IN THIS ARTICLE: If we insist that Paul’s argument and application in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 are to all women everywhere because it is a “transcultural, timeless truth,” the argument opens a Pandora’s Box of problems for churches that wish to maintain this position.
Great article! But after that John Piper quote all I could think of is how much I want to give him a “direct authoritative confrontation” without the comfort of a book in between us. 😳😆
He has been one of my mother’s favorite authors, but the more he opens his mouth, the less I respect him. Yikes!
If it is true that men cannot be taught (theology) by women, then what must a man do when he reads his Bible and finds himself being taught by the female voice? Must he remove all parts of Scripture that include a woman speaking, lest he accidentally learn something from what she said?
This is a really good point, and intersects with my upcoming series on Ephesus, Paul, and John (in no small part inspired by Bobby; thanks Bobby!) One of the reasons I believe the Gospel of John is such a radically unique and different NT book vis a vis men and women and leadership is the foundational role of the female voice in and behind the Fourth Gospel. Just 2 egs: Jesus’ mother tells him what to do, and he does it (ch 2)! And Mary of Bethany models servant foot-washing which Jesus imitates (ch. 12-13). This is a rabbit trail from Bobby’s post, so I won’t belabor it here. But it’s an important point: adult male Jesus let women tell him what to do and teach him how to act (albeit indirectly, in Mary of Bethany).
It always cracks me up that Jesus says, "My hour hasn't come yet," and Mary basically no-sells it. She just looks at the servants and says, "Do what he tells you." Like, no more words need to pass between Jesus and Mary. He's gonna do it.
Exactly. And additionally, John never refers to her as Mary, only “woman” and “the mother of Jesus”. So when she appears again in 19:25-27 and becomes the “mother” of the Beloved Disciple, who is a type-figure for all disciples, she represents a motherly leadership role that extends beyond herself. Iow, there are mothers in the church who have similarly deep moral/spiritual insight into the person/work of Jesus and have the right to instruct disciples in what it means to follow him today.
My thoughts exactly. Do we then have to start minimizing the songs of Miriam, Hannah and Mary? Should we discount the book of Ruth and the beginning of Exodus because they portray female voices? If these portions are from the female voice or composed by females, then surely we should not be using them for teaching!
Imagine if you're a preacher who won't share the pulpit with women. Then comes a Sunday when the text you're preaching is on the words of a woman, like Hannah's or Mary's songs. All week long, you're studying this woman's words -- which have become God's words by their inclusion in the canon -- and then on Sunday, you get up to preach on that woman's words. But you won't let women speak. MAKE IT MAKE SENSE!!! Nijay Gupta has a great article about this: https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/teach-us-mary/
These are some good questions! The role of men and women, especially in the church and family, is worth studying humbly.
Here are a few answers to get you started!
1. If subordination is based on birth (womanhood), is it truly a “role” or rather an inequality of being?
Response:
Biblical headship is grounded not in an ontological inequality but in a covenantal structure of ordered relationships (1 Cor 11:3: “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.”). Just as Christ is subordinate to the Father in role but not in essence, so too woman’s submission does not imply inferior worth (Gal 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”). Subordination in role expresses the created order, not ontological inferiority.
2. Why would God allow women to teach anyone, anywhere, if they are easily deceived?
Response:
Scripture never teaches that women are universally or inherently more gullible than men; Paul’s reference to Eve in 1 Tim 2:14 is situational, not universal or essential. Priscilla (with her husband Aquila) instructed Apollos in sound doctrine (Acts 18:26), and older women are commanded to teach younger women (Titus 2:3–5). The telos (purpose) of women’s teaching is aligned with covenantal faithfulness and the building up of the body of Christ. Teaching is not prohibited for women in all contexts, only in specific covenantal settings involving ecclesial or familial authority (1 Tim 2:12).
3. Why should women be allowed to teach children if they are so easily deceived?
Response:
The assumption of universal female susceptibility to deception is not biblically warranted. Scripture assumes and commands that women instruct children in godliness (Prov 1:8; 2 Tim 1:5, “For I am mindful of the sincere faith within you, which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice...”). Teaching children is a sacred covenantal duty in the household of faith, and far from being inferior, it is foundational to covenant succession and discipleship (Deut 6:6–7). The covenant family is a priestly community where both fathers and mothers raise children in the fear of the Lord.
4. Is the complementarian model truly “functional subordination” if the subordinate role can never change?
Response:
Yes, when understood covenantally. Roles within the covenant community are designed not for temporal upward mobility but for ordered flourishing under divine telos (purpose). Just as the priesthood in Israel was limited to the sons of Aaron, yet all Israel was still called a “kingdom of priests” (Ex 19:6), so too distinct roles reflect God’s design, not inequality. Function does not imply inequality if the function is defined by divine purpose rather than human ambition. The immutability of the role reflects creation design (Gen 2), not injustice.
5. If a person is subordinated based on unchangeable biology (like sex or race), isn’t that a statement of inferiority in being?
Response:
No, because the biblical worldview does not define worth through role or function but through being made in the image of God (Gen 1:27). Unlike race-based segregation, which is a sinful distortion of justice, the differentiation between male and female in covenant roles is creational and purposeful. Paul affirms ontological equality while maintaining functional distinction (1 Cor 12:4–27). Roles rooted in creation reflect God’s wisdom and beauty, not arbitrary inferiority. Redemptive history often elevates women (e.g., women as first witnesses to the resurrection – Luke 24:10–11).
6. Should verses about older women teaching younger women be reinterpreted in light of 1 Timothy 2?
Response:
No, they should be held together consistently. Titus 2:3–5 prescribes a teaching role for women within the covenant community: “Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior... teaching what is good, so that they may instruct the younger women...”. 1 Timothy 2:12 prohibits authoritative teaching over men in the gathered church, not all teaching by women. These are complementary, not contradictory. The church must affirm and encourage women in all the teaching roles Scripture assigns them, without conflating them with pastoral authority.
7. Why is it acceptable in many churches for women to teach secular subjects but not the Bible to men?
Response:
This practice reflects a confusion of categories. Teaching Scripture in the context of the gathered church carries covenantal and ecclesial authority (2 Tim 4:1–2), unlike secular instruction. The distinction is not about the topic (Bible vs. secular), but about the context—whether the teaching involves authoritative proclamation within the church assembly. The headship principle (1 Cor 11:3) applies to the covenant assembly in specific ways. Secular teaching, though it carries influence, does not assume the same covenantal function or structure, though it can still touch on familial authority, which should be considered.
8. Why do some churches allow women to teach life application subjects (like parenting or budgeting) but not Bible?
Response:
Churches that make this distinction often wish to honor biblical boundaries without clearly understanding them. Scripture does not prohibit women from teaching the Bible per se, but from exercising authoritative teaching over men in the covenant assembly (1 Tim 2:12). Life-application teaching often skirts this line depending on the context and audience. Theologically, wisdom literature and the moral law belong to the whole church. The challenge is to distinguish between teaching as mutual edification (Col 3:16) and teaching as authoritative pastoral oversight (Heb 13:17).
9. Why would God let men teach, if Adam sinned deliberately rather than through deception?
Response:
Paul’s point in 1 Tim 2:14 is not to declare one sex morally superior but to illustrate why roles were inverted in Eden: “And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman, being deceived, fell into trespass.” . Adam bore covenantal responsibility for the fall (Rom 5:12), highlighting his role as federal head. Despite Eve’s deception, God called Adam to account (Gen 3:9). Thus, male teaching in the covenant assembly is not based on moral superiority but on headship rooted in the created order and affirmed in the covenant of grace.
10. Can 1 Timothy 2:12 really be limited only to preaching a sermon on a Sunday?
Response:
No, not if the prohibition is grounded in creation (as vv. 13–14 suggest). Limiting 1 Tim 2:12 to Sunday sermons imposes a cultural filter onto the text. Paul appeals to the created order, not a local cultural concern, to ground his instruction. Therefore, the prohibition refers more broadly to authoritative doctrinal instruction over men in the gathered church, rather than just one form of modern pulpit preaching. This view aligns with the telos of covenant worship—order, peace, and faithful representation of the Head–Body relationship (1 Cor 14:33–35; Eph 5:23–32).
