1 Timothy 2:11-15 is perhaps the most troubling in the New Testament in terms of what Paul commands for his churches and his reasons for those commands. The command is for women “to learn in quiet and submission” (v. 11). As with Paul’s commands about modest dress, the most common way to explain these verses is to say that Paul is dealing with a particular problem with overbearing women teachers in Ephesus, and that the situation is unique. He is not intending to declare that women should be absolutely silent in church!
It is best to read this passage in the context of the quiet life Paul described in the first part of 1 Timothy 2. The “silencing of women” is an extension of the other disruptions to the quiet life in the preceding paragraph.
Paul says women should learn, but they ought to do so with the same sort of dignified grace he encouraged in the first seven verses of the passage. What are these women doing that is not “quiet”? This is left unstated, but it is possible the instructions on dress and teaching which follow are the hint that some women are “taking charge” in a way which would offend Greek and Roman outsiders.
This verse does not indicate to whom they ought to submit. It is often read as if Paul says that they ought to submit to their husbands (like Eph 5:22) or to the (male) pastor of the church. But that is not actually stated, so it is at least possible that this submission is to the word of God itself.
More difficult, Paul states that he does not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man” (v. 12). This is consistent with 1 Cor 14:34, and is also consistent with Jewish synagogue practice as far as we know in the first century. In addition, there is no evidence of women assuming the role of a teacher in a philosophical school or public venue.
Women did teach, but in private instruction (of children, for example). Priscilla is an example of a woman who taught Apollos in Acts 18:26. Towner suspects Paul’s freedom in Christ gave woman and slaves far more freedom in the church meeting than they would have had in a public meeting (Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 218.).
The problem in Ephesus is wealthy women in the church who were under the influence of the opponents, who used their prominence (wealth) to promote a teaching Paul has already rejected because it is incompatible with the Gospel.
The key word in the verse is “have authority over” (αὐθεντέω). The verb has the sense of “to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to” (BDAG), and the Jerusalem Bible has “tell a man what to do.” Much ink has been spilled trying to sort out what this word means in this context. (For example, G. W. Knight, “αὐθεντέω in Reference to Women in 1 Tim. 2,12,” NTS 30 (1984): 143-57). The noun (αὐθέντης) is usually translated master, and BDAG speculates the word is the source of the Turkish effendi.
The verb has the connotation of domineering, going a bit beyond the teaching of a lesson from the Scriptures. In the context of “wealthy women behaving badly” many scholars understand this term as prohibiting these women from assuming control of the church in order to promote their particular brand of false teaching. If the problem had been “wealthy men behaving badly,” Paul would have likely said the same sort of thing to them. Imagine, for example, what Paul might say to Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist “church.”
The background in Ephesus is therefore important since it appears that some wealthy women are taking the Pauline idea of equality in Christ to insist they should be considered authoritative teachers and elders in the church and pushing their particular (defective) version of the Christian faith.
How does reading the command in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in the context of the quiet life impact contemporary church practice? If gaining the respect of outsiders is a factor, would the role of women in a church be different in a culture where women do not have prominent roles in society? Or is this an example of the church challenging culture with the truth of the Gospel?
Phillip, I appreciate your thoughtful contextualizing of what indeed is a “troubling” passage. Not just to women who may feel constrained in use of strong gifts or outright constrained and disrespected, or tensions with developments of culture. But also in terms of consistency within what are considered Paul’s writings and teaching/practice.
I do understand why it is so but cannot accept as intellectually honest that the bulk of Evangelical (let alone Fundamentalist) leaders/scholars go against the strong consensus of biblical scholars overall… with the plainest and most plausible “solution”: This “letter” (with 2 Tim. and Titus) were NOT written by Paul, but considerably after his lifetime. Things were getting further from the example of both Jesus and Paul, and into integration with “secular” culture.
As you know, but many readers will not, there are numerous lines of evidence examined by honest, seeking scholars when trying to date and attribute authorship to ancient documents. And in the case of the Pastoral Epistles, the evidence is strong in numerous of these lines that Paul’s “signature” is a forgery. There is already reference to one of the common-place forgeries in 2 Thess. (2:2), apparently of Paul’s name, whether or not 2 Thess. itself was by Paul. So, with what we know (and don’t know) of the creation of our present NT canon, should it be any surprise that compromised, “UNPauline” teaching on the role of women in Christian teaching and leadership would have gotten into it? (This I say with recognition of the I Cor. 14 passage which is too involved to go into here.)
