Men, women, and interpretive discomfort

I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 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—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Is this uncomfortable? I would guess that it’s not the part directed towards men that causes the discomfort.

I attended seminary in my mid- and late-twenties. It was very impactful to me. I was just beginning to figure out how to think and had the good fortune to learn that under some godly men. We did quite a bit of reading in seminary and occasionally I would come across a statement that changed my thinking in important ways. I’ll share two of these:

We will never be more sure of our theories about morality than we are of our moral intuitions

I studied Christian ethics in seminary and like other branches of philosophy we make use of different thought experiments. An example would be as simple as the question “if you could go back in time to 1890, would you kill baby Hitler?“. The point of this thought experiment is to expose our moral intutitions and how they interact with one another. We know that we should prevent someone from harming others if we can. We also know that it’s immoral to murder a child. Creating a hypothetical situation in which these two are opposed helps us to better understand each impulse and how we put them together to live a moral life.

The insight of the earlier quote is just this: because we are deriving theories about how we should live based on these root intuitions of right and wrong and good and bad, we are fundamentally more commited to the underlying intuition and not to the theory, and we cannot opt-out.

We are all living by a framework of morality and value whether or not we say them out loud or even think of them as a whole. We are all living in and through a web of habits, traditions, and disciplines informed consciously and unconsciously by our values and beliefs. This can be obvious if we think back to early married life. Your spouse had one set of assumptions about how life was going to work, how and when to take vacations, and what holiday and family traditions were important and should be kept. You most likely had a similar but different set of assumptions about all the same things. Did you perhaps notice that two notions about how to do life could conflict in surprising ways and to a surprising degree?

When we think about and study interpretation we often focus on methods but our presuppositions should be no less the subject of our attention

When we learn to read the Bible or teach someone else to do it we often hear similar advice:

Read a passage multiple times
Note any repeated words or phrases
Cross reference important words elsewhere in Scripture
Pray about the passage
Consider who wrote the passage
Consider who it was written to

All of this is good advice-advice we should take-but there’s something further needed. The presuppositions or intuitions we have about the Bible and about whatever it is conveying to us have an enormous effect on the way we read. Here’s a trivial example: in John 21 after Jesus crucifixion and resurrection several of the disciples including Peter go fishing in the Sea of Galilee. This is commercial fishing so it’s labor intensive and Peter is stripped for the work. While they’re doing this Jesus comes and talks to them though they don’t know it’s him. When they finally realize it’s Jesus puts on his outer garment and jumps into the sea. This always struck me as strange. If I’m working in a boat and decide to get out of it for any reason what I’m not going to do is put on my sports coat and jump. Now this only seems particularly strange to me because of assumptions about swimming, where Peter is, and what he’s trying to do. It’s likely that on further study of the passage I’d find that some of my presuppostions are wrong.

Now lets put these two insights together: we are subconsiously more committed to beliefs and values that we consider “normal” than to anything we build on top of these presuppositions and because of this these presuppositions deserve our scrutiny. C.S. Lewis wrote about this necessity when interpreting art in An Experiment in Criticism. He noted that the necessary first step in reading and understanding any work of literature is a step of humility.

The first demand any work of art marks upon us is surrender. Look. Listen. Receive. Get yourself out of the way. There is no good asking first whether the work before you deserves such a surrender for until you have surrendered you cannot possibly find out.

We must understand the text on its own terms. I asked earlier what Paul is saying here is discomforting. The unease we feel with this passage, I would suggest, comes from assumptions we are bringing to the text. Assumptions that we’ve had for longer than we can remember and because of that are powerfully affecting the way we read this text. What are they?

the role of men and women and how and when they differ
prayer
Scripture
how we do church
modesty
teaching
sin

So when we read and interpret 1 Timothy 2 and it feels like its running counter to our deeply held assumptions we have a very strong motivation to reject it before ever coming to an understanding of it. So what do we do? We prepare are arguments ahead of time ready for a showdown:

This is specific to their culture
Paul is interpreting Genesis incorrectly
We can tell from our vantage point, after the progress of society, that Paul is just in error

But Lewis reminds us, “You cannot be armed to the teeth and surrendered at the same moment.” We cannot both be preparing our retorts and receiving truth. And this is not specific to this passage or even to the reading. Have you ever showed up to an argument or conflict with your spouse emotionally and intellectually armed to the teeth? How did it go? I would guess not great because when we do that what we’re saying to our spouse is “I’m not willing to understand you”. And what happens is that you get what you want, you fail to understand your spouse.

