Order of or in creation?

For those who feel that 1 Timothy 2’s link to creation makes the apparent prohibition against woman in teaching and/or leadership roles timeless, I would like to suggest some counter points. First off, I do think that the author of the letter (let’s assume Paul, if nothing else, as a convenient short hand for the author) is alluding to Genesis 2 and 3.  The wording here has key parallels to that passage. But what are the actual things in creation that are being alluded to? We see two right off: That Adam was formed first and that Eve was the one (easily) deceived (ἐξαπατάω).

If this reference is about the created order, we would assume that these two principles are the timeless creational attributes of woman. Indeed, the belief that woman were easily deceived was common in Paul’s day (cf. Philo, Questions and Answers in Genesis 1.33).  But how many of us would agree today that women are more easily deceived? In fact, if woman are more easily deceived, it becomes an ontological difference and not merely one of roles. In the Greek era, women were considered ontologically different than men. Indeed, Josephus (Against Apion, 2:201) states, “A woman, it is written, is inferior (χείρων) to man in all things.” This in turn is why the husband is to have authority over her. It is interesting, though, that Josephus says, “it is written,” and yet nowhere is it written in scripture. Therefore, it appears that Josephus was importing a common cultural trope into his interpretation of scripture. It is likely that this cultural trope would have been known to Paul’s audience in Ephesus as well.

Similarly, the belief that the first born (or in this case, formed) is the most important (known as primogeniture) is a common belief in Paul’s day and the custom can be read throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. There is no question that in the ancient Near Eastern cultures, the idea that the first born was preeminent (primogeniture) is widespread.  So because Adam was created first, many see him as having preeminence.  The question is if this idea of primogeniture is actually God’s way or simply a cultural artifact from biblical times, because if it is not the way God does things, then it is unlikely that Paul is appealing to it as a “universal principle.”

Colossians does indeed use the idea of first born preeminence metaphorically, but again, is it a means of communicating a complex truth through a cultural metaphor?  To determine whether it is a cultural artifact or a biblical principle, we would have to find out if the bible places special emphasis on the first born.

Let’s start in Genesis.  Immediately following when Adam and Eve were thrown out of the Garden, we find that Eve bore Cain (Gen 4), presumably her first born, although we do not know for certain.  But what do we know of Cain?  He murdered his younger brother, Abel.  Being firstborn meant nothing and he was cursed by God for his actions.  Next, let us look at the children of Isaac.  Here, we find Esau was born first, but Jacob, the younger son, was preeminent (Gen 25:23). As a side note, when Jacob marries Leah, the older daughter, her standing is not based on age, but on her ability to bear children. Once again, it is the younger sons of Jacob’s younger wife, Rachel, who hold a preeminent place in Jacob’s heart. And while other OT examples could be listed, we will finish with David.  When Samuel went looking for the children of Jesse, Jesse assumed it would be his oldest.  But God chose David, the youngest.  Clearly the idea of created order giving preeminence is not how God prioritizes things.  Indeed, we find that God chooses to work not on the basis of this (man-made) tradition, but in opposition to it.  This should not surprise us for Jesus himself said, “So the last will be first, and the first will be last” (Matt 20:16).  Thus, the argument from created order is contradicted by the biblical evidence itself.

Therefore, though Paul is alluding to a biblical narrative that has parallels to the time and place of his audience, it does not represent a timeless principle that should be applied in all places and all times. We may argue about the social circumstances (Artemis worship and the role women played in the cult) that led Paul to do address what he does, but to say that the prohibition about women teaching is timeless requires us to also assert a belief in both primogeniture as well as the inherent inferiority and susceptibility of women to deception, both of which are absent from the Bible.

What about exercising authority?

So, what about exercising authority? Note that the idea of authority starts in 2:2, where Paul  says to make petitions, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings “ὑπὲρ βασιλέων καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐν ὑπεροχῇ ὄντων” (concerning kings and all those being in high positions/authority).  This contrasts to αὐθεντεῖν in 2:13.  Authentein is a highly unusual word.  It is almost never found prior to Paul’s usage (anywhere, not just in the Bible).  The cognate noun, αὐθέντης (authentes) has the sense of murder or perpetrator (cp. Wisdom 12:6, Appian, Civil Wars, 3.16 [murder], 1.116 [murder], Argonautica 4:479 [treacherous murder], Eumenides Aeschylus, lines 201-300 [murder].).  So, if we can learn anything from the usage of the word based on its cognate from extrabiblical sources, it is that the word has violent connotations beyond mere authority.  It is also important to note that authentes is not the same kind of authority as hyperoxē, used in 2:2.  The latter implies high position on which this authority is based, the former, the authority is inextricably linked to violence.  So this section is not addressing leadership positions, per se, for women. Instead, it is barring seizing authority by violence. In light of this violent aspect of the word, this is not, as most English translations say, about exercising authority in general. The King James is probably closest, when it says, “usurp authority,” as usurp often has a violent connotation.

But there is another interesting aspect of this verse. Back in verse 2:8, the verse references that men should lift “up holy hands without anger or argument” (ἐπαίροντας ὁσίους χεῖρας χωρὶς ὀργῆς καὶ διαλογισμοῦ). Now this part of the verse has been largely ignored in the debate about what authentein might mean. But note the tie between anger in 2:8 and the common classical usage of authentein, related to murder, and we start to see a different picture.

The verse is as follows:

διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλʼ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ

Literally:

to teach, and, a woman/wife (dative) not I allow, nor to authentien (violently exercise authority) a man (genitive), but to be in/with stillness.

Traditionally, “a woman” (dative) is considered to be the subject of both didaskein, to teach, and authentein. But notice that the construct is similar for authentein, which I translate as “to violently exercise authority,” and andros, “a man,” except here andros is genitive. Therefore, “a man” could also be read as the subject of the infinitive authentein if andros is a subjective, rather than objective, genitive. So a viable translation for this verse could be:

I do not allow a woman to teach [until they have been discipled], nor a man to violently exercise authority, but rather, (each) to be at rest/quietness (e.g., peace).

In other words, why do we make woman the subject of the entire verse? Admittedly, women are the subject of the preceding verse but Adam is the subject of the following verses. By having “a man” be the subject of the infinitive authentein, it ties in neatly with verse 2:8. Verse 8 reflects deep, violent problems within the church in Ephesus. And if, as I have proposed elsewhere, the core of the curse in the Genesis 3 narrative is about relational enmity between people, (3:15, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers,” and 3:16, “your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you”), then the reference to Genesis makes sense contextually.

Now, we are left with the following understanding. In verse 8, it is Paul’s wish that men should pray and not be fighting (lifting hands in anger). Verses 9 and 10, the women are instructed to not wear clothes that emphasizes their social standing (apparel, braided hair, gold and pearls) but instead, it is their good deeds and character that should be what stands out about them. In verse 11, Paul commands that the women be discipled (μανθάνω, cf Matt 11:29, Col 1:7), a fairly radical instruction in itself. Until they are discipled, they are not permitted to teach (12), but neither should the men use violence in conjunction with their authority. This all harkens back to the primoradial roots of relational enmity in Genesis 3 (v 13). And even if the object of authentein is “a man,” as traditionally rendered, it does not negate the violent connotations of authentien, which again, ties back to the origin of that enmity.