First, you've obviously spent a lot of time here, so thanks for being a reader. One of the reasons you and I would continue to talk past each other like two people speaking a different language is that I don't buy your underlying framework for understanding covenant. In short, there are much larger differences (in scope) than the question of whether a woman can preach. Also, your responses are heavy on assertion and short on argumentation. I don't follow your conclusion because I disagree with so many of the assertions made along the way. Just to point out two, I don't buy that 1 Timothy 2:12 is about exercising authoritative teaching over men in the covenant assembly, nor that Paul appeals to a "created order" to "ground his instruction." I've written extensively on these things, and will write more. Finally, I get that you don't believe women are inherently "more easily deceived." The philosophy behind the created order gender roles and headship is an attempt to understand 2:11-15 differently, but (and this is ironic) it is such an unnatural reading of the text that you have to really WANT to believe it. Again though, thanks for devoting part of your day here and being a reader.
Oh I agree, we have very different contexts, but that’s partly because of your approach to scripture.
You state that “you don’t buy” that Paul is appealing to the created order in 1 Tim 3:12 which is very strange indeed since in v13 he immediately reverts his argument back to Gen 2-3.
It’s an unnatural reading is we start with our fallen natures yes. Though if we just use the revelation of God, His Words, His terms, and His themes, it’s the most natural conclusion.
You raise a good point: if one’s foundation is bad, the other stuff on that foundation will also be skewed. I don’t think Paul leverages a created order argument here because I don’t think Genesis lays out a created-order argument for within mankind.
Perhaps chronology doesn’t indicate authority or subjugation? If chronology was a determinant factor, then God wouldn’t have created mankind last, much less woman. I found several compelling points on the interpretation of Gen 2-3 in “Worth: Celebrating the value of women in scripture”—which was surprising since they are self—admitted complementarian.
Appreciate your thoughtful engagement! You’re absolutely right that a bad foundation distorts everything built upon it—that’s why starting with how God made things is so critical.
Paul does ground his teaching in 1 Timothy 2:12–13 in the created order, not just in culture or circumstance. “But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first formed, and then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:12–13). He explicitly appeals to chronology as a theological argument, not merely a historical fact.
In Genesis 2, Adam is formed first, given the command, and names the woman (Genesis 2:15–23), which in Scripture signals headship—not superiority, but responsibility. The order of creation reveals God’s intended structure, not a hierarchy of value, but of roles. This becomes even clearer when Paul writes, “For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake” (1 Corinthians 11:8–9).
You’re right that “chronology” alone doesn’t always imply authority—but when the biblical authors interpret chronology as meaningful (as Paul does), we can’t flatten that into irrelevance. The issue isn’t simply who came first, but what that ordering signifies in God’s design.
Genesis lays the groundwork, and the New Testament clarifies its implications. God’s ordering isn’t arbitrary—it reflects His wisdom, and it’s good. When we build on that foundation, everything else finds its proper shape.
It appears you are still relying on Paul’s commentary to outline how you understand Genesis vs starting with a solid understanding of the nuance in Genesis and using it to inform how you take in Paul’s commentary. To use Paul to interpret Genesis and using Genesis to interpret Paul is circular reasoning at best.
First things first. A solid, in depth understanding of Genesis before moving on to Paul is critical in understanding Paul’s reference to it. And frankly, I don’t see what you see in Genesis, or Paul for that matter. I encourage you to read Elyse and Eric’s book I referenced above.
Can there be non-hierarchal roles? Absolutely! But as soon as you add headship *over* and responsibility *for* to one about the other, it is in fact hierarchy, regardless of how benevolent it is.
Bravo, and thank you once again Bobby for elucidating the absolute absurdity of male headship over women. Really, thank you. We cannot do this without our good brothers.
Yes yes yes! When I was undoing the "complementarian" framework in my own head (after being heavily steeped in it for my whole life) I couldn't get the phrase "separate but equal" out of my head - as if segregation ever led to equality for Black people! Why would the results for women be any different?
Thanks, Hallie! When you study the arguments by Christians for slavery and segregation from the eighteenth through early twentieth centuries, it's startling how similar they are to some of the current complementarian arguments (particularly of the SBC variety).
Bobby, you give me so much to think about. The rigour of your writing is true worship. And as someone who is searching for some of these answers in Scripture after so many years of Piper-like teaching (which makes women feel so yucky, so subjugated) I am very grateful for you.
Hey friends, I just had to block a user from this page for saying that one of the commenters on this post and I have a "low view of scripture," (specifically, he said "I can see you hold God's word in low esteem"), and disparaging a book by two authors (who happen to be complementarian) that disagreed with some of what he was saying. Thoughtful engagement is a good thing, even when opinions vary. However, that kind of slur isn't acceptable here.
I think the best way to cut through all the controversy about men/women leading is not to point out that one tends to be bigger and more capable, or even that occasionally women are very forceful, but rather to go back to Genesis, then reflect on how the principle's referred to later.
God created man first, gave him a job, then created a woman to help him. We know from the story of Eve that a modern woman chafing at male leadership is not new, in fact it's practically the first thing that ever happened! But all the Bible, and Jesus as well, affirms the pattern of headship. And the notion that some aspects of life will be difficult, may even take a miracle, isn't new either. So if it's impossible for a woman to submit, that's not a deal-breaker.
God has used far worse happenings without His plan being thrown off course.
Have you read any of my articles? I realize it's more likely you just ran across this one and wanted to respond -- there's no particular reason you should be aware of what I write; I'm just an average guy. But I have answered all these points and disputed the argument that the Bible affirms "headship" in several lengthy pieces, with many scripture references and tons of footnotes. I'm fine with discussion based on differences of opinion, but it's better to provide argumentation based on one's biblical scholarship than bare assertions. Here are a few articles so you know where I am coming from:
I believe the order of creation tells us all we need to know. If any of scripture disagreed, I’d be confused. But it doesn’t. The Jewish pattern was male leadership of the family, and Jesus never corrected it. Even the notable exceptions of woman leaders didn’t. Starting with God’s pattern, I’ve found all the other references in the Bible require no elaborate explanation. To reverse it, I suggest that anyone who depends on other verses to explain the situation is simply using them as an excuse to tweak what God intended.
People will go against this, and if that happens to be sin we’re forgiven for it. I go against certain things all the time, or maybe didn’t know them in the first place. When I was a missionary in Ukraine, my female interpreters could forsake ever having satisfying male relationships, which none of my female American team members could do. Russian culture accepts suffering, but they were worse at other things.
American culture doesn’t prepare us to forsake anything we might have gotten, which would, of course, make it hard for women to forsake leadership.
The order of creation tells us no such thing. God overturns primogeniture every time it comes up in Genesis. Again, I wrote a whole article about this and other issues with the Genesis account. If you don't want to study these issues, that's fine—I have duly noted that you feel that all the scriptures agree with your position and are satisfied with that. But please don't say that "anyone who depends on other verses to explain the situation is simply using them as an excuse to tweak what God intended." You can't know my motives or those of the others who have commented here. Have a good day!
Bobby, thank you from the bottom of my heart for writing on these things. I am so encouraged by seeing your thoughtful engagement with each text as you write.
Great article! But after that John Piper quote all I could think of is how much I want to give him a “direct authoritative confrontation” without the comfort of a book in between us. 😳😆
He has been one of my mother’s favorite authors, but the more he opens his mouth, the less I respect him. Yikes!
It's such a bad quote. And as you say, there's plenty more where that came from. Sad.
Love this. I would like to add one:
If it is true that men cannot be taught (theology) by women, then what must a man do when he reads his Bible and finds himself being taught by the female voice? Must he remove all parts of Scripture that include a woman speaking, lest he accidentally learn something from what she said?
Good question. There is no more authoritative Bible teaching than the teaching that is literally in the Bible.
This is a really good point, and intersects with my upcoming series on Ephesus, Paul, and John (in no small part inspired by Bobby; thanks Bobby!) One of the reasons I believe the Gospel of John is such a radically unique and different NT book vis a vis men and women and leadership is the foundational role of the female voice in and behind the Fourth Gospel. Just 2 egs: Jesus’ mother tells him what to do, and he does it (ch 2)! And Mary of Bethany models servant foot-washing which Jesus imitates (ch. 12-13). This is a rabbit trail from Bobby’s post, so I won’t belabor it here. But it’s an important point: adult male Jesus let women tell him what to do and teach him how to act (albeit indirectly, in Mary of Bethany).
It always cracks me up that Jesus says, "My hour hasn't come yet," and Mary basically no-sells it. She just looks at the servants and says, "Do what he tells you." Like, no more words need to pass between Jesus and Mary. He's gonna do it.
Exactly. And additionally, John never refers to her as Mary, only “woman” and “the mother of Jesus”. So when she appears again in 19:25-27 and becomes the “mother” of the Beloved Disciple, who is a type-figure for all disciples, she represents a motherly leadership role that extends beyond herself. Iow, there are mothers in the church who have similarly deep moral/spiritual insight into the person/work of Jesus and have the right to instruct disciples in what it means to follow him today.
My thoughts exactly. Do we then have to start minimizing the songs of Miriam, Hannah and Mary? Should we discount the book of Ruth and the beginning of Exodus because they portray female voices? If these portions are from the female voice or composed by females, then surely we should not be using them for teaching!
Imagine if you're a preacher who won't share the pulpit with women. Then comes a Sunday when the text you're preaching is on the words of a woman, like Hannah's or Mary's songs. All week long, you're studying this woman's words -- which have become God's words by their inclusion in the canon -- and then on Sunday, you get up to preach on that woman's words. But you won't let women speak. MAKE IT MAKE SENSE!!! Nijay Gupta has a great article about this: https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/teach-us-mary/
These are some good questions! The role of men and women, especially in the church and family, is worth studying humbly.
Here are a few answers to get you started!
1. If subordination is based on birth (womanhood), is it truly a “role” or rather an inequality of being?
Response:
Biblical headship is grounded not in an ontological inequality but in a covenantal structure of ordered relationships (1 Cor 11:3: “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.”). Just as Christ is subordinate to the Father in role but not in essence, so too woman’s submission does not imply inferior worth (Gal 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”). Subordination in role expresses the created order, not ontological inferiority.
2. Why would God allow women to teach anyone, anywhere, if they are easily deceived?
Response:
Scripture never teaches that women are universally or inherently more gullible than men; Paul’s reference to Eve in 1 Tim 2:14 is situational, not universal or essential. Priscilla (with her husband Aquila) instructed Apollos in sound doctrine (Acts 18:26), and older women are commanded to teach younger women (Titus 2:3–5). The telos (purpose) of women’s teaching is aligned with covenantal faithfulness and the building up of the body of Christ. Teaching is not prohibited for women in all contexts, only in specific covenantal settings involving ecclesial or familial authority (1 Tim 2:12).
3. Why should women be allowed to teach children if they are so easily deceived?
Response:
The assumption of universal female susceptibility to deception is not biblically warranted. Scripture assumes and commands that women instruct children in godliness (Prov 1:8; 2 Tim 1:5, “For I am mindful of the sincere faith within you, which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice...”). Teaching children is a sacred covenantal duty in the household of faith, and far from being inferior, it is foundational to covenant succession and discipleship (Deut 6:6–7). The covenant family is a priestly community where both fathers and mothers raise children in the fear of the Lord.
4. Is the complementarian model truly “functional subordination” if the subordinate role can never change?
Response:
Yes, when understood covenantally. Roles within the covenant community are designed not for temporal upward mobility but for ordered flourishing under divine telos (purpose). Just as the priesthood in Israel was limited to the sons of Aaron, yet all Israel was still called a “kingdom of priests” (Ex 19:6), so too distinct roles reflect God’s design, not inequality. Function does not imply inequality if the function is defined by divine purpose rather than human ambition. The immutability of the role reflects creation design (Gen 2), not injustice.
5. If a person is subordinated based on unchangeable biology (like sex or race), isn’t that a statement of inferiority in being?
Response:
No, because the biblical worldview does not define worth through role or function but through being made in the image of God (Gen 1:27). Unlike race-based segregation, which is a sinful distortion of justice, the differentiation between male and female in covenant roles is creational and purposeful. Paul affirms ontological equality while maintaining functional distinction (1 Cor 12:4–27). Roles rooted in creation reflect God’s wisdom and beauty, not arbitrary inferiority. Redemptive history often elevates women (e.g., women as first witnesses to the resurrection – Luke 24:10–11).
