Did Paul Invoke God Ordained Male Hierarchy in 1 Timothy 2?
It has been a while since I posted an article. As mentioned in a previous post, my seminary work has occupied my time. So, I decided to publish a paper from one of my classes. It is longer than my normal articles and written from a slightly more academic angle. I hope it is helpful and enjoyable. As always, please contact me if you have questions or comments.
When Paul bases his argument on the order of creation of Adam and Eve, it indicates that his command about women not teaching or having authority in the assembled congregation transcends cultures and societies.[1]
Wayne Grudem
Introduction
The quote above has its origin in 1 Timothy 2:12-15. Paul wrote to his protégé, Timothy, “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.”[2]
The reader is presumed to be familiar with the terms complementarian and egalitarian. However, Edwards and Matthews proposed that the term hierarch better represents the views of complementarians and that heterarch be used instead of egalitarian.[3] These terms are used interchangeably in this article because they appear in quotes addressing the two positions.
Several New Testament texts discuss male authority, e.g., 1 Corinthians 11, 14, and Ephesians 5. Nevertheless, the focus on 1 Timothy 2 is appropriate because it is the primary passage that limits the participation of women in church leadership and teaching.[4] Edwards and Mathews state, “For hierarchs, verse 13, for Adam was formed first, then Eve, is the linchpin of their argument for male authority.”[5] Bill Mounce, a koine Greek Scholar who considers himself a “warm complementarian”[6] because he believes it is sometimes appropriate for women to teach men in the assembled church, stated, “if verse 13 weren’t there I would be an egalitarian.”[7]
This paper examines the reasons Paul cited for limiting the authority and teaching of women. However, it is not to assess what Paul might have meant by his reference to Genesis but what he likely did not mean. The hope is that it narrows the discussion and helps the church better interpret 1 Timothy 2.
To accomplish this task, we will start with the complementarian arguments that God enacted male hierarchy in creation and then focus on how they interpret Paul’s reference to Adam and Eve in 1 Timothy 2:13-14. Contesting the complementarian arguments is logical because they limit women’s roles and affirm male authority.
Did God Ordain Male Hierarchy in Genesis 1?
As the opening quote in this paper asserts, complementarians suggest that God enacted male hierarchy during the formation of Adam and Eve. Grudem goes on to say, “It applies then to all churches for all time, and it is a means by which the beauty of manhood and womanhood as God created them to be can be manifested in the life of the church.”[8]
Other scholars dismiss the idea that God instilled male leadership in creation. For example, Carmen Joy Imes writes, “Before Adam and Eve rebel against God, no hierarchy separates them. Both male and female are God’s image (Genesis 1:27).”[9] However, Imes also points out that being God’s image “is a claim about our identity rather than a capability or function,”[10] which then does not preclude a hierarchical relationship between man and woman.
Similarly, New Testament scholar Nijay Gupta states, “While they are distinguished according to two types, male and female, nothing in Genesis 1 distinguishes the two in their God-given identity, calling, and relationship to other parts of creation.”[11] However, in 1 Timothy 2, it is evident that Paul was not referring just to the Genesis 1 account of human creation but also to Genesis 2-3. Nevertheless, Gupta further addresses the complementarian arguments referenced later in this article.
Wayne Grudem is considered one of the leading voices in the camp of men’s hierarchy over women.[12] Therefore, his position will guide the complementarian view. He proposes nine reasons that demonstrate man’s hierarchy over woman existed before “the Fall:”[13]
Adam was created first, then Eve.
Eve was created as a helper for Adam.
Adam named Eve.
God named the human race “Man,” not “Woman.”
The serpent came to Eve first.
God spoke to Adam first after the fall.
Adam, not Eve, represented the human race.
The curse brought a distortion of previous roles, not the introduction of new roles.
Redemption in Christ reaffirms the creation order.
