The Adorning of Women; Saved Through Childbearing (1 Timothy 2:9–15)

1 Tim. 2:9, 10. Likewise also that women adorn themselves in respectable attire, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly clothing, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.

αα) To pray in the same spirit as the men (1 Tim. 2:9)

“Likewise”—shows that the Apostle continues to teach about the orders in prayer assemblies. Therefore, although he does not explicitly say that he desires women to pray in the same manner, he makes his desire clearly visible. He desires that women too pray without anger and disputing, and with a pure conscience not stained by any vice. St. Chrysostom says: “In like manner, he says, I desire that women too come to God without anger and without disputing—with holy hands, not defiled by covetousness and robbery, and not following their own desires.” So also Theophylact and Oecumenius. If one does not infer such a desire of the Apostle here, then the speech of verses 9 and 10 will be detached from the general content of this section (1 Tim. 2:8–15) and will be entirely about how women are to dress. Whereas, if one acknowledges that the Apostle’s primary intent was to give instruction on prayer, the speech about women’s adornment will be only supplementary, showing how women ought to be attired when they appear at the assemblies for prayer.

ββ) To appear at the assemblies in appropriate attire (1 Tim. 2:9)

They must appear “in respectable attire, with modesty and self-control.” St. Chrysostom, having said how women must pray like the men, adds: “Moreover, St. Paul requires something more from women as well. What precisely? That they should come to pray to God ‘in respectable attire.’ What does he call respectable attire? A dress that covers them decently on all sides—proper, but not elaborate; for the former is fitting, while the latter is not considered becoming.” “Attire,” καταστολη,—a garment that descends to the feet, covering the whole body, and in general any dress, but modest and unassuming; to which “respectable,” κοσμιος,—beautiful, but in accordance with propriety and appropriateness to the person, place, and surroundings—also points, and therefore excludes all ostentation. The Apostle requires that women come to the assemblies for prayer “in attire that is proper but not showy, so as to draw the gaze of beholders” (Oecumenius); “so that the very clothing may display the integrity of the soul” (blessed Theodoret).

The words “with modesty and self-control” point to the form of dress or style, requiring that they not violate the modesty proper to the female sex and the chastity with which they must adorn themselves everywhere. But one may extend the sense of these words to include bearing, movement, expression, gaze, posture, and bow; for all of this can bear the mark of modesty and chastity and, conversely, can betray the absence of them—which is reproachable in women. Ambrosiaster writes: “The Apostle exhorts that women pray while maintaining a humble posture (and dress), and not proudly. One who wishes to be heard must bow the head, casting aside all pomp, so as to attract the mercy of God. A proud posture does not win what is asked for, and gives cause to think ill of the one asking. What sensible person is not repelled by a woman adorned lavishly and proudly? How much more is God repelled by her when He sees that the body He created free is wrapped and weighed down with metals?”

γγ) To adorn themselves with good works (1 Tim. 2:9, 10)

“Let them adorn themselves.” Supplementing the speech after “likewise” with the words: “I desire that they pray”—and relating to the outward manner of performing prayer: “in respectable attire, with modesty and self-control”—one must necessarily continue reading: “and let them adorn themselves.” This is a general lesson extending also beyond the walls of the prayer assembly. Women cannot but adorn themselves, and one cannot impose on them the obligation: do not adorn yourself; but one can redirect the inclination toward adornment from empty ornaments to significant and essentially valuable ones. This is what the Apostle does here. Let women adorn themselves, he says, not with “braided hair”—with fashionable braiding of the hair, as St. Peter stated directly (1 Pet. 3:3)—not with “gold”—something made of gold, just as to this day women in the East hang golden coins all around themselves—“or pearls”—in earrings and necklaces, “or costly clothing”—dresses of expensive fabrics, as the Saviour said of the rich man: “he was clothed in purple and fine linen” (Lk. 16:19)—with none of such things should they adorn themselves, because all of this is here today and gone tomorrow; but let them adorn themselves with what is imperishable and precious not only before men but before God, not only in time but in eternity, namely: with “good works”—good works of every kind: almsgiving, hospitality, caring for the sick, voluntary and humble service to all, good management of household affairs, prayers, fasts, reverence—and so consistently that such virtues should constitute their distinctive character, and that when any of the women enters the assembly, those looking on might think: here comes the almsgiving one, here comes the hospitable one, here comes the compassionate one, here comes the serving one, here comes the praying one, here comes the fasting one, here comes the reverent one, and the like—rather than what they think when a finely dressed woman enters: what diamonds, and so on.

As the incentive for this, St. Paul sets forth the vow to be godly: “as is proper for women who profess godliness.” What vow is meant here? One must suppose—not a private one, such as was perhaps taken by, for example, deaconesses, but the general one made when approaching faith in the Lord and publicly spoken at baptism. Here a commitment is taken by the one administering baptism, and a vow is given by the one being baptized: having renounced ungodliness and worldly lusts, to live from now on in godliness, chastity, and righteousness (Tit. 2:12). It is of this that the Apostle reminds them, giving them to understand how after such a vow it is unseemly to adorn oneself with empty ornaments rather than with good works, as is fitting. “You, he says, promise (in baptism) godliness and virtue” (blessed Theodoret). “With these it is fitting for Christian women to adorn themselves when they appear to honor the true God” (blessed Theophylact). “But the woman who appears in the house of God with pomp does not enter it for God’s sake but for the sake of men, in order to be glorified by them; for which she receives nothing from God but reproach. The more brilliant she appears to men, the more contemptible she is before God” (Ambrosiaster).

St. Chrysostom extends a powerful word of reproach to elaborately dressed women. “You come to pray to God, and yet you surround yourself with golden ornaments and headdresses. For you have not come to dance, nor to take part in a wedding celebration, nor to appear in a festive procession. There golden ornaments are appropriate, there headdresses, there costly clothing. But here none of this is needed. You have come to petition, to pray for your sins, to bring prayer for your transgressions, to entreat the Lord so as to move Him to mercy. Why then do you adorn yourself? This adornment is not fitting for one who prays. How can you sigh? How can you weep? How can you pray fervently, being dressed in such attire? Even if you do weep, your tears will appear laughable to one who sees them; for one who weeps ought not to wear gold. Her weeping will be hypocrisy and pretense. And indeed, how is it not hypocrisy when the very same soul from which this vainglorious pomp in dress was born—that same soul also sheds tears? Remove this pretense from yourself: for God is not mocked. This is proper for actors and dancers who spend their days on the stage; but to an honorable woman all of this is unseemly. — The Apostle commands you to dress modestly, ‘with modesty and self-control.’ Therefore do not imitate the harlots who through such adornment attract lovers to themselves. — Note that the Apostle, in speaking of modesty in dress, banishes from it even what serves merely as a sign of wealth—gold, pearls, costly clothing. But if this is so, how much more should what serves as a sign of mere empty vanity be banished—cosmetics, painted eyelids, an affected walk, an effeminate voice, a moist and wanton-filled gaze, the studied way of throwing on a veil or putting on a dress, a belt arranged with the greatest are, elaborate footwear. To all of this he points by saying: ‘in respectable attire’—as well as by the words: ‘with modesty and self-control.’ — Be indulgent with me, I beseech you; for my word contains such sharp reproach not with the aim of wounding or grieving you, but of removing everything foreign from my flock.”

δδ) Not to interfere in the work of teaching and to be in a position of subordination in relation to men (1 Tim. 2:11, 12)

1 Tim. 2:11, 12. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. But I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence.

In church assemblies, teaching was joined with prayer. The Apostle forbids women from conducting either in the church. You may pray—that is why you have come; but conducting prayer is not your business. Likewise, receive instruction—but do not dare to take up this work yourself; do not even venture to ask questions, as is said in another Epistle (1 Cor. 14:35). Learn in silence—in “silence”—and carry out this work “with all submission”: which means either submission to this law of silence in the church, or submission to the teaching offered by the men appointed for this. In the first respect, the impulse toward talkativeness must be curbed; in the second, the passion for questioning (for which passion the Apostle provided an outlet in the Epistle to the Corinthians, saying: at home let them ask their husbands). Both are a struggle; but subdue yourself. And the means of this and the testimony to it is silence. “Great modesty does blessed Paul require of women, great dignity. Therefore he directs attention not only to their outward appearance and clothing, but also to their voice. What exactly does he say? ‘Let a woman learn in silence.’ What does this mean? That a woman, according to his words, must not speak in the church; the same he said also in the Epistle to the Corinthians: ‘it is shameful… for a woman to speak in the church’ (1 Cor. 14:35). He says that a woman must be so silent that she should not speak in the church not only about worldly matters but about spiritual subjects as well. In this consists propriety for her; in this, modesty; this can adorn her more than any clothing. If she thus conducts herself, she will be able to perform her prayers with every decorum” (St. Chrysostom).

“But I do not permit a woman to teach,” ουκ επιτρεπω — more than not giving permission, but in the same force as what we would say: it is forbidden—definitively prohibited—“I forbid.” This is in the church; but at home, women can both ask their husbands questions and in some cases teach—their children, for instance, or unbelieving husbands and others who do not believe quite rightly. Blessed Theophylact writes: “Know, however, that the Apostle does not forbid women from teaching in general, but only in the Church; outside the church this is not forbidden to her. Thus Priscilla (together with Aquila) catechized Apollos in sound doctrine; thus a believing wife is not forbidden to catechize an unbelieving husband”—“but to teach children is even commanded to them” (Oecumenius). — “Nor to exercise authority over a man”—this too is understood here as: in the church, though such a rule has a general significance as well. “To exercise authority,” αυθεντειν,—to be the mistress of a man, to treat him as a servant, to command him. Just as by “woman” here is meant a woman in general, so by “man” is meant a man in general, and not the husband of her who might take it upon herself to direct the teaching in the church. The Apostle’s thought is that no woman should allow herself in the church to direct the teaching in the church, or to shout at one appointed to teach: do not say that, do not touch on this, but speak about such and such—still less to demand: be silent, I will speak; but that she should be “in silence,” sitting silently and quietly, neither speaking nor moving.

What was the occasion for such a prescription? Blessed Theophylact writes: “Since women too were deemed worthy of the prophetic grace, it was of necessity that he also establishes a rule concerning this, and does not appoint women as teachers in the church.” — This gives a hint that the learned women of Ephesus, like the Corinthian women before them, perhaps without the prophetic gift but guided only by their learning, were stepping forward as teachers in the church and making errors in teaching. To forestall the harm that would arise from this, the Apostle completely forbade women from holding discourse in the church. But St. Chrysostom gives as the occasion for this commandment the Apostle’s desire to cut off the talkativeness characteristic of women: allow them to speak—and they will raise such noise as you would not find even in the marketplace. “The Apostle, wishing to remove from them every occasion for conversation, said: let them not teach, but let them conduct themselves as befits those who are learning. In this way they will also show submission. In general their sex is given to much speaking; therefore the Apostle uses every means to bridle them.”

β) The Apostle softens the counsel (1 Tim. 2:13–15)

Not only here but everywhere in Scripture it is said that women must be in a subordinate relationship. Such is already the order of their nature—“this is required by nature itself” (blessed Theodoret). The Apostle sets forth here as the foundation of his prescription this very order of nature, deriving it from the history of the creation of man and woman. But he is not content with this, and directs toward the same conclusion also the inference from the history of the fall.

αα) The grounds for submission (1 Tim. 2:13, 14)

1 Tim. 2:13. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

Since the woman was created after the man, she must always be behind him. For this prior creation shows that the man also has something pre-eminent in his nature. The woman was created from one part of the man; therefore, naturally, she does not have everything to the same degree that the man has it. What she was created from was taken from the man’s side, so that she should always be beside the man, at his side, as a helper and not as a mistress. “The Apostle gives preference to the man over the woman, because the man was created first: so that the woman should be lower than the man, because she was created after the man and from the man” (Ambrosiaster). “He speaks as if to say: the male sex is endowed with greater advantage, as having been created first. And in another place he elevates him further still, when he says: ‘man was not created for woman’s sake, but woman for man’s sake’ (1 Cor. 11:9)” (St. Chrysostom). “Since in the very creation the male sex was honored with priority, and Eve was created second, all women after this must occupy secondary places after men and be submissive to them. For the force of what was then done with regard to Adam and Eve extends over the whole male and female sex” (blessed Theophylact).

1 Tim. 2:14. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and fell into transgression.

Besides the order of nature indicated by the manner of the creation of man and woman, the Apostle also sets forth as the ground for the subordination of the woman to the man the fact that in the matter of the fall she was first deceived and deceived Adam; for which it was pronounced: “your desire shall be toward your husband” (Gen. 3:16). By creation she was, though secondary, yet honored with a certain equal dignity with the man; but by the fall she lost this. Therefore the subordination of the woman to the man is as it were a penance laid upon her for the progenitress’s deception of the first father Adam. In Eve the whole female sex became guilty of this—and not merely by imputation, but because it also inherited the very deed of Eve—to deceive the male sex; which is still done by it not incidentally, but according to the impulse constantly at work in it to please and to entice. To diminish the evil arising from this inclination, the woman was subordinated to the man.

St. Chrysostom applies this to the preceding speech to women: let them not teach. A woman, he says, once undertook to teach and overturned everything, thereby clearly showing herself unfit to be a teacher. He says: “Why does the Apostle say this (‘Adam was not deceived’ and the rest)? In order, on the basis of many reasons, to assign primacy to the man. For, he says, the man must have primacy: first, because he was created first; second, on the basis of what happened in the course of time. A woman once taught and overturned everything, and made him guilty of disobedience. For this God subordinated her, because she made ill use of authority—or, rather, of equal dignity. ‘Your desire shall be toward your husband’—this was said; but before this event it was not said. — Adam transgressed the commandment not because he was carried away by passion, but only in obeying his wife. So—a woman once taught and overturned everything. Therefore the Apostle said: let her not teach.” — But how did Adam not get deceived? Did he not sin? He sinned; but in a different manner than the woman. The woman was deceived by the words of the serpent, or the devil who spoke through the tongue of the serpent, and ate of the forbidden fruit; while Adam ate, having listened to the woman. If the enemy had addressed himself to Adam, perhaps Adam would not have been deceived by his words, but would have discerned the lie hidden under them and the ruinous deception, and the fall would not have occurred. But the enemy easily beguiled the woman, and she beguiled the man—and the fall took place. Thus she proved to be easily deceived. “This sex is light, easily impressionable, easily deceived” (blessed Theophylact). Therefore the Apostle’s words: “Adam was not deceived”—may be understood as the history of the fall gives one to understand: it was not Adam who was deceived by the devil. So Ambrosiaster: “The devil did not deceive the man but the woman; the man was brought to transgression by the woman—for which she should not be given latitude but should be kept in a humble position.”

St. Chrysostom also holds that Adam is called undeceived in comparison with the woman. To the question: how then was Adam not deceived? — he answers: “Listen carefully. The woman says: ‘the serpent deceived me’ (Gen. 3:13); while Adam does not say: the woman deceived me, but: ‘she gave to me and I ate’ (Gen. 3:12) (this is the same as in Ambrosiaster). — Moreover, it is not the same thing to be beguiled by one of the same kind and kin as oneself, and to be beguiled by a beast, a slave, a subordinate: the latter is properly called deception. Therefore the Apostle speaks of him only comparatively with the woman, that he was not deceived; because she was beguiled by a slave and subordinate, while he was beguiled by a free person. Again it is not said of Adam: ‘she saw that the tree was good for food’ (Gen. 3:6), but of the woman: and that she ate and gave to her husband.”

Blessed Theodoret interprets it thus. This “was not deceived” the Apostle said in place of: was not the first to be deceived—and in this he followed Scripture. For the woman, when an account was demanded of her, said: “the serpent deceived me, and I ate;” but Adam does not say this, but: “the woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate” (Gen. 3:12, 13). And Eve, having listened to the serpent, has no excuse; while for Adam there serves as a small excuse the fact that, having been beguiled by the woman, he did not himself pluck the fruit from the tree, but the woman, having first eaten, gave it also to the man. Therefore the Apostle also said: “Adam was not deceived.”

ββ) The consolation of women (1 Tim. 2:15)

1 Tim. 2:15. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Having thus burdened the woman both with guilt and consequently with a subordinate position toward the man, the Apostle consoles her with the fact that all that has been said does not close the door of salvation before her: “she will be saved.” By its grammatical structure this speech relates to Eve; but in meaning it encompasses the whole female sex. The progenitress sinned and for this came under the punishment of God. But since it pleased the merciful God to arrange a wondrous manner of salvation for the fallen, salvation was opened also to her, and in her person to the whole female sex. Every woman, says the Apostle, will be saved. How? For women—the conditions of salvation are not special but the same as those appointed for mankind in general: faith and love—“if she continues in faith and love: in faith” in the Lord Saviour, of Whom the first woman heard the Gospel proclaimed, indicated in the future seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15); “in love” toward God and neighbors—the mother, nourisher, and sustainer of all the virtues. What the Apostle added to this—“and holiness with self-control”—is not some special condition of salvation, but is only the outward or visible garb of the woman who saves her soul by believing and loving. “Holiness”—in the Apostle’s usage denotes both a holy and righteous life in general and in particular bodily holiness, purity from fleshly lusts and sins. In the present passage, the general holiness of women has already been indicated by faith and love; therefore what remains to be understood by holiness is a particular holiness—purity—in which sense it would be synonymous with self-control. The distinction between them can perhaps be drawn thus: holiness may be taken as faithfulness to the marriage bed, or the innocence in body and soul of the married woman, while self-control denotes sharing the marriage bed with the husband not to satisfy lust but out of submission to the law of nature given by God, with the intent of dedicating its fruits to the glory of God. Blessed Theophylact writes: “By ‘holiness’ the Apostle means purity of body. But since not all are virgins, he added: ‘with self-control.’ For self-control is not denied to those who make lawful use of marriage.” There is also a pure marital self-control—when married life is conducted soberly and not in lustful pleasures. Both words the Apostle used in order to set forth more clearly what the woman who saves her soul must visibly show. So blessed Theodoret indicates the conditions of the salvation of women. “If they desire it,” he writes, “they will not only suffer no harm from Eve, but will acquire very great benefit by their faith and love, maintaining holiness and self-control.” He does not touch on the question of why the Apostle said: “she will be saved through childbearing.” What salvation comes from childbearing—this is resolved by our other commentators.

It goes without saying that childbearing in itself cannot produce salvation, like any other natural act—eating, drinking, sleep. But just as eating, drinking, and sleep can be used in such a way as to either assist or harm salvation, so also childbearing. How then can childbearing be turned into an aid to salvation? One might say: childbearing was given to the nature of the primordially-created pair, and, as an act of nature, it should have occurred not only easily but pleasantly. But the fall intervened and introduced into this act of nature the pains: “in pain you shall bring forth children” (Gen. 3:16). The pains are a punishment—the natural penance of women. If a woman now, suffering the pains of birth, endures them in precisely this sense—that is, as a punishment reminding of sin and calling to repentance—then her childbearing will take place in the order of salvation. — But this alone is not sufficient. Being undertaken in such dispositions, the burden of childbearing will merely not hinder salvation; but it needs not only not to hinder but to assist salvation. How can it do this? If, after birth, there is joined to it the upbringing of children—in the fear of God, to the glory of God. St. Chrysostom says: “The Apostle speaks as if to say: you, women, do not grieve that your sex has fallen under condemnation; God has granted you a special means of salvation—namely the upbringing of children, so that you can earn salvation not only by yourselves but also through others.” — And a little further: “Childbearing is a work of nature. But not only this (which depends on nature) has been granted to the woman, but also what pertains to the upbringing of children. — In this there will be no small but very great reward for them, that they have raised warriors for Christ.” Oecumenius writes: “By childbearing the Apostle means not only birth but also the upbringing of children. — What then, someone will say: have virgins, childless widows (deprived of their husbands before the birth of children), and barren women perished? By no means! The Apostle does not say that women will not be saved (without childbearing) by their own virtue, but that childbearing will also be an aid to salvation for them, if—which goes without saying—they work out salvation by their own virtue.” Blessed Theophylact adds something particular to this: “One must not only bear children but also bring them up. And this is true childbearing; otherwise it is not childbearing but the corruption of children. The upbringing of children, however, assists the salvation of women not without their own virtue. A virtuous woman also brings up her children in virtue. The virtue present in her passes through upbringing into the children as well. It seems to me that the Apostle, having above forbidden women to teach in the church, now in consolation gives them someone to teach. If you wish to teach, teach your children. — Some, however, somehow understood childbearing as the birth that came from the Most Holy Theotokos. She, they say, having given birth to the Saviour, saved women. But such an understanding is not in accord with the speech that follows.”