Paul’s limitations on women.”[27] 

Schreiner rightly notes that “this theory cannot be exegetically validated because it reads something into the text that is not present there.”[28] He suggests that “even though the presence of heresy looms large, it does not follow that the false teaching explains every feature of the letter.”[29] As modern readers, we must recognize that the Bible was not originally written to us, in this case, it was written to Timothy. However, it may be better to say that the Bible was written for us since God has preserved His word for the Church to read and apply. This requires sound interpretation when examining the Biblical data. “We must,” as Schreiner notes, “interpret the Scriptures in their historical and cultural context. They were written to specific situation and to cultures that differed from our own.”[30] He offers three excellent arguments against this position:

“First, why does Paul only mention women since we know that at least some men were being duped by the false teachers as well? It would be insufferably sexist to prohibit only women from teaching and exercising authority when men were being led astray as well. Second, the theory requires that all the women in emphasis were diluted by the false teachers. Paul gives no indication the restriction applies only to some women, but it is incredibly hard to believe that every single woman in Ephesus was beguiled by the false teaching. Third, egalitarians have been busy remaking the background to the solution in verses 11-15, but their reconstructions have been highly speculative and sometimes wildly implausible.”[31] 

EPHESUS BACKGROUND—WAS THE PROBLEM WITH THE WOMEN TEACHING THEIR LACK OF EDUCATION?

It has often been argued by egalitarians that the danger of the Ephesian heresy was due to the uneducated women that were easily deceived. As Craig Keener argues:

“The one passage in the Bible that specifically prohibits women from teaching is addressed to the one church where we know false teachers were effectively targeting women. A primary problem in Ephesus was false teaching (1 Tim. 1:3–20; 4:1–7; 6:6–10, 20–21; 2 Tim. 2:16–26; 3:5–13; 4:3–4), and the primary false teachers (who were men—1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 2:17) were exploiting the women in order to spread their false teaching. How do we know this? If women as a rule were less educated than men, they would become a natural target as those particularly susceptible to such false teaching. Thus, it isn’t surprising to learn that these false teachers targeted women in the households (2 Tim. 3:6) who were proving to be incapable of learning correctly (3:7; cf. 1 Tim. 4:7)…If the problem with the Ephesian women was their lack of education and consequent susceptibility to false teaching, the text provides us a concrete local example of a more general principle: Those most susceptible to false teaching should not teach.”[32]

Thomas Schreiner summarizes this argument as follows:

“Egalitarians often argue restriction can be explained by the lack of education among the women in Ephesus, or alternatively they suggest these women were duped by false teachers—and thus the women would be allowed to teach once their doctrinal deficiencies were corrected. Both of these views are unconvincing. Paul could have easily written this: ‘I do not allow women to teach or exercise authority over a man as long as she is uneducated and unlearned.’ He gives no indication, however, that lack of education is the problem.”[33] Eve sinned because she was deceived; that is, she lacked proper knowledge. Likewise, those women who were promoting false teaching were deceived due to a lack of knowledge or education, and that is why Paul prohibited women from teaching. However, Eve’s deception is not an intellectual ignorance; it is a moral corruption. The issue with this position is that it is exegetically unjustified. “Those scholars who posit that false teaching or lack of education stimulate the prohibition ignore the reason the text actually gives (the created order) an insert something absent from the text (false teaching and lack of education) to explain the prescription.”[34]

The absence of internal and external evidence that the women were uneducated makes this argument unpersuasive. “It is true that women do not appear in any of the ancient sources from Ephesus as the sophists, rhetors, teachers, philosophers, doctors, or their disciples. However, one should not conclude from this that all women were uneducated and that therefore in 1 Timothy 2:12 Paul disqualified women from teaching in the Christian church merely because they did not attend specialized schools in rhetoric, philosophy, or medicine. This claims too much.”[35] It is possible that the women at the church in Ephesus were educated to some extent since they were certainly upper-class (1 Tim. 2:9; 6:17-18). Baugh further notes that “because women’s education in antiquity usually took place privately, we only get a glimpse of it here and there in historical sources. As for women’s literacy, daughters of the upper classes needed some level of education for their duties in managing large households. And though they were not commonly found in fields like philosophy, women did read and write literature and poetry during this period. While women’s literary works were usually designed for private consumption and have therefore been lost for the most part, we find some exceptions from Ephesus.”[36] 

In addition, Paul’s argument is about deception rather than education, which is not mutually exclusive.[37] Paul’s instructions do not address the lack of education among the women but assumes the opportunity of learning, which was not enjoyed under Judaism but is within Christianity, and guidelines on how to learn. Bill Mounce rightfully says, “If Paul had meant ‘deceived women,’ he could have said so.”[38] Paul was an excellent communicator, and if he were addressing a situation centered on the Artemis cult with women false teachers who lacked the proper education to instruct God’s people, then he would have clearly communicated this to Timothy—and yet, he didn’t.

AN EXEGESIS OF 1 TIMOTHY 2:8-15

Before examining Paul’s restrictions on women in verses 11-15, it is helpful to consider Paul’s instructions in light of the broader argument on the roles of men and women within the setting of corporate worship. As such, there is some inconsistency concerning the application of this text as it relates to women’s attire and restrictions on teaching. Schreiner says, “One cannot legitimately claim that teaching prohibitions are normative whereas women’s adornment is culturally relative. Those who prohibit women from teaching men should, to be consistent, also forbid women from wearing any jewelry. Neither can they escape, he reasons, by saying that submission is the principle that undergirds the wearing of appropriate attire so that the wearing of jewelry is permitted as long as one has a submissive spirit.”[39] Here, Paul gives some instructions on male leadership in worship as it pertains to their activity and attitude when they pray. Moreover, Paul instructs women on their wardrobe as it elevates their beauty through their modesty. 

VERSE 8: MEN OF PRAYER

When the apostle Paul says, “Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension,” he wants the males of the congregation to take the lead in worship and pray on behalf of the whole assembly. Since this is what Paul wants, it is not simply an opinion that can be cast aside; instead, it is to be read as the words spoken with apostolic authority. In light of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 1 Peter 3:1-7, these instructions should be read as the norm of the apostolic teachings and New Testament Church. Interestingly, it is a plurality of “men” who are to lead and pray. We are to be men of prayer. Andreas Köstenberger says, “The picture Paul paints is that of a church submitted to authority and untied in prayer for the salvation of all. If there’s unity (v. 8), and if there’s order (vv. 9—15), the church’s mission will be able to proceed without hindrance or disruption.” As such, “men ought to lead the church in a spirit of unity and gospel centeredness.”[40]

The role of a man is to lead in worship because it is a position that God has commanded. “This usage shows that only men are expected to provide leadership in prayer.”[41] Indeed, as Dan Chambers notes, “By specifically ordering ‘the males’ to pray in the assembly, Paul clearly excludes females from filling that role.”[42]  In the next section (v. 9-15), Paul will give instructions regarding the role of women in the assembly. “Two activities are specified in 1 Timothy 2 as exercised by men—praying (that is, leading in prayer, expressly mentioned) and teaching (tacitly implied). These activities are denied to women, the one (leading in prayer) tacitly and the other (teaching) expressly.”[43] 

The attitude of prayer is what separates the men (genuine Christian leaders) from the boys (fake Christian leaders). These male Christian leaders must be pleasing to the Lord by not praying with “wrath and dissension” but must be holy and devoted to the Lord as they talk to the Lord with love, patience, and righteousness. “It is possible that some in the congregation were using public prayers as an opportunity to vent their anger. More likely, Paul had in mind asking their brother when they were not troublemakers to lead public prayers. The desired results of praying included quietness and tranquility (2:2), but that was unlikely to occur when the prayer leaders were loud and quarrelsome.”[44] 

TOPOS: “IN EVERY PLACE”

In verses 9-15, Paul is issuing certain limitations towards women. The question is where and how do these limitations apply? The instructions in this text regarding “every place” specifically apply to the house churches in Ephesus, but it may also include the practices of the universal Church. Roberts suggests that since Paul said it applies to “every place,” it should be regarded as a command that is “universally applicable.”[45] Additionally, J.N.D. Kelly notes that the word “want” here conveys an “authoritative command.”[46] And so, these instructions apply to us today. Ferguson rightly observes that the phrase “in every place” (ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ) here “should be understood as a reference to men [ἄνδρας] leading in prayer ‘in the Christian assemblies.’”[47] And so, we may view this as a reference to “every meeting place” or “every place of assembly.” Every place that Christians assemble or meet, these teachings ought to be applied. “These limitations apply only to the assembly of the church.”[48] More will be said on why these limitations are applied to women in this context and not to men in verses 13-15. According to Paul, it is according to the order of creation.

Since Paul says that these instructions are intended for “every place” it is quite evident that these are instructions that apply to the universal Church concerning corporate worship. As Köstenberger argues, “in all likelihood the phrase ‘in every place’ is implied from the previous verse, indicating the universal applicability of Paul’s commands (cf. 3:15).”[49] Edwards accurately notes, this is a reference to “every worship place where collective worship or prayer is usually offered.”[50] As such, it is clear that “a worship context is likely” since it is the most natural reading of the text.[51] Moo similarly says, “Paul is probably referring to the various ‘places’ (house-churches) in which Christians at Ephesus met for worship.”[52] Since Paul’s instructions to the church at Ephesus are similar to other places in Scripture, it is surely the case that this was the common practice of the early Church and the normative practice of the present-day Church. Ferguson suggests that since “the language does not suggest a local or specific situation, although such may have been the occasion for stating the general rule. That Paul gives essentially the same instructions to Corinth and to Ephesus shows that a common practice undergirded by a common theology is being presented.”[53] 

VERSES 9-10: WOMEN OF HOLINESS

In verses 9-10, Paul transitions from instructions on male holiness to female holiness, that is, in regard to “women’s proper decorum with regard to attire and activities in the local church.”[54] The connection that is made between verses 8 and 9 is located in the word “also” or “therefore” where Paul offers instructions of holiness to both genders within the context of the worship assembly. “Men are to pray in a holy manner, that is, in a contention-free spirit. Women, likewise, are to exhibit holiness, not only at prayer, but in their entire lives.”[55] The godly woman should be primarily concerned with holiness. As Roper noted, “Instead of being obsessed with the artificial beauty that fades, her emphasis should be on beauty of character that results in good works—helping others, lifting up those who are hurting, sharing the gospel with the lost. That kind of beauty lasts even into eternity.”[56]

WOMEN OR WIVES?

Some have suggested that the word gunaikas, which can be translated as “women” or “wives,” should be translated as “wives.” This is a position that the majority of modern English translations do not take since they employ the word “women.” The reason that individuals like Gorden Hugenberger suggest this translation is mostly due to their egalitarian position on women’s role in the church. He interprets 1 Timothy 2:8-15 through the lens of 1 Peter 3:1-7, but he does not entirely respect the differences between these two texts.[57] Indeed, “the texts hardly correspond in every respect.”[58] Schreiner notes that if this type of reading was accepted and “it refers to wives both here and in subsequent verses, then the passage does not necessarily forbid women from teaching publicly in church. It merely prohibits them from teaching and exercising authority over their husbands.”[59] What makes this position very odd is that it would be permissible for a single woman to teach but not a married woman, which is not supported by the context. Additionally, when the word is translated as “wives,” there are normally certain cues in the surrounding context.

MODESTY AS A FORM OF BEAUTY

Paul “adorns” the women at Ephesus to dress “modestly,” that is, to not simply display the lavish lifestyle and wealth that they possess, whether it be “with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes.” These things are not inherently wrong, but the motives of these women were clearly improper and immodest since they sought self-glorification rather than God’s glorification when they used the Christian assembly “as an opportunity to display their wealth.”[60] Jack P. Lewis made an excellent observation on the application of “modesty” in the Churches of Christ when he said, “I do not think we have dealt fairly with the total passage when we dismiss its teaching because we may have been lax on heeding what it says about female adornment. We have been entrapped by the English word ‘modest’ for which this verse has been, and is still, used as proof-text against underdressing when Paul is really speaking of being overdressed rather than being underdressed.”[61] In many cases, we may heavily instruct women on modesty and regard it as underdressing, and we may misapply the text in its entirety while glossing over the application to males who also underdress. In reality, women ought to be the ideal instructors and examples of modesty. At the same time, we should be promoting biblical modesty, which is more than just how one dresses; it is heavily based on one’s attitude and willingness to be sacrifices of service to the Lord. As Köstenberger notes, “Paul’s primary purpose was to promote a focus on women’s inner beauty and godly character rather than on their external appearance.”[62] In other words, “the issue is not whether women should seek to display beauty but how they do so.”[63] He explains in more depth:

“Modesty with regard to a woman's external appearance and a focus on her inward character stands in contrast with the Pagan practice of dressing up her public festivals in a woman's finest garments. The decadent, extravagant styles of fashion in Rome, with the empress serving as the prime role model, quickly spread to the rest of the Greco-Roman world and found eager followers among women everywhere who copied the elaborate hairstyles and fashion trends promulgated in the empire’s capital. According to Paul however, Christian women ought to take a different approach. They should express their spirituality and modest attire that doesn't betray it preoccupation with their physical appearance or indulge in self-centered vanity by express devotion toward God and humility toward others.”[64]

HONORABLE WORSHIP AND GOOD WORKS

Paul adorns these women to dress modestly as women of God, which “consists both of transcultural virtues—good works”—and culturally specific forms of dress that send a signal about the kind of women they are.”[65] The reason that women should dress modestly is because (1) it is a moral act, (2) it is proper, and (3) it is an expression of praise. Since modesty is practiced “with good deeds,” it is a virtuous or holy work. As Lewis notes, “Women’s clothing is to be associated with good works and an expression of godliness. The basic principle of modest dress is timeless; women at no time are to ‘show off’ with ‘gold, pearls, or expensive clothes.’”[66] It is “appropriate” for the occasion and the gender (“women”). One’s apparel may broadcast one's immorality or desire for independence from one's spouse. Indeed, “For ostentatious dress, in the ancient world, sometimes could signal a woman’s loose morals and independence from her husband.”[67] This ultimately describes the type of women who “profess to worship God.” Modesty, as such, is a Christian virtue that best exemplifies a woman of integrity and dignity. This is the type of woman that every man should adorn and aim to acquire.

“Women’s focus in expressing their Christian religion should be on good works (2 Tim 2:21; 3:17; Titus 3:1; cf. Matt 5:16 and v. 15 below). Rather than being unduly preoccupied with what women may not do (vv. 11-12), churches ought rather to focus on what they should do in practicing their Christian faith (vv. 9-10, 15).”[68] As it applies to the public meeting of fellow Christians, “Every Christian woman,” as Roper notes, “should practice good judgment regarding what she wears.”[69] How should a woman dress? How should they be seen? Earl Edwards helpfully writes, “When people think of her they will not think of her ostentatious dress but of her beauty of spirit for she is the type who spends more time and money on visiting the sick and the poor rather than on shopping for the newest designer brands.”[70]  In sum, worship needs to be a distraction-free environment (as much as possible) where our focus is placed on the event rather than on the surrounding obstacles. Additionally, women should dress modestly as they seek to glorify God not only through how they act but by what they wear.

VERSES 11-12: WOMEN ARE TO LEARN NOT TEACH

Everett Ferguson said, “The woman is forbidden to teach and certainly not take an authoritative position over the man.”[71] The issue is with public teaching/preaching from a female is that it is unbecoming of the Christian assembly where, according to the order of creation (v. 13-14), God has ordained men to teach and prohibited women. Jack P. Lewis rightly notes, “There is no example in the NT where a woman is presented as a teacher of men in an assembly.”[72] In spite of all the blatant false teaching offered by men, Paul does not offer any suggestion that women should teach.[73] Here, just like in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14, Paul’s statements are located “in the context of corporate worship,” where Paul is now saying, “Women are not to be teachers, but quite learners.”[74] In sum, Paul is giving the command of quietness or silence to the women of the congregation. Some may debate whether or not this refers to the public assembly or the home, however, in light of the immediate context, where men are commanded to pray (1 Tim. 2:8), the surrounding context, where Paul instructs Timothy on Church government—elders and deacons (1 Tim. 3:1-13), and the general context of this letter, where Paul says that he is writing this “so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15), it appears that Paul’s “intention is to discuss church life, not home life.”[75] Here, Paul prohibits females in the local church from teaching and exercising authority over men. For clarification, Schriener notes that “both teaching and exercising authority are legitimate activities in and of themselves. He does not  prohibit women from teaching and exercising authority as if these actions are intrinsically evil. Both teaching and exercising authority are proper activities for believers, but in this context he forbids women from engaging in such activities.”[76] 

FIGURE: THE SYNTAX OF 1 TIMOTHY 2:12[77]

WHY IS IT SIGNIFICANT THAT WOMEN CAN “LEARN”?

Verse 12 is, as Craig Blomberg notes, “the single most scrutinized verse of Scripture in recent scholarship.”[78] While many wish that Paul would “get with the times” and allow women to “teach,” they miss how revolutionary the admonition to “learn” was in that context. This text is incredible because it is clear that, as Robert W. Yarbrough writes, “Paul takes seriously each woman’s importance as a learner.”[79] The NET footnote says, “this was a radical and liberating departure from the Jewish view that women were not to learn the law.” For example, “Jewish rabbis of the first century were, for the most part, contrary to talking with women in public—let alone teaching them so they could ‘learn.’”[80] However, rather than being like the Rabbis of their day, Jesus and Paul acknowledged and addressed women. As Ferguson notes, “Instead of the passage reflecting a cultural norm, the provision for the woman to learn actually contrasts with a strand of Jewish though reflected in rabbinic literature.”[81] For example, in the Palestinian Talmud, we read, “Better to burn the Torah than to teach it to a woman.”[82] So what changed with Paul? Paul’s view of women was formed by Jesus through His earthly ministry.

Interestingly, many egalitarians pin Jesus and Paul against one another as though Paul has departed from Jesus’ view of women and Paul is simply a product of his day. However, Paul departs from the norm of his day, and the only explanation for this is Jesus. Some may appeal to Paul’s earlier admonition for women to learn and note that the reason women are called to learn is they may teach since they are given the privilege that was reserved for men. However, not all men who trained under rabbis became rabbis. Likewise, not all women who learn from teachers are meant to be teachers. In sum, women are privileged to learn with men but are not permitted to teach men. While egalitarians may suggest that learning implies permission to instruction, Paul readily annihilates that conclusion by issuing a command that women are not permitted to teach. Another argument that is used by egalitarians is their proposal that the reason women are prohibited from teaching is due to their lack of education. The reason why false doctrine was being spread in Ephesus was because the women were not well educated and needed to learn in a peaceable manner. However, as Thomas Schreiner points out, “The exhortation implies a belief in the intellectual capability of women and their ability to profit from instruction and education.”[83] 

WHAT DOES PAUL MEAN BY “QUIETNESS”?

Paul’s instruction to women was that they were to listen and learn “quietly” or “in silence.” This is how women are to submit, according to Paul. According to Schriener, “Most scholars today argue that this word does not actually mean ‘silence’ here but refers to a quiet demeanor and spirit that is peaceable instead of argumentative.”[84]

Here, Paul is saying the woman is to learn in a “state of quietness without disturbance.” (BDAG) Here, “the command focuses not on women learning but on the manner and mode of their learning, that is, quietly and with all submissiveness.”[85] In light of 1 Timothy’s theme of sound doctrine and heresy, this phrase most likely “conveys submissiveness to Christian teachings in contrast to rebellion against authority.”[86] These Christian ladies still must use their voices in praise to God. However, there are limitations that are set in the worship assembly, but there are no prohibitions on participation in worship. Here, Schreiner says, “Paul refers to a quiet and nonrebellious spirit instead of absolute silence, for the primary issue is demeanor and attitude—one’s submissive spirit.”[87] 

Women are to listen and “learn in silence with all submission.” Who are they to submit to? God, the congregation, sound doctrine? The subject of submission is not identified, but clearly, “the emphasis is on the woman’s attitude.”[88] They are to submit or put underneath. “Submission is the appropriate response of Christians to those who are in authority over them.” Here, the submission should be understood within the confinements of their gender roles. This is best understood through “Paul’s directive for women to accept their proper role.”[89] Since, as Kevin DeYoung writes, “a woman who learns quietly embraces her submissive role and honors God’s design for the sexes.”[90] Submission in Christianity is different than how it functions in our society. Society: submit because you have to (by law). Christianity: submit because you want to (by choice). Women are to listen and learn “quietly” or “in silence.”[91] This is how women are to submit, according to Paul. In light of 1 Timothy’s theme of sound doctrine and heresy, this phrase most likely “conveys submissiveness to Christian teachings in contrast to rebellion against authority.”[92] These Christian ladies still must use their voices in praise to God. However, there are limitations that are set in the worship assembly, but there are no prohibitions on participation in worship. Thus, “the admonition is that women not be boisterous, create confusion, or be domineering.”[93] Jack Cottrell accurately states, “Paul is saying that women must study and learn Christian doctrine and have an understanding of the contents of the Bible, but they are not permitted to use their knowledge to teach men or to have authority over men.”[94] 

HOW DOES PAUL USE “I”?

Some argue that Paul does not speak with authority but only gives his opinion or personal preference when he uses the word “I.” For example, Philip B. Payne says, “Paul often chose the first person singular (“I”) present active indicative (“am not permitting”) to indicate his own personal advice or position for a situation that is not universal.”[95]  Often, many overstate their case concerning Paul’s “I” statements in his letters, where Paul is distinguishing divine instructions and personal opinions, as though Paul writes as an inspired author throughout the majority of the letter and then sneakily slides in his own opinions into his writings. When this is done, it is as though some areas of Paul’s writings are authoritative while other areas are not simply because Paul used the word “I.” This could not be further from the truth; in fact, it is quite the opposite. According to Mounce, “Paul uses ‘I’ throughout his writings, often speaking with absolute authority.”[96]Moo notes, “it is precarious to infer any less authority: the words are still the words of the Apostle Paul, writing inspired Scripture.”[97] Further, as Köstenberger and Köstenberger note, “the passage is part of Paul’s apostolic command that he conveys to Timothy rather than merely one man’s private, nonbinding view as to the way in which men and women should relate to each other in the church.”[98] Regardless of how one interprets this, the question is: Do the words of the apostle Paul have any weight? “Those who appeal to the form of the word as if it established the temporary nature of the prohibition,” Schreiner says, “exceed the evidence. The form does no such thing, and such a thesis must be established on other grounds.”[99]

WHAT DOES PAUL MEAN BY “DO NOT PERMIT”?

It has been suggested by many egalitarians that this term is temporal, which limits the application of this text to the church of Ephesus during the first-century but does not apply to the norms of the universal church today. For instance, Payne argues that “every occurrence of ἐπιτρέπω in the Greek OT refers to a specific situation, never to a universally applicable permission.” Additionally, “the vast majority of the NT occurrences of ἐπιτρέπω clearly refers to a specific time or for a short or limited time duration only.”[100] However, as many complementarians have rightly noted, since Paul uses the present tense, this contradicts their case that this only applies to the original audience since Paul is indicating an ongoing activity. Thus, against the egalitarian position, this command is not temporal but actually atemporal. In other words, this passage applies to us today just as it applied to the original audience. According to Köstenberger and Köstenberger:

“Some take the verb ‘do not permit’ to suggest that Paul may not have allowed women to teach or have authority over a man at the time of writing but that he held open the possibility that he may change his mind and allow them to do so in the future, especially if they perceive proper training. But the present-tense form ‘do not permit’ shouldn’t be construed to limit the applicability of Paul’s injunction to the present time as if the apostle were only to say, I am not currently permitting’; ‘I do not permit’ is atemporal, denoting a general principle valid for all time.”[101]

WHAT DOES PAUL MEAN BY “TEACH”?

Is the issue simply just the manner of teaching? The problem then would be that women should not exercise authority or assume authority when teaching. Is the issue the content of teaching? In this case, it is not that women should not be teaching but that they should not be teaching false doctrine. How is the term “teach” used by Paul? According to Moo, the term “teach,” as Paul uses it, “especially in the Pastoral Epistles, has the strong sense of communicating Christian doctrine (1 Tim 1:10; 4:1, 6, 11, 13, 16; 5:17; 6:1, 2, 3; 2 Tim 2:2; 3:10, 16; 4:3; Titus 1:9, 11; 2:1, 7, 10).” Thus, what Paul is communicating is that “within the context of the church, women are not to authoritatively communicate Christian doctrine to men and not to enter into a position of authority over them.”[102] In sum, Paul is concerned with Christian doctrine and its transmission. Paul issues two commands that limit women’s teaching in the Christian community: (1) women are forbidden from teaching men, and (2) women are forbidden from exercising authority over men.

Elsewhere, Moo notes that “in the pastoral epistles, teaching always has this restricted sense of authoritative doctrinal instruction.” In this present text, Paul’s use of “teaching” is best understood as “the authoritative and public transmission of tradition about Christ and scriptures. The rest of the pastoral epistles makes clear that the teaching and view is the public transmission of authoritative material. The elders in particular are to labor in teaching so that they can refute the false teachers to advance heresy. It is crucial that the correct teaching and the Apostolic deposit be based on the next generation.”[103] From this, it seems that Paul is using “teaching” consistently with other places in the Pastoral Epistles.

What does Paul mean when he says, “teach”? Egalitarians understand this text as a teaching that is spoken by women “in a dominating way”[104] or may “assume authority.”[105] Alternatively, as most translations suggest, Paul is instructing women not to “exercise authority over women.” Earl Edwards suggests it is the “activities which would place the woman ‘over’ men.” Here, “Paul is not talking only about teaching and exercising authority of the  woman which would be ‘domineering’ or ‘false’ in content, rather he is talking about any public activity of her’s which is ‘over a man.’”[106] Similarly, as Moo notes, the issue Paul is addressing is that “it is teaching men and having (or assuming ) authority over men that Paul prohibits—the role relationship of men and women in the church is clearly his focus.”[107] Indeed, it is not, as some egalitarians submit, false teaching that is the issue, but it is the fact that women are the ones teaching. In other words, it is the person not the content that Paul is addressing. Contextually, Paul is not discussing false teaching nor is there any evidence to suggest that is concerned with female false doctrine. Additionally, false teaching is abhorrent regardless of who teaches it, whether they are males or females. Interestingly, even if Paul was referring to false doctrine, the only false teachers he has identified in this letter are men (1 Tim. 1:20; cf. Acts 20:30). In this present text, Paul does not have to use masculine terms to describe the false teachers because he has already identified the false teachers as men.[108] There is no evidence that women are false teachers in this epistle.

It should be noted at this time that Paul is not saying, “I permit no woman to teach,” that would obviously go against what he said in Titus 2:3-4. Rather, Paul is limiting their teaching by prohibiting women from teaching men. “If a woman exercises authority over men, she is in the position that Paul here forbids.”[109] However, if a woman teaches other women, then she is to be commended. Cottrell notes:

“Since 1 Tim 3:15 specifies that Paul is giving instructions about church life, we conclude that this prohibition applies only within the context of the church. Paul thus forbids women to teach Christian men in all functions of the church sanctioned by the elders, including but not limited to public worship…since church life is in view, we also conclude that the prohibition is limited to teaching Christian doctrine, or teaching about the meaning and application of the Bible. That is, Paul is forbidding women to give authoritative instruction concerning biblical doctrine to Christian men in any kind of church function.”[110] 

While egalitarians posit that the type of teaching that is being referenced in this context is false teaching, it does not seem linguistically that this is permissible. In fact, when Paul is referencing false teaching the word that is often employed by Paul in the Pastoral Epistles is heterodiadaskale. And so, it is unlikely that Paul is speaking against false teaching but female teaching in the public assembly.

