1 Timothy 2:11-15 are women banned from teaching?

Most complementarians agree that 1 Timothy 2 is the critical passage underpinning their position restricting what women can do in church. It is one of the most contested passages in the Bible with limited agreement on what it means even among those with similar views on gender roles. I think there is a way through the confusion to a most likely meaning of the passage and it’s application today. The passage poses many questions:

is the ‘teaching’ of any kind at all, or only of a particular kind? If the latter, which? Is ecclesial authority-taking over men also forbidden, or only a particular type of authority, or is a woman in fact forbidden only a particular kind of authoritative ecclesial teaching? Is teaching (and authority-taking) over men in every sphere of life forbidden? Does the author intend the instruction to be normative?[1]


Background to 1 Timothy

Timothy was sent to Ephesus by Paul because there were problems:

  • Combatting false teaching is THE purpose of the letter 1 Tim 1:3
  • An attraction to myths (Jewish?) & genealogies 1 Tim 1:4 associated with the Mosaic Law 1 Tim 1:7
  • Some high-profile false teachers (Hymenaeus and Alexander) had already been dealt with 1 Tim 1:20
  • False teachers were a real challenge 1 Tim 4 (especially for the godless and gullible with “old wives tales[2]” 1 Tim 4:7)
  • People were forbidding marriage 1 Tim 4:3
  • Young widows acting like the idle rich, going around spouting nonsense (often translated gossip, but the idea of spreading rumours about others isn’t present)[3]&[4] 1 Tim 5:13
  • More on dealing with false teachers 1 Tim 6:3-5
  • And the final conclusion – avoid chatter, absurdities and false knowledge 1 Tim 6:20
  • In the follow-up letter it is clear that women were a specific target for the false teachers[5] 2 Tim 3:6-7

Timothy’s mission included putting good leaders in place 1 Tim 3

Ephesus was home to the cult of Diana/Artemis – a major feature of the place which caused significant uproar when Paul started preaching.  This was the only place where a two-hour riot to uphold the local lucrative deity happened Acts 19:28,34.  It was at Ephesus that the converts came and burnt their old magic books which had a significant monetary value Acts 19:19.  Diana/Artemis of Ephesus has implications for the book:

  • She was a tomboy hunter and virgin who rejected sex and marriage (and no cultic prostitution wasn’t a thing – quite the opposite)[6]
  • Her legend tied her to childbirth, partly because she assisted in the delivery of her twin brother after she was born[7]
  • She is referred to as a saviour in inscriptions who answered prayers[8]
  • The high priestess came from elite families and were unmarried[9] and held power/prestige of themselves[10]
  • The temple was one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.  It was four times larger than the Parthenon in Athens[11]
  • The city celebrated her with a month long festival each year[12]

Ephesus is a troubled congregation in a place that had an interesting background!  Timothy is a letter into a conflict zone not a once and for all treatise.  We can’t ignore the context of the letter.  Ephesus was a mess full of wrong doctrine which means we need to be cautious applying outside of that specific (and not perfectly known) conflict.  Giles poses the question:

Is it merely coincidence that the one setting in the Bible where we know that false teachers were targeting women (5:13; 2 Tim. 3:6) provides the one passage that forbids women to teach?[13]

The big picture is inclusive, indicating 1 Tim 2 is specific given the local context

The big Biblical picture has:

  • Men and women made in God’s image Gen 1:26-27
  • Ultimately all are like the angels in the kingdom no longer marry Mark 12:25
  • All the faithful reign as kings and priests Rev 5:10
  • In the OT God appointed women to lead politically Judges 2:18, 4 and be prophets 2 Kings 22:14
  • God poured spirit gifts on both men and women Acts 2:17-18
  • Priscilla took the lead with Aquila in privately instructing Apollos Acts 18:26
  • Paul allowed women to pray and prophesy 1 Cor 11:5
  • The holy spirit gifts appear to have been given to all 1 Cor 12:4-11, Rom 12:4-8, Eph 4:11-12
  • In salvation terms race, social economics and gender are meaningless Gal 3:28
  • Paul commends a female deacon Rom 16:1 and a female Apostle Rom 16:7
  • Paul recognized women as co-workers Phil 4:2-3

As Giles argues (and the above list owes much to his comments), choosing to privilege 1 Tim 2:11-12 over the weight of other evidence means disregarding much[14].

We all read the Bible with Culture in mind

Sometimes people complain that we shouldn’t think about culture when applying the Bible.  We should just simply do what it says.  This sounds great but no one actually does this and for good reason.  Here are some examples of passages where we read clear instructions but ‘translate’ them because they are ‘cultural’:

  • Pray and anoint the sick with oil James 5:14
  • Wash each other’s feet John 13:14 (a practice referenced in 1 Tim 5:10?)
  • Lift hands in prayer 1 Tim 2:8
  • Make sure young widows remarry 1 Tim 5:14
  • Greet one another with holy kisses Romans 16:16, 1 Cor 16:20 2 Cor 13:12 & 1 Thes 5:26
  • No braids, gold pearls expensive clothes 1 Tim 2:9

I’m not aware of anyone following these instructions.  Yet when you mention culture on something like 1 Timothy 2:14 there is serious pushback.  The following is a summary of Colin Bryne’s responses to this sort of criticism[15]:

When commands are based on the creation record they are permanent and universal

all NT texts are to some degree related to the social environment of the 1st Century and with the passing of that environment certain practices has ceased

“Paul’s emphasis is that the kiss of greeting should be holy…the type of greeting then and now does not matter”

“the call to modesty is eternal but specific outlandish fashions that change constantly are not”

[Actually the comments on holy kisses misses the point about extending the familial greeting to others – it was a unusual move since the practice was reserved only for close family members of the same gender[16]]. So the command is kind of counter cultural…]

Byrnes unashamedly puts aside the specific instructions in the search for what he decides is an enduring principle in the application of these instructions.  Why does he take instructions on women speaking in 1 Tim 2:11-12 as transcultural but v 8-10 as situational?  Only because (in his mind) Paul gives a reason for v11-12 but no reason for v8-10.  So if there is no reason given we can reinterpret a direct command as culturally limited but if God gives us a reason then God must have really meant it!  This seems like an inherently dangerous approach.

In contrast an egalitarian approach allows there may be significant cultural and local impact on a passage rather than picking and choosing which have cultural overtones.

