Hermeneutics and the Complementarian Reading of 1 Timothy 2:12

Just recently, the Southern Baptist Convention voted on an amendment to its constitution to exclude women from holding the position of pastor or preaching in their churches. In Australia, this has led to a plethora of comments on social media by those who believe that the Bible excludes women from leadership or speaking ministries in churches. An example of this type of comment is this one, “Be so kind to share how a hermeneutical approach will change God's instructions in (1 Timothy 2:12).” Underlying this kind of comment is a particular reading of 1 Timothy 2:12. A reading that I think is flawed. I say this with reasonable confidence because I have been on a journey. This journey started back in the 2000s when I noticed flaws in the Complementarianism reading of 1 Timothy when I was preparing an essay for my Master of Theology degree.[1] Since then, I have completed a Master of Arts thesis on 1 Timothy 2 and written a PhD thesis on 1 Timothy.[2] But let’s begin at the beginning.

Complementarianism is a theological position. Those who promote it tend to be theologians and churchmen.[3] Complementarianism started out as a response to social change taking place in broader society and in the church (Claire Smith, 2025). It’s important to realise that it didn’t arise out of any kind of debate about the text within New Testament studies. And this poses a significant hermeneutical problem. Grant Osborne, in his The Hermeneutical Spiral, uses the traditional meaning for the term “hermeneutics” to be “the science which delineates principles or methods for interpreting an individual author’s meaning.”[4] He goes on to say that “hermeneutics is the overall term while exegesis and ‘contextualization’ … are two aspects of that larger task.” I agree, and this is my approach. There is a tendency in Complementarian circles to read theological conclusions into the text rather than out of it (see Wayne Grudem’s description of events).

We must be careful in which direction we move in—I believe we should move from text to theological insight to contextualisation (or what does the text mean for us today). I do not read 1 Timothy as a Complementarian or an Egalitarian. These are theological positions. I read the text as a New Testament scholar. My highest priority is not what 1 Timothy 2:12 says about women’s ministry in today’s church but rather, I have questions about 1 Timothy as a letter. What is its purpose? What was the author trying to achieve when it was read aloud in the community for which it was written?  So if we are concerned about 1 Timothy 2:12, we must ask what its function is in the letter as a whole and what role it plays in the writer’s purpose for the letter?

Now let’s return to the comment I started with: how will a hermeneutical approach change God's instructions in 1 Timothy 2:12? There is a significant underlying problem here, and that is that this person thinks that what they think 1 Timothy 2:12 says is what the author intended. Let’s be clear, no hermeneutical approach will change what the author intended. What might change with a good hermeneutical method, however, is what we understand 1 Timothy 2:12 to be saying. It might be that moment, for instance, when we say “oh, I see now what you’re saying.”[5] Being prepared to see another way of understanding a text, I would call hermeneutical humility.

What led to my concern about 1 Timothy as a whole was a consistent pattern I noticed among those holding to a Complementarian position to treat 1 Timothy chapter 2 as a standalone text.[6] Complementarian scholars often discuss the broader context, but then proceed to ignore it.[7] A lot of effort is devoted to seeing this chapter in reference to Genesis 2 or 1 Corinthians 11:1–12 or 14:34.[8] The only other time significant attention is paid another part of the letter is when decisions made about 1 Timothy 2:12 are used to say that the instructions to the “overseer” (NRSV “bishop”) in chapter 3 verses 1–7 mean that Paul is disqualifying women from pastoral office.[9] They come close to reading 1 Timothy 2:8 to 3:13 (which includes the instructions to deacons) as a whole unit, even though this is exegetically unwarranted.[10] Rarely are the instructions to elders in 5:17–22 even mentioned, but if they are, it is to discount the possibility that these instructions have any bearing on 1 Timothy 2.[11] I have the impression that some Christians don’t even know that other instructions to elders exist.

So let’s do some exegetical observations. All of chapter 2 belongs to a unit of thought that begins all the way back at chapter 1, verse 5. Now, 1 Timothy is a complex text with units and subunits interconnected in order to present a persuasive argument.[12] Chapter 1 verses 5 to 20 are an ethical digression. It’s important to understand what this is for understanding how the letter functions. A digression was used in speeches, often in courts of law, and its purpose,

“was to commend one’s character as a speaker while discrediting one’s opponent. A survey of the digression of 1 Timothy 1:5–20 reveals a sharp contrast between the “some [people]” (τινες; 1:6) and pastoral Paul, who thanks Christ Jesus for his strength “because He considered me faithful, putting me into service” (1:12). The “some men” have “turned aside,” they want to “be teachers of the law” (1:7), and are ignorant, yet they make confident assertions. These men are characterised by a list of vices of those who are “lawless and rebellious” (1:9). Pastoral Paul, on the other hand, although he acted in similar ways, was “shown mercy” (1:13) and was saved (1:15) … Pastoral Paul was the superlative sinner, but now Christ because of his mercy has considered Paul faithful, “putting him into service.” This is in contrast to the “some men” who have turned aside (1:6), some of whom have shipwrecked their faith (1:19). The prime examples of this behaviour are the men Hymenaeus and Alexander (1:20).”[13]

This digression has an important function within the letter, which is clearly spelt out at the beginning of the letter body (as it nearly always is in an ancient letter),

“As I urged you upon my departure to Macedonia to remain in Ephesus, may you command (or warn) certain men not to teach the other instruction, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, (spending time on this) results in intense investigations, rather than (producing the attention that is to be given to) God’s administration, which is accompanied by appropriate faithfulness” (1 Tim 1: 3–4; my own translation).[14]

The word in Greek ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν, which I’ve translated “to teach the other instruction” is what is known as a neologism—in other words, it’s a word that has been coined for its use in this letter (no other appearances before this of this word). Most translations want to translate it was “a different doctrine” or “false doctrine.” “Doctrine” is a poor translation because the key word διδασκαλία (he’s turned a noun into a verb) means “to give instruction in (a subject or skill).”[15] It relates to an educational program. So what Paul doesn’t want is “certain people” teaching the other instruction or educational program. They are to do something else and that is to busy themselves with the implementation of the instructions in the letter. In other words, the whole letter is about turning from the other educational program—not teaching it—to living out Paul’s instruction (1 Tim 4:6).

Having said this, he then sets out to commend his program over against the program of the other teachers, who he names at the end as Hymenaeus and Alexander. I think we can surmise that these two men are the ringleaders of the “certain people” in verse 3. And these men have been removed from the community. And here we start to see the social conditions of the church behind the letter. And this is an “ah ha” moment, I think, because we are not dealing with universal instructions for all churches for all time. This is a letter that is aimed at restoring a church that has suffered through a significant factional dispute (1 Tim 1:3–7; 4:6–7; 6:3–5). It’s been an emotional and relationally destructive time. Hymenaeus and Alexander are no longer a part of the community, being turned over to Satan to learn not to blaspheme (1 Tim 1:20). This would have involved a distressing process.[16]  And now we come to chapter 2. Unfortunately, the break in the traditional English text does us no favours. But chapter 2 follows on from the digression, tied to it by the exegetically significant “therefore” (οὖν) (1 Tim 2:1). This is often translated as “then” because most translators aren’t sure how chapter 2 follows on from what is said in chapter 1.[17] But we are now in a better place to understand what is going on. In verses 1 to 15, Paul begins a set of instructions to heal the fractured community. There are positive instructions and negative instructions as we would expect from the purpose statement in 1:3–4. So he sets out the sort of things they should be praying for together so they can “lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity” (NRSV 1 Tim 2:1–2). Since they have been through a tumultuous time as a church, Paul wants them to live in peace; they don’t need political and social unrest at this time. He’s not talking about what to do “in church,” which so many commentators take to be the setting and think that it parallels what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11 or 14.[18] What he’s talking about is not how to run a church service, but the character and quality of the church life together. It’s a basic contrast between the time with Hymenaeus and Alexander, who have blasphemed in word and deed, and the present quiet church without disputes and anger.

I’ll move on to verses 8 to 15. He then turns to the men and women, some of whom are still wanting to teach the other [false] instruction (1 Tim 1:3). He quickly reminds the men about their conduct and the quality of their character displayed as they pray—they are to be godly “without anger and dispute,” which has racked the community.[19] I think he feels he has covered quite a lot of ground with the men in the digression, so hw only needs to reiterate the point. Then he turns to the women with “likewise” (ὡσαύτως). Some translations don’t even translate this word; there is a preference for “also,” which suggests they think Paul is continuing on with the idea of prayer in church.[20] But it’s “likewise” because he’s carrying on the thought about their conduct and the quality of their character.[21] They are to conduct themselves “as is proper for women who profess reverence to God” (NRSV 2:10). He’s spending extra time on this because the women are doing something that the men aren’t doing.

Let’s remember that it’s not gender problems here, it’s problems brought about by the false teachers and the other instruction.[22] That is the context for interpreting verse 12. When he says, “I do not want a woman to teach …” there is an ellipsis here, which is an implied space that a speaker expects the hearer to fill in given the context of the conversation. The “a man” doesn’t relate to the infinitive “to teach.”[23] It’s not “I do not want a woman to teach [a man] nor to domineer over [a man].[24] You have to supply from the context what a woman is not to teach, which is the other instruction.[25] It’s not just the bare activity of teaching.[26] Now we’ve done a lot of work on the context, so we can supply the expected answer as “to teach [the other instruction, from 1:3].” It seems obvious to me that is what is to be supplied because a mere 12 verses beforehand he’s reminded them that Hymenaeus and Alexander have been removed from the community for doing just that. So the example of Eve in verse 14 is quite profound: what woman would want to be deceived like Eve and so be responsible for the expulsion of herself and her husband from the community? In verse 13, he’s correcting the misuse of Scripture, which presumably the false teachers are using as it says in 1:7, “desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make assertions.”[27] Read in the context 4:1–5, it becomes apparent that the false teaching is some sort of ascetic extremism.[28] The false teachers were prohibiting “marriage,” which is a euphemism for sexual relations (sexual relations were considered by some in the early church to be a sin, even for married couples).[29]

For completeness, I’ll finish with a note on “overseers” (bishops) and deacons in chapter 3:1–13. This passage is not tied to the preceding unit, as we have seen for chapter 2. Rather, it sits sandwiched between the unit 1:5 –2:15 and the reiteration of the purpose for writing: “I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, 15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God (3:14–15; compare 1:3–4). So why are these qualifications sitting there? I think the best approach to this question is to return to the purpose of the letter: “may you command (or warn) certain [people] not to teach the other instruction,” an instruction taught by Hymenaeus and Alexander. I found in my PhD research that these men are presented as usurpers of Paul and his instruction.[30] So my contention is that these qualifications for office relate to having appropriately qualified people in these roles, not men like Hymenaeus and Alexander. Notice that the qualifications relate to married life, which is the opposite to a celibate life (1 Tim 4:1–5). These are not instructions for the church universal, but instructions for the church in Ephesus at this time. And at this time, it needs a man in the position of bishop who is living out Paul’s instruction wholeheartedly and not in any way looking like he agrees with the other instruction. But this doesn’t rule out women being elders because there are no gender qualifications in the instructions for elders in 5:17–22.

We now have a far better understanding of the context for the instructions to the women. We’ve seen how chapter 2 relates to chapter 1. We gained some feeling for the social conditions behind the letter. There are other things I could say about the social significance of dress and deportment in the historical context, but space doesn’t permit me to continue.[31] But what I hope I’ve demonstrated is that reading 1 Timothy 2:12 within the context of the whole letter results in a different interpretation than the complementarian one. That is not because the meaning of 1 Timothy 2:12 has changed, but because we readers now have a greater understanding of the context from which to discern the meaning of the verse. It is not the meaning that has changed, but our perspective. That’s what Scripture does, just as Paul hoped it would do for the “certain people” when he corrected their erroneous views with Scripture in 1 Timothy 2:13 and 4:3–5. When Paul wrote this letter to the Ephesian church, he did not want a wife teaching the other instruction nor pressuring her husband into giving up on sexual relations. They were to choose a moderate way, the way of Paul’s instruction, and continue in normal married life, and so be saved from the ill effects of the other instruction.[32] As far as I can see he wants all people to be teaching and living out his instructions in 1 Timothy—the character of individual believers and the quality of their life together were of prime importance to Paul. Thus, I would say that it should be in our churches. No one should be promoting an instruction that results in an advantage for one group of people over another. I’ll let you work out how to contextualise this yourself.

---

[1] Completed at Sydney Missionary and Bible College in 2004.

[2] In the ancient history department at Macquarie University.

[3] Eg., Wayne Grudem, John Piper. This is not to say that that there are not New Testament scholars who hold this theological position, eg., Claire Smith, Douglas Moo.

[4] Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1991), 5.

[5] The best example of this in the Pastoral Epistles is Isaiah Allen’s reframing of the quote, “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons,” (Titus 1:12) using relevance theory: Liars, Brutes, and Gluttons: A Relevance-Theory Solution for Titus 1:12 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2024), passim.

[6] Paul W. Barnett, “Wives and Women’s Ministry (1 Timothy 2:11-15),” EQ 61.3 (1989): 225–238; Glenn Davies, “Biblical Study Paper: 1 Timothy 2:8–15,” in Personhood, Sexuality and Christian Ministry, ed. B.G. Webb (Homebush West: Lancer Books, 1987), 83–95; an attempt to address this is Andreas J. Köstenberger and Terry L. Wilder, eds. Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul's Theology in the Pastoral Epistles (Nashville: B & H Academic, 2010); I have a nuanced view on the writer of 1 Timothy, which you can read about in my Persuading Shipwrecked Men, but for this essay, I’ll call the writer Paul.

[7] Douglas Moo provides context and then ignores it: Douglas Moo, “What Does it Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men? 1 Timothy 2:11–15,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. J. Piper and W. Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2006), 179–193.

[8] Thomas R. Schreiner, “Women in Ministry: another Complementarian Perspective,” in Two Views on Women in Ministry, revised, ed. James R. Beck (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 263–322 (282–298); Moo, “What Does it Mean,” 188–191; B. Paul Wolfe, “The Sagacious Use of Scripture,” in Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul's Theology in the Pastoral Epistles, eds. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Terry L. Wilder (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 199–218.

[9] Wayne Grudem, Evanglical Feminism and Biblical Truth (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2004), 255–257.

[10] Grudem, Evanglical Feminism and Biblical Truth, 299; Schreiner, “Women in Ministry,” 263–322 (281–283); John Piper and Wayne Grudem, 50 Crucial Questions: An Overview of Central Concerns about Manhood and Womanhood (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016), 36; Bobby Harrington, “Can Women Serve as Elders in the Church? 5 Questions for Egalitarians,” Renew: https://renew.org/can-women-serve-as-elders-overseers-in-the-church/

[11] Grudem, 50 Crucial Questions: An Overview of Central Concerns about Manhood and Womanhood, 36; Grudem, Evanglical Feminism and Biblical Truth, 256–257.

[12] Ray van  Neste, “Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles,” in Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul's Theology in the Pastoral Epistles, ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Terry L. Wilder (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 105–136.

[13] Lyn M. Kidson, Persuading Shipwrecked Men: Rhetorical Strategies of 1 Timothy 1, WUNT 526, (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020), 182–183.

[14] Lyn Kidson, “1 Timothy: an Administrative Letter,” Early Christianity 5.1 (2014).; Kidson, Persuading Shipwrecked Men, 136.

[15] Kidson, Persuading Shipwrecked Men, 120.

[16] Adam G. White, Paul, Community, and Discipline: Establishing Boundaries and Dealing with the Disorderly, Paul in Critical Contexts, (London: Lexington Press; Fortress Academic, 2021), the whole work is significant but see especially pp.217–232.

[17] Lyn M. Kidson, “Aussie Men, Roman Men, and Fashioning the Evangelical Man from 1 Timothy 2,” in Reading the New Testament in a Global World, ed. E-M. Becker J. Herzer A. Standhartinger and F. Wilk (Tübingen: Narr Francke, 2022), 69–192.

[18] In church: Moo, “What Does it Mean,” 182; Davies, “Biblical Study Paper,” 83–84.

[19] Kidson, “Aussie Men.” 186–187.

[20] Cf. Moo, “What Does it Mean,” 182.

[21] Kidson, “Aussie Men,” 186–187.

[22] Grudem admits that the Greek words here can mean “wife” and “husband” but says that it is unlikely that Paul would insert instructions about family life in the middle of a content devoted to opposing false teaching and to choosing officers for the whole church (1 Timothy 1–3), even though the false teachers are prohibiting marriage, Grudem, Evanglical Feminism and Biblical Truth, 298–299; Schreiner, on the other hand, relies on marriage texts to make his point: Schreiner, “Women in Ministry,” 298–307.

[23] Kidson, “Aussie Men,” 188.

[24] On the word usually translated as “to have authority” (αὐθεντεῖν), see Cynthia L. Westfall, Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle's Vision for Men and Women (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2016), 279–321.

[25] Kidson, “Aussie Men,” 188.

[26] Cf. Moo, “What Does it Mean,” 185–186.

[27] Lyn M. Kidson, “Intimate Partner Violence, Male Headship, and Reading 1 Timothy 2:13 as the Basis for Women’s Autonomy,” Lexington Theological Quarterly 54 (2024): 25–50.

[28] Kidson, Persuading Shipwrecked Men, 232–233; Lyn M. Kidson, “Fasting, Bodily Care, and the Widows of 1 Timothy 5:3–15,” Early Christianity 11.2 (2020): 191–205.

[29] Kidson, “Aussie Men,” 189; Lyn M. Kidson, “Naming 1 Timothy 3.16b: A ‘Hymn’ by another Name?” NTS 69 (2023): 43–56 ( 53).

[30] Kidson, Persuading Shipwrecked Men, 195

[31] Kidson, “Aussie Men,” 182–190.

[32] Kidson, “Fasting, Bodily Care,” 191–205

---

Dr Lyn Kidson is a Honorary Research Fellow at Macquarie University, Sydney. Her dissertation was on 1 Timothy and was published by Mohr Siebeck (WUNT). Lyn currently works for the Australian University of Theology (AUT). Her website can be found here