Is 1 Timothy 2:11-14 sexist?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Is 1 Timothy 2:11-14 sexist?

Post #1

Post by AgnosticBoy »

I've been in a debate regarding Christianity and sexism. One of the clearest examples of sexism I thought was in 1 Timothy 2:11-14. After getting some feedback on it, I'm not too sure now and wanted to get some feedback from members here.

Here is 1 Timothy 2:11-14 (NIV):
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

One explanation I've come across says that this instruction was not meant to be applied universally, but instead applied to a specific time, place, and culture. So far, the best article I've been able to find on this matter is here (two sections called Has Timothy 2:9–15 Local or Universal Application? and the Conclusion section). Here are some relevant excerpts - comes from article The Argument of the Order of Creation in 1 Timothy 2:9-15 by Dr. Felix H. Cortez:
The wider context of 1 Timothy suggests that women were probably the main propagators of false teachings in the church (1 Tim. 4:7; 5:13-14; cf. 2 Tim 3:6-7). The heresy’s aversion of marriage (1 Tim. 4:3) suggests that there were other teachings that were specially attractive to well-to-do Christian wives tempting them to shun home duties and seek a life of independence and liberation (5:11-15).

In the time of Paul had emerged in the Greco Roman world what has been called the “new woman”—affluent women who claimed for themselves the sexual liberty normally permitted to men. The literature of the time relates these women to the use of complex hairstyles, and the wearing of gold, pearls and expensive clothes. It is possible that well-to do Christian wives attracted by this emerging trend were in danger of rejecting the cultural norms of modesty. It is probable that what Paul is combatting in Ephesus and other places are the initial tendencies that later flourished in the heretical movements of the second century. Both the gnostic and the montanist—heretical movements of the AD second century—gave great prominence to women in their teachings and organization.
For Debate:
1. Is the above explanation valid or part of a scholarly consensus?
2. If it is accepted as the likely explanation, then why did the apostle Paul bring up Adam and Eve as a reason for the instruction? Isn't he saying that women should not be in authority over men because man was made first?

* I was going to post this in the theology section but decided not to since I'm also looking for a historico-cultural context for this passage.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Is 1 Timothy 2:11-14 sexist?

Post #2

Post by Difflugia »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Sun Nov 07, 2021 9:38 pm1. Is the above explanation valid or part of a scholarly consensus?
Not exactly. In the first place, the consensus is that 1 Timothy isn't genuinely Pauline:
Still, the prevailing view of scholars is that these letters were not written by Paul but are later compositions seeking to “fix” his legacy (in both senses of the term).—The New Oxford Annotated Bible, "Introduction to the Pastoral Epistles"
These are generally considered to have been written in the early second century, when the church was less egalitarian than the genuine Paul envisioned.

Even so, some scholars think that this passage was meant to, along with several others, combat a particularly ascetic view of Paul. The apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla was popular and presented Paul as advocating both celibacy and certain forms of authority for women. According to the story, Thecla was engaged until Paul's preaching convinced her to break the engagement. The enraged husband and other men of the town chased Paul and Thecla and ultimately threw Thecla to the animals in the arena. There, Thecla baptized herself (which, somewhat inexplicably except as a plot device, Paul had thus far refused to do) and was then surrounded and defended by all of the girl animals. This baptism was apparently acceptable to God, because He sent a lightning bolt to strike some of the boy animals. She escaped and went to find Paul, who told her to "go and teach the Word of God."

The idea is that one of the reasons for 1 Timothy was to combat this particular form of feminism combined with ascetism, which may have been gaining popularity in the church at the time. Bart Ehrman briefly mentions this in Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene:
So too a later author, forging a letter in Paul’s name, demanded that women are “to keep silent” (1 Tim. 2:12). How different that is from the Paul remembered in the Acts of Paul and Thecla, who commissions his female apostle to go forth and “proclaim the Word.”
In this view, the requirement that the deacon be "husband of one wife" may have been targeting this heresy than its usual interpretation of being antipolygamy.
AgnosticBoy wrote: Sun Nov 07, 2021 9:38 pm2. If it is accepted as the likely explanation, then why did the apostle Paul bring up Adam and Eve as a reason for the instruction? Isn't he saying that women should not be in authority over men because man was made first?
Yes. Even if either of these explanations is valid, it's hard to see how one could read these passages as being anything other than misogynist, even if it's misogyny directed at specific first- or second-century women.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: Is 1 Timothy 2:11-14 sexist?

Post #3

Post by nobspeople »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Sun Nov 07, 2021 9:38 pm I've been in a debate regarding Christianity and sexism. One of the clearest examples of sexism I thought was in 1 Timothy 2:11-14. After getting some feedback on it, I'm not too sure now and wanted to get some feedback from members here.

Here is 1 Timothy 2:11-14 (NIV):
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

One explanation I've come across says that this instruction was not meant to be applied universally, but instead applied to a specific time, place, and culture. So far, the best article I've been able to find on this matter is here (two sections called Has Timothy 2:9–15 Local or Universal Application? and the Conclusion section). Here are some relevant excerpts - comes from article The Argument of the Order of Creation in 1 Timothy 2:9-15 by Dr. Felix H. Cortez:
The wider context of 1 Timothy suggests that women were probably the main propagators of false teachings in the church (1 Tim. 4:7; 5:13-14; cf. 2 Tim 3:6-7). The heresy’s aversion of marriage (1 Tim. 4:3) suggests that there were other teachings that were specially attractive to well-to-do Christian wives tempting them to shun home duties and seek a life of independence and liberation (5:11-15).

In the time of Paul had emerged in the Greco Roman world what has been called the “new woman”—affluent women who claimed for themselves the sexual liberty normally permitted to men. The literature of the time relates these women to the use of complex hairstyles, and the wearing of gold, pearls and expensive clothes. It is possible that well-to do Christian wives attracted by this emerging trend were in danger of rejecting the cultural norms of modesty. It is probable that what Paul is combatting in Ephesus and other places are the initial tendencies that later flourished in the heretical movements of the second century. Both the gnostic and the montanist—heretical movements of the AD second century—gave great prominence to women in their teachings and organization.
For Debate:
1. Is the above explanation valid or part of a scholarly consensus?
2. If it is accepted as the likely explanation, then why did the apostle Paul bring up Adam and Eve as a reason for the instruction? Isn't he saying that women should not be in authority over men because man was made first?

* I was going to post this in the theology section but decided not to since I'm also looking for a historico-cultural context for this passage.
I've found a lot, if not all, of the bible to be sexiest in some fashion.
Men hold power while women are oft seen as lesser, either by design or happenstance.
God is said to be male according to many and when that's challenged, followers come to HIS defense en mass - often times aggressively.
Of course, as society evolves, people will defend the sexist parts of the bible by saying things like 'well, in that culture' and or 'at that time' and the like. Surely, some of that's true. But should the bible - the said word of god (though that's debatable even in here) - be promoting such things that was common 'in that culture' 'at that time' if said 'word of god' is enlightened and a means to a better (after) life? I'd think not.
To me, parts of the bible that's sexiest, was sexiest at that time in that culture. Those caveats of 'culture' and 'time' or whatever doesn't change that fact.
Trying to paint the bible with today's standards is not only wrong and a mean that could be described as a lie, it does little to change the bible and its message in my eyes.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Is 1 Timothy 2:11-14 sexist?

Post #4

Post by Difflugia »

nobspeople wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2021 11:01 amOf course, as society evolves, people will defend the sexist parts of the bible by saying things like 'well, in that culture' and or 'at that time' and the like. Surely, some of that's true. But should the bible - the said word of god (though that's debatable even in here) - be promoting such things that was common 'in that culture' 'at that time' if said 'word of god' is enlightened and a means to a better (after) life? I'd think not.
What's even worse about the 1 Timothy example is that it's actually trying to reshape one of Paul's more progressive and arguably feminist attitudes into one that's sexist again.

