I recently found myself in a provoking discussion in which a friend was put off by the verses from 1 Timothy in which Paul instructs: “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”
It’s not difficult to see why this passage upset my friend. If my non-Christian friends happened to ever read it, many of them would label Paul and his message as abhorrently sexist. Is he? Some commentaries try to explain some of the more controversial points away contextually, reading the passage as Paul giving specific commands to women who were speaking out inappropriately with false teachings in the church of Ephesus. This interpretation implies that we need not apply these commands to women universally. Others say that we should obey exactly what Paul says, often resulting in clear-cut rules about women in the church only being allowed to teach children and other women as well as emphasizing marriage and house-wifery as our only truly suitable job. Though it might not be one of those doctrinal issues that determine salvation, and though churches differing on their interpretation does not necessarily pose a threat to the gospel, it is something important to explore for me and other women whose personal application of this passage has significant impact on how we live our lives.
So, what is the accurate interpretation here? We see hidden within these two explanations a spectrum of views on women. I have become familiar with many of them as I struggle with my identity and role in the Kingdom as a woman who is a Christ follower. Let’s consider both ends of said spectrum. In a right winged, what we might call “conservative” interpretation, women could be led to believe that they are only useful to the kingdom of Christ if they have a husband. So becoming a wife and rearing children becomes their end-all. “God, I’ll serve you when you give me a husband,” is a prayer-mentality I confess to have manifested on occasion under the notion that without a man to call me his, I cannot serve God as effectively. I think if we were to search the hearts and minds of many females brought up in the American church today, we would find similar husband-hunting motives behind many of their actions and prayers.
The desire for a husband can morph into something much more sinister than wanting to serve God as a wife. We look to men to validate us—as if the approval of any man could make us important in God’s kingdom. We look to romantic relationships to satisfy us, and are constantly disappointed at their failure to do so. We think we have a right to treat men as objects to be won because “Aren’t I supposed to want a husband?” and we don’t follow Jesus’ teachings very well when he says “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God… all these things will be added unto you.” We trick ourselves into believing we need a man before we can serve God usefully or even receive His love fully. There is nowhere in the Bible that says, “In order to please God you must acquire a husband,” yet it is an unsilenced myth in many of our hearts.
At the other end of the spectrum we have the left wing “liberal” interpretation that borderlines extreme feminism. Men are corrupt, we don’t need them, and in fact, we are probably better off without them. When in this mentality I pray a different prayer sounding like, “I am perfectly capable of doing everything a man does, so let me teach and give me authority. I am independent.” Because so many of us have adopted this type of thinking, I can’t even begin to scratch the surface of the frustrations that are exposed in conversations I have had with women when the word “submission” is brought up. But here (and elsewhere) Paul says it is within the role of a woman to submit. Why do I and other women who are strong in faith have such a problem with this? Have we forgotten that the reason why woman was created in the first place was to give Adam a suitable helper? We refuse to acknowledge that we do need men, and that they also need us. Perhaps why Paul brings up child-rearing here is that without women, there would be no continuation of life. It is not a matter of dependence or independence, but of interdependence.
The relationship of the trinity is reflected in God’s creation of man and women. We represent relationship—relying on one-another within specific roles. So why is it so difficult for us to submit to the authority and headship of a man? If we hate the idea that we need men, we are overlooking the fact that vital to God’s plan is not just men and not just women, but the relationships between them. Without men, no more women would be born and vice versa. It was through the childbearing of the woman that Christ was born. This is the childbearing through which women will be saved. Through women sin was introduced to the human race, and also through women was introduced the One who conquered it. It was promised of her in Genesis 3:15.
Paul in the 1 Timothy passage brings us back to Genesis. What is interesting about the two ends of this spectrum of views on women is that they mirror the two most common interpretations of the latter half of Gen. 3:16, the curse to the woman,
“Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”
Some people say desire in this context is referring to the desire that women have to be in authority over men. Others say the text is alluding at the sexual desire that women have to be with a man. I think we can take something away from both interpretations and be forewarned of our tendencies to follow our cursed womanhood to the extreme in either direction. What we need is to find a healthy balance between remembering our role in the kingdom of God in relation to God’s men without allowing our validity and usefulness be dependent on how men view us.
Just as how Christ is the head of The Church, Men are the head of their wives. It's just how it is, and the sooner we all accept that the better we can function in that structure God designed. Why not find ways to help better the men in The Church instead of trying to be better than them? Or are we still so busy viewing them as objects of attention to be won that we do not pay attention to the areas we can bring out their leadership and push them to the limits of their potential? If women begin to look at our service to God first in relation to Christ who is the head, then in relation to men which are in headship over us, and accept that this is the way God commanded us to be because that’s the way that he created things to work, I think we will ALL be less frustrated.
I want to add the need to be careful not to be legalistic about any “rules” we might set up as an interpretation of passages like the one in 1 Timothy. When a man is clearly Biblically wrong, that does not mean that we have to submit to his authority. Though God has set up rulers in authority over us that we do good to submit to (Romans 13,) there are times when rulers do not know God’s best. If Radshach, Meschach and Abednego had not questioned the king’s instructions, they would have sinned against the Ultimate authority by bowing down to a false idol. They were rewarded for standing up for the purposes of Christ even when it went against the authority of the king. Similarly, as a woman, I think Christ would be pleased with me for correcting false teaching. I need to do so, not in an attempt to be right, above, or better than a man, but in humility and love—perhaps including another man on the process to do so most effectively and appropriately. That is part of my role of helping men and spurring them on toward the greater purposes of God’s kingdom.
We should also beware of the legalistic mindset that causes us to set permanent rules like, “Women in the church should only teach children and other women.” What if Rachel Saint (sister of Nate Saint) and Elisabeth Elliot (widow of Jim Elliot) had followed this rule strictly? They would never have established a residence in the Huarani settlement (where men could not go without being speared because they were viewed as a threat) and they would never have taught the men of the tribe the story of the gospel. The dangers of laying down such laws in this example are obvious. We should always interpret our roles as believers within the context of the entirety of scripture and in full view of God’s plan of redemption for the world. When we get hung up on contestable bickers, we could seriously hinder the kingdom of Christ from spreading.
In conclusion, though it often jars us women to admit it, we might serve the kingdom far better if we seek out ways to enable men to teach and lead rather than seeking out authority over them. Just as imperative to remember is how we are equally important to Christ whether or not we are married and bear children. It is constant and humble correction of our ways of thinking—like correcting a steering wheel from veering too far to the right or left—that will facilitate our discovery of what it means to submit in quietness as women in The Church.
