What is Reddit's opinion of Paul, Women, and Wives: Marriage and Women's Ministry in the Letters of Paul?

This is an analysis of 1 Tim 2:12, a verse commonly cited against women pastors, that I did on another post. You can also see my other responses to similar questions on women in the Church here, here, and here.

διδάσκειν	δὲ	γυναικὶ	οὐκ	ἐπιτρέπω	οὐδὲ
To teach	but/now/and	a woman	not	I permit	neither
Infinitive	conjunction	noun	adverb	verb	conjunction

αὐθεντεῖν	ἀνδρός	ἀλλʼ	εἶναι	ἐν	ἡσυχίᾳ
to usurp	a man	but	to be	in	quietness
infinitive	noun	conjunction	infinitive	preposition	noun

The Grammar

First, our main verb is the 1st person singular ἐπιτρέπω, which is negated by the preceding ουκ. "I do not give permission/I do not permit". There are two objects of this verb, i.e. the infinitives διδάσκειν and αὐθεντεῖν . So there are two things Paul does not permit: "to teach" and "to usurp". Infinitves are a little odd grammatically. They're often described as "verbal nouns". Here they function as the object of the main verb. They also typically have a subject and an object as a normal verb would. Here, the subject of each infinitive is γυναικὶ, and the 'object' is ἀνδρός. So we have "I (Paul) do not permit a woman to teach [a man] neither [do I permit] [a woman] to usurp a man.

This first clause is followed by a subordinate clause began with αλλ. The conjunction αλλ marks contrast, or a counterpoint. We often translate it as "but". "I don't permit these things but..." This implies that the following clause, in contrast to the first, is something that Paul does permit, namely, "to be in quietness".

A few last notes here: both "woman" and "man" are singular and anarthrous (i.e. lacking an article). This could be taken to mean Paul has a woman and a man in particular in mind, or it could be a way of generalizing. Either option is supported by the grammar.

Lexical Notes

By "lexical", I mean semantic or the meaning of words. First, we should note something about the word αὐθεντεῖν, which comes from αυθεντεω. I've translated it here as "usurp", but you'll often see it as "assume/have/excercise authority over" (as in the NRSV, NASB, ESV, NET, NLT, and NIV). This is a blatant mistranslation, because it implies that Paul forbids any general assumption of authority by women. Αυθεντεω, however, does not just mean "excercise authority" generally. It is a hapax legomenon, meaning it is a word that only occurs once within the NT. To really grasp its meaning, we have to venture outside the NT to see how the word is used in broader Greek literature. When we do, we'll see that it is always used in the context of violent overthrow or stealing of authority. In other words, it is used to mean "taking authority that does not already belong to you". Exegetically, we could take this to have two implications. On the one hand, we might suppose that Paul means to imply that women must always usurp authority, because authority never rightly belongs to them. On the other hand, we might suppose that Paul does not mean to imply that women can't have legitimate authority over men, and thus only prohibits them from trying to take charge when they have no right to, but not when they do have a right to be over men. (Note that both of these are interpretations, and either interpretation can be supported by the grammar and syntax here).

Next, we should look at the words for "woman" and "man", which come from γυνη and ανδρος respectively. These words can mean either "woman" and "man", or they can mean "wife" and "husband"! To determine which meaning is implied here, we have to rely purely on context, though I think the context allows for either option in this case. So Paul could either be forbidding a woman from teaching/usurping a man, or he could be forbidding a wife from teaching/usurping her husband, but not men in general!

Looking at Context

Obviously, grammar and syntax can only get us so far. Fortunately for us, this passage does not just sit in isolation by itself. It has a context. It is part of a list of exhortations/instructions from Paul, begun at v 2:1. It is immediately preceded by instructions on prayer and appropriate relationships among believers (c.f. v 2:1-10), and proceeded by instructions for selecting church leaders (c.f. v 3:1-13).

This particular section seems to be a transition between the topics, i.e. prayer/right relationships and church leadership. Grammatically, there is no clean break, and the two topics seem to flow into one another. Looking purely at literary context doesn't help much, then.

So what about historical context? This also offers us little help! First, while it is true that men were typically head of household, women were increasingly gaining leading roles in society. They were, in certain cults, allowed to be the leaders. We even have evidence of women leading synagogues during this period!

The issue of the cult of Artemis in Ephesus is also relevant. Worship of the Goddess Artemis was widespread in the Greco-Roman world, but was especially prevalent in Ephesus. In fact, the Ephesian Artemis was quite different from other expressions of Artemis. In Ephesus, she was a mother goddess, and her cult was overseen by female priestesses. It is possible, then, that either priestesses or female followers of the Artemis cult had been converted, but that they were still having difficulty doing away with old beliefs. This may fit with why Paul brings up the creation narrative, since it directly contradicts what the cult of Artemis would have taught (i.e. that women were default leaders in the Church).

So that leaves us with only one other place to turn:

Forming a Biblical Theology

When one passage of scripture is vague and hard to interpret, we turn to other clearer parts of scripture for help. Some have pointed to the immediately following passage which seems to allow for only males to lead the church, but see below for my comments on that.

We do, however, have several other places in scripture where women are allowed to be leaders over God's people and even within the Church: Miriam (Ex. 15:20-21, Mic 6:4), Deborah (Judges 4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14-20), Lydia (Ac 16:14-15), Possibly Euodia and Syntyche (Php 4:2-3), and even in Paul's other letters (Ro 16:7).

Additionally, the immiediately preceding verse in 1 Tim (v. 11), exhorts women to "learn in all quietness and submission". While this is often taken to mean "women should shut up and submit to male authority", culturally this was an expectation of every good student, not just women. This should remind us of Jesus's own allowance of women to sit at his feet and learn alongside his male disciples (c.f. Lk 10:38-42). Such a position necessarily implied that the learner was expected to one day become a teacher!

All of this leads me to believe that, whatever Paul may have meant in 1 Timothy, he did not mean to entirely preclude women from positions of authority and teaching in the Church. Instead, these were likely women (or just a woman) that were spiritually immature and thus not yet ready for leadership, but who were trying to usurp that leadership anyway. It is a daunting passage to be sure (and I haven't even begun to do it justice here, despite my ridiculously long post). I'll leave you with a few additional resources if you want to read into this more:

Adddendum On Masculine Language:

A common objection to women in leadership comes from the masculine language used in 1 Timothy 3 and other places for requirements of leaders. The default in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin rhetoric is always masculine. Just because Paul speaks from a masculine perspective does not preclude the possibility of feminine inclusion.

If one argues against that, and insists that this hermeneutic be applied here, they must at least be consistent about applying it in the rest of the Bible as well. Doing so, however, would mean that about 90% of scripture has no applicability to women whatsoever.

Example: > “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matt 5:27-28).

Using that hermeneutic, Jesus is only speaking to men who lust, and doesn't forbid a woman from lusting after men.

Applied consistently, such a hermeneutic is untenable. Unless context explicitly precludes women, statements about men in scripture should be thought to generally be applicable to women as well.

This is an analysis of 1 Tim 2:12, a verse commonly cited against women pastors, that I did on another post. You can also see my other responses to similar questions on women in the Church here, here, and here.

διδάσκειν	δὲ	γυναικὶ	οὐκ	ἐπιτρέπω	οὐδὲ
To teach	but/now/and	a woman	not	I permit	neither
Infinitive	conjunction	noun	adverb	verb	conjunction

αὐθεντεῖν	ἀνδρός	ἀλλʼ	εἶναι	ἐν	ἡσυχίᾳ
to usurp	a man	but	to be	in	quietness
infinitive	noun	conjunction	infinitive	preposition	noun

The Grammar

First, our main verb is the 1st person singular ἐπιτρέπω, which is negated by the preceding ουκ. "I do not give permission/I do not permit". There are two objects of this verb, i.e. the infinitives διδάσκειν and αὐθεντεῖν . So there are two things Paul does not permit: "to teach" and "to usurp". Infinitves are a little odd grammatically. They're often described as "verbal nouns". Here they function as the object of the main verb. They also typically have a subject and an object as a normal verb would. Here, the subject of each infinitive is γυναικὶ, and the 'object' is ἀνδρός. So we have "I (Paul) do not permit a woman to teach [a man] neither [do I permit] [a woman] to usurp a man.

This first clause is followed by a subordinate clause began with αλλ. The conjunction αλλ marks contrast, or a counterpoint. We often translate it as "but". "I don't permit these things but..." This implies that the following clause, in contrast to the first, is something that Paul does permit, namely, "to be in quietness".

A few last notes here: both "woman" and "man" are singular and anarthrous (i.e. lacking an article). This could be taken to mean Paul has a woman and a man in particular in mind, or it could be a way of generalizing. Either option is supported by the grammar.

Lexical Notes

By "lexical", I mean semantic or the meaning of words. First, we should note something about the word αὐθεντεῖν, which comes from αυθεντεω. I've translated it here as "usurp", but you'll often see it as "assume/have/excercise authority over" (as in the NRSV, NASB, ESV, NET, NLT, and NIV). This is a blatant mistranslation, because it implies that Paul forbids any general assumption of authority by women. Αυθεντεω, however, does not just mean "excercise authority" generally. It is a hapax legomenon, meaning it is a word that only occurs once within the NT. To really grasp its meaning, we have to venture outside the NT to see how the word is used in broader Greek literature. When we do, we'll see that it is always used in the context of violent overthrow or stealing of authority. In other words, it is used to mean "taking authority that does not already belong to you". Exegetically, we could take this to have two implications. On the one hand, we might suppose that Paul means to imply that women must always usurp authority, because authority never rightly belongs to them. On the other hand, we might suppose that Paul does not mean to imply that women can't have legitimate authority over men, and thus only prohibits them from trying to take charge when they have no right to, but not when they do have a right to be over men. (Note that both of these are interpretations, and either interpretation can be supported by the grammar and syntax here).

Next, we should look at the words for "woman" and "man", which come from γυνη and ανδρος respectively. These words can mean either "woman" and "man", or they can mean "wife" and "husband"! To determine which meaning is implied here, we have to rely purely on context, though I think the context allows for either option in this case. So Paul could either be forbidding a woman from teaching/usurping a man, or he could be forbidding a wife from teaching/usurping her husband, but not men in general!

Looking at Context

Obviously, grammar and syntax can only get us so far. Fortunately for us, this passage does not just sit in isolation by itself. It has a context. It is part of a list of exhortations/instructions from Paul, begun at v 2:1. It is immediately preceded by instructions on prayer and appropriate relationships among believers (c.f. v 2:1-10), and proceeded by instructions for selecting church leaders (c.f. v 3:1-13).

This particular section seems to be a transition between the topics, i.e. prayer/right relationships and church leadership. Grammatically, there is no clean break, and the two topics seem to flow into one another. Looking purely at literary context doesn't help much, then.

So what about historical context? This also offers us little help! First, while it is true that men were typically head of household, women were increasingly gaining leading roles in society. They were, in certain cults, allowed to be the leaders. We even have evidence of women leading synagogues during this period!

The issue of the cult of Artemis in Ephesus is also relevant. Worship of the Goddess Artemis was widespread in the Greco-Roman world, but was especially prevalent in Ephesus. In fact, the Ephesian Artemis was quite different from other expressions of Artemis. In Ephesus, she was a mother goddess, and her cult was overseen by female priestesses. It is possible, then, that either priestesses or female followers of the Artemis cult had been converted, but that they were still having difficulty doing away with old beliefs. This may fit with why Paul brings up the creation narrative, since it directly contradicts what the cult of Artemis would have taught (i.e. that women were default leaders in the Church).

So that leaves us with only one other place to turn:

Forming a Biblical Theology

When one passage of scripture is vague and hard to interpret, we turn to other clearer parts of scripture for help. Some have pointed to the immediately following passage which seems to allow for only males to lead the church, but see below for my comments on that.

We do, however, have several other places in scripture where women are allowed to be leaders over God's people and even within the Church: Miriam (Ex. 15:20-21, Mic 6:4), Deborah (Judges 4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14-20), Lydia (Ac 16:14-15), Possibly Euodia and Syntyche (Php 4:2-3), and even in Paul's other letters (Ro 16:7).

Additionally, the immiediately preceding verse in 1 Tim (v. 11), exhorts women to "learn in all quietness and submission". While this is often taken to mean "women should shut up and submit to male authority", culturally this was an expectation of every good student, not just women. This should remind us of Jesus's own allowance of women to sit at his feet and learn alongside his male disciples (c.f. Lk 10:38-42). Such a position necessarily implied that the learner was expected to one day become a teacher!

All of this leads me to believe that, whatever Paul may have meant in 1 Timothy, he did not mean to entirely preclude women from positions of authority and teaching in the Church. Instead, these were likely women (or just a woman) that were spiritually immature and thus not yet ready for leadership, but who were trying to usurp that leadership anyway. It is a daunting passage to be sure (and I haven't even begun to do it justice here, despite my ridiculously long post). I'll leave you with a few additional resources if you want to read into this more:

Adddendum On Masculine Language:

A common objection to women in leadership comes from the masculine language used in 1 Timothy 3 and other places for requirements of leaders. The default in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin rhetoric is always masculine. Just because Paul speaks from a masculine perspective does not preclude the possibility of feminine inclusion.

If one argues against that, and insists that this hermeneutic be applied here, they must at least be consistent about applying it in the rest of the Bible as well. Doing so, however, would mean that about 90% of scripture has no applicability to women whatsoever.

Example: > “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matt 5:27-28).

This is an analysis of 1 Tim 2:12, a verse commonly cited against women pastors, that I did on another post. You can also see my other responses to similar questions on women in the Church here (Ephesians 5), here (Gender), here (Women Leaders- General), and here (Women Leaders- Historical Data).

διδάσκειν	δὲ	γυναικὶ	οὐκ	ἐπιτρέπω	οὐδὲ
To teach	but/now/and	a woman	not	I permit	neither
Infinitive	conjunction	noun	adverb	verb	conjunction

αὐθεντεῖν	ἀνδρός	ἀλλʼ	εἶναι	ἐν	ἡσυχίᾳ
to usurp	a man	but	to be	in	quietness
infinitive	noun	conjunction	infinitive	preposition	noun

The Grammar

First, our main verb is the 1st person singular ἐπιτρέπω, which is negated by the preceding ουκ. "I do not give permission/I do not permit". There are two objects of this verb, i.e. the infinitives διδάσκειν and αὐθεντεῖν . So there are two things Paul does not permit: "to teach" and "to usurp". Infinitves are a little odd grammatically. They're often described as "verbal nouns". Here they function as the object of the main verb. They also typically have a subject and an object as a normal verb would. Here, the subject of each infinitive is γυναικὶ, and the 'object' is ἀνδρός. So we have "I (Paul) do not permit a woman to teach [a man] neither [do I permit] [a woman] to usurp a man.

This first clause is followed by a subordinate clause began with αλλ. The conjunction αλλ marks contrast, or a counterpoint. We often translate it as "but". "I don't permit these things but..." This implies that the following clause, in contrast to the first, is something that Paul does permit, namely, "to be in quietness".

A few last notes here: both "woman" and "man" are singular and anarthrous (i.e. lacking an article). This could be taken to mean Paul has a woman and a man in particular in mind, or it could be a way of generalizing. Either option is supported by the grammar.

Lexical Notes

By "lexical", I mean semantic or the meaning of words. First, we should note something about the word αὐθεντεῖν, which comes from αυθεντεω. I've translated it here as "usurp", but you'll often see it as "assume/have/excercise authority over" (as in the NRSV, NASB, ESV, NET, NLT, and NIV). This is a blatant mistranslation, because it implies that Paul forbids any general assumption of authority by women. Αυθεντεω, however, does not just mean "excercise authority" generally. It is a hapax legomenon, meaning it is a word that only occurs once within the NT. To really grasp its meaning, we have to venture outside the NT to see how the word is used in broader Greek literature. When we do, we'll see that it is always used in the context of violent overthrow or stealing of authority. In other words, it is used to mean "taking authority that does not already belong to you". Exegetically, we could take this to have two implications. On the one hand, we might suppose that Paul means to imply that women must always usurp authority, because authority never rightly belongs to them. On the other hand, we might suppose that Paul does not mean to imply that women can't have legitimate authority over men, and thus only prohibits them from trying to take charge when they have no right to, but not when they do have a right to be over men. (Note that both of these are interpretations, and either interpretation can be supported by the grammar and syntax here).

Next, we should look at the words for "woman" and "man", which come from γυνη and ανδρος respectively. These words can mean either "woman" and "man", or they can mean "wife" and "husband"! To determine which meaning is implied here, we have to rely purely on context, though I think the context allows for either option in this case. So Paul could either be forbidding a woman from teaching/usurping a man, or he could be forbidding a wife from teaching/usurping her husband, but not men in general!

Looking at Context

Obviously, grammar and syntax can only get us so far. Fortunately for us, this passage does not just sit in isolation by itself. It has a context. It is part of a list of exhortations/instructions from Paul, begun at v 2:1. It is immediately preceded by instructions on prayer and appropriate relationships among believers (c.f. v 2:1-10), and proceeded by instructions for selecting church leaders (c.f. v 3:1-13).

This particular section seems to be a transition between the topics, i.e. prayer/right relationships and church leadership. Grammatically, there is no clean break, and the two topics seem to flow into one another. Looking purely at literary context doesn't help much, then.

So what about historical context? This also offers us little help! First, while it is true that men were typically head of household, women were increasingly gaining leading roles in society. They were, in certain cults, allowed to be the leaders. We even have evidence of women leading synagogues during this period!

The issue of the cult of Artemis in Ephesus is also relevant. Worship of the Goddess Artemis was widespread in the Greco-Roman world, but was especially prevalent in Ephesus. In fact, the Ephesian Artemis was quite different from other expressions of Artemis. In Ephesus, she was a mother goddess, and her cult was overseen by female priestesses. It is possible, then, that either priestesses or female followers of the Artemis cult had been converted, but that they were still having difficulty doing away with old beliefs. This may fit with why Paul brings up the creation narrative, since it directly contradicts what the cult of Artemis would have taught (i.e. that women were default leaders in the Church).

So that leaves us with only one other place to turn:

Forming a Biblical Theology

When one passage of scripture is vague and hard to interpret, we turn to other clearer parts of scripture for help. Some have pointed to the immediately following passage which seems to allow for only males to lead the church, but see below for my comments on that.

We do, however, have several other places in scripture where women are allowed to be leaders over God's people and even within the Church: Miriam (Ex. 15:20-21, Mic 6:4), Deborah (Judges 4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14-20), Lydia (Ac 16:14-15), Possibly Euodia and Syntyche (Php 4:2-3), and even in Paul's other letters (Ro 16:7).

Additionally, the immiediately preceding verse in 1 Tim (v. 11), exhorts women to "learn in all quietness and submission". While this is often taken to mean "women should shut up and submit to male authority", culturally this was an expectation of every good student, not just women. This should remind us of Jesus's own allowance of women to sit at his feet and learn alongside his male disciples (c.f. Lk 10:38-42). Such a position necessarily implied that the learner was expected to one day become a teacher!

All of this leads me to believe that, whatever Paul may have meant in 1 Timothy, he did not mean to entirely preclude women from positions of authority and teaching in the Church. Instead, these were likely women (or just a woman) that were spiritually immature and thus not yet ready for leadership, but who were trying to usurp that leadership anyway. It is a daunting passage to be sure (and I haven't even begun to do it justice here, despite my ridiculously long post). I'll leave you with a few additional resources if you want to read into this more:

Adddendum On Masculine Language:

A common objection to women in leadership comes from the masculine language used in 1 Timothy 3 and other places for requirements of leaders. The default in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin rhetoric is always masculine. Just because Paul speaks from a masculine perspective does not preclude the possibility of feminine inclusion.

If one argues against that, and insists that this hermeneutic be applied here, they must at least be consistent about applying it in the rest of the Bible as well. Doing so, however, would mean that about 90% of scripture has no applicability to women whatsoever.

Example:

>“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matt 5:27-28).

Using that hermeneutic, Jesus is only speaking to men who lust, and doesn't forbid a woman from lusting after men.

Applied consistently, such a hermeneutic is untenable. Unless context explicitly precludes women, statements about men in scripture should be thought to generally be applicable to women as well.

This is an analysis of 1 Tim 2:12, a verse commonly cited against women pastors, that I did on another post. You can also see my other responses to similar questions on women in the Church here (Ephesians 5), here (Gender), here (Women Leaders- General), and here (Women Leaders- Historical Data).

διδάσκειν	δὲ	γυναικὶ	οὐκ	ἐπιτρέπω	οὐδὲ
To teach	but/now/and	a woman	not	I permit	neither
Infinitive	conjunction	noun	adverb	verb	conjunction

αὐθεντεῖν	ἀνδρός	ἀλλʼ	εἶναι	ἐν	ἡσυχίᾳ
to usurp	a man	but	to be	in	quietness
infinitive	noun	conjunction	infinitive	preposition	noun

The Grammar

First, our main verb is the 1st person singular ἐπιτρέπω, which is negated by the preceding ουκ. "I do not give permission/I do not permit". There are two objects of this verb, i.e. the infinitives διδάσκειν and αὐθεντεῖν . So there are two things Paul does not permit: "to teach" and "to usurp". Infinitves are a little odd grammatically. They're often described as "verbal nouns". Here they function as the object of the main verb. They also typically have a subject and an object as a normal verb would. Here, the subject of each infinitive is γυναικὶ, and the 'object' is ἀνδρός. So we have "I (Paul) do not permit a woman to teach [a man] neither [do I permit] [a woman] to usurp a man.

This first clause is followed by a subordinate clause began with αλλ. The conjunction αλλ marks contrast, or a counterpoint. We often translate it as "but". "I don't permit these things but..." This implies that the following clause, in contrast to the first, is something that Paul does permit, namely, "to be in quietness".

A few last notes here: both "woman" and "man" are singular and anarthrous (i.e. lacking an article). This could be taken to mean Paul has a woman and a man in particular in mind, or it could be a way of generalizing. Either option is supported by the grammar.

Lexical Notes

By "lexical", I mean semantic or the meaning of words. First, we should note something about the word αὐθεντεῖν, which comes from αυθεντεω. I've translated it here as "usurp", but you'll often see it as "assume/have/excercise authority over" (as in the NRSV, NASB, ESV, NET, NLT, and NIV). This is a blatant mistranslation, because it implies that Paul forbids any general assumption of authority by women. Αυθεντεω, however, does not just mean "excercise authority" generally. It is a hapax legomenon, meaning it is a word that only occurs once within the NT. To really grasp its meaning, we have to venture outside the NT to see how the word is used in broader Greek literature. When we do, we'll see that it is always used in the context of violent overthrow or stealing of authority. In other words, it is used to mean "taking authority that does not already belong to you". Exegetically, we could take this to have two implications. On the one hand, we might suppose that Paul means to imply that women must always usurp authority, because authority never rightly belongs to them. On the other hand, we might suppose that Paul does not mean to imply that women can't have legitimate authority over men, and thus only prohibits them from trying to take charge when they have no right to, but not when they do have a right to be over men. (Note that both of these are interpretations, and either interpretation can be supported by the grammar and syntax here).

Next, we should look at the words for "woman" and "man", which come from γυνη and ανδρος respectively. These words can mean either "woman" and "man", or they can mean "wife" and "husband"! To determine which meaning is implied here, we have to rely purely on context, though I think the context allows for either option in this case. So Paul could either be forbidding a woman from teaching/usurping a man, or he could be forbidding a wife from teaching/usurping her husband, but not men in general!

Looking at Context

Obviously, grammar and syntax can only get us so far. Fortunately for us, this passage does not just sit in isolation by itself. It has a context. It is part of a list of exhortations/instructions from Paul, begun at v 2:1. It is immediately preceded by instructions on prayer and appropriate relationships among believers (c.f. v 2:1-10), and proceeded by instructions for selecting church leaders (c.f. v 3:1-13).

This particular section seems to be a transition between the topics, i.e. prayer/right relationships and church leadership. Grammatically, there is no clean break, and the two topics seem to flow into one another. Looking purely at literary context doesn't help much, then.

So what about historical context? This also offers us little help! First, while it is true that men were typically head of household, women were increasingly gaining leading roles in society. They were, in certain cults, allowed to be the leaders. We even have evidence of women leading synagogues during this period!

The issue of the cult of Artemis in Ephesus is also relevant. Worship of the Goddess Artemis was widespread in the Greco-Roman world, but was especially prevalent in Ephesus. In fact, the Ephesian Artemis was quite different from other expressions of Artemis. In Ephesus, she was a mother goddess, and her cult was overseen by female priestesses. It is possible, then, that either priestesses or female followers of the Artemis cult had been converted, but that they were still having difficulty doing away with old beliefs. This may fit with why Paul brings up the creation narrative, since it directly contradicts what the cult of Artemis would have taught (i.e. that women were default leaders in the Church).

So that leaves us with only one other place to turn:

Forming a Biblical Theology

When one passage of scripture is vague and hard to interpret, we turn to other clearer parts of scripture for help. Some have pointed to the immediately following passage which seems to allow for only males to lead the church, but see below for my comments on that.

We do, however, have several other places in scripture where women are allowed to be leaders over God's people and even within the Church: Miriam (Ex. 15:20-21, Mic 6:4), Deborah (Judges 4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14-20), Lydia (Ac 16:14-15), Possibly Euodia and Syntyche (Php 4:2-3), and even in Paul's other letters (Ro 16:7).

Additionally, the immiediately preceding verse in 1 Tim (v. 11), exhorts women to "learn in all quietness and submission". While this is often taken to mean "women should shut up and submit to male authority", culturally this was an expectation of every good student, not just women. This should remind us of Jesus's own allowance of women to sit at his feet and learn alongside his male disciples (c.f. Lk 10:38-42). Such a position necessarily implied that the learner was expected to one day become a teacher!

All of this leads me to believe that, whatever Paul may have meant in 1 Timothy, he did not mean to entirely preclude women from positions of authority and teaching in the Church. Instead, these were likely women (or just a woman) that were spiritually immature and thus not yet ready for leadership, but who were trying to usurp that leadership anyway. It is a daunting passage to be sure (and I haven't even begun to do it justice here, despite my ridiculously long post). I'll leave you with a few additional resources if you want to read into this more:

Adddendum On Masculine Language:

A common objection to women in leadership comes from the masculine language used in 1 Timothy 3 and other places for requirements of leaders. The default in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin rhetoric is always masculine. Just because Paul speaks from a masculine perspective does not preclude the possibility of feminine inclusion.

If one argues against that, and insists that this hermeneutic be applied here, they must at least be consistent about applying it in the rest of the Bible as well. Doing so, however, would mean that about 90% of scripture has no applicability to women whatsoever.

Example:

>“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matt 5:27-28).

Using that hermeneutic, Jesus is only speaking to men who lust, and doesn't forbid a woman from lusting after men.

Applied consistently, such a hermeneutic is untenable. Unless context explicitly precludes women, statements about men in scripture should be thought to generally be applicable to women as well.

This is an analysis of 1 Tim 2:12, a verse commonly cited against women pastors, that I did on another post. You can also see my other responses to similar questions on women in the Church here (Ephesians 5), here (Gender), here (Women Leaders- General), and here (Women Leaders- Historical Data).

διδάσκειν	δὲ	γυναικὶ	οὐκ	ἐπιτρέπω	οὐδὲ
To teach	but/now/and	a woman	not	I permit	neither
Infinitive	conjunction	noun	adverb	verb	conjunction

αὐθεντεῖν	ἀνδρός	ἀλλʼ	εἶναι	ἐν	ἡσυχίᾳ
to usurp	a man	but	to be	in	quietness
infinitive	noun	conjunction	infinitive	preposition	noun

The Grammar

First, our main verb is the 1st person singular ἐπιτρέπω, which is negated by the preceding ουκ. "I do not give permission/I do not permit". There are two objects of this verb, i.e. the infinitives διδάσκειν and αὐθεντεῖν . So there are two things Paul does not permit: "to teach" and "to usurp". Infinitves are a little odd grammatically. They're often described as "verbal nouns". Here they function as the object of the main verb. They also typically have a subject and an object as a normal verb would. Here, the subject of each infinitive is γυναικὶ, and the 'object' is ἀνδρός. So we have "I (Paul) do not permit a woman to teach [a man] neither [do I permit] [a woman] to usurp a man.

This first clause is followed by a subordinate clause began with αλλ. The conjunction αλλ marks contrast, or a counterpoint. We often translate it as "but". "I don't permit these things but..." This implies that the following clause, in contrast to the first, is something that Paul does permit, namely, "to be in quietness".

A few last notes here: both "woman" and "man" are singular and anarthrous (i.e. lacking an article). This could be taken to mean Paul has a woman and a man in particular in mind, or it could be a way of generalizing. Either option is supported by the grammar.

Lexical Notes

By "lexical", I mean semantic or the meaning of words. First, we should note something about the word αὐθεντεῖν, which comes from αυθεντεω. I've translated it here as "usurp", but you'll often see it as "assume/have/excercise authority over" (as in the NRSV, NASB, ESV, NET, NLT, and NIV). This is a blatant mistranslation, because it implies that Paul forbids any general assumption of authority by women. Αυθεντεω, however, does not just mean "excercise authority" generally. It is a hapax legomenon, meaning it is a word that only occurs once within the NT. To really grasp its meaning, we have to venture outside the NT to see how the word is used in broader Greek literature. When we do, we'll see that it is always used in the context of violent overthrow or stealing of authority. In other words, it is used to mean "taking authority that does not already belong to you". Exegetically, we could take this to have two implications. On the one hand, we might suppose that Paul means to imply that women must always usurp authority, because authority never rightly belongs to them. On the other hand, we might suppose that Paul does not mean to imply that women can't have legitimate authority over men, and thus only prohibits them from trying to take charge when they have no right to, but not when they do have a right to be over men. (Note that both of these are interpretations, and either interpretation can be supported by the grammar and syntax here).

Next, we should look at the words for "woman" and "man", which come from γυνη and ανδρος respectively. These words can mean either "woman" and "man", or they can mean "wife" and "husband"! To determine which meaning is implied here, we have to rely purely on context, though I think the context allows for either option in this case. So Paul could either be forbidding a woman from teaching/usurping a man, or he could be forbidding a wife from teaching/usurping her husband, but not men in general!

Looking at Context

Obviously, grammar and syntax can only get us so far. Fortunately for us, this passage does not just sit in isolation by itself. It has a context. It is part of a list of exhortations/instructions from Paul, begun at v 2:1. It is immediately preceded by instructions on prayer and appropriate relationships among believers (c.f. v 2:1-10), and proceeded by instructions for selecting church leaders (c.f. v 3:1-13).

This particular section seems to be a transition between the topics, i.e. prayer/right relationships and church leadership. Grammatically, there is no clean break, and the two topics seem to flow into one another. Looking purely at literary context doesn't help much, then.

So what about historical context? This also offers us little help! First, while it is true that men were typically head of household, women were increasingly gaining leading roles in society. They were, in certain cults, allowed to be the leaders. We even have evidence of women leading synagogues during this period!

The issue of the cult of Artemis in Ephesus is also relevant. Worship of the Goddess Artemis was widespread in the Greco-Roman world, but was especially prevalent in Ephesus. In fact, the Ephesian Artemis was quite different from other expressions of Artemis. In Ephesus, she was a mother goddess, and her cult was overseen by female priestesses. It is possible, then, that either priestesses or female followers of the Artemis cult had been converted, but that they were still having difficulty doing away with old beliefs. This may fit with why Paul brings up the creation narrative, since it directly contradicts what the cult of Artemis would have taught (i.e. that women were default leaders in the Church).

So that leaves us with only one other place to turn:

Forming a Biblical Theology

When one passage of scripture is vague and hard to interpret, we turn to other clearer parts of scripture for help. Some have pointed to the immediately following passage which seems to allow for only males to lead the church, but see below for my comments on that.

We do, however, have several other places in scripture where women are allowed to be leaders over God's people and even within the Church: Miriam (Ex. 15:20-21, Mic 6:4), Deborah (Judges 4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14-20), Lydia (Ac 16:14-15), Possibly Euodia and Syntyche (Php 4:2-3), and even in Paul's other letters (Ro 16:7).

Additionally, the immiediately preceding verse in 1 Tim (v. 11), exhorts women to "learn in all quietness and submission". While this is often taken to mean "women should shut up and submit to male authority", culturally this was an expectation of every good student, not just women. This should remind us of Jesus's own allowance of women to sit at his feet and learn alongside his male disciples (c.f. Lk 10:38-42). Such a position necessarily implied that the learner was expected to one day become a teacher!

All of this leads me to believe that, whatever Paul may have meant in 1 Timothy, he did not mean to entirely preclude women from positions of authority and teaching in the Church. Instead, these were likely women (or just a woman) that were spiritually immature and thus not yet ready for leadership, but who were trying to usurp that leadership anyway. It is a daunting passage to be sure (and I haven't even begun to do it justice here, despite my ridiculously long post). I'll leave you with a few additional resources if you want to read into this more:

Adddendum On Masculine Language:

A common objection to women in leadership comes from the masculine language used in 1 Timothy 3 and other places for requirements of leaders. The default in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin rhetoric is always masculine. Just because Paul speaks from a masculine perspective does not preclude the possibility of feminine inclusion.

If one argues against that, and insists that this hermeneutic be applied here, they must at least be consistent about applying it in the rest of the Bible as well. Doing so, however, would mean that about 90% of scripture has no applicability to women whatsoever.

Example:

>“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matt 5:27-28).

Using that hermeneutic, Jesus is only speaking to men who lust, and doesn't forbid a woman from lusting after men.

Applied consistently, such a hermeneutic is untenable. Unless context explicitly precludes women, statements about men in scripture should be thought to generally be applicable to women as well.

He didn't. This is an analysis of 1 Tim 2:12, a verse commonly cited against women pastors (and the one you likely have in mind), that I did on another post. You can also see my other responses to similar questions on women in the Church here, here, and here.

διδάσκειν	αὐθεντεῖν	δὲ	ἀνδρός	γυναικὶ	ἀλλʼ
οὐκ	εἶναι	ἐπιτρέπω	ἐν	οὐδὲ	ἡσυχίᾳ
To teach	to usurp	but/now/and	a man	a woman	but
not	to be	I permit	in	neither	quietness
Infinitive	infinitive	conjunction	noun	noun	conjunction
adverb	infinitive	verb	preposition	conjunction	noun

The Grammar

First, our main verb is the 1st person singular ἐπιτρέπω, which is negated by the preceding ουκ. "I do not give permission/I do not permit". There are two objects of this verb, i.e. the infinitives διδάσκειν and αὐθεντεῖν . So there are two things Paul does not permit: "to teach" and "to usurp". Infinitves are a little odd grammatically. They're often described as "verbal nouns". Here they function as the object of the main verb. They also typically have a subject and an object as a normal verb would. Here, the subject of each infinitive is γυναικὶ, and the 'object' is ἀνδρός. So we have "I (Paul) do not permit a woman to teach [a man] neither [do I permit] [a woman] to usurp a man.

This first clause is followed by a subordinate clause began with αλλ. The conjunction αλλ marks contrast, or a counterpoint. We often translate it as "but". "I don't permit these things but..." This implies that the following clause, in contrast to the first, is something that Paul does permit, namely, "to be in quietness".

A few last notes here: both "woman" and "man" are singular and anarthrous (i.e. lacking an article). This could be taken to mean Paul has a woman and a man in particular in mind, or it could be a way of generalizing. Either option is supported by the grammar.

Lexical Notes

By "lexical", I mean semantic or the meaning of words. First, we should note something about the word αὐθεντεῖν, which comes from αυθεντεω. I've translated it here as "usurp", but you'll often see it as "assume/have/excercise authority over" (as in the NRSV, NASB, ESV, NET, NLT, and NIV). This is a blatant mistranslation, because it implies that Paul forbids any general assumption of authority by women. Αυθεντεω, however, does not just mean "excercise authority" generally. It is a hapax legomenon, meaning it is a word that only occurs once within the NT. To really grasp its meaning, we have to venture outside the NT to see how the word is used in broader Greek literature. When we do, we'll see that it is always used in the context of violent overthrow or stealing of authority. In other words, it is used to mean "taking authority that does not already belong to you". Exegetically, we could take this to have two implications. On the one hand, we might suppose that Paul means to imply that women must always usurp authority, because authority never rightly belongs to them. On the other hand, we might suppose that Paul does not mean to imply that women can't have legitimate authority over men, and thus only prohibits them from trying to take charge when they have no right to, but not when they do have a right to be over men. (Note that both of these are interpretations, and either interpretation can be supported by the grammar and syntax here).

Next, we should look at the words for "woman" and "man", which come from γυνη and ανδρος respectively. These words can mean either "woman" and "man", or they can mean "wife" and "husband"! To determine which meaning is implied here, we have to rely purely on context, though I think the context allows for either option in this case. So Paul could either be forbidding a woman from teaching/usurping a man, or he could be forbidding a wife from teaching/usurping her husband, but not men in general!

Looking at Context

Obviously, grammar and syntax can only get us so far. Fortunately for us, this passage does not just sit in isolation by itself. It has a context. It is part of a list of exhortations/instructions from Paul, begun at v 2:1. It is immediately preceded by instructions on prayer and appropriate relationships among believers (c.f. v 2:1-10), and proceeded by instructions for selecting church leaders (c.f. v 3:1-13).

This particular section seems to be a transition between the topics, i.e. prayer/right relationships and church leadership. Grammatically, there is no clean break, and the two topics seem to flow into one another. Looking purely at literary context doesn't help much, then.

So what about historical context? This also offers us little help! First, while it is true that men were typically head of household, women were increasingly gaining leading roles in society. They were, in certain cults, allowed to be the leaders. We even have evidence of women leading synagogues during this period!

The issue of the cult of Artemis in Ephesus is also relevant. Worship of the Goddess Artemis was widespread in the Greco-Roman world, but was especially prevalent in Ephesus. In fact, the Ephesian Artemis was quite different from other expressions of Artemis. In Ephesus, she was a mother goddess, and her cult was overseen by female priestesses. It is possible, then, that either priestesses or female followers of the Artemis cult had been converted, but that they were still having difficulty doing away with old beliefs. This may fit with why Paul brings up the creation narrative, since it directly contradicts what the cult of Artemis would have taught (i.e. that women were default leaders in the Church).

So that leaves us with only one other place to turn:

Forming a Biblical Theology

When one passage of scripture is vague and hard to interpret, we turn to other clearer parts of scripture for help. Some have pointed to the immediately following passage which seems to allow for only males to lead the church, but see below for my comments on that.

We do, however, have several other places in scripture where women are allowed to be leaders over God's people and even within the Church: Miriam (Ex. 15:20-21, Mic 6:4), Deborah (Judges 4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14-20), Lydia (Ac 16:14-15), Possibly Euodia and Syntyche (Php 4:2-3), and even in Paul's other letters (Ro 16:7).

Additionally, the immiediately preceding verse in 1 Tim (v. 11), exhorts women to "learn in all quietness and submission". While this is often taken to mean "women should shut up and submit to male authority", culturally this was an expectation of every good student, not just women. This should remind us of Jesus's own allowance of women to sit at his feet and learn alongside his male disciples (c.f. Lk 10:38-42). Such a position necessarily implied that the learner was expected to one day become a teacher!

All of this leads me to believe that, whatever Paul may have meant in 1 Timothy, he did not mean to entirely preclude women from positions of authority and teaching in the Church. Instead, these were likely women (or just a woman) that were spiritually immature and thus not yet ready for leadership, but who were trying to usurp that leadership anyway. It is a daunting passage to be sure (and I haven't even begun to do it justice here, despite my ridiculously long post). I'll leave you with a few additional resources if you want to read into this more:

Adddendum On Masculine Language:

A common objection to women in leadership comes from the masculine language used in 1 Timothy 3 and other places for requirements of leaders. The default in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin rhetoric is always masculine. Just because Paul speaks from a masculine perspective does not preclude the possibility of feminine inclusion.

If one argues against that, and insists that this hermeneutic be applied here, they must at least be consistent about applying it in the rest of the Bible as well. Doing so, however, would mean that about 90% of scripture has no applicability to women whatsoever.

Example:

>“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matt 5:27-28).

Using that hermeneutic, Jesus is only speaking to men who lust, and doesn't forbid a woman from lusting after men.

Applied consistently, such a hermeneutic is untenable. Unless context explicitly precludes women, statements about men in scripture should be thought to generally be applicable to women as well.

This is an analysis of 1 Tim 2:12, a verse commonly cited against women pastors, that I did on another post. You can also see my other responses to similar questions on women in the Church here, here, and here.

