3 May 2026

The Bible on Women

1 Timothy 2:8-15

Last week we began a series on how to read the Bible faithfully, with all its difficulties. Today, as we celebrate Mother’s Day, let us take a look at what the Bible has to say about the proper place and role of women. We begin with 1 Timothy 2, verses 8-15.

8 I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; 9also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, 10but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. 11Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 12I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.  

Now it’s possible that some of you might have found parts of that passage troubling. Withhold your judgment, though. Let me try to clarify it. The first part encourages men to pray, but not with anger or argument. That’s good, right? Then the next verse says that as for women, their role is not to pray – that’s apparently for the men – but to dress modestly. That’s a broad statement, but the writer goes on to give specifics. No braided hair – that’s immodest, obviously – and no gold or pearls or expensive clothes. Then the author says that women should learn in silence, submissively. I think what that last part means is that it’s not enough just to be silent. It should be an adoring silence, while the woman gazes at the man who’s teaching her. Obviously, that adoring silence will prevent women from being teachers or, you know, holding a leadership position of any kind. The reason for all this, we read, is that Adam was made first. Oh, and also, Eve was the one who was deceived by the serpent, which is how she (and apparently not Adam) became a transgressor. But don’t worry, women. You can still be saved, by bearing children. Provided that the children turn out well. But no pressure. 

There. Does that help?

So let me start by saying that nobody takes all this passage as the will of God, because nobody follows all of it. Maybe that weird Christian Nationalist group in Idaho that says that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, but nobody else. Sure, there are a lot of churches who are down with the whole “women learn in submissive silence” and “women should never teach and have authority” stuff, but even those churches ignore the verses with the fashion and hairstyling tips. Remember I’m from the South. There are conservative Southern Baptist women whose gold jewelry can be seen from space. As for the bit about “women will be saved by bearing children,” what can I say except “What nonsense!” That contradicts everything else that is said about salvation in the entire Bible. As I said, even those Christians who love parts of this passage quietly sweep other parts under the rug. And yet the whole thing is in our Bible. What do we do with that?

Last week – a quick reminder for those who heard that sermon – I talked about the Bible and slavery. Throughout the Bible, slavery is taken as a normal part of life, which it was in biblical times, and it is never explicitly condemned. That fact enabled slaveowners in our nation’s history to claim that God approved of slavery. At the same time, though, the Bible also teaches the revolutionary principle that all humans are equally made in God’s image, and over time the dissonance between that fundamental principle and the practice of slavery was noticed, which eventually led to abolition. As I said then, it should not surprise us that the Bible often reflects the cultural standards of the time it was written. But we should take careful note of the times when the Bible stands against the customs of its time. The Bible’s core teachings make slavery impossible to defend. Does any of that apply to the Bible’s view of women?

Yep. In the culture of biblical times – both in Ancient Israel and in Ancient Greece – women were seen as possessions of men: inferior, subservient, and useful primarily for the necessary task of producing sons. The Canaanite word for “husband” is baal, or “god.” This attitude, unsurprisingly, is often reflected in Bible stories. Jacob and Laban horse trade and bargain for Laban’s daughters, like cattle. Women are regularly valued according to their childbearing history. In some legal matters in Leviticus, the cash redemption value for a woman is given at about two-thirds that of a man, kind of like 21st century American corporate pay scales for women. And, of course, there are readings like ours from 1 Timothy. All these passages are consistent with the larger culture of biblical society, and it shouldn’t surprise us to find echoes of that culture in our scripture.

But, just as with slavery, there is a deeper, subversive strain of teaching about women in the Bible, and once again it begins in Genesis chapter 1, which explicitly says that both men and women were made in the image of God. So – sorry, 1 Timothy 2 – it doesn’t matter which one was first. Beyond that revolutionary principle, we find an astonishing number of stories of biblical women who shatter the cultural norms. The wives of the “Patriarchs” – Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, and Rachel – are not just submissive helpmeets. Or take, for instance, the story of Jael from the book of Judges, who is pictured on the front of your bulletin. Jael the Kenite defeated the enemy of Israel, General Sisera, by nailing his head to the ground with a tent peg. So … not a model of feminine submission. But most interesting of all are the women who appear in positions of leadership. Now some of the leadership roles mentioned in scripture are assigned according to standing social rules and customs: notably kings and priests, who are both chosen by means of being the male offspring of other kings and priests. But other roles in scripture are assigned according to the call of God: notably prophets and judges. And guess what? When God’s involved in choosing, he often chooses women. Miriam was a prophet, Deborah was both a judge and a prophet, Huldah was a prophet. Then we get to the New Testament and read about Priscilla and Lydia and Phoebe and other women who held teaching and leadership roles in the apostolic church, and we wonder what the author of 1 Timothy was blathering on about. In short, the world of the Bible was very patriarchal, and the authors of the biblical text were obviously often influenced by that. God, just as obviously, is not.

As with slavery, it has taken the Church a long time to see the contradiction inherent in (1) believing that women are equal bearers of the Image of God and (2) relegating women to secondary status. And Christians still differ on the details. I have friends who believe in what is called “Complementarianism,” which is the belief that men and women are of equal value to God, but that God calls them to different complementary roles. Me, I don’t see that. Both biblically and from my own experience, I don’t see any role that God might not call a woman to fill. Are men and women different? Yes, of course. Is God bound by those differences in choosing leaders? Don’t be ridiculous. 

All I can do at the end is look at the example of Jesus. How did Jesus treat women? How did he respond to women? Did he ever endorse traditional social roles for men or women? Not that I can think of. In any of the gospels. With every chance in the world to put such words in the mouth of Jesus, the male writers of the gospels didn’t do it. They couldn’t imagine him treating women differently than he treated men. Nor can I. I can imagine society doing it. I can imagine the church doing it. Not Jesus. A few years ago I read a wonderful book by Catholic theologian Elizabeth Johnson entitled She Who Is. At one point, Johnson was responding to Christian women who are frustrated with the patriarchy of the Church. Some express the wish that Jesus hadn’t been male. To them, Johnson replied gently, “The problem isn’t that Jesus was a man. The problem is that more men are not like Jesus.”