[Let Her Preach] 1 Timothy 2:11-15: I Do Not Allow Women to Teach or To Have Authority Over a Man

Recently, I have been working on a writing project to explain why churches like mine need to support women as preachers, teachers, and leaders. The following is an excerpt from that project.

In 1979, Mars, Inc., introduced the Twix bar to the American market. Described by Wikipedia as “a biscuit applied with other confectionery toppings and coatings (most frequently caramel and milk chocolate),”^[1] Twix are most commonly packaged in pairs. In 2012, it was this pairing that inspired an advertising campaign called “Pick a Side.” Since then, print and on-air ads have depicted a rivalry between “Left Twix” and “Right Twix,” with representatives of the respective factories highlighting the differences between the two. For example, Twix marketing claims, “Left TWIX was created by flowing caramel into crunchy cookie, bathed in creamy chocolate. Left TWIX is in no way the same as Right TWIX.”^[2] Conversely, “Right TWIX is crafted with crisp cookie cascaded with chewy, gooey caramel, and cloaked in smooth, velvety chocolate. Made in a way that is completely different from Left TWIX.”^[3]

Of course, most people recognize that the campaign is not serious. In fact, everyone who has endeavored to identify a real difference between right and left Twix has concluded that the two are, for all intents and purposes, identical. They utilize the same ingredients and production processes, and they are placed in the same wrapper. Moreover, taste testers have demonstrated a 50% chance of determining whether an individual bar is a Left Twix or a Right Twix, indicating that there is no taste difference between the two.

Even so, the “Pick a Side” campaign has stoked a debate. A Google search for “Is there a difference between left and right Twix?” returns nearly 1.2 million results, including many which playfully take a side. For instance, one article concluded, “Left Twix is slightly more popular as it is sweeter and crunchier than the Right Twix, though a survey showed that they are almost at 50/50 as the Twix fans are the same.”^[4] For those who are truly convinced that one side is better than the other, Mars has even introduced packaging for “TWO RIGHT” or “TWO LEFT” bars.

Intellectually and spiritually, both complementarians and egalitarians agree that there is no difference between the genders. Both are created in God’s image, intelligent, and saved by the same grace of God made available through faith in Jesus Christ. Yet, like the “Pick a Side” campaign there have long been those who are convinced that one side is better than the other, and they insist that one gender – either men or women – should be in charge.

Such was the case in Ephesus, where St. Paul’s protegé, Timothy, was stationed. Like every other church of its day, the Ephesian church was steeped in an overwhelmingly patriarchal culture. Every social structure was dominated by men. As we shall see, though, several historical and cultural factors peculiar to Ephesus and the church there converged to destabilize some of these social norms. As a result, there was a faction in the church that thought it should be run by women. In response to this brewing crisis, Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 2:11-15:

A woman is to learn quietly with full submission. I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. But she will be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with good sense.

The flashing neon elephant in the room

If the elephant in 1 Corinthians 14 was obvious, then this one is flashing neon. In fact, I have met people who simply read Paul’s words here and quietly step back, assuming that it is a coup de grâce concerning women who teach, preach, and lead in the church. Indeed, one would have to be illiterate to miss the apostle’s apparent instruction here.

“A woman is to learn quietly with full submission,” Paul wrote in verse 11. In English, this initially seems very similar to the apostle’s exhortation to the Corinthians, but upon closer inspection, we discover that the Greek word rendered “quietly” is different. While the word in 1 Corinthians 14:34 focused on actual silence, the term here is hesuchia (ἡσυχίᾳ). Superficially, it means “quietly” or “silently,” but it is primarily used as a “description of the life of one who stays at home doing his own work, and does not officiously meddle with the affairs of others.”^[5] Moreover, there is little room for misinterpretation of the phrase “with full submission.” A more literal translation would be “in all subjection.” Women, then, are to attend exclusively to the business of the home as the obedient subjects of men, and they are to avoid absolutely the affairs of the church.

If that was not clear enough, the apostle continued in verse 12, “I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to remain quiet.” Again, the words translated “to teach” and “to have authority over” seem quite clear, and the word translated “quietly” is the same as in verse 11. If women cannot teach or have authority over a man, both of which are essential to preaching and leading, then it would seem the case is closed.

Yet, Paul drove on, founding this teaching in the creation account. “Adam was formed first,” he wrote in verse 13, “then Eve.” To be formed first was a matter of priority, especially when Eve was formed from Adam’s rib, and the fact that it is founded in creation means this is universally true. Moreover, the apostle added, “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.” Women, then, were created to be subject to men because they are inherently gullible, and the first time they attempted to step outside of that place, they were responsible for The Fall of all mankind.

Instead of aspiring to lead the church, women must realize that they “will be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with good sense” (verse 15). That is, women are to stay home, have babies, and be sweet, adoring, productive, submissive wives.

The flashing neon elephant in the room of 1 Timothy 2:11-15, then, would seem clear. Indeed, consider the words of some complementarian voices.

ESV Systematic Theology Bible:

Paul does not regard women as naturally deficient as people or teachers (cf. Gen. 1:27; Titus 2:3–4); rather, just as Adam’s sin affected humanity (Rom. 5:12–19), Eve’s sin prevented her and her daughters from teaching as elders in the church. Further, Genesis 2:20 indicates that part of Eve’s purpose is to help her husband Adam, to whom God gave the role of head (1 Cor. 11:3)^[6]

John Piper:

John MacArthur:

Woman’s place was ordained in the order of the creation. Adam was made first, and then woman. First, protos, first in rank, chief.^[8]

Her fall confirms what verse 13 said, that woman needs a head. She needs a strengthener because when she got out from under the strength of Adam and tried to operate independently in conflict with the enemy, she was… deceived. And the intent of what the word is saying here is that woman needs protection, that she has a certain vulnerability. She was designed with the need for a head. She was designed with the need for a leader. She was designed with the need for a protector and a savior. And it is inherent in the nature of woman that she should not find herself in that position of ultimate responsibility. For woman has a deceivability when out from under the headship of a man.^[9]

By nature Eve was not suited to assume the position of ultimate responsibility. By leaving Adam’s protection and usurping his headship, she was vulnerable and fell, thus confirming how important it was for her to stay under the protection and leadership of her husband.^[10]

The Interpreter’s Bible

“The cogency of the argument rested upon the interpretation of Genesis, widely held in both synagogue and church, that Adam and Eve were not just two individuals but were archetypes in whom the whole history of the race was foreshadowed, delineated, included, and determined. When the text reads not “Eve,” but “the woman,” it means to say that it is feminine nature to be easily deceived. What Eve did all women still do. Eve’s daughters are of necessity just like their mother. They must therefore be permanently denied teaching or liturgical functions in the church.^[11]

To be fair, these and other complementarian voices each insist elsewhere that women are equal in God’s eyes and men have their own faults. They even acknowledge that women are perfectly capable leaders outside of the Church. They try also to soften the blow by suggesting that Paul wrote “self-consciously”^[12] Yet, their arguments invariably return to the same punchline: women should focus on their work at home, in complete submission to the men in their lives, and avoid teaching, preaching, and leading in the church because they are designed to be (a) subject to men, (b) inherently vulnerable to deception, and (c) employed primarily in childrearing and homemaking.

Typical egalitarian responses to 1 Timothy 2:11-15

In 1863, the USS Tecumseh was one of a new class of ironclad warships built for the United States Navy. Above water, the ship was protected by thick metal armor that made it seem impenetrable to the guns of the day. Below the waterline, however, Tecumseh’s hull was constructed using conventional techniques. That is, the part of the ship that no one could see was built of wood, and on August 5, 1864, that wooden hull proved fatal when Tecumseh struck a mine during the Battle of Mobile Bay.

Like the Tecumseh, it would appear upon initial inspection that there is only one way to apply 1 Timothy 2:11-15: women must be prohibited from teaching, preaching, or leading in the church. The logic would seem ironclad, but upon closer inspection, scholars identify several chinks in the armor. For our purposes, these may be grouped into three basic categories.

The context of 1 Timothy 2:11-15

The first category concerns the various contexts of 1 Timothy 2:11-15. In terms of the historical and cultural context of the passage, it is at least possible that St. Paul wrote these verses in response to one or more situations which were unique to Ephesus. Three specific situations are typically suggested. First, women in first-century Ephesus generally were discouraged from pursuing an education. They were therefore ill-equipped to handle the second situation: the false teachers and teachings that were a perennial problem in Ephesus. In fact, this is a recurring theme in both Paul’s letters bound for Ephesus (i.e., Ephesians, 1 & 2 Timothy) and the writings of John, who served as bishop of the church there. Finally, the women of Ephesus were particularly troublesome. This is suggested in a number of biblical texts, but it is especially clear in 1 Timothy 5:13, where the apostle wrote that the young widows of Ephesus “learn to be idle, going from house to house; they are not only idle, but are also gossips and busybodies, saying things they shouldn’t say.”

This argument is supported by our friends Priscilla and Aquila. After ministering with Paul in Corinth, in Acts 18:18-21, they accompanied the apostle as far as Ephesus at the end of his second missionary journey. After Paul went on to Syria, however, Priscilla and Aquila stayed behind in Ephesus, and in verses 24-28, while still in that city, they met and trained a man named Apollos, who would go on to be an impactful evangelist. The text makes clear that Apollos’ training was a team effort, but as noted in the previous chapter, the fact that Priscilla’s name takes precedence is remarkable. Moreover, the fact that it takes precedence when she was in Ephesus, teaching a man, at least undermines the notion that Paul would prohibit women in Ephesus from teaching men.

It is supported also by Timothy himself. In Acts 16:1, we learn that the recipient of 1 Timothy was “the son of a believing Jewish woman, but his father was a Greek.” Put another way, Timothy’s father was not a believer. Yet, in his second epistle to Timothy, Paul observed, “I recall your sincere faith that first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice and now, I am convinced, is in you also” (2 Timothy 1:5 CSB). The apostle Paul celebrated the fact that Lois and Eunice – two women – were responsible for teaching Timothy about the faith. It seems highly unlikely, then, that the apostle would tell the young man who learned the faith from women that women should not be allowed to teach in the church!

Further, when Paul wrote to other cities, he wrote things that were entirely inconsistent with the alleged prohibition of women preachers, teachers, and leaders. We shall dig deeper into these examples in subsequent chapters, but the most poignant example is found in Galatians 3, where Paul masterfully built the case that arbitrary distinctions such as race and socioeconomic status are nullified at the cross, leading to the climactic declaration that, in the Church, “there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; since you are all one in Christ” (CSB).

This is further supported when the apostle, in Romans 16:1-2, referred to Phoebe as diakonon (διάκονον) of the church in Cenchreae. Though the term could be masculine or feminine, depending on who it was describing, its usage in the church was peculiar. In the coming decades, the deacon would become an established office within the church, but even as Paul wrote, the ministry was “beginning to take regular and formal shape.”^[13] Indeed, the further insistence that the Roman church “should welcome [Phoebe] in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints and assist her in whatever matter she may require your help” strongly suggests that she had some official standing in the church. Together with the placement of her name at the beginning of a long list of greetings, we may conclude that Phoebe was, in fact, the messenger charged with delivering, explaining, and implementing the epistle. In Paul’s eyes, then, women outside of Ephesus could hold positions which had been, prior to Christ, reserved for men.^[14]

Moreover, first-century cultures almost universally relegated women to subservient roles. Women were not allowed to lead in any setting. Thus, if it was the apostle’s intent to prohibit women from leadership and affirm male headship, he was merely affirming the status quo. There was, then, no reason to write what everyone was doing already.

The obscurity of 1 Timothy 2:11-15

The second category of weaknesses in the complementarian approach to 1 Timothy 2:11-15 concerns the presumed clarity of the passage itself. For example, the clarity of this passage is muddied by questions concerning its authenticity. There are scholars who doubt that Paul wrote the book of 1 Timothy at all,^[15] but even those (like myself) who embrace the epistle as authentically Pauline observe that this passage is troublesome. At the heart of this trouble is the sudden shift from women (plural) in verses 9-10 to woman (singular) in verses 11-15. Complementarians insist that Paul was abruptly introducing the hypothetical woman to represent all women, but others have observed that this switch suggests Paul was thinking of a specific woman involved in a specific situation^[16] and may even indicate verses 11-15 were inserted by a later editor.^[17][18]

In fact, even if we assume that this passage is authentically Pauline, despite the seemingly plain renderings of the text confidently offered by numerous modern English translations, there remain a number of questions and debates which may significantly impact one’s understanding of Paul’s prohibition here. For example, Kendall and Strand Winslow observe that, because verses 9 and 15 cannot be taken at face value, it is plausible that verses 11-14 were not intended to be entirely literal as well.^[19] Schenck and others point out that the words typically translated “man” and “woman” may alternatively be rendered “husband” and “wife,” suggesting that Paul was addressing only married women.^[20] To these, Peppiatt adds that the word typically translated “I do not permit” would be more accurately rendered “I am not permitting” and carries “the sense of ‘I am not allowing this for now or in this current season.’”^[21] The suggestion is that Paul would have endorsed women preaching and exercising authority in another context or season.

Peppiatt also points out that the Greek term translated “quietly” (CSB) or “silence” (KJV) in both verses 11 and 12 is hesychia (ἡσυχίᾳ). As we have seen, complementarians insist Paul intended this word to mean that women should keep their place, but Peppiatt observes it is more about being restful and not causing trouble.^[22] Indeed, this is how it is used in both of its other occurrences in the New Testament. In Acts 21, having returned to Jerusalem following his third missionary journey, St. Paul entered the temple with four men to sponsor their Nazirite vow. Widely recognized by Judeans as a pious act,^[23] this was intended to counter the rumor that Paul was no friend of Jews or Jewish customs, but as soon as he arrived, a riot erupted. Soldiers rushed in and removed Paul to quell the unrest, and the apostle was finally allowed to address the crowd in the opening verses of Acts 22. “When they heard that he was addressing them in Aramaic, they became even quieter.” (Acts 22:2 CSB). Here, hesychia (ἡσυχίᾳ) is presented as the opposite of the chaotic scene moments earlier when “some Jews from the province of Asia… stirred up the whole crowd” (Acts 21:27 CSB) and “some in the crowd were shouting one thing and some another” (Acts 21:34 CSB), leading to an uproar bordering on a riot. Similarly, when St. Paul addressed a church stirred up by idle busybodies, he wrote, “Now we command and exhort such people by the Lord Jesus Christ to work quietly and provide for themselves” (2 Thessalonians 3:12 CSB). Again, hesychia (ἡσυχίᾳ) represents the opposite of the trouble caused by sitting around and gossiping all day long. This second example is particularly noteworthy because, if this is how Paul used the term elsewhere, it is at least plausible that he intended it to be understood similarly in 1 Timothy 2. It was not, then, that women were to be entirely silent, but that they were to not stir up trouble.

The clarity of the passage is further undermined by verse 15, which is widely recognized by both complementarians and egalitarians as one of the most difficult verses in the Bible to translate and interpret. The Greek of this verse is awkward, defying easy translation into English. Moreover, if we take the typical translation at face value, it is utter heresy. The balance of the Bible makes clear that men and women alike are “saved by grace through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift— not from works, so that no one can boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9). Yet, this statement would indicate that women are “saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with good sense.” At best, this is a works-based salvation. At worst, it implies that women facing infertility are without hope.

To these, we can add at least two issues concerning the word authentein (αὐθεντεῖν) in verse 12. First, the relationship between authentein (αὐθεντεῖν) and didaskein (διδάσκειν) is the subject of considerable debate. Many scholars observe that the two words, linked by the Greek word oude (οὐδὲ), express a single idea roughly akin to “teach authoritatively” “in a way that usurps men, and nothing else.”^[24] Others, however, reject this, insisting instead that teaching and exerting authority are intended to be two distinct actions. Certainly, the difference is subtle. In fact, it is likely inconsequential to the debate at hand except as further evidence that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is not as clear as we may suppose it is.

Second, while many modern translators and readers interpret this word to mean “to have authority over,” the King James and others render it, “to usurp authority over.” Again, the difference is subtle, but the former option is often construed as a blanket prohibition of women having any authority over any man in any church, while the latter suggests that Paul was concerned only with women who were undermining and challenging the legitimate leaders or domineering the congregation. This suggestion is underscored by the fact that authentein (αὐθεντεῖν) is exceedingly rare, appearing only here in the New Testament and a total of eight times in extant extrabiblical texts written before the fourth century AD.^[25] Certainly, it was not the term used by Paul or anyone else to speak of typical, legitimate authority.^[26] Rather, the evidence conclusively indicates that this verb was related to a noun which meant “murderer” or “perpetrator” and other words which suggested oppression.^[27]

In the end, contrary to the assertion that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 presents a clear prohibition of women in ministry, many scholars have ranked these five verses among the most obscure in the Bible. Indeed, they are so difficult to interpret that John Stackhouse, who describes himself as “one who enjoys friends on both sides of this controversy,” declares himself inclined “to believe that both sides are right”^[28] and concludes that “nobody could explain this passage.”^[29] It is no wonder that many other biblical scholars consider it madness to base any significant theological position primarily upon 1 Timothy 2:11-15.

The inconsistency of complementarian arguments

The final category of problems with the typical approach to this passage is founded in the logical inconsistency of complementarian arguments themselves. This inconsistency is demonstrated in the weight given to the various contextual factors which influenced Paul’s words. Every Bible teacher and preacher realizes the textual, historical, cultural, and other contexts of a passage can dramatically impact its meaning. As a fish takes for granted the water in which it swims, these assumptions, thought paradigms, technological realities, etc. need not be written because the original reader took them for granted. For passages both preceding and following 1 Timothy 2:11-15, complementarian scholars readily acknowledge the importance of contextual considerations. For example, concerning verses 9-10, David Jeremiah observed, “In the wealthy city of Ephesus, Gentile women competed for attention with elaborate hairstyles, extravagant jewelry, and expensive clothes – practices that were probably encouraged by the false teaching there. Paul had dealt with a similar issue in Corinth (1 Cor 11). Paul’s instruction to women should not be read overly literally, as a prohibition of jewelry or nice clothing today. It simply means that modesty, godliness, and good deeds are the proper attire for worship – and for life (1 Pet 3:3-4).”^[30] So also, the Reformation Study Bible asserted concerning verse 8, “Here he is addressing a specific problem at Ephesus.”^[31] Yet, there is suddenly no mention of the impact of Artemisian worship, the social upheaval caused by unprecedented economic prosperity, or the gossip and backbiting that were happening in Ephesus. Instead, because verse 13 supposedly roots the prohibition of women teachers, preachers, and leaders in the order of creation, all of those things are deemed by complementarians as irrelevant.

Further inconsistency is demonstrated in leveraging Eve’s deception as the foundation for disqualifying women from leadership. Paul’s original readers knew that Adam was completely knowledgeable when he bit into the forbidden fruit, and this reality is not lost on modern complementarians, either. In fact, David Jeremiah acknowledged, “Adam sinned with full knowledge of what he was doing (Rom 5:12), thus abdicating his role as leader. So even though Eve…was deceived and was the first to eat the forbidden fruit, the ultimate responsibility for sin fell to Adam because he willingly chose to disobey God.”^[32] Put another way, Adam forfeited his leadership position and is ultimately responsible for The Fall of mankind because he “willingly chose to disobey God.” Yet, in the very next sentence, Jeremiah declared, “The order of creation (Gen 1-2) is likewise violated when women…assume authority over men in the church.”^[33] In effect, complementarians establish a false dichotomy by arguing that it is better to be led by a man who knowingly defies the will of God than by a woman who may be susceptible to deception.

The truth, of course, is that no one wants either of these candidates as leaders in the church or elsewhere, and indeed, Paul spent 1 Timothy 3 outlining qualifications for leadership designed to preclude such things. This, however, leads to an alarming theological implication. Namely, men are by the grace of God able to overcome their natural inclination and become good leaders, but women are not. Why are women unable to overcome their natural vulnerability to deception? Is the grace of God not sufficient for them (2 Corinthians 12:9)? Are they not also more than conquerors (Romans 8:37)?

Inconsistency is also evident in the way complementarians apply 1 Timothy 2:11-15. For instance, while they insist that women may not teach, preach, or lead in the church, they are quick to say that this prohibition does not apply in other contexts such as business or government. This is especially curious given that the prohibition is supposedly rooted in the creation order and women’s susceptibility to deception. One would think that the creation order is just as relevant outside of the church as inside, and a susceptibility to deception would make leadership risky in any context. Moreover, “while the churches have for the most part declined to ordain women as ministers, the great gifts of women have been employed as teachers, missionaries, and in a multitude of ways.”^[34] Quite often, then, the difference is only one of semantics: women are allowed to teach, preach, and lead as long as they are called something other than “pastor.”

Finally, it is ironic that many complementarians attack the egalitarian movement for catering to modern feminist culture. The fact that women led in both testaments of the Bible and throughout church history is conveniently overlooked, and ignored is the reality that the complementarian movement’s accommodation of women leaders outside the church paralleled the rise of modern feminism.

There are, then, significant weaknesses with the typical complementarian interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Certainly, pointing out these things is cause for at least reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, many egalitarians fail to recognize that merely pointing out weaknesses in the mainstream interpretation is only marginally effective in convincing the undecided to tolerate women preachers, teachers, and leaders, much less to actively support them. Consequently, many egalitarians fail to press the matter when what is really needed is a better interpretation of this passage. Indeed, we need an interpretation which accounts for the various contextual elements, makes sense of the obscurity, and leads to consistent and coherent application.

The historical and cultural contexts of 1 Timothy 2:11-15

To formulate such an interpretation for 1 Timothy 2:11-15, we must return to the historical and cultural contexts of the passage. In the second half of the first century, Ephesus was one of the largest cities in the world. Located in what is now southwestern Turkey near where the Cayster River emptied into the Aegean Sea, the city was a natural deep-water harbor at the terminus of several major overland trade routes. As such, it was a major commercial hub which, by Paul’s and Timothy’s day, had grown to an estimated 500,000 relatively wealthy people.

General characteristics of Ephesus

It is hardly surprising, then, that Ephesus was a natural cultural and religious center. In fact, the city was home to the philosopher Heraclitus and numerous artists, and dozens of religions were represented in the city. All of this also made the church there a breeding ground for false teachings. People converting from the myriad religions represented in the city brought with them various ideas and teachings and attempted to incorporate them into their Christianity. Additionally, because of its prominent role in church planting throughout the region, the church at Ephesus was a prime target for false teachers who rose up from within Christianity. Indeed, addressing these false teachings was a primary theme in Paul’s letter to the church as a whole as well as his epistles to Timothy, its leader. Moreover, when St. John later became bishop of the city, he made addressing false teachings a major part of his writings, and when he recorded a letter to the church from Jesus in Revelation 2:1-7, the church was commended for identifying false teachers.

The dominant false teachings in Ephesus

Clearly, false teachers and teachings were an issue, but three particular teachings stand out. First, the city boasted a significant Jewish population. In fact, the Roman census estimated that 10% of the city’s population was Jewish, and while archaeologists have not yet confirmed the location of any synagogue among the city’s ruins, they have found graffiti depicting a menorah on the steps of the Celsus Library near the city’s center.^[35] Archaeologists suggest the prominent graffiti is indicative of the prominence of Judaism and its patriarchal culture in Ephesus. Second, like most major cities in the Roman Empire, the imperial cult had a significant presence in Ephesus. Indeed, just two decades after Paul wrote 1 Timothy, the city would construct its first imperial temple.^[36]

The third outstanding teaching in Ephesus was the cult of Artemis, the Greek goddess of fertility. The city was renowned throughout the Roman world for its temple dedicated to Artemis, and the influence exerted locally by the Artemisian cult was on display when Paul and co. arrived to plant the church in Acts 19. When “a person named Demetrius, a silversmith who made silver shrines of Artemis” (vs 24) assembled “the workers engaged in this type of business” (vs 25) and made a stink about how their industry was impacted by people converting to Christianity, the “city was filled with confusion” (vs 29). The mob kidnapped Gaius and Aristarchus, two of Paul’s traveling companions and then stormed the local amphitheater and “shouted in unison for about two hours, ‘Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!’” (vs 34). In fact, the situation escalated to the point that the city clerk warned, “We run the risk of being charged with rioting for what happened today” (vs 40). Clearly, the cult of Artemis was influential in Ephesus!

The teachings of the Artemisian cult, particularly as it existed at Ephesus, were striking. Artemis of Ephesus was a female deity described as “a master hunter who kept company with wild animals.”^[37] According to common Greek mythology, she was the twin sister of Apollo, but the Ephesian version of Artemis’ origin story was distinct in that it presented her as the older twin. Additionally, the Ephesians held that, immediately after her own birth, Artemis helped her mother give birth to Apollo. Further, the Ephesians held that Artemis was “the mother of all life”^[38] and, in particular, “the author of man.”^[39] Moreover, according to the Ephesians, Artemis successfully petitioned Zeus to allow her to remain a virgin,^[40] all of which suggest she neither needed nor desired males. Thus, according to Dallas Theological Seminary professor Sandra Glahn, in the Ephesian cult of Artemis, “woman came first and was preeminent.”^[41]

The Artemisian cult at Ephesus was also closely associated with the Amazonian women. In fact, both the city and the cult were supposedly founded by the legendary warriors.^[42] Later, the Amazons took refuge in the temple they had built at Ephesus and were granted protection by Artemis.^[43] This became the basis for the belief that Artemis saved those who sought her protection.

Additional insight into the Artemisian cult may be gleaned from the classical Greek novel Ephesiaca by Xenophon of Ephesus. Dated by most scholars to the mid-first century AD,^[44] the novel is written by an author from Ephesus about a wealthy young couple from Ephesus who meet at the temple of Artemis. As such, the novel provides a firsthand glimpse into the city’s culture at about the same time Paul wrote and shows just how enmeshed with that culture was the Artemisian cult. In the process, Xenophon revealed several things which have direct bearing on our interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Namely, while some modern scholars dismiss Artemis worship as irrelevant to the Pauline text, Ephesiaca reveals that the cult widely influenced fashion, vocabulary, and the role of women in society.

Many commentators have connected Paul’s prohibition of elaborate adornment with prostitution, but there is mounting evidence that such adornment was increasingly common among Roman women during the latter half of the first century.^[45] In Ephesiaca, however, the novel’s heroine, Anthia, entered the story leading a procession of women in the temple of Artemis. The leader of such processionals was intended to represent the goddess herself, and fourteen-year-old Anthia was dressed accordingly.^[46] Specifically, she was wearing a sumptuous purple gown that accentuated her unmatched physical beauty,^[47] and her golden hair was elaborately styled so that part of it was braided and the other part flowed in the wind. Such seductive finery was generally frowned upon by Roman women, but first-century Roman philosopher Seneca observed that it was increasingly common among “new Roman women” whose styles disregarded chastity and pushed the bounds of modesty. This emerging fashion prompted the Greek philosopher Epictetus to lament in The Enchiridion, “Women from fourteen years old are flattered with the title of ‘mistresses’ by the men. Therefore, perceiving that they are regarded only as qualified to give the men pleasure, they begin to adorn themselves, and in that to place ill [sic.] their hopes.”^[48]

According to Hoag, at least three of the terms used by Xenophon are interesting. First, the term used by Xenophon to describe Anthia’s braided hair as she led the temple procession depicting Artemis herself, plegmasin (πλέγμασιν), “appears to point to a hairstyle that was closely associated with the goddess.”^[49] It is striking, then, that Paul uses the same term when he warns against elaborate hairstyles in 1 Timothy 2:9. Second, Anthia entered the temple in very expensive adornment, which likely included extravagant clothing and gold. The phrase used here, kekosmemenas polutelos (κεκοσμημένας πολυτελῶς), is essentially the exact opposite of the phrase translated in 1 Timothy 2:9 as “modest clothing” (CSB). And third, Ephesiaca refers regularly to fear and respect for the gods using the term eusebeia (εὐσέβεια), but Paul exhorts women to act upon their allegiance to the one true God using the contrasting term theosebeia (θεοσέβεια).^[50] Rather than exhorting general piety to the pantheon of gods, Paul called Timothy and his Ephesian parishioners to demonstrate faith specifically in God. In fact, Hoag observed that “nearly every word in 1 Timothy 2:9-10 appears in Ephesiaca,”^[51] suggesting that Paul’s choice of vocabulary was deliberate.

