Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control (1 Tim 2:11-15).It doesn't take a super genius to see the difficulty. "Now, wait!" you will hear from both men and women, "Are you saying that women are supposed to learn quietly, to be in submission, and, most of all, not to teach or be in authority over men in the church?" So let me be, first and foremost, absolutely clear: no, no I am not saying that. The Bible is.
Okay, having said that, it seems abundantly clear that we should be abundantly clear on just what it is saying. If we wish to be followers of Christ, faithful to the Word, we need to know what is being said and follow it (rather than applying our own meaning to it and then calling ourselves "faithful to the Word").
First, it is unavoidable that there are instructions being given to men (1 Tim 2:8) and to women (the text above). Some would like to argue that it is to husbands and wives. This doesn't really work out. First, the context doesn't offer any hints of the kind. Second, Paul references "Adam" and "Eve" -- the prototype "Man" and "Woman" of all men and women -- in his explanation, so it would appear to be beyond "husband and wife".
No, it would appear, from the text, that Paul is indeed commanding that women learn quietly in submission and not to teach or take authority over men. The reasoning is based in the Creation Order and predicated on "Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived." This, indeed, has been the understanding of the passage in the Church since the beginning. Only of late has this changed.
Still, that last verse is ... problematic. Just what does that mean? "Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control" (1 Tim 2:15). That one, you see, isn't quite so clear at all.
So, first, what it cannot mean:
1. The means of salvation from sin and God's wrath is different for men than for women. Men are saved by faith; women are saved by having babies.
2. Only mothers can be saved; childless women go to Hell.
3. Women are less important than men.
None of those are consistent with Scripture or the text itself. Fine, so what does it mean?
Some suggest that it is a reference to the promise to Eve in Gen 3:15 that the Savior would come through her. Most modern commentators dismiss this as untenable and somewhat useless in the context it is used here.
Barnes argues that the idea is that the stigma of being the one that introduced sin into the world will not be hers because of the woman's position as the progenitor of the human race. (Note: Barnes points out that the Greek term, τεκνογονία, translated here as "childbearing" refers to parentage as well as the entire set of maternal duties, including the education and training of offspring.)
Clarke believes this is a reference to Mary as the mother of Christ, that this is a reference to the fact that the Savior was to be born of a woman. Thus, this "saved" refers to the fact that all mankind finds their salvation in the Savior born of a woman. As it turns out, this is a very popular view in older commentaries.
Gill offers a hybrid that argues that this salvation refers both to being saved from the stigma of Eve's introduction of sin in the world by means of offspring and raising children as well as the fact that the Savior was born of a woman and brings salvation to the world.
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown comments on the "through" aspect, similar to "through the fire" (1 Cor 3:15) as opposed to "because of". The thinking is "In spite of the problems of childbirth, women are saved." This commentary also hangs on the "home duties", her sphere (as distinct from the man's sphere).
Robertson's Word Pictures indicates this "saved" refers to the impact a woman has. Men have an impact by leadership roles and public teaching; women have an impact in the duties of a wife and mother. Both are significant.
Most commentaries point to "if they continue ..." as imperative. That is, they might be saved through childbearing (as in "in spite of"), but they are not saved from sin by childbearing. They are saved (from sin - 1 Tim 2:14) by faith demonstrated in a life that reflects saving faith.
Note that the "she" in this verse refers to all women (who are saved), not just Eve (see "they" at the end of the verse).
Men go through the pain of leadership (Mark 9:42) and public teaching (James 3:1); women go through the pain of childbirth, raising children, and making a home. Neither are saved from wrath by these things. Both leave their mark through them. Both are saved by a living faith.
I don't know that I've found a more diverse offering of meanings for a single text anywhere else in Scripture. All agree it isn't that women are saved by making babies. All agree that it does not mean that women are less valuable than men. Beyond that, it gets ... different. I like some of the ideas. I don't think that any of them either allow for a dismissal of the principle that women should not teach or usurp male leadership (the standard understanding throughout Church History) or for the notion that women are "less". Beyond that, it isn't clear. You may have to decide for yourself. Just don't do it by ignoring Scripture.
12 comments:
we generally look around at culture, then weigh scripture like this against what is "normal", then conclude that what this scripture says can't possibly mean what it says. Then we begin to sound like the gay-christian movement as we begin to make it say the opposite.
Nice.
What is your view on braided hair, costly garments, gold, or pearls?
Danny, I can't say how many times I've seen self-professed Christians who determine to define Scripture by the world around them rather than vice versa. Makes no sense.
Josh, Here is what I think you're actual question is: "Do you also hold to Scripture on the question braided hair, etc.?" Yes, I do.
But, having said that, just as in this post, I always have to ask, "What does it say?" Does the Bible say that women shouldn't wear braids? Was that's Paul's intent? Many say yes. Almost no one who holds that it says that actually practices it. With that I would disagree.
What do I see in Paul's command? "Women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self control. I'm not talking about external stuff like hair or pearls, but with good works -- the proper apparel for women who profess godliness." The simplest reading -- "Don't wear braided hair, gold, pearls, or costly attire" -- would require further, "But silver, cheap jewelry, and ponytails are fine." I don't see that as Paul's intent at all. I suggest he's saying, "Don't work at adorning yourself outwardly, but inwardly." And I believe that this is what women should do. I agree with Scripture.
Thanks for "your" interpretation of what Paul meant in the verse. It seems you can take the liberty to interpret the verses on braiding hair and expensive clothing, and yet when it comes to women in church you just state what the Bible says.
If we apply the texts literally should women speak in church at all? Can they be worship leaders? Youth Pastors? Sunday School Teachers? Small group leaders?
Boys above the age of 13 were men in the first century, so this means they could not teach or exercise authority over them in a youth or Sunday school environment.
Also, in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul gives specific instructions to women prophesying in Church. This would be pretty difficult if they are to remain silent as it states in 1 Corinthians 14.
It seems to me that most of us don't have a hard time chalking up the braided hair restriction to cultural situations, but suddenly those that believe women shouldn't exercise authority in church state we are talking absolute truth two verses later. Not only that, but then they claim to be the only ones that agree with scripture.
I think that Paul's main point is don't let women that are uneducated teach or run your church. In fact, don't let anyone that is uneducated lead or run your church. If they are educated and mature then they will not be easily deceived, like Eve was.
Now, Josh, if you're going to play, play fair. I did the same thing in both cases. "What does it say? What does it mean?" I explained in both cases why I conclude that it means what it means. There is, in fact, not one single text in Scripture that you and I do not "take the liberty to interpret".
You ask, "If we apply the texts literally ...?" First, I take all texts "literally" in the sense of "as written". Hyperbole is hyperbole. Poetry is poetry. History is history. Wisdom is wisdom. Doctrine is doctrine. And so on. Further, the aim is to discover the intent -- "as written". If you are suggesting, then, that we should not take them as written, what then would you recommend? How Josh sees it? How current theology sees it? How the Church has historically understood it? (No, of course we can eliminate that one. You've already determined that.)
If you read my explanation, I did not chalk up the braided hair reference to cultural situations. I chalked it up to as written. What does the text say? If it says they shouldn't wear braided hair, then they shouldn't wear braided hair. But does that make sense? I don't think it does (as I indicated -- so they can't braid their hair, but there is no restriction on ponytails or beehives, so those are fine, right?). I'm not relegating it to culture; I'm trying to make sense of it as it was written. And -- seriously, Josh -- "suddenly" women aren't supposed to exercise authority? They have never in all of Church History been allowed to exercise authority over men.
Please note: I think the text is clear. "Over men." I understand the text to command that they aren't allowed to teach men and they aren't allowed to take authority from men. I believe they can teach women and children and they can have authority when given to them by men. (I also believe that the text says "usurp", which suggests that if no man will assume authority -- a failure of manhood -- women, like Deborah, may have to take that role.)
But, look, it's quite clear that we're not examining what Scripture says here to determine what God intended. You are going to stand on a ground quite recently developed relegating this text to the scrap heap of "it was just Paul's culture, not today" without any actual textual reason to do so, ignoring the very basis Paul gives of the Order of Creation and the deception of Eve, something that culture doesn't change. You will continue to view me as simply narrow-minded because I haven't come up to the current new-think here even though I've offered the biblical and logical reasons I believe it. And you will dismiss these ideas as quickly as I offer them with that view. That is, of course, your privilege, but try not to cloak it in "I'm examining this idea to see if it has merit" when you've dismissed it already. Further, if you wish to convince someone like me -- convinced by text and history -- you'll likely have to use text and history to demonstrate my error. "Don't be silly. Everyone knows better than that now" is not a convincing argument in this case.
There are many ways to interpret scripture, but Stan lays out the only way that really matters; that is to try and figure out what it actually is saying. Setting sail in it on a sea of opinions is foolish. Using our culture's rejection of a command, like no braids etc., to justify rejecting other scripture is surely not profitable either. All have the freedom to throw the Bible in the trash. I guess I'm wondering why so many want to mine from it the culturally acceptable, as if doing so lends credence to their particular opinions, rather than to use it for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Ironically the culturally acceptable has historically been a male dominated society. Conveniently the passage in question fits in real well with that culture. Some might compare it to the slavery passages used to justify that in the past.
Ironically, the Bible stands squarely on the patriarchal system, starting with "God the Father" and continuing through "Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman" (1 Cor 11:3) right on down to "wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22). Just because it's cultural doesn't mean it's right or wrong, but what God says is right. He favors male authority and responsibility. Some might compare this to a failure to comprehend Old Testament slavery, but, then, that would be a mistake, wouldn't it?
Poor God, He just can't seem to get His act straight. He was wrong about how marriage should be, He was wrong about homosexual love, He was wrong about sacrificial atonement, and He was wrong about how women should behave in the church setting. Poor Guy can't keep His followers from being wrong for 2000+ years. He is so bound by humanity that He is incapable of even presenting the truth in His Word. I wonder what else He's been unable to show us is correct.
I know that I am late to the party about this, but I have a genuine question, Stan.
You mentioned that can have authority when given to them by men. With that said, do you think that women can teach men then, if there's a male authority figure there that has commissioned her or given her authority to do so?
Thank you in advanced for your reply.
Justin
Denney, it's funny. I just answered this over here. A topic in the last few days. The way Scripture reads is that there are two things Paul says women are not allowed to do. One is teach men and the other is exercise authority over men. It is an "or" which means one is not dependent on the other. They are distinct. So biblically women in the church are not allowed to teach men in the church even if they're under the authority of men in the church. Mind you, I know not all agree with me there. It's just what I read and until I can find some reason to NOT read it that way, I'm stuck with it.
Post a Comment