διδάσκειν	αὐθεντεῖν	δὲ	ἀνδρός	γυναικὶ	ἀλλʼ
οὐκ	εἶναι	ἐπιτρέπω	ἐν	οὐδὲ	ἡσυχίᾳ
To teach	to usurp	but/now/and	a man	a woman	but
not	to be	I permit	in	neither	quietness
Infinitive	infinitive	conjunction	noun	noun	conjunction
adverb	infinitive	verb	preposition	conjunction	noun

The Grammar

First, our main verb is the 1st person singular ἐπιτρέπω, which is negated by the preceding ουκ. "I do not give permission/I do not permit". There are two objects of this verb, i.e. the infinitives διδάσκειν and αὐθεντεῖν . So there are two things Paul does not permit: "to teach" and "to usurp". Infinitves are a little odd grammatically. They're often described as "verbal nouns". Here they function as the object of the main verb. They also typically have a subject and an object as a normal verb would. Here, the subject of each infinitive is γυναικὶ, and the 'object' is ἀνδρός. So we have "I (Paul) do not permit a woman to teach [a man] neither [do I permit] [a woman] to usurp a man.

This first clause is followed by a subordinate clause began with αλλ. The conjunction αλλ marks contrast, or a counterpoint. We often translate it as "but". "I don't permit these things but..." This implies that the following clause, in contrast to the first, is something that Paul does permit, namely, "to be in quietness".

A few last notes here: both "woman" and "man" are singular and anarthrous (i.e. lacking an article). This could be taken to mean Paul has a woman and a man in particular in mind, or it could be a way of generalizing. Either option is supported by the grammar.

Lexical Notes

By "lexical", I mean semantic or the meaning of words. First, we should note something about the word αὐθεντεῖν, which comes from αυθεντεω. I've translated it here as "usurp", but you'll often see it as "assume/have/excercise authority over" (as in the NRSV, NASB, ESV, NET, NLT, and NIV). This is a blatant mistranslation, because it implies that Paul forbids any general assumption of authority by women. Αυθεντεω, however, does not just mean "excercise authority" generally. It is a hapax legomenon, meaning it is a word that only occurs once within the NT. To really grasp its meaning, we have to venture outside the NT to see how the word is used in broader Greek literature. When we do, we'll see that it is always used in the context of violent overthrow or stealing of authority. In other words, it is used to mean "taking authority that does not already belong to you". Exegetically, we could take this to have two implications. On the one hand, we might suppose that Paul means to imply that women must always usurp authority, because authority never rightly belongs to them. On the other hand, we might suppose that Paul does not mean to imply that women can't have legitimate authority over men, and thus only prohibits them from trying to take charge when they have no right to, but not when they do have a right to be over men. (Note that both of these are interpretations, and either interpretation can be supported by the grammar and syntax here).

Next, we should look at the words for "woman" and "man", which come from γυνη and ανδρος respectively. These words can mean either "woman" and "man", or they can mean "wife" and "husband"! To determine which meaning is implied here, we have to rely purely on context, though I think the context allows for either option in this case. So Paul could either be forbidding a woman from teaching/usurping a man, or he could be forbidding a wife from teaching/usurping her husband, but not men in general!

Looking at Context

Obviously, grammar and syntax can only get us so far. Fortunately for us, this passage does not just sit in isolation by itself. It has a context. It is part of a list of exhortations/instructions from Paul, begun at v 2:1. It is immediately preceded by instructions on prayer and appropriate relationships among believers (c.f. v 2:1-10), and proceeded by instructions for selecting church leaders (c.f. v 3:1-13).

This particular section seems to be a transition between the topics, i.e. prayer/right relationships and church leadership. Grammatically, there is no clean break, and the two topics seem to flow into one another. Looking purely at literary context doesn't help much, then.

So what about historical context? This also offers us little help! First, while it is true that men were typically head of household, women were increasingly gaining leading roles in society. They were, in certain cults, allowed to be the leaders. We even have evidence of women leading synagogues during this period!

The issue of the cult of Artemis in Ephesus is also relevant. Worship of the Goddess Artemis was widespread in the Greco-Roman world, but was especially prevalent in Ephesus. In fact, the Ephesian Artemis was quite different from other expressions of Artemis. In Ephesus, she was a mother goddess, and her cult was overseen by female priestesses. It is possible, then, that either priestesses or female followers of the Artemis cult had been converted, but that they were still having difficulty doing away with old beliefs. This may fit with why Paul brings up the creation narrative, since it directly contradicts what the cult of Artemis would have taught (i.e. that women were default leaders in the Church).

So that leaves us with only one other place to turn:

Forming a Biblical Theology

When one passage of scripture is vague and hard to interpret, we turn to other clearer parts of scripture for help. Some have pointed to the immediately following passage which seems to allow for only males to lead the church, but see below for my comments on that.

We do, however, have several other places in scripture where women are allowed to be leaders over God's people and even within the Church: Miriam (Ex. 15:20-21, Mic 6:4), Deborah (Judges 4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14-20), Lydia (Ac 16:14-15), Possibly Euodia and Syntyche (Php 4:2-3), and even in Paul's other letters (Ro 16:7).

Additionally, the immiediately preceding verse in 1 Tim (v. 11), exhorts women to "learn in all quietness and submission". While this is often taken to mean "women should shut up and submit to male authority", culturally this was an expectation of every good student, not just women. This should remind us of Jesus's own allowance of women to sit at his feet and learn alongside his male disciples (c.f. Lk 10:38-42). Such a position necessarily implied that the learner was expected to one day become a teacher!

All of this leads me to believe that, whatever Paul may have meant in 1 Timothy, he did not mean to entirely preclude women from positions of authority and teaching in the Church. Instead, these were likely women (or just a woman) that were spiritually immature and thus not yet ready for leadership, but who were trying to usurp that leadership anyway. It is a daunting passage to be sure (and I haven't even begun to do it justice here, despite my ridiculously long post). I'll leave you with a few additional resources if you want to read into this more:

Adddendum On Masculine Language:

A common objection to women in leadership comes from the masculine language used in 1 Timothy 3 and other places for requirements of leaders. The default in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin rhetoric is always masculine. Just because Paul speaks from a masculine perspective does not preclude the possibility of feminine inclusion.

If one argues against that, and insists that this hermeneutic be applied here, they must at least be consistent about applying it in the rest of the Bible as well. Doing so, however, would mean that about 90% of scripture has no applicability to women whatsoever.

Example:

>“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matt 5:27-28).

Using that hermeneutic, Jesus is only speaking to men who lust, and doesn't forbid a woman from lusting after men.

Applied consistently, such a hermeneutic is untenable. Unless context explicitly precludes women, statements about men in scripture should be thought to generally be applicable to women as well.

Here's my soapbox post on this question:

This is an analysis of 1 Tim 2:12, a verse commonly cited against women pastors, that I did on another post. You can also see my other responses to similar questions on women in the Church here, here, and here.

διδάσκειν	αὐθεντεῖν	δὲ	ἀνδρός	γυναικὶ	ἀλλʼ
οὐκ	εἶναι	ἐπιτρέπω	ἐν	οὐδὲ	ἡσυχίᾳ
To teach	to usurp	but/now/and	a man	a woman	but
not	to be	I permit	in	neither	quietness
Infinitive	infinitive	conjunction	noun	noun	conjunction
adverb	infinitive	verb	preposition	conjunction	noun

The Grammar

First, our main verb is the 1st person singular ἐπιτρέπω, which is negated by the preceding ουκ. "I do not give permission/I do not permit". There are two objects of this verb, i.e. the infinitives διδάσκειν and αὐθεντεῖν . So there are two things Paul does not permit: "to teach" and "to usurp". Infinitves are a little odd grammatically. They're often described as "verbal nouns". Here they function as the object of the main verb. They also typically have a subject and an object as a normal verb would. Here, the subject of each infinitive is γυναικὶ, and the 'object' is ἀνδρός. So we have "I (Paul) do not permit a woman to teach [a man] neither [do I permit] [a woman] to usurp a man.

This first clause is followed by a subordinate clause began with αλλ. The conjunction αλλ marks contrast, or a counterpoint. We often translate it as "but". "I don't permit these things but..." This implies that the following clause, in contrast to the first, is something that Paul does permit, namely, "to be in quietness".

A few last notes here: both "woman" and "man" are singular and anarthrous (i.e. lacking an article). This could be taken to mean Paul has a woman and a man in particular in mind, or it could be a way of generalizing. Either option is supported by the grammar.

Lexical Notes

By "lexical", I mean semantic or the meaning of words. First, we should note something about the word αὐθεντεῖν, which comes from αυθεντεω. I've translated it here as "usurp", but you'll often see it as "assume/have/excercise authority over" (as in the NRSV, NASB, ESV, NET, NLT, and NIV). This is a blatant mistranslation, because it implies that Paul forbids any general assumption of authority by women. Αυθεντεω, however, does not just mean "excercise authority" generally. It is a hapax legomenon, meaning it is a word that only occurs once within the NT. To really grasp its meaning, we have to venture outside the NT to see how the word is used in broader Greek literature. When we do, we'll see that it is always used in the context of violent overthrow or stealing of authority. In other words, it is used to mean "taking authority that does not already belong to you". Exegetically, we could take this to have two implications. On the one hand, we might suppose that Paul means to imply that women must always usurp authority, because authority never rightly belongs to them. On the other hand, we might suppose that Paul does not mean to imply that women can't have legitimate authority over men, and thus only prohibits them from trying to take charge when they have no right to, but not when they do have a right to be over men. (Note that both of these are interpretations, and either interpretation can be supported by the grammar and syntax here).

Next, we should look at the words for "woman" and "man", which come from γυνη and ανδρος respectively. These words can mean either "woman" and "man", or they can mean "wife" and "husband"! To determine which meaning is implied here, we have to rely purely on context, though I think the context allows for either option in this case. So Paul could either be forbidding a woman from teaching/usurping a man, or he could be forbidding a wife from teaching/usurping her husband, but not men in general!

Looking at Context

Obviously, grammar and syntax can only get us so far. Fortunately for us, this passage does not just sit in isolation by itself. It has a context. It is part of a list of exhortations/instructions from Paul, begun at v 2:1. It is immediately preceded by instructions on prayer and appropriate relationships among believers (c.f. v 2:1-10), and proceeded by instructions for selecting church leaders (c.f. v 3:1-13).

This particular section seems to be a transition between the topics, i.e. prayer/right relationships and church leadership. Grammatically, there is no clean break, and the two topics seem to flow into one another. Looking purely at literary context doesn't help much, then.

