1 Tim 2:12 - Hang on to yer bootstraps, 'cause here we go!

[John]

The verse in question: "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." (see here for context)

Over the years, I've gone back and forth on this in my own interpretations and I'm curious as to what others think. At first blush, it appears pretty straightforward. However, cultural, historical, and contextual factors must also be taken into account. I was reading the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews recently, when I came across this nugget (wall of text incoming):

"Paul’s third corrective is found in a much-debated text: “I am not permitting a woman to teach.” The ongoing sense of the present tense verb is to be noted. The corrective is not the commonly found categorical prohibition, “I do not permit,” (aorist tense) but a restriction specific to the current situation at Ephesus (“I am not permitting [you Ephesian women]”). The NLT’s “I do not let women” can be easily misunderstood as Paul’s universal practice and overlooks the context of false teaching specific to the Ephesian situation. It is also important to note that Paul introduces verse 12 as a point of contrast with verse 11. The initial but in the Greek makes this quite clear: “Let a woman learn quietly and submissively but for a woman to teach … a man I am not permitting” (my translation).

What then is the restriction? It can’t be women teaching per se, since Paul commands Cretan women in a letter written roughly at the same time to “teach others what is good” (Titus 2:3–5; cf. Acts 18:26). It could be that Paul was restricting women from public or “official” teaching. Yet this too has its difficulties, for teaching was part of what a prophet did in a public setting. To prophesy was to instruct so that “everyone will learn” (1 Cor 14:19, 31). And women were certainly active in the early Christian communities in this way (e.g., 1 Cor 11:5). Also, Paul taught elsewhere that when believers gather corporately, “one will sing, another will teach, another will tell some special revelation God has given, one will speak in tongues, and another will interpret what is said” (1 Cor 14:26). There are no gender distinctions here. Both women and men brought a teaching to the congregation.

Some claim that the issue is women teaching men doctrine and that Paul is stating that women cannot do so. But this misconstrues the verb didaskō and the term “doctrine.” To “teach” (didaskein) is to provide instruction in a formal or informal setting (L&N 33.224; cf. Luke 11:1). The Greek term for “teach doctrine” is katēcheō (cf. English “catechism”; Luke 1:4; Acts 18:25; 21:21, 24; 1 Cor 14:19; Gal 6:6). “Doctrine” as a system of thought assumes that authority lies in the act of teaching (or in the person who teaches). Yet, in the Pastorals, authority resides in the deposit of truth—literally, “the mystery of the faith” (3:9), “the message of faith” (4:6), “the faith” (4:1; 5:8; 6:10, 12, 21), and “the trust” (6:20) that Jesus passed on to his disciples and that they in turn passed on to their disciples (2 Tim 2:2). So “doctrine” with this definition was not a first-century development. That is why Paul instructed Timothy to publicly rebuke (5:20) anyone who departed from, literally, “the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ” (6:3). The teacher was subject to evaluation and discipline just like any other leader or minister."

The current church is all about inclusiveness, and so one cannot blame Ms. Belleville for wanting to promote the belief that women should be allowed to preach. I also once leaned exclusively toward public opinion on this matter. However, I find Belleville's statement that "The corrective is not the commonly found categorical prohibition, “I do not permit,” (aorist tense) but a restriction specific to the current situation at Ephesus (“I am not permitting [you Ephesian women]”)" to be overreaching. In fact, I believe it casts doubt on her entire argument and, thus, on her interpretation of Paul's actual intent in this verse.

I'm finding that the more arguments I read about how Paul didn't really mean women shouldn't teach from a public pulpit, the more convinced I am that he did, in fact, mean exactly that. But then again:

"While I (Randy) was living in Indonesia, I was invited to speak at a "pastors only" meeting. In the audience of over one hundred pastors, I noticed a half-dozen women. The bylaws of the Convention of Indonesian Baptists Churches clearly state: "Pastors must be male." I should have left it alone.

"I thought this meeting was for pastors only," I remarked to the conference organizer.

"It is," he replied.

"But there were women in the audience," I pointed out.

"Yes."

Now I was confused. "But your laws say pastors must be male!" I exclaimed.

The convention president calmly replied, "Yes, and most of them are."

Goodness. His answer represents a fundamentally different view of law. To the non-Western mind, it seems, a law is more a guideline. Americans would likely want to change the Indonesian law to read, "Most pastors must be male," and then we would argue over the percentage. The Indonesian --and, arguably, the Biblical-- view of law always left room for exceptions.

Paul states, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet" (1 Tim 2:12). "But what about Priscilla and Junia?" we might ask Paul. "They taught in church. You said women must keep silent."

Perhaps Paul would answer, "Yes. And most of them do." (from pp. 169-170)

Thoughts?

[Rod]

I love this topic.

Is there an equivalent for men: thou shalt nottest have thy babies hither forth.

[Lee]

Scholarly consensus remains that Paul didn't write the Timothy letters, but that they reflect a later period (early second century) after the Church had started leaning back the patriarchal way. Does that change any of the thinking?

[John]

Excellent point; I'm not sure how it couldn't affect one's thinking. We could, of course, point to Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians as a similar line of thought but, while the authorship of 1 Cor is not in question, that particular passage (1 Corinthians 14:34-35) is. Go figure!

Conspiracy? ;)

[Rod]

I laugh whenever Lee uses the word Scholars. But that's just me.

I'm looking forward to digging into this. Hopefully tomorrow.

[Xdyj]

Idk, I've read that an argument against the Pauline authorship 1Cor 14:34-35 is that they're suspiciously too similar to the corresponding verses of 1 Tim. Also it is a bit uncharacteristic of Paul, who is generally quite egalitarian, to write stuff like these. I'm not sure but imho, if your faith allows you to do so, it is much easier to just follow some historians and believe that those verses are all later additions.

[John]

Xdyj wrote: "Idk, I've read that an argument against the Pauline authorship 1Cor 14:34-35 is that they're suspiciously too similar to the corresponding verses of 1 Tim. Also it is a bit uncharacteristic of Paul, who is generally quite egalitarian, to write stuff like these. I'm not sure but imho, if your faith allows you to do so, it is much easier to just follow some historians and believe that those verses are all later additions. "

I think you're dead on as to why they are considered later additions. And you're also right in that it may be easier just to follow scholarly thought; however, that would still leave the problem of interpretation, particularly for someone who believes (as I do) that Scripture is "God breathed", infallible, and inerrant. Those verses can't be discarded simply because they might not have been written by Paul (and I do realize that you weren't suggesting this; I'm just following the a logical train of thought).

Rod wrote: "I'm looking forward to digging into this. Hopefully tomorrow."
I can't wait! ;)

[Rod]

The nasty truth:

There's a time for women to Shut Up! Why, because God said so through Paul. Take it up with Upper Management.

The pleasant truth:

What a brutal burden and responsibility, God (and Paul), have removed from women. This is not an area they need to stress over or feel required to fen-angle into. Which explains why there are so many women Pastors with huge stubborn rebellious chips on their shoulders desperately trying to force themselves into a God-ordained man's position --- like men lining up at the hospitals to try and have babies.

------------------------------

Having said that: There are many places and people women can still teach. (children, other women, sick...) They can also work quietly.
My Mother says "there's nothing more annoying than busy-body women destroying a church with their gossip and fashion show AND egotistical rebellious bad theology."

My add on: We have enough problem with MEN DOING THAT. At least God recommended we keep that crap limited to one sex "Male" who will have to answer for their stupidity.

Joyfully - women can sit back and watch men MUCK about --- it's God's problem after all. Women will not be held responsible or judged for this. What a relief eh?

[Rod]

So we really need to get ALL the Bible verses that apply to this general issue placed on the table. From Genesis to Revelation.


1 Corinthians 14:34
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

Titus 2:5
to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

1 Timothy 2:
Instructions to Women
…11A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.…

Genesis 3:
13Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
16To the woman he said,
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be forf your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”

17And to Adam he said,
“Because you have listened to the voice of your WIFE
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you...

And then we follow the Priesthood for a few thousand years... any women? Any mention of women filling temple positions specifically?

Have I officially declared war on half of humanity (except my Mom of course?). Hey, whatever God says. I'm just trying to follow the book.

[Rod]

So does a woman go to HELL for disobeying and being generally stubborn and rebellious? Probably not, but it's something they need to humbly check their Ego about.

Don't worry: I have a hundred things I NEED to humbly check my ego about.