This May 10th, it’s officially Mother’s Day in over 90 countries. In honor of that occasion, I’ve kicked off my mom shoes, propped up my feet, and I'm letting men do all my blog-writing work this month.
“Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 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. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.”
My three guest contributors are by no means newcomers to Bible interpretation. Our multigenerational panel includes a Baby Boomer bishop, a Gen X pastor, and a Millennial Bible College graduate, all of whom do the hard work while I sit back and sip on an extra-spicy Virgin Mary mocktail stirred with a celery stalk.
And while I
remain in silence, of course.
Since I know
all these gentlemen through the virtual world of Second Life, I’m using either
their real-life or their Second Life identities, based on their preference: the Reverend Brad Bailey, the Reverend Michiel Alarie, and Mr. David Busscher.
So, gentlemen, take it away...
REV. BRAD
BAILEY (Rev Brett in Second Life) has served in ordained ministry under appointment by the bishop of the North Georgia Conference of the United Methodist Church for the past thirty years. Having earned a degree in Business Administration, he annually fulfills all continuing education requirements for his ongoing ministerial appointments.
_____________________________________________
Having
said that, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is a very controversial passage of Scripture
because a lot of people have applied meaning to it that's not there. I hate for people to use this as an example,
or an instance, of finding something contradictory in the Bible that's not
there.
For
example, there is a couple in the book of Acts, a very prominent couple,
Priscilla and Aquila. And I want you to
note that I find it interesting that everywhere Priscilla and Aquila are
mentioned in the book of Acts, Priscilla is always mentioned first. We see that Priscilla, along with her husband
Aquila, straightened a man named Apollos out.
They took him aside and taught him some things. So, right there is an example of a woman,
Priscilla, being instrumental in teaching a man, Apollos, some things about
Scripture. And Paul does not – we see
nowhere in Scripture – Paul does not chastise Priscilla for her outspokenness
regarding Scripture.
Another
interesting character is Lydia. Lydia in
the book of Acts was a businesswoman, a “seller of the color purple,” and she
was a founder and a leader there in the church in Philippi. In the book of Acts, Paul says some really
great things about her. So here you have
another example of a woman in the New Testament community, in the early church
age, that was very instrumental in the church.
But
there was a gentleman who's mentioned there in Scripture, Philip, who had four
daughters, and they were described by Luke in the book of Acts as
prophetesses. Well, what's a prophet? A prophetess, someone who speaks on behalf of
God; a prophetess, someone who teaches and brings revelation on behalf of
God. This guy had four daughters… and
they were prophets. All through the book
of Acts, all through the New Testament, we see examples of women being leaders
in the church, being spokesmen and teachers for God. So, obviously there's something unique about
this particular passage of Scripture, 1 Timothy 2:11-15, that doesn't
necessarily apply across the board everywhere.
When you do a Greek word study, you find that the word Paul chose to use for “authority” in this passage has a very interesting meaning. It doesn't necessarily mean normal, basic authority. It’s more like an overpowering, more dominant, more controlling type of authority. So that softens it a little bit when Paul says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or assert authority.” I think he means a dominating style of teaching or a really controlling type of personality.
Now, let’s talk about “cultural arguments” related to this passage. Honestly, I don't like the cultural argument that people make about 1 Timothy 2 because I believe that God is the same today as he was yesterday when 1 Timothy 2 was written, and as he will be two thousand years in the future if we’re here that long. I don't think God is going to speak something or put something in His Word that is cultural-specific, that doesn't have the ability to translate across the years. So, I don't particularly like cultural arguments.
But
to comment on that just for a moment: Timothy was put in charge of the church
of Ephesus. And Ephesus was a pagan
city. The goddess Artemis was very
strong there, and it was a very female-oriented cult. Their leaders were priestesses. When it comes to the aspects of women’s
clothing and the gold and the braided hair and all of that stuff, I think Paul
may have been speaking specifically with that church to keep the pagan culture
of Ephesus from spreading over into the church.
I
would like to conclude by saying that the Bible is very clear. Paul says that in Christ there is no Jew or
Greek, there is no male or female in Christ – no distinguishing difference
between male and female – and there's no slave or free. Paul's very emphatic about that. So, if in Christ there is no male or female,
then what is all of this other stuff that he's talking about in Corinthians and
Timothy about how women need to be? It’s
interesting.
In
light of all of this, I’d like to go back to the prophet Joel. He was speaking about how the Holy Spirit was
to be poured out upon the church. In the
great sermon that Peter made on Pentecost, he said, “This is that which the
prophet Joel spoke of, saying that your old men will dream dreams, your young
men will have visions”… and it talks about on “your sons and daughters.” They will prophesy.
It
just doesn't make sense to believe that anywhere in Scripture women are
excluded and women are told to be quiet.
I think there's a lot more to this passage of Scripture than what we
first think.
_____________________________________________
REV. MICHIEL ALARIE is an ordained bishop serving the Churches of God in Christ of East Central Florida. He has 49 years of pastoral and ecclesiastical experience and is working his calling in virtual reality to share the Gospel as pastor of Second Life’s Holy Presence Church.
_____________________________________________
MICHIEL: Let's take a look at the scripture we're considering, 1 Timothy 2:11-15:
For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Notwithstanding, she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."
This particular passage of Scripture that I've read comes from the Bible that I use, the King James Version. This is a very popular scripture, often quoted and often debated amongst Christian scholars all over Christendom. And I have a particular viewpoint: that God's ultimate will is for leadership to be based on spiritual gifting, not gender. And I will share the reason that I feel this way in two different parts.
Firstly,
if we look at the Scripture in Galatians 3:28, it states that in Christ there
is neither male nor female, which suggests that biological distinctions do not
limit one's calling or authority in the church.
And then there are contextual mandates in restrictive verses like this
passage in 1 Timothy, as directed at specific temporary problems in the early
church – in this case, women spreading heresy – rather than acting as universal
bans for all time.
There
is biblical precedent in which we see God's will evidenced in his choice of
female leaders throughout history, such as in the scripture where Deborah was a
judge. There's also Phoebe, who was a
deacon. And then there was Huldah who
was a prophetess. All of these were
leadership positions.
Consider
the prophet Joel in the Old Testament.
In Joel 2:28, we read “And it shall come to pass afterwards, that I will
pour out my spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall
prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see
visions.” And then in verse 29, “and also upon the servants and upon the
handmaids in those days, will I pour out my spirit.” Both upon servants and
handmaids. In those verses, God
speaks through the prophet not only that He will use both male and female
genders to share His will, but He also gives context to a time when he would do
so.
Female
leadership was my first point. My second
point is that I feel 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is one of those instances where the
apostle Paul expresses his personal feelings.
This is shown in verse 12 where he specifically mentions “I suffer not a
woman…”. The word “I.” There are
several examples of Paul's expressing his personal feelings in the Scripture
rather than direct commands of the Lord.
And while it should be understood that Paul believes he was guided by
the Holy Spirit in his instruction, there were instances where he expressed his
personal opinion. And he always gave a
reference when that was the case.
These
examples are a few. For instance,
concerning marriage and singleness in 1 Corinthians 7:6, 7:12, 7:25, Paul
advises that his preference for celibacy is a concession rather than a command. He distinguishes between the Lord's command –
no divorce – and his own advice for a believer married to an unbeliever.
Then,
another example is Paul’s wishes on ministry in 1 Timothy 2:8-13. Paul expresses personal desires regarding how
men and women should conduct themselves in worship, which some interpret as
personal counsel rather than absolute, universally applicable commands.
Then, also,
there’s the case of the widow in 1 Corinthians 7:40. Regarding a widow’s remarriage, Paul suggests
it is better to remain single, noting, "I think that I too have the Spirit
of God," suggesting a confident personal opinion.
Then there
is Paul's perspective on Apostolic Authority.
In 2 Corinthians 11:17, he writes, “That which
I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were, foolishly.” In this
verse, Paul explicitly notes that he is speaking NOT "after the
Lord" but confident in his own reasoning during a boastful appeal.
In reference
to our selected scripture of consideration in 1 Timothy 2:14-15, Paul is not
saying that Adam was not without guilt or sin.
The commandment of not eating of that specific fruit was given to Him,
which he shared with Eve. That's right, God gave him the specific commandment not to
eat that particular fruit, and he shared God's commandment with Eve. She may have been deceived by the serpent,
but both knew full well of God's will concerning the fruit. Paul concludes that statement sharing that women
still have hope of God's mercy if she continues in faith, charity, holiness,
and sobriety – virtues which ALL Christians should practice, not just
one gender in particular.
To sum up my
thoughts concerning the 1 Timothy passage, let me say this: To say Paul was
wrong to suggest a lesser role in the church for women would not be fair. He spoke his heart. He spoke from his own experience and the
culture which he was a part of. Paul,
originally Saul of Tarsus, was a Jew and a Roman citizen. He knew he was teaching an infant church, a
body of believers who would spread across the globe with the help of the Holy
Spirit’s guidance, of course. And that's very important.
We thank the Lord we have the Holy Spirit's guidance as Paul did.
It was also
Paul’s understanding that his views on doctrine would not be the only words to
be considered moving forward. More would
come after him… and more have.
I hope these
few words will be a help to someone.
MR. DAVID BUSSCHER is a lay believer residing near Amsterdam in the Netherlands. He attended Bible college to better serve his local Dutch Reformed church as an educated layperson. After years of study since, he is completing final edits of his first book, Blueprints for the Sacred.
_____________________________________________
Before we crack the spine on 1 Timothy 2, we have to talk
about the man behind the curtain. Who
wrote this? In New Testament scholarship
today, 1 Timothy is what they call a "disputed" letter. If you compare it to the heavy hitters like
Romans or Galatians, the vocabulary and writing style are... well,
different. It is almost like listening
to an artist you love suddenly drop a jazz album when you were expecting
rock. The flavor and tone has
shifted. And for many critical scholars,
that is enough to say Paul did not write it – that some later follower was
overcorrecting and putting out local fires in Paul's name.
I get the argument.
But I am not ready to go full liberal and toss the whole thing into the
"man-made" bin. My starting
point is that there is some type of inspiration here – a baseline that this
text is trustworthy and intended for us.
Why do I still land on Paul being the guy?
First, the Scribe Factor: In the ancient world, it was
common for a writer to use an amanuensis, a secretary or scribe, who had
the freedom to put the author's core thoughts into their own words. Paul even names one in Romans 16:22: "I,
Tertius, who wrote down this letter." So, the soul is Paul, but the polish
could easily belong to a scribe. That
explains the different Greek style without resorting to forgery.
Then there’s the "Wait, I've Heard This Before"
Factor. The message about order and
quietness is not a new invention in 1 Timothy.
In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul is dealing with a similar brand of
"dumpster fire" chaos in the church, and he tells women to be silent
there, too. The beat is consistent.
And there’s also the “church's receipts,” if you will. For nearly 1,800 years, the church was
virtually unanimous that this was Paul.
The generations closest to the source confirmed it. That doesn’t settle the debate, but it means
the burden of proof is on those who say it is a forgery.
So, for the rest of this interview, I’m going to assume
Pauline authorship and inspiration. Not
because the critical questions are invalid – they are real – but because my
interest here is in what the text means, not just who wrote it.
This will take a little detective work in the Greek. When you look at 1 Timothy 2:12, the word
translated as "exercise authority," authentein, is what
scholars call a hapax legomenon.
Loyal readers of Yolanda's blog will recognize that from her previous
blog, that it’s just a fancy way of saying it appears exactly one time in the
entire New Testament.
Now, why does that matter? It matters because when Paul
wants to talk about "normal" or "neutral" authority, the
kind of authority a pastor or a leader should have, he almost always uses a
different Greek word: exousia.
But here, he reaches for a word that is, put this in quotes, "weird
and rare."
When we look outside the Bible at other Greek literature
from around that time, authentein doesn't usually describe a healthy,
orderly leadership. Instead, it carries
a much darker flavor. Most lexicons and
contemporary sources suggest it means "to domineer" or to exercise
control in a way that is overbearing. It
often refers to "usurping authority," taking power that hasn't been
given to you or grabbing the steering wheel from someone else.
So, if we just translate this as a generic ban on
"authority," we’re probably missing the "local fire" Paul
was trying to put out. It’s not that
he’s saying women can never have a seat at the table; he’s saying he doesn't
permit them to usurp or domineer.
What do I mean by “local fire”? Ephesus wasn't just any city; it was the
world headquarters for the Artemis cult.
We’re talking about a culture where the massive Temple of Artemis was
the center of everything, and female priestesses held the highest religious
status. In that world, the women were
used to being in charge, and they were often seen as the true source of
spiritual enlightenment.
Some scholars argue that there was even a “New Eve” myth
floating around. Some of these local
teachings suggested that Eve was actually created first, or that she was the
one who brought true gnosis, “knowledge,” to the world by eating the
fruit. Imagine these "rowdy
females" bringing that culturally conditioned, domineering attitude into
the early church. They weren't just
participating; they were likely usurping authority and spreading a doctrine
that placed women above men based on these Ephesian myths.
This is where Paul pulls out his winning move. He doesn't just say, "Stop it because I
said so." He appeals to the
creation order. When Paul says,
"For Adam was formed first, then Eve" (1 Tim 2:13), he is slamming
down a "trump card" against the Ephesian myth. He’s looking at these women who claimed Eve
was the source of enlightenment or was the firstborn and saying,
"Actually, let’s go back to the baseline.
Adam was formed first." He
is appealing to the telos of things—God's original design and order—to
correct a specific historical myth that had inverted that order.
And look, this isn't just a one-off trick Paul does. He uses this "creation principle"
all over the place. In Romans, he uses
the story of Adam to explain the universal reality of sin and salvation. In 1 Corinthians, he appeals to creation to
handle the "local dumpster fire" of conduct and order in that
church. And, of course, he uses it here
as well.
So, where does that leave us? We have a universal principle,
the creation order, being used to put out a local fire, the rowdy, domineering
situation in Ephesus. Universal and
local, two distinct things. My position
is that you can’t just pick one and ignore the other. It’s a conjunction.
Paul is taking a foundational truth about how God ordered
the world and applying it to a specific local fire where that order was being
completely usurped. By pointing back to
Adam and Eve, he isn't just giving a local opinion; he is appealing to the telos,
the design plan, that he taught across all the churches.
This view has its own tension points. This is where I have to give a nod to
[renowned evangelical theologian] Don Carson.
Carson famously asks: “If the problem was just domineering behavior, why
does Paul only tell the women to knock it off? Aren’t there men who domineer
too?”
Here is my retort to that: if the Artemis and "New
Eve" myths were the driving force behind the chaos, then women were the
specific ones causing the disorder in that assembly. It makes sense to single them out because
they were the ones actively flipping the script based on their cultural
background. If a specific group is
starting the fire, that’s the group you address. It doesn’t mean men can’t be domineering, but
in Ephesus, the rebuke had to go to the source of the chaos.
If we say it's a universal ban on all women speaking ever,
we struggle with the rest of the New Testament, where we see Priscilla teaching
Apollos, Phoebe serving as a deacon, and women hosting the very home churches
Paul is writing to.
So, here’s my bottom line.
In 1 Timothy 3, Paul lays out the job description for the office of
overseer, and it is explicitly gendered.
He refers to the candidate as a "husband of one wife" and a
man who "ruleth well his own house." He even asks, "if a man
knoweth not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of
God?"
Here is where I land. Paul's creation order wasn't just a reaction to rowdy women in Ephesus. It was the blueprint for how he structured leadership in all the churches. This passage addresses the public teaching office in the gathered assembly, not a total ban on female authority everywhere. We see Phoebe and Priscilla active in the church. But for the public office? Paul ties it to the telos of creation. That is what I think the Bible teaches.
_____________________________________________
My deepest thanks to Brad, Michiel, and David for their viewpoints and work digging into this passage. This is the kind of biblical investigation I most enjoy as part of my faith walk! I'll be back next month, Lord willing, to break my Mother's Day silence and again put pixel to pantalla. Until then...
Marana Tha,
YoYo Rez / Cosmic Parx / Yolanda Ramírez
Individual sections of this blog ©2026 in the names of each separate contributor.
No comments:
Post a Comment