Debunking Egalitarian Claims About ‘The Cult Of Artemis’

The modern debate over women in ministry inevitably deals with the most explicit text on the topic, 1 Timothy 2:12, where Paul says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." It is arguably the most challenging text in the Bible for egalitarians–those who claim that women are not prevented from entering any role in church leadership–to deal with, and one which seems at face value to affirm a distinction between the sexes in the realm of church authority. 

As we view it, there are two main kinds of egalitarians. First, there are those who dismiss Scripture as the ultimate source of authority, and who therefore respond to verses like this with little more than, “It’s the 21st century!”. This theologically liberal perspective makes no serious case that the Bible supports its position, and those who hold it therefore don’t really spend much time investigating any potential workarounds for such a passage. Rather they simply view it as yet another example of Paul falling into his patriarchal biases, and dismiss it out of hand.

But there is another kind of egalitarian Christian: Bible-believers who have been duped into thinking that Scripture does not distinguish between male and female when it comes to church leadership, and who do so due to what we will demonstrate to be exaggerated claims from leading evangelical scholars. They are not necessarily liberal—at least not in their underlying assumptions—they’re just wrong about this issue. 

For the remainder of this article, when we use the term ‘egalitarian’, it is with largely this second group in mind; good faith Christians whom we believe to be mistaken. This is our attempt to persuade them that they have been misled into a position that, whether they intend to or not, leads them into disobedience to the word of God in this area, and which causes harm to the witness of the church as a result.

A Feminist Cult

The egalitarian response to Paul’s command in 1 Timothy 2 is based around the cult of Artemis. And, to be entirely fair, this is an important piece of historical context for this epistle. This was where Timothy’s ministry was based, and Paul’s advice to him does speak to local church issues. 

The Temple of Artemis in Ephesus was one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. A colossal structure. With 127 marble columns that stood sixty feet high, casting their shadow over the city of Ephesus, the worship of Artemis, the goddess of the hunt, was the centerpiece of this famous temple. And we are told that because of this, women ran the show in Ephesus.

Egalitarian scholar N.T. Wright makes some of the most striking claims about this, declaring, “one of the main things we know about religion in Ephesus is that the main religion—the biggest temple, the most famous shrine—was a female-only cult” (Surprised by Scripture, p. 80). “As befitted worshippers of a female deity, the priests were all women. They ruled the show and kept the men in their place,” he adds (Ibid, p.80). According to him, Ephesian women had such influence through their devotion to Artemis that Paul’s instructions were not meant as a piece of general guidance for male-female distinctions in church leadership, but as a spiritual check on their cultural dominance in this rare, local situation.

But does this theory hold any water?

Well, despite Wright’s confidence, his claim is not built on solid ground. For starters, the claim that the cult of Artemis was “female-only” is dubious at best, since men played significant roles within this religion. 

Sandra Glahn, a scholar who has thoroughly debunked much of the Artemis mythos, notes that “Artemis of the Ephesians had many male followers and was not a man-hater. Numerous inscriptions give evidence of male devotees” (The Identity of Artemis, fn. 42). In fact, men were not only involved in the cult, they held important offices. This included the priesthood, which directly refutes Wright’s claim that “the priests were all women”. We even have the names of some male priests, such as Servilius Bassus and C. Julius Atticus, who led the worship of Artemis during the time of Augustus. What’s more, the all-male Kouretes had a major role in the cult’s rituals. Wright’s strong assertions of a feminist cult fly in the face of multiple lines of evidence to the contrary.

Even Marg Mowczko, one of the more reasonable egalitarian scholars, admits, “I have found no evidence that women were generally considered superior to men in first-century Ephesian society” (1 Timothy 2:12 Paul’s View on Women in Ministry). That’s a pretty big concession if you’re hanging your interpretive hat on the idea that Paul was correcting a matriarchal uprising. Women participated in the cult, sure, but they were not running the show.

The “Artemis Filter” Theory

Unfortunately this false understanding of how ancient Ephesus works has become a filter through which more conservative egalitarians read 1 Timothy 2. Unlike their liberal counterparts, they are not attempting to set aside the text. They instead interpret it through this lens, having been convinced that Paul’s true intention in this passage is grounded in that supposed reality. Linda Belleville, for example, argues that “the women were influenced by the cult of Artemis, in which the female was exalted and considered superior to the male” (Discovering Biblical Equality, p. 224). There are countless other examples of the same reasoning, with the egalitarian conclusion being that the only reason Paul could write something like was an attempt to restore the gender balance. 

Belleville supports her claim by saying that the cult taught that Artemis came first in the creation order, flipping Genesis on its head. She references a festival as evidence, claiming “This made Artemis and all her female adherents superior to men—a belief that was played out at the festival of the Lord of Streets, when the priestess of Artemis pursued a man” (Discovering Biblical Equality, p. 224).

