I Do Not Permit a Woman? A Study on 1 Timothy 2:12 and the Role of Women According to the Bible

This is a slightly revised edition of my senior paper from my college, Leavell College of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. In the paper, I examine the topic of the role of women according to the Bible, first presenting an egalitarian (no innate gender roles) interpretation and then refuting that with a complementarian (innate, distinct, and complementary gender roles) interpretation. I make some brief application of the study before the conclusion, but the main purpose of my paper is to explain the meaning of 1 Timothy 2:12, using the teachings of a few key biblical passages on gender roles. If you'd like a simpler presentation of this information, just skip the section on egalitarian interpretation and read the rest. I hope this study can be a help and a blessing to you!

1. Introduction

For the last few decades, Western culture has undergone the upheaval of traditional gender roles. Since the historic Obergefell case, which legalized same-sex marriage in the United States, many sexual revolutionaries have pushed to confuse, if not entirely eradicate, gender distinctions. Given such a cultural context, the Christian church has also grappled with issues of gender and sexuality in recent years. For example, three denominations recently split over differing views on biblical gender roles and sexuality. In each of these cases, the liberal splinter groups either already were affirming or went on to affirm sinful sexual orientations and lifestyles.[1]

            Given the current cultural moment, Christians of all persuasions must be champions of the Scriptures’ teachings on gender and sexuality. One nuance of the gender issue that is particularly relevant to Southern Baptists is whether women should teach men in the gathering of the local church. While the Convention has been confessionally complementarian for some time, one prominent Southern Baptist Church, recently appointed women pastors and the Convention’s president has shared his church’s Sunday morning preaching platform with his wife.[2]

Although many passages of Scriptures can help a reader understand the issue of women teaching or holding the pastorate, only a few key passages will be explored: Genesis 1-3, Moses’ description of the creation and fall of humanity, 1 Corinthians 11 and 14, where the apostle Paul gave commanded women to be submissive to their husbands in worship, and 1 Timothy 2, where Paul prohibited women from teaching and exercising authority over men. A careful study of these passages should lead readers to conclude that according to the Scriptures, women cannot teach or exercise authority over men in the local church.[3]

            Before further arguments are made, several key terms in this paper must be defined as this paper’s author will use them. To teach is to present and exposit Scripture in the gathering of the local church.[4] Exercise authority refers to leadership activities of husbands in the home and men in the church.[5] Men refers to adult males.[6] A local church, sometimes referred to as simply a church, is a body of believers that meets regularly for worship, teaching, and fellowship. Egalitarian describes the position that the pastorate and/or leadership over men in the home and in the church are open to both men and women. Complementarian describes the position that the pastorate and the pastorate and/or leadership over men in the home and in the church are open to only to men.[7]

2. The Egalitarian Position

            Egalitarians read the Bible as presenting male-female equality in both value and function. God gifts men and women alike to lead the church as equal partners who are equally made in his image. For egalitarians, the New Testament passages many complementarians cite to prevent women from teaching men or holding the pastorate are misunderstood or culturally conditioned, not binding to the entire church for all time.

Genesis 1-3

            Genesis 1-3 depicts God’s creating man and woman as equal partners in the same work. Together, Adam and Eve sinned and one of the results of that sin was the introduction of a power struggle where the woman would be subordinate to the man rather than be his equal partner. In contrast to a complementary reading of the text, egalitarian readers recognize that no explicit words in the text of Genesis 1-3 prove women were subordinate to men before the fall. God’s intention was always that men and women would labor together.

