Part 1
Part 3
Im now at Bible College, and am being taught by some excellent and accomplished lecturers. My New Testament lecturer Peter Ensor is a published author and an expert in New Testament Greek. I have had several conversations with him discussing the scripture in 1 Tim 2 concerning women in ministry, and have found as a result lots of further insight and study on this passage, which for discussion's sake I will go into below.
He recommended as the most accurate and best translation for study, the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version), which from now on I will be using for quotations.
1 Tim 2:12-14
I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.
For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
As I detailed in my previous blog on this passage, verse 13 was the one which made it very difficult for me to designate this teaching as only culturally appliccable to Paul's day an age. If it is not meant to be a universal teaching, then why does he reference the very order of creation as the motivation and reason for this command?
The NRSV (considered by scholars to be the most textually accurate) adds footnotes which state that it is ambiguous whether 'woman' and 'man' mean simply woman and man, or wife and husband. Reading the text in this way makes more sense, especially when taking into account the reference to Adam and Eve -
I permit no wife to teach or to have authority over her husband, she is to remain silent, for Adam was formed first, then Eve
Im sure you will notice that this makes much more sense. However there is no definite evidence from the original greek itself as to which meaning is the accurate one, whether woman and man or wife and husband.
Another school of thought focusses specifically on the phrase 'to teach or to have authority', and argues that this could be more accurately translated 'dominate', which again makes alot of sense when read in context.
In addition to this, the Ephesians about whom Paul was writing were most likely strongly influenced by the worship of Artemis, a feminine divinity worshipped in Ephesus (remember the cry 'Artemis of the Ephesians!' chanted for 2 hours in Acts 19:28).
I permit no woman to dominate a man; she is to keep silent.
In the book 'Discovering Biblical Equality', Linda Belleville writes 'In the cult of Artemis the female was exalted and considered superior to the male', and in chapter 12 'Teaching and Usurping Authority' she goes into great detail and study of that specific phrase, coming to the conclusion that a correct rendering is indeed 'dominate'.
Eugene Peterson also agrees with this rendering, as can be seen from The Message Bible's translation of this passage 'I don't let women take over and tell the men what to do. They should study to be quiet and obedient along with everyone else. Adam was made first, then Eve; woman was deceived first—our pioneer in sin!—with Adam right on her heels.'
But alas, The Message has the inconvenient reputation for being one of the most inaccurate translations out there, and fairly useless for serious academic study. The vast majority of translations do not translate 'teach or have authority over' as dominate, which indicates to me personally that the debate is by no means concluded by this reading of the text.
Next we can focus on the 'I permit', which could possibly be there to point out that it is Paul's personal belief, but not one that he can say is definitely God's will (in 1 Cor 7 Paul clearly makes a distinction between his own opinions and God's clear command). However, again the reference to Adam and Eve raises the question - what is it there for?
I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.
Maybe Paul is saying that according to his reading of the scriptures, he believes the creation story makes it clear that women should not occupy positions of teaching or authority, but we see in various places - Junia, Priscilla, and Phoebe, he greets women in ministry and acknowledges their positions. Perhaps he holds to his interpretation of Genesis lightly, acknowledging that there are other schools of thought out there, and while he himself does not ordain women, perhaps he nevertheless does not discount those women in ministry who have been ordained by others.
We can see Junia mentioned only once, and as paul states that she was in Christ before he was, it seems entirely possible that she was not ordained by him. However, the debate continues as to whether Junia is actually Junias (the male equivalent - as rendered by the NIV, NASB, The Message, Amplified Bible, and CEV), or Junia (the female version as rendered by the NRSV, NLT, KJV, ESV, NKJV, NCV). The NRSV adds the footnote that it could also be Junias, or even Julia. The clear division of almost 50/50 of these highly respected and widely used translations simply leaves me with the feeling that we will never know for sure whether Junia or Junias is the correct version, and certainly that it is irresponsible to base any serious gender doctrine on a name which is not clearly male or female!!
Acts 18 tells the story of the time when Paul met Priscilla and Aquila, and there is no clear evidence of Paul's involvement in comissioning them for ministry. Acts 18:26 shows them explaining the gospel in greater depth to Apollos, Romans 16:3 describes them as fellow-workers in Christ, 1 Corinthians 16:19 says that they allow a church to meet in their house. However, I find it to be again something of a stretch to claim that from these verses either Priscilla or Aquila were anything more than generous and committed members of the faith, not pastors, apostles, or anything else.
Phoebe is mentioned only once, in Romans 16:1, which in the NIV reads
'I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea.'
The NRSV translates this with a very different slant
'I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae'
and it also adds a footnote offering 'minister' as an alternative to 'deacon'. This translation is held by the NRSV, Amplified, NLT, CEV ('leader'),
However the 'servant' translation is held by the NIV, NASB, KJV, ESV, NKJV, and NCV ('helper')
The Message describes her as a 'key representative' of the church at Cenchrea.
The interesting thing about Phoebe is that all of the different translations could mean leader, however not all of them could mean helper, making me lean towards accepting that Phoebe was definitely a deacon in the church, who is clearly approved of by Paul, as can be seen by reading Rom 16:1-2 in any translation. However, as the previous two women mentioned, there is no mention at all of comissioning or ordination by Paul.
So it is entirely possible, to my mind at least, that Paul accepted women in leadership, but did not ordain them personally, which would require a reading of 1 tim 2:12 with the emphasis on the word 'I' as opposed to 'God'.
The New Testament Women, and one from the Old Testament
From the 3 examples of Junia, Priscilla and Phoebe, personally the only one I would feel confident in saying was a likely actual leader in the church would be Phoebe, the other two are just too abiguously mentioned, and my conscience doesn't really allow me to use Junia or Priscilla as evidence and motivation for doctrine. Phoebe however, seems to be potentially the one valid case of a woman in Paul-approved leadership in the early church, as mentioned in the New Testament. But it only takes one to make a valid case.
So there are more questions to take into account at this point. Paul seemingly clearly approved of Phoebe, yet wrote 1 Tim 2:12, both of which are God-breathed scripture which as Christians we believe. Perhaps he was speaking specifically about the posts of Elder and upwards being restricted to men only.
Tension
There is a tension between Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Tim 2:12-14. Where is the middle ground where we find Paul's true meaning? Could it be that a woman could be a deacon, yet not be involved in teaching and having authority over men? Interestingly, a possible answer shows itself a few verses later, in 1 Timothy 3. Verses 1-7 detail the qualifications needed for bishops (NRSV) or overseers (NIV), and 3:2 says he must be an apt teacher (NRSV), able to teach (NIV). Verses 8-13 detail the qualifications needed for deacons, and teaching is not mentioned, so perhaps it is possible to be a deacon, yet not to be a teacher.
Verse 11 continues the qualifications for deacons with 'Women likewise must be...'. The NRSV adds in a footnote alternative translations of the word 'women' as 'Their wives' or 'Women deacons'. So this seems a likely possibility. There is no other reference to what deacons do in the New Testament, therefore this is our only biblical source as to their role. The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'deacon' as - 'historical (in the early church) a minister appointed to administer charity'. When we read Acts 6:1-7 we see the scripture which is traditionally viewed as the origins of the ordination of deacons, even though the word deacon is not used, as from these verses we can see that the purpose of the deacon's ministry was indeed to administer charity, not to teach or to be in an authoritative position.
In his commentary on the whole bible, John Wesley discusses these verses, and simply states that women are prohibited from public teaching.
Matthew 19 reads
"Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?" He answered, "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning "made them male and female,' and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."
Here we see Christ referencing the creation story as the basis and reason for his teaching against divorce for any reason, and the vast overwhelming majority of Christians from all major denominations accept this teaching as universal, and not a limited cultural reference. Why then do we not apply the same, entirely valid interpretation to 1 Tim 2:12-14 when Paul references the creation story as his basis and reason for teaching against women in teaching or authoritative positions in the church?
Lets be brutally honest, its because 'Women should have all the same opportunities as men" is a hugely loaded political issue which evokes very intense emotions and passionate arguments. After studying this so much, and for at least 8 years now, I have to draw a conclusion, and any further pansying about the issue is just me pandering to political correctness.
My conculsion on 1 Tim 2:12-14 is that this verse is absolutely NOT limited to the time and place of it's writing. Verses 13 and 14 make it abundantly clear that this is a universal principle, appliccable to the Christian church throughout all time, just as Christ's teaching on divorce is universally appliccable.
For me, the discussion now must centre in on where the true emphasis lies in verse 12. Does it mean Husbands and Wives? Does it mean women should not dominate men? Does it mean women are prohibited from all positions of authority, or anything above Deacon?
The (politically incorrect, controversial) truth is that those verses mean something. For our consciences sakes, and to seek God's blessing on us as individuals and as the church we must seek to find out the true meaning of these verses, simply because they do mean something, and whatever it is, it applies to us, now.
More thoughts to follow...
Part 3
Im now at Bible College, and am being taught by some excellent and accomplished lecturers. My New Testament lecturer Peter Ensor is a published author and an expert in New Testament Greek. I have had several conversations with him discussing the scripture in 1 Tim 2 concerning women in ministry, and have found as a result lots of further insight and study on this passage, which for discussion's sake I will go into below.
He recommended as the most accurate and best translation for study, the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version), which from now on I will be using for quotations.
1 Tim 2:12-14
I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.
For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
As I detailed in my previous blog on this passage, verse 13 was the one which made it very difficult for me to designate this teaching as only culturally appliccable to Paul's day an age. If it is not meant to be a universal teaching, then why does he reference the very order of creation as the motivation and reason for this command?
The NRSV (considered by scholars to be the most textually accurate) adds footnotes which state that it is ambiguous whether 'woman' and 'man' mean simply woman and man, or wife and husband. Reading the text in this way makes more sense, especially when taking into account the reference to Adam and Eve -
I permit no wife to teach or to have authority over her husband, she is to remain silent, for Adam was formed first, then Eve
Im sure you will notice that this makes much more sense. However there is no definite evidence from the original greek itself as to which meaning is the accurate one, whether woman and man or wife and husband.
Another school of thought focusses specifically on the phrase 'to teach or to have authority', and argues that this could be more accurately translated 'dominate', which again makes alot of sense when read in context.
In addition to this, the Ephesians about whom Paul was writing were most likely strongly influenced by the worship of Artemis, a feminine divinity worshipped in Ephesus (remember the cry 'Artemis of the Ephesians!' chanted for 2 hours in Acts 19:28).
I permit no woman to dominate a man; she is to keep silent.
In the book 'Discovering Biblical Equality', Linda Belleville writes 'In the cult of Artemis the female was exalted and considered superior to the male', and in chapter 12 'Teaching and Usurping Authority' she goes into great detail and study of that specific phrase, coming to the conclusion that a correct rendering is indeed 'dominate'.
Eugene Peterson also agrees with this rendering, as can be seen from The Message Bible's translation of this passage 'I don't let women take over and tell the men what to do. They should study to be quiet and obedient along with everyone else. Adam was made first, then Eve; woman was deceived first—our pioneer in sin!—with Adam right on her heels.'
But alas, The Message has the inconvenient reputation for being one of the most inaccurate translations out there, and fairly useless for serious academic study. The vast majority of translations do not translate 'teach or have authority over' as dominate, which indicates to me personally that the debate is by no means concluded by this reading of the text.
Next we can focus on the 'I permit', which could possibly be there to point out that it is Paul's personal belief, but not one that he can say is definitely God's will (in 1 Cor 7 Paul clearly makes a distinction between his own opinions and God's clear command). However, again the reference to Adam and Eve raises the question - what is it there for?
I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.
Maybe Paul is saying that according to his reading of the scriptures, he believes the creation story makes it clear that women should not occupy positions of teaching or authority, but we see in various places - Junia, Priscilla, and Phoebe, he greets women in ministry and acknowledges their positions. Perhaps he holds to his interpretation of Genesis lightly, acknowledging that there are other schools of thought out there, and while he himself does not ordain women, perhaps he nevertheless does not discount those women in ministry who have been ordained by others.
We can see Junia mentioned only once, and as paul states that she was in Christ before he was, it seems entirely possible that she was not ordained by him. However, the debate continues as to whether Junia is actually Junias (the male equivalent - as rendered by the NIV, NASB, The Message, Amplified Bible, and CEV), or Junia (the female version as rendered by the NRSV, NLT, KJV, ESV, NKJV, NCV). The NRSV adds the footnote that it could also be Junias, or even Julia. The clear division of almost 50/50 of these highly respected and widely used translations simply leaves me with the feeling that we will never know for sure whether Junia or Junias is the correct version, and certainly that it is irresponsible to base any serious gender doctrine on a name which is not clearly male or female!!
Acts 18 tells the story of the time when Paul met Priscilla and Aquila, and there is no clear evidence of Paul's involvement in comissioning them for ministry. Acts 18:26 shows them explaining the gospel in greater depth to Apollos, Romans 16:3 describes them as fellow-workers in Christ, 1 Corinthians 16:19 says that they allow a church to meet in their house. However, I find it to be again something of a stretch to claim that from these verses either Priscilla or Aquila were anything more than generous and committed members of the faith, not pastors, apostles, or anything else.
Phoebe is mentioned only once, in Romans 16:1, which in the NIV reads
'I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea.'
The NRSV translates this with a very different slant
'I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae'
and it also adds a footnote offering 'minister' as an alternative to 'deacon'. This translation is held by the NRSV, Amplified, NLT, CEV ('leader'),
However the 'servant' translation is held by the NIV, NASB, KJV, ESV, NKJV, and NCV ('helper')
The Message describes her as a 'key representative' of the church at Cenchrea.
The interesting thing about Phoebe is that all of the different translations could mean leader, however not all of them could mean helper, making me lean towards accepting that Phoebe was definitely a deacon in the church, who is clearly approved of by Paul, as can be seen by reading Rom 16:1-2 in any translation. However, as the previous two women mentioned, there is no mention at all of comissioning or ordination by Paul.
So it is entirely possible, to my mind at least, that Paul accepted women in leadership, but did not ordain them personally, which would require a reading of 1 tim 2:12 with the emphasis on the word 'I' as opposed to 'God'.
The New Testament Women, and one from the Old Testament
From the 3 examples of Junia, Priscilla and Phoebe, personally the only one I would feel confident in saying was a likely actual leader in the church would be Phoebe, the other two are just too abiguously mentioned, and my conscience doesn't really allow me to use Junia or Priscilla as evidence and motivation for doctrine. Phoebe however, seems to be potentially the one valid case of a woman in Paul-approved leadership in the early church, as mentioned in the New Testament. But it only takes one to make a valid case.
So there are more questions to take into account at this point. Paul seemingly clearly approved of Phoebe, yet wrote 1 Tim 2:12, both of which are God-breathed scripture which as Christians we believe. Perhaps he was speaking specifically about the posts of Elder and upwards being restricted to men only.
Tension
There is a tension between Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Tim 2:12-14. Where is the middle ground where we find Paul's true meaning? Could it be that a woman could be a deacon, yet not be involved in teaching and having authority over men? Interestingly, a possible answer shows itself a few verses later, in 1 Timothy 3. Verses 1-7 detail the qualifications needed for bishops (NRSV) or overseers (NIV), and 3:2 says he must be an apt teacher (NRSV), able to teach (NIV). Verses 8-13 detail the qualifications needed for deacons, and teaching is not mentioned, so perhaps it is possible to be a deacon, yet not to be a teacher.
Verse 11 continues the qualifications for deacons with 'Women likewise must be...'. The NRSV adds in a footnote alternative translations of the word 'women' as 'Their wives' or 'Women deacons'. So this seems a likely possibility. There is no other reference to what deacons do in the New Testament, therefore this is our only biblical source as to their role. The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'deacon' as - 'historical (in the early church) a minister appointed to administer charity'. When we read Acts 6:1-7 we see the scripture which is traditionally viewed as the origins of the ordination of deacons, even though the word deacon is not used, as from these verses we can see that the purpose of the deacon's ministry was indeed to administer charity, not to teach or to be in an authoritative position.
In his commentary on the whole bible, John Wesley discusses these verses, and simply states that women are prohibited from public teaching.
Matthew 19 reads
"Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?" He answered, "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning "made them male and female,' and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."
Here we see Christ referencing the creation story as the basis and reason for his teaching against divorce for any reason, and the vast overwhelming majority of Christians from all major denominations accept this teaching as universal, and not a limited cultural reference. Why then do we not apply the same, entirely valid interpretation to 1 Tim 2:12-14 when Paul references the creation story as his basis and reason for teaching against women in teaching or authoritative positions in the church?
Lets be brutally honest, its because 'Women should have all the same opportunities as men" is a hugely loaded political issue which evokes very intense emotions and passionate arguments. After studying this so much, and for at least 8 years now, I have to draw a conclusion, and any further pansying about the issue is just me pandering to political correctness.
My conculsion on 1 Tim 2:12-14 is that this verse is absolutely NOT limited to the time and place of it's writing. Verses 13 and 14 make it abundantly clear that this is a universal principle, appliccable to the Christian church throughout all time, just as Christ's teaching on divorce is universally appliccable.
For me, the discussion now must centre in on where the true emphasis lies in verse 12. Does it mean Husbands and Wives? Does it mean women should not dominate men? Does it mean women are prohibited from all positions of authority, or anything above Deacon?
The (politically incorrect, controversial) truth is that those verses mean something. For our consciences sakes, and to seek God's blessing on us as individuals and as the church we must seek to find out the true meaning of these verses, simply because they do mean something, and whatever it is, it applies to us, now.
More thoughts to follow...
No comments:
Post a Comment