Thus far in my series on the role of women, I have discussed these two major areas:
- The creation – I specifically looked at Genesis 1:26-28; Genesis 2:18-22 (part 1 & part 2); and Genesis 3:16.
- The new creation – I specifically looked at 2 Corinthians 5:16-17 and Galatians 3:27-29.
In all, I believe that the dividing barriers across every area of the body of Christ have been broken down with the reality of the new creation that has already come in Christ. It does not mean that there are not distinguishing characteristics between men and women, but the gospel (good news) declares that our giftings, callings and roles in God are not based upon gender (or any other worldly measure sure as ethnicity, social status, etc), but they are centred in Christ and the new creation that His body even now enjoys.
But it is time to move on to the third part of this series: the church. And with such, there are two main passages I want to consider – 1 Timothy 2:8-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33-35.
Perhaps the most debated (and that’s an understatement) of all passages on the topic of the role of women is the ever-famous 1 Timothy 2:8-15. I’ll post the passage here:
8 I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarrelling; 9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
Let me start off by saying that I don’t have all the answers with regards to some passages. There are plenty of different understandings that surround this passage, plenty of them. So my hopes is to try and consider some things I have learned in my study, some things I have read from others, and even share where I am not positive. But, in all, I have come to the conclusion that there are two very important things that I keep in mind when considering this passage: 1) reading it through the reality of the new creation and 2) considering it in its historical-cultural context. Those two things are of foremost importance not only with this passage, but with all of Scripture.
So, I move on now to share some thoughts.
First, as I have hinted at already, we must remember that, with any Scriptural text, it is good to keep in mind the historical situation, cultural background, setting, etc, of a particular passage. Unfortunately, we cannot always say, ‘What does black ink on white paper say?’ Our lives in the twenty-first century are quite different from the biblical times of two and three thousand years ago. This 1 Timothy 2 passage is a great example of needing to understand such background information.
1. Background Situation
Paul is writing to Timothy with instruction on how to lead and instruct the church in the city of Ephesus. If you notice in Paul’s ‘pastoral’ letters (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus), the word doctrine, or teaching, comes up quite a few times. As in many early church situations, and unfortunately the need is the same today, Paul is trying to help Timothy combat specific problems and even heretical teaching. There is a need for good, solid doctrinal teaching for God’s people.
Before we jump into the specifics of the passage, there is one major thing we should keep in mind about the city of Ephesus. It was a city with many devoted followers to the pagan goddess Artemis, also known as Diana (see Acts 19:21-41). Even more, there was an amazing temple built to this goddess (see Acts 19:27) and it was known as one of the ‘seven wonders of the ancient world’. This pagan religion had a major impact on the life of the Ephesian people.
With so many people following the pagan goddess (a woman-god), there probably would have been false teaching regularly available within the city of Ephesus. It is highly probable that many of these former Artemis worshipers were coming to Christ, but, unfortunately, some of their former teaching could have been brought in and mingled within the Christian community. Thus, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 serves to particularly address some wrong teaching, and, what’s more, wrong teaching that has come through specific women.
2. Respectable Apparel
Though some might highly disagree, we have to recognise that some of Scripture addresses cultural situations in which the writer (as Paul in 1 Timothy) is not looking to lay down a specific ‘command for all time’. One such example of Paul addressing a cultural circumstance of a particular place and time is the issue of slavery. In such passages, Paul was not addressing the matter of slavery as if he wanted it to last until Christ returned (a command for all time), especially in the context of his new creation theology. But he does address a situation knowing the society of his time held slavery as an acceptable practice (for a slavery passage, see Ephesians 6:5-9).
Though we cannot quite fathom how slavery could be seen as an acceptable practise, and I am not saying that Paul believed it was healthy, we must understand that Paul was working with people in a culture where slavery was a tolerable custom. Thus, he gave masters and slaves instruction on how to be godly masters and slaves. Paul was addressing God’s people as faithfully as he could knowing the cultural bounds and societal ways of life in his day.
I labour such a point as to lay a foundation while considering 1 Timothy 2:9-10.
9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.
Of course, for women to ‘adorn themselves in respectable apparel with modesty and self-control’ is great counsel for all time. But the specific refusal of braided hair, gold, pearls and costly attire cannot be a ‘command of God for all time,’ can it?
We must bear in mind that the main purpose of the passage is that women wear ‘respectable apparel’ and ‘what is proper for women who profess godliness, with good works’. But Paul cannot be saying that women can never have braided hair or wear gold, pearls and other costly attire. If so, most women today are in direct disobedience to God and we must make an effort to correct them.
But as we have noted, the heart of the passage, again, is that Paul desires that women dress respectably and wear what is proper for godly women. In those days, it seems that this did not include braided-hair, gold, pearls and other such costly items.
Even more, there is something else to consider within that specific situation. What was possibly taking place in the Ephesian church was that, as I noted, many women were coming out from the pagan worship of Artemis and coming to Christ. But, unfortunately, many of them might have been dressing in apparel that was not respectable in the midst of public Christian gatherings, possibly even showing allegiance to this Artemis. Thus, Paul is asking the women to make a break from the ‘old’ and dress respectably.
Today, it is quite okay for a woman to braid her hair or wear pearls. But in all things, from clothes, to our words, to our actions, we must be willing to ask ourselves – I know this is permissible in my freedom in Christ, but is it beneficial (see 1 Corinthians 10:23)? That is Paul’s greater desire.
3. The Command to Silence and Not Teach
11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (1 Timothy 2:11-12)
The above two verses bring the greatest contention. Just reading it once over, most would conclude that Paul is commanding for all time that women be silent, learn submissively and not teach or exercise authority over men. And, when also considering these two verses with vs13-14, this is where complementarians look to ‘ground their theology in the creation order’. This is what people like Wayne Grudem look to do in his Systematic Theology (p937-939) as well as Alexander Strauch in his Biblical Eldership (p59-61).
But, I have already argued in my articles on Genesis 1 and 2 that the creation order teaches mutuality and equality between both genders. So, perhaps, vs13-14 are not actually grounding the subordination of women to men, with regards to leadership, in the creation order.
Now, remember. Due to the influence of the Artemis cult, there would have most likely been some troublesome teaching, and problematic women, in Ephesus. Paul would later on say this about these women:
13 Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not. 14 So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander. 15 For some have already strayed after Satan. (1 Timothy 5:13-15)
Some women had already begun to “stray after Satan.” This was a serious situation which Paul was addressing. There were obviously some women who were stirring up the church at Ephesus, even with certain false teachings. This is important to keep in mind as we come back to the passage in question, 1 Timothy 2.
In their book, Why Not Women?, Cunningham and Hamilton point out the unique structure of vs9-15 in the Greek, specifically in regards to the contrasting use of the words women (plural) and woman (singular):
- Vs9-10 speaks of women (plural)
- Vs11-15a speaks of a woman (singular)
- Vs15b speaks of women (plural)
With this structure in mind, Cunningham and Hamilton state:
‘One of the major themes of this entire passage was stopping the deception in the Ephesian church. Eve was deceived, and so was this woman who was to be silenced. Both were acting on false beliefs.
What these two women had in common was that they both had believed a lie. As a result, they both had sinned. The sin of both had affected the lives of a large number of people in a very negative way.’ (Why Not Women?, p 216)
Therefore, from 1 Timothy 2:11-12, the two authors would argue that Paul was not silencing all women for all time. Instead, he was silencing one particular woman who had been deceived. For why else would Paul switch from the plural to the singular? And Timothy would have known exactly whom Paul was talking about. Cunningham and Hamilton mention a couple other passages with a similar style, i.e., 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 and Titus 3:10-11.
I’m not convinced of this particular angle on 1 Timothy 2, but it is still something worth mentioning.
Interestingly enough, I bring up two more related points:
1) Priscilla (also called Prisca), as in Priscilla and Aquila, had a very significant teaching role, especially in the Ephesian church. We see Paul’s greeting to the couple in 2 Timothy 4:19, showing their role in the church in Ephesus. We also read in 1 Corinthians 16:19 that the church met in their home, which most likely meant that they were the leaders of that church. Finally, we see how they both took aside Apollos and explained to him the things of God more accurately (Acts 18:24-28). Thus, they would have both been teaching and instructing Apollos, who himself became a great leader in the early church. And it is interesting to note that, in the six times the couple are mentioned together, four of the times mention Priscilla first. This probably points to her stronger measure of gifting, maybe even referring to her strong teaching role.
2) Paul encourages Timothy with these words in 2 Timothy 2:2: ‘and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful [persons] who will be able to teach others also.’ Most translations use the word men. But the Greek actually uses the general word for humanity (anthropos) instead of the male-specific word (aner). Thus, Paul expected Timothy, and us, to teach faithful men and women so that they can also teach others. Such teaching for women is not only relegated to instructing children or other women, though those are noble ministries. But such instruction was to be provided for both men and women so that both could have the possibility of instructing all genders and ages, even in our main Sunday gatherings with men present.
Thus, I am convinced Paul is not laying down a command for all time that women should remain silent and never exercise authority over men. And, by no means is this founded in the “creation account”. Paul was most likely addressing part of the wrong teaching that was in Ephesus, reminding them in vs13-14 of what really took place: 1) who was created first and 2) who was actually deceived. But none of this should be seen as a foundation to the gospel for all time that women must remain silent and not exercise authority over men. The new creation has come!
4. Saved Through Child Bearing
I’ll finish out by finally looking at vs15, which also proves to be a difficult verse to understand. For starters, our verse divisions do not always help. As I mentioned above, vs15a still uses woman (singular). But mid-way through the verse, Paul switches back to women (plural).
Now, it is quite easy to recognise that this verse must not mean what it seems to plainly state, mainly that women would actually be saved through the natural act of birthing a child. Our salvation is centred in Christ alone, not on any merit of our own works, and especially not on bearing children.
Cunningham and Hamilton point out that the Greek for childbearing (teknogonias) is a noun with the definite article ‘the’ preceding it. So, they suggest it should literally be translated as ‘the childbearing’.
The two authors, then, go on to note the greater purpose and context of 1 Timothy 2 to help us understand the first half of vs15, which is still in the singular:
3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Saviour, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. (1 Timothy 2:3-6)
The greater context of 1 Timothy 2 is that of salvation! Knowing this, Cunningham and Hamilton conclude that this specific childbearing (literally ‘the childbearing’) that Paul refers to is that of the promised seed of Eve, the Child born of a woman, Jesus Christ. And this case is strengthened even more when considering how Paul addresses the person of Eve in vs13-14. Thus, it was Eve who was promised that a specific seed would come forth from her to crush the serpent’s head (Genesis 3:15). Many theologians refer to this verse as the protevangelium, meaning ‘first gospel’.
Therefore, knowing that Paul had already been talking about the greater purposes of salvation (vs3-6), then moving on to compare this one particularly deceived Ephesian woman (singular) to Eve, he now says that the deceived Ephesian woman can still be saved, this coming through the great childbearing act which brought the Saviour into our world.
‘“The childbearing” refers to the one mediator between God and persons, the person Christ Jesus, the promised seed of Eve, the Child born of a woman. The issue at stake here was salvation, not motherhood. Women aren’t saved by getting pregnant and having babies. They’re saved by the child who was born – Jesus!’ (Why Not Women?, p224)
Paul ends out this section with a few words to all women (plural): ‘if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.’ This was similar to his earlier words in 1 Timothy 1:5. This is something he expects for all women.
Again, even if one rejects the idea of a singular woman being addressed by Paul in vs11-15a, the whole of vs15 has no bearing on the great role of women. Well, lest we travel down the older traditional-patriarchal view that women are mainly called to be homemakers and care for the children. But I suppose we have moved on from there.
No doubt this set of verses in 1 Timothy 2:8-15 is not easily understood. Again, I don’t have all the answers, and the plethora of theologians and scholars out there cannot come to any agreement on the text.
But, considering the passages from the early chapters of Genesis, and noting Paul’s greater new creation theology centred in Christ, it is quite doubtful that this specific passage is teaching that women must be silent and never exercise authority over men for all time. Matter of fact, I suppose that, if the Timothy text is teaching such, then Paul is probably contradicting what he has spoken and allowed elsewhere.
Thus, what is most probable is that Paul is dealing with a specific problem in the church at Ephesus, and even likely confronting a specific woman who had been deceived and was deceiving others. This deception would have come from the influence of the Artemis cult.
And, so, I am convinced the usual complementarian readings of this Timothy passage do not do justice to the actual text nor to the greater teaching of the Scripture.
I have heard only one reading of this passage that makes sense. Someone on Parchment and Pen linked to an article which apparently states more or less as follows: that Gnostic teaching claims that Eve was created first, that she brought some kind of secret gnosis into the world which will bring us salvation, and that such things as childbearing are too ‘earthly’ so that if one engages in them, one imperils one’s salvation.
And Paul is saying here: No, Adam was created first; no, Eve did not bring a secret gnosis that brings salvation into the world, but rather sin from which we must be redeemed if we are to be saved; no, women absolutely can be saved, even if they bear children – obviously, if they are otherwise living the life of faith.
I believe this author probably also thought it probable that one woman in particular was being spoken to in those verses where ‘woman’ appears in the singular. I myself prefer not to speculate about that, but rather note that Paul said, ‘I do not permit…’ and say it is entirely understandable in circumstances where it could have gnostic implications that he would not permit any woman to teach – if he thought people’s consciences would be too weak to understand that it is NOT a package deal, that just because women are teaching does not mean we are espousing or propagating gnosticism.
And then there is the whole matter of ‘authentein’, for the meaning of which there is just too little documentation for us to make a doctrine from this passage. Or, to put it another way, we have to read the rest of Scripture that is more clear and only then come to a conclusion about what this passage might be teaching.
In the end, I didn’t try to speculate on the exact details of the false teaching, though I have heard what you have said and pointed it out in previous discussions I’ve had. In general, the point is that Paul is addressing a particular situation in Ephesus with particular false teaching coming forth. Hence, he was not giving a command for all time.
In 1 Timothy 2:15, Paul again goes from the singular to the plural, however it is not a given that the plural is “women” here. After all what does the specific woman’s salvation have to do with all women? It seems much more logical to me that the plural refers back to verse 12 where Paul speaks about a specific woman and a specific man. These two could certainly be the plural of verse 15 where his helping her come out of her deception would be needed so that she could receive proper instruction in the word and help to stay away from error.
The question I ask myself is why do we see the plural in verse 15 as if it must be about women in general?
Interesting thoughts on the ‘they’ of vs15b.
Probably it’s because everyone translates ‘teknogonia’ as ‘childbearing’ and assumes that since only women do that… But I wonder if that is the only possible translation. That having been said, your comment – I must admit – struck me like a lightning-bolt.
And I have just looked for related words. And here we are: a noun ‘goneus’, which means ‘parent’. And a verb: gennao – which means both to beget and to bear. This definitely implies that ‘teknogonia’ could legitimately be translated as ‘making of babies’ – without differentiating between begetting and bearing.
Frankly, if this is legit – and all the more so if that hypothesis about gnosticism is correct – then it probably doesn’t even matter anymore whether Paul is referring to a specific man and woman, or the general case man and woman.
The problem with attaching “childbearing” to “women” is that childbearing isn’t plural but singular and it isn’t a verb but a noun.
Also of note is that Paul could easily have said, “They will be saved…if they” if this was a question about all women’s salvation through bearing children but then he would have removed the definite “the” from childbearing and he would have made it plural so that it was about women (in general) having children (in general). I think there is way too much specific grammar going on here to see that one as the best option.
Paul is saying that salvation is the end result for “a woman” through “the childbearing” (definite singular noun) “if” (provides a qualifier) “they” (we need to work back to find the first “they” who are capable of participating) continue in the faith with love and self control.
If “a woman” is a specific deceived woman teaching error and her salvation is hinged on “the childbearing” (specific entry into the world of one human – i.e. the Messiah) “if” she gets help from at least one other person so that together they make up the “they” which can walk together in faith providing her with the support she needs to stay away from error, then we wouldn’t need to add “all woman” into the equation. We would only need the silent husband who is like Adam in knowing the truth but keeping silent about the deception to step up to the plate to walk alongside her in love for the truth, love for God and a determination that she will get the help and support she needs to stay away from error. We won’t see this though until we can get past seeing “they” as being all women in general. The grammar for “they” is not specifically feminine.
Scott, this is an excellent post and you bring excellent points. You may be right about “woman” in vv.11-15a being singular. But what gives me trouble is μείνωσιν in v.15 being 3rd person plural, which would account for the rendering of “they” in some translations such as NRSV, TNIV, NLT, ESV, Young’s, Darby. Other translations use the singular “she”: CSB, NET, NAB, NJB.
If “childbearing” can be referred to the bearing of the Christ-child, it makes sense and conveniently removes the whole patriarchal reading of v.15. I wish this could be true. I looked up other translations on this. The NIRV rendering gives an interesting perspective:
“Will women be saved by having children? Only if they keep on believing, loving, and leading a holy life in a proper way.” (NIRV)
Putting this into the form of a question is really cool. It doesn’t negate the rendering of “child-bearing” but gives it an interest twist.
““Will women be saved by having children? Only if they keep on believing, loving, and leading a holy life in a proper way.” (NIRV)”
Kevin, but that translation doesn’t make sense either. It still isn’t having children that will save a woman. Not having children will not not save a woman either.
TL, I wasn`t sure what you meant. The NIRV`s rendering in the form of a question obviously assumes the answer to be No. It still seems like a possible and sensible rendering for v.15.
“This definitely implies that ‘teknogonia’ could legitimately be translated as ‘making of babies’ – without differentiating between begetting and bearing.”
The problem is that this would be an action word (verb) not a thing word (noun) and babies (plural) isn’t the inspired grammar.
The way I understand verse 15 is that Paul used such precise and unusual grammar that every interpretation other than the right one has inconsistencies and problems. When the inconsistencies and problems are gone, the interpretation is the correct one.
“But what gives me trouble is μείνωσιν in v.15 being 3rd person plural, which would account for the rendering of “they” in some translations such as NRSV, TNIV, NLT, ESV, Young’s, Darby. Other translations use the singular “she”: CSB, NET, NAB, NJB.”
The problem that translators have is that verse 15 has both the singular and the plural and this confuses them. Some ignore the singular and so by default make the whole verse about the plural. Others ignore the plural and make the whole verse as a singular. The reason is because most because that the “she” and the “they” refer to the same generic people but it is improper grammar to came generic woman as both singular and plural in the very same sentence. So translators “fix” the problem by ignoring one or the other.
I believe that they would have the problem solved if they could understand that Paul isn’t talking about generic woman but about a specific woman and her husband. It makes perfect sense then to call a specific woman “she” and the woman and her husband as “they”. But tradition has clouded our ability to think outside the box. So with tradition we have an unsolvable problem of women alone being saved through having children (this would reveal that God is prejudiced in salvation through DNA) and we have the problem of the unmarried woman or one who is not capable of having children and how a woman like that can be saved. And then with that understanding we are forced to accept that Paul made a mistake by using a noun and not a verb and using a singular and a plural instead of two singulars or two plurals.
But with one specific deceived woman and one specific silent husband saying nothing about his wife’s deception, it is understandable how the Ephesian couple can be compared to the first married couple in the garden. And is isn’t salvation through the verb “giving birth” or “getting pregnant” but salvation through a “noun” – a person who came into this world because of the fall.
I believe that they would have the problem solved if they could understand that Paul isn’t talking about generic woman but about a specific woman and her husband.
Cheryl, I like this idea of your’s. However, biblical scholars will critique the odd placement of “they” at the end of the sentence after talking about Adam and Eve in vv.13-14. But anyhow I still think your idea of “they” referring to both a husband and a wife is entirely possible.
I think people have misunderstood what I was trying to convey. What I was trying to say is that it looks to me like it could be either ‘the generic man’ and ‘the generic woman’ (contrary to Gnostic teaching) most certainly will be saved, even if they make babies, or ‘the specific man’ and ‘the specific woman’ etc. And it does not really matter which it is. The point is that it does not refer to just women, but to either one male and one female, or to males and females collectively.
My point was that it appears people have been mistranslating the word ‘teknogonia’ in a manner which excludes males, which is why probably every translation on the market today assumes that it refers only to females. And again – it appears that this is not true. It refers to both male(s) and female(s).
Now about ‘teknogonia’ being singular – of course it is singular. It is a non-countable verbal noun which could also be translated ‘babymaking’. Perhaps this is an even better translation than ‘making of babies’, but these two expressions are synonymous. Or at least they are meant to be such.
Furthermore, in probably most or all Indoeuropean languages that have articles at all (and at least half of them do not – for example, all of the Slavics except for Bulgarian – but Greek numbers among those that have at least a definite article), the definite article is used with verbal nouns. So the use of a singular verbal noun with definite article (‘the babymaking’) together with a plural verb (‘they shall be saved’) is completely normal and non-problematic, and does not at all imply the making of any specific baby (i.e. Jesus).
One thing to remember is that gnostic teaching really didn’t become prevalent until the 2nd century. There was false teaching going on, connected to the Artemis cult in Ephesus, not probably wasn’t officially gnostic heresy.
Just a thought.
Prevalent perhaps not, but we already see the authors of the epistles – in particular, Paul and perhaps even more so John – making considerable effort to debunk Gnostic teachings. Whether they were called Gnostic at the time, God only knows, but that is what they were.
Well, I know to point out gnostic teaching was important a while back. But it’s my understanding gnosticism had not really blossomed too much in the first century. Still, false teaching of some sort was available.
Great work and a very thorough article. I had the opportunity a few years ago to do some work on these passages. I don’t recall the tension between the transition from the “singular’ to the “plural” arising in my studies; however, I didn’t read the particular text you referred to either.
I don’t have time to address the “singular”/”plural” issue, but I wanted to respond to this point:
“Therefore, from 1 Timothy 2:11-12, I would argue that Paul was not silencing all women for all time. Instead, he was silencing one particular woman who had been deceived. For why else would Paul switch from the plural to the singular? And Timothy would have known exactly whom Paul was talking about. But since the letter would have probably been read publicly, Paul refrained from mentioning her name, helping to pave a way for repentance and restoration for this woman.”
You know what, after working on my thoughts I think it’ll be best I reply via a post since it will be longer than what I usually shoot for in a comment – 200 words or less.
I’ll hit you up later.
Keep up the good work.
“Cheryl, I like this idea of your’s. However, biblical scholars will critique the odd placement of “they” at the end of the sentence after talking about Adam and Eve in vv.13-14. But anyhow I still think your idea of “they” referring to both a husband and a wife is entirely possible.”
Thanks for responding. It isn’t a stretch if one understands that the issued of Adam (who wasn’t deceived) and Eve (who was deceived) is like the couple in question. And the deceived Ephesian woman (she will be saved…if…) needs a hero to help her past her deception, thus the need for another one who come alongside her in walking in the truth. Unfortunately without help few deceived people ever come out of their deception.
This is the heart of the matter. If this was truly the case, then you’ve made a believer out of me. Let me dig some more. 😉
I have heard other specific things argued within this text, some that have even come up in the comments above. In all, even if we set aside the whole singular woman argument, there is so much scholarship on what Paul is actually addressing, a particular situation in Ephesus, that it really makes it quite difficult to maintain that Paul was laying down a command for all time.
“In all, even if we set aside the whole singular woman argument, there is so much scholarship on what Paul is actually addressing, a particular situation in Ephesus, that it really makes it quite difficult to maintain that Paul was laying down a command for all time.”
You know, I have to disagree. Obviously Paul was writing in response to a particular situation, but I see that this passage has universal application.
I was looking to respond to Scott earlier, but I found my thoughts gradually expanding. I’ll post something on my blog when I get the chance over the next week or two.
Though I find myself coming down on the other side of the fence, I’ve found this issue best resolved within the church by following the motto espoused by the Evangelical Presbyterian Church: In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.
After posting I hope that you, Scott, and others will look to interact with me. Enjoy the day in Cali.
I appreciate that one can disagree. But, again, I don’t want to just chuck out the passage or say something like, ‘Well, if it doesn’t work for me this way, then I’ll just pick another way.’ I want to be responsible. But in all that I’ve read and studied, and there are plenty of people who have read and studied more, there is too much ‘proof’, too much that chips away at the typical complementarian reading of this passage that makes me believe that it is not as simple as reading black ink on white paper in our culture and society. There is way too much going on as to give in the normal reading.
So, whether this is addressing a particular woman and how she was deceived, or a larger grouping of women in the Ephesian context, I am convinced Paul is not bringing down the hammer of silence on women for all time. He is addressing a particular context and a particular situation dealing with particular bad teaching coming forth. He is silencing bad things, not women forever.
“But in all that I’ve read and studied, and there are plenty of people who have read and studied more, there is too much ‘proof’, too much that chips away at the typical complementarian reading of this passage that makes me believe that it is not as simple as reading black ink on white paper in our culture and society. There is way too much going on as to give in the normal reading.”
No problem Scott. With your comment above, you know that it can be said of the egalitarian position. I’ve done my fair share of work on this passage and believe the same can be said coming from the other side.
Pingback: The Role of Women Revisited, Again | Near Emmaus
Pingback: N.T. Wright on the Background of 1 Timothy 2:12: A Female-Only Cult? | New Leaven
You might be interested in my blog post about Pauls use of Sons in Galations 3:26. Some translate the word “Huioi as children or descendants.
I have actually argued that Paul is intentionally using the word Sons in this passage as a in your face way of destroying any proposal of male superiority or heriarchy.
Pingback: The Role of Women – 1 Corinthians 11:3 | The Prodigal Thought
Pingback: On Man Being Created Before Woman | The Prodigal Thought
Pingback: Leading women – thegospeliknow
Pingback: Is Christianity sexist? – AntWoord