            God’s creation of humanity is first mentioned in Gen. 1:26-27, where Moses wrote, “Then God said, ‘Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over [the animals and creation].’ So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”[8] The text demonstrates that men and women were equally made in the image of God, and thus as theologian Paul K. Jewett noted, one equal cannot be subordinate to another equal.[9] Further, as Old Testament scholar Richard S. Hess observed, the charge to rule over the creation was given to humanity as a whole, not just man.[10]

            Genesis 2 more thoroughly describes how God created man and woman. In chronological order, the text of Genesis 2 portrays God creating the man, placing him in the garden, instructing him not to eat the forbidden fruit, declaring that it was not good for man to be alone, bringing the animals to Adam for him to name, and finally creating the woman from Adam’s rib. God’s creation of the first man and woman, according to egalitarians, explicitly stresses the equality of and partnership between men and women. Adam was created first, then spent time naming all the animals, to show that none of them were compatible partners for him.[11] When Adam finally saw the woman, he exclaimed, “At last this is bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh.” Biblical scholar Kevin Giles argued that Adam’s statement “implies the substantial equality of the sexes and their God-given differentiation as man and woman,” not the woman’s subordination to the man.[12] Biblical theologian John E. Hartley commented that the woman’s unique creation suggests her importance as well as her distinctiveness from the animals.[13] Further, as Hess and fellow Old Testament scholar, John Goldingay, noted, nowhere in Genesis 1-2, which describes God’s ideal design before the fall, did God say that the man had or should exercise authority over the woman.[14]

The man and woman served as equal partners in their participation in the first sin.[15] Genesis 3 describes the serpent approaching Eve and speaking with her about the forbidden tree. The serpent approached Eve first. Complementarians often believe this is a surpassing  ofAdam’s authority as the head of the relationship. However, Hess contended verse 6 (“her husband with her”) implicates both of them as equally guilty.[16] After Adam and Eve sinned together and hid from God together, God called to Adam first. Hess explained three reasons for God calling out to Adam first rather than Eve, or calling both of them. First, Adam received the command not to eat of the tree, not Eve. Second, God speaks to each of the characters in the reverse of the order they spoke earlier in the chapter. This reversal is a chiasm, a common element of Hebrew poetry. Third, God questioning the man and woman separately demonstrated how their harmonious partnership had been corrupted.[17]

The corruption of Adam and Eve’s relationship is further demonstrated by God’s words to Eve following his curse of the serpent. The first mention of female subordination comes from this section, where God said to the woman, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you shall deliver children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.”[18] God did not say what he originally intended for male-female relations in this verse, he simply described what would happen in relationships after sin had been introduced to the world. Rather than cooperating in the everyday tasks of life in submission to God, a husband and wife would now dispute over which of them is in charge.[19]

1 Corinthians

            According to egalitarians, male-female equality was God’s intention from the beginning, and in the New Testament letters contain even more explicit teachings on the subject. Paul wrote the letter of 1 Corinthians to correct a disorganized and unified congregation, as New Testament scholars Gordon D. Fee and Marion L. Soards noted.[20] Thus, in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14, while the apostle taught that men and women are equally gifted to pray and prophesy, he also corrected the Corinthians’ inappropriate eradication of gender distinctives.

            Paul’s discourse in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 begins with a verse that many see as strong evidence for male headship. He said in verse 3, “I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.” The word translated as “head” can refer to authority, but, as New Testament theologian N. T. Wright noted, it can also refer to the source of something.[21] Fee noted that Paul’s other usages of the word in Eph. 4:15-16 and Colossians 2:19 do not refer to an authoritative relationship but instead a “supporting, life-giving role” which the head of the body was affiliated with.[22] Thus, the man is the “head” of his wife simply because Eve was formed from Adam, which is exactly what Paul referred to in 11:8.[23] Adam is not then, according to an egalitarian reading, the “head” of Eve in terms of authority. Additionally, the rest of 1 Corinthians 11 lacks explicit language about male headship.[24]

