I devoted an entire chapter to 1 Timothy 2 in my book Masculine Christianity. However, I am often asked for an accessible article on 1 Timothy 2:12, so that is what I hope this will be. My goal is to briefly explain the passage, refute feminist objections, and provide some points of application, particularly regarding women teaching. I try not to get bogged down with every detail or argument, so for more see the footnotes and also Masculine Christianity.

My contention here is that while 1 Timothy 2 is a controversial passage, that is not due to its lack of clarity. Egalitarians love to claim the passage is not clear. For example, New Testament commentator R. T. France asserted, “We have to admit that we know too little about the circumstances of the letter, and that there are too many obscure or ambiguous features to the argument, to allow any exegesis to claim to have uttered the last word.”[1] In his recent commentary, Greek scholar Stanley Porter even says of prior commentators’ views on 1 Timothy 2, “The tacit assumption in all the views noted above is that we know what these verses actually say, an assumption that I believe is unwarranted.”[2]

Contrary to these egalitarian scholars who seem to cast doubt on the meaning of every word and phrase in the passage, the theologians that ministered prior to modern feminism never thought the passage was unclear. In fact, they were essentially unanimous in citing the passage against women preaching, teaching, and holding church office. (On this point, see my forthcoming book, Honor Thy Fathers: Recovering the Anti-Feminist Theology of the Reformers.)

The Goal—Godliness (1 Timothy 2:9-10)

Paul gives brief instructions to men in 1 Timothy 2:8: “Therefore I want the men to pray in every place, lifting up holy hands without wrath and dispute.” (All translations in this article are the author’s.) The rest of the passage (vv. 9-15) is directed toward women, where Paul says, “Likewise [I want] women to adorn themselves…” (2:9). So both the command for men in v. 8 and the commands for women beginning in v. 9 are preceded with the word “therefore,” which points back to vv. 1-7.

In that prior section, Paul instructed Christians to pray for “all men,” including kings and all in authority, with this goal—“so that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, in all godliness and dignity” (2:2). Paul speaks of the “testimony” of Christ’s “ransom”—unto which he was “appointed a preacher, apostle,” and “teacher…in faith and truth” (2:7). So the “therefore” in v. 8 is rooted in Paul’s authority as a preacher, apostle, and teacher of Christ. Paul is giving apostolic instructions for men and women.

Paul is concerned with godliness. He wants men to pray together and not be at war with one another (2:8), and he wants women to act in accordance with “godliness” (2:10). So that is the goal. And if women “profess godliness,” then they should act in a manner that is “proper” or “fitting” (πρέπει) for such godliness (2:10). This means women should do two things: (1) dress modestly and respectably so as not to seek attention with flashy clothes, hairstyles, and jewelry (2:9); (2) and focus on “good works” (2:10):

Likewise, [I want] women to adorn themselves with appropriate clothing, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or expensive garments, but with good works, which is proper for women professing godliness. (2:9-10)

The clothing is to be “appropriate” (κόσμιος). This means women should dress with “modesty” and “self-control.” The word for “modesty” (αἰδώς) means a woman should dress so as to garner “respect” and not “shame” (NIDNTTE). The latter word “self-control” (σωφροσύνη) may even be translated “prudence” or “moderation” (BDAG).[3]

Paul’s overall point is not to tell women exactly what to wear, but to tell them to dress properly and appropriately. This means there were some things they should definitely not wear in public. There are cultural elements here (such as the significance of “braided hair”), but in every culture, the point stands that women should not dress to show off. Paul does not specifically mention women wearing tight clothing or showing skin, but the Bible clearly associates such dress with the prostitute and adulteress, with Proverbs even speaking of the “garment of a harlot” (Proverbs 7:10; cf. Genesis 38:14-15). And the principle of this passage (i.e., Christian prudence and propriety) obviously means women should not wear tight clothing or show skin in public, which is to show off to gain the wrong kind of attention rather than respect.

This is not a command to dress sloppily and look unattractive. Rather, the emphasis is on implementing Christian prudence so as to gain respect and not shame. Doing so is in fact a “good work” and is proper for the godly woman (2:10). Women are not to focus on external adornment but cultivating submission and “a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God” (1 Peter 3:3-5). In fact we see a contrast here with this same word (πολυτελής) in the two passages—women should not adorn themselves with the clothing that is “expensive” and valuable to man (1 Timothy 2:9), but with a feminine spirit that is “precious” and valuable to God (1 Peter 3:4).

The Commands—Do Not Teach But Be Quiet (2:11-12)

So that is the background to the controversial commands in 2:11-12. Women are to do good works and act in a manner that is proper for godly women. Accordingly, Paul gives the following commands:

A woman must learn in silence with all subjection. But I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man. Rather, [she is] to be silent. (2:11-12)

There are two commands here. The first command is positive, saying that a woman should be silent and submissive (2:11). The second command is negative, prohibiting a woman from teaching or exercising authority over a man (2:12). This is then followed with the repetition of the first positive command to be “silent” (2:12).

