Exploring the biblical theology of Christian egalitarianism

Close this search box.


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

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

1. Is the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12 aimed at wives, or at a particular woman?

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

Furthermore, the use of the singular in verses 11-12 is significant, as previous instructions in 1 Timothy chapter 2 concern “men” and “women” in the plural (1 Tim. 2:8, 9-10). (The Greek verb in 1 Tim. 2:15 meaning “she will be saved” is also singular.) Why this shift from plural to singular?

It is even possible that the prohibition is aimed at a particular woman in the Ephesian church.[1] Perhaps the “man” is also a particular man known to the Ephesian church? I suggest 1 Timothy 2:11-15 refers to a specific couple in the Ephesian church.

2. Can an informed or educated woman teach?

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

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

3. Did the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12 apply to Priscilla?

Priscilla and her husband Aquila led a house church in Ephesus sometime before, or perhaps when, First Timothy was written (2 Tim. 4:19; cf. Rom. 16:3-5a). Did the prohibition in 1 Tim. 2:12 apply to Priscilla? Or to a woman like her? This is highly unlikely, considering Paul’s high opinion of Priscilla as a ministry colleague, his warm affection for her, and the fact that she corrected the teacher Apollos without any hint of wrongdoing. Furthermore, I suggest it is unlikely that this prohibition applied (or, applies) to any capable female minister.

4. Is a certain type of teaching being prohibited?

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

It is difficult to know precisely what authentein means in 1 Tim. 2:12. The word is not used anywhere else in the New Testament in any form. A related noun does appear, however, in the Septuagint to describe parents who murder their children (Wisdom 12:6). This noun, authentēs, is most definitely not the usual word for a person exercising authority. Rather, it frequently means “murderer” in Classical Greek as well as in literary Koine Greek of the first and second centuries BC and AD. Authentein, however, is not a “literary” word. It occurs mostly in non-literary papyri with the sense of “domineer” and “control.” (1 Timothy was written as an occasional, non-literary, papyrus letter.)

Cynthia Long Westfall writes,

“In the Greek corpus, the verb authenteō [which includes the infinitive authentein] refers to a range of actions … However, the people who are targets of these actions are harmed, forced against their will (compelled), or at least their self-interest is being overridden, because the actions involve an imposition of the subject’s will, ranging from dishonour to lethal force.”[3]

Australian scholar John Dickson believes that 1 Tim. 2:12 is prohibiting a distinct type of teaching. John believes didaskein referred to the initial laying down of foundational apostolic teaching which would become doctrine, tradition, and, finally, scripture. Once this apostolic doctrine had been preserved in scripture by men, John argues that women may teach it to both men and women. More on John Dickson’s view here.

5. Does the prohibition apply only in certain types of church services?

Many people assume the prohibition in 1 Tim. 2:12 is about a woman teaching men (plural) in a worship service. This may not be the case. Not every activity mentioned in 1 Timothy chapter 2 occurs during a church meeting. The activities of women doing good works (1 Tim. 2:10) and bearing children (1 Tim. 2:15) do not usually take place during congregational meetings. I suggest the prohibition in 1 Tim. 2:12 is not in the context of a church meeting but in the context of a relationship between a woman and a man.

For those who believe that the prohibition was made with a church meeting in mind, it is important to remember that such meetings in the early decades of the church looked very different from most of our church services today. In those days, especially in churches associated with Paul, people could participate in ministry, even spontaneously, when the congregation met for worship (1 Cor. 14:26: Col. 3:16). We know women prayed and prophesied aloud in Corinthian assemblies, for example.[4] And some churches met in homes led by wealthy women (e.g., Lydia, Nympha, and probably Phoebe).[5] It would have been strange indeed, and against cultural expectations, for a wealthy woman who was the householder not to have a say in what was happening in the congregation that gathered in her own home, especially as most of the members of the church would have been part of her extended household and include her relatives and slaves.[6]

Some churches today allow women to teach in some services when men are present, but not in other services that are more formal. For example, many churches reserve the ministry of Sunday morning sermons as a ministry for men only. This “ranking” of church meetings and ministries, which excludes women from “higher-ranked” ministries, has no biblical basis whatsoever. [More on this in my article Wayne Grudem on What Should Women do in the Church here.]

6. Was the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12 temporary?

Some people believe the wording in the Greek of 1 Tim. 2:12 indicates the prohibition was temporary or limited in scope. The prohibition in verse 12 is given in less direct and less forceful language than other instructions and directives in First Timothy. There is no use of any of the Greek command tenses, for instance. Instead, there is the present active indicative verb epitrepō, with the negative ouk, which may be translated as: “I am not allowing …” Andrew Perriman notes that the use of epitrepō in the New Testament, in every case, is “related to a specific and limited set of circumstances …”[7] [More about epitrepō here.]

All of Paul’s advice to Timothy in 1 Tim. 2:8-15 addresses problem behaviour of certain people in the Ephesian church. 1 Tim. 2:11-15 may well be about a local problem in the Ephesian church that warranted a short-term, ad hoc prohibition. Or, was the prohibition really meant to be universal and timeless and effectively ban every woman from teaching any man for all time? If so, why?

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

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

~ The Bible nowhere states that women are more easily deceived or more deceptive than men. [More on this hereWomen, Eve and Deception]

~ Churches that genuinely consider women to be gullible and deceptive should not let women teach anyone, especially vulnerable and impressionable children or other supposedly gullible and deceptive women. Better still, they should reconsider their opinion of women. [More on this Women, Teaching and Deception]

~ Importantly, Jesus died for all sin for all time; this includes Eve’s momentary failing. Women, and indeed men who are the sons of Eve, should not be held responsible, or considered culpable, for Eve being deceived and sinning.

8. Are women prohibited from teaching men because of the “created order”?

Some Christians believe the reason women can’t be leaders and teachers of men is because Adam was created first and then Eve. These Christians believe that implicit in the creation order is a leadership order. Yet neither leadership nor submission is acknowledged or even hinted at in any of the biblical creation accounts,[8] and I do not believe this is what Paul was getting at in 1 Tim. 2:13. I suggest that Paul mentioned the created order in 1 Tim. 2:13 to correct a false teaching in the Ephesian church that Eve was created first (and Adam was the one deceived). Such ideas are found in ancient documents that still exist. (See here.)

To say that Paul is using the creation order of male first and female second to assert a chain of command is entirely missing the point of the creation narrative in Genesis 2:21-24 which shows the equality, affinity and unity between the first man and woman. Moreover, this concept entirely ignores Jesus’ teaching that the last are first. [I have written about Jesus’ Teaching on Leadership and Community in Matthew’s Gospel here. And I have written about the created order here.]

9. Are women prohibited in 1 Timothy 2:12 from being elders?

Some argue that because teaching and exercising authority in the church are functions of elders, what is implied in 1 Tim. 2:12 is that women cannot be elders.

With this in mind, Perriman poses the questions:

If Paul was thinking simply of women being in positions of authority (as presbyters, for example), would it not have been more logical to have placed that prohibition first, rather than the emphatic injunction against teaching? Does not the order of the sentence suggest that authentein is logically subordinate to, or consequent upon, didaskein [‘to teach’]?[9]

Moreover, as mentioned above, authent– words do not refer to a legitimate or wholesome authority. The verb typically meant “domineer,” something unacceptable for all Christians, men and women. People who believe that 1 Tim. 2:12 is essentially a ban on women elders are reading much more into the verse than is warranted. Furthermore, women elders are mentioned in 1 Timothy, and Priscilla appears to have functioned as one when she corrected the minister Apollos when he visited Ephesus. [More on women elders and Priscilla here. More on Paul’s qualifications for church leaders here.]

10. Are women prohibited in 1 Timothy 2:12 from being the senior pastor?

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

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

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

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


The questions above are genuine. The answer to some of these questions, especially the question about female gullibility, is a definite “no.” Generally speaking, an educated woman is not more easily deceived than an educated man. And women were not silent in first-century churches; there is evidence that women participated in a variety of Christian ministries. Finally, nowhere in the Bible, apart from 1 Tim. 2:12, is any restriction put on a woman teaching a man.

Considering we don’t know what the original parameters of Paul’s ban were, and considering we see such diversity in the way this verse is applied in church life today, why is this single verse so prominent and pervasive in discussions and regulations designed to restrict the ministry opportunities of women?

Not only does implementing the ban in 1 Tim. 2:12 in a universal way restrict women from leadership ministries, it has a flow-on effect of limiting, suppressing, and diminishing women in other ways. This is because, if the prohibition really was meant to be universal and permanent, it makes a strong statement about what God thinks of women and men: that the words of every woman are not as important than the words of men. Is this what God thinks? And do hierarchical complementarians really believe this? Do they really believe that women have nothing worthwhile to teach men, and, conversely, do they really believe that only men have worthwhile things to teach the whole congregation?

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


[1] Wade Burleson believes that 1 Tim. 2:12 is about one particular woman. He has an interesting article entitled, “The” Woman in Error in 1 Timothy 2:12 Shouldn’t Teach here. I am inclined to believe 1 Tim. 2:11-15 is about a particular couple.

[2] A hendiadys is when two words, joined by a conjunction, make a single point. “Don’t eat and run” is an example of a hendiadys. The prohibition is not about eating, but about eating and then leaving quickly. In fact, eating is wanted and not prohibited.
In 1 Tim 2:12 didaskein (“to teach”) is joined with authentein by the conjunction oude. Some scholars believe that teaching is not being prohibited in 1 Tim 2:12, but rather teaching in a harmful way is being banned.

[3] Cynthia Long Westfall, Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle’s Vision for Men and Women in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016), 292.

[4] The ministries of praying and prophesying may be a summary for everything that happens in a worship service: praying is people speaking to God and prophesying is people speaking for God. Paul considered the ministry of prophesying as important and influential. He lists prophesying and prophets before teaching and teachers in Rom. 12:6-8, 1 Cor. 12:28-30, and Eph. 4:11 (cf. 1 Cor. 11:5).

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

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

[7] Andrew C. Perriman, “What Eve Did, What Women Shouldn’t Do: The Meaning of Aὐθεντέω in 1 Timothy 2:12,” Tyndale Bulletin 44.1 (1993): 129-142.

[8] None of the creation accounts—Genesis 1:26-28; 2:4-25 and 5:1-2—states that the first man was the leader and the first woman was the submissive follower. There is no indication of any hierarchy between man and woman before the Fall. Articles on Gender in Genesis 1-3 here.

[9] Perriman, “What Eve Did,” 135. In the Greek of 1 Timothy 2:12, the word that means “to teach” (didaskein) is the first word in the sentence. The word that means “to domineer, to control” (authentein) is the seventh word in the sentence. There is an emphasis on didaskein. (The Greek of 1 Timothy 2:12 can be viewed here.)

© October 2012, Margaret Mowczko
All Rights Reserved

You can support my work for as little as $3 USD a month.
Become a Patron!

Image Credit

Image via Pexels

Related Articles

The meaning of authentein in 1 Timothy 2:12 with a brief history of authent– words
6 reasons 1 Timothy 2:12 is not as clear as it seems 
1 Timothy 2:12, the created order, and Bible men who were guided by godly women
1 Timothy 2:12 in a Nutshell
The Prominence of Women in the Cultic Life of Ephesus
Women, Teaching and Deception
Women, Eve and Deception
Did Priscilla Teach Apollos?
King Lemuel’s Mother: The other Proverbs 31 Woman

artigos em portugues sobre igualdade entre homens e mulheres no lar e na igreja

22 thoughts on “Questions about how to interpret and implement 1 Timothy 2:12

  1. This is an excellent analysis and overview of the issues. I have recommended it for the October Biblical Studies Carnival.

  2. Thanks Kristen. I’m wondering if there are other questions about how 1 Tim 2:12 could be applied.

    Haven’t heard of that book or author, Don. Could you give me a quick summary of his main points or angles?

  3. Thanks Wade. Your comment has made my day–I feel very encouraged. 😀

  4. Hi Marg,

    Nice analysis, as usual!

    Perhaps you might have an interest in this. Catherine Clark Kroeger and Richard Clark Kroeger provide an exhaustive analysis of authentein in their book “I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking I Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence.”

    I found it invaluable in my quest for information, and it was the only analysis I’d found that made sense. I think you would like it. Their translation and interpretation fit perfectly into the context of the letters to Timothy.

  5. Marg,

    Terrific writing. Well stated. Too bad you and Peter are not in the United States. We are looking for a Pastor to Women at our church, a person who serves as a shepherd to the entire church, but focuses on ministry to women (similar to a Youth Pastor, Children’s Pastor, etc….). You would be an excellent hire! 🙂

  6. Thanks Heidi. I read it, or some of it, a while ago.

    I have a pile of books I’m hoping to read on my summer break. I’ll see if I can get this book from the library.

    God’s Word to Women have a paper by Catherine Kroeger on their site where she discusses authentein. I also discuss it here: https://margmowczko.com/tag/authentein/

  7. very helpful . . . learned a lot

  8. My understanding of 1 Timothy Chapter 2, given the culture at the church in Ephesus, is that Paul did not allow a misinformed person to teach anything and he wanted everyone to worship in an orderly way. Paul did not allow the Ephesian women to teach false doctrine to their husbands or dominate them in the worship services. Paul wanted everyone to learn correct doctrine quietly. The Ephesian women at issue were teaching the wrong thing — that a goddess kept them safe in childbirth and that a woman was created first. Paul corrects those errors in verses 13-15. Paul’s concern was to put an end to false doctrine and a lack of mutual respect and submission to each other. Paul wanted the men to “pray in every place, lifting up kind hands, apart from anger and reasoning; in like manner also the women …” 1 Tim. 2:8-9. Thus, Paul is not forbidding women from participating, he just wants them to be quiet and learn the correct doctrine before they try to teach others. He was likely teaching the women to not “nag” or “browbeat” their own husbands about spiritual matters because it would turn them away from rather than towards God. Paul was giving advice to Timothy, who was young and was likely having to deal with older Ephesian women who did not respect him because of his age.

  9. Hi Joni, My thoughts on the situation behind 1 Tim 2:12 are similar to yours. 🙂

    I strongly doubt that Paul was disallowing well-behaved women from teaching sound doctrine.

    I also believe that 1 Tim 2:13-15 present a corrected version of what was being taught in Ephesus by false, or ignorant, teachers.

  10. I always find it pitifully, pathetically ironic that it is only in our day of rank worldly, Biblical illiteracy, sem profs & “scholars” being among the worst affected, whose pitiful exegetical and linguistic errors I, a janitor with a mere BA in Music, must correct, that we all of a sudden so conveniently can’t figure out what 1 Timothy 2 means in order to satisfy our sinful James 4 lusts by feminazis, like the woman’s sinful Gen 3:16 lust to lord it over her divinely ordained head God warned her & us about as He did Cain in the 4:7 parallel about how he was to resist sin’s attempt to dominate him (as his father Adam was to resist Eve’s to dominate him in 3:16). The great scholars of the past knew that men & women were to mind there places God has ordained for them, not to mention man’s lustful desires to reject His providential care to their own destruction. Soli Deo gloria!

  11. Hi Russ,

    Nowhere in this article or on this website do I state that women can or should “lord it over” anyone, especially their husbands. “Lording it over” people, especially a fellow brother or sister in Christ, is the antithesis of what Jesus taught. More on this here: https://margmowczko.com/christian-living/jesus-teaching-on-leadership-and-community-in-matthews-gospel/

    I do not see in the pages of Holy Scripture that men and women have been given divinely ordained “places”?

    What was Deborah’s place or Miriam’s place? Leading Israel (Judges 4:1ff; Micah 6:4).

    What was Rahab’s place? Having faith in the true God and betraying her own people to help the Israelites and rescue her family (Joshua 2:1ff; 6:22-25).

    What was Sheerah’s place? Building towns (1 Chron. 7:24).

    What was Huldah’s place? Giving prophetic counsel to the king’s delegation, which resulted in revival (2 Chron. 34:19-33; 2 Kings 22:8-20; 23:1-25).

    What was Esther’s place? Being a queen, and therefore having considerable power and influence which she used to rescue the Israelites.

    What was Anna’s place? Her place was the Temple in Jerusalem where she worshipped, fasted, prayed, and spoke to all, men and women, about the Messiah (Luke 2:36-38).

    What was Mary Magdalene’s place? Following Jesus and financing his ministry (Luke 8:2-3; Matt 27:55-56, etc).

    What was Mary of Bethany’s place? At the feet of Jesus, which Jesus called “necessary” and “good” in comparison with worrying about domestic chores (Luke 10:42).

    What was Phoebe’s place? Being diakonos (minister or deacon) and patron of the church at Cenchrea and taking Paul’s letter to Rome (Romans 16:1-2).

    There are many more godly, Bible women I could have included in this list. (Some are listed here.) The Bible is full of stories of men and women who do not fit the tidy but limited stereotypes of so-called gender roles that we have inherited from the Greeks and Romans.

    “The great fathers of the church in the late Roman and early Medieval period had built up a remarkable creative synthesis between classical [Greek and Roman] philosophy and Christian theology.”
    Christopher Forbes “The Historical Jesus” in The Content and Setting of the Gospel Tradition, Mark Harding and Alanna Nobbs (eds) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 247.

  12. Is it truly that hard for women to submit themselves to God’s word? Regardless of women in the Bible that had a role of leadership, does the mean that we neglect the command in Timothy? Instead of continually questioning the word of God, how about submitting to it and obeying? The Bible has numerous verses supporting the leadership roles of men. It seems that almost every website tries to contort the Bible to please man(women in this case) instead of pleasing God.

    1. Hi Brian,

      I’m wondering why you say “Regardless of women in the Bible that had a role of leadership”. Are you suggesting we disregard the scriptures concerning female leaders and only pay attention to the scriptures concerning male leadership?

      Your assumptions are false and narrow-minded. I don’t assume you find it hard to submit to God’s word even though you seem to dismiss numerous Bible verses and focus only on your own interpretation of 1 Timothy.

      So what is your interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12? How would you answer some of the questions raised in the article? And how do you think your interpretation should be implemented?

      1. Hi Marg,
        Great conversation. I’m not much on shutting out fems from preaching, or doing anything else that truly spreads Go’s word. Let’s remember a couple of things.
        -First, the Samamratin women who met Jesus at the well (John 4) turned quite a few folks on to Jesus. It may not have been “formal” (in a true church setting), but it was powerful.
        -Second, as must as I respect Paul in all of his writings, he never “met” Jesus in the flesh. I know many of us here have had revelations from Jesus thru the Holy Spirit (and I don’t discount any of them. Many have led me th4 straight way), as had Paul, but he (Paul) did his best to interpret how God was speaking to him the run the H.S, as we all do.
        -Finally, have you read further in 1 Tim 2:11-154, which is all in one paragraph, meaning it is in the same thought? V 15 says that, “But a woman will be saved thru childbearing-if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.” What the hek? Really? Are you al fems ready to adhere to that one? Since all of this command is in one paragraph, we have to assume it is all in the same thought. Of course, we also know that there was no punctuation as we know it today, and there very well may have been no real paragraphs, as we know them. But we have to look at this issue with the above thoughts and concerns.
        To me, preach away, my ladies!

        1. Hi Rico,

          Thanks for your comment. I completely agree with you that 1 Tim. 2:11-12 is connected to 1 Tim. 2:13-15.

          To answer your question: yes, I have read further than 1 Timothy 2:12. Not only have a read further, I have written a few posts about 1 Timothy 2:13-15. If you’re interested you can find them using these tags:

  13. Paul was never one to mince his words, nor does he do so here in 1 Tim 2:12. I believe Paul is dealing here with husbands and wives and the issue of abstaining from sex. Some wives under the influence of false teaching have decided to abstain from marital relations. Paul refers to this as ‘authentien’ because by abstaining from sex these wives are ‘committing murder’ in relation to the unborn children. These unborn children have been ‘sacrificed’ to false gods.
    This ties in then with the comments concerning child birth – Paul declares that these wives are not saved (kept pure) by abstaining from sex (and thereby from child birth) but rather through childbirth salvation comes to all who continue in faith.
    1 Tim 2:12 has absolutely nothing to do with women exercising authority in church, but weak willed men will continue to use it as a means of gaining control over women whose knowledge, wisdom and spiritual insight pose a threat to their ‘masculinity’.

    1. Interesting, Robert.

      I also believe authentein has to do with a woman coercing, or bullying, her husband into abstinence. (I write about this here.)

      One thing is fairly certain, as you say, 1 Tim 2:12 has nothing to do with a woman (or women) exercising authority in church.

  14. You have so well explained this verse that you have practically emptied it of all meaning. Moreover, what kind of authority should be ascribed to your personal teaching on this? Is this the authoritative teaching of the Church? What is the status of your opinion, if it has any at all?

    1. Hi Ronald, This article is mostly about how other people apply 1 Timothy 2:12.
      You’ll find my interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12 here:

  15. Thank you Marg for your contribution and explanation on this matter. It brings great clarity but I have a question, are their roles for men (males) and those for women (female) in our day to day walk with God in His kingdom?
    I’m in my youthful age hence need such clarity

    1. Hello, A.K.

      What matters are our capabilities and talents, our suitability.

      If we are able, and if there is a need, I can’t see that there is any function, job, or role that is off-limits to men or women as long as it is legal according to biblical and societal standards.

  16. […] Questions about how to interpret and implement 1 Timothy 2:12 […]

Leave a Reply

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

Subscribe to Marg's Blog

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.


Join Marg's Patreon

Would you like to support my ministry of encouraging mutuality and equality between men and women in the church and in marriage?