Questions about how to implement 1 Timothy 2:12

Written by Margaret Mowczko.
Margaret Mowczko is vice president of CBE-Sydney. She has a theology degree and is currently studying for a master’s degree with Macquarie University, specialising in early Christian and Jewish studies. Margaret writes on the subject of biblical equality for her website Her work has appeared in several publications of CBE-International, and one of her articles recently won an award in the 2014 Evangelical Press Association Awards held in Anaheim, California. Margaret is a leader of her church on the Central Coast where she regularly preaches.


Some Christians think that the prohibition of a woman teaching a man, mentioned in 1 Timothy 2:12, is clear and straightforward in meaning, yet the various ways this prohibition is understood and implemented in churches seems to indicate otherwise.

The meaning of 1 Tim 2:12 is, in fact, not clear.  We can only guess at the original context, reason, intent and parameters for this prohibition. And the original Greek of 1 Tim 2:12 poses linguistic challenges which hinder our understanding of the author’s meaning, force and scope.  The ambiguous context and language of 1 Tim 2:12 (and the verses that follow it) raise several important questions about how we should apply this verse.  This article looks at some of these questions.

Is the prohibition aimed at wives, or at a particular woman?

The Greek word for man (anēr) and woman (gunē) is singular in this verse.  In the New Testament, anēr and gunē in the singular are frequently translated into English as “husband” and “wife”.  So it is entirely plausible that the prohibition is referring to an undesirable dynamic in marriage rather than in ministry.

The use of the singular in verse 12 is significant as previous instructions in 1 Timothy chapter 2 are given directly to men and women in the plural (1 Tim 2:8, 9).  Why this shift from plural to singular?

It is even possible that the prohibition is aimed at a particular woman known to the Ephesian church.  Perhaps the “man” is also a particular man known to the Ephesian church?  Some speculate that the man is Timothy.

Can an educated woman teach?

The woman (singular) in the Ephesian church is commanded to learn in verse 11.  Was the prohibition in verse 12 aimed at an ignorant, uneducated woman (or women)?  Could a woman who had successfully learned then be permitted to teach?

The Bible shows that godly women taught men important lessons: The words of Lemuel’s mother to her son (who was a grown man and a king) still teach men and have the authority of Scripture.  And Priscilla, with her husband Aquila, taught the doctrine of Christian baptism more accurately to Apollos, who was himself a well-educated minister. Perhaps Anna can be added to this list of women who taught men.  Huldah, Deborah and other women gave advice to men. Men even sought out the advice of these wise women.

Did the prohibition apply to Priscilla?

Priscilla and her husband Aquila led a house church in Ephesus (Rom 16:3-5).  It cannot be determined whether this was at the same time that Paul was writing his first letter to Timothy (who was in Ephesus), or possibly earlier.

Did the prohibition in 1 Tim 2:12 apply to Priscilla?  Considering Paul’s high opinion of Priscilla as a ministry colleague, his warm affection for her, and the fact that she taught Apollos without any hint of censure, it is highly unlikely.  I suggest that it is unlikely that this prohibition applies to any capable woman minister.

Is a certain type of teaching being prohibited?

Some scholars suggest that the word didaskein “to teach” is tied to the word authentein in 1 Tim 2:12 in a hendiadys.[1]  If so, it means that the prohibition was not against a woman who was teaching sound doctrine in an agreeable manner, but against a woman (or women) who was teaching false doctrine or teaching in an unauthorized or domineering manner, etc.

It is impossible to know exactly what authentein means in 1 Tim 2:12.  The word is not used anywhere else in the New Testament, in any form.  The word does appear, however, in the Septuagint, to describe parents who murder their children (Wisdom 12:6).  Authentēs (the noun form) is most definitely not the usual word for “authority” used elsewhere in the New Testament; and it has violent and sexual overtones.

Chrysostom used the word authentia to denote “sexual license” in his commentary on I John 5:6. Clement of Alexandria also used the word authentia to describe Christians who were engaging in lewd sexual activity. While it may be difficult for us to imagine, sexual licentiousness was not an uncommon problem for the Early Church – especially in congregations where heresy was taught – and so these problems needed to be addressed by church leaders such as Paul.

Albert Wolters (a Complementarian) has noted that the word authentēs played a prominent role in Gnosticism in the first and second centuries AD.[2] Authentēs, which is grammatically feminine, is typically translated into English as “supreme power” in works by Early Church Fathers who addressed Christian Gnosticism. There is a clear link between the word authentēs and Gnosticism.

The heresy of Christian Gnosticism was a huge threat to the Early Church; but I cannot see how allowing, and even encouraging, a godly and gifted Christian woman to teach sound doctrine where grown men are present could be considered a threat to the Church today.

Is the prohibition applicable only in certain types of church services?

Most people assume that the prohibition in 1 Tim 2:12 is about a woman teaching men (plural) in a worship service.  This may not be the case.  Not every activity mentioned in 1 Timothy chapters 2 and 3 occurred during a church meeting.  The activities of women doing good works and bearing children, and overseers managing their households do not usually take place during meetings.  Perhaps the prohibition in 1 Tim 2:12 is not in the context of a church meeting at all, but in the context of a private meeting or relationship between a woman and a man.

For those who believe that the prohibition was made with a church meeting in mind, it is important to remember that church meetings in the early decades of the Church looked very different to most of our church services today.  In the early days, many people contributed, even spontaneously, when the church met for worship, communion and prayer, etc (1 Cor 14:26).  Women prayed and prophesied aloud.[3]  And some churches met in homes led by wealthy women (e.g. Lydia, Nympha, and probably Chloe, etc).[4]  It would have been strange indeed, and against the cultural expectation, for a wealthy woman who was the head of her home not to have a say in what was happening in the church gathered in her own home, especially as most of the members of the church would have been part of her extended household (familia) and include her relatives and slaves.[5]

Some churches today allow women to teach in some services when men are present, but not in other services that are more formal.  For example: Many churches reserve the ministry of the giving of the Sunday morning sermon as a ministry for men only.  This “ranking” of church meetings and ministries, which excludes women from “higher-ranked” ministries, has no biblical basis whatsoever.

Was the prohibition temporary?

Some people believe that, because of the wording in the Greek of 1 Tim 2:12, the prohibition was temporary.  The prohibition in verse 12 is given in a less direct and less forceful manner than previous instructions in 1 Timothy chapter 2.  There is no use of any of the Greek command tenses; instead there is the present active indicative epitrepō, with the negative ouk, which may be translated as“I am not allowing . . .”

Andrew Perriman (1993) notes that the use of epitrepō in the New Testament, in every case, is “. . . related to a specific and limited set of circumstances . . .” Perriman goes on to say that, because of this choice of words, the instruction in verse 12 is more about [local] church governance and practice than theological authority.

It could be that there was a local problem in the Ephesian church which warranted a short term, ad hoc prohibition.  Or, was the prohibition really meant to be universal and timeless and effectively ban every woman from teaching any man for all time?  If so, why?

Are women prohibited from teaching men because they more easily deceived? 

I have addressed this question in other articles on my website.  I’d like to make three brief comments here, however, in reply to this persistent and irritating question.

The Bible nowhere states that women are more easily deceived or more deceptive than men.

Churches which genuinely consider women to be gullible and deceptive should not let women teach vulnerable and impressionable children, or other supposedly gullible and deceptive women.  Or, better still, they should reconsider their opinion of women.

Jesus died for all sin for all time, including Eve’s sin.  Women, and indeed men (who are the sons of Eve), should not be held responsible or considered culpable for Eve’s particular sin.

Are women prohibited from teaching men because of the “Created Order”?

Some Christians believe that the reason women can’t be leaders and teachers of men is because the man was created first and then the woman. These Christians believe that implicit in the creation order is a leadership order. Yet neither leadership nor submission is acknowledged or even hinted at in any way in any of the biblical creation accounts [6]; and I do not believe this is what Paul was getting at in 1 Timothy 2:13.  I suggest that Paul mentioned the created order in 1 Timothy 2:13 to correct a Gnostic false teaching in the Ephesian church which was that Eve was created first. [See endnote 2.]

To say that Paul is using the creation order, of male first and female second, to assert a chain of command, is entirely missing the point of creation narrative in Genesis 2:21-24 which shows the complete equality, affinity and unity between the first man and woman.

Are women prohibited from being elders?

Some argue that because teaching and exercising authority in the church is the function of elders, what is really being implied in 1 Tim 2:12 is that women cannot be elders. However, as I have previously stated, the word authentēs does not mean legitimate or wholesome authority.  Authentēs always had a sinister or negative meaning in Classical and early Koinē Greek.  Authentēs is undesirable in any person, especially in an elder.  People who believe that 1 Tim 2:12 is essentially a ban on women elders are reading much more into the verse than is warranted.  Furthermore, the qualifications for overseers and elders in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9 are free from a gender bias.

Are women prohibited from being senior leaders?

Some churches allow women to have speaking, teaching and leadership ministries in the church as long as there is a male leader “over” them.  They believe that as long as there is a man in charge, a woman is not usurping authority.  However, there is absolutely no scriptural reason to assume that a female minister needs a male “covering”.   Thankfully the specious doctrine of “covering” is falling out of favour in many churches.