            Paul began his discourse by reminding readers that the first woman came from the first man to introduce the wider topic of appropriate masculinity and femineity in the church. Wright suggested that many in the Corinthian church probably believed that Christians did not need to display gender distinctives.[25] Thus, the apostle instructed the Corinthians to show their differences as men and women in way that their surrounding culture would understand, through women wearing head coverings.[26] God designed humanity as man and woman from the beginning, so the church must recognize and live out gender differences rather than ignore them.[27] Additionally, as commentator Marion Soards noted, if a woman (or man) dressed outside of the gender norms of the day, she or he would draw attention to his or her self during the worship service rather than God.[28] Women and men alike are expected to pray and prophesy (11:4-5), but must do so in a way that glorifies God and his design of humanity. Given all these points discussed, egalitarian readers conclude that 1 Corinthians 11 does not prohibit women from participating in or leading worship.

Another passage in the aforementioned letter, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35, appears more difficult to explain from an egalitarian perspective. The apostle wrote in this passage,

As in all the churches of the saints, the women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

An egalitarian reading of these verses focuses on the cultural context of the letter and recognizes the speaking ministries women are expected to fulfill given 1 Corinthians 11. New Testament scholar Craig S. Keener, as well as Wright, argued Paul used 1 Corinthians 14 to address women simply speaking out of turn and interrupting the worship service. Wright, building off the work of theologian Ken Bailey, argued that since the services at the church at Corinth were likely in Arabic, a language spoken by most of the men but few of the women, the women probably became bored and talked among themselves during the service.[29] As a correction to this practice, Paul instructed the women to “ask their own husbands at home” what was said and avoid disrupting the church’s worship. Keener agreed that women interrupted the church’s worship, but for different reasons. Looking to the lack of women’s education in the first-century Roman world, he posited that women interrupted to ask questions. The Corinthian women in particular may have been prohibited from speaking to avoid offending the typical Roman, who would have “regarded wives’ speaking publicly with others’ husbands as horrible behavior, reflecting possible flirtatious designs and subverting the moral order of the state.”[30]

Regardless of whether one takes Wright’s position or Keener’s position, an egalitarian can argue Paul expected women to be an active part of the church’s worship and in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14. Further, Paul did not argue that an innate position of authority is given to men. The apostle simply gave the Corinthian church specific instructions on how to worship in a way that was proper and orderly for their context.

1 Timothy 2

            An egalitarian approach to 1 Timothy 2 focuses on the context of the Ephesian church and Paul’s occasion for writing to them. Similar to his purpose for 1 Corinthians, Paul wrote 1 Timothy to, as Wright and theologian Michael F. Bird commented, “establish the orderliness and orthodoxy” of the church at Ephesus.[31] Similarly, biblical scholar Linda Belville presented that letter as a corrective on false teaching for a particular church dealing with particular false teachings.[32] This church was also located in Ephesus, the center of the cult of Artemis, which exalted women far above men.[33] Given the particular situation the letter was written to address, as well as several commands that are clearly unable to be practiced today, egalitarian scholars understand Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2 to prohibit women from domineering over men in the Ephesian church, as women influenced by Ephesian religion would be inclined to do.[34]

            The religion of Ephesus requires some further explanation. As Belville described it, this religion, the cult of Artemis, revolved around a female deity (Artemis) who was worshipped through rituals performed by priestesses.[35] Thus, Paul’s prohibition of women teaching and exercising authority over men (2:12) can be read as a response to the Ephesians’ propensity to pollute the church, where men and women have equal partnership, with female domination. Traditionally, verse 12 has been translated as referring to the domination men, rather than the exercising of authority over men. This word, authentein, has a rich history outside of 1 Timothy 2, the word’s only use in the Bible. In Greek literature, it usually described violent or criminal acts.[36] Thus, a more accurate translation of verse 12 would be something like, “But I do not allow a woman to teach or to domineer over a man.” Egalitarian readers can conclude, in light of the domination of women in the Ephesian religion and the likely meaning of authentein, Paul exhorted women not to dominate the men of the congregation. Instead, Wright argued, they should learn in “submission” to God or the gospel message with humility, as all learners should.[37]

            Verses 13 to 15 can be read in light of Paul’s polemic against Artemis and exhortation for women to learn. He reminded readers that, unlike in the Artemis myth, the man was created first, and when the woman had not been properly educated, she was “deceived.”[38] If this reading of 1 Timothy 2 is to be followed, then readers will understand that Paul was not making a universal command against women teaching or leading in the church. Instead, Paul told the Ephesians to transcend the conventions of their culture so they could worship, learn, and serve together, as equal partners in God’s kingdom work.

