Neil
Short
updated 20240205
This
presentation is an analysis of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 in context. I will
conclude that the point of 1 Timothy 2:12 has nothing to do with
keeping women out of leadership roles in the church.
1
Timothy 2:11-15 (HCSB)
11
A woman should learn in silence with full submission. 12 I do not
allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she
is to be silent. 13 For Adam was created first, then Eve. 14 And Adam
was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. 15 But
she will be saved through childbearing, if she continues in faith,
love, and holiness, with good judgment.
Most
Bible students will agree that this passage is difficult to
understand. What use are Paul’s three supporting points?
1.
Adam was created first, then Eve.
2.
The woman was deceived and transgressed.
3.
The woman will be saved through childbearing.
I
believe we can get a pretty clear understanding of point #1 and begin
to understand points 2 and 3 if we dig into the likely heresies Paul
was attempting to put down in his letter to the Ephesians and two
letters to Timothy.
The
two letters to Timothy are more than just personal letters. They are
intended to be used by the church in a church context. We obviously
look at those personal letters when we are looking for guidance in
the selection of elders and deacons, for example. Most of us look at
1 Timothy 2 to attempt to glean some guidance about the proper role
of women in a church context. While
the letters to Timothy are written as open letters,
we must accept that some things
that are said in those two letters are very personal and refer to
earlier conversations and/or sermons. I suspect the three supporting
points above fit that context. They refer to points that were
defended in previous sermons or Bible studies.
ORIGINS OF THE CHURCH IN EPHESUS
The beginning of the Ephesian church as is documented in Acts
19.
PAGAN
ESCHATOLOGY
There
was some kind of weird eschatology being taught in Ephesus as
evidenced by 2 Timothy 2:18.
“They have deviated from the truth, saying that
the resurrection has already taken place, and are overturning the
faith of some.”
GNOSTICISM
There
is strong evidence in the epistles of John that heresy strongly
resembling later Gnosticism was on the loose in the church. For
example,
Many deceivers have gone out into the world,
those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any
such person is the deceiver and the antichrist! (2
John 1:7)
There
is evidence of Gnosticism influences in Ephesus as well, such as,
Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you.
Avoid the profane chatter and contradictions of what is falsely
called knowledge; by professing it some have missed the mark as
regards the faith. (1
Timothy 6:20-21)
The
suspicion of Gnostic influences in Ephesus is consistent with several
features of the Ephesian heresy. There was advocacy of forbidding
marriage (1 Timothy 4:3) and apparent attempts to avoid conceiving
children (1 Timothy 5:14; 2:15). To Gnostics, bearing children locked
their souls into the physical world and prevented them from their
anticipated spiritual ascent (Bob
Edwards,
Other 1st Century Jewish Writers Who Used Greek Words Like
“Authentein,"
https://equalityworkbook.wordpress.com/ , accessed 20190429).
2
Timothy 2:18 is right next to 2 Timothy 2:19 which charges believers
to turn away from wickedness. It seems the former claim (the
resurrection had already taken place) was being used as justification
for practicing wickedness.
There
was a teaching (post-eschatology) in Ephesus that was being forwarded
as justification for sin.
In
Thyatira (an Asian church mentioned in the book of Revelation), there
was a woman (nicknamed Jezebel) who was teaching that fornication was
alright (Revelation 2:20).
One
more passage and we can start to see a picture.
1
Timothy 4:1-5 (HCSB)
1 Now the Spirit explicitly says that in later
times some will depart from the faith, paying attention to deceitful
spirits and the teachings of demons, 2 through the hypocrisy of liars
whose consciences are seared. 3 They forbid marriage and demand
abstinence from foods that God created to be received with gratitude
by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by
God is good, and nothing should be rejected if it is received with
thanksgiving, 5 since it is sanctified by the word of God and by
prayer.
Our
knee-jerk reaction here is to understand the above teaching is an
outgrowth of Jewish influences; but it is almost certainly the
teaching of a pagan or Wiccan influence. Evidently
the post-resurrection teaching led to a set of doctrines based upon
what life should be like in a post-resurrection environment. People
would no longer marry or be given in marriage (Mark 12:25 = Matthew
22:30 = Luke 20:35); and they would eat like humans did before “the
fall.” That is, food for people post-resurrection would be the same
as the food for people in the days of the Garden of Eden. They would
eat only vegetables. Thus, Paul gives defense that anything good for
food is God blessed as long as it is received with thanksgiving (1
Timothy 4:4-5). Paul reveals that the immediate teachings of
forbidding marriage and certain foods is connected with myths and
wives’ tales (1 Timothy 4:7).
There
is a fascinating extension of the post-resurrection heresy that
Gnosticism almost certainly influenced. The Gnostics had
their own Creation Myth
("On
the Origin of the World."
The Nag Hammadi Library. ed. James M.
Robinson. HarperSanFrancisco: 1988. 171-189).
The Gnostic tradition
has the woman being created first
(109:20-25; 113:20-25) and later the man was formed out of the earth
by seven rulers and animated by a celestial named Sophia Zoe
(115:11-14). The first human, who was a woman, was called "the
instructor" (113:21-28). She (Eve) was given the task of
teaching the man (Adam) everything necessary that he needed to have
children who could contain light (have souls). Her first task was to
teach him how to walk. Essentially, Adam was an full-grown infant and
needed to be taught everything beginning with
the basics. In Gnostic fashion, the more knowledge Adam gained, the
stronger his spirit.
More knowledge, to a Gnostic, means more like the gods. A sufficient
amount of divine
knowledge permitted a person's soul
to ascend to the level of the gods.
I
hope you can imagine that a doctrine that advocated a return to Eden might force men into the role of children who must be taught by
women who, by definition, are the grownups. If this Gnostic heresy
was on the lose in the Ephesian church, would not 1 Timothy 2:12-13
be a clear refutation of that false doctrine? Furthermore, a heresy
that believed people's souls could not ascend to heaven if they were
trapped in their children would advocate non-procreation. Such a
heresy is refuted in 1 Timothy 2:15.
There
is an important myth in Ephesus that possibly bears on this topic. I mention it in the interest of being thorough. That myth
is that Artemis was born before her twin Apollo! If the believers in Ephesus
blended the biblical or Gnostic version of Adam and Eve with the Artemis and Apollo myth
then there would be an even stronger basis for the claim that Eve was
created before Adam! That false
doctrine further supports
a motive
for women to assume preeminence over men. They were created first
(according to myth) and Artemis has preeminent authority over god’s
(Zeus’) people.
It
is neither Artemis nor Apollo nor Eve nor Adam who lead’s God’s
people. It is Christ (Ephesians 1:4). Christ
preexisted the creation (and thus, Christ came before any myths about Artemis and
Apollo).
Immortality
is a basic feature of the doctrine of Christ (2 Timothy 1:10, 13-14).
If the resurrection has already taken place, then people should be
immortal; but clearly, mortality is still a feature of earthly life.
If
there is no longer any marriage, then (by logical extension) there is
no need for sexual fidelity; so fornication is just fine in a
post-resurrection setting (according to this heresy).
Paul
says, “I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a
man” (vs 12). The Greek word that is translated “authority”
here is rare. It appears only one place in the entire New Testament.
Right here. On the other hand, the other Greek words that are
typically translated “authority” (there are four) are all over
the New Testament. They all mean “authority” in a regular,
privilege/delegated sense. For example, Pilate had “authority” to
crucify Jesus (John 19:10). In 1 Timothy 2:12, the word means to
dominate/usurp authority. It refers to a person who exercises
dominance, often without delegation. The word is negative and often
(in Greek literature) refers to somebody who is taking it upon
himself to do something illegal (Strong). That’s the word employed
here that women should avoid doing. Nobody should act in this kind of
authority. Nobody has regular authority to act with this kind of
authority (Luke 22:24-27; Matthew 20:25-28).
Someone
was supporting the right of a woman to dominate a man by claiming
that Eve was created before Adam (as in the Gnostic Creation Myth and/or as an extension of the Artemis infancy myth).
Paul refutes this point by reminding the church (through this letter
to Timothy) that Adam was formed first, then Eve (1
Timothy 2:13).
