The Myth and Meaning of 'I Do Not Permit a Woman to Teach'

What did Paul mean by "I do not permit a woman to teach"? This verse from 1 Timothy 2:12 that seemingly forbids women from teaching or preaching or 'having authority over a man' has long been used to ban women from ministry or even speaking about Biblical truth in many contexts. While most Christian denominations have taken these infamous words at their English face-value, if we study the words used and the rest of Scripture we will be able to see that this was not a universal ban on women teaching, and that Jesus and Paul both treated women with respect and dignity, and not like the lesser beings that many today believe.

Let's take a look at how this New Testament passage typically reads in English Bibles:

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 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 2:11-14

It's easy to quickly read over those sentences from the NIV Bible and think that Paul is not permitting any woman, ever, to teach. Many denominations teach that because Eve was the one that was deceived it means that all women are gullible and easily deceived. Therefore, they cannot be trusted with teaching or exercising any kind of authority. 

Here we have the myth: women aren't allowed to teach. Period.

This one belief has held back millions of women from teaching the Gospel, and has brought a barrage of rude remarks and abuse on most women who do teach Scripture. But of course, the way denominations apply this supposed teaching of Paul is plainly at odds against what they believe he said. If women are so easily deceived that not a single one is fit to teach anything related to the Bible...then why is it okay for women to teach children or other women? Most people will point to "assume authority over a man," and make an assumption that Paul is saying that women just can't teach men. But, if the reason they can't teach is because women are gullible or easily deceived...why would they be allowed to teach women and children? Would that not be an incredibly terrible way to run things...to have deceived people teaching wrong ideas to children and then expect the children to grow up and understand faith and God's word? Would any denomination recognize that a teacher is deceived and then decide that they are fit to teach children and women?

However there is no caveat here that it's fine for women to teach children, their own or otherwise, or other women. Most people who teach this myth were taught the majority of what they know about God's word in children's Sunday school - and nearly all Sunday school teachers are women. I also frequently hear from women who attempt to teach me that women aren't allowed to teach...an irony so heavy that it's barely worth mentioning.

But you know what? That is not what Paul's getting at.

First of all, Paul frequently mentions women who are teachers and leaders in the early church movement, and he does so positively. Of all the people Paul offers greetings to at the end of the book of Romans, he only commends Phoebe, calling her a deacon and a leader (Romans 16:1). And he tells the people he's writing to, to support her. Most scholars believe that by listing her first, Paul is indicating that she is the one bearing his letter. That means that one of the most significant books in the New Testament was originally entrusted to a woman...which means once the letter was read, any questions about it would be directed towards Phoebe, who would then explain or elaborate on the meaning of Paul's words. Another word for explaining something would be teaching.

The second person he mentions in Romans is another woman, Priscilla. He calls her and her husband, Aquila, his coworkers in the Messiah. In Romans 16:12, he mentions three more women who work in YHWH, Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis. In 1 Corinthians he encourages all believers to prophesy and speak in tongues...including women. Paul also points out in 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 that men and women have equal rights in the marriage.

We have covered elsewhere that the notorious, "Let women be silent, they are not allowed to speak," passage of 1 Corinthians 14:34 was Paul quoting someone else's incorrect quotation of Biblical law. 

In light of Paul being supportive of women like Phoebe in leadership roles in the church, it simply does not make sense that he would simultaneously ban all women from teaching. We see that he put Phoebe in a position of teaching his letter to the Romans. This sudden ban also doesn't fit with the Old Testament, where we see women like Deborah, Miriam, and Huldah in leadership roles. Contrary to popular belief, the Old Testament never says that women can't teach or lead.

So what is going on in 1 Timothy 2:11?

We should note that Paul's letter is composed in response to questions and concerns that Timothy was dealing with at the time. This means he wasn't compiling a list of life advice or helpful hints to pastoring, but is referencing specific situations and events that Timothy was dealing with.

If you study the New Testament, you're probably aware that ancient Greek doesn't have grammar in the sense that we are used to in English. The word that is mostly translated as "a woman" is just one word - gyne (Strong's G1135).  Which does mean a woman, but it means a certain or specific woman. It does not mean all women. The significance of this is huge.

This changes the meaning of this sentence from, "I do not permit any women to teach," to "I do not permit that specific woman to teach"!

The meaning of 1 Timothy 2:12: Paul does not permit a specific woman to teach.

Further support for this idea comes from the rest of the passage.

"...she must be quiet. 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." 

Many Christian denominations will tell you that because God made Adam before Eve, then the men of the world are entitled to do all the teaching and hold all the leadership positions, and women are forbidden from all ministry opportunities. But Scripture never says that Adam was superior because he was made first. Mind you, Adam was the second-to-last part of creation...are pigs and insects and fish superior to Adam because they were made before him? John and Stasi Eldredge teach in their book Captivating that woman being formed after Adam wasn't an insult or a sign of a lesser status, but that she was formed last as a fitting climax to the Creation story itself.

And if being made first is the issue here, wouldn't that mean that the pastor of every church should be the oldest person there? Should there be a ban on learning anything from someone who is younger than we are?

But why does Paul bring up that Adam was formed first? Well, if he's talking about a specific woman that Timothy is having trouble with, he's bringing it up because it ties in with the issue that he was addressing.

What many scholars believe was happening was that a certain woman in Timothy's congregation was teaching that Eve was formed first and that Adam was the one that was deceived. This information is incorrect based on the book of Genesis. So Paul was saying that he was not permitting this specific woman to teach, because what she was teaching went against the basics of what the Bible teaches.

This is a perfectly sensible approach to what was a bad situation for Timothy's community, and that's what I would want from any church or ministry...that they wouldn't allow any person - female or male - to preach incorrect information about Scripture, to anyone.

If we look at the passage in this light, where Paul is not placing a universal ban on all women teaching for all time, that makes sense with how he does support certain women who teach, such as Phoebe and Priscilla. Paul is not banning women from teaching, he's banning bad teaching.

We should also note that Paul is not banning all women everywhere from having any kind of authority over males. He's saying that he does not endorse this specific woman having authority, because she was wrong about what the Bible says. We know that Paul is not against women exercising authority or being in leadership. As mentioned earlier, he told the people in Rome to listen to Phoebe and be supportive of her.

A better translation of 1 Timothy 2:12 would be:

"I do not permit that woman to teach, because she lacks understanding about basic issues like Adam and Eve being formed."

I hope by now we can see that the criteria that Paul valued when it came to teaching was correct knowledge and understanding of the word of God and the work of the Messiah. Qualification is not based on gender. God used both men and women to teach his word, tell of his glory, to serve as prophets and leaders in the Old Testament and the New Testament and he still does so today.

Related posts:
The Truth About 1 Corinthians 14 and 'Women Should Be Silent'
Who Was Phoebe in the Bible?
Mary and Martha - The Real Meaning of the Messiah's Words in Luke 10

1 Timothy 4 Explained (and why it doesn't mean all animals should be eaten)

A common question related to Biblical eating is what about 1 Timothy 4? Many people believe that this verse not only says that we can eat whatever we want, but that those advocating for following the Bible's dietary laws are following demonic teachings that come from deceptive spirits! Many people think 1 Timothy 4 teaches that the commandments regarding food have been done away with.

Let's take a look at this verse before we discuss how this does not mean that all animals can or should be eaten or that the laws surrounding what we eat are no longer in effect.

"Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from the true faith; they will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons. These people are hypocrites and liars, and their consciences are dead. They will say it is wrong to be married and wrong to eat certain foods. But God created those foods to be eaten with thanks by faithful people who know the truth. Since everything God created is good, we should not reject any of it but receive it with thanks. For we know it is made acceptable by the word of God and prayer." -1 Timothy 4:1-5

If you come from a background of belief that all the Biblical dietary laws have been done away with, then it's easy to read this passage to mean that literally anything you pray over can be received as food. God created everything to be eaten, right?

But take a closer look at the wording. The issue at hand is not that people are saying it's wrong to eat certain animals. The problem is that they are teaching that certain FOODS are wrong to eat. Big difference here! When the authors of the Bible speak, they do so with the foundational assumption that the Bible has already defined what does and what does not count as "food."

The Bible defines food in:

-Genesis 1:29

"Every seed bearing plant and the fruit trees."

-Leviticus 11

"Of all the animals that live on the land, these are the ones you may eat..."  Which goes on to explain which animals, birds, fish, and insects can and cannot be eaten.

The Bible explains that animals that are considered abominable should not be eaten in Leviticus 11:41. They should not be eaten, because they are not food according to Scripture. So when 1 Timothy 4:3 says that God created foods to be eaten, it's talking about what the Bible considers food. It does not mean that everything on the planet is considered fit for consumption. This passage does not mean that animals like pigs, dogs, cats, or shellfish can be eaten if we give thanks, because Paul, the author, did not consider these animals to be food since the Bible says they aren't.

Think this is a crazy idea? If you invite me over and say, "Help yourself to some snacks on the counter," what you mean is that I can eat the food you have out on the counter - things like apple slices, bread, cheese, carrot sticks, and cookies. You're not saying that I can eat the bouquet of flowers, the dish soap, sponge, potted plant, pet goldfish, the receipt for the groceries or whatever else you have on the counter, because you don't consider those things to be food. YHWH did not say that these things are food, so therefore we shouldn't consume them.

What is 1 Timothy 4 talking about then? This warning from Paul is that false teachers will come along who disagree with the Bible and teach that certain things the Bible says can be eaten, shouldn't be. We should always be on guard against anyone who is saying something that contradicts the teachings and commandments of Scripture! It seems likely that Paul could be referring to those who say that any animal or animal products - ones like cows and sheep that the Bible expressly says may be eaten - should not be eaten. This goes against specific instructions of Scripture that enumerate which animals may be eaten, as well as many examples of godly men and women in the Bible eating and serving these products, like when Abraham and Sarah fed meat and curds to their heavenly visitors and the Messiah served fish to his followers.

This could also have to do with many believers who insist on following not just Bible dietary commands, but Jewish kosher laws which add many manmade rules to the simple directions the Bible gives. As we've discussed in other posts, the Bible does not teach that meat and dairy products can't ever cross paths at all, but Jewish laws say they shouldn't even be used in the same kitchen. This is another undue burden to place on others. These rules may be well-intended, but it's still wrong to put manmade rules on par with Biblical law, or to claim that those manmade traditions are the same as what the Living God commands!

1 Timothy 4:5 supports the idea that these people will teach that certain Biblically permissible foods are off limits (as well as teaching that it's wrong to be married). We see that in the phrasing, "We know it is made acceptable by the word of God." This means that the author is referring to animals/foods that the Bible expressly says we can eat. How can we be sure something is food even if a faith movement, pastor, or author say it's not? We check the Bible and see what it says! Paul is drawing attention to the fact that Scripture decides what is acceptable or not before YHWH. Not religious leaders advocating for extra rules. Not people who are sensitive about eating animals. Not people who think that Jesus did away with the food laws. Not well intentioned people fearful of allergies. Not denominational doctrine. Not people who abuse the Bible and say that Scripture only permits veganism. Just the Bible. Scripture is the only thing that gets to decide what food is.

1 Timothy 4:1-5 explains that we should be leery of anyone changing the Bible's laws around food, not that we shouldn't follow Scripture's instructions!

Related posts:
What the Bible Says about Meat and Dairy
Understanding Mark 7:19 and the Messiah Declaring All Foods Clean
The Difference Between Unclean and Abominable

What Is Written: Modesty

"Likewise, the women, when they pray, should be dressed modestly and sensibly in respectable attire, not with elaborate hairstyles and gold jewelry, or pearls, or expensive clothes." -1 Timothy 2:9

What kind of modesty does this verse refer to?

The common understanding is that Paul meant women should cover their bodies. A bikini is obviously not an appropriate choice for a congregational setting. That makes sense. I'm not aruging that women shouldn't be appropriately dressed. But if that's his point why doesn't the verse go more like this:

"Women should dress modestly and sensibly in respectable clothes, not with low-cut tops, short skirts, or spandex outfits."

Am I alone in thinking that would be a better fit for the first part of the verse?

"Not with elaborate hairstyles and gold jewelry, or pearls, or expensive clothes."

What if Paul meant financial modesty?

Expensive means the clothes cost a lot of money. As do gold jewelry, and real pearls. An elaborate hairstyle implies you are wealthy enough to pay someone to do your hair--whether a hired stylist or a servant--or at least that you are wealthy enough to have plenty of free time to do it yourself.

Think of a time you felt conspicuously under dressed. What was that like? Stressful? Humiliating? My husband and I were once riding an elevator in a fancy Chicago hotel to a restaurant a few floors up. Aware of the ambiance of the hotel we had dressed up--at least we thought so. The elevator made a stop before our destination and we were joined by several couples who were in ball gowns and tuxedos. I had never felt so out of place or embarrassed.

Once we discovered the other couples were headed to a formal ball a few stories up, we were able to laugh it off (really, it was a very audible sigh of relief). But I remember the stress that gripped me of being awkwardly out of place, like I didn't belong.

And I was just going to dinner. Imagine if that happened to someone seeking the presence of YHWH.

Is Paul instructing us not to dress like we have lots of money? You know how it is, ladies. Fashion is a contest, or at least a clique. We notice how other people dress and worry what they'll think of our outfit. We see what popular women are wearing and make a mental note to track down a floral dress or a striped top so that we can emulate them. How many times have you stood at your closet in the morning and thought, I wore that Tuesday so I can't wear it again today? For the majority of women our wardrobes are determined by what we imagine others will think, as much as they are by our own opinions. We see trendy clothes on others and wonder how they have time to shop so much. We go shopping with friends and are pressured into making a purchase we don't love or that costs too much. We try and style an outfit differently so that no one notices it's the same top we wore last week.

"But my clothes aren't expensive." You may have gotten great deals on your outfits, but do you need 35 of them? In a world of fast fashion that is dirt cheap, variety is the new expense. This is where dressing sensibly comes in. Is fast fashion and its offenses to rights of workers and the environment a sensible thing to be involved in? Some stores release new items every week with the intention of making you feel out of style and in need of a wardrobe update. Those who follow along and keep up with all the trends can inadvertently send this message to those that don't: You're out of style. You are not enough. You don't belong.

What if Paul was trying to promote an environment that was free from this kind of distraction? I am all for looking nice. But what if when we prepare for congregation we choose to focus on our hearts being in the right place, rather than our hair? What if we work to empower women in our congregations and churches to worship YHWH free from those plaguing thoughts of comparison? Just as we make sure to dress modestly to not distract men as they worship and learn the word of YHWH, we can dress financially modest to not distract women as they do the same.

What are your thoughts on this? Have you seen fashion becoming a contest at your congregation or workplace? How do you think this could affect our houses of prayer?