Name Withheld (Rewind)
But I do not allow a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 1 Timothy 2:12 NASB
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 woman, 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 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: woman, hierarchy, authority, domination, 1 Timothy 2:12
Hello everyone, I would think my only answer or comment would be…. God’s guardian angel!
I am going to copy this and tape it in my Bible. Thank you. (Now, if you could only do such a definitive job about the impression the agnostics around me have about that god of vengeance and murder in the OT!)
What ya wanna bet those “twenty centuries of mistakes” were a result of reading INTO the text the confirmation bias of at least twenty previous centuries of “mistakes” before that? Um, make that about forty centuries!
I want to thank everyone who prayed for my son yesterday. He went from coughing every breath, chills, sweating and high fever to virtually well in 24 hours. He is amazed. He was thanking everyone for the prayers yesterday when he texted us this morning. He is back on the job today. God is good.
Another possibility to explore in this passage is encountered simply by moving the comma to a different place so that it reads, “a woman (women) in quietness let (her) learn, in submissiveness, to teach”……
The issue being addressed is the conduct becoming a godly woman, it’s by these activities that she shows (teaches) others concerning the right relationship of women in the creation. Eve was shown in the garden to be the teacher of Adam in reminding him and encouraging him, but as Paul states further, it’s when she “took matters into her own hands aggressively” (that iron fistedness so unbecoming of a woman) that deception and failure occurred. I’ve seen it happen a million times in my own life and in others, a man will struggle and fight for days to overcome something and the woman walks in and resolves the issue with the lightest touch of the hand. Walking in the beauty of grace she was designed for, what’s more beautiful than that.
What Paul addresses here isn’t about “putting a woman in her place” but about freeing a women to achieve the potential she was created for and in so doing to enrich all whom she engages with. What a beautiful order God has ordained and it’s amazing what occurs when we abide in it.
Just some thoughts to consider.
Against the grain… My parents, both from a heritage of Roman Catholicism, raised seven children, (3 boys/4 girls), to be “all” they could be. We were taught we were/are equals among each other and society. Love and respect was/is the foundation to build on. We practiced peace, mercy and humility as we continued, each on our own path. Some of us left this foundation as we aged, and yet most of us stayed the course.
Yes, my parents caught flack, from the church and religious community during our formative years (late 40’s-mid 70’s). My father continued to teach us to think for ourselves and learn life long skills. My mother reinforced family togetherness and participated in our journey. First hand I witnessed ‘man and woman’ as one unit.
As the middle child, now 67, a woman, I stand in awe of my humble upbringing and thank Yah, Yeshua and the hosts of heaven for the gift of my beautiful parents and siblings. I did leave Catholicism when I was 20 and began a journey “looking for God, my heavenly Father”. Didn’t find him in a church, synagogue, temple, in buddhism, hindu gods and goddess, new age, sweat lodge nor any other place I looked. All along, Yah was right there, with me… waiting patiently for my surrender. Ahhh…sweet surrender!
In addition to this “woman”,
could Paul also be speaking about the general problem
of not having enough knowledge and maturity to teach or preach?
This would apply equally to both men and women. I’ve read that the
early Ephesian church often struggled with this issue.
For that matter, it certainly still appears to be a problem to this day!
In all actuality it’s likely been going on since that first deception in the Garden . . .
Hey Skip. I’m very sorry I can’t take more time to make this shorter, so maybe you can just read it faster, if you care to deal with my comments and implied questions. In respect, I challenge you. Set me straight, if you must. Thank you and shalom!
