New Considerations On the Silencing of Women: 1 Timothy 2:11-15

“Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”

1 Timothy 2:11-15

  This passage, so familiar to many, is considered one of the most difficult in the Bible. After doing my best to avoid choosing it as the topic of my New Testament Interpretation exegesis paper this fall, assuming way too many people might do the same, I gave in. Thankfully, its ability to raise ire and interest means any search for interpretive scholarship leads to a ton of information; my very favorite being a book released just two months ago!

In his article on 1 Tim. 2:11-15, Andreas J. Köstenberger writes that “consensus on the passage’s meaning is therefore as elusive today as it has ever been.” I noted a few specific difficulties: questions regarding the correct attribution of authorship as well as the intended receiver of this letter, as well as the wider audience for the work; differing perspectives and underlying motivations of each interpreter; and certainly questions regarding the correct translation of multiple terms are all in play here. My research, enlightened most interestingly by Sandra Glahn’s recent book, Nobody’s Mother, led to the conclusion that the specific historical context of this letter has been overlooked in most other work. I believe that context is key to understanding what’s happening here in 1 Tim. 2:11-15. Highlighting Glahn’s work, my paper argued that this passage does not call for the silencing and subjugation of all women in Christian churches, but is an attempt to free the women of Ephesus from a specific fear.

1 Timothy in Context

So what’s going on in this passage in particular? Why does it seem Paul is writing to silence women? It is important to take a look at this passage in context, both within the book of 1 Timothy in particular, grouped with other books like it, and the New Testament generally. The pastoral epistles, which include 1 and 2 Timothy as well as Titus, focus primarily on the behavior of Christ-followers and the practical administration of churches. As far as 1 Timothy 2 goes, many scholars highlight the fact that it begins with prayer that all Christians—not only female Christians— lead quiet lives (Paul also emphasizes quiet lives for all in 1 Thes. 4:11). There is then emphasis on a need for men to refrain from arguing (in church?! that must have been interesting!) followed by remarks on the need for prayer, and modesty in adornment. The author was very concerned about the appearance of Christians in the eyes of outsiders.

Let’s dig in, and break this passage down verse by verse so we can focus a bit.

v. 11: “Let a woman learn in silence with full submission.” (translation issue)

Hēsychia, the word rendered “silent” here in the NRSVUE, is usually translated to say women should learn in “quiet.” The word could also be translated as “calm,” which is certainly a model anyone could take and agree with as appropriate to behavior in a church service; Amy Erickson’s scholarship links this idea of stillness to a recommendation of contemplative prayer practices generally. Johnson, however, goes on to seemingly raise the bar so to speak as far as the level to which women are to bow their heads; he translates en pasę̄ hypotagę̄ (usually, as here, “full submission”) instead as “complete subordination.” This rubs half the sky the wrong way, and Johnson concludes that Paul calls for a permanently lower position for every woman, insisting, “There can be no softening of hypotagē, which suggests not simply an attitude, but a structural placement of one person below another.”

Here seems as good a time as any to point out something interesting which I’ve had to come to understand gradually the past few years: when a scholar points out what they believe the scripture is saying, they are not necessarily saying they agree that this is what God is condoning. Johnson, for example, will go on to redeem himself in our eyes with a clarification regarding this issue later on. Just know that when we let go of the kindof-ridiculous-when-you-think-about-it idea that the Bibles we hold in our hands contain the word-for-word transcriptions of what God wanted the original writer or us to do/say/think/feel, we can also question the accuracy of the words we’re reading from multiple angles, and we can and must do the same for the interpretations and applications of those words. It is then another step to realize that to search for the correct translation of a set of words, and then make a choice and declaration of that which we think most correct is not necessarily a statement regarding the value of said words. Moving on …

v. 12: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.” (translation issue)

Erickson claims Paul’s use of authention here, its only appearance in the New Testament, refers to the type of haughty authority that lords it over others—not just a position of teaching authority. She concludes that Paul seems to be addressing a situation in which women were weaponizing false doctrines in a way that penalized men. The KJV actually was more direct than later translations in insisting that this was a matter of women usurping authority, and Glahn points out that later translations become increasingly restrictive. This increasing restriction has led effectively to minimizing women’s voices in church contexts.

As an aside, some scholars also point out that similarly to the author’s note in 1 Cor. 7:10, the assertion, “I do not permit” here in 1 Tim. 2:12 could suggest this is a statement of his personal preference, rather than a word from God.

Glahn insists that since the concept of maternity is highlighted in this passage’s final sentence (even this is in dispute—but more on that later) writing that the words translated “woman” and “man” here are more correctly understood as wife and husband. This would make the author’s instructions not universally applicable to every woman and every man, but specific to interactions between married couples. This understanding would be understandable considering the epistle’s focus on correct behavior, since arguing in the church is obviously unattractive. Another interesting observation is that at the time this letter was written, arguing between spouses was potentially even illegal according to Roman civil law.

v. 13: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve … ” (lens issue)

The creation order listed in Genesis 2-3 then seems to be used by the letter’s author as justification for the submissive position of women that verse 12 appeared to insist on. Since she was created second, her status is secondary to men. Johnson says Paul bases his instructions on the understanding that the created order indicates God’s plan for order in the household and church, with one mirroring the other and women restricted to a domestic role. And then …

v. 14: “ … and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”

Here Eve’s deception in contrast to Adam’s choice to join her in eating the fruit of the tree appears to paint all women as susceptible to deception. This becomes the apparent basis for the prohibition against women teaching, because moral weakness is assigned to women. Johnson notes the word transgression here implies crossing or stepping over boundaries. And finally, we come to the clincher of the passage:

v. 15: “Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” (attribution, translation, context, AND lens issues)

Suddenly (finally?) in its final verse, the author suggests a way the woman might redeem herself (my own wording here may already raise warning bells as you read).

This sentence forms the crux of the debate because it is so difficult to translate. There are many interpretations of it. Amy Erikson insists the “yet” of verse 15 turns the rest of the pericope around. She writes, “The Greek particle de (‘on the other hand’, ‘but’) indicates, if anything, that the final closing sentence overturns what has just been stated regarding creation order and the fall.” Therefore she insists Paul is saying women are saved through Mary’s bearing of Jesus, rather than insisting on female subordination.

We can obviously see that such a reading at least avoids the insinuation that it is possible to attain salvation through one’s actions. Obviously, scholars note that readings of this sentence that conclude women are offered the power to acquire salvation through childbirth contradict everything else that is said throughout the New Testament about the gospel and salvation. And also, Paul recommends women remain unmarried elsewhere (1 Cor. 7:8-9). How on earth are they to attain salvation if it happens through childbirth?

Köstenberger concludes that it is Satan specifically from whom women will be saved, due to the references in the passages to the serpent. He concludes that this passage indicates God’s protection is given to Christ-following women who raise children and limit themselves to domestic activities. Yet such a conclusion raises the question of how men attain such protection—not to mention women who are barren or unmarried. Are they all simply susceptible to the enemy, with no defense?

Verse 15 has a strange mid-sentence pronoun shift, “she will be saved … if they continue …” Johnson says this could indicate that a woman would be saved if her children remain in the faith. Again, this is contrary to the rest of the NT message. And here’s that redemption of Johnson I promised: (NOTE THE IRONY OF THIS LAST SENTENCE :) )

While Johnson concludes that this text’s literal interpretation limits women’s roles in church settings, he acknowledges too that accepting such relegation of women is contrary to our understanding of the flourishing of women. He makes this profound statement, which I recommend reading at least twice in this, the year of our Lord 2024, because IT IS STILL HAPPENING:

“Our growth in understanding of the human person … makes it impossible to regard the statements disqualifying women from public speech and roles of leadership as either true or normative.” 

Key to Interpretation: Ephesus and Artemis

And now (finally!) we arrive at the fun part of this paper/article: its key if you will. I believe that understanding the lived context of Paul’s intended recipient sheds much necessary light on this complicated passage. We are so often trained in Christian culture by verse-of-the-day type engagement that we forget all about the fact that this letter was not actually written to me, a suburban mom in Franklin, Tennessee, or you, whoever you are. It was written to Timothy. Timothy was a young believer who had been left behind by Paul in the city of Ephesus. And what was Ephesus? Serving as the capital of Asia at the time, Ephesus was a grand city with a population of 100,000-150,000. At its heart stood the temple of a goddess called Artemis of the Ephesians. This temple was one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World and was—get ready for it!— twice the size of the Parthenon. Though little-known now commonly, Artemis was one of the most-worshiped deities of the time. If we step back a little and look at broader scripture, we’ll find that Acts 19 told the story of the Ephesian church’s beginning, which was punctuated by a riot! When disciples came into Ephesus and began preaching Jesus, the silversmiths of the town, who profited from creating and selling models of Artemis, lost it and caused their arrest. Artemis was a big deal.

And for good reason. Artemis was the daughter of Zeus (head of the Greek pantheon) and Leto. She was, it is said, born first, which allowed her to observe her mother’s agonizing nine-day birth of Artemis’s twin brother, Apollo. Perhaps understandably following such a trauma, Artemis is said to have asked to be made a perpetual virgin. Ephesus has another claim to fame as the home of the legendary Amazons, a group of warrior women considered mere myth until various archaeological finds began situating them in history. Artemis was honored during this time as a modest yet powerful virgin who specialized in preventing death in childbirth—or at least making it painless. In a world where childbirth was the leading cause of death among women and no medical intervention existed, such a goddess was understandably highly esteemed. In other words, Artemis was not only the symbol of their city, but women’s only hope and strength during childbirth. In the twenty-first century, it is difficult for most of us to imagine the anxiety pregnant women would experience after turning to Jesus and leaving Artemis behind.

It is also noteworthy considering the passage here under consideration that Artemis was considered superior by the Ephesians in part because she was born first, before her brother. Obviously, this contradicts the Jewish creation story which prioritizes Adam. This may explain why Paul feels the need to reiterate Adam’s creation preceding Eve’s here. Glahn reads Paul’s appeal to the creation order in 1 Timothy 2 not as an attempt to confirm hierarchy but as a counternarrative to the prevailing one of the city. “The truths that ‘Adam was first’ and ‘Eve was deceived’ restore interdependence in a context in which pride of creation order in a goddess-first context emphasizes preeminence and autonomy.”

Glahn also highlights the fact that Paul repeatedly ascribes to Jesus in this letter the various titles and roles the Ephesians had been taught were held by Artemis, including “savior” and “god.” She notes that the uses of “Savior” in reference to Christ in the pastoral letters and 1 Timothy in particular exceed their use elsewhere, writing,

“In the same way that kryptonite evokes thoughts of Superman without uttering his name, Paul could refer to Jesus as the/our Savior in Ephesus and listeners would know he was exalting Christ over their local deity.”

Glahn concludes that for those living in this context, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 would have been understood not as relegation to second-class status but as a relief to the mothers of Ephesus, as they were assured they would be kept safe in childbirth even without the protection of goddess they had left behind.

We were instructed that we didn’t need to attempt in this paper to offer the conclusively correct understanding of a text; to do so being not only extremely unlikely, but ultimately unhelpful. I hope instead to have pointed out the vast range of conclusions reached by trained scholars who have spent lifetimes studying this passage and others like it, to perhaps demonstrate that there will always be new perspectives offered and new discoveries being made that offer potential illumination. Reading the passage with the historical context in mind leads to potentially different conclusions than those that have dominated past conversations, ones which allow perhaps for greater faithfulness to the author’s intentions as well as the text’s reception. It may also allow today’s readers to reject statements based on patriarchal motivations seeking to keep women under subjection rather than allowing them the freedom demonstrated so often by Christ’s own actions throughout the gospels, as well as that elsewhere acknowledged by Paul as existing amongst the earliest Christian communities. Those communities included women who prayed, prophesied, carried letters, and served as leaders. Taking time to seek out the historical context offers the potential to embrace a reading that sees here not restriction but reassurance, as well as synthesis with the rest of New Testament teachings regarding both women and the gospel.

Bibliography

Erickson, Amy J. “Difficult Texts: 1 Timothy 2.11–15.” Theology 122, no. 3 (May 1, 2019): 200–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040571X19826180.

Glahn, Sandra. Nobody’s Mother: Artemis of the Ephesians in Antiquity and the New Testament. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2023.

Glahn, Sandra L. “The First Century Ephesian Artemis: Ramifications of Her Identity.” Bibliotheca Sacra 172, no. 688 (2015): 450–69.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. The First and Second Letters to Timothy, edited by Luke Timothy Johnson, 1st ed. Vol. 35A. New Haven & London: The Anchor Yale Bible, 2001. https://www.theologyandreligiononline.com/encyclopedia?docid=b-9780300261721.

Köstenberger, Andreas J. “Ascertaining Women’s God-Ordained Roles: An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:15.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 7, no. 1 (January 1, 1997): 107–44. https://doi.org/10.2307/26422323.