Tuesday, December 20, 2011

CYOA: 1 Timothy 2:1-15 - Egalitarianism! - Team Effort

Finally! We will try and keep this conversation going just a bit longer before we transition to a couple Christmas posts.

Lets begin with a very basic, perhaps biased (feel free to correct us in the comments), definition of both the egalitarian position and the complementary position.

Complementary - Men and women are equal but different. One of the primary ways that the differences are worked out is in a difference of role particularly in relationship to teaching and leadership. For example the lead pastor and elder positions are reserved exclusively for men, or the title of pastor being entirely reserved exclusively for men.

Egalitarian - Men and women are equal and different. Gender is not a determining factor for roles, leadership positions are open to both men and women without distinction based on gender.

Keeping that in mind let's take a look at the text in question.

1 Timothy 2
1 I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and human beings, Christ Jesus, himself human, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time. 7 And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles.

8 Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. 9 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, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.


So the complementary position appeals to this text to validate only men holding positions of the highest authority. The accusation, either explicit or implied, is that someone who holds an egalitarian position ignores the "clear" message of scripture and/or does not take its authority seriously. We do not appreciate this accusation nor do we think it is founded. Rather, let us suggest it is the person who holds a complementary view that has significantly more explaining to do.

For example:
Why is it not acceptable for a women to hold the position of "Lead" Pastor (a non existent Biblical role), but generally acceptable to be worship or children's pastor/director and in such positions “hold authority over men”?
How do we make the interpretive leap from Paul's first blush universal and ontological prohibition of women teaching to specific contexts and subjects that this applies to?
How come the issue of authority is emphasized over that of dress code, or quietness?
If women are saved through childbearing, how does the complementary view address single women?
If we are intended to interpret this passage as a universal command for all time, why are there so many scriptural counter examples of women teaching and exercising authority positively?
Why does Paul redundantly clarify that he does not allow allow women to teach etc?
Why is it ok for Paul to appeal rhetorically to Genesis in a way that we would categorize as outrageous proof texting?

Good Biblical interpretation must be consistent and it is my contention that the complementary view is distinctly inconsistent even in the way it handles this passage by itself let alone the manner in which it synthesizes a Biblical position. With that being said, it is Duncan's distinct fear, that in pressing this point some moderates will feel the need to be even more oppressive in church hierarchy so as to avoid this accusation of inconsistency. So let us present Paul's ethic of mutual submission as one aspect of the key to interpreting this passage well in hopes of avoiding any negative reactionary impact.

It is of critical importance that we realize that reading the Bible is synonymous with interpreting the Bible. The Bible does not speak on its own and just because a word or phrase is in the Bible does not mean that it is an eternal law or principle for us to follow. For example it is perfectly accurate to say that it is Biblical to treat women as property, in so far as there are large chunks of the Bible in which this is the accepted reality, including the 10 commandments:
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” (Ex. 20:17)

However, it would be my hope that we would agree that while this is in the Bible it is not actually Biblical in the best sense of the word. So is it Biblical to say women should not teach or have authority over a man? To answer this question one must address both the particular passage and the sweep of scripture which we find it in.

Let us begin with our presupposition that men and women were created equal and without role distinction.

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” (Genesis 1:28 Emphasis added)

It should be noted also that Eve does not receive her name, from Adam, until after the fall. The naming of Eve is distinct signal of her new position in submission to Adam's authority. Therefore, patriarchy, should clearly be understood as not part of God's intended ideal and thus also part of a broken world, which God is renewing to perfection and fulfillment. A vision of a united humanity best captured by Paul in Galations 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” This then is the broader context of the Biblical story that we must read.

Historical context in Ephesus:
Ephesus was the largest city in Asia minor and contained the temple of Artemis/Diana, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. Needless to say, the cult of Artemis was incredibly powerful and prominent in Ephesus (Acts 19:35). Artemis was the goddess both of virginity and aid to women in childbirth. Furthermore, the Jewish myth of Lillith, Adam's first wife, was also wrapped up into the Artemis cult. The myth of Lilith also stated that Adam was created second.

Paul’s own logic hear begins to work against him, if we do not take into consideration the myth of Lilith. The creation story, if carefully read, works ups in complexity. Thus, the things that are created later are superior to things created earlier. The woman is called “a Helper”, a title often used for God’s self, drawing a closer connection to divinity. So it is reasonable to argue for the conclusion that woman is superior to Man (if we must differentiate gender, something which the Hebrew is a little less focused on). However, the best reading is clearly that which emphasizes equality until the curse upsets the order of equality.

Paul's Midrashic interpretation is very similar to this 3rd century Midrash, Genesis Rabba

Woman was not formed from Adam's head, so that she might not be haughty; nor from his eye, so that she might not be too eager to look at everything; nor from his ear, so that she might not hear too keenly and be an eavesdropper; nor from his mouth, so that she might not be a chatterer; nor from his heart, lest she should become jealous; nor yet not from his hand, so that she might not be afflicted with kleptomania; nor from his foot, lest she should have a tendency to run about. She was made from Adam's rib, a hidden, modest part of his body, so that she too might be modest, not fond of show, but rather of seclusion. But woman baffles God's design and purpose. She is haughty and walks with outstretched neck (Isa. 3. 16), and wanton eyes (Isa. 3. 6). She is given to eavesdropping (Gen. 18. 10). She chatters slander (Numb. 12. 11), and is of a jealous disposition (Gen. 30- 1), She is afflicted with kleptomania (Gen. 31. 19), and is fond of running about (Gen. 34. 1). In addition to these vices women are gluttonous (Gen. 3. 6), lazy (Gen. 18. 6) and bad tempered (Gen. 16. 5).--Gen. Rabba 18

This text shows the spectacularly negative opinion of women common in Jewish rabbinic tradition in which the Jewish man thanked God each morning he was not born a gentile, slaves or women. It should also be noted the similar connection between quietness and modesty that we find in 1 Timothy.

However, in contrast to this midrash, the issue of teaching is very prominent to Paul in this text. The Jewish context would have demanded that all teaching of Torah was an exclusively male domain (Johnson 207). However, even within this letter Paul is affirmative of Timothy's mother and grandmother playing significant teaching roles in his life. This example as well as other women such as Priscilla, Junia, Tryphosa, Euodia and Syntyche etc. are strong evidence against reading Paul's prescription here as universal. Furthermore, the personal nature of Paul's instruction (I do not...) should be understood as further evidence for the contextual nature of this instruction rather than divine universal principle, as it is entirely unnecessary and ground these words into their context rather than universalizing them. Gordon Fee suggests "I am not permitting..." as a better translation. In this sense the appeal to Genesis is a direct rebuttal to Artemis/Lillith related false teaching. Paul's emphasis on deception further supports an interpretation that some women in Ephesus have been problematically deceived by false teaching. The distinct link between women, not teaching, but learning further suggests that the issue is subject matter and education rather than gender. 

1 Timothy 1 clearly relates this theme of false teaching

3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith. 5 The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

This then is the direct context regarding Paul's instructions in chapter. Note the textual connections between chapter one which emphasizes the priority in advancing God's work in love, purity and faith over and against meaningless talk. Therefore, there is strong reason to understand Paul's instruction in Chapter two as an admonishment against female false teachers influenced by the myth of Lilith. Thus Paul's corrective is perfectly appropriate to the situation, women are to learn the scriptures, they are to be quiet rather than engaged in meaningless talk, and they are to submit to the Genesis account rather than the myth of Lilith. The note regarding childbearing emphasizes the Biblical understanding of labour pain in contrast to Artemisian perspectives on both labour as well as sex in general.

Chapter 5 further suggests that there are women in Ephesus who are causing trouble,
11 As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. 12 Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. 13Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also busybodies who talk nonsense, saying things they ought not to. 14 So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. 15 Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.

Thus again Paul's instruction in chapter 2 are perfect prescriptive teaching to remedy a particular problematic situation.

Paul's instructions moves away from community strife and away from the influence of Artemis and Lilith toward social unity, a Biblical focus, the Roman ideal of the patriarchal family and and emphasis on God's work of renewal. Women are not cut out from participating but rather trained in Scripture and exhorted to righteousness. As always the corrective to false teaching is good teaching and right living. Interpreting chapter 2 as, entirely empirically unsustainable, ontological declaration of eternal gender roles rather than the obvious pragmatic prescription against problematic false teaching is incomprehensible and a symptom of our inability to read contextually.

Rather we should follow Paul's lead of upholding social ideals that are closest to God's intentions for restoration and shalom. It is our strong contention that egalitarianism is such an ideal and should be practiced in the church, a sacramental microcosm of hope for the world.

The questions for all Christians: “Where and how can I best serve the God who made me, uniquely enabled me to do His work, and now calls me into a relationship of Love through which I am gifted to love others?” and “Do our churches allow earnest, open and equal pursuit of this question for all people, in full mutual submission to each other?”

By Duncan, Danielle and Silas
Final edit by Duncan and open to adjustment/clarification...

5 comments:

  1. This I think is a decent first run at this passage. Sorry that due to final exams it took a while. There are a number of other textual notes that could potentially be made but for the sake of time and energy here is our first shot.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Duncan et al.,

    Have you interacted with John Walton's "Lost World of Genesis 1"? I have found it to be a helpful and intellectually satisfying look into how we ought to read and understand Gen. 1 and passages that appeal to it throughout the scriptures. I suggest this because I think to discount Paul's own reasoning in this passage (which it seems is what was done in your post - though I am open to correction!) sets a dangerous exegetical and interpretive precedent.

    Thanks for your thoughtful and thorough post on this topic. There are many great theologians and people with deep affection for Christ on both "sides" of this conversation.

    I appreciate very much the way in which you all treated this topic and brought in a variety of voices. Your blog is a common stop for me as I peruse the writings of people whom I respect and care for, even if we don't always necessarily agree.

    May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey Greg,
    Yes I have heard great things about Walton's book and will perhaps one day make my way to it...

    I would not have said that we have discounted Paul's reasoning. Rather we have attempted to explain it. I think it is disconcerting when we accept Paul's use of scripture because he's Paul rather than because we understand. Therefore, I believe we present a better understanding of what he's up to. He is using a known Jewish interpretive technique that explicitly attempt to access hidden/deeper meanings of the text in a manner very similar to the church father's allegorical interpretation. This is a contextually understood and accepted form of interpretation and it is employed here in what we are arguing is a very particular rhetorical strategy to address a very particular situation.

    I understand this to be strikingly similar to a number of the Christological debate between Athanasius and Arius. The key I think is that a particular interpretation of Genesis one is not the issue addressed in the text, rather the authority of the Bible in contrast to false teachings influenced by paganism is at stake.

    Therefore, I would suggest that our interpretation actually takes Paul's reasoning and intentions into account better than a complementary position. I realize many disagree and perhaps you needed to nuance your words slightly to better convey your meaning... However, I would suggest that discounting Paul's reasoning is that last thing we are doing and rather our argument is rooted explicitly in our understanding of Paul's reasoning.

    (The comparison between Genesis Rabba, may have confused rather than illuminated the point)

    We welcome clarifying or more pointed questions...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey Duncan,

    Thanks for clarifying your views on Paul's reasoning in this passage. Sorry for my poor misreading the first time through.

    You guys have done a fantastic job of answering my question. Thank you so much for answering my request!

    I appreciate your insights. We should have conversations like these over coffee in the future :)

    May God bless you and Amy (as well as Silas, Danielle and all else reading!) this Christmas season!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks Greg.

    Thanks for engaging us like this and being interested. Let us know if you have thoughts on a guest post topic.

    Merry Christmas!

    If you come out to Vancouver I'll buy you coffee.

    ReplyDelete