YARBROUGH’S BIBLICAL CASE FOR COMPLEMENTARIANISM

In a world of shifting cultural values, few biblical texts generate as much discussion as 1 Timothy 2:12, where Paul writes, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” What exactly does Paul mean? Is this merely a cultural accommodation for the first-century church, or does it reflect God’s enduring design for church leadership?

 

THE TEXT IN CONTEXT

First, we must understand what Paul is actually saying. In the original Greek, Paul uses two key infinitives: didaskein, (meaning “to teach”) and authentein (meaning “to exercise authority”). The terms appear in a specific context—Paul providing Timothy with instructions for ordering church life in Ephesus.

As Robert Yarbrough astutely notes in his Pillar New Testament Commentary, the passage isn’t floating in isolation. It’s situated within Paul’s broader concern for church order (1 Timothy 3:14-15), and specifically within instructions about how men and women should conduct themselves in worship (1 Timothy 2:8-15).

 

ONE RESTRICTION OR TWO?

A critical interpretive question is whether Paul prohibits one combined action or two distinct activities. The Greek construction uses oude (meaning “nor/or”) to connect the infinitives. Yarbrough convincingly argues Paul identifies two related but distinct activities that characterised elder/overseer roles in the early church: authoritative teaching and governance.

Unlike what some Egalitarians suggest, this isn’t a case of a hendiadys (a Greek term that means use of two words meaning the same thing—as in ‘nice and warm’). Rather, Paul addresses two complementary functions of church leadership that he is restricting to men. The syntactical evidence, carefully examined, supports this reading.

 

1 TIMOTHY 2:12 EXPLAINED: THE THEOLOGICAL FOUNDATION

What makes Yarbrough’s complementarian case particularly compelling is his attention to Paul’s theological reasoning. After stating his prohibition, Paul immediately grounds it in creation order: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (v. 13).

This appeal to creation is crucial. Paul isn’t making a culturally contingent argument but is anchoring his instruction in God’s design established before the Fall. This creation-based reasoning appears elsewhere in Paul’s writings (1 Corinthians 11:8-9) and reflects a consistent theological framework.

Paul further supports his case by referencing the Fall: “and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (v. 14). This isn’t about women’s intellectual capabilities, but rather highlights the consequences when God’s ordained pattern of leadership is inverted.

 

WHERE EGALITARIAN INTERPRETATIONS FALL SHORT

Egalitarian interpretations typically argue:

• Paul’s prohibition was addressing a specific cultural problem in Ephesus
• The term authentein means “to domineer” rather than simply “to exercise authority”
• Women were teaching false doctrine, thus the prohibition was situation-specific

However, these interpretations struggle to account for Paul’s creation-based reasoning. If Paul were merely addressing a temporary cultural situation, why would he ground his argument in creation order? As Yarbrough argues, Paul’s appeal to Genesis establishes a universal principle, not a culturally limited application.

Moreover, lexical studies of authentein in contemporary Greek literature support the traditional rendering “to exercise authority” rather than the more negative “to domineer.” The egalitarian reading requires imposing a rare negative connotation that the context doesn’t demand.

 

A CONSISTENT BIBLICAL PATTERN

The complementarian understanding advocated by Yarbrough aligns with the consistent pattern we see throughout Scripture. God established distinct and complementary roles for men and women from creation. These distinctions aren’t about superiority or value but reflect God’s wise design for human flourishing.

This pattern continues in the New Testament church. While women clearly served in vital ministry roles (Romans 16:1-2, Philippians 4:2-3), the apostolic teaching consistently reserves the authoritative teaching office for qualified men (1 Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9).

 

CONTEMPORARY APPLICATION

What does this mean for churches today? The complementarian position doesn’t diminish women’s ministry but properly orders it according to biblical principles. Women can and should teach other women (Titus 2:3-5), participate in various forms of service and ministry, and contribute their spiritual gifts to building up the body.

What’s restricted is specifically the authoritative teaching office in the gathered assembly—what we typically associate with pastoral or elder roles. This restriction isn’t grounded in cultural prejudice but in God’s good design established at creation.

 

CONCLUSION: 1 TIMOTHY 2:12 EXPLAINED

As Yarbrough concludes in his commentary, Paul’s teaching in 1 Timothy 2:12 reflects divine wisdom rather than cultural prejudice. The complementarian understanding isn’t about limiting women but about embracing God’s design for how the church should function.

When we align our church practices with this biblical pattern, we aren’t capitulating to patriarchal oppression but rather submitting to God’s revealed will. True flourishing—for both women and men—comes not by conforming Scripture to our cultural preferences but by conforming our practices to Scripture’s teaching.

The beauty of complementarianism is that it honours both the equality of men and women in their standing before God and the distinct roles God has designed for them in the church. In doing so, it faithfully reflects the divine wisdom that orders all of creation.

 

1 TIMOTHY 2:12 EXPLAINED: RELATED FAQs

Doesn’t Galatians 3:28 (“neither male nor female”) contradict complementarianism? Galatians 3:28 addresses our equal standing in salvation, not role distinctions in church governance. As John Piper explains in “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood,” equality of worth and value doesn’t necessitate sameness of role or function. Paul’s teaching in Galatians affirms our equal inheritance as believers while his pastoral epistles clarify the distinct roles God designed for church leadership.

• What about Priscilla teaching Apollos in Acts 18:26? Priscilla and Aquila took Apollos aside privately to explain “the way of God more adequately,” which differs fundamentally from the authoritative public teaching role Paul addresses in 1 Timothy 2:12. Wayne Grudem notes this distinction between private instruction and the formal teaching office within the gathered assembly. Complementarianism doesn’t prohibit women from all forms of teaching but specifically restricts the authoritative elder/pastoral teaching role.
• How have denominations that abandoned complementarian principles fared? Denominations that have rejected complementarian teaching have generally experienced significant theological drift on other issues. Robert Yarbrough observes that churches that dismiss Paul’s teaching on gender roles typically move on to question other biblical teachings, often leading to declining membership and theological liberalism. The Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), and United Methodist Church provide clear examples of this pattern—each experienced major splits and membership decline following their rejection of complementarian principles.

Does complementarianism demean women’s gifts and capabilities? Quite the contrary—complementarianism honours women’s gifts while directing them according to biblical patterns. According to Piper and Grudem, complementarianism actually elevates women’s ministry by affirming their essential contributions within God’s design rather than measuring them by masculine standards. The biblical framework creates space for women’s gifts to flourish in numerous ministry contexts while honouring God’s created order.

• How does the complementarian view handle the female prophets mentioned in Scripture? Prophecy in Scripture differs from the authoritative teaching office that Paul restricts in 1 Timothy 2:12. Thomas Schreiner points out prophetic utterances in the early church were always subject to evaluation (1 Corinthians 14:29-32), while the teaching office carried ongoing authoritative weight. Female prophets like Miriam, Deborah, and Philip’s daughters operated within God’s design rather than contradicting it, demonstrating how women exercised spiritual gifts without assuming elder authority.
• What is the difference between “teaching” and other forms of verbal ministry? The teaching referenced in 1 Timothy 2:12 involves authoritative instruction that defines doctrine and practice for the congregation. Yarbrough explains Paul uses “didaskein” (teaching) in connection with authority, indicating official church teaching that establishes doctrine. Other verbal ministries—testimonies, reading Scripture, sharing insights, or teaching in non-authoritative contexts—don’t carry this same authoritative weight and aren’t subject to the same restriction.

How should complementarian principles shape church leadership structures today? Complementarian principles should result in biblically qualified men serving as elders/pastors while creating robust opportunities for women’s ministry. Andreas Köstenberger suggests churches should intentionally develop pathways for women to exercise their gifts in ways consistent with Scripture, including women’s discipleship, mercy ministries, counselling other women, and non-authoritative teaching roles. The healthiest complementarian churches don’t minimise women’s contributions but rather channel them according to biblical wisdom.

 

TIMOTHY 2:12 EXPLAINED: RESOURCES FOR FURTHER READING

• Robert W Yarbrough, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (Pillar New Testament Commentary)
• Andreas J Köstenberger, Commentary on 1-2 Timothy & Titus (Biblical Theology for Christian Proclamation)
• William D Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary)
• Thomas R Schreiner, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus (New American Commentary)
• John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism

 

TIMOTHY 2:12 EXPLAINED: OUR RELATED POSTS

• The Debate Post 1: Complementarianism Vs Egalitarianism
• The Debate Post 2: Biblical Gender Roles in Home and Church
• Biblical Gender Interpretations: Complementarian vs Egalitarian Views