Oops, just caught my grammar error: In 2nd paragraph of my above comment, “…were NOT written…” should be “was NOT written”.
Interesting post, albeit not easy to read. But what other books can we eliminate from the canon?
Sorry about the convoluted writing. As to books in the canon, it’s a complex subject, of course. My own studied opinion is that the concept of an inspired, authoritative canon is itself seriously flawed and ultimately unhelpful. That is, in the form in which it is used in traditional orthodoxy.
But for starters, within orthodox circles there have historically been disputes on many such as James, Jude, Revelation…. Depends whose challenges one takes more seriously than others. And how late one considers them still valid… Luther’s in the 1500’s?
While I know this author is not well-regarded by traditionalists, to say the least, I highly recommend “Forged” by Bart Ehrman. It’s one of the few lay-oriented books that reflects some fresh research… and a compelling case for revising scholarly views of “canonical” authorship of numerous books. Also how “schools”, disciples and later writers in another’s name are assessed, and much more.
I would like to start thinking a little differently about the disputed letters. To say they are either “authentic” or “forged” sets up the dichotomy too sharply, possibly in taking forged as an excuse to dismiss them as authoritative (a motivation easily understood in the Pastorals).
A letter could be written by a disciple who genuinely sought to reflect the mind of Paul, perhaps even using / editing genuine Pauline fragments. Such a letter could be called forged, but still reflect an authentic Pauline voice. Is that really a “forgery”? How does that differ from common descriptions of how Isaiah was formed, or maybe even the Psalms?
In addition, a pastoral letter from the Pauline circle (rather then the hand of Paul) could still be accepted as authoritative for practice and doctrine, especially if it was related to Paul closely. A letter like 3 Corinthians failed because it was not close (enough) to the Pauline circle, maybe this would be an example of a forgery (along with the letters of Paul and Seneca).
I suppose there were other Pauline letters which were not considered authoritative even if authentic. Like 2-3 John, Paul probably wrote many short notes which were not collected (probably due to their personal nature).
So genuine does not automatically mean authoritative, authoritative could be separated from genuine. (Bear in mind, at ETS that is a radical thought, but I am at SBL for this comment! I also think there are good reasons to accept the Pastorals as authentic, but that is for another time.)
Phillip, in response to your thoughtful comments on authoritative voices, forgery and such: There’s a LOT to discuss here… hope we (and many more Christians) will get to it further when more of an intentional topic (not an aside as here). But a couple thoughts:
Way too few people get into “thinking about thinking” or serious analysis of the very paradigms that strongly structure thinking and perception in a given area (here, “orthodoxy” or its subset of “evangelical” systematic theology and view of Scripture). College should be just the beginning of this. But a strong beginning. For me, it was not much stimulated at Biola University nor at Talbot School of Theology; and I suspect similarly for most X’n schools and even secular universities. So…
… Applied to authority in and of Scripture, your comments seem in the same direction as my “radical” but not-really-so-radical thinking (tho taken as damningly radical by my family and former colleagues who are Evangelicals). Like thousands of others, I now have a significantly modified “system” or paradigm (developed over 20 years post-evangelical, following 27 adult years Evangelical).
I see mostly the overt human processes in assigning authority and the divine only as the subtle undercurrent. It is clearly HUMANS who do evaluations and assign authoritative status to a given “scripture” (of any religion or subset of one, as in the differing Bibles of Jews, Catholics and Protestants). This is often after a lot of nasty battle which hardly seems “Spirit-led”. It is also on the basis of factors after the lifetime of a given author, and very often involves a multi-author editing factor. Thus, much of the highly variable, subjective nature of memory and legend-making enters in.
In other words, that a text is later labeled as Scripture seems definitely NOT an actual matter of real-time unequivocal divine inspiration (as validated by miracles or supposedly “special” supernatural revelations to the author, etc.). In orthodoxy, the prevailing view has some works/words validated in this basic (unreal) manner. They are then posited with “divine” authority, placing them apart from/above all other works/words.
Now, if Christians want to have (as I do, with many progressive friends) a “canon” of texts we view as foundational thinking and “the better collected thoughts and historical summaries of our early period” I’m fine with it. But that’s not how “authority of Scripture” works (and which works should be included) in the vast majority of Christianity. I won’t here go into the many serious problems emerging from the way authority IS treated.
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
I wonder where Adam and Eve would fit in. “Paul” here refers to him. Maybe it is just an analogy—-the rich women are spreading false teaching, as Eve was—-as opposed to “Paul” making a blanket statement about men and women on the basis of Genesis 3.
I take it you don’t accept the Pauline authorship of the pastoral epistles; hence, you wrote “Paul.” I am curious as to what false teaching Eve was spreading.
Oh, I’m open either way on authorship. On what false teaching Eve was spreading, I suppose it would be what the serpent told her. The analogy would be that Eve was deceived and encouraged her husband to sin, as the wealthy women were deceived and were spreading heresy. You ask in your comment below about whether there is evidence that women were spreading heresy. II Timothy 2:6 mentions gullible women influenced by those who have a form of godliness, so that could be a reference to it.
I suppose the claim women were more active in leadership in the early church is a double-edged sword; if women were teaching they are as likely as men to develop some sort of heretical idea or practice!
I think there is a good argument to be made that the problem in the background of 1 Timothy is a woman teaching some sort of false doctrine. This is not to say it’s false because she is a woman, but because it is not in line with the Gospel. This passage is used to silence all women, but Paul would be just as angry with a male false teacher. Th trouble is he makes the blanket statements about all women, that is the hard thing to explain.
Another angle at this problem is the fact that some orators in the Greco-Roman world preyed upon gullible women (think Gildiroy Lockhart). It is possible Paul is reacting to some women who have been taken in by a teacher who manipulates them.
I don’t see any reason to mitigate this passage, and I am thankful that Paul was the kind of guy who told it like it was. He would not have felt comfortable in today’s politically correct world, particularly since the culture has made such powerful inroads into the church.
Where is the evidence for false teaching by wealthy women in the church at Ephesus? I would like to have chapter and verse because I just don’t see it. Good exegesis takes into account the context in which a verse or verses appear, and you do a commendable job of that. However, is the point taken too far? Paul says remarkably little about the nature or the persons involved in this ascetic heresy. Therefore, we should proceed with caution in our interpretation of following verses.
In any case this heresy does not seem to be the only reason for Paul’s injunction that women keep silence and learn in submission. His argument is that women are easily deceived, just as Eve was deceived by the serpent in the garden of Eden. Men have primacy in teaching because Adam was created first. Eve was his helper, not his leader, and women should, therefore, not occupy leadership positions over men in the Church. The Greek verb authenteo is forceful. It is tantamount to “telling a man what to do.” That’s the way it is, and if bossy women don’t like it, they need to do some serious soul-searching and prayer.
Unless I am wrong, and I am open to that possibility, it seems disingenuous to concoct a straw man (false teachers of the female persuasion in Ephesus) in order to soften Paul’s message about the role of women in the Church. Doubtless there were false teachers in Ephesus, but how many were female, and what was the impact of their teaching? Times have changed, but doctrine and people haven’t, and I think this passage applies as much to us today as it did to first-century believers.
Thanks to James and Phillip for your replies up there. They are much appreciated.
As far as the application of such a passage is concerned, I think Longenecker puts it best, “That being said, it is our contention that the church in any given generation needs to grapple with how best to interface with ambient culture in ways that are faithful to the gospel and attractive to outsiders.” (TTP 275). While I realize he is referencing Titus, I think a similar principle applies. We each have to wrestle with this idea in a current and relevant way. Fundamentalism seeks to refute this idea and build walls according to these passages word for word. Paul might have “told it like it was” but he also said some pretty politically left stuff. Saying things like “here there is no greek nor jew” would not have likely been something the moral majority would have hopped on board with. Imagine the same idea replaced with gender identity or sexual orientation! Now, I am not hinting at the idea that Paul would have condoned such things (nor is that the point of this post) but he certainly might have said a few countercultural things, and they likely would not have fit in the perfect mold of a politically left or right mindset. Similarly, I think that Paul assessed different situations in different ways. Rather than a blanket statement which applies to all church scenarios, perhaps there is a sort of cognitive dissonance to be understood here. While Paul says a few words about women in these pastoral epistles, he also values the leadership of Phoebe in Romans and other women in the church. My point is this; I have to agree with Dr. Long that setting any sort of dichotomy too sharply with Paul is usually a bad idea. So many people read Paul as either a rebellious libertarian Christian radical, or a peace loving liberal pacifist, which both lend a certain political and social identity to him. If I were a betting man, I would say that Paul would have appreciated women in the church differently in different contexts.
This is indeed a challenging passage to read as a woman. Context is key in reading this correctly. Regarding spiritual gifts, if a woman has the spiritual gift of teaching, she should use it! As the body of Christ, men and women must work together. We need each other. With that, I think women are better at teaching women, and men are better at teaching men. Going back to the fall of man, Gen 3:16 says that men will rule over women. This was not God’s original plan from the beginning; from the beginning he made man and woman as equals, but the fall screwed that one up. That is what caused such a patriarchal society, in that in those times, it wasn’t even an option for women to teach or preach. This made Paul’s gospel so inclusive when he brings up women and slaves. However, male teaching is accepted by society because of the innate urge to listen to men (the fall) which makes it hard for men to listen to women. But even in that culture, listening to women was unheard of in formal settings. This is why Paul doesn’t urge the women to preach, because that was already unheard of and would be distasteful to society. In verse 12, the word silence bugs me, but the greek word doesn’t refer to a verbal silence, but a spiritual quietness. The women who were teaching in the church were wealthy and ignorant. Paul was probably asking for a quiet spirit, but also for truth to be preached. This regards anyone male or female: if the speaker is ignorant on what they are speaking on, (the gospel) then they shouldn’t speak at all. Living in American society today is challenging because it puts a lot of pressure on women to be equal or better than men in many areas. There is also a trend going on today that gender roles do not exist or that one gender doesn’t need the other. However, men and women need each other! We are built differently and do different things to glorify God. When reading the Bible with this American lens, we forget the context of the passage and we have to go back to the beginning in Genesis.
I see this is an older post, but I just read a 2019 book that extensively considers 1 Timothy 2 with fresh light and insight. While I don’t delve into that in my review, my review of the book is here: https://lightenough.wordpress.com/2019/10/30/book-review-men-and-women-in-christ-by-andrew-bartlett/
Thanks Laura….I have been revising this Pastorals series from a few years ago, but clearly need to read this book. Maybe I will pick that one up at the ETS/SBL meetings next week!
A few other points of consideration: First, Timothy is ministering in Ephesus. The main religion of that city was that of Diana/Artemis…a female ONLY cult. It’s presumable that some of those in the church in Ephesus under Timothy would have been converted from that cult, and having difficulty unlearning some of their previous ways, which included female dominance over men. This is probably what Paul is prohibiting.
Second, Ken Bailey’s book, “Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes” (a sort of commentary on 1 Corinthians) also provides something potentially enlightening regarding the “silence” and “quiet” passages. Churches taking forms of order from Synagogues would have separated men and women. For maximum spread of the gospel the message would have been given in the trade language rather than local dialects. This likely meant the majority of (though not all of) women, though present, would not have always understood what was being said. This would lead to them talking among themselves. Perhaps quietly at first but raising in volume, becoming disruptive. Therefore, Paul’s admonition was for the women to keep “silent” or in 1 Timothy, learn at home from their husbands. Elsewhere in 1 Corinthians, some women were not silent in gatherings because they were prophesying (which obviously cannot be done in silence). It’s more of a practical issue of order if this is the case than some sort of complementarian instruction.
Third, Paul’s word for “authority” in 1 Timothy 2:12 is, as you pointed out, “Authentein,” which has an edge of domineering to it. It’s even more clear when put up against the more regular New Testament word for “authority” which is “exousia.” “Exousia” doesn’t have that meaning. So, clearly, Paul would mean something different from the regular understanding of authority, or he would have used the better word.
Three good points, and I seem to have tried to avoid the controversial issues. Ken Bailey is almost always good, I recommend that book quite often.
