3. Learning in Silence—1 Timothy 2:9–15
Learning in Silence—1 Timothy 2:9–15
We now come to the only explicit prohibition in the entire Bible against women teaching, and one of only two texts that seem to appeal to the creation order to subordinate women in some manner (the other enjoins only that women cover their heads).[1] It would be surprising if an issue that would exclude at least half the body of Christ from a ministry of teaching would be addressed in only one text, unless that text really addressed only a specific historical situation rather than setting forth a universal prohibition. Since this passage seems to conflict with other passages where Paul commends the ministries of women, we will examine the cultural situation that may be addressed here.[2]
It should be noted in passing that the authorship of 1 Timothy is frequently debated in scholarly circles, and even more frequently simply assumed not to be Pauline. It is nearly impossible to be trained in biblical scholarship these days and not be forced to deal with this position, and my own training is no exception, although I stand among the minority of scholars who claim that 1 Timothy is Pauline.[3]
For the purposes of this book, however, the issue of authorship is not ultimately critical; although I will argue on the premise that 1 Timothy is written by Paul, those who hold that it was not written by him usually grant this letter less authority in church practice. Further, if it is not written by Paul, many of this book’s arguments about historical situations would still hold true. Finally, the view that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul is rarely held by those who argue women’s subordination from this passage anyway,[4] and it is the arguments of those subordinationists that this book is meant to address. The same may be said for Ephesians (see the following three chapters), whose authorship is challenged often but less frequently than that of 1 Timothy.
THE CONTEXT: PUBLIC PRAYER
This passage, like 1 Corinthians 11, seems to assume women’s right to pray in public. That Paul’s instructions about women’s apparel and teaching deal with women’s role in public prayer is suggested by his admonitions to men about prayer in the preceding context.
The passage begins by exhorting public prayer for rulers and all who are in authority (1 Tim. 2:1–2).[5] This continued a standard Jewish custom practiced in the temple and synagogues. Throughout the Roman Empire people showed their loyalty to the emperor by offering sacrifices and prayers to him or on his behalf. To be sure, Rome exempted the Jewish people from having to pray to the emperor, but it nevertheless required that they pray for him.[6] Sacrifices and prayers for his health were offered in the temple until 66 CE,[7] and their cessation in that year signalled nothing short of revolt against Roman rule.[8] Naturally, Christians, eager to show that they were not anti-Roman,[9] would be inclined to demonstrate their loyalty by offering public prayer for Roman officials.[10] By doing this they hoped for the gospel to spread more freely (2:3–7);[11] proper behavior toward the state could function as part of one’s witness (Titus 2:10–14; 3:1–8).
In this context of public prayer, Paul specifically calls on the men to pray in a certain way—forsaking anger and conflict. This could reflect conflict among the men in the church (1 Tim. 3:3; 6:4–5),[12] or a more widespread association of anger with the male gender.[13] The image of pure hands is common in Greek[14] and Jewish[15] texts, and hands were lifted for supplication and praise according to both Jewish[16] and Greco-Roman[17] texts and art. Paul requires that men “everywhere” pray with uplifted, pure hands. (“Everywhere” means either that this requirement is universally applicable,[18] or that he is addressing the rule to a number of different house churches in Ephesus.)[19]
Although the grammar is not clear on this point, the “likewise” of 2:9 probably suggests that Paul, who has just instructed the men how to pray, now turns to instructing the women in the same way.[20] As in 1 Corinthians 11, women are not silenced in church; they are permitted to pray. Since most synagogue prayers were offered by men,[21] this freedom is significant. But the fact that Paul’s exhortations to them are more detailed than those given to men indicates that there are some special problems relating to the women in the Ephesian congregation, and these problems break down naturally into two categories of exhortation, one concerning dress codes, and the other concerning teaching. The women seem to be erring on these two points; the first error is inappropriate in the context of public worship,[22] and judging from Paul’s language, the second error is worse than inappropriate.
WOMEN’S DRESS CODE
Paul here seems to regulate women’s dress, and multitudes of preachers have exploited this passage for a variety of fashion purposes (from requiring clothing in general, which is probably helpful, to requiring specific styles of clothes, often as antiquated as possible). But Paul is less concerned with prohibitions like our modern ones (such as no blue jeans in church) than he is with people adorning themselves to attract glances from congregants of the opposite gender or to show off their wealth or new fashions in church. While various churches have different cultural traditions of appropriate church clothing, the issues of intentionally suggestive attire and (particularly) of extravagantly expensive attire unfortunately receive considerably less attention in churches these days, and this is what Paul is addressing.
