I have certainly learned much from women in my life. Everyday! But, should women teach men in the church? I think not, based on the scriptures, especially 1 Timothy 2:8-15.
The idea of women incorrectly functioning in male roles is not new. However, the fact that it is happening in the evangelical and reformed churches is relatively a new phenomenon.
One excerpt from R. Kent Hughes is especially enlightening…
“Understanding then that the popularity of the progressive interpretation of the last thirty years found its impetus in secular culture and that the interpretation runs contrary to the prevailing interpretation of the preceding 1,970 years (some sixty-plus generations), the burden of proof certainly rests upon the progressive revisionists!”
http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj10g.pdf
http://www.bible-researcher.com/women/white1.html
http://www.cbmw.org/journal/editions/3-3.pdf
The last one is an article titled “Avoiding Fallacies in Interpretation”
September 6, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Actually, Paul could have been clearer, which would have made things a whole lot easier for interpreters today. Also, the cultural and historical and literary context, lexical and syntactical meaning, and the reader’s presuppositions always veil our reading to some degree, so let’s not be naive about the difficulty of interpretation.
Here’s the sticking point for me. I think a very solid argument can be made for only men wielding authoritative teaching position in the church, i.e. preaching. The problem is, our “assemblies” are very different from first century “assemblies.” For example, they did not have Sunday school; we do. In the early church, the more informal, small group meetings usually met in homes, where women were welcome to teach and instruct. In sum, I think we need to be careful with applying Paul’s instruction to the later innovations of Sunday school or school classrooms including college or Seminary theology and Bible classes (or flock group meetings for that matter).
Without going into further exegetical reasoning here, it seems to me that a better biblical application is to prohibit women from preaching in our “assemblies,” but encourage them to exercise gifts of teaching outside of that assembly and occasion of authoritative teaching. I know this is a matter of great debate, but I think there is exegetical and historical/cultural support for this position.
September 6, 2007 at 2:53 pm
This would be a good subject to interact with the lexical and syntactical meaning on. The literary context is unmistakable. I am curious about how you would see the cultural impact on Paul’s writing in this passage.
That said, I think many who see this as a prohibition against “authoritative teaching” have an impossible task in front of them. The grammatical structure is clear and to “massage” the text to mean “one function” here is just not plausible. It seems to me that WE moderns are the ones allowing culture to drive us.
As to SS and other non-preaching venues, I think you miss the larger picture of God’s structure of roles and relationships.
I quote Poythress from “The Church and Family” (Piper and Grudem):
“I have come to believe that the differences among us are due in large measure to an inconsistent application of the principle that the distinct roles assigned to men and women in marriage and family carry over into the distinct roles assumable by men and women in the church. According to Paul, the fundamental principles governing relationships in human households are applicable to the church as God’s household (1 Tim 3:15; 5:1-2; cf. 3:4-5). His point is that, in God’s household, as the members relate to one another, they are obligated to take into account whether their fellow members are men or women, young or old (1 Tim 5:1-2). The application of Paul’s principles would go something like this. A woman, as capable and gifted as she may be, can never function as a father in a human household. Likewise, a woman, as capable and gifted as she may be, may never function as a “father” in God’s household. She may indeed function as a “mother” in God’s household (cf. Sarah, 1 Pet 3:6), and exercise the roles indicated in 1 Tim 5:2; 3:11; 5:9-10, 14; Titus 2:3-5; and 2 Tim 1:5. But, just as the roles of men and women are not interchangeable in human families, so they are not in the church family.”
Allowing a woman to teach men is esaily seen as a “role reversal.”
Les
September 6, 2007 at 3:18 pm
But women teach men literature, philosophy, education, science, art, etc. So why would they not be able to teach men the Bible and theology? Or what about leading Sunday school classes about relationships or conflict resolution, classes that require a biblical foundation?
On a more personal level, Stephanie has taught me scores about the Bible, and I do not view this as role reversal. I do not think we should view learning about the Bible or theology from women as a role reversal. Yes, men are the God-ordained head of the family and the church, but why does this have to mean that they cannot be taught from Scripture by women in settings like Sunday school, women who are more skilled and gifted in teaching and biblical exegesis than they are?
September 6, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Wes, without sounding too dismissive, the reason women should not teach men in God’s household is because the Bible forbids it.
It matters not that a women may have more skill and insight and knowledge about a particular passage or topic. The fact is that it is not God’s design in the home or the church.
If women or more skilled or learned in the church, then shame on the men. Better that we look at the example of someone like Elisabeth Elliot, who after Jim was killed, taught one tribesman privately who then preached to the congregation rather than upset God’s design.
There are plenty of places in the church for women to teach, especially other women, without teaching men.
September 6, 2007 at 4:02 pm
The task of teaching is denied to women in 1 Timothy, however, in several other places in scripture, the task is allowed and exemplified (See Tit. 2:3; Acts 18:26; 1 Cor. 14:26; Acts 21:9; 1 Cor. 11:5).
Therefore, it is plausible that there are special reasons for Paul’s prohibition here in 1 Timothy.
The meaning of authenteo (sorry, couldn’t get greek text in here), is highly disputed and is only used once in the NT. Its meaning is especially disputed when used syntymatically with didasko.
Their relationship depends on how we understand ouk…oude. Ouk…oude either identifies “teaching” and “having authority” as separate items, or identifies the latter (having authority) as a closer definition of the previous (teaching). So, it is plausible to understand this construction as “I do not permit a woman to teach in a domineering way.” Here, I understand that the verb authenteo is describing the nature of the teaching.
Several commentators have understood Paul to be adressing a specific problem in the Ephesian church of women being deceived by the heresy (thus his reference to Eve’s deception), and further they are teaching with an overbearing and domineering attitude. It is abundantly clear that teaching and prophecy are for the purpose of edifying the church (1 Cor. 14:3-5, 26). These women were guilty of deception and abuse.
This is getting long, but there is the further discussion about whether gune and andros should be understood as “woman” and “man” or “wife” and “husband.”
Hope this isn’t too technical! Obviously, this is a discussiont that I am very interested in.
September 6, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Les-
Do you mean that women should not teach men, regardless of subject matter, or that women should not teach the Bible to men?
I hate to get nit-picky, but would you say that this prohibition is confined to church buildings or any place believers are meeting for formal worship? What about flock groups or other small group meetings outside of the church?
September 6, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Wes and Steph,
This is great and sharpening. I want to continue, but will have to do so later. I love this kind of interaction so much, but need to work! Oh, I wish I could delve in now. But, later.
Two things quickly:
1. Steph, where is the greek word for “exercise authority” so disputed as to meaning? When didavskein (sorry no Gr on the blog) is used elswhere in the Pastorals it has a positive effect. One would expect it to have so here as well and since is linked by oujde to aujqentei’n. Either both should be negative or positive.
More later.
Wes, yes not teaching of men, whether biblical data or otherwise in the context of the ministry of the community of the church.
As you know, the church is not the building. The preacher can preach in the building or out on the soccer field. Either way, he is God’s representative to His people.
More later…
Les
September 7, 2007 at 12:20 am
“If women or more skilled or learned in the church, then shame on the men.”
I need to ask a few questions about this comment. Respectfully and honestly, this statement is difficult for me to hear, and bordering on offensive. Let’s say there is a woman in the church who has her Ph.D. in theology or is trained in the Biblical languages, or church history, or has exceptional teaching/oratory skill…are you saying that this is shameful for men? Are you saying that women should not pursue such further training or knowledge because it is shameful for men that women know more than them about things concerning the church?
This may just be a need for more communication about what you meant. : )
September 7, 2007 at 2:12 am
Stephanie, take a deep breath. My comment was in response to Wes’ comment,
“Yes, men are the God-ordained head of the family and the church, but why does this have to mean that they cannot be taught from Scripture by women in settings like Sunday school, women who are more skilled and gifted in teaching and biblical exegesis than they are?”
My point, exampled by the Elisabeth Elliot comment is that The design is for men to teach. If we in the church find that there are no qualified men to teach God’s people then shame on the men for remaining babes. That is what I was referring to.
It is not a shame for women to be learned and skilled. If a woman has a PhD and is learned in Greek and Hebrew that is wonderful. There are places in the church for her to use those gifts.
But remember, men and women have been exercizing their teaching gifts in the church with little or no formal training. So, I suspect that in most cases there are men gifted by God to teach in the church, even w/o Greek/Hebrew, though there may be a PhD woman in the church.
All I am saying is that this is God’s design.
Hope that helps.
Les
September 7, 2007 at 2:13 am
Yes, it does, thank you!
September 7, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Ok, here is my point. When I look at the text in 1 Tim 2 and look at commentaries, both ancient and contemporary, there is little doubt for me that what Paul is prohibiting is for women to teach men in the church. That would limit their teaching of men in the gathering of God’s people in whatever setting in a public setting.
That would not preclude women teaching men privately, certainly in the husband/wife relationship or in any other one on one setting (teaching one another). There are surely examples of that in scripture.
The basis for this interpretation, which is surely the predominate one for centuries, is God’s creative order. Just as Christ is the head of man so man is the head of woman. That is no more a slam against women than Christ being the head of man.
Further, it seems that the modern day feminist movement has infected the church than we would like to admit. The more generally accepted cultural acceptance of women as equals in the workplace and government, etc. is not a reason to look back at the text and try to find a neo interpretation so as to allow women to function in the role God has designed for men.
Last, if one takes the interpretation in 1 Tim. that what Paul is prohibiting is “teaching authoritatively” then we might then no reason to exclude women from “ruling eldership” in the church.
Last last, with the preponderance of exegetical, linguistic and contextual interpretation holding to the “two activity” in this passage over the centuries, the “one activity” folks will need to demonstrate a much greater weight of evidence to overturn the historical interpretation of the church.
Les
October 5, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Elisabeth Elliot still technically “taught” a man…..
October 5, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Mary, glad to see you on the blog! Yes, she did, and probably taught very well. She is a very gifted teacher of the word.
Thanks for commenting.
Les
October 5, 2007 at 10:40 pm
So then she disobeyed scripture?
October 5, 2007 at 10:47 pm
No, in fact she actually obeyed scripture. My point has been that men should be the teachers of mixed assemblies in the church. Where men are gathered, with or without women present, men should teach.
I have never said that a woman cannot teach a man in a one-on-one situation. She surely can and often does. What Elisabeth did was actually refuse to go against scripture. She would nor instruct the assembly of people, which included men. So, she pulled one man to the side, taught him and he taught the assembly.
Personally, I have listened to her on tape and profited greatly.
Les