Leadership in the cult was held exclusively by eunuchs and maidens,^[52] with women serving as its primary teachers. These women peddled “a message of female empowerment”^[53] that suggested women should have neither need nor desire for men. Moreover, while Artemis was traditionally believed to help women with fertility and childbirth, some adherents apparently extended this low view of men to discourage marriage.^[54] Indeed, evidence from Xenophon and other contemporary sources suggests that the Ephesians generally equated Artemis with the Egyptian goddess Isis, who supposedly used deception and violence to steal the authority of Ra, the primary Egyptian god.^[55] It was natural, then, for women to assume similarly prominent roles in the larger community.^[56] In fact, Hoag cites several ancient sources suggesting that, if the city was not “a matriarchal society,” Ephesian women were likely “more outspoken than may have been the case in other cities in the ancient world.”^[57] When these women subsequently joined the church, they assumed similar roles. Some of these roles were legitimate, but others aimed to improperly usurp the authority of some men in the community and the church, leading to anger and discord.^[58]

Ultimately, then, we find in Artemis of Ephesus a sort of anti-gospel, precisely the sort of thing that Paul dedicated much of this first letter to Timothy to address. Indeed, while the teachings of the Artemisian cult may not have been Paul’s exclusive target, there are strong indications throughout the text of 1 Timothy that they were a primary target. For example, instead of God the Father (1 Timothy 1:2), Artemis was the Great Mother. Who needs Christ to save (1 Timothy 1:3) when they have Artemis? There is a stark contrast between Artemis using deception to steal authority and Jesus, who “was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory” (1 Timothy 3:16). While Artemis was a virgin, and at least some of her followers apparently discouraged marriage, Paul insisted that young widows ought “to marry, have children, manage their households, and give the adversary no opportunity to accuse us” (1 Timothy 5:14). And while Artemis worship was closely associated with opulence and finery, Paul advised modesty (1 Timothy 2:9) and contentment (1 Timothy 6:6).

More specifically, it is difficult to see in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 anything other than a blow to this cult’s beliefs, practices, and leadership. The apostle did not want the strong women converting from the Artemisian cult to seize control of the church of Ephesus, and his instruction here was intended to prevent that from happening.

The textual context of 1 Timothy 2:11-15

If these verses were aimed at the specific situation of the Artemisian cult rather than a blanket prohibition of women in ministry, however, then we are still left with the question of what application they may have today. After all, if we believe that all Scripture is God-breathed and useful (2 Timothy 3:16), then we must be reluctant to dismiss any passage as obsolete. To find this contemporary application, we turn to the textual context of this passage, where we discover a clear trend.

The disaster of bad teachings and teachers (1 Timothy 1)

In 1 Timothy 1:3, the first words of the epistle’s main body reiterated Timothy’s mission in Ephesus: “so that you may instruct certain people not to teach false doctrine.” Later in the same chapter, Paul graphically reminded Timothy and us of the consequences of following illegitimate leaders and teachings: “some… have shipwrecked the faith” (vs 19). Traditionally, scholars have held that Paul was released from house arrest following Acts 28 and continued his missionary work until he was re-arrested and executed in the late 60s AD, and it is at some point during this interlude that 1 Timothy was written. If this is the case, then the imagery in the apostle’s mind as he wrote this phrase was almost certainly that of the shipwreck he experienced in Acts 27:39-44.

Notice specifically the words of Acts 27:41: “The bow jammed fast and remained immovable, while the stern began to break up by the pounding of the waves.” The word translated by the CSB as “immovable” means exactly that: the front part of the ship was not moving.^[59] It was stuck and going nowhere. At the same time, the terms rendered “break up” and “the pounding of” speak of utter destruction^[60] and great violence,^[61] respectively. While the apostle’s subtlety here may allow those who have never experienced such a disaster to skim right past, for Timothy, this language was more than sufficient to stop him in his tracks. If he was with Paul on the boat as it dissolved underfoot, these words triggered his PTSD. He heard the waves crashing, saw the planks and timbers snapping, felt the ship breaking apart. At the very least, how many times do you suppose he heard the story?

It was the perfect way to illustrate the catastrophic consequences of following false teachers and teachings! Their faith is paralyzed, unable to help them in life or accomplish God’s mission, and inevitably, their faith is torn apart by the relentless pounding of life. If they survive to salvation, it will be only as those pathetic survivors who staggered ashore on Malta.

Identifying legitimate teachings and teachers (1 Timothy 2:1-7)

No one knowingly chooses to be shipwrecked. Therefore, in 1 Timothy 2:1-7, the apostle presented the alternative, outlining three points that distinguished Christian teachers and teachings from all others. First, he insisted that Timothy and the Ephesian believers should pray for everyone, including those who disagreed with them or persecuted them (vss 1-3). This stood in stark contrast to the typical teachings of other religions, who resented and prayed against their oppressors and simply ignored everyone else. Second, Paul called Timothy and friends to follow the one God and one mediator described in the one authentic gospel (vss 5-6). Until the last half century, it was difficult for many Western Christians to recognize the significance of this exclusive statement, but our increasingly pluralistic society is making it easier. Simply put, it was not uncommon for people in Paul’s day to adopt a sort of religion à la carte. They worshiped their own deity, the designated idol of their trade guild, the empire, the predominant local deity, etc., and suggesting that religions other than Christianity were invalid was shocking to first-century sensibility.

Third, Paul presented himself in verse 7 as an example of legitimate leadership and teaching. This is particularly poignant because Paul, who described himself in 1 Timothy 1:13 as a former blasphemer, was a model of the transformative power of the gospel, making clear that there was hope for false teachers who converted to the authentic gospel. This truth, then, became the springboard for the remainder of the book as scholars on both sides of the complementarian/egalitarian debate agree that 1 Timothy is a letter about leadership and, more specifically, who should lead: people who have been (and are being) transformed by the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Characteristics of legitimate leaders (1 Timothy 3:1-4:16)

Proof of this is found in chapter three, where the apostle outlined the requisite characteristics of a legitimate leader within the church. Countless messages have been derived from the lists of qualifications in 3:1-13, but three observations are particularly germane to our discussion.

First, classical Greek writers often used “men” to refer to people in general and “he,” “him,” and “his” to represent prototypical persons. Others may argue the merits of this convention, but the fact remains that Paul and his contemporaries referred to the human race and individuals in general using masculine terms. In fact, many modern translations, including the complementarian-leaning CSB, have addressed this by inserting gender-inclusive language when appropriate (e.g., Galatians 3:15, where the CSB renders “brothers and sisters” instead of merely “brothers”). Moreover, even those who insist on omitting “and sisters” from their translations recognize that such passages are not intended to exclude women. Yet, in 1 Timothy 3, these same translators inexplicably insist Paul meant only men.

Second, Paul called here for leaders to be “the husband of one wife.” Complementarian scholars are quick to point out that women cannot be husbands and therefore reason this exhortation precludes the possibility of women preaching, teaching, or leading. Yet, a narrow interpretation of this phrase would also exclude from leadership all men who are single, divorced, widowed, and/or remarried. Further, verses 4 and 12 both refer to the leader’s children. If “husband of one wife” excludes women, do these verses exclude men who do not have children? Even the staunchest complementarian is reluctant to go so far!

Third, in 1 Timothy 3:11, Paul included among the leadership categories a section specifically addressed to gunaikas (γυναῖκας). Greek scholars observe that this term may be legitimately rendered either “wives,” as in the KJV, ESV, and CSB, or “women,” as in the CEV, NASB, and NIV. If one could prove definitively that Paul meant one or the other, we might be able to determine whether the apostle intended for women to teach, preach, and lead: either this verse is written to the wives of leaders, thus implying that the leaders are exclusively male, or it stands as an open invitation for women to lead. Typically, such a determination would be made based upon context. For example, if the sentence read gunaika autou (γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ), as in Matthew 5:31, there would be little question: the possessive masculine pronoun autou (αὐτοῦ) makes clear that gunaika (γυναῖκα) means “wife.” The context of Matthew 5:31 – namely, that Jesus is speaking of divorce – is also helpful. Unfortunately, the context of 1 Timothy 3:11 is ambiguous, leaving us to guess based upon the way the word is typically used, and of the approximately 220 times the term appears in the New Testament, it is translated as “wife” (or “wives”) by the KJV 42% and as “woman”  (or “women”) 58%. Personally, I would like to see at least a supermajority before basing a major theological assertion solely upon use frequency of a translation.

With all this in mind, it is tempting to think that 1 Timothy 3:1-13 is utterly useless in determining if women should be allowed to preach, teach, or lead. However, it is actually quite helpful to consider how the list of qualifications provided by Paul for ministers in the church compares to the qualifications provided by Moses for priests in the tabernacle. In Exodus 28-29, priests had to be the male descendants of Aaron, and they were to wear specific garments and go through a specific ritual. That is, the qualifications of a priest were chance and/or superficial, beyond the control of candidates. For example, people desiring to be priests could not determine their gender or lineage. In fact, there seems to be no consideration at all for what the candidate wants; God said simply, “Have your brother Aaron, with his sons, come to you from the Israelites to serve me as priest” (Exodus 28:1). Further, in Leviticus 21:17-24, those who had physical defects such as blindness, lameness, disfiguration, or a broken hand were disqualified from serving as priests. I do not know many people who choose such conditions for themselves!

The chance, superficial nature of these characteristics is no doubt due to the fact that Israel had only recently emerged from Egypt and met with God at Sinai. There was not, therefore, a large pool of spiritually mature people to serve as priests and leaders. As Israel became established, however, God raised the bar. Leviticus and Deuteronomy called all Israelites to exercise justice, care for orphans and widows, etc. Then, the opening chapter of Isaiah indicts those leaders who met the qualifications laid out to become a priest and even went through the motions of offering the prescribed sacrifices, festivals, and prayers but failed to pursue justice, correct oppressors, defend orphans, or support widows. They met the chance, superficial requirements of the first priests, but they failed to fulfill the voluntary, more substantive requirements that God really desired.

Indeed, God’s objective from the start was that Israel would become a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exodus 19:6). Thus, he made provisions for men or women, regardless of physical defect, to consecrate themselves by the Nazirite vow in Numbers 6. He provided for prophets and prophetesses^[62] whose primary qualification was an unswerving commitment to the Lord. Even the secular king was called “to write a copy of this instruction for himself on a scroll in the presence of the Levitical priests” so that he could read from it, “observe all the words of this instruction,” and ultimately “do these statutes” (Deuteronomy 18:18-20).

Subsequently, Paul leaned into this much higher bar in 1 Timothy 3. He began with the aspirations and desires of the candidate: “If anyone aspires to be an overseer, he desires a noble work” (vs 1) He then called them to be “above reproach, the husband of one wife, self-controlled, sensible, respectable” (vs 2), and so on. Notice that, rather than chance or superficiality, each of these is the result of choices that the leader makes day after day and year after year.

Yes, the list of leadership qualifications provided by Paul for ministers in the church majored on holiness because God is less interested in those characteristics that are beyond our control or require just a bit of effort than he is about a leader’s solid character developed over years of consistently following Jesus.

Indeed, this is exactly how Paul concluded the chapter. Rather than outlining the ordination liturgy, the apostle called leaders to godliness as exhibited in Christ himself. Christ showed up in real life (“He was manifested in the flesh”), lived a godly life (“vindicated in the Spirit”), was affirmed by supernatural sources (“seen by angels”) and natural sources (“preached among the nations, believed on in the world”), and confirmed by God (“taken up in glory”). This is the standard to which legitimate Christian leaders will attain.

In chapter 4, the apostle reinforced this expectation, mincing no words as he contrasted the toxicity of the false teachers and their teachings with the teachers and teachings that Christians should be following. He described the false teachers as hypocritical liars with seared consciences (vs 2) and their teachings as “deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons” (vs 1, CSB) and “pointless and silly myths” (vs 7, CSB). Clearly, they were men and women of faulty character, and their teachings were rather less than helpful.

Conversely, the apostle asserted that the godly leader will be “nourished by the words of the faith and the good^[63] teaching that you have followed” (vs 6). Instead of prohibiting marriage and demanding abstinence from arbitrary foods (vs 3), these godly teachers train themselves for godliness (vs 7) and so “set an example for the believers in speech, in conduct, in love,[b] in faith, and in purity” (vs 11). That is, instead of jumping through legalistic hoops and grasping at fairy tales, authentic teachers of the gospel will embrace the real gospel and be transformed from the inside out so that their motivations are aligned with God’s instead of simply doing things to gain his favor.

The cooperation of the church body (1 Timothy 5:1-6:20)

In chapter 5, the apostle insisted that every saint has some responsibility in the work of the church, including the preservation and proclamation of the gospel, rather than expecting one group or another to dominate. And in chapter 6, he attacked the greed that so often accompanied heresies such as those foisted by the Artemisian cult, encouraging Timothy and the Ephesians to reject the unfaithful teachings, hold accountable the unfaithful teachers, and pursue instead godliness with contentment.

Again, the final two chapters would seem nearly irrelevant to the conversation at hand except for a singular theme that underlies the whole thing. In 5:1-2, the apostle told Timothy how to get along with disagreeable people. “Don’t rebuke… but exhort,” he wrote. In 5:3-16, he called Timothy and the church to “support widows who are genuinely in need” with the stipulation that families should care for their relatives before they become a burden on the congregation. Thus, there is this notion of mutual support and cooperation. And in 5:17-25, he explained how the congregation should relate to its leaders, calling for parishioners to honor good leaders and hold accountable the bad. Everyone has a role to play.

This theme of cooperation continued in chapter 6. In 6:1-2a, he spoke of how slaves and masters should work together. In 6:2b-16, the apostle took an interlude to again denounce the false teachers and their teachings and encourage Timothy to fight the good fight of the faith, but in 6:17-19, he once more returned to the notion that the rich should “not be arrogant or… set their hope on the uncertainty of wealth.” Put another way, they should not consider themselves too important to associate with the poorer members of the congregation because, only by doing this may they “take hold of what is truly life.”

Summarizing the themes of 1 Timothy

There are, then, at least three themes in the textual context of 1 Timothy that point toward a better interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15. First among these is the disastrous repercussions of tolerating bad teachers and teachings such as those introduced into the church by converts from the Artimisian cult. Second is the importance of identifying legitimate teachers and teachings. Specifically, believers must examine the candidate’s character and conduct rather than arbitrary and superficial attributes such as gender and lineage. Finally, believers are expected to cooperate to accomplish the mission of delivering people unto real and abundant eternal life.

A better interpretation emerges

Having recognized the influence of the Artemisian cult and the larger themes within which 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is couched, the passage begins to make more sense. To understand, however, we must back up to verse eight, where Paul began, “Therefore….” This term established a logical connection with the first seven verses of the chapter. Namely, the next few verses build upon the notion that there is only one God who wants all people everywhere to be saved through the one gospel of Jesus Christ.

Prayer and holiness together (2:8-10)

In order to accomplish that objective, Paul called “men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument.” The mandate to pray cannot be exclusive to men because, as we saw in the previous chapter, the apostle expected women also to pray, even in public. Instead, we must focus on the call to lift holy hands without anger or argument and recognize that Paul’s primary concern was that believers everywhere pray and pursue holiness together rather than dwell on petty disputes and arbitrary distinctions.

Similarly, the call in verses 9-10 for women to dress modestly must be interpreted in light of the Artemisian parallels. This prohibition, then, is not just about a woman’s attire. Rather, it is about a leader’s participation in pagan rites and rituals and stands as a call to avoid spiritual compromise. In this way, these verses also are readily applicable to male leaders who should also embrace spiritual fidelity.

Humility and teachability (2:11-2)

So also, the call in verse 11 for women to learn quietly with full submission must be viewed in light of the prominent role of women within the Artemisian cult. As women came to the church from prestigious positions in that religion, they undoubtedly expected to hold similar positions in the church despite their lack of instruction and spiritual maturity. Certainly, this was necessary to prevent these untrained women from spreading incorrect teachings within the church, but more importantly, this stood as an exhortation for these proud women to adopt a position of humble teachability. The apostle’s words, therefore, stand as a call to male and female saints of every generation. Indeed, all believers should avoid spreading false teachings and resolve to make themselves humble and teachable. This is the ideal posture for leaders in the church.

The Artemisian influence must also inform our interpretation of verse 12, where the apostle announced he did not suffer women to teach. Regardless of whether teaching and exercising authority are connected, as some suggest, it is clear that women converting from the Artemisian cult expected both to teach and to exercise authority. Yet, the humble, teachable posture prescribed for these women in verse 11 clearly precluded the possibility of them teaching, at least until they were properly trained and seasoned.

Moreover, whether or not teaching and exercising authority are distinct behaviors, they are tied together in this verse. It is therefore imperative to note that Paul specifically prohibited authentein (αὐθεντεῖν). As noted above, despite attempts by some scholars to equate it with general authority, this rare term was used exclusively in ancient literature to speak of illegitimate, tyrannical, and violent power. It is difficult to see this as anything but an allusion to the myth in which Isis, the Egyptian goddess often equated with Artemis by the people of Ephesus, seized power from Ra through deceit and violence. It suggests that the women Paul had in mind were teaching falsehoods in order to manipulate their way into power and then leading in a domineering sort of way once they were in control.

This sort of teaching and authority clearly stands as the antithesis of the humble, teachable posture prescribed by the apostle in verse 11, and the significance of this relationship must not be missed. Often, ancient Greek writers used repetition, either of an exact phrase or of a complementary idea, as a way to emphasize something important. In this case, the apostle used the positive statement of verse 11 – “A woman is to learn quietly with full submission” – and the negative statement of verse 12 – “I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man” – as the ancient equivalent of using bold, italics, and all caps. Effectively, Paul was shouting to drive home the importance of humility, teachability, and patience.

Both genders disqualified from leadership (2:13-14)

Yes, believers are to be humble and teachable rather than domineering, and in verses 13-14, the apostle explained the reasoning behind this teaching by preemptively answering the unspoken objections of the saints at Ephesus. To the former followers of Artemis, Paul declared, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” This was a stark counterpoint to the teachings of the Artemisian creation myth, in which women were born first. In the ancient world, the place of the firstborn was sacrosanct. The eldest received a double portion of the inheritance and became leader of the family. Therefore, it was assumed that the gender created first was preeminent and bound to rule. The former followers of Artemis claimed this place for women, but the apostle insisted that, if birth order equated to preeminence, then the position went to men.

Conversely, he observed, “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.” Many complementarian scholars view this as an indictment of women, reasoning that their susceptibility to deception disqualifies them from leadership. Yet, even the staunchest complementarian must recognize that there are also men who are gullible. No, the problem here was not gullibility but transgression, and the contrast of this verse is between how Adam and Eve arrived at that transgression. Moreover, the wording of this sentence suggests that it is not about Eve at all. Rather, by placing him at the start of the sentence, the apostle’s gaze is fixed upon Adam, who in Genesis 3:6 was not deceived by the serpent. No, while Eve was manipulated, tricked into her sin, Adam took the fruit and ate, fully cognizant of his actions, and given the attention devoted in 1 Timothy and throughout the rest of Scriptures to the character of a leader, such willful disobedience was clearly unacceptable. To those who cheered when the apostle said men were the natural leaders of the church, and to those whose eyes lowered, realizing that they were only women, the apostle now pronounced that men were disqualified from leadership by their inclination to sin.

St. Paul’s point through verse 14, then, is that both men and women are equally unworthy of leading in the church. Yet, the church needed strong spiritual leadership! Everyone in Ephesus knew well what happened historically when the people of God went without leaders. In Egypt, before Moses came along, they were enslaved, and during the exodus, when Moses lingered on the mountain, they ended up worshiping a golden calf. In the interim between Joshua and the monarchy, bad things happened when “there was no king in Israel.” The Israelites failed to drive the Canaanites from the land and instead intermarried with them, opening the door for idolatry, oppression, and outrage. Later, when king after king was determined to outdo his predecessors in sin, the nation entered into a death spiral that began with God’s people splitting between north and south and ended with the Hebrews hauled into captivity once again. In short, they discovered the truth of Solomon’s prescient warning in Proverbs 29:18: “Without revelation people run wild.”

Saved through childbearing (2:15)

Who, then, should lead? Women are second in creation and vulnerable to deception, but men are given to willful sin. How could anyone choose between these equally unacceptable options?

Fortunately for the Ephesians and us, Paul attached verse 15 as a caboose at the end of his train of thought. In years gone by, the caboose was hitched at the end of a train in order to house the crew that would do a variety of things aboard the train. When the train switched tracks, one of the main functions of this crew was to ensure that, after the train passed, the switch was reset to its default position so that the next train would be on the right track. So also, 1 Timothy 2:15 reset the conversation, which had switched tracks to talk about who should not lead, and brought the reader back to the question of who should lead.

As we have previously seen, however, the answer was notoriously cryptic: “But she will be saved through childbearing.” Obviously, this cannot be taken literally because it blatantly contradicts the doctrine that we are saved by faith alone. It must, therefore, point to some deeper truth. Indeed, some have suggested that it is a response to the notion that Artemis would protect mothers through the process of childbirth. Given that childbirth was one of the largest causes of death among women in the ancient world, and infant mortality rates in the Ancient Near East have been estimated at approximately 50%,^[64] this was a particularly important tenet to which former members of the Artemisian cult no doubt clung. Yet, if this was the apostle’s intended message, it would be a strange departure from everything before and after.

Others have suggested the apostle intended this as an allusion to Genesis 3:15, where God promised to put hostility between the offspring of the serpent and the woman. They reason that Eve’s offspring eventually led to Jesus, who would strike the final, decisive blow against the serpent on the cross. Certainly, this is true! Women and men are saved through Jesus!

As we read this verse, however, there is an interesting shift in verbiage. The opening word of verse 15 is sothesetai (σωθήσεται), a third-person singular form of the Greek verb sozo (σῴζω) meaning “she shall be saved.”^[65] Yet, this promise of salvation through childbearing comes with a curious qualification: “if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with good sense.” The word rendered “they continue” is meinosin (μείνωσιν), a third-person plural form of meno (μένω), and this unexpected shift raises a significant question: Why did Paul not write “if she continues”?

The answer, I believe, is that the reference to childbearing points not only to Genesis 3:15 but also to Genesis 4. There, in verses 1-2, in the aftermath of being expelled from the garden, Adam and Eve were intimate, “and she conceived and gave birth to Cain.” Then, “she also gave birth to his brother Abel.”

This was a crucial moment following The Fall. In the closing verses of Genesis 3, even as God drove Adam and Eve from the garden and stationed the cherubim and the flaming, whirling sword at its eastern border to keep them out, he made clothing from skins and clothed them. It was the first hint of the redemptive plan. God covered their sin and shame, but they were still banished from his presence. Were they also cut off from the work for which he had created them?

When Eve gave birth to Cain, it was a glimmer of hope, and when Abel came along later, it was a resounding affirmation. God was not done yet with Adam and Eve. By God’s grace, though they were outside of his garden, they could still “be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it.” Despite their sin, they could still fulfill God’s purposes for their lives.

Of course, that glimmer of hope was partially shrouded when Cain killed Abel, and Cain’s legacy recorded in verses 17-24 vividly recounts the downward spiral of generational sin which culminated in Lamech’s defiant declaration that he had killed a man for slapping him and would be avenged an order of magnitude more than his forefather. Yet, even in the midst of this catastrophe in progress, we see flickers of hope. Despite his sin, Cain also was able to have children, and those children invented wonderful things such as musical instruments (21) and metal tools (22).

Then, in Genesis 4:25-26, we find this amazing conclusion to the story: “Adam was intimate with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth…. A son was born to Seth also, and he named him Enosh. At that time people began to call on the name of the Lord.” In this stunning ending, we realize that, as tragic and devastating as sin is, childbearing has always somehow punched holes in the night to allow beams of hope to shine through.

There is, however, one essential ingredient to childbearing: it requires both men and women.

In Genesis 4:1, Eve conceived and gave birth only after she was intimate with Adam. In Genesis 4:17, Cain’s wife gave birth to their son Enoch only after she was intimate with Cain, and in Genesis 4:25, Eve gave birth to Seth only after she was again intimate with Adam.

In 1 Timothy 2:15, then, Paul presents childbearing as an illustration of the ideal arrangement for church leaders. He has called both men and women to break the mold of secular leadership models and refuted the notion that either gender holds an intrinsic monopoly on leadership. Finally, he uses the image of childbearing, which requires both men and women to be intimate with each other, to drive home the singular point that the church needs both male and female leaders working together in faith, love, and holiness, with good sense.

Conclusion

First Timothy 2:11-15 is another great elephant in the room whenever we address the matter of women in ministry. Fortunately, despite its popularity as a proof text for the complementarian position, there is a mountain of evidence that it should not be interpreted as a blanket prohibition of women in ministry. Unfortunately, egalitarians often throw the mountain through our complementarian brothers’ and sisters’ windows and then leave this passage behind as irrelevant to our vision for women in ministry. Instead of asking ourselves how this Scripture is inspired and useful to us, we discard it as entirely irrelevant.

An analysis of the passage’s historical, cultural, and textual contexts, however, reveals tremendous insight which allows us to discover the passage’s beautiful vision for men and women to share in the leadership of the church.

Ultimately, to say that only men or women should teach, preach, and lead is akin to saying the world should have only left or right Twix. Yes, there are differences between the genders, but such arbitrary distinctions should have no bearing on whether a person is able to lead. Indeed, as in childbearing, both genders play a crucial part in the leadership of the church, and we would be wise to embrace and foster a spirit of cooperation between them for the sake of the gospel of God.

---

[1] “Twix”, n.d.

[2] Source: https://www.twix.com/our-chocolate-left-twix

[3] Source: https://www.twix.com/our-chocolate-right-twix

[4] Njogu, n.d.

[5] “G2271 – hēsychia – Strong’s Greek Lexicon (kjv)”

[6] “ESV Systematic Theology Study Bible” 2017,

[7] Piper 1989. Interestingly, Piper goes to great lengths in this article to explain (a) that he believes men are weaker, less strong, and more vulnerable to deception in some situations, and (b) that Adam was actually present with Eve when the serpent tricked her into eating the forbidden fruit.

[8] MacArthur 2011, 9:49

[9] MacArthur 2011, 11:10

[10] MacArthur 2019, accessed via BibleGateway.com at https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+tim+2

[11] Buttrick 1955, 406

[12] ESV Study Bible 2008

[13] Metzger, Hubbard, and Barker 1988, 886.

[14] Bence 1996, Kindle Loc 4730

[15] Having considered both sides of the argument, I have concluded that the arguments against Pauline authorship of 1 and 2 Timothy are less than compelling. Further, I have serious concerns about the ramifications of rejecting Pauline authorship. If these epistles are not authentic Paul, then at the very least they must be rejected from the canon. At worst, they compel us to question the authority of numerous other books and, ultimately, the Bible as a whole.

[16] Source needed.

[17] Source needed.

[18] Although I find it reasonable that these verses may have been inserted later by an editor, the argument is far from conclusive. I shall therefore operate under the assumption that these verses are authentically Pauline.

[19] Kendall and Strand Winslow 2012, 29

[20] Schenck, n.d., 4

[21] Peppiatt 2019, 144

[22] Peppiatt 2019, 144

[23] Keener and Walton 2016, Kindle Loc 249951

[24] Wilson 2012

[25] Hoag, Schneider, and Balz 2017

[26] Peppiatt 2019, 144

[27] Hoag, Schneider, and Balz 2017

[28] Stackhouse 2005, 9

[29] Stackhouse 2005, 23

[30] Jeremiah 2016, 1702

[31] Sproul 2015

[32] Jeremiah 2016, 1702

[33] Jeremiah 2016, 1702

[34] Buttrick 1955, 406-407

[35] Sudilovsky 2022

[36] Seal 2016

[37] Gupta 2023, 176

[38] Hoag 2015, 92

[39] Hoag 2015, 91

[40] Hoag 2015, 28

[41] Glahn 2022

[42] Gupta 2023, 176; Bennett 1912

[43] Bennett 1912

[44] Hoag 2015, 14

[45] Hoag 2015, 79

[46] Hoag 2015, 75

[47] Hoag 2015, 79

[48] Carter, n.d.

[49] Hoag 2015, 67

[50] Hoag 2015, 79

[51] Hoag 2015, 79

[52] Bennett 1912

[53] Gupta 2023, 176

[54] Hoag 2015, 189

[55] Hoag 2015, 91

[56] Sproul 2015

[57] Hoag 2015, 86

[58] Barry et al. 2016

[59] “G761 – asaleutos – Strong’s Greek Lexicon (kjv)”, n.d.

[60] “G3089 – lyō – Strong’s Greek Lexicon (kjv)”, n.d.

[61] “G970 – bia – Strong’s Greek Lexicon (kjv)”, n.d.

[62] E.g., Miriam in Exodus 15:20, Deborah in Judges 4:4, and Huldah in 2 Kings 22:14

[63] According to Blue Letter Bible, the Greek term, καλὸς (kalos), carries the ideas of beauty, excellence, and authenticity. Source: “G2570 – kalos – Strong’s Greek Lexicon (kjv)”

[64] Roser, n.d.

[65] “1 Timothy 2 (KJV) – Let the woman learn in” 2023