In Romans 16, Paul famously writes of Phoebe and calls her a deacon, calls Prisca and Aquila fellow workers in Christ, and refers to Junia as an apostle. In First Corinthians, the admonition in 14:34-35 is probably an interpolation for two reasons. First, the passage appears in different places in different manuscripts, like it was perhaps a footnote in one text that was incorporated into the main text later. Second, in 11:5, Paul already gave instructions for how women should be dressed if they're moved to prophesy. It's hard to both offer your prophecies and be silent at the same time. Along with these specific examples, Paul's assertion that there's no "male or female in Christ" in Galatians leads to the conclusion that Paul's vision of the church was of absolute egalitarianism. The sexism came later, after Paul's death.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: Is 1 Timothy 2:11-14 sexist?

Post #5

Post by AgnosticBoy »

nobspeople wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2021 11:01 am Men hold power while women are oft seen as lesser, either by design or happenstance.
I've tried to consider this point in isolation. Is it fair or unfair for God to want only one gender to be in charge? How do we even determine who should be in charge, like in marriages? I'm open to considering that it's not unfair, especially if or when it doesn't cause any harm. I would assume if we let things play out naturally, perhaps the guy would end up taking the majority or the stronger roles, especially if the woman is pregnant, and there's a dangerous environment requiring protection. That was probably the case back then (esp. prehistoric times) than it is now. But when you bring in biblical passages that talks about women being silent, then most would agree that that is uncalled for.
nobspeople wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2021 11:01 am God is said to be male according to many and when that's challenged, followers come to HIS defense en mass - often times aggressively.
Of course, as society evolves, people will defend the sexist parts of the bible by saying things like 'well, in that culture' and or 'at that time' and the like. Surely, some of that's true. But should the bible - the said word of god (though that's debatable even in here) - be promoting such things that was common 'in that culture' 'at that time' if said 'word of god' is enlightened and a means to a better (after) life? I'd think not.
To me, parts of the bible that's sexiest, was sexiest at that time in that culture. Those caveats of 'culture' and 'time' or whatever doesn't change that fact.
Trying to paint the bible with today's standards is not only wrong and a mean that could be described as a lie, it does little to change the bible and its message in my eyes.
:approve: :approve:
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: Is 1 Timothy 2:11-14 sexist?

Post #6

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Difflugia wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2021 11:32 am
nobspeople wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2021 11:01 amOf course, as society evolves, people will defend the sexist parts of the bible by saying things like 'well, in that culture' and or 'at that time' and the like. Surely, some of that's true. But should the bible - the said word of god (though that's debatable even in here) - be promoting such things that was common 'in that culture' 'at that time' if said 'word of god' is enlightened and a means to a better (after) life? I'd think not.
What's even worse about the 1 Timothy example is that it's actually trying to reshape one of Paul's more progressive and arguably feminist attitudes into one that's sexist again.

In Romans 16, Paul famously writes of Phoebe and calls her a deacon, calls Prisca and Aquila fellow workers in Christ, and refers to Junia as an apostle. In First Corinthians, the admonition in 14:34-35 is probably an interpolation for two reasons. First, the passage appears in different places in different manuscripts, like it was perhaps a footnote in one text that was incorporated into the main text later. Second, in 11:5, Paul already gave instructions for how women should be dressed if they're moved to prophesy. It's hard to both offer your prophecies and be silent at the same time. Along with these specific examples, Paul's assertion that there's no "male or female in Christ" in Galatians leads to the conclusion that Paul's vision of the church was of absolute egalitarianism. The sexism came later, after Paul's death.
Good points, especially your first post regarding authorship of 1 Timothy. Even if the historico-cultural context I posted in post #1 was valid, I would've thought that telling women not to talk at all would be going too far - an unnecessary action to resolve the problem.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Is 1 Timothy 2:11-14 sexist?

Post #7

Post by JoeyKnothead »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2021 8:19 pm How do we even determine who should be in charge, like in marriages?
Me and the pretty thing worked that'n out early in our relationship...

Either I do me what she wants for her, or I can't do me what I want to her.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Post Reply