The apostle Paul has had an undeniably significant impact on the shaping of Christian theology, particularly regarding gender roles. One of the most often-cited scriptures is 1 Timothy 2:12, where Paul declares,
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.”
This verse has been used for centuries to justify gender hierarchies and restrict women’s roles in both church leadership and society. But it’s important to question: Why did Paul’s words—and not the teachings of Jesus—become the defining standard for manhood and the model for male leadership in the church?
Paul vs. Jesus: Whose Words Hold More Weight?
The Gospels reveal Jesus’ radically inclusive approach to women. He spoke openly with women (John 4), defended them against societal condemnation (John 8), and even commissioned women as the first witnesses of His resurrection (Matthew 28:1-10)—an act that gave them spiritual authority in a time when women’s voices were often silenced. Jesus never uttered restrictions like those found in Paul’s epistles.
Yet, for centuries, Paul’s letters, particularly passages like 1 Timothy 2:12, have carried greater weight in defining gender roles. Jesus’ treatment of women is consistently egalitarian, while Paul’s writings often appear to reinforce patriarchal norms. Why, then, did the church elevate Paul’s teachings on this issue while ignoring Jesus’ clear examples of empowering women?
How Paul Became the Model for Masculine Leadership
Paul’s authority in the early church, as both a missionary and a writer of a significant portion of the New Testament, established him as a theological guidepost for the early Christian community. His letters, especially those addressing order in the church, became blueprints for how Christians should structure their worship, governance, and gender roles.
Over time, the church’s male leadership began to associate Paul’s instructions with divinely ordained models of masculinity. In particular, verses like 1 Timothy 2:12 have been cited as clear mandates that male leadership is God’s design. But in doing so, the church elevated Paul’s words as a universal standard while downplaying the nuanced cultural context of his letters, such as addressing specific issues in particular churches.
Jesus’ example of leadership, by contrast, emphasized servanthood, humility, and inclusion—principles that were often interpreted as more generic and less applicable to the concrete rules Paul provided.
Paul’s Restrictions on Women Were Situational, Not Universal
Many scholars argue that Paul’s instructions in letters like 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians were situational, addressing specific issues in early Christian communities rather than setting universal mandates. In 1 Timothy 2, Paul was likely addressing false teaching and cultural dynamics specific to Ephesus, where women may have been involved in spreading incorrect doctrine (1 Timothy 2:14).
Paul’s letters reflect pragmatic solutions to cultural issues in the early church, not necessarily a blueprint for all Christian communities for all time. However, this nuance was lost as the early church sought order and stability, using Paul’s instructions as absolute rules for church structure and gender roles.
Jesus’ ministry, on the other hand, transcended cultural norms. He empowered women, broke social barriers, and never placed restrictions on their ability to lead or teach. If we are to take Christ as the model for Christian behavior, why are Paul’s culturally-bound restrictions still held up as the standard for manhood?
Patriarchy and the Institutional Church: Why Paul’s Teachings Were Embraced
The early Christian church emerged in a highly patriarchal society, where male authority was the cultural norm. In this environment, Paul’s writings were easily misinterpreted or even manipulated to support existing societal structures. Verses like 1 Timothy 2:12 fit seamlessly into a male-dominated world where women’s voices were often suppressed.
Jesus’ model of inclusive leadership was radical and disruptive to the power structures of both His time and the early church. While the teachings of Jesus were centered around equality, servanthood, and breaking down social barriers, the institutional church found it easier to enforce order through Paul’s prescriptive instructions rather than embracing the egalitarian implications of Christ’s ministry.
In short, Paul’s instructions were more conducive to maintaining male-dominated authority structures, whereas Jesus’ teachings on inclusion and empowerment would have required the church to radically shift its view of power and leadership—a shift many leaders were unwilling to make.
Reconsidering the Standard: Following Paul’s Letters or Christ’s Example?
As Christians today, we should ask ourselves: Why do we continue to uphold Paul’s writings as the standard for gender roles in the church when Jesus never issued such restrictions? Jesus elevated and empowered women, while Paul’s prohibitions were likely specific to his time and context.
What does it mean to follow Christ’s example of manhood and leadership? Jesus’ model emphasized humility, inclusion, and the empowerment of marginalized voices. By reclaiming Jesus’ model as the ultimate example for Christian leadership—one that does not restrict women based on their gender—the church could break free from the rigid interpretations of Paul’s letters and embrace a more inclusive understanding of manhood and leadership.
Conclusion: It’s Time to Reevaluate Who Sets the Standard
For too long, Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2:12 have been used to enforce gender hierarchies and restrict women’s leadership in the church. But Jesus’ actions tell a different story—one of equality, service, and empowerment. It’s time for the church to reevaluate whether Paul’s culturally-bound instructions should continue to be held as the standard for Christian manhood and leadership, or if we should return to Christ’s example, which calls us to empower all believers, regardless of gender.