The complexity of interpreting 1 Tim 2:12

Hubner notes 9 different complementarian interpretations of the passage[17] – the same team can’t even agree what exactly it means.  Six of the most obviously different complementarian readings he lists are:

  • Bans eldership but allows teaching
  • Is not about eldership, just teaching
  • No authoritative teaching
  • Bans doctrinal teaching allows exhortation
  • Disallows the office of teacher but allows the activity of teaching
  • Can teach subject to male oversight

He also points out there 7.7% of 1 Tim 2 are unique Greek words compared to an average of 1.2% in the NT as a whole.[18]  This is an unusual passage which is not easy.  Some might say this should result in caution if the passage is unusual in its demands….

Is 1 Tim 2 “meeting specific” as 1 Cor 11 or everywhere?

There is nothing in the language specific to a worship meeting context.  In 1 Cor 11 the second half of the chapter is explicit about the instructions relating to when they came together.  This is absent in 1 Tim 2.  Instead we read about things which are not limited to formal service:

  • men’s prayer and anger management
  • women dressing with modesty and moderation
  • women’s good deed

Indeed there is little of the entire letter which links anywhere near as directly to a specific “service/meeting” context.  The letter has a lot to say instead about the general ordering of the community and how the community members should interact with each other.

Westfall notes a further issue being that in v11 onwards (until v15b) we switch from plural to singular[19].  This is not consistent with a communal context.  Paul doesn’t say “a women shouldn’t teach the men” but a singular man.  Westfall goes on to note that v15 hardly fits in a worship context either…

This broader application was certainly the view of Holmes also

no word or combination of words in vv. 11–12 demands a congregational context[20]

This has implications for the interpretation of the reading of 1 Tim 2:11-15.  Is a complementarian justified in applying them to a formal worship service only?  Or should they be applied everywhere?

I tend to think there is danger in taking the arguments above too far.  I think it logical to assume a default application for most NT epistles is in congregational interaction (ie worship).  The leisure arrangements of the modern west were unknown to the slaves and working poor of the Roman Empire.  If they were together it is most likely in the context of their weekly memorial.

Comparing the Biblical argument for slavery and female submission & Gal 3:28

In considering how the Bible speaks about husband and wife relationships and the role of women generally I think it is worth taking a comparison to how the Bible talks about slavery:

  • OT consistently talks about slaves and regulates them but never condemns
  • Slaves are presented as subject to their masters in the OT
  • Be a slave was the curse inflicted on Canaan Gen 9:25
  • Jesus and NT writers never suggested an end to slavery or speak against it
  • The NT tells slaves to submit to their owners
  • Slave owners are told to be fair but not to release their slaves

There is no explicit support for slave ownership being wrong.  The only high level Biblical justification for objecting to slavery is:

  • Gen 1 all men and women are made in God image
  • Gal 3:28 there is neither slave nor free, male or female

The pro slavery camp had plenty of material to work with when rejecting Christians who spoke against the institution.  Interestingly both Genesis 1 and Galations 3 also speak to gender.  As deSilva says:

God cannot accomplish his whole purpose at once, for his church and the society around it cannot so quickly leave behind the “futile ways inherited from [their] ancestors” and attain the “freedom of the glory of the children of God” (1 Pet 1:18; Rom 8:21). The church has come to recognize and been bold enough to affirm that “there is no longer Jew or Greek,” and eventually that “there is no longer slave or free,” and in this generation is coming to understand that “there is no longer male and female” (Gal 3:28), but that all these distinctions based on the flesh and on this temporary ordering of the world are not ultimate[21]

The Bible typically met society where it was on some of these things….

1 Tim 2:11 women must learn with the correct attitude

A woman must learn quietly with all submissiveness

Paul wants the women to learn – they aren’t to be kept ignorant, however the style of their learning requires definition.  Similarly in 1 Cor 14:35 wives were to ask their husbands at home rather than disturb the meeting.  The focus of the expression appears most naturally to be on the style or disposition while learning.  We can miss the import of this:

While a female student is hardly a novelty today, it was quite unusual in Paul’s day. Girls in the Greco-Roman period were taught the three “Rs.” But higher education past the age of 12, though on the rise, was still not commonplace[22]

Some translations say the learning was to be “in silence” (KJV) but this misrepresents the nuance of the word.  The learning was to happen in a peaceful/quiet way as the Greek word hēsuchíameans as various sources demonstrate:

quiet, still. Quietness, tranquility, stillness, referring to a quiet life (2 Thess. 3:12). In the sense of stillness, it means silence (Acts 22:2; 1 Tim. 2:11, 12; Sept.: Job 34:29).[23]

The Complete Word Study Dictionary


calm, peace, tranquility, quiet, rest[24]

The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek

This is demonstrated by the use of the word in the NT as mentioned in the Complete Word Study Dictionary above and also in the way the translators used it in the LXX[25]:

As Quinn summarises:

The general rule is thus that the married woman is peaceably and without aggressive public confrontation to learn to accept guidance quite obediently[26]

While it is true that the Greek can be translated either silent or peaceable/quietly Mounce points out that “several considerations favor the translation “quiet demeanor,” “quietness[27] and goes on to list them:

  • Paul’s instructions to women who pray and prophesy in the congregation per 1 Cor 11:5 rules out complete silence
  • The cognate adjective is used in 1 Tim 2:2 (live a peaceable life)
  • The only other two uses of the word by Paul mean quietness (1 Thes 4:11, 2 Thes 3:12)

What about the instruction to be submissive?  All learning ultimately requires submitting to the order and leadership of the teacher.

1 Tim 2:12 Is Paul’s command temporal?  Probably not

But I do not allow

1 Tim 2:12

A few but definitely not all egalitarians argue the grammar points to a temporary personal perspective by Paul.  This not particularly convincing.  Paul’s own actions and the broader example of Scripture appear to demonstrate he did allow women to teach – as will be argued.  But teaching is not what he is banning.

1 Tim 2:12 a woman teaching

But I do not allow a woman to teach

The word teach is the normal word used extensively of instructing people (for better or worse) either individually or collectively.  The word translated teach is normally used in a positive sense.  BUT it is capable of being used negatively eg Titus 1:11

Luke seems quite happy with a woman teaching – Priscilla (and Acquilla) taught Apollos Acts 18:26.  The order of their names vary depending on the circumstances.  In this instance Priscilla is in position one for the teaching of a prominent convert.  Some will argue this was a private thing and doesn’t count.  But Acts 18 rapidly made the teaching a public fact.  If it is a perpetual principle that women not teach men why is it ok for a woman to teach in private and then have this fact publicized?  Priscilla taught a man.  In conjunction with her husband but she still taught.

