> Third, we know that in 1 Corinthians 11.5 the women were allowed to speak, by the mandate of Paul, so we know this teaching in 1 Timothy is a local problem and a local mandate, not a universal one.
Why is the supporting argument in 1 Timothy a universal one about all women, then?
And really, there’s no evidence that Paul isn’t addressing women in the churches in general in 1 Timothy 2, either.
The plain interpretation — supported by pretty much all major academic commentators on 1 Timothy — is that Paul is addressing broader matters; and that’s why his scriptural example (Eve/Genesis) is broad, too.
> Some background would also help. The Ephesians (where Timothy was) were overrun by Gnostic-influenced women taking a particular twist on Genesis 2 to claim superiority, ignoring legitimate teaching and morality. He is addressing the women who refuse to be taught. The church was being overrun by false teachers, and the women were being drawn in and then rising up as the big cheeses with false teaching. It was affecting the church in the whole region, and Paul needed to put a stop to it.
I’m aware this is a popular apologetic explanation, but there’s actually no evidence at all for this. For one, Gnosticism probably only emerged in the second quarter of the second century — or maybe the late first quarter of it, at the earliest.
Board index ‹ Women
12 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Re: Submissive Woman?
by jimwalton » Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:46 am
> Why is the supporting argument in 1 Timothy a universal one about all women, then?
I don't know what you mean by this. We don't require all men to raise their hands in prayer (1 Tim. 2.8). We don't forbid women from braiding their hair or wearing jewelry (2.9), or from wearing expensive clothes. We don't forbid women from speaking (2.11). We don't forbid women from teaching or having authority over a man; missionary women do it all the time in their field of service. So what about this text IS a universal mandate? Just the one about women shutting up? That's not sound exegesis.
> And really, there’s no evidence that Paul isn’t addressing women in the churches in general in 1 Timothy 2, either.
Looking at 1 Tim. 2, we see that his first teaching (vv. 1-7) seems to be applicable to all believers throughout the empire, and extendable to all people. He's talking about all people (all humanity), and all those in authority (vv. 1, 2, 4, 5). In vv. 8-10 he seems to be talking about men and women everywhere, although Gordon Fee and Bruce Barron say, "Its force does not necessarily extend to every Christian congregation, or even beyond the city limits of Ephesus." Robertson, Humphreys, Lock, and Leaney see it as a general teaching. And yet we don't see a requirement of lifting our hands in prayer. We don't read this text as universally obligatory, any more than foot washing (Jn. 13) or a holy kiss (commanded 5 times). Instead we take it to mean the men should be active in public prayer.
But then Paul says, "...without anger or disputing," which sure sounds like a local issue. Where does THIS come from if it's universal principles about prayer everywhere?
By the time we get to 2.9, it's tough to tell if this is universal or local. It was the Ephesians and Corinthians (Romans and Greeks) who most struggled with these issues, not the Jewish congregations. Corinth and Ephesus had a reputation for moral looseness. Other congregations didn't. So, it's a general principle (dress modestly, not showing off your body, your wealth, or flaunting your social position), but it's a local admonition to back off on the jewelry and cover her body.
V. 10 is obviously a general teaching for all. Still, Paul is concerned with the fitness of things, and he was specifically addressing the situation at Ephesus.
V. 11 seems more aimed at the Ephesian situation. In 1 Tim. 1.3, the overriding problem is of false teachers. He is concerned for the witness of the church (1.11-15). He seems to be addressing women in the congregation who are not listening with submission to true apostolic teaching when they lack maturity, godliness, and spiritual discernment. These women are like Eve: they are too easily deceived. As I mentioned, in 1 Cor. 11.5, the women are allowed to speak, so that would also give a clue that Paul is speaking to a specific context.
In v. 12, he continues the thought. The present tense ("I do not permit") indicates that his prohibition is limited to the particular situation in Ephesus and was not meant to be a command for all or for all time. Since Priscilla was a teacher, and the daughters of Philip were prophetesses, in addition to 1 Cor. 11.5, we simply cannot responsibly interpret v. 12 as being a general teaching for all women in all places and all times.
> The plain interpretation — supported by pretty much all major academic commentators on 1 Timothy — is that Paul is addressing broader matters; and that’s why his scriptural example (Eve/Genesis) is broad, too.
His reference to Eve supports his point to the Ephesians. In Roman, his reference was to Adam (Rom. 5.12) being the one who led humanity into sin. His illustration is specific to Ephesus. Paul's use of Adam and Eve makes the point he is making about Ephesus.
He is obviously not saying that all men were formed first as Adam was formed first, nor that all women were deceived as Eve was deceived. Nothing in the text suggests that this is true or that that is Paul's point.
He is obviously not saying that when, by nature, are deceivable whereas men are not—that the nature of men is to be first and the nature of women is to be taken in. Nothing in the text suggests that this is true or that that is Paul's point.
Instead, Adam and Eve serve as illustrations for the Ephesian situation. This suits the passage well and accomplishes Paul's aims.
> There is no evidence for [the Gnostic explanation]
Proto-Gnosticism started in the 1st century or earlier. Some scholars have even theorized that Gnosticism has its roots in pre-Christian religions (http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic.htm), instead of coming after Christianity.
So I guess there is some evidence for this, contrary to your claim.
Ignatius of Antioch (died in 117) writes against them as well as against Docetism (a doctrine closely related to Gnosticism). Paul addresses Gnostic teachings, as does Jude. Gnostic writings didn't proliferate until the 2nd century, but they were a movement long before that.
Paul's writing in 1 Timothy addresses common Gnostic themes, such as a feminist interpretation of Adam and Eve as precedent for one's own spiritual primacy and authority. Paul, instead, uses Genesis as an authoritative account. Gnostic groups also downplayed ethical requirements, and taught that salvation comes through knowledge, while the body is irrelevant. Paul addresses these themes as well (1 Tim. 2.10). The Gnostics taught that Eve was superior to Adam and even gave Adam his life; and when Adam was deceived, Eve enlightened him. Paul refutes this with Scripture. As far as v. 12 is concerned, to suppress the error about Eve being superior, and of women having primacy in the church, Paul tells these women to submit to the truth and to silence their false teachings.
I don't know what you mean by this. We don't require all men to raise their hands in prayer (1 Tim. 2.8). We don't forbid women from braiding their hair or wearing jewelry (2.9), or from wearing expensive clothes. We don't forbid women from speaking (2.11). We don't forbid women from teaching or having authority over a man; missionary women do it all the time in their field of service. So what about this text IS a universal mandate? Just the one about women shutting up? That's not sound exegesis.
> And really, there’s no evidence that Paul isn’t addressing women in the churches in general in 1 Timothy 2, either.
Looking at 1 Tim. 2, we see that his first teaching (vv. 1-7) seems to be applicable to all believers throughout the empire, and extendable to all people. He's talking about all people (all humanity), and all those in authority (vv. 1, 2, 4, 5). In vv. 8-10 he seems to be talking about men and women everywhere, although Gordon Fee and Bruce Barron say, "Its force does not necessarily extend to every Christian congregation, or even beyond the city limits of Ephesus." Robertson, Humphreys, Lock, and Leaney see it as a general teaching. And yet we don't see a requirement of lifting our hands in prayer. We don't read this text as universally obligatory, any more than foot washing (Jn. 13) or a holy kiss (commanded 5 times). Instead we take it to mean the men should be active in public prayer.
But then Paul says, "...without anger or disputing," which sure sounds like a local issue. Where does THIS come from if it's universal principles about prayer everywhere?
By the time we get to 2.9, it's tough to tell if this is universal or local. It was the Ephesians and Corinthians (Romans and Greeks) who most struggled with these issues, not the Jewish congregations. Corinth and Ephesus had a reputation for moral looseness. Other congregations didn't. So, it's a general principle (dress modestly, not showing off your body, your wealth, or flaunting your social position), but it's a local admonition to back off on the jewelry and cover her body.
V. 10 is obviously a general teaching for all. Still, Paul is concerned with the fitness of things, and he was specifically addressing the situation at Ephesus.
V. 11 seems more aimed at the Ephesian situation. In 1 Tim. 1.3, the overriding problem is of false teachers. He is concerned for the witness of the church (1.11-15). He seems to be addressing women in the congregation who are not listening with submission to true apostolic teaching when they lack maturity, godliness, and spiritual discernment. These women are like Eve: they are too easily deceived. As I mentioned, in 1 Cor. 11.5, the women are allowed to speak, so that would also give a clue that Paul is speaking to a specific context.
In v. 12, he continues the thought. The present tense ("I do not permit") indicates that his prohibition is limited to the particular situation in Ephesus and was not meant to be a command for all or for all time. Since Priscilla was a teacher, and the daughters of Philip were prophetesses, in addition to 1 Cor. 11.5, we simply cannot responsibly interpret v. 12 as being a general teaching for all women in all places and all times.
> The plain interpretation — supported by pretty much all major academic commentators on 1 Timothy — is that Paul is addressing broader matters; and that’s why his scriptural example (Eve/Genesis) is broad, too.
His reference to Eve supports his point to the Ephesians. In Roman, his reference was to Adam (Rom. 5.12) being the one who led humanity into sin. His illustration is specific to Ephesus. Paul's use of Adam and Eve makes the point he is making about Ephesus.
He is obviously not saying that all men were formed first as Adam was formed first, nor that all women were deceived as Eve was deceived. Nothing in the text suggests that this is true or that that is Paul's point.
He is obviously not saying that when, by nature, are deceivable whereas men are not—that the nature of men is to be first and the nature of women is to be taken in. Nothing in the text suggests that this is true or that that is Paul's point.
Instead, Adam and Eve serve as illustrations for the Ephesian situation. This suits the passage well and accomplishes Paul's aims.
> There is no evidence for [the Gnostic explanation]
Proto-Gnosticism started in the 1st century or earlier. Some scholars have even theorized that Gnosticism has its roots in pre-Christian religions (http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic.htm), instead of coming after Christianity.
(Birger Pearson, "Gnosticism, Judaism and Egyptian Christianity." Augsburg Fortress Publishers [1990])."Gnosticism is a philosophical and religious movement which started in pre-Christian times. Some religious historians believe that it had is source in the Jewish community of Alexandria and was later picked up by some Christian groups in Judea and the Galilee."
So I guess there is some evidence for this, contrary to your claim.
Ignatius of Antioch (died in 117) writes against them as well as against Docetism (a doctrine closely related to Gnosticism). Paul addresses Gnostic teachings, as does Jude. Gnostic writings didn't proliferate until the 2nd century, but they were a movement long before that.
Paul's writing in 1 Timothy addresses common Gnostic themes, such as a feminist interpretation of Adam and Eve as precedent for one's own spiritual primacy and authority. Paul, instead, uses Genesis as an authoritative account. Gnostic groups also downplayed ethical requirements, and taught that salvation comes through knowledge, while the body is irrelevant. Paul addresses these themes as well (1 Tim. 2.10). The Gnostics taught that Eve was superior to Adam and even gave Adam his life; and when Adam was deceived, Eve enlightened him. Paul refutes this with Scripture. As far as v. 12 is concerned, to suppress the error about Eve being superior, and of women having primacy in the church, Paul tells these women to submit to the truth and to silence their false teachings.
Last bumped by Anonymous on Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:46 am.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
12 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests