Paul and his view of women - misogynist or progressive?

 Bishop N.T. (Tom) Wright - well worth reading!

When it comes to the Apostle Paul, many people believe a lot of urban legends based on sloppy scholarship or surface readings of his letters in the New Testament.  Chief among these urban legends is that Paul was anti-women.  Those who hold this idea usually point to a few passages from his writings, most notably his letter to his protege' the young Pastor, Timothy:

8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.  (2Timothy 2:8-15  KJV)

This is seen as ironclad proof that Paul deemed women to be second class citizens. 

...but is this really what Paul said?  Many Christian scholars would say he did not, in fact view women as inferior, nor did he actually prohibit women everywhere from speaking or teaching with authority over men.  Among those who would disagree with the pop-theology view of Paul as a misogynist is leading New Testament scholar and Bishop of Durham, N.T. Wright.  Wright has in fact written a commentary series on every one of Paul's letters and in the volume on the Pastoral Epistles, which includes 2Timothy, write gives the following translation of the Greek text and its implications:

1 Timothy 2:5-14
8So this is what Ι want: the men should pray in every place, lifting up holy hands, with no anger or disputing. 9 In the same way the women, too, should clothe themselves in an appropriate manner, modestly and sensibly. They should not go in for elaborate hairstyles, or gold, or pearls, or expensive clothes. 10 Instead, as is appropriate for women who profess to be godly, they should adorn themselves with good works. 11 They must be allowed to study undisturbed, in full submission to God. 12 I’m not saying that women should teach men, or try to dictate to them; rather, that they should be left undis¬turbed. 13 Adam was created first, you see, and then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived, and fell into trespass. "She will, however, be kept safe through the process of childbirth, if she continues in faith, love and holiness with prudence.

As Ι write this, α short war has just finished in the Middle East. The newspapers have been full of it, and now they are picking over the details: was it really justified, who was to blame, did the invading armies fight according to the proper rules, and so on. But for the people who live in the country now devastated by the conflict there are more pressing concerns. Food, water and shelter are immediate problems; restoring law, order and social stability are major priorities. But while people are addressing these issues there are dangers lurking all around. Children pick up bright, shiny objects they find in the street ... and some are blown to bits, while others, though they live to tell the tale, lose limbs or eyes or sustain perma¬nent injury. Mines and unexploded bombs are α major hazard in many parts of the world, especially where there has been α war, even α short one. When people don't know what they are, they can be devastating. Even when the experts are called in, it's still quite dangerous.

There has been α different kind of war going on, in Western culture at least, for the last generation. It's been dubbed `the war of the sexes, though it's not so much α battle between men and women as between different visions of what the roles of the two sexes should be in society, in marriage and in the church. Life becomes confusing at this point: some men are very much in favour of `women's liberation; while some women are opposed to it. Passions run high. Those who grow up while it's all going on will discover soon enough that there are various parts of the traditional culture which are like unexploded bombs. Pick them up and they may go off in your hand.

In particular, there are several passages in the Bible which deal with the roles of men and women, and many people in modern Western culture don't like them. They accuse the biblical writers of being `patriarchal', that is, of assuming that men should always run everything and that women should do what they're told, and of reinforcing this view in their writings. And this passage, particularly verse 12, is often held up as α prime example. Women mustn't be teachers, the verse seems to say; they mustn't hold any authority over men; they must keep silent. That, at least, is how many translations put it; indeed, this is the main passage people quote when they argue that the New Testament forbids the ordination of women. Ι was once reading these verses in α church service and α woman near the front exploded in anger, to the conster¬nation of the rest of the congregation (even though some agreed with her). The whole passage seems to be saying that women are second-class citizens. They aren't even allowed to dress prettily. They are the daughters of Eve, and she was the original troublemaker. The best thing for them to do is to get on and have children, to behave themselves and keep quiet.

That's how most people in our culture have read the passage. Ι acknowledge that the very different reading I'm going to suggest may sound, to begin with, as though I'm trying to make things easier, to tailor this bit of Paul to fit our culture. But there is good, solid scholarship behind what I'm going to say, and Ι genuinely believe it may be the right interpretation.

When you look at strip cartoons, Β-grade movies, and Ζ-grade novels and poems, you pick up α standard view of how `everyone imagines' men and women behave. Men are macho, loud-mouthed, arrogant thugs, always fighting and wanting their own way. Women are simpering, empty-headed creatures, with nothing to think about except clothes and hairstyles and jewellery. There are `Christian' versions of this, too: the men must make the decisions, run the show, always be in the lead, telling everyone what to do; women must stay at home, bring up the children and get the food ready. If you start looking for α biblical back-up for this view, well, what about Genesis 3? Adam would never have sinned if Eve hadn't yielded first. Eve has her punishment and it’s pain in child¬bearing (Genesis 3.16).