The positive command is rather straightforward. If a person is a woman, then she is to “learn” or “receive instruction” (μανθανέτω) in a manner of submission. In Greek, there are two nouns in the dative case that modify the verb. Woman is to learn “in silence” (ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ) and “in all subjection” (ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ). That exact phrase “in silence” is used in v. 12, literally, “Rather, to be in silence” (ἀλλ’ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ). I am translating the word as “silence,” following the KJV and the Greek lexicon BDAG. However, the word can also mean “quietness,” which is how many modern translations render it (NASB95, ESV). There are arguments for both renderings, but the parallel passage of 1 Corinthians 14:34 uses a different word (σιγάω) meaning to be “silent” and not “quiet,” and its similar context is good reason to understand 1 Timothy 2:11-12 as also commanding silence. Either way, whether silence or quietness, the meaning is that women are to learn without speaking. All Christians are to live a “quiet life” (ἡσύχιον βίον, 2:2), but when it comes to learning, only women are commanded to be quiet.[4]

The command for women to learn in v. 11 is modified by “in silence” but also “in all subjection” (ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ). Many translations render this as “with all submissiveness” (NASB95, ESV), but I again am following the KJV and BDAG here. Either way, the meaning is clear—women are to learn in a manner that demonstrates submission and obedience. Subjection to whom it does not specify, but surely subjection is to the one teaching, as well as to a woman’s husband (cf. Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:5). The learning is to be done in “all subjection,” meaning “subordinating herself in every respect” (BDAG).

As for the prohibition in v. 12, this is where the real controversy lies. However, I have set the context thus far so as to weaken the egalitarian objections. What I mean is that the command in v. 12 flows from Paul calling for female propriety (v. 10) and a spirit of submission (v. 11). Here is the particular command again of v. 12:

But I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man. Rather, [she is] to be silent. (2:12)

The prohibition comes from Paul in the first person (“I”), but this by no means weakens the command, for God appointed Paul as an “apostle” and “teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth” (2:7). Thus, v. 12 is a command from Christ’s apostle, which carries Christ’s authority.

Paul places the prohibition on “woman,” which represents women as a class. As a class of humans, women are not to do two things: (1) teach men, or (2) exercise authority over men. Now the first prohibition on teaching (διδάσκειν) is best explained to include the modifying noun “man” (ἀνδρός). Even though the noun comes after another verb (“to exercise authority”), it likely modifies both verbs here.[5] Moreover, there are examples of women teaching younger women (Titus 2:3) and a woman with her husband privately instructing a man (Acts 18:26). Paul’s concern is not women training women or teaching children, or even private theological discussion between a man and woman, but a woman teaching men in public gatherings.

The second prohibition in v. 12 is on “exercising authority over a man.” The Greek word authenteo (αὐθεντέω) has been disputed, as many egalitarians argue it has a negative meaning of “domineer” or “assume authority,”[6] and thus they conclude that Paul is not prohibiting women from exercising proper authority over men. However, Al Wolters has established that the pejorative and ingressive meanings are “very unlikely” and that “αὐθεντέω in general is used overwhelmingly in a positive or neutral sense.” This is in part based on the fact that the word “often occurs in Christian contexts with God or Jesus Christ as its subject.”[7] Contextually, it also does not make sense that Paul would prohibit only women from the negative behavior of “domineering.” If the meaning were negative, we would expect Paul also to prohibit men from engaging in such activity. Abusing authority is improper for all, not just women. Moreover, women are told in v. 11 to learn “with all subjection” (ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ), which should inform our understanding of Paul’s prohibitions in v. 12. The command for women (and not men) to be in submission prohibits women from exercising authority, not just from an abusive authority. Therefore, authenteo in 1 Timothy 2:12 should be understood as “to exercise authority.”

Can Women Teach So long as It Is Not Authoritative?

Many egalitarians argue that Paul in v. 12 is only prohibiting one task of “authoritative teaching,” not two separate (but related) tasks of teaching and exercising authority (e.g., Philip Payne).[8] Even many narrow “complementarians” follow this interpretation (e.g., Tim and Kathy Keller). Kathy Keller even appeals to the egalitarian Philip Payne that 1 Timothy 2:12 only prohibits the single task of “authoritative teaching,” or as she explains it, “teaching with teeth in it.”[9] Tim Keller made public statements confirming he shared his wife’s view that “to teach or to exercise authority” is “one thing.”[10] Based on this narrow reading of v. 12, Kathy Keller concluded that there is a “difference between public communication of information, exhortation, or explanation (all permitted to both unordained men and women) and teaching with authority, which is the province of ordained elders.” She then summarized Redeemer’s position: “Stated the way we do at Redeemer: anything that an unordained man is allowed to do, a woman is also allowed to do.”[11] Thus, this narrow interpretation allowed the Kellers to say women may teach and exhort men so long as it is not an “authoritative teaching.” Other “complementarians” have gone so far as to say women may preach sermons to men as long as they have permission from the church leaders (and it is unclear on what basis the Kellers’ logic would not also lead to this conclusion).

However, there are three reasons why Paul in 1 Timothy 2:12 is prohibiting women from two separate tasks of “teaching” and “exercising authority” and not one task of “authoritative teaching,” as Payne and the Kellers have argued. First, although the word meaning “nor/or” (οὐδὲ) between the two verbs can join “‘two closely related items,’ it does not usually join together words that restate the same thing or that are mutually interpreting.”[12] Second, Paul separates the two verbs rather than keep them next to each other, placing “teach” at the front of the sentence and the phrase “I do not permit a woman” between the two verbs. Third, Paul distinguishes between the tasks of teaching and ruling later in 1 Timothy 5:17 (“Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and teaching”). Though Paul uses a different word for “rule” (προΐστημι) here, this still supports the distinction between two related tasks of teaching and ruling in 2:12. Therefore, Paul in v. 12 is prohibiting two different tasks, which are related but should not be merged.[13]

Andreas Köstenberger has argued the word for “nor/or” (οὐδὲ) joins two activities that are both viewed positively or negatively.[14] Thus, the egalitarian attempt to define authenteo negatively (“assume authority”) and then combine it with the positive didasko (“to teach”) does not work. Consistency would require egalitarians also to take didasko negatively, but most egalitarians (including Payne) do not do this because of its overwhelmingly positive meaning.[15]

Furthermore, even if these verbs were to form one concept of “authoritative teaching,” this activity is still contrasted (“rather,” ἀλλά) with “silence” in v. 12. Paul then would be saying, ‘A woman is not to authoritatively teach men, but she must learn in silence with all subjection.’ Thus, one major problem with this narrow interpretation of the prohibited tasks in v. 12 is that it does not account for the commands before and after in vv. 11-12 to be “silent” and to be “in subjection.” The strong adversative in v. 12 (ἀλλά), translated “but” or “rather,” means women are not to teach but instead be quiet/silent. That is not the language a person would choose if he wanted to allow women to teach men in the church so long as it is under the authority of the elders. Paul’s language is far too broad for such a view. He is commanding women to be quiet when learning is taking place among the assembly, and that means they cannot teach—at all. Thus, Paul is prohibiting women from two tasks, both teaching men and exercising authority over men.

May Women Teach Sunday School?

Now there are two challenges in applying v. 12. First, Paul does not tell us the content of the “teaching” that is prohibited in v. 12. Is this just the Bible and theology, or more? Second, and related to the first challenge, Paul does not specifically name the context for these commands in 1 Timothy 2:9-15. Paul is surely including the public worship service. But is he prohibiting women from teaching in other contexts, such as Sunday school?

The word “to teach” (διδάσκω) used here is actually quite broad, and can mean “to provide instruction in a formal or informal setting” (BDAG). However, in the New Testament, the word usually refers to doctrinal teaching—“the public transmission of authoritative material”[16]—so Paul seems to be primarily prohibiting women from teaching the Bible or anything related to theology and the church.

As for the setting, Paul may very well have the public worship assembly in view, as he only speaks of men praying and thus may be addressing those leading prayer (2:8), and teaching and learning would primarily take place in the public assembly (2:12). (Paul does refer to prayer “in every place” in v. 8, which could refer to every worship assembly or anywhere they pray together.) Paul also speaks of how women should dress (2:9). However, none of these things are absolutely limited to the public worship service. Is a woman permitted to dress immodestly outside of church? Should men quarrel when they pray together in homes? Surely not. And this means the principles in this passage still apply outside the public worship assembly.

Some narrow complementarians want to say 1 Timothy 2:12 merely prohibits women from holding the office of pastor and elder, but they have it backwards. Paul is prohibiting tasks, namely teaching and exercising authority over men. It follows that women are not permitted to be pastors. But it also follows that women are not to take up tasks reserved for men.

It is noteworthy that 1 Timothy 2:12 does not prohibit women from “preaching” (a different Greek word) but from “teaching,” which is broader. Therefore, the prohibition in v. 12 is not limited to the sermon in a public worship service. The fact is that learning and teaching take place outside the Sunday morning worship service, such as in Sunday school, Wednesday evening gatherings, Bible studies, chapel services, and campus ministry meetings. None of these things are addressed in the Bible. So is that a blank check to do whatever we want in such settings? Absolutely not. Rather, we must apply biblical principles to like settings. On what basis is a woman permitted to teach doctrine to men in a Sunday school gathering where learning and teaching take place? There is no basis in the text, and, in fact, the creational differences in vv. 13-14 still apply no matter the setting. Women are still women, and men are still men. So if the differences between the sexes make it improper for a woman to teach doctrine to a man in public worship, then those same differences make it improper for a woman to teach doctrine to a man in other public settings such as Sunday school (or any other classroom settings).

In applying 1 Timothy 2:12, it is important to distinguish between public and private instruction. As Westminster divine William Gouge (1575–1653) said of “teaching” in 1 Timothy 2:12, “That branch of teaching has respect to public assemblies, and churches, in which she may not teach: but not to private families, in which she may, and ought to teach.”[17] Yet even then, Gouge did not mean a woman should lead family worship since the husband is her head. Rather, he thought 1 Timothy 2:12 did not bar women from teaching women and children in the private family.[18]

We may also add that teaching doctrine carries authority, especially when it is in the context of public teaching or formal groups. Some have attempted to argue that a woman may not preach a sermon because it is ‘authoritative teaching’ ordinarily done by church officers but that a woman may teach Sunday school because it is ‘non-authoritative teaching’ (e.g., R. Scott Clark). However, Sunday school still involves public teaching and learning involving men and women, comparable to the context of 1 Timothy 2, which means women are not to teach but to be quiet. Paul’s prohibition is on women, not men who are non-officers (leaving open the possibility for those training for the ministry to teach). Moreover, if someone is attempting to teach doctrine to the church in a “non-authoritative” manner, then that person should immediately stop teaching and leave it to those who can teach with authority, namely men authorized by the church. (And thus, maybe laymen should not ordinarily be teaching Sunday school.)

As for sermons in particular, it is improper for a woman to preach sermons to men, whether that be in a public worship service, a chapel service, or a campus ministry meeting. These settings are comparable to a public worship service in that they involve men, women, teaching, and learning. Moving outside a church building and a Sunday morning setting, or even assembling without a call to worship and benediction, does not give women permission to publicly preach or teach doctrine to men. By extension, women also should not read Scripture publicly (an extension of the sermon and a form of teaching), nor should women lead the congregation in prayer (an exercise of authority). Instead of speaking publicly in worship, women are told to be “silent” and be “in subjection” (2:11-12), two things in opposition to public reading and prayer. (The parallel passage of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 helps strengthen this argument even further.)

The Reason—Creation (2:13-14)

Two reasons are given for the commands in vv. 11-12:

For Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived has come to be in transgression. (2:13-14)

The word “for” tells us these are the reasons for the commands in vv. 11-12. This is how the word “for” normally functions when followed by a command, especially in the Pastoral Epistles.[19] Moreover, it is the only way to make sense of the passage.[20] The first reason Paul gives is the order of creation (2:13), and the second reason is the manner of deception (2:14). The details of Paul’s reasoning are debated, but the overall thrust is clear—woman is not to teach or exercise authority over a man because man was created prior to woman and woman was deceived.

Paul’s reasons go back to the creation account. In Genesis 2, God created man out of the dust and placed him in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:7-8), and because it was not good for man to be alone, God made a “helper” suitable for him (2:18). (The word Paul uses for “formed,” πλάσσω, in 1 Timothy 2:13 is the same word used in Genesis 2:7, 7, 15, 19 [LXX].) The woman was formed from man and joined to man in marriage (2:22-24). So what exactly about Adam being formed first means woman cannot teach man? Paul is getting at the idea of male headship and superiority in rank. Man and woman equally reflect God’s image (Genesis 1:27), but they were not created at the same time, showing there is a difference in rank in authority—“For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:13). Just as woman does not rule over her husband in marriage but is under his headship (Colossians 3:18), so woman does not rule over men in the church but is to be subject to the men who teach (not subject to all men, as not all teach).

The second reason Paul gives for why woman is not to teach or exercise authority over a man is that the woman was deceived and man was not (1 Timothy 2:14). The implication is that Eve’s deception exemplifies the differing dispositions and inclinations of men and women so that women are prohibited from teaching and exercising authority over men. Eve’s deception and Adam’s lack of deception implies something about Eve made her more inclined to deception. As Werner Neuer said, woman has a “greater susceptibility to temptation” that “makes her less suited to the office of teacher than a man.”[21]

However, the offensiveness of this straightforward reading to modern sensibilities has spurred various novel interpretations. Even many who affirm Paul’s prohibition on women teaching offer the interpretation of v. 14 that Paul is basing it in a “role reversal”—meaning the woman tried to lead the man. While that certainly is true, Paul places the emphasis here on deception. Eve was deceived, and Adam was not. Paul is appealing to Genesis 3:13, where Eve said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” The Greek translation of the Old Testament (LXX) uses the word apatao (ἀπατάω), a form of which is used in 1 Timothy 2:14 for Eve “being deceived” (ἐξαπατάω) and the exact form of which is used when Paul says “Adam was not deceived” (ἀπατάω).

Some commentators say that Adam was still deceived by sin and thus Paul must only mean “Adam was not deceived first,” importing the word “first” from the prior verse (“For Adam was formed first”) (e.g., Yarbrough, Schreiner).[22] However, this forced interpretation rejects the very thing Paul says, which is that Adam was not deceived. Yes, sin is deceitful, but Paul’s point is that only Eve was deceived by the serpent. Adam was not deceived by the serpent or any other external agent. Yarbrough and Schreiner conflate internal and external deception.

Now did Adam sin? Of course. It was high-handed sin. But it is Eve’s deception that disqualifies her from teaching. Why? Because Eve’s deception says something about her feminine nature, as God designed woman to follow. As those designed to follow (their husbands), it makes sense that the serpent targeted the woman.[23] Woman’s very strength in marriage can be exploited as a weakness by bad actors. Thus, Paul is making the point that woman is more prone to being deceived by others. It is not that men are never deceived, but man is better suited to overcome false teaching and is thus more fit to be a teacher of Christ’s church.

Now some respond, ‘well then why may women teach children?’ The answer is that woman is not more prone to deception than a child, but only more prone than man. So when it comes to the question of whether men or women should teach and rule the church, God has said it should only be men. And this is due to man’s priority in creation and to man being better suited toward teaching and ruling.

Egalitarians like to argue these commands for women in vv. 11-12 were culturally and contextually situated, and thus they are no longer binding today. Common egalitarian arguments are that Paul only gave these commands because (1) women were less educated than men at the time, (2) there was false teaching at the time concerning the goddess Artemis, (3) there were female false teachers disrupting the church, (4) or false teachers were targeting women.

However, all of this is conjecture. All we have to work off is Paul’s First Letter to Timothy. If female education was the problem, then Paul could have said women may not teach men until they learn more. But he instead instructed them to simply learn and then gave them reasons from creation as to why they should not teach or rule. Paul does not appeal to any lack of female education but female deception, as well as woman being created after man.