The Bible contains many accounts where God bypassed male relatives and spoke directly to women.  If God recognised that men were the spiritual authorities and “coverings” of their wives and daughters, it seems that God would have spoken to the men instead of the women in these instances.  1 Tim 2:12 cannot be construed to mean that women may teach and lead as long as a man, and not a woman, is the senior leader.  Moreover it cannot mean that women cannot be senior leaders.

Are women prohibited from teaching because they must remain silent in churches?

The Greek word hesuchia, used in 1 Tim 2:12, means “calmness” or “quietness, with the implication of “keeping one’s seat.”  This same word is also used in the previous verses, 1 Timothy 2:2 and 2:11. Paul wanted the woman (or women) to learn quietly and behave with decorum.  Learning quietly and submissively was (and is) the usual behavior of a good student.  A calm, cooperative attitude rather than strict silence is what is meant here.  1 Tim 2:12 does not state that a woman is to remain completely silent in church meetings.


The questions above are genuine.  I can only guess at the answers for the first few questions.  The answer to the last questions is “no”.   Generally speaking, an educated woman is not more easily deceived than an educated man.  And women were not silent in first-century churches; there is evidence that women participated in every Christian service and ministry.  Finally, nowhere in the Bible, apart from 1 Tim 2:12, is any restriction put on a woman teaching a man.

Since we really don’t know what authentein means in 1 Tim 2:12, and since we really don’t know what the original parameters of ban were, and since we see such diversity in the way this verse is applied in modern church life, why is this single verse so prominent in rules and discussions designed to restrict the ministry opportunities of women?

Not only does implementing the ban in 1 Tim 2:12 in a universal way restrict women from leadership ministries, it has a flow-on affect of limiting, suppressing and diminishing women in other ways.  Because, if the prohibition really was meant to be universal and permanent, it makes a strong statement about God, women and men: that God thinks that the words of every woman have no importance or vital relevance to any man.  Do Complementarians really believe this?  Do they really believe that women have nothing worthwhile to teach men, and, conversely, do they really believe that only men have worthwhile things to teach the whole congregation?  Is this what God has ordained?

1 Tim 2:12, even if taken literally in an English translation, does not represent a biblical consensus on the issue of women teaching and leading men.  Let’s not forget Priscilla, Huldah and Anna who advised and taught men.  And let’s not forget Deborah, King Lemuel’s mother and the other women whose words were considered important, relevant and worthwhile enough to be recorded in the Canon of Scripture where they still teach and instruct both men and women about God.


[1] A hendiadys is when two words, joined by a conjunction, make a single point.  “Don’t eat and run” is an example of a hendiadys.  The prohibition is not about eating, but about eating and then leaving quickly.  In fact eating is wanted and not prohibited.

In 1 Tim 2:12 didaskein (“to teach”) is joined with authentein by the conjunction oude. Some scholars believe that teaching is not being prohibited in 1 Tim 2:12, but rather teaching in a harmful way is being banned. Perhaps this phrase may be interpreted as: I am not allowing a woman to teach in order to domineer a man. Or, I am not allowing a woman to teach in order to influence a man with Gnostic beliefs and practiceComplementarian Andreas Köstenberger (2000) concedes that a possible translation of this phrase might be: I do not permit a woman to teach [error] or to domineer over a man. (Köstenberger’s use of square brackets.) While Köstenberger rejects this translation himself, it actually fits the context of 1 Timothy with its concern of false doctrine, very well.

[2] There are several indications within First Timothy that the heresy in the Ephesian church was an early form of Gnosticism.  It is possible that the prohibition in 1 Tim 2:12 was designed to curb the spread of Christian Gnosticism.

[3] The ministries of praying and prophecying may be a summary for everything that happens in a worship service–praying is people speaking to God and prophesying is God speaking to people.  Paul considered the ministry of prophesying as important and influential.  He lists prophesying and prophets before teaching and teachers in Rom 12:6-8; 1 Cor 12:28-30 and Eph 4:11.

[4] It seems that Lydia was the host and leader of the first congregation in Philippi. Chrysostom believed that Euodia and Syntyche, two women, were later leaders of the Philippian Church (Homily 13 on Philippians).  Nympha seems to have been the host and leader of a house church in Laodicea (Col 4:15).

[5] Other members of a house church might include clients, work colleagues and others closely associated with the head of the household.

[6] None of the creation accounts of the first man and woman–Genesis 1:26-28; 2:4-25 and 5:1-2–state that the first man was the leader and the first woman was a submissive follower. There is no indication of any hierarchy between man and woman before the Fall.

© 30th of October, 2012, Margaret Mowczko

This article was previously published at here.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *