Does 1 Timothy 2:12 prohibit women from leading and preaching over men in the church? I recently posted an article examining an approach to this question, specifically evaluating interpretive consistency. In the article, I looked at two passages that appealed to the Old Testament to support the claim being made in the text. The point of the blog post was to shed light on an inconsistency of interpretation by looking at one common argument from the Bible in favor of women in the pastorate and another biblical argument supporting the view of monogamous marriage, between one man and one woman. My general observation is that many Christians who advance this particular argument, allowing for women in the pastorate, also affirm the particular argument for the biblical view of marriage. They both have the same methodological starting point; however, both arrive at their conclusions in completely different ways, demonstrating interpretive inconsistency, which I conclude stems from a modern cultural ideology imposed on the text that assumes women should be able to lead and preach over men in the church.
A female reader expressed that my article was “patronizing and sexist.” She didn’t like my statement about women as “weaker vessels,” as found in First Peter 3:7. She also expressed strong disapproval about my comment, “we must protect our precious women,” in response, stating that “women don’t belong to men.” Lastly, she posted a link to a blog series from New Testament scholar Nijay Gupta (NG hereafter) who holds that Scripture does not prohibit women from leading and preaching over men in the church.
I was appreciative that she gave me the link. NG was quite extensive, having written 19 pieces on why he believes in women in the ministry (which I affirm as well but differ as it pertains to the pastoral office). One of the blog posts specifically treated First Timothy 2:12, which my article examined as well. I read his post, but I found it unpersuasive. So, this blog post offers some critical push-back on some of NG’s conclusions expressed in the article, with an alternative view I think has greater consistency with Scripture and the Christian tradition. With that said, my disagreement with NG is intramural. I know little about his work, other than hearing blurbs from others who profited from his books and writings. I know he is doing work to advance the kingdom, and I appreciate him for that.
Before responding to NG’s article, I want to make a brief response to the female reader’s comments about my post. Her criticisms didn’t engage directly with the merits of the arguments; rather, she made a judgment call of the article based on a presupposition of my intentions, with her most direct assumption being that I believe women belong to men, which couldn’t be further from the truth, nor did I expressly state that in the article. She dismissed the biblical role of the pastor shepherding and guiding the flock, including women (which we see clearly expressed in Ephesians 4), stating that “women are empowered and led by the Holy Spirit” (which I affirm as well), concluding they don’t need pastors to enable them and guide them.
Well, let me clear up any ambiguities and express that when I said “we must protect our precious women,” “our” doesn’t mean possession as a piece of property; rather, I was making the statement as a pastor entrusted with a flock from the Lord (which I expressed in the post), made up of men and women, to lead and guide, as a shepherd over their souls (Acts 20:28; Heb 13:17). Regarding First Peter 3:7, the context pertained to marriage; it had nothing to do with social power. If she had not overlooked my statement about men as weak vessels, as implied in First Peter 3:7, she might have noticed Peter’s point (As NG affirms as well).[1] Furthermore, a consistent reading of the passage undermines her claim about an implied patriarchalism latent in the translation. However, my critical concerns by no means imply, nor do I assume, she is not a child of God and a sister in Christ.
With that said, while I think her proclivities to the empowerment of women skewed her vision as it pertains to my article, that is not to say that she is without warrant in her beliefs. Horribly so, men have oppressed and subjugated women. Many men have, and still do, wield the Bible to support treating women as inferior, exuding power over them in a domineering manner, instead of using their maleness in a God-honoring way. And human civilization has witnessed the mistreatment of women through legislative measures within societal structures, which is deplorable. God made men and women to reflect his glory in the world. Sin’s entrance into the world distorted God’s purpose and design for humanity. But only through the redemption of humanity can men and women reflect the glory of Christ, manifested in each one’s equal yet distinct roles in marriage and the church.
Now on to my response to NG’s article.
The flow of my article will be a point-by-point response to key claims NG makes regarding the biblical text at hand: 1 Timothy 2:12. So, I will do my best to represent his views, but I ask the reader to see his article firsthand.
In his article, NG sets out to address two questions:
- Is Paul offering universal and general teaching in 1 Timothy 2:8-15?
- Does this passage teach that women cannot have authority over men in the Church?
NG begins his treatment by situating First Timothy in the context as an authoritative writing in the canon, whether it is a true Pauline letter, and if we are to see it as a comprehensive instructive letter for the church universal or an occasional, thus situationally instructive letter. NG holds that it is not Pauline (it has an historical connection to him) but doesn’t see that it theologically conflicts with the undisputed letters of Paul. My impression is that NG is trying to minimize whatever authoritative qualities this letter may have against the wider Pauline corpus and the NT, by challenging the traditional view of authorship, thus diminishing the letter’s credibility and in turn it’s prescriptive teaching on this matter.
With that said, remarking that this letter is situational is irrelevant. Every letter/book in the Bible is a product of a particular situation, with didactic elements that extend universally. In fact, we wouldn’t have a Pauline corpus if it were not for various situations that needed to be addressed. Furthermore, if we needed a letter to address every situation in every church, we might have a Pauline corpus that is thousands and thousands of pages. Paul wrote letters for specific churches and then those letters were disseminated and read in other churches. The Pauline corpus (and the NT) we have—to use a line from the Lord of the Rings—functions as one ring to rule them all. And while Timothy is considered a Pastoral Epistle, written to an individual, it, like the other letters, is a pastoral epistle to rule them all. So then, stating that First Timothy is situational to demerit it’s standing of universal authority is a feeble tactic.
Next, NG looks at the context of the passage, providing the section of text surrounding v. 12 (First Timothy 2:8–15). I am using the CSB version:
8 Therefore, I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument. 9 Also, the women are to dress themselves in modest clothing, with decency and good sense, not with elaborate hairstyles, gold, pearls, or expensive apparel, 10 but with good works, as is proper for women who profess to worship God. 11 A woman is to learn quietly with full submission. 12 I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. 15 But she will be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with good sense.
NG offers some commentary, describing the setting to which this letter occasions. He notes that its intention is corrective, due to misbehaving women, “false teaching, in-fighting, and genderized furtive behavior.” And therefore, Paul needs to send Timothy, “the theological physician,” to get this church healthy again.
In looking at verse 12, NG inquires about the meaning of the Greek verb authenteo translated as “have authority.” He is using the NIV, which translates it as “assume authority.” He notes other word choices Paul normally uses when speaking about authority and power (kyrieuo, Rom 7:1; exousia, Rom 13), and exousiazo, which occurs over 900 times in ancient Greek, and carries the meaning of “to have authority over.” But the word authenteo is very rare and is used only once in the NT. So, NG wonders, why did Paul choose such a rare word unless it was for a rare occasion?
He lists various English translations of this word, which he says expresses a neutral/positive sense: HCSB: “to have authority”; ESV: to exercise authority”; NET: “to exercise authority”; RSV: “to have authority”. He concludes that the translators are treating authenteo as a synonym for exousiazo. But then NG goes on to say, “based on the meager evidence we have for how ancient Greek writers used authenteo (and other words based on the same root), another set of translators believe it has a more negative meaning of domineer (especially based on other forms of the root).” Therefore, NG is inclined to follow the negative rendering.[2] And it makes more sense to see this as a situational correction, not a universal command, specifically addressing a a group of women who are trying to seize control.
However, I am not persuaded by NG’s conclusion. St. Augustine has gifted the church with a tried, tested, and catholicly accepted rule for interpretation. I already mentioned it in my previous article but here it is again: “Analyze the obscure passages by taking examples from the more obvious parts to illuminate obscure expressions and by using the evidence of indisputable passages to remove the uncertainty of ambiguous ones.” NG emphasized the fact that authenteo is the rarest of words in the NT (only one occurrence in the NT). And this passage is a controversial passage, thus, it is “obscure.” Afterall, I wouldn’t be writing this post if it wasn’t, right? And because it is an obscure passage, we should look to “the evidence of indisputable passages” (aka, letting Scripture interpret Scripture) to derive a consistent interpretation. So, what do we have to help us? The nearest evidence is just up ahead, First Timothy 3:1–11.
In First Timothy 3:1–11, Paul lists the qualifications for pastors (overseers) and deacons. The first qualification is that a pastor must me above reproach. And the second one is that “he” must be “the husband of one wife.” In no place within these qualifications does Paul state or “the wife of one husband.” And in verse 4, Paul states “he must manage his own household and have his children under control.” The husband leads the household, not the wife. But when it comes to deacons, in verse 8, he lists the qualifications, with the ability to teach being the key distinction between a pastor and a deacon. A deacon doesn’t need to be able to teach. After listing the qualifications, Paul says, in verse 11, “Wives, too, must be . . .” and he goes on to list qualifications for wives. So, while Paul doesn’t specifically say women can be deacons, the fact that he lists qualifications with the point of reference being the diaconate role strongly implies they too can be deacons (deaconesses). If Paul’s intention was just to list qualifications for the wife of a deacon, why didn’t Paul list qualifications for the wife of a pastor?
The next piece of evidence nearest to us is in Paul’s letter to Titus. In 1:5–9, Paul says the reason he left Titus in Crete was so that he could appoint elders in every town. And then Paul lists the qualifications for an elder. And just like in First Timothy, the second qualification is that an elder must be “the husband of one wife.” Paul doesn’t say, or “the wife of one husband.” Should we just see this letter as merely situational too? The evidence is piling up, explicitly teaching us that only a man can be qualified to be an elder/overseer.
So, we have two pieces of evidence that indicate that the office of pastor (overseer/elder) excludes women. When we look back at the First Timothy passage, the fact that Paul lists these qualifications just after he finishes telling Timothy that he does not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man strongly suggests that he issued those qualifications as a corrective measure. For some reason, maybe due to an over realized eschatological view of Galatians 3:28, women felt they could teach and have authority over men. Therefore, Paul addresses this particular situation (some agreement with NG), invoking his authority as an Apostle, whereby he states what he doesn’t allow (v. 12), followed up with the universal qualifications for the office of overseer (as an authoritative correction), expressly stating an overseer must be “the husband of one wife.”
Paul planted this church. He sent Timothy there to address false teaching and other sinful matters. Think about this: When someone in your church begins to stray from the truth, what do you do? You remind him/her of the truth and exhort him/her to repent, believe, and abide by it. In this case, Paul had founded this church with sound doctrine and established elders to shepherd it. Obviously, the leadership was dismal, and it needed a strong pastor to get it back on track. And therefore, they needed to be reminded and exhorted to follow sound doctrine, which included a reminder that the qualifications for an overseer excludes women.
One last point. In reading First Timothy, false teaching and women seeking to have authority over the men and the church were key issues needing to be corrected. When we look back to the Garden, in Genesis 3, we see that false teaching (Satan twisting God’s words) led to disorder in God’s sanctuary, and following that disorder, the universal curse for women was that they will desire to have control over their husbands. I already alluded to this in my previous post. But there is an important connection between the two situations that have universal ramifications. If the curse for women was that they would desire to control their husbands, why would the Lord allow for women to be pastors when it would place them in the very position of having control—authority—over them? But more to follow on the created order.
NG offers something to “chew on.” He mentions again the rarity of the word authenteo. He states that it doesn’t occur in the Septuagint, OT Apocrypha, the Greek OT Pseudepigrapha, Josephus, Philo, or the Apostolic Fathers. And then he asks, “Why would Paul not have chosen a more common word if he was giving a direct and clear universal command through a third party (Timothy)?” Well, the answer is we don’t know. And the fact that the word is rare doesn’t strengthen his case; in fact, it weakens it because he doesn’t have textual or lexical support for his preferred meaning. He is making a circumstantial argument, a very flimsy one.
What about the appeal to a creation story? In my previous post, I observed the two methodological starting points to each argument was to the creation story in Genesis. NG notes that “some interpreters argue that women (universally) are taught here to be submissive to men because of the appeal to Adam and Eve in First Timothy 2:13–14.” When looking at this passage, verse 13 starts with the coordinating conjunction, For. And a basic rule of interpretation is that when we see a sentence begin with for, the statement to follow is the grounding clause or the purpose statement supporting the previous sentence or argument. We can substitute the word because in place of for. Let’s do that in the passage:
I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to remain quiet. [because] Adam was formed first, then Eve.
NG understands that basic point, but he objects to the traditional interpretation, stating that “the focus of this Scriptural appeal is not based on the inherent superiority of men due to privilege of the firstborn.” Notice the words he used: “inherent superiority.” Who is making such claims? I definitely am not. It appears that NG assumes the traditional interpretation connotes male inherent superiority. While there may be those on the fringe who promote such a view, conservative Evangelical scholars do not affirm nor seek to promote male superiority over women. So then, what does this passage mean? NG didn’t offer a constructive response to that passage; rather, he expressed what it can’t mean.
As noted, Paul’s beginning verse 13 with the conjunction for means that what is to follow (also verse 14) is the grounding statement for what he said in verse 12. So, Paul appeals to the sequence of God’s creating of Adam then Eve. And then he speaks of Eve, not Adam, being deceived and transgressed. While NG concludes Paul’s purpose in these statements is to humble arrogant Ephesian women for thinking they are wiser, intellect is not the issue. After all, women are called to teach other women (Titus 2:3–5). So, why does Paul make this reference? NG is on the right track when he earlier noted that this passage pertains to birth order; however, he is missing the broader scope. Denny Burk’s insights are illuminating on this set of passages.
In vv.13–14, while Adam and Eve are the ones who transgressed, notice Paul speaks of what was done to Adam and Eve, not what they did. God and Satan are the implicit agents involved. Verse 13 speaks of God’s order of creation, in that (cf. v.13) God, as the active agent, first formed Adam from the ground and then created Eve from Adam’s rib. When we look at the sequence of events in Genesis 2, the order is, “God spoke to Adam, Adam spoke to Eve, and Adam and Eve were to rule over the beasts of the ground.”[7] Verse 14, however, contrasts 13, which inverts the original “good” order. Satan, as the active agent, first deceived Eve, not Adam. So, we see that the Fall is due to the sinful inversion of God’s creative purposes: “The Serpent spoke his word to Eve, Eve influenced Adam to follow her, and both Adam and Eve evaded God.”[8]
What can we conclude from this? Paul’s prohibition has something do to with God’s “good” original creation order in creating Adam and Eve. Paul is taking a passage that appeals to marriage (Gen 2) and appropriates it to the order of leadership in the church. It appears Satan (false teaching) was in the garden (the church of Ephesus) and was deceiving Eve (the women of the church). Paul, therefore, needed to correct their theology by going back to God’s original purposes and order of Adam and Eve, husbands and wives, establishing it as the paradigm for the church. And contrary to NG’s view, Paul’s prohibition grounded in the order of creation makes it a transcultural, thus universal, principle for God’s people in every geographical and chronological setting.
Conclusion
Nijay Gupta’s arguments in support of women in the pastorate were unpersuasive. Now, I know that Nijay wrote this piece for a popular-level audience, and he could have written a more technically sophisticated paper to support his arguments. However, if one cannot provide simple convincing arguments, a technical approach will only impair his argument further. The argument advanced in this article flows within the stream of the Christian tradition. It is a catholic position, in that our forebears of the Tradition have already wrestled with these issues within the text (and contexts) and have arrived at a consistent interpretation, one that has endured intense scrutiny (from the world) during the life of the church. Looking to the past, we should follow the advice of one of the tradition’s greatest expositors of Scripture, St. Chrysostom. In an address to an assembly of pastors, he said:
“Today I warn and advise you not to go merely to what is written but to search out the meaning of what is said. If a person should busy himself with nothing more than what has been written, he will fall into many errors.”
And the error we see here is an attempt at revising a long-standing, traditional interpretation because of an obscure word in light of clear, contrary evidence elsewhere in Scripture. The Christian tradition has consistently taught that women are not qualified to be overseers.[9] It has nothing to do with a man’s desire to dominate over women, make women cower to men, to establish male superiority, or to control them. Rather, the point is to be faithful to the teachings of Scripture, which consistently tells us God has a unique design and role for men and women in marriage and in the church. Together they reflect the image of God. Think of Paul’s metaphor of the church as the body of Christ. He emphasizes the importance of all the parts, great and small, showing the diversity and unity according to God’s “arrangement of each one of the parts just as he wanted” (1 Corinthians 12:18). And it is only in the last half century that the traditional interpretation has received such staunch opposition. Why is that? My estimation is that cultural ideology is pressing in hard on the walls of the church (but specifically the academy), stronger than ever, and instead of standing on the truth of Scripture, many have compromised on various teachings to avoid conflict with the prevailing cultural norms. We need to stay faithful to the Tradition that has come before us, refining where needed based on the cultural landscape we find ourselves in, “so that we are properly out of step with the world and therefore trying to keep pace with God.”[10]
~ Romans 11:36
[1] Gupta, Nijay K. 1-2 Thessalonians: A New Covenant Commentary. Edited by Michael F. Bird and Craig Keener. New Covenant Commentary Series. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2016, 81 n11.
[2] The recent in-depth scholarly study of authenteo, “The Meaning of Authenteo,” by Al Wolters in, Andreas J. Köstenberger et al., Women in the Church: An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, 3rd edition (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2016), 65–115, overwhelmingly demonstrates that this word and its cognates are used in a positive or neutral sense, not a negative sense as NG holds.
[3] The two activities are infinitive verbs: to teach and to have authority.
[4] The Greek particle used here is οὐδὲ, which is a negative form of the conjunction, or.
[5] The text has other syntactical complexities, but the nature of this post doesn’t allow room for discussion. Therefore, I encourage the reader to see, Andreas J. Köstenberger, “A Complex Sentence: The Syntax of 1 Timothy 2:12,” in Köstenberger et al., Women in the Church, 117–61.
[6] Denny Burk, “1 Timothy,” in Iain M. Duguid, James M. Hamilton, and Jay Sklar, ESV Expository Commentary: Ephesians-Philemon (Crossway, 2018).
[7] Ibid., 400.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Modern egalitarians claim that Pheobe in Romans 16:1–2 is a gospel minister or leader, based on the Greek word prostates, which some claim should be rendered as "leader." However, that word has never been used to denote a leader; rather, it we see it's usage as "defender, guardian, and/or benefactor," as found in modern translations (BAGD, 885).
[10] John Webster, Confessing God: Essays in Christian Dogmatics II, 2nd edition (London New Delhi New York Sydney: T&T Clark, 2016), 81.
Comments