#71: “Wait…what did that say about women not being able to teach or have authority?”

#71: “Wait…what did that say about women not being able to teach or have authority?” by Brendon Wahlberg Some Bible passages stop you cold in your tracks, and make you question what you just read. One very famous and controversial passage is found in the New Testament letter known as 1 Timothy. Read the following excerpt and see if you agree that this passage is troubling. “I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; also that 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.” (1 Timothy 2:8-15) See what I mean? From a modern perspective of gender equality, in a time of many woman Pastors, this passage seems to have all manner of things wrong with it. Women must be silent? Women must not teach or hold positions of authority in the Church community? And this is Eve’s fault? Women are saved through childbearing? Wait…what?? This passage is the only passage in the New Testament that seems to say women should not have authority and teach. As such, it has been used throughout the centuries, in the Church, as a “proof text” to justify excluding women from these roles (along with another passage in 1 Corinthians, which I will deal with at the end). And even in the present day, 1 Timothy 2 is used to justify forbidding the ordination of women. The Presbyterian Church USA does not base its decisions upon this passage, and it does ordain women. But many branches of the Church do not ordain women, such as the Catholics, the Mormons, the Orthodox, and many of the Protestants. This passage is one of the many reasons why they do not. It would seem that the interpretation of this one passage holds great significance for Church policy in the real world. And, because it is the only source of Paul’s teaching on the matter of teaching and authority for women, don’t you think that it is especially important that we understand exactly what the passage means, before we use it to support such serious policies? Of course, many have argued over the correct interpretation, translation, context, and meaning of 1 Timothy 2. Much has been written about it, and there is no true agreement to be found between the two sides. But in studying the passage and all the arguments, I have come to the conclusion that the traditional interpretation, which leads to forbidding women teachers and leaders, is wrong. Let me reassure the proud and strong women of Calvin Church that this passage has been mistranslated, misunderstood, taken out of context, and incorrectly applied to the modern world as a universal truth instead of a text that was highly specific to one time, place, and set of circumstances. Let’s get one thing out of the way right now. Most scholars think that 1 Timothy wasn’t even written by Paul. Along with 2 Timothy and Titus, the other “pastoral” letters, 1 Timothy may have been the work of an unknown author who used Paul’s name to give authority to his writing. Why do scholars think the author wasn’t Paul? Well, comparing the pastoral letters to the seven unquestionably accepted letters of Paul (including Romans, and 1 and 2 Corinthians) reveals that the pastorals have a different style and vocabulary. Also, some of Paul’s key concepts are treated quite differently in the pastorals. Besides that, the pastorals seem to reflect a later time period than Paul’s life, when there was a much greater concern for correct teachings, church order, and church organization. But even if Paul did not write 1 Timothy, the letter was nevertheless accepted into the New Testament canon as inspired scripture, and so we must take it seriously as such. Let us now do some proper exegesis of 1 Timothy 2. That means explaining and interpreting what the passage really says, in its original context, language, and setting, rather than just assuming it says what we think it means, and what we want it to mean, according to our present day cultural ideas. We know that this letter was probably written between 90 and 120 CE in Asia Minor, to address problems within the Church at Ephesus. Certain disruptive people, including women, had begun to spread different teachings, threatening the Christian community’s social fabric and theological foundation. For example, they were convincing others that the true resurrection had already happened and that it was spiritual, and that marriage was no longer needed. The author wanted very much to fight these false teachings and preserve the correct beliefs, acceptable social behaviors, and organizational structure that were needed if the local Church was going to survive. Many interpreters have been puzzled by the vague descriptions of who the disruptive people were, and what, exactly, were the false teachings. The author was writing to a reader who was living in Ephesus, who knew all the details about what was going on. It is harder for us to know the big picture, because we have only one side of the conversation. But because this passage is so controversial, a lot of research has been done to explore these issues. The main point is this: We need to understand who the disruptive women were, and what they were trying to teach, because once we know, then we can understand that this letter was meant to address a specific situation in a specific time and place. It was meant to fight against and refute specific people with specific false claims. It was NOT meant to make a universal statement about all women for all times and places. It seems that the real problems behind the