I am less convinced the Gospel had made sufficient inroads into the cult of Artemis to see that as the background (depending on the date of these letters, of course). The Artemis cult and the Vestal Virgins are often used as analogies for understanding this text. I think this is really a limited problem with a few wealthy people acting like Roman wealthy people (men and women) and assuming that everyone will bow to them since they are socially superior. I think this is quite similar to Jezebel in Revelation 2:20; the issue is not that the person is a woman, but they are a wealthy person who thinks far more of themselves than is healthy for a church leader.
Throughout reading this blog post it has allowed me to think on the role that a woman plays. I am in the season of engagement and the Lord has been growing me in many ways than one. One of those being what role I play as a daughter of God but also as I enter this new season of marriage. What role does a woman of God play in marriage? It is all so new to me but amazing to be entrusted by God, to be a wife and mother someday Lord willing. 1 Timothy 2:11-15 speaks an abundance of life into the actions of women. Women are called to submit to their husbands as they are the head of the household, called to be leaders. Husbands are supposed to lead their family each day and even more so to Christ.
Verse 11 says that woman should learn to be quiet and submit. In the context of marriage and being a wife, this is encouraged to take place. As wives we are called to find a quiet space, a secret spot and pray like warriors for our husbands and family. This is part of our calling if God so chooses. The calling of women in the Church is not to be silent but to be leaders. This passage in scripture can be contradicted by the world saying women should not lead. We can all be called to be leaders and I believe that in a marriage setting it looks a bit different. Men and women are supposed to have different roles.
Proverbs 31:11-12 says, “The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will have no lack of gain. She does him good, and not harm, all the days of her life”.
Men and women do have different roles and when they come together and bring those roles together for team Jesus they are untouchable. God has given us the words of Paul for these very discussions we are having and that we can meditate and understand what the roles are for men and women. Especially in a season of singleness or engagement. We need to take the time and better define our roles so we can be the best we can be for that other person when we meet them or when we finally said “I do.”
There was a different time back then when mean thought they were higher than women on authority, but not anymore. We live in a world where it’s an equal partnership and we help each other. Men and women’s roles are meant to complement each other and we do that by bringing glory to God by supporting each other and taking value in what the other has to say.
I think that there is a lot of conflict surrounding the idea of women in the bible, and often I feel as though the strong opinions on the topic tend to take whats in the bible and exaggerate it to what fits their perspective. Many woman get the wrong idea, and may be offended by what the bible has to say about woman’s role in church and society, when in reality, the bible is not meant to oppress women at all and is often taken out of context. I think what Paul is trying to exemplify is that man and woman are in fact different. Women in today’s society often exhaust the concept of being equal with men (in some regards I agree our society has treated women unfairly) however, God created man and women to be different and unique, that’s what makes men and women compatible. And because we are different, that makes our roles in church and society different. A mans role might be to handle all relations with outsiders in a more prominent way, while the women plays a quieter role, sometimes you need both in order to work together successfully. If everyone was trying to do the exact same thing, there would be much more conflict and it would be harder to work together. This in no way means women are to shut up and clean and cook, it means their role looks different but is equally as important, in the church, in relationships, and in society. I believe that women need to start embracing the things God made us for, instead of always feeling like we need to be in competition with the male.
If we look at society back then we can see that women didn’t have very much ground to stand on when it came to being in charge. Those that were able to be in charge or a voice heard was because they had money, but they were not glorifying God with what they were trying to promote. Also because of the time of day and the lack of impacted influence from women back then there wouldn’t have been people interested in pursuing Christianity. They would want a man to be the teacher and authority of the church and that would draw in the crowd. The world just wasn’t ready back then for women to be teaching the gospel to others.
Now in regards to today I fully think that women have just as much of not more to say when it comes to sharing the Gospel. We live in a time where all voices and authority to share the good news. I have heard many women pastors teach lessons that have just blown my mind. We are in a different time period and the opinions they had about women back then aren’t the same today. Now some may think other wise, but times have changed and change is good.
The most important thing is that what ever is being taught is true to God’s word. There shouldn’t ever be a man or a woman getting up in front of a church h with their own agenda. The only agenda we should have when preaching is the agenda of God.