3. The Complementarian Position

            A complementarian reading of the Bible bests fits the literal words of 1 Timothy 2 and makes the best sense of the whole of the biblical story. God created men to be the primary leaders of the home and the church. In the context of the gathered church, women can engage in worshipful activities such as praying and prophesying, but cannot engage in teaching or exercising authority over men or the entire congregation. Instead, women are called to live out an attitude of submission to their husbands and to teach the other women of the church how to love and pursue God.

Genesis 1-3

Genesis 1-3 reveals a general pattern for biblical manhood and womanhood in which men are to lead and women are t respect that leadership. [39] The pattern set in these chapters is specifically in the context of marriage, but the implications of this pattern in the marital relationship reach outside the home as well.[40]

God’s creation of humanity is first described in Genesis 1:26-28, as quoted earlier. These verses provide three key truths about God’s design of humanity. First, all of humanity, both man and woman, is made in God’s image. The worth of a person comes from his or her creation in God’s image, not what he or she does.[41] Second, humanity is tasked with ruling over creation, and since God created both men and women, they must work together to fulfill this task. Third, part of humanity’s rule over creation involves reproduction so they can “be fruitful and multiple.” as Old Testament scholar K. A. Matthews noted, men and women are designed with different roles in procreation, and these differences imply that men and women may have different roles in other areas.[42]

            The second and third chapters of Genesis contain several examples of how God gave Adam particular roles and responsibilities that he did not give Eve. God created Adam first, Adam named both the animals and the woman, and Adam, rather than Eve, was called by God after both the man and woman sinned, and DeYoung argued from these acts that God considered Adam the head of the family.[43] Adam’s headship is also implied because he was created first. As theologian Wayne Grudem explained, God creating the man first parallels the Ancient Near Eastern concept of “primogeniture,” the idea that the firstborn child should lead that generation of the family. Like a firstborn son, Adam, the firstborn of humanity, was given the primary leadership and responsibility over the secondborn, Eve. While this idea is not explicit in the words of the text, the right of the firstborn was common in the ancient world and frequently appears in the Old Testament.[44]

Why would God call out to Adam when his wife was the first to eat of the fruit? After all, Moses recorded that the woman ate the fruit first, not the man. Perhaps, as Hess argued, God addressed the man first partly for the sake of poetry, but as even the egalitarian scholar noted, God gave the prohibition about the tree to Adam alone.[45] Presumably, Adam was tasked with teaching this taboo to his wife, and perhaps also should have ensured Eve did not give into the temptation to eat the fruit.[46]

Adam’s role of headship in his relationship with Eve is also shown in the curses God pronounces upon the serpent and the human couple. In Genesis 3:16, God told the woman something to the effect of, “Your desire shall be for your husband, and/but/yet he will rule over you.”[47] Because of the fall, the woman’s relationship with her husband will suffer. The specifics of how the relationship will suffer depends on how one interprets the passage’s use of teshuqah, the Hebrew word translated as “desire.” It only appears twice in the Old Testament – once in Song of Songs 7:10 in a positive context and once in Genesis 4:7 in a negative context.[48] Given the negative connotation of God’s words in Genesis 3, readers can conclude that the use of teshuqah in Genesis 3 is also meant negatively. Matthews and fellow Old Testament scholar Bruce K. Waltke (along with his assistant, Cathi J. Fredricks) noted that following the fall of humanity, God’s original intention for male leadership in the marriage was corrupted.[49] Since Genesis 1-3 primarily deal with marriage, one must turn to other passages to understand how biblical manhood and womanhood should play out in the gathering of the church.

