Twelve Words, Twelve Interpretations: 1 Timothy 2:12
There are at least twelve ways of understanding and applying 1 Timothy 2:12. That’s nothing if you compare it to Hebrews 6:4-6, for which there are at least eighteen, but it’s quite formidable considering the disputed phrase contains only twelve Greek words. Here’s what it says, with a word-for-word translation underneath:
Didaskein de gunaiki ouk epitrepō oude authentein andros all einai en ēsuchia.
To teach
and
a woman/wife
not
I permit
and not
to exercise/assume authority over
a man/husband
but
to be
in
quietness.
So what does it mean, and how should it be applied today? In fact, should it be applied today at all? What is ‘teaching’? What is ‘exercising/assuming authority’, and what is that mysterious forward slash doing in there? Does ‘I permit’ mean that Paul was only expressing a personal opinion, rather than the words of God? Does this mean women can’t speak on Sunday mornings in church? Or explain the Bible to men at all? Or (as one female friend of mine at University was told) pray scriptural prayers in the presence of men? Are we only talking about married couples here? Are we saying that women can teach in the kids and youth work, but have to stop when the guys turn eighteen? Can women be in jobs where they need to manage men? And so on and so on.
Here are twelve ways of answering those questions. They are not mutually exclusive, but they do reflect generally different approaches to the text and its application. The first three involve arguing that Paul was not trying to prevent women from teaching or exercising authority in the church at all:
1. The word authentein should be understood in a negative sense: to usurp authority. Paul is urging women in Ephesus not to take authority which is not rightfully theirs. All proper use of authority is fine.
2. The key phrase, didaskein oude authentein, is a hendiadys, a construction in which one idea is expressed by means of two connected words, and should be understood like this: ‘I do not permit a woman to teach, and thereby to exercise authority over a man.’ When combined with #1, this interpretation sees Paul as prohibiting women from teaching in a way that usurps men, and nothing else.
3. Paul is speaking specifically to marriages here: wives are not to teach or be in authority over their husbands.
The next three read the text in a more traditional way – that in this particular verse, Paul is saying that he does not want women to teach or exercise authority over men – but do not see this as a restriction for the whole church, for all time. Rather, there are particular cultural circumstances which prompt Paul to bring this restriction, and since those cultural circumstances no longer exist, Paul’s prohibition need not be observed today:
4. First century Ephesus was the centre of the worship of the goddess Artemis, and this explains why women in this church would have been particularly likely to throw their weight around and boss men around. This is what Paul was objecting to; where this specific situation does not exist, Paul would have no problem with women teaching men.
5. Women in the first century were largely uneducated, and therefore were not to be given the role of teaching and governing the church. Now that women are as educated as men, Paul’s restriction does not apply any longer.
6. Patriarchal culture was a fact of life in the first century, and to challenge it too overtly would have undermined the progress of the gospel. Paul, therefore, continues to operate within a patriarchal social structure (as he does here and in Ephesians 5, Colossians 3 and so on), but he sows the seeds elsewhere for its abolition. The redemptive trajectory of biblical ethics leads us to move beyond restrictions like this one.
Finally, there are those who believe that Paul’s restriction continues today (like the first three), and that he is restricting women from teaching and exercising authority over a man (like the second three). It then becomes a question of how this particular instruction is to be applied in modern church life:
7. ‘To teach or have authority’ means to be an elder in a local church, since teaching and governing are the two main things elders do. Women are restricted from being local church elders, but not from anything else.
8. ‘To teach or have authority’ refers to preaching from the Bible when the church is gathered on Sundays. Women may teach in all other areas of church life (seminars, books, conferences, downloads, articles, small groups, etc), but not when the whole church comes together on Sundays.
9. ‘Teaching’ means defining doctrine for the church: ‘this is what must be believed, and this is what must be done’. Women may speak publicly, instruct, exhort, explain Scripture, preach the gospel and so on, but defining doctrine for the church, and exercising spiritual authority over the church, are for male elders.
10. Paul is restricting women from teaching men with authority. They may teach men, but not in an authoritative way.
11. Paul is limiting Bible teaching to men. Women can teach on subjects which do not involve expounding Scripture – life skills, parenting, marriage, and so on – but not on the Bible. This restriction applies not just to Sundays, but in all situations in church life.
12. Women are not to teach or instruct men on anything, or to exercise authority over them in any way. This applies in all contexts, and therefore women should not manage men, teach them how to do things better, and so on.
Exegetically, the first three above have substantial problems, and are rarely supported in commentaries and scholarly journal articles. Andreas Köstenberger’s argument concerning didaskein oude authentein has largely won the day – Paul either sees both as positive or both as negative, but he didn’t think teaching was positive and authentein negative – and the grammatical arguments in favour of seeing the clause as a hendiadys are weak. The argument that Paul’s comments only apply to husbands and wives, when the whole of chapter two seems to address men and women in general and not just married people, is likewise improbable. Consequently, most egalitarian scholars gravitate to one of the second group of three.