Further to Priscilla’s example, the act of prophecy was an act of teaching according to 1 Cor 14:31 and prophecy was done by men and women per 1 Cor 11:4-5 and Acts 2.  So again we have an apparent ban on women teaching while other passages show God empowering women to teach via prophecy!

Which leaves us with the question.  What is Paul banning?

1 Tim 2:12 “and” one prohibition or two?

Are we dealing with one prohibition ‘teaching’ as well as ‘authority’, or one prohibition ‘teaching authoritatively’? 

We are most likely dealing with one prohibition.  Eg Keener (Dictionary of Paul & his letters) sees it as most likely one prohibition

he forbids them to “teach in such a way as to take authority” (reading “teach,” didaskō, and “take authority,” authenteō, together as many scholars do, although they could also be read as separate prohibitions)[28]

Complementarian Craig Blomberg:

a second grammatical study comes into play. Philip Payne has demonstrated that the conjunction oude (“nor”) that connects the two key verbs in verse 12 regularly joins together expressions that in some sense are mutually defining. In formal terminology this is called a “hendiadys” (from Greek words that mean “one through two”). In other words, Paul is not forbidding two separate actions here; rather, the two verbs together define one specific function or role. The larger context of 1 Timothy 2 further supports this interpretation. While not always employing formal hendiadys and while using conjunctions other than oude, Paul seems to have a propensity to use pairs of largely synonymous words to say just about everything important twice (or, occasionally, four times)! Thus we find in verse 1 “petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving”; in verse 2a, “kings and all those in authority”; in verse 2b, “peaceful and quiet,” and “godliness and holiness”; in verse 3, “good and acceptable” (KJV; TNIV, “pleases God”); in verse 4, “to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth”; in verse 7a, “a herald and an apostle”; in verse 7b, “I am telling the truth, I am not lying”; in verse 8, “without anger or disputing”; in verse 9, “decency and propriety”; and in verse 11, “quietness and full submission.” With this many examples of the pattern, we might well expect to find a similar pair in verse 12.[29]

Belleville (egalitarian) agrees it is one saying:

the presence of the Greek correlative ouk … oude (“neither … nor”), which defines one activity and not two (cf. “God neither slumbers nor sleeps”). So how one correlates “teaching” and authentein is the key question[30]

Not all agree, Holmes indicates there are two prohibitions, even while wondering how to read them since Timothy was taught by his mother & grandmother![31] And we might add again Priscilla’s work. 

Note that there is a much referenced piece of work by Andreas Köstenberger in 1995[32] which pointed out that the correlative (“and”) joins two positive nouns or two negative nouns based on biblical and contemporary texts.  Since teach is positive in Paul’s writings, complementarians use the study to dismiss evidence that authority is negative.  However Kostenberger’s work has been questioned per the below in 2005:

there is a grammatical flaw intrinsic to this approach. It is limited to formally equivalent constructions, excluding functionally equivalent ones, and so the investigation includes only correlated verbs. Thus it overlooks the fact that the infinitives (“to teach”, authentein) are functioning grammatically not as verbs but as nouns in the sentence structure (as one would expect a verbal noun to do). The Greek infinitive may have tense and voice like a verb, but it functions predominantly as a noun or adjective. The verb in 1 Timothy 2:12 is actually “I permit”. “Neither to teach nor authentein” modifies the noun “a woman”, which makes the authentein clause the second of two direct objects. Use of the infinitive as a direct object after a verb that already has a direct object has been amply demonstrated by biblical and extrabiblical grammarians[33]


Belleville and Kosterberger clearly have variance of opinion and Kostenberger has responded that infinites are both verbs and nouns and that his original study allowed for this in its structure[34].  It is perhaps difficult to conclude whether the structure demands two positives or two negatives.  Keener (egalitarian) says in reviewing Kosternerger’s study that:

This principle is not clear in all the instances he cites, but the pattern seems to hold in general, and this is what matters most[35]

So perhaps we can conclude there remain questions with Kostenberger’s conclusion BUT it matters not so much since teach CAN be negative in the Pauline corpus and as we will see the word authority is very negative. 

1 Tim 2:12 and exercising authority over a man – what is authority?

But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority

The word authentein is unique in the NT.  Interestingly Paul has a word for authority and leadership in the community which he uses the word prosteso which is regularly used of leading/managing a congregation (Rom 12:8, 1 Thes 5:12, 1 Tim 5:17) and families (1 Tim 3:4,5,12).  In fact Louw Nida have 13 words in the domain for rule and 47 in govern – but authentein is not in there.[36]  What Louw Nida says on the word is:

to control in a domineering manner—‘to control, to domineer.’ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω … αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός ‘I do not allow women … to dominate men’ 1 Tm 2:12. ‘To control in a domineering manner’ is often expressed idiomatically, for example, ‘to shout orders at,’ ‘to act like a chief toward,’ or ‘to bark at.’[37]

The Complete Word Study Dictionary says:

murderer, absolute master, which is from autós (846), himself, and éntea (n.f.) arms, armor. A self–appointed killer with one’s own hand, one acting by his own authority or power. Governing a gen., to use or exercise authority or power over as an autocrat, to domineer[38]

Even Strongs comes in on this:

From a compound of 846 and an obsolete hentes (a worker); GK 883; AV translates as “usurp authority over” once. 1 one who with his own hands kills another or himself. 2 one who acts on his own authority, autocratic. 3 an absolute master. 4 to govern, exercise dominion over one.[39]

Note that BDAG’s 2000 revised edition:

eliminates “domineer” as a meaning of αὐθεντέω. The basis for this deletion appears to be the listed NTS studies by George Knight (1984) and Leland Wilshire (1988). Knight examined the eight Greek primary texts in BAGD’s 1979 edition and concluded that “domineer” could only be found in one of the eight and thus should be eliminated as a lexical option. Wilshire studied 329 uses of αὐθέντης in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) literary database. Despite his findings that the word uniformly bears the meaning “murderer” or “perpetrator of a murderous act,” Wilshire concluded from select late patristic authors that “to exercise authority over” was the meaning of αὐθεντεῖν in 1 Tim 2:12. Although a number of scholars have pointed out the methodological and lexical flaws of these two studies, Knight has yet to respond to the critique. Wilshire responded in a 1993 EQ article and opted for the negative sense uniformly found in the TLG Greco-Roman literary materials. Even so, his changed conclusions are not reflected in BDAG’s 2000 revised edition. In fact, more recent publications perpetuate the flaws of Knight’s study without considering scholarly critiques or revisiting the primary sources firsthand[40]

The traditional rendering of the word in early Latin versions was negative:

the Old Latin (second to fourth centuries AD): “I permit not a woman to teach, neither to dominate (dominari) a man”; the Vulgate (fourth to fifth centuries AD), “neither to domineer over a man” …In none of these cases can the translators be suspected of having a modern, “feminist” bias in translating authentein with a negative sense of “domineer” or “usurp authority.”[41]

Belleville writing extensively on authority says:

oude authentein—translated “or usurp their authority” in the NLT mg and “have authority over them” in the text. The key term is authentein [831, 883], a word found nowhere else in the Greek Bible and only a handful of times outside the Bible. Although the infinitive authentein is commonly translated “to have authority over,” this is most unlikely. If Paul had wanted to speak of the ordinary exercise of authority, he could have picked any number of recurring words such as exousia [1849, 2026] (Titus 3:1), epitagē [2003, 2198] (Titus 2:15), krinō [2919, 3212] (2 Tim 4:1; Titus 3:12), kurieuō [2961, 3259] (6:15), or archē [746, 794] (Titus 3:1). But he did not, so we must ask, “why not?” A reasonable answer is that authentein has a nuance that particularly suited the Ephesian situation. “Rule” and “exercise authority” are routine. So the nuance lies elsewhere.

This nuance can be gleaned from sources contemporary with Paul. The noun authentēs is a literary word that means “murderer.” Wisdom of Solomon 12:6, for example, refers to Canaanite practices of sorcery and unholy rites such as “parents who murder (authentas) helpless lives.” By the first century ad, the lexical range expanded to include the perpetrator of crimes committed by others. The first-century Greek historian, Diodorus of Sicily, for instance, speaks of the sponsors (authentas) of some daring plans (Library of History, the perpetrators (authentais) of a sacrilege (, and the master-mind (authentas) of a crime (

While the noun appears frequently, the verb authenteō first appears in the first century bc and only in nonliterary works. In the common Greek of the day it means to “domineer” or “gain the upper hand” (L&N 37.21). For example, one brother writes to the other about a business dispute with the foreman regarding the amount to be paid the ferryman for shipping a load of cattle: “I had my way with him” [or “I took a firm stand with him”; authentēkotos pros auton], and he [the foreman] agreed to pay the ferryman the full fare for shipping a load of cattle” (Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin 4.1208). The first-century rhetorician Philodemus talks of certain orators who fight every chance they get with prominent people—“with powerful dignitaries” (sun authent[ou]sin anaxin; Rhetorica II Fragmenta Libri [V] fr. IV line 14). The second-century geometrician Ptolemy states: “Therefore, if Saturn alone takes planetary control of the soul and dominates (authentēsas) Mercury and the moon [who govern the soul] [and] if Saturn has an honorable position toward both the solar system and its angles, then he [Saturn] makes [them] lovers of the body … dictatorial, ready to punish … (Tetrabiblos III.13 [#157]).

During the apostolic era, the term authentein was not used of the simple exercise of authority. After the New Testament, the noun authentēs does not appear with this sense in Christian literature until mid- to late second century ad (e.g., Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and the Shepherd of Hermas)—far too late to provide a linguistic context for Paul—and the verb does not occur until well into the third century ad (e.g., Hippolytus). Studies of the Hellenistic letters argue that authenteō originated in the popular Greek vocabulary as a synonym for “to dominate someone” (kratein tinos).[42]

Elsewhere Belleville expands further on the above saying:

Ancient Greek grammarians and lexicographers suggest that the meaning “to dominate, hold sway” finds its origin in first-century popular (“vulgar” versus literary) usage. That is why second-century lexicographer Moeris states that the Attic autodiken, “to have independent jurisdiction, self-determination”, is to be preferred to the Hellenistic (or Koine) authentēs. Modern lexicographers agree. Those who have studied Hellenistic letters argue that authenteō originated in the popular Greek vocabulary as a synonym for “to dominate someone” (kratein tinos)[43]

Westfall says:

In the Greek corpus, the verb αὐθεντέω refers to a range of actions that are not restricted to murder or violence. However, the people who are the targets of these actions are harmed, forced against their will (compelled), or at least their self-interest is overridden, because the actions involve the imposition of the subject’s will over against the recipient’s will, ranging from dishonor to lethal force[44]

Blomberg (complementarian) says:

Leland Wilshire’s survey of the 329 known uses of the term in Greek literature spanning the five centuries before and the five centuries after the time of Christ shows that prior to the first century the term often had the negative overtones of “domineer” or even “murder.” After the first century, especially in Christian circles, it was frequently used more positively for the appropriate exercise of authority. Was that because believers were following Paul’s break from tradition and a more positive use of the term?134 It is hard to be sure[45]

However to claim as relevant evidence centuries AFTER Paul used the word is cheating.  Previous use is maybe ok (probably not) but the best evidence is contemporary use.  Language evolves.  Blomberg and others quoting subsequent use – which they themselves acknowledge is different – is poor form.  Belleville says as much in response to Blomberg noting:

His claim is based on a grouping of translations that render the Greek authentein as “exercise authority over.” Yet, there is no instance of this meaning in the Greek of Paul’s day, and no version until Martin Luther in 1522 translates it this way[46]

Despite a fair amount of searching I haven’t seen any complementarian rebuttal of the research noted above – the approach seems to be claim Kostenberger’s grammar trumps the word meaning (ignoring the negative potential of teaching).  However Holmes notes:

The literature on this word is deeply divided[47]

Perhaps unsurprisingly given the stakes – however other than using evidence way after the date complementarians do not seem to have a strong response on this at all.

I therefore believe the Greek ‘authority’ is a very negative word pointing to an abusive use of power.

The Dictionary of the Later New Testament & It’s Developments reviews the various options and argument and concludes the prohibition (particularly noting that 1 Tim 3 allows female deacons and therefore should be factored into the interpretation of 1 Tim 2:12):

should be taken as a safeguard against abuse of authority rather than an exclusion from any leadership function[48]

1 Tim 2:12 so what is the singular prohibition about teaching & authority?

Answer – women should not teach in a domineering way.

Belleville says:

in the Greek, we see a “neither—nor” construction: “neither teach nor domineer” (NLT, “have authority over”). Such constructions in the NT pair synonyms (“neither despised nor scorned,” Gal 4:14), antonyms (“neither slave nor free,” Gal 3:28), or closely related ideas (“neither of the night nor of the dark,” 1 Thess 5:5). It is also used to define a related purpose or a goal (“where thieves neither break in nor steal” [i.e., break in to steal], Matt 6:20), to move from the general to the particular (“wisdom neither of this age nor of the rulers of this age,” 1 Cor 2:6), or to define a natural progression of related ideas (“they neither sow, nor reap, nor gather into barns,” Matt 6:26). In this context it seems that the Greek correlative “neither—nor” defines a single activity. (Compare Psalm 121:4 “[God] who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep,” ESV.) This means that women here are not prohibited from roles that involve teaching men. The issue is rather the manner in which they teach[49]

This grammatical & textual evidence ties in nicely with the broader social context.  Ephesus was dominated by a female deity with a female high priestess.  Things were to be different here in the Christian community. 

1 Tim 2:12 she must remain quiet

But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man she must remain quiet

Same Greek word hēsuchía– peaceable, the quiet spirit thing.

This reinforces the conclusion women must not teach in a domineering way.  She has to remain peaceable – which doesn’t prohibit teaching, just the tone/style.  Just like the men are to drop the anger, women are to be peaceable.

1 Tim 2:13 for – a reason or an example?

For Adam was formed first then Eve

Should women not teach authoritatively because of Adam & Eve or just like the situation in Adam & Eve?  The question comes down to two things.

Firstly how is the Greek conjunction gar used? And secondly does treating the expression as causal led to logical/valid conclusions.  The conjunction is used both causally AND to introduce an example/explanation/illustration.  Below is a summary of the occurrences in 1 Timothy (excluding this instance):

For there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human 1 Tim 2:5NY
For those who have served well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and great boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. 1 Tim 3:13  NY
For it is sanctified by God’s word and by prayer.  1 Tim 4:5  ??
For “physical exercise has some value, but godliness is valuable in every way. It holds promise for the present life and for the life to come.” 1 Tim 4:8NY
In fact this is why we work hard and struggle, because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of believers. 1 Tim 4:10NY
Be conscientious about how you live and what you teach. Persevere in this, because by doing so you will save both yourself and those who listen to you. 1 Tim 4:16YN
But if a widow has children or grandchildren, they should first learn to fulfill their duty toward their own household and so repay their parents what is owed them. For this is what pleases God. 1 Tim 5:4??
But do not accept younger widows on the list, because their passions may lead them away from Christ and they will desire to marry, 1 Tim 5:11YN
For some have already wandered away to follow Satan. 1 Tim 5:15NY
For the scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and, “The worker deserves his pay.” 1 Tim 5:18NY
For we have brought nothing into this world and so we cannot take a single thing out either. 1 Tim 6:7NY
For the love of money is the root of all evils. Some people in reaching for it have strayed from the faith and stabbed themselves with many pains. 1 Tim 6:10YN

So we have 3 clear examples of causal, two are debatable and seven are explanatory/illustrations.  A few could be kicked into the causal column and the situation still stand as ‘this could be either based on Paul’s usage’.  This is not just my conclusion (eg Belleville)[50].

Note that if you choose the causal path as a complementarian you end up with a tricky problem in v14….

1 Tim 2:13 example 1 = creation order

For Adam was formed first then Eve

Paul points to the order of creation, man then women.  Is he drawing on a universal principle to make an all time point?  Paul does point to the first promise as demonstrating the second was temporary and inferior sure it had to go (Gal 3:17).  But then Paul doesn’t consistently apply the “first is best” approach.  He runs exactly the opposite argument in fact:

Elsewhere in his writings, the first can be inferior to the second, a mere prototype of God’s plan (1 Cor. 15:45–47). Adam is not a mere prototype of Eve, but neither does Paul use chronological priority as a universally self-evident argument; his argument here is constructed for a specific situation.[51]

Is Paul proving the eternal subjugation of women?  Was God wrong to appoint Deborah? And Huldah etc?  Or are such opinions reading too much into the verse and losing sight of the whole of Bible context context.  As Belleville states the verse is:

readily explained against the Ephesian cult of Artemis. Pausanias’s Guide to Greece (second century) lays out the female dominance of the cult. Greeks believed Artemis was the child of Zeus and Leto (Lat., Latona), who spurned the male gods and sought the company of a human consort named Leimon. This made Artemis and all her female adherents superior to men.[52]

Paul bans women from taking a dominant assertive controlling teaching position over against men and then as a corrective to the local madness makes a corrective statement.  Actually man came first.

Fee has an interesting alternative reading.  He suggests this verse of Adam’s first creation is made in support of ‘dress modestly because that’s what the men need of you and women were created to compliment not tempt men’ consequently behaviour in a supportive peaceful way.[53]

1 Tim 2:14 example 2 = deceived women are dangerous

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived, fell into transgression

Complementarians are on tricky ground with this passage.  The long-standing reading (by men) was that women were more easily deceived by nature – and the garden proved it as Paul says here!  Such a view certainly matched male first century views – eg Philo thought women were more easily deceived:

The serpent, having formed his estimate of virtue, devised a treacherous stratagem against them, for the sake of bringing mortality on them. But the woman was more accustomed to be deceived than the man. For his counsels as well as his body are of a masculine sort, and competent to disentangle the notions of seduction; but the mind of the woman is more effeminate, so that through her softness she easily yields and is easily caught by the persuasions of falsehood, which imitate the resemblance of truth[54]

It is a testable proposition “women are more guidable than men”.  Please don’t make me look up the studies to demonstrate any exegesis that concludes this is simply wrong.  Thomas Schriener – complementarian makes the following comment:

What, then, is the point of 1 Timothy 2:14? Let me acknowledge at the outset the difficulty of the verse. I believe the complementarian view stands on the basis of the clarity of verse 13, so that resolving the interpretation of verse 14 is not crucial for the passage as a whole. In the history of the church, some have argued that women are less intelligent or more apt to be deceived than men. The idea that women are less intelligent is not taught elsewhere in Scripture, and Paul does not argue from lack of intelligence but from the experience of deception. Others have suggested the point is that Eve was deceived first, and Adam was deceived afterward. As Paul writes to his trusted coworker, he knows Timothy will reflect on the Pauline teaching that sin has been transmitted through Adam (Rom. 5:12–19). So even though Eve sinned first, sin is traced to Adam, pointing to male headship.

We can combine the above interpretation with the observation that the serpent took the initiative to tempt Eve rather than Adam, thereby subverting the pattern of male leadership. I argued in a previous essay that perhaps Paul is suggesting women are more prone to deceit than men, but this view has the disadvantage of suggesting an inherent defect in women, for the language of deceit in Scripture always involves a moral failing. Thus, I think Paul likely is reflecting on the fact that the serpent subverted male headship by tempting Eve rather than Adam. And yet sin is still traced through Adam, even though Eve was deceived and sinned first. On this view verse 14 supports the command in verse 12, providing an additional and complementary reason for male leadership in the church.[55]

What is Schriener actually saying?  Notice that he claims the complementarian case stands regardless of v14 – because it is hard for him to explain.  This should provide us with the clues we need.  If the verse doesn’t work well then your explanation of the passage as a whole is suspect.  His secondary argument (having admitted the first suggests “an inherent defect in women”) is the serpent targeted male headship (does not explicitly exist in Genesis 1-3).  But the argument doesn’t work regardless.  How do the actions of the serpent justly result in female disqualification from teaching and leadership?  Why doesn’t Paul mention the serpent’s attempted coup if that was the point?  And why would God react to ‘Adam’s leadership failure’ by making all men lead?  Bonus question – how does this not contradict God’s appointment of Deborah to lead?!

Fee has a more reasonable reading.  He suggests the emphasis of Paul’s argument is in v14.  It is here that Paul actually expands fractionally to the text of Genesis as a lead in to v15 which is the actual point and conclusion of Paul’s Genesis reference[56].  Essentially Paul is saying that this behaviour in Ephesus is going to end badly just like the example of Eve getting deceived ended with pain and sorrow (ie 1 Tim 2:15).

Women in Ephesus were being targeted by the false teachers (the ones explicitly named and referenced are male).  But women especially widows ARE spreading false stories and consistent with the local cult of Diana the young widows are choosing not to get married – which Paul says they should be doing.

If we step back and consider the big principles we have a few options for reading the passage:

  1. Eve was deceived so all women are banned from teaching as a punishment.  Not God’s way though to punish children for sins of parents (of vice versa) Deut 24:16, Ezek 18:19-20; OR
  2. Eve is a universal principle – women are more gullible than men. That is a scientifically testable proposition and fails (education is important gender no, and Paul says the women should learn!); OR
  3. Eve is a local demonstration analogy showing that when women are deceived bad things will happen!

How did Paul use OT?  Sometimes straightforward. Other times analogy.  We have to recognize there is no single simple use of the OT. eg

Creation’s proclamation in Psalm 19:4, for instance, parallels the gospel proclamation in Romans 10:18. The incomprehensible language of the Assyrian invaders was a divine message of judgment toward Israel after they had rejected God’s other attempts to get their attention (Isa. 28:11; cf. 33:19; Deut. 28:49); Paul applies the incomprehensible nature of this language to speaking in tongues (1 Cor. 14:21), perhaps because it also functions as a warning to unbelievers (14:22).[57]

Somewhat damningly of the ‘women get deceived men don’t’ reading, Paul uses the same example of male and female believers in 2Cor11:3 of ALL being deceived.

Paul draws an analogy between Eve and the Corinthian Christians in 2 Corinthians 11:3; the basis for the comparison is that both were easily deceived. This may suggest that he would apply the image to anyone easily deceived, including most of the women in the Ephesian church, but would not always make this analogy on the basis of gender[58]

1 Tim 2:15 saved in child bearing – what does this mean?

But she will be delivered through childbearing, if she continues in faith and love and holiness with self-control

This is a a tricky verse to interpret.  Blomberg (complementarian) has the following to say in support of his case:

Verse 15 is an enormously difficult verse to translate but is probably best understood as combating the heresy and its anti-marriage stance (4:3). A literal translation would yield, “But she will be saved by childbirth, if they remain in faith and love and holiness with propriety.” While not all women marry or give birth, this remains an important role for the gender overall (the generic “she”), whereas the responsibility of every Christian woman is to exercise saving faith (the distributive “they”). Tellingly, the verb “save” in the Pastorals elsewhere can mean part of the process of “restoring” the cosmos to God’s intended ideals (cf. 1 Tim. 4:16 and 2 Tim. 4:18), and this is probably how Paul is using the word here.[59]

Fee’s comments are insightful:

Having said that the woman was deceived and thus fell into sin, he now says: But she will be saved. There is a subtle shift here from Eve to the women in Ephesus. The subject of the verb will be saved is in fact the woman in verse 14 (see niv text note b on v. 15). Obviously Paul is not talking about Eve’s salvation but “the women” in Ephesus; hence the change back to the plural in the middle of verse 15. How she will be saved is what has created the problems—through childbearing! Can he mean that? Many have said no and have suggested as one alternative that the clause means “will be kept safe through childbirth” (e.g., niv, gnb margin). But besides simply not being true to reality—many Christian mothers have died in childbirth—Paul’s use of the word saved throughout these letters disallows it (he always means redemption, from sin and for eternal life, as in 1:15–16 and 2:4). Moreover he uses an entirely different word for the idea of being “kept safe” throughout his letters (see, e.g., 2 Tim. 3:11 and 4:18). A second suggestion is that they will be saved from the errors in verses 11–12. But besides having against it the same things as the first alternative, it is nearly inconceivable that Paul would use the verb saved in an absolute way, as he does here, without some qualifier (e.g., “from these errors”), if he had intended to refer to verses 11–12. A third alternative is that “through childbearing” should be translated through the Childbirth, that is, through Mary’s giving birth to Jesus, thus reversing the role of Eve by referring to the so-called protevangelium of Genesis 3:15. But besides this being a most obscure way of trying to say that, Paul nowhere else suggests that salvation is by the Incarnation or by Mary’s deed (since the word under no circumstances can be stretched to mean “Mary’s child”). Moreover, this noun always has to do with the fact of bearing children, not to the event of a single birth (that is, the word has to do with the activity of “bearing,” not with the noun “birth” or “child”). It should also be noted that nowhere in all of Jewish interpretation was Genesis 3:15 ever understood to mean anything other than the natural enmity between humans and poisonous reptiles. The earliest extant Christian interpretation of this text to refer to the death of Christ comes from Irenaeus in the second century.

More likely what Paul intends is that woman’s salvation, from the transgressions brought about by similar deception and ultimately for eternal life, is to be found in her being a model, godly woman, known for her good works (v. 10; cf. 5:11). And her good deeds, according to 5:11 and 14, include marriage, bearing children (the verb form of this noun), and keeping a good home. The reason for his saying that she will be saved is that it follows directly out of his having said “the woman came to be in transgression.”

But Paul could never leave the matter there, as though salvation itself were attained by this “good deed,” so he immediately qualifies, “Provided of course that she is already a truly Christian woman,” that is, a woman who continues in faith, love and holiness. This is obviously where her salvation ultimately lies, as is always true with Paul. It is assumed such a woman already has faith, which is activating love and holiness. But the whole context of the letter, and the present argument in particular, has generated this rather unusual way of putting it. Even at the end, however, he has not lost sight of where he began, so he adds, with propriety.[60]

Paul is not saying Eve or women are saved by having children.  Nor does he mean they will be kept safe in childbirth (through Yahweh rather than Diana).

In 1 Cor 11 Paul qualified his statements to ensure people didn’t over interpret his use of Genesis.  I think here also he emphasizes there was a way back for Eve – and by extension the Ephesian women who were making trouble. 

I think Eve was to be ‘redeemed’ through being the mother of life.  She would be one again with Adam after the disruption of sin.  Eve’s relationship with Adam and God was fractured but it was repaired.  She become one with Adam again and partnered with God (in Eve’s own words) to bring children into the world.

Paul switches from the singular Eve having a child to the plural women who can also be saved.  The women of Ephesus would not be saved by embracing some traditional role of motherhood.  No – they would be saved by reversing out of their deceived state and embracing typical Christian values.

“if they continue in faith and love and holiness with self-control”

1 Tim 2:15

There was a way forward for Eve.  There is for these women also.  The way back for the Ephesian women was not by “having babies or embracing their traditional role as mothers” as some traditionalists think Paul says.  But what Paul actually says is the plural women are saved by continuing in good Christian qualities faith love and holiness with self control.

Things may have gotten out of control for the Ephesian women but there was a way back.

As Spurgeon said:

Whereas false teachers were sneaking in and capturing families with their deceptive teachings and creating enmity between husbands and wives, Paul wanted families to be united in prayer and learn God’s word together. After the fall, God’s restoration plan was family oneness—Eve longing for Adam, Adam fulfilling that longing, and together they produce offspring. Their oneness would restore them not only to each other but also to God. In the same way, the oneness of husbands and wives in prayer and learning would protect Paul’s audience from the deceptions of false teachers. Therefore, Paul cited Adam and Eve’s creation, fall, and restoration as illustrations.[61]


Paul wanted the women of Ephesus to be one with their men, to learn God’s word peaceable and not to teach in a domineering dictatorial way.  This was appropriate instruction to the women at the time.  Similarly the men had to pray and stop being angry.  Each gender received the corrective appropriate to the local situation.

by Daniel Edgecombe

[1] Holmes, J. M. (2000). Text in a whirlwind: a critique of four exegetical devices at 1 Timothy 2:9–15 (Vol. 196, p. 17). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

[2] The sources indicate the Greek literally means things pertaining to old women – meaning in a derogatory sense old wives fables.  Sexist much in reflecting culture?  Zodhiates, S. (2000). The complete word study dictionary: New Testament (electronic ed.). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.

[3] Brill has “chatty, talkative, foolish, buffoon, one who speaks without reflection, one who talks nonsense” and supports with ancient ex Biblical examples.  Montanari, F. (2015). M. Goh & C. Schroeder (Eds.), The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek. Leiden; Boston: Brill.  I suspect “gossip” rather reflects translator sexism and the fact this is a single use Gk word (hapax legomenon).  I’m not convinced by attempts to link the meaningless chatter with incantations/magic though.

[4]The typical Greek idioms are, however, missing. “To mind one’s own affairs” (prassein ta idia; cf. 1 Thess. 4:11), “to meddle in the affairs of others” (periergazesthai [2 Thess 3:11]), or similar phraseology is what one would have expected, if mere nosiness were the problem” Belleville, L. L. (2005). Women in Ministry: An Egalitarian Perspective. In S. N. Gundry & J. R. Beck (Eds.), Two Views on Women in Ministry (Revised Edition, p. 50). Grand Rapids, Mi: Zondervan.

[5] Keener, C. S. (1992). Paul, Women & Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul (p. xiii). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.

[6] Baugh, S. M. (1999). Cult Prostitution in New Testament Ephesus: A Reappraisal. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 42(3), 452. 

[7] Schmitz, L. (1870). A′R′TEMIS (Ἄρτεμις). In W. Smith (Ed.), Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (Vol. 1, p. 375). Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.

[8] Seal, D. (2016). Ephesus. In J. D. Barry, D. Bomar, D. R. Brown, R. Klippenstein, D. Mangum, C. Sinclair Wolcott, … W. Widder (Eds.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

[9] Baugh, S. M. (1999). Cult Prostitution in New Testament Ephesus: A Reappraisal. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 42(3), 456.

[10] Pierce, R. W., & Groothuis, R. M. (2005). Discovering biblical equality: complementarity without hierarchy (p. 220). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

[11] Lokkesmoe, R. (2016). Artemis. In J. D. Barry, D. Bomar, D. R. Brown, R. Klippenstein, D. Mangum, C. Sinclair Wolcott, … W. Widder (Eds.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

[12] Lasor, W. S. (1979–1988). Artemis. In G. W. Bromiley (Ed.), The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (Vol. 1, p. 306). Wm. B. Eerdmans.

[13] Blomberg, C. L. (2005). Women in Ministry: A Complementarian Perspective. In S. N. Gundry & J. R. Beck (Eds.), Two Views on Women in Ministry (Revised Edition, p. 189). Grand Rapids, Mi: Zondervan.

[14] Giles, K. (2001). Women in the Church: A Rejoinder to Andreas  Kostenberger. The Evangelical Quarterly Vol 73:3. Page 231

[15] Byrnes, Colin (2011). God Christ Man Woman. Christadelphian Scriptural Study Service (page 231-234)

[16] Ehorn, S. M. (2016). Kiss. In J. D. Barry, D. Bomar, D. R. Brown, R. Klippenstein, D. Mangum, C. Sinclair Wolcott, … W. Widder (Eds.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

[17] Hubner, J. (2016). Revisiting The Clarity Of Scripture In 1 Timothy 2:12. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 59(1), 108.

[18] Hubner, J. (2016). Revisiting The Clarity Of Scripture In 1 Timothy 2:12. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 59(1), 104.

[19] Westfall, C. L. (2016). Paul and gender: reclaiming the apostle’s vision for men and women in christ (p. 288). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

[20] Holmes, J. M. (2000). Text in a whirlwind: a critique of four exegetical devices at 1 Timothy 2:9–15 (Vol. 196, p. 87). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

[21] deSilva, D. A. (2012). Honor, patronage, kinship & purity: unlocking new testament culture (p. 237). Westmont, IL: InterVarsity Press.

[22] Belleville, L. (2009). Commentary on 1 Timothy. In Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews (Vol. 17, p. 57). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.

[23] Zodhiates, S. (2000). The complete word study dictionary: New Testament (electronic ed.). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.

[24] Montanari, F. (2015). M. Goh & C. Schroeder (Eds.), The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek. Leiden; Boston: Brill.

[25] Logos Bible Software word study tool

[26] Quinn, J., & Wacker, W. (2000). The first and second letters to Timothy: a new translation with notes and commentary (p. 222). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

[27] Mounce, W. D. (2000). Pastoral Epistles (Vol. 46, p. 118). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

[28] Keener, C. S. (1993). Man and Woman. In G. F. Hawthorne, R. P. Martin, & D. G. Reid (Eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters (p. 590). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

[29] Blomberg, C. L. (2005). Women in Ministry: A Complementarian Perspective. In S. N. Gundry & J. R. Beck (Eds.), Two Views on Women in Ministry (Revised Edition, pp. 170–172). Grand Rapids, Mi: Zondervan.

[30] Schreiner, T. R. (2005). Women in Ministry: Another Complementarian Perspective. In S. N. Gundry & J. R. Beck (Eds.), Two Views on Women in Ministry (Revised Edition, p. 333). Grand Rapids, Mi: Zondervan.

[31] Holmes, J. M. (2000). Text in a whirlwind: a critique of four exegetical devices at 1 Timothy 2:9–15 (Vol. 196, p. 90). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

[32] Andreas Köstenberger, “A Complex Sentence Structure in 1 Timothy 2:12”, in Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, ed. Andreas Köstenberger, Thomas Schreiner and H. Scott Baldwin (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1995), pp. 81–103

[33] Pierce, R. W., & Groothuis, R. M. (2005). Discovering biblical equality: complementarity without hierarchy (p. 217). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

[34] Köstenberger, A. J. (2005). “Teaching and Usurping Authority: I Timothy 2:11–15” (Ch 12) by Linda L. Belleville. Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 10(1), 46.

[35] Keener, C. S. (1998). Review of Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9–15 edited by Andreas J. Köstenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner and H. Scott Baldwin. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 41(3), 514.

[36] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2 vols., 2nd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988–1989), 37.35–47, 37.48–95.

[37] Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 1, p. 473). New York: United Bible Societies.

[38] Zodhiates, S. (2000). The complete word study dictionary: New Testament (electronic ed.). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.

[39] Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

[40] Belleville, L. (2019). Lexical Fallacies in Rendering αὐθεντει̂ν in 1 Timothy 2:12: BDAG in Light of Greek Literary and Nonliterary Usage. Bulletin for Biblical Research, 29(3), 320–321.

[41] Davis, J. J. (2017). First Timothy 2:12, the Ordination of Women, and Paul’s Use of Creation Narratives. Priscilla Papers, 31(4), 15.

[42] Belleville, L. (2009). Commentary on 1 Timothy. In Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews (Vol. 17, pp. 58–59). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.

[43] Pierce, R. W., & Groothuis, R. M. (2005). Discovering biblical equality: complementarity without hierarchy (p. 216). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

[44] Westfall, C. L. (2016). Paul and gender: reclaiming the apostle’s vision for men and women in christ (p. 292). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

[45] Blomberg, C. L. (2005). Women in Ministry: A Complementarian Perspective. In S. N. Gundry & J. R. Beck (Eds.), Two Views on Women in Ministry (Revised Edition, p. 169). Grand Rapids, Mi: Zondervan.

[46] Schreiner, T. R. (2005). Women in Ministry: Another Complementarian Perspective. In S. N. Gundry & J. R. Beck (Eds.), Two Views on Women in Ministry (Revised Edition, p. 333). Grand Rapids, Mi: Zondervan.

[47] Holmes, J. M. (2000). Text in a whirlwind: a critique of four exegetical devices at 1 Timothy 2:9–15 (Vol. 196, p. 86). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

[48] Hansen, G. W. (1997). Authority. In R. P. Martin & P. H. Davids (Eds.), Dictionary of the later New Testament and its developments (electronic ed., p. 105). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

[49] Belleville, L. (2009). Commentary on 1 Timothy. In Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews (Vol. 17, p. 55). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.

[50] Belleville, L. (2009). Commentary on 1 Timothy. In Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews (Vol. 17, p. 55). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.

[51] Keener, C. S. (2005). Women in Ministry: Another Egalitarian Perspective. In S. N. Gundry & J. R. Beck (Eds.), Two Views on Women in Ministry (Revised Edition, pp. 244–245). Grand Rapids, Mi: Zondervan.

[52] Schreiner, T. R. (2005). Women in Ministry: Another Complementarian Perspective. In S. N. Gundry & J. R. Beck (Eds.), Two Views on Women in Ministry (Revised Edition, p. 331). Grand Rapids, Mi: Zondervan.

[53] Fee, G. D. (2011). 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (pp. 73–74). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

[54] Yonge, C. D. with Philo of Alexandria. (1995). The works of Philo: complete and unabridged (p. 798). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

[55] Schreiner, T. R. (2005). Women in Ministry: Another Complementarian Perspective. In S. N. Gundry & J. R. Beck (Eds.), Two Views on Women in Ministry (Revised Edition, pp. 321–322). Grand Rapids, Mi: Zondervan.

[56] Fee, G. D. (2011). 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (pp. 73–74). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

[57] Keener, C. S. (2005). Women in Ministry: Another Egalitarian Perspective. In S. N. Gundry & J. R. Beck (Eds.), Two Views on Women in Ministry (Revised Edition, pp. 241–242). Grand Rapids, Mi: Zondervan.

[58] Keener, C. (1997). How Does Paul Interpret Eve in 1 Timothy 2. Priscilla Papers Volume 11, 11(3), 12.

[59] Blomberg, C. L. (2005). Women in Ministry: A Complementarian Perspective. In S. N. Gundry & J. R. Beck (Eds.), Two Views on Women in Ministry (Revised Edition, pp. 173–174). Grand Rapids, Mi: Zondervan.

[60] Fee, G. D. (2011). 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (pp. 74–76). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

[61] Ed. Kostenberger, Andreas.  Spurgeon, Andrew “ 1 Tim 2:13-15 Paul’s retelling of Genesis 2:4-4:1” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. (2013). (Vol. 55).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s