On a few occasions, after telling someone that I believe women should not be restricted from any leadership in the church, I’ve been asked, Well, what about marriage?
Perhaps you’re okay with women leading in the church, but equal authority in marriage makes you uncomfortable. After all, doesn’t the Bible say wives should submit to their husbands in everything?
When I had a complementarian framework, I believed this (obviously). Even then, I wondered how it worked practically. Oddly enough, the New Testament doesn’t get as specific as the “biblical manhood and womanhood” movement.
I believe it’s because we’ve missed the point of these passages, reading them through a lens of power and authority rather than service and sacrifice.
These sections reflect secular ancient household codes. Plato, one of the first to articulate this, taught that women, children, and slaves ought to be ruled over because they belonged to the “mob of motley appetites and pleasures and pains.”
Aristotle, Plato’s student, took the codes to a new level. He created the three-fold structure of husbands-wives, parents-children, and slaves-masters that we find in Ephesians and Colossians.
For Aristotle, a well-ordered home was the cornerstone of society. But a household was only as stable as its patriarchal rule.
His codes addressed men only and taught how men were to treat their subordinates. Aristotle believed men had all the agency in relationships.
“The male is by nature superior, and the female inferior,” he wrote. “The one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind.”
He goes on to say:
A husband and father, we saw, rules over wife and children, both free, but the rule differs, the rule over his children being a royal, over his wife a constitutional rule. For although there may be exceptions to the order of nature, the male is by nature fitter for command than the female, just as the elder and full-grown is superior to the younger and more immature.
Women, as Aristotle saw it, were destined to be ruled by men simply because they’re female. That’s what “a constitutional rule” means.
Aristotle was certainly sexist. Most of the ancient world was. But these codes weren’t mainly about gender (though that was a significant part of it), but power. They were designed to keep certain groups of people in power and other groups far away from it.
Then Jesus came and changed everything.
How Jesus Changed Everything
In the New Testament’s version of household codes, a dramatic shift takes place.
Paul and Peter address both parties, rather than men only. The Apostles believed the subordinate person also has agency in their relationships. What’s more, the “inferior” party is addressed first: wives then husbands; children then parents; slaves then masters.
As for those in power? They are never called to lord it over, but to love. The gospel leads them to divest themselves of power, deny their worldly status, and serve.
In other words, the New Testament shows how Jesus brings redemption to human institutions and relationships.
Yet, the New Testament also stops short of prescribing social revolution. Why? Mowczko reminds us, “Christian teaching that blatantly undermined or openly subverted the social structures of the day could have been disastrous for the new Jesus movement.”
Rome was suspicious of any religious group that threatened the Roman way of life. The Apostles were careful with their words.
Besides, they couldn’t have imagined a world in which women had equal rights and slavery would be abolished.
When the opportunity did come, though, Christians took on those social causes.
A Closer Look at Ephesians 5
Now let’s zoom in on Paul’s largest section on household codes, Ephesians 5:21-6:9.
Mutual Submission Defines Christian Community
Before getting to specific relationships within the house, Paul encases the entire discussion with mutual submission. He writes, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (5:21). Everything else in the section should be read through this framework.
Then to end the section, he makes what I think is the most radical statement of all: “And masters, treat your slaves in the same way” (6:9).
Can you imagine how many jaws hit the floor? Paul flips the power dynamic of the ancient world on its head.
Men are never told to rule or make all the decisions or make all the money. Instead, husbands are to lay down their lives for their wives (5:25), fathers to not provoke their children (6:4), and masters to treat slaves as fellow servants (6:9).
This reflects Jesus, of course. Jesus did not come to be served but to serve and give up his life (Mark 10:45). He washed his disciples’ feet and invited them to do the same to each other. He said the first shall be last and the last first.
When an entire community lives this way, it’s called “mutual submission.”
What About the Word “Submit”?
When we read the word “submit” in English we think that it means that someone is in charge and everyone else is subordinate to that person. It can mean that in Greek, too. There was a military usage that meant “to arrange under the command of a leader.”
But two Greek lexicons show that it has a broader, non-militaristic meaning. It can mean “voluntary yielding in love.” or “a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden.”
Only the context can help us. We can’t deny there is likely a cultural aspect of deference to a husband’s authority since Roman cities, like Ephesus, were patriarchal. Yet, since we’ve already seen the call for mutual submission in Ephesians 5:21, we know Paul cannot be encouraging a dictatorial-type military submission.
In verse 22, where Paul begins his instructions to wives, the Greek word for “submit” actually isn’t there. It has to be carried over from verse 21.
Again, the societal norm was for wives to respectfully defer to their husbands. Every single wife reading this letter would have expected Paul to write what he did.
But while he affirms this expectation, he frames it through the lens of the gospel: submit, but only as the church submits to Jesus. (So, never to an abusive husband, for example.)
Paul shows wives (and children and slaves) dignity by starting with them. But he saves most of his words for husbands, who had the upper hand in the relationship.
If verse 21 commands mutual submission, we have to ask, “How should husbands submit to their wives?”
Verse 25 gives us the answer. Husbands are not to use their power to their advantage, but love their wives and lay down their own lives, like Jesus.
It was Jesus, after all, who “did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage” (Phil 2:6). He voluntarily laid his life down for the good of others.
Husbands, Paul says, do the same.
What Does It Mean to Be the “Head”?
Verse 23 says that the husband is the “head” of the wife. When we use the word “head” as a metaphor in English, we use it to mean an authority figure. But that wasn’t the natural Greek meaning for “head.”.
I’ve shown in another post that the Greek word for “head” can mean source. In Ephesians, Paul is using it in the sense of a source that provides connectedness and nourishment. The focus on Christ’s “headship” stresses his love, sacrifice, and cleansing of the church–not his “authority.”
One mistake Christians often make–and I will be the first to admit I’ve made it–is that we say, “Marriages are to be a picture of the gospel.”
Where do we get that? Not Ephesians 5. Paul never says this. It’s actually Christ and the Church that is the picture to emulate.
Roman husbands had the power and legal right to treat their wives however they pleased. This was the case for nearly all societies throughout history. Even if a husband wanted to buck the trend and love his wife, he didn’t have an alternative option to follow.
Paul uses Christ and the Church as an analogy to show husbands what it’s like to love their wives, be united to their wives, and nourish them rather than harm them. That’s what a “head” does for its “body.”
Most marriages in our country today, religious or secular, actually encourage both people to love and nourish each other. I hope we’d all agree this is a good thing!
We need to remember that this was not on a Roman man’s radar in the first century. Men were not taught to love a woman. Paul’s instructions to husbands were radical. Even unheard of.
Like all divine analogies for human behavior, however, it breaks down at some point.
In verses 26-27, Paul talks about how Jesus treats his church. But husbands don’t cleanse their wives of sin or sanctify them (even though I’ve heard pastors at weddings say they do).
He comes back to husbands in verse 28 and tells them to love their wives “in this same way.” Paul’s point isn’t that they become Savior 2.0.
It’s that husbands must obey the Golden Rule even in marriage. If husbands are commanded to love their neighbor as themselves, how could they do anything less for their nearest neighbor?
Because Christians (myself included) have read this passage through a lens of patriarchal power, we’ve entirely missed the point.
It has nothing to do with a husband’s leadership and a wife’s subjugation. It has everything to do with the gospel’s transforming work. The powerful become meek to bring unity with and nourishment to those society deems inferior.
In other words, Paul wants husbands and wives to look at Jesus and his Church as an example of loving unity. He wants married couples to function as one because that was God’s design in the beginning, after all (v 31).
Consider this practically. It’s very difficult, I’d argue impossible, to have sincere unity in a marriage if one person makes all the decisions, always gets the final word, bears all responsibility for everyone’s spiritual growth, makes/controls all the money, or does any and all of the things complementarians claim husbands should do.
That’s not unity. At best, it’s a benevolent monarchy. At worst, it’s an abusive dictatorship.
But Do Parents Submit to Children?
Is it crazy to claim children and parents mutually submit to each other? Maybe you think my view doesn’t hold water because this is where the dam bursts. Everyone has an authority to submit to, James!
Yet in their own unique way, parents do submit to children (gasp!).
Children submit by obeying their parents.
Parents–specifically fathers here–are commanded to not exasperate their kids. This is how the one with power “mutually submits.” Parents are still responsible to raise their children. But because of the gospel, fathers voluntarily give up whatever “right” their culture says they have just for being a parent.
Finally, it’s interesting to me that Paul writes that children obeying parents in the Lord “is right” (6:1). But he doesn’t say that about wives or slaves submitting. Paul accommodates the general cultural expectation for wives and slaves without commenting on its ethics.
Remember, too, that Paul never tells wives to obey their husbands.
Paul covers a lot of ground here, his longest discussion on marriage. If there was any place we’d expect him to assert in the clearest terms possible that husbands are in authority over their wives, this would be this place.
But he doesn’t. In fact, he does the exact opposite as he paints a beautiful picture of equality.
The context at the beginning of this chapter is sex. Some of the Corinthians were duped into believing abstinence in marriage was a good thing. Paul refutes their false belief. Listen to verses 3-4.
The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.
WHAT?! He tells husbands and wivesthey have authority over each other in the bedroom. Equality. Dignity. Servanthood. Sacrifice. Mutual submission. For both partners.
To first-century ears, this would have been absolutely astonishing.
If Paul believed that husbands were to be the leaders in marriage (that they have “headship,” as the biblical manhood/womanhood movement says) and that their decision was always final, why wouldn’t he have taken this perfect opportunity to clearly articulate that view?
If you’re thinking that maybe women should submit in everything except sex, then you haven’t read many evangelical books on sex lately. Or ever.
Paul said wives’ have authority over their husbands’ bodies because he believed in and taught mutual submission in marriage (again, see Ephesians 5:21). He applies that principle here to sex.
