How Does a Catholic Read: 1 Timothy 2:11-15

Christians believe that the Old and New Testaments are the “inspired word of God”.  This means (in the words of the Catholic Church) everything asserted by the author is asserted by the Holy Spirit and is therefore infallibly true.  However, with some passages that’s a hard pill to swallow.

Today I want to look at what I regard to be the most embarrassing passage in the New Testament: 1Timothy 2:11-15

In this section of Paul’s first letter to Timothy he is talking about his expectations of what will occur when the Christian community gathers together for worship and instruction.  He begins with the following instructions for men:

“I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling” – 1Timothy 2:8

OK, rather than raising hands in violence or aggression – (as men are stereotypically prone to do) - Paul wants the men to raise their hands in prayer.  Great!

Now Paul turns to the women.  He begins with the following:

“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.”  – 1Timothy 2:9-10

So far so good.  Paul wants the women to dress modestly, and be more concerned with good deeds than fashion.

But now things take a turn...

“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.” - 1Timothy 2:11-15

Yikes.


Breaking it Down:

Let’s take this one line at a time:

“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."

The first thing to do is remember the scope of Paul’s discourse here.  Is he saying women cannot teach or have authority in any context?  Surely not.  Paul would have been very familiar with the Old Testament example of the judge Deborah.  He also would have been aware of places ruled by queens and female magistrates.  And yet in Romans 13 Paul tells his readers to obey governmental authorities, not just the male ones.

Rather, the situation Paul is addressing here is when the Christian community is gathered for instruction.  It’s in this context that Paul says women are to be learners, not authoritative teachers.  This fits in with the traditional Christian understanding that the ordained teaching office is reserved for men.

That’s controversial enough.  But what’s more alarming – for me, anyway – is what comes next:

“For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”

Here’s why this is disturbing.  Paul is giving a rationale for his previous command about maintaining a male teaching office.  Now, folks seeking to defend this doctrine in modern times (myself included) would typically appeal to the example of Christ in appointing twelve men to be Apostles.  Or we’d point to the sacramental role of men standing for Christ as the bridegroom of the Church.  The last thing we’d EVER do is point to innate differences between men and women.  Yet, barring one outside possibility*, that seems to be what Paul is doing.

Paul begins by saying, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve.”

This sentence is one I’m not certain about.  Is he just briefly recounting the story of Adam and Eve?  Or does he mean for this to be an independent reason for the male pastorate?

If it’s just a preparatory remark, then we can pass over it.  But if Paul meant it to be an independent reason for the male pastorate, it would seem he’s reading into Adam’s primacy a kind of leadership role.  That is, he’s seeing Adam preceding his wife into the world, thus establishing a divinely ordained principle of male leadership.

Then he concludes by saying: “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”

This second sentence is a source of even deeper insight… and confusion.  I’ve been accustomed to thinking the serpent deceived BOTH Adam and Eve in the garden.  But taken at face value, Paul is asserting that wasn’t the case.  He says only Eve was deceived.

So while they both ate the fruit, they did so for different reasons.  Eve would have done so because the serpent convinced her of his lies.  But what of Adam?  If Adam wasn’t deceived, it would mean that when Eve shared the fruit with him, he ate it knowing it was wrong. Eve failed in her intellect, Adam in his will.

Now, that could have been true for just the two of them.  However, Paul was using this example as applicable to his time – as part of an explanation for why there could not be female authoritative teachers.  Therefore he also sees in the example of Adam and Eve something paradigmatic of men and women.  That is, whatever weakness was exploited by the devil is present – (at least generally) – today. 

What could that be?


Strengths and Weaknesses:

To answer this conundrum, I look toward studies which highlight the unique strengths in women.  Namely; superior empathy, ability to listen and compromise, and better collaboration.  To put it plainly, women are better at listening to contrary points of view and avoiding conflict by finding a middle ground.

It’s true that generalities are imperfect.  There are exceptions to everything.  If you say “men generally are taller than women”, there’s sure to be someone who says, “Oh yeah? But I’ve met a very tall woman and a very short man!” 

Still, the literature supports the idea that these dispositions are superior in women.  And we can all can rejoice that God gave them such marvelous strengths over their male peers.

And yet it seems to me that there is a necessary corollary to those skills.  Namely, men would be better at not listening, and not budging an inch even if it means conflict.

This leads me to ask:  If you have a certain body of doctrine – namely, the Christian faith – and it must be held constant and never compromised in the slightest… are the generalized strengths of men or women more suited to the task? 

That, I think, is the rationale behind Paul’s citing Adam and Eve for justifying the male pastorate.  To put it bluntly; a Church led by men is more likely to burn the fellow who says Jesus isn't divine.  That's far from ideal, but it at least has the virtue of not compromising with him.


Saved by What?: 

Now for the final section:

“Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”

This last sentence is jarring because at first glance Paul might be taken as saying women cannot be saved unless they have children.  Or rather, that women who fail to produce children will go to hell.  That couldn’t be the case.  This is the same Paul who in 1Corinthians 7 recommends celibacy to positively everyone as the superior form of Christian discipleship.  And obviously you’re not bearing children if you’re celibate.

It’s common in Christian theology to make a clear distinction between “salvation” and “sanctification”.  However, the Biblical language is more blurry than that.  In several places there are mentions of people “being saved” in the present-continuing tense.  And what this is referring to is the process of becoming more Christ-like, i.e. sanctification.  That is, being “saved” from every stain of imperfection.

So when this passage says women will be saved through childbearing, it is saying is that motherhood is a source of sanctification for women.  And that’s pretty non-controversial.


One Man’s Take:

Thus we reach the end of the passage and my best take at understanding it.  One could still say my conclusions are sexist… but the primary concern for me is accurately interpreting the text.  Am I being true to Paul or not?

Someone else might conclude my interpretation is right, but Saint Paul is sexist.  That’s where you get into questions about inspiration.  If Paul is asserting something sexist… does that mean the Holy Spirit is asserting something sexist?

Anyway, thanks for joining me.

----------------------

[* Paul could be saying women are barred from being authoritative teachers as a sort of ongoing penance for Eve’s sin.  Imagine the list of punishments God gives to Eve in Genesis 3:16 and tack on “no teaching authority either”.  However, I see that interpretation as more of a stretch.]