8 Reasons 1 Timothy 2:12 is so Unclear

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.”

(1 Tim 2:12, NIV)

There you have it! A woman cannot teach a man or assume any kind of authority over a man. Paul is very clear. It certainly seems that way in most of our translations. The Greek text behind this translation, however, is much more difficult to understand. I will list eight different reasons why I think this passage is far from clear. It is OK to base doctrines on clear passages in Scripture, but when we build a doctrine on an unclear passage, the risk of error is significant. This passage is so hard to understand that everyone interprets it differently. Even complementarians do not agree among themselves what it means, nor do egalitarians arrive at the same interpretation. 

Since this may be the only passage that restricts a woman from teaching or having authority over a man, if this passage is unclear or can be understood otherwise, it significantly undermines the limitations placed on women. I will try and advance some textual reasons for why this passage is so hard to understand. This text elicits many questions that are very difficult to answer. I am greatly indebted to Philip Payne’s work in “Man and Woman, One in Christ” for this discussion. I do not think I will ever arrive at a conclusive interpretation of 1 Tim 2:12. It is undoubtedly a troubling verse, so let’s dive into its difficulties and see why this passage is so hard to interpret.

A command for all time?

Is this a universal command, or is it addressing a specific situation? The verb form for “I do not permit,” epitrepō, is in the present active indicative. That is to mean that Paul is making the statement (indicative) that he is carrying out a restriction (active) in the present time (present). It could be translated, “I am not permitting.” This has brought some to argue that it refers to a specific situation limited in time. 

Phillip B. Payne argues that when Paul uses this verb tense, the first person present active indicative; it is to indicate his own preference, not a universal command for all people in all places, at all times^[1]. For example, his use of the verb nomizó in the first person present active indicative, “Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is” (1 Co 7:26). Additionally, Payne argues that this word, epitrepō, is rarely used in the Bible for a universal command, especially not in the first person^[2]. It is used of a permission given in time to a specific circumstance. For example, “He said to another man, ‘Follow me.’ But he replied, ‘Lord, first let me go and bury my father’”(Lc 9:59, NIV).

The surrounding context in 1 Timothy 2 makes it unclear whether Paul is giving a universal command for all time. Some of what Paul instructed in the same letter is no longer practiced in our modern-day western churches. We do not usually lift up our hands in prayer. And women are seen with braids and gold and pearl necklaces or earrings in the church, without offense to the general congregation. These specific instructions are culturally bound. Although a universal principle may be derived from them, its particular application is not universal. 

How then would 1 Tim 2:12 have been addressing a specific situation in Ephesus at the time of its writing? There were false teachers in Ephesus that absolutely needed to be silenced and taught correctly (1 Tim 1:3-7; 4:1-3.7; 5:13-15; 6:3-5.20-21). That men and women were teaching falsehoods, lies, and myths going against the teachings of Jesus Christ was a severe problem in this church. We cannot ignore the possibility that Paul was rectifying a specific situation in Ephesus, addressing particular women who were teaching ungodliness and who needed to learn (1 Tim 2:11), not make themselves teachers. Therefore, there is ambiguity on whether Paul is giving a universal command or one specific to the situation in Ephesus overcome by false teachers.

What kind of teaching?

What does Paul mean when he says a woman cannot teach a man? Any teaching? A specific type of teaching in the church? 

Payne remarks that Paul is not excluding a woman from an office of teacher or overseer; he seems to be preventing a woman from teaching men in general^[3]. Yet, other passages from Paul’s own letters indicate that women did indeed teach men, even in the church. We know that women should learn to teach what is good (Tit 2:3), that Pricilla taught Apollos (Acts 18:26), and that in church gatherings, everyone could share a teaching (1 Co 14:26; Col 3:16, Rom 12:3-8; Rom 15:14):

“What is the outcome of this, brothers and sisters? When you meet together, each one has a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. All these things must be done to build up the church.”

(1 Co 14:26, CEB)

This means that Paul permitted women to teach during assemblies. Churches were not structured as they are today: with one person in front teaching while the others are sitting in pews listening. It was a gathering of believers where everyone had something to offer.

How then do we reconcile our interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12 with the rest of Scripture?

Complementarians may restrict this to mean a teaching with authority, like a pastor preaching in front of a congregation. They prevent women from teaching men when all gathered together in worship^[4].

However, where does it specify in the letter to Timothy that Paul is referring to women teaching at church gatherings? The rest of the instructions in 1 Timothy 2 are not limited to a worship setting. He tells men to lift up holy hands in all places and does not specify a time or location at which women should dress modestly. 

The complementarians who think that Paul is talking about the authoritative teaching of an elder or pastor do so because they link teaching and assuming authority as one thing Paul is forbidding. This brings us to our next question.

Is Paul forbidding one thing or two?

The participle that links these two actions, teaching and assuming authority, is the Greek word oudé. It is used to join clauses that are related in some way. Is Paul forbidding two things: teaching and assuming authority, or only one thing: teaching in an assuming way?

Those who argue that Paul is forbidding two separate things are faced with the problem of what kind of teaching is forbidden. Clearly not all forms of teaching are prohibited, as noted above. Timothy himself was strongly influenced by the teachings of his mother and grandmother.

People from both sides of the debate (complementarians and egalitarians) have argued that this is only one thing that Paul is not allowing. Some complementarians say that women cannot authoritatively teach men. Since the role of pastor or elder/overseer is a position of authority over the congregants, women cannot teach as elders or pastors. But they could teach men in other non-authoritative ways.

“And I think women can proclaim the gospel to men in those cultures, for 1 Timothy 2:11–15 prohibits only authoritative teaching to a group of Christians within the church, not evangelism to those outside the church.”

Thomas R. Schreiner ^[5]

Some egalitarians also think Paul is forbidding one thing, but their usual understanding of what the word translated as “authority” means differs. This brings me to the subsequent uncertainty in the text.

What does Authentéo mean?

Paul is not allowing a woman to authentein a man. This word has been translated as have or exercise authority in many translations (NLT, ESV, NASB). Modern translations, however, do not get to the nuance of how obscure this term was. It is not the most common word used to describe authority in the Bible, exousia. The word Paul used, authenteo, only appears once in the whole new testament and was rarely used in other Greek literature in Paul’s time^[6].

Some maintain that authenteo has a positive or neutral meaning: to exercise authority. Others that it has a negative connotation: to dominate, to force, control, or to assume independent authority over someone^[7]. The LSG defines it as “to have full power or authority over someone” or “to commit a murder. ^[8]” Its related cognate, authentes, actually means murderer or perpetrator^[9]. Additionally, the KJV translated this word as “usurp authority.” From this evidence, it does not seem to be any kind of authority that anyone should exercise. Should a man usurp authority or domineer someone? Of course not! Nor should a woman. 

However, there was possibly a woman in the Ephesian church that was doing just that. Perhaps this woman was being domineering and trying to impose by force some false doctrines. Paul wanted to prevent her from continuing to do so expressively. He encouraged this woman to first learn correctly in submission and quietness and no longer transmit her deception to others. This is similar to the example of Eve, who was deceived and encouraged Adam to eat also by handing over the forbidden fruit (1 Tim 2:13-14). The cost of deception is great.

If Paul was linking teaching and assuming authority into one idea, as people from both camps argue, it is taking on an unwarranted authority to teach what is forbidden. Men should not engage in this behavior either. 1 Tim 2:12 is explicitly addressing women but does not exclude men. Imagine a classroom in which some boys are particularly unruly, the teacher will exclaim, “Boys! Quit messing around!”. That does not then permit the girls to start messing around and be disruptive. The same can be said of 1 Tim 2:12, women are targeted, but it does not enable men to do this same thing.

There are other examples of specific yet inclusive instructions in 1 Tim 2; women should also “pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing “(1 Tim 2:8), and men should also dress modestly (1 Tim 2:9) and learn in quietness and submission to God’s word (the posture of any disciple of the time^[10]).

A woman or all women?

There is another odd thing about this passage. Paul went from speaking about women and men in the plural form to “a woman” and “a man” in the singular.

Going from:

“Therefore, I desire all men (andras/plural) to pray in all places, lifting holy hands […] And likewise, the women (gynaikas/plural) should dress themselves in respectable attire, with modesty and sobriety […] but with what is fitting to women (gynaixin/plural) who profess godliness through good works” ( 1Tim 2:9-10, translation my own)

To: 

“Let a woman (gynē/Singular) learn in quietness and full submission. However, I am not now permitting a woman (gynaiki/singular) to teach nor to assume authority over a man (andros/singular), but to be in quietness.” (1 Tim 2:11-12, translation my own) 

What can explain this? Is it possible this instruction was not for all women of the Ephesian church but a specific woman? Perhaps Paul was addressing a particular woman, as a woman was engaged in this problematic behavior. That does not mean it wouldn’t apply to a man engaging in this behavior, as men should not do these things either. In that context, however, it seems to have been a woman who was overpowering others to teach false doctrines. 

Paul may have been saying that this woman should learn in quietness and submission and not assume an authority not rightfully granted to her. Could this woman have been deceived about something, possibly related to weird ideas about who was created first (Adam or Eve) and whether it was good for the woman to eat the tree of knowledge (1 Tim 2:13-15)? Is it possible some proto-gnostic beliefs were going around at that time? These could be the myths and endless genealogies (who comes from whom) Paul referred to in 1 Tim 1:3-4. We should also acknowledge that Ephesus was the center of worship of Artemis of the Ephesians (Acts 19). Women were a central part of the temple worship of Artemis, was there a woman trying to assume an equivalent role in the church?

A wife and her husband or all woman and all men?

In Greek, the word for woman also refers to a wife and the word for man, to a husband. This makes it difficult to interpret when nothing else in the context indicates whether the author refers to a woman or a wife. Since Paul is pairing a woman and a man, he may be referring to a married couple. Additionally, he uses the example of Adam and Eve, viewed as the first married couple, possibly giving support to the idea that Paul is talking about a couple. I am unconvinced that it refers to a married couple, but I have heard some suggest that it could, and it may be the case. 

Are women only prevented from teaching adult males?

Even in complementarian circles, women are permitted to teach males; only these males must be children. If a woman cannot teach a man, she is not forbidden from teaching a male child who is not yet a man (adult human male). This raises the issue of when a boy becomes a man. We may think it is around the age of 18, but other cultures identify manhood as beginning around 13 years of age. Should the practice of women teaching boys be subject to current cultural ideas of when adulthood begins? Or should we refer back to when adulthood was understood to start in Ephesus during the first century CE? 

It is also of concern that children are more vulnerable to false teachings than adults due to their still-developing brains. If women must not teach men, surely they must never be allowed to teach children! However, this is unfeasible for complementarians who rely on godly women to teach Sunday school. They would lack volunteers if they forbade women to serve in this way. 

Additionally, can women teach other women? This does not seem to be forbidden anywhere; instead it is encouraged (Tit 2:3-5). What permits a woman to teach another woman but prevents her from giving that same exact teaching to a man? How can the same teaching be evil in the eyes of the Lord, depending on who happens to hear it? Can men not benefit from a godly woman’s wisdom as much as women? This seems to prevent men from being fortified by their sisters in Christ. 

How does this work when men and women come together in home groups to study the Scriptures? Must men shut off their ears when women speak so as not to sin? The mental gymnastics we must do to try and apply this passage to our present-day situations are confusing, to say the least. So many different complementarians allow very different practices, and these change so much over time. 

Is the surrounding context clear?

“Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.” (1 Timothy 2:11-12, ASV)

How is verse 12 related to verse 11? The conjunction dè connects them (but, and, now, however, moreover), and they both share this idea that a woman should be in hēsuchia/quietness. Was Paul saying that, as a woman is learning, she should not try to teach or assume authority over the teacher, usually a man? Paul was forbidding this, as it would be disruptive to take over a lesson as someone else is trying to teach. Is that how these two verses are related? Perhaps Paul is restricting the behavior of at least one woman who was overpowering a recognized teacher and teaching her own ideas. Instead, she should have been learning in quietness as she did not know what she was talking about (1 Tim 1:3-7; 2:11). 

Therefore, this would not prevent a woman from speaking in church when given the rightful authority to do so. It seems Paul was limiting a woman from spreading false teachings, myths, or endless genealogies (1 Tim 1:3-4), not from teaching a man if she is learned and holds to sound doctrine. 

What is Paul’s intention in giving the example of Adam and Eve? What is the link between a woman teaching or usurping authority over a man related to who was created first (Adam or Eve)? Or who was deceived versus who willingly rebelled and disobeyed? Is Eve an example of someone who had no idea what she was talking about and should have learned from her husband (instead of entering into a dialogue with the serpent as though she were a learned teacher)? Had Eve assumed dominance over her husband? Is Paul saying all women are prone to deception just like Eve? If that were the case, shouldn’t we also extrapolate that all men, like Adam, are more prone to rebellion against God? Which is worse? Doing evil in full knowledge and intent seems worse than being deceived into doing it?

What about this weird verse: “Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” (1 Tim 2:15, ESV)? It has been translated so many different ways. What on earth does it mean? Who is this woman that “will be saved through childbearing”? Eve? The woman he was talking about in verses 11 and 12?  What does Paul mean by saved? Salvation into eternal life or a rescue from the life-threatening perils of giving birth to a child? Obviously women are not saved on the condition that they have children! Is it referring to the birth of Jesus? Since we can all be saved because Jesus came and was born to a woman? Who are “they”? Adam and Eve or believers in general? If we don’t understand this passage, can we really claim to know what on earth Paul is talking about right before in verse 12?

Conclusion

That some people continue to affirm that 1 Tim 2:12 is clear, maybe even the clearest passage about women’s roles in the church, baffles me.

“… we need to remind ourselves again that the apostolic teaching insists on men being the primary leaders in the church (just as in marriage) and therefore excludes women from that role. The clearest statement is 1 Timothy 2:12: “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man” (NASB).” ^[11]

This seems to me either naïve or disingenuous. The fact that so many different interpretations are proposed for this verse, even amongst complementarians, proves how difficult this passage is to interpret^[12]. I have looked at eight various contextual reasons why this verse is so hard to understand. We cannot affirm that this passage is clear unless we can answer these questions with ease. Otherwise, we must acknowledge its difficulty and not base any central doctrines on this verse alone, especially since it seems to contradict other teachings of the Bible, even some of Paul’s own words elsewhere. There is a sound hermeneutical principle: to read the unclear passages of Scripture in light of the clear.

“But there is an important aspect of the debate that continues to be overlooked, and it relates to a broader principle of theological interpretation and hermeneutics. The principle is typically related to “the clarity of Scripture” (or “perspicuity of Scripture”) and can be summarized in the words of one Reformed confession: “when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture . . . it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.” ^[13]

---

^[1] Payne, Philip Barton. Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters (p. 319-320). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

^[2] Idem p. 320-321

^[3] Idem. p. 329

^[4] BibleRef. What does 1 Timothy 2:12 mean? https://www.bibleref.com/1-Timothy/2/1-Timothy-2-12.html

^[5] Thomas Schreiner, “The Valuable Ministries of Women in the Context of Male Leadership: A Survey of Old and New Testament Examples and Teaching,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Crossway. Wheaton Illinois. 2021 edition. p.291.

^[6] Hübner, Jamin. “Translating αὐθεντέω (authenteō) in 1 Timothy 2:12”. Priscilla Papers. Vol. 29, No. 2. Spring 2015. p.16

^[7] Idem

^[8] LSJ, https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=αὐθεντέω&la=greek#lexicon

^[9]See LSJ definitions for both words here: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=au%29qe%2Fnthn&la=greek&can=au%29qe%2Fnthn0&prior=to\n#lexicon

^[10] Dale, Cheri. “What Did Paul Mean By ‘Silence’ and ‘Submission’ in 1 Timothy 2:11?” CBE International. January 06, 2016. https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/article/mutuality-blog-magazine/what-did-paul-mean-silence-and-submission-1-timothy-211

^[11] Knight,  George W. III. “The Family and the Church: How Should Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Work Out in Practice?” In Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism. Edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem. Crossway. Wheaton, Illinois. 2021. p.423

^[12] Hübner, Jamin. “Revisiting the Clarity of Scripture in 1 Timothy 2:12.” Priscilla Papers. Vol. 30, No. 3. Summer 2016. p.19-21.

^[13] Idem p.18.