Ancient Views on Adornments
Special adornments were not only permitted but blessed by Jewish teachers of the second century and later.[23] Rabbi Akiba, who permitted a husband to divorce his wife if he found someone more beautiful, said that wives could wear makeup and deck themselves out for their husbands.[24] Some later teachers said that God plaited Eve’s hair before bringing her to Adam.[25] These teachers claimed that woman, being Adam’s flesh, goes bad without adornment just as meat goes bad without spices.[26] Of course, it was recognized that the adornment was only for her husband (or perhaps for a marital prospect),[27] not for others. But, as we shall point out below, many earlier Jewish teachers looked on such adornment less favorably,[28] reflecting a tendency against excessive adornment found elsewhere in ancient Jewish and other Greco-Roman literature.
Physical beauty was emphasized and packaged in antiquity, just as it is today. It was treated as a “virtue” of the body.[29] Particular features sometimes associated with it in Greek literature are tallness,[30] thick, dark eyebrows,[31] and golden hair with pale skin,[32] though some writers who commented on the matter pointed out that standards of beauty varied from culture to culture.[33] But while a woman’s beauty was a good thing in itself, a “virtue,” it is often portrayed as a dangerous temptation to men.[34] In Greek romances, it induces love even involuntarily.[35]
Women who wanted to attract men would not settle for their natural beauty; those who could afford it would adorn themselves beyond their natural endowments with gold and other decorations,[36] especially adorning their hair.[37] Jewish traditions viewed these as tools of enticement to sexual sin.[38] According to one of these texts (of uncertain date), women used this evil ploy as the only way they could gain power over men.[39]
This was not, however, the only purpose of adornments, especially adornments of the hair. Well-to-do women in this period wore elaborate hairstyles, following the constantly changing, newest fashions.[40] This practice drew considerable criticism from the moralizing editorialists of the day.
Ostentation of wealth in general was commonly mocked by philosophers. For instance, Diogenes was said to have been invited to the house of a rich young man that was so richly adorned that the philosopher had nowhere to spit—except on his host.[41] Socrates was similarly said to have complained that he felt comfortable wearing the same cloak year-round, but that some changed garments more than once a day.[42] Plutarch said that it was not good for youths to wear gold,[43] and that men should set the example for their wives by avoiding all extravagance.[44] The Stoic Musonius Rufus declared that the wise man would live simply, seeking clothing that is useful rather than that which attracts attention.[45]
But the ostentatious extravagances of well-to-do women were especially criticized.[46] The satirists, who were an ancient combination of talk-show gossips and slanderous tabloids, portrayed such women as beating innocent slaves for making a mistake with their hair,[47] as spending themselves into poverty for luxuries,[48] and, worst of all, as decking themselves out splendidly only to keep their adulterous paramours happy.[49]
Some writers may have voiced other criticisms. One could have been that such glamorous dress would induce jealousy among other women, and since an honorable woman did not wish to be envied by other women,[50] this was dishonorable behavior. Excess clothing was part of well-to-do women’s desire to flaunt their wealth. Plutarch modestly concludes that if women were not allowed to dress up so much they would stay at home as they ought to![51]
Paul’s language here resembles that of other ancient writers on the subject, and Paul presumably means the same thing they did. (Otherwise his ancient readers would have had a hard time catching his point.) His problem with excessive adornment is that it is ostentatious and calls attention to its wearer. As David Scholer notes,
there is no question that in the cultural context of the early church the rejection of external adornment was part and parcel of a woman’s submission to her husband and a recognition of her place among men in general. External adornment was clearly seen as indicative of two most undesirable characteristics: (1) sexual infidelity; and (2) materialistic extravagance.[52]
The artificial augmentations of beauty Paul addresses here were the sort that only the wealthy could afford, and that turned men’s heads as symbols of status inseparable from the cultural expressions of beauty they signified. In our day, contrary to what many might think, Paul’s rebuke probably would have much more to do with church members’ driving to church in BMWs or wearing the most expensive clothes than with their wearing blue jeans.
The True Adornment
The warning in 1 Timothy 2:9–10 is undoubtedly against excessive adornment. The similar admonition in 1 Peter 3:3 advises against depending on external adornments like ornate hair designs, gold, and clothing, but it clearly does not prohibit the wearing of clothing or arranging of hair altogether. Braiding hair was not unusual,[53] so the reference in 1 Timothy may be to plaiting the hair with gold rather than to plaiting it and also wearing gold.[54] But that these women could be wearing gold at all suggests that they were well-to-do compared to most of the urban free.[55] This may even mean that they belonged to the class that ran the city or, more likely, that they were trying to pretend that they belonged in that social class.[56] This created the same sort of tension earlier initiated by uncovered aristocratic women in Corinth.
Paul’s argument appeals to a common theme in ancient moralists: real beauty is that of one’s character. This was true of men,[57] but even more so of women, who were expected to be “modest” in demeanor and dress.[58] A famous Spartan ruler was said to have “banished from the State all artificial enhancement of beauty” so that wives would be chosen only on the basis of true virtue.[59] One philosopher says that young women should realize that they are really honored for appearing “modest and self-respecting,” not for their attempts to beautify themselves.[60] Other philosophical treatises exhorted women to dress in the simplest possible clothes.[61]
The temperate, freeborn woman must live with her legal husband adorned with modesty, clad in neat, simple, white dress without extravagance or excess. She must avoid clothing that is either entirely purple or is streaked with purple and gold, for that kind of dress is worn by hetaerae when they stalk the masses of men. But the adornment of a woman who wishes to please only one man, her own husband, is her character and not her clothing. For the freeborn woman must be beautiful to her own husband, not to the men in the neighborhood.[62]
Modesty was often regarded as the true adornment.[63] Isocrates had long before exhorted:
Consider that no adornment so becomes you as modesty, justice, and self-control; for these are the virtues by which, as all men are agreed, the character of the young is held in restraint.[64]
A later exhortation pretending to be from one woman to another advised:
You should have a blush on your cheeks as a sign of modesty instead of rouge, and should wear nobility, decorum and temperance instead of gold and emeralds. For the woman who strives for virtue must not have her heart set on expensive clothing but on the management of her household.[65]
Diaspora (non-Palestinian) Jewish texts also came to reflect this ideal.[66]
It is thus relatively certain that the hearers in Timothy’s congregation would have grasped Paul’s point, had Timothy read the letter to them: dress and live simply and unenticingly, but be lavish in your spirit; decorate your heart with purity and humility. This may have irritated ostentatious members of the congregation then, just as it would irritate ostentatious members of our churches today if they understood it.
Some women today may feel that it was unfair for Paul to pick on extravagantly dressed, well-to-do women but not on men; but Paul no doubt did so because they were the ones normally addressed by this particular issue in this congregation and more generally in antiquity. This does not mean, however, that Paul would not have addressed the same counsel to the men had they been creating a similar disturbance (difficult as this would have been in that culture). Paul would certainly not want men to dress in a manner that caused women to stumble, either. After all, 1 Timothy 2:8 tells only men to avoid wrath and disputing when they pray, but Paul hardly wanted women to pray in wrath and disputing!
WOMEN TEACHERS?
Paul gives several injunctions that could be taken to mean that he opposes women teaching. He calls on them to learn “quietly,” and forbids them to teach in such a manner as to “take authority” over a man. But each of these statements must be understood in its own cultural context to be read the way Paul wanted his first readers to understand it.
Silence
It is possible that Paul here imposes the same sort of silence on women that they faced in many other religious contexts of the day, including most synagogues for which we have evidence.[67] This would imply that he changed his mind after he wrote 1 Cor. 11:4–5. But it is also possible that he imposes on new learners the same spirit of quiet submission that was normally appropriate for novices in his day. He could even mean what he meant about learning quietly in 1 Corinthians 14:34–35: learn the basics before you try to challenge your teacher.
Silence was an appropriate way to learn except when one had a thorough knowledge of the subject.[68] Some teachers purportedly even required long periods of silence from their pupils, probably as a form of moral discipline.[69] When Paul admonished the women to be silent in 1 Corinthians 14:34, he used a stronger term than he uses here, but the same principle may apply to both: they were to learn, but not by disrupting the whole assembly with unlearned questions. An admonition to learn in silence could also be an admonition to stop talking and pay attention to what was being said (cf. Acts 15:12; 21:40; 22:2), and need not mean that the person was forever to remain quiet (1 Cor. 14:28; cf. 14:30). This presumably relates to the specific situation in Ephesus suggested in 1 Timothy 5:13—many younger women were making the rounds with foolish talk, trying to teach but not knowing what they were talking about.[70]
The word used here for “silence” normally refers to respectful attention or a quiet demeanor.[71] The whole church is exhorted to this kind of quiet lifestyle with the same word in this very context (2:2), demonstrating that Paul refers to a certain attitude, not to complete muzzling. (Like the men’s prayer without wrath or disputing in 2:8, this could have been applied equally strongly to either gender causing the problem.) Paul’s reason for specifically addressing this admonition to the women is probably the same as his reason in 1 Corinthians 14:34–35: they were not yet taught.
Usurping Authority?
Paul warns against women “teaching in such a way as to take authority,” but it is not exactly clear what the Greek term here translated “take authority” means. Does he mean “accept a position of authority”? Or does he mean “seize authority in an overbearing way”? Or could he mean even “to proclaim oneself originator”? Scholars are divided on the issue.
Kroeger finds evidence that the term can mean “to proclaim oneself the author or originator of something,” and suggests that Paul here combats the Gnostic-type myth that woman is man’s source.[72] While this does make excellent sense of the following context, most of her lexical evidence is from the patristic period (when it could also mean “have authority”; see below), as is the relevant myth. Her case works well if 1 Timothy is written by someone much later than Paul, but in Paul’s period it is unlikely that his readers would have automatically understood the term so narrowly.