WOMEN ARE NOT TO TEACH BECAUSE THEY ARE REBELLING AGAINST GOD BY USURPING MALE AUTHORITY

All women, not only wives, are strictly prohibited from publicly preaching. “The directive that women not teach men pertains to situations where women would be teaching men by preaching to a  congregation including both men and women.”[111] The main issue that Paul is addressing when he says that women cannot teach in corporate worship is that it would be the woman taking the role that was designed by God for man where they would thereby be ignoring God’s design and taking “authority over a man.” The totality of teaching is not prohibited to all women but any teaching that is “over” the authority God gave to man. Thus, “women should refrain from exercising authoritative public teaching functions and be silent in this regard.”[112]  Anything that compromises man’s authority in the activity of worship goes beyond what God has authorized since it is open rebellion. It is obvious that Paul is not prohibiting teaching. Rather, he is setting limitations on leading in such cases as teaching. Much of the current debate on the word αὐθεντέω (“authority”) is whether the issue is as follows: Is Paul talking about a domineering authority or an assumption of authority? Is the authority being exercised inherently wrong or is it the act that is being exercised? Al Wolters argues that it is “very unlikely to have either a pejorative or an ingressive meaning.”[113] Regardless, the term should be translated “have/exercise authority,” as Denny Burk has demonstrated.[114] This term αὐθεντεῖν is possible the most difficult word to define in this pericope. Mounce says, “It occurs nowhere else in the NT and rarely in secular Greek. Most agree that its basic meaning is either the neutral ‘to exercise authority’ or the negative ‘to domineer’ in the sense of exerting authority in a coercive manner. Either definition provides an adequate parallel to ὑποταγῇ, ‘submission,’ in v 11.”[115]

Many egalitarians will argue that Paul is only referring to a sinful type of authority. They argue that the phrases “teaching” and “having authority over”—many of them prefer the KJV translation of this text where it says, “usurping authority”—should be understood together to say, “teaching authoritatively.”[116] Payne suggests that Paul’s use of oude here would warrant a translation of this text as: “I am not permitting a woman to seize authority to teach a man.”[117] He argues that “Paul is not prohibiting two separate actions—he is prohibiting the combination of teaching and assuming authority.”[118] While it may be argued that these words should be combined on the basis of the word oude, this does not get around the fact that “Paul,” as Moo states, “prohibits women from conducting either activity, whether jointly or in isolation, in relation to men.”[119] In other words, whether or not these words are combined or separated from one another, this does not avoid the reality that women are not to teach men, nor does it permit the egalitarian to make the case that women can teach men.

WOMEN ARE TO LEARN NOT TEACH

Ferguson says, “The instructions in 1 Timothy 2 closely parallel those given in 1 Corinthians 14. Both prohibit women from praying and preaching or teaching in the church’s assembly…the prohibition of women teaching and exercising authority in 1 Timothy 2 applies to the assembly, as is the case in 1 Corinthians 14…the prohibition of exercising authority over men, therefore, is not a general principle applicable to any situation, but has a specific reference to the assembled church.”[120] Here, as Chambers notes, “Paul prohibits women from any teaching in any church setting where men are present; and since prophesying was a means of instruction in the early church, this rule would have prohibited women from prophesying in the assembly.”[121] When debating the subject of whether women can teach or preach in the public assembly, the primary concern should not be whether or not women have the opportunity to use their talents but on implementing the commands of God and allowing Him to decide who speaks and who doesn’t. The two commands that we find in this text are as follows: “Women should not teach (respecting the command for quietness) and should not have authority over a man (respecting the command for all submissiveness).”[122] 

OBSERVATIONS ON THE DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF 1 TIMOTHY 2:12[123]

THE MEANING OF 1 TIMOTHY 2:12[124]

VERSES 13-14

In family and church roles, Paul’s theological foundation for his instructions is based on chronological priority in the creation event, and he notes that the fall of man began with women’s deception. In sum, Paul provides two arguments for male leadership and against female leadership: (1) order of creation and (2) female deception. Order of creation: God made Adam and Eve. Adam was made first; Eve was made second. God’s design for males and females was formed in the Garden not at the fall. Thus, male leadership and female submission was God’s original design as set by, according to the apostle Paul, the order of Creation.

“FOR”

Schreiner notes that “those who adhere to the egalitarian position argue that the gar (“for”) introducing vv. 13-14 indicates not reasons why women should refrain from teaching but illustrations or examples of what happens when women falsely teach men.”[125] Elsewhere, he notes that the word “for” is “best understood as a ground for the command, since a reason naturally follows the prohibition. Women should not teach men or exercise authority over them because this would violate God’s intention in creation.”[126] And so, “Paul gives a command in vv. 11-12 and then enunciates the reasons for the command in vv. 13-14.”[127]

NEW TESTAMENT USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT: HOW DOES PAUL USE THE CREATION NARRATIVE IN 1 TIMOTHY?

Paul’s use of the creation narrative offers the basis for his argumentation on the limitations of women’s roles in the church. Accordingly, there are different interpretations on how Paul views Adam and Eve in Genesis. “The complementarian view has the virtue of adopting the simplest reading of the text. Paul maintains that the Genesis narrative gives a reason why women should not teach men: Adam was created first and then Eve. In other words, when Paul read Genesis 2, he concluded that the order in which God created Adam and Eve signaled an important difference the role of men and women. Thus, he inferred from the order of creation in Genesis 2 that women should not teach or exercise authority over men.”[128] Here, “Paul argues that because Adam was created first, creation indicates that authority rests with Adam, as flows plainly from a natural reading of Genesis 2. Paul is referring to creation order not merely as a self-evident truth but adduces this foundational passage as compelling evidence from the authoritative Hebrew Scriptures. According to Paul comma's priority and creation entails primacy with regard to the exercise of authority in the church. Creation order comes prior to the fall, so Paul's argument concerning the male church leaders’ authority in woman's submission is not a result of the fall (cf. 1 Cor. 11:3). This refutes one of the central plagues in the argument that authority is inherently improper and merely the result of the fall. Authority is good if exercised properly and predates the fall.”[129] In sum, “women ought not to teach or exercise authority over a man because, first, Adam was created first, then Eve (the man’s priority in creation); then, second, the woman was deceived first, then the man (the woman's priority at the fall). Because of God's creation order (Adam-Eve) and because of the negative consequences that ensued when the first man and the first woman subverted that creation order (Eve-Adam), Paul urges that men, rather than women, teach and exercise authority in the church.”[130] Wayne Grudem accurately states that “when Paul bases his argument on the order of creation of Adam and Eve, it indicates that his command about women not teaching or having authority in the assembled congregation transcends cultures and societies. It applies to men and women as they were created by God at the beginning, and it is not due to any distortion brought on by sin or the fall. It applies, then, to all churches for all time, and it is a means by which the beauty of manhood and womanhood as God created them to be can be manifested in the life of the church.”[131]

Philip H. Towner clarifies the implications of how one may interpret the Genesis narrative in light of the Ephesian background by analyzing the two possible pathways in the Egalitarian and Complementarian views: “Determining the use to which the Genesis material is put in this passage begins with the question of why Paul prohibited women from teaching and holding authority. if the reason was simply Paul’s general principle, based on Genesis (the creation order), then one has to correlate this assumption with the evidence that women took vital roles in ministry elsewhere, and one also has to accept the inescapable implication of 2:14 that Paul believed women to be more susceptible to deception than men or less capable by nature to deal with false teachers. If, however, the instructions and backing were given in response to a particular interpretation of the Genesis account in Ephesus that somehow furthering the heresy, eschewing marriage because of the false teaching, etc.), then 2:13-15a supports the measures to be taken (2:11-12) by reproducing a better a reading of the Genesis story.”[132]

According to the apostle Paul, since Adam was created before Eve, this is the grounds for not permitting women to teach. As Benjamin Merkle says, “The fact that Adam was created before Eve signifies that he is leader in their relationship.”[133] Where does Paul’s interpretation of Genesis come from? Paul’s understanding of Genesis 1-3 is a standard way that Paul uses it, as we see in 1 Corinthians 11:7-12. “Paul, as a careful reader of the Hebrew narrative, under the inspiration of the Spirit, detected significance in the order of creation for the roles of men and women.”[134] It would be good for us to recognize the significance of Genesis and see it as an interpretive lens through which we view all of Scripture. Here, Paul is respectful of the Hebrew Scriptures. Wolfe suggests “his use of the Genesis narrative displays sensitivity to the context of the original text. He is not prooftexting but attempting to engage the text and its implications in the manner faithful to both the original text and the continuing purposes of God in salvation history. The created order has not been replaced or suspended by the breaking in of the Kingdom of God.”[135] Additionally, “Paul gives two justifications for his instructions regarding women. The priority of Adam and creation indicates his headship; Eve then was presumably to submit to him. Paul wished to preserve what he saw as the natural order of things. Second, Eve’s guilt was the result of being deceived, while Adams was not. Paul viewed the creation account and its principal figures as historical and representational. Adam and Eve and their respective relationship as portrayed by Scriptures serve as the paradigm, positively and negatively.”[136] Frank Thielman gives a notable summary on the separation of men and women:

“As is already apparent from Paul’s willingness to separate the roles of the sexes in worship in 2:8-9 and to silence all women teachers in 2:12, however, a deeper theological issue is at stake in this gender-specific ordering of worship. Paul states this issue is explicitly in 2:13-15. God fashioned human beings in two genders, male and female, and the order in which he created them implies distinct roles in the church for each gender. Men should presumably take the initiative in prayer when the church gathers for worship, and women should submit to the authority of the church’s male leadership because ‘Adam was formed first, then Eve’ (2:13). Men, rather than women, should teach because Eve rather than Adam was Satan’s first victim in the deception that led to the disobedience described in Genessi 3:6. The implication is clear: Adam and Eve violated the divine ordering of the genders when Eve led Adam to disobey God’s commands. In a manner reminiscent of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, Paul correlates activity in the church’s worship with a divinely appointed ordering of the sexes at creation.”[137]

IS PAUL MISOGNINISTIC? DOES PAUL HAVE A LOW VIEW OF WOMEN?

To address some concerns about a misreading of Paul’s words, the apostle is not belittling women and kicking them when they are down. Men and women are both misled by Satan’s lies. “One could hardly argue seriously that only women have been misled by false teachers and make that the reason for Paul’s limitations on women.”[138] By saying, “Adam was not the one deceived,” Paul is not implying that Adam is off the hook, in fact, far from it as we look at Romans 5. Likewise, as Pierce notes, “Paul does not declare Adam innocent and certainly does not suggest that he is morally superior.”[139] So what is Paul doing here? Edwards says, “The woman was ‘quite deceived’ while Adam was ‘not’ deceived. He does not deny that Adam sinned, for it is clear that he did (Rom. 5:12-14); he says he was not deceived. Evidently, the emphasis is that he sinned knowingly. Instead, Eve was ‘deceived.’…she was ‘deceived when Adam was not…and for this reason, too, she is not to teach ‘over the man.’…Adam was created first and Eve was deceived while Adam was not.”[140] 

AN ABANDONMENT OF DUTY: THE REVERSAL OF ROLES AT THE FALL

Sin entered the world through a departure from God’s design for males and females. In light of Genesis 3, we notice the failure of Adam’s leadership through abandoning his responsibility as a man and husband. Sin entered the world because Adam listened to the woman.  God does not blame the woman for sin entering the world but is rebuking Adam for listening to his wife when she was deceived. We like to point the finger at Eve a lot of the time and blame her for sin entering the world, but when you look throughout Scripture, you see that God names Adam, the man, as the representative figure of sin and humanity. Why? Why is Adam to blame? God gave Adam this woman, and she led him astray. It is because he did not lead that sin entered the world. It is because he allowed Eve to guide and be deceived that they were cast out of the Garden. He did not protect her. Eve is not tempted and alone; her husband is right there, and he does nothing. Notice Genesis 3:6, where Adam passively watches and listens as the serpent tempts his wife. He does not protect her from deception. As a consequence, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden and the presence of the Tree of Life (Gen. 3:23). Kevin DeYoung helpfully observes:

“Paul may be making a statement about what happens when the roles of men and women are reversed. Adam was supposed to be the head, responsible for loving leadership and direction. But he abdicated his role, and Eve’s leadership influenced him for evil. As a result of this role reversal, sin entered into the world. On this understanding, Paul is pointing to the difference between the two guilty persons: Adam sinned openly, Eve was deceived. In highlighting this difference, Paul may be grounding his argument in God’s design for men and women, which was tragically supplanted in the fall.”[141] 

BIBLICAL MANHOOD AND WOMANHOOD

Men and women are different. But these differences do not have to cause any conflict or despair. It is important to note that “a difference in role or function in no way implies that women are inferior to men.”[142] Males and females are equal in nature and value. At the same time, we must maintain that there are real differences between males and females. Here, I believe Paul balances the sameness and differences between males and females. “Paul believed that men and women were equal in personhood, dignity, and value but also taught that women had distinct roles from men.”[143] 

THE WOMAN’S DECEPTION

Why is Paul talking about deception? The term “deception” means “to cause someone to accept false ideas about.” (BDAG) It is possible, as Donald Guthrie suggests, that this deception speaks to the “greater aptitude of the weaker sex to be led astray.”[144] However, it does not appear to be the case that women are inherently more prone to deception than males. Paul does not seem to be giving a rule of thumb by saying, “Here is how women are, they are all easily deceived.” Instead, it appears to be more of an explanatory statement of the fall that tells us why Eve sinned, that is, she was deceived. “Paul reminds his readers what happened historically when the woman acted apart from the man, leading him to disobedience, rather than the man fulfilling his role and leading the woman.”[145] What does Paul mean? We are left with two viable options: (1) Women are more likely to be deceived than men because Eve was deceived. Paul’s appeal to Genesis illustrates how women should not be permitted to teach since they are so easily led astray by falsehood, which leads to further deception. (2) Women’s prohibition to teach is due to Eve’s deception. Paul’s appeal to Genesis may reveal the consequences of women not teaching; thus, women cannot teach because Eve was deceived.

From an egalitarian perspective, Pierce suggests, “We should make sure that if we universally prohibit them from teaching, we should do so for the reason the text on which we base our practice cites; that is to say, for Eve’s deception to constitute a universal argument, we must assume that all women are easily deceived (presumably always more deceived than most believing men are)—the usual historic interpretation of the verse. Thus this analogy between Eve and women would tell us something about their nature rather than about first-century woman’s educational status. If we say that only most women are easily deceived, then we can prohibit only most women from teaching by this argument. If we say that the women in Ephesus were deceived like Eve because they were uneducated, the principle is simply that be untrained or more susceptible to deception. But if it is a universal prohibition based on gender, it is a statement, not about first-century women's education, but about all women's ontological inferiority and discerning truth. This is a claim we ought to be able to verify or refute empirically, yet most empirical research suggests that, when educational opportunities are the same, women are as adept in discerning deception as men are.”[146] Keener suggests an alternative viewpoint by way of analogy. “Paul often personalizes biblical texts by analogy. Because his contemporaries, both Jewish and Gentile, comes to merrily drew on both positive and negative models in history to make their points, Paul's audience would have followed his approach easily… use a scripture with a universal import; often, however, he makes analogies to argue points he intends only for a specific situation.”[147] Bellville says that “Eve was not deceived by the serpent into taking the lead in the male-female relationship. She was taking deceived into disobeying a command of God (not to eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). She listened to the voice of false teaching and was deceived by it… The language of deception caused among the activities of the false teachers at Ephesus. If the Ephesian women were being encouraged to assume the role of teacher over men as the superior sex, this would go a long way toward explaining 1 Timothy 2:13-14. The relationship between the sexes was not intended to be one of female domination and male subordination; but neither was it intended to be one of male and female subordination. Such thinking is native to a fallen creation order (Gen. 3:16).”[148] Pierce wrote, “women were deceived and were passing on their deception, just as happened in the garden of Eden.”[149] But the men were also deceived like Eve and were deferentially (since we are not certain that women did likewise) spreading false doctrine in Ephesus, and yet this passage is applied to only women where such limitations are set. Oddly enough, Pierce goes on to say that “Paul’s solution is clear. ‘Let the women learn’ so they can become teachers who are not easily deceived.”[150] My issue with this conclusion is that it does not appear to follow that if women are decided and spreading false doctrine, Paul’s solution is for them to learn how to teach when he explicitly prohibits them from teaching.

DOES THIS TEXT APPLY TO US TODAY?

Most interpreters of 1 Timothy recognize that Paul is addressing concerns on the Ephesian worship assembly. The question is whether these instructions are temporal or universal. Another consideration is based on the nature of these limitations and whether or not these instructions to the church at Ephesus are the standard or the exception. Keener suggests that if this were a rule then it would have to be “a rule with some exceptions” (Acts 18:26; 1 Cor. 11:4-5; 14:31). He then goes on to say, “it is also possible this text is the exceptional one, which can be argued if it can be shown to address a particular situation.”[151] However, if that were the case then no passage of Scripture can apply to us today because every piece of Scripture, without fail, addresses a particular issue and a particular people. Each of these do not apply to me directly. But I may apply them in principle, which is a proper way of using the Scriptures. “Since Paul supports the notion that women should not teach or have authority over men from God’s good creation, the command here represents a transcendent norm. When biblical writers appeal to creation, we have a norm that still applies today.”[152] 

In light of Paul’s use of the “faithful” or “trustworthy” statements in 1 Tim. 1:15, 3:1, and 4:9, illustrate the universal nature of these instructions, it seems that Paul is speaking to the norm of church governance rather than the exception.[153] Schriener rightly suggests, “Since Paul appears to creation, the prohibition transcends culture…There is no suggestion in the 1 Timothy 2 passage, therefore, that the prohibition is temporary, nor is there any indication that the restriction is somehow due to human sin or to the limitations of women. The restriction on women stems from God’s creation mandate, not from the cultural situation at Ephesus.”[154] Paul’s instructions in 1 Timothy 2 not only apply of the local Church at Ephesus during the first century but it transcends time and space as it pertains to the life of the Church today.[155] Thus, the New Testament Church today is bound by the instructions of 1 Timothy 2 as it relates to the limitations on the role of women in worship.[156] 

IS THE MEANING OF VERSES 13-14 UNREACHHABLE?

