According to the patriarchal system in the modern Christian church, women have very little, if any, authority in the church or in the family. They definitely have no authority over men in many churches, if the doctrine is to be obeyed. In fact, in some Christian communities even women with a masters or a doctorate degree from college need to obtain special permission from the pastor of the local church to preside over teenage boys in a Sunday school classroom! This, due to the scripture: “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man…” (1Timothey 2:12), for she must be quiet and in subjection (1Timothy 2:11). Earlier in the chapter Paul seems to be concerned with how a woman fixes her hair, and whether she wears jewelry, and if it is costly (verse-9). Is Paul serious, or should we understand his words metaphorically (cp. 2Peter 3:15-16)?
If Paul was serious, and if we should take his words literally, then we must conclude that Priscilla, who was with her husband at Ephesus, should never have taken Apollos aside to expound unto him a more perfect understanding of the scriptures, after they heard him speak in one of the local synagogues (Acts 18:26). Moreover, if she was wrong in doing so, why didn’t Aquila, her husband, stop or correct her, or for that matter why didn’t Apollos? And, let’s not even mention the fact that the women, who discovered the empty tomb, should never have brought the Gospel to Jesus’ disciples. So, which scripture should we believe, if Paul tells us women have no authority to teach men? On the other hand, perhaps we should take Jesus seriously and actually believe scripture shouldn’t be interpreted in such a manner that the word of God would contradict itself elsewhere (John 10:35).
Peter hints that Paul is easily misunderstood by the uninstructed, if one simply reads Paul’s epistles without much thought (2Peter 3:15-16). The text implies that at least some of what Paul writes shouldn’t be taken literally but, rather, metaphorically.[1]
Consider what Paul writes in Ephesians 5:22-24. Wives are to be in subjection to their own husbands. However, even if his words are to be taken literally, he mentions the subjection should be to the wife’s husband, not to other males. Nothing is mentioned of a patriarchal system, whereby all males are in authority over all females. Moreover, Paul also writes in verse-21 that everyone should be submitting themselves to one another out of respect for God! So, how does that fit into a patriarchal society? Nevertheless, Paul isn’t speaking literally in Ephesians 5. Rather, the ‘wife’ is the local church and the ‘husband’ is the local pastor (Ephesians 5:31-32). But, concerning literal husbands and wives, Paul writes the husband is to love his wife as himself and the wife is to revere or respect her husband (Ephesians 5:33).
Therefore, if husbands and wives metaphorically represent the local pastor (the husband) and the local church body (the wife), could this understanding also be applied to 1Timothy 2:8-12? Certainly, it can and should. Paul exhorts the men, the “husbands” (Ephesians 5:25) or leaders of the church, should always be praying, not wrathful or arguing (1Timothy 2:8), and the woman or church body should be in attendance in modest apparel. Afterall, they are attending a worship service not a wedding or a festive ball. Believers are there for prayer etc. and should dress accordingly (1Timothy 2:9). Moreover, the pastor or the teaching minister should preside over the assembly without interruption from the church body (the woman, according to Paul). The church body (both males and females), metaphorically the woman, should learn in silence in all subjection (1Timothy 2:11), and should never interrupt and usurp authority over the man, meaning the pastor or teaching minister (1Timothy 2:12).
From where I sit, this presents an entirely different picture than what we are told. In fact, it fits much better with Paul’s teaching that, in Christ, it makes no difference if one is male nor female (Galatians 3:28). However, for those of us who might balk at Paul’s feminine metaphors, consider that he describes himself as a pregnant mother about to give birth in Galatians 4:19, and then in 1Thessalonians 2:7 he describes his work in Thessalonica as that of a nursing mother. The New Covenant text is pregnant with female metaphors (pun intended)!
________________________________________________________
[1] For example, Paul speaks of being “dead” in sin and then quickened or becoming alive in Christ (Ephesians 2:5-6) and buried and risen again (Colossians 2:12), which are things that are easily misunderstood by folks not instructed in the fundamental principles of Christian doctrine (cp. Romans 3:8). Moreover, it would be wrong to assume that Peter is speaking of uneducated or illiterate folks. Why would he be afraid that uneducated or illiterate folks would lead others astray? How many of these folks divide churches and lead others astray today? Rather Peter is speaking of educated people, who aren’t instructed in the way to understand Paul’s letters, which he writes in a manner that wouldn’t openly or literally contradict Roman law, which he does preach against when rightly understood.
Smoodock's Blog 