This vision is unparalleled in the ancient world. But it was the foundation for a “new way” to do marriage.
When we dig a bit deeper into the Scriptures and look beyond our own cultural biases, we see that a Christian vision for equality in marriage is not far-fetched or the product of a liberal agenda. Its source is the very life and mission of Jesus.
 Marg Mowczko, “The household codes are about power, not gender,” 2/17/19. We know these codes were primarily about power because a female master had power over her male slave and a mother had power over her male child. Nevertheless, gender and power were (and still are) intertwined because it was men who had all the power in the ancient world! Still, the ancients believed men were more powerful by nature. Unfortunately, some Christians still believe this today!
 Osiek, “Household Codes.”
 Mowczko, “The household codes.”
 Craig Keener, “The Case for Mutual Submission in Ephesians 5,” CBE Blog, 6/1/2016. What does Paul mean when he says “in the same way”? Earlier he told salves to “obey your earthly masters with respect and fear…obey them…serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord” (vv 5-7). So he means that masters ought to obey and serve their slaves! In other words, mutual submission.
 In Ephesians 4:15-16, Paul calls Christ “the head” of the Church, but emphasizes the nourishing role Christ has with his church.
 You might be thinking, “Ah! But Peter does!” In 1 Peter 3, Peter does tell wives to submit to their own husbands and uses Sarah as an example of obedience. Notice two things: 1) Peter never actually tells wives to obey, and 2) he is only talking to wives who have unsaved husbands (see v 1). Peter’s instruction has a very practical, missional emphasis. It’s like he’s saying, “Wives, don’t abuse your freedom, become preachy, and push your unsaved husbands further away from Jesus!”
. Richard Hays says, “Paul offers a paradigm-shattering vision of marriage as a relationship in which the partners are bonded together in submission to one another.” Quoted in Philip B. Payne, “What About Headship?”, 146.
We’re almost at the end of our biblical exploration of what the Bible has to say about gender roles in ministry. This post will be the last on that topic. Then in just one post, I’ll address what gender roles, if any, should be held in the family. Finally, I’ll close out this series with a few posts on application and personal reflection as I’ve journeyed through this process of changing my view.
One of the most controversial passages from Paul on gender comes in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Here it is in the ESV:
[T]he women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
This seems so harsh of Paul, doesn’t it? What in the world is going on here? Let’s dig in.
Two Verses, So Many Possibilities
When we look around at how Christians have interpreted these words, we find that there are no less than seven major interpretations on verses 34-35! Seven!
Any time a verse or passage has that many possibilities, it’s a big clue that we shouldn’t build a doctrine or practice on that passage. Christians can “agree to disagree” on this text.
Let’s get one thing clear right away, however: Paul cannot be saying that women are not allowed to speak in church. Why? Because 1 Corinthians 11:5 implies that Paul expects women will pray and prophesy in church! Paul wouldn’t contradict himself.
Whatever 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is saying, we can be sure it’s not a timeless prohibition against women speaking in church. So what does it mean?
A Common Complementarian View
One of the more common views among leading complementarians goes like this: Paul means that women are to be silent in reference to the evaluation of prophecy.
I believe complementarians need to interpret this passage this way in order to maintain their practice of not allowing women to “exercise authority over men.” Is the complementarian view accurate though? I think it fails to take into consideration several things:
While Paul mentioned weighing prophecies in verse 29, that’s not in close proximity to verses 34-35. Would the Corinthians have made the connection between verses 29 and verses 34-35?
If women can prophesy (11:5; 14:26, 31), why wouldn’t they be allowed to judge a prophecy?
The women in question are not in a place to evaluate prophecies. Paul words clearly call them to learn at home by asking their husbands. It seems they don’t understand what’s going on in the worship gathering at all!
The larger theme in chapter 14 is order-disorder in worship. If women did evaluate prophecies, that would actually contribute to order. The issue must be some other kind of disruptive speech.
I believe there are at least two better interpretive options for Christians who want to be faithful to the text of Scripture. Let’s look at both of those options.
Option 1: Purposeful Silence For Undisturbed Worship
Paul’s priority in chapter 14 is to help the Corinthians understand that disorder in the worship gathering keeps people from being edified. Put positively, well-ordered worship benefits everyone because then everyone can understand what’s going on.
First-century worship gatherings were much more participatory than ours today. There was plenty of opportunity for confusion and chaos to break out because everyone–not just one man on stage–was involved in speaking, teaching, and, yes, even leading. Hence the call for silence on certain occasions.
The word “silent” (Gk sigaō) occurs in verse 34 and two other times in this chapter:
In verse 28, someone speaking in another language must be silent if no one can interpret for everyone else to understand.
In verse 30, if multiple people want to prophesy, the prophet who has already spoken should be silent when another is ready to speak.
In verse 34, if women want to learn something, they are to be silent during the gathering and ask their husbands at home.
Each of these occurrences of sigaō is in the present, active indicative. By using this verb form, Paul calls for particular individuals to pause speaking for a specific reason at a specific time–not for all time. Any kind of speech that disturbs worship should stop until it is appropriate.
Sigaō is only used ten times in the New Testament. It is never used in a way to command silence forever. It’s always immediate and occasional.
Bill Rudd writes, “By addressing these groups, Paul did not assume that every tongues-speaker, prophet, or woman was part of the problem. It is likely that these three parallel scenarios involved a few people who needed to stop speaking so others could participate.”
The female prophets referred to in chapter 11 are not called to stop prophesying! After all, they don’t need to learn something from their husbands at home. They are actually the ones doing the instructing alongside male prophets!
Why does Paul emphasize female silence? What about men? Is this where we see Paul the Middle Eastern chauvinist rear his ugly head? I don’t think so.
As we’ve discussed before, it’s a well-known fact that women in the first century were not as educated as men. Women didn’t enjoy the same social and business opportunities, and their understanding of Greek and other local languages was less refined than men because of it. Simply, women were at an extreme disadvantage in any social setting, including in the church.
Add to all this the fact that Corinth was one of the most diverse cities in the Roman Empire. This is why Paul spends an entire chapter addressing “languages” (aka “tongues,” i.e. languages other than Greek) and interpreting those languages for the benefit of everyone.
If the entire point of chapter 14 is the intelligibility of speech in the worship gathering, doesn’t it seem likely that there were some women who were confused at what was being said during worship? Isn’t it plausible, even probable, that some women started to interrupt with questions or chat among themselves as humans often do when they’re unengaged?
Kenneth Bailey paraphrases Paul’s message to the Corinthian women:
[Women,] I know your Greek is limited. But your husbands have learned a bit more Greek than you have managed to absorb. They have to in order to function on the job. You have not had this chance and it is not your fault. But things have gotten out of hand on a number of levels. Please be helpful and put your questions to your husbands after you return home. I have just told the speakers when to be quiet. This is a situation in which you also need to listen quietly even if you can’t follow what is said.
Understood this way in the Corinthians’ context, we begin to see Paul as a compassionate and gracious friend willing to guide the Corinthians as they learn how to worship together.
Option 2: Paul Refutes a Corinthian Quotation
The second possibility is that Paul quotes a Corinthian belief and then refutes it. He does this often throughout the letter (6:12; 7:1-2; 8:1; 8:22-23; 10:23).
Verses 33b-35 is the Corinthian quotation; verses 36-38 is the refutation.
I’ve heard the argument that this quote is “too long” to be an actual quote. Why? Because the other quotations Paul cites (see above) aren’t that long.
My response: haven’t you ever read an article with long and short quotes?
Who’s to say Paul can’t cite a four-word quote here and a four-sentence quote somewhere else? Why do we think we’re the arbiter of what Paul can and can’t do?
Is it a quote or not? We have good reasons to believe it is.
First, the end of verse 34 includes something odd. It says that women are to be in submission/subject “as the law also says.” But there is not one place in the Old Testament where women are told to be silent or to be submissive to men.
Complementarians argue that Paul refers to the Old Testament in general or Genesis 2 where Adam is the “firstborn.”
But this doesn’t make the best sense of “the Law” (capital L for Torah Law), especially as Paul uses it in his letters.
This must be referring to some other law entirely.
Beth Allison Barr, in her book, The Making of Biblical Womanhood, suggests an interesting possibility. Barr says that the Oppian Law (in effect from 215-195 BC) is likely the background here. The Oppian Law was designed to limit female freedom, particularly their public displays of wealth.
Now, 195 BC is over two centuries before Paul writes to the Corinthians. That’s quite the distance in time! But Barr shows that even during the first century AD, the Oppian Law had left its mark on Roman society. Cato the Elder, who opposed repealing the law, gave a speech about the danger of women’s freedom. In that speech he said,
I walked through a band of women…I should have said, “What kind of behavior is this? Running around in public, blocking streets, and speaking to other women’s husbands! Could you not have asked your own husbands the same thing at home? Are you more charming in public with others’ husbands than at home with your own?” (my emphasis).
You can hear an echo of this reflected in 1 Corinthians 14 (see italics). What if the Corinthians, in an effort to bolster their position on limiting female freedom, particularly when it comes to speaking gifts, used a defunct Roman law as their foundation? Anything is possible for a church that believed sex between married couples was bad (see chapter 7) and getting drunk at communion was good (see chapter 11).
I’m very intrigued by this possibility. However, there’s another option available to us. It’s possible that “the law” is a reference to Jewish oral law. Notthe written Torah (the first five books of our Old Testament), but rather the oral rabbinic tradition–God’s law that was not written down (according to the rabbis). The Mishnah, one of the major collections of the oral law, states that it’s sinful for a woman to speak with a man in the worship gathering.
It’s pretty likely that the diverse Corinthian church would have dealt with a Jewish faction that impressed aspects of the oral law on it. We have reason to believe this happened to almost every church in the New Testament! These oral laws circulated among the house churches (“as in all the churches,” v. 33b), negatively influencing their behavior.
Second, in verse 36, Paul uses “Or…Or” as a signifier that he is refuting what he just wrote (verses 33b-35). In other quote refutations, Paul uses the words “but” instead (see 6:12-13; 7:1; 8:1, 8; 10:23-24).
Taking these two points into consideration, we now read Paul’s words in a different light. Consider this possible translation, which is almost identical to the NRSV. I have added the quotation marks to help us see what is likely the Corinthians’ quotation.
“As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you men the only ones it has reached? Anyone who claims to be a prophet, or to have spiritual powers, must acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. Anyone who does not recognize this is not to be recognized.
You may have noticed the addition of “men” in the second “or” phrase (“Or are you [men] the only ones…”). The reason for this is that Paul uses a masculine plural pronoun here rather than a female one.
If he was correcting women in verses 34-35 for speaking during worship, then we’d expect him to use a female plural pronoun. But he doesn’t. On the other hand, if verses 34-35 is a quote the Corinthian men used to silence women, then it makes sense for Paul to address them directly in his correction.
Understood this way, we see that Paul refutes a false Corinthian belief that women are not allowed to speak up in the assembly. He chides the men, reminding them that they haven’t cornered the market on God’s word.
Do you see the ironic twist? Complementarians have taken a passage meant to encourage women’s participation in the gathered church and instead used it against them.
Summing it All Up
Paul may be calling for a temporary silence on a select group of women who chatting or asking nuisance questions during worship. Or Paul may actually be correcting the Corinthian men who were trying to silence women.
At this point, if I had to choose one option, I’d probably lean toward option 2. But there’s also the possibility that verses 34-35 aren’t original to Paul and were added later on.
Whatever option we go with, we know that Paul does not silence all women for all time in the church’s worship. He had just encouraged female participation in chapter 11 and never limited women in his discussion of spiritual gifts (chapter 12).
Both options are reasonable and don’t require playing fast and loose with Scripture to make it say something it doesn’t. These options, in my opinion, make better sense than the traditional patriarchal explanation.
Finally, it’s worth mentioning that Paul ends the chapter by encouraging both genders to use their speaking gifts: “Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way” (vv 39-40).
 This is the view of complementarians like D.A Carson, Wayne Grudem, and John Piper. See D.A. Carson, “Silent in the Churches,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2021), 179-197, which represents this view. Carson writes, “Paul’s point here…is that [women] may not participate in the oral weighing of such prophecies.”
 Notice the connection between prophecy and instruction/teaching/learning in 14:6, 19, and 31. Because of these verses, I try not to draw too thick of a line between “prophecy” and “teaching.” In Paul’s mind, it seems to me, there is quite a bit of overlap. But that’s for another post.
 Again, these are generalities. Priscilla, a member of the Corinthian church, was obviously a highly educated person who traveled with her husband. Lydia, a successful businesswoman in Philippi, likely didn’t face these obstacles. The point is that the typical first-century woman was at a tremendous disadvantage compared to the typical first-century man.
For modern readers like you and me, 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is one of the more difficult passages to interpret and understand in the New Testament.
It’s often been a proof text for complementarians who believe men (specifically, husbands) are designed by God to be in authority over their wives. Verses 9-10, specifically, are levied against women: “Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. This is why a wife ought to have a symbol authority on her head” (ESV).
There it is, women were created for men and men are in authority over women.
Is this another tally in the complementarian column?
It’s not that cut and dry. Arguing this way ignores other details in the text and Paul’s overall concern for a specific problem in Corinth.
I’ll work through the passage a few verses at a time. Here’s what I hope you’ll see. The issue is not who can lead in the church’s worship but how those leading present themselves.
Most interpreters believe this passage is about women wearing a literal head covering–a hijab (headscarf) something similar. But the end of the passage gives us a big clue that the issue has more to do with hairstyles.
In verses 14-15, Paul writes, “Does not the very nature of things [Gk physis] teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.”
As Paul summarizes his whole argument, he seems to indicate that a woman doesn’t need to wear anything on her head. He literally says, “Her long hair is the covering!” We must keep this in mind whenever we see the word “cover” or “uncover” in the text.
Paul desires, then, for men to look like men and women to look like women, in that particular culture. He isn’t concerned with gender subordination, but with gender distinction.
We’ll come back to Paul’s conclusion later on in the post.
Now, let’s take a look at the cultural background of the passage before getting to the commentary.
The Cultural Context
Corinth was a multiethnic metropolis. The church there, like most other churches in the Roman Empire, consisted of both Jews and Gentiles. In this first-century context, women wore their hair up and covered, while men wore it short and uncovered. In worship gatherings, Roman men and women often covered their heads. Jewish (non-Christian) men also covered their heads with a tallit.
For Jewish women, head coverings were a matter of propriety outside the home. If a woman’s hair or head was exposed, it was deemed immodest and inappropriate. The rabbis put it this way: “A woman’s hair is a sexual incitement, as [the Scripture] says, ‘Thy hair is a flock of goats.”
Wealthy Roman women, on the other hand, often wore elaborate hairstyles and were less likely to cover their hair in public (see 1 Timothy 2:9-10 and 1 Peter 3:3).
Consider also that nearly all historians believe that ancient prostitutes did not cover their heads, precisely because a woman’s hair was seen as an enticement. Prostitutes, including those in temples, were common throughout the Empire.
Some Corinthian women may have used their freedom in Christ to dress however they wanted in worship, not realizing it may not be beneficial for everone (see 6:12; 10:23). Others may have taken Paul’s mantra “In Christ…there is no male or female” to an improper extreme. Perhaps the way they wore their hair or coverings was an attempt to blur any gender distinctions.
Now, consider that churches met in homes, where any woman, Jew or Gentile, couldleave their hair uncovered for their husbands and family to see. This may have caused a lot of confusion for many of the Corinthian Christians meeting in those homes.
As a collectivist culture, how the Corinthians conducted and presented themselves publicly–including the style of dress and headwear–would bring honor or shame to their family and community. You see hints of this as Paul uses words like “dishonor” or “disgrace” and “glory.”
The problem could be stated like this: “We are in someone’s home. BUT this is a community gathering, basically open to the public. Should her hair really be exposed like that? That’s basically a come-on! She’s bringing shame on her family! On herself! What do we do?!”
Put this way, it’s easy to see that the Corinthians had very real problems in their context.
Paul cares about hairstyles (or head coverings) because, as Marg Mowczko writes, “[He] did not want the Corinthian men and women to wear hairstyles that were sexually or morally confusing.”
The issue isn’t that women are leading and they need to stand down and submit to men. It’s that Paul doesn’t want anything–even hairstyles–to bring disrepute on the faith community and the gospel itself.
Because of these real-life problems, the Corinthians needed real-life solutions.
On to the passage.
Verse 2 is introductory, so I’m going to start with verse 3 because that’s where much of the controversy lies. Verse 3 contains the word “head,” which is kephale in Greek. In the passage, kephale occurs 14 times.
Complementarians claim that this word kephale means “authority” or to be “in authority over.” This is how we often use “head” metaphorically in English (“She is the head of a company”). So, complementarians say, men/husbands are the authority over women/wives. And that settles the issue.
But is “authority” the best way to understand kephale? I don’t belive it is.
Almost exclusively, kephale means the literal, physical head of a body. And in antiquity, it rarely ever meant “authority/in authority over.” In fact, the Liddel-Scott-Jones Lexicon (LSJ), one of the most authoritative Greek-English lexicons, doesn’t list “authority” as a possible meaning for kephale.
In our short passage, every time kephale occurs it refers to the literal, physical head of a person, except for each occurrence in verse 3: “But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”
How should we understand kephale here? I think we have two options that work better than “authority.”
Option 1: Source/Origin
First, we could understand it in the sense of source or origin. Man was created by God. Woman comes from man. The Christ (Messiah) comes from God.
But if kephale means source or origin, wouldn’t we be guilty of the Arian heresy that claimed Christ was created by God the Father?
Of course, Jesus was not created! But “source” doesn’t only have the connotation of “beginning.” As Richard Cervin writes, “[T]he English words origin and beginning are not always equivalent. The origin of a book, movie, or play is not the same thing as its beginning.”
Instead, we have the option to understand “source” as meaning “to come from.” The Son is begotten of the Father. The Son was sent by the Father. The Messiah (Christ) is most definitely from God.
This idea is clearly articulated later in the Nicene Creed, written about 300 years after 1 Corinthians: Messiah Jesus is “God from God, Light from Light…begotten, not made.”
Option 2: Prominence/Honor
Kephale can also have the sense of “prominence” or “honor.” LSJ offers “the noblest part” as one possible meaning.
As I mentioned above, the Corinthians, like the Jews, were a collectivist, honor-shame culture. Women did not have their own honor. Their honor was connected to and derived from a male relative (usually a husband or father). Yet women could bring shame and disrepute upon their family.
This is the likely backdrop to Paul’s words in verses 4-5:
Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. (NIV)
Notice the language of shame Paul uses in those verses: dishonors (twice) and shaved (a symbol of shame in the ancient world).
I’m inclined to think “head” mustmean source/origin or prominence/honor precisely because verses 4-5 make clear that both men and women are praying and prophesying!
This is something patriarchal commentators often miss. The passage cannot possibly be used to restrict women’s leadership activity because both genders are exercising their God-given spiritual giftsin the Corinthian congregation.
Paul assumes both genders will pray and prophesy–both leadership activities in the first-century–when the church comes together. He never says, “Men, you need to step up and lead! And, oh ladies, please submit and let the men do all the talking!”
So what’s Paul’s point? He wants to prevent women (or wives) from bringing shame/dishonor on the men (or their husbands) in the church becuase of their hairstyle or lack of head covering.
Whichever option we choose, both fit the cultural context much better than the complementarian view that focuses on men being in charge.
Paul’s solution to all this was very simple: Ladies, cover your hair. If you don’t want to do that, why don’t you shave it all off? (see v 6). Of course, Paul knows a shaved head reeks of shame. That’s why he essentially says at the end of verse 6, “Just cover your head.”
He’s not putting women “in their place” here. As the Apostle of the heart set free, he never treated women that way. Ever! Indeed, the high-status women he met on his missionary journeys would have never joined the Jesus movement if they weren’t treated as equals.
Paul helps the Corinthians understand how the church ought to conduct itself in the midst of a society that has certain norms and expectations for men and women. Yes, they have freedom in Christ. Praise God for freedom! But using your freedom is not always beneficial (cf. Gal 5:1).
While women must cover their heads, Paul writes in verse 7, “A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.”
Notice that he does not say that “woman is the image of man” but the glory of man. The word for glory here is doxa (think “doxology”). It does usually mean “glory” but it can carry the meaning of “good repute or honor.”
Considering that Paul talks about disgrace/dishonor throughout, it’s reasonable to conclude “glory” relates to the honor/shame dynamic (see verses 14-15 as well). Complementarian Craig Blomberg concedes, “In both places [glory] probably carries the sense of ‘honor.'”
What’s Paul saying then? A Christian man’s behavior affects how people view God. He can bring honor, glory, a good reputation to God’s name. Similarly, a first-century woman’s behavior can affect her husband or family’s honor and reputation.
Listen to how Marg Mowczko puts it:
In honour-shame cultures, it can be difficult for a woman to attain honour for herself. Rather, women protect the reputation and honour of the men in their family by being discreet and socially respectable. This respectability usually has a heavy emphasis on being, and appearing to be, sexually chaste. In such societies, family members, especially women, who display aberrant behaviour or loose morals bring dishonour on the whole family, but especially on the senior male.[17
What about the “created order” in verses 8-9? Complementarians teach that a wife exists to serve and support her husband and his calling based on who was created first.
It shouldn’t take someone being an egalitarian, however, to see that this is outside the scope of the passage. Again, Paul’s not saying anything about gender roles. They would need to be read into the passage. Instead, Paul’s talking about one’s physical appearance in a worship gathering to prevent bringing shame upon oneself and family.
Verses 8-10 bring up an interesting translation dilemma. Look at the ESV:
8For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created for [dia] woman, but woman for [dia] man. 10That is why [dia] a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of [dia] the angels.
You can see from the brackets that the word “for” is the Greek word dia. It’s one of those elastic Greek pronouns that can be translated many different ways. The ESV choose to translate dia as “for” verse 9. Curiously, it’s translated as “That is why” at the beginning of verse 10 and then as “because of” at the end. (The NIV is almost identical to this, by the way.)
It’s perfectly reasonable to translate dia as “because of” every time, however. In fact, “for” is not a common translation for dia. With a word occurring four times this closely, there’s no reason to translate it differently if one translation makes good sense for every occurrence. “Because of” works quite well all four times:
8For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created because of woman, but woman because of man. 10Because of this, a wife ought to have [a symbol of] authority on her head, because of the angels.
Why does this matter?
Remember back to our discussion of Genesis 2? There we saw that the woman was created so that the man would not be alone. Notmainly that he’d have a romantic partner (though that’s part of it, I’m sure). In the context, he needed someone to help him work and keep the Garden. The man was needy. God sent him help. The man finally found his “corresponding strength” (‘ezer kenegedo in Hebrew) in the woman.
Seen this way, Paul reminds the Corinthians that “women…are placed by God in the human scene as the strong who come to help/save the needy (the men). In this reading of the text, Paul the Middle Eastern male chauvinist disappears.”
Yet some complementarian somewhere is still shouting, “BUT THE CREATED ORDER!”
The problem with “created order,” as Kenneth Bailey points out, is that if we want to give priority to what’s first, then the empty void at the beginning would take the cake. But creation moves from lower forms of life to higher ones.
What comes later is most precious.
The crescendo of Genesis 2 is the formation of the woman. Humanity, indeed all of creation, has reached its apex when she enters the story.
Now, what about verse 10? I should have mentioned at the beginning that 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is a chiasm. This is a literary structure in the shape of an X (chi = X in the Greek alphabet). A chiasm is used to emphasize a particular point. In the case of our passage, verse 10 is at the center of the chiasm. This means that while we may debate about what Paul meant here or there, we can be sure that verse 10 was his “big take away.”
Verse 10 in the ESV says, “That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”
Having “a symbol of authority” (a passive activity) would mean women are subjugated to men, evidenced by their head coverings.
Walter Kaiser calls this “one of the weirdest twists in translation history.” Why?
The word for “a symbol of authority” in Greek is exousia. It’s just the typical Greek word translated “authority,” It’s never used in a passive sense, but always active. In other words, authority is not something done to you, it’s something you have or do.
The NIV gets it right: “It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head.”
Paul wants the Corinthians women to know they have authority to pray and prophesy in the gathering so long as they present themselves in culturally acceptable ways.
If you are still unconvinced at this point, listen to verses 11-12. These two verses reveal Paul has little regard for “created order” when it comes to gender roles.
“Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.” (NIV)
So what if the first woman came from a man? Every man since has come from a woman (aka his mom!). Much more importantly, everything comes from God.
He meticulously expresses the interdependence and partnership of both genders under God, without elevating one over the other.
Paul ends this discussion by appealing to nature. “Does not the very nature of things [Gk physis] teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him?” This word physis can be understood as “naturally” or “what’s natural” to you.
In other words, Paul expected men to wear their hair short and women to wear their hair long because that is what humans naturally do. Of course, hairstyles have deviated from this at times in certain cultures. But we can all agree that for the most part, this has been humanity’s norm.
Then, as I mentioned in the introduction, Paul says something that helps us make sense of the whole passage: “For long hair is given to her as a covering.” The word “covering” here is different than the word Paul uses for “cover/covered” (vv 4, 6, 7) and “uncovered” (v 5, 13). It means something like “cloth, clothing, robe.”
But Paul’s usage here suggest that women do not need to wear anything on their head. Their appropriate hairstyle is sufficient! Biblical scholar Philip Payne agrees:
“This implies that Paul did not require women to wear any item of clothing on top of their modestly-done-up hair. After all, why would Paul end his argument by stating that a woman has been given long hair as a covering if his point all along was to require a garment head covering?”
In the end, the issue isn’t authority, but how men and women distinguish themselves in worship by their appearances–namely their hairstyles.
How Do We Apply This Today?
As we read more and more of the biblical text, we begin to see that we can’t always make one-to-one applications. That’s the case for this text! In many Western contexts today, women can wear short hair and men can wear long hair and no one is confused or offended by that.
Complementarians, who think the passage is about authority structures, will apply this passage by saying women who participate in worship need to wear a wedding ring as a sign that they are under their husband’s authority. But this passage is not about which gender has authority, so that application is completely off base.
To apply the text, we start with the abstract principle: don’t present yourself in a way that is sexually or morally confusing. Getting to the concrete expression will vary from place to place.
One scholar offered this wise approach:
The cultural markers for [the uniqueness of each gender] will vary widely from time-to-time and from place-to-place, but the principle endures. Although our appearance should not be dictated by the culture around us, we should be sensitive to how we appear within that context—especially regarding those to whom we minister.
In other words, be free, but do not use your freedom as a cover up for evil (see Gal 5:1).
Summing It All Up
Once again, we see that a passage traditionally held to favor complementarians can easily be explained another way that is faithful the cultural context and takes into consideration all that Paul has to say about women.
FirstCorinthians 11:2-16 isn’t about gender roles or gender subordination. It’s about gender distinction in worship. Men and women both led worship in Corinth and Paul knew this. He never told women to stop leading because it wasn’t wrong for them to do so. His aim was to remind the women not to ignore cultural gender norms so that they did not distract others from worshiping God.
 Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., “Correcting Caricatures: The Biblical Teaching on Women,”Pricilla Papers 19/2, 2005, writes that Paul may desire that men stop the practice of covering their heads because of the Jewish tallit, mainly because it symbolized the law (and thus the guilt that comes with failing to uphold the law). Because there is no condemnation in Christ (Rom 8:1), why should men continue to cover their heads?
 Quoted in ibid., 305. See Babylonian Talmud, Berakot 14a for original quote. It is very unclear to me how a flock of goats can be an illustration for a sexual enticement. Alas, I am not an ancient Jew. And I never will be.
 Craig Keener, “1 Corinthians 11:2-16,” NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016), on BibleGateway.com..
 Remember 14:24 which suggests the possibility that anyone may enter the gathering at any time, even unbelievers.
 Marg Mowczko, “A note on nature and hairstyles in 1 Cor. 11:14-15,” 9/2/2021. “Sexually” doesn’t mean “She’s trying to be sexy.” Instead, it’s related to the physical makeup of an individual (e.g. is this person male or female?)–what the ancients called a person’s “constitution.”
 Craig L. Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), on BibleGateway.com.
 Richard Cervin, “On the Significance of Kephalē (“Head”): A Study of the Abuse of One Greek Word,”Priscilla Papers 30/1, April 30, 2016. In this case, the text would mean something like 1) the origin of every man is Christ since Christ is the agent of God in creation; 2) the origin of woman is the man (Adam) since the woman was “taken out of man” (see Gen 2:21-23); 3) the origin of Christ is God since the Christ (i.e. not Jesus’ last name but literally “the Messiah”) comes from God. See Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes, 302.
 Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership (Colorado Springs: Lewis and Roth, 2003), 61-63 also uses the Nicene Creed to prove his point that Jesus is equal but subordinate to the Father. But the authors of the Nicene Creed were surely not trying to show that Jesus was subordinate to the Father. They wanted to be clear he was equal to the Father. While complementarians may be uncomfortable with this “source” language, it makes me equally uncomfortable to say that the authority of Christ is God! If Jesus is “of the same essence of the Father,” then isn’t he of the same authority? It’s true that Jesus says he can only do what he sees his Father doing (John 5:19). But he can also say that no one can take his life from him and he has authority to lay it down (John 10:18). Something has to give. So while Jesus does submit to his Father, we should be very careful to argue that Jesus was always subordinate to his Father or continues to be lest we begin to sound like we’re saying he is “not quite as much God” as God the Father. This, too, is straight from the Arian playbook.
 The ESV Study Bible, “1 Corinthians 11:14,” (Wheaton, IL: Crossway), 2008, a complementarian work, says, “Paul’s point is that men should look like men in that culture, and women should look like women in that culture, rather than seeking to deny or disparage the God-given differences between the sexes.”
 Jeremy Gardiner, “Can Wedding Rings Replace Head Coverings?” critiques the typical complemetnarian application. This is a very interesting perspective because the author founded the “Head Covering Movement.” Yes, there is such a thing. And of course it would be a man who leads it.
One of the most convincing pieces of biblical evidence against women in leadership seems to be Paul’s list of qualifications for overseer/elder in 1 Timothy 3:1-8. The terms for these people that we’re more familiar with are pastors, ministers, bishops, etc. I’ll use the terms elder and overseer synonymously in this post.
Even if my interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 were true–that Paul is not laying down an absolute, universal restriction on women–surely the very next chapter in 1 Timothy does confirm Paul would not allow women to lead. Right?
In this (much shorter and much less technical) post, we’ll look at 1 Timothy 3:1-8, and take a few glances at a similar passage from Paul in Titus 1:5-9.
Surprisingly, we’ll see that Paul actually never limits oversight/eldership to men. Instead, he encourages anyone who aspires to this noble task.
How English Translations Let Us Down
Almost every English translation of 1 Timothy 3:1-8 implies that a local church elder is male. Take a look at the beginning of the passage in several translations (my emphasis):
NLT: This is a trustworthy saying: “If someone aspires to be a church leader, he desires an honorable position.” So a church leader must be a man whose life is above reproach. He must be faithful to his wife.
NIV: Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife…
ESV: The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife…
NASB: It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife…
Pretty cut and dry, right? When we read 1 Timothy 3:1-8 in English, we think, “Well, even if 1 Timothy 2 doesn’t restrict women from teaching and leading, 1 Timothy 3 says elders are men! He is all over the place. He! He! He!”
There’s just one small problem.
The masculine pronoun “he” doesn’t occur in the Greek text of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 at all.
It doesn’t occur in the elder qualification list in Titus 1:5-8 either.
Yet the word “he” occurs six times in the NASB, NIV, and ESV. The NASB also inserts the word “man” in verse 1 though it’s not in the original language. How about the NLT? “He” finds its way in there nine times; “man” is also in there once. (Read the whole passage in just about every English translation.)
These mistranslations influence how we understand Paul’s instructions. He seems to have intentionally left out the masculine pronoun for the express purpose of making it clear that women are eligible to serve as elders, too. (I say “seems” because we cannot know with 100% certainty why he did this.)
In verse 1, Paul uses the phrase ei tis, which should be translated “if anyone.” (The ESV gets it right here.) If Paul wanted to be explicit about which gender can serve, he could have used the masculine pronoun at one point or many.
But he never does.
Unlike English, Greek does not require the use of a pronoun with a verb. So a third-person singular verb (like “aspires” in verse 1) isn’t connected to “he,” but to “anyone.” Anyone (male or female) is who Paul had in mind.
So what’s the best translation? It may seem sacrilege to the grammar purist, but we can’t do better in English than the singular “they.” Yes, “they” should be used as a singular plural pronoun in cases where “anyone” (or “someone”) is the subject.
Here’s what that would look and sound like:
The saying is trustworthy: if anyone aspires to the work of overseeing, they desire a good work. Therefore, the overseer/bishop must be above reproach, a man of one woman, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not drunk, not a bully but gentle, not quarrelsome, not greedy, managing their own house well with all dignity, keeping their children obedient, for if someone doesn’t know how to manage their own home how will they care for God’s church? They must not be a recent convert or they may become conceited and fall into the devil’s condemnation. Moreover, they must have a good witness with outsiders, so that they will not fall into disgrace and the devil’s snare.
How would this translation change the conversation about the gender of elders? How would it change your perspective?
But What About A “One Woman Man”?
If we go with my suggested translation, it seems that Paul includes the possibility that women can serve as elders in a church. But even this position has a problem. What about that little phrase “a husband of one wife”? It’s often translated “faithful to his wife” or something similar in both 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6.
Doesn’t that mean that all leaders in a church must be men?
No, not at all.
The literal translation is “a man of one woman.” Some believe Paul is excluding from church leadership men who are divorced or even struggling with lust. But that’s not exactly what he said. That’s an interpretation.
Considering his first-century context, Paul is most likely excluding polygamists (men who have more than one wife) from church oversight.
This is how John Chrysostom (a third-century church father) understood Paul’s words: “This he does not lay down as a rule, as if [an overseer] must not be without [a wife], but as prohibiting his having more than one.” Chrysostom spoke Greek and knew Paul’s culture better than we do. We should take his interpretation seriously.
Someone might ask, though, why didn’t Paul prohibit the opposite: women with multiple husbands (“polyandry”)?
The reality is that polyandry was incredibly rare in the ancient world if practiced at all. For most of world history men have had the advantage in social status, financial security, formal education, and so on. That’s probably why Paul didn’t include “a woman of one man.”
There’s one more possibility for “a man of one woman.” More like an additional layer: Paul may also have in mind active, male adulterers who are unfaithful to their wives. Of course, women did commit adultery. And Paul would not have allowed a female adulteress to serve as an elder either! But female adultery was probably less common because of the potential for severe consequences under Roman law.
If Paul means something more than excluding polygamists, we might say “faithful in marriage” (regardless of gender) gets close to what he had in mind.
How Literal Do You Want to Get?
Complementarian teaching can go further, however. Since Paul included the phrase “a man of one woman,” I was taught that this implies only men can be overseers/elders. Otherwise, why would this qualification be here? Why else would it be phrased this way?
That is a very literal reading and application of the text. If we make that argument, couldn’t we then say that Paul excludes single men from being an overseer/elder? (See Chrysostom’s quote above.) Of course, that would mean Paul himself, not to mention Jesus, wouldn’t be able to serve as an overseer in Ephesus. And that’s just nonsense.
The slippery slope of a literal reading continues. Does managing a household well so that[supposedly his] children obey (v 4) mean that the overseer must be married and have children? Does it mean that the person must also be a head of a household? Is Paul excluding slaves or freedmen or general employees who do not have a household to manage?
Bridging the gap to our day, this would mean only wealthy, married businessmen with children can serve as elders! I don’t know of anyone who wants to make that case.
Paul is saying that if a man is married, he needs to only have one wife; if someone has children (he never says father/man/he, etc.), the children must be obedient/submissive.
When we consider that the lists in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are not carbon copies of each other, it should be apparent that these lists are descriptive, not prescriptive. Much like his spiritual gift lists, Paul provides a non-exhaustive list that generally represents what an elder should look like. One’s gender isn’t a requirement.
Women Can Do This Job, Too
The one ministry skill in the list of qualifications is being able to teach. (But let’s not forget that managing one’s house is also a skill!) Since Paul encouraged women to learn (2:11), the expectation was that they would be able to teach at some point!
Looking at the rest of the qualifications, notice that, again like spiritual gifts, none of them are gender-specific–other than “a man of one wife” (which I explained above).
The qualifications are actually pretty unremarkable things that should be true of all Christians! But it’s fascinating that throughout the letter, Paul encourages and commands women to fulfill many of these qualifications.
The table below shows that Paul used at least nine of the qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 in reference to women at other points in the letter.
In Reference to Overseers/Elders (3:1-7)
In Reference to Women
Desire a good work
Devoted to good works (5:10)
Above reproach (5:7)
Wear respectable apparel (2:9)
Showing hospitality (5:10)
Well thought of by outsiders
Well-known for good deeds (5:10)
Manage household well
Manage household (5:14)
Avoid the devil’s condemnation
Some have incurred condemnation (5:12)
It seems Paul believes women can and will take on oversight responsibilities. Why else would he encourage women to pursue these things in the exact same letter where he describes a godly leader? I don’t believe Paul would dangle a carrot in front of a woman’s face only to say, “Oh, wait. You can’t have that role because you’re a woman.”
Back to the point about these qualities being true of every Christian. Since that’s true, it makes perfect sense for Paul to say anyone can aspire to this role. The Holy Spirit empowers women, just as much as he does men, to reflect the qualities Paul mentions. And because the Spirit dwells in men and women, both genders represent and speak for the risen, authoritative Jesus.
Doesn’t it seem wise for an entire faith community (which is made up of men and women, by the way) to have both genders serving as examples and shepherding the flock? Our churches today are more likely to flourish spiritually, emotionally, and socially when both genders are represented in leadership.
Summing It All Up
The overseer qualifications that Paul lays out in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 should not be used to prevent women from serving as elders in a church. Paul never says or implies that they must only be men.
Despite what our English Bibles say, neither of Paul’s lists uses a masculine pronoun in the original language. He says that “anyone” who aspires to serve desires a good thing. And they may serve, as long as they have godly character and are able to teach. In 1 Timothy, it’s also clear that Paul wants women to pursue the same qualities required of elders, implying that they can lead when they’re ready.
Now that we’ve dealt with 1 Timothy 2-3, we’ll shift to the two controversial texts in 1 Corinthians on women’s roles in the church.
 Mary Beard, SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome (New York: Liverlight, 2016), 308, notes that there is some evidence that the execution of a wife caught in adultery was within the husband’s legal power. Of course, there was no comparable law for adulterous husbands.
 This is essentially an English version of the Greek table in Payne, Man and Woman, 447-453.
In my previous post, I looked at the context of Ephesus, the city where Timothy ministered. The church there was in a vulnerable position because of both the Artemis cult and pre-Gnostic teachings. You’ll want to read that post before this one.
This post will be a commentary on 1 Timothy 2:11-15. My goal isn’t to provide watertight arguments for everything in this passage. Instead, I’ll provide interpretive options that are still faithful to the text and take into account the cultural/religious context of ancient Ephesus.
I hope after reading this, you’ll realize that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is not as straightforward as complementarians claim.
Commentary: 1 Timothy 2:11-15
Here’s the full text of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in the NIV. (Click the link to see the NIV and ESV side-by-side.)
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
I’ll introduce the commentary on each verse below with my own translation. The goal of my translation is not to be “as literal as possible” but to provide the sense (in English) of what Timothy would have heard and understood as he read it in the original language (Greek).
11A woman must learn with a teachable heart, with a submissive demeanor [before God].
Let Her Learn
The revolutionary idea in this passage is that Paul commands that awoman should learn Christian theology. In the first century, Jews and Greeks did not permit women to be educated in any discipline, much less theology.
But Paul picks up where Master Jesus left off: women are welcomed as full-fledged disciples.
This was as radical for Paul to write as it was for Jesus to let Mary sit at his feet. This gets overlooked in our conversations about what women are “allowed to do” in churches.
Verse 11 contains the only command (called an “imperative”) in the entire section: manthanetō (translated “should learn,” NIV). The full phrase can be translated as “Let a woman learn” or “a woman must/should learn.”
The entire letter of 1 Timothy is about dealing with false teachers and deception. This is the problem Paul wants to avoid (cf. v 14). Learning is the antidote to deception and Paul commands it as the long-range solution for this problem. His concern is not to restrict this woman/all women forever but equip them to avoid deception.
While we overlook the significance of this in our modern debates, equipping women is another way the early church flipped the world’s values upside down.
All Women or a Woman?
Verses 11, 12, and 15 force us to deal with an interesting question: is Paul talking about one woman or all women? There are good reasons to believe that Paul is writing about one particular woman. I was first introduced to this idea by Marg Mowczko. I think it’s likely this is the case for two reasons.
First, Paul uses the singular gynē (which can mean “woman” or “wife”) in verses 11 and 12. In verse 15, he uses the singular pronoun “she.” Likewise, he uses the singular andros (which can mean “man” or “husband”) in verse 12.
If Paul wanted to keep all women from teaching and exercising authority over all men, why didn’t he use the plural form of these words? There are people on both sides of the debate that have argued “woman” (singular) may be used in general to represent all women. That may be so. But then why use “she” in verse 15? That seems like an odd way to refer to all women.
Second, recall that in the verses immediately preceding 2:11-15, Paul deals with specific problems in the Ephesian church. In verse 8, Paul addresses particular men who ought to pray without anger or disputing. In verses 9-10, Paul addresses particular women who were flaunting their wealth in the worship gathering.
Wouldn’t it make sense for the logical flow of the passage to lead to another specific situation in verses 11-15? It’s possible.
I can’t be 100% positive that Paul’s only talking about one woman. But the needle tips that way for me if for no other reason than the grammar. So I’ll continue to refer to “the woman” in the rest of the post.
The Goal: A Humble, Teachable Spirit
Strict complementarians have argued that the word “quietness/quiet” (vv 11-12, NIV) suggest that women are not allowed to teach in public worship. Some compare this with Paul’s apparent call for female silence in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.
But the Greek word here doesn’t mean verbal silence at all. The word is hēsychia and it has more to do with a humble, teachable spirit. It describes someone who doesn’t meddle in the affairs of others. It’s the opposite of disruption, and it suggests serious learning so that a person will eventually be able to teach.
A better “literal” translation (if that’s possible) would be “stillness,” since “quiet” in English means not speaking or making noise.
What hēsychia means is important. So is where it’s placed in the sentence. It’s the third word in Greek in verse 11; and then it occurs again at the very end of verse 12 (see above). This is called an inclusio–a literary device that uses a word or phrase like brackets to mark out an important point.
It’s likely Paul put the spotlight on a particular woman who had been disruptive and divisive. But notice that he doesn’t say, “She shouldn’t teach because she’s female.” Instead, the inclusio highlights the problem. “She’s disruptive–so be still / learn with a teachable spirit.”
Submission to Whom?
The woman is to learn humbly and also “with complete submission.” Traditionally, this has been understood to mean that women must learn in submission to men. At least, that’s how I understood it as a complementarian.
But the text does not say that.
“Submission” here relates to how this woman must learn sound doctrine before God and in her faith community. She must not be arrogant, pushy, or domineering (see v 12 below), but with humility first before God, and then before those serving as ministers in the church. This squares with the call to be “in stillness,” or, to have a teachable spirit.
Verse 11 Summary: Paul commands a woman to learn with a humble, reverent posture before God and the faith community. This was revolutionary in the ancient world. It’s also consistent with how Paul treated women throughout his ministry. This is his long-range solution to dealing with deception due to false teaching.
12I am not currently allowing a woman to teach or domineer a man, but she must remain with a teachable heart.
The first word in verse 12 in Greek is didaskein (“to teach”). Complementarians argue that didaskein is always used positively in the New Testament, in the sense of teaching the apostolic faith in contrast to false teaching. Therefore, they argue, Paul forbids women from teaching doctrine to men.
But as a matter of fact, didaskein is used negatively sometimes. In Titus 1:10-11, Paul points out there are people in Crete who teach things they should not and are full of deception (sound familiar?). In Matthew 5:19, Jesus says that those who set aside God’s commands and teachothers accordingly are least in the Kingdom.
The context must help us know if the author has good or bad teaching in mind. We just saw that Paul commands a woman to learn with a humble posture. Paul’s concern is on what’s being taught and how the teaching occurs. The next section will make this even more clear.
The restriction on this woman seems especially forceful in English. It sounds command-like, which has also led many complementarians to say we must take the text “at face value” and therefore prohibit women from teaching men.
But the force we feel in English isn’t there in Greek. This verb for “permit” is epitrepō. It’s variously translated as “allow, permit, let” in the New Testament.
If Paul wanted to be forceful, he had other words available to him. He regularly uses the words translated as “charge” or “urge” throughout the letter to tell Timothy to do something (see 1:3, 5; 4:11; 5:7; 6:13, 17, 18).
But he doesn’t use those words here.
In verse 12, epitrepō is a present, active indicative verb. For the grammar geeks out there, you know that the indicative mood states a fact. What you may not know is that the present, activevoice is reserved for immediate or short duration situations. Philip Payne has shown that in the New Testament, a present, active verb never has the force of continuous, universal facts or application.
An understanding of the right mood and voice can make a big difference. A better translation would be, “I am not [currently] allowing a woman to teach…”
For those who hold to the complementarian position, how would your view change if verse 12 was translated this way?
What Kind of Authority?
There’s something even more significant in verse 12 that leads me to believe Paul does not forbid all women for all time from teaching and leading (or from “authoritative teaching,” depending on how these two activities relate in the text). What is it?
The word he uses for “authority.”
First Timothy 2:12a in the ESV says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exerciseauthority over a man…” The Greek word translated “exercise authority” is authentein.
For me, this word is the most important word in the entire passage. What does this word mean?
Word studies can be tricky. You can’t just use any sort of definition you find in a dictionary.
Yet, with authentein, we must rely on definitions because this word is so rare.
It only occurs once in the New Testament. Yes, just once. Right here. And it’s only found a total of eight times in ancient documents before the fourth century AD! We don’t have a lot to work with.
Complementarians have understood this word to mean that Paul does not allow women to have legitimate, positive authority over a man (such as being a pastor/elder). They argue that because “to teach” is positive (see above) then authentein must be positive since the words are grammatically connected. So it’s “exercise [legitimate] authority” or something like “authority as an officer” in the church. Either way, it’s positive. Nearly every complementarian I know of translates this word this way.
The problem is that authentein does not mean exercising positive or legitimate authority at all. There seems to be consensus among scholars that “the root meaning involves the concept of authority.” The big question is, “What kind of authority?”
Every ancient Greek lexicon (dictionary) defines authentein as a negative use of authority. Very negative, in fact! Here’s how two of the most authoritative Greek lexicons define it:
“To assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to.”
“To have full power or authority over; to commit a murder.”
In fact, there is not one Greek-English lexicon that defines authentein in terms of a legitimate, positive, exercise of authority. Linda Belleville says that there is “no first-century warrant translating…authentein as ‘to exercise authority.'”
It’s also worth mentioning that the noun form of this word means “murderer.”
If Paul wanted to forbid women from legitimate, positive church leadership, then authentein was an incredibly poor choice. No male in the church should have authentein!
Paul could have used exousia or epitagēs, the common New Testament words for “authority.” But he did not. Why?
This rare wordcomes from a word group with the prefix autos, which means “self” (e.g. autobiography). Paul probably chose this word because this woman had been acting in a self-serving, self-exalting, self-aggrandizing, and self-authenticating manner.
Belleville points out that Paul wanted to communicate this specific nuance. One way she translates authentein is “to get one’s way.” In modern-day terms, the Ephesian woman was an abusive bully who dictated to a man, “I’m the boss now.”
The problem wasn’t that a woman was teaching or leading per se. It’s that she was teaching in a domineering manner that attempted to “put a man in his place.” This likely included teaching false doctrines (or at least advocating for them), evidenced by seizing authority that was not rightfully hers.
All of this makes good sense when we consider Paul’s goal: to learn with a humble, teachable spirit.
Whatever side of the conversation we’re on, we must admit that Paul is not restricting a woman who’s teaching sound doctrine with a humble posture. He’s restricting someone who’s seeking to dominate others.
Verse 12 Summary: Paul’s short-range solution to confronting false teaching was to not allow this woman to teach in the gathering. While her teaching was likely heretical (she did need to learn), the manner in which she taught was the biggest problem–she was domineering or “self”-authenticating.She needed to learn with a humble posture.
13[Now] Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not deceived; but the woman, being deceived, became a transgressor.
Paul then gives a summary of the Adam and Eve story. At first glance, it seems a bit out of place. Complementarians say this is Paul’s reason why women can’t teach or lead men. They claim it’s due to the “order of creation.” Some also believe Paul’s words imply Eve’s transgression was a refusal to submit to her husband.
Is that what Paul means or implies? It’s possible. But is that our only option? I don’t think it has to be.
Paul on Created Order
Let’s start with the idea of “created order.” Paul has already told us what he thinks about this in 1 Corinthians 11 (written before 1 Timothy).
It’s a difficult passage to understand that I’ll address it in a future post. But he seems clear when he writes, “Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God” (1 Cor 11:11-12).
Yes, the first woman came from a man. But every other man in the history of the world has come from a woman! Ultimately, everything comes from God, so which human came first doesn’t seem to matter to Paul all that much.
I don’t think Paul would contradict himself in 1 Timothy 2. Because of this, not to mention the evidence in my other posts on Paul, this likely is not a universal (transcultural) restriction.
Would the same Paul who honored Priscilla, Phoebe, Junia, Lydia, and other women really say women can’t teach or lead because they were created second?
Let’s look at other possibilities for verses 13-14 that are still faithful to the text.
Conjunction, What’s Your Function?
The word “for” is a small conjunction with big implications. It’s the Greek word gar and it can sometimes suggest a cause/reason. Other times it can be used to introduce background information or clarify something. Sometimes, it’s even left untranslated. (See note #24 for examples.)
Why is translating this small word important? Because it shows that translators have to make choices. And how a word is translated into English influences how we understand a verse.
What if “for” was left untranslated in 1 Timothy 2:13? What if it was translated “now” or “indeed”? What if verses 13-14 were put in parentheses?
Any of these options would change how we’d understand verses 13-14. We’d see them as an explanation or clarification of what came before, rather than a cause or reason.
What could Paul be explaining or clarifying?
Clarifying Orthodox Belief
Considering the Gnostic influence in Ephesus and the heretical version of the Adam and Eve story within Gnosticism (see previous post), it’s reasonable to believe that Paul is clarifying an orthodox understanding of Adam and Eve. If “for” was translated “now” or left untranslated, or if translators put theses verses in parentheses, we’d see this more clearly in English.
If Gnosticism was as rampant in Ephesus as I think it was, not to mention the goddess Artemis cult, it makes sense for Paul to do this. Perhaps the woman in Ephesus was persuaded by the false teachers and/or Artemis worship to assert herself in unhealthy and damaging ways to gain an advantage over her husband (or other men).
This woman (or women) aren’t to teach men in a domineering manner. They aren’t to bully their way to the top and make men play second fiddle. Why? Eve was not created to be Adam’s boss but his partner. That is God’s creative ideal.
Belleville puts it this way:
If the Ephesian women were being encouraged as the superior sex to assume the role of teacher over men, this would go a long way toward explaining verses 13-14. The relationship between the sexes was not intended to be one of female domination and male subordination.
She goes on to say, “Neither was [the relationship between the sexes] intended to be one of male domination and female subordination. Such thinking is native to a fallen creation order (Gen. 3:16).”
This way of understanding verses 13-14 accounts for the religious cultural situation in Ephesus and keeps us from making Genesis 1-2 say something it does notsay or imply (i.e. that Eve was subordinate to Adam).
Deception, Eve, and Women
For most of its history, the church has held that women are more easily deceived than men. This was a common belief for the church fathers. Most complementarians, thankfully, have abandoned this view, but not until recently.
Modern social-scientific research proves, of course, that gender is not a factor that influences how gullible someone is. What does? Things like understanding of a culture, financial literacy, age, experiences, socialization, intelligence, education, and even personality all play a part.
In the first century, women probably were more easily deceived due to the vast difference between them and men in these areas. It’s possible that Paul has that mind.
Yet Paul doesn’t explicitly say this. Someone must interpret Paul’s words to make that claim. The irony is that the only twofalse teachers Paul mentions by name in this letter (who were deceived and are now deceiving others) aren’t women but men–Alexander and Hymenaeus (see 1:18-20).
Eve’s deception comes up in the New Testament one other time. In 2 Corinthians 11:3. There, Paul warns the whole church–both men and women–not to be led away from Christ.
It’s apparent he uses Eve as an example for each church’s particular situation. And in the case of 1 Timothy, he’s not making a universal pronouncement about the gullibility of all women. If we make that case, we’d have to say the same about men because of the 1 Corinthians passage.
Putting the Pieces Together
How might we understand all of 2:11-14? Here’s how I would flesh it, admittedly adding some interpretative statements to help to connect the dots:
This woman should learn in stillness, with a teachable heart and in full submission to God. No more self-authenticating disruption! I’m not allowing her to teach a man in a domineering way, trying to prove women are the superior sex. In God’s kingdom, women aren’t bullies like the false teachers say they are (and that Artemis would have them be!). Remember that women aren’t superior to men. Adam was formed first, after all! Eve was created second to be a corresponding strength him, his partner, fully equal before God. Eve was not his boss! And Eve wasn’t Adam’s teacher either. She was actively deceived and became a transgressor!
This is a completely reasonable way to interpret verses 11-14, in light of the false teachers seeking to deceive people, which is the main reason why Paul left Timothy in Ephesus and why he wrote this letter.
Verses 13-14 Summary:Paul corrects a false teaching spreading in Ephesus that Eve was Adam’s superior and teacher.It was Adam who was made first and Eve wasn’t the teacher, but the one deceived. Paul thus clarifies that Eve was created to be Adam’s partner, not his boss. Females should not dominate men. (But neither should men dominate women!) Creation shows God’s ideal of partnership.
15But she will be saved through the childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with self-control.
If you only read the NIV, you’ll miss that verse 15 does not actually say “Women will be saved through childbearing.” The original language says, “She will be saved…” The ESV translates this correctly, by the way.
This is a significant difference with huge implications. Taking this into account, however we interpret this verse, it still must fit with the rest of Paul’s logic.
A Common Complementarian View
Denny Burk, president of the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, represents many, but not all, complementarians when he writes:
A wife’s fulfillment of this [chilbearing] role will be one of the evidences of perseverance in the faith. Salvation is future in this verse: “She will be saved.” Thus it is not entry into salvation that is in view but the future consummation of salvation. Women who embrace their God-ordained role while continuing in the Christian virtues of “faith and love and holiness, with self-control” will find themselves saved on the last day.
Burk says that is if a married woman professes Christ but does not embrace her “God-ordained role” of caring for children in the home, she will not find salvation on judgment day.
Think about the implications of that for a second.
Andreas Köstenberger, who’s written quite a bit on gender roles, puts it differently, but still focuses on a woman’s role at home:
My conclusion: in 1 Timothy 2:15 Paul says that women will be spiritually preserved (from Satan) by adhering to their God-ordained role related to family and the home. This is contrasted with Eve, who transgressed those boundaries and fell into temptation (v. 14)…In v. 15, Paul addresses the question, “How can women today avoid the mistake made by Eve?” The answer: by adhering to their God-given boundaries and tending to their God-given responsibilities.”
There are at least three problems with these views:
1 Timothy 2 says nothing about traditional roles for a wife and mother. That’s an interpretation.
They ignore the context of the letter which is false teaching. The immediate context of the passage deals with deception, and, most importantly, domineering behavior. We might add anger and wealth-flaunting, if we include verses 8-10.
Genesis 1-2 never suggests there were God-ordained roles Eve crossed in Genesis 3. The central focus of Genesis 3 is not that Eve shirked her wifely duties but rather that she disobeyed God’s command. The curse of Genesis 3 also shows sin brought male dominance into the world. It was never God’s creative intention for one sex to rule over the other.
These complementarian views don’t fit with the logic of verses 11-15, and verses 8-15 as a whole.
Three Interpretive Options
When we remember the the cultural context of Ephesus, the pieces start to fit together. We have at least three options that are in stark contrast to the traditional patriarchal views.
Option 1: Look to Jesus, not Artemis Ephesus was home to Artemis, the virgin goddess and protector of women in childbirth. Pregnancy, labor, and delivery were dangerous in the ancient world. It’s conceivable that Christian women who came from the Artemis cult were tempted to look to her, rather than Jesus, for protection in the childbirth process. (The Greek word for “save” can sometimes mean holistic well-being, not just spiritual deliverance.)
Option 2: Sex and Childbirth Don’t Jeopardize Salvation In its ascetic form, Gnosticism discouraged engaging in physical pleasure because the material world was evil–perhaps even not “real.” Paul could be refuting this false teaching and encouraging the woman in her faith in Jesus.
The gist of the false teaching was: if you had sex, you indulge the material world and therefore cannot be saved. This sounds over-the-top prude for us modern people. But if we take into account Greek philosophy, Gnosticism, and the Artemis cult, it’s not so far-fetched.
In the first century, sexual intercourse was primarily for reproduction, and we have evidence Christians in Corinth thought abstaining from sex was good. The problem woman in Ephesus may have been encouraged by false teachers to instruct her husband in false doctrine in a domineering fashion. A part of her dominating authority may have been to withhold sex and refuse to procreate.
So Paul assures this woman that if she renounced the Gnostic teaching of celibacy, had sex, and then became pregnant, she will still have salvation on judgment day.
This may be the exact reason why Paul encourages widows to get married and bear children later in 5:14. The material world (which includes marriage, sex, childbirth, etc.) is not evil, but good because God created it.
Sidebar: Why the switch from “she’ to “they”? In a somewhat puzzling move, Paul switches from singular to plural in the middle of verse 15 (“she” to “they”). He could have in mind the woman and her husband or the women flaunting their wealth in verses 9-10 or all the women in Ephesus.
It would be irresponsible for anyone to say with absolute certainty who “they” refers to here. But I’m inclined to think it refers to the women mentioned in vv 9-10 or any other women in Ephesus who are drawn to the false doctrine and behavior of domineering teaching.
These virtues are in stark contrast to the domineering attitude Paul wants to snuff out. Faith, love, and holiness–not authentein–is what characterizes a believer. This is another piece of evidence that leads me to believe Paul’s not calling all women to embrace their wifely role. These are necessary ingredients for anyone to have if they want to persevere til the end. The pushy, me-first posture must be put off, and love, faith, and self-control must be put on.
Option 3: Eve’s Offspring Brings Salvation Some scholars believe Paul continues his thought on Adam and Eve into verse 15 and that there is a subtle reference to Jesus here.
The argument goes like this. The definite article “the” before childbearing signifies a specific childbirth–the birth of Messiah. This birth will reverse the curse Eve helped usher into the world. When Paul says Eve “will be saved” he’s referring to the salvation she will receive on the last day, still to come. It’s through Christ, Eve’s offspring, that women experience salvation “if they continue in faith, love, and self-control” (2:15).
This is how egalitarians like Philip Payne and Ben Witherington understand verse 15. Even some complementarians hold to this view.
I’m not convinced for a couple reasons:
In the rest of his writings, whenever Paul refers to the work of Christ that brings salvation, it’s never his birth but always his life, death, and resurrection.
The way Paul ends verse 15 with “if they continue…” is odd if he’s talking about Eve at the beginning. Yes, Eve awaits her salvation on the last day (“will be saved” is future-oriented). We’re all waiting for that! But the salvation mentioned in verse 15 is contingent on something (“if they continue in faith, love, and self-control”). How can Eve’s final salvation be dependent on someone else continuing in these virtues?
It’s not my first choice, but it’s one option available to us.
Personally, I believe verse 15 is best explained by option #1 or #2, or a combination of both.
Both options make more sense than the complementarian explanation considering the cultural situation in Ephesus. They’re also better explanations given the grammar and flow of the entire passage (including vv 8-10).
Verse 15 Summary:Paul encourages the woman that her salvation will not be lost if she rejects Gnostic teaching (or that her life won’t be in danger if she rejects Artemis). She must continue in the virtues of love, faith, and self-control/holiness, which fits well with the idea of not being domineering (“self-authenticating”). Rather than teach false doctrine and dominate, she must exhibit the fruit of the Holy Spirit.
Summing It All Up
It’s reasonable to conclude that there was a woman (or multiple women) at Ephesus who was trying to domineer her husband (or a man or all the men). She was likely teaching heretical doctrines, but the bigger point appears to be her demeanor/posture before God and the faith community.
An aspect of this domineering behavior may have been to withhold sex and reproduction due to Gnostic teaching and/or Artemis mythology (suggested by v 15).
Paul’s solution is to not allow her to teach or act in a self-authenticating/domineering way. Instead, she must learn with a humble heart.
I haven’t said everything there is to say about 1 Timothy 2:11-15, and I didn’t provide a water-tight argument for every detail in the text. That was by design. My commentary shows the passage isn’t as straightforward as some would have us believe. The options I’ve provided make just as much sense considering the biblical and cultural context, if not more, than the traditional complementarian view.
As always, if you have questions on anything I’ve written–or if you have ideas I didn’t mention–I’d be happy to discuss those in the comments below.
There will be one more post on this text. I’ll share several brief reflections on how we can apply it in the church today.
 The NIV mistranslates v 15 as “But women will be saved…” though in the footnotes they indicate that in Greek it says “she.”
 We should not assume that in every church, everywhere in the Roman Empire men are going into worship angry and ready to argue! When Paul says “I want the men everywhere…” he means everywhere inEphesus. Also, recall that churches met in homes throughout the city so there would have been multiple church gatherings in Ephesus.
 Taking into account Paul’s rabbinic background, we’re reminded that this humble posture was required of men training to be rabbis, too. It’s what we’d want today for anyone preparing for ministry. See Walter Liefeld, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), on BibleGateway.com.
 Mowczko, “The Consensus and Context of 1 Timothy 2:12.”
 Philip Payne comments, “Every occurrence of epitrepō in the Greek OT refers to a specific situation, never to a universally applicable permission. Similarly, the vast majority of the NT occurrences of ἐπιτρέπω clearly refers to a specific time or for a short or limited time duration only.” Payne adds that the grammar Paul uses cannot carry the weight of church tradition for all time. Even Doug Moo, a complementarian scholar, admits, “It must be admitted that the verb [epitrepō] is not often used in Scripture of universally applicable commandments.” See Payne, Man and Woman, 320-321 for both quotes.
 I recognize there is a lot of debate on the connecting word “or” (Gk oude) in verse 12 and how that affects whether we see “teaching” and “authority” as separate or joined. I’m not going to get into all that here. For what it’s worth, I think Paul joins two elements with the word “or” to communicate one idea: teaching with authority.
 So what is Paul not allowing? A particular woman (or all women) who is unlearned in Christian doctrine and domineering is not permitted to teach. This would be true of anyone in Ephesus, or any church for that matter! Thus the abstract principle is: Those who are uneducated in Christian doctrine or self-serving should not teach. Paul’s concern has nothing to do with gender. At least not yet. It’s interesting, however, to note that later, in chapter 3, Paul states that “anyone” (singular gender neutral pronoun) may aspire to be an overseer (3:1) and they “must be able to teach” (3:2). Why the emphasis on teaching and not other pastoral gifts? Precisely because the problem at hand in Ephesus is false teaching. I’ll talk more about 1 Timothy 3 in a future post.
 Ibid.; see also Strongs Exhaustive Concordance, 1063 gar.
 In 1 Tim 2:5, gar provides additional information about intercessory prayer. In John 4:44, gar is translated as “now” in the NIV. The ESV goes with “for,” but the verse is in parentheses to show thats it’s an explanation. In Heb 2:5, the ESV translates gar as “for” to clarify what was just said, not give a reason. Distinguished Greek scholar William Mounce translates gar as “indeed” in 1 Cor 14:2. In other places, gar is even left untranslated! Both the ESV and NIV do this in Acts 16:37. In 2 Cor 9:1, the NIV leaves it untranslated, but the ESV translates it “now” since a new topic is introduced.
 Belleville, “Exegetical Fallacies.”
 Some complementarians read gender hierarchy back into Genesis 2 based on verses 13-14. I’ve already shown in my post on Genesis 2 (as well as on Genesis 1) that the idea of hierarchy is foreign to Genesis 1-2 and was introduced after the Fall.
 In 1995, Thomas Schreiner wrote, “Generally speaking, women are more relational and nurturing and men are more given to rational analysis and objectivity. Women are less prone than men to see the importance of doctrinal formulations, especially when it comes to the issue of identifying heresy and making a stand for truth. Appointing women to the teaching office is prohibited because they are less likely to draw a line on doctrinal non-negotiables, and thus deception and false teaching will more easily enter the church” (his emphasis). See Thomas R. Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15: A Dialogue with Scholarship,” in Women in the Church, in Andreas J. Köstenberger, Thomas Schreiner, H. Scott Baldwin, eds. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1995), 145-146. That’s quite the whopper of a quote! Thankfully, Schreiner changedhis view in the 2005 edition of the book, saying that God’s good design would be called into question if this were true. For more on how complementarian positions have changed over the years, see Jamin Hübner, “The Evolution of Complementarian Exegesis,”Priscilla Papers 29/1 (Winter 2015), 11-13.
 You can find this research summarized in William J. Webb, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals(Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2001), 269-274. This book is twenty years old and I doubt these findings are any different. Also, note that in 2 Timothy 3:6, Paul reminds Timothy that women were especially susceptible to deception and it is likely due to the factors Webb mentions.
 Liefeld, 1-2 Timothy, on BibleGateway.com. Paul even uses this same analogy of Eve falling prey to the deception of the serpent for the Corinthians as a whole (2 Corinthians 11:3). And it had nothing to do with gender there. This shows sometimes the New Testament authors use Old Testament passages for applicational/pastoral reasons and are not making absolute claims about a text.
 Ortlund, “Male-Female,” 138, also makes the argument that Genesis says Eve crossed a boundary. He argues that Adam abandoned his headship (that is, authority over his wife) by “listening to the voice of [his] wife” (see Gen 3:17). But surely the point isn’t that Adam abandoned his headship (which is not stated in the passage) but that he listened to the false teaching of his wife who was deceived by the serpent. This understanding also fits better with Paul’s description of what happened in the garden in light of the them of 1 Timothy.
 Belleville, “Exegetical Fallacies.”
 Ideas about sexual intercourse were complicated in the first century church, and some were flat-out wrong. Paul confronts a wrong belief that sex is bad in 1 Corinthians 7. Since we know this false teaching about sex was present in Corinth, it’s not a stretch of the imagination to say it was present in Ephesus. And it provides a perfectly legitimate explanation for verse 15. See also Marg Mowczko, “Chastity, Salvation, and 1 Timothy 2:15,” 1/27/2016, “Paul’s teaching about marriage and having children in 1 Timothy 2:15, 4:3-4 and 5:11-15 (cf. Tit. 2:4-5) is distinctly different from the teaching attributed to him in the Acts of Paul and Thecla. And it is the antithesis of the teaching found in many Christian documents that circulated widely in the second century, documents that strongly promoted virginity and chastity as saving virtues.”