Journal: Priscilla Papers
Volume: PP 26:3 (Summer 2012)
Article: A Historian Looks At 1 Timothy 2:11-14
Author: J. G. Brown

PP 26:3 (Summer 2012) p. 7

A Historian Looks At 1 Timothy 2:11-14

J. G. Brown

J. G. Brown holds master’s degrees from Washington University, St. Louis, and the University of Florida, Gainesville, and is recently retired from a career of teaching history on the high school and community college levels. This article is adapted from her recent book, An Historian Looks at 1 Timothy 2:11-14, The Authentic Traditional Interpretation and Why It Disappeared. J. G. resides with her husband, Bob, in St. Louis, Missouri.

A woman must quietly receive instruction with all submissiveness. 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 first deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. (1 Tim 2:11-14 NASB)

Among theological conservatives, the 1 Timothy 2 passage is pivotal in determining the role of women in the church. For today’s “traditionalists,” this passage mandates the subordination of women to men in the church because the headship/submission principle is grounded in the created order, an order that Christianity redeems, but does not alter. Today’s traditionalists/male hierarchists also claim to be upholding the historic interpretation of this passage. New research on early Protestant beliefs concerning natural law and the spiritual and civil kingdoms, however, brings their claim into serious question.

As a history teacher, I have long been aware that, prior to the nineteenth century, the general population applied creation ordinances to the culture at large, dictating the subordination of women to men in government, business, the academy, etc.—and in the church, or so I assumed. Then, when traditionalists lost the culture wars of the nineteenth century, they jettisoned the application of creation ordinances to the civil kingdom and sought to defend their remaining turf (the church) ever more vigorously—or so I assumed. What I was not able to do was to reconcile the traditional theological position with the clear connection of the early women’s rights movement with evangelical revival and reform. That appeared to be evangelical Protestantism against itself, and it remained a conundrum until I read David VanDrunen’s book, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought.

According to VanDrunen, early Protestant Reformers held to a two-kingdom view that was in some ways similar to their medieval forbearers. This is especially clear in the writings of both Luther and Calvin. They both defend the moral goodness o...