letter were caused by rival religions in Ephesus. The city was a cultic center for the worship of the fertility goddess Artemis. There was a great Temple to Artemis there, one of the seven wonders of the world. Statues of Artemis still exist today, showing a divine female with dozens of breasts. Acts 19:23-41 shows the strong rivalry between Artemis worship and Christianity. It tells the story of a riot that was instigated by merchants, who were upset over Paul’s coming to Ephesus and preaching about Jesus. These merchants made silver shrines of Artemis, but Paul said idols to Artemis were no gods at all. Seeing that Paul was convincing many people, and fearing to lose their business, the merchants started an uproar against Paul and in support of the great divinity of Artemis. The angry chaos spread across the city. Artemis worship was a powerful force when 1 Timothy 2 was written. Artemis was very popular with women, who were rather downtrodden in Greek society. What was so appealing to women about this cult? Artemis was a fertility Goddess with the power to protect women through the difficult and sometimes deadly experience of childbirth. The Artemis cult also taught that women were superior to men because they were descended from Amazons who founded the city of Ephesus. Artemis’ followers would create long genealogies to prove they were descended from the warrior women. It may be that the author of 1 Timothy was referring to this when he wrote to Timothy, “…you may command certain persons not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies.” (1 Timothy 1:3-4) If that is true, then it means that some of the women, who called themselves Christians, were also involved with Artemis worship. And, the women were teaching other Christian women about Artemis. It means that some people were sort of combining the two religions. And who do we know of in early Christian history, who tended to combine pagan concepts with Christian beliefs, introducing all manner of false teachings? The Gnostics, of course. The troublemakers were evidently a variety of Gnostic believers in Ephesus. The Gnostic Christians believed that only special knowledge could bring salvation. An example might be the concept that the resurrection had already happened, and that it was not physical resurrection, but instead a special spiritual event that only some people could understand and recognize. The Gnostics in Ephesus had special knowledge based on the superiority of women. Instead of seeing women as inferior, as in the larger Greek society, or, as in the patriarchal Jewish religion, these Gnostics turned the biblical creation story on its head and asserted that Eve was created first. Adam received life from her, not the other way around, and Eve was a bringer of light and salvation when she ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, giving that special knowledge to Gnostic believers. The Artemis cult also taught that women had secret divine knowledge. Part of her worship involved sexual rituals with her priestesses. These priestesses were empowered in their own way, and dressed grandly with expensive clothes and jewelry, and fancy braided hairstyles. So we are getting a sense of a muddled religious environment, in which some downtrodden women were looking for empowerment wherever they could find it. They wanted to be protected by Artemis, and they wanted to think they were specially descended from Amazons. They wanted to be safe from death in childbirth. They wanted to believe that Eve, not Adam, was created first. They wanted freedom from marriages in which their husbands so dominated them. The new religion of Christianity was appealing, yes, but so were all these other ideas which were swirling around them and tempting them with ways to feel superior instead of inferior for once. Let us complete our exegesis of 1 Timothy 2 by taking the passage line by line in light of what we know about Ephesus. You will see how much the context helps illuminate the meaning of the passage. Also, let us consider some problems with the mistranslation of a few key words that can change the meaning of the passage for the worse. 1. “I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; also that 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.” This section may be referring to the influence of the cult of Artemis in Ephesus. The style of fancy dress, jewelry, and braided hair, as worn by the cultic priestesses, may have been influencing the Christian women, who wanted to feel empowered by these things as well. The author wanted women followers of Jesus to be more modest, and to worry more about good works. 2. “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.” Part of the problem with this section is the translation. The English word, “silence”, is not well chosen. A better translation would be that women should learn in peacefulness and quietness. When you say, silence, you imply a repressive, sexist commandment: be silent! Instead, the sense of this should be that women should learn the correct Christian teachings calmly, and without loud arguing. Perhaps in Ephesus, there were women who were confusing people with Gnostic ideas, or Artemis-influenced ideas. These false teachers, and their adherents, were probably argumentative, and not very submissive, in the face of church leaders trying to stifle them. The positive part of this is that in Greek, the phrase “let a woman learn” is a command. For the time period, teaching women was not very important to society. Among the Christians, both men and women were to be educated in the true knowledge of Jesus! However, having women teachers was discouraged. Perhaps that is because they were not well trained in the scriptures, and more vulnerable to mistakes. Yet, surely a passage like this, specific to mostly uneducated women in that particular time and place, cannot apply to the present day seminary-educated woman. Another difficult translation is in the word “authority”. The Greek word (“authentein”) used here and translated as “authority” is found nowhere else in the New Testament. When a word is found in several places, its meaning can be verified through the different contexts. When a word is found in only one place, its meaning can be hard to know, exactly. So scholars looked at other Greek literature from the time period. They found that the word in this passage, which is translated as “authority,” really has other meanings. We think of “authority” as a position of leadership, like a Pastor or a Priest. But “authentein” means, instead, the arrogant domination of someone, with harmful or sexual overtones. Well, we would all agree that in a Church, women should not dominate men in a threatening, sexual manner! Was this happening in Ephesus? Maybe the Artemis cult, which featured powerful priestesses engaging in ritual sex acts in their Temple, was inspiring some few of the Christian women in all the wrong ways? 3. “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” This section seems to reflect the Gnostic belief that Eve was formed first. Here, the author is arguing against the false teachings of the Gnostics, correcting their story; no matter how empowering the new myths might be, actual scripture says otherwise. Furthermore, this section seems to emphasize that women are more easily deceived, for example, by false teaching. This is still a sexist statement, but keep in mind that in those particular circumstances, women were the ones being deceived. It is still wrong to make a universal generalization out of it. 4. “Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” Again, there is a translation problem here. The phrase “saved through childbearing” seems to suggest that women are saved, as in Christianity-saved, by giving birth to kids. Well, no. Basic Pauline theology says that we are all saved by grace through faith, men and women both. Women are not “saved” by childbirth. But see, this is not what the passage means. A better translation would be: she will be kept safe throughout the experience of childbirth. And there you see the same promise that was made to the followers of the goddess Artemis, safety during baby-making. The author, therefore, is promising that God, the one true God, is the one who will keep women safe, not Artemis, as long as the women continue in the right relationship with God – in faith, love, and holiness. My question to you is, after reading all this, do you buy any of it? I do, but admittedly, there is still room for doubt. However, that is the point. There is room for doubt. This exegesis, at the very least, casts strong doubt on the traditional interpretation of 1 Timothy 2, the one which says it simply forbids women to teach and hold positions of authority, for all time. Therefore it should not be used as a proof text to uphold that tradition. Lastly, let us briefly examine a related passage in 1 Corinthians, an undisputed letter of Paul. “(As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” (1 Corinthians 14:34-35) This passage seems to clearly echo 1 Timothy 2:11-12, in that it says women should be silent in church. So, if 1 Timothy 2 cannot be used to justify excluding women from teaching and leadership, should this passage be used to accomplish the same agenda? One theory says that this passage was inserted into Paul’s letter at some point, by someone who shared the viewpoint of the pastoral letters. It would not be the first time that ancient scribes inserted passages into the books they copied. In some ancient manuscripts, verses 34-35 are found in a different place within the letter, further suggesting that they were an insertion. Such an addition would first be written into the margin by one scribe, then added to the main text in two different places by two other scribes. In that case, these would not be Paul’s words. Does that seem possible? Maybe, because earlier in the same letter, Paul mentions women who pray and prophecy in church, indicating that this is fine as long as they cover their heads. Either Paul is contradicting himself, or verses 34-35 are an insertion. And if they are possibly an insertion, should church policy in the modern world be based on them? In any case, we should look at the views of Paul as a whole. Did Paul support women or repress them? In fact, Paul showed respect and support for various women leaders in the early church, including Chloe (1 Corinthians 1:11), Pheobe (Romans 16:1), Junia (Romans 16:7), Tryphena and Tryphosa (Romans 16:12), and Euodia and Syntyche (Phillippians 4:2) – women who “contended at [Paul’s] side in the cause of the Gospel.” In conclusion, a passage like 1 Timothy 2 jumps out at us, and seems wrong to us today, precisely because it is “wrong”, as long as we mistranslate and misinterpret it, and take it out of context. We must use proper exegesis, and understand what a passage truly means before we simply assume it means what we want it to mean, and apply it to our society today. With so much at stake in this particular case, it is more important than ever.