In the debates over women’s ordination, a historically decisive passage in the New Testament is 1 Timothy 2:11-15. It is so direct that critics call it a “clobber passage.” And indeed, some critics argue that it says much more than even very conservative traditionalist churches are willing to admit today. As such, they say it should be viewed as cultural or historical, limited to the conditions of the late-antique Mediterranean world. Even the most careful and pious representatives of this outlook maintain that 1 Tim. 2 is “particular” rather than “universal.” But we should not concede this ground. 1 Timothy 2 is the Word of God, and its scope and intent is indeed universal in principle. It is good for teaching and correction, even for us today.¹

The most thorough survey of the various positions and leading academic literature can likely still be found in William Mounce’s commentary on 1 Timothy (William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles in Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 46, ed. Metzger, Hubbard, Barker, etc. Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2000 103–4). While many more works have been written in the intervening twenty years, the basic hermeneutical and exegetical principles are all represented in Mounce’s study. The essential division still lies between the egalitarian reading, represented in its evangelical form by a respected commentator like Gordon Fee (Gordon Fee, Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics, Baker Academic, 1991, 52–65, “Reflections on Church Order in the Pastoral Epistles, with Further Reflections on the Hermeneutics of Ad Hoc Documents.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, vol. 28, no. 2, June 1985: 141–51), and the complementarian reading, which is affirmed by Mounce, as well as the majority of conservative or traditional commentators.²

The egalitarian interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:8–15 largely argues that the passage is of an occasional or ad hoc nature, meant only to correct a local error. Paul’s words there should not, they argue, be taken to imply a general truth about church leadership in all churches, and thus it cannot be used to prohibit women from the ministerial office or other leadership positions in the church (See Fee, “Reflections on Church Order,” 146, 150–51). 

For the positive case for women teaching and leading in the church, they point to passages of Scripture other than 1 Timothy 2, namely Jesus’ acceptance of women learning from him, the role of women in testifying to the resurrection and assisting in the transmission of authoritative documents, Priscilla’s role in Acts 18, the presence of women prophesying in 1 Corinthians 11:5, and the supposedly egalitarian nature of Christ’s redemptive ministry. To this last point, Gordon Fee explains it as something of a core commitment, “It is hard to imagine under any circumstances how the denial of one half the human race to minister to the other half brings glory to the gospel, which intends to break down such barriers and bring redemption to the whole body” (Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 64). The overarching theological message of the New Testament is perceived to be egalitarian, and that is thought to provide a sufficient affirmative argument.

Complementarians, on the other hand, affirm that Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2 are indeed meant to be understood in a general or universal sense, applying to all Christian communities throughout history. They maintain that Paul’s argument can be shown to be universal in character by its basic moral recommendations, the generality of its statements about women’s relationship to men, and its appeal to creation (See Clark, 197-203; Knight, 139–55; Mounce, 130). While the occasion of 1 Timothy certainly involved unique historical and pastoral circumstances, this is not in itself an argument in favor of one conclusion or another. Mounce explains this simply, “the specificity of the application does not relegate the principle to the halls of cultural relativity” (Mounce, 130). Complementarians respond to the argument for equality by distinguishing between spiritual and temporal equality, as well as equality of worth or value and equality of role or function.

The strongest argument for understanding 1 Timothy 2:8–15 in a universal way is the fact that Paul provides us with his rationale. In 1 Timothy 2:13–14, Paul says, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” This is an appeal to the creation account as found in Genesis 2 and 3, and it can only be useful for Paul’s argument if he believes that the creation of Adam and Eve, and certain aspects of their fall into sin, have an abiding relevance for men and women.

This point becomes even more compelling when we note that Paul makes roughly the same kind of argument in 1 Corinthians 11:3, 8–12. These parallels include both the order of creation as well as the role of child-bearing (1 Tim. 2:15; 1 Cor. 11:12). If we consider 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 in this same context, we can also understand Paul’s reference in 1 Timothy 2:14 to the deception of Eve as a reference to the subordination described in Genesis 3:16. “The law” mentioned in 1 Corinthians 14:34 is likewise the judgment on Eve.³ Taken together, this means that when Paul encounters questions of social authority between men and women in various church settings, he appeals to the particulars of the creation account and applies them to men and women in a consistent way. Thus, the complementarian reading of 1 Timothy 2:8–15 accounts for the fundamental logic of Paul’s argument, whereas the egalitarian reading does not.

A final point of interpretation, one frequently made in defense of the particularist or egalitarian reading, should be discussed. It has to do with the literary unity of 1 Timothy 2. Philip Towner argues that verses 8–15 hold together as a single unit, with the conceptual link being found in the notion of proper public behavior. Towner writes “this span of text is not an addendum treating a separate topic; it occurs within the textual frame indicated by repetition of the key ethical term ‘propriety’ in vv. 9 and 15 (sōphrosynē) and within the cultural frame of the expectations governing the behavior of women in public” (Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus in The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Green, Eerdmans, 2006, 190). He also adds that this section is presented in the “traditional shape” of “the household code” (Towner, 192). Gordon Fee makes the similar point, different in focus but complementary in logic, that all of the instructions to women 1 Timothy 2:9–15 are a contrast to the impious behavior of “false” widows in 1 Timothy 5:11–15 (Fee, “Reflections on Church Order,” 146). Thus, the quiet learning and submission of women is an expression of how they are to be “adorned” with godliness and good works (1 Tim. 2:9–11). This interpretation is further strengthened when we note how closely this text parallels 1 Peter 3:1–7.

For Towner, the appearance of the household code is an indication that Paul is making a strategic pastoral accommodation to his culture. Fee, too, uses these observations to restrict Paul’s statement to a local context. The literary form and structure is claimed to be an argument against applying 1 Tim. 2:11-12 to modern churches. But one could just as easily argue that Paul assumed and accepted the basic structure of ancient household codes. Indeed, the same household code appears in Ephesians 5–6, and as C. R. Wiley argues, this is central to the overall theme of Ephesians. Wiley notes the occurrence of οἰκονομία in both Ephesians 1:10 and 3:2 and then connects this to the conceptual framing of the “house of God.” Wiley writes, “Christians have always said that the Church is a house. That’s what a temple is. . . . Paul tells us that . . . the Lord’s temple is actually God’s people working together, like in any economy” (C. R. Wiley, The Household and the War for the Cosmos, (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2019) 80). And, “a household ordered by the household code in Ephesians reflects the rule of Christ” (Wiley, 121). The same emphasis on the church as “house” appears in both Ephesians and 1 Timothy, so it makes good sense for household codes to appear. The codes are not a mere construct for contemporary concerns but are indeed connected to a central theological and ecclesiological argument.

Noticing that Paul’s instructions to women in 1 Timothy 2:12–15 are a continuation of his larger instruction in verses 9–11, as well as the larger household code of the entire chapter, illustrates that submissiveness according to one’s relation and social station is a practical way of maintaining “propriety,” a concept Towner is right to emphasize (Towner, 190, 236), and godliness (1 Tim. 2:9-10). Ephesians also exhibits this kind of unified literary structure and moral-theological paradigm, as the various orders of submission in Ephesians 5:22–6:9 follow from Paul’s teaching on the proper Christian walk (Eph. 5:1–3ff) and Spirit-filled life (Eph. 5:18–21).⁴ And so, while occasional because they are pastoral, the particular instructions to men and women are not accidental to the Pauline theology but rather applications of it.

This sort of interpretation follows the logic of the traditional Christian treatments of the Fifth Commandment. The Prayer Book Catechism explains the Fifth Commandment as not merely addressing parents and children but actually giving instruction for all kinds of social relationships, “to submit myself to all my governors, teachers, spiritual pastors and masters: to order myself lowly and reverently to all my betters.” The Westminster Shorter Catechism puts it this way, “The fifth commandment requireth the preserving the honor, and performing the duties, belonging to every one in their several places and relations, as superiors, inferiors, or equals.” These catechisms are not peculiarities limited to their respective ecclesiastical bodies. They are normative representations of the Christian teaching on this point for thousands of years.

Language of “superiority” is shocking to many ears today. We must qualify that this is the language of order and rank. In using this language, we do not mean that there is a superiority of worth, of human dignity, or any other kind of moral or spiritual value. Spiritually speaking there is neither male nor female, for we are one with Christ. But externally and temporally, a basic social order remains. A challenge might come that, again, this is very old-fashioned and rightly outdated. We do not live in a society ordered by caste. And this is true, at least partly. We do not have any biblical mandate to preserve all of the social and political conditions of earlier times. But the basic domestic order is pre-political. Indeed, it is the original arrangement given to us by God from which all other orders are derived (at least in part). And the Apostle Paul argues that ecclesiastical order itself (being temporal) must also be consistent with the domestic order. This is reflected in the historic Anglican Ordinal, as I have demonstrated elsewhere. While remaining flexible on various applications, the Bible and the Anglican tradition will not permit us to give away the basic principles of order.

This sort of natural socio-political philosophy is also why the Apostle can invoke categories like “propriety” and “nature” to further explain church order. I will take up those topics in a subsequent essay.

1. What follows is largely reprinted from a section of a 2020 article I wrote for the Eikon Journal. You can view the original here: https://cbmw.org/2020/11/20/good-and-proper-pauls-use-of-nature-custom-and-decorum-in-pastoral-theology/ ↩︎
2. (For example, Mounce, 130; George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles in The New International Greek Testament Commentary, ed. Marshall and Gasque. Eerdmans, Paternoster, 1992 138–44; Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, ed. Köstenberger and Schreiner (Baker, 2005); Stephen B. Clark, Man and Woman in Christ: An Examination of the Roles of Men and Women in Light of Scripture and the Social Sciences, Servant Publications, 1980, 190–206) ↩︎
3. This is John Calvin’s understanding of 1 Tim. 2:14, though he does not make the same application to 1 Cor. 14:34, Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, trans. W. Pringle (Calvin Translation Society, 1856) 69. John Chrysostom does read 1 Cor. 14:34 along these lines; see Chrysostom Homily 37 on 1 Corinthians, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 1/12, ed. Schaff (T&T Clark, Eerdmans, 1989) 222. ↩︎
4. While I have based this argument on the hermeneutical observations of certain particularist and egalitarian writers, it should also be pointed out that many complementarians understand it as a rather straightforward reading of 1 Tim. 2; for instance Knight, 130–31, 148–49. ↩︎