“I suffer not a woman to teach, but to be in quietness”

Introduction

The purpose of this article[1] is to argue a Christadelphian complementarian case, which advocates the ‘traditional’ role of not allowing a woman to teach (but there will be a twist). Such a view is contrary to the spirit of the age and the common sense which is part of western culture. This means that we have to be on the alert for the danger of making Scripture fit our own culturally acquired prejudices and/or religious upbringing.

The text for examination is 1 Tim 2:11-15, a classic battleground, but oddly, a text that reads quite plainly in the English as prohibiting a woman to teach. Outside our scope are any general considerations or other texts that might be brought to bear on this question. We might well ask that if 1 Tim 2:11-15 had not been written, would women have been historically excluded from teaching in the church? The question is loaded because it rhetorically invites the answer ‘No’ and thereby sets up the suggestion that ecclesial practice should not be based on one passage of Scripture and that there is something ‘wrong’ with a surface reading of this text.[2] Nevertheless, we can still ask if 1 Tim 2:11-15 had not been written, how would women have been excluded from teaching in the ecclesia on scriptural grounds? The obvious answer is that it would have been done on the basis of precedent and pattern: male priesthood in the Law, the choice of the twelve, and the pattern of leadership in the first century church. In addition, it could have been done using the typological argument in 1 Tim 2:13-14, albeit without the advantage of being able to cite apostolic authority; 1 Tim 2:13-14 is, after all, (including 1 Corinthians 14) a precedent and pattern argument, and it is open to anyone to make it; it just so happens that we find it in the canonical Paul.

There is a final preliminary point to make before we investigate the text. This is that contention and controversy has nothing to do with the reality of a truth. The fact that there are contrary interpretations of our text ‘out there’ in scholarship and on the Internet does not mean a) that there is no ‘truth of the matter’ and b) that having decided that one particular interpretation is true, you cannot be right and put what you believe into practice. In matters of doctrine and practice, you should follow your conscience and associate in an ecclesia of like-minds; it is inevitable, and history shows this to be the case, that others will follow their own consciences setting up different networks of ecclesial association. This is why there are left-wing and right-wing ecclesias divided from each other on this issue.

Let a woman learn…

We distinguish exegesis from exposition in this way: exegesis gives the historical meaning of the text and exposition takes this and makes any application in our lives. Commentators may agree on exegesis but disagree on exposition. The standard way to exclude a text from having any relevance in our lives is to say that it has relevance only for the original audience. In order for this not to be an arbitrary choice there has to be reasons for the exclusion. Are there good reasons that make a text bound to its own time, or are the reasons motivated by our cultural prejudices? When we look at Paul’s commands, this is the question we have to bear in mind.

A learner is not teaching when they are learning (Col 1:7), and good advice would be to ‘learn in silence’ or ‘learn in quietness’.[3] However, the command ‘Let a woman learn in quietness’ does not formally exclude a woman from doing some teaching in her turn. This exclusion comes in the addition: ‘But I suffer not a woman to teach’. This extends the requirement for quietness, which in turn means that ‘in quietness’ is not just advice on how to learn but part of a description of an ecclesial meeting.

Paul adds ‘in all subjection’ and the obvious reading is that it is to the one who is teaching to whom a woman is to be subject when learning. This mention of subjection has an emphasis in the word ‘all’ and this added stress jumps out from the page; after all, a discursive interactive learning environment would seem to be a good thing. What we need to understand 1 Tim 2:11-15 is an ecclesial context for the command and in 1 Corinthians 14 we have a context (the only other one) where Paul is interested in (a) the role of a woman, (b) kinds of silence/quietness and (c) learning, but it is in an ecclesial context of a memorial meeting.[4]

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. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for a woman to speak at congregation (evn evkklhsi,a|). 1 Cor 14:34-35 (KJV revised)

In this text, we read of ‘learning with asking’ and this takes place ‘at home’. But there is also ‘learning’ from prophets (v. 31). The situation was that a prophet would speak and another would ‘judge’ the prophecy (v. 29) and people would learn from this process. It is this kind of learning and its setting where there was a need for a woman not to speak,[5]  and this context is that of the memorial meeting. Paul is giving a complementary characteristic to the command of v. 34 in Timothy – ‘let a woman learn in quietness’, i.e. she is not to participate in the judging of prophesying but to learn in quietness.

