Paul urges women to learn in quietness and submission, while in verse 12 he states that he doesn’t permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man. The infinitives “to teach” (didaskein) and “to have/exercise authority” (authentein) contrast what Paul doesn’t permit women to do with what he does want them to do: learn and be “in full submission.” Teaching, as we’ve seen, is the domain of elders who must be “able to teach” (3:2; cf. 5:17; Titus 1:9). The exercise of authority, likewise, is the domain of elders who “rule well” (5:17; cf. 3:4–5). “Quietness,” of course, doesn’t mean women must never speak in church, just that they should willingly submit to male teachers and elders in the church (cf. 1 Pet. 3:4). 

God’s Word calls qualified men to teach and pastor God’s flock. In discussions of this topic, 1 Timothy 2–3 are central to explaining why Paul did not permit a woman to teach or have authority in the church and why the pastoral office is grounded in creation and not culture. If anyone needs to see the most recent scholarship on the debate, the third edition of Women in the Church: An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9–15 is a good place to begin.
For today, I will provide a brief introduction to 1 Timothy 2–3, a passage that clearly affirms male eldership in the household of God.
Paul’s first letter to Timothy contains vital and abiding instructions for the church and its leadership. Paul writes to his apostolic delegate, Timothy, toward the end of Paul’s life and ministry in order to leave a legacy and pass on the pattern of church leadership to his foremost disciple. These instructions are not limited to first-century Ephesus (where Timothy was at the time) but abiding principles grounded in God’s creation order (Paul writes similar instructions to Titus, who is on the island of Crete).
The Church as God’s Household
Underlying Paul’s instructions is the metaphor of the church as God’s household. While in some of his other letters Paul uses the metaphor of a body with many members and Christ at the head, here (as well as in Titus) Paul conceives of the church in terms of an ancient household. It is well-attested historical fact that in both first-century Jewish and Greco-Roman households, the father (paterfamilias) was the head. Similarly, Paul stipulates that male elders be responsible for God’s household, the church.
In the ancient world, households consisted not only of the nuclear family (parents and children) but also included relatives (such as widows) and even household servants. The head of the household had the important task of caring for all the members of his extended household and of ensuring that their needs were met. Likewise, male elders were to care for the needs of all church members.
Proper Conduct in God’s Household (1 Tim. 3:14–15)
The most relevant instructions regarding church leadership in 1 Timothy are found in chapters 2 and 3. Chapter 2 opens with the words, “First of all, then, I urge that ….” (ESV). Here we have the beginning of a set of instructions Paul gives to Timothy for ordering the life of the church, particularly its leadership. The unit concludes with the words, “I am writing these things to you so that … you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:14–15).
So here we see that chapters 2–3 are built on the metaphor of the church as God’s household. We also see that Paul thought of these instructions as general directives on “how one ought to behave” in God’s household, which he solemnly calls “the church of the living God” and, in yet another metaphor, “a pillar and buttress of the truth.” For this reason we can be sure that the instructions on church leadership in chapters 2–3 contain abiding—rather than merely culturally relative—instructions for the church.
Male Elders (1 Tim. 3:1–7; 5:17)
In 1 Timothy 3:1, Paul introduces the “trustworthy saying” that, “if anyone aspires to the office of overseer (episkopē), he desires a noble task.” He stipulates that an overseer (episkopos) be “above reproach” and a faithful husband and adds several other qualifications (vv. 2–3). He adds an analogy between the natural and God’s spiritual household: “He must manage (proistēmi) his own household well … for if someone does not know how to manage (proistēmi) his own household, how will he care for God’s church?” (3:4–5).
Read More
Related Posts:

We, as Jesus’s followers, may be perceived even by those in our own families as “having lost our minds.” Why follow a Jewish carpenter who was crucified two millennia ago? Why forego a comfortable life, forsake the American dream, and choose deprivation and suffering for his cause? By the world’s standards, we’re out of our minds.

Jesus entered a house, and the crowd gathered again so that they were not even able to eat. When his family heard this, they set out to restrain him, because they said, “He’s out of his mind.” (Mark 3:20–22 CSB)
The Professor and the Madman
In his bestselling novel, Simon Winchester tells the harrowing tale of The Professor and the Madman. The professor, James Murray, served as the longtime editor of the Oxford English Dictionary. The “madman,” William Chester Minor, was a prolific contributor to the work. Minor, a medical doctor who had fought in the Civil War but was plagued by a severe mental illness. He had murdered an innocent man in a case of mistaken identity that led to Minor’s incarceration.
Confined to a lunatic asylum, Minor found meaning in immersing himself in linguistic research, sending copious notes to Murray. For the longest time, Murray was unaware of the background of the lexicographic prodigy. The mystery man preferred to remain in obscurity until Murray eventually tracked him down. To his amazement, he discovered that Minor was, quite literally, out of his mind. As the fascinating story of the professor and the madman illustrates, at times the line between erudition and lunacy can be fine indeed.
Read More
Related Posts: