A Final Barrier
1 Timothy 2:8-15
I TEACH FAIRLY REGULARLY to groups of evangelical Christians and in the church on the subject of women in the New Testament. Before I begin to teach I like to ask people what questions they have come with. Without fail, and fairly early on, someone will ask, “What about 1 Timothy 2?” Or actually, more often than not, they will ask, “What about that verse where it says that women can’t teach?” or “What about that verse where it says women can’t teach and that they should be silent and ask their husbands at home?” Sometimes people muddle 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 and 1 Timothy 2. I have written about the impact of 1 Corinthians on women through the ages. Personally, I think the passage in 1 Corinthians 11 has been the most influential in forming doctrine and practice in the church that has resulted in the exclusion of women. However, 1 Timothy 2 has had a similar impact. So what about it?
What we see in 1 Timothy 2:8-15 will be determined by what we bring to the text. This is why I have left the discussion of this text to the end of the book instead of placing it at the beginning. My own view is that it is only possible to have an intelligent discussion about this passage once we have done some groundwork in other texts that might help us to make sense of it. As will have become obvious throughout this book, I believe it is not only possible but also correct to read texts in ways that tell a story about the way the Christian faith and the Bible are able to free women to lead, minister, and serve in whatever capacity they feel called to. Moreover, it is not a stretch to read the Bible in this way. There is enough evidence in the Bible itself and in the history of Christian thought and practice to convince us that this is a deeply Christian value.
If we go on a journey through the Bible and examine the ideas that underpin (1) the exclusion of women from certain roles, (2) the restrictions placed on them, or (3) the idea that marriage is based on authority and submission, we can see how unstable those foundations are. They are not at all the “plain readings” that people claim them to be. In addition to this, the acceptance of a hierarchicalist approach to Scripture requires us ignoring key themes in the Bible and huge swathes of Christian history. In this book, I discuss the idea that God is male and how we should understand that concept as well as highlighting the crucial role of women in the salvation story. I examine in some detail the use of Genesis both in relation to establishing the coequality of male and female before God and in the world and the part it plays or does not play in helping us to understand headship and marriage. I do not focus particularly on the role of women in the Old Testament, but I would recommend reading on this topic as a way of seeing how women play a part as anointed, courageous, prophetic leaders among the people of God. I also touch on Jesus’ treatment of women as uniquely empowering, but again I have left readers to do their own study of this in detail. I look at the idea of biblical marriage with reference to the Epistles, coming to the conclusion that the early church radically redefined the role of the husband in terms of sacrifice, nurture, and faithfulness, although I make the point that this is lost on us if (1) we lose sight of the teaching in its context, and (2) we only discuss marriage in terms of wifely submission. I discuss references to apostles, prophets, teachers, church leaders, elders, overseers, and deacons, and bring out the idea that women were essential to the spread of the gospel, the governance of the church, and making disciples. And I frame this with Paul’s theology of what it means to be “in Christ” as male and female, baptized into one faith, and one church, filled with the same Spirit who pours out gifts as he wills regardless of race, sex, age, and status.
For this reason, I believe the onus is on the hierarchicalists to explain why and how they understand the impact of the Christian gospel on families, communities, churches, and societies to give rise to the exclusion, subordination, and silencing of women. There is no precedent for this in Scripture. There are, however, three passages in the New Testament that appear to restrict women in the church in some way and are believed to do so. It also appears from these passages that it is because of woman’s relationship with man that these prohibitions are put in place. These passages occur in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, 14:33b-36, and 1 Timothy 2:8-15. Through my own study and research, I have become convinced that the prohibitions on women in 1 Corinthians 11:2-10 and in 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 are, in fact, the views of the Corinthians and not Paul’s and that Paul is rebuking them for implementing oppressive practices for women in worship. In other words, the prohibitions placed on women in the letter to the Corinthians are examples of how the Corinthians were treating women, in line with their own cultural expectations and values, against Paul’s teaching. Reading them thus resolves the plethora of problems and contradictions surrounding these verses and finally brings them into line with the rest of what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians and in his other letters. Consequently, I no longer read them as verses left in the Bible in order to control women, but those verses are there to show us how easily churches fall into the oppression and control of women. In my view then, there is one text left for us to discuss in relation to a supposed prohibition: 1 Timothy 2:8-15. So in one sense, everyone is right in asking, “So what about 1 Timothy 2?”
BUILDING A CASE FOR CONTEXT
When making decisions about meaning and interpretation, a first task is to establish whether there really is a plain reading of these verses that is hard to miss. In other words, is it really so obvious and uncomplicated that a couple of verses in one letter in the New Testament is telling us of a blanket rule that should be applied to all women at all times, in all places? Even a cursory reading of an English translation of the verses poses immediate problems for the Christian reader and will immediately complicate this claim.
We read in the NIV the following:
I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (vv. 9-15)
Here is the equivalent from the NRSV:
The women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
I include both translations to demonstrate the differences in nuance between translations. Note the differences between:
“elaborate hairstyles” and “braided hair”
“A woman should learn” and “Let a woman learn”
“in quietness” and “in silence”
“I do not permit a woman” and “I permit no woman”
“she must be quiet” and “she is to keep silent”
“But women will be saved through childbearing, provided they . . .” and “Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they . . .”
All of those differences in choice of translation give a message to the reader. In some ways the NIV is closer to the original text and in other ways the NRSV is. We will see where and how. What should not be lost on readers is the impact that one word or phrase will have and the effect that it will produce. Who is telling women what they should do, how, and why? Bearing in mind that this is written from one first-century man to another, is the message in the text so clear to a twenty-first century woman in a contemporary church? We might find ourselves asking questions of the text, and they might be along the following lines.
Why does Paul bring in this injunction here when he clearly does not apply this across the board in all his churches (as we have seen)?
What does it mean that women should “be quiet”? Or is she supposed to “be silent”?
Why does he link this idea to the creation story?
Why, in this account of creation, does he say that Adam was not deceived and that it was only the woman who “became a sinner” when in Romans 5 he uses the figure of Adam to represent sinful humanity?
What does it mean that women will be “saved” through childbearing when it is only through Jesus that people are saved?
All those questions beg for answers, and the answers are not given to us in the text itself. There are further problems in determining which of the English translations is more accurate. And if we study the Greek text to try to fathom a more accurate meaning, we find that the words used by Paul are not translated that well in many of our Bible translations. In verse 12, “I do not permit” is best translated, “I am not permitting.” It has the sense of “I am not allowing this for now or in this current season.” The word used for “have or assume authority over” is another hapax legomenon. It occurs only here, and the meaning is somewhat obscure. It is not the normal word that Paul uses for “authority.” Similarly, the word used for “quiet” also in verse 12 does not mean that a woman should shut up and be quiet (so “be silent” is not a good rendition of this word), but means that she should be restful. And finally, to add to our questions, in the Greek, the sentence reads, “But a woman [singular] will be saved by childbearing/childbirth if they [plural] continue in faith, love, and holiness, etc.” This is better reflected by the NRSV translation, but this text poses a number of quandaries in relation to meaning. Not surprisingly then, scholars assume that these verses would make more sense to us if we could get to the bottom of the Sitz im Leben of this passage, the particular situation in this particular place at this particular time that will help us to make sense of it all.
There are various ways in which we might piece this information together. We can study the words in the passage in detail for what they might be able to tell us. We can study the letter itself. And we can study other letters and historical evidence for what this first-century Ephesian church might have been facing in order for Paul to write this.1 In this short chapter, I will discuss one possible solution, based on the findings of two scholars, which seems to me to make the most sense of the problems in translation and interpretation.
PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger were early proponents of the idea that a careful study of the religious milieu of Ephesus in the first century could provide us with a new understanding of this opaque text.2 A number of their general conclusions are now accepted by many even though there may be disagreement over the exact meaning of some of the words in the passage. The Kroegers followed the line that Paul was addressing a situation in Ephesus where powerful and influential women were coming out of the Artemis cult and into the church. In doing so, the women were then taking up teaching roles without proper training and instruction, being domineering and stubborn, and teaching heresy, while at the same time refusing to accept instruction.
The Kroegers’ fundamental argument is that Paul was clearly addressing a specific situation, and that this text, therefore, cannot be read as a universal injunction for all women in all churches for all time. My own view is that we already have such a weight of evidence against reading this text as a universal ruling that we have to discount the idea that Paul was prohibiting all women from teaching men. In other words, even if we could never prove that Paul was addressing this or that particular situation, we know enough to know that this could not have been a universal ruling and so must discount it as that anyway. The idea that Paul was addressing an early heresy in the Ephesian church propagated by a few influential women converts from the Artemis cult also helps us to make sense of what was written, so we will turn to this idea.
There are still some who resist this view. For example, Thomas Schreiner writes, “There is no clear evidence in Paul’s letters that the Artemis cult played a role. Paul does not mention the cult, nor is there any specific notion in the text that shows the influence of the cult.”3 I am unclear as to why there is still resistance to this view as there is compelling evidence that the Artemis cult lies behind this text, and the discovery of this has led to much greater clarity of some of the more thorny issues. First, I summarize the work of Gary Hoag, whose research focuses specifically on the question of wealth in 1 Timothy but who also addresses this passage in his book.4 In some ways, he is not saying anything radically new about the setting of 1 Timothy being the Artemis cult, but he has found some new evidence that is worth reproducing because he has found more detail that has a bearing on the question of whether Paul really was referring to the cult after all.5 I also supplement Hoag’s findings with Sandra Glahn’s work, which brings even greater clarity to the problems, shedding light, as it does, on a number of our questions.
EPHESIANS IN CONTEXT
Hoag’s thesis rests on similarities within the text of 1 Timothy and the novel Ephesiaca by Xenophon of Ephesus.6 He was drawn to this research by the redating of this novel, placing it at the time of Paul’s ministry as portrayed in Luke-Acts. Originally thought to have been written in the second or third century CE, the novel was recently codified as an ancient Greek novel of the mid-first century CE. Thus it is a valuable source in shedding light on the Sitz im Leben of the letter. Hoag studies in particular five passages (1 Timothy 2:9-15; 3:1-13; 6:1-2a; 6:2b-10; 6:17-19), undertaking a close textual reading of the two texts, subjecting the passages to multiple lenses in order to discern how terms and themes may have been understood in antiquity and specifically in Ephesus at the time of Paul. He is convinced that the similarities between the novel and the letter shed light on how we might understand Paul’s words to Timothy.
Ephesiaca is a love story of two beautiful young people (Habrocomes and Anthia) from Ephesus who, like all their contemporaries, are both devoted to Artemis. It traces their passionate first meeting at a ceremony to Artemis in the temple, where Anthia leads a procession of young women (all dressed as the goddess) into the temple, their falling in love, their lavish and public marriage, and their subsequent adventures and perils, which lead them to be hazardously separated before finding one another again, older and wiser, through fortuitous and previously foretold circumstances. Their slave couple travel with them, are devoted to them, and are deeply involved in their story. At one point the slaves come into wealth, which they then hand over to Habrocomes and Anthia in the end. The four are reunited on the same terms as they had always been.
Ephesiaca gives us a window into Ephesian life, the cult of Artemis, the function of the Artemisium, codes of shame and honor, attitudes to wealth, women, slaves, and benefaction. What is of particular interest for us is that word studies reveal significant overlap in the use of certain words in both 1 Timothy and Ephesiaca that gives us much deeper insight into the context into which Paul was preaching the gospel and seriously calls into questions Schreiner’s rejection of the idea that the Artemis cult is in view. Here we will just focus on this treatment of 1 Timothy 2:8-15.
As Hoag rightly points out, there is agreement among scholars that social and religious realities associated with women are in the background. His own view is that the author of 1 Timothy has in view here women of wealth who have come out from the Artemis cult. This is not particularly new. Witherington writes that Paul was facing the reality of “high status women who expect to play a religious role in the Christian meetings but have not yet been fully or properly instructed in the apostolic teaching”7 However, bringing evidence from Ephesiaca to bear on the verses on women throws up a number of helpful cross-references to the situation at the time, helping to paint a clearer picture for us, the modern readers. This is in relation to the dress codes for women, the call to learn in quietness and submission, the use of the word authentein (another hapax legomenon), the slightly strange reference to creation, and the mysterious reference to childbearing, all of which are problematic. Hoag does not claim that Ephesiaca provides conclusive proof, only valuable clues. However, one example of the clues he provides is that “nearly every word in 1 Tim 2:9-10 appears in Ephesiaca.”8 This must be significant and should be taken into account. The following are Hoag’s findings.