Of course, women are not “defective” or “inferior”, or at least no more so than men. They may be more defective and inferior in different ways than men, as men may be more defective or inferior in certain ways as compared to women. And in that regard, I am not just referring to differences on a individual basis, but generally, characteristically as genders. Men and women are created different, as my spouse re-emphasized to me today, when comparing our natural emotional reactions when trying to rid our patio of a snake, and as I added my own points about the same matter. So, your statement that Paul is “the herald of the destruction of all class and gender distinctions” is, at best, only partly true, as I know you know because of having read your book, Guardian Angel, and many articles by you from Today’s Word. I know of no biblical support for distinction when it comes to class, but of gender, I don’t think that claim can be made. Also, there may very possibly be differences in the nature of the sinful proclivities of men as compared to women, and visa versa. And, generally, I would go further to say that neither women nor men ought to be considering intellectually inferior, emotionally immature, or incapable of the actions and attitudes of the other when generally comparing one gender to the other, with exception, at least, of some biological limitations of each. And, in my experience, both genders are ill-treated in these ways by the other, and it’s not just a one-way problem.
However, I still have a significant lack of clarity and certainty about some of this very important and controversial matter of the distinctions of the designs and roles of men and women (and sorry, no disrespect intended), but I also don’t think you have properly supported your conclusions here, in one important sense. Though I know many here believe you have adequately supported them and really agree with all of your views on this, personally and honestly, I am not able to fully agree with them all at this point, especially because one of the bases upon which you seem to try to support your conclusions. I think you may have jumped to what is likely a faulty assumption and which you use as a significant basis for your main conclusion here, in saying, “Paul has a particular woman in mind, someone who is causing plenty of disturbance and distress among the Body”, and in so doing you may be misinterpreting Paul’s understanding of these issues and his instructions. Furthermore, I don’t necessarily think “Name Withheld” holds. You say, “Paul is so concerned about the circumstances and the woman involved that he doesn’t name her. Even in discipline, he demonstrates consideration.” Again, I think this may be a faulty assumption because even in the previous chapter when addressing the matter of false teachers, he has no problem naming those about whom he is addressing his concerns to Timothy, writing, “Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander—whom I have handed over to satan to be disciplined not to blaspheme.” And in Phillipians, he names some women regarding whom, I think is likely, he was giving some reproof, writing, “I urge Euodia and Syntyche to be in harmony in the Lord.” [Php 4:2]
I, on the other hand, am still tending to believe that, though this passage (1Tim.2) is addressing some concerns for all people, in general, and MAYBE specifically about one unruly woman, that it is very likely an attempt by Paul to teach Timothy, and us, some general understandings and principles about “women”, in general, and then, specifically, the application of those understandings and principles when dealing with it as a leader of a congregation on an individual basis with a “woman”. MAYBE there was a particular woman that gave rise for this concern of Paul’s and then his teaching of Timothy, although it COULD HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF WOMEN that were of the same attitude and manner of conduct within the congregation and/or in their homes that would have to be dealt with on an individual basis as a “woman”. However, either way, I believe he is also still addressing the issue, in a general sense, regarding women.
I question your point on a number of bases. One is, Paul goes back AND forth using the terms “women” and “woman”, and I think he uses the plural, “women”, in terms of general biblical knowledge, insight, understanding, and principle for all women, and then the singular, “woman”, in terms of his specific application of the principle, when functioning as a leader of congregations, as he is instructing Timothy to practice it in his congregation, when addressing the matter with a woman, individually.
Also, Paul makes general statements here about women in relationship to men, by including references to Adam and Eve, but still with an emphasis on addressing errors evidenced at times among women. Additionally, I think, this whole passage is equally, if not more importantly, in a broader sense, about the issue of order and harmony among followers of Messiah, in general, and about not seeking power and dominion over others, whether men or women, as Paul is concerned for the effective testimony of Messiah and the advancing of the Kingdom in the world at large, and also even emphasizes in this chapter, Messiah as the supreme one, in authority, and the ONLY mediator to whom all followers are to be completely subjected, even those having authority, themselves.
So, yes, I personally think Timothy is being taught about the specific concerns regarding women, in general, seeking power and dominion OVER men, and also specifically their husbands, but, with you and others here, I STRONGLY AGREE THAT PAUL IS NOT THEN SUPPORTING MEN HAVING POWER AND DOMINION OVER WOMEN OR THEIR WIVES, because in many places elsewhere he emphasizes equality, mutual humility, mutual submission, deferring to one another, and so on, even in marriage.
I do agree with much of your teaching on the role of women in marriage as ezer knegdos, and that men ought to be submissive to YHVH and their wives given His design and role for women as their wives, receiving correction for the sake of righteousness. And in the same way as the man is to submit to his wife in her role with him as an ezer knegdo, so is the woman to submit to her husband in his role as “head” when he is to, like Messiah with his bride, “lay his life down for her, WASHING HER WITH THE WATER OF THE WORD…”. That, too, requires receiving correction for the sake of righteousness. However, my questioning your claim that this is about one unruly woman and not an address about women in general is also because of Paul’s own treatment of it elsewhere, such as in his letter to the Corinthians, wherein he also is emphasizing order and harmony, and where he writes:
“As in ALL the communities of the kedoshim, let WOMEN keep silent in the communities, for it is not permitted for them to speak out. Rather let them be in order, as the Torah also says. If they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home—for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak out (maybe, out of order) in the community…..let everything be done decently and in order.” [1 Cor. 14:33-35, 40]
Now, I’m not thinking that women are not to speak at all, but that “keep silent” has more of the meaning that they are to be “quiet”, as in having a “quiet and gentle spirit”, as Peter writes about, in describing the beauty of a woman, “the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. For this is the way the holy women, who put their hope in God, used to beautify themselves long ago—being submitted to their own husbands just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. You have become her daughters by doing what is good and not fearing intimidation.” [1Pe 3:1-6]
I’m sorry, though again I believe Paul is not supporting men having power and dominance over women, or husbands over their wives, he DOES ALSO, however, seem to be emphatically reproving the notion and practice of women, in general, having power and dominance over men, and also specifically wives over their husbands. I do still believe, though I am not convinced of this, he MAY also be teaching that there IS to be a distinction in the roles of men and women, and possibly even in terms of hierarchy in roles and functioning as may apply to leading and teaching, both in the congregations and in the homes. However, that would not then mean that men are not to be teachable, in a general sense, in relationship to women, or that husbands are not to be teachable, in a specific sense, in relationship to their wives, but I DEFINITELY BELIEVE HE IS TEACHING that there is NO DISTINCTION IN TERMS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND WORTH BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN, in regards to having access to and relationship with YHVH, with Abba, the heavenly Father, and with Yeshua, as the Messiah, and, maybe I could say, in regards to inheritance and capacity of influence in marriage, family, congregations, the Kingdom, and the world according to YHVH’s design and role for women and wives.
You’re right. Your comment is way too long. Apparently you read Guardian Angel without reading it, as I address this issue (with citations to other texts and scholars) and your concerns about proper exegesis. Maybe the first thing is to go back, read the section on this passage AND the books cited, and then write a much shorter critique. 🙂
So sorry, Skip, but I already acknowledged my reply was long, and I apologized. We all also know that the replies of some others here can also be a bit long sometimes, and though I know they are definitely more flattering, they don’t receive your reproof for some reason. Must I also apologize for not being agreeable enough, OR, not being scholarly enough? Of course you didn’t have to read it, so thank you if you did. But…if you DID read what I wrote, and you know what you wrote “AND the books cited”, then maybe you could just courteously and concisely refute my counter points here. Or, otherwise, maybe even concede on some points, sometimes, if you can. Thanks and shalom!
Jerry and Lisa I have learnt that each gender has a specific role in the assemblies. I appreciated the mother like Sunday school teacher above the father figure. The same when in discussions it is better to separate the genders in groups as they just relate easier. The bishop or overseer office for one is explained specific around man with supporting wife. As is the referral to elders always male figures. What I did not find in the NT is the specific female apostles… Although the claim is that Maria Magdeleen was also sent as an apostle this I have still found no supporting records for.
Then again certain ancient cultures only used one gender when writing about a person and the other when talking of the same….This is also still found in the major African cultures and in the Roman Greek and Latin laws. This could also be why the scriptures have been written more male dominant while the female is not referring to gender but rather the support structure or lifestyles.
Apologies not necessary as no offense was given, but I just don’t have the energy to go through arguments that others have already treated in detail. So, Cunningham’s book specifically treats the passage you reference, and the important context. Bilezikian treats the kephale argument in great details. Dunn is also important as is Flame of Yahweh. Since these are hundreds of pages on the issue, better to let them speak than me.
And, yes, there are others who sometimes write lengthy pieces. And I should have reminded them as well. Sorry.
I know that no offense was intended, but are you sure that one was not received?
Wait. You’re right. I wasn’t gracious in my reply. I’m sorry. You deserved better.
Why thank you, Skip! I appreciate that! That was humble of you. I do forgive you. And I do promise to try to write much shorter critiques. ?
I just believe I should further say that I don’t blame you for the nature of your reply, Skip. I can imagine that it might be at least a bit annoying to have someone be so bold, and probably at least seem, if not actually be so arrogant as to challenge you, having a doctorate of philosophy degree from Oxford and all your many credentials (which I sincerely respect) and support from so many people, by writing a way too long critique that disagrees with and brings into question a number of your points, especially if you feel they haven’t worked as hard as you at coming to their conclusions (which is definitely true), AND you believe you are right and they are wrong (which may be true, but I don’t think so). All of that, if I were you, would be quite annoying, and in that sense, we are probably much alike. I would very likely respond the same way, or actually, I would probably respond worse. At least you can be thankful that I don’t reply to all of your daily studies. But, also, I think there is something else more important going on here than just us searching for and trying to find out what and who is right. And in that sense, not only maybe you and I deserve better, but He deserves better, too! Don’t you agree? So, anyways, we “press on to the mark of the higher calling”! Blessings of shalom to you, Skip!
Just curious, and I want to qualify this question with the statement that a particular “tone” in a conversation engaged in written words is susceptible to mis interpretation and I want you to know that there’s no negative or sarcastic intention here, only an honest inquiry. Whew! All that said, what exactly do you think the “more important thing” going on here is? It seems to me that there’s always a number of things going on in conversations that aren’t readily discernible, but isn’t that the point of conversation anyway? Signed, still curious and dyin’ to know. ?
90% of human communication does not occur with words. That is one of the most serious drawbacks of blogs (and all other forms of electronic communication). Without face-to-face we really can’t tell what the other person is actually saying. We guess, and ask for more words. BTW, we should apply this to Scripture as well.
Scripture comes with the Author, and the Word is made alive in us by means of the Holy Spirit, too. It is not just a book!
That does not mean that we are to neglect exegesis or study (thank you, Skip!), but it does mean that they are not adequate replacements for the prayer we should approach it with, and why we should pray and what we should pray for.
Like the old poem says, many a hammer has worn itself out on that Anvil without that Spirit to keep us from “adding to or taking away from” the meaning we are supposed to be getting. We are promised that all those that seek, find. Let us look for that Author in those pages like we were looking for the treasure He is, for He has promised to meet us, and to not “leave us Comfortless”. Halleluah!
Agreed, I find myself “imposing” emotional context on a conversation that more than likely comes from a different personal encounter. As far as scripture is concerned, I also agree with you, however We have an advantage there insofar as we are assured that salvation/restoration is the intent, no matter how harsh it may seem on the surface. Elsewhere, we’re not afforded that benefit and can only assume that another agenda isn’t in play. That’s one of the things I appreciate about this place, you allow us to work some of these things out. On some of these other blogs, a toe outside the party line and it’s all over but the crying. What you’ve created here is a rare thing, but it’s beautifully dangerous, or dangerously beautiful. In any case, thanks for letting us share with each other.
We actually might even do better to not even make any assumptions one way or another, if that’s possible, though to assume the best may be better than assuming the worst. I agree with you about interpreting the intent of scripture, however. Thank YHVH for THAT! I also agree with you about Skip generally doing more than a “fair” job in allowing participants to work some of these things out. To “practice” less might be a lack of integrity regarding what he “preaches”. After all, he does his own good part in promoting controversial dialogue, I’d say!
Not sure it’s possible to not make assumptions, however being aware of it is enough to be able to counter it.
I think we need communication to not only let the light shine through us, but to shine on us as well and expose areas of flesh that can interpose between clear communication and scramble its transmission.
I understand that with blogs it can be tempting and enticing to become curious and “nosy”, as the expression goes, about communications that are clearly just between two people, but the communication here is intended to be just with Skip, and that’s why, “Name NOT Withheld”. his name is being used. Of course, as in being in a group in-person, there are others who can “hear” the conversation, but that does not then mean they are, otherwise, intended to be part of the conversation. It may be beneficial for others to listen, but it’s not necessarily beneficial for others to get involved. Besides, sometimes it is better that things are left unsaid. As Skip says, one may “guess”, or I think better yet, spiritually discern. Even Messiah communicated at times in a way that, though others could hear, only those who were intended to know what he meant would know. So let the discerning know. Or, if one is not just curious but concerned that there is a problem, one could always just pray. And, of course, any on-listener may inquire, but that does not mean they will get their questions answered. Maybe it is good to be careful to not let curiosity kill the cat. At least on this blog, you can give a thumbs up or a thumbs down. Unfortunately, it can kind of become a bit like we’re on America’s Got Talent…..or Jerry Sptinger with a voting option. Shame! But anyways, I think discussing blog-ethics, as well as in–person ethics, is one of those “more important things”. It can give YHVH that much more opportunity to bring to light the hidden things within us that he might better complete the good work He has begun, in both me, Skip, you, and those giving thumbs down. It’s almost like being in in-person community.
I appreciate the response. Actually I was just mildly curious about your thoughts in that regard, the rest was an attempt to assure you that there was no hostility in my inquiry and the last part was an attempt at humor on my part. (attempt, being the operative phrase) Nuff said.
And I appreciate YOU, Robert. Shalom.
……. In which case you should not criticize a thumbs down vote without a comment as I think you once did. Maybe I am wrong.
Yes, you’re right, George. I did say that. And I have not forgotten that nor have I changed my opinion about that. However it seems you may not be understanding what I’m saying about that. I’m not saying that the thumbs up and down feature is good, I’m saying that for those on-listeners who find it difficult to resist the temptation to be “nosy” and want to get involved in a conversation between other people, it gives them an opportunity to satisfy their flesh. I think it’s a relatively worthless feature in blogs and think it is a weak option for some to express their disapproval without putting their name and thoughts on the line. Even the thumbs-up feature can lend itself too much to lazy, relatively thoughtless, and superficial affirmations and possibly flattery, as well as carnal pride for the one receiving it. Not that I personally care that much either way. Discussing it, though, is just another opportunity for the Ruach to plumb the depths of and evaluate and reveal the motivations and character of those who have received a love of the truth about themselves, which I think is of equal importance if not more important to plumbing the depths of Bible knowledge. Personally, I have seldom used the thumbs up, and I think I have always also made a comment, and I don’t think I have ever used a thumbs down. I think if something deserves a thumbs down, it and the person deserves a thoughtful and hopefully helpful comment. Shalom blessings, George.
Hi Jerry, if you have time please watch this video below, it might help to answer your questions…XXX
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR2VrzD1zFM
Thank you Olga I am sharing the link
Yes! Thank you, Skip.
Sadly, this one verse in the New Testament has cast a very long shadow and makes it hard for people to see and realise that women ran house churches and that they were missionaries and prophets and teachers in the first century. And that Paul approved.
In case anyone’s interested, I’ve done a lot of study on the language and context of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and posted my findings here.
Thank you for this link, I did a bit of perusing and found it very worthy of consideration. BTW, I want to compliment you on your style of writing as you’ve attained that delicate balance of offering something that can be contemplated without determining a hard line. Very rare these days and we need more of it. Grace is a gift.
Thank you, Robert.
That is a very encouraging compliment.