//11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.//
1 Timothy 2:11-15
I shall not bother to deal with the various liberal arguments that this passage was purely “cultural” and things of that nature. I will be taking for granted that Paul AT LEAST forbids women to teach in the church, which is the standard conservative position. It is my intention here to question the idea that this only applies to the church.
Furthermore we know from scripture that women are to be in submission to their own husbands, so women are also not supposed to be in a position of authority over men in the family.
The family is a natural/supernatural institution, while the church is purely formed by supernatural right. Whether we view the State as more of a natural law institution or more of a supernatural law institution thus should not matter for the purposes of this post. Whether the State follows the same general structural rules of the family or the church, women should not lead over it. The Bible casts a negative light on doing otherwise in Isaiah 3:11-12
11 Woe to the wicked! It shall be ill with him,
for what his hands have dealt out shall be done to him.
12 My people—infants are their oppressors,
and women rule over them.
O my people, your guides mislead you
and they have swallowed up[a] the course of your paths
Now one could say “well, God doesn’t actually forbid women to rule over men, it just says this is a bad thing.”
I think often what we do with passages that make us uncomfortable as conservative Christians is that we do the bare minimum. If the passage spells out that we must do something, specifically, we’ll obey even if its uncomfortable. But if the spelling out is not clear, we wind up defaulting to the most culturally comfortable interpretation. Thus we say that women should submit to men in the church (1 Tim 2) and the family (Eph. 5) but then be practical egalitarians in the state. However I do not see good reason to interpret the scriptures this way. It doesn’t make much sense to read the scriptures this way if we are honestly trying to holistically apply Paul’s words. It seems far more reasonable to take the passage as a general principle.
Why? Its simple. Paul appeals natural law to make his case. He appeals to creation. Thus the reason women should not rule over men is not directly related to the supernatural status that the church has. It is a general rule. It is based on the fact that God created Adam first, and God created Eve to be a helper to him. Thus women are not to rule over adult men. Isaiah 3 further solidifies this case, proclaiming that any nation who ignores this rule in the civil realm is under a curse.
There is simply no good reason to limit these passages to the church and the family unless we make this assumption because we already wish to make it. It is more comfortable but it is not consistent with a creation focused natural law ethic.
I will spend the rest of this post dealing with some of the best challenges I’ve received for this idea.
#1: What about Deborah?
Answer: Much could be said about Deborah, but to make matters simple, Deborah does not seem to be normative example. Though Deborah seems to have acted in godly manner herself, God choosing her to rule seems to have been an indictment of the men in that era, as Isaiah 3 seems to indicate, as well as in Judges 5 where Deborah clearly says none arose instead of her.
Given the divine intervention in Deborah’s case, I am not convinced that it provides a moral precedent at all, but even if it does, it does so only in the most dire situations, situations that would clearly indict whatever society allowed it.
#2 Does this mean women shouldn’t have authority over men in the workplace?
Yes. I really don’t see any good argument against this save sentimental ones.
#3. Should women teach men in Bible studies?
I believe that for a woman to teach theology to a man is inherently to place herself in a spiritual authority over him. Certainly women can discuss theology with men and to share their opinions, but for a woman to take the lead in my mind is to violate the natural law principle. So where exactly is the line? I don’t think I have to clearly draw it to say that when a woman is leading the study, she is violating it.
#4. What about other forms of teaching?
I would say the emphasis is on “have authority over a man.” Thus teaching in a context where it entails exercise of authority seems unlawful. So I would question a woman as a college professor, I would have less issue with one being a private tutor, since in the latter case she is simply offering help and not necessarily taking on a position of authority. The exact line here may be difficult to draw, but again, the basic principle applies. Women should not exercise authority over men.
#5. How old is a man?
This is perhaps the most difficult question since most answers seem arbitrary. The Bible doesn’t give us a particularly clear answer to when adulthood begins. I will say that however we answer this question, it should never be used to undermine the general principle that women should not have authority over adult men. Perhaps the line is difficult to draw, but again, this does not justify minimalistic applications that are not only “too easy” but too often appeal to the desires of men to conform to their culture as much as possible.
If I had to choose a number, I would choose 20. 18 and 21 are both purely arbitrary based on nothing more than the edict of a secular state, so these numbers are meaningless to the theonomic Christia. 20 has precedent in Numbers 1
//
1 The Lord spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tent of meeting, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they had come out of the land of Egypt, saying, 2 “Take a census of all the congregation of the people of Israel, by clans, by fathers’ houses, according to the number of names, every male, head by head. 3 From twenty years old and upward, all in Israel who are able to go to war, you and Aaron shall list them, company by company. //
So it was permissible for a man to serve in the military at age 20. I do not know of any similar age restrictions for drinking, marrying, and so on. So it does not seem like a precise equivalent to modern adulthood, but it seems to be the only age distinction that is clear in scripture. Thus I’m comfortable saying dogmatically that it would be sinful to a woman to teach in an authoritative position over a man that is at least 20 years old. I am also open to the idea that the age would be even younger, perhaps puberty, despite the lack of ability for such a man to serve in the military, but I am not certain of this.
reconvenantersassanach 