I believe that it impacts the contemporary church practice primarily that it is very uncommon for women to be allowed to be head pastors. However, more and more we are seeing women stepping up into the role and the controversy that follows it because of this passage. Additionally, it can be seen within relationships and marriages, where men say that women must “submit to them”, calling into context the teachings of not only 1 Timothy 2:11, but also Ephesians 5:22. These examples are mainly seen in moderation in the United States; yet in other cultures, the role of this passage could be used very differently. In cultures that do not have women in prominent roles in society, it would be very easy for men to take this passage and twist it against women in order to keep them in complete submission, telling them to be quiet and not teach (1 Timothy 2:12). Sadly, these types of passages are frequently taken out of context, and do not look at the letter and possible situation. At Dr. Long discussed, Paul could have been addressing a specific issue with a group of women in the church that was attempting to not only take control, but to teach lies to the church. In the same way, Longenecker brings about this point, describing how it was very likely that there were “false teachers” in the churches that would have caused Paul to address women in this letter (Longenecker & Still, 2014, pg. 277). Finally, though this passage can frequently be interpreted incorrectly, it does bear truth for us today. We must be careful, both men and women alike, what we choose to say, and submit to the word of God and God himself as the final authority.
Thank you for your blog post! Very helpful!
The passage about women’s role in the church is particularly challenging to interpret especially because it seems to show women as inferior and second to men and proclaim them unfit for leadership in the church. This view can be an immediate offense in today’s society as we despise traditional patriarchy and women’s roles. One way that Paul’s instructions to women are handled today is to conclude that they were contextual in nature. Maybe the women Paul addressed had been influenced by false teachers and were teaching false doctrine (TTP p.227). Maybe women in that culture were not educated enough to teach in the body of believers (ESVSB p.2328). However, there are mentions of women who played important leadership roles within the church in other Pauline epistles. This passage cannot be read as a complete picture of the role of women in the early church (TTP p.277). In 1 Timothy 2: 2 Paul urges Christians to live a peaceful and quiet life. This comes just before his instructions for women, and I wonder if he was just building on this instruction when he set guidelines for them. The quiet life was in contrast to the loud authoritative proclamations of the false teachers (ESVSB p.2327). Regardless of the various interpretations of how Christians today should respond to Paul’s instructions for women, I believe that we should trust God enough to believe that if he has different designs for women than men, those designs are good.
Passages like these can be taken out of context and exaggerated to make it seem like the Bible is degrading women. I do not believe Paul is saying that women should “learn in quietness and full submission” because women are lesser to men. I think there is a culturally factor in this. After studying about this verse more and reading commentaries, the context implies that women in this church were being distracting and potentially noisy during the teaching. There is also the concept that women were trying to teach a false gospel based off of their old way of life. Long describes how the women in Ephesus, “used their prominence (wealth) to promote a teaching Paul has already rejected because it is incompatible with the Gospel” (Long, 2019). This idea does not mean that Paul is against women, or necessarily women being the ones that need to be told what to do, but the fact that they were the ones using their wealth to promote a false Gospel.
The next verses open a door to a bit more controversy with women’s roles. In a society where women are wanting to be portrayed as better than men let alone equal, reading that woman should not teach or assume authority over a man and must be quiet can cause some strong emotions. We know that women did teach, but the only examples we are given are teaching other women or teaching in private settings. It’s interesting to me how Paul adds to Genesis account to his argument. That woman is who was deceived not man. This seems that there is significance in who should teach regarding women and men, and why people interpret this that woman should not be pastors and teach other men. In terms of marriage, we see that men and women have different roles that are to complement each other, not overpower each other. In this context, however, that idea is not explicitly stated. Ultimately, we see that Paul is making a point about women’s behavior in church that can be specified more to Ephesus, and that context is important when interpreting this passage.
Women seeking or in leadership roles has always been a controversial topic. Especially if this applies to within the church. First Timothy two is a very tough passage to study on without issues arising while reading it. Professor Long states “The command is for women “to learn in quiet and submission” (v. 11).”. (Long, 2019) Even though many think Paul meant to silence the women, those were not his pure intentions. Paul implies that women need to learn. He sets a dress and teaching for them. The part pertaining to submission deals with women to their husbands and to God himself. The main statement that we can find is that Paul does not want a woman to take control over a man. It also explains how women would abuse their power by using their wealth to propose a false story. It was important to remember that just because a woman was teaching did not make it wrong until she went against the gospel of the Lord. As I do not agree with the teachings back in the day that men were superior to women, it is how it was. Can these sorts of stories be taken out of context? Yes, I believe that this is true but some of the information does apply. This does not insinuate that no woman should have a leadership role higher than a man in today’s society. It is very important to look at the context of the story being told before we submit our lives to it. Take a good look at it and understand who is preaching upon it.
If we are looking at society back then we can clearly see that women did not have very much authority with anything. If women did have a voice in anything it was because they had the money to have authority which could cause them to not be glorifying God when promoting what they wanted. Another issue back then was that if a woman was actively trying to promote the Gospel it would not have been taken as seriously because men were always the ones in charge. Women would not have been able to draw the crowd to Christianity such as a man would have and that is just how it was. With regards to today I believe that woman have just as much say as a man would in the church and sharing the Gospel. There is a church near my hometown that has a woman as the head Pastor and her teachings have been some of the most impactful for me. Whoever is spreading the Gospel we must remember that it is being taught true to God’s word. Nobody should be up spreading the Gospel with intentions of not giving the people what God wants us to hear.
I think that when reading 1 Timothy 2:11-15 it is very important to remember that, as Professor Long stated, the verse does not say who women should submit to. Reflecting back on my experience with the church I can not think of a single Pastor that has been a woman. I know of many women that take lead of different ministries in the church, but none of Pastoral leadership. It is really sad to think about how women did not have a say in church or in society back then and even back in the 1920s. This has definitely been an issue for several years and I would say that it is a huge issue today. Even though as a society we have advanced greatly there will always be biases in which we view different cultures and opposite genders. I can recall a story of a women that got help at the place where my mom used to work. This lady was abused verbally, physically, and emotionally by her husband. My mom was allowed to talk about religion as long as the clients brought it up and so the lady did. She talked about how she didn’t know what to do and asked why it said in the Bible that women have to submit to their husbands. Reading todays post reminded me of this story and of how important it is to educate people about the background of verses. It is important to explain what verses actually are saying, especially verses like these because they can be so easily manipulated. I think it is so important for more women to be pastors and to take on these leadership roles within the church because they can help other women like the lady from my moms’ work.
1 Timothy 2:11-15 is one of the most difficult and controversial passages in the entirety of the New Testament, as many people have varying opinions on the topic, often heavily influenced by those who desire to hold either egalitarian or complementarian perspectives of Women’s role in the church. As Long notes, the command for women to “learn quietly with all submission” is probably uniquely prescribed for a specific situation, and therefore not meant to be applicable for all times. It has been suggested that these women were taking authority in ways that appeared unfit or unacceptable to outsider Greek and Roman citizens. This view might differ from more traditional approaches which assume this directly speaks to submission to their husbands or male pastors, though as it is not explicitly stated, it could be also referring to submission to God.
Yet, this issue often is ignored in favor of Paul’s statement that women are not permitted to teach or exercise authority over men in 1st Timothy 2:12. This inability for women to teach align with Jewish synagogue practices of the first century, just as there is no evidence women occupied public venues or schools of thought. However, as we know, one of the primary issues within Ephesus was wealthy women who were greatly influenced by Paul’s opponents, using their wealth to promote teachings that were incompatible with the Gospel. This might influence how we interpret the idea of women authority, especially once one acknowledges that verb used for authority often denotes a sense of being domineering, giving a stronger affect then simple authority. With this in mind, some scholars argue that Paul is limiting the capacity of these wealthy women to spread messages that were incompatible with the Gospel. This understanding allows for a perspective that understands Paul’s commandment as situational and not an eternal command to be followed for all time. Is this what Paul was attempting to convey or was this meant to limit Women’s ability to have authority over men in the church at all times?
In today’s society, there is an ongoing war among women in the Christian, conversation circles and with what pop culture is constantly screaming messages such as my body my choice, or wear what you want to wear, or women are just as good or even better than men at jobs that were primarily male roles. Therefore, Christian and non-Christians wrestled with Paul’s writings in 1 Timothy 2:11-15. For women who have been taught to use their voice and get ahead in the world, reading this passage might raise some hackles since it seems like Pual is limiting women’s abilities and roles. Although Paul does say that women cannot teach over a man, due to the patriarchal system created by God in the garden with Adam and Eve, women are encouraged to have the same education as a man. What modern readers may not understand in this passage is that what Paul was writing was actually countercultural for his time. Women were usually seen less than and were not given the opportunity to learn like men were able to. It is also important to keep in mind that a lot of Paul’s instructions were specially targeted to his NT audience. Although all Scripture is able to be applied to modern readers, perhaps some of the instructions were meant just for the church Timothy was overseeing. I will say that loving others by not being a stumbling block, being holy and righteousness, being submissive, and being gentle are all attributes that are close to God’s character and heart, and therefore, we should obey them no matter how counter-cultural they might seem to us today.
