In the Bible, 1 Timothy 2:12 is the twelfth verse of the second chapter of the First Epistle to Timothy. It is often quoted using the King James Version translation:
And from the English Standard Version:
And from the Douay-Rheims Version:
And from the New American Bible Revised Edition:
The verse is widely used to oppose ordination of women as clergy, and to oppose certain other positions of ministry and leadership for women in large segments of Christianity. Many such groups that do not permit women to become clergy also cite 1 Corinthians 14:32–35 and 1 Timothy 3:1–7. Historically, the verse was used to justify legal inequality for women and to exclude women from secular leadership roles as well.
For most of the history of Christian theology the verse has been interpreted to require some degree of subordination of women to men. Some theologians, like Ambrosiaster in the 4th century and John Knox in the 16th century, wrote that it requires very strict domination of women in every sphere of life. Others, like John Chrysostom and Martin Luther, write that it excludes women from teaching, praying, or speaking in public but grants some freedom to women in the home.
The verse has been criticized for its sexism and its perceived inconsistency with other verses attributed to Paul, such as Galatians 3:28, which states "there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Richard and Catherine Kroeger point to examples of female teachers and leaders known to Paul, such as Priscilla and Phoebe, to support their conclusion that the verse has been mistranslated. Most modern scholars believe 1 Timothy was not actually written by Paul.
Today, some scholars argue that the instruction is directed to the particular church in Ephesus and must be interpreted in a contemporary context. Others interpret the text as a universal instruction. Christian egalitarians maintain that there should be no institutional distinctions between men and women. Complementarians argue that the instructions contained in 1 Timothy 2:12 should be accepted as normative in the church today.
Authorship The traditional view is that the words "I suffer not a woman..." are Paul's own words, along with the rest of the epistle. A minority of modern scholars, such as Catherine Kroeger, support this traditional view.
The view of a large majority of modern scholars of 1 Timothy is that the epistle was not written by Paul, but dates to after Paul's death and has an unknown author. As a pseudepigraphical work incorrectly attributed to Paul, the verse is often described as deutero-Pauline literature or as a pastoral epistle.
New Testament scholar Marcus Borg contends that this verse fits poorly with Paul's more positive references to Christian women and may be a later interpolation rather than part of the original text.Borg, Marcus J. and John Dominic Crossan. The First Paul. HarperOne. 2009.
Use
In his 4th century Latin commentary on the epistles, Ambrosiaster viewed 1 Timothy 2:12 as requiring a strict system of patriarchy. He writes that women "were put under the power of men from the beginning" and should be severely subjugated to men. Ambrosiaster's strictly patriarchal understanding was copied by and most other medieval interpretations of the verse in the Latin Church. In the Greek-speaking church, John Chrysostom wrote that the verse prohibits women from teaching the public or making public speeches.
The verse was widely used to oppose all education for women, and all teaching by women, during the Renaissance and early modern period in Europe. It was cited frequently by those who wished to condemn women or believed them inferior to men. Ambrosiaster and 1 Timothy 2:12 were cited by John Knox in The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women, a 1558 book attacking the idea of rule by queens and women in leadership on biblical grounds.
Martin Luther wrote that "man" in this verse specifically refers to a husband, meaning that wives should never appear wiser or more knowledgeable than their husbands, neither in public nor at home. Luther contends that, because of this verse and nearby verses in 1 Timothy, women should not speak or teach in public and must remain completely quiet in church, writing "where there is a man, there no woman should teach or have authority." On this basis, parts of Lutheranism today do not allow women into church leadership.
Female theologians faced a dilemma in staying true to this scripture while acting as teachers. Teresa of Ávila wrote that women must teach through their actions because they were both prohibited from and incapable of teaching with words. Though she did produce theological writing, she was careful to efface herself as foolish and weak.
During the 1637 trial of Anne Hutchinson for illegal theological teaching, magistrate John Winthrop (who was both Hutchinson's accuser and the judge in her trial) admonished Hutchinson with 1 Timothy 2:12, demanding her silence because he felt she was too outspoken in defending herself.
In the 19th century the verse was frequently employed to justify the inferior legal status of women. For example, Meyrick Goulburn argued the verse clearly excludes women from all public offices or roles, including secular ones, and that women are only fit for domestic labor.
Today it is still used to exclude women from religious education or teaching. For example, Southern Baptist institutions in the United States have fired women teachers because of the verse. The verse is used in excluding women from the Catholic priesthood and is considered by Catholics to prohibit women from performing priest-like teaching roles, such as giving homilies.
Interpretive approaches
Complementarian and egalitarian
N. T. Wright, former Bishop of Durham, says that 1 Timothy 2 is the "hardest passage of all" to exegete properly.Wright, N. T. "[www2.cbeinternational.org/CBE_InfoPack/pdf/wright_biblical_basis.pdf The Biblical Basis for Women's Service in the Church]". Accessed 16 December 2009 A number of interpretive approaches to the text have been made by both complementarians and egalitarians. The 1 Timothy 2:12 passage is only one "side" of a letter written by Paul, and is directed at a particular group. Therefore, interpretations are limited to one-sided information with no record of the associated correspondence to which Paul was responding. Theologian Philip Payne, a Cambridge PhD and former Tübingen scholar, is convinced that 1 Timothy 2:12 is the New Testament verse that "might" explicitly prohibit women from teaching or having authority over men, though he writes that he does not think that is what it means.Payne, Philip B. Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul's Letters. Zondervan, 2009. Moore maintains that "Any interpretation of these portions of Scripture must wrestle with the theological, contextual, syntactical, and lexical difficulties embedded within these few words".Moore, Terri D. "Chapter Six: Conclusions on 1 Timothy 2:15". bible.org 30 October 2009.
Wheaton scholar and professor Gilbert Bilezikian concludes that although it may seem that Paul is laying down an ordinance that has the character of a universal norm for all Christians in all ages, that view does not survive close scrutiny. After extensive research, he has reached these conclusions:
That the apostle Paul wrote this epistle to a church that was in a state of terminal crisis; That Paul drastically curtailed the ministries of women and men to save the Church at Ephesus from what he terms as a high risk of "self-destruction"; That the restrictions Paul laid down in this epistle were temporary measures of exception designed to prevent this one particular church from disintegration; That the remedial crisis-management provisions mandated in this passage remain valid for all times for churches that fall into similar states of dysfunction.Bilezikian, Gilbert. Beyond Sex Roles (2006 ed.) Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2006.
Bilezikian concludes that the exceptional character of the emergency measures advocated by Paul serves as evidence that women could indeed teach and hold leadership positions under normal circumstances.
Egalitarian and complementarian interpretive approaches to the text typically take the following forms: Socio-cultural: Egalitarians argue that the text was intended for a specific socio-cultural environment which no longer exists and that the text is therefore not relevant to modern churchesKroeger, Richard and Catherine Kroeger. "I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11–15 in Light of Ancient Evidence". Baker, 1992. (typically rely heavily on historical reconstructions using extra-biblical sources); complementarians argue that the socio-cultural environment, while relevant, does not restrict the application of the verse to a specific time and place in the past.Schreiner "Interpreting the Pauline Epistles", Southern Baptist Journal of Theology (3.3.10), (Fall 1999) Lexical: Egalitarians argue that the meaning of the key word in the text, , does not support the exclusion of women from authoritative teaching positions in the congregation;Lutheran Church Missouri Synod Commission on Theology and Church Relations, "AUTHENTEIN: A Summary", pp. 3–4 (2005) Complementarians argue that the meaning of this word in its context indicates that Paul was forbidding women from having authority over men in the church.Andreas J. Köstenberger, "Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9–15" (1995). Hermeneutical: Some egalitarians argue that the text was intended only to limit women for a specific temporary duration, or that it was intended only to limit uneducated women who were unfit to speak in the congregation;Hugenberger, "Women In Church Office: Hermeneutics Or Exegesis? A Survey Of Approaches To 1 Tim 2:8–15", Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (35.3.349), (September 1992) Complementarians argue that hermeneutical considerations indicate the text is universal in its application to Christian congregationsSchreiner, "Paul, Apostle of God's Glory in Christ", p. 408 (2006)
Socio-cultural
Christian Egalitarians believe that the passage does not carry the same meaning for the modern church when interpreted in light of the socio-cultural situation of Paul's time; that a key word in the passage should be reinterpreted to mean something other than "exercising authority". Some recent scholarship is believed to show that Paul never intended his first letter to Timothy to apply to the church at all times and places. Instead, it was intended to remediate a state of acute crisis being created by a "massive influx of false teaching and cultic intrusions" threatening the survival of the very young Church at Ephesus.
The egalitarian socio-cultural position has been represented prominently by classicist Catherine Kroeger and theologian Richard Kroeger. They believe the author of 1 Timothy was refuting false teaching, rather than establishing a narrow restriction on women's role. The Kroegers maintain that Paul was uniquely addressing the Ephesian situation because of its feminist religious culture where women had usurped religious authority over men. They cite a wide range of primary sources to support their case that the Ephesian women were teaching a particular Gnostic notion concerning Eve. They point out that women routinely teach and lead men in the New Testament: Lois and Eunice taught Timothy, Priscilla taught Apollos, and Phoebe was a church deacon.