In contrast to the claims of some other writers,[73] Scholer observes that this term usually does carry a negative sense of “domineer” or “usurp authority.”[74] We could thus read Paul’s phrase as, “I am not allowing a woman to teach in such a way as to domineer over men.” On this reading, Paul, who wants women to “learn quietly,” does not want them to teach disruptively—something he also would have forbidden men to do.[75] This is not a new suggestion; it was proposed by evangelical supporters of the women’s movement in the 1800s.[76]
Moo suggests that the term may mean either “have authority” or “usurp authority,” but he contends that the idea of usurpation should only be read in it if it is suggested by the context.[77] It is difficult to evaluate what nuance readers would have attached to the term because the meaning of the term gradually changed, from associations with murder in classical usage to “domineer” and, by the patristic period, to “exercise authority.”[78] If 1 Timothy was written by a second-century writer in Paul’s name, the term probably just means “exercise authority” (or perhaps “proclaim oneself originator”). If the letter reflects the language of Paul or his amanuensis, it could well mean “domineer,” since it is different from and probably stronger than the term he usually uses.
If we assume Pauline authorship, then, Paul may merely prohibit teaching done in a domineering way. But assuming that Moo is correct that only the context will really determine what nuance Paul intends, we may ask what sense the context suggests. That Paul wants women to learn submissively and shortly thereafter invokes the Genesis language about Eve probably indicates that these women are not submitting to their husbands but rather are seeking to lord it over them (cf. Gen. 3:16).[79]
The evidence is not entirely clear, as Scholer observes, but Scholer is right that this is not Paul’s usual term for exercising authority.[80] The context, which helps us reconstruct the situation, suggests that Paul may here be warning against a domineering use of authority, rather than merely any use of authority.
Specific Situation or General Rule?
First Timothy 2:11–12 clearly forbids women to teach in some sense, although most scholars, including those who think the passage disallows women elders, agree that it forbids them only to teach in such a way as to hold authority in some form.[81] Probably it only forbids them to teach in a way that usurps authority, and so seeks to domineer, although this is not absolutely clear. But even assuming that Paul’s words actually prohibited women from teaching altogether, would he have applied this only to the women directly addressed by his letter (who were untaught),[82] or was he depending on a general principle applicable to all women in all times?[83]
Several arguments have been suggested to prove that Paul’s instructions in this passage apply to all women in all cultures. Some of these arguments have nothing to do with the text of Scripture, for instance, the argument that the maleness of Christ is better represented through a male agent.[84] This argument reads like something out of Philo, who saw men as feminine before God, just as women were feminine before men, masculinity being the ideal spiritual state. But if Jesus’ incarnation as a male means that ministers should be male, then it also means that they should be single, Jewish, give their teachings in Greek and/or Aramaic, and hang out with Galilean fishermen. I have never heard a persuasive argument for why Jesus’ maleness must be represented by male ministers, but his singleness or Jewishness need not be.
Piper and Grudem argue that the well-educated Priscilla was in Ephesus when Paul wrote these words (2 Tim. 4:19),[85] so Paul forbade even well-educated women to teach authoritatively.[86] This point would certainly remove the force of our argument that Paul’s injunction related only to the majority of uneducated women in Ephesus. It is not entirely clear, however, that Priscilla was already in Ephesus when Paul wrote 1 Timothy, since enough time had transpired between 1 and 2 Timothy for Paul to have been imprisoned in the interim.
But assuming that she was there, it is still hardly necessary to take Paul’s general prohibition as applying to all cases. Paul no doubt means this as a general statement that might admit certain obvious exceptions. If that answer sounds too simplistic it should be remembered that most writers stated principles this way. Paul’s requirement that an overseer be “husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:2) is a case in point: the statement could not apply to Paul and probably could not apply to Timothy, either.[87] Does his general prohibition nullify his own teaching and that of Timothy, whom no one was to despise (4:12)?
A more persuasive argument for the universal import of this passage is that it is stated in a universalistic manner. George Knight III says that 1 Timothy 2:11–12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34 “are clearly the didactic passages on the subject,” so other passages should be interpreted in the light of them.[88] But to this we would respond that other passages which show the practice of early Christians sanctioned by Paul (Appendix A) must qualify our understanding of anything else Paul says on the subject, since his “didactic” passages address specific churches and must be analyzed in the light of his whole teaching and practice.
