Women and the Church
A re-assessment of 1 Timothy 2 .
I’ve had no recognised theological training, I don’t read Hebrew and although I once knew a smidgeon of everyday Greek I do not claim to be an authority or try to convince but merely present another viewpoint on the evidence of other scholars. In doing so I recognise that we all have bias, indeed, just this morning I read this helpful advice which I must apply to myself as well as challenge the reader: “Don’t believe something just because you want to, and don’t embrace an idea just because you’ve always believed it.”1
It follows that arguments across the spectrum of this debate will be influenced by cultural church norms and practices. My own background assumed women to have an equal role in ministry. My late wife was a very effective Bible teacher with YWAM and certainly had a much better understanding and ability to rightly handle the Word than I have ever had. My current wife excels in prophetic ministry and is also a very capable teacher, which of course affects my own hermeneutic. I recently heard a question being put to John Piper, “Are women permitted to preach in the weekly gathering of a local church as an extension of the male elders of the church?” The implication was that there is something sacrosanct about weekly gatherings where special rules are observed which would not apply at say a home Bible study or less formal meeting over coffee. There were clearly some (questionable) foundational assumptions already forming and moulding an answer.
Phoebe Palmer, Catherine Booth, Aimee Semple McPherson, Kathryn Kuhlman, Mary Jane Wigglesworth, Anne Graham Lotz, Danielle Strickland, Jackie Pullinger and Heidi Baker. Love them or loath them, these randomly chosen saints have two things in common. Firstly, they were (are) all effective preachers and teachers and secondly, they are women, which to some, would preclude them from ministry to men or mixed gender gatherings.
I find it odd that anyone who has ever heard Jackie Pullinger or seen the amazing ministry she has had amongst the mostly male addicts of Hong Kong would believe that she shouldn’t have taught them because she is a woman. A few years ago a minister delegate at New Wine stated he was of the opinion that women should never teach men. At the end of the week he admitted there was something amiss with his view having spent several hours listening to the inspirational, Bible focused and challenging teaching of Danielle Strickland.
In Bible times
Priscilla, Phoebe and Junia are some Biblical examples of active, effective women, not to mention Miriam, Deborah, the wise woman of Abel, Huldah and Esther. Arguably the Samaritan woman recorded in John 4 was the first female evangelist or maybe Mary Magdalene, depending on your view of when discipleship starts. Acts 2:17-18 makes it clear that Father’s intention is to pour out Holy Spirit on both men and women and that women will prophesy (and Paul seems to rank prophesy higher than teaching in Rom 12:6-7).
We probably all know other examples so it raises the question “Have these women got it wrong or have we misunderstood Paul’s instructions?” We know Paul encouraged women to prophesy in gatherings (1 Corinthians 11:5), we know he applauded Junia who he names as an outstanding apostle (Romans16:7). Paul cites Phoebe as a deacon of the church in Cenchreae (Romans 16:1), some might argue that she was ‘just a deacon’ which makes sense against the backdrop of some church cultures which promote a hierarchical leadership structure. However, Paul describes his own ministry also as a diakonos (1 Corinthians 3:5; 2 Corinthians 3:6; 6:4; 11:23; Ephesians 3:7; Colossians 1:23; 1:25). Phoebe is also referred to as prostatis (G4368) (“overseer, guardian, protector” – i.e. to manage with a sense of protecting, giving appropriate aid to someone, helper, benefactor, leader, guardian) which doesn’t sound to me like a lady restricted to working in women and children’s ministry, though admittedly it could do.
So, we seem to have Biblical evidence of women being endorsed to teach or speak in some form in gatherings and we experience anointed female teachers. But what does scripture teach?
Let the Bible speak
Firstly I think it important to differentiate between those scriptures intended to speak into marriage and those referring to women in general and due to space constraints, I will limit this study to a simple man’s view of 1 Timothy 2.
The model I use not only involves reading the passage at least five times, but also gathering as much background material as possible; the culture and context being essential to understanding the original intent. Over the years I have been so blessed by seeing the New Testament through Jewish eyes, in fact doing so has sometimes changed my understanding completely.
Let’s apply this first to 1 Timothy 2:15, remembering that Timothy had been asked by Paul to stay in Ephesus to combat false teaching (1 Timothy 1:3-4 and 1 Timothy 4:1-7).
“But women will be saved through childbearing–if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”
Context, context, context
I’ve seen some pretty convoluted gymnastics around this verse but what about context? Artemis (a.k.a. Diana) was the pre-eminent Ephesian goddess, worshipped (among other things) as the god of childbirth who was believed to be able not only to alleviate the problems but also to cause sickness and even death during childbirth. 2 Maybe Paul is saying that these converts could now rely on God to keep them safe as they go THROUGH childbirth?
Artemis was also the god of hunting and and swore never to marry (viz.1 Timothy 4:3!) She was said to have dominated her younger twin Apollo and was equated with Eve, leading to a teaching that Eve was created before Adam and received “special knowledge” when she ate the forbidden fruit.3 Devotees also sported a particular hair style. In Ephesiaca, Xenophon of Ephesus describes these ‘braids’ (plegma – used only once in scripture) to refer to a particular hairstyle or coiffure worn by those who served and desired to imitate Artemis.4
With this in mind, verses 9-11 make more sense. Here are the verses: “I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.”
Perhaps Paul isn’t giving a global restriction on hairstyles but for this group of women to leave behind a specific flamboyant way of dressing and acting associated with Artemis worship.
The Key verse
Verse 12 is key for many: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.”
“I do not permit”. Is this a blanket prohibition on women teaching? If so, then we have to apply it to all circumstances including our schools and universities as nowhere in this passage does Paul describe any limiting criteria such as in Christian meetings. Andrew Perriman suggests in the Tyndale Bulletin that the structure is commonly used in contexts of localised situations, exceptions, and concessions, rather than contexts of universal norms and regulations.5
(viz. Matthew 8:21; 19:8, Mark 5:13; 10:4, Luke 8:32; 9:59; 9:62, John 19:38, Acts 21:39-40; 26:1; 27:3; 28:16).
Verse 12 begins with the Greek ‘didaskein’ (“to teach“). Interpreters usually connect “a man” from later in the verse to this verb, thus yielding “to teach a man.” Apparently, this interpretation does not hold up grammatically. For “a man” to be brought forward to connect with “to teach” in this way, the Greek word would need to be spelt ‘andra’. However, it is actually spelt ‘andros’ here, indicating it is not intended to connect with “to teach”, but rather, is intended to connect with the verb ‘authentein’ appearing later in the verse. As ‘didaskein’ forms a doublet with ‘authentein’ here in 1 Timothy 2:12, it also forms a doublet with another verb every other time it is used in the letter of 1 Timothy as well.6
The most disputed word in this verse is ‘authentein’, mostly translated as “authority over”. This is the only occurrence of the word in scripture and begs the question why did Paul use it? He could have used other words for “authority over” – such as ‘exouzia’ or ‘dunamis’. Authentein, is ordinarily translated “to bear rule” or “to usurp authority”, yet a study of other Greek literary sources reveals that it did not ordinarily have this meaning until the third or fourth century, well after the time of the New Testament. Authentein was originally to ‘murder with one one’s hand’ then became ‘act on own authority’, from which we get ‘author’. Another definition of the verb form ‘authentein’ was included in Greek dictionaries: “to represent oneself as the author, originator, or source of anything”7
Now the next verse might be easier to understand (vs. 13) – Adam came first, not Eve. Perhaps Paul is appealing to Genesis not as means to over-rule women but to counter the argument that women should rule men.
Space does not allow exploration into other scriptures, 1 Corinthians 14 comes to mind;
1 Corinthians 14:34 “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.” Paul, who knew the law better than most and would have known that traditions and laws can often get confused. Some ‘alternative’ perspectives on scripture are clearly heretical but some are valid, especially when taking into account the original cultural context. My purpose is simply to present such an alternative with no need to convince anyone who takes an opposing view on restrictions on women teachers.
Romans 14:4 “Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.”