This is the danger, if we do not lay down our arms beforehand in an act of humility, we will miss whatever it is that’s being said here and deny the claims that Scripture has on our lives. (Remember the culminating end to the gospel of Matthew where Jesus, with all the authority in heaven and on earth, commands his disciples to make disciples part of which is to teach obedience to Christ himself. Jesus intends on being obeyed).

The text in review

Men are to pray with lifted and holy hands. Here we have an example of presupposition on Paul’s part. The command doesn’t consist in the lifting of the hands but the manner in which those hands are lifted. Paul is presupposing the kind of public prayer in the assembly that would have been the practice for the Ephesians (similar the Jewish practice). He’s saying in effect when men lift their hands in prayer, they should be holy hands. This is confirmed by the next phrase “without anger or quarreling”.

Here we are reminded that Paul is addressing the church in a specific context. There is legitimate false teaching happening in Ephesus and Paul’s command reflects that holiness should mark the worship of the church even amidst the necessity for rebuke.

Paul then turns to the women with “likewise”. Why “likewise”? The connection is likely that what Paul is commanding for the men (holiness) he is also commanding for the women. Again with a different set of presuppositions. “Women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel with modesty/decency and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire”. Why these specific prohibitions? Again, this is a specific act which highlights the internal state of the one doing it.

Saved through childbearing

Let’s get the options out of the way. Given that this is a legitimately debated text and that a good interpretive framework will give more weight to clear texts than to unclear texts, whatever Paul means here specifically will not overturn what he says more clearly elsewhere. There are a few ways that this has been interpreted:

Salvation through the birth of Christ. Here the woman stands in corporate solidarity with Mary.
Salvation despite bearing children that is despite the curse of pain in childbirth.
Physical preservation in childbirth, “She will be brought safely through childbirth”
Salvation by means of bearing children, argued as a Jewish view
Deliverance from the temptation of Satan by maintaining their proper role.
Perseverence in salvation in the proper role, “fulfillment in the role of mother”

The testimony from the rest of scripture

Paul’s ‘Negative’ Commands

1 Cor 11:2–16

Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

1 Cor 14:33-40

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But all things should be done decently and in order.

Taken together these passages can prove confusing but there’s underlying presuppositions that we should not miss. In the earlier passage Paul assumes that there are women who will be praying and prophesying. His concern is not with that but with the head coverings. This could be quite similar to what we see in the 1 Timothy passage where the Paul is exhorting the women of the Ephesian church to adorn themselves particularly in the congregational setting in light of inner Christian virtues. At the least Paul is making a connection between head coverings and shame that we don’t quite share today. We do share the sentiment but it’s not mapped the same way. We might look down on man buns but we do not see them as shameful. However, the same could not also be said for a man in drag.

Similarly, Paul’s concern in chapter 14 is for the orderliness of worship and he is speaking of precisely the kind of silence that we mentioned last week was necessary for everyone. We cannot all speak at the same time and in some ways its ridiculous that we have to say it. I will often find myself telling one of my kids that we’re all at the dinner table that level of volume is not necessary which is actually kind of false. Usually the reason for the volume is that another kid started talking in the middle of their story and so necessitated an upping of the sonic ante.

Evidence from the early church

Acts 18:24–26

Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately

Acts 21:7–9

When we had finished the voyage from Tyre, we arrived at Ptolemais, and we greeted the brothers and stayed with them for one day. On the next day we departed and came to Caesarea, and we entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him. He had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied.

Paul’s ‘positive’ commands and statements

Gal 3:26–29

for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

Titus 2:3–5

Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

Eph 5:22–33 (cf. Col 3:18-19)

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

1 Tim 4:1–3

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth

Paul cites creation for the reason why women are not to hold teaching authority in the church.

Gen. 3:1-13, Paul is following the Genesis narrative, Eve describes herself in v. 13 as deceived
He’s necessarily then making a parallel to the family which comes full circle in just a few verse when he commands that elders be considered based on their managment of their household.
So why can’t women teach becomes the question why aren’t women the head of the home.
This is also related to why Paul says women will be saved through childbearing the most quintessentially feminine activity.

An overview:

Gen 1:27-28, God creates man and women in his image and commands them to be fruitful
Gen 2:15, God puts man in the garden “to work it and keep it”
Gen 2:16-17, God prohibition on the fruit of the tree
Gen 2:18, God determines to make woman, “a helper fit for him”
Gen 2:22-24, the first marriage
Gen 3:1-7, the fall
Gen 3:8-13, the fallout, Adam and Eve shift blame and admit disobedience
Gen 3:14-19, the curses, NB v. 16, Eve’s desire (cf. Gen. 4:7 sin’s desire, and Song 7:10 the wife’s claim, “I am my beloved’s and his desire is for me”)

Synthesis

The question we started with, the question of who holds the teaching role in the church is reducible to the question of the woman’s role in the family. This underlies Paul’s claims: why should women be silent, or well-ordered under authority in the church? Because of the order of creation. So “why can’t a woman be in the leadership of the church?” is just a repackaged “why can’t a woman be in leadership over the family?“. But again the biblical answer here is pointed at creation which is to say it’s irreducible. To ask why a woman should submit to her husband is like asking why do we have to breathe air? There are biological mechanisms to that but its a brute fact, irreducible and irrefutable. There’s no amount of pretending you don’t need air that will enable you to need something other than oxygen. The only final answer we can give is it’s how humans are designed. Which implies what we actually see in the Genesis account: the submission of Eve to Adam comes prior to the fall. And note that this applies in the other direction though we are not offended by it. The love of Adam for Eve comes prior to the fall, his provision and protection of their home is likewise a charge given to him by God prior to the fall.

Often when we have reservations about the role of men and women they are not reservations in the abstract. It’s not so much why should women generally submit to their husbands but why should I, in particular, have to submit to my husband? Or why should I have to love my wife? They don’t deserve it. Or consider the terrible but too real situation of a woman in a marriage with an abusive husband.

These are situations that are inevitable when our morality smashes up against the reality of daily life. The important thing to remember is that these situations and every situation like them is downstream of sin. Let’s go back to the breath metaphor for a minute. Suppose that you like my grandfather and many of his generation decided to smoke for several decade which would lead to lung cancer and death. Or for a more extreme example, let’s say you started smoking cocaine and began to destroy your life. The appropriate response to these situations is not to figure out an alternative to oxygen, but stop killing yourself by your decisions. Now obviously the analogy is not perfect and the real heart-ache of the situations above is that someone else is failing in their role. It is too often true that a wife fails to merit love or a husband fails to merit submission.

I’ll stop here to point out that there are times when your wife merits your love, or your husband merits submission and respect. Do not be tempted to say otherwise. If we do that we are both denying the significant moral effort inherit in that merit and the work of God in sanctification to bring that about. Honor the work of your spouse and the work of God in them.

It’s all the more important then to see submission and respect and love and service as rooted in the design of creation. Those moral imperatives exist prior to any sin by which to fail to deserve them.

So from the beginning, in God’s “very good” created order, Eve was in submission to Adam, respecting him as the head of the family, and Adam loved Eve and served her in the protection and provision of the home. The role of the woman is oriented towards the home. The woman uniquely can bear and care for children. But don’t miss this: the role of the man is oriented toward the home. He safeguards it and provides for it. If his work ever ceases to be for his home the rest of him is in danger of following.

Our two points of guidance then are creation and Christ. In creation we get a glimpse of what could be and should be prior to sin. Christ comes and clarifies that for us and he enables it.