“Let a woman learn”: 1 Tim 2:11-15 Yet Again

Introduction

Paul’s words in 1 Tim 2:11-15 are at the crux of a modern pastoral issue but also present many interpretative challenges quite aside from their practical application. The egalitarian Bruce Barron writes,

I think it can be fairly stated that the evangelical argument for excluding women from leadership would be very lame – in fact, it might never have come into existence – without this passage.^[1]

Perhaps this judgment is overstated, traditionalists/complementarians would argue that 1 Tim 2:11-15 is consistent with the full scriptural datum, but I think there is no denying the significance of this passage as (arguably) the most explicit statement justifying the traditional/complementarian position. Therefore it is, unsurprisingly, a significant and contentious passage both for evangelicals and for Christadelphians.

Yet the significance of the passage is not matched by unanimity (or even polarisation) about the interpretation of the passage. Consulting the major commentaries, there seems to be no scholarly consensus regarding almost any line of these verses, even between scholars who are, ostensibly, from the same “camp”.

Given both the interpretative difficulties and the pastoral implications, this passage merits yet another going over.

“Let a woman learn …”

Paul commands that women learn. The verb here is a third person imperative (μανθανέτω), which is difficult to render in English as we do not have an equivalent verb form. This is usually rendered “let a woman learn” but this does not imply a grudging “allow them to learn, if they must”. This is a command in the same form as God’s command to “Let the earth sprout vegetation …” (Gen 1:11). It is not a command to men to permit learning for women but a command to women that they must learn; the onus of the command is on the woman.

However this should not be taken as Paul introducing a new command. As the egalitarian Gordon Fee writes, “it simply goes too far to argue from this that he is herewith commanding that they be taught” because this was already happening within the early churches.[2] Paul qualifies his command. The issue at stake is not simply that women should learn but the way in which they should learn.

“… quietly …”

Whilst the KJV translates h`suci,a| as “in silence” (cf. GNT; HCSB; RSV; NRSV), a number of other translations render this as “in quietness” (ASV; Darby; NIV; YLT) or “quietly” (ESV; NASB; NCV; NET; NLT). As with the translators, opinions amongst commentators diverge, with some opting for silence[3] and others opting for quietness.[4] The word itself can imply either silence, or quietness, or tranquility, depending on context. [5] Michael Lewis argues that we cannot restrict its meaning to just calmness of spirit but that the word always carries the full range of meanings, [6] though this is probably to misunderstand how the meanings of words are determined and selected.

Silence was expected of women in the synagogue[7] but we should be cautious of assuming that Paul sought to transpose Jewish practice wholesale into the early Christian churches. In this context, evn h`suci,a| qualifies manqane,tw so as to refer to the way a woman should learn rather than mandating a blanket ban of talking. It is preferable therefore to read evn h`suci,a as indicating deference to the teacher. [8]

Several commentators draw the contrast between the injunction here for quiet with the behaviour of the gossips and busybodies that Paul criticises in 1 Tim 5:13[9] or with the empty talkers whom Paul wishes were silenced (Tit 1:10-11).[10]

“… with all submissiveness”

Paul further qualifies manqane,tw with evn pa,sh| u`potagh/|. L. T. Johnson writes that there is no “softening” of u`potagh available; it has structural or hierarchical reference. [11] Just as the overseer should have authority over his children (1 Tim 3:4), just as Paul did not submit to the false brother (Gal 2:5), so too here u`potagh refers to submitting to authority. The uses of the cognate verb give the same impression. Jesus submitted to his parents (Luke 2:51); the demons were subject to the apostles (Luke 10:17, 20) and the believer should be subject to government (Rom 13:1, 5).

The question is not what whether submission is enjoined by Paul, but to whom the women are to be subject. The options seem to be: (1) their own husbands (cf. Eph 5:22, 24; Col 3:18; Tit 2:5; 1 Pet 3:1, 5); (2) to men in general; or (3) to their teacher. At this point it is worth noting that because evn pa,sh| u`potagh qualifies μανθανέτω it seems most likely that submissiveness refers to the way the woman is to learn and so mostly naturally refers to submission to the teacher.

