« Intel-linking |
Main
| Ladies: you're invited! »
On I Timothy 2:12-14
But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression. NASB
There�s been much discussion on this blog about women in the church as well as women in society, which inevitably follows from a discussion on women in the church. (See sidebar categories, �Women�s Ministry� and �Feminism�) Admittedly I haven�t followed the entire discussion closely though I've commented earlier in the discussion. I�ve attempted to use my laywoman�s knowledge of Scripture, and not just the passages speaking directly to the subject, to suggest preliminary concepts in approaching the issue. There�s one passage that
does speak directly to the subject that I forgot about, though.
It appears that I Timothy 2:12-14 renders obsolete a few of the things I suggested. For example, I said that part of the reason behind women not being allowed to teach or have authority over a man was that women were not educated in the same things and on the same levels as men at the time the letter was written. But the rationale given in I Timothy is (1) that Adam was created before Eve (v. 13), and (2) it was not Adam who was deceived, but Eve (v. 14).
The passage goes on to say that women will be saved through childbearing, which I take to be the raising of children. (v. 15) Though surely a woman who is infertile or single may also be saved, even if she doesn't adopt, serve as a nanny, or otherwise care for children.
I have no problem accepting that Adam was created before Eve, but will admit to having trouble with verse 14 which states that it was the woman, not the man, who was deceived, and therefore a woman should not teach a man.
Yes, Eve was deceived and therefore sinned, but...what led Adam into sin? Mere persuasion? Was the persuasion accompanied by distraction, forgetfulness, or lust? My question has to do with the fact that clearly men can be deceived, and women can be distractable, forgetful, and lustful, and wrongly persuaded. I don�t know that it can actually be proven that women are more easily deceived than men, though there seem to be certain types of deceptions which are more particular to women, and others more so to men. Some persons may answer that this can�t be proven; we simply have to accept it in faith as true.
Eve wasn�t the only one who �fell into transgression," though; Adam clearly did as well. Was he also not deceived? In Genesis 3:17 it says that Adam "listened to" his wife. Does this mean that a husband must never listen to his wife's persuasion? Or does it mean that Adam failed to ignore or override Eve's persuasion?
Also, it was Eve who brought Adam down and not vice-versa. But what of it? Does it have something to do with a reversal of the order in which Adam and Eve were created? I understand that if a man if responsible for teaching a woman and leads her wrong, he�s responsible. If a deceived (deceived by another man, of course) man's teaching sways and brings another man down, he's still responsible, yes? But let�s follow the chain of command: if a woman seeks to teach her children and younger women, and is to follow the teachings of her priest or husband yet knows that they teach error, is she bound to perpetuate the error, or to correct it?
I also wonder whether the meaning of �teach� and "exercise authority" in this passage have to do with exegesis of Scripture. Or do they pertain more to application of Scripture to the governance of either a household or a church body, i.e., overseeing in the capacity of elder or deacon, which is what is spoken of in the passage that follows (I Timothy 3:1-12)?
Some cite Deborah and Priscilla as examples of women who were in authority over men. In the case of Deborah, though, she was not an expository teacher but a prophetess and a judge. She did not have authority in terms of governance, but of speaking the word of God and of deciding cases. Priscilla, however, was a bit of an expository teacher in that she explained to Apollos (a zealous preacher) �the way of God more accurately,� along with her husband Aquila (Acts 19:26). Yet she did not govern in a church body.
Here is a definition of didasko, the word translated "teach":
to teach in such a way so as to shape the will of the one being taught by the content of what is taught, referring to an instructor, master or teacher.
There is a connotation of governance here. However, it could be said that Priscilla�s explanation in Acts 19:26 was a form of didasko, although she was not in a governing authority over Apollos; she was merely offering truth about the way of God.
Then there is Phoebe, who, according to Romans 16:1-2, was a �servant of the church,� which some translate as �deaconess.� I do not know the reasons for translating it this way; it is certainly possible to serve the church with authority without being in a position of governance.
Beyond all this, though, we still have the created order as the reason that women are not to teach men. I don�t have much to say about that; yes, Adam was created before Eve.
My conclusion, then, which is not authoritative, is that women may use their God-given gifts in the church but they may not be decision-makers for the church as final authority nor hold positions of authoritative teaching over men. I would think that they may lead a Sunday School class, but under authority of their pastor. I would also suppose that they may be part of a decision-making body, but that such a body must include men. I make this interpretation because I believe in a woman�s God-given, provisional ability to read and understand Scripture and to be wise in many things that might be applicable to both instruction of members and governance of a church.
However, in areas in which I lack scholarship, I defer to those who possess said scholarship. I hold my view as I am responsible for my own life, not to present it authoritatively over others (women or children). Although perhaps, as my husband supports this view as well, I do have the authority. But as my beliefs on this issue are still in process of being formed, I cannot in good conscience present them as authoritative.
There are some who might say that I am not responsible for my own understanding but my husband is, and I am responsible to go with whatever he thinks. Well...I don�t believe that his brain is superior to mine in understanding of all things but perhaps is in matters of leadership. I respect and revere it in terms of its maleness and uniqueness in the imago dei, as well as in light of his husband-ness. Though some may view this as incorrectly egalitarian according to I Tim. 2:12-14, I believe that we both may learn much from one another�s understanding. Yet I also believe his opinion must take precedence over mine in matters of authority. My husband and I are in agreement on these views. In fact, he is probably willing to give me more leeway than I deserve!
I offer the above merely for consideration. I also welcome other views specifically related to those expressed here, offered in the spirit of helping us all toward a God-honoring understanding of how fidelity to I Tim. 2:12-14 may be expressed.
References:
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
Justin Taylor on I Timothy 2:12 -- Once More
A Big-hearted View of 1 Timothy 2:8-15
Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of I Timothy 2:9-15 by Andreas J. Kostenberger
I think that your original point of view may have more support than you're giving it. I'm about to head to work, but check out Genesis again. Is it possible that the reason Eve was deceived - the reason she gets God's command wrong - was that she wasn't even there when it was given? She clearly knows something about it, but Genesis doesn't tell us how or why she does.
Isn't the presumption that Adam had told her or that God had repeated it later? I doubt she made it up and happened to get it right.
You're right, Jeremy, it doesn't make sense that God did not instruct her of the rules of th egarden through Adam- the way the serpent addresses her implicates that also.
Bonnie, you said "a prophetess and a judge. She did not have authority in terms of governance, but of speaking the word of God and of deciding cases."
That was the "authority in terms of governance" of the day. Deborah was leading the nation through the revelation of God, not just doing expository teaching. Before the Kings were the Judges.
I am convinced that this passage of scripture deals not with what women may or may not do so much as authority. That is at the heart of the women's issues all along the line of the discussion, I think.
I have often though, also, about "I do not permit." It very much seems that Paul is separating his own (human!) opinion from the commands of God. I have wondered what complementarians think of this.
I've spent some time thinking about this passage (I recently posted on this subject too). Here's a couple of ideas in progress (sorry about all the parentheticals):
1. As mentioned in your post (and mine), the rule that some teaching and governing roles are limited to men is based on (1) the creation order and (2) Eve being deceived. The second basis is problematic because it seems to suggest that there is something wrong with the way women think. As explained in my post, rather than indicating that women are less rational (because men and women both are made in the image of God) or less discerning (because both have access to the Holy Spirit), I think it is possible that this verse means that women are more accommodating—even of false doctrine (see 2 Cor. 11:3-4). Because the verse uses the word “deceived,” it is not saying that women knowingly accept false doctrine. But when there is deception and it’s a close call, women may be more accommodating both in terms of giving people the benefit of the doubt (not willing to break fellowship) and giving their views the benefit of the doubt (being more open-minded, thinking that they meant something else, seeing how they could be right in a certain light…). Both men and women are prone to deception (see 2 Cor. 11:3-4; Gal. 1:6), but maybe men are better able to draw clear lines. I don’t think there’s a simple explanation. It’s probably a combination of things, including (a) Adam’s God-given role, (b) the assumed fact that God directly commanded Adam and not Eve, (c) Adam’s greater responsibility (and, presumably, corresponding greater motivation to guard what has been entrusted to him), plus (d) the personality of women (most women) makes her more accommodating, as described above.
2. Many scholars don’t think that women will be saved, in the sense of gaining entrance into heaven, through childbearing. The word “saved” can also be translated “delivered” or “preserved.” As Grudem explains, in the Septuagint, the same word is used to describe how the Israelites were delivered out of Egypt. The word can refer to being delivered in some general way as opposed to spiritual salvation. Also, if I’m remembering correctly because I don’t have my Greek Bible in front of me, the first part of verse 15 is singular, the second part of the verse is plural (although this is not noted in some versions—the NAS only has “women” in italics). This suggests that Eve will be saved through childbearing, which may be echoing God’s promise that her “seed” will bruise the serpent’s head (Gen. 3:15), which indicates some soteriological significance. From this, there are three possibilities: (a) we are saved through the promised seed, namely, Christ; (b) women are preserved as they resume their rightful role, which is encapsulated by the term “childbearing;” or (c) women go to heaven if they have kids. Personally, I think (a) and (b) are plausible; (c) is inconsistent with other passages that speak clearly on the subject of salvation.
The Jamieson, Faussett and Brown commentary, and others, suggest that "women will be saved through childbearing..." is more correctly "in spite of childbearing" in English. "Through" is not suggesting causation, but a continuity of the life of faith amidst difficulties and trials. The construction parallels 1 Cor. 3:15 "If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." Here salvation is not caused by fire, but happens in spite of fire.
This is a difficult passage. If we are to take Paul's "I do not allow" as a universal command for the church in verse 12, we certainly can't brush off his "I do not want" women to wear gold or pearls in verse 9. Most of us see that instruction in the cultural context of prostitution and a call to godly modesty. Very few Christians today actually prohibit the wearing of pearls, as if this were some new revelation from Paul that pearls are somehow ungodly.
I therefore think we have to prayerfully consider both injunctions as falling more into the area of suggestion than command, more a recognition of cultural realities and how much change the culture will bear, vs. revelation about the nature of women and their proper roles in leadership. There are other passages to deal with on this issue, but this is among the weakest, in my opinion.
I really appreciated Chong's take on Eve being deceived. I had not thought about that as a possible meaning. The most interesting part of that passage to me, always seems to get overlooked. Genesis 3:6 "...when the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food...she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, WHO WAS WITH HER, and he ate it."
It appears that Adam was present at the encounter and said nothing. While I can think of lots of smart-aleck remarks about male leadership, I understand it's possible Eve actually ate the fruit at a different time than the conversation with the serpent. Still...it's interesting to consider Adam's presence at this pivotal moment.
Great comments. Yes, it's a fascinating, difficult passage, and a fascinating, difficult issue!
Good point about judges, Ilona. I guess I was thinking that priests were the teachers of the law and judges the applyers, so to speak, but I really don't know enough about it to say for sure.
Dana, you make a good point too. The thing is, Paul cites the order of creation and Eve's deception as the basis for his position.
Chong, I'm so glad you mentioned the NASB because that's actually the version I quoted! Why I typed "NIV" I've no idea. I fixed it in the post.
I'd be interested to know how v. 15 would read with the singular in the first part because of how it would relate to the plural pronoun "they" in the second part. Also, the verse mentions continuing "in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint" in addition to the bearing of children in regards to preservation.
Charlie, I see your point about suggestion vs. command, although Paul's expression concerning adornment -- "I want" -- seems less compelling than his "I do not allow" in regards to women teaching/exercising authority. The first is a personal desire; the second is, as you say, an injunction.
Also, unlike his words in I Corinthians 7:6 and II Cor. 8:8 & 10, Paul does not specifically state that he is not giving a command.
Another way to view Paul's commands, of course, is in light of his authority to evangelize, teach, and spiritually advise and administrate the congregations he founded, due to his calling.
Jan -- yes, it does make you wonder! Thanks for pointing that out.
Charlie,
JFB probably know better, but I’m not sure about the “in spite of” translation—what does “in spite of childbearing” mean? The preposition “dia” in the genitive usually is translated “through” or “by means of.” It’s very common and can suggest a few things, including direction or causation. I wonder if JFB’s discussion is based on the preposition alone or if their discussion is an effort to make sense of a difficult passage.
Bonnie,
As for the first clause in verse 15, some translate it as “women will be saved” (e.g., NAS, NIV), at least one translates the verse as “woman will be saved” (e.g., RSV), but most use the phrase “she will be saved” (ESV, NKJ). There is no explicit subject or pronoun in either clauses of verse 15. The subject is implied in the verb. The first clause contains the verb “saved” in the future, passive, third person, singular. The second clause has the verb “remain” in the subjuctive (i.e., indicating probability and, here, a conditional), aorist, active, third person, plural. To make the first clause consistent with the second, the NAS and NIV use “women.” But the implied subject is singular. So this is not an accurate translation. The NAS makes note of this by putting “women” in italics and the NIV includes a note with the Greek. The better translation is “she.” So the verse begins with a singular pronoun “she” and ends with the plural pronoun “they.” In my comment, I mentioned Eve, because the singular implied pronoun, “she,” in the first part of verse 15 would refer back to Eve from verse 14. The verse can be interpreted: But she will be preserved through childbearing, if they remain/continue in faith, love, holiness, and good sense/decency. Interestingly, in the Greek, the paragraph doesn’t end with verse 15. Instead the paragraph ends after the first clause in chapter 3, verse 1 (This word/saying is faithful). So I wonder if the subjunctive/conditional clause in verse 15 somehow goes with the first part of chapter 3—which may resolve the inconsistent use of the singular/plural pronouns (but may raise a bunch of other problems).
Jan,
I think people don’t make a big deal about the phrase “who was with her” because it’s somewhat ambiguous. Some translations read: “…she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate” (Gen. 3:6b) In the Hebrew, the verse does not contain the relative pronoun “who.” Relative pronouns (Hebrew, “asher”) are very common so it may be significant that it is absent here. It simply says “with her” so the placement and the meaning of this preposition is not exactly clear. It may be a way to say that both ate of the fruit: she ate and, with her, he ate.
Dana’s comment about whether Paul’s statement is authoritative is a question of inspiration. There’s a lot to be said about it. But I’ve gone on long enough. So I’ll save that for another time.
Shalom,
Chong
Chong: I was in a hurry and didn't explain the "in spite of" well, or do JFB justice. They relate the idea here back to the curse on Eve, as follows: "In spite of the trial of childbearing which she passes through (as her portion of the curse), she shall be saved."
Your comments about the singular/plural distinctions, and referring to Eve are good. As you say, it's a difficult passage.
I also realized (when I read it again) that in 2:8, 2:9 and 2:12 we have an instance of Paul using comparative/contrastive constructions. 8 says "I want men to..." 9 says "I want women to..." 12 contrasts with "I don't permit women to..."
I don't agree with Bonnie that this is the language of a command or injunctionl. I think it's something else. Maybe I'm being obtuse, which is possible, but the language seems much less authoritarian here and more fatherly, in keeping with the tone of the entire letter. That suggests to me that Paul may not be laying down a rule for the church but an accommodation to Timothy's culture.
On the topic of th echildbearing portion of this passage:
I think Occam's razor should be applied to this. Just take the simplest explanation. Salvation is multi-faceted in its application to the predicament of man, it is singular in the manner. Salvaton is by faith in the finished work of Christ. period. But death and disease, and other difficulties of life are in a progressive remediation as that faith is applied.
Childbirth was complicated with the curse, and as all women are aware ( or should be) there are risks of death in childbearing, there is certainly fear of pain. I think the simplest resolution to the meaning of this scripture is to see it as special reassurance to women, that Christ's salvation may be trusted to help them in this part of life, in overcoming the curse here as well as in other things that are more commonly taught about in applying the salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. It brings the hope of life to this present existance in the particular case of childbearing.
That dispenses with all the awkward "works" oriented ideas of special placement for women who bear children as opposed to the single or infertile.,which just doesn't make any sense under the New Covenant, while retaining the idea of children being a blessing ( which does make a great deal of sense!).
Scot McKnight at JesusCreed.org has a new post entitled "Women and Ministry: Hermeneutics" that relates to this issue. He is working through a book by RT France called "Women in the Church's Ministry".
McKnight relates a conversation he once had with FF Bruce.
"At one point I asked him about women in the ministry and Paul. He said two things, and I quote in a rough summary. First, if Paul knew we were taking his words and turning them into Torah, he’d roll over in his grave. Second, I’m (he said) for whatever causes the freedom of the Spirit. In other words, if the Spirit prompts ministry in a woman, let it roll."
Thank you all. Chong, thanks for the analysis.
Kostenberger's book (linked at the bottom of the post) also offers exegetical analysis and discusses hermeneutics and historicity (the situation to which Paul was writing) as well. It has much to say to the entire question. I hope to read it in its entirety one of these days!
