1 Timothy 2:11-14 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
This is an incredibly difficult passage to interpret for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the sometimes incendiary rhetoric found in the literature discussing the topic of women in ministry. And this passage has generated a massive literature. An excellent introduction to the problems in this text is Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (Edited by Andreas J. Köstenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995). The last thing I want to do is step into this firestorm, but since we are moving through the Pauline letters, it is important to at least mention several factors in the debate.
This passage appears to prohibit women from teaching in church or “having authority” over men. Since these functions are to be carried out by an elder, this passage can be read as a ban on women in the role of Pastor / elder. On the other hand, if Fee is correct in his assessment of the intention of the Pastoral epistles, then what may be in view is a specific situation in which a woman is a leader of false teachers in the church at Ephesus. In that case, this text is not a general ban on women in ministry.
In his Systematic Theology, Grudem responds that the context does not seem specific at all, there are no persons mentioned who are teaching, therefore this is a general statement about the problem of women teaching in the church, not a specific ban on a specific woman teaching false doctrine. Grudem also points out that the reason Paul gives is the Fall, and the reversal of gender roles as a result of the fall. Since the prohibition is tied to such a pivotal text, it should be taken as a general statement. This is analogous to the use of Genesis 2 in establishing a principle of marriage. “Men as the leaders of the home” means “men as the leaders of the church.”
Sometimes writers will state that women were not well educated in the ancient world and therefore should be prohibited from teaching. Once women are allowed to read and are formally trained, there is no reason to prohibit their ordination as pastors. Yet there are several examples of trained women or a command to train women in the biblical texts (Acts 4:13, 18:26, Romans 16:1, 1 Tim 2:11, Titus 2:3-4). There were opportunities for women to receive education in the Greco-Roman world. This strategy is therefore based on an inadequate view of education in the ancient world.
The key word is normally translated “have authority.” H. Scott Baldwin studeid this word in depth for is article in the Women in the Church volume (“A Difficult Word: authentew in 1 Timothy 2:12.”) After surveying the multitude of word studies on aujqentevw , Baldwin argues that the methodology of the studies have been flawed. We ought to study the verb and the noun separately since there may be a difference in meaning (logos vs. logizomai, for example.) This reduces the database of occurrences to 82, all of which he includes in his article. He then sets up a semantic range for the word, and summarizes his findings in several broad categories. These categories are then distributed chronologically, so we can see the development of the word from the earliest occurrence (first century through the fourteenth century A.D.)
Baldwin’s conclusions are that the root of the word involves the concept of authority and that the context of 2 Tim 2 makes the idea of “to rule” impossible. But the ideas of “to dominate or to control” are quite likely. “To play the tyrant” is possible if we argue Paul is making a hyperbole (which few people do, since it isn’t all that clear that he might be.) Several possible translations are dismissed simply because the are not in evidence until the late medieval period. He does note that the verb is intransitive, therefore a translation of “assume authority over” is possible.
Taken along with what Fee says about the purpose of the letter, it is entirely possible then that this difficult text refers to a female leader who has taken control of a congregation. If she (and her group?) are also the false teachers of 1 Timothy, then it is possible that the order to silence ought to be read as a silencing of a false teacher.
I think that it would have been the silencing of false teachers and not the women. I do not think that Paul would have told the women to be not have leadership roles if it was the false teachers who he was trying to question. I do not see Paul as the kind of person who is going to beat around the bush about something like that. He is going to tell it how it is straight forward.
I think that you could say that the leadership role does go back in to the Garden. I think that God established then that males should rule over females. Then I also think that He established that later when He said that men should be the house hold of the house. I think then, you could come to the simple conclusion that men should be the leader of the church also.
For me, I think that women are a lot more emotional then men are. I think that is one basic reason why men should be in the leadership and authority roles. Men usually have a more level headed opinion of things. They see the facts and how something is. Women on the other hand puts emotions into everything. That is just their nature. It does not mean that it is wrong, but a lot of times, emotions do get in the way. For me, I respect men a lot more coming from a leadership role. It is really hard for a women to gain everyone’s respect. If you do not have the respect of others below you, it is hard to lead. You need to have followers to be a leader.
From a woman’s point of view, I would much rather have a man in charge, then a women. It is a lot easier for me to trust him and follow him, then it is for me to follow a woman. I think that is how God intended it to be.
Interesting thoughts Jessica, I really like how you tied Genesis into this discussion. I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusion of God’s established order, “and he shall rule over you”. Now I am not sure where the role of the false teachers comes into play in this discussion, but Polhill brings his opinion that maybe the false teachers were using women to promote strife between the church members. I could not say any more than I would just take this passage at face value, and define the roles as described in Genesis 2. As a male I can say that the support of a woman in any setting is essential to the success of any endeavor, kinda gives us as men something to fight for, and as long as the woman are behaving modestly and uprightly (as we all should), there is no greater helper. Any thoughts?
This passage, in combination with many others, shows that Paul could not have written the Pastoral Epistles.
WHAT?!? Why? How, in claiming this, do you uphold inerrancy in light of 1 Timothy 1:1; 2 Timothy 1:1; and Titus 1:1?
I don’t want to just dismiss you as wrong (maybe a little) but why do you state your conclusion with no proof or backing. At the very least you could have pointed us at some other blog of yours… it seems like you’re trying to make people mad to get a response.
In my post below I conclude that “I think a proper answer would need to take a look at the topic of woman through out the entire scope of the OT.” I am referring to 1 Timothy 2:11-15. I believe this is what you are also referring to as a reason Paul could not have written the Pastoral Epistles. Our views differ, and hence, as I asked above, I seek to understand why you say what you say.
But taking into account my fellow classmates different attempts to understand this passage, and the countless others that Professor Long mentions “this passage has generated a massive literature” I believe there are much better answers than to simply dismiss these three books. But I need more information, so it’s your move…
I find it hard to buy Fee’s argument that this statement was directed to an individual and her followers. It seems unlikely that the person would be so mysterious especially when Paul was so direct in mentioning all those who had hindered and deserted him in his second letter. I agree with Grudem and his findings on this issue. Therefore, I will incorporate some of his argument which I studied recently:
“With regards to the role of women in pastoral/spiritual leadership, this should be based upon Scripture. Grudem’s ‘conclusion…is that the Bible does not permit women to function in the role of pastor or elder within a church.’ (937). “There is not one example in the entire Bible of a woman doing the kind of congregational Bible teaching that is expected of pastors/elders in the New Testament church.” (941-942). Although 1 Tim. 2:11-14 has cultural implications regarding submissiveness; the leadership of men has been constant throughout the Bible. Eph. 5:22-33 demonstrate the submission in marriage (‘godliness’1 Tim. 2:9-11) (man=head, 1Cor. 11:3), but also the love, respect and care that a man is to have for his wife. Grudem makes the point that we should recognize the wisdom and insight that God has given to women and that it would be ‘foolish’ to disregard this (944). 1 Tim. 3:1-7should also be taken into account. These passages speak solely of men being elders
It is a difficult and especially touchy modern issue, but there is much value in what the Bible has to say on this issue of man being the head (1 Cor. 11:3). Eph 1:7-8 speaks of the redemption and understanding that God has given believers. “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 8 that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding.” God has given us His grace with all wisdom and understanding to comprehend what should be done with this issue. Regarding the main issue, (women have a great place, service, deaconess (Phoebe Rm. 16:1/Priscilla Rm. 16:3/sincere faith of Lois and Eunice in 2 Tim. 1:5), yet the man is the head of leadership) the Bible should be followed rather than adapting to the culture.” (CPB, Loverin Exam SP 2009).
In today’s society, I believe that there is a misconception that submission causes in equality. For this reason I think many have chosen to reject submission thinking submission is contrary to most Biblical teaching.
Although, 1 Timothy 2:15 was not mentioned as part of the text in question, I think if provides some clarity on the topic of Submission. “But women will be saved through childbearing–if they continue in faith, love, and holiness with propriety.” At first glance, this passage appears to just add confusion. It may seem that Paul is saying that women are justified by childbearing; however, this is not Paul’s intention. Through observing Paul’s earlier writing of 1 Cor. 11:10-12, we find what Paul means by salvation.
“For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.”
From this passage we con observe that “salvation through childbearing” is a social salvation. Childbearing provides a balance of dependence, because every man was born from a woman. Motherhood gives authority to women, because God commands that parents are to be honored (Deut. 27:16).
You took my point, Zach. I was going to ask why P.Long stopped a verse too soon. I don’t know if you remember, but I had to do a presentation in TH 413 on Douglas Moo’s article on the authority of women in the church. In it, he explains a woman’s place within the context of the Church and the relation to the man she is to have. In my presentation, I also drew attention to 1 Tim. 2:15 (as did Moo). If I can remember correctly, he interpreted women saved through childbearing as being saved from any sort of oppressive slavery (if you should wish it such. You do a great job here, and so does Moo of expounding on the fact that ‘submission’ does not have the negative connotation that we as Americans have a tendency to do). He adds that to be saved through childbirth is to have role over the children, and that children (even the male children) are to submit to their mothers. In doing so, she has a direct impact on the next generation of leaders and her influence on her children will provide the basis for leadership as well.
This is just more insight to be had, nothing to take away from the arguments of the people above or below me in this posting order.
I just finished writing my paper on the Pastoral Epistles and I thought that the context of this section sheds a lot of light about what’s going on. Paul is teaching against the liars and false teachers and one of the ways of doing so is for the members of the church to have proper relationships with each other and every so that the Gospel message has a clear way to be presented to the world. (1 Timothy 2:1-7)
Directly after that portion of scripture we find this one we are taking about now and one other. Women are to dress modestly is the other passage. Paul explains it in a way that means ‘don’t dress like a prostitute’. This teaching would be one of those ways christian woman would be in right relationship to everyone, but it is explained in a cultural context of that time.
Take that and now apply it to what we have next about woman teaching and having authority over men. I think Paul may be explaining an underlying truth in cultural terms so that the proper relationship may be upheld in their time period.
If ‘be modest’ is the underlying truth of the other section, what is the underlying truth in this one? Paul does go all the way back to Genesis and creation which the Wisdom lit. and the Law draw a lot of there base from as well. I think a proper answer would need to take a look at the topic of woman through out the entire scope of the OT.
First, Caleb, I agree with you about the shakiness of Fee’s argument. As Jessica points out, Paul would not be one to ‘beat around the bush’. When we look at this passage, we see that Paul takes the reader all the way back to the beginning of Creation. As a result, he is including all men and all women from creation until that point. It doesn’t get much more general than that. Why would Paul make such a broad statement and have it refer to just one specific instance? Fee’s argument just does not seem to hold to the specific text, as well as the context. The points laid out by Grudem seem to make much more sense.
I also want to thank Zach for stating more clearly what I was trying to get at under the other post. “In today’s society, I believe that there is a misconception that submission causes in equality.” He is absolutely right. Today’s society interprets submission as a giving up of free will. It interprets it as allowing someone else to make every decision without any input. It is a very passive context. It is meant to be an act of trust. Trusting in the person to whom you are submitting. It is not a giving up of freewill, it is trusting that the other person has your best interest at heart and being willing to allow them to lead. We submit to God and we don’t view that as a problem, so why should the woman’s submission be any different. Granted the man is not God and he is not able to know what is best all the time, but to take us back to ‘men, love your wives as Christ loved the church’ the concept is clear. When the man is leading in a biblical manner, submission should be nothing to complain about.
I gotta say that I hate having to voice a position on something I’m not fully decided on, but I’ll try to remain to the point (i.e. 1 Timothy 2.11-15)…
To begin with, I don’t know the culture in which this was written and I know that we are notorious for reading our culture into scripture so I’ll try to balance this in light of what’s here. Paul seems to begin his thought, not at verse 11, but 8 with a description of both men and women displaying proper lifestyles and worshipping God without getting sidetracked by anger or quarreling (men), or ornamental fads. Paul seems to be pointing out that they should rather live in a godly manner, demonstrating their new life in Christ.
Next, Paul continued to put additional emphasis on the women in the congregation. Perhaps this was because, as I’ve noticed throughout life, men will often shirk responsibility if they can get away with it. This may have been one of the issues that Timothy had walked into at Ephesus. Women had pushed men out of all leadership roles and Timothy then had the role of righting that wrong in order that the men would once again take up the role that God had given them since Genesis (Kudos Jessica).
If Paul was talking about a specific incident and or person why wouldn’t he just say so? It doesn’t make sense that he would be so vague about something specific, and there aren’t any specifics of that nature in the passages. Skirting around the issue is not Paul’s usual style and it doesn’t fit here either. I believe he is talking generally about gender roles in the church. With that said there are important factors that need to be taken into consideration. I like the point that Zach makes “I believe that there is a misconception that submission causes inequality”. Also you must take the idea of women submitting to men in the context of how the man is supposed to treat the woman. The husband is supposed to love her as Christ loved the church, that is a tall order and that is someone worth submitting to. “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25). And children are supposed to respect and obey their mothers.
A few weeks ago in Dr. Loverin class we watched a video documenting the church. In that video they discussed the role women played in the begin of the church. In the video it mentioned many of the churches started out in home churches, in which women were often times the leaders of the church seeing that the women’s role was the house.
I would think that he might have been refering to a cultural issue. Women in that part of the world often don’t have many rights. So that is my assesment of that passage that he is making a cultural reference that was appropriate at that time.
I tend to fall on the side of the fence Jessika first established. I tend to agree with the concept that Men are to be the head over the woman as established in Genesis. If this is the case in the home then it would be difficult to say it can be reversed in the Church.
As for it being a cultural issue, it may have been–I do not know. But I think people are too quick to write things off as a cultural issue nowadays.
I also like what Duke and Zach were getting at about people not liking the idea of submitting and thinking to submit is to be inequal. Remember Christ was fully God, yet He submitted to the will of the Father.
This definitely is a sensitive topic in most theological circles. I think we have hit most of what i would say so it is going to be hard for me to come up with something new to say. I do tend to agree with most of you guys about how this probably isnt just a cultural/situational instance. Paul is referring back to Genesis and brining in more than just a specific circumstance. What I do wonder is to what extent is he saying women cannot have “authority”? Does that mean they need to be silent throughout the whole service or cannot say anything at all?
Personally, I do not think so. I do think that there is a place for women to speak in the church and i do believe that even Paul allowed this. I think the bigger issue is if the women are submitting to the authority of the elders when they do speak. It is obvious that Paul lays out that the elder is a man’s role and should be kept at that. I think that the biggest issue here in 1 Timothy is that they were not submitting to any man’s authority and they were ruling over men. This is a bigger issue that addresses the issue of Genesis and how women desire to lord over men.
So I would say that if a women would willingly submit to an authority over her (elder board) she would be able to serve and speak in that capacity.
I like your thoughts on authority, Brent. I also believe that women in the church should not necessarily have a high authority. I agree with Jessica on this, that women are emotional, (who knew!?) and that yes it is harder for a woman to gain respect from everyone. Another point is that generally men get their opinion out first because they are louder and more aggressive. This shows their dominance, and I think that women need to respect that. Another factor that we need to look at is the difference in the church of Paul’s time and the church now. Now of days we have Bible studies for every age and sex. I do not know this for a fact, but I do not think that they had some many programs from different people. This leads me to the thought that Paul could not have been talking about women teaching children’s church, Sunday school, or a women’s Bible study. I believe that Paul cherished women, simply because he was a man of God, and it is silly to think otherwise.
2 Timothy 2:11-14 should be taken at face value. Our society has a really has a hard time with this passage because we have been all about woman’s rights for the last 60 years; I have a really hard time with this passage too. We need to be careful not to read our beliefs and culture in to the Bible. This passage in the context of the Bible is not a punishment to women because men are to treat, lead, and love women in the same way that Jesus does his people. This is a sacrificial love, a love so great and wonderful that we have no other desire but to submit to and obey Jesus. This passage in the context of the Bible is Beautiful and full of love if the men are doing there job.
I see this at an aim to appease the tension of the debate over gender roles, and if this is the aim then it is far from right. Why do we try to adapt Biblical Christianity to an American Christianity. Just as Brent had made mention on the previous topic, we should be Christian Americans, not American Christians. Perhaps it is decent scholarship, but it is reading into the text, rather than reading out of it.
What is important to understand is there exists a very mutual balance between man/woman, husband/wife. Britalia mentioned the context of submission with the man’s treatment of his wife. Is there reciprocity here? The man brings something to the table that the woman cannot, and vice versa. The value, or equality, of each role is incomparable because the roles are so very different and both have different high calls to the one another. If American society wants to debate this issue to the ground, then let it be. But within the church, let’s understand that we ALL, male an female, gave up our claims to self, to self-entitlement, self-right. We are all in submission to Christ, so in a sense, we are all insubordinate together, if you could say that. The husband is the leader of his wife and family, but Christ is his!
Ben, thanks for your interest in the question of whether the Pastoral Epistles were written by Paul. Most New Testament specialists conclude that Paul did not write these letters, including many (like me) who argue for the reliability of (other parts of) the New Testament. If you have time, check out some of the major commentaries.
I have discussed this passage and Paul’s views on the role of women here.
Ben, sorry, my link does not seem to work, so here it is again.
http://paulandco-workers.blogspot.com/2009/11/misogynist-corruptions-of-paul.html
“Most New Testament specialists” Who are these people?
I’m am interested and I will try to check out some commentaries on this sometime…
‘Misogynist corruptions of Paul’ -This sound like the start of a feminist argument. Not that their isn’t many sound and decent people that take a feminist stance, but that path is laden with all sorts of pitfalls, as any extremist group usually is. Usually stemming from some sort of agenda, selfish desire, or power struggle.
Emily Gathergood, who you cite, actually says in her video that it is because this verse is in the NT and not that OT that is a ‘problem’. Paul cites the OT in the section to prove his point! And she never actually says that ‘women are put down’ she only hints at it, and tells us how the verse makes her ‘feel’.
The textual criticism arguments are extremely debatable. Bart Ehrman even says this in his paper about 1 Corinthians 14:35-36 “The evidence is not as compelling”. Through out the paper he makes arguments from silence- he assumes a lot.
He also says this in his conclusions: “Most people, even most NT scholars, typically consider textual criticism to be an arcane subdiscipline of little interest to anyone residing outside the rare and occasionally endangered species of textual critics themselves.” (Bart Ehrman) Again I ask- “Most New Testament specialists”?
Why is it that textual critics try to tear the Bible apart? Ehrman in his paper says it is to “reconstruct the original text of the New Testament” but who’s to say we don’t have the original text? I appreciate the effort, but why does odd phrasing, unusual words, different style, difficult teaching, and such discrepancies always equal some rogue scribe or a monk with an agenda? Again these are arguments from silence and a much weaker way of interpreting scripture. It also opens up all sorts of doors for people who want to get rid of some particular verse they don’t like.
And you still haven’t told me anything of your views on Biblical inerrancy yet. Maybe you haven’t had time… I would completely understand!
Sorry if I come across confrontational! I am willing to here more, and Ehrman does have interesting ideas, but I am coming from an entirely different theological background than that. Change takes time, but only one of our ideas can be right, even if some of the subpoints may be wrong.
And pardon my spelling- oi, it’s bad…
I’m very interested in where you were going with this Fellows and I’ll be back to read it and find out.
Until then I think it important to say that I agree with Caleb, Fee’s argument just seems weak. Fee seems to simply point out that false teachings is an important point of the letters and therefore this section deals with false teachings. Well I can reverse that in the same manner, these letters have a lot to do with church leadership so this section is dealing with authority of women. It’s a wash and that makes us examine the rest of Paul’s doctrine to understand what Paul is getting at in this. Paul deals with the topic of women and their role with men in Ephesians stating that men are to be the head of the house, but men are to love them as Christ loved the church. It seems important to note that this topic is addressed to Timothy in Ephesus, it would seem that Ephesus had trouble with the issue of authority of women as Paul addressed this himself in his letter to Ephesus. It was common tradition that the men were in authority and women were to obey their husbands, if this was an issue earlier in Paul’s ministry it would not be unreasonable to assume that the issue could still exist and have started to saturate into the church itself.
Oh man.. Here’s to stirring the pot even more.
I’ve really come to appreciate N.T. Wrights’ “Fresh Perspective” concerning Pauline theology. If nothing else, he has really challenged me to consider the passages again and again.
In his article concerning the women’s role within the church, he presents an interesting case to say the least. To sum up the article, Wright believes that the passage in I Timothy is that we need to recognize that the passage is “commanding that women, too, should not be restrained from doing so [vs 11]. They are to be ‘in full submission’; this is often taken to mean ‘to the men’, or ‘to their husbands’, but it is equally likely that it refers to their attitude, as learners, of submission to God or to the gospel – which of course would be true for men as well. THEN the crucial verse 12 need not be read as ‘I do not allow a woman to teach or hold authority over a man’ but rather ‘I don’t mean to imply that I’m now setting up women as the new authority over men in the same way that previously men held authority over women.’ [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm]
He then gives an N.T. Wright translation of this passage as follows:
So this is what I want: the men should pray in every place, lifting up holy hands, with no anger or disputing. 9In the same way the women, too, should clothe themselves in an appropriate manner, modestly and sensibly. They should not go in for elaborate hair-styles, or gold, or pearls, or expensive clothes; 10instead, as is appropriate for women who profess to be godly, they should adorn themselves with good works. 11They must be allowed to study undisturbed, in full submission to God. 12I’m not saying that women should teach men, or try to dictate to them; they should be left undisturbed. 13Adam was created first, you see, and then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived, and fell into trespass. 15She will, however, be kept safe through the process of childbirth, if she continues in faith, love and holiness with prudence.
To briefly sum up the article his main points are:
Gal. 3:28 – NOT about ministry, but rather that God has one family, not two, and that this family consists of all those who believe in Jesus; that this is the family God promised to Abraham, and that nothing in the Torah can stand in the way of this unity which is now revealed through the faithfulness of the Messiah. This is NOT at all about how we relate to one another within this single family; it is about the fact, as we often say, that the ground is even at the foot of the cross.
I Corinthians 14 – Leans on the side of Ken Bailey rather than Fee on this interpretation of the passage.
Context is men and women are segregated in church, and that men would be understanding what the sermon would be about, and women would not. What happens then is that women would be conversing amongst each other and the volume would steadily rise, therefore having an instance where the rabbi or preacher would have to ask the women to be silent.
Main thrust of the passage is “order and decency in the church’s worship. Wright says that this interpretation of text would fit really well.
Another great point – Paul was NOT addressing the social issues we know in our world.
I’ll spare the other points in this passage – I’d encourage you to read his article in its entirety.
And lastly,
I Timothy
The interpretation that women should not rule over men does NOT fit with what we see in the rest of the NT [see above passages].
Paul’s explanation concerning Adam and Eve is this – Look what happened when Eve was decieved. Women need to learn just as much as men do. Adam after all, sinned quite deliberately; he knew what he was doing, and that it was wrong, and went ahead deliberately. Childbirth is NOT a punishment – but a part of God’s promised salvation to all.
is there even anything else to add to this discussion that I could say that would be worth something?
Moses I went back and looked through NT Wright again, maybe paying a little closer attention this time to what Wright has to say. I enjoyed reading your post, it gave me lots to think about as far as interpreting this passage.
To refer back to my other post and the other blog… Again i bring up Britalia’s point. This can be taken offensively to some women, but do we really think that guys have the “better” “easier” or “cooler” job? Their job is pretty much anything but that… If anythimg I am sure it is nerve wracking to know that you are in charge and responsible for so much. The task is great indeed… There is a reason that the man is the head of the household and is told to be a spiritual leader. The men of the church are just stepping up and leading the congregation or the “bride of Christ” to him… almost like a dad walking his daughter down the aisle to her waiting fiance/husband.
Nowhere in the Bible is the man told to be sole “head” of the household, nor is a term like “head over” even used, at least in the original languages. Do not be so quick to teleport 21st century ideas about head into the 1st century.
The term kephale/head has various metaphorical meanings when it is not obviously the think on one’s neck. It Eph 5 it is a head/body metaphor of unity. In any case all of the examples of what Christ as head does for the church as body are SERVING examples, to import other aspects of what Christ is is simply not warranted by the text. Christ is Lord, for example, as well as Jewish, rabbi, the Prophet, etc., but none of these are being discussed in the “head” text in Eph 5.
On 1 Tim 2, Paul kicks 2 men by name out of the church earlier in the letter and sometimes in other letters declines to mention someone by name, perhaps so they do not get saddled with a dink further in life. There are many challenges to interpreting/translating 1 Tim 2 section on gender and since we are not Timothy, we simply cannot be 100% sure about some things. This is why this text keeps having papers written about it with very different conclusions.
I find it very problematical when someone interprets Scripture and says, in effect, “I get to be the boss and you do not and that’s that.” “Being boss” is certainly NOT what being a believer in Jesus is about.
> “Being boss” is certainly NOT what being a
> believer in Jesus is about.
I would find that very problematic as well, perhaps you are reacting to something other than the original post — my point was that 2 Tim 2 is a difficult passage to use for non-ordination of women because of the exegetical difficulties. I think that maybe you have confused me with Wayne Grudem, I am not he.
I was responding to some of the other posts.
Sorry if I sounded snippy, I cannot get into the site that is driving these posts yet. I registered, but they have not approved that membership yet. I have no idea what was said along with the link to this blog.
Mr. Johnson, perhaps you are reading too much of a 21st century context into the debate as well. Maybe that is the problem, that this whole argument is too firmly rooted in this 21st century context, in the tension of equality and individuality, and we cannot seem to tear our minds away from this supposition that we are arguing for a male dominance. There is a very distinct difference between leader and tyrant but in this whole debate we seem to only acknowledge the one. The term “boss” is a fishy term. It does seem to have a negative connotation in the context of this debate and I am not all together sure that this is the precise metaphor that many here are trying to implement.
You also mentioned that, “since we are not Timothy, we simply cannot be 100% sure about some things”. If this is true of Timothy, then it is true of Scripture in its entirety and if we cannot be sure of anything in Scripture being absolute, then we have rendered void everything that we have come to be thus far, and we cannot assume certainty of salvation itself. I don’t think that this is where you are headed. I simply state this to point out that this remark is problematic in itself. Sure, there is a great host of knowledge that we still do not know. But this should not stop us from trying.
Yes, I know I have done this and could be doing more of it now. I make no claims to be in a Magisterium.
I used the term “boss” as it is shorter than (sole) leaderm but conveys the same idea as far as I can see. Some call it other things, a trump card, a final decider, 51% of the vote, but it all amounts to the same thing, someone is over another and someone is under another in power.
I have had the experience of reading Scripture in a certain way, only to be shown by a teacher that I was taking it out of context in some way and misreading it. I call it playing a magic trick on myself. So we need to be humble.
Just because some things are not so clear in Scripture does not mean everything is unclear. I can figure out that love is the most important principle and the main sign of being a believer. People are unsure whether authentein has a positive or negative connotation, let alone what is means. What is clear is that no one has been given the authority to authentein another, as it is only used once and that time it has a not attached.
But I fundamentally disagree with those that claim that 1 Tim 2:12 is clear and just needs to be obeyed. It is manifestly unclear and this needs to be admitted.
So just to be clear, the majority of commenters here would argue that a woman could meet all of the criteria of eldership that are established throughout the epistles with respect to moral character and not be qualified to teach men how to live that way simply because she was born with a vagina and not a penis?
Think about that position. A woman can meet all of those character-specific criteria but be disqualified to preach because of her genitalia.
In other words, by default, a person can 100% walk the walk but be disqualified to talk the talk simply because her DNA determined that she would be a woman?
The question I have is: Why on Earth (or in the heavens?) would an omnipotent God establish that kind of inequality?
P.S. Our brains are the most malleable and hence we are the most apt at learning when we are young children. Women are allowed to teach Sunday School in almost all Evangelical denominations, even the ones who oppose women in ministry. That’s a puzzling position, if you think honestly about it. Women are allowed to teach the most malleable minds in the congregation, but they are prohibited from teaching the most stubborn. To be true to the anti-women-in-ministry perspective, shouldn’t it be the other way around at least?
P.S. Part 2: What about hermaphrodites? Who can they teach?
“Why on Earth (or in the heavens?) would an omnipotent God establish that kind of inequality?” -brgulker (above blog)
I don’t understand why you are coming across so strongly, nobody in this entire blog has said anything like what you are debating.
” Taken along with what Fee says about the purpose of the letter, it is entirely possible then that this difficult text refers to a female leader who has taken control of a congregation. If she (and her group?) are also the false teachers of 1 Timothy, then it is possible that the order to silence ought to be read as a silencing of a false teacher.”
This is the only sensible and exegetically accurate conclusion that we can find IMO.
There is nothing in the creation account that gives men rulership over women. Women are not more easily deceived than men, nor do they exhibit more emotionalism than men. Women merely handly emotion differently than men. And all of that has nothing to do with being used of the Holy Spirit in a ministry of teaching truths of God’s Word. Rather their were likely Gnostic teachings at that time that interfered with the teachings of Paul, of which we can only guess at.
We need Christians in responsible ministry who are called of God regardless if they are men or women.
Amandakayy wrote:
”This can be taken offensively to some women, but do we really think that guys have the “better” “easier” or “cooler” job? Their job is pretty much anything but that… If anythimg I am sure it is nerve wracking to know that you are in charge and responsible for so much. The task is great indeed… There is a reason that the man is the head of the household and is told to be a spiritual leader.”
The point is not whose “job” is a cooler or easier job by anyone’s definitions. The point is what does the Bible say or not say. It does not say that men are the leaders and women are the followers. Scripture does not say that husbands are in charge and responsible for their wives actions, decisions or beliefs. Scripture does not even say that husbands are the ‘head of the household’ versus the wife, or the wife being part of the household. All of this thinking has been borrowed from different cultures and read into verses in Scripture which are taken out of context in order to do so.
Elyse Lenger wrote:
” I also believe that women in the church should not necessarily have a high authority. I agree with Jessica on this, that women are emotional, (who knew!?) and that yes it is harder for a woman to gain respect from everyone. Another point is that generally men get their opinion out first because they are louder and more aggressive. This shows their dominance, and I think that women need to respect that.”
Men are emotional also, just differently. That’s why men are so prone to arguments and fighting. It’s all emotionalism.
I disagree that it is harder for women to gain respect. What is harder is for many to value women in the same way that God values ALL the Body of Christ. It is not women’s fault that there are those who are segregationistic in their thinking.
Dominance is not spoken well of in Scripture. Men who bulldoze over others because they think they are more important is not spoken well of in Scripture. No one should respect that kind of behavior.
OTOH women need to hear the opinions of men, just as much as men need to hear the opinions of women. And God is fully able to speak through the personalities of women to minister His teachings to the church.
From some earlier posts:
“Why on Earth (or in the heavens?) would an omnipotent God establish that kind of inequality?” -brgulker (above blog)
“I don’t understand why you are coming across so strongly, nobody in this entire blog has said anything like what you are debating. – Ben Tacoma”
Actually, I think brgulker is getting to the heart of the matter. If women are designed to be subordinate to women, and men are designed to rule women, then men and women are not equal. Claiming otherwise doesn’t make it so. Claiming that men and women are equal, but men are more equal, is double-speak.
And if men and women are fundamentally unequal, that contradicts the passages that say men and women are both made in God’s image– not to mention the moral repugnancy that it impugns to the character of God, that He would make half of those who are in His image to be subordinate to the other half, for no reason at all.
So many of you are convinced that this design (men leading, women subordinate) was God’s original design from the first chapters of Genesis, but you’re mistaken. God told both the man and the woman to “rule” together over the creation. It was only after the Fall that God said to the woman, “he shall rule over you.” And God did not then turn and say to the man, “Now see that you rule over the woman.” It was NOT a command– it was part of the curse. This authority-subordination interpretation of 1 Tim 2:12 is nothing more than a ratification of the curse as taking precedence over Christ’s work on the Cross, in which “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is not male and female, for you are all one in Christ.”
Personally, I don’t think you have to interpret the passage as referring to a specific woman or women in that culture, to still get the meaning Paul conveys. “Let a woman learn” he says– and then says what she is not to do while she’s learning. She should not teach or assume authority over a man while she is learning. Then it talks about how Eve, who was created later and had less experience than Adam, got deceived. “Let a woman learn. But don’t let these women who are still learning teach, so they won’t teach deception.”
As for this from the opening post:
“Yet there are several examples of trained women or a command to train women in the biblical texts (Acts 4:13, 18:26, Romans 16:1, 1 Tim 2:11, Titus 2:3-4). There were opportunities for women to receive education in the Greco-Roman world. This strategy is therefore based on an inadequate view of education in the ancient world.”
This makes a blanket statement about all women based on the opportunities given to only a few (generally wealthy) women. The fact remains that women as a whole were less educated than men in that world, and that Paul’s command to Timothy to “let a woman learn” was actually fairly radical for his time.
I am not really a big fan of this whole debate (women in ministry) for the simple reason that people are not really interested in what was happening in the first century; they leap right over the context to the application in their particular church right now. Application is important, but only after sound exegesis is done. I’m hearing too much emotion and not enough attention to the details of the text.
> This makes a blanket statement about all women
> based on the opportunities given to only a few
> (generally wealthy) women.
This is no blanket statement (whatever that is) since it cites five examples from the NT (a limited pool of data) and simply observes that opportunity existed for women. Obviously only wealthy women could “receive education,” since only the wealthy had time to be educated. A poor man or woman had equal opportunity at education, which was pretty much no opportunity!
I am fine with Paul being “fairly radical for his time,” since obviously he was, but I am not sure you will want to be careful about how you apply this to your present church situation, since the rest of the verse says she ought to learn quietly and with submissiveness. I suspect you differ from the traditional interpretation on that as well!
I think that you do me (and yourself) a disservice by not reading the two posts together — Paul is dealing with a specific situation in Ephesus and a specific false teaching; what he says in the letter has to be read through that context, not present church conflicts over gender in the church. My point when I wrote this piece is to point out that this is not really particularly good for banning women. A point which is missed by quite a few people, it appears!
Philip, I am honestly at a loss as to why you are snipping at me when nothing I said was addressing any of the points you made. I have no problem with the idea that this passage may relate to a specific situation in Ephesus and a specific false teaching; what I was saying was that to those who insist the text is not specific enough to warrant such a reading, it still reads more like a temporary policy than a timeless command.
As to your (rather rude) statement that you suspect I don’t believe in learning in quietness and submission– you don’t know me and you have no basis to suspect any such thing. I am certainly in favor of submissiveness by Christians to one another, and to learning in quietness by anyone who is learning.
I think that people read rudeness where they want to, so I will apologize if you have heard something unintended. You are the guest here, so please feel welcome. If we were sitting in a coffee shop discussing this, our mutual non-antagonism would be clear. These blogs are terrible methods of communication, and I resist emoticons.
I said:
> I suspect you differ from the traditional
> interpretation on that as well!
And you replied:
> As to your (rather rude) statement that
> you suspect I don’t believe in learning in
> quietness and submission
I do not know what you believe, but my guess, rude or not, is that you are going to chaff against the traditional reading of the passage. So do I. No rudeness there at all. I want to go back to the text and talk about those things, not the way it has been applied in various contexts over the last few hundred years.
>it still reads more like a temporary policy than a timeless command.
Then we are in polite agreement!
Phillip, I appreciate your kind and thoughtful response. I found and read your companion post. It’s easier for me to see now where you’re coming from.
As far as “people reading rudeness where they want to,” I would reply that people also read rudeness where they have, through experience, come to expect or anticipate it. You would be amazed at the amount of comments I have received questioning my character, my morals and my commitment to Christ, simply because I’m an egalitarian. Therefore, when you said,
“but I am not sure you will want to be careful about how you apply this to your present church situation, since the rest of the verse says she ought to learn quietly and with submissiveness. I suspect you differ from the traditional interpretation on that as well!”
it seemed the same kind of thing I am used to hearing– in effect, “you just don’t want to submit. You’re a feminist with an agenda and you don’t like the role God gave you, so you chafe against His word.” I understand now that this isn’t what you meant. I apologize.
You mentioned that there is too much emotion in connection with this topic. I imagine that you might find it harder to keep your emotions out of it if you were one of the ones being told what women are told– that, in effect, we have no right to a voice in the Kingdom of God, and that all we’re meant for is to support men, without any right to dreams, visions or goals of our own to further His work– except to stay in the background, work in the church kitchen and teach the children.
“I’m an egalitarian” -Wordgazer
Two questions to clarify what this means:
Are men and woman different?
What do you mean by ‘different’ if you say yes?
What does being an ‘egalitarian’ mean to you?
Ben Tacoma asked:
Ben Tacoma
“I’m an egalitarian” -Wordgazer
Two questions to clarify what this means:
Are men and woman different?
What do you mean by ‘different’ if you say yes?
What does being an ‘egalitarian’ mean to you?
——-
I am also egal and so will give my response.
1. Yes, men and women are different. They are different physically and these physical differences can play out in other areas. A woman can bear and breastfeed a baby and a man can impregnate a woman.
2. Being egal, more specifically being a Biblical egal means that I understand the Bible to teach that adult humans are equal. God can choose to give any Spiritual gift, including a leadership ministry gift, to anyone, and being a leader in a congregation is based on giftedness and recognition of it by others, not gender. In a family, the husband and wife are co-leaders. The Bible was written in times of patriarchy, but it does not endorse it, it assumes it in some cases in order to take people further into the Kingdom from where they are at the time, by mitigating the worst effects.
Ok. Yes, I believe men and women are different, and that the differences are related to biology. Women’s bodies were designed to bear and nurse babies. Men’s bodies were designed to engender children and to be strong enough to protect the woman during those vulnerable times when she is carrying or feeding infants. I believe pretty much all differences between men and women are related in some way to this biological difference.
Which means– I don’t believe women are “more easily deceived” than men– the 1 Tim. passage doesn’t say that; it only says that Adam was created first, and Eve was deceived. I don’t believe women are more emotional, or somehow unfit for certain spiritual giftings. I don’t believe in “pink” spiriitual gifts and “blue” spiritual gifts. I don’t believe the Scriptures teach that women’s primary purpose in life is to be wives and mothers, any more than men’s primary purpose in life is to be husbands and fathers. If I remember the quote correctly, our purpose as humans is “to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” Paul speaks of people choosing to forego marriage for the sake of Christ. He does not say that this option is only appropriate for men– therefore, women can choose other than to be wives and mothers.
To clear up a few other common misconceptions: I do believe that wives should be submissive (yielding) to their husbands. But I also believe that all Christians should be submissive (yielding) to one another, according to Eph. 5:21– and that would not exclude husbands from yielding to their wives.
I don’t believe that household chores need to be divided 50% between husbands and wives. In fact, I don’t think there is a one-size-fits-all model for marriage. Not only are men and women different, but individual people are different, and each couple should work out for themselves, mutually, what works for them. If a husband and wife are most comfortable with the husband taking the lead most of the time, and that makes both of them happy, I have no problem with that. I just don’t want them telling my husband and I that our marriage needs to look like theirs. Mine has made it quite clear to me that he wants to be equal partners and best friends, with neither one of us “in charge,” and since that’s what I want too, that’s what we do.
But here’s the thing I’m not ok with: I’m not ok with men as a whole subordinating women and then teaching them to believe that being subordinated is God’s will. It wasn’t right to do to black people in the American South, and it’s not right to do to women.
If a woman wants to be a fireman (fire person, whatever), should the standards for physical endurance be lowered… like at golf courses? Is this ‘fair’? Or is this a difference “related to biology”?
No, this is a difference related to biology. If a job requires a certain level of strength, then only women who can rise to that level should qualify. However, given what I saw last year in the Olympic weight-lifting women’s competition, I think it’s quite clear that women exist who are strong enough physically to be firefighters, and it would be wrong to discriminate against them just because they’re women.
Glad to hear it! I think we agree for the most part, however God’s justice is above that of man (Book of Job) and if the Bible does teach woman subordination (or male subordination, or any kind of subordination) then I believe it trumps anything we can say.
That’s not to say it does. There are very good arguments for scripture like 2 Timothy 2:11-14 which don’t subordinate woman. I reject however textual criticism arguments such as what Richard Fellows makes above. Inerrancy of scripture comes into play and then we’re in a whole different ball game.
Inerrancy is my line in the sand.
I think Paul wrote the so-called Pastoral letters. I think the sometimes-thought women-limiting verses are not that, when understood in cultural context.