“I do not permit …”

There have been a number of suggestions about the implications of evpitre,pw. Firstly, it is sometimes suggested that because it is in the first person, it refers to something Paul’s personal preference rather than a universal principle. For example, J. B. Phillips renders this verse

“Personally, I don’t allow women to teach, nor do I ever put them into positions of authority over men”.

However, though Paul undoubtedly did give instructions based upon his own judgment of the circumstances (cf. 1 Cor 7:25-26), here he seeks to justify his instructions from Scripture, which might imply he is seeking to be consistent with some deeper principle. Secondly, it is suggested that because evpitre,pw is a present indicative (e.g. “I am not permitting”) is indicates that it is temporally limited to the present situation.[12] However the present indicative does not always imply a temporal limitation and is used elsewhere for universal and authoritative instructions.[13] Thirdly, there is the suggestion that the verb itself implies its contingency. A. C. Perriman writes:

…the sense in which the word is consistently used is that of giving someone leave or permission to do something. It is in every case related to a specific and limited set of circumstances…[14]

It is certainly true that the verb is used elsewhere in the NT for temporary expedients or concessions (Matt 19:8; Luke 9:59, 61; John 19:38; Acts 21:39, 40; 27:3; 28:16). Yet it is not obvious that this is always its implication, particularly in the negative context where Paul is not making a concession.

I. H. Marshall is probably correct that nothing can be taken from evpitre,pw itself as to the timing or context of the instruction.[15] It would be a suitable word for a temporal expedient but that implication is decided by context not by the word itself. Whether Paul is giving a circumstantial ruling or a universal principle is dependent on how we understand the significance of verses 13-14.

“… to teach …”

Paul introduces his instruction about teaching with a de., left untranslated in many versions, that contrasts this statement with the former.[16] Women are to learn but they are not to teach. Paul also seems to link these two thoughts with a chiasmus, indicated by the repetition of evn h`suci,a| (see Chiasmus 1). The central clause of this chiastic pattern is “I do not permit a woman to teach”, which would imply that this is Paul’s primary concern.[17] It is worth noting that this is not the only proposed chiastic pattern. Perriman suggests that v. 12 is parenthetic in character, disrupting a chiasmus whose central clause is Eve (see Chiasmus 2).[18] I think this proposal is unlikely, as it would seem odd for Paul to disrupt a literary feature like a chiasmus with a parenthesis and the first chiasmus seems far more obvious.

In a rare outbreak of consensus, almost all commentators seem to agree that teaching here refers to instruction in Scripture within the assembled people of God (rather than a universal prohibition against all forms of teaching).[19] This is determined by the context, which seems to be about behaviour amongst assembled believers, and by the use of the word elsewhere in the NT, which almost exclusively refers to scriptural teaching in groups. This clause cannot be stretched to mean “I do not permit a woman to teach error”;[20] if Paul has false teaching in mind then that too must be determined by context.

Chiasmus 1

• A. Let a woman learn quietly
  A. Gunh. evn h`suci,a| manqane,tw
  • B. with all submissiveness.
    B. evn pa,sh| u`potagh/|·
    • I do not permit a woman to teach
      dida,skein de. gunaiki. ouvk evpitre,pw,
  • B’. or to exercise authority over a man;
    B’. ouvde. auvqentei/n avndro,j( avllV,
• A’. rather, she is to remain quiet.
  A’. ei=nai evn h`suci,a|.

Chiasmus 2

• Let a woman learn quietlywith all submissiveness.
  Gunh. evn h`suci,a| manqane,tw evn pa,sh| u`potagh/|
  • For Adam was formed first
    VAda.m ga.r prw/toj evpla,sqh
    • then Eve
      ei=ta Eu[a
  • B’. and Adam was not deceived
    B’. kai. VAda.m ouvk hvpath,qh
• A’. but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
  A’. h` de. gunh. evxapathqei/sa evn paraba,sei ge,gonen

“… or to exercise authority …”

Whilst readers often focus, understandably, on “exercising authority”, the chiasmus indicates that teaching is Paul’s primary concern. M. Edgecombe argues that Paul here has in mind the elder-overseer roles,[21] but if that were the case then it would have been “more logical to have placed that prohibition first, rather than the emphatic injunction against teaching?”, as Perriman argues.[22] Instead, auvqentei/n is subordinate to dida,skein in this context. It has sometimes been argued that these two verbs form a hendiadys (e.g. “to teach authoritatively”) but the use of ouvde. indicates two separate but closely related ideas.[23] If the chiastic pattern suggested above is valid then auvqentei/n parallels u`potagh,[24] suggesting that auvqentei/n is the opposite of, or else breaches, submissive behaviour.

The meaning of auvqentei/n has been disputed. It is rare in Greek literature and is only used once in the NT. Since there are more common words for possessing authority, it is reasonable to suppose that auvqentei/n has some special nuance of meaning that Paul wanted to convey.[25] Though originally thought to convey a sense of domineering or usurping (cf. KJV), it is no longer thought to carry this meaning.[26] Its etymology would suggest the sense of initiating something. Therefore the egalitarian commentators, R. C. and C.C. Kroeger, suggested that Paul was forbidding a woman to represent herself as the originator of man, as per some Gnostic reinterpretation of Genesis.[27] Whilst this might fit with Paul’s reminder that Adam was created first (v. 13), this meaning is impossible given prior usage. Prior to and during the NT period, the primary meaning of auvqentei/n was to commit murder or to perpetrate a crime, though this would not fit in this context. The passive condition of having authority is shade of meaning developed later.[28] Perriman plausibly argues that auvqentei/n refers to the active taking of authority.[29]

The implication then is that Paul is not here prohibiting women from possessing authority per se. His primary concern is about women teaching, which would require them to reject submission and actively take authority. [30]

“… over a man”

Given that u`potagh refers to submission of the learner and that auvqentei/n refers to taking the authority to teach, one might expect v. 12 is conclude with “the teacher”, i.e. the one that the woman is to be submissive and is not to take authority over. Instead, we find avndro,j, without article or pronoun.

Since gunh, is also the word for wife and avnh,r is also the word for husband, it has sometimes been proposed that 1 Tim 2:11-15 is instructions for husband and wife.[31] However, as A. Norris states, we do not get to choose the meaning of the word to suit our interpretation; instead, the meaning of the word is determined by context: “it is arbitrary, therefore, to take instructions issued to a gunh,  as confined to wives unless the context plainly requires this”.[32]

In fairness, there are some indications that might indicate husband and wife. Firstly, as observed above, Paul frequently states that wives are to submit to their husbands. Secondly, the reference to childbearing (v. 15) – if it is intended to be enjoined on the referents of vv. 11-12 – might suggest that married women are in view (although it is women that have children when they get married). Thirdly, the invoking of Adam and Eve in vv. 13-14 brings in a marital relationship (cf. Gen 2:24; 3:16).[33] The fact that the context is one of teaching is also consistent with this view since Paul elsewhere presupposes that believing husbands will be teachers for their wives (e.g. 1 Cor 14:35).

Nevertheless, on balance, it is unlikely that 1 Tim 2:11-15 is restricted to the relationship between a husband and wife. The use of avnh,r in 1 Tim 2:8 and the context of worship in the assembly indicates that all men in the assembly are in view. Most of all, the absence of a possessive pronoun before avndro,j would seem to rule out the meaning of “husband”. [34] “Man” here is singular and without the definite article. It is, therefore, unlikely to refer to a specific person but rather to men in general (or more properly, men in the assembly).

“For …”

Whilst it is possible that ga.r (“for”) is used to introduce an illustration, it would be more usual to translate this causally. Paul is giving reasons that he thinks justify the instructions he has given. [35]

Though Perriman argues that “for” follows Paul’s instruction for women to learn, I think that Paul’s primary concern here is teaching and specifically women teaching men (which he proscribes). The following justifications should be taken as support for that proscription against women teaching men in the assembly.

It is worth observing that Paul does not consider this justification a matter for lengthy digression. He only alludes to his reasoning, which might suggest that this proof from Scripture is a “matter of course”.[36] This may indicate that the assumed his audience would be familiar with his reasoning, or at least would be familiar with the background that provokes it.

“… Adam was formed first, then Eve”

Paul’s first justification is that Adam was formed before Eve. Paul does not explain nor elaborate on why this is relevant.[37] It is generally taken that Paul has something like the ancient concept of primogeniture in view and that he is ascribing the leadership role to Adam as the “firstborn”.[38]

The use of evpla,sqh (“formed”) in v. 13 indicates that Paul is alluding directly to the text of Genesis (Cf. Gen 2:7, 15 LXX). Genesis itself does not draw out the implication from the order of creation that the man is to lead. In Genesis Eve is created as “a helper comparable” to Adam (Gen 2:18), as none of the animals are suitable. The implication given in the text is that Eve is “flesh of my flesh” and that a man and a woman should be joined in marriage to become “one flesh” (Gen 2:23-24). So Genesis itself is primarily interested in the complementary nature of the two genders and the union to be found through joining marriage. Nothing is said about Adam having authority over Eve. This is an idea Paul brings to the text from outside.

Paul does use this argument from creation elsewhere (1 Cor 11:8-9). However, here it is used to justify the proposition that “woman is the glory of man” (or, I would argue, “a wife is the glory of her husband”; 1 Cor 11:7). The reasoning being that woman was created for man (to meet his need) and therefore she is his glory. This is in contrast to man who, by implication, is the glory of God by virtue of being created directly from the desire of God. The implied social order comes not from the rights of the firstborn, but from symbolic expressions of desire/need.

In this context, Paul immediately qualifies his argument from creation, stating that “in the Lord” man and woman are interdependent and mutually dependent on God (1 Cor 11:11-12). The expression “in the Lord” contrasts that social order derived from creation with the new spiritual reality for believers. A woman qua woman is a symbol of man’s desire and need for companionship (she is thereby his glory); a woman in the Lord transcends this natural reality and is in the same position as man. Seemingly, then, if the order of creation implied any symbolic hierarchy then that ordering has been undone by the new reality in Christ.

Paul’s inference in 1 Tim 2:13 is different. He is not concerned with symbolic expressions of desire but with implied social hierarchy. He also makes no attempt here to qualify that social hierarchy with the spiritual reality “in the Lord”. If we understand Paul as being consistent then I think we are obliged to conclude that in 1 Tim 2:11-15 Paul is not giving instructions based upon spiritual realities but based upon the social hierarchy, patriarchy, that had prevailed since the creation of man.

The other possibility is that Paul refers to Adam and Eve by way of illustration. Perriman suggests that “formed first” is a figure for being spiritually mature.[39] The analogy would be between Adam, who was older and who had received the commandment from God, and the men of Ephesus, who ex hypothesi had been converted first or who were otherwise more educated and experienced. For such an analogy to hold, depends on there being this gender differential at Ephesus.

“Adam was not deceived …”

Paul says that Adam was not deceived. He cannot mean that Adam was not deceivable. Indeed, elsewhere Paul describes his own path of falling into sin as being deceived by sin (Rom 7:11).[40]

“To say that Adam was not the one deceived simply means that he was not deceived by the ‘snake’”.[41]

There can be no moral implication from the fact that Adam was not deceived because the serpent did not attempt to deceive Adam; his resilience to deception simply wasn’t tested.[42] Instead, Adam is offered the fruit by his wife and eats without any recorded restraint.[43] One could hardly argue for the moral superiority of Adam from Genesis 3; “everyone familiar with the original version of the story knew that Adam came out of the garden as guilty as Eve” [44]

“… the woman was deceived and became a transgressor”

The second part of this clause, “became a transgressor”, is presumably only meant to be descriptive. Paul cannot mean that Adam didn’t become a transgressor; it is foundational for Paul that Adam was a transgressor (Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22).

The use of hvpath,qh in v. 14 again alludes to the text of Genesis (cf. Gen 3:14 LXX). The word sometimes carries the nuance of seduction[45] and so it has sometimes been argued that Paul is influenced by the legendary retellings of the Fall that have the serpent sexually seduce Eve.[46] This is taken to explain why Adam was not deceived.[47] This sexual overtone, even if it was familiar to Paul, does not fit the context, where Paul’s primary concern is teaching.

Paul’s contrast is between Adam, who was not deceived, and Eve, who was deceived. This has frequently been taken to mean that women are more easily deceived than men are (and therefore they shouldn’t teach).[48] This may be taken to be the natural reading of the passage. However, this reading is empirically and demonstrably false; if this is what Paul means then he is in error. Indeed, a number of commentators take this reading as one indication that Paul is not author of 1 Timothy and so the letter must be pseudonymous. The alternative is for us to assume that Paul cannot mean anything so manifestly fallacious and must mean something else.

One suggestion is that Paul is referring to the consequences of the curse. Eve was deceived, she became a transgressor, and was cursed: “your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16). Paul clearly has the text of Genesis in mind from his allusion to deception (Gen 3:13) and to childbearing (Gen 3:16), and so it is plausible that he has the curse in mind when he speaks of women being submissive to men. But, of course, the curse does not speak of women in general being submissive to men in general, but of the wife being ruled over by her husband. So if this is the background to Paul’s instructions then presumably he has the husband-wife relationship in view, something that I judged unlikely above.

Also the curse is just that, a curse; it is not a moral prescription. Husbands are no more obligated to rule over their wives by virtue of the curse than they are to toil with thorns and thistles (cf. Gen 3:18). So it would be erroneous for Paul to argue that wives must be submissive because of the curse, unless he is giving instructions that  are contingent upon the prevailing social patriarchy that began with, or was intensified by, the curse. Yet if Paul has the curse in view then why not simply quote or allude to the curse, rather than referencing the deception of Eve and the non-deception of Adam.

A popular suggestion is that Paul’s reason for appealing to Genesis is highlight the problem of role reversal.[49] From the order of creation, Adam took on the responsibility for his wife, to teach and guide her; Eve’s position was to be submissive to her husband’s direction. Instead, Eve takes the lead, prompts her husband to eat the fruit and so leads him into transgression.[50] “It was Eve’s sin to accept the serpent’s deconstruction of God’s creative design by choosing to act independently of her husband”.[51] This interpretation fits with the view that the issue at sake was men’s authority within the church, and women attempting to exercise authority. Yet this is not the issue Paul highlights in v. 14. He does not say (at least not explicitly) that Eve became a transgressor because she took the lead. Nor does Genesis give us any reason to think that Adam would have avoided transgression if only Eve had submitted to his guidance, since Adam accepts the fruit without restraint. Ultimately this interpretation still rests on the faulty assumption that if men teach, sound doctrine will prevail, but if women teach both men and women will be led astray – and there is nothing about the nature of men or women that would make this true.

A number of commentators have worried about the “flawed” logic of this passage.[52] Barron writes, “the traditional view puts in Paul’s mouth the dubious assumptions that (1) Adam’s primacy in creation should have anything to do with current male-female relationships; and (2) Eve’s primacy in sin either caused all women to become more error-prone than men or symbolised a female inferiority that already existed”.[53] Norris, with bald honesty, writes:

We may find it difficult to understand – I do myself, acutely – why a sin in which both our foreparents shared should have led to an agelong subordination of the daughters of the deceived woman to the sons of the betrayed man.[54]

Some of us, at least, will confess that we might not have thought of the events of Eden, however they are interpreted, as being reasons for the subordination of the women to the man in divine service throughout the ages. But Paul under God’s hand presents the matter as fundamental, even though it is to the acute embarrassment of many – men as much as women – who find it hard to suppose that the historical fact justifies the conclusion drawn.[55]

Such is the peculiarity of Paul’s reasoning in these verses.

This difficulty in reading ga.r (“for”) causally, as introducing some law or principle, natural or divine, that justifies Paul’s injunction, should lead us to ask whether ga.r instead introduces an illustration. Paul does in fact use the deception of Eve as an illustration in 2 Cor 11:3. In this passage, Paul draws the analogy between Eve and the church at Corinth, and between the serpent and those who would preach from a “different spirit” (2 Cor 11:4). If we read 1 Tim 2:14 as an illustration then he would be drawing the analogy between the women at Ephesus and Eve and, implicitly, between the serpent and the false teachers in that ecclesia. Yet the analogy is not the same as in 2 Cor 11:3, since Paul also mentions Adam here, presumably analogous to the men at Ephesus (there seems no other analogue alluded to). Paul might be taken to be saying something like this:

Adam was not deceived by the serpent and yet became a transgressor because Eve was deceived and he listened to her. I am worried that you at Ephesus may find yourself in a similar predicament, with the brothers being led astray in sin/error if I allow your sisters to continue teaching.

This is not, of course, what Paul says but just possibly what he assumed his readers would take from his illustration. The point is this: if Paul is giving a causal justification then we should read him as making/giving a ruling that he believes to be based on some deeper principle. If, on the other hand, Paul is making an illustration then talk of deeper principles is misleading, and instead we should be seeking to make the analogy between the illustration Paul cites and the situation he is addressing at Ephesus.

“Yet she will be saved through childbearing”

Paul closes his remarks with reference to women’s salvation. Some have taken Paul to mean that women must bear children to be saved, which would be totally alien to teaching of Scripture that we will be saved by grace through faith. Once again some commentators have taken this as an indication of the pseudonymity of 1 Timothy:[56]

In linking salvation with child birth, however, the author is making a mockery not only of his Pauline roots … but also of his own views concerning the abiding power of divine grace.[57]

Norris writes:

It is to me quite unthinkable that Paul … would make the bearing of her own children any ingredient at all in a woman’s salvation.[58]

Given that some women do not bear children, a number of commentators argue that Paul also had child rearing and spiritual nurturing in mind.[59] Others suggest that childbearing is an example of the general “propriety” that Paul enjoins on women.[60] Regardless, Paul cannot mean that salvation is conditional on a specific set of good works.[61]

It has sometimes been argued that Paul means that women will be kept safe through childbearing (despite the pain women are cursed with).[62] Yet this seems difficult to square with the fact that many faithful mothers have died in childbirth.[63] It is also unlikely that this is what Paul meant because the Greek word for saved is almost exclusively used in the NT for the ultimate salvation through Jesus; a different word is used for temporary guarding from danger.[64]

M. Lewis argues that childbearing is an oblique reference to the curse and that in effect what Paul is saying is that women can be saved, the curse notwithstanding, through faith.[65] Yet, if this is what Paul meant there are clearer ways for him to have said it.

Grammatically speaking, one would most naturally assume that swqh,setai (v. 15), being a third person singular, follows h` gunh. (v. 14) and therefore that salvation through childbearing is enjoined on Eve alone. This would be an allusion to Gen 3:15, often understood as a Messianic prophecy, and the salvation from sin made possible by the “seed” of the woman. [66]

Given that this interpretation is both more consistent with the allusion to Genesis and more consistent with Paul’s theology, it is marked how many commentators resist that conclusion. One objection is that σωθήσεται is in the future tense and so cannot refer to Eve[67] but this objection has no power for those who know that the faithful of old have not yet received their reward (Heb 11:39-40). The other objection is that the second half of the verse (introduced “if they”) would seem to make Eve’s salvation conditional on the behaviour of women in general. [68] This shift from singular to plural is odd and a challenge for any interpretation but grammatically speaking the singular most naturally refers to Eve and the plural to the women whom Paul is instructing not to teach. Whilst we might prefer if Paul had added an extra clause to smooth the transition[69], best sense of this contrast is made if we understand Paul as continuing his illustration. Eve became a transgressor through deception but nevertheless will be saved. In the same way, the women whom Paul fears will be led astray by the deception of false teachers will also be saved. This explains why Paul adds the final subjunctive (“if they continue in faith …”) to make clear that whilst salvation is still an option for these women, if it conditional on faith (faith that will be expressed through character).

Could Paul mean that women should not teach (in some circumstances)?

The traditional/complementarian interpretation of 1 Tim 2:11-15 concludes that women should not teach. This is usually qualified to ‘shouldn’t teach if men are present’, shouldn’t teach in the assembly, shouldn’t teach unless in tandem with her husband, etc. Yet all commentators are aware that Paul, and the other writers of the NT, elsewhere presuppose that women had an active and prominent role within the early church, including some forms of teaching. Paul presumably knew that Priscilla, with her husband Aquila, had taught Apollos (Acts 18:26) and that Philip the evangelist had four daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:8-9). Focusing on the writings of Paul, commentators note that Paul presupposed women would prophesy (1 Cor 11:5), would contribute with instruction, revelation or interpretation (arguably, 1 Cor 14:26) and would “teach what is good” (Tit 2:3).[70]

Marshall argues that, given the apparent conflict, 1 Tim 2:11-15 must represent a “shift from earlier practice” to deal with a specific situation. [71] Heidebrecht argues that “to prohibit women from teaching within this context implies that what they are teaching is not sound, for elsewhere women are encouraged to teach what is good (Titus 2:3)”.[72] William Barclay writes,

All the things in this chapter are mere temporary regulations to meet a given situation. If we want Paul’s permanent view on this matter, we get it in Galatians 3:28.[73]

Of course not all commentators have taken this view but have instead tried to reconcile those other examples of women teaching to 1 Tim 2:11-15. For example, Kelly argues that in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul only grudgingly allowed women to pray and prophesy. [74] Norris, too, argues that in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul is not sanctioning women prophesying but regulating and that “the effect of following Paul’s instructions would have been to cause the practice to die out”.[75] The implication is that the apostle who commanded one church, as a creation-old principle, conceded to another church to practice against his conscience whilst secretly hoping that they’d abandon the very practice he neglected to condemn. Is it not more plausible to suppose that the apostle who was unafraid to shame the church at Corinth (for their benefit) would have had no scruples about commanding women not to prophesy had he believed that they shouldn’t?

The danger is this kind of “reconciliation” descends into a sort of trade-off, where one passage is “sacrificed” as a temporary expedient so that the other passage can be elevated as an enduring principle. It is not permissible to arbitrarily choose which passage to subordinate to other; each passage needs to be evaluated on its own terms.

Yet it is clear that Paul did allow women to prophesy in some churches (even in only grudgingly), was aware of women who taught men, and generally encouraged women to teach (at least in some circumstances). All of this is context to 1 Tim 2:11-15 and militates against the conclusion Paul’s instruction is an absolute prohibition against women teaching in all circumstances. And if a passage that might be read as an absolute prohibition cannot be taken as such, if it must be qualified in some regard, then we are entitled to explore in what way this prohibition is to be qualified or on what is this prohibition contingent.

The Situation at Ephesus

So we come to the point: were the circumstances at Ephesus such as to explain Paul giving a temporary and contingent instruction that women should learn but should not teach? Many commentators have taken the view that Paul was countering his opponents when he gave this instruction.[76] Those who believe the Pastorals to be a pseudonymous and a second century creation argue that this prohibition against women teaching is prompted by references to female opponents in apocryphal stories about Paul, such as Acts of Paul. [77] Others have referenced the pagan context, with prominent female cult of Artemis at Ephesus. [78]

A tenacious proposal is that Paul was writing to counter the Gnostics. He expressly condemns “what is falsely called knowledge” (1 Tim 6:20). In addition, the Gnostics are known to have elevated women as “favored instruments of revelation” and propounded radical reinterpretations of Genesis.[79] However, whilst opposition to the Gnostics might explain both Paul’s stance on women teaching and his appeal to Genesis, this proposal is not without its problems. Firstly, Gnosticism proper (often known as Sethian Gnosticism) dates from the second century onwards. We simply have no evidence, apart from the NT texts themselves, of Gnosticism in the first century. Secondly, whilst the Gnostic gospels and mythologies did feature prominent women, Gnostic mythology posited union of the sexes as a spiritual ideal. According to the Gnostics, the aeon Sophia was responsible for the flawed material creation precisely because she did not have a consort. Therefore it is not obvious that Gnostic women would have sought to domineer men in a non-egalitarian way. Thirdly, though the Gnostics did reinterpret Genesis to accord with their own mythological presuppositions, it is not obvious that such reinterpretation would have prompted Paul’s remarks in 1 Timothy 2.

Nevertheless, it is clear that there was a problem with false teachers at Ephesus, regardless of whom these teachers turn out to be.[80] Timothy urged to stay in Ephesus so that he can “charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies” (1 Tim 1:3-4). Paul worries about those who do not teach wholesome words or according to godliness (6:3). He characterises this false teaching as “profane and vain babblings” (6:20), by which some have strayed from the faith (6:21). He says that these false teachers speak lies “in hypocrisy” (4:3). In his second letter Paul repeats his warnings about those who have “strayed” and “overthrow the faith of some” (2 Tim 2:18). He describes these false teachers as striving “about words to no profit” (2:14) and again characterises their teaching as “profane and vain babblings” (2:16). He says they have turned after “fables” (4:4) and expressly says that they have been deceived and are deceivers (3:13).

There is also some evidence, apart from 1 Tim 2:11-15, that there may have been a problem with women being involved in false teaching. Paul certainly worries that younger widows, without any responsibilities or occupation, become “gossips and busybodies, saying things which they ought not” (1 Tim 5:13). He also has cause to be concerned about those who “creep into households and make captives of gullible women” (2 Tim 3:6). He goes on to describe these very men as “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (3:7), indicating that these men are not just motivated by lust or greed but are espousing false teaching.[81] Heidebrecht summarises:

Women, most likely the younger widows, were involved in some way with the promotion of different teaching, and Paul seeks to prohibit them from continuing to deceive others.[82]

Similarly Perriman concludes:

He fears that through the fallacious arguments of heretical teachers women, because of their ignorance (remember that Eve knew of the commandment not to eat of the tree of knowledge only second hand), will again be deceived and fall into transgression and in turn lead the men astray.[83]

Yet the strongest evidence of a problem with women teachers at Ephesus may be 1 Tim 2:11-15. Paul introduces this section, not as a handbook on the roles of men and women in the church, but as part of the “good warfare” that Timothy is to wage against those who have made shipwreck of their faith (1 Tim 1:18). In response to these challenges Paul first instructs that prayers be made for all men (2:1) because God desires all men to be saved (2:4). He therefore desires that men lift up holy hands in prayer (2:8). His instructions to women are introduced “in like manner” (2:9) indicating that they are a piece with his desire for frequent and fervent prayer for all mankind (including those who have gone astray). Paul instructions in 1 Tim 2:11-15 are not a parenthesis into creation theology but come in that context of addressing that current problems are Ephesus. Though Paul does not spell out the specific problem, the implication is that part of the problem is that women who have been led astray by false teachers are themselves trying to teach the congregation.

Conclusion

Broadly speaking there are two ways to read 1 Tim 2:11-15. Either Paul is saying that women should not teach men as they are subordinated by the virtue of the order of creation and are inherently more open to deception than men, or Paul is saying that, in response to a specific problem at Ephesus, the women there should not teach lest their situation be analogous to that of Adam and Eve. The former alternative seems unsustainable; the latter seems consistent with the situation at Ephesus.