Women Not Permitted
Some claim the Bible does not permit women to teach men. Really?
Complementarians believe that patriarchy is biblically mandated. According to complementarians, God has ordained men to lead and women to follow in the church and home. As a result, in complementarian church circles, women are not allowed to lead or teach men and are banned from senior leadership and teaching positions. They believe men and women have different roles which ‘complement’ each other.
Complementarian is a fancy term coined by modern patriarchs to avoid the negative connotations patriarchy has today, but it’s the same thing. “Complementarianism is patriarchy.”[1]
They find biblical support for their position from a small handful of passages, which fall into two broad categories. First, we have what are known as the ‘household codes’ which would appear to endorse gender-based hierarchy within marriage: Ephesians 5:22-33, Colossians 3:18-19, 1 Peter 3:1-7. These will be discussed in the next blog.
The second group has a more direct bearing on church leadership, and appear to restrict women from leadership based on gender: 1 Timothy 2:8-15; 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and 1 Corinthians 14:34. While there are a few other highly debatable passages with a tangential bearing to the discussion, these six passages form the foundation of the complementarian position, and their entire argument hinges on how we interpret them.
We’ve already looked at I Corinthians 14:34 in a previous blog, Women Should Stay Silent. Today we will examine 1 Tim. 2 and 1 Tim. 3, the two passages key to the complementarian argument, showing that complementarians are skating on very thin ice indeed, biblically speaking.
1 Timothy 2:8-15
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather she is to remain quiet.”
On the surface of it, this seems pretty clear. Women are not permitted to hold positions of authority over men, nor are they allowed to instruct men. This passage appears to support a patriarchal view of gender roles for women: stay home, raise kids, and let the men do the leading. But does it?
The problematic phrase is in verse 12: “to teach or to exercise authority over a man;” (ESV). The Greek word translated ‘teach or to exercise authority’ is authentein. The entire meaning of this passage hangs on how we translate this word.
The difficulty is that authentein is used just once in the New Testament, here in 1 Timothy 2:12. So we have to go outside of the New Testament, to contemporary Roman and Greek sources, to see how the word was used. Fortunately, thousands of texts have survived from the 1st century. A survey of these texts will help us gain a better understanding of this word.
Biblical scholar and New Testament Greek expert Bob Edwards completed an exhaustive survey of first century texts which use the word authentein and its variations. His survey shows that authentein did not mean simply ‘to teach or exercise authority’.[2] The word carries very dark overtones of oppression, violence and even murder. Here are some representative examples illustrating how writers at the time used authentein and its variations: [3]
Flavius Josephus was a 1st century Jewish historian, well known for his Wars of the Jews. He uses the word twice in reference to individuals responsible for murder.
Philo writing in the 1st century uses the word to describe suicide, or ‘self-murder’.
Other contemporary texts use authentein to describe the following:
“doer of a massacre.”
“author of crimes”
“supporters of violent actions”
“perpetrators of a slaughter”
“murderers, slayers, perpetrators of evil”
In the Wisdom of Solomon, found in the Catholic Bible, the noun form of the word is used to describe parents who “slaughtered their own defenseless children.” This is referring to parents who had joined secret cults in which ritual child sacrifice was practised.[4]
Charles Trombley also conducted a review of contemporary literature, and determined this word was often used to describe “something both sexual and murderous…it was not until the third or fourth century – Augustine’s time – that the word began to be associated with usurping authority.”[5]
A deeper understanding of the Greek word authentein suggests that a lot more is in view here than simply taking or holding authority over men. It was commonly used to indicate something violent, murderous or suicidal. Verse 12 is more accurately translated as: “I do not permit a woman to teach violence or instigate violence against a man.”[6]
Why would Paul choose such a word for this passage, especially when better words for authority are available? Throughout the New Testament the word used for authority is exousia. A look at the cultural and religious atmosphere of Ephesus at the time reveals why Paul’s use of authentein makes perfect sense.
The Historical Context of Ephesus
Paul wrote the letter to Timothy, a young pastor of a church in the city of Ephesus. Paul was very concerned with false doctrines entering the church, and in the letter Paul encouraged Timothy to stand against these destructive teachings. This is the main theme of the entire letter, and the literary context of our passage.
Bob and Helga Edwards investigated the situation in Ephesus at the time Paul wrote his letter to Timothy.[7] The city of Ephesus was dominated by the cult of Cybele (also called Artemis). Syncretism was common in the day. This is the habit of blending parts of different religions together. People would join a cult or religion and retain parts of the old religion that they liked. So as people converted to Christianity, they would bring with them beliefs and practices from other religions and seek to blend it with their new Christian faith. As a result, the cult of Cybele had made its way into the Christian church, and it had some very nasty practices indeed.
This cult worshiped the mother goddess Cybele, led by female priestesses who took a very dim view of men and anything masculine. They believed that women, because they gave birth, possessed mystical life-giving powers. Violence by women against men and ritual castration was encouraged. Here is a description of one of their rituals:
“On the Day of Blood (March 24), the cult priests, in mourning for Attis, flagellated and castrated themselves, and ran through the streets proudly holding their bloody genitals.”[8]
Cultic violence by women against men was pervasive throughout the Roman Empire in Paul’s day and into the 2nd century. An early Roman author, Taitian (110-172 A.D.), wrote that in Rome Artemis was still worshipped with the ritual killing of men. “Temple prostitution and the sacrificial murder of men were both part of Diana (Roman name for Artemis) worship in Paul’s time... Syncretism and goddess worship were the issues; gender was not.”[9]
Given that such ideas had crept into the church encouraging violence by women against men, the meaning of authentein (violent domination, abuse, supporting violence) and Paul’s use of that word makes perfect sense.
Catherine and Richard Kroeger researched the cultural background of Ephesus at the time of Paul’s writing, and their extensive research supports this conclusion.[10] There is general acceptance among scholars of Kroeger’s conclusions.
According to the Kroegers, “Paul was addressing a situation in Ephesus where powerful and influential women were coming out of the Artemis cult and entering the church. In doing so, the women were taking up teaching roles without proper training and instruction, being domineering and stubborn, and teaching heresy, while at the same time refusing to accept instruction… Paul was clearly addressing a specific situation … this text, therefore, cannot be read as a universal injunction for all women in all churches for all time.”[11]
Considering the cultural setting into which Paul was writing, and the historical meaning of authentein, verse 12 should not be taken as a universal rule against women in leadership. Paul was forbidding women from exercising violent and abusive dominance over men, as was practised by popular female cults at the time. Cultic violence against men was the issue, not gender.
However, we don’t need to rely entirely on ‘cultural’ arguments. There is already such a weight of biblical evidence for women in leadership, along with Paul’s own letters fully endorsing women in leadership, that we must discount this passage as a universal ruling. We will look at this evidence later in this chapter.
It is also worth noting that in verse 11 of this passage Paul says: “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.” To our modern ears this sounds like a patronizing putdown. But it’s not. All students at that time, male or female, were expected to sit quietly and be submissive to their teachers. Also, women seldom received an education. Romans considered it a waste of time to educate girls, with the result that women were typically illiterate. So this should not be read as a slam on women, but a revolutionary endorsement that women should be educated equally along with men.
1 Timothy 3:1-13
“An overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,”
Along with 1 Timothy 2:12, complementarians rely heavily on 1 Timothy 3:1-13. This chapter contains a long passage outlining the qualifications for leadership in the church, and in many popular English translations it is peppered with male pronouns so that it sounds like it is referring to men.
Except that it isn’t. The male pronouns so liberally inserted by some English translations aren’t in the original Greek. The Greek text uses gender neutral pronouns ‘whoever’ and ‘anyone’. There isn’t a single male pronoun in this entire passage in the Greek text. The only reference to gender is in the phrase often translated “husband of one wife”, literally “one woman man”.[12]
Beth Allison Barr says, “We assume 1 Timothy 3:1-13 is referencing men in leadership roles … But is this because of how our English Bibles translate the text? Whereas the Greek text uses the words whoever and anyone … modern English Bibles have introduced eight to ten male pronouns within the verses. None of those male pronouns in our English Bibles are in the Greek text.”[13]
Given the use of gender-neutral pronouns in the Greek text there is no reason to assume this passage refers exclusively to men. The only reference to gender in the passage is, literally, the phrase “one woman man.” There is a perfectly good reason why Paul may have added this qualifier, without intending it as a restriction to keep women from leadership.
Polygamy was common at the time, and this was a specifically male issue. Men could have multiple wives, but it was not common for women to have multiple husbands. Paul’s intention was likely that polygamists could not be church leaders.
It makes perfect sense, then, to single out men and not women in the context of this restriction. He was restricting men with more than one wife from leadership, not restricting women.
The egalitarian view simply fits better with the Greek text, but there are other problems for complementarians. If this passage means what complementarians claim, then it proves too much: only married men can lead.
Following through on the logic complementarians apply to this passage, it does not simply exclude women, it also excludes single men. If we are going to understand the phrase “one woman man”, or “husband of one wife”, in a restrictive sense – that only men can occupy leadership positions – then consistency dictates that it also means only married men.
Put another way, if the phrase “one woman man” means women are excluded, then so are single men. There is no good reason to apply this restriction to women and not also to single men.
This is obviously a problem. Paul was single, as was Jesus. To get around this, complementarians silently add a qualifier to the text: “if” a man is married, he can only be married to one woman. As a result, divorced men or men in a second marriage are typically excluded from leadership roles in complementarian churches along with women, but not single, never married, men. However, that’s not what the text says. Complementarians are applying their hermeneutic inconsistently when they use this phrase to exclude women, but not single men.
Fortunately many modern English Bibles, such as The Message, the CEV and TNIV, are doing a better job of translating this passage more faithfully according to the gender-neutral Greek text.
Regardless, the use of gender specific pronouns shouldn’t throw us off. Even though they are not in the Greek, just for arguments sake let’s for the moment allow the use of male pronouns in this passage, since they are found in some English Bibles popular with complementarians. Can we really assume that the presence of a gendered pronoun is meant to be taken exclusively? That women are excluded, that only men are intended, just because a male pronoun is used?
Of course not, and it isn’t difficult to see why. Throughout the New Testament we find many passages using male pronouns for which we know women are included. I’ll stick with the ESV for this exercise, since the ESV is popular with complementarians and notorious for liberally inserting male pronouns not in the Greek text.
Case in point: In 1 Thessalonians 4:4 we read: “that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles.” A male pronoun is used here. Should we understand this passage in a gender exclusive sense? Are we to understand from this, therefore, that Christian women are excluded from the requirement to control their passions? According to the logic complementarians apply to 1 Timothy 3, the use of a male pronoun here means that Paul intended that it should only apply to men.
In Ephesians 2:15 we find the phrase “one new man” in Christ. Are we to take this in a gender exclusive sense? Because Paul uses “man”, is his intention that only men are in view? Are we prepared to exclude women from the body of Christ?
In Ephesians 5:25 we have the well-known phrase “Husbands, love your wives.” Does it mean only husbands need to love their wives? Are women relieved of the duty to love their husbands, because only husbands are mentioned here? As a married man, I certainly hope not!
I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point. A survey of the entire New Testament will find passages too numerous to list, in which a gendered pronoun or noun is used but we know is intended for both sexes. Yet complementarians think that it is only as it relates to leadership that male pronouns are intended exclusively.
It is not only masculine pronouns and nouns we find used in the Bible, in which we know both genders are intended. The Bible is also filled with female nouns and pronouns – many of them in reference to God himself – that no one thinks is intended to exclude men. In the parable of the lost coin, God is portrayed in the image of a woman (Luke 15:8-10). In Matthew 25, the church is portrayed as ten young girls, and wisdom is personified as a woman in the Book of Proverbs (Proverbs 1:20-33; 8:1-9:12).
Dr. Peppiatt has compiled a list of feminine images of God used in the Bible: [14]
· God is a nursing mother (Numbers 11:12)
· She is a mother who gave birth to the nation of Israel (Deuteronomy 32:18)
· A woman in labour (Isaiah 42:14)
· A mother who births and protects (Isaiah 46:3-4)
· A mother who does not forget her child (Isaiah 49:14-15)
· A mother who comforts her children (Isaiah 66:12-13)
· A mother who teaches and cares for her young (Hosea 11:1-4)
· Other maternal images can be found in Psalm 131:2; Job 38:8,29; Proverbs 8:22-25; 1 Peter 2:2-3; Acts 17:28.
God is described in terms of a woman’s cultural activity:
· A seamstress making clothes (Nehemiah 9:21)
· A midwife assisting with birth (Psalms 22:9-10; 71:6; Isaiah 66:9)
· A woman in authority (Psalm 123:4)
· A woman working leaven into bread (Luke 13:20-21)
God is also described using the imagery of a female bird or animal:
· A female bird protecting her young (Psalms 17:8; 36:7; 57:1; 91:1,4; Isaiah 31:5; Deuteronomy 32:11-12)
· A female eagle (Deuteronomy 32:11-12; Exodus 19:4; Job 39:27-30)
· A hen (Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:34; Ruth 2:12)
· A mother bear (Hosea 13:8)
1 Timothy 3 isn’t explicitly stating women can’t lead. Complementarians only infer this from the use of masculine pronouns, but the problem with this approach is twofold: the pronouns aren’t in the Greek, only inserted by some English translations; and the use of gendered pronouns and nouns don’t necessarily mean the other gender is excluded. The qualifications listed for leadership in this passage are moral qualifications, and therefore apply equally to men and women.
As we saw in my last blog, Who Says Women Can’t Lead? The Bible Doesn’t!, there is an overwhelming body of biblical evidence fully supporting women in leadership and equality. Taking this evidence into consideration, along with the cultural situation of Corinth and Ephesus at the time, these passages (1 Timothy 2 and 3) should not be interpreted as normative rules forbidding women from leadership roles. Such an interpretation puts Paul in conflict with his own words, and Paul himself did not practice complementarianism, (as we also saw in Who Says Women Can’t Lead? The Bible Doesn’t!).
The complementarian view of the passages just covered (1 Timothy 2, 3) would require us to believe that Paul is contradicting himself, and that he’d forgotten about Phoebe and other women leaders he mentions in other letters. It also requires us to believe that Paul had forgotten about Deborah, Huldah and Joel 2:28-32 in the Old Testament.
I’d like to close out this discussion with a quote from Lucy Peppiatt, who sums up the main point nicely:
“My own view is that we already have such a weight of evidence against reading this text as a universal ruling that we have to discount the idea that Paul was prohibiting all women from teaching men. In other words, even if we could never prove that Paul was addressing this or that particular situation, we know enough to know that this could not have been a universal ruling and so must discount it as that anyway.”[1]
[1] Lucy Peppiatt, Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women, p. 145.
[1] Barr, The Making of Biblical Womanhood, p. 13.
[2] Edwards, Equality Workbook, p.53-60
[3] Edwards, Equality Workbook, p.55-56
[4] Edwards, Equality Workbook, p.53.
[5] See Trombley, C. Who Said Women Can’t Teach? God’s Vision for Women in Ministry, pp. 198-204. Quoted in Edwards, Let My People Go, p.39
[6] Edwards, Equality Workbook, p.61
[7] See Edwards, Let My People Go, Chapter 6
[8] ibid, p. 50
[9] Edwards, Let My People Go, p. 40
[10] Richard and Catherine Kroeger. I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1992).
[11] Lucy Peppiatt, Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women, p. 145.
[12] There are some good modern English translations that translate the Greek text more appropriately for this passage. The CEV, TNIV and The Message are some good modern examples, and translate “one woman man” as “faithful in marriage”
[13] Beth Barr, The Making of Biblical Womanhood, p.147-48.
[14] Peppiatt, Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women, p.19-21.