Space does not permit examining all nine issues in detail, so the focus will be on the two reasons Paul mentions in 1 Timothy 2:13-14, i.e., items 1 and 5. However, the arguments sometimes overlap with other reasons on Grudem’s list, so some of the other seven will factor into the discussion.
Grudem states, “The fact that God created Adam first, then after some period of time created Eve (Gen. 2:7, 18-23), suggests that God saw Adam as having a leadership role in the family.”[14] Grudem goes on to explain that the creation of Adam is consistent with the idea of “primogeniture,” that is, the “firstborn in any generation in a human family” has leadership rights for the family in that generation.[15]
The arguments surrounding primogeniture are well documented[16] and are not exhaustively recounted here. Nonetheless, two issues with primogeniture are worth mentioning. First, Gupta points out, “Eve is not formed as a kind of younger sibling, to be mentored by and apprenticed to Adam.”[17] She was made as Adam’s equal and other half. Second, as Gupta also discusses, God often disregarded the concept of primogeniture in his selection of people to represent him in the world.[18] While Gupta’s explanations are problematic for complementarians, there is another issue with the complementarian argument embedded in the opening quote.
If Adam was created first to represent humanity, the role of male leadership would be archetypal or ontological. Therefore, it would extend to all aspects of leadership, whether in the church or the world. Women should not lead men in any capacity in any organization, including, but not limited to, business, government, or education. This perspective has been the case at times throughout history. Susan Hylen points out that women were considered inferior to men in ancient times.[19] We need not go back far, however, to see examples of male hierarchy and prohibitions of women. For example, banks could legally refuse a woman a mortgage or credit card unless she had a male cosigner before the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974.[20] Women still face inequalities today. They are underrepresented in management roles and often fail to receive equal pay for equal work.[21]
Complementarians typically apply the universal proscription of female authority over men in the church context. However, to be true to their assertions about God-ordained male hierarchy in Genesis, complementarians should insist on its application in society, which is not the case. For example, Grudem does not insist that women cannot teach men under certain circumstances.[22] Similar and perhaps more profound issues exist with the arguments about Eve being deceived.
According to Grudem, Satan “was attempting to institute a role reversal by tempting Eve to take the leadership in disobeying God (Gen. 3:1).”[23] Responding to this reversal, Grudem mentions that God came to Adam first after the two sinned to show that God called him to account first because of his leadership position.[24] This argument is also seen in Schreiner’s statement, “The Genesis temptation, therefore, stands as the prototype of what happens when male leadership is abrogated. Eve took the initiative in responding to the Serpent, and Adam let her do so. Thus, the appeal to Genesis 3 reminds readers of what happens when humans undermine God’s ordained pattern.”[25]
If male hierarchy had been God-ordained before the fall, as complementarians represent, we must expect that God explicitly transmitted this requirement to Adam and Eve. The complementarian argument is problematic if the couple knew their hierarchical roles.
First, it would change the nature of their sin. One cannot imply that the couple knew their God-ordained roles without recognizing that they sinned by “abrogating” them. In other words, if Eve knew Adam was the leader, her first sin was not eating the fruit but disobeying Adam’s God-ordained leadership. As Schreiner alludes to in the quote above, Eve would have sinned by usurping authority before she ate the fruit. Likewise, Adam’s sin would have been twofold: failing to lead Eve in her interaction with the serpent and relinquishing his leadership by submitting to her. These failures would have occurred on both accounts before he ate the fruit. This alternative to their sin is different from the biblical narrative.
When God addresses Adam and Eve, he never mentions that they failed to abide by their ordained hierarchy. God asked them if they ate from the tree he commanded them not to eat from.[26] One might argue that God told Adam that he listened to his wife. However, listening to his wife was not identified as sin. Instead, God immediately called out Adam for eating the fruit.[27] Adam’s and Eve’s sin was disobeying God by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not Adam failing to lead and Eve disobeying Adam’s leadership. This concern over the complementarian view of role reversal is instrumental in addressing another of their arguments.
Grudem contends that God came to Adam first after the couple sinned because he was the leader, thus implying that Adam’s failure to lead allowed sin into the world.[28] As discussed above, there is a significant problem with the God-ordained leadership argument. So, if God did not address Adam first because he was the leader, there must be another reason why he is charged with bringing sin into the world.[29]
Perhaps God came to Adam first because he was the last step in the sin process for humanity. In other words, Adam had the final say regarding disobeying God. Eve sinned first, but Adam sinned last. Eve alone did not bring sin to the human condition. Their eyes were not opened, and God did not approach the couple until both ate the fruit.[30] Adam’s willing participation was the last sin that first brought death to humanity. Man and woman together as wife and husband married sin to the world.
Paul’s appeal to Genesis
While the above arguments may be persuasive or at least thought-provoking, they are of little consequence if Paul believed he was instituting universal male hierarchy enacted in creation. However, if he was not making a universal statement, he must have had something else in mind by bringing Adam and Eve into the discussion with Timothy. Complementarians confidently assert that Paul, indeed, was invoking male authority.
Schreiner wrote, “when Paul read Genesis 2, he concluded that the order in which God created Adam and Eve signaled an important difference in the role of men and women. Thus, he inferred from the order of creation in Genesis 2 that women should not teach or exercise authority over men.”[31] Schreiner also wrote, “The appeal to creation in 1 Timothy 2:13 indicates that Paul located his prohibition in a transcendent norm.”[32] He assumes the Ephesians would have understood that Paul was referring to primogeniture; thus, they would conclude this order would “naturally have suggested his authority over Eve.”[33]
Similarly, Mounce, referring to verse 13, states, “Paul now gives a reason, possibly two, why his rule is valid: Gen 2 states that Adam was created first, and then Eve. For Paul, this indicates that God intended male authority. The specific application of this principle is that the Ephesian women should not try to reverse the created order by being in authority over men.”[34] Schreiner’s and Mounce’s assumptions do not rule out that the Ephesians may have understood something different from Paul’s mention of Adam being formed first.
The complementarian views regarding Paul’s mention of Eve being deceived are inconsistent. Grudem posited that “God gave men, in general, a disposition that is better suited to teaching and governing in the church.”[35] He goes on to say, “But Paul understands the kinder, gentler, more relational nature of women (in general) as something that made Eve less inclined to oppose the deceptive serpent and more inclined to accept his words as something helpful and true.”[36] Schreiner disagrees with this type of view of Eve’s deception, “Still we should reject this interpretation since it implies that women are ontologically and intellectually inferior.”[37]
So, Schreiner channels Paul Barnett in deducing that Paul referred to Eve to show that Eve was deceived first, even though it is not explicit in the text. He notes that the word first is implied in verse 13.[38] Consequently, “By referring to Eve sinning first, Paul subtly reminds Timothy that Adam bore primary responsibility for sin entering the world . . . and this confluence of factors reveals the reality of male headship.”[39] Similar to the argument regarding authority, these assumptions do not preclude alternative reasons for Paul’s reference to Eve sinning or sinning first, as seen above in the Genesis discussion.
Old Testament scholar John Walton also rules out that Paul intended archetypal or ontological arguments for the same reasons as those discussed above.[40] He concludes that using Genesis as an illustration, not a universal prohibition, for the Ephesians “suits the passage well and accomplishes Paul’s aims.”[41] Egalitarian scholar Thomas Scholer agrees and states,
That Paul is selective in his use of Eve in 1 Timothy 2:14 seems clear from at least three other Pauline texts. In 2 Corinthians 11:3, Eve’s deception is a negative model, warning all Corinthian believers–men and women–against false teaching. This shows that Paul did not limit Eve’s deceivability to women.[42]
Also, Paul allows women to have authority over men in some circumstances.[43] Therefore, although complementarians state that Paul’s appeal to Genesis is universal and abiding, they tacitly concur with Walton in applying Paul’s prohibition illustratively. Most agree that Eve being deceived is not an ontological reality for all women. Also, while they are more confident in their assertion that Adam being formed first indicates male authority, they assume that the readers would have understood Paul’s reference as a nod to primogeniture. While logical, this assumption is not a foregone conclusion in the Ephesian situation where the cult of Artemis prompted women to assert authority in some settings.
