1 Timothy 2:13-14

‘For Adam was first formed, then Eve, and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled has fallen into transgression,’

The reasons that Paul gives are twofold. Firstly man’s priority to woman in creation, (‘Adam was first formed, then Eve’), and secondly that the woman proved the fallibility of her thinking by allowing herself to be deceived in the Garden of Eden.

a). The priority of man over the woman in creation. Paul deals with this subject in 1 Corinthians 11:0 where he points out the order of creation. God is the head of Christ. Christ is the head of man. Man is the head of the woman. This neither demeans Christ, nor the man, nor the woman. It merely indicates their place in God’s scheme of things. If no one is set over anyone else the result will only be chaos. This is seen in the fact that human employers grade their workers and make some ‘head’ over the others. It may not always be ‘fair’, but as a rule we accept it. It makes for good employer/employee relations, and usually for good management. In the same way accepting God’s appointments makes for good relationships with God. And God’s appointment is that the man will be ‘head’ of the woman.

Of course, God can always intervene to arrange exceptions, as He did in the cases of Deborah (Judges 4-5) and Huldah (2 Kings 22:14), both prophetesses. And the work of women on some mission fields have proved His case. But we would be foolish to accept such appointments as a matter of course just because some of them worked. And this is especially so as Jesus had many women disciples, but never appointed one as an Apostle (not even an Apostle to women). Nor would it be true to say that in the days of the early church a woman never lorded it over men outside church circles. Influential women often did so in certain societies, and many Christian slaves were owned by women. But women were never allowed to behave like that in the orthodox Christian church. Indeed a Christian woman slave-owner might well have come to the church and found that her slave was one of the elders, and while no doubt, being her slave, he would be very careful what he did and said, she would be subject to his authority within the church, and would submit to him in that regard. Nor did any women that we know of rebel against the fact in New Testament days. They humbly recognised the authority of the Apostles, and the wisdom of their decisions. In fact the word of God is quite clear on the matter, wives are to subject themselves to their husbands, and the Christian woman is to subject herself to the male leadership. And this is seen to be a ressult of the order of creation. The Scriptural position is that for us to deny this principle is to rebel against God’s word, and ultimately against God.

b). The fallibility of women’s thinking as revealed in the Garden of Eden. In this regard Paul stresses that Adam was not beguiled. He sinned knowingly. It was Eve who was beguiled, and while that made her less culpable, it also made her less intellectually reliable. Furthermore, while it is not to deny their overall quality of intellect, nor that some women are the intellectual superior of most men, even the most biased person arguing the woman’s case cannot deny that women think differently from men. And therein lies the danger. They tend to be intuitive rather than logical. And when it comes to sound teaching that can be dangerous, especially at a time when there was no New Testament to act as a final arbiter.

We must repeat that, as there were in Old Testament days with people like Deborah and Huldah, there are no doubt exceptions, especially in view of today’s standard of training for all, but the rules could not be based on exceptions. They had to be based on everyday life and the general course of things. And this regulation of Paul’s no doubt prevented many from teaching and falling into heresy. Revelation 2:20 gives us an example of such a fall, and it devastated many lives.

Today, of course, in Western societies women claim ‘equality’ with men, although no one has yet defined the meaning of equality. Men are not equal with each other, so how can women be equal with men? (What many women mean, of course, is that they want their piece of the action and to dominate men, because they think that they are better and wiser). And certainly we cannot argue with the principle of equal opportunity in modern society. We can also recognise that because we have the New Testament the dangers of allowing women access to ministry on a similar basis to that of men is not so great as regards the whole church as it would otherwise have been. The danger begins to arise when there is lack of immediate oversight over doctrine. Paul is saying that in such situations women are more likely to go doctrinally astray (although it must be admitted that some men have also made a good job of it). Thus as in the present day they begin to multiply in church leadership it is probable on the basis of the words of Scripture that it will begin to result in even more heresy within the church, and cause great spiritual harm to some individual congregations. So the Scriptural viewpoint is that while exceptions may be allowed under adequate controls, takeover by women is not to be seen as being on the whole for the good of the Christian church (in spite of women’s frustration). But like many important lessons it will probably be proved only too late, after it has done a great deal of harm. This is not a question of the general capability of women. We do not doubt a woman’s ability for such minor things as running a country, or even the United Nations, what we doubt is the ability of women, on the whole, to keep Christian doctrine sound. (The introduction of God as a woman, that then leads on to unsatisfactory inferences, is a case in point). To put it bluntly, women’s lib in the church, while possibly good for women, will probably not be good for Scriptural truth, which is why Paul emphasised his restrictions.