Are we reading these verses too simplistically? Could we have read Paul improperly? Are verses 13-14 really that hard to understand? Is there any discoverable meaning here? Schreiner stated, “I conclude egalitarians have not yet provided a plausible explanation for Paul's argument from creation in 2:13; In fact, they often complain that Paul’s argument in this verse is unclear and hard to understand. Yet most Christians throughout church history did not think the verse was so obscure, nor do I think it is hard to grasp. I would suggest the verse seems difficult because it runs counter to our own culture and intuitions. But the scriptures exist to challenge our worldview and to correct our way of looking at the world.”[157]  Let’s not make a cop-out when the going gets tough. There truly is a way to find the truth as we fight in the trenches of the egalitarian and complementarian debate. What is Paul saying here? Blomberg says, “Women are not to hold the authoritative teaching position in the church because that is not a role for which they were created. Moreover, things subsequently deteriorated for the woman, after creation, when she fell, through the deception of the serpent. But there is a bright side. Women, collectively, will be preserved/restored as they exercise in a godly fashion their distinctive role of rearing children.”[158] 

VERSE 15: SALVATION THROUGH CHILDBIRTH

This pericope has been heavily debated for generations to the point that almost every word is disputed by scholars. “While we do not think that the interpretation of this verse is decisive for the meaning of the verses that precede it,” Moo writes, “the verse does conclude the paragraph and may shed some light on the whole.”[159] The subject of this verse is essential to interpreting this passage. According to Schreiner, this is a reference to “the Christian women of Ephesus and by extension to all women everywhere.”[160] It should be noted here that the various interpretations on verse 15 are not necessarily restricted to the egalitarian or complementarian perspective.[161] This verse is certainly a challenge for either side. There are five major views on 1 Timothy 2:15:

LOST MEANING VIEW

I do believe that the meaning of this pericope can be understood by modern readers as they examine the biblical data. While this verse may be difficult to interpret, it appears to be too easy to throw the towel and say that the meaning of this verse is lost to the modern reader of 1 Timothy 2:15. It is possible to uncover Paul’s intended meaning.

ESSENTIAL CHILDBEARING VIEW

Salvation is through Christ alone, there are no additions that can be made to any class, gender, or race for one to be saved. The issue with this view is that this would add to the gospel as a condition for salvation exclusively restricted to women. Additionally, this is also not the natural reading of the text nor does it align with Paul’s soteriology.

PHYSICAL PRESERVATION VIEW

The problem with this view is that women of faith die in childbirth in Scripture and today. The implication of this view is that those who trust in God through their childbearing will be saved, and those who die giving birth did not have genuine faith.[162] The salvation referenced in this text does not appear to be inherently physical, in fact, Paul’s use of salvation is spiritual in the Pastoral Epistles. Those who propose this view often interpret salvation within a Greco-Roman background rather than in Pauline terms. Craig Keener suggests that the term saved “means ‘delivered’ or ‘brought safely through’ more often in ancient literature than it means ‘saved from sin.’”[163]To support his case, he summarizes the extrabiblical literature as follows:

(1) Women felt the need for help in child labor

(2) Were known to call on pagan gods for such help

(3) May have been accustomed to calling on Artemis, a known cult deity in Ephesus

(4) Jewish beliefs at the time connected the possibly fatal dangers of childbirth to Eve while appealing to God for help.

Keener acknowledges that this is not the way Paul uses the term “saved” in his writings. “It is true that Paul nowhere else uses “saved” to mean “saved in childbirth,” but it should be kept in mind that Paul nowhere else speaks of coming safely through childbirth.”[164] Schreiner offers an excellent criticism of this view:

“The fact that Christian women have often died in childbirth raises serious questions about this interpretation. More important, sozo always has the meaning of spiritual salvation in the Pastoral Epistles (cf. 1 Tim. 1:15; 2:5; 4:16; 2 Tim. 1:9; 4:18; Titus 3:5) and the other Pauline writings. Keener commits the error of giving more weight to the meaning of the term in extrabiblical writings than to its meaning in Paul’s writings. In addition, since sozo always refers to eschatological salvation in Paul, it is not compelling to say that women ‘are saved’ from the error of usurping authority over men by keeping to their proper function. Once again, scholars are supplying a definition for sozo that does not accord with Pauline usage.”[165] 

MESSIANIC VIEW

While Eve did not bring salvation, Mary did through the incarnation. The protoevangelium (Gen. 3:15) was fulfilled “through childbearing.” These verses assume a Genesis background and may be understood in light of the creation-fall narrative. It is possible that Paul is linking verse 14, which mentions Eve, to verse 15, where salvation will come through birth, namely the seed promise. It is not that women are saved by giving birth but that everyone is saved by “the” birth of the Christ by the virgin Mary. Schreiner summarizes this view as follows:

“In the history of the church, interpreters commonly detected a reference to the birth of Christ. Supporters of this reading invoked the near context, which qualifies the reference to the deceit and transgression of Eve (v. 14) with the promise that she will be saved by the childbirth, that is, the birth of Christ. Since Paul has just cited Genesis 3 in 1 Tim. 2:14, it is argued that he would naturally have turned to the promise of salvation through the seed promised in Genesis 3:15. The singular ‘she’ could be ascribed to Eve as the representative of all women or to Mary, who gave birth to the Messiah. Proponents also cite the definite article τῆς (“the”) preceding τεκνογονίας to defend the idea that Paul was thinking of the birth of Christ.”[166]  

Admittedly, if Paul were trying to communicate to his readers that there is salvation through the birth of the Messiah this, as Guthrie rightly said, “could hardly have chosen a more obscure or ambiguous way of saying it.”[167] There are a few issues with this view that I will attempt to analyze. Schreiner lists a few reasons this interpretation is unlikely:

“This interpretation seems unlikely, however, because men, too, are saved by the Messiah, and salvation is not so much by Jesus’ birth as by his substitutionary death on the cross. The interpretation is also unlikely because there's little contextual indication that justifies importing a reference to Mary into an otherwise rather generic context. Rather, in the flow of the passage, verse 14 refers to ‘the woman’ generically, moving past Eve, Mary, or any particular woman.”[168] 

While this view argues that the birth of the Messiah is being referenced, the emphasis is not on the particular child’s birth but on the process of childbearing. As Köstenberger writes, “the presence of the definite article in the original Greek merely indicates the generic nature of childbirth rather than pointing to a specific birth of a child.”[169] Additionally, as Schreiner suggests, “Mary was not saved by virtue of giving birth to Jesus, nor does Paul elsewhere say that salvation comes through the incarnation. The noun τεκνογονία emphasizes the actual giving birth to a child, not the result or effect of childbirth. Those who posit a reference to Jesus’ birth have subtly introduced the notion that salvation is secured as a result of giving birth to him, whereas the text speaks not of the result of birth but of the actual birthing process. Furthermore, the presence of the article cannot sustain the defense of the Christological interpretation.”[170] 

WOMEN’S ROLE VIEW

The most likely position for understanding verse 15 is that Christian women are saved through their roles as women. Since this pericope is framed within the instructions on gender roles, it is best to understand this verse in light of the Genesis narrative where God provides instructions on males and females. Here, Edwards argues that “Paul’s basic thrust here is that normally the first priority of most Christian women should be the home and ‘bearing of children.’”[171] As such, as Köstenberger and Köstenberger note, “Paul’s teaching there seems to be that women will be spiritually preserved if they devote themselves to their God-given role in the domestic and familial sphere. In this way, women will be kept safe and out of trouble.”[172] Ferguson writes the following statement:

“Women have a function that men do not have, the bearing of children (1 Timothy 2:15); and men have a function of leadership in church based on the created order...perhaps the opponents were saying that for women to be saved, they must give up conventional female roles.” If this is the case, then “the childbearing refers to a capacity, not a requirement; not every woman in fact has children. Neither does every man lead in prayer or teach in the church. A general principle is being stated here. As there is a function peculiar to women, so it seems there is a function reserved for men alone. The unique female function of childbearing is obvious and is a matter of nature. Men’s leadership in church is not something determined biologically, but 1 Timothy does seem to indicate that the instructions, which may appear to be arbitrary, are somehow founded on a distinction that goes back to creation and the natural order instituted by God…As there is a function reserved for women, so there is a function that God for some reason has chosen to reserve for men. Salvation comes from respecting these distinct female and male roles.”[173]

According to Moo, women will be saved “in maintaining as priorities those key roles that Paul, in keeping with Scripture elsewhere, highlights: being faithful, helpful wives, raising children to love and reverence God managing the household (cf. 1 Timothy 5:14; Titus 2:3-5). This is not to say, of course, that women cannot be saved unless they bear children. The women with whom Paul is concerned in this paragraph are all almost certainly married, so that he can mention one central role—bearing and raising children—as a way of designating appropriate female roles generally. Probably Paul makes this point because the false teachers were claiming that women could really experience what God had for them only if they abandoned the home and became actively involved in teaching and leadership roles in the church.”[174] In this view, it is the role of women rather than the act of childbearing that saves. As Moo says, “It is not through active teaching and ruling activities that Christian women will be saved, but through faithfulness to their proper role, exemplified in motherhood.”[175]

Verse 15 functions as a concluding statement that allows Paul to end on a positive note to admonish the women to “continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.” His final statements about salvation through childbirth are to be viewed as a figure of speech, namely, synecdoche. As such, Paul “doesn't want women to teach or exercise authority over men (which would amount to overstepping their God-given boundaries).” That is why “he urges them to devote themselves to their domestic role (which is how they'll be preserved from the devil, unlike eve who overstepped her God-given boundaries and consequently was deceived).”[176] 

ADDRESS THE TERRAIN OF THE EGALITARIAN AND COMPLEMENTARIAN DEBATE: HOW SHOULD CHRISTIANS RESPOND TO ISSUES THAT PERTAIN TO THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE CULTURE AND CHURCH?