Someone in Ephesus was
using Gnostic creation myth or Greek myth about Artemis' birth to
authorize a woman to assume a
role of dominance. That means 1
Timothy 2:13-15 are Paul’s arguments in support of the woman
toning down her
dominant
posture.
Eve
was deceived. That is, she was insufficiently learned in the subject
of her relationship to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. This
deception reminder supports Paul's point that "a woman [should]
learn in silence with full submission" (1 Timothy 2:11). That
is, she should be a student first and a teacher second. One woman in
Ephesus was teaching but she was unwilling to first be properly
taught. That attitude is the ticket to deception.
A
woman in Ephesus was teaching an error—likely an elaborate
corruption of Genesis 2-3. She was also lording herself over someone,
a man in the congregation. She was to be stopped from teaching her
false doctrine and from mistreating church members on the basis of
her role as teacher of the
child-like man. She should be taught right before she is permitted to
teach.
To
be explicit, 1 Timothy 2:11-12 does not
* put men in charge
* ban women from teaching in any capacity (unless
they are teaching heresy)
* ban women from teaching Christian men in any
context
* ban women from any public leadership role in
the presence of Christian men
* ban women from any public non-leadership role
The
above investigation concludes my examination of 1 Timothy 2:12. It is
a correction of a false teaching that Eve was born first and then Adam.
First Timothy 2:12 has nothing to do with leadership. It has to do
with overlording. A particular woman (that everybody in the church
knew) should not
overlord (but neither should men) and she should stop teaching the
associated heresy.
WHAT
DOES PAUL MEAN BY THE CLAIM THAT WOMEN ARE SAVED THROUGH
CHILDBEARING?
Most
likely, this statement confronts the Gnostic fear that a person
cannot ascend (go to heaven) if she/he has had children. The Gnostics
reputedly went to great lengths to avoid procreation in order to
avoid losing portions of their souls to their children. Paul says
salvation is not jeopardized by having children; but salvation is
jeopardized by faithlessness, lovelessness and unholiness.
Bob
Edwards says:
Even the passage about being “saved through
childbearing” begins to make sense in this context. Some Gnostics
believed that a woman would lose her salvation by bearing children.
Giving birth to a child, in their eyes, was an act that imprisoned
another soul in a corrupt body. It was viewed as a terrible sin.
Through childbirth a woman might lose her life (death by childbearing
was common) and even her salvation. (Other
1st Century Jewish Writers Who Used Greek Words Like “Authentein,"
https://equalityworkbook.wordpress.com/ , accessed 20190429)
Alternatively,
Paul may have been confronting a cultural ethic regarding expecting couples. They would appeal
to Artemas, the goddess of childbirth, for a safe delivery of their
child. In that case, Paul is telling these couples to quit appealing
to Artemas but instead, appeal to God for a safe delivery.
AN ATTEMPT TO FIELD OBJECTIONS
First
Timothy 2:13-14 are not a correction of corrupted teaching about
Genesis 2-3. The verses explain that women are to be ruled by men and
that is what 1 Timothy 2:11-12 teaches.
The
Biblical reference to the above objection is Genesis 3:16
To
the woman he said,
“I
will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing;
in
pain you shall bring forth children,
yet
your desire shall be for your husband,
and
he shall rule over you.”
Some
observations are in order.
I make one obvious observation before we proceed. First Timothy
2:13-14 is not invoking Genesis 3:16 in support of the teaching in 1
Timothy 2:11-12! The writer is invoking Genesis 2:21-22 (showing that
the woman was formed after the man) and Genesis 3:1-6 (detailing the
woman’s deception). Because of this obvious error in the above argument, I am motivated to wave it aside because it is so poorly considered. Nevertheless, I will play along for a few minutes. There is something to be gained by carefully analyzing Genesis 3:16.
In Genesis 3:16 there
is no "curse" language in what God says to the woman
("Because you have done this…").
Furthermore,
the usual English translation Genesis 3:16 is a terrible! The Hebrew
reads, literally,
Unto the woman He said, `Multiplying I multiply
thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow dost thou bear children, and
toward thy husband [is] thy desire, and he doth rule over thee.'
(Young’s Literal Translation)
To
conflate the mention of difficulty in giving birth with the promise
of toil and a family really confuses the reader of the typical
English translation.
The
penalty she experiences matches what God says to the man (he will
toil for his life). In other words, the toil she will experience
comes about because of what the man did—except for one thing. She
will also toil in giving birth. We can see that the hard work of
giving birth is nevertheless an extension of what God soon said to
the man.
Bruce
C. E. Fleming offers this translation:
I will surely multiply your
sorrowful toil in fieldwork and your conception.
With effort you will bring forth children.
Your loving desire [is] to your husband,
But he [is rebelliously ruling over himself and]
will rule over you.
(Facebook post comment, Biblical Christian
Egalitarians group, 20191013)
He shall rule over you.
It
is important to note that this is not notice of a new pecking order.
The rule of the husband "is neither a divine right nor male
prerogative" (Terrance Fretheim, New
Interpreter's Bible Commentary,
Volume 1, 363,
quoting Tribble, Rhetoric).
It is a consequence of the woman's (and man's) sin. Fleming
effectively argues that it is a natural extension of Adam’s
testimony in which he distanced himself from his wife and from God.
There is something defective in Adam’s love for Eve but Eve’s
love for Adam is pure (Fleming, Familiar
“Leadership” Heresies Uncovered, Resource
Publications, 2005). God is
not notifying the woman of her new social "place." Compare
the reference to pain in childbirth, toil of labor in making a
living. These consequences are shared by both the husband and the
wife. The promise, “to dust you shall return,” is also
experienced by the woman.
Now,
it appears that Paul may be making the "woman's place"
argument in 1 Timothy 2:13-14; but it is unlikely that Paul is
arguing for the subjugation of women by appealing to Genesis 3:6, 16.
These
consequences are not a new human order where the husband's new role
is to dominate his wife!
It is important to notice that
our attempts to understand Paul’s points in 1 Timothy 2 resort to
speculation from all angles. There are large gaps between the lines
that cannot be confidently read. My suggestion above that Paul was
correcting a false teaching of Adam and Eve (That Eve preceded Adam
in the created order) is one possibility. Another valid understanding
is that Paul’s supporting argument that “Adam
was formed first, then Eve” is a commentary on her ignorance rather
than [lack of] preeminence. She did not have the benefit of proper
teaching about the forbidden tree and she was therefore easily
deceived. That possibility certainly further supports that the woman
in 1 Timothy 2 needed to learn more before she tried to become a
teacher [although it fails to explain why she should not lord it over
her man].
Stuart
Briscoe:
If we come to the conclusion
that the lot of woman prescribed by God is to be dominated, we should
still seek to alleviate the consequences for her in the same way we
seek to alleviate her pain in childbirth through anesthetic. If, on
the other hand, as seems far more likely to me, we are being told
that one of the awful consequences of sin is the abuse of women, we
should do all in our power to seek to help women in any area of abuse
and distress. Either way the callous and careless subjugation of
women should be resisted, particularly by those who know how the Lord
Jesus treated women during His brief life. (Preacher's Commentary on
Genesis)
The
point in Genesis 3:16 is one (or both) of these:
-
In a world of sin, men will by nature try to subjugate women.
-
A man who rules over his wife has a defective love for her, as Adam had for Eve.
I
personally marvel that those who want 1 Timothy 2:11-12
to define a sex-based church authority order keep going to passages
about marriage to support their desired conclusion. Genesis 3:16 is
one of those passages. Paul is not even citing Genesis 3:16 in 1
Timothy 2:13-14! Genesis 3:16 is about marriage only. The method of
argument may work if it is true that God put the husband
authoritatively over the wife. It would follow that it must be true
also at church and for the same reasons. The Genesis passage does not
support a pecking order in the church or in a family. It explains
that there are going to be new difficulties in marriage characterized
by power struggles. Such struggles should be resisted in marriage and
they definitely should not be embraced in Christian marriages! In
fact, I believe we have misinterpreted Paul's instructions about
marriage and applied them in the exact opposite way Paul
intended! Following Paul's instructions about marriage incorrectly
has caused the Christian marriage severe damage. I will touch on
those passages below.
As
for the notion that it is the duty of the church to perpetuate the
consequence of Eve's deception we must ask if the cross of Christ
means anything! Cynthia Long Westfall explains.
In Romans 8:1-17, Paul says
that the process that renders us captive to sin and humanity's union
with Adam are subverted by the righteous act of Jesus Christ and the
law of the Spirit. Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those
who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ the law of the Spirit
has freed the believer who is in Christ and in the Spirit from the
law of sin and death. Those who have the Spirit may be led by the
Spirit instead of their own selfishness. Consequently, the effects of
the process are reversed: when a believer puts to death sinful
actions, the believer is alive (8:13). Therefore, believers have a
choice to identify with the life and righteousness of Jesus Christ
instead of Adam. Though the body is still dead because of sin, it
will be given life, which refers to the promise of the resurrection
(8:11). (Paul
and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle's Vision for Men and Women in
Christ,
Baker, 2016, 122)
The
work of Christ constitutes the turning back of the consequences of
sin that began at Eden. It is a mistake for the church to seek to
perpetuate them.
Now that I played the Genesis 3:16 game I say as reminder that 1 Timothy
2:13-14 is not invoking Genesis 3:16 in support of the teaching in 1
Timothy 2:11-12! The writer is invoking Genesis 2:21-22 (showing that
the woman was formed after the man) and Genesis 3:1-6 (detailing the
woman’s deception). There is nothing in 1 Timothy 2 that references
the consequences of the woman’s deception as mentioned in Genesis
3:16!
What
about 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Doesn't that passage also silence women
at church?
These
two verses seem to contradict 1 Corinthians 11:5, 11-12. Possibly, 1
Corinthians 14:34-35 does not mean what we think it means.
These
two verses follow closely upon the heels of verse 29, “Let two or
three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what was said.” This
verse suggests that following a word of prophecy, there was a
customary question-and-answer period. Maybe another member would
supplement the word of prophecy with some passage from the Old
Testament. Since the women in verses 34-35 were not teaching, but
rather, they were learning, it appears the problem with these women
was manifesting itself during this after-prophecy discussion. They
were learning,
but too loudly. They had questions that could have been better asked
of their husbands at home. The fact that these women are instructed
to ask their husbands shows that it was not all women who were to
follow Paul’s injunction,
but only the married women were supposed to follow it. Strictly
following 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, single women could have hogged the
question-and-answer period all they wanted with simple, basic
questions.
I
suggest the problem that Paul was attempting to solve involved the
young married women. They were using up too much church time by
asking basic questions that their husbands could have easily answered
at home. Why not ask the easy questions at home (if the young married
woman’s husband was sufficiently learned) and free up the
question-and-answer period for a stronger, critical evaluation of the
spoken word of prophecy?
Imagine
a husband and wife sitting together and the husband is asking
substantive questions born of whatever education he has received up
to that point, and next to him, his wife is blurting out questions of
a basic nature... questions she could easily ask her husband in
private. The sentence, "For it is shameful for a woman to speak
in church" should be understood as speaking to any wives that
fit the context. This scenario would not apply to every couple, such
as if the husband is uneducated and/or the wife is very learned; but
encouraging the less-educated wives of learned husbands to tone it
down would certainly enhance the “decently and in order” worship
tone Paul promoted (1 Corinthians 14:40).
That
interpretation is in full agreement with 1 Corinthians 11:5, 11-12.
There are several other ways to understand 1 Corinthians 14:34-35,
none of which come close to a general gagging of women. The
two verses, thus, do not work as a proof text for silencing women at
church. Paul is trying to minimize
disruptions in the church's worship assemblies. A woman prophesying
is not a disruption. A woman asking simple questions that her husband
is able to answer at home is a big disruption.
Doesn't
1 Corinthians 11:3 teach that the man is head of the wife? Paul's
point in 11:12 that "woman came from man" explains Paul's
meaning in 1 Timothy 2:13 that "Adam was formed first, then
Eve." Both statements prove that men are the heads of women.
We have already established that 1 Timothy 2:12-15 is not an argument for men's authority. It is an argument against a particular woman's dominant posture over a man. If anything, it argues against woman's authority. It does not argue for a man's authority.
Paul’s
creation order point in support of his teaching in 1 Corinthians 11
is partly derived from the marriage relationship and it is applied to
a church worship situation. The modern objection against an
egalitarian reading assumes that the metaphor of "head" in
Greek means the same thing as it does in English. In English, "head"
means "authority." It rarely means "authority" in
Greek. It is possible that “head” never means “authority” in
Greek but Ephesians 1:22-23 is difficult to read without “head”
meaning authority (but see the readings of Common
English Bible, God’s Word Translation, International Standard
Version
and Contemporary
English Version).
The usual meaning of head is "source, origin, provider,
sustainer." Furthermore, if a Greek speaker wanted to say
someone had authority over something he would say that he is “lord”
of it. So Jesus is lord of the sabbath; but he is not "head"
of the sabbath. I hope the following examples will help to support
the meaning of “head” as a provider/sustainer.
Eph 4:15-16
But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up
in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the
whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it
is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s
growth in building itself up in love.
Jesus
is described here as the life-giving servant of the church. In this
passage, too, "head" does not mean "lord." The
meaning of Ephesians 3:18-19 is the same without using the word
“head.”
Ephesians 3:18-19
I pray that you may have the power to comprehend,
with all the saints, what is the breadth and the length and height
and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge,
so that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
Colossians
2:9-10
For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells
bodily, and you have come to fullness in him, who is the head of
every ruler and authority.
Colossians 2:19
and not holding fast to the head, from whom the
whole body, nourished and held together by its ligaments and sinews,
grows with a growth that is from God.
Christ
is their source of existence and life, as also supported by
Colossians 1:15-17. I will quote 15-19 since it includes another
significant reference to Christ's headship.
He is the image of the invisible God, the
firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on
earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or
dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through
him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in him all
things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is
the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to
have first place in everything. For in him all the fullness of God
was pleased to dwell.
These
powers exist through Christ, which is why Jesus is their "head."
"This text describes Christ as the source of the life of the
church through his resurrection from the dead and because of the
reconciliation obtained through his self-sacrificing servant ministry
at the cross. Headship is not defined in terms of authority but as
servant provider of life" (Gilbert Bilezikian).
If
head meant "authority," 1 Corinthians 11:3 should say
"lord" rather than "head."
But I want you to understand that Christ is the
head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God
is the head of Christ.
Headship
all through 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 denotes origin rather than
authority. In verse 3, if the meaning of head were "authority"
then the natural reading would be "God is the head of Christ,
Christ is the head of the man, and the husband is the head of the
wife." But the meaning is not rank. It is chronology. Christ is
head of mankind in creation (Col 1:16; John 1:3). The woman's origin
is Adam's rib. God gave human life to Jesus in the incarnation. It is
about chronology.
First
Corinthians 11:7-9 does not support a pecking order. The verses are
about how a woman is able to dress in a way that signals her sexual
availability. Paul's point is that it is inappropriate for a woman to
dress that way, especially at church when she is publicly praying or
prophesying.
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head,
since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of
man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man
created for the woman, but woman for the man. (NKJV)
"Glory"
(NKJV) is better than "reflection" (NRSV). The idea is that
Christian women wanted to wear veils at church to signal their piety.
Married women, even those in a social caste that by custom did not
wear veils, wanted to wear them now that they were Christians. The
veil signaled that they were not sexually available. It signaled
their faithfulness to their husbands and to Christ. The most
attractive feature of a woman is her hair. The eyes are often
attractive too; and if the Corinthian veil covered the eyes, it makes
sense.
Cynthia
Long Westfall explains:
Eve was created to powerfully
attract Adam, which was the point of the positive climax of creation,
but worship is not the time or place to experience that dynamic.
(Paul and
Gender,
68)
As
for how a woman’s head is the glory/reflection of man, the
reference may apply to the fact that the features of a man’s head
(notably, his face) are also on the woman’s head (face) but they
look a lot better on a woman than on a man. She is his reflection.
Also, there may be a point that a man looks better when he is with a
beautiful woman. She is his glory. In 1 Corinthians 11, women were
wanting to focus on Christ and not their attractiveness to the men in
the room. Thus, Paul could say,
Judge for yourselves: is it
proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? (1
Corinthians 11:13)
Paul
supported the women's right to veil themselves at church. The typical
translation of 1 Corinthians 11:10 is incorrect.
Therefore the woman ought to
have a symbol
of authority
on her head, because of the angels. (NASB)
The
phrase "a symbol of" is added to almost every translation
because the translators believe Paul to be correcting the church
women for taking off their veils. If we understand that the
corrective is to the men and upper-class women who wanted some of the
women to remove their veils because of a social convention that
disqualified the women from veiling (because of their social caste),
then Paul is defending the women's right to veil. The authority is
not the woman's husband's or any other church man's. Her "head"
is not her husband. The husband does not have authority over his
wife’s head. The wife has authority over her own head. Thus, the
proper translation defends a woman's authority over her own head.
Because of this a woman should have authority
over her head, because of the angels. (Common English Bible)
NRSVue has:
For this reason a woman ought to have authority over her head, because of the angels.
With
this understanding, the mention of angels as a reason for this
authority becomes clear. It is not because some angels might lust.
Yes, that is an actual theory! It is a reference to 1 Corinthians
6:2-3. If women will judge angels, should not they be able to have
authority over their own heads and be permitted to veil? Let the
women use their own judgment in the matter! Let them follow their
convictions.
What
about Ephesians 5:21-6:9 and Colossians 3:18-25? Those passages show
there is an authority structure in the home which we can extend to
the church.
Both
of these passages essentially describe the Greek/Roman household.
Paul's point is that a Christian household ought to be better than an
ordinary Roman household. This interpretation is most obvious in the
Colossians passage.
Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting
in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered
against them. Children, be obedient to your parents in all things,
for this is well-pleasing to the Lord. Fathers, do not exasperate
your children, so that they will not lose heart.
Slaves, in all things obey those who are your
masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely
please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever
you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men,
knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the
inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve. For he who does
wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done,
and that without partiality.
The
key point in this reading is "as is fitting in the Lord."
The Greco-Roman family with Christ is more functional and more
satisfying than the secular version. The Ephesians passage is an
expansion of the Colossians passage and the meaning is the same. Paul
is not claiming that the Greco-Roman household order is God’s
command for Christians. Paul means to say that Christian families can
live in the Greco-Roman system and serve Christ. If God commands
believers timelessly to structure their marriages after the
Greco-Roman system then God also blesses the institution of slavery.
We know that God does not bless slavery.
And, masters, do the same to them. Stop
threatening them, for you know that both of you have the same Master
in heaven, and with him there is no partiality. (Ephesians 6:9; See
also Galatians 3:28; Philemon 16)
If
God shows no partiality, why does God show partiality in the earthly
household setup? God does not. What God authorizes, through Paul, is
that believers should behave like Christians within existing social
structures.
I
will add that, since these passages focus on the family household and
not church, they really do not apply to properly reading 1 Timothy
2:11-12.
What about Titus 2:3-5?
This
passage simply speaks more about submissiveness with special focus on
the wife.
Likewise, tell the older women to be reverent in
behavior, not to be slanderers or slaves to drink; they are to teach
what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love
their husbands, to love their children, to be self-controlled,
chaste, good managers of the household, kind, being submissive to
their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited.
Yet
we know that the expected posture of Christians toward one another is
that of submissiveness; so submissiveness is not a woman-only
command. Still, Paul is speaking within the existing Roman household
structure. Paul says that Christian women should be, as best they can
manage, ideal Roman wives. Why? Not because it is their Christian
"place" but because it is part of their mission "so
that the word of God may not be discredited."
Once
again, this passage does not help us to properly apply 1 Timothy
2:11-12 since it is about marriage and not church.
What
about 1 Peter 3:1-7?
This
passage seems to teach very similar points as the other "family
order" passages; but there is a unique context.
Wives, in the same way, accept the authority of
your husbands, so that, even if some of them do not obey the word,
they may be won over without a word by their wives’ conduct, when
they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Do not adorn
yourselves outwardly by braiding your hair, and by wearing gold
ornaments or fine clothing; rather, let your adornment be the inner
self with the lasting beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is
very precious in God’s sight. It was in this way long ago that the
holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves by accepting the
authority of their husbands. Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham and called him
lord. You have become her daughters as long as you do what is good
and never let fears alarm you.
Husbands, in the same way, show consideration for
your wives in your life together, paying honor to the woman as the
weaker sex, since they too are also heirs of the gracious gift of
life—so that nothing may hinder your prayers.
Note
that the emphasis here is on how a wife behaves towards her
unbelieving (Roman!) husband. It also suggests that she submit to him
even if he mistreats her ("in the same way" as Christ
responded in his own mistreatment, 2:23 f, and the way slaves should
behave toward their masters and Christians behave in general, 2:13).
Note that the language matches the charge to slaves to "accept
the authority of your masters" ("be subject to"
matches the verb in Ephesians 5:21) (2:18) (NRSV and NLT are badly
translated in 1 Peter 3:1 by introducing the word "authority." NRSVue is a big improvement). Wives
should try to assume this disposition with their UNBELIEVING husbands
in order to convert them to faith. Walter L. Leifeld:
The
husband should not claim authority over his wife the way a Roman man
used to. In that system, which underwent changes during the period of
the early empire, a woman used to be under the manus (“hand”) of
her father and at marriage came under the control of her husband.
(IVPNTC,
comments on Ephesians 5:22)
If
your husband is an unbeliever, be aware that while you, the wife, are
equal to your husband in the church, you cannot expect the same in a
home with an unbelieving husband. As for the mention of Sarah calling
Abraham “lord,” and “obeying” him, it does not mean what it
looks like without looking up Peter’s reference of Genesis 18:12.
Focusing on verse 6 of 1 Peter 3,
Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham and called him lord.
You have become her daughters as long as you do what is good and
never let fears alarm you.
This
statement refers to an the incident at Genesis 18:12 when the
strangers told Abraham that Sarah would have a child.
So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, “After I
have grown old, and my husband is old, shall I have pleasure?”
The
World English Bible, favoring the Septuagint cited by Peter, says
Sarah laughed within herself, saying, “After I
have grown old will I have pleasure, my lord being old also?”
Lord
is just another way of saying husband. It is just a term of respect
(see Genesis 24:17-18). It is a way of considering others above
yourself (Philippians 2:3). In the text cited by Peter, Sarah was
definitely not
being submissive to Abraham. In their long marriage, Sarah was never
a pushover wife (see, e.g., Genesis 16:5).
The
Greek word translated “obeyed” in 1 Peter 3:6 means to listen or
to be attentive to; but not necessarily as a subordinate. See
“agreed” or “listened” at Genesis 16:2; 21:12.
Peter
just wanted the Christian women who had unbelieving husbands to be
good wives; but Peter did not mean for them to be mousy. They can be
confident and self-respecting and still be model Roman wives.
This
passage, again, has a specific marriage context and does not help us
to apply 1 Timothy 2:11-12.
Why
did not Paul name the woman? After all, he named Euodia and Syntyche
in Philippians 4:2.
This
objection is not necessarily a slam dunk. Paul may not have known the
name of the woman. He did know the identity of people like Alexander
and Hymenaeus (1 Timothy 1:20) whom he knew personally (2 Timothy
4:14). On the other hand, he did not name the sinful man in 1
Corinthians 5:1. He may have not personally known the man or he did
not think it appropriate to name him when he received the information
through reports―and
when Paul is making a direct call in writing for the man’s
repentance (no less).
Either reason may reasonably be the case with the woman of 1 Timothy
2:11-12.
CONCLUSION
Many
of the objections to the egalitarian understanding of 1 Timothy
2:11-12 attempt to show that there is a God-approved authority tree
in the family that rightly extends to the church. I believe that I
have shown that the scriptures that address a family structure depend
upon the standard Greco-Roman household arrangement. There is no
reason to import first century secular social structures into 21st
century Christian marriage on the mere basis that the first century system was mentioned
several times in the Bible as examples of good Christian conduct.
Paul wanted his readers to be good Christians within that existing
structure. God did not intend for all Christian families down through
the entire Christian age to be defined by the Roman household! The
Christian family is not the Roman family! Misunderstanding Paul has
led Christian men to subjugate their wives because they think God
authorizes them to do so. Husbands are absolutely not authorized to
subjugate their wives or anyone else.
No comments:
Post a Comment