FEMALE FOLLOWERS OF ARTEMIS AND THE CHURCH
The picture Hoag offers is that the whole context for these verses is the Artemis/Isis cult and the prominent part that women play in this. First, Hoag demonstrates that the dress codes stipulated for women by Paul are most likely linked to an injunction regarding women imitating and dedicating themselves to Artemis, which would have been common practice in the temple.
His first example is that the term used in verse 9 for “plaits or braids” (plegmasin) is a rare term and is one of the words found in Ephesiaca referring specifically to the hairstyle of Ephesian women who served Artemis as they imitated her hair and clothing. We know that the women of the cult dressed in imitation of Artemis with the significant feature of plaiting their hair in an elaborate and recognizable way. It is this, in Hoag’s view, that Paul is prohibiting—the continued imitation of Artemis in dress and hairstyle in church! This is why I included the alternative translation of the NRSV, which makes references to braided hair that the NIV omits. In this case, the NRSV is more accurate. We now know that a footnote explaining the significance of the reference to braids would be in order.
In Hoag’s opinion, then, the women were not being told not to dress either like the “new Roman women” or in “ostentatious, flashy and distracting” apparel or even like prostitutes, as some scholars suggest, but were being told no longer to dress as they would have done to serve Artemis.9 They were to leave this behind on conversion. In addition to the Artemisian hairstyle, the costly clothing that Paul refers to (himatismō polytelei) was the clothing that the wealthy priestesses wore in cultic activities. No wonder there was a need to shed (literally) this apparel and replace it with modest clothing, no longer associated with pagan worship.
Second, Hoag addresses the question of acts of public piety to Artemis and the gods. In addition to imitating the goddess, “women were expected to perform public good deeds and generous donations out of εὐσεβεία, ‘piety,’ to Artemis and the gods.”10 Hoag compares this to the countercultural expectation of exhibiting modest decorum and doing good deeds motivated by theosebeia, “piety to God,” which in 1 Timothy is an exhortation aimed at the women. Paul is thus contrasting the public gifts made to the cult that would have brought public honor to the giver and the gifts made by the new convert to the church, a new and very different form of piety. Furthermore, Hoag goes on to discuss the evidence from Ephesiaca regarding the behavior of the women in Ephesus, revealing that the women of the cult depicted in the novel are assertive, competitive, vocal, and well-versed in their religion. “They recite prayers, serve piously, and fiercely compete to attain various religious roles linked to their adornment and activities.” They “assertively promote the Artemis myth and proudly receive the worship of the goddess who is mysteriously linked to Isis.”11 This link to Isis is important.
As is well known, Ephesian women were expected to serve Artemis, but Hoag also establishes a link between Artemis (of Greek myth) and Isis (of Egyptian myth), demonstrating that the two myths were blended in Ephesus in antiquity. Women served the goddess piously for fear of vengeance from the goddess herself and were well-versed in their religion. The result was that women were actively engaged in also propagating the Isis myth in which Isis deceives Ra and usurps his authority to obtain power and greatness. Alongside the Artemis myth that alleged the goddess, the woman, was the author of man, Hoag posits that this explains the use of the word authentein in 1 Timothy in relation to women teaching. This word has been the subject of much discussion because it occurs only once in the Bible and only twice in any relevant extrabiblical literature, leaving us somewhat in the dark as to meaning. Possible translations have been given as either “exercise authority” or “domineer” or maybe even more linked to the idea of a person as the “author” or “originator” of another. Hoag suggests that it pertains to all three. The prohibition on teaching is against the teaching of heresy linked to the Artemis/Isis cult. If women like the ones we encounter in Ephesiaca are joining the church, it is easily imaginable how they end up assuming authority, control, and might have taken to teaching others without seeing the need to receive instruction. Hoag writes that Paul’s use of the word authentein would have carried with it the connotations that “Women must cease propagating the heresy that promoted the woman as the usurper of authority from man, the woman as the originator of man, and that man was the one deceived in the creation account.”12 These verses are aimed at the confident female teachers of a particular Greek/Egyptian heresy that warrants this response.
