Can women be Teachers and Leaders or not?

Does Paul universally restrict women from teaching and having authority over men?

Prologue:

This blog primarily deals with 1 Tim 2:11–15 in light of the textual context of 1 Tim 1 and the cultural context of the Ephesian Church. It is not short but can I encourage you to treat this with intent. The implications of such conclusions and considerations make a massive difference to the community of God on mission locally and globally.

It does not deal with 1 Tim 3, although I deal with that in other teaching. I also deal with Women in Leadership and other contexts and addressing other biblical texts elsewhere.

This blog is within wider teaching on this matter. As such, I address what I can within the scope but not everything to do with women in ministry and leadership.

As with any discussion, there are some nuances or slightly different thoughts I will not directly address but are addressed through understanding the passage.

For instance, some understand women can be teachers in the broadest sense, but not the Apostolic sense, which they argue has passed. Others argue they can have authority over men and be deacons, but they simply can’t be the head Elder. You will see, by implication, I disagree with these positions. However, they are not my primary goal.

The primary alternative to my position — and I believe Paul’s position — is that of what some would call “Hard Complementarians” (as distinct from soft complementarians who hold more nuanced views).

My primary concern, of course, is not the semantics of what one theological position calls itself, but rather the teaching of Scripture.

CAN WOMEN TEACH AND LEAD MEN?

Hard Complementarians generally assert that 1 Timothy 2:11–15 teaches a universal principle, that women are not to teach or exercise authority over men in the church.

This is then seen to apply directly to the qualifications for elders and overseers in 1 Timothy 3, where elders must be “the husband of one wife”, implying maleness.

They typically argue:

• Verse 13 (“For Adam was formed first, then Eve”) appeals to creation order, implying male headship.
  

• Verse 14 (“Adam was not the one deceived...”) supports the idea that Eve’s deception makes women less suited for doctrinal authority.
  

• This teaching is reinforced by male leadership patterns across Scripture (e.g., Jesus choosing male apostles, male Levitical priests).
  

• Since 1 Timothy is a pastoral epistle meant for church order, its commands are seen as normative for all churches.

Keep these matters in mind. The central component of the argument is that women should not have authority over men because of creation order and creation design. In support of this, they cite “Eve was deceived”.

Hard complementarians who say this then make a ton of excuses why God then, in other passages of Scripture, breaks his own commands by allowing women to teach, to have authority over men and to do what God, they think, has universally and in creation forbidden them from doing.

The heart of this matter is an attempt to read a narrow interpretation of individual texts onto the rest of Scripture. Instead, we should read the individual texts in light of God’s overall counsel and redemptive trajectory in Scripture.

The key text in particular is anchored in 1 Tim 2 and then, by implication, 3.

A CLOSER LOOK

Now people are quick to jump into the text without actually framing what 1 Timothy is about. When we look at 1 Tim 1, it helps inform what is happening in 1 Tim 2 — surprise, surprise.

The simple reality is that 1 Timothy 2–3 is addressing the situation introduced in chapter 1.

Paul’s letter opens with a warning:

“…Stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer…” (1 Tim 1:3, NIV)

Evidently, both Paul and Timothy are aware of the “certain people” and the “false doctrines” being taught.

These people, “…devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies.”

This line is important because Gnostics in the early church spread all sorts of weird ideas that retold the story of God to justify a turning over of truth and the wider narrative of God.

I will address this in more detail later, but good theology requires us to actually look at the text and context. Some say trite statements like “read it plainly”, however this screams intentional ignorance.

Unless you read it in Greek, as a person from Ephesus who understands the pastoral and cultural issues, you cannot read it with the assumption you are doing anything but reading your own linguistic, personal, and cultural assumptions into the text.

Paul continues:

“Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work — which is by faith.”

Note, Paul’s goal in unpacking this is clarity — fighting against “speculations”, a possible reference to the conspiracy and repositioning of the story of God through early Gnostic ideas.

The purpose of good teaching is to advance “God’s work — which is by faith”.

Again Paul continues:

“The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk.”

Note his next key point because he highlights the central issue:

“They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.” (v. 7)

The issue highlighted here is that they want to be teachers but are ignorant and overconfident.

Here, Paul gives us the central issue that he aims to solve. Paul, then a little later, emphasises his position as a teacher and his authority:

“And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle — I am telling the truth, I am not lying — and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles.” (1 Tim 2:7)

He is a true and faithful teacher — a contrast to the false, overconfident teachers roaming around spreading false speculations and ideas.

Let us take a closer look at 1 Timothy 2:11–15, as this is the primary area of initial disagreement.

Let’s walk through the text, line by line.

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.” (v. 11)

Paul begins with an imperative for a woman to learn. In Greco-Roman society and Jewish synagogue life, women were often excluded from theological education.

This is radical in its inclusion. You and I may not appreciate how large a departure this was, but the grandest command here is: learn.

This matters because the primary issue in 1 Tim is ignorance and the desire to teach despite such ignorance.

Read that again. The primary issue raised in 1 Tim 1 is ignorance and the desire to teach despite such ignorance.

The answer is: to learn.

“…stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer…” (1 Tim 1:3)

Let us continue in 1 Tim 2.

The phrase “quietness and full submission” (Greek: hēsychia and hypotagē) often refers not to absolute silence, but to a peaceful posture of learning (2 Thess. 3:12; Acts 22:2).

In the context of 1 Tim 1, their attempts at gaining authority were ignorant, and as earlier said, the answer lies in learning.

It implies an attitude of receptiveness, not silencing.

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man…” (v. 12)

The present tense “I do not permit” (ouk epitrepo) suggests a temporary, contextual restriction — not a timeless command.

We see this used by Jesus in regard to Moses’ command regarding divorce, which was circumstantial, not universal. The Pharisees insisted on its universal application, but Jesus disagreed and dug to a deeper issue (Matt 19:8, Mark 10:4).

In a similar regard, the primary issue in 1 Timothy is not women in themselves but ignorance.

You can read my other blogs on women teaching or generally having authority by the very decree of God elsewhere, but for the moment, let’s deal with a crucial phrase.

“To assume authority”

The Greek phrase authentein andros is rare. Authentein is not the common word for “authority” (exousia), but one with more negative connotations (e.g., domineer, usurp, or act unilaterally).

This reality itself should make someone realise that Paul is not talking about correctly gained authority but rather influence or authority wrongly taken through a sense of force or manipulation.

Remember the primary issue in 1 Tim 1:7:

“They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.” (v. 7)

The desire is misplaced, and the issue at heart is that they do not have accurate understanding.

There is also a link to Gnostic ideas entering communities, evident in authentein’s use. Authentein was the name of the supreme deity in the systems of the early Gnostics Cerinthus and Saturninus, and in the Gnostic writing Poimandres (see “A Semantic Study of Authentēs and its Derivatives” in the Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 1.11 (Spring 2006): 50).

Now some will try and argue that authority is being taken wrongly in this context not because they are ignorant but rather because they are women and that is out of creation order.

Now, the hard complementarian wants to think that this prohibition is to do with creation order.

On the surface, if one were to read these verses in isolation quickly without thought to context or contradiction of other biblical texts, this may make sense.

However, we are called to understand the tree in the context of the forest — the verse, chapter, and book in the context of the full counsel of Scripture.

“For Adam was formed first…” (v. 13)

Complementarians read this as a universal argument from creation order. Given the textual and cultural context, I don’t think that is what Paul is doing.

I believe it is most consistent to understand that Paul is using this as illustrative of the central problem he is addressing in 1 Timothy — that of ignorance.

Let’s be clear: if universal, this would mean, as authority is supposedly anchored in creation order, women should never, in any context, have authority over men — not in the church and not in society. To apply universal order selectively is a contradiction. There can be no exceptions.

That, however, is evidently not God’s position. God himself appoints women with authority. God is not the author of lies nor contradicts himself.

What is the context of 1 Tim?

Wrong teaching from ignorant people. In this case, it seems largely women.

Why would that be?

In Ephesus, Gnostic and proto-Gnostic myths taught that Eve was created first and possessed superior knowledge (see texts like Hypostasis of the Archons).

In the Apocalypse of Adam (c. 50–150), Adam speaks and says that Eve “taught me a word of knowledge of the eternal God.” The text thus refers to Eve as a teacher of theological knowledge (Apoc. Adam 69.14–18).

Revelation 2:6 mentions that there was a heretical sect known as the Nicolaitans in Ephesus. It is within First Timothy itself that there are the strongest clues about the nature of the heresy at Ephesus (1 Tim. 1:3–7; 2:5, 15; 4:1–4, 7; 6:20).

More specific to Ephesus, Diodorus Siculus writes of a myth that women founded and ruled Ephesus.

It was these writings that led Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Eusebius to link the heresy in First Timothy with the Gnosticism they knew later.

Unlike the elaborate Gnostic stories, Paul gives a succinct and straightforward summary of the biblical account of creation and the Fall:

“For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” (1 Timothy 2:13–14)

Two Interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:13–14

There are two primary understandings of this text.

First, that leadership and teaching is universally only for men, because Adam was created first and, as Eve was deceived, thus, of course, women are also more easily deceived.

The second understanding — and yes, I believe this is more in line with the context immediately and with the wider counsel of Scripture — is that Paul is correcting the false teaching of the emerging Gnostics who promoted a false view of Adam and Eve and who were deceived.

Let’s step through this verse:

“For Adam was formed first, then Eve…”

It is important to note that order of creation or birth is not in itself a determination of leadership or ‘chosenness’. A classic example being Jacob being chosen over Esau, the older. Whilst such patterns do exist, God himself does not follow them on numerous occasions. Such is not a great argument for universal leadership — especially given God’s own breach of such an idea.

“And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived”

Although Adam was not deceived in the way Eve was, he was knowingly disobedient.

If all ‘Eves’, so to speak, are more easily deceived because of Eve’s sin and thus should not teach, then consistent logic would say that as Adam was knowingly disobedient, all ‘Adams’ will be more disobedient and thus unfit for leadership.

If Eve’s weakness and sin has a direct effect on all women from a gendered point of view, then Adam’s weakness and sin must consistently have effect on all men from a gendered point of view.

Additionally, Paul’s wider teaching in 1 Timothy identifies not only deceived women, but men.

In 1 Tim 1:19–20, Paul names Hymenaeus and Alexander, male false teachers as examples of people who “suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith.”

This shows that the corrective action in chapter 2 is not built on a belief that only women are prone to false teaching, but rather on who in Ephesus at that moment was causing trouble.

If Paul applies gender-specific restrictions here, it’s because the offenders in this instance were women — not because of a universal creation-order rule.

The application of this verse also fails from a complementarian point of view.

Women are understood to not be able to teach or have authority over men because “Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman”.

Thus, in such a view, women are more easily deceived — yet complementarians allow, and Scripture clearly allows, women to teach women. It is an entirely incongruent approach. If women are easily deceived because of Eve’s failure, they should not teach anyone.

“and became a sinner”

Now, it is important to note: if Paul is simply establishing creation order for the purpose of universally establishing the submission of women to men, then this statement is a redundancy and not relevant. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23).

However, this highlights Paul’s use of the creation narrative as illustrative against the Gnostic narrative, which positioned Eve not as a sinner deceived by the devil and alienated from God but as enlightened.

In Gnosticism, Eve is the one who receives true spiritual knowledge (gnosis). The serpent (often renamed as a revealer figure) becomes a hero exposing the Demiurge’s ignorance. The Fall is reframed as a fall upward — an awakening from ignorance imposed by the creator god.

The Hypostasis of the Archons (Nag Hammadi Codex II,4) depicts Eve as possessing a divine spark and the serpent as her ally.

The Apocryphon of John portrays Eve as a liberator bringing knowledge to Adam.

In some strands of Ophite teaching, the Eden narrative is an allegory for escaping the control of a false god through enlightenment.

In these retellings, Eve becoming a “sinner” is absent; rather, Eve becomes enlightened.

These threads of thought encouraged esoteric knowledge over apostolic teaching.

Paul is more accurately understood to be showing how this understanding was false and part of their ignorance that needed to be solved.

How? Through the imperative to learn (1 Tim 2:11).

In essence, Paul is saying: “Don’t buy the revisionist Eden myth; deception led to sin, not salvation.”

Both sinned, and both received consequence — which Jesus tells and shows us should be overturned in the new creation being expressed in the Church increasingly.

Paul is putting these ignorant women in their place — a learning posture.

Paul is seen elsewhere in 1 Tim 5:13–15, addressing a particular subset of women — “younger widows”, who were “going about from house to house” spreading idle talk. He says, “So I counsel younger widows to marry…”

This is not taken by anyone as a universal command for all younger widows in all cultures and times, because it’s clearly context-driven.

If 1 Tim 5 can be situational, it’s reasonable to read 1 Tim 2:11–15 the same way.

Let’s continue, because the next verse continues to show us that there is a situational matter going on:

“But women will be saved through childbearing — if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.” (1 Tim 2:15)

Now, of course, this should make all believers go, WHAT?

This is evidently not the gospel Paul taught; rather, something specific to the situation is going on. But what?

Some try to say this is hearkening back to the creation order, showing that women will be saved if they maintain such creation order.

Frankly, that is heretical and is another gospel.

To be clear, I don’t think there is full clarity in this matter, but there are better and worse answers.

What we do know is this cannot mean salvation by works or motherhood.

Before diving in a little further, the qualifying clause (“if they continue”) suggests the problem is not their gender but their spiritual maturity. This should not surprise, because it is ignorance that is highlighted in 1 Timothy.

Five Interpretations of “Saved Through Childbearing” (1 Timothy 2:15)

The Greek phrase is

"σωθήσεται δὲ διὰ τῆς τεκνογονίας (sōthēsetai de dia tēs teknogonias)

“But she will be saved through childbearing.”

Now the second you read this you should naturally say WHAT?!

Because that is not the gospel. It again shows us whatever our understanding of what Paul may have been speaking to, the situation being addressed in Ephesus is unusual and contextual. For clarity however let’s dive into five different approaches to this text.

1. “Saved through the Birth of Christ” (The Messianic Childbearing View)

Some scholars interpret it as “the childbearing” (tēs teknogonias) — a reference to the birth of Jesus, the Child promised in Genesis 3:15, born of a woman, through whom salvation comes.

When approaching this, the definite article (tēs) could imply a specific childbirth — “the”, not childbearing in general. It also fits the Adam–Eve–Genesis context in vv. 13–14.

Additionally, this view echoes the protoevangelium (Gen. 3:15), where salvation comes “through the seed of the woman.” Let me be clear: it is a rare use of “childbearing” as a reference to the incarnation, but not unheard of.

“if they continue in faith...” then stands as a warning that these women, deceived by Gnostic teaching, if they return to Christ truly, will be saved “if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety” (1 Tim 2:15).

2. “Saved in Spite of Childbearing” (Preservation Through Danger View)

“Saved” means preserved physically, especially from the dangers of childbirth, which was a leading cause of death for women in the ancient world — and many say Artemis would save them through.

The Greek word sōthēsetai (“save”) can mean physical rescue (e.g., Matt 8:25). This emphasises God’s care over a woman's role in motherhood.

However, let’s be honest: it evidently is not functionally true, given many faithful women have not been saved through childbearing but have rather lost their very lives.

Additionally, Paul's theology, where sōzō nearly always refers to eternal salvation, works against this interpretation.

3. “Saved by Embracing their God-Given Role” (Role-Fulfilment View)

In this view, salvation here refers to spiritual perseverance, and “childbearing” is a metonym for the woman’s domestic role. Women are saved by faithful endurance in the roles they’re called to.

As far as I am concerned this view adds to the cross, and I consider it more a rebellion against liberal devaluing of motherhood rather than a reasonable response to biblical text.

Now, evidently, as a father with an amazing wife who is an amazing mother, motherhood is to be cherished.

This view starts to lead to a salvific view of motherhood, which is a contradiction to salvation by grace. I consider this view heretical as it contradicts the gospel.

4. “Saved by Remaining Faithful Amidst False Teaching” (Polemic Context View)

In the Ephesian context where false teaching discouraged marriage and childbearing (1 Tim 4:3), Paul reassures women that childbearing is not inferior or spiritually dangerous.

Rather, they can pursue their domestic lives faithfully and still be saved.

1 Timothy does include warnings against false asceticism: forbidding marriage (4:3). It is thus likely women were being told to avoid marriage/childbearing for spiritual elitism.

5. “Saved through Faithfulness Even in Motherhood” (Perseverance View)

In this view, Paul is saying: women will be saved eternally, even if their path includes the ordinary and undervalued roles like childbearing — as long as they remain faithful.

This is responding to the possible cultural shame or marginalisation around women’s roles.

However, this view does not really address “childbearing”.

Now, I don’t think there is a single ‘best’ answer, although I lean toward the first. However, what this does tell us is that something specific is going on in the Ephesian context.

Women being “saved through childbearing” makes best sense within the Ephesian setting, where asceticism and disdain for marriage were promoted.

Conclusion

To maintain the hard complementarian view, I would need to ignore or make excuses for every time God has given authority to women over men.

I would have to accept that truth is truer if the person has a penis.

I would have to believe that birth order determines God’s choice, despite God displaying otherwise at times.

I would have to believe that God selecting only men in Israel as priests displays God’s special choice of men for leadership, but that the priesthood of all believers, male and female alike in the new covenant, shows us nothing.

I would have to believe that all women are more easily deceived because Eve was, thus can’t lead but Adam’s rebellious disobedience in the garden has no ongoing effect on the ‘Adams’ in regard to leadership trust.

I believe these positions, even if I may have presented them a little harshly, are contrary to the very fabric of the gospel and God’s whole counsel.

I believe that Paul’s instruction in 1 Timothy 2:11–15 illustrates a very specific situation: a church in Ephesus troubled by false teaching, much of it shaped by Gnostic myths that distorted the creation account and, at its heart, the very need for Christ.

Eve was not, unlike the Gnostic teaching, created first. She was not a sinless being that communicated special knowledge, she was a sinner, like every last one of us.

Like men, women will be saved through Christ, and Christ alone.

This is evidenced not by an allegiance to anything but a faithfulness to him.

It is not seen in the excesses of the Artemis cult with a dash of Jesus in some form of syncretism but rather in faith (pistis), love (agapē), holiness (hagiasmos), and self-control/propriety (sōphrosynē).

When this ignorance is lifted through learning (1 Tim 2:11), when true knowledge and the fruit of the Spirit are seen, it is not the gender of the person that matters but the character, calling, and charisma that we should recognise.

Read in light of its historical, cultural, and textual context, this passage cannot justly be wielded as a timeless prohibition against women teaching or leading in the church. Rather, it is a warning against ignorance, against immaturity, and against leaving the very bedrock of the gospel of Jesus for another way.

Biblical References

• 1 Timothy 1–2 – Core passage under analysis.

• Genesis 3:15 – The protoevangelium; foundational to the "saved through childbearing" interpretations.

• Romans 3:23 – All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

• Matthew 19:8; Mark 10:4 – Jesus responding to Moses’ laws as circumstantial, not universal.

• 2 Thessalonians 3:12; Acts 22:2 – Use of hēsychia (quietness) in Greek, indicating peaceful posture rather than silence.

• 1 Timothy 4:1–4, 7 – References to asceticism and false teachings.

• 1 Timothy 5:13–15 – Paul’s instruction to younger widows.

• Revelation 2:6 – Mention of the Nicolaitans, possibly linked to Ephesian heresy.

Greek Word Studies

• authentein (αὐθεντεῖν) – Rare Greek verb translated “to assume authority,” often with negative or domineering connotations.

• exousia (ἐξουσία) – Common Greek term for rightful authority.

• sōthēsetai (σωθήσεται) – Verb for “will be saved,” used in both spiritual and physical contexts.

• teknogonias (τεκνογονίας) – Refers to “childbearing,” potentially specific in 1 Tim 2:15.

Gnostic and Early Christian Texts

• Hypostasis of the Archons (Nag Hammadi Codex II,4) – Presents Eve as possessing divine knowledge.

• Apocalypse of Adam – Claims Eve taught Adam divine knowledge.

• Apocryphon of John – Describes Eve as a liberator.

• Poimandres – Gnostic writing referencing Authentes.

• Diodorus Siculus – Ancient historian noting myths about women founding and ruling Ephesus.

• Ophite writings – Gnostic traditions portraying the serpent as an ally of Eve.

Church Fathers

• Irenaeus, Against Heresies – Wrote extensively against Gnosticism; connected it with early heresies.

• Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics – Early response to Gnostic distortions.

• Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History – Referenced Gnostic errors in early church history.

Academic and Scholarly Works

• Baldwin, H. – “A Semantic Study of Authentēs and Its Derivatives,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 1.11 (Spring 2006): 50.

• Payne, Philip B. – Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters (Zondervan, 2009).

• Keener, Craig S. – Paul, Women & Wives: Marriage and Women's Ministry in the Letters of Paul (Baker, 1992).

• Belleville, Linda L. – “Teaching and Usurping Authority: 1 Timothy 2:11–15,” in Discovering Biblical Equality, eds. Pierce & Groothuis (IVP, 2005).

• Kroeger, Catherine Clark & Kroeger, Richard – I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11–15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Baker, 1992).