Complementarians also realize Paul does not prohibit women from teaching men in all circumstances.[44] Consequently, they limit Paul’s prohibition to specific roles and types of teaching within the church. Schreiner wrote, “Teaching here involves the authoritative and public transmission of tradition about Christ and the Scriptures.”[45] So, they use Paul’s reference to Genesis to deduce that he meant women should never be elders or pastors.[46] Their assumptive interpretation, while perhaps appropriate, opens the door to other meanings in the Ephesian context.
Conclusion
This paper did not intend to discern what Paul meant by referencing Adam and Eve in 1 Timothy 2:13-14 but to examine what he likely did not mean. Paul prohibits some women from having authority and teaching some men or a man. However, the complementarian view that Paul used Adam and Eve to develop a “transcendent norm” has significant problems. For example, their representation of the Genesis account would change the nature of the couple’s sin, which is biblically untenable.
Additionally, complementarians inconsistently apply Paul’s directives. Most do not insist that women cannot teach or have authority over men in all circumstances. Consequently, their assumption that Paul’s prohibitions of women also define a norm for male leadership is questionable. It seems that they want male hierarchy both ways, as a transcendent norm and as a specific limitation within the church. However, their suggestion that the context implies women cannot be elders or pastors does not preclude other implied meanings.
In summary, evaluating the complementarian arguments raises significant issues with the idea that Paul invoked universal, God-ordained male hierarchy at creation. Therefore, the church must continue to wrestle with what Paul meant in 1 Timothy 2. Nevertheless, complementarians and egalitarians agree that we must use caution in our interpretations. Mounce wrote, “If one position were truly clear or obvious, then there would not be significantly divergent positions held by respectable scholars.”[47] Similarly, Edwards and Matthews state, “In the end, the numerous options for interpreting 1 Timothy 2:13-15 make it difficult and probably a bit prideful for any of us to insist that we know its meaning for certain.”[48]
Works Cited:
Sue Edwards and Kelley Matthews, 40 Questions About Women in Ministry (Kregel Academic, 2023)
Wayne Grudem, “Church Government,” in Systematic Theology, Second Edition (Zondervan Academic, 2020)
Wayne Grudem, “Man as Male and Female,” in Systematic Theology, Second Edition (Zondervan Academic, 2020), 587
Nijay K Gupta, Tell Her Story: How Women Led, Taught, and Ministered in the Early Church (InterVarsity Press, 2023)
Susan E. Hylen, Women in the New Testament World (Oxford University Press, 2019)
Carmen Joy Imes, and J. Richard Middleton, Being God's Image: Why Creation Still Matters. (InterVarsity Press, 2023)
Bill Mounce, “B. Questions of Disruption and Leadership (1 Tim 2:8:15),” in World Bible Commentary, Volume 46, Pastoral Epistles (Thomas Nelson, 2000)
Bill Mounce, “A Complementarian Interpretation of 1 Tim 2:8-15,” Show #1057, Theology in the Raw podcast, March 13, 2023
David M. Scholer, “1 Timothy 2:9-15 and the Place of Women in the Church’s Ministry,” Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen (InterVarsity Press, 1985)
Thomas R. Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, A Dialogue with Scholarship,” in Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. Schreiner, eds., Third edition, Women in the Church: An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (Crossway, 2016)
Thomas R. Schreiner, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology, second ed. (InterVarsity, 2020)
John Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve (IVP Academic, 2015)
Cynthia Long Westfall, Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle’s Vision for Men and Women in Christ (Baker Academic, 2016)
N. T. Wright, Surprised by Scripture: Engaging Contemporary Issues, first ed. (HarperOne, 2014)
Endnotes:
[1] Wayne Grudem, “Church Government,” in Systematic Theology, Second Edition (Zondervan Academic, 2020), 1152
[2] 1 Timothy 2:11-14 (NET). While some believe that Paul did not write 1 Timothy, this paper will proceed assuming he was the author.
[3] Sue Edwards and Kelley Matthews, 40 Questions About Women in Ministry (Kregel Academic, 2023), 27-28
[4] Grudem, “Church Government,” 1152. Cynthia Long Westfall, Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle’s Vision for Men and Women in Christ (Baker Academic, 2016), 226. N. T. Wright, Surprised by Scripture: Engaging Contemporary Issues, first ed. (HarperOne, 2014), 78
[5] Edwards and Matthews, 40 Questions About Women in Ministry, 204
[6] Bill Mounce, “A Complementarian Interpretation of 1 Tim 2:8-15,” Show #1057, Theology in the Raw podcast, March 13, 2023, at 54:48
[7] Mounce, “A Complementarian Interpretation of 1 Tim 2:8-15,” at 1:02:14
[8] Grudem, “Church Government,” 1153
[9] Carmen Joy Imes, and J. Richard Middleton, Being God's Image: Why Creation Still Matters. (InterVarsity Press, 2023), 41
[10] Imes, Being God's Image, 53
[11] Nijay K Gupta, Tell Her Story: How Women Led, Taught, and Ministered in the Early Church (InterVarsity Press, 2023) 23
[12] Edwards and Matthews, 40 Questions About Women in Ministry, 72
[13] Wayne Grudem, “Man as Male and Female,” in Systematic Theology, Second Edition (Zondervan Academic, 2020), 587-592
[14] Grudem, “Man as Male and Female,” 587
[15] Grudem, “Man as Male and Female,” 587
[16] Grudem, “Man as Male and Female,” 587. Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, 200. Gupta, Tell Her Story, 25. Edwards and Matthews, 40 Questions About Women in Ministry, 59
[17] Gupta, Tell Her Story, 25
[18] Gupta, Tell Her Story, 25
[19] Susan E. Hylen, Women in the New Testament World (Oxford University Press, 2019), 6
[20] Troy Segal, A woman of property: Facts about women in real estate, bankrate.com, Mar. 14, 2023. Jessica Hill, Fact check: Post detailing 9 things women couldn’t do before 1971 is mostly right, USA Today, Oct. 28, 2020.
[21] Women Continue to Struggle for Equal Pay and Representation, GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office, March 14, 2023
[22] Grudem, “Church Government,” 1154
[23] Grudem, “Man as Male and Female,” 589
[24] Grudem, “Man as Male and Female,” 590. Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15,” 210
[25] Thomas R. Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15,” 211
[26] Genesis 3:11
[27] Genesis 3:17
[28] Grudem, “Man as Male and Female,” 590
[29] Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22
[30] Genesis 3:9-11
[31] Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15,” 198-199
[32] Thomas R. Schreiner, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology, second ed. (InterVarsity, 2020), 472
[33] Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15,” 200
[34] Bill Mounce, “B. Questions of Disruption and Leadership (1 Tim 2:8:15),” in World Bible Commentary, Volume 46, Pastoral Epistles (Thomas Nelson, 2000), 130
[35] Grudem, “Church Government,” 1153
[36] Grudem, “Church Government,” 1153
[37] Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15,” 197
[38] Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15,” 210
[39] Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15,” 210
[40] John Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve (IVP Academic, 2015), 95
[41] Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve, 95
[42] David M. Scholer, “1 Timothy 2:9-15 and the Place of Women in the Church’s Ministry,” Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen (InterVarsity Press, 1985), 210
[43] 1 Corinthians 7:4
[44] Grudem, “Church Government,” 1154
[45] Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15,” 192
[46] Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15,” 193
[47] Mounce, “B. Questions of Disruption and Leadership (1 Tim 2:8-15),” 103
[48] Edwards and Matthews, 40 Questions About Women in Ministry, 212