So what about historical context? This also offers us little help! First, while it is true that men were typically head of household, women were increasingly gaining leading roles in society. They were, in certain cults, allowed to be the leaders. We even have evidence of women leading synagogues during this period!

The issue of the cult of Artemis in Ephesus is also relevant. Worship of the Goddess Artemis was widespread in the Greco-Roman world, but was especially prevalent in Ephesus. In fact, the Ephesian Artemis was quite different from other expressions of Artemis. In Ephesus, she was a mother goddess, and her cult was overseen by female priestesses. It is possible, then, that either priestesses or female followers of the Artemis cult had been converted, but that they were still having difficulty doing away with old beliefs. This may fit with why Paul brings up the creation narrative, since it directly contradicts what the cult of Artemis would have taught (i.e. that women were default leaders in the Church).

So that leaves us with only one other place to turn:

Forming a Biblical Theology

When one passage of scripture is vague and hard to interpret, we turn to other clearer parts of scripture for help. Some have pointed to the immediately following passage which seems to allow for only males to lead the church, but see below for my comments on that.

We do, however, have several other places in scripture where women are allowed to be leaders over God's people and even within the Church: Miriam (Ex. 15:20-21, Mic 6:4), Deborah (Judges 4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14-20), Lydia (Ac 16:14-15), Possibly Euodia and Syntyche (Php 4:2-3), and even in Paul's other letters (Ro 16:7).

Additionally, the immiediately preceding verse in 1 Tim (v. 11), exhorts women to "learn in all quietness and submission". While this is often taken to mean "women should shut up and submit to male authority", culturally this was an expectation of every good student, not just women. This should remind us of Jesus's own allowance of women to sit at his feet and learn alongside his male disciples (c.f. Lk 10:38-42). Such a position necessarily implied that the learner was expected to one day become a teacher!

All of this leads me to believe that, whatever Paul may have meant in 1 Timothy, he did not mean to entirely preclude women from positions of authority and teaching in the Church. Instead, these were likely women (or just a woman) that were spiritually immature and thus not yet ready for leadership, but who were trying to usurp that leadership anyway. It is a daunting passage to be sure (and I haven't even begun to do it justice here, despite my ridiculously long post). I'll leave you with a few additional resources if you want to read into this more:

Adddendum On Masculine Language:

A common objection to women in leadership comes from the masculine language used in 1 Timothy 3 and other places for requirements of leaders. The default in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin rhetoric is always masculine. Just because Paul speaks from a masculine perspective does not preclude the possibility of feminine inclusion.

If one argues against that, and insists that this hermeneutic be applied here, they must at least be consistent about applying it in the rest of the Bible as well. Doing so, however, would mean that about 90% of scripture has no applicability to women whatsoever.

Example:

>“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matt 5:27-28).

Using that hermeneutic, Jesus is only speaking to men who lust, and doesn't forbid a woman from lusting after men.

Applied consistently, such a hermeneutic is untenable. Unless context explicitly precludes women, statements about men in scripture should be thought to generally be applicable to women as well.

Generally the response to this would be proof-texting in an attempt to show the Bible doesn't allow women to preach/have leadership roles. I think those arguments are generally pretty bad, and don't really engage with tons of scholarship that shows these verses mean nothing of the sort.

So here is my analysis of 1 Tim 2:12, a verse commonly cited like this, that I did on another post. You can also see my other responses to similar questions on women in the Church here, here, and here.

διδάσκειν	αὐθεντεῖν	δὲ	ἀνδρός	γυναικὶ	ἀλλʼ
οὐκ	εἶναι	ἐπιτρέπω	ἐν	οὐδὲ	ἡσυχίᾳ
To teach	to usurp	but/now/and	a man	a woman	but
not	to be	I permit	in	neither	quietness
Infinitive	infinitive	conjunction	noun	noun	conjunction
adverb	infinitive	verb	preposition	conjunction	noun

The Grammar

First, our main verb is the 1st person singular ἐπιτρέπω, which is negated by the preceding ουκ. "I do not give permission/I do not permit". There are two objects of this verb, i.e. the infinitives διδάσκειν and αὐθεντεῖν . So there are two things Paul does not permit: "to teach" and "to usurp". Infinitves are a little odd grammatically. They're often described as "verbal nouns". Here they function as the object of the main verb. They also typically have a subject and an object as a normal verb would. Here, the subject of each infinitive is γυναικὶ, and the 'object' is ἀνδρός. So we have "I (Paul) do not permit a woman to teach [a man] neither [do I permit] [a woman] to usurp a man.

This first clause is followed by a subordinate clause began with αλλ. The conjunction αλλ marks contrast, or a counterpoint. We often translate it as "but". "I don't permit these things but..." This implies that the following clause, in contrast to the first, is something that Paul does permit, namely, "to be in quietness".

A few last notes here: both "woman" and "man" are singular and anarthrous (i.e. lacking an article). This could be taken to mean Paul has a woman and a man in particular in mind, or it could be a way of generalizing. Either option is supported by the grammar.

Lexical Notes

By "lexical", I mean semantic or the meaning of words. First, we should note something about the word αὐθεντεῖν, which comes from αυθεντεω. I've translated it here as "usurp", but you'll often see it as "assume/have/excercise authority over" (as in the NRSV, NASB, ESV, NET, NLT, and NIV). This is a blatant mistranslation, because it implies that Paul forbids any general assumption of authority by women. Αυθεντεω, however, does not just mean "excercise authority" generally. It is a hapax legomenon, meaning it is a word that only occurs once within the NT. To really grasp its meaning, we have to venture outside the NT to see how the word is used in broader Greek literature. When we do, we'll see that it is always used in the context of violent overthrow or stealing of authority. In other words, it is used to mean "taking authority that does not already belong to you". Exegetically, we could take this to have two implications. On the one hand, we might suppose that Paul means to imply that women must always usurp authority, because authority never rightly belongs to them. On the other hand, we might suppose that Paul does not mean to imply that women can't have legitimate authority over men, and thus only prohibits them from trying to take charge when they have no right to, but not when they do have a right to be over men. (Note that both of these are interpretations, and either interpretation can be supported by the grammar and syntax here).

Next, we should look at the words for "woman" and "man", which come from γυνη and ανδρος respectively. These words can mean either "woman" and "man", or they can mean "wife" and "husband"! To determine which meaning is implied here, we have to rely purely on context, though I think the context allows for either option in this case. So Paul could either be forbidding a woman from teaching/usurping a man, or he could be forbidding a wife from teaching/usurping her husband, but not men in general!

Looking at Context

Obviously, grammar and syntax can only get us so far. Fortunately for us, this passage does not just sit in isolation by itself. It has a context. It is part of a list of exhortations/instructions from Paul, begun at v 2:1. It is immediately preceded by instructions on prayer and appropriate relationships among believers (c.f. v 2:1-10), and proceeded by instructions for selecting church leaders (c.f. v 3:1-13).

This particular section seems to be a transition between the topics, i.e. prayer/right relationships and church leadership. Grammatically, there is no clean break, and the two topics seem to flow into one another. Looking purely at literary context doesn't help much, then.

So what about historical context? This also offers us little help! First, while it is true that men were typically head of household, women were increasingly gaining leading roles in society. They were, in certain cults, allowed to be the leaders. We even have evidence of women leading synagogues during this period!

The issue of the cult of Artemis in Ephesus is also relevant. Worship of the Goddess Artemis was widespread in the Greco-Roman world, but was especially prevalent in Ephesus. In fact, the Ephesian Artemis was quite different from other expressions of Artemis. In Ephesus, she was a mother goddess, and her cult was overseen by female priestesses. It is possible, then, that either priestesses or female followers of the Artemis cult had been converted, but that they were still having difficulty doing away with old beliefs. This may fit with why Paul brings up the creation narrative, since it directly contradicts what the cult of Artemis would have taught (i.e. that women were default leaders in the Church).

So that leaves us with only one other place to turn:

Forming a Biblical Theology

When one passage of scripture is vague and hard to interpret, we turn to other clearer parts of scripture for help. Some have pointed to the immediately following passage which seems to allow for only males to lead the church, but see below for my comments on that.

We do, however, have several other places in scripture where women are allowed to be leaders over God's people and even within the Church: Miriam (Ex. 15:20-21, Mic 6:4), Deborah (Judges 4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14-20), Lydia (Ac 16:14-15), Possibly Euodia and Syntyche (Php 4:2-3), and even in Paul's other letters (Ro 16:7).

Additionally, the immiediately preceding verse in 1 Tim (v. 11), exhorts women to "learn in all quietness and submission". While this is often taken to mean "women should shut up and submit to male authority", culturally this was an expectation of every good student, not just women. This should remind us of Jesus's own allowance of women to sit at his feet and learn alongside his male disciples (c.f. Lk 10:38-42). Such a position necessarily implied that the learner was expected to one day become a teacher!

All of this leads me to believe that, whatever Paul may have meant in 1 Timothy, he did not mean to entirely preclude women from positions of authority and teaching in the Church. Instead, these were likely women (or just a woman) that were spiritually immature and thus not yet ready for leadership, but who were trying to usurp that leadership anyway. It is a daunting passage to be sure (and I haven't even begun to do it justice here, despite my ridiculously long post). I'll leave you with a few additional resources if you want to read into this more:

Adddendum On Masculine Language:

A common objection to women in leadership comes from the masculine language used in 1 Timothy 3 and other places for requirements of leaders. The default in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin rhetoric is always masculine. Just because Paul speaks from a masculine perspective does not preclude the possibility of feminine inclusion.

If one argues against that, and insists that this hermeneutic be applied here, they must at least be consistent about applying it in the rest of the Bible as well. Doing so, however, would mean that about 90% of scripture has no applicability to women whatsoever.

Example:

>“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matt 5:27-28).

Using that hermeneutic, Jesus is only speaking to men who lust, and doesn't forbid a woman from lusting after men.

This is an analysis of 1 Tim 2:12, a verse commonly cited against women pastors, that I did on another post. You can also see my other responses to similar questions on women in the Church here, here, and here.

διδάσκειν	δὲ	γυναικὶ	οὐκ	ἐπιτρέπω	οὐδὲ
To teach	but/now/and	a woman	not	I permit	neither
Infinitive	conjunction	noun	adverb	verb	conjunction

αὐθεντεῖν	ἀνδρός	ἀλλʼ	εἶναι	ἐν	ἡσυχίᾳ
to usurp	a man	but	to be	in	quietness
infinitive	noun	conjunction	infinitive	preposition	noun

The Grammar

First, our main verb is the 1st person singular ἐπιτρέπω, which is negated by the preceding ουκ. "I do not give permission/I do not permit". There are two objects of this verb, i.e. the infinitives διδάσκειν and αὐθεντεῖν . So there are two things Paul does not permit: "to teach" and "to usurp". Infinitves are a little odd grammatically. They're often described as "verbal nouns". Here they function as the object of the main verb. They also typically have a subject and an object as a normal verb would. Here, the subject of each infinitive is γυναικὶ, and the 'object' is ἀνδρός. So we have "I (Paul) do not permit a woman to teach [a man] neither [do I permit] [a woman] to usurp a man.

This first clause is followed by a subordinate clause began with αλλ. The conjunction αλλ marks contrast, or a counterpoint. We often translate it as "but". "I don't permit these things but..." This implies that the following clause, in contrast to the first, is something that Paul does permit, namely, "to be in quietness".

A few last notes here: both "woman" and "man" are singular and anarthrous (i.e. lacking an article). This could be taken to mean Paul has a woman and a man in particular in mind, or it could be a way of generalizing. Either option is supported by the grammar.

Lexical Notes

By "lexical", I mean semantic or the meaning of words. First, we should note something about the word αὐθεντεῖν, which comes from αυθεντεω. I've translated it here as "usurp", but you'll often see it as "assume/have/excercise authority over" (as in the NRSV, NASB, ESV, NET, NLT, and NIV). This is a blatant mistranslation, because it implies that Paul forbids any general assumption of authority by women. Αυθεντεω, however, does not just mean "excercise authority" generally. It is a hapax legomenon, meaning it is a word that only occurs once within the NT. To really grasp its meaning, we have to venture outside the NT to see how the word is used in broader Greek literature. When we do, we'll see that it is always used in the context of violent overthrow or stealing of authority. In other words, it is used to mean "taking authority that does not already belong to you". Exegetically, we could take this to have two implications. On the one hand, we might suppose that Paul means to imply that women must always usurp authority, because authority never rightly belongs to them. On the other hand, we might suppose that Paul does not mean to imply that women can't have legitimate authority over men, and thus only prohibits them from trying to take charge when they have no right to, but not when they do have a right to be over men. (Note that both of these are interpretations, and either interpretation can be supported by the grammar and syntax here).

Next, we should look at the words for "woman" and "man", which come from γυνη and ανδρος respectively. These words can mean either "woman" and "man", or they can mean "wife" and "husband"! To determine which meaning is implied here, we have to rely purely on context, though I think the context allows for either option in this case. So Paul could either be forbidding a woman from teaching/usurping a man, or he could be forbidding a wife from teaching/usurping her husband, but not men in general!

Looking at Context

Obviously, grammar and syntax can only get us so far. Fortunately for us, this passage does not just sit in isolation by itself. It has a context. It is part of a list of exhortations/instructions from Paul, begun at v 2:1. It is immediately preceded by instructions on prayer and appropriate relationships among believers (c.f. v 2:1-10), and proceeded by instructions for selecting church leaders (c.f. v 3:1-13).

This particular section seems to be a transition between the topics, i.e. prayer/right relationships and church leadership. Grammatically, there is no clean break, and the two topics seem to flow into one another. Looking purely at literary context doesn't help much, then.

So what about historical context? This also offers us little help! First, while it is true that men were typically head of household, women were increasingly gaining leading roles in society. They were, in certain cults, allowed to be the leaders. We even have evidence of women leading synagogues during this period!

The issue of the cult of Artemis in Ephesus is also relevant. Worship of the Goddess Artemis was widespread in the Greco-Roman world, but was especially prevalent in Ephesus. In fact, the Ephesian Artemis was quite different from other expressions of Artemis. In Ephesus, she was a mother goddess, and her cult was overseen by female priestesses. It is possible, then, that either priestesses or female followers of the Artemis cult had been converted, but that they were still having difficulty doing away with old beliefs. This may fit with why Paul brings up the creation narrative, since it directly contradicts what the cult of Artemis would have taught (i.e. that women were default leaders in the Church).

So that leaves us with only one other place to turn:

Forming a Biblical Theology

When one passage of scripture is vague and hard to interpret, we turn to other clearer parts of scripture for help. Some have pointed to the immediately following passage which seems to allow for only males to lead the church, but see below for my comments on that.

We do, however, have several other places in scripture where women are allowed to be leaders over God's people and even within the Church: Miriam (Ex. 15:20-21, Mic 6:4), Deborah (Judges 4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14-20), Lydia (Ac 16:14-15), Possibly Euodia and Syntyche (Php 4:2-3), and even in Paul's other letters (Ro 16:7).

Additionally, the immiediately preceding verse in 1 Tim (v. 11), exhorts women to "learn in all quietness and submission". While this is often taken to mean "women should shut up and submit to male authority", culturally this was an expectation of every good student, not just women. This should remind us of Jesus's own allowance of women to sit at his feet and learn alongside his male disciples (c.f. Lk 10:38-42). Such a position necessarily implied that the learner was expected to one day become a teacher!

All of this leads me to believe that, whatever Paul may have meant in 1 Timothy, he did not mean to entirely preclude women from positions of authority and teaching in the Church. Instead, these were likely women (or just a woman) that were spiritually immature and thus not yet ready for leadership, but who were trying to usurp that leadership anyway. It is a daunting passage to be sure (and I haven't even begun to do it justice here, despite my ridiculously long post). I'll leave you with a few additional resources if you want to read into this more:

Adddendum On Masculine Language:

A common objection to women in leadership comes from the masculine language used in 1 Timothy 3 and other places for requirements of leaders. The default in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin rhetoric is always masculine. Just because Paul speaks from a masculine perspective does not preclude the possibility of feminine inclusion.

If one argues against that, and insists that this hermeneutic be applied here, they must at least be consistent about applying it in the rest of the Bible as well. Doing so, however, would mean that about 90% of scripture has no applicability to women whatsoever.

Example: > “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matt 5:27-28).

Using that hermeneutic, Jesus is only speaking to men who lust, and doesn't forbid a woman from lusting after men.

Applied consistently, such a hermeneutic is untenable. Unless context explicitly precludes women, statements about men in scripture should be thought to generally be applicable to women as well.

This is an analysis of 1 Tim 2:12, a verse commonly cited against women pastors, that I did on another post. You can also see my other responses to similar questions on women in the Church here, here, and here.

διδάσκειν	δὲ	γυναικὶ	οὐκ	ἐπιτρέπω	οὐδὲ
To teach	but/now/and	a woman	not	I permit	neither
Infinitive	conjunction	noun	adverb	verb	conjunction

αὐθεντεῖν	ἀνδρός	ἀλλʼ	εἶναι	ἐν	ἡσυχίᾳ
to usurp	a man	but	to be	in	quietness
infinitive	noun	conjunction	infinitive	preposition	noun

The Grammar

First, our main verb is the 1st person singular ἐπιτρέπω, which is negated by the preceding ουκ. "I do not give permission/I do not permit". There are two objects of this verb, i.e. the infinitives διδάσκειν and αὐθεντεῖν . So there are two things Paul does not permit: "to teach" and "to usurp". Infinitves are a little odd grammatically. They're often described as "verbal nouns". Here they function as the object of the main verb. They also typically have a subject and an object as a normal verb would. Here, the subject of each infinitive is γυναικὶ, and the 'object' is ἀνδρός. So we have "I (Paul) do not permit a woman to teach [a man] neither [do I permit] [a woman] to usurp a man.

This first clause is followed by a subordinate clause began with αλλ. The conjunction αλλ marks contrast, or a counterpoint. We often translate it as "but". "I don't permit these things but..." This implies that the following clause, in contrast to the first, is something that Paul does permit, namely, "to be in quietness".

A few last notes here: both "woman" and "man" are singular and anarthrous (i.e. lacking an article). This could be taken to mean Paul has a woman and a man in particular in mind, or it could be a way of generalizing. Either option is supported by the grammar.

Lexical Notes

By "lexical", I mean semantic or the meaning of words. First, we should note something about the word αὐθεντεῖν, which comes from αυθεντεω. I've translated it here as "usurp", but you'll often see it as "assume/have/excercise authority over" (as in the NRSV, NASB, ESV, NET, NLT, and NIV). This is a blatant mistranslation, because it implies that Paul forbids any general assumption of authority by women. Αυθεντεω, however, does not just mean "excercise authority" generally. It is a hapax legomenon, meaning it is a word that only occurs once within the NT. To really grasp its meaning, we have to venture outside the NT to see how the word is used in broader Greek literature. When we do, we'll see that it is always used in the context of violent overthrow or stealing of authority. In other words, it is used to mean "taking authority that does not already belong to you". Exegetically, we could take this to have two implications. On the one hand, we might suppose that Paul means to imply that women must always usurp authority, because authority never rightly belongs to them. On the other hand, we might suppose that Paul does not mean to imply that women can't have legitimate authority over men, and thus only prohibits them from trying to take charge when they have no right to, but not when they do have a right to be over men. (Note that both of these are interpretations, and either interpretation can be supported by the grammar and syntax here).

Next, we should look at the words for "woman" and "man", which come from γυνη and ανδρος respectively. These words can mean either "woman" and "man", or they can mean "wife" and "husband"! To determine which meaning is implied here, we have to rely purely on context, though I think the context allows for either option in this case. So Paul could either be forbidding a woman from teaching/usurping a man, or he could be forbidding a wife from teaching/usurping her husband, but not men in general!

Looking at Context

Obviously, grammar and syntax can only get us so far. Fortunately for us, this passage does not just sit in isolation by itself. It has a context. It is part of a list of exhortations/instructions from Paul, begun at v 2:1. It is immediately preceded by instructions on prayer and appropriate relationships among believers (c.f. v 2:1-10), and proceeded by instructions for selecting church leaders (c.f. v 3:1-13).

This particular section seems to be a transition between the topics, i.e. prayer/right relationships and church leadership. Grammatically, there is no clean break, and the two topics seem to flow into one another. Looking purely at literary context doesn't help much, then.

So what about historical context? This also offers us little help! First, while it is true that men were typically head of household, women were increasingly gaining leading roles in society. They were, in certain cults, allowed to be the leaders. We even have evidence of women leading synagogues during this period!

The issue of the cult of Artemis in Ephesus is also relevant. Worship of the Goddess Artemis was widespread in the Greco-Roman world, but was especially prevalent in Ephesus. In fact, the Ephesian Artemis was quite different from other expressions of Artemis. In Ephesus, she was a mother goddess, and her cult was overseen by female priestesses. It is possible, then, that either priestesses or female followers of the Artemis cult had been converted, but that they were still having difficulty doing away with old beliefs. This may fit with why Paul brings up the creation narrative, since it directly contradicts what the cult of Artemis would have taught (i.e. that women were default leaders in the Church).

It is entirely possible, then, that Paul is indeed confronting teachings from the Artemis cult, but we can't be certain of that. So that leaves us with only one other place to turn:

Forming a Biblical Theology

When one passage of scripture is vague and hard to interpret, we turn to other clearer parts of scripture for help. Some have pointed to the immediately following passage which seems to allow for only males to lead the church, but see below for my comments on that.

We do, however, have several other places in scripture where women are allowed to be leaders over God's people and even within the Church: Miriam (Ex. 15:20-21, Mic 6:4), Deborah (Judges 4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14-20), Lydia (Ac 16:14-15), Possibly Euodia and Syntyche (Php 4:2-3), and even in Paul's other letters (Ro 16:7).

Additionally, the immiediately preceding verse in 1 Tim (v. 11), exhorts women to "learn in all quietness and submission". While this is often taken to mean "women should shut up and submit to male authority", culturally this was an expectation of every good student, not just women. This should remind us of Jesus's own allowance of women to sit at his feet and learn alongside his male disciples (c.f. Lk 10:38-42). Such a position necessarily implied that the learner was expected to one day become a teacher!

All of this leads me to believe that, whatever Paul may have meant in 1 Timothy, he did not mean to entirely preclude women from positions of authority and teaching in the Church. Instead, these were likely women (or just a woman) that were spiritually immature and thus not yet ready for leadership, but who were trying to usurp that leadership anyway. It is a daunting passage to be sure (and I haven't even begun to do it justice here, despite my ridiculously long post). I'll leave you with a few additional resources if you want to read into this more:

Adddendum On Masculine Language:

A common objection to women in leadership comes from the masculine language used in 1 Timothy 3 and other places for requirements of leaders. The default in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin rhetoric is always masculine. Just because Paul speaks from a masculine perspective does not preclude the possibility of feminine inclusion.

If one argues against that, and insists that this hermeneutic be applied here, they must at least be consistent about applying it in the rest of the Bible as well. Doing so, however, would mean that about 90% of scripture has no applicability to women whatsoever.

Example: > “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matt 5:27-28).

Using that hermeneutic, Jesus is only speaking to men who lust, and doesn't forbid a woman from lusting after men.

Applied consistently, such a hermeneutic is untenable. Unless context explicitly precludes women, statements about men in scripture should be thought to generally be applicable to women as well.

This is an analysis of 1 Tim 2:12, a verse commonly cited against women pastors, that I did on another post. You can also see my other responses to similar questions here, here, and here.

διδάσκειν	δὲ	γυναικὶ	οὐκ	ἐπιτρέπω	οὐδὲ
To teach	but/now/and	a woman	not	I permit	neither
Infinitive	conjunction	noun	adverb	verb	conjunction

αὐθεντεῖν	ἀνδρός	ἀλλʼ	εἶναι	ἐν	ἡσυχίᾳ
to usurp	a man	but	to be	in	quietness
infinitive	noun	conjunction	infinitive	preposition	noun

The Grammar

First, our main verb is the 1st person singular ἐπιτρέπω, which is negated by the preceding ουκ. "I do not give permission/I do not permit". There are two objects of this verb, i.e. the infinitives διδάσκειν and αὐθεντεῖν . So there are two things Paul does not permit: "to teach" and "to usurp". Infinitves are a little odd grammatically. They're often described as "verbal nouns". Here they function as the object of the main verb. They also typically have a subject and an object as a normal verb would. Here, the subject of each infinitive is γυναικὶ, and the 'object' is ἀνδρός. So we have "I (Paul) do not permit a woman to teach [a man] neither [do I permit] [a woman] to usurp a man.

This first clause is followed by a subordinate clause began with αλλ. The conjunction αλλ marks contrast, or a counterpoint. We often translate it as "but". "I don't permit these things but..." This implies that the following clause, in contrast to the first, is something that Paul does permit, namely, "to be in quietness".

A few last notes here: both "woman" and "man" are singular and anarthrous (i.e. lacking an article). This could be taken to mean Paul has a woman and a man in particular in mind, or it could be a way of generalizing. Either option is supported by the grammar.

Lexical Notes

By "lexical", I mean semantic or the meaning of words. First, we should note something about the word αὐθεντεῖν, which comes from αυθεντεω. I've translated it here as "usurp", but you'll often see it as "assume/have/excercise authority over" (as in the NRSV, NASB, ESV, NET, NLT, and NIV). This is a blatant mistranslation, because it implies that Paul forbids any general assumption of authority by women. Αυθεντεω, however, does not just mean "excercise authority" generally. It is a hapax legomenon, meaning it is a word that only occurs once within the NT. To really grasp its meaning, we have to venture outside the NT to see how the word is used in broader Greek literature. When we do, we'll see that it is always used in the context of violent overthrow or stealing of authority. In other words, it is used to mean "taking authority that does not already belong to you". Exegetically, we could take this to have two implications. On the one hand, we might suppose that Paul means to imply that women must always usurp authority, because authority never rightly belongs to them. On the other hand, we might suppose that Paul does not mean to imply that women can't have legitimate authority over men, and thus only prohibits them from trying to take charge when they have no right to, but not when they do have a right to be over men. (Note that both of these are interpretations, and either interpretation can be supported by the grammar and syntax here).

Next, we should look at the words for "woman" and "man", which come from γυνη and ανδρος respectively. These words can mean either "woman" and "man", or they can mean "wife" and "husband"! To determine which meaning is implied here, we have to rely purely on context, though I think the context allows for either option in this case. So Paul could either be forbidding a woman from teaching/usurping a man, or he could be forbidding a wife from teaching/usurping her husband, but not men in general!

Looking at Context

Obviously, grammar and syntax can only get us so far. Fortunately for us, this passage does not just sit in isolation by itself. It has a context. It is part of a list of exhortations/instructions from Paul, begun at v 2:1. It is immediately preceded by instructions on prayer and appropriate relationships among believers (c.f. v 2:1-10), and proceeded by instructions for selecting church leaders (c.f. v 3:1-13).

This particular section seems to be a transition between the topics, i.e. prayer/right relationships and church leadership. Grammatically, there is no clean break, and the two topics seem to flow into one another. Looking purely at literary context doesn't help much, then.

So what about historical context? This also offers us little help! First, while it is true that men were typically head of household, women were increasingly gaining leading roles in society. They were, in certain cults, allowed to be the leaders. We even have evidence of women leading synagogues during this period!

The issue of the cult of Artemis in Ephesus is also relevant. Worship of the Goddess Artemis was widespread in the Greco-Roman world, but was especially prevalent in Ephesus. In fact, the Ephesian Artemis was quite different from other expressions of Artemis. In Ephesus, she was a mother goddess, and her cult was overseen by female priestesses. It is possible, then, that either priestesses or female followers of the Artemis cult had been converted, but that they were still having difficulty doing away with old beliefs. This may fit with why Paul brings up the creation narrative, since it directly contradicts what the cult of Artemis would have taught (i.e. that women were default leaders in the Church).

So that leaves us with only one other place to turn:

Forming a Biblical Theology

When one passage of scripture is vague and hard to interpret, we turn to other clearer parts of scripture for help. Some have pointed to the immediately following passage which seems to allow for only males to lead the church, but see below for my comments on that.

We do, however, have several other places in scripture where women are allowed to be leaders over God's people and even within the Church: Miriam (Ex. 15:20-21, Mic 6:4), Deborah (Judges 4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14-20), Lydia (Ac 16:14-15), Possibly Euodia and Syntyche (Php 4:2-3), and even in Paul's other letters (Ro 16:7).

Additionally, the immiediately preceding verse in 1 Tim (v. 11), exhorts women to "learn in all quietness and submission". While this is often taken to mean "women should shut up and submit to male authority", culturally this was an expectation of every good student, not just women. This should remind us of Jesus's own allowance of women to sit at his feet and learn alongside his male disciples (c.f. Lk 10:38-42). Such a position necessarily implied that the learner was expected to one day become a teacher!

All of this leads me to believe that, whatever Paul may have meant in 1 Timothy, he did not mean to entirely preclude women from positions of authority and teaching in the Church. Instead, these were likely women (or just a woman) that were spiritually immature and thus not yet ready for leadership, but who were trying to usurp that leadership anyway. It is a daunting passage to be sure (and I haven't even begun to do it justice here, despite my ridiculously long post). I'll leave you with a few additional resources if you want to read into this more:

Adddendum On Masculine Language:

A common objection to women in leadership comes from the masculine language used in 1 Timothy 3 and other places for requirements of leaders. The default in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin rhetoric is always masculine. Just because Paul speaks from a masculine perspective does not preclude the possibility of feminine inclusion.

If one argues against that, and insists that this hermeneutic be applied here, they must at least be consistent about applying it in the rest of the Bible as well. Doing so, however, would mean that about 90% of scripture has no applicability to women whatsoever.

Example: > “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matt 5:27-28).

Using that hermeneutic, Jesus is only speaking to men who lust, and doesn't forbid a woman from lusting after men.

Applied consistently, such a hermeneutic is untenable. Unless context explicitly precludes women, statements about men in scripture should be thought to generally be applicable to women as well.

What is Reddit's opinion of Paul, Women, and Wives: Marriage and Women's Ministry in the Letters of Paul?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

By popularity on Reddit, this product is:

12 reviews of this product found across Reddit:

Popular alternatives to Paul, Women, and Wives: Mar...

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

The 5 Love Languages: The Secret to Love that Lasts

The Power of Now: A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment

What is Reddit's opinion of Paul, Women, and Wives: Marriage and Women's Ministry in the Letters of Paul? From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

By popularity on Reddit, this product is:

12 reviews of this product found across Reddit:

Popular alternatives to Paul, Women, and Wives: Mar...

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

The 5 Love Languages: The Secret to Love that Lasts

The Power of Now: A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment

What is Reddit's opinion of Paul, Women, and Wives: Marriage and Women's Ministry in the Letters of Paul?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments