Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Did Paul forbid women to teach?

1 Timothy 2:11-15 is by far the most controversial in the New Testament with respect to the role of women in the church. In the first place, there are significant translation difficulties.

  • How should one translate the term gyne (either “woman” or “wife”).
  • How should one translate the expression hesychia manthaneto? Does it mean she is to “learn in silence” (i.e., don’t speak out publicly, so KJV) or she is to “learn quietly” (i.e., she is not to disrupt worship, so NASB)?
  • To whom or what is she to be in “full submission” (pase hypotage)? The object of this submission is unstated. Does Paul mean she is to be in submission to the church, in submission to men generally, or in submission to her husband?
  • How should one render the phrase ouk epitrepo? If one translates it absolutely, “I do not permit”, it indicates habitual practice (so NIV). If one translates it periphrastically, “I am not permitting”, it indicates a temporary restriction for the present time, e.g., “I am not [i.e., at this time] giving permission for a woman to teach…” (so JB).
  • What is the meaning of the infinitive authentein, a rare word that appears only here in the New Testament? It certainly is not the usual Greek word that Paul uses to describe authority. Does it mean “to have authority over”, implying a prohibition of female leadership altogether (so NASB)? Does it mean “to dominate”, implying an abuse of leadership power by women who are already leaders (so Berkeley Version)?
     
    In addition to translation issues, there are significant interpretive issues, particularly in the latter part of the passage.
  • Why does Paul say Adam was created first? Does he intend this as a statement about rank (i.e., Adam was superior to Eve) or a statement correcting a popular Ephesian myth (i.e., a myth advocating that the woman was the first created being)?
  • Is Paul’s statement that the woman was deceived intended as a derogation toward all women (i.e., women are not to be trusted) or the refutation of an Ephesian myth (i.e., a myth advocating that the woman was the source of all wisdom)?
  • How is the woman “saved” through child bearing? The grammar is complex, for literally it reads, “She shall be saved….if they remain in faith…” Who is the “she” and who are the “they”?
     
    The most restrictive approach to this passage (sometimes labeled “hard patriarchalism”) sees it as a categorical prohibition. Here, women are to be silent in a congregational setting. They can listen, but they cannot say anything. They must be in total submission to men. Under no circumstance may they teach men. They can have no leadership role in the church, at least if such a role would require them to be directive to men, for they were divinely created to be in submission to men. To do otherwise would usurp the woman’s God-ordained role to be under male authority. The order of creation is hierarchical. Adam was created first; therefore, males are superior. Eve, not Adam, was deceived in Eden. Women are by disposition inclined to be fooled, and therefore, they are more apt to be tricked into transgression.
     
    A less restrictive approach (sometimes labeled “soft patriarchalism”) reads the passage as allowing women to learn quietly so long as they do not disrupt the worship service. They should be in submission to their husbands, and they cannot be a teacher of men, though they may teach other women and also young children. They cannot serve as overseers or elders, since such a role would be a usurpation of the God-ordained pattern that men are to be the primary leaders in the church, but they can serve in lesser roles (e.g., administrative, supportive, secretarial, etc.). The creation sets the hierarchical order. Men were created first; therefore, men should be the primary leaders. Eve was the first to fall into disobedience; therefore, women should not be the primary leaders. However, women may serve in subordinate roles in the church so long as they serve under the jurisdiction of a male leader. They may speak publicly, so long as they do so in submission to their husbands or fathers or male congregational leaders.
     
    An egalitarian approach reads the passage as a temporary restriction upon women in the Ephesian church due to the rise of a matriarchal heresy with roots in Ephesian paganism and the beginnings of Gnosticism.  This position emphasizes the cultural context of Ephesus (1 Ti. 1:3), a Roman city with an extensive history in mother goddess worship and whose patron deity, Artemis, was famous throughout the Roman world. When Gnostic ideas began to infiltrate Ephesus via Judaism, the notion of feminine mediators was advanced so that men could only learn the esoteric knowledge of the Gnostics from women, several of whom are known by name. To be sure, what we known of Asian Gnosticism comes from documents somewhat later than the writing of the pastoral letters (2nd century AD), but at the same, many scholars have suggested that incipient Gnosticism (i.e., an early developing form of Gnostic thought) probably underlies not only the Pastoral Letters, but also Paul’s Colossian letter and perhaps the letters of John. The female was perceived to be the primal source of spiritual knowledge, an idea present in Ephesian myths but transferred over into formative Gnostic teachings. Such mysticism held that Eve pre-existed before Adam, and in fact, was responsible for infusing him with life. Sophia Zoe (= Wisdom-Life), an alias for Eve, created Adam before the fleshly Eve was removed from his side. She breathed life into him, and she is the one who holds the power of enlightenment. Adam was ignorant of the true state of affairs, tricked into believing that he was created first. His enlightenment—the Gnostic secret knowledge that his source of life was the feminine-divine—could only be revealed by the woman, and the Gnostics’ claim was that they held the key to this enlightenment.
     
    If the foregoing culture of Ephesus lies behind Paul’s statements in 1 Timothy, which I think it probably does, then the reading of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 takes on quite a different cast. Certainly, there could hardly be a more pointed disagreement between St. Paul and the Gnostic mythologies:
     
    GNOSTIC LITERATURE                   ST. PAUL
    The Hypostasis of the Archons, 2.89    1 Timothy 2:13
    The spirit-filled woman came to him        For Adam was formed first, then
    and spoke with him, saying, “Arise,         Eve.
    Adam.” And when he saw her, he said,
    “You are the one who has given me
    life.”
    On the Origin of the World, 2.5.116      1 Timothy 2:14
    But let us not tell Adam because he is        And Adam was not the one
    not from among us, but let us bring a         deceived; it was the woman
    sleep upon him, and let us teach him          who was deceived and became
    in his sleep as if she [Eve] came into          a sinner.
    being from his rib…
     
    That some sort of feminine aggression was prominent among Ephesus’ false teachers seems apparent, for Paul rebukes the ostentatious dress of such women who flaunted themselves in public worship (1 Ti. 2:9-10). He calls to silence any women leaders who were given to malicious talk (1 Ti. 3:11; 5:13) and rebukes those spreading “godless myths and old wives’ tales” (1 Ti. 4:7). Near the end of the letter, he warns against “godless chatter” and “opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge” (1 Ti. 6:20-21). His language about “what is falsely called knowledge” is an admirable description of what we know of Gnostic thought a few decades later. How far developed Gnostic ideas were at this early stage is difficult to ascertain, but the similarities are striking. In any case, Paul was blunt: such female-perpetrated heresies already had induced some to turn away from the true gospel of Jesus Christ to follow Satan (1 Ti. 5:17).
     

If this is the context, then Paul’s restrictions in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 are to be read in their local setting. He is not issuing universal demands that women never speak in church, never occupy positions of leadership, or never are allowed to teach. Rather, he is emphatically shutting down a virulent heresy in Ephesus, demonstrating by his citations from the Book of Genesis how distorted was this false teaching. The feminists were wrong: Adam, not Eve, was created first. Eve, not Adam, was deceived by the snake.

1 comment:

  1. Whatever Paul meant by his restrictions on women in I Timothy 2:11-15 (and I Corinthians 14:34-35), his actions clearly show that he did NOT restrict women in active roles of ministry in the house churches that he started in Asia Minor and Greece. Throughout the Pauline corpus - and sometimes reinforced by the later retelling of the story of Christian origins in the Acts of the Apostles - Paul praised particular women for their contributions to and even partnership in his ministry. Chloe of Corinth, a deaconess (servant) and patron (helper of many) delivered and explained Paul's letter to the Roman community. Prisca appears to be a full partner with her husband Aquila in ministry in house churches in Ephesus and later Rome. Junia, along with her husband Andronicus, was counted among the apostles (the most natural reading of "notable among the apostles"). Paul gave instructions to the women of Corinth on how they ought to appear and behave when engaging in public prayer and prophecy. The first Corinthian letter attacks abuses of the charismata, but the text clearly implies that these spiritual gifts were practiced by men and women alike (with no word of condemnation from Paul).

    So whatever Paul meant in I Timothy 2 and I Corinthians 14, he took no absolute opposition to women participating in ministry. Personally, I think both passages can be read more clearly in their immediate contexts. Apparently, the women of Corinth were a big part of the charismatic "free-for-all" that Paul sought to bring under control. Likewise, I Timothy seems to imply that uneducated women were disrupting public worship with questions.

    Interestingly, in both passages, Paul proposes a short-term solution - being silent and refraining from public questioning - and a long-term solution - women should (and certainly could) LEARN. This would address the shortcomings of their behavior and education. The long-term solution, it seems to me, would prepare women to step out of the shadows into full participation in public worship and ministry.

    All of this being said, still Paul shared in the prevailing sentiment of his day regarding the inferiority of women. Rather, Paul was at least a somewhat progressive voice among his fellow chauvinists and at times a radical egalitarian (when in the Galatian letter he pronounced that "in Christ, there is no male or female"). Sadly, Paul - ever the child of his day - did not work out the practical implications of this radical pronouncement for the daily life of the church.

    [Dan, I do think that you may well be correct in placing the I Timothy passage in the context of incipient Gnosticism that was already on the rise in the first century - especially in Ephesus, but also in the Corinthian "wisdom" that Paul battled (See Schmithal's "Gnosticism in Corinth"). The larger context of both I Timothy and I Corinthians seems to be a struggle against ideas that would later come together in the overly broad category that we call Gnosticism.]

    Paul, like the Church Fathers after him, never extricated himself from the social norms of the ancient world - even when those norms were challenged by the radical implications of the gospel he preached.

    ReplyDelete