Name Withheld
But I do not allow a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence. 1 Timothy 2:12
Exercise Authority – You have got to be kidding me! That is probably the immediate contemporary reaction to the face-value interpretation of Paul’s remark. If what Paul says is really the biblical model for the proper actions of women, then a whole lot of us stand condemned on this one. Paul seems to be saying (and the Church seems to be endorsing) women are to shut up, be subservient and take care of the home. If this is really the biblical intention, then we sin when women are in authority, teach, direct, manage, preach or speak both inside and outside the Body. No wonder some women think Paul is a misogynist.
For more than a thousand years, the Church employed a Greek philosophical paradigm when it interpreted this verse. That Greek model comes directly from Plato and Aristotle who taught that women were defective men. It isn’t too much of an exaggeration to say Greek philosophers despised women, considering them intellectually inferior, emotionally immature and generally incapable of the actions and attitudes of men. The early church fathers were immersed in Greek philosophy so it is not surprising to find their exegesis reflects Plato and the Academy. As a result of this paradigm, the Church and the culture engaged in withholding education, development and leadership from women. Predictably, the result merely confirmed what the paradigm taught: women were inferior.
But Paul is no Platonist. He is a Second Temple rabbi. His approach to the role and status of women is based in Scripture, not philosophy. A thorough analysis of Paul’s full understanding of women would reveal exactly what he shares in Galatians 3:28. In the Body, there is no hierarchy! All the world’s false distinctions – Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female – are overcome and set aside. So, what do we do with this apparent misogyny.
In the Greek text, Paul deliberately switches from the plural “women” when he talks about godly behavior for the whole congregation to the singular “woman” when he exhorts Timothy in this passage. In other words, Paul has a particular woman in mind, someone who is causing plenty of disturbance and distress among the Body. Paul directs this woman to be silent. Why? Because she is usurping authority, grasping at control that is not properly hers. The Greek verb here, authentein, is used only one time in all the New Testament and for good reason. It comes from the word authentes which means “a self-appointed killer with one’s own hand.” In other words, this verb is about domination, not leadership. It is associated with a murderer, an absolute dictator, a tyrant. Paul says this woman seeks to rule with an iron hand. Her actions must not be allowed because in the Body there is no place for an autocrat, whether man or woman. Telling her to be silent employs a Hebrew expression about serious contemplation of humility.
Paul, the apostle of unity in the Body, the messenger of equally distributed grace, the herald of the destruction of all class and gender distinctions, could not possibly instruct the Body to relegate one gender to the corner. This instruction is about an unruly, unrestrained person who wants to run the show. In this case, the subject is a women, but it could just as well have been a man. In the Body, this sort of action doesn’t work.
Oh yes, and Paul is so concerned about the circumstances and the woman involved that he doesn’t name her. Even in his discipline, he demonstrates consideration.
Now that you are no longer under the false, Greek-based misunderstanding of Paul’s concern, don’t you think it’s time to correct twenty centuries of mistakes?
Topical Index: women, authority, authentein, domination, 1 Timothy 2:12
Hi Skip,
It does not give me pleasure to disagree with your interpretation, and it is very rare that I do.
But the Paul I read, hear, feel in 1 Corinthians 3 and Galatians 3:28 is not the same guy that I see below.
And the Paul below is clearing saying that man is 1 and woman is 2 and that woman should be seen and not heard IMO.
I think you are fighting the good fight, but you have not convinced me yet 🙂
Mike
1 Tim 2:11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness
1 Tim 2:12 And {it was} not Adam {who} was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
1 Tim 2:13 For it was Adam who was first created, {and} then Eve.
1 Tim 2:14 And {it was} not Adam {who} was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
1 Tim 2:15 But {women} will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.
The book that I have spent the last several months trying to write (now about 2/3 done) is an attempt to explain why Paul (Sha’ul) must be read from a rabbinic point of view, not from a Greek point of view. Once we understand the thinking of the first century rabbis, a whole lot of these remarks Sha’ul makes suddenly take on a different light. Anyway, there are some TW’s coming on this, but hopefully the book will be done by end of year. 🙂 In the meanwhile, please look at Gilbert Bilezikian book and the CD series by Bob Gorelik (The Captive Woman).
I agree “Paul (Sha’ul) must be read from a rabbinic point of view, not from a Greek point of view.”
My point, which is probably a bit far fetched, is that Paul didn’t write Timothy.
Take, for example:
Tim 1:8 We know of course that the Law is good, but only provided it is treated like any law, in the understanding that laws are NOT framed for people who are good. On the contrary, they are for criminals and revolutionaries, for the irreligious and the wicked …. (what follows is more of the same).
My problem is that the statement above doesn’t seem to be very Rabbinic, but it does sound a lot like the church IMO.
In any case, I ordered a copy of “The Letter Writer: Paul’s Background and Torah Perspective”
Tim Hegg; Paperback, and plan to read Paul from end to end 🙂
It will be interesting to get the book. At present, I am with Michael – normally I am enlightened and/or encouraged by your exegesis, Skip. Although I have really gotton comfortable “putting on my Hebrew hat” before coming to the NT, your explanation of what seems a very obvious and reasonable statement by Paul (along with the Scriptural principle he uses for support) is a stretch for me. Aren’t there numerous reasons why Paul might have switched there from plural to singular? If this is a literary technique of his, it is news to me – but I will begin to look for it when I read now. But the more obvious (to me): when Paul gets personal, doesn’t he usually mention names? Especially to Timothy in this letter (1Tim. 1:15). I don’t understand how Paul is so concerned with a situation with 2 men that he does mention them by name to Timothy, but then in the very next chapter, he is so concerned about a woman that he doesn’t mention her by name? Maybe I am missing something.
Skip,
Thanks for pointing us to Bob Gorelik and The Captive Woman. It is terrific, and I thought I’d have an opportunity to share it with my friends by now, but I will as soon as it can be arranged. Also, I am nearly through reading Beyond Sex Roles by Bilezikian, and it is very instructional in a way I would never have been able to see without your uncovering it for us. I am wanting to have a solid understanding of this teaching, so that I can teach it in grace to the young women in my Sunday School class, and also to the many young women in my family.
I am curious to know how many adult women who have been in ‘church’ all their lives have found this teaching to resonate in their spirits? Why are we so reticent to discuss this issue?
Blessings to you all!
Gayle
Skip, I agree with you. Anybody knows a silent Hebrew wife? Sarah? I think not. Look at the Proverbs 31 wife. Either we’re all equal or God will have to take back his Word. Miriam, Moses’ Sister… Deborah, Queen Esther all spoke up. Even Haman’s wife Zeresh had something to say… Esther 5:13-14 . Maybe she should have been silent.
In short, women and men will be speaking on God’s behalf more and more in these last days. Joel 2:28 “And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and DAUGHTERS will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.
Joel 2:29 Even on my servants, both men and WOMEN, I will pour out my Spirit in those days.
Hello to all of YOU, I will try to keep it short, it is ll:00p,m. certainly past my bed time! But all the days are so full, that tomorrow I will not find time to write. I have recently finished reading a book that includes several parts on women in the Bible; and Paul’s writings on them. I made peace with the apostle Paul about 35 years ago, as I wrote a few months ago that when I was much younger I was greatly bothered by some of Paul;s writings. But I still read with interest on the subject. One of my daughters gave the book to me, it has from Pages 153- 207 several parts on The Bible and Women. It certainly closed the issue once and forever for me, if it was not already done with Skip’s writings on women these past years.
I personally chose because of my age, and other factors, when I was somewhat finished with raising my large family, etc. not to enter a Seminary, or do graduate work in one of the Universities where we lived. My husband was never interested in helping me accomplish any more than what I had already completed( although he had earned a PhD in his field from Indiania U.) I sincerely thought that I had been called of God, but just worked at my ministry without more degrees, doing one on one. The Lord never failed to give me people to work with! ( He still does–even working in my yard is one place that He regularly sends me someone)
The book mentioned above is an unusual title, “The Blue Parakeet,” a new book by Scot McKnight, (PhD, Nottingham) is Karl A. Olsson professor of religious studies North Park U. Chicago, Illinois. Author of several other books. He brings out some things that Skip mentioned, one was Romans 16:7 Junias, Junia.
One that I really had not really grasped before is about the “New Roman Women in Ephesus: Dress Discourse, Anti-Marriage. This author made that very plain and clear and he makes it very vivid. — With many women acting the same way today, I got that messge loud and clear.
Thanks, I’ll look for this book.
I can say with certainty, that if you ( men and women) will see what Scot McKnight says about keeping women silent, written from a slightly different slant, and have an open mind, along with what you already know from Skip, that you will be so open and blessed by women, because they will be the kind of women that you will glady work with, appreciate and be thankful for.
A quote from F.F. Bruce, one of the four authors of Hard Sayings in the Bible, was also one of Scot McKnight’s professor at Nottingham England. “I think Paul would roll over in his grave if he knew we were turning his letters into torah.”
May the Heavenly Father through Jesus and the power of the Holy Spirit, continue to OPEN OUR EYES. — So much for all of us to learn, and do. Our life span, even if 100 years, is so short! As stated at other times, I am three-fourths of a cenury, plus one. I am not asking for one hundred years either!— Just whatever the Lord gives– I will be content with—-L.B.
I think readers might appreciate this comment on The Blue Parakeet, even if they can’t get the book. Go to
http://derek4messiah.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/book-review-scot-mcknight-the-blue-parakeet/
I just read the above web, and did indeed appreciate the Rabbi’s review of The Blue Parakeet– I have so much practical work to do, so always,I must ration my time in reading studying, writing. I was not aware of the site, and hope to check out more on it
Some thoughts on the Rabbi’s review: The title in my opinion does not help anyone see what the contents hold. I have thought of a much better title, but I will not state it in writing! I would agree with the Rabbi in most of his excellent review. It seemed to me that Scot had a time schedule to write the book, and needed to finish it, and get on with the next one. However; since the years that I was inundated, immersed, healed all according to what is in the Bible, I have been able to take any sincere book on God’s Word, or listen to teachings on it, and agree or disagree because of theHoly Spirit within me, ( I have given references from the Word on this two or three times in reply) and accept what I can. Appreciate, be thankful for it, and leave the other material alone. Plus, I Do KNOW that one small book can not contain and make points on all the material available that could enrich everyone’s needs. I still learned some valuable points from the book, even if the title and illustrations were a distraction to me! L.B.– especially on women in the Bible —
SORRY,– L.B. HERE AGAIN, I JUST LOOKED UP THE “REVIEW” WEB SITE AGAIN, I READ SO QUICKLY THAT I ASSUMED DEREK LEMAN WAS A “RABBI”, WHEN I LOOKED AGAIN, THERE IS NOTHING UPFRONT THAT SAYS HE IS A RABBI.
I am coming in contact with so many things on Messianiic Jewish things, and so many Rabbi’s; Igoofed, the web site is “Messianic Jewish Musings by Derek Leman”
“appreciate this comment on The Blue Parakeet”
Hi Skip,
Very interesting stuff in this comment IMO.
Last night I was reading K of Yeshua by Zusha Kalet and though I find it very interesting, and want to thank Ismael for recommending it to me, I think it is a good example of what is wrong with the “ahistorical” “formalist” “modern” approach to literary criticism/hermenuetics.
The Blue Parakeet comment makes the point that I kept thinking about while reading Kalet, namely “the Bible is a story” (narrative) and as such gives us a special kind of knowledge (Jameson) that cannot be reduced to a set of formal oppositions (4 of this, 2 of that, etc).
I also liked the Blue Parakeet notion of a “canonical” view, which makes me think of Harold Bloom’s The Western Canon, in which he opens the Bible up to other great works of literature that are in essence artistic/poetic/scholarly commentaries on the Bible.
And though I’m not very familiar with Midrash, it seems to me that the Wiki/Midrash phenomenon is both a “post-modern” and an “ancient” literary genre.
And since I’m dropping names, I would like to mention that I studied under my advisor R H Pearce (Historicism Once More) and mentor Fredric Jameson (Sartre, Origins of a Style and Marxism and Form are two of his well known early works).
I think the interpretation that Paul is speaking about a particular woman in Timothy’s congregation is spot on. I believe that Paul is forbidding this woman from teaching a heresy, and what this teaching is centers around the word “authentein”. I read a book titled, “I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking I Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence” by Catherine Clark Kroeger and Richard Clark Kroeger. Catherine Kroeger was a New Testament scholar who spoke ancient greek. She looked at all the ancient sources that used this word (a rare greek verb). Catherine Kroeger found that “authentein” did not mean “authority over” in the first century AD. However, authentein did come to mean “authority over” by the third or fourth century AD. In the first century AD, Kroeger established that authentein mean “to claim to be the originator or proginator of a man”. Catherine Kroeger backed this up by looking at the historical background of first century AD Ephesus. She found that Ephesus was the center of mother goddess cults and pre-gnostic fables that were taught by pagan women known as “old women”. The “old women” had a habit of confusing the story of Eve with that of the goddess Artemis and other goddess cults native to the area. Kroeger thought that 1! Timothy 4:7: Do not have anything to do with godless myths and fables of old women. Instead, train yourself to be godly” was a warning against believing in these false women teachers. Anyway, some of the false teachings of the “old women” had to do with the belief that the mother goddess (Eve or Artemis) gave birth to her husband Adam, and that she was the source of wisdom to the man and the world. Of course, there were many different versions of this story going around Ephesus. Catherine Kroeger thought that 1 Timothy 2:11 should be translated as: “I do not permit a woman to teach nor claim to be the originator of man”. She thought that Paul was correcting the heretical teaching of this woman by than saying :” for Adam was first formed than Eve”. Paul was also correcting the false teaching that woman gave birth to Adam and was the source of his wisdom with ” and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was caught in the transgression”. Kroeger also said that there were pre-gnostic fables going around Ephesus that thought of childbearing in a negative light despite the mother goddess veneration. Kroeger thought that Paul was using the mention of child bearing as the source of the woman being saved if she continued in faith and love to correct the negative view of childbearing. In other words, Paul was forbidding this woman to teach false doctrine about women being the source of men and wisdom, and he corrected her false teachings in an effort to show that this woman was as deluded as Eve. It’s an interesting book, and Kroeger does a convincing job clarifying what the verb authentein really meant to the first century ephesians in light of the historical background.
Thank you for this additional information about the background. All of Paul’s material is written in a CONTEXT of what was happening during the time of his letters. If we take his words out of this context, we get all kinds of mistaken exegesis. I will get the book, for sure.
Susan,
I do not know if you were aware that, Catherine Clark Kroeger passed away earlier this year on February 14th?
I have been aware of her writings for many years through others using and mentioning her work, but have not actually read anything by her. Lord willing, I will search her writings out in the near future. In His Care, Brian
Brian,
Yes, I am sad to say that I heard about Catherine Clark Kroeger’s death. However, I think she more than left her legacy behind with the book she wrote. She was really a great new testament scholar, and I learned a lot from her work. Her writings are interesting, and you won’t be disappointed. Take care, Susan
Good morning Skip, I’ve read all the comments on this post and perused some others and while I have no doubt thhat this portion of scripture is not advocating “male superiority”, I would like your thoughts on the rest of the verse.
It’s obvious that the statement is intentionally placed into the reference of the priority of the creation order. “FOR Adam was created first…” then, overlayed on top of that, a conditional perspective, “….but the woman being decieved in transgression has become..”
How does this play out in your heart and mind. Is it a matter of positional headship, ie; father and son where one is not inferior to the other, but they are to adhere to the proper roles given by God, and not “step over” those boundries as Absolam did with David? Is the other part given because the cultural perspective of women restrained them, and now with this newfound freedom in The Messiah they have a tendency to over step those boundries in that new found joy? (kinda like Eve!!) Sometimes a penned up calf, when let loose, will hurt itself in it’s display of freedom.
I could go on, but I won’t. I know your a busy man , but if you could take some time and tell me what you think on the other part of this verse, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you again for your diligence here on this board and YHWH bless you and keep you…..