There may have been female false teachers and women may have even been targeted by false teachers, but this is all irrelevant. And it is irrelevant because Paul roots his commands in creation. Paul makes it very clear that his restrictions on women teaching and exercising authority are not the result of the fall but are tied with the very God-given differences between man and woman.

Egalitarians like to appeal to passages teaching spiritual unity between men and women (e.g., Galatians 3:28), but these passages do not undermine our differing duties stemming from natural or positional differences. Moreover, since Paul roots his prohibition in creation, this is not something to be overcome through redemption in Christ.[24] Adam was formed prior to Eve, and this fact has implications for men and women for whom Christ is restoring the natural order. Contrary to our feminist age, God consistently differentiates the duties of men and women, whether it be who may teach in church, who leads in marriage, and who should go to war.

Yes, Greco-Roman culture was patriarchal. But Old Testament culture was also patriarchal. Maybe patriarchy—“father rule”—has been culturally predominant because that is the way God designed it and it has been just that obvious to everyone. Paul’s commands in 1 Timothy 2 are given within a culture, as all of God’s commands are. But we do not throw out the Ten Commandments because of “culture.” In the case of male rule, Paul consistently roots it in things that transcend culture. He bases male rule in marriage on Christ’s rule over the church (Ephesians 5:23-27). In the parallel passage to 1 Timothy 2, Paul tells women to be silent in church “just as the Law also says” (1 Corinthians 14:34). And in 1 Timothy 2:11-12, Paul roots his commands in creation and nature (1 Timothy 2:13-14).

However, egalitarians are not the only ones who fail to properly interpret and apply the text. There are many self-identified (narrow) “complementarians” who say women may not be pastors, but they still minimize the force of Paul’s teaching in 1 Timothy 2 and make very narrow applications of Paul’s commands because they tend to see the commands as arbitrary. However, vv. 13-14 demonstrate that Paul’s commands are certainly not arbitrary. Contra narrow complementarianism, Paul says women are not permitted to teach or exercise rule over men because of God’s design of men and women. Paul is making a natural law argument in vv. 13-14.

Even pagans have seen that the differences between men and women make women less suited for rule. Paul makes this same point but roots it in the creation account and then applies it to the church. Just as Peter says man is to honor woman because she is the “weaker vessel” (1 Peter 3:7), so woman as the weaker and more deceivable sex is not to teach men (1 Timothy 2:14). Men and women both have their strengths and weaknesses, and woman’s design makes her unfit to teach man. In the same way, it is not fitting for a man to bear children (yes, it is even biologically impossible) or to take up woman’s duties related to childcare and the home so that the wife can then go take up the man’s duty to provide for his family. Such interchangeability is a principle of egalitarianism, and it is to be rejected because it is unnatural (Deuteronomy 22:5).

Thus, a woman is not to teach men, nor is she to exercise authority over men. The reason is creation and God’s design for men and women. For women who profess godliness, it is not “proper” (2:10) for them to dress immodestly (2:9), but it is also not “proper” for them to teach or exercise authority over men (2:12). These are masculine, not feminine, tasks.

The Conclusion—Women Should Act Like Women (2:15)

This brings us to the conclusion of our passage in v. 15:

But she will be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and holiness with self-control. (2:15)

This is a hard verse, but only if read in isolation. When the context of 2:9-14 is taken into consideration, v. 15 makes much more sense. Although it was woman who was deceived (2:14), woman can still be saved (2:15). Paul uses the singular “she will be saved” and then transitions to the plural “if they continue.” But the reason is that he is transitioning from speaking of the representative “woman” in vv. 11-14 (and even Eve herself in vv. 13-14) to a call for all women in v. 15.

Remember, Paul is on the topic of feminine “godliness” and “good works” (2:10). Some tasks are not “proper” or suitable for woman, namely teaching or exercising authority over men (2:12). But that does not mean women do not have important tasks to perform. Women are not to just be silent and not teach, but they are to take up the good works for which God has designed them.

What are those feminine good works? In addition to dressing modestly (2:9), women are to take up “childbearing” (2:15). Only women get pregnant and give birth to children, so this is obviously a task unique to women. But “childbearing” also carries with it all its related tasks, including raising children and keeping house (see 1 Timothy 5:14 and Titus 2:3-5). Thus, “childbearing” is representative of woman’s duties in her domestic sphere. It is a synecdoche, a part representing the whole. Childbearing is exclusive to woman, and thus it is “fitting” for her. Similarly, teaching and exercising authority in the church is exclusive to man. Not all men are called to the office of pastor and elder and these associated tasks, but only men are called to such tasks.

Now how will woman be “saved” through childbearing? Many Christians react negatively to this language and then seek alternative interpretations. Some say the word for “saved” (σωθήσεται) should be understood as “preserved” (the view of the NASB). While some say physical preservation, Köstenberger takes “saved” to mean “spiritual preservation from falling into error (specifically, Satan’s deception)”[25] (appealing to a possible usage in 1 Timothy 4:16). Köstenberger correctly takes “childbearing” to refer to woman’s domestic sphere and thus concludes that “women will be spiritually preserved if they devote themselves to their God-given role in the domestic and familial sphere.”[26] His case rests strongly on a parallel between 1 Timothy 2:15 and 1 Timothy 5:14-15—“Therefore, I want younger [widows] to marry, bear children, manage the home, and give the adversary no occasion for reviling, for some have already strayed after Satan.”