1 Corinthians

            While Genesis 1-3 provides a general pattern of male headship and deals primarily with marriage, 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 contain several guidelines by which men and women are to function in the gathering of the church. Although these passages are difficult to interpret, one can deduce that Paul argued that married women should adorn themselves and act in a way that shows submission to their husbands while participating in corporate worship.

            In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul began his discussion of women’s adornment in worship by commending the Corinthians for holding fast to Paul’s teaching and then saying “I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.” The plainest reading of this text is that in the church’s corporate worship, women should submit to men like Christ submits to his Father. As Grudem explained, the Scriptures the bear witness to the Son’s submission to the Father, yet they are equally divine. Similarly, although women are supposed to submit to men, women and men are equally made in the image of God and equally valued by him.[50] New Testament scholar Thomas Schreiner further noted that since Paul ties his argument about male headship to the Trinity, male headship cannot be a culturally bound construct or a result of the fall.

            As previously discussed, some scholars dispute whether kephalē should be translated as “head,” which would imply male authority over females, or “source,” which would imply male origin for females. Thus, the text would imply that women merely come from men rather than assert their need to submit to men. However, the whole of Greek literature, and well as the wider passage of 1 Corinthians 11, prove that kephalē is a term that refers to authority and headship. Grudem’s extensive study of the use of kephalē in Greek literature demonstrated that the word refers to authority in the vast majority of New Testament contexts and Greek literature outside of the New Testament.[51] Further, Schreiner and the Köstenbergers’ exploration of Paul’s use of the word else showed Paul tended to use this word when discussing authority.[52]

            In verses four to sixteen of 1 Corinthians 11, Paul taught that men and women in the church must adorn themselves in a way that expresses biblical masculinity and femineity.[53] According to Paul, men were expected not to cover their heads during prayer or prophesy, while women were expected to cover their heads during the same activities. In verse nine, the apostle contends that the covering of one’s head stems from creation, “for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.” Since modern readers are not sure exactly what these head covering were and thus, as DeYoung noted, this practice cannot be copied today.[54] However, the general principle of the passage is easily applicable to the modern church. Women should demonstrate their submission to their head, the men who lead their family, by adorning themselves in such a way that reflects natural differences between men and women and suits their particular culture.[55]

In 1 Cor.14:33-36, Paul gave further guidelines for how women should operate in public worship. The apostle commanded in verses 33 and 34, “As in all the churches of the saints, the women are to keep silent in the churches.” These verses seem like an incredible contradiction to 1 Corinthians 11, where Paul encouraged women to pray and prophesy, which would have involved speech to some degree. However, the verses preceding 14:33 can be used to clarify what kind of speech Paul was addressing. In verses 26-33a, Paul discussed how prophecies should be interpreted in the gathering of the church. Therefore, Paul’s prohibition for women’s silence, especially when understood alongside chapter eleven, can be understood as referring to silence during the interpretation of prophecies, not total silence.[56] Since, as the next section of this paper will explore, women are not to teach in the gathering of the local church, women were not to interpret prophecies.[57] Instead, they were to listen and be taught by their husbands at home rather than interrupt the service and thus embarrass or dishonor their husbands (14:35).

To summarize Paul’s teaching on women in worship in 1 Corinthians, in the local church, women can pray and prophesy while modeling submission to men in general and their husbands in particular and in keeping with this principle of submission to male authority, women should not interpret these prophecies, as this would be teaching to the whole congregation. Paul further elaborated on why women should not teach men or exercise authority over a congregation as a whole in the next passage examined.

1 Timothy 2

            In Timothy in 1 Tim. 2:8-15 Paul taught that, in keeping with the creation order, women should not teach or exercise authority over men. Women should instead pursue godliness in a distinctly feminine way – with modest dress, good works, and motherhood. Further, an exploration of Roman religion shows that women were involved in pagan worship in multiple places for multiple gods and goddesses, not just Ephesus, thus the argument that Paul prohibits women from teaching and exercising authority merely as a response to a particular practice in Ephesus is untenable.

            Paul began the passage by discussing specific ways for men and women to act. In this discussion, as New Testament scholar Douglas Moo observed, Paul gave specific instructions for men and women “everywhere,” likely meaning in every local church gathering, perhaps in response to specific behaviors those believers exhibited.[58] Men should be people of constant prayer with a balanced temperament and women should dress modestly, adorning themselves with good works in pursuit of godliness.

            In keeping with 1 Corinthians 14:34, Paul commanded in 1 Timothy 2:11-12, “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.” Paul grounded his argument not in the Ephesians’ cultural context or a particular group of false teachers, but in creation. He wrote in verse thirteen, “For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.” Paul appealed to what was described earlier as the creation order, which refers to how God created Adam first and tasked him with leadership of Eve. Paul’s appeal to creation order, rather than the fall, in verse 13 suggests that male headship is not a result of the fall, but instead an expression of God’s original design.[59]

Additionally, while 1 Timothy is certainly an occasional document that Paul wrote to address false teaching, DeYoung posited that Paul seemed concerned about the direct application of his letter well outside of the Ephesian context based on Paul’s words in 3:15. The apostle said in 3:15, “I write so that you will know how one should act in the household of God, which is the church of the living God.” Paul identified his purpose in writing the letters as teaching how one should behave in the church, not just in the Ephesian church.[60]

            Although Paul’s argument from creation and the purpose of writing he identified would be sufficient to prove his commands for women should be literally applied to the modern church, a study of Roman culture can give a reader even greater confidence in that assertion. New Testament scholar S. M. Baugh noted that “women held a variety of priesthoods and other functions in state cults throughout the Greco-Roman world.”[61] Thus, even if though the cult of Artemis emphasized women above men, that fact alone would not be sufficient to leave a literal application of 1 Timothy 2:8-15 in the Ephesian church. Additionally, from Baugh’s research, women were apparently not prominent enough in the Ephesian culture to be mentioned often in any recovered archaeological data from ancient Ephesus. Finally, while many females were involved in the worship of Artemis, they were primarily preteen and young teenaged girls, which hardly suggested women’s domination over men being a part of regular religious life in Ephesus.[62]

Additionally, linguist and theologian Al Wolters noted that the word authentein does not need to be understood as a reference to violent or dominating behavior. After a survey of the word’s usage in Greek literature he concluded that although the word is often used in a negative context, “the meaning of the verb itself is morally neutral.”[63] Further, as DeYoung noted, Paul wrote the letter to Timothy, a man, and only mentioned two false teachers by name, both being men. Also, if Paul was simply prohibiting domineering of women over men, why would he neglect to exhort men to not domineer over women?[64]

The content of 1 Timothy as a whole does not lend itself to the idea that Paul was merely prohibit an unbalanced female dominance in the Ephesian church. Appealing to a specific context in Ephesus seems like a possible solution to Paul’s teaching on women at first glance, but the position is ultimately untenable when one examines the context and text of 1 Timothy 2 in detail. The simplest and most thoroughly supported interpretation of this passage would be to take Paul at his word and accept that women should not teach or exercise authority over men in the church, and thus conclude that women cannot serve in any roles in the church that involve teaching the Scriptures to men or exercising authority over the entire congregation. 

4. Application

While this study is primarily aimed at arguing what women should not do in the church, a brief examination of what women should do in the church is a helpful note. If women are not supposed to teach men or exercise authority over the congregation, women can (and should) serve in all other areas of ministry. Paul mentioned that women should, in a respectful way, be involved in the church’s prayer and prophesy in 1 Corinthians 11 and beyond that, the Scriptures explicitly highlight that women should mentor younger women (Titus 2:3-5), love and support their husbands (Ephesians 5), be a godly influence in their home (1 Peter 3:1-7), share the gospel (Matthew 28:8-10), help with charity and outreach (Acts 9:36), host and provide for fellow believers (Acts 16:14, 40), and be active in providing for their families (Proverbs 31:13-24). Additionally, women can and should be involved in ministry to children, in music and worship, and in various practical ministries. In sum, the Scriptures seem to indicate that women should be actively participating in every aspect of the church’s ministry, but that only men should teach men and exercise authority over the entire congregation.

5. Conclusion

The story of redemption began with the of the first man and woman. They were the pinnacle of creation as the only creatures made in God’s image and tasked with ruling his creation. Although the relationship between men and worship has been damaged by sin, in the church, men and women alike can find harmony in worship of God, the only one who could repair not just the rift between men and women, but between himself and sinful humanity. In his wisdom, God limited women to certain roles in the church, yet, as Paul said in Ephesians 4:12, all the saints should be equipped for the work of ministry by their church. Christians who understand complementarian theology should not seek to exalt one gender and put down another, but instead seek to build up men and women alike, in love, in truth, and in unity, for the good of the body of Christ.


[1] Gregory Tomlin, “Split Among American Baptists Over Homosexuality is Final,” Baptist Press, May 18, 2006, https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/split-among-american-baptists-over-homosexuality-is-final/.; Joe Carter, “How to Tell the Difference Between the PCA and PCUSA,” The Gospel Coalition, June 23, 2014, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/how-to-tell-the-difference-between-the-pca-and-pcusa/.; Emily McFarlane Miller, “Conservative United Methodists Plan Breakaway Denomination,” Christianity Today, March 2, 2021, https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2021/march/conservative-umc-split-postponed-global-methodist-church.html.

Currently, the Anglican church allows women in the priesthood (pastorate), but does not affirm sinful sexual orientations and lifestyles. See “Resolution 21 - Women in the Priesthood,” Anglican Communion, accessed October 14, 2021, https://www.anglicancommunion.org/resources/document-library/lambeth-conference/1978/resolution-21-women-in-the-priesthood?subject=Ordination.

[2] Albert Mohler, “The Briefing: Monday, May 10, 2021,” Albert Mohler, May 10, 2021, accessed October 14, 2021, https://albertmohler.com/2021/05/10/briefing-5-10-21. A video of one of the sermons by Kathy and Ed Litton, was, as of June 16, 2021, viewable on Redeemer Church’s YouTube channel. Since that date, the video has been removed. An unofficial (but complete) reupload of one of these videos is viewable at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x83RXKc5ykQ as of October 14, 2021.

[3] Adapted from 1 Timothy 2:12 (ESV/NASB).

[4] Adapted from DeYoung, Men and Women in the Church: A Short, Biblical, and Practical Introduction (Wheaton: Crossway, 2021), 146-151 and William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary 46 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2000), 125-30.

[5] Ibid., 124-30.

[6] The separation of modern culture from Roman culture should lead a wise exegete to understand that the age at which a boy becomes a man is somewhat culturally conditioned. However someone defines man in modern Western culture, men will certainly be in attendance in a Sunday morning worship service, and thus women should not teach in those contexts.

[7] Egalitarianism and complementarianism have varying nuances that reach further than this paper will address, and some object to the use of these terms in this way or prefer other terms. For the sake of this study, the terms “egalitarian” and “complementarian” will be adequate.

[8] Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture will be from the NASB.

[11] Ibid., 84.

[13] John E. Hartley, Genesis, New International Biblical Commentary Old Testament Series 1 (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2000), 62.

[14] Hess, 85 and John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology: Israel’s Life, Old Testament Theology 3 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 354.

[15] Giles, under “What Genesis 2 and 3 actually say and teach” and Hartley, 67.