We know that 1 Cor 14:35 concerns the memorial meeting because the expression evn evkklhsi,a| occurs in 1 Cor 11:18, which is part of Paul’s discourse on the breaking of bread. The ‘coming together’ mentioned in v. 18 is then picked up in v. 20, “When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.”

We also know that Paul is dealing with matters that concern a meeting in 1 Timothy because he says in 1 Tim 2:1,

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men… 1 Tim 2:1 (KJV)

The point is that prayers are to be given first of all and he continues this exhort in v. 8, when he says ‘I will therefore that men pray everywhere lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.’ The linkage between v. 1 and v. 8 is seen in the repetition of Paul stating his wants on the matter of prayer:

‘I exhort therefore’ (Parakalw/ ou=n )
‘I will therefore’ (Bou,lomai ou=n )

This is an address to men (tou.j a;ndraj ) and this first use of a gender term by Paul sets up the ‘men-women’ commands of vv. 8-15. (The ‘men’ of earlier verses is the gender neutral a;nqrwpoj .) Distinguishing women, so that men are not being addressed as regards ‘learning’, makes the command presuppose that men are doing the teaching, and as we have seen, this is teaching in the judging at the memorial meeting. This is obviously reinforced by ‘But I suffer not a woman to teach…’.

But I suffer not a woman to teach…

We have seen so far that 1 Tim 2:11 does not assign a position of ‘being a teacher’ to men and ‘being a learner’ to women. Instead, we have a specific context of an ecclesial meeting; we are not considering who can and cannot be a teacher ‘in the church’; v. 11 is all about women learning from prophesying in the ecclesial meeting.

The prophesying was to be accompanied by others judging (diakri,nw) and this is where the teaching was being given – the word carries the sense of discriminating. We might ask why judging was to be done by others, but this prohibition on prophets judging their own prophesying is complemented by a similar prohibition against self-judging in the memorial meeting (1 Cor 11:31).

Paul does not ‘permit’ (evpitre,pw) a woman to teach and the word is a further link to 1 Corinthians 14,

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted (evpitre,pw) unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 1 Cor 14:35 (KJV)

The point here is that Paul has a practice of making statements about what is permitted for ‘the churches’ regarding women, their speaking and silence, which means that 1 Tim 2:11-15 is equally for ‘the churches’. Furthermore, his focus for the issue of speaking and silence is the memorial meeting – a meeting that has a permanent place in the church. Hence, we can say that the context for Paul’s statements is not one that is about setting a temporary expedient or a circumstantial ruling, but rather the giving of a general principle for the churches and the practices of the memorial meeting.

Many translators omit the ‘But’; however, this is a mistake.

Let a woman learn…But (de .) I suffer not a woman to teach…

If Paul had used ‘For’ (ga.r ) instead of ‘But’ (de. ), he would have been stating a general principle as a reason for the requirement to learn in quietness; instead, the ‘But’ shows he is prohibiting a woman from teaching through the judging of the prophets. If Paul had just said, ‘Let a woman learn…’, it might have been thought that a woman could then teach in her turn by judging prophets. Instead, ‘But I suffer not a woman to teach…’ adds to the instructions for the ecclesial meeting – where a woman is not to teach. Since women had teaching roles in the church (Acts 18:26; 2 Tim 1:5; 3:14-15; Tit 2:3-5; Col 3:16), the restriction of 1 Tim 2:11-15 to the memorial meeting fits the broader picture.

… nor to exercise authority over a man…

While commentators have extensively discussed the meaning of the Greek word for ‘usurp authority’ (KJV, auvqentei/n ), we can bracket their discussion and, for the sake of argument, just adopt either of ‘have authority’ (RSV) or ‘exercise authority’ (NASB, NET), or even Gaston’s preferred ‘actively take authority’.[6] It would be natural to see an implicit authority in teaching when judging prophesying, but the mention of authority also dovetails with 1 Cor 14:34 again[7] and its ‘but to be under obedience’. Within the memorial meeting a woman is not to have authority over a man but to be under obedience.

We know that Paul is addressing men and women here and not husbands and wives because he does not use any possessive markers with avnh,r and gunh, . Gaston is correct to conclude, “The use of avnh,r in 1 Tim 2:8 and the context of worship in the assembly indicates that all men in the assembly are in view.” If all men are in view, so too are all women. We might also add that Paul’s ‘man-woman’ language will lead into his Adamic typology in the next two verses. Gaston’s recognition of a ‘context of worship’ is being further refined in our essay to be the memorial meeting.

Gaston notes that Paul does not say something like ‘exercise authority over a teacher’ but rather ‘over a man’. The reason for this is that Paul is not addressing the (the role of) teachers in the church, but rather the teaching that takes place in an ecclesial meeting in connection with prophesying.

Did Adam have authority over Eve and is there evidence of hierarchy in the Genesis account? The word ‘authority’ is not used, but most commentators have seen an expression of authority in Adam’s naming Eve; they have seen a hierarchy of ‘leader and led’ in God calling to Adam first; commanding him; and in expelling him from the garden. We might also suppose that Adam told Eve of the command of the Lord concerning the tree, which would be him teaching his wife. Paul’s concern that a woman not exercises authority over a man therefore has a basis in Genesis, especially if he sees Eve’s initiative regarding the eating of the fruit of the tree as acting authoritatively. It is also worth mentioning that some commentators have seen a hierarchy of headship in 1 Cor 11:3.

For Adam was first formed, then Eve

Gaston is correct to link the ‘For’ (ga.r) here to the prohibition in respect of teaching rather than the command about learning. However, Paul has not added ‘men’ to ‘I suffer not a woman to teach’ and so we cannot infer that teaching men is the offence; rather, we should read Paul just prohibiting teaching. In the memorial meeting there would be men and women learning, and so Paul’s prohibition is not about the (blanket) inadmissibility of teaching men at that meeting. (And, to repeat our earlier point, nor is it about prohibiting a teaching role in the church.)

The Adam-Eve precedent is obviously a reason for Paul’s prohibition. We may find the appeal to the order of creation contrary to our thinking; we may not see it as an obvious justification. The stress is on who was first and not anything to do with being formed. We should also mark distinctions of argument with 1 Cor 11:8-9,

For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 1 Cor 11:8-9 (KJV)

It is in keeping with our connection of 1 Timothy 2 with 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 that Paul should be deploying an Adamic argument in 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2, but his points are different in 1 Corinthians because they are not about being first. Within the memorial meeting, who is first? Why should there be acknowledgement of someone as ‘first’? The obvious answer is that Christ is the first (first-begotten from the dead; the firstborn of every creature) and that in the memorial meeting men represent Christ. Paul’s point is not about the rights of the firstborn, but it is about who is first.

This representation is established in 1 Cor 11:7,

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 1 Cor 11:7 (KJV)

Since men and women are created in the image of God (Gen 1:26), Paul’s statement here differentiating men and women in regard to ‘image’ must be about a typology in which a man is (typologically) the image and glory of God, whereas ‘the woman’ is (typologically) the glory of ‘a man’. That is, there is a situation, namely the ecclesial Breaking of Bread, in which men and women have these different typological roles. Since it is Christ who is the ‘image and glory of God’ (Col 1:15; Heb 1:3), we have here a typological identity[8] in which men are said to typically represent Christ.

And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature… Heb 1:3 (NASB)

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature… Col 1:15 (KJV); cf. 2 Cor 4:4

These two texts show Christ as the image and glory of God but notice that Paul also associates the notion of ‘firstborn’ with that of ‘image’. In 1 Timothy he is adding to the same theology with his emphasis on who was first formed.

How is the bride the ‘glory of the man’?

But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. 2 Cor 3:18 (KJV)

We are changed into the same image and glory by beholding Christ; in this way we become his ‘glory’, the glory of a man. Paul explains elsewhere that Christ gave himself for the church so that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of the word, in order that he might present it to himself a glorious church, holy and without blemish (Eph 5:25-27).[9] This is his work. It follows then that the church has glory from her Lord and as such is his glory – the glory of a man.[10]

This means that when God makes Eve from the side of Adam, she is not Adam’s glory at that point; she would only become Adam’s glory if she reflected her ‘lord’. She would do this if she followed his teaching, but she did not (and neither did Adam).

Having affirmed that a man is in type ‘the image and glory of God’, Paul qualifies this remark.

Nevertheless, neither is a man without a woman, neither a woman without a man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.1 Cor 11:11-12 (KJV)

The inter-dependence of men and women in the ecclesia (the new creation, v. 11) reflects the old creation (v. 12ab). The creation of man was not good until he was completed by a woman. It was not good for man to dwell alone (Gen 2:18). In Genesis terms, Adam was not complete without a partner to be a helper and companion. With the woman ‘given’ to him, he was completed as a man. However, in making the woman, she was created of the man.

In the case of the new creation, the church is evidently of Christ, but he too is completed by his bride, and in several ways:

• The disciples were ‘given’ to him, and they helped him in his work (John 17:9, 11, 24).
• He was made perfect through sufferings, and in particular the suffering of death. This death he died on behalf of the ecclesia, thus enabling many to be brought unto glory (Heb 2:9-12).
• He is working to sanctify and cleanse the ecclesia in an on-going sense, so that he might present it to himself a glorious This is his role as the head of the body. As the head he is completed by his body.
• In the future, the bride and the bridegroom will be united in marriage and work together.

Creation was not good while the man was alone, and it was necessary for him to have a woman to be completed. It is the same with Christ; he is completed by the bride. Hence, Gaston is wrong to affirm a contrast by saying,

The expression “in the Lord” contrasts that social order derived from creation with the new spiritual reality for believers. A woman qua woman is a symbol of man’s desire and need for companionship (she is thereby his glory); a woman in the Lord transcends this natural reality and is in the same position as man. Seemingly, then, if the order of creation implied any symbolic hierarchy then that ordering has been undone by the new reality in Christ. (My emphasis)

Rather, the order of the Genesis creation (as the type) is maintained in the new creation (as the antitype), because Christ is ‘the man’ and the ecclesia is ‘the woman’ and this is shown by the complementary roles of male and female in the memorial meeting. The complementarian case is established by the two prepositions ‘of’ and ‘by’ in 1 Cor 11:12, picking out different roles.

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

This picks up the fact that Eve was deceived (cf. Gen 3:13, LXX, avpata,w ) by the Serpent, whereas Adam has no contact with the Serpent. The double mention of deception (not for Adam, but for Eve) shows that Paul’s point is about the act of deception on the part of the Serpent.[11] The conjunction shows that this point is offered as a further reason for why a woman should not teach in judging prophets.

The point Paul makes is not about women’s minds – that they are deceivable (he speaks highly of women and they have a teaching role in the church), nor is he implying that Eve was more (or less) culpable in Eden than Adam (both Adam and Eve disobey equally). Furthermore, both Adam and Eve transgressed God’s command, so this does not explain why Paul would say that Eve ‘was in the transgression’. Paul’s reason for a woman learning in quietness is to show that she has not been deceived by the Serpent. A woman shows that she has not fallen into transgression in the typology of the memorial meeting by learning in quietness and not teaching. We might add that she also shows that she will not fall into transgression. In the new creation, the transgression of Eve is shown to be ‘no more’ by the women of the ecclesia who are the bride of the man.

There is a correspondence to observe between Adam being presented with his bride and Christ being presented with his bride (Eph 5:25-27). The marriage supper follows this presentation (Rev 19:9), and co-incident with this, Satan is bound for a thousand years (Rev 20:2), and the curse is ‘no more’ (Rev 22:3). This is represented in type in the Lord’s Supper with men and women representing Christ and his bride and with the bride learning in quietness and not teaching showing that sin is bound and that there will be no more curse.

The breaking of bread foreshadows the marriage supper of the Lamb, and as such, it is a suitable context in which brethren and sisters can have special roles (marriage being a uniquely male-female role-play). Men have (among other things) a symbolic role as the one who leads and teaches, and women have a symbolic role as the one who is saved. The Passover (with its lamb), the Last Supper, and the marriage supper of the Lamb, are all meals with symbology.[12]

The first century ecclesia was organised around houses (Acts 2:46; 1 Cor 11:22), and they ‘came together’ to break bread. In Paul’s teaching, they were to come together as a ‘man and a woman’ in order to portray the marriage supper of the Lamb. This was one of the purposes of the breaking of bread. It was not just a memorial feast, it was also prophetic of the feast that Christ will share with his saints in the kingdom (Luke 22:16, 18).

This marriage typology is also found in Isaiah 61 and its picture of the joy in the kingdom age.

To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to substitute unto them a head-dress for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he might be glorified. Isa 61:3 (KJV revised)

This is an obvious characterization of what is in store for the mourners in the restored kingdom of God. The KJV has ‘beauty’ but the RSV and NASB are better with ‘garland’; ‘head-dress’ has a more neutral connotation. The association of the word would be with the marriage head-dress, rather than any other adornment (Isa 61:10). The ‘ashes’ are those that were being used in vain religious ceremonies (Isa 58:5).

The ‘oil of joy’ is anointing oil upon the head (Isa 35:10; 51:11) and it is the oil used for the bride and bridegroom (Ps 45:8); this description anticipates the figure of the bridegroom and the bride (v. 11). What is significant here is that the head is anointed with oil and adorned with a head-dress in this marriage picture of the restored kingdom. Thus, in addition to foreshadowing the marriage supper of the lamb, the marriage typology of the memorial meeting portrays the future kingdom age in accordance with Isaiah 61. In this way the Lord is glorified (Isa 61:3)—the woman is the glory of ‘the man’.

Commentators have difficulty with 1 Tim 2:11-15 because they don’t appreciate the thorough-going typology of Paul’s reasoning. Accordingly, they look for a social context for Paul’s reasoning. Paul is indeed addressing an ecclesial situation (1 Tim 3:14-15), but he is offering a counsel of ‘learning in quietness/not teaching’ for the new creation on the basis of typological patterns in the order and happenings of the old creation. Gaston usefully reviews many suggestions of the scholars but none are very convincing.

But she will be saved through the child-bearing…

Gaston notes that swqh,setai (v. 15), being a third person singular, connects to the singular h` gunh. (v. 14), and therefore what we have is a reference to ‘the woman’. Obviously, the description of child-bearing in Gen 3:16 fits with this reference. What we need to maintain here is that Paul’s point is about child-bearing and not about the promised seed of Gen 3:15. The Greek word for child-bearing (teknogoni,a )[13] is about the physical process and not the child that is subsequently born. So, whereas salvation comes through the child that is the ‘seed of the woman’, this is not Paul’s point.

The expression ‘the woman’ is referring to the historical person, Eve, and Paul is saying that she will be saved through the sorrow of conception in some child-bearing that is future from Paul’s point in history. Paul does not say ‘her child-bearing’ but ‘the child-bearing’ (although as interpreters, we could choose to drop the definite article).

Paul adds a condition in the second half of the verse (“if they”) and this makes Eve’s salvation conditional on the behaviour of the women of the ecclesia whom Paul introduces in v. 9. This coupling of Eve’s salvation with the behaviour of the women of the ecclesia makes ‘the child-bearing’ a prophetic symbol of events that will lead to the marriage-supper of the lamb (events that are an irony of Gen 3:16). We should be looking for the application of the common OT symbol of travail to identify Paul’s meaning.