Further, I believe that Knight is wrong in the way that he takes certain passages as didactic and other passages as not.[89] The author of 1 Timothy writes in another letter that all biblical texts are profitable for teaching (2 Tim. 3:16).[90] If Knight would object that some passages merely teach through concrete historical examples addressing specific situations (see 1 Cor. 10:11),[91] we reply that this is also how Paul’s letters are to be read, for this is how they present themselves (e.g., Gal. 1:1–6; 1 Thess. 1:1–3). If “didactic” means that we can extract the passage from the situation it addresses, then no texts are didactic (including proverbs, which presuppose certain ancient Near Eastern customs and topics). If didactic means that the passage teaches us God’s ways by illustrating how God has acted in concrete situations of the past, then all passages are didactic. Narrative, epistle, proverb, ethical admonition, prophecy, and apocalyptic are all genres with some degree of overlap, but “didactic” is not such a useful category, especially in the case to which Knight applies it, where one of his “didactic” passages and one of his nondidactic passages are from the same epistle.[92]
Against Knight and others who read this text as transcultural, arguments can be marshalled to demonstrate that this passage addresses a specific situation in the church at Ephesus. Several different reasons may be suggested for why women in this congregation must not teach. One is that church leaders in God’s household exercised authority over different social groups in the household differently, as a householder would to members of his house (1 Tim. 5:1–2).[93] It would be much harder for a woman to fulfill this function in that society. Given the pressures the church was facing at this point, women who tried to hold a teaching office could thus contribute to outsiders’ gaining a negative impression of Christianity, which is a major issue in 1 Timothy and the other letters (“Pastoral Epistles”) written about this time. This is not to say that Paul would have therefore excluded women from this office, but to suggest that fewer women would have sought it and that Paul might have been more careful what kind of teaching role they would have been given.
A more important reason Paul may not have wanted these women to teach is that much of the false teaching in Ephesus was being spread through women in the congregation. This is not to say that women are more prone to lead others astray than men— the false teachers themselves seem to have been men. But in that culture the uneducated women seem to have provided the network the false teachers could use to spread their falsehoods through the congregations (1 Tim. 5:13; 2 Tim. 3:6–7). This is probably because the women were not as well learned in the Scriptures as men were, as we pointed out in the preceding chapter.
Presumably, Paul wants them to learn so that they could teach.[94] If he prohibits women from teaching because they are unlearned, his demand that they learn constitutes a long-range solution to the problem. Women unlearned in the Bible could not be trusted to pass on its teachings accurately, but once they had learned, this would not be an issue, and they could join the ranks of women colleagues in ministry whom Paul elsewhere commends.[95]
Some readers believe that Paul’s wording also shows that this passage was meant only for the specific situation in Ephesus. The present indicative verb in the clause “I am not allowing a woman to teach” is contrasted with the more forceful command that follows, “let her learn.” These readers take the first clause, forbidding a woman to teach, as situationally conditioned in contrast to the second clause, ordering her to learn, which they read as a universal command.[96]
What is most significant about the wording of the passage, however, is that Paul does not assume that Timothy already knows this rule. Had this rule been established and universal, is it possible that Timothy, who had worked many years with Paul, would not have known it already? Paul often reminds readers of traditions they should know by saying, “You know,” or “Do you not know?” or “According to the traditions which I delivered to you.” In his letters to Timothy Paul appeals to “we know” (e.g., 1 Tim. 1:8), “faithful sayings” (e.g., 1 Tim. 1:15), and cites Timothy’s knowledge of Paul’s own life (2 Tim. 3:10–11). He does give general moral counsel relating to Timothy’s situation at Ephesus, but quite clearly not all his admonitions to Timothy are directly applicable universally (1 Tim. 5:11–14a, 23; 2 Tim. 4:13).
Since this passage is related so closely to the situation Timothy was confronting in Ephesus, we should not use it in the absence of other texts to prove that Paul meant it universally. In other words, we should not agree with Packer who suggests that, since there is doubt how Paul would apply this text in our culture, we should give him “the benefit of that doubt and retain his restriction on women exercising authority on Christ’s behalf over men in the church.”[97]
There are major problems with this writer’s logic. First, if the matter is really in doubt, we should not be using it to pass judgment on other people’s calls. A “fence around the law” interpretation was fine for the Pharisees, but Jesus’ method of extrapolating from Scripture was to appeal to its intention and motive, not to let it mean all that it might legally mean for fear of contradicting it.
Second, this writer assumes that he is really giving the benefit of the doubt to Paul, an assumption that would need to be proved, and that is probably wrong. What if he is in fact contradicting what Paul believed by prohibiting women from authoritative positions of ministry? We cannot presuppose what Paul meant and then “give the benefit of the doubt” to this presupposed position.
Third, our evidence from elsewhere in Paul suggests that the matter is not in doubt; women are allowed to teach if they are adequately trained. Scandal would have arisen had Paul included women among his traveling companions, but once this fact is taken into consideration, the percentage of women colleagues Paul acknowledges is amazing by any ancient standards. (Because this evidence from elsewhere in Paul is important to our discussion, we provide a brief treatment of it in Appendix A.)
Perhaps if we do not know for certain whether we are right or wrong, we ought to give the “benefit of the doubt” to those who claim that God called them and who evidence the fruits of that call in their lives, rather than passing judgment on them.
DAUGHTERS OF EVE: 1 TIMOTHY 2:13–15
It is easy to argue that Paul’s injunctions against women teaching in this passage are directed to a specific situation, not to all situations. It is, in my opinion, impossible to take them any other way once one has examined those passages in Paul where women share in the ministry of God’s word (see appendix A on that point).
But the nature of Paul’s argument here complicates matters. As when he defends the use of head coverings for women, so here Paul bases his case on an interpretation of Scripture. That Paul bases his argument on the Old Testament creation narrative suggests that he is appealing to God’s ideal plan, which ought to be followed by God’s people throughout this age. This is not, however, the only way to read this passage, especially given his treatment of the same text in some of his other writings, particularly when he argues in favor of head coverings. “The woman’s subordination from creation” is at any rate not the most obvious point of the text to which he alludes; it is in fact simply not what Genesis chapters 1–3 taken on their own terms teach, although this book is not meant to address those passages. Paul often makes his case by analogy, and when he cites Scripture does not always appeal to a universal principle to make his point, as we argued in chapter 1.
Eve in Jewish Tradition
The rabbis clearly had it in for Eve.[98] Her sinful act was often rehearsed in rabbinic literature: women march ahead of the bier because Eve brought death to the world;[99] they menstruate because Eve shed Adam’s blood;[100] they kindle the Sabbath lights because Eve extinguished Adam’s soul.[101] A later rabbi even claimed that Eve was created so that Adam would sin.[102] Occasionally the resultant curse of Genesis 3, rather than her sin itself, was used as grounds for her subordination.[103] Nor were the rabbis the only Jewish male commentators on the subject, as a Diaspora Jewish text indicates: “But the woman first became a betrayer to him. She gave, and persuaded him to sin in his ignorance. He was persuaded by the woman’s words, forgot about his immortal creator, and neglected clear commands.”[104] Interestingly, this writer excuses Adam, not Eve, by the claim of ignorance, whereas 1 Timothy 2:14 takes the reverse approach.
Eve’s deception was a special matter of comment in Jewish texts. In the related works, Life of Adam and Eve and Apocalypse of Moses (Heb. ca. first century CE), Eve appears as a well-meaning fool who is repeatedly deceived and keeps getting the wiser Adam in trouble with God. In this story, God, Adam, Eve, and the serpent all recognize that humanity’s fall is Eve’s fault.[105]
One tradition said that Satan disguised himself to mislead Eve sexually or in some other way besides the encounter described in Genesis 3.[106] As the story often goes, Satan or the serpent became jealous of Adam,[107] and so wished to kill him and take his wife.[108] Thus he entered Eden and corrupted Eve behind Adam’s back.[109] But we cannot be sure how widespread this story was in Paul’s day, and both Paul and his readers would have more likely thought of the account they knew from the Bible, namely, Eve’s deception by the serpent at the tree. These other traditions merely reinforce the picture of Eve’s gullibility and sinfulness.
Some of the rabbis did, however, explain Eve’s sin at the tree as partly the fault of Adam. He had added to God’s words when he relayed God’s commandment to Eve; this was why she told the serpent that God had forbidden her not only to eat of the tree, but also to touch it.[110] In other words, the woman was deceived in part because she had not received the commandment directly from God, and the one who had passed it on to her had misrepresented it. This point may be significant to our discussion below.
Not only Eve but women in general were seen as more inclined to deception; it was usually assumed to be part of their weaker nature, according to general Greco-Roman[111] and Jewish[112] teaching. Of course, if one withholds education from a specific class of people on the assumption that they cannot learn, their subsequent lack of knowledge will be unjustly used to reinforce the conviction that they are not adept at learning; history is replete with examples of this practice. But 1 Timothy 2:14 bases the analogy on Eve’s deception, not on the culture’s low opinion of women’s discernment; the context clearly shows that “the woman” in this passage refers to Eve, not to “woman” in a generic sense.[113]
How to Interpret This Passage
Paul does not say, “Women in Ephesus, learn quietly and don’t teach (in some sense) because of the situation in Ephesus.” Paul says instead, “Women in Ephesus, learn quietly and don’t teach (in some sense), for Eve was created after Adam and was deceived, and you could become like her.” It is easy to see why many readers take this passage as forbidding all women to teach.
The matter is not necessarily this simple, however. The “for” (“for Eve was created”) can be understood either as the reason for the impropriety of Ephesian women’s teachings or as an explanation of it. If we read the clause as an explanation rather than a cause of the impropriety of their teaching, Paul could simply be drawing an analogy rather than making a universal argument.[114]
But if Paul is making arguments for why these women should not teach, it appears at first sight that he provides us with two of them here, rather than just one. The first is from the creation order: Eve was created second. The second is that Eve was deceived when she transgressed.
The creation order argument is the more problematic and difficult to fathom of the two, because it is hard to square with Genesis. The Genesis account, taken on it own terms, does not subordinate Eve because she was created second; it makes her an equal part of Adam—her creation was necessary for him to be complete. The Hebrew phrase “helper suitable for him,” as is well known, denotes a role of strength (“helper” usually refers to God in the Hebrew Bible), and “suitable” may mean “corresponding to” or “equal to” (so that the woman is not viewed as a superior helper like God, nor as an unmatched creation like the animals).[115]
What then might Paul mean? There are at least three possibilities. The first is that Paul is exploiting the biblical account and twisting its meaning by ignoring its context. This suggestion would not appeal to most of us who think that Paul was writing under the Spirit’s inspiration and those who hold this view would not accept Paul’s case as a valid transcultural argument anyway. The second is that Paul is using the text in an ad hoc way to make a point but that, had he had more space, he would have qualified his point as he did in 1 Corinthians 11: woman was created second but she is really man’s equal and interdependent partner.[116] Again, those who do not believe Paul’s point to have been ad hoc in that passage must enforce women’s wearing of head coverings in churches today (and perhaps explain why Paul does not explicitly appeal to “universal” head coverings to address the ornate hair of well-to-do women in 1 Tim. 2:9–10). The third possibility is that Paul intends to connect Eve’s later creation to why she was deceived: she was not present when God gave the commandment, and thus was dependent on Adam for the teaching.[117] In other words, she was inadequately educated—like the women in the Ephesian church.
If we read Paul’s injunction here as applying to all women in all cultures, then this passage must be understood to mean, “Eve was deceived, so all women are more easily deceived than all men.” Otherwise he would not automatically exclude all women from teaching on this principle. On this reading of the text, Paul’s argument is that any good man’s teaching is better than any woman’s (no matter how trained or devout), and that all women’s teaching is necessarily invalid. But since Paul presupposes both male heretics and nonheretical women in the congregation, it is unlikely that he means this.
A better way to read this text is as an analogy, the kind Paul draws from Scripture throughout his letters. He often applies biblical examples just to analogous groups within particular local congregations in his own day (e.g., 1 Cor. 10:1–12). In this case, Paul is drawing an analogy between the easily deceived Eve and the easily deceived women in Ephesus. Since Paul elsewhere uses Eve as an analogy for the gullibility of the whole Corinthian church (2 Cor. 11:3)[118]—the men no less than the women—it is clear that he does not simply regard Eve as a standard symbol for women, any more than the consequences of Adam’s fall apply only to men in other Pauline passages (Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Cor. 15:45–49).
At this point, we may complain that Paul should have qualified his case here, as he did in 1 Corinthians 11:11–12, if he wished us to understand that he was simply applying this illustration to the matter at hand. But Paul’s illustration here covers the space of only two verses, and it may be too much to ask that such a brief illustration be qualified. If Paul was addressing only the issue in Ephesus, he was also writing the letter only to Timothy and the believers in Ephesus, and he would not have felt the need to explain to future generations that he was doing so. After all, if someone else later read the letter, Paul would assume that they would be smart enough to recognize that he was addressing his letter to a situation in Ephesus, as the letter as a whole claims to do. When we read Paul’s message to our spiritual ancestors for its relevance to us, we ought to do so within the canon of his whole teaching and practice.
But, having said this, we should note that Paul may have qualified his point in this text after all. The only passage in his Bible that really spoke of women’s subordination as a transcultural norm is the passage about Eve’s judgment at the Fall. Eve’s deception led to her subordination under man (Gen. 3:16). This is presented as part of the curse, and, like other aspects of the curse (labor pains, toil in the fields, sin, and death), does not need to be praised and enforced by church rules. But Paul may be saying in 1 Timothy 2:15, “Eve sinned and is a warning about what these women in Ephesus can do; but I must qualify my point: the curse that followed her sin is reversed for true followers of Jesus Christ.”
1 Timothy 2:15: Saved through Childbearing
This passage is the climax of Paul’s argument in 2:9–15,[119] and it must be related in some sense to what precedes it. The loose connective with the preceding verse may suggest that the image of Eve remains in 2:15.
There are at least three major ways to interpret this verse. The first is that women are saved because women are part of the plan of salvation, as evidenced in the great childbearing of Mary. Mary’s childbearing reversed the effects of Eve’s introduction of sin into the world.[120] The problem with this interpretation is that nothing in the context limits the childbearing to Mary’s or suggests that Mary is in view.
The second is that despite Eve’s sin, a woman can be saved if she lives righteously before God.[121] This verse can then mean either that she is saved through submitting to the curse of Genesis 3:16,[122] or that she is saved through fulfilling the roles necessary to be an appropriate witness in her culture. Given the specific language of this text (especially “propriety”), the latter view is more likely: they are saved “through the maternal and domestic roles that were clearly understood to constitute propriety (sōphrosynē) for women in the Greco-Roman culture of Paul’s day.”[123] This view makes good sense of the text and its context, and may be correct. I originally held this view, but reading ancient prayers for safety in childbirth eventually led me to concur with those who hold the third view.
The third position is that this verse refers to women being “brought safely through” childbirth. “Saved” means “delivered” or “brought safely through” more often in ancient literature than it means “saved from sin.”[124] It is true that Paul nowhere else uses “saved” to mean “saved in childbirth,” but it should be kept in mind that Paul nowhere else speaks of coming safely through childbirth. The most natural way for an ancient reader to have understood “salvation” in the context of childbirth would have been a safe delivery, for women regularly called upon patron deities (such as Artemis[125] or Isis[126]) in childbirth.[127]
Eve’s sin was directly connected with the curse of a difficult childbirth in Genesis 3:16,[128] and in Jewish tradition this was developed to include death in childbirth.[129]
Adam was the blood of the world. Because woman brought death upon him, she was put under obligation (to observe the law) of the blood of menstrual purity. Man was the dough offering of the world. Because she made him unclean, she was put under obligation (to observe the law) of the dough offering. Man was the light of the world. Because she caused him to be extinguished, she was put under obligation (to observe the lighting) of the (Sabbath) lamp. From this the Sages, blessed be their memory, said: For three offenses women die when they are giving birth: For carelessness in regard to menstrual purity, the dough offering and lighting the Sabbath lamp.[130]
Nor is this a strictly rabbinic reading of Eve’s judgment; the very nonrabbinic Jewish work, Apocalypse of Moses, also indicates the view that she would “come near to lose [her] life from [her] great anguish and pains” at birth.[131] In the related Life of Adam and Eve, Eve’s prayers in childbirth were not heard because of her sin, though Adam’s prayers for her were heard.[132]
But as impiety delivered one over to the effects of the curse, so also piety could deliver one from certain effects of the curse.[133] The power to open barren wombs by prayer was sometimes attributed to pious men,[134] and priests were said to have fasted to prevent pregnant women from miscarrying.[135] An early Christian hymn even claims that Mary bore Jesus without any pain.[136]
It may thus be that Paul’s promise that the women will be brought safely through childbirth is seen as a relief from part of the curse, from which believers will not be completely free until they share fully in the resurrection life of the second Adam, Christ (1 Cor. 15:45–49).[137] This would then qualify a connection between Eve’s deception and the curse that might lead some of Paul’s readers to assume that women must accept a subordinate role in the situation they faced in the Ephesian church because of Eve’s sin.
At this point, someone could counter that Paul need not be qualifying the whole curse; Paul, after all, could still see the husband’s rule over her (Gen. 3:16) as a valid part of God’s plan until the curse is fully done away at the second coming of Christ. Paul’s argument does not depend on this curse even to begin with, however, because the curse would have made a point much stronger than the one Paul wanted. Genesis 3:16 laments the effects of human sin as God’s curse, but does not prescribe them as a normative rule we ought to follow, any more than the Fall’s introduction of sin and death into the world is reason for us to promote sin and death. Paul does not appeal to the curse, but to Eve’s sin; and here he merely makes plainer that the curse itself was never part of God’s ideal plan for his people and that his appeal to the example of Eve’s sin does not support the continuance of the curse.
Before the Fall, Adam and Eve together were to rule all things (Gen. 1:27–28). But after the Fall, Adam would rule his wife because, being stronger, he could force her to obey. She would desire to overcome him but be unable, and he would instead overcome and rule her. This is the best way to take the Hebrew of Genesis 3:16, given the parallel constructions in Genesis 4:7: sin’s desire was toward Cain, but God told him to rule it, i.e., overcome it. This is a picture of marital strife, and Paul appeals instead to the creation order to establish his point: mutual harmony, which in this case mandates the woman’s silence and submission. Creation order mandates harmony, but Paul wants no one to misunderstand his appeal to Genesis: the curse has been affected by Christ’s triumph, and elements of it are passing away.
CONCLUSION
There is a universal principle in this text, but it is broader than that unlearned women should not teach. If Paul does not want the women to teach in some sense, it is not because they are women, but because they are unlearned. His principle here is that those who do not understand the Scriptures and are not able to teach them accurately should not be permitted to teach others.[138] This text is unfortunately quite applicable today; there are all too many people teaching unhealthy interpretations of the Bible today, and most of them are men.
I have sometimes said tongue-in-cheek that this prohibition of incompetent teachers thus excludes from ministry those who prohibit women from teaching. This is, of course, an exaggeration; if God did not show mercy on us when our interpretations miss his point, none of us could count as competent (a warning not without merit; see Jas. 3:1–2). But in all seriousness, it dangerous thing to turn people from their call, or to oppose their call if it is genuinely from God. On what basis do any of us men who are called prove our call? We trust inner conviction and the fruit of holy lives and teaching and faithfulness to that call, and if these evidences are insufficient demonstration of divine calling in the case of our sisters, how shall we attest our own?
The logic of the case can be battled back and forth with ever-new arguments for years, but in the meantime, we are confronted with the issue of those who claim to be called by God, and with a harvest that is great but for which the laborers are few. My hope is that this chapter will open some minds and hearts to their own call from God, and other minds and hearts to receive the ministry of God’s women servants whom God has anointed with his Spirit (Acts 2:18).