[16] Hess, 89.

[17] Ibid., 90.

[18] Giles, under “What Genesis 2 and 3 actually say and teach.”

[19] Hess, 92-93 and Hartley, 69-70.

[20] Gordon D. Fee, “Praying and Prophesying in the Assemblies: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16,” in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementary Without Hierarchy, 2nd ed., ed. Ronald W. Pierce, Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, and Gordon D. Fee, 143-4 and Marion L. Soards, 1 Corinthians, New International Biblical Commentary New Testament Series 7 (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999), 5-6. For an explicit verse on this purpose, see 1 Cor. 14:40.

[22] Fee, 149.

[23] Wright, 8 and Fee, 155.

[24] Fee, 151.

[25] Wright, 8.

[26] 1 Cor. 11:4-7 reads in part, “Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head… if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, have her cover her head. For a man should not have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.”

[27] Wright, 8.

[28] Soards, 224.

[29] Wright, 7.

[30] Craig S. Keener, “Learning in the Assemblies: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35,” in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementary Without Hierarchy, 2nd ed., ed. Ronald W. Pierce, Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, and Gordon D. Fee, 165-7.

[31] N. T. Wright and Michael F. Bird, The New Testament in its World: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the First Christians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2019), 543.

[32]  Linda L. Belville, “Teaching and Usurping Authority: 1 Timothy 2:11-15,” in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementary Without Hierarchy, 2nd ed., ed. Ronald W. Pierce, Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, and Gordon D. Fee, 205-7. She observed that “roughly 50 percent of the letter’s contents” are about false teaching (206) and about 10 percent of the contents focus on women.

[33] Ibid., 219.

[35] Belville, 219-21.

[36] Ibid., 209-17.

[37] Wright, 9.

[38] Ibid., 9-10.

[40] DeYoung, 25. Also see 1 Tim. 2:12-15, where Paul bases his prohibition of women teaching or exercising authority over men on Genesis 1-3.

[41] Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr., “Male-Female Equality and Male Headship: Genesis 1-3” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem, 95-112 (Wheaton: Crossway, 1994), 100. Also see Ortlund, 104 for a discussion of other relationships which involve submission but do not make the submitting parties of less value to God.

[42] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, The New American Commentary 1A (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 173.

[43] DeYoung, 27-31.

[45] Hess, 90.

[46] Köstenberger and Köstenberger, 33. Adam’s failure to lead his wife properly may be why Paul refers to Adam as the first sinner, rather than Eve, in Romans 5:12 and 5:14.

[47] This is an amalgamation of NASB, ESV, and LEB, all formal translations, that use varying wording for Genesis 3:16 to maintain the same general idea.

[49] Matthews, 250-1 and Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 94. Waltke and Fredricks viewed “rule” as harsh dominance, a direct result of the fall. Matthews disagreed, instead arguing that “rule” was a general reference to male headship.

[50] Grudem, Systematic, 586.

[53] See 1 Corinthians 11:4-5.

[54] DeYoung, 57.

[55] Schreiner, 132-137 and DeYoung, 58.

[56] Köstenberger and Köstenberger, 179.

[57] See DeYoung, 79, where he identified the interpretation of prophecies as part of the local church’s teaching ministry.

[58] Douglas Moo, “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?: 1 Timothy 2:11-15,” in in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem, 182.

[59] Köstenberger and Köstenberger, 210.

[60] DeYoung, 77.

[62] Ibid., 44-50.

[63] Al Wolters, “The Meaning of Αὐθεντεῖν,” in Women in the Church: An Application and Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, 3rd ed., ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. Schreiner, 69-98. The quote is from 98. Köstenberger and Köstenberger helpfully noted that this word is only used twice in extant Greek literature prior to the time of 1 Timothy’s writings. See Köstenberger and Köstenberger, 208.

[64] DeYoung, 81-2.

Comments

Post a Comment