However, while there may be a parallel between the two passages, not straying after Satan and being spiritually saved are not mutually exclusive. If Paul in 1 Timothy 2:15 is referring to salvation more broadly, this would also include preservation from spiritual deception. In the end, the reference to straying after Satan in 1 Timothy 5:15 cannot be imported into 1 Timothy 2:15 just because both mention childbearing. The immediate context of 1 Timothy 2:15 is most important, and it concerns spiritual “transgression” (2:14), not mere deception. Further, the word to be “saved” here usually refers to spiritual salvation in Paul’s writings.[27] While sozo (σῴζω) can mean “delivery” from danger, the immediate context in v. 14 concerns Eve’s fall into “transgression,” which requires spiritual salvation—salvation from sin and God’s wrath—not mere preservation from false teaching or death.

Others say v. 15 is really about the birth of Christ. But the text says nothing about Christ. Moreover, “childbearing” refers to the entire process of childbirth and not just the baby who is born (in this view, Christ). Thus, the Messianic view is forced. Rather, women will be “saved” by doing that which is fitting for women and not that which is prohibited to them. This is not teaching justification by works or meritorious salvation, but salvation through works as the path to heaven. Christ justifies His people by “faith” alone (2:15), but He also sanctifies them, leading them unto good works, as well as “love and holiness with self-control” (2:15).

There is a parallel here between v. 15 and v. 10. Women are to adorn themselves “through good works” (δι’ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν) (2:10), and women are saved “through childbearing” (διὰ τῆς τεκνογονίας) (2:15). The language of “through” (διὰ) can indicate means or instrument (seen in the NASB95 rendering of v. 10 as “by means of good works”). In this case, Paul is saying in v. 15 that women are saved by means of feminine good works represented by childbearing, in that they are a means of Christ sanctifying Christian women. Alternatively, it could refer to attendant circumstances meaning “accompanied by childbearing.”[28] As Calvin says, “The Apostle does not argue here about the cause of salvation, and therefore we cannot and must not infer from these words what works deserve; but they only shew in what way God conducts us to salvation, to which he has appointed us through his grace.”[29] Christ brings about good works as part of His salvation, for joy and a good conscience, as well as to adorn His saints. Good works are the outworking of our salvation. In the case of women, they are to dress modestly (2:9), be silent when learning (2:10, 11), be submissive (2:11), not teach or exercise authority over men (2:12), bear children (2:15), and exercise faith, love, holiness, and self-control (2:15).

As Schreiner says, “When Paul says that women will be saved by childbearing, he means, therefore, that they will be saved by adhering to their ordained role.”[30] Or as J.N.D. Kelly remarks, woman “will achieve this [salvation], not through performing masculine tasks like teaching in church, but through child-bearing… If she sticks to this instead of usurping masculine functions, and fulfills it in the right spirit, she will obtain salvation.”[31]

Conclusion

When the totality of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 is taken into consideration, it shows the passage is not unclear, as feminist Bible scholars would have us believe. Rather, the totality of the passage shows just how antithetical Paul’s teaching is to Western feminist culture. And this is truly an important issue, for we are talking about how godly women are to behave. Salvation is at stake (2:15), for to rebel against God’s commands is no light matter. Feminism says women should act like men. But Paul says women should act like women—and by that he means they should not seek to teach men or rule in the church, but they should focus on feminine tasks exemplified by childbearing.

[1] R.T. France, Women in the Church’s Ministry: A Test-Case for Biblical Hermeneutics (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1995), 69–70.

[2] Stanley E. Porter, The Pastoral Epistles: A commentary on the Greek Text (Baker Academic, 2023), 242.

[3] While the word group for σωφροσύνη is used 16x in the NT, this specific word is used only two other times in the NT, one of which is in v. 15.

[4] Stanley Porter deviates on the translation here of “silence/quietness.” Surveying views of other commentators, he says, “The tacit assumption in all the views noted above is that we know what these verses actually say, an assumption that I believe is unwarranted. Several factors within the unfolding argument of Paul’s letter raise interpretive issues that are far from clear and self-evident, especially in 2:12… these issues challenge the certainty of our interpretation of these verses and our use of them to determine gender and authority relationships.” Porter, The Pastoral Epistles, 242–243. Porter is an expert Greek grammarian, but his analysis in the section involves a number of unsubstantiated assertions rather than a reasoned conclusion. Porter’s understanding of the meaning of the passage is rather minimalistic: “A woman learns through every obedient act that she performs, and Paul makes clear that he does not want a woman being a part of teaching falsely and abusing authority, since this violates creation’s order found in Adam and Eve and in the appropriate actions of childbirth and rearing.” Ibid., 267. This conclusion is tied with Porter’s translation of vv. 11-12 as, “A woman in orderliness is to learn in every obedient act. And I do not commission a woman to teach falsely or to have abusive authority over a man, but to be in orderliness.” Ibid., 229. Two things stand out about Porter’s translation. First, Porter translates the verbs as “teach falsely or to have abusive authority.” He questions Köstenberger’s conclusion that both verbs need to be positive or negative, saying at best this is “a tendency but not a rule.” However, Porter still follows the tendency by rending both verbs negatively, including διδάσκειν as “teaching falsely.” Ibid., 253. But on what basis this is “false” teaching is not clear. The word is usually positive, especially in the Pastoral Epistles. Second, Porter translates ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ as “in orderliness,” in both v. 11 and v. 12. But on what basis? That translation is not offered in BDAG or NIDNTTE. The word ἡσυχίᾳ gets at the concept of “silence” or “rest/peace.” Porter’s explanation is limited, saying, “Orderly behavior is the major context in which these statements in 2:11-12 are made.” Ibid., 253. Porter also says the “logic” of vv. 13-14 “seems to be that the major issue is orderliness.” Ibid., 260. Even granting these claims, it does not follow that ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ should be rendered as “in orderliness.” The order being commanded of women is “silence/quietness.” The problem for Porter is if he follows the standard translation for ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ as “silent/quiet,” this contrasts with the prohibitions on “teaching” and “exercising authority” (or his negative rendering “to teach falsely or to have abusive authority”). This would still be a broad prohibition on women to not speak, not just avoid false teaching. This is apparently a conclusion Porter seeks to avoid.

[5] Some argue that “man” does not modify “teach” (διδάσκειν) because this verb is placed at the very front of the verse and because this verb is normally followed by a noun in the accusative (e.g. Romans 2:21) or dative form (e.g. Revelation 2:14), not the genitive as is the case here with ἀνδρός. Porter says taking ἀνδρός as the object of διδάσκειν is “questionable.” Porter, The Pastoral Epistles, 250. However, as Moo points out, the word order is not decisive because of the flexibility of Greek word order, and when two verbs take the same object, the object takes “the case demanded by the nearer verb.” Moo, “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men? 1 Timothy 2:11-15,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, eds. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Crossway, 2006), 497 (endnote 16). On the case issue, Moo cites Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1920), 1634.

[6] Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters (Zondervan, 2009), 385. Payne argues for the meaning “assume authority.”

[7] Al Wolters, “The Meaning of Αὐθεντέω,” in Women in the Church: An Interpretation & Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, eds. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. Schreiner, 3rd ed. (Crossway, 2016), 113: “my basic thesis in this chapter is that αὐθεντέω in 1 Timothy 2:12 is very unlikely to have either a pejorative or an ingressive meaning. A number of converging lines of evidence have confirmed this thesis: cognates, immediate context, ancient versions, patristic commentary, and the broad usage of the verb elsewhere.” Porter renders αὐθεντεῖν negatively but does not engage at all with Wolters’s arguments. He merely cites Hübner’s dismissive conclusion that “there is no scholarly basis for asserting that comparative literature demonstrates that αὐθεντέω in the first century meant, as a whole, a ‘neutral’ or ‘positive’ exercise of authority.” Porter, The Pastoral Epistles, 251, citing Jamin Hübner, “Revisiting αὐθεντέω in 1 Timothy 2:12: What Do the Extant Data Really Show,” Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters (2015), 5.1:60.

[8] Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ, 341, 358. Combined with his definition of “assume authority” for αὐθεντεῖν, Payne argues these two verbs together mean “to take for herself authority to teach a man without authorization from the church.” Ibid., 393.

[9] Kathy Keller, Jesus, Justice, and Gender Roles: A Case for Gender Roles in Ministry (Zondervan, 2012), 18, 21.

[10] In reference to the phrase “to teach or to exercise authority” in 1 Timothy 2:12, Tim Keller said in a video, “I’m convinced…it’s one thing” [2:26]. He added, “Paul is forbidding something here, something, and I’m open to anybody who may have a different opinion from me on what that is or how that works itself out” [2:40]. Though Keller affirmed that Paul’s prohibition is a “transcultural” statement that still “bind[s] us,” he never explained exactly what he thought Paul forbade [3:14]. Don Carson and Tim Keller, “What Did Paul Mean by ‘I Do Not Permit a Woman to Teach’? | Don Carson and Tim Keller | TGC Q&A,” The Gospel Coalition, November 18, 2020, YouTube video, 06:16, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zShK_3DxxKs.

[11] Keller, Jesus, Justice, and Gender Roles, 21.

[12] Douglas J. Moo, “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men? 1 Timothy 2:11-15,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 187. Moo is quoting the phrase “two closely related items” from Philip B. Payne, “The Interpretation of I Timothy 2:11-15: A Surrejoinder,” 104 (an unpublished paper).

[13] As Andreas Köstenberger says, there is “a difference between a single idea that encompasses two elements joined by οὐδὲ…and a single idea that combines two elements joined by οὐδὲ.” Köstenberger, “A Complex Sentence: The Syntax of 1 Timothy 2:12,” in Women in the Church, 146.

[14] Köstenberger, “A Complex Sentence: The Syntax of 1 Timothy 2:12,” in Women in the Church, 147.

[15] Porter questions Köstenberger’s conclusion that both verbs need to be positive or negative, saying at best this is “a tendency but not a rule.” However, Porter still follows the tendency by rendering both verbs negatively, including διδάσκειν as “teaching falsely.” Porter, The Pastoral Epistles, 253.

[16] Thomas R. Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15: A Dialogue with Scholarship,” in Women in the Church, 191.

[17] William Gouge, Of Domesticall Duties (London, 1622), 258 [English modernized].

[18] While the wife should instruct “children when they are young,” Gouge held the husband is to lead family worship and “perform the very actions of prayer, reading the word, catechizing, and other like duties in the family.” However, “the wife may be a great help in putting her husband in mind both of the duty itself, and of the time of performing it, and encouraging him to do it, in gathering the family together, and exhorting them to be forward, in making herself an example to the rest by her diligent and reverent attention,” as well as “oft urging and pressing to her children” what “her husband has taught.” Gouge, Of Domesticall Duties, 259–260 [English modernized].

[19] When Paul gives a command followed by γὰρ elsewhere in the Pastoral Epistles, he states the reasons for the command (1 Timothy 4:7-8, 16; 5:4, 11, 15, 18; 2 Timothy 1:6-7; 2:7, 16; 3:5-6; 4:3, 5-6, 9-10, 11, 15; Titus 3:1-3, 9, 12). Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15,” in Women in the Church, 200.

[20] Some egalitarians argue that “for” (γὰρ) in 1 Timothy 2:13 is explanatory rather than illative (giving a reason), meaning Adam being formed first and Eve being deceived serves as an illustration of what happens when women falsely teach men. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ, 399–415. However, the fact that Adam was created before Eve cannot be understood as an illustration or example of what happens when women falsely teach men. Payne goes so far as to say, “If Paul’s restriction in 2:12 is rooted in creation and verses 13-14 imply a principle of creation, what is that principle? Paul gives us no explanation here of what significance he draws from Adam being formed first.” Ibid., 402. Of course, Paul did explain the significance of Adam being formed first, which is that women are not to “teach or exercise authority over men” (1 Timothy 2:12). It is quite clear that Paul takes the order of creation to mean that men and women should relate to each other differently, which includes women not holding leadership over men in the church.

[21] Werner Neuer, Man and Woman in Christian Perspective, trans. Gordon J. Wenham (Crossway, 1991), 120.

[22] Robert W. Yarbrough, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Eerdmans, 2018), 183: “How can one sin without being deceived?... Paul clearly viewed Adam as guilty of succumbing to the serpent’s wiles along with Eve. Both were deceived… Adam was deceived, but he was not deceived first.” Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15,” in Women in the Church, 214–215: “The notion that Adam sinned without deceit is hard to understand, for it seems that all sin involves deceit.”

[23] George W. Knight III, “The Role of Women in the Church,” in Confessing our Hope: Essays Celebrating the Life and Ministry of Morton H. Smith, eds. Joseph A. Pipa, Jr. and C.N. Willborn (Taylors, SC: Southern Presbyterian Press, 2004), 198: “Why did the serpent approach her, not Adam? We may deduce that the serpent was aware that she was more susceptible to his deception. Why so? Because she had been created to be a helper to another and to submit to him. God had made her willing to follow. What was, and still is, her virtue and strength, the serpent utilized and twisted to harm her.”

[24] Douglas Moo, “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?, 1 Timothy 2:11-15,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 190: “For by rooting these prohibitions in the circumstances of creation rather than in the circumstances of the fall, Paul shows that he does not consider these restrictions to be the product of the curse and presumably, therefore, to be phased out by redemption.”

[25] Andreas J. Köstenberger and Margaret E. Köstenberger, God’s Design for Man and Woman: A Biblical-Theological Survey (Crossway, 2014), 219.

[26] Ibid., 216.

[27] Stanley E. Porter, “What Does It Mean to Be ‘Saved by Childbirth,’” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 49 (1993): 93: “in virtually all authentically Pauline contexts σῴζω denotes a salvific spiritual act, perhaps eschatological in consequence.”

[28] Knight argues that the vocabulary (passive σῴζω plus διὰ) indicates the instrumental use of διὰ, in the sense that “salvation is brought through these elements, not by them.” Knight cites the similar construction found in Acts 15:11; Romans 5:9; 1 Corinthians 15:2; 1 Peter 3:20; and 1 Corinthians 3:15 (this latter verse having a different construction with the addition of ὡς). George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Eerdmans, 1992), 146–147. BDAG does list διὰ in 1 Timothy 2:15 under “marker of instrumentality or circumstance whereby someth. is accomplished or effected, by, via, through.” Porter favors this view as well. Porter, The Pastoral Epistles, 263. However, BDAG lists this reference specifically under the subcategory “of attendant and prevailing circumstance” (BDAG, 224. A.3.c.). Thus, διὰ may show “attendant circumstance,” in the sense of “with” or “accompanied by” (see Romans 2:27; 1 Corinthians 2:4; 1 Timothy 4:14). In this case, 1 Timothy 2:15 is understood as women’s salvation being “accompanied by” childbirth. It is not that the act of bearing children merits anything before God, but rather that women are saved by faith in Christ and such faith produces womanly behavior, exemplified by the bearing of children. However, even if salvation is “through” childbearing as an instrument, this still fits with the teaching that Christians are “saved” through good works—not meriting salvation by our actions, but “working out” our salvation in obedience to God (Philippians 2:12). Women taking up their womanly duties and honoring God in them is a means of sanctification.

[29] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, trans. William Pringle (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1856), 71.

[30] Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15,” in Women in the Church, 222.

[31] J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles: I & II Timothy, Titus, Black’s New Testament Commentaries (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1963), 69–70.

Articles on Men and Women