6. Should verses about older women teaching younger women be reinterpreted in light of 1 Timothy 2?
Response:
No, they should be held together consistently. Titus 2:3–5 prescribes a teaching role for women within the covenant community: “Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior... teaching what is good, so that they may instruct the younger women...”. 1 Timothy 2:12 prohibits authoritative teaching over men in the gathered church, not all teaching by women. These are complementary, not contradictory. The church must affirm and encourage women in all the teaching roles Scripture assigns them, without conflating them with pastoral authority.
7. Why is it acceptable in many churches for women to teach secular subjects but not the Bible to men?
Response:
This practice reflects a confusion of categories. Teaching Scripture in the context of the gathered church carries covenantal and ecclesial authority (2 Tim 4:1–2), unlike secular instruction. The distinction is not about the topic (Bible vs. secular), but about the context—whether the teaching involves authoritative proclamation within the church assembly. The headship principle (1 Cor 11:3) applies to the covenant assembly in specific ways. Secular teaching, though it carries influence, does not assume the same covenantal function or structure, though it can still touch on familial authority, which should be considered.
8. Why do some churches allow women to teach life application subjects (like parenting or budgeting) but not Bible?
Response:
Churches that make this distinction often wish to honor biblical boundaries without clearly understanding them. Scripture does not prohibit women from teaching the Bible per se, but from exercising authoritative teaching over men in the covenant assembly (1 Tim 2:12). Life-application teaching often skirts this line depending on the context and audience. Theologically, wisdom literature and the moral law belong to the whole church. The challenge is to distinguish between teaching as mutual edification (Col 3:16) and teaching as authoritative pastoral oversight (Heb 13:17).
9. Why would God let men teach, if Adam sinned deliberately rather than through deception?
Response:
Paul’s point in 1 Tim 2:14 is not to declare one sex morally superior but to illustrate why roles were inverted in Eden: “And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman, being deceived, fell into trespass.” . Adam bore covenantal responsibility for the fall (Rom 5:12), highlighting his role as federal head. Despite Eve’s deception, God called Adam to account (Gen 3:9). Thus, male teaching in the covenant assembly is not based on moral superiority but on headship rooted in the created order and affirmed in the covenant of grace.
10. Can 1 Timothy 2:12 really be limited only to preaching a sermon on a Sunday?
Response:
No, not if the prohibition is grounded in creation (as vv. 13–14 suggest). Limiting 1 Tim 2:12 to Sunday sermons imposes a cultural filter onto the text. Paul appeals to the created order, not a local cultural concern, to ground his instruction. Therefore, the prohibition refers more broadly to authoritative doctrinal instruction over men in the gathered church, rather than just one form of modern pulpit preaching. This view aligns with the telos of covenant worship—order, peace, and faithful representation of the Head–Body relationship (1 Cor 14:33–35; Eph 5:23–32).
First, you've obviously spent a lot of time here, so thanks for being a reader. One of the reasons you and I would continue to talk past each other like two people speaking a different language is that I don't buy your underlying framework for understanding covenant. In short, there are much larger differences (in scope) than the question of whether a woman can preach. Also, your responses are heavy on assertion and short on argumentation. I don't follow your conclusion because I disagree with so many of the assertions made along the way. Just to point out two, I don't buy that 1 Timothy 2:12 is about exercising authoritative teaching over men in the covenant assembly, nor that Paul appeals to a "created order" to "ground his instruction." I've written extensively on these things, and will write more. Finally, I get that you don't believe women are inherently "more easily deceived." The philosophy behind the created order gender roles and headship is an attempt to understand 2:11-15 differently, but (and this is ironic) it is such an unnatural reading of the text that you have to really WANT to believe it. Again though, thanks for devoting part of your day here and being a reader.
Oh I agree, we have very different contexts, but that’s partly because of your approach to scripture.
You state that “you don’t buy” that Paul is appealing to the created order in 1 Tim 3:12 which is very strange indeed since in v13 he immediately reverts his argument back to Gen 2-3.
It’s an unnatural reading is we start with our fallen natures yes. Though if we just use the revelation of God, His Words, His terms, and His themes, it’s the most natural conclusion.
Thanks for the interaction.
You raise a good point: if one’s foundation is bad, the other stuff on that foundation will also be skewed. I don’t think Paul leverages a created order argument here because I don’t think Genesis lays out a created-order argument for within mankind.
Perhaps chronology doesn’t indicate authority or subjugation? If chronology was a determinant factor, then God wouldn’t have created mankind last, much less woman. I found several compelling points on the interpretation of Gen 2-3 in “Worth: Celebrating the value of women in scripture”—which was surprising since they are self—admitted complementarian.
Appreciate your thoughtful engagement! You’re absolutely right that a bad foundation distorts everything built upon it—that’s why starting with how God made things is so critical.
Paul does ground his teaching in 1 Timothy 2:12–13 in the created order, not just in culture or circumstance. “But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first formed, and then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:12–13). He explicitly appeals to chronology as a theological argument, not merely a historical fact.
In Genesis 2, Adam is formed first, given the command, and names the woman (Genesis 2:15–23), which in Scripture signals headship—not superiority, but responsibility. The order of creation reveals God’s intended structure, not a hierarchy of value, but of roles. This becomes even clearer when Paul writes, “For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake” (1 Corinthians 11:8–9).
You’re right that “chronology” alone doesn’t always imply authority—but when the biblical authors interpret chronology as meaningful (as Paul does), we can’t flatten that into irrelevance. The issue isn’t simply who came first, but what that ordering signifies in God’s design.
Genesis lays the groundwork, and the New Testament clarifies its implications. God’s ordering isn’t arbitrary—it reflects His wisdom, and it’s good. When we build on that foundation, everything else finds its proper shape.
It appears you are still relying on Paul’s commentary to outline how you understand Genesis vs starting with a solid understanding of the nuance in Genesis and using it to inform how you take in Paul’s commentary. To use Paul to interpret Genesis and using Genesis to interpret Paul is circular reasoning at best.
First things first. A solid, in depth understanding of Genesis before moving on to Paul is critical in understanding Paul’s reference to it. And frankly, I don’t see what you see in Genesis, or Paul for that matter. I encourage you to read Elyse and Eric’s book I referenced above.
Can there be non-hierarchal roles? Absolutely! But as soon as you add headship *over* and responsibility *for* to one about the other, it is in fact hierarchy, regardless of how benevolent it is.
Absolutely. There is nothing to the "created order" argument. I deal with these things in a series of posts, including:
https://bobbygilles.substack.com/p/does-adams-creation-before-eve-put
https://bobbygilles.substack.com/p/was-adam-but-not-eve-a-priest-in
https://bobbygilles.substack.com/p/garrrrr-does-1-timothy-2-establish
https://bobbygilles.substack.com/p/why-1-timothy-2-isnt-focused-on-a
For much longer engagement, with refutations of counter-arguments, I recommend the book Discovering Biblical Equality, 3rd edition: https://www.amazon.com/Discovering-Biblical-Equality-Theological-Perspectives/dp/0830854797/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3SVQ7CJTOPJP6&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ktc0KfVuzaBFl-rPrnI_49Q1Uolut-5O_w_V83EdR-A.KbFTG3SfAjkCXzI_FGCy6y9-gPsDcAdfRsJbufox0Wo&dib_tag=se&keywords=discovering+biblical+equality+3rd+edition&qid=1747162698&sprefix=discovering+biblical%2Caps%2C120&sr=8-1
It's very odd to say a theologian’s appeal to Gen 1-3 is not an attempt to ground whatever argument he is making in the created order.
Well, I am perfectly willing to answer those questions… even if I doubt the thesis that they must be answered :)
Bravo, and thank you once again Bobby for elucidating the absolute absurdity of male headship over women. Really, thank you. We cannot do this without our good brothers.
You're welcome, Anni!
Yes yes yes! When I was undoing the "complementarian" framework in my own head (after being heavily steeped in it for my whole life) I couldn't get the phrase "separate but equal" out of my head - as if segregation ever led to equality for Black people! Why would the results for women be any different?
Thanks, Hallie! When you study the arguments by Christians for slavery and segregation from the eighteenth through early twentieth centuries, it's startling how similar they are to some of the current complementarian arguments (particularly of the SBC variety).
Bobby, you give me so much to think about. The rigour of your writing is true worship. And as someone who is searching for some of these answers in Scripture after so many years of Piper-like teaching (which makes women feel so yucky, so subjugated) I am very grateful for you.
Thank you, Hannah! I am also grateful to you and always look forward to your writing.
Yuppp.
Thanks, Patti! I regularly listened to the old Evangel podcast and enjoyed your preaching! I catch up on the YouTube channel now and again.
As always I enjoyed your perspetive, thanks again
Thank you. This is 🎯
You’re welcome!
Thank you thank you thank you.
You’re welcome, Jenna!
Great post!
Thanks!
Hey friends, I just had to block a user from this page for saying that one of the commenters on this post and I have a "low view of scripture," (specifically, he said "I can see you hold God's word in low esteem"), and disparaging a book by two authors (who happen to be complementarian) that disagreed with some of what he was saying. Thoughtful engagement is a good thing, even when opinions vary. However, that kind of slur isn't acceptable here.
I think the best way to cut through all the controversy about men/women leading is not to point out that one tends to be bigger and more capable, or even that occasionally women are very forceful, but rather to go back to Genesis, then reflect on how the principle's referred to later.
God created man first, gave him a job, then created a woman to help him. We know from the story of Eve that a modern woman chafing at male leadership is not new, in fact it's practically the first thing that ever happened! But all the Bible, and Jesus as well, affirms the pattern of headship. And the notion that some aspects of life will be difficult, may even take a miracle, isn't new either. So if it's impossible for a woman to submit, that's not a deal-breaker.
God has used far worse happenings without His plan being thrown off course.
Hi Gavin,
Have you read any of my articles? I realize it's more likely you just ran across this one and wanted to respond -- there's no particular reason you should be aware of what I write; I'm just an average guy. But I have answered all these points and disputed the argument that the Bible affirms "headship" in several lengthy pieces, with many scripture references and tons of footnotes. I'm fine with discussion based on differences of opinion, but it's better to provide argumentation based on one's biblical scholarship than bare assertions. Here are a few articles so you know where I am coming from:
https://bobbygilles.substack.com/p/does-adams-creation-before-eve-put
https://bobbygilles.substack.com/p/was-adam-but-not-eve-a-priest-in
https://bobbygilles.substack.com/p/garrrrr-does-1-timothy-2-establish
https://bobbygilles.substack.com/p/why-1-timothy-2-isnt-focused-on-a
https://bobbygilles.substack.com/p/what-if-1-timothy-2-is-about-marriage
https://bobbygilles.substack.com/p/when-a-literal-reading-of-scripture
https://bobbygilles.substack.com/p/man-is-head-except-in-bed-pauls-headship
I believe the order of creation tells us all we need to know. If any of scripture disagreed, I’d be confused. But it doesn’t. The Jewish pattern was male leadership of the family, and Jesus never corrected it. Even the notable exceptions of woman leaders didn’t. Starting with God’s pattern, I’ve found all the other references in the Bible require no elaborate explanation. To reverse it, I suggest that anyone who depends on other verses to explain the situation is simply using them as an excuse to tweak what God intended.
People will go against this, and if that happens to be sin we’re forgiven for it. I go against certain things all the time, or maybe didn’t know them in the first place. When I was a missionary in Ukraine, my female interpreters could forsake ever having satisfying male relationships, which none of my female American team members could do. Russian culture accepts suffering, but they were worse at other things.
American culture doesn’t prepare us to forsake anything we might have gotten, which would, of course, make it hard for women to forsake leadership.
The order of creation tells us no such thing. God overturns primogeniture every time it comes up in Genesis. Again, I wrote a whole article about this and other issues with the Genesis account. If you don't want to study these issues, that's fine—I have duly noted that you feel that all the scriptures agree with your position and are satisfied with that. But please don't say that "anyone who depends on other verses to explain the situation is simply using them as an excuse to tweak what God intended." You can't know my motives or those of the others who have commented here. Have a good day!
I like this and believe it’s well written but still the Bible is clear on the role of the Elder/Pastor being definitively male!
Bobby, thank you from the bottom of my heart for writing on these things. I am so encouraged by seeing your thoughtful engagement with each text as you write.
You're welcome, Christy!