The inspired apostle Paul was very clear in the Lord’s instructions for the roles of men and women in the church when he wrote:
I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (1 Tim. 2:9-14.)
However, attempts have been made to circumvent this plain teaching. Some, drawing inferences from purported historical and cultural norms, reinterpret this passage so that Paul is commanding not to let the unlearned teach. They say Paul’s command of quietness, “…is not because they are women, it is because they are unlearned.”¹ Thus, they say the cross-cultural principle is the unlearned—men or women—should not teach. The application of text has not only been tempered to the point that women per se are not forbidden from teaching over men, but, amazingly, to apply to those who hold that women should not teach over men; in other words, they should not teach their position since they are unlearned.² Thus, if you think this text means women should not teach, then the application is you should not teach because you are misinformed. How drastically the inspired teaching has been twisted in this application!
This reinterpretation based on the cultural theory of uneducated women does not hold water. The conclusion that all Ephesian women were uneducated is unwarranted from historical investigations. Many women in Ephesus were educated, though mostly privately; thus, what has survived history gives only a glimpse of the entire picture of women’s education in that society.³ Paul had already addressed those who were attempting to teach yet were unlearned or without understanding earlier in the epistle (1 Tim. 1:3-7, 20). Paul had Timothy stay in Ephesus to address empty talkers who were “desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm” (1 Tim. 1:7). Why would he then mention the women in contrast to the men in chapter two if it were the lack of learning that was the real problem? Why make a gender contrast at all? Why not simply state lack of learning as the reason?
Instead, Paul clarifies that this command transcends the historical and cultural situation of first-century Ephesus. He goes all the way back to the beginning of time to explain this principle. Order of creation is the first basis upon which this command rests, “for Adam was first formed, then Eve” (1 Tim. 2:13). Male leadership was intended by God from the beginning, even before sin entered the world. Woman was created to be a helper to man (Gen. 2:18-20). The second basis is the deception of woman who was the ringleader in the first transgression, “and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (1 Tim. 2:14). Consequently, the woman’s desire to rule would be given to the man (Gen. 3:16). The other passage in the New Testament which forbids women from taking the lead through public speaking also goes back to the law (Gen. 3:16), not to cultural considerations: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law” (1 Cor. 14:34). A few verses later, Paul reminded the Corinthians “that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37), not mere cultural practice.
Considering the historical-cultural context of Bible passages is important to arriving at the meaning of the text; however, let us be on guard that we do not dismiss clear teaching with the wave of the hand just because a theory about cultural factors has been suggested, especially if we find no hint of such theory in the biblical text.
God desires male leadership in His church regardless of culture. Immediately following this section on men praying and women not teaching nor usurping authority over the man (1 Tim. 2:9-14), Paul lists the qualifications for overseers of the church (1 Tim. 3:1-7). An overseer must be a man who is the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2) and rules his own house well (1 Tim. 3:4). Prudent exercise of authority in the domestic realm is the proving ground for a man’s fitness for being vested with authority in the church (1 Tim. 3:5). That Paul wrote similar qualifications in Titus 1:5-9 for men to serve as overseers in the congregations in Crete shows that male leadership was not limited to Ephesus where Timothy was. Paul taught the commands of Christ, “every where in every church” (1 Cor. 4:17). The context of these commands regarding the roles of males and females in the church transcend cultural mores; they are rooted in God’s created order. Let us respect the commands of the Lord even when they are counter
cultural.
¹Craig S. Keener. Paul, Women & Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 120.
²Ibid.
³S. M. Baugh. “A Foreign World.” Women in the Church: An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15. Edited by Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. Shreiner. 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), 58.
–Mark Day