Hi
Paul used the same term that is provided as “silence” in 1 Timothy 2:2, which supports the belief believed by some Christians that women are not even allowed to speak in church sessions. God has given the males in the church leadership positions, but this does not imply that men are more spiritual than women. Paul emphasized that women should not be in positions of leadership within the church and that the church should not acknowledge women in such positions. Any speaking and teaching a woman does must be done in submission to the males whom God chose to lead the church.
In biblical scholarship, there exists a long-standing debate over 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and its complementarian and egalitarian connotations. This “women in leadership” issue is paramount to Scripture’s redemptive hermeneutic, which sees women slowly attaining rights as the biblical narrative advances. In the context of the church’s worship, it is the men who are to lift “holy hands without anger or disputing” (2:8) while women are to dress modestly and adorn themselves with good deeds (2:9). As regarded by Longenecker & Still (2014), “In this context for women to dress “with decency and propriety,” they are required to forgo elaborate hairstyles, exquisite jewelry, and expensive clothes (p. 276). For what reason could this institute exist, especially about 2:11’s recognition that a woman “should learn in quietness and full submission,” unpermitted to teach or assume authority over a man? This passage is difficult to treat exegetically for several reasons. First, certain biblical texts prioritize men over women (Gen 1:27, 2:4–25; 2 Cor 11:3). Second, the instructions, resonating with other Pauline literature, are specifically contextual and considered irrelevant by most congregations nowadays. It is altogether likely that the presence of “false teachers” influenced the perception and instructions of women, particularly in 1 Timothy. Thirdly, the instructions presented here are decidedly and demonstrably patriarchal, incomplete insofar that they are not the only canonical voice of even a natively Pauline perspective on the problem. Several women have played pivotal roles in ministerial and pastoral pursuits in Pauline circles and churches (Longenecker & Still, 2014, p. 277). Long (2019) describes the prominence of Ephesus in defining the underlying principle, “The problem in Ephesus is wealthy women in the church who were under the influence of the opponents, who used their prominence (wealth) to promote a teaching Paul has already rejected because it is incompatible with the Gospel.”
Significant consideration arises when the prior context of living a “quiet” life is considered. As Dr. Long proposes some fantastic questions, I would like to extrapolate them further. Would the church, fostering women as congregants, have scared congregants to the outskirts as a sort of “radical” declaration? If the primary goal of the church is to reflect Christlike character to the outsider, to what extent would women in ministerial roles have shaken the foundations of a patriarchal and patrilocal society? Would it be unbiblical to deny these women roles in the church? Is the church not called to challenge contemporary society in its pursuits, “flipping the world upside down” as it were? According to Romans 12:2 (ESV), “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” How would this apply to first-century Greco-Roman church practices? It is an intriguing perspective to consider.
This is a very controversial topic in general especially in today’s age. I have always saw these mentioned passages as a situational thing and it says that the wives are to submit to their husbands, but it also says that the husbands are to love the wives like the Jesus loved the Church and look at what Jesus did. Never in the Bible does it say the women have submit to all men, just the husband. In my mind, if someone cares about me and i can see it and it shows that i will be more willing to listen and give the the advice some thought. I have never really the gave the idea that God is saying that the submitting to be for the church but i do agree with the idea. I also never really gave it much thought about the women might be wealth being a factor before. I have always thought that is was more of a thing of the women weren’t trained well before because they were women and had fallen in to a trap. In the context of the passage before it might because the women were being flashy with their appearance which have cause outsiders to believe that following Jesus will give riches which it does but in spiritual way. This was a very new idea to me but it makes sense with the context of the surrounding passages. Many peoples have said that scripture interprets scripture, and this article is an amazing piece of proof that it does indeed work.