In a previous post, I pointed out that if certain Church Fathers were not getting their ideas about women from the text of Scripture, there’s a good possibility they were taking their views to the text.  While I obviously can’t speak for all of them, it certainly seems to be the case that some, at least, brought their presuppositions to the text.  One example I’ve seen quite directly is in 1 Timothy 2:11-15.

1 Timothy 2:11-15

In order to provide some of the necessary context, we need to back up a little, so let’s just start by reading from Verse eight.

(8) I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; (9) in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, (10) but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. (11) Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. (12) And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. (13) For Adam was formed first, then Eve. (14) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. (15) Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.

I’ve highlighted a few words/phrases for a reason, but we’ll get to that in a moment.

Ancient Commentary

Having been chided for putting too little stock in the “traditional” views of the “women” passages, I set out a while ago to find what I could about what the early Church had to say about them — and I was pretty shocked.  Let’s take a look at what I found in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, Philemon.

Let me write out that last bit in case you can’t see the image for some reason. “And to Timothy he says, ‘Let a woman learn in quietness in all submissiveness.  I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men.'”

If you were paying close attention, you might have noticed what I did: he misquoted the verse. I’m not skilled enough at Greek to determine things like singular and plural, but that’s a pretty basic thing for a Greek translator, so I thought I’d check some of the earliest English translations to make sure our newer translations didn’t just make some weird change here.

King James Version: “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”

Slightly different wording, but grammatically the same in the fundamentals.

Geneva Bible: “I permit not a woman to teach, neither to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”

Here, too.  These, in fact, get even more specific, if anything, using a definite article (“the man”) and not merely an indefinite (“a man”).

It doesn’t say “men”; it says “man.”

So What?

Right now, you might be wondering, “why does that matter?” Well, for one thing it matters because you have to start with what the text actually says and not what you presume it means, or you run the risk of actually missing what it means.

But in this case, specifically, there’s a shift in the text that is usually overlooked — and it’s even easier to overlook it if you’re not quoting it correctly.

Notice that in verses 8-10, Paul is speaking in the plural.  The men are to pray everywhere.  The women are to dress modestly, prizing (in essence) inward beauty over outward.

But in verse 11, there’s a transition.  Suddenly he isn’t talking about men and women, but about a man and a woman.  Paul was a pretty learned guy, and very sharp with words.  It’s pretty unlikely this was an accident.  So why the shift?

Some have suggested that he’s obliquely referring to a specific man and woman who were teaching false doctrine in the Church.  I suppose that’s possible, but I don’t think it’s the most plausible explanation.  I suspect, rather, that “man” and “woman” here refer to husband and wife.  Remember, Greek only has one pair of words for this.  In this case, they’re even translated that way just a few verses later, in the early part of chapter 3.

Surrounding Context

This seems to make better sense of the context, as well.  The broader context — the letter in general — is not specifically about the church meeting, but the behavior of the church body overall, so we need not necessarily assume it’s talking about how to behave in church.  (Although it could be, and it could certainly include that.)

The immediate context, though, is very specific.  Paul appeals to both Creation and the Fall as the basis for his statement that he doesn’t permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.

With regard to Creation, Adam was formed first, then Eve — a point he’s told us elsewhere is connected to the expectation of leadership on Adam’s part.

And then the Fall.  Adam was not deceived.  Eve was, but Adam knew exactly what he was doing — and he allowed her to lead him right into transgression.

If the references here are to a husband and wife, this parallel makes perfect sense.  To very loosely paraphrase:

“I don’t allow a wife to teach or usurp authority over a husband.  Look at the first husband and first wife.  The wife usurped authority over the husband, and that didn’t turn out so well.”

What About the Last Bit?

We’ve already addressed the portion of this passage that is frequently misrepresented — and thus, potentially misinterpreted.  But since we’re not quite to the end of the passage yet, I’m sure someone will be wondering about that last verse.

It’s a puzzling verse, because the antecedents aren’t clear.  Who is “she”?  The woman (wife?) of verse 12?  Or Eve?  And then who are “they”?  I’m not certain, and I think the inherent ambiguity of the language would make it foolish to make a declaration with too much certainty.

But my inclination at this time is to think that “she” is Eve and “they” are the Christians (possibly Christian husbands and wives, specifically) so that the verse is essentially telling us that despite having just pointed her out for the chaos she caused, Eve will nevertheless be redeemed through childbearing — particularly of the Seed that is Christ — if Christian households (which comprise the church) continue in faithfulness.