Biblical Teaching on Women in Ministry: Exegesis I

⁸ Therefore, I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument. ⁹ Also, the women are to dress themselves in modest clothing, with decency and good sense, not with elaborate hairstyles, gold, pearls, or expensive apparel, ¹⁰ but with good works, as is proper for women who affirm that they worship God. ¹¹ A woman should learn in silence with full submission. ¹² I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent. ¹³ For Adam was created first, then Eve. ¹⁴ And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. ¹⁵ But she will be saved through childbearing, if she continues in faith, love, and holiness, with good judgment.

1^st Timothy 2:8-15 (HCSB)

This is the second of three blog entries on the biblical teaching on women in ministry.

I remember a church sermon spoken somewhere once, years ago, where the speaker was criticizing the traditional understanding of this passage and the thrust of his complaint was something akin to, “you rip it out of context. It is ripped bloody and blood is all over the floor.”  Certainly, whether or not that particular accusation was legitimate in that instance, our goal here is to avoid the mistake of not taking context into consideration as we engage in a careful study of God’s Word. As mentioned in the previous blog entry, this blog series will strive to follow the Orthodox interpretive community in genuinely seeking the Author’s intended understanding of the passage, correctly discerning ideas bound to the original context from ideas which are timeless universal truths for the Church to apply and this without the undue skepticism that other approaches might have.

AUTHOR

Luke Timothy Johnson, despite teaching the non-Orthodox view that Paul made errors in quoting Genesis, does a good job defending the Pauline authorship of 1^st Timothy.  Up until the 19^th century, there was agreement among commentators that the Apostle Paul was the author of 1^st Timothy.  In 1807, Friedrich Schleiermacher, soon followed by Ferdinand Christian Baur, began to question, not just 1^st Timothy, but whether any of Paul’s writings were genuine.  Much of the New Testament, including the book of Acts, was argued to be unhistorical.  A compromise position was reached among a majority of commentators where some of Paul’s writings were considered genuine, some were questionable, and the Pastoral Letters of 1^st Tim., 2^nd Tim., and Titus were certainly considered not written by Paul. Yet, this majority position, supposedly grounded in the strictest scientific method, contained elements of subjectivity and bias. What is actually just a hypothesis has become taught as a fact of nature. (Johnson 42-54)

What is the argument that has brought about this? Is there weight to it or is it undue skepticism? 

Anglican John Stott writes that the evidence for Paul’s authorship is twofold: 1. Internal Evidence – Paul talks about wanting to personally visit Timothy, etc.  2. External Evidence – There is almost universal agreement by church writings from the very beginning that Paul wrote it.  The evidence against Paul’s authorship is fourfold: 1. History – Some of the locations mentioned in the Pastoral Letters don’t seem to match up to places recorded in Acts of where Paul visited.  2. Vocabulary – Many of the words used in the Pastoral Letters are not used in Paul’s other writings, so it seems like another person’s writing style. 3. Doctrine – The Pastoral Letters do not appear to teach the Trinity or the gospel of salvation, which are common Pauline themes. 4. Ethics – There seems to be an undue “bourgeois” emphasis of conforming to the social values of the surrounding society, no longer looking expectantly to the return of Christ. (Stott 21-28)

In response to four critiques of Paul’s authorship is the following: 1. History – It is possible that the Pastoral Letters were written  either after the events of Acts were recorded, or perhaps that the book of Acts contain gaps in its record and Paul’s journeys happened during the time in Acts, but not recorded there. (Towner 10-14) 2. Vocabulary – Though this is not completely solved with certainty, it seems likely that Paul, who is known for using a secretary, used one in writing the Pastoral Letters.  Some suggest  that the secretary was Tychicus, while most suggest it was Luke because the words used in Luke’s writings match closely with words used in the Pastoral Letters. (Towner 86-87) 3. Doctrine – It is true that the Pastoral Letters do not use the word “son” to describe Christ and that the word “cross” does not appear there either. Yet, “son” is not used in Philippians or Philemon either. Also, “cross” is not found in Romans, 2 Corinthians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, or Philemon either. So, the lack of these words doesn’t prove Paul didn’t write it. (Knight 32-33) By the way, the Trinity is taught in Titus 2:13 (Wallace 90) 4. Ethics – Ethical commands expressed “movingly”, such as Eph. 4:25-32, are expressed in the Pastoral Letters as a “bourgeois list”, such as 1 Tim. 3:1-13.  Though there is a change of emphasis, the Pastoral Letters do encourage us to look expectantly to the return of Christ, as seen in Titus 2:11-13.  (Lea 36-37) 

“Having considered the Language, doctrine and ethics of the Pastoral Letters, we should be able to agree with Dr. J.N.D. Kelley that ‘the anti-Pauline case has surely been greatly exaggerated.’” (Stott 27-28)

EPHESUS IN THE FIRST CENTURY

Having established Paul as the author, we are now in the context of 1^st Century Ephesus. 

There are two opposite historical reconstructions of Ephesus in the 1^st Century, an Egalitarian one and a Complementarian one.  Sharon Hodgin Gritz provides the Egalitarian one saying,

“In a religious environment saturated with the ‘feminine principle’ due to the Artemis cult, attitudes of female exaltation or superiority existed.  Verse 13 [of 1 Timothy 2] attempts to correct such an emphasis.  Also the myths of Cybele and Attis from which the Ephesian Artemis sprang emphasized  the creation of the goddess first, then her male consort.  Paul could be affirming the historical truthfulness of the biblical narratives to expose the fiction-based nature of the Magna Mater myths.” (Köstenberger 37)

S.M.Baugh provides the Complementarian historical reconstruction saying,

“Paul’s injunctions throughout 1 Timothy 2:9-15, then, are not temporary measures in a unique social setting.  Ephesus’ society and religion – even the cult of Artemis Ephesia – shared typical features with many other contemporary Greco-Roman cities.  Ephesus was thoroughly Greek in background and character, yet influence of Romanitas is clearly discerned.  Hence, we have every reason to expect Paul to apply the restriction of women from teaching and exercising official rule over a man to ‘every place’ (v.8[ of 1 Timothy 2])”.  (Köstenberger 36)

William D. Mounce mentions of the existence of the two possible historical constructions and reminds us,

 “If one position were truly clear or obvious, then there would not be significantly divergent positions held by respectable scholars.” (Mounce 103)

WORKS CITED

Johnson, Luke Timothy. The First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Print. http://amzn.com/0385484224

Knight, George W. The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1992.  http://amzn.com/0802823955

Köstenberger, Andreas J., and Thomas R. Schreiner. Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9/15. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005. Print. http://amzn.com/080102904X

Lea, Thomas D., and Hayne P. Griffin. 1, 2 Timothy, Titus. Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1992.  http://amzn.com/0805401342

Mounce, William D. Pastoral Epistles. Nashville: T. Nelson, 2000. Print. http://amzn.com/0849902452

Stott, John R. W. The Message of 1 Timothy & Titus. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001. Print. http://amzn.com/0830812474

Towner, Philip H. The Letters to Timothy and Titus. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2006. Print. http://amzn.com/0802825133

Wallace, Daniel B. "Sharp's Rule Revisited: A Response to Stanley Porter." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 56.1 (2013): 79-92. Print.