According to Hoag, the reference to salvation through childbearing also becomes clearer in this context. To come out of a cult where it was presumed that women were protected by the goddess of childbearing would put them in fear either of becoming exposed to danger or possibly to be victims of vengeance on the part of the goddess. Serving God instead would hold perceived risks and fears for women who bore children. Hoag suggests that 1 Timothy 2:15 offers hope instead of fear for women in this context. In addition to being assured that they would be saved or protected through the process of childbirth, they could exhibit this trust in God by persevering in “faith, love and holiness, with modesty” rather than returning to their old ways, which would indicate that they are still worshiping Artemis/Isis and living in fear of the goddess. We will discuss this particular point in more detail shortly.
He concludes, “The construct of the statement in 1 Tim 2:12-14 alongside this leading belief from the world of Ephesiaca seems to demonstrate that the author of 1 Timothy is demythologizing the Ephesians’ thinking and setting the record straight.”13 The call to learn in quietness and submission and the prohibition against teaching are thus framed, in his opinion, by verses that provide quite clear evidence that this section of the letter is targeting heretical thought and practice imported into the fledgling Ephesian church via the wealthy women from the Artemis/Isis cult.
ARTEMIS OF THE EPHESIANS
In many ways, Glahn’s work is not dissimilar to Hoag’s.14 Glahn also sees multiple hints that the author of 1 Timothy “has the teachings of the Artemis cult in mind when he writes to his protégé.”15 She does, however, bring out some other insights from her work on the Sitz im Leben, which enhance Hoag’s thesis in helpful ways. Most specifically, this has to do with her description of the particular characteristics of Artemis of the Ephesians, whose character and function helps us to make sense of the passage. One of Glahn’s main points is that the figure of Artemis in Ephesus had a different appearance from the generic Greek Artemis figure and that the particularities of the Ephesian Artemis are relevant to our passage.16
Where some have speculated that Artemis was a nourishing mother figure, Glahn argues that she was far from that. According to myth, Artemis is the virgin daughter of Leto and Zeus who oversaw the painful nine-day labor of her brother, Apollo. After this, “Artemis had no desire to give birth herself, so she asked her father to make her immune to Aphrodite’s arrows, a request that Zeus granted. Thus, Artemis, having special sympathy for women in travail from her first days, came to be associated with virginity and, especially in Ephesus, with midwifery.”17 Her watchful eye over women in labor, however, was not of the matronly, nurturing woman but of a “powerful, volatile sovereign who determines who will live or die.”18 Artemis was believed either to be able to deliver a mother and child safely through childbirth or alternatively to dispatch the mother in labor as a form of mercy-killing should the labor be too long and too torturous.19 Thus the name of Artemis was associated with one who had the power to deliver and, crucially, became associated with the term savior.20 According to Glahn, this provides a rationale for the use of Savior language in relation to God, noticeable in 1 Timothy where it occurs so rarely elsewhere in Paul’s letters. She writes, “Perhaps the biblical text here should be understood as an overt polemic for the true savior. It is also possible that such language provides a hint as to the source and kind of falsehood causing concern.”21 Clearly this would provide an adequate explanation of the reference to Christian women being saved/delivered through childbirth by God if they continue to place their trust in him by living Christianly and not with a foot in either camp. In relation to the phrase that “She will be saved through childbearing” and the following transition to the plural “they,” Glahn suggests that Paul may be borrowing a local quote. This would explain the phrase “this is a faithful/trustworthy saying” that follows in 1 Timothy 3:1 as referring to the saying about childbirth in 1 Timothy 2:15 rather than what follows in 3:2 regarding elders. The Nestle-Aland 28th edition of the Greek text is translated precisely in this way, acknowledging that this could refer to “some proverbial expression now lost in which ‘saved’ means ‘delivered.’”22 Glahn’s conclusion is that Paul takes a familiar phrase and reframes it for his audience. Being saved by childbearing is not within Artemis’s purview, as they had been taught, but God’s.23
WEALTH AND HONOR ON EPHESUS
In the second half of his book, Hoag discusses the connection between false teaching, greed, status, honor, and love of money presented in the letter and draws numerous parallels with ancient Ephesus, expanding this to leaders in general. “Ephesian evidence and Ephesiaca portray greedy religious leaders linked to Artemis and the gods as pious pretenders serving for shameful gain.”24 In Ephesus, the rich nobility “owned” the religious leadership roles and vice versa. Serving the cult was linked to wealth, status, and honor, and a means of amassing even more wealth. In this context, 1 Timothy 3:1-13 would have had radically countercultural and subversive implications. The leaders of God’s church, in contrast, are to shun greed and to give up the benefactor model of the temple in exchange for the posture of humble service. Christians do not give of their wealth to gain honor and status but in order to serve the body. Their service is for God’s glory and not for their own personal gain. Thus, the “1 Timothy polemic may be targeting the thinking and behavior of the wealthy who sought to preserve their roles and the religious reputation of Ephesus.”25
He draws together the themes of the behavior of wealthy Ephesian women and the cult through his examples of Dorcas, Lydia, and Priscilla. These three wealthy Christian women use their riches for radically countercultural “good deeds,” compared with the kind of uses of wealth that we see in Ephesiaca for serving of the goddess and for building one’s own reputation and honor. They “epitomize the expectations of rich Christian women in 1 Tim 2:9-15.”26 The wealthy Ephesian Christians (including the women) are called on to give up the link between Artemis worship, wealth, status, honor, and protection and instead to devote their wealth to serve God with “good deeds.” Followers of Jesus Christ would lose the privileged position of the cult and may have to be prepared to be content with basic provisions. Hoag concludes that 1 Timothy is consistent with New Testament teaching on wealth through the central theme of “God as benefactor,” which runs like a thread through the New Testament and is manifest in this letter. In his view, equality is in view as Christians are called to share resources, to give generously, and as both slaves and masters equally partake in God’s beneficence.
Glahn has a similar perspective. She argues that Paul’s exhortation to dress modestly, rather than being aimed at sexually active and provocative women, is actually aimed at the wealthy ostentatious women. Artemis was associated with lavish apparel, and there could have been benefactors of the cult who assumed that they would hold a similar status in the church. By telling Timothy that he should regulate their dress, he was attempting to control the obvious markers of wealth, and Glahn’s point, in line with Hoag, is that this letter is addressing the question of wealthy ostentation and lording it over others, which is inappropriate in the Christian community.
FURTHER ISSUES
Hoag’s and Glahn’s readings deal with so many of our problems with the passage and make sense of other word studies that have been done on this passage. Additional evidence that Paul is addressing these wealthy women converts from the cult and temporarily suspending their teaching until they had learned from the apostles’ teaching is supported by other aspects of his language. First, he uses a particular word for “I do not permit” (epitrepō) that is used more in the context of allowing or permission-giving rather than as a command. In addition to this, the tense of the verb is a present indicative active, which is better translated “I am not allowing.” The sense here is that Paul is advising Timothy of a situation where, for now, he is not permitting women to teach rather than a command to all women everywhere. There is only one command in the passage, which is to “let a woman learn” (v. 11). It is often pointed out that in the context of Jewish and some pagan attitudes to women that this was a revolutionary command in itself in relation to women—that they are commanded to learn! This then makes more sense of the term hēsychia in vv. 11-12, which is better translated as to be “quiet” or “restful,” in other words, a call to the assertive women for attentiveness and receptiveness while learning so they will become good and truthful teachers in time.
Finally, it makes more sense of the reference to Eve as the one deceived if women within the cult were teaching that women were preeminent, dominant, and in control.27 The Christian narrative, on the contrary, was that women were not the divine receptacles of truth and revelation but were as vulnerable to deception as men. It is bizarre that this reference to Eve has been read in the past as some kind of proof that women are more vulnerable to deception than men and therefore more unreliable with the truths of the gospel. Gregory of Nazianzus gives a robust and early rejoinder to these kinds of ideas that men and women were subject to different standards:
How then do you demand Chastity, while thou dost not yourself observe it? How do you demand that which thou dost not give? How, though you are equally a body, do you legislate unequally? If you enquire into the worse—The Woman Sinned, and so did Adam. Genesis 3:6. The serpent deceived them both; and one was not found to be the stronger and the other the weaker. But do you consider the better? Christ saves both by His Passion. Was He made flesh for the Man? So He was also for the woman. Did He die for the Man? The Woman also is saved by His death. He is called of the seed of David; Romans 1:3 and so perhaps you think the Man is honoured; but He is born of a Virgin, and this is on the Woman’s side. They two, He says, shall be one Flesh; so let the one flesh have equal honour.28
If men in the first few hundred years of the church understood not to take these verses as any sign of inherent inequality of disposition and suitability for service of God, then how did it ever become so?
SUMMARY
All are agreed that Paul has false teachers in view in his letter to Timothy, and the irony is that this passage that has been traditionally used to silence women and prevent them from teaching, was most likely only intended to correct women teachers until they learned a better way. In other words, Paul permitted women to teach but then found that some of them, just like some of the men, were not ready for the responsibility they had been given. First Timothy 1:3 is variously translated, but Glahn renders it thus: “As I urged you when I departed into Macedonia, stay in Ephesus that you may order some not to teach false doctrine.” As Paul uses the neuter pronoun here (tisin), she writes that it is “perhaps better translated ‘certain persons’ or ‘some,’ which makes no suggestion of male or female.”29 There are many references to women in the letter. Glahn writes, “The influence of the cult’s celibate goddess may explain why the church in Artemis’s city was so filled with single women—whether they be young (5:11, 14), old (v. 9), causing difficulty (v. 15), and/or needing to marry and have children (v. 14)—and the teaching of some forbidding marriage (4:3).”30 Teaching to women and teaching about women would entail references to Artemis, which we know “stood in direct opposition to biblical truth.”31 Finally, Glahn makes a case that the women in 1 Timothy 2:11 is a reference to wives and not women in general. With the corresponding instruction for men/husbands, the emphasis on submission, and the reference to childbearing, she sees the weight of evidence pointing to both husbands and wives being disruptive and to Christian wives being called to behave in an orderly fashion in relation to their husbands in public. In the same way, the husbands are addressed and told to deal with their anger.32
I conclude with a quote from Glahn that sums up the debate extremely well:
The goddess’s influence and its effect on the church in Ephesus may account for why the apostle to the Gentiles would choose to speak the way he did of God as Savior, Christ in the flesh, Christ’s humanity, ascetic practices, marriage, wives’ autonomy, remarriage, widows, modesty in dress, teaching, Adam, Eve, being deceived, being saved, childbearing, and faithful sayings. While scholars will continue to debate the meaning of Paul’s teachings about gender and how much weight to give cultural information, discoveries in the past half-century in Ephesus challenge enough old assumptions to merit a fresh look at the evidence and possibly to shed new light on the beloved ancient text.33
WHAT WE DO IN REAL LIFE
As we have seen, there are other texts that, if read in a certain way, appear to endorse the idea that women should take a subordinate role, remain quiet, not have authority over men, and wear head coverings. However, I have demonstrated not only that they do not mean that but that in practice women did nothing of the kind, and neither have they done so in any absolute way throughout history. The first church as a body of believers clearly did not take these to be instructions, and in many ways were doing the opposite. And throughout the ages, in different cultures, women have planted churches, taught men and women in the faith, evangelized, and consistently gone bareheaded. With the glaringly obvious reality that most of the institutional structures of the church have been patriarchal from very early on, the informal structures of the church have been strongly influenced and led by women. My point is not that this is desirable (to have a female subculture), but that in reality even among the most rigorous of hierarchicalists, the application of these verses has been haphazard, erratic, and illogical. With all of this in mind, what applications should we now expect to see in the church of our day?