But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape…But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation. For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ… 1 Thess 5:1-9 (KJV)

What we see here is that the salvation of the ecclesia will come in a time of travail and that the ecclesia will be saved if they continue in faith and love, the very two conditions that Paul lays on the women in 1 Tim 2:15. Paul balances the display of Eve’s transgression in a woman’s quietness with the salvation of Eve through the Lord Jesus Christ if the women continue in faith and love.

Church Complementarian Thinking

Church complementarian thinking is in a mess and this is illustrated in Gaston’s essay. Scholars have looked to ‘reconcile’ 1 Tim 2:11-15 with other NT evidence that shows women teaching and they have tried various expedients. Gaston reviews some proposal in his section “Could Paul mean that women should not teach (in some circumstances)?” and concludes,

The danger is this kind of “reconciliation” descends into a sort of trade-off, where one passage is “sacrificed” as a temporary expedient so that the other passage can be elevated as an enduring principle. It is not permissible to arbitrarily choose which passage to subordinate to other; each passage needs to be evaluated on its own terms.

Gaston then asks,

…if a passage that might be read as an absolute prohibition cannot be taken as such, if it must be qualified in some regard, then we are entitled to explore in what way this prohibition is to be qualified or on what is this prohibition contingent.

The answer is that we should qualify a prohibition using Paul’s own thinking-patterns and the intertextual connections that his Scripture sets up to guide our interpretation. This gives us a consistent marital typology for the memorial meeting in which men and women have different roles. Recognizing this yields a harmony in Paul’s thought across his letters on the role of women.

Socio-historical Context

We are now in a position to see that relating Paul’s reasoning solely to a socio-historical context is a mistake; such linkage does not exclude typological reasoning being applied by Paul to and in a socio-historical context. The fact that circumstances come and go does not mean that the guidance is temporary and contingent, especially when the guidance is grounded in reasoning from the patterns in the Jewish Scriptures as we have in the case of this Adamic typology. Moreover, when the behaviour is basic (speaking, teaching, learning, quietness), the guidance will be basic. Furthermore, if the situation is the memorial meeting, then the guidance is even more likely to be of enduring value because this meeting has a permanent place in the church. Gaston hasn’t proved his case that “Paul [is] giving a temporary and contingent instruction that women should learn but should not teach.” Rather, what we have in Paul’s letters is the same as what we have in the Jewish Scriptures, namely, “these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction” (1 Cor 10:11).

What might have been the situation in Ephesus? Gaston usefully itemises various proposals including false teachers, female opponents, Artemis followers, and Gnostics. We might baulk at the Gnostic hypothesis, but Gaston’s conclusion is useful, “that women who have been led astray by false teachers are themselves trying to teach the congregation.” There may well have been false teachers putting forward their own arguments concerning the role of women. We can mirror-read the text for such a conclusion. Of course, “false teachers” has not been a localised and temporary problem in ecclesias and false teaching in this case as regards the roles of men and women at the memorial. Accordingly, we cannot relativize Paul’s guidance to Ephesus and his day.

Conclusion

Our conclusion is different to Gaston because we see a narrative typology in Paul’s reasoning,[14] one grounded in the facts surrounding Adam and Eve. Gaston offers a binary choice when he concludes,

Broadly speaking there are two ways to read 1 Tim 2:11-15. Either Paul is saying that women should not teach men as they are subordinated by the virtue of the order of creation and are inherently more open to deception than men, or Paul is saying that, in response to a specific problem at Ephesus, the women there should not teach lest their situation be analogous to that of Adam and Eve. The former alternative seems unsustainable; the latter seems consistent with the situation at Ephesus.

This ‘either/or’ doesn’t cover the alternatives. Paul isn’t saying or assuming women are more open to deception, but he is saying that there is an order in the new creation in regard to the memorial meeting which reflects the order of the old creation.