This sounds like a neat solution, but as it turns out, this event wasn’t about female dominance. Rather, it was a quaint little affair where a priestess pursued a man who had wronged Artemis’ family, and was guilty of murder. It was about vengeance, not a gender power struggle. And Artemis didn’t have a human consort, let alone one that would give Belleville the kind of ideological ammunition she’s looking for. 

There’s one other issue with these egalitarian claims: they don’t just need an egalitarian, or even a moderately feminist society like we have in our day, to justify their position. They need an all-out hyper-feminist one. Nijay Gupta, in Tell Her Story, suggests this could explain why Paul wrote to Timothy, demanding intervention in a situation where women were trying to be domineering (p. 177). These women, we are told, were not just striving for equality, but to overpower the men, fueled by a spirit of female strength that goes far beyond egalitarian niceties. 

Ephesus, however, while certainly home to Artemis worship, was not some matriarchal utopia. The city was thoroughly pagan, yes, but it was also patriarchal in structure. The civic and religious leaders were overwhelmingly male. In fact, inscriptions from 44AD show that priesthoods were often sold to men by male city leaders (Steven M. Baugh, The Apostle Among the Amazons,” 166). And let’s not forget Acts 19, where the whole city nearly riots over the potential downfall of Artemis. Who led the riot? Demetrius the silversmith and his andres—his men. If women held all the power and all the priestly roles, why were they not the ones making this case? And why was it not presented to a female clerk, rather than a male one (Acts 19:41)? 

Baugh succinctly summarizes it, saying, “it cannot be shown that worship of such deities, or of any female deity, translated into societal status, rights, or power for women in ancient societies. To say that it did in Ephesus because of the centrality of the worship of Artemis Ephesia is sheer speculation that runs counter to the facts” (Women in the Church, 1st Edition, p. 32). In other words, the whole "Artemis filter" theory is a house of cards.

If Ephesus, like the rest of the ancient world, was a place where men held the reins of power, then Paul’s instructions in 1 Timothy 2 were not aimed at toppling some female regime. Rather, Paul was simply reinforcing order to the church in a way that mirrored the natural structure God had set from the start. And though egalitarians have tried to squeeze this passage through the Artemis filter, history doesn’t back their claims. What’s genuinely surprising is how many well-respected egalitarians continue to echo those claims.

Paul’s Non-Egalitarian Solution

However, let’s imagine that all the egalitarian claims about Ephesian history are correct: a female-dominated cult, a matriarchal society, and concomitant false teaching entering the church. Does this resolve their issue? Unfortunately Paul still doesn’t help them. His response to this supposedly matriarchal environment is not a call to some sort of neutrality between the sexes. Instead, he reasserts a complementarian hierarchy. Why would Paul want the church in Ephesus to climb out of the ditch on one side of the road only to direct them to the ditch on the other side? This is not something the apostle was in the habit of doing. It’s not like when confronting the legalists in Galatia he endorses antinomian lawlessness, nor does he correct the Jewish superiority complex of Romans 2 by suggesting the Gentiles develop one in return. The apostle never pushes the pendulum too far in the other direction, and any time it appears that he has said something that may be interpreted that way, he addresses it head on, crying “By no means!” (Romans 3:31). But there is no such language here. 

Additionally, Paul’s instructions are not in any way framed as being temporary or localized. He does not say, “I do not permit Ephesian women to teach or have authority,” nor does he follow his instruction with, “for the women need to cool off for a time period, before entering back into ministry on equal footing.” (We could go more into the claims that a better translation would be “I am not permitting”, and that this is therefore a temporary edict, but that would be better served in a different article.) Rather, he follows his injunction with very different reasoning, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” (1 Tim 2:13-14). Paul’s commands are rooted in creation, not local Ephesian customs, making them clearly timeless and universal rather than temporary and localized. 

So, if Paul wasn’t reacting to some female superiority complex inspired by Artemis worship, what was he doing? Paul was addressing a specific problem in the church at Ephesus: disorder, deception, and confusion. The real backdrop of 1 Timothy 2 is not feminist takeover, but rather false teaching creeping into the church, and part of the reason for that seems to be a lack of acknowledgement of God’s intended order for its leadership. Paul’s concern was for the proper use of teaching authority in the body of Christ, and how a destruction of that order leads to the growth of confusion and compromise. The Adam and Eve reference makes sense in that context, demonstrating that the policy of 1 Timothy 2 is not based on a special occasion but God’s deliberate creation. 

Paul's point, from both the historical and literary context, wasn’t that women should briefly step away from elder-like leadership because they had become too domineering under Artemis’ influence, but to submit to the natural order that God established from the beginning. Placing an Artemis lens in front of this passage is historically weak and scripturally dubious, and serves rather to warp the meaning than to reveal it. 

This article was co-written by Mike Winger and Jamie Bambrick