Supposing anyone actually reads this, keep three things in mind. First, the paper, beginning with its introduction, is addressed to my professor and refers several times to discussions previously held in my class. Second, I can't guarantee the paper will be free of grammatical errors. In fact, I can almost certainly guarantee it is not. I never managed to edit the paper quite so carefully as all that (also, my grammar comes more from instinct than any comprehensive grasp of the rules). Third, I do have a ton of references to go with this paper, but they're in footnote form on my original word document and I can't figure out how to apply them here.
Introduction
This past year, in my New Testament class I was given an assignment requiring me, as an exercise, to do background research for a passage of scripture. I had to locate and organize a list of viable sources, as if I were writing a formal paper. In choosing a paper topic for this summer’s class, I was eager to explore further the varied commentaries I compiled. The driving force behind my interest is twofold: the reality we discussed in class – that there may be no more significant issue shaping today’s church than sexuality, and the fact that I come from a denominational background which supports the ordaining of women as ministers. I am old enough to take responsibility both for the theology I project personally and the theology I project through my church. So, the latent questions of this debate begin to present themselves with ever-greater immediacy.
The discussion is undeniably thorny – and I am no bible scholar. It is necessary to take this into account when reading my conclusions. In fact, I would precede my thoughts with the assertion that while I find these arguments in favor women in ministry to be reasonable, I echo them cautiously. Call this my own abbreviated prolegomena. I remain open to possibility that evidence exists in opposition to my current view which may be more compelling or better founded, and I pray that God would grant me a better knowledge of His Word.
_____________________________________________________________________________
1 Timothy 2:11-15
11A woman would learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to each or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived and became a sinner. 15But women will be saved through childbearing – if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.Before attempting to unpack Paul’s intent in1 Timothy 2:15, it is important to consider the letter in its historical context. Bear in mind how radical a shift this directive required. Paul is implying that women aught to be taught scripture, a privilege reserved for men before this point in history. It is also crucial to examine Paul’s attitudes toward the women with whom he serves. We know from Acts, for example, that Priscilla was an active participant with her husband in teaching Apollos and that she was not condemned in this.
Next, we must consider the first and most immediate purpose of Paul’s letter. Most scholars agree that the overall theme in 1 Timothy is church conduct: what a church should be like, how is should be run, and how a congregation should behave. Setting this intent alongside our understanding of how little experience men and women of this period had in worshipping together, it could be surmised that Paul was sending them a kind of “how to manual” for co-ed discipleship.
In terms of historical context for the debate itself, we must remember that much of the most adamant theological discourses opposing women in teaching positions can be traced to John Knox less than five hundred years ago. Knox provides one of the first proactive stances against women in leadership. His campaign to this end was sparked by the claim Mary, Queen of Scots, (whose Catholicism and authority Knox vehemently opposed) made on the throne. Prior to this point in history, we find little evidence of women teachers being so passionately and specifically denounced. (Some of this story can, of course, be explained by the fact that there were few women in such positions five hundred years ago, but history is not without notable exceptions. )
In his book “Woman: God’s Secret Weapon,” theologian, Ed Silvoso stresses the importance of contextualizing this passage. He suggests first, that the letter was a very specific response to a specific congregation in its earliest stage of growth. The nature of Paul’s admonition was perfectly reasonable in this circumstance because there was so little biblical education previously available to women. They were dramatically behind the learning curve. Most of weren’t even literate. How, then, would it be appropriate for a woman to teach? It is almost certain, Silvoso writes, that
1 Timothy 2:11-15 refers to one woman or a certain group of women (indicated by the fact that Paul no longer uses the word for “women” in the plural as he does only two verses earlier) who were currently failing to learn “in full submission” and “silence”(which can also be translated from the original Greek as “stillness” or “peace”) …hence the need for an admonition. Furthermore, he states, it is likely that forbidding women to “have authority” was in reference to a particular manner of exerting authority. Many English translations use the words “usurp authority,” which led to speculation that the original text indicated an improper use of authority. It has since been demonstrated that the verb used in 1 Timothy has no associations with the concept power being wielded inappropriately. But it can be translated as a taking of authority. The word “domineering” is what Silvoso uses. It would appear Paul is addressing women who have attempted to take charge with neither the necessary humility, nor adequate qualifications.
Regarding Paul’s letter in terms of its broader implications, Silvoso joins John Calvin in highlighting the importance of Paul’s reference to Genesis. (13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived and became a sinner. 15But women will be saved through child-bearing – if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety) Calvin’s commentary on verses 13 and 14 is consistent, in most ways, with traditional readings. He contends that Paul is giving two reasons women should be subject to men:
a) Because they were created to be subject in the first place
b) In light of the punishment women received as a result of original sin.
“For Adam was first created. He assigns two reasons why women ought to be subject to men; because not only did God enact this law at the beginning, but he also inflicted it as a punishment on the woman. (Genesis 3:16.) He accordingly shews that, although mankind had stood in their first and original uprightness, the true order of nature, which proceeded from the command of God, bears that women shall be subject. Nor is this inconsistent with the fact, that Adam, by falling from his first dignity, deprived himself of his authority; for in the ruins, which followed sin, there still linger some remains of the divine blessing, and it was not proper that woman, by her own fault, should make her condition better than before.”
It’s worth noting that Calvin’s interpretation differs, here, from that of many current scholars. Specifically, in that he does not appear to view Genesis 1:27-31 as evidence man and woman were originally created to rule together. A majority of today’s scholars assert woman was only placed below man after sinning (being the first to sin and causing Adam to sin) thereby earning what appears to be greater punishment. Also worth noting in Calvin’s commentary, is his dissatisfaction with Paul’s reasoning.
“ Yet the reason that Paul Assigns, that woman was second in the order of creation, appears not to be a very strong argument in favor of her subjection; for John the Baptist was before Christ in the order of time, and yet was greatly inferior in rank. But although Paul does not state all the circumstances which are related by Moses, yet he intended that his readers should take them into consideration…”
That Calvin felt even slightly uncomfortable with this interpretation might suggest his perspective was incomplete. Ed Silvoso projects the following: that we must differentiate between the meaning of verse 13 and the meaning of verse 14.
“The order of creation is inalterable and irreversible. Adam was created first, and there is nothing anyone can do to change it. On the other hand, the order in which sin first entered the human race is the result of a choice made by someone other than God; in this case, Eve. She chose to disobey God, thus becoming the first one to fall into transgression.”
“When we separate the order of creation from the order in which sin was introduced to the human race, rather than treating them as a indissoluble parts of a whole, we see the role of women in a light that is far more consistent with the Scriptures.”
In this, verse 15 can be seen with greater clarity. It would be a contradiction of Christian doctrine to suggest “saved through child-bearing” referrs to eternal salvation. It is necessary, then, to look for another meaning (especially since these verses are the conclusion of an entire passage). Silvoso finds a possible key by which the verses can be decoded when he identifies another snag in traditional approaches to 1 Timothy. The word Paul uses for “child-bearing” is teknogonea which is only used once in the New Testament and does indeed mean the actual “bearing of children,” but “to beget.”
“Physiologically speaking, women can bear children, but they cannot beget them. Begetting is something only men can do because it entails depositing the seed inside the woman. Therefore, it follows that Paul must be referring to something else. I would like to suggest it is the begetting of spiritual children.”
Keeping these things in mind, it is fascinating to ponder that the word “saved” here can also be translated “restored” and wonder (if the verses were intended to be read as a whole) whether there is significance to the different sections being connected with “And Adam…” and “But women…”
Silvoso reasons that the verses may be intended to convey this message: Adam was created first and received his instructions (not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) before Eve was with him. Looking to the theme of 1 Timothy 2:11-15, namely all things related to the proper instruction of women, it certainly seems relevant that Adam would have therefore been charged with instructing Eve in such directive. It is also interesting that Eve demonstrates an imperfect knowledge of the command when tested by Satan. (She answers that she “must not touch it” or she will die which is not how God describes the rule to Adam.)
In this, there is a warning against similar failure. Eve sinned first, of her own volition, then caused Adam to sin also. Rightly, then, Eve suffered a more severe consequence: being lowered in the order of nature from God’s original intention. That this lowering is entailed in her punishment, as described Genesis 3:16, implies Eve was not previously intended to be ruled by Adam. Silvoso believes that because women have been rescued from the burden of their sin by the cross, they will eventually be restored to their original place beside Adam, if “they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”
It follows that if the women addressed in this letter were indeed a specific group, they were being called to continue their learning, remembering that, just as Adam received knowledge before Eve, they had not yet received their proper education and must patiently endeavor now to catch up. They must also keep in mind that as faithful disciples, they could be properly restored so to better fulfill God’s purpose for them.
And if this is a right reading, Paul would seem to be saying that reconciliation between contradicting ideologies here can only be accomplished through a spiritual bearing of fruit. Perhaps women will one day be universally encouraged to teach in light of evidence that God is working through them. Anne Graham Lotz, the daughter of Billy Graham, says about opposition she faces as a woman preaching: “When people have a problem with women in ministry, they need to take it up with Jesus. He’s the one who put us there.”
Speaking with those who support the ordination of women, one consistently finds that their belief is most profoundly influenced by evidence of God’s hand in the ministries of these women. This isn’t to say that experience and first-hand accounts are less valuable than scriptural mandates. The temptation to twist scripture in ways that suit our present opinions and aspirations and politics is a temptation of which we must be ever vigilant. We must pray that God open our eyes, despite our prejudices, to His truths.
I am moved at this time, to believe the above interpretation is most consistent with Jesus’ teachings and Paul’s letters. I hope it will not follow, then, that I cannot be receptive to a clearer truth if it becomes available to me. Likewise, I hope for frequent, profitable discourse with those with whom I disagree. There are, of course, many who still hold 1 Timothy as indisputable proof that women have been prohibited from teaching, and I pray they only be satisfied by the most coherent of theological arguments and inspired interpretations. In all cases, I pray we can foster a greater unity. We, the Church, cannot allow ourselves to be divided by fear of any discussion, however contentious the subject matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment