SCRIPTURE
8I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; 9also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, 10but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. 11Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 12I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. (1 Timothy 2:8-15, NRSV)
WHAT
Oh boy. Now Paul has stepped in it, right? It’s stuff like he says in this passage, and what he says about how a wife should be “submissive to her husband” (Ephesians 5:22, Colossians 3:18, Titus 2:5) that turns modern people off to hearing him, right?
This whole passage, as N. T. Wright points out, seems to be saying that women are second-class citizens. They aren’t even allowed to dress in nice clothes. They are the daughters of Eve, the original troublemaker. Without Eve, Adam never would have sinned and we wouldn’t all be in the mess we’re in, right? So the best thing for women to do is to give birth to and care for children, behave themselves, and keep quiet. Let the men run things. But despite centuries of interpreting Paul that way, is that what he is saying?
To that question, I say “NO”! I say that for several reasons, which I’ll detail below. But first of all, it does not fit with what Paul says in other places in the New Testament, things like:
There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28, NRSV)
In the Gospel of Luke, there’s the story of Mary and Martha. When Jesus visits their home in Luke 10:38-42, Martha complains because Mary is sitting at Jesus’ feet, listening to him teach. She’s not complaining that she needs help in the kitchen and Mary is refusing to provide it. Martha is complaining because Mary is doing what only men can do. In Judaism, only men were allowed to sit at the feet of a rabbi to learn Torah. (Ever see Barbra Streisand in the 1983 movie Yentl?) Mary is joining with the men in becoming a disciple, a learner, perhaps with the view of being a teacher herself someday. That’s the real reason Martha was upset with her. She was crossing the cultural gender barrier. Jesus said nothing to correct Mary; in fact, it was Martha that he corrected:
“Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:41-42, NRSV)
And here’s another often overlooked gender-role crossing passage – and Paul is the author:
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was. (Romans 16:7, NRSV)
“Junia” is a female name. Andronicus is perhaps her husband or brother. Paul calls them BOTH “apostles!” So Junia was a female apostle! Because that causes so much consternation and goes against the traditional cultural grain that says only men can be apostles, for centuries the name “Junia” was translated as “Junias,” a male name. It still is in some translations such as the original 1984 NIV. But even “conservative” translations such as the NIV 2011 edition and the ESV recognize this is wrong and today translate it as the feminine name “Junia.” The NIV change from “Junias” to “Junia” in its 2011 edition caused considerable consternation among many traditionalists.
But there are other good reasons to answer “NO!” to the above question. Because this passage is such a loaded passage, and because it has had and still has enormous impact in the Church regarding women in ministry, especially women’s ordination, I will take two days to examine it.
When I was in seminary, Perkins School of Theology had recently made a big curriculum decision in light of the fact that so many of its current students were “ministry as a second career” people, as I was. Being second career, many of us were older and we had families to care for. Therefore we needed to work outside the classroom. This was a big change from years past when most seminary students came straight from college. Working with families to care for left little time or interest for students like me to take Hebrew and Greek classes. So the seminary decided that taking original language classes would now be encouraged but optional.
In response to this decision, which he did NOT endorse, my Old Testament professor, Rev. Dr. William A. Power -- who also taught Hebrew classes -- told us first year students in his Intro to the Bible class: “If you are too lazy to learn the original languages, then I don’t want to see you with any less than SEVEN TO TEN English translations open before you as you study and write your papers for my class.” At the time I thought he was just being an old fashioned fuddy duddy. Now I understand what he meant. He was right!
Only being able to read the Bible in English, and then usually only in one translation, puts us at a severe disadvantage for hearing Paul accurately. Especially in this passage. Plus we have years of interpreters telling us what it means.
Let’s not be lazy, shall we? Let’s make Dr. Power proud of us and dig underneath the English to the original Greek, and also let’s determine to take account of the historical context, so that we can make better sense of what Paul is saying.
Our biggest stumbling block will be answering this question:
“Did Paul (and the Holy Spirit) mean for this prohibition of women teaching in the churches to be for all time and all places? OR was it meant for the specific time and place of Ephesus in the first century A.D. due to its specific cultural situation?”
HINT: I favor the latter answer, and I’ll attempt in this commentary to show you why.
Many Hollywood movies feature a scene where a bomb has been discovered. Experts must be called in to “defuse the bomb” without accidentally setting it off. Usually this involves cutting certain wires in the right order. Cut the wrong wire, or in the wrong order, and BOOM! The bomb goes off. Adopting this metaphor for our exploration of this passage, let’s try to “defuse the bomb” that is inherent in this passage which for centuries has been used to limit women’s roles in ministry. (Thanks to The Junia Project at juniaproject.com for this metaphor and many of the following insights.)
Let’s begin with the translation wire. As I mentioned in my opening comments, being limited to reading this passage only in English and usually in only one English translation puts us at a severe disadvantage, especially when it comes to understanding the Greek word authentéō, which usually gets translated as “have authority over,” as in the NRSV. It derives from the verb authentein:
I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over (GREEK: authentéō) a man; she is to keep silent. (1 Timothy 2:12, NRSV)
The problem is this Greek word is found only here in scripture and in no other verses. This phenomenon when a word only appears once in a work of literature by a particular author is called a hapax legomenon. It presents a challenge because we have no other uses of the word to help guide our interpretation. In that case, we have to turn to sources outside the Bible to guide us.
But this Greek word authentéō is rare even in ancient texts outside of the Bible. Where it is used, it is often associated with aggression. Noting this, authentéō is translated as “domineer” in the Latin Vulgate and New English Bible and as “usurp authority” in the Geneva and King James Bibles. Having authority and usurping authority are two different things. So considering the context, it is likely that Paul was objecting to something other than the legitimate use of authority.
There is also a good possibility that the verb didaskō which is translated as “to teach” in the NRSV is linked to authentéō in what is called a hendiadys. This is a term that refers to two words joined by a conjunction to make a single point. “Don’t eat and run” would be a modern example. So a better interpretation of what Paul is saying might be “don’t teach in a domineering way”.
Another translation issue which we easily miss in English concerns grammatical tense. In verses 9 and 10, Paul has in view “women” plural. But he switches to the singular “a woman” in verses 11-15 and then back to “women” plural in the next chapter. This opens the possibility that Paul had a specific woman of Ephesus in mind, perhaps one that Timothy had written to him about. Perhaps she is the one who is supporting false teaching and who shows up immodestly dressed, with her hair braided, and wearing jewelry of gold and pearls to attract attention and flash her wealth. She is usurping authority to teach her brand of false doctrine. It is her that Paul wants Timothy to limit not necessarily all women, and certainly not all women for all time.
Some scholars also believe “I don’t permit” in v. 12 could also be accurately translated as “I am not currently permitting”.
Putting all these translation issues together, while these verses are often used to defend male-only leadership in the Church, we can see that these issues reveal that the passage is anything BUT clear on the issue of male-only leadership.
Snip.
So we have cut the translation wire and the bomb didn’t go off. Now let’s cut the context wire.
They say in real estate, there are three important factors: location, location, location. In accurate Bible interpretation, there are similarly three important factors: context, context, context! Unfortunately, context is often overlooked, especially if paying attention to it would not support a preferred narrative such as male-only leadership.
We know that Paul is writing to Timothy because he is very concerned about false teaching that is spreading through the church in Ephesus:
I urge you, as I did when I was on my way to Macedonia, to remain in Ephesus so that you may instruct certain people not to teach any different doctrine… (1 Timothy 1:3, NRSV)
Since Paul writes this at the beginning of his letter, we can be sure that everything that follows – including the current passage – will be concerned with supporting that overall goal.
While these false teachers were most likely men – even elders of the church -- much of the spreading of the false teaching was through women in the congregation. It is likely that most women in the Ephesian church had limited training in Christian theology to serve as a guardrail against false doctrine. So their interest in misguided teaching was proving to be dangerous, especially given the role of females in the worship of Artemis, whose temple was located in Ephesus.
The temple of Artemis in Ephesus was one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. It had been there in some form for centuries even in Paul’s day. This helped to make Ephesus a very influential city in the ancient Roman empire. People traveled from far and wide to visit it. It was a big part of the city’s economy, as Luke shows us in Acts 19 as I show below.
In ancient Greek religion and mythology, Artemis is the goddess of the hunt, wilderness, wild animals, nature, vegetation, childbirth, care of children, and chastity. The goddess Diana is her Roman equivalent.
In Greek tradition, Artemis is the daughter of the chief god Zeus and Leto, and she is the twin sister of Apollo. Artemis was the patron and protector of young children, especially young girls. She was worshiped as one of the primary goddesses of childbirth and midwifery. Artemis was one of the three major virgin goddesses alongside Athena and Hestia. She remained an unmarried maiden and was one of the three Greek goddesses over whom Aphrodite, the goddess of love, had no power.
During the reign of Alexander the Great, and later under Roman rule, the “Ephesian Artemisia” festival was promoted as a key element in the pan-Hellenic festival circuit. It was part of the prevailing political and cultural identity and essential to the economic life of the region. In Acts, Paul ran into trouble in Ephesus for promoting Christian faith because the artisans of Artemis shrines knew if this Jesus-thing caught on, it would ruin their business and their city’s political influence:
A man named Demetrius, a silversmith who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought no little business to the artisans. These he gathered together, with the workers of the same trade, and said, “Men, you know that we get our wealth from this business. You also see and hear that not only in Ephesus but in almost the whole of Asia this Paul has persuaded and drawn away a considerable number of people by saying that gods made with hands are not gods. And there is danger not only that this trade of ours may come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be scorned, and she will be deprived of her majesty that brought all Asia and the world to worship her.”
When they heard this, they were enraged and shouted, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” The city was filled with the confusion; and people rushed together to the theater, dragging with them Gaius and Aristarchus, Macedonians who were Paul’s travel companions. (Acts 19:24-29, NRSV)
The Artemis festival also provided an excellent opportunity for young, unmarried men and women to seek out marriage partners. Games, contests, and theatrical performances were all held in the goddess's name. The festival drew huge crowds and had the support of the Roman officials.
N. T. Wright notes, “As befitted worshipers of a female deity, the priests were all women. They ruled the show and kept the men in their place.” This female influence easily crept into the church in Ephesus. This is what concerned Paul, especially when it came to spreading false teaching. From other things he says, it appears that not only were some elders in the church spreading false teaching, but they were supported by some of the women, perhaps some widows.
So the specific cultural context in Ephesus, with its temple of Artemis, the great festivals to Artemis, and the female priestesses of Artemis all influenced what Paul wrote to Timothy about women in the church. These are all important parts of the historical context in which he wrote.
Snip.
So now we’ve cut the translation and cultural context wires and the bomb didn’t go off. Now let’s cut the final wire, the interpretation wire.
Scholars have identified some well-established principles to use in Bible interpretation, principles which are helpful in navigating highly contested passages like this one. Here are a few to consider:
· Church doctrine should not be built on a hapax legomenon, which as we’ve seen, is a word that occurs only once in an author’s writings. When a word is used only once it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine the writer’s meaning, since there are no other examples of word usage to compare. As we’ve seen, the wordauthentéō, translated as “have authority over” in 1 Timothy 2:12, is a hapax legomenon. This fact alone is sufficient to suggest caution in using this text as a foundation for establishing church doctrine.
· Interpretation should be consistent with the rest of the passage under study. Philosopher and apologist Douglas Groothuis notes, “It is inconsistent to regard the dress code in 1 Timothy 2:9 as culturally relative, and therefore temporary, but the restriction on women’s ministry as universal and permanent. These instructions were part of the same paragraph and flow of thought.” Similarly, if we insist that verse 12 is applicable today, to be consistent, shouldn’t we also apply that logic to the whole passage, including verse 15 which says women shall be saved through childbearing? I don’t know of any church that teaches that. We teach that salvation is by grace through faith alone – for men and women.
· Interpretation should not contradict the rest of the author’s teaching. We’ve seen already how the restrictive interpretation of v. 12 contradicts what Paul teaches in other places, especially his commendation of Junia as a female apostle in Romans 16. Another example would be 1 Timothy 2:1-10 which provides instructions for men and women to follow when praying in public, and in 1 Corinthians there are instructions for women praying and prophesying in church. Elsewhere in 1 Corinthians, Paul gives other instructions about corporate worship and spiritual gifts that are not restricted by gender. So Paul is generally supportive of women’s participation in ministry, which contradicts the idea that women must be silent in church in all times and in all places.
· Interpretation should not contradict the overall teaching in the New Testament, especially the example and teaching of Jesus. As Manfred Brauch notes (professor at Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary and author of Abusing Scripture: The Consequences of Misreading the Bible) “Christ is the center -- the Logos, the living Word, and Scripture must be viewed through the Christ filter. Jesus’ words and acts are normative and paradigmatic and should be a critical filter for interpreting scripture.” In the gospels Jesus never suggests that women’s roles were to be secondary or limited in the community of faith, even when he had the opportunity to do so. See my earlier discussion of Jesus with Mary and Martha in Luke 10.
For all these reasons, I believe Paul was addressing a specific problem in one particular church, and not laying down a Holy Spirit inspired command for all times and all places. Further evidence of this is that in no other letter does Paul say, “I do not permit a woman to teach” or does he even hint God authorized this prohibition to be absolutized as a universal command for all times. Gilbert Bilezikian in his book Community 101 notes:
“It should also be noted that the instructions about church order that Paul sent to Titus for the churches in Crete were written during the same period of time as 1 Timothy. Yet not only the prohibition for women to teach is absent from the letter to Titus, but the opposite is true. Titus was instructed by Paul to teach older women so that they could become literally ‘teachers-of-what-is-good’ (Titus 2:3). The Christian women of Crete were apparently not propounding apostasy as their Ephesian counterparts were doing. Therefore, the prohibition was not extended to them. Women were forbidden to teach in Ephesus, but in Crete some were trained to teach others. It is difficult to imagine a stronger proof for the specificity of the 1 Timothy prohibition.” (Emphasis mine)
Snip.
Now we have cut the translation, context, and interpretation wires. The bomb has not gone off!
I hope I have shown that at the very least, this passage is not as clear as has often been taught. In light of current biblical scholarship it’s time we acknowledge that there are too many problems with this passage to continue using it as a weapon against women called to leadership and ministry in the church, even ordination.
We’ve spent this entire commentary looking at only one issue raised by this passage, albeit an explosive one. But Paul says much more here, which we’ll look at in the next commentary.
APPLY
In light of current biblical scholarship it’s time we acknowledge that there are too many problems with this passage to continue using it as a weapon against women called to leadership and ministry in the church, even ordination.
PRAYER
O Lord, you sent us Jesus, your word made flesh, and the scriptures as your word to be read and studied. Yet, centuries of Church history have taught us, we don’t always listen well to hear you clearly. One example of our confusion has been the place of women in ministry and church leadership. Help us to clearly know your will for this, especially since you have gifted so many women so richly. In Christ. Amen.
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
1. N. T. Wright points out that for centuries, the traditional interpretation of this passage has gone something like this: “Women are second-class citizens. They aren’t even allowed to dress in nice clothes. They are the daughters of Eve, the original troublemaker. Without Eve, Adam never would have sinned and we wouldn’t all be in the mess we’re in. So the best thing for women to do is to give birth to and care for children, behave themselves, and keep quiet. Let the men run things.” What’s wrong with this interpretation according to Bob’s commentary?
2. Who was Junia? What do we learn of her in Romans 16? How does that speak to today’s passage, particularly regarding women’s leadership and ministry in the Church?
3. Having learned the lesson of his Old Testament professor, Dr. William A. Power, Bob writes, “Only being able to read the Bible in English, and then usually only in one translation, puts us at a severe disadvantage for hearing Paul accurately.” Discuss what Bob means.
4. How do you answer this question now and why: “Did Paul (and the Holy Spirit) mean for this prohibition of women teaching in the churches to be for all time and all places? OR was it meant for the specific time and place of Ephesus in the first century A.D. due to its specific cultural situation?”
How can you apply these insights in your life?