It is no surprise that the current climate in the egalitarian-complementarian debate is very uneasy. Wayne Grudem suggests:

Likewise, Jim Gardner offers two insightful tips on how to maintain a Christ-like conduct on this subject while standing tall in affirming the biblical role of women in the Church.

DANVER’S STATEMENT OF BIBLICAL MANHOOD AND WOMANHOOD

1. Both Adam and Eve were created in God’s image, equal before God as persons and distinct in their manhood and womanhood (Gen 1:26-27, 2:18).

2. Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order, and should find an echo in every human heart (Gen 2:18, 21-24; 1 Cor 11:7-9; 1 Tim 2:12-14).

3.  Adam’s headship in marriage was established by God before the Fall, and was not a result of sin (Gen 2:16-18, 21-24, 3:1-13; 1 Cor 11:7-9).

4. The Fall introduced distortions into the relationships between men and women (Gen 3:1-7, 12, 16).

1. In the home, the husband’s loving, humble headship tends to be replaced by domination or passivity; the wife’s intelligent, willing submission tends to be replaced by usurpation or servility.

2. In the church, sin inclines men toward a worldly love of power or an abdication of spiritual responsibility, and inclines women to resist limitations on their roles or

to neglect the use of their gifts in appropriate ministries.

5. The Old Testament, as well as the New Testament, manifests the equally high value and dignity which God attached to the roles of both men and women (Gen 1:26-27, 2:18; Gal 3:28). Both Old and New Testaments also affirm the principle of male headship in the family and in the covenant community (Gen 2:18; Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:18-19; 1 Tim 2:11-15).

6. Redemption in Christ aims at removing the distortions introduced by the curse.

1. In the family, husbands should forsake harsh or selfish leadership and grow in love and care for their wives; wives should forsake resistance to their husbands’ authority and grow in willing, joyful submission to their husbands’ leadership (Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:18-19; Tit 2:3-5; 1 Pet 3:1-7).

2. In the church, redemption in Christ gives men and women an equal share in the blessings of salvation; nevertheless, some governing and teaching roles within the church are restricted to men (Gal 3:28; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 1 Tim 2:11-15).

7. In all of life Christ is the supreme authority and guide for men and women, so that no earthly submission—domestic, religious, or civil—ever implies a mandate to follow a human authority into sin (Dan 3:10-18; Acts 4:19-20, 5:27-29; 1 Pet 3:1-2).

8. In both men and women a heartfelt sense of call to ministry should never be used to set aside Biblical criteria for particular ministries (1 Tim 2:11-15, 3:1-13; Tit 1:5-9). Rather, Biblical teaching should remain the authority for testing our subjective discernment of God’s will.

9. With half the world’s population outside the reach of indigenous evangelism; with countless other lost people in those societies that have heard the gospel; with the stresses and miseries of sickness, malnutrition, homelessness, illiteracy, ignorance, aging, addiction, crime, incarceration, neuroses, and loneliness, no man or woman who feels a passion from God to make His grace known in word and deed need ever live without a fulfilling ministry for the glory of Christ and the good of this fallen world (1 Cor 12:7-21).

10. We are convinced that a denial or neglect of these principles will lead to increasingly destructive consequences in our families, our churches, and the culture at large.

END NOTES:

[1] Gavin Ortlund, Finding the Right Hills to Die On, 116.

[2] Beth Allison Barr, The Making of Biblical Womanhood, 41.

[3] Linda L. Bellville, “Teaching and Usurping Authority” in Recovering Biblical Equality (), 205. See also “Exegetical Fallacies in Interpreting 1 Timothy 2:11-15: Evaluating the text with contextual, lexical, grammatical, and cultural information” CBE (2004).

[4] Richard Clark Krieger and Catherine Clark Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992). In response, see Robert W. Yarbrough, “I Suffer Not a Woman: A Review Essay,” Presb 18.1 (1993): 25-33; Albert Wolters, “Review of I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence, by Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger,” CTJ 28.1 (1993): 208-213.

[5] Andreas J. Köstenberger and Margaret E. Köstenberger, God’s Design for Man and Woman: A Biblical-Theological Survey (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014), 196.

[6] “Evangelical complementarians and egalitarians alike are basing their views on their best attempts to interpret and to apply what they accept as the inspired and authoritative Scriptures, and that historically this issue almost never was viewed as a fundamental of the faith. It is past time, therefore, for much more courteous rhetoric in both camps.” (Blomberg and Seal, From Pentecost to Patmos, 536)

[7] Contra, Sarah Sumner, Men and Women in the Church: Building Consensus on Christian Leadership (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003).

[8] Ortlund, Finding the Right Hills to Die On, 118.

[9] D.A. Carson, “Why Is The Gospel Coalition Complementarian?” https://youtu.be/jnq-19yoRC4?si=UVMXr21lswkj2nPj.

[10] Ortlund , Finding the Right Hills to Die On, 118-119.

[11] Ralph Gilmore, Pleasing God, 110.

[12] Ortlund, Finding the Right Hills to Die On, 118.

[13] Belleville, “Teaching and Usurping Authority,” 226.

[14] Douglas Moo, “What Does It Mean to Teach or Have Authority Over Men,” 179.

[15] Blomberg and Seal, From Pentecost to Patmos, 531.

[16] See S.M. Baugh, “A Foreign World: Ephesus in the First Century” in Women in the Church: An Interpretation & Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15. Ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. Schriener (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), 25-64; see also “The Apostle among the Amazons,” WTJ 56.1 (1994): 153-171.

[17] Sharon Hodgin Gritz, Paul, Women Teachers, and the Mother Goddess at Ephesus: A Study of 1 Timothy 2:19-15 in Light of the Religious and Cultural Milieu of the First Century (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1991). See also, N.T. Wright, “The Biblical Basis for Women’s Service in the Church” Priscilla Papers 20.4 (2004); 1&2 Timothy and Titus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009).

[18] Robert J. Karris, “The Background and Significance of the Polemic of the Pastoral Epistles,” JBL 92.4 (1973): 53.

[19] Allision, Sojourners and Strangers, 236-237.

[20] Gupta, Tell Her Story, 177.

[21] Belleville, “An Egalitarian Perspective,” 89.

[22] Belleville, “Teaching and Usurping Authority,” 224.

[23] Belleville, “Teaching and Usurping Authority,” 224-225.

[24] Baugh, “A Foreign World,” 60-61.

[25] Payne, Man and Woman, 334.

[26] Schreiner, “A Complementarian Perspective,” 165-166.

[27] Lewis 101.

[28] Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 205.

[29] Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 167.

[30] Schreiner, “Another Complementarian Perspective,” 308.

[31] Schreiner, “Another Complementarian Perspective,” 312.

[32] Keener, “Another Egalitarian Perspective,” 232-233.

[33] Schreiner, “Another Complementarian Perspective,” 311-312.

[34] Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 205.

[35] Baugh, “A Foreign World,” 58-59.

[36] Baugh, “A Foreign World,” 59.

[37] Schreiner, “Another Complementarian Perspective,” 314.

[38] William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (Dallas, TX: Word, 2000), 123.

[39] Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 180.

[40] Andreas J. Köstenberger, 1-2 Timothy and Titus (Lexham Press, ), 106-107.

[41] Ferguson, Women in the Church, 47.

[42] Chamber, Churches in the Shape of Scripture, 145.

[43] Ferguson, Women in the Church, 47.

[44] David L. Roper, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus (Searcy, AK: Resource Publication, 2018), 105.

[45] Roberts, 21.

[46] J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles: Timothy I & II, Titus, 65.

[47] Everett Ferguson, “Topos in 1 Timothy 2:8” in ResQ (1991), 73

[48] Ferguson, The Church of Christ, 344.

[49] Köstenberger, 1-2 Timothy and Titus, 109.

[50] Edwards, Protecting Our “Blind Side,” 258.

[51] Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 175.

[52] Moo, “What Does It Mean to Teach or Have Authority Over Men,”

[53] Ferguson, Women in the Church, 55.

[54] Köstenberger, 1-2 Timothy and Titus, 108.

[55] Köstenberger, 1-2 Timothy and Titus, 109.

[56] Roper, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 111.

[57] Gordon P. Hugenberger, “Women in Church Office: Hermeneutics or Exegesis? A Survey of Approaches to 1 Tim. 2:8-15” JETS 35.3 (1992): 341-360.

[58] Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 178.

[59] Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 177.

[60] Roper, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 109.

[61] Lewis 95.

[62] Köstenberger, 1-2 Timothy and Titus, 110.

[63] Robert W. Yarbrough, “1-2 Timothy, Titus” in NIV Study Bible. Ed. D.A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 2462.

[64] Köstenberger, 1-2 Timothy and Titus, 110-111.

[65] Moo, A Theology of Paul and His Letters, 325.

[66] Lewis 49.

[67] Moo, “What Does It Mean to Teach or Have Authority Over Men,”  

[68] Köstenberger, 1-2 Timothy and Titus, 111.

[69] Roper, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus,  

[70] Edwards, Protecting Our “Blind Side,” 260.

[71] Ferguson, Women in the Church, 50. For more on the early Church’s view on the role of women see Early Christians Speak: Faith and Life in the First Three Centuries (Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 1999), 225-238; Early Christians Speak: Faith and Life in the First Three Centuries, Volume 2 (Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 2002), 267-280.

[72] Lewis, 98

[73] Lewis, 101.

[74] DeYoung, Men and Women in the Church, 79.

[75] Cottrell, The Faith Once and For All, 436.

[76] Schreiner, “Another Complementarian Perspective,” 309.

[77] Andreas J. Köstenberger, “A Complex Sentence: The Syntax of 1 Timothy 2:12” in Women in the Church: An Interpretation & Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. Schriener (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), 121-122; Andreas J. Köstenberger, “Ascertaining Women’s God-Ordained Roles: An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:15,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 7 (1997): 107-144; “The Crux of the Matter: Paul’s Pastoral Pronouncements Regarding Women’s Roles in 1 Timothy 2:9–15.” For the debate between Giles and Köstenberger, see, Kevin Giles, “Women in the Church: A Rejoinder to Andreas Köstenberger,” EQ 73.3 (2001); “A Critique of the ‘Novel’ Contemporary Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 Given in the Book, Women in the Church: Parts 1 and 2” EQ 72.2-3 (2000): 151-167, 195-215. See also, “Andreas J. Köstenberger, “Women in the Church: A Response to Kevin Giles” EQ 73.3 (2001): 205-224.

[78] Craig L. Blomberg, “Women In Ministry: A Complementarian Perspective” in Two Views on Women in Ministry (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 168.

[79] Robert W. Yarbrough, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2018), 170.

[80] Earl Edwards, Protecting Our “Blind Side,” 260.

[81] Ferguson, Women in the Church, 50-51.

[82] ySotah 3.10a,3.

[83] Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 185.

[84] Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 186.

[85] Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 185.

[86] Köstenberger, 1-2 Timothy and Titus, 114.

[87] Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 187.

[88] Ferguson, Women in the Church, 51.

[89] Köstenberger, 1-2 Timothy and Titus, 115.

[90] DeYoung, Men and Women in the Church, 80.

[91] “The passage deals with the relationship of all women believers to all men believers and the women must show ‘submissiveness’ in this relationship.” (Edwards, Protecting Our “Blind Side,” 262)

[92] Köstenberger, 1-2 Timothy and Titus, 114.

[93] Lewis, Leadership Questions Confronting the Church, 5.

[94] Cottrell, The Faith Once for All, 434.

[95] Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 320. In response, Douglas Moo, “The Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15: Rejoinder” TinJ 2 NS (1981): 198-222.Philip B. Payne, “Libertarian Women in Ephesus: A Response to Douglas J. Moo’s Article, ‘1 Timothy 2:11-15: Meaning and Significance,’” TJ 2 (1981): 170-172.

[96] Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 121. See Rom 8:38; 12:1; 14:14; 1 Cor 5:3; 10:20–21; 13:1; Gal 5:16; also Rom 15:8, 30; 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10; 4:16; 7:10; 11:3; 12:3; 14:5; 15:50, 51; 16:1; 2 Cor 10:1; 12:11; Gal 4:1; 5:3; Eph 4:1, 17; Phil 4:2; 1 Thess 4:1, 10; 5:14; 2 Thess 3:6, 12.

[97] Köstenberger, “The Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15: A Rejoinder,” 199.

[98] Köstenberger and Köstenberger, God’s Design for Man and Woman, 206.

[99] Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 189.

[100] Payne 320.

[101] Köstenberger and Köstenberger, God’s Design for Man and Woman, 207.

[102] Moo, A Theology of Paul and His Letters, 326.

[103] Moo, “What Does It Mean to Teach or Have Authority Over Men,” 185.

[104] Belleville, “An Egalitarian Perspective”, 89.

[105] Payne, Man and Woman, 443.

[106] Edwards, Protecting Our “Blind Side,” 262-263.

[107] Moo, A Theology of Paul and His Letters, 326.

[108] Contra Payne. “If the false teachers were only men, then we would have expected Paul to use masculine terms to describe them. Paul’s use of this inclusive term suggests that some false teachers were women.” (The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood, 138)

[109] Lewis, Leadership Questions Confronting the Church, 5.

[110] Cottrell, The Faith Once and For All, 436.

[111] Köstenberger, 1-2 Timothy and Titus, 114.

[112] Köstenberger, 1-2 Timothy and Titus116.

[113] Al Wolters, “The Meaning of Aὐθεντέω,” 65-116. See also “A Semantic Study of Aὐθεντέω and Its Derivatives,” JBMW 11/1 (2006): 44-65. Additionally, for more on this linguistic debate in scholarship see H. Scott Baldwin, “A Difficult Word: Authenteo in 1 Timothy 2:12” in Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis, 65-80, 269-305; George Knight III, “AYqENTEΩ In Reference to Women in 1 Timothy 2.12” New Testament Studies 30 (1984); Carroll D. Osburn, “Authenteo (1 Timothy 2:12)” ResQ 25 (1982):1-12; Andrew C. Perriman, “What Eve Did, What Women Shouldn’t Do: The Meaning of AYΘΕΝΤΈΩ in 1 Timothy 2:12” TynBul 44.1 (1993).

[114] Denny Burk, “New and Old Departures in the Translation of Aὐθεντεῖν in 1 Timothy 2:12,” 279-296.

[115] Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 126.

[116] Lewis helpfully notes that the word Paul is emphasizing is not the word “usurp” but “authority.” (Leadership Questions Confronting the Church, 7-8)

[117] For Philip B. Payne’s research on oude see “1 Tim. 2:12 and the Use of oude, to Combine Two Elements to Express a Single Idea,” NTS 54 (2008): 235–253; “Οὐδέ Combining Two Elements to Convey a Single Idea and 1 Timothy 2:12 Further Insights.”

[118] Payne, The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood, 145.

[119] Moo, “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?” 187.

[120] Ferguson, Women in the Church, 52.

[121] Chambers, Churches in the Shape of Scripture, 146.

[122] DeYoung, Men and Women in the Church, 80.

[123] Köstenberger, “A Complex Sentence: The Syntax of 1 Timothy 2:12,” 158.

[124] Köstenberger and Köstenberger, 210.

[125] Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 200.

[126] Schreiner, “Another Complementarian Perspective,” 311.

[127] Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 200.

[128] Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 201.

[129] Köstenberger and Köstenberger, God’s Design for Man and Woman, 211.

[130] Köstenberger and Köstenberger, God’s Design for Man and Woman, 211-212.

[131] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1152-1153.

[132] Philip H. Towner, “1-2 Timothy and Titus,” 897.

[133] Benjamin L. Merkle, “Paul’s Arguments from Creation in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 and 1 Timothy 2:13-14: An Apparent Inconsistency Answered,” 342.

[134] Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 202.

[135] Wolfe, “Sagacious Use of Scripture,” 206.

[136] Wolfe, “Sagacious Use of Scripture,” 204.

[137] Frank Thielman, New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 419.

[138] Lipe, 101.

[139] Pierce, 148.

[140] Edwards, Protecting Your “Blind Side,” 267.

[141] DeYoung, Men and Women in the Church, 85.

[142] Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 201.

[143] Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 202.

[144] Guthrie, Pastoral Epistles, 77.

[145] Köstenberger and Köstenberger, God’s Design for Man and Woman, 211.

[146] Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul, 236-237.

[147] Keener, Paul, Women and Wives, 237, 239.

[148] Belleville, “Teaching and Usurping Authority: 1 Timothhy 2:11-15,” 91.

[149] Pierce 148.

[150] Pierce, The Bibel vs. Biblical Womanhood, 148.

[151] Keener, Paul, Women and Wives, 231.

[152] Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 381.

[153] Knight, The Faithful Sayings in the Pastoral Letters, 50-54.

[154] Schreiner, “Another Complementarian Perspective,” 311.

[155] Gerhard H. Visscher, “1 Timothy 2:12-15: Is Paul’s Injunction about Women Still Valid?,” in Correctly Handling the Word of Truth: Reformed Hermeneutics Today. Ed. Mees te Velde and Gerhard H. Visscher (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2014).

[156] See, Stephn Clark, Man and Woman in Christ, 192.

[157] Schreiner, “Another Complementarian Perspective,” 313.

[158] Blomberg, “Not Beyond What is Written,” 415.

[159] Moo, “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men? 1 Timothy 2:11-15,” 192.

[160] Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 220.

[161] For a survey of the various views on this text, see Andreas J. Köstenberger, “Saved through Childbearing? A Fresh Look at 1 Timothy 2:15 Points to Protection from Satan’s Deception,” CBMW News 2/4 (1997): 1–6.

[162] Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 145.

[163] Keener, Paul, Women, and Wives.

[164] Keener, Paul, Women, and Wives.

[165] Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 217.

[166] Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 218-219.

[167] Guthrie, Pastoral Epistles, 78.

[168] Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 212.

[169] Köstenberger, “Ascertaining Women’s God-Ordained Roles,” 118.

[170] Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 219.

[171] Edwards, Protecting Our “Blind Side,” 268.

[172] Köstenberger and Köstenberger, God’s Design for Man and Woman, 216.

[173] Ferguson, Women in the Church, 53-54.

[174] Moo, “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men? 1 Timothy 2:11-15,” 192.

[175] Moo, “1 Timothy 2:11-15: Meaning and Significance,” 71.

[176] Köstenberger, 1-2 Timothy and Titus, 119.

[177] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1151.

[178] Jim Gardner, Thinking Through Christianity, 217.

For more resources on this subject see the following resources: