Peter Barnes has written an article about women preaching in the local church here. My aim in responding is to clarify Paul’s meaning and intention in 1 Timothy 2:11-15. I have focused on twelve issues.
1 – “But the generic sense is surely correct.”
Peter starts with 1 Timothy 2:11-12 stating the RSV falsely refers to plural men. Man is referenced in the original language in the singular. Peter then adds, “but the generic sense is surely correct.” Peter does not say why the generic sense is correct or explain what he means by it. Before verse 11 Paul has been talking about plural men and women (e.g. v.10, “but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.) In verses 11 and 12 it changes to singular woman and singular man (e.g. v.12, “I do not permit a woman”).
The ‘generic singular’ is when we say something using a singular tense but are referring to a more ‘universal’ or ‘generic’ reality, such as, “a man (singular) should pray.” Although this statement references a singular man it is a generic statement with universality intended. Indeed, men should always pray.
Peter believes that Paul is using the generic singular in verses 11-12 where he speaks about ‘a woman’ not teaching and domineering ‘a man’. Paul changes his grammar in verse 11 and Peter has made a conclusion that is not supported. Peter has declared the generic sense as ‘surely correct’. The context helps determine a generic singular. Peter has not demonstrated how the context supports a generic singular.
2 – “the context shows that the meaning of authentein in verse 12 cannot be ‘to domineer’ or even the KJV’s ‘to usurp authority’.”
“The context in 1 Timothy 2 is thus very much against its joining to teach (a positive activity) with to domineer (a negative activity).”
Peter argues that the word ‘authentein’ means ‘authority’ and this will either be a positive or a negative type of ‘authority’ depending on the context the word is used in. Peter states the word is used in connection to ‘teaching’ and that this is a positive activity, thus ‘authentein’ must be a positive activity.
It is the context that determines if some activities are positive or negative, but some activities are inherently positive or negative. Bearing false witness is negative. Authentein is inherently negative.
Cynthia Westfall says, “In the Greek corpus, the verb authenteō refers to a range of actions that are not restricted to murder or violence. However, the people who are targets of these actions are harmed, forced against their will (compelled), or at least their self-interest is being overridden because the actions involve an imposition of the subject’s will, ranging from dishonour to lethal force”[i].
Philip Payne says, “the word (authentein) stresses the activity of the self, as in “accomplish for one’s own advantage.” It has a common nuance of acting unilaterally – like autocrat.” Related words usually convey a negative nuance.””[ii]
Paul references teaching in 1 Timothy 1:6-7 as a negative activity when he says, “Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.”
3 – “It is not so much the content of their teaching but the very fact that they are teaching. So far as we can tell, it was males who were spreading false teaching at Ephesus (Acts 20:30; 1 Tim.1:19-20; 2 Tim.2:17-18). But Paul does not ban men from preaching.”
Paul in 1 Timothy 1:3 states that a part of Timothy’s role in Ephesus was to stay and command “certain people” to stop teaching false doctrines. “Certain people” is an indefinite pronoun that is masculine, but as Greek works with a generic masculine, this is a generic non-gendered reference. If they were only male false teachers, then Paul could have clarified this, but he did not. As Peter has helpfully pointed out, women teaching would not have been unheard of in Ephesus at that time.
We know Paul named some false teachers who were male, but we have no reason to assume that this represents all the false teachers. They are banned because they are false teachers (1 Timothy 1:20) rather than because they are male. This is the only reason ever given for Paul stopping someone teaching. They are given an opportunity to stop what they are doing, learn, and then allowed to teach true teaching. Paul himself went through a similar process (1 Timothy 1:12-17). Indeed, even Hymenaeus and Alexander are handed over to Satan to be ‘taught’ not to blaspheme.
4 – “The contention is that Paul is only saying ‘I am not presently allowing’. But there are many commands in the present tense e.g. in Romans 12:1; 1 Corinthians 4:16; Ephesians 4:1; 1 Timothy 2:1; Titus 3:8. They do not appear to have a shelf life attached to them.”
The word that could be translated as, ‘I am not presently allowing,’ is not the same word as Peter’s proof texts, none of which are ‘commands’ as he claims. Romans 12:1 is an invitation or a call (parakalo) as is 1 Corinthians 4:16, Ephesians 4:1, and 1 Timothy 2:1. Titus 3:8 is a different word which is translated as a desire or wish (boulomai).
1 Timothy 2:11 is different to both parakalo and boulomai and is a lack of permission (epitrepo) and is also NOT a command. It occurs in situations such as Luke 8:32 when Jesus permitted (epitrepo) the evil spirits to enter the swine. Jesus’ permission was only for those spirits in reference to those swine. As Payne writes, “this verb, “permit”, is never used in the original text of the bible as a universal command, but instead indicates temporary permission for a specific situation.”[iii]
Epitrepo is the word Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 14 when he says women are not permitted to speak. Paul’s words suggest his intent was localised to these specific situations. As Philip Payne has observed, “Paul uses many imperatives, but “I am not permitting” is not an imperative, and Paul’s original letters don’t use the verb “permit” to give a permanent command”.[iv]
5 – “But Paul argues from Scripture in 1 Timothy 2. He points out firstly that Adam was created before Eve… There is a creation order, even before the Fall (see 1 Cor.11:8-9).”
Creation occurs in a chronological manner across 6 days, presenting a created order. It is not the created order that determines a hierarchy in the text, but rather Genesis 1:27-28 when God puts mankind, male and female, in dominion over the earth. There is nothing in the text to support a hierarchy determined by the created order.
Peter references 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 which affirms a created order, but 1 Corinthians 11:8-12 does not support a created order that determines a gendered hierarchy. For example, verse 10 states that a woman, not man, has authority over her own head. Verse 11 and 12 state that now men come from women and that we all come from God. 1 Corinthians 11:8-12 does reflect a created order but undermines the thought of a resulting hierarchy.
6 – “Secondly, this creation order is reinforced by the fall. Adam, of course, was guilty (Rom.5:12), but Eve was deceived (Paul uses a strong word in 1 Timothy 2:14). Glenn Davies writes: ‘Eve was deceived to play the role of head.’”
In 1 Timothy 2, Paul says, Adam was formed first and then Eve. Paul also says that Adam was not deceived, but Eve was. Adam was not deceived or tricked, but knowingly disobeyed and sinned, as Paul reminds us in Romans 5:14. There is something in being formed second that allowed Eve to be tricked but not Adam.
The Genesis account tells us that Adam had a fuller experience of God and his commands than Eve did due to being created earlier (Genesis 2:15-18). Adam received the command firsthand and learnt of God’s love and providence when God addresses his ‘aloneness’. Eve did not experience these things – she lacked knowledge. Eve was tricked and the connection to 1 Timothy 11-12 is that a dominating female false teacher needs to peacefully learn. Philip Payne asks the question, “Can you think of any more powerful example of the danger deceived women pose to the church than Eve’s deception?”[v]
There is no reference in Scripture to back up Glenn Davies claim referenced above.
7 – “So far as we can tell from the evidence, the false teachers mentioned in the Pastoral Epistles were all men (1 Tim.1:20; 2 Tim.2:17-18), and women are mentioned because they were influenced by heresy rather than the purveyors of it (1 Tim.5:11-15; 2 Tim.3:6-9). No doubt, Paul was responding to a specific situation at Ephesus but he was doing so in general terms.”
It is an assumption that the false teachers in Ephesus were only men. Peter gives two references which fail to support his view. In 1 Timothy 5 Paul suggests that some women can become busybodies who “talk nonsense, saying things they ought not to” and some have even “turned away to Satan.” This suggests that women are as much talkers as listeners. The 2 Timothy 3:6-9 passage does not say all women, but weak women, and does not say they are preyed on by men, but people.
8 – “Finally, Paul asserts: Yet she will be saved through childbearing – if they continue in faith and love and holiness with self-control (v.15). This has proved something of a problematic verse. It could mean that:
a. women will be preserved through child-bearing;
b. women will be saved through the birth of the Child, Christ Jesus (John Stott);
c. but the idea seems to be that most women will become mothers.”
All three of these options hold to Peter’s earlier conclusion that Paul is talking about plural women. This is problematic. Are women who do not give birth not saved? Are women saved through the birth of Jesus, rather than his death and resurrection? Does motherhood save? The three conclusions that assume a generic context are non-sensical.
Verse 15 contains another singular ‘she’ reference, that Peter also wants to understand as a generic singular. We need the context to understand ‘she’ in verse 15. It might be generic, but we would first want to check to see if there is a singular female previously mentioned. Some assume it is a reference to Eve who will be saved if she continues in faith etc. This is problematic though as Eve is dead and cannot continue in anything. Her fate is set. Moving slightly earlier to verses 11 and 12 we find reference to a singular woman who is being asked to learn peacefully and not, at that time, permitted to teach and domineer a singular man.
Paul states ‘she’ will be saved if ‘they’ continue. Who are they? The only way of understanding this is to assume the singular woman and the singular man who she is teaching. Paul suggests that it is not only important that she learn and continue in faith, love, holiness and self-control, but that both do. Indeed, her fate is contingent on her faith and his. It appears she will be held responsible in some way as a teacher, just as James 3:1 suggests.
9 – “What we have seen in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 fits in with the rest of Scripture.”
This is the only passage that places a restriction on a woman teaching. It can only be understood as a universal command if:
– We ignore the singular man and woman in vv. 11, 12 & 15.
– We ignore the temporary nature of “I am not currently permitting”.
– We ignore the plural ‘they’ in verse 15.
– We ignore the inherently negative meaning of authentein.
– We ignore the context that shows false teaching (a negative activity).
– We import hierarchy into the created order that is absent in the text.
– We ignore what the creation text says.
10 – “In the home, for example, headship is entrusted to the husband, not the wife (Eph.5:22-24; Col.3:18; Tit.2:5; 1 Pet.3:1). In general terms: ‘the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man’ (1 Cor.11:3)…
The headship in the household is loving but it is still headship – not a figurehead but a head. Old Testament elders and priests were all male (Ex.18:21,25; 29:1-37; Num.11:16-30). Finally, Jesus’ twelve apostles are all male. Jesus did not choose six men and six women.”
The biblical term used in places such as Ephesians 5:22-24 is ‘head’, not ‘headship’. Peter does not explain for us what this word means, but he appears to assume it means ‘authority’.
Ephesians 5:22-24 is a head/body metaphor designed to encourage unity, not hierarchy. Where the term ‘head’ is used in some places it clearly cannot mean ‘authority’. One example is partly referenced by Peter in 1 Corinthians 11:3 that in full says, “But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” This clarifies for us that ‘head’ cannot mean ‘authority’ as God is not the authority of the risen Christ. Rather, it highlights that the word ‘head’ can mean source, as it is accurate to say that Christ came from God. When we take the whole passage to verse 12, we do not see an authority driven hierarchy but rather reasons for unity.
I note that Peter’s Old Testament references do not prove all Elders were male, and we are never told why Jesus chose 12 men. There are many practical reasons why he might (travelling and sleeping together on the road, literacy, legal and social standing, etc) but it is an argument from silence either way.
11 – “A number of issues are at stake:
1. The Bible’s authority is undermined;
2. Authority in our homes will be dislocated;
3. Our churches will be governed by people whom God has not called;
4. Gender inter-changeability will lead to homosexuality and other aberrations driven by the view that equality must entail identical functions;
5. Our perception of God will be radically changed.”
I note from the 5 points above that Peter seems greatly concerned about authority, even though Jesus suggested it would be different with us (Matthew 20:25-28). If we are trying to manipulate 1 Timothy 2:11-12 into a universal and enduring command, perhaps our perception of Scripture and God needs to be radically changed?
12 – Paul is not writing about inferiority and superiority. Women and men are both created in the image of God (Gen.1:27), and in Christ are equally redeemed (Gal.3:28). ‘To be subject to’ does not mean ‘to be inferior to’. Christ was subject to Joseph and Mary (Luke2:51), but He was certainly not inferior to them. Paul is writing about function, not status.
My view of Paul’s writing suggests he is not talking about hierarchy. Peter’s view cannot be understood anyway other than hierarchy. Peter believes gender privileges some (every time) and subjects others (every time) – not temporarily but permanently. Purely because of gender. This is one gender being superior to the other.
Peter reminds us, “Paul declares that women are forbidden to perform two – and only two – functions in the Church: they are not to teach men or to rule over men”. “Only two”, yet this results in women never having authority in the church. Any authority they are given (Peter gives some examples) is always under male authority. If this was purely about function and not status, we would expect functions that women can do in the family and the church that puts women in authority over men but patriarchy never allows this. Women are always subject. It is hierarchy. Christ said we should be different.
[i] Westfall, Cynthia. Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle’s Vision for Men and Women in Christ
[ii] Payne, Philip. The Bible vs Biblical Womanhood. P144
[iii] Payne, Philip. P143
[iv] Payne p144
[v] Payne p148
Thanks Dave. I especially like the summaries from points 9 and 12.