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.
1st 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 1st Timothy. Up
until the 19th century, there was agreement among commentators that
the Apostle Paul was the author of 1st Timothy. In 1807, Friedrich Schleiermacher, soon
followed by Ferdinand Christian Baur, began to question, not just 1st
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 1st Tim., 2nd 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 1st Century Ephesus.
There are two opposite historical reconstructions of Ephesus
in the 1st 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
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.