Well, you don't have to embrace every aspect of the women's liberation movement to find that interpretation hard to swallow. Not only does it stick in our throat as α way of treating half the human race; it doesn't fit with what we see in the rest of the New Testament, where women were the first wit¬nesses of the resurrection (in other words, the first apostles); where Paul speaks of women as apostles and deacons (Romans 16); where he expects them to be praying and prophesying in the assembly (l Corinthians 11), where `there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, no male and female, since you are all one in Christ Jesus' (Galatians 3.28). In par¬ticular, it doesn't fit with the practice of Jesus himself. In one telling little story (Luke 10.38-42) Mary of Bethany is sitting at Jesus' feet; in other words, she is joining the men in becom¬ing α disciple, α learner, with α view to becoming α teacher in her turn. That's the main reason Martha was cross with her; no doubt she'd have liked some more help in the kitchen as well, but Mary's real offence was to cross α hidden barrier that, Lip to then, had kept women in the background and left education and leadership to the men.

The key to the present passage, then, is to recognize that it is commanding that women, too, should be allowed to study and learn, and should not be restrained from doing so (verse 11). They are to be `in full submission'; this is often taken to mean `to the men, or `to their husbands', but it is equally likely that it refers to their attitude, as learners, of submission to God - which of course would be true for men as well. Then the crucial verse 12 need not be read as 'I do not allow a woman to teach or hold authority over α man' (the translation which has caused so much difficulty in recent years). It can equally mean: `Ι don't mean to imply that I'm now setting UP women as the new authority over men in the same way that previously men held authority over women. Wiry might Paul need to say this?

There are some signs in the letter that it was originally sent to Timothy while he was in Ephesus. And one of the main things we know about religion in Ephesus is that the main religion - the biggest temple, the most famous shrine - was α female-only cult. The Temple of Artemis (that's her Greek name; the Romans called her Diana) was α massive structure which dominated the area. As befitted worshippers of α female deity, the priests were α11 women. They ruled the show and kept the men in their place.

Now if you were writing α letter to someone in α small, new religious movement with α base in Ephesus, and wanted to say that because of the gospel of Jesus the old ways of organizing male and female roles had to be rethought from top to bottom, with one feature of that being that the women were to be encouraged to study and learn and take α leadership role, you might well want to avoid giving the wrong impression. Was the apostle saying that women should be trained up so that Christianity would gradually become α cult like that of Artemis, where women did the leading and kept the men in line? That, it seems to me, is what verse 12 is denying. The word I've translated `try to dictate to them' is unusual, but seems to have the overtones of `being bossy' or `scizing control'. Paul is saying, like Jesus in Luke 10, that women must have the space and leisure to study and learn in their own way, not in order that they may muscle in and take over the leadership as in the Artemis-cult, but so that men and women alike can develop whatever gifts of learning, teaching and leadership God is giving them.

What's the point of the other bits of the passage, then? The first verse (8) is clear. The men must give themselves to devout prayer, and must not follow the normal stereotypes of `male' behaviour: no anger or arguing. Then verses 9 and 10 follow, making the same point about the women. They must be set free from their stereotype, that of fussing all the time about hairdos, jewellery and fancy clothes - but they must be set free, not in order that they can be dowdy, unobtrusive little nobodies, but so that they can make α creative contribution to the wider society. The phrase `good works' in verse 10 sounds bland to ιιs, but it's one of the regular ways people used to refer to the social obligation to spend time and money on people less fortunate than oneself, to be α benefactor of the community through helping public works, the arts and so on.

Why then does Paul finish off with the explanation about Adam and Eve? Remember that his basic point is to insist that women, too, must be allowed to learn and study as Christians, and not be kept in unlettered, uneducated boredom and drudgery. Well, the story of Adam and Eve makes the point: look what happened when Eve was deceived. Women need to learn just as much as men do. Adam, after α11, sinned quite deliberately; he knew what he was doing, he knew that it was wrong, and he deliberately went ahead. The Old Testament is very stern about that kind of action.

What about the bit about childbirth? Paul doesn't see it as α punishment. Rather, he offers an assurance that, though childbirth is indeed difficult, painful and dangerous, often the most testing moment in α ωοmαη's life, this is not α curse which must be taken as α sign of God's displeasure. God's salvation is promised to all, women and men alike, who follow Jesus in faith, love, holiness and prudence. And that includes those who contribute to God's creation through childbearing. Becoming α mother is hard enough, God knows, without pretending it's somehow an evil thing.

Let's not leave any more unexploded bombs and mines around for people to blow their minds with. Let's read this text as Ι believe it was intended, as α way of building up God's church, men and women, women and men alike. Just as Paul was concerned to apply this in one particular situation, so we must think and pray carefully about where our own cultures, prejudices and angers are taking us. We must do our best to conform, not to any of the different stereotypes the world offers, but to the healing, liberating, humanizing message of the gospel of Jesus.

[From: Paul for Everyone: The Pastoral Epistles by Tom Wright]

While not all Christians would agree with Wright's interpretation of this passage, it is one that makes the most sense of the text, context and overall view Paul expresses--which is a continuation of Jesus' view of women and their status--in his writings overall. 

May the view of Paul as misogynist finally be put to rest.