Here, however, there are hermeneutical problems, as I have argued previously – it is a good rule of thumb to do what the New Testament says, unless there are clear reasons not to – as well as exegetical and historical ones. Exegetically, Paul’s argument is not grounded in the culture of the day, the quirks of Ephesus or the lack of educated women, but in creation (2:13-14), and it therefore seems that whatever Paul is restricting, he is restricting on the basis of the way men and women were created (which would correspond to the way he invokes Genesis 1-3 throughout his letters). Historically, it is simply not the case that all women were uneducated in the Greco-Roman world, nor that Paul was unwilling to challenge the patriarchal culture of the day to give women far more status and responsibility than they would otherwise have been granted; both of these things are apparent from the number of times women appear in key roles in Paul’s letters. Frankly, there is a ‘have your cake and eat it’ quality to some egalitarian arguments at this point: Paul was both a liberationist visionary who encouraged women as deacons and apostles (Rom 16), and a man hidebound by his patriarchal culture to the extent that he never reached the stage of liberation that we, many generations later, can (1 Tim 2). It therefore seems best, for exegetical, historical and hermeneutical reasons, to assume that (as with almost every verse in the NT epistles!) we are dealing with an instruction that believers today are intended to follow, and to sit somewhere in the third block of interpretations.
But where? We can surely rule out #12 as being miles away from Paul’s purpose in the passage (which, as he says in 3:14-15, concerns how people conduct themselves in the church), and #11 would mean Paul banning here what Priscilla clearly did in Acts 18:26 (which is possible, but unlikely). #10 involves the grammatically improbable appeal to a hendiadys (see above), and is also at risk of seeing ‘authority’ as nothing more than tone of voice and manner: it would be a mixed blessing, I suspect, for a woman to be asked to teach, but in a non-authoritative way! #8, which is where a good many churches I know tend to sit, inserts a concept, that of the main talk from the stage in a Sunday meeting, which is both anachronistic – did the early church really do it like that? (1 Cor 14:26) – and not mentioned by Paul.
I tend to think that Paul’s use of didaskō and didaskalia favour #9, and that #7 involves talking about something Paul doesn’t (eldership) and not talking about something he does (teaching) – but I suspect that, when all is said and done, there is not much practical difference between the two anyway. Defining doctrine, exercising spiritual authority and serving as elders/overseers are all part of the same package (1 Tim 5:17), and Paul limits both this function and this office to men (see also 1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). Outside of this restriction, all other people in the church, whether male or female, can function and flourish in all other areas of ministry.
Not all would agree with the position I’ve sketched here. (In fact, most wouldn’t!) But here are two little thoughts that some might find helpful. Firstly, there is John Piper’s response to the supremely awkward question, ‘I’m a guy. Is it wrong for me to listen to Beth Moore?’ He answers no, but explains that it could be if you became dependent on her as your pastor (which coheres well with #7 and #9: it’s not explaining the Bible to men, but functioning as the authoritative elder/overseer/pastor and definer of doctrine for men, that Paul is restricting). Secondly, there is the analogy of marriage: it’s not inconsistent for a husband to be head of his family, but to defer to his wife on all sorts of issues where she knows more than he does. In fact, when Paul talks about the role of women at home, he uses the strong verb oikodespotein (to rule the household), which he does not see as incompatible with submitting to their husbands. By analogy, we might suggest, elders/overseers can define doctrine for and exercise authority over the church, but still release women to instruct the church on pretty much any topic where they are more qualified or gifted to speak. I find that argument fairly compelling.
As to the flashpoint question - whether forty minute Sunday morning sermons in a local church necessarily involve defining doctrine (Teaching with a capital T), or whether they involve the sort of teaching that all of us are called to do (teaching with a lower case t, as in Col 3:16) - churches need to make up their own minds, mindful of the fact that the way we do Sundays today is likely to be very different from the context of the early church. My assumption is that most people in our world, and in my church, would assume that the preacher of the sermon is speaking with a God-given authority to declare what should be believed and what should be done in that local church, and therefore that a full-length Sunday morning message in my church involved Teaching, not merely teaching. But that doesn’t mean this would always be the case. And it’s not like I have any verses to prove it, or anything.
Anyway, that’s where I’ve got to, and where we are as a church in Eastbourne. May the discussion commence!
———————————————————————————————
Andrew’s next book, If God Then What? Wondering Aloud about Truth, Origins and Redemption, will be released in April, published by IVP.
Comments
Commenting is disabled in this entry
By Dan Hayter on 01/02/2012 at 14:02
Good article.
I’m interested as to why you would make a difference between defining doctrine and explaining the scriptures. I would tend to see defining doctrine precisely as explaining the scriptures and applying them to life, which is surely what teaching is (cf. 2 Tim 3.16-17). If this passage is excluding women from defining doctrine, then doesn’t that preclude them from explaining scripture in a public setting (as opposed to discussing it in a group)? I don’t want this passage to mean that, but I’m struggling to see how it doesn’t.
By Rosalind De Silva on 01/02/2012 at 18:49
Intriguing post. You say there are ‘at least’ 12 ways of interpreting this verse. Firstly what then are the other ways of interpreting it and secondly, are these your own interpretations and thoughts? If in fact there are more ways to interpret this one verse, then what might you have missed? And is my questioning considered to be “usurping”? My conclusions from reading this post, is that in your church in Eastbourne, women are allowed to “teach” children until they turn 18 or are they released to “regurgitate” doctrine defined by the elders? Ultimately, how is this verse outworked in your church today?
By Jez Bayes on 02/02/2012 at 12:43
Do we need to be careful of labelling other serious Biblical points of view (e.g. Egalitarianism: ‘Having their cake and eating it’)
when it may have better a Biblical interpretive logic from its proponents than we normally hear taught in our circles,
when we may have been taught to be blind to the limitations of our own interpretation,
and when we need to maintain fellowship in mission with other churches and church groups who hold this position, as well as allowing freedom of Biblical thinking within Newfrontiers members?
By Andrew Wilson on 02/02/2012 at 13:03
@Dan: I do think the didaskalia word group is used in a stronger, more formal sense in the pastorals than in Paul’s other letters (let alone Acts), and many commentators do too; there is a difference between the teaching urged in 1 Tim and the teaching everyone chimes in with in 1 Cor 14, surely? It might be analogous to the distinction between confronting your brother for sin, and an elder rebuking someone with the weight of his authority: both are valuable and vital, but one carries more weight than the other.
@Jez: I’m not labelling egalitarianism at all. What I said was, “Frankly, there is a ‘have your cake and eat it’ quality to some egalitarian arguments at this point ...”, and then explained why. Not all egalitarians argue this way, but those who do are, I submit, having their cake and eating it. I’ve also written five posts on this debate now, and each of them has attempted to engage with the strongest form of egalitarian arguments, highlighting many of their strengths, stressing the importance of maintaining fellowship with egalitarians (and being commended by several leading egalitarians for doing so!), and pursuing biblical thinking rather than blindness to limitations. So there. <Raspberry>
By Jez Bayes on 02/02/2012 at 13:18
I think your reply means ‘Yes!’ to the question I asked, rather than a Raspberry to the accusation I didn’t make!
By Harman Bhogal on 02/02/2012 at 13:46
Thanks for this Andrew. So re: ‘flashpoint’ issue - are you saying this is essentially a non-Elder vs. Elder thing, rather than a male vs. female thing? I.e. you wouldn’t think it appropriate for any non-Elder to speak on a Sunday morning because of how you understand Teaching/teaching? And if so, would it be fair to argue that if a church allows non-Elder males to speak occasionally on a Sunday, then they should also allow females to speak, provided it is communicated (when any non-Elder speaks) that they are doing so under the authority of the Elders?
More broadly, as a female who has been given a leadership role in the church, it’s important for me to know that I am able to ‘teach’ men if necessary i.e. communicate truth/doctrine/orthodoxy as has been taught to me - it’s very difficult to lead if you have no authority to do this, and you might as well call women administrators and not leaders!
Incidentally, I watched the Piper video a while back and think it’s quite helpful!
By Nicholas Lines on 02/02/2012 at 13:48
Great article. Great resource to. Be interesting to read a similar article on woman in leadership.
By Andrew Wilson on 02/02/2012 at 14:06
@Rosalind: I say “at least” because there may be others, although I don’t know of any; it’s always possible I’ve missed one! As to how it works in Eastbourne: male elders, male and female deacons, almost (but not all) Sunday teaching done by elders, men and women teach and lead in all other contexts. At the moment ...
@Jez: that would be a good save, were it not for the E.g!
@Harman: I have to distinguish here between Paul’s purpose, and my (or your) application of it. Paul’s argument was about men and women, not about elders and non-elders (the words aren’t used at all in chapter 2). But in practice, as I said to Rosalind, we apply Paul’s theology of leadership and doctrine by having most Sunday teaching (but not all) done by elders, with some deacons, both men and women, contributing to the teaching programme as well. Hope that helps!
By Graham Clark on 02/02/2012 at 17:04
Great article Andrew.
I’d be interested to know what you make of 1 timothy 2v15 as well. Or is that going to be a subject a little too long for a comment response!
By Daniel F on 02/02/2012 at 17:59
Hello.
Just one question. Why do all the exegetes stop their exegesis at 1 Timothy 2:12?
It seems to me that 1 Timothy 2:13-14 explains Paul’s reasoning as to why women should not teach: he relates it to the creation of man in Genesis, first in v13 in relation to gender roles pre-fall, and then in v14 as an illustration of the usurping of the gender roles that resulted in the fall (though I’m not sure if that second bit is as good an exposition).
Any thoughts?
By Peter Kirk on 02/02/2012 at 18:47
Nonsense! There are plenty of commentaries and scholarly articles supporting at least the first two options. It’s just that people in Newfrontiers are not encouraged to read these commentaries and articles. Köstenberger’s extremely weak argument has only convinced those who already presuppose the interpretation they want to give to this verse.
By Andrew Wilson on 03/02/2012 at 11:09
@Daniel: I think exegetes typically do, but in brief discussions like this, there often isn’t space to review them!
@Peter: which ones do you have in mind? The scholars I have consulted, on all sides of the discussions, include Baldwin, Belleville, Blomberg, Fee, Giles, Hartenstein, Keener, Knight, Kostenberger, the Kroegers, Marshall, Moo, Mounce, O’Brien, Payne, Schreiner, Schussler Fiorenza, Towner, Webb, Winter, and Wright. Of these, even egalitarians regard the Kroegers’ view as eccentric, and only Belleville makes the argument above without reservation (Marshall and Towner are sympathetic, but concede the lexical and grammatical problems with it). It is also significant to me that interpreters who do not regard Scripture as authoritative regard #1-3 as a rather desperate attempt to save the author of the Pastorals (whom they usually do not think is Paul) from an obvious restriction. This post honestly isn’t a question of the Newfrontiers thought police stopping us reading different views :o)
By Sue on 03/02/2012 at 12:54
Hi Andrew,
The argument in support of #1 is that there is no evidence, never has been, of authentein being used in a positive sense for the control of one person over another. When refering to a person over another, the word always meant coercion, total mastery, illegal takeover, or some other negative thing. This lexical information is known. That is why so much focus is on the grammar. But K’s argument on the necessary positive connotation falls down since didaskein actually can have a negative connnotation in the pastorals.
I have discussed this at length with many complementarians, and they cannot provide any lexical support. When I mention didaskein in Titus, they invariably say they are too busy to continue dialogue.
I actually think there is a possible complementarian interpretation, that all interference by women is by definition negative. But what the verse can NEVER mean is “I do not permit a woman to teach or lead in church.” Authentein is a nasty word, no other possibility, and cannot mean “lead in church” or “be an elder.” It means “treat somebody in a way that a master normally treats a slave.” That is what we find in the Vulgate, Wycliff, Luther, and in a way in the KJV and Calvin’s commentaries.
By Sue on 03/02/2012 at 13:00
I also have read most of these, - Baldwin, Belleville, Blomberg, Fee, Giles, Hartenstein, Keener, Knight, Kostenberger, the Kroegers, Marshall, Moo, Mounce, O’Brien, Payne, Schreiner, Schussler Fiorenza, Towner, Webb, Winter, and Wright. -
In Baldwin, evidence is introduced that does not exist. Belleville exposed this in a part of her article that is rarely refered to. However, this fact, that authentein is never used in a positive way for authority of one person over another, is foundational to all further discussion.
I recenlty discussed this with Al Wolters, a complementarian whom I completely respect, and he concurs that there is no evidence of one person using authentein over another person, in a non pejorative sense, pre Constantine. After Constantine there is more variety, but overall it seems to mean “be a tyrant.” Before Constantine it seems to mean “coerce.”
I have never had anyone provide any other evidence to me than this.
By Andrew Wilson on 03/02/2012 at 14:56
@Sue: thanks so much for your careful comments; I’m sure the discussion will continue! Two brief points: (1) your view that authenteo is always a “nasty word” and there is “no other possibility” is not shared by the vast majority of writers in the list we’ve both consulted, whatever their theological commitments. It reflects a small minority in the secondary literature; most take it in a neutral sense (cf. Chryostom), some negative, and some see it as too ambiguous to be clear. (2) Except in the one place where there is a clear negative indication in the context (Titus 1:11), didaskein is used positively in the pastorals. Most of us regard teaching as good, yet see teaching for shameful gain as bad, and that is not inconsistent; neither is it for Paul. (However, if you were right about authenteo, then of course this context for didasko would be provided.) Thanks for commenting!
By Sue on 03/02/2012 at 15:06
“It reflects a small minority in the secondary literature;”
Quite the opposite! Among those who deal with evidence, lexical evidence, nobody finds that it has a positive connotation. Most commentaries are secondary literature - they took Baldwin’s evidence for face value - mistakenly.
Belleville and Wolters are the only two people who deal with the lexical issues. Kostenberger says there is too little evidence to use lexical evidence. An excuse! The rest write derivative commentary relying for the most part on Baldwin’s non evidence.
I can honestly say that the facts have been obscured for some time on this. If you cite me any lexical evidence of authentein having a positive connontation, or even neutral when refering to one person over another, I would be surprised but interested.
If you can’t provide evidence, then clearly you are relying only on secondary commentary. I don’t have much interest, or enough knowledge in the secondary literature.
By Andrew Wilson on 03/02/2012 at 17:52
@Sue: let’s agree to disagree for now! I’ll freely admit that I’m standing on the shoulders of many lexicographers and commentators, not having personally viewed the papyri myself, but I’m suspicious of the idea that they’ve all relied on Baldwin and have written derivative commentary. I shall look into it, though, and if you’re right that authenteo is always negative and never neutral (or positive, obviously), I shall admit it, and change my theology! For readers who have got this far, the lexical evidence as I understand it is summarised in the standard lexicons (Arndt Danker Bauer, Louw-Nida, Liddell Scott, etc). And thanks for your patience!
By Rosalind on 03/02/2012 at 17:53
This is such an interesting discussion. I am no theologian, I’m a sheep who likes to think. And I’m a woman. All I can go on is my experience of man and of God. I have found that the thinking around specific verses especially verses like this, can become a distraction, in that how any of us look at a verse is coloured by our own worldview and culture.
I think some spheres of church culture regards women in this ‘authentein’ way, intentionally or not. It’s not actually evident until it happens as each church and their thinking around a verse like this is as different as the person who leads it. A church may be operating in a supposedly ‘biblical’ way but at what cost? If ‘she’ (after all, the church is female) succeeds in alienating and upsetting the women she leads for the sake of being doctrinally correct - then perhaps their theology is wrong even if it is right! And is that any different from being a Pharisee?
By Sue on 03/02/2012 at 18:30
Andrew,
Thanks for your kind comment. Just to recap - the evidence as it now stands is as follows.
1) Philodemus - mistakenly cited
2) BGU 1208 - coerce
3) Hippolytus - violent connotation
4) several astrological texts in which the planets control something, or somebody controls something - clearly neutral
So, authentein is not always negative, but only in the context of one person doing it to someone else, the connotation is always negative.
In later texts, one can argue that the word is not negative but only the connotation is negative. What one can never do is argue that the connotation is positive, if it is one person over another. This has not been done. In any case, it doesn’t refer to church leadership as we know it. No examples of that are provided.
What Kostenberger does is work from the context, as if the word were just an empty semantic marker and then argue that the context in 1 Tim. 2:12 must suggest that the word is something positive because of its proximity and relation to didaskein. But really that is just an admission that we don’t know what it means. That puts it in the same category as 1 Tim. 2:15. That is also ambiguous. Again, K says, we don’t know what it means, so it must mean that women work out their salvation in the realm of the domestic. If that were true then every woman who has done good outside the realm of the domestic, is in big trouble.
Kostenberger is a careful exegete, but if you read closely, it is all speculation. And many commenataries see his work as definitive.
By Colin Perkins on 03/02/2012 at 22:11
This is a really helpful article Andrew, thanks for this. I’m going to get into the ‘authentein’ debate, but on a different tack. Whilst the debate regarding how the word was used/understood in the ancient world is obviously vital, there is also the question of how Paul used it - what he meant when he used it. I think there has to be some (in my view considerable) weight given to the fact that this is the only time he used it at all, that he always uses didaskein when referring to ‘normal’ authority. Given this, and given that authentein can mean ‘usurp’ (and that is how it was translated in the early centuries), then we should very strongly consider that it was in this sense that Paul was using it.
I also want to point out that, of course, it isn’t just 12 words, it it? For me verse 15 should act like those scenes at the end of The Sixth Sense or The Usual Suspects…it should make you wonder whether the whole passage was what you thought it was about, or whether in light of the end bit you need to reappraise your view of the entire thing. I’d be interested to hear your views of the whole passage, and not just those 12 words abstracted out of it!
By Sue on 04/02/2012 at 14:41
Andrew,
When you write “and if you’re right that authenteo is always negative and never neutral (or positive,” this is a serious misrepresentation of my position and you do me a great disservice not to post my correction.
When authentein is used of one human being over another, it is always pejoriative in pre-Constantine literature. That is a fact.
Please post this.
By Peter Kirk on 04/02/2012 at 23:29
Andrew, I’m glad that Sue was able to answer your question to me, as I have been too busy to do so. I have also looked at the evidence and agree with her that when authentein is used of one human being over another, it is always pejorative, at least in pre-Constantine literature. This has been well understood by many Bible translators in their renderings of the word in this verse, from KJV “usurp authority” and ASV “have dominion” to NIV “assume authority” and CEB “control”. Renderings with a neutral or positive connotation appear to be a 20th century phenomenon, extended by just one year to the 2001 ESV.
By Andrew Wilson on 06/02/2012 at 11:45
Great discussion, y’all. Sue, the people who post the comments don’t work weekends; that’s the only reason your comment was delayed, honest! And I assumed “with reference to people” from the context (though if there’s only two pre-Constantinian refs to people, it’s no surprise people like Kostenberger say the lexical evidence is too small to be sure ...) But thanks for the discussion; let’s keep thinking, studying, listening, talking and loving!
By Sue on 06/02/2012 at 13:23
Hi Andrew,
So sorry to appear impatient. I was afraid that readers would think that I had misrepresented the literature since there is a recent scholarly article by Al Wolters which provides evidence for a non-pejorative use of authentein, but it is not in the context of one person having authority over another.
Yes, Kostenberger, who had previously claimed lexical evidence for a non-pejorative use of authentein, now says that there is too little evidence to say. However, the evidence remains, that the two occurrences are highly negative in connotation. In addition, we have Jerome’s understanding that the word was a synonym of kurieuw and katakurieuw.
So for Jerome’s translation, and Wycliff and Luther, it was translated as “be the lord of”
Recall this verse in Matt. 20,
25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,[c] 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,[d] 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
I deduce that “have authority” and “lord it over” someone are both pejorative. They are not appropriate behaviours for a Christian. They are NOT synonymous with “be an elder” or “lead in church,” I honestly believe that the meaning of 1 Tim. 2:12 has been manipulated to make it appear that women are not supposed to lead in church, but that is not the original meaning of the passage at all.
By Graham Clark on 06/02/2012 at 13:41
Just so you know Sue, if you register for an account then your comments will get posted immediately without going to moderation first.
Also my apologies if you felt your views were misrepresented due to a lack of speed on my part on allowing your comments, I do my best to keep the waiting time as small as possible.
By Sue on 06/02/2012 at 14:00
Hi Graham,
Thanks. This is the first time I have seen this blog. The list of posters is quite impressive and it seems to be a really worthwhile blog with thorough articles.
Of course, I disagree with the premise that women have a different spiritual role, but it is nice to continue to interact respectfully.
I believe that the scriptures themselves were written within a cultural setting in which all men and women were supposed to be married, and women were not legally on par with men, they just did not have the same resources as men, or the same status. So the epistles come out of that.
But, in fact, if we look at individual women, we see that they transcend the social restrictions. Lydia was head of her household, the first convert in Europe and had a housechurch in her house.
Many women were clearly leaders, although we don’t know which individuals in the Bible, men or women, were listed as “elders” or even if that role was recognized at first. I do believe that there was an assumption that these roles were for men, but that the unusual woman, with the resources of intelligence and wealth, were also influential leaders, who did all the things that men did, if with modesty and cooperation with men.
There is no other way for me to explain the sudccessful ministry of women like Saint Nino, Hilda of Whitby, Catherine Booth and many other women who transcended the supposed restrictions on women.
Even consider the ministry of Florence Li Tim Oi, the first Anglican woman priest and celebrated in Saint Martin in the Fields in London. Think of her ministry during WWII in China,
And then my sister was at the first ordination of women in Hong Kong and is familiar with this tradition. Later Florence Oi came to Toronto, where the first women were ordained in 1976. There was a strong tradition of Anglican women church planting on the frontier in Canada, and these women were not feminists, but single women from England of independent means, who ministered to isolated pioneers in the backwoods of Canada, and lead services for areas that had no male ministers.
It is so sad for me to see today, that the question of women in full ministry is treated with such distrust, when it is the hard-working sacrifical work of British women that evangelised and ministered to isolated and lonely men and women of the northern part of British Columbia, where women ministers have a strong evangelical history.
By Colin Perkins on 06/02/2012 at 20:56
One of the things I think we should keep in mind when interpreting the Bible, is that if our interpretations are correct we should expect them to resonate with what we see in the world around us. The Bible is not just ‘true’ in an academic sense but ‘real’ in a concrete sense. So, we learn from the Bible that humans are uniquely valuable (created in God’s image) and uniquely corrupted (fallen into sin). We know that this interpretation is not just ‘true’ but also ‘real’, because we can see it everywhere - humans are capable of unique beauty and goodness but also unique selfishness and evil. Similarly what the Bible says about so many topics corresponds so exactly to what we see in the world.
However, this is just not the case with the complemantarian view of men and women in church leadership. There is simply no evidence that men are better fitted to leadership than women, nor that women are more likely to be deceived than men or less able to spot falsehood. Women are no less intelligent than men, no less capable. Indeed, if anything there is evidence that men are more likely to be forceful and aggressive than women, and it is probable anthropologically that patriarchy developed in human societies because of men’s physical strength and greater ability to exert dominance in that sense over women than women over men. If the complemantarian view is the ‘right’ one, then where is the evidence for that? Where, in particular, is the evidence that the complemantarian view is the ‘right’ one, when we have so much evidence that any structure in human society which gives power to one group over against another group will almost always lead to the latter group being oppressed, and there’s no end of evidence that this is particularly true of male-female oppression (if you haven’t read the stats on domestic violence, you really should).
I respect New Frontiers hugely and have benefitted immeasurably from the ministry of many within it, and like Sue says this site is a massive credit to the movement. However, I really think that this topic needs to be seriously re-thought; the exegetical foundation of complementarianism just isn’t substantial enough to support a position that is so obviously contradicted by everything else we know.
By Colin Perkins on 06/02/2012 at 21:03
OK, now embarrassed by my inability to spell ‘complementarianism’.
By John Jones on 07/02/2012 at 01:21
Colin,
Interesting points. However how does biblical complementarity give power to one group? I presume you mean men have power with that view, but as far as I can tell that rwsponsibility involves laying down your life, I’m not sure I see how dying in service to someone is exerting dominance. I would say you are mixing what complementarianism with sin.
Also regarding the probability that women may be more gifted in many areas of leadership than others, from what I see in the bible most of the leaders god chooses don’t seem like the best choices on a worldly scale. Most churches would be lead by non christian entrepreneurs and visionaries of business and art if that were the criteria for making the most converts. God seems to be looking to make Hinself glorious than his creation.
Haven’t read all the posts here. But one question I have about egalitarianism is is gender roles and male leadership not clear from gen 2 before the fall? I would say that would be enough to settle it as a creation order issue? Interesting to know your thoughts.
Apologies for not commenting on the question you asked me on another topic, forgot where it was now, but I think I could not see a righteous god not punishing sin.
By Sue on 07/02/2012 at 01:40
John,
We did discuss Gen. 2:18. However, the words translated as “help mate” do not line up with gender roles very well. For example, in Hebrew ezer and in Greek boethos, these words are most commonly used for God and Christ. They apply equally to BOTH God and Christ. “God is our help (defender) and Christ is our help (defender).
So one can hardly say that calling a woman the help (defender) of man is a gender role. My belief is that the Hebrew “kenegdo” means that the man and woman are in reciprocal ally or defender roles to each other. This is the ultimate statement that neither a man nor a woman ought to live alone, but need family or society. We are in a relationship of alliance. In French, the wedding ring is called an “alliance” refering to the marriage tie.
Some Jewish translations of the Bible into English do use the term “ally” since this is the most common meaning of the word, either for God, or for a military alliance.
By Colin Perkins on 07/02/2012 at 20:10
John,
With regards to the ‘power’ issue, in the article above Andrew lists the following as open to men only: Defining doctrine, exercising spiritual authority and serving as elders/overseers. I never used the word ‘dominance’, as you do, but those three things do involve the exercise of power. There’s nothing wrong with that: power is a neutral thing that can be used for good or bad. My point is basically that the problem lies in giving one group access to that power whilst denying it to another. It is very difficult to find any example in history of when that ended well.
With regards to the ‘qualification’ point, I think your point about God choosing ‘weakness’ is a really good one, but it’s not the one made by complementarians (unless I’ve really misunderstood them). The whole point of that position is that men and women have different but complementary gifts, and that men’s gifts suit them more properly for leadership in the church. My point is that there is no evidence of that.
With regards to Genesis 2…Sue has answered it much better than I could!
And finally…as I said in the other post you refer to, i wasn’t making a general point about God’s punishment of sin, I was making a more focused point about whether God would command his people to kill others. For the record, I cannot imagine that God would not punish sin either!
By John Jones on 07/02/2012 at 20:32
Thanks sue,
Were is kenegdo used? Sorry I am no scholar and hope I’m not lowering to tone of this discussion.
I’ve looked into the meaning of some of controversial words a while ago and was not convinced by the egalitarian conclusions.
It seems to me that Paul’s use of Gen 2 does not depend on a marginal definition of a few words but the way creation of man and woman came into being.
Also it seems consistent with how God relates to people that he would create us with roles with purposes for each others care and benefit, and we should not despise the god given roles.
The out working of egalitarianism for me results in a valuing of people based on gifting and position in the body of Christ, so women are seen as equal because they can do the same as men, I just don’t see that value system at work in the bible.
Also a question I have of egalitarianism is what do they see as the purpose of god creating man and a woman at all? Why would god bother when he could have created a unisex community from the outset? Problem solved.
By Sue on 07/02/2012 at 21:05
JohnJ,
It is not my intent to defend all egalitarian exegesis. But likewise, I can’t corroborate much of complementarian exegesis either. It is all a mine field. I do try to keep up with those exegetes who are the very best in their field.
Robert Alter has translated the Five Books of Moses, and his note for ezer kenegdo is as follows. I hope it helps,
“sustainer beside him.” The Hebrew ezer kenegdo (King James Version “help meet”) is notoriously difficult to translate. The second term means “alongside him,” “opposite him, “a counterpart to him.” “Help” is too weak because it suggests a merely auxiliary function, whereas ezer elsewhere connoted active intervention on behalf of someone, especially military contexts, as often in the Psalms.
When it says “opposite” here it means facing, or corresponding, not “different.” It is from the Hebrew neged meaning “in front of” “standing opposite” or your “counterpart.”
ezer refers to a role which an ally might play in war, or God or Christ offers us. Think of the USA coming into WWII as an ally. Not in hierarchical relationship, but nonetheless, not subordinate but a “strong ally.” That is the sense of ezer kenegdo, a woman.
One important strong point for egalitarianism is that women are considered to be equally gifted by God in exegesis, formulating and teaching doctrine, in spiritual leadership and overall pastoring skills, AND women are allowes to function in the church according to the way God has created them.
I believe God created men and women to be in fellowship, and able to function in accordance with the way they have been created, each of us, male and female. This is for neither to be in control of public expression of truth and decision-making, but that both men and women would truly participate in the public expression of Christiantiy and in the decision-making of the church.
By John Jones on 07/02/2012 at 21:51
Colin,
Sorry I think I started writing before your post came up, not ignoring you!
Thanks for your points, my concience says that I cannot ignore the NT teaching on male leadership, and i cannot put away this as just cultural. So for the moment staying in the camp!
Regarding the dominance issue I see this as an abuse of the Christ like leadership men are called to, so I’m not convinced to abandon it based on the abuse of the doctrine.
Hope you and H are doing well down south and God continues to bless you both and your work.
John
By Stephen Harris on 09/02/2012 at 22:19
Very interesting!
I appreciate the logic of the argument to allow women to get away with some “teaching” (small *t*) and yet prohibit them from the Teaching (big *T*), yet I really find this a hard distinction to identify in scripture and seems forced at best. In my mind, all teaching is essentially doctrinal in its basis, and it should be taking place throughout every context of church life. The reference of “sound doctrine” within Titus is pertaining to character, I presume something that on the face of it would be something that women would be encouraged to teach. Picking and choosing which topic a women can teach seems to imply that you need another set of criteria to evaluate what is “teaching” and what is “Teaching”...and if that’s what Paul was instructing, it would have been helpful to have had his list to go on!
If the argument is to be consistent, then I don’t think that you can avoid anything but a blanket ban on women teaching men in any context…
...but I feel that you don’t really want to go there!
By Sean on 11/02/2012 at 01:45
Andrew, I’m afraid it is entirely wrong to assert that * Andreas Köstenberger’s argument concerning didaskein oude authentein has largely won the day.* Who has he won over? Towner (223-224) rejects his view, as do most of the recent commentators I’ve just consulted. To cite but one commentator, Ben Witherington: *It is quite beside the point that the word “teach” does not have a pejorative or negative sense here. It is the entire context that is negative, dealing with correcting problems, and this dictates that we should see 1 Tim 2:12 as correcting some sort of abuse of power and teaching privilege here.* Do you have some list of scholars who Kostenberger has won over to support your claim?
Furthermore, it should be noted that cognates of διδάσκω are used negatively in 1 Tim 6:3 and Tit 1:11, thus making it possible that he could be using the word negatively in 2:12, which the context suggests is the case (see 2:8f.).
Lastly, I find it interesting that the one thing you allow, women to teach, is the one thing that Paul forbids in this passage, and the one thing you do not allow, women to be elders, is the one thing Paul is silent on.
By Andrew Wilson on 17/02/2012 at 14:56
@Sean: it is not entirely wrong at all. I listed in my original response to Peter (3/2/12, above) those who have conceded or assumed Kostenberger’s point that the inf + oude + inf structure indicates both are negative or both positive (even when they disagree with him, as Marshall and Witherington do, on whether both are negative or both neutral/positive). To say that heterodidaskalein is a cognate of didasko and thus the latter might be negative sounds, frankly, like suggesting that since adikia is a cognate of dikaios, dikaios might be negative! And I think a careful reading of all my posts on this topic would show that it is far from the case that I only allow women to do one thing (and nor is Paul silent on eldership in 1 Timothy). I distinguish between Teaching and teaching, just as I do between Apostles and apostles, Conservative and conservative, God and god, and so on. But I realise not all will be convinced by that approach. Thanks for your comments!