I’d like to conclude this thread on the Pastoral epistles by discussing at greater length the one passage that I think has done more damage than nearly any other.  It involves women in the church.  The story of women in the entire Bible is long and complex, but it starts in the beginning (Genesis 1-2) and continues all the way through.  The traditional Christian views ultimately derive from the New Testament.

In an earlier set of posts I explained why women were actually prominent, important, and authoritative leaders of the Christian church in its earliest days – they were unusually present and active in the Jesus movement while he was living, as well as in the earliest churches we know about, those connected with Paul (who has received a rather unfair rap as one of the world’s great misogynists).

But it was not long before men took over the movement and suppressed women’s voices and roles.  We are obviously  still living with that today, in a world where the largest Christian body, the Catholic Church, still will not allow women to serve as priests (let alone higher-ups above priests), and the fastest growing churches in developing countries (very conservative by most American and European standards) look askance at women in leadership roles.  They are to be subservient.

But why?  Because, ultimately, the Bible says so.  Really?  Where? 

The passage most frequently appealed to is in 1 Timothy, which is consistently patriarchal in its injunctions.  Timothy is instructed to appoint male leaders (bishops, elders, and deacons), all of whom were to have been married (e.g., 1 Tim 3:2-5, 12) and who were to keep their households, including, of course, their wives, in submission (1 Tim 2:4).  They were to speak out against those who forbade marriage and who urged the ascetic life (1 Tim 4:3; women, of course, who were unmarried were not controlled by a husband).  They were to silence the women in their churches; women were not to be allowed to tell old wives’ tales and especially not to teach in their congregations (1 Tim 4:7).  They were to be silent and submissive and sexually active with their spouses; those who wanted to enjoy the benefits of salvation were to produce babies (1 Tim 2:11-13).

Really?  Yeah, I’m afraid so.  I often get asked if there were one book in the New Testament that I, deep down, would rather hadn’t made it in, I usually say 1 Timothy.  Here is the passage in question (from the translation of the NRSV):

1 Timothy 2:8-15

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.

The point to stress in connection with my post of yesterday is that the submission of women is based ultimately on the story of the creation of Adam and Eve and the unfortunate little incident involving Eve’s disobedience and temptation of her husband into disobedience, leading to the permanent expulsion of the human race from paradise.

The passage I’ve quoted starts out (first paragraph) by giving women a dress code.  You will notice that there is no dress code for the men.  Women are not to make themselves beautiful or wear particularly nice clothes.  They are instead to adorn themselves with good works.  No need to tell the men that, apparently.  And why shouldn’t women make themselves attractive?  Anyone who knows ancient biblical and other kinds of ethical literature (and the rules of some other cultures today) has no trouble answering:  women should not be publicly attractive because they might seduce men into committing sexual impropriety.  Women have to be controlled because they are dangerous to men.

Moreover, women are to be silent.  This probably means in church, but maybe it means simply that, even in other contexts, they should speak only when spoken to?  In any event, women cannot teach men or exercise authority over them.  And why?  Because it is written into creation itself.  Back to Genesis 2.  Women were second and so secondary, and they were made for men and so should help not lead them.

And what happens when women do to try to lead men?  They get tempted by the Devil, they can’t resist, and they lead the man astray – causing enormous disaster.   That’s how women are.  The first woman proved it.  It was ruinous for the man.  And so women cannot exercise any authority over men.  It will result in catastrophe.  Proven by the Bible itself.

But the good news is that even women can be saved.  If they have babies, they’ll be fine.  So long as they are modest and loving.  Otherwise, all bets are off.

There are feminist scholars who try to salvage the Bible from patriarchy and I completely agree that it should be, as much as possible.  But there are some passages that, at the end of the day, strike me as unsalvageable.  This is one of them.  We live in different times today.  Most of us think the Adam and Eve story is a myth.  In many ways it’s a beautiful myth.  But it also does have sinister implications – at least as read in the way the author of 1 Timothy read it.

We today understand genders differently from the way people did in the ancient world.  We know far, far, more about biology, sex, gender, and sexuality, not to mention human psychology, anthropology, and sociology.  Using ancient guidelines for ethical conduct, when these are based on premises that no thinking person today accepts, is kind of like following ancient medical texts to perform surgery.  It’s a very bad idea….

-Bart Ehrman

image_pdfSave to PDFimage_printPrint Page