APPENDIX B
APPENDIX B
EXEGETICAL ISSUES
Volumes of exegetical studies cannot possibly be compressed into a few lines, but some attention to the history of exegesis will be useful. The following is an indication of where matters presently stand with regard to certain key texts. In the preceding historical survey, the texts were included as part of the flow of New Testament history. Although some lines of interpretation were suggested in passing, there was no intention to reach final conclusions, and few technical issues were discussed. Some of these details will now be outlined.
Galatians 3:28
This is a crucial passage. It tends to be seen either as an absolute statement that abrogates all differences and governs the interpretation of all other New Testament texts on women or, on the other hand, as only indicating that justification is without regard to racial, social, or sexual differences.
It is important to understand this verse in its context. In Galatians, Paul is dealing with such matters as the law, justification, and the liberty of the Spirit. The immediate context is a contrast between past times under law and the new family relationship we have with God through faith as “sons.” This new relationship is also indicated by the terminology of baptism and of being “clothed with Christ.” Clothing symbolism occurs in two other passages that speak of new life in Christ. Both Ephesians 420–24 and Colossians 3:9–14 speak of “putting on” the new man like new clothing. This seems to have been common language to describe the new life in Christ. The use of clothes as a figure of behavioral characteristics goes back to the Old Testament.1 It is crucial to recognize that in Colossians 3:9–11 the putting off of the old and putting on of the new affects the believers’ social relationships: “Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free” (Col. 3:11). The implication of this is seen in the exhortations that immediately follow those words, exhortations that relate to mutual forbearance and love (vv. 12–14).
It is obvious in the Colossians passage that when one has put on the new clothing of Christ, the obliteration of differences in Christ affects not only position but also practice. There seems to be no reason why the same direction of thought is not to be understood also in Galatians. F. F. Bruce noted in his commentary on Galatians that the removal of restrictions did not pertain only to baptism or only to the Jew-Gentile and slave-freeman relationships. He raises a pertinent question: “If in ordinary life existence in Christ is manifested openly in church fellowship, then, if a Gentile may exercise spiritual leadership in church as freely as a Jew, or a slave as freely as a citizen, why not a woman as freely as a man?”2
In summary, some people, noting the theme of justification in the context, hold that Paul’s point in this particular passage is that anyone can receive the promised salvation and be clothed with Christ in spite of racial, social, and sexual differences. The biblical use of the clothing metaphor, however, seems to give support to the view that being clothed with Christ rules out these differences, not merely with respect to justification but also in subsequent personal relationships.3
1 Corinthians 11:2–16
The exegetical issues involved in this passage are extraordinarily complex. They relate to vocabulary, syntax, circumstances in the Corinthian church, and social background. An introductory issue is whether Paul does or does not approve of women prophesying and praying publicly. If the Corinthians were unspiritual (1 Cor. 3:1) and subject to Paul’s correction in a number of matters, could it not be assumed that they were wrong in allowing women to speak in church? Also those who understand 1 Corinthians 14:34 to forbid any spoken words by women in the church must deny that Paul allows it in chapter 11. This involves some difficulties, such as the fact that Paul would then have invested a good amount of space regulating a practice he rejects shortly afterwards.
One bit of internal evidence has sometimes been overlooked in this discussion. Paul begins his instructions in 1 Corinthians 11 with the words “I praise you.” The same words are repeated, but in a negative construction, in verse 17, where Paul refuses to praise them for the way they were celebrating the Lord’s Supper. Given the importance of the Lord’s Supper, it is significant that he withholds praise in that connection but offers praise in connection with the prophetic ministry of women in the first part of the same chapter. One might have thought that if women should not have been taking any audible part in the service, Paul would have withheld praise here as he did in verse 17. Incidentally, the structure of the parallel “praise” phrases, as well as the general context and the reference in verse 10 to angels (thought by some first-century Jews to be present at worship), makes it fairly certain that Paul is describing a meeting of the church, not just a women’s meeting as some have suggested. There seems to be no evidence against the supposition. Were it not for the apparent conflict with 14:34b–35 it may be questioned whether anyone would have doubted that 11:1–16 was describing a church meeting.
In addition to these considerations is the fact that Paul introduces some heavy theological concepts (such as headship and the image and glory of God) in this passage to support his regulation of women’s participation. This would be strange if the practice were wrong to begin with.
Headship
This is a major issue that also affects other passages such as Ephesians 522–33 and consequently impinges on one’s concept of the marriage relationship. It is common among those who hold a “traditional” view of women and the church to understand the Greek word for “head,” kephalē, to signify authority or rule. Not only is this typical in older commentaries, but it is also found in most of the early church fathers as well.4
This view is currently under vigorous debate. One reason is that this meaning was not characteristic of the metaphorical use of kephalē in ancient Greek literature. Another has to do with the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament done a couple of centuries before Christ. In this translation, when the Hebrew word for “head” (rōsh) meant rule or authority, the translators tended to avoid using the Greek kephalē, using a stronger word, archōn, to convey that meaning. A third reason is that some scholars think that “source” conveys the meaning better than rulership or authority in at least some secular and also biblical passages.5 For example, the idea of source is in the context of 1 Corinthians 11: “For man did not come from woman, but woman from man” (v. 8) and the reverse, “For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman” (v. 12).
That proposal was challenged in one study on the basis of a survey of over two thousand occurrences of the word.6 This study concluded that there were no instances in ancient Greek literature where kephalē means “source.” It also suggested the meaning of “rule” or “authority” in various nonbiblical writings around the New Testament period. More recent research, however, has turned up evidence, previously unrecognized or unacknowledged, that kephalē was indeed used to mean “source.” It seems difficult to ignore this evidence, especially when some of it is found in ancient medical writings. Also some of the alleged instances of the meaning “rule” or “authority” have been questioned.7 This illustrates the importance of helpful interaction among scholars.
Another metaphorical use of kephalē in ancient Greek literature was to represent the whole person. The head was the most easily visible and prominent part of the body. It was natural to refer to the “head of X,” meaning that person. To disgrace one’s head (v. 4) is the same as bringing disgrace on oneself (v. 14). Even today one speaks of shame being heaped on the head of someone. First Corinthians 11 may have the idea of prominence at least partially in view when it uses the term “head.” In the very next chapter, following a mention of “head” and “feet,” Paul refers to those parts of the body that people think are more or less honorable, even if they are not really so (1 Cor. 12:21–23).
The result of all this has been to bring into serious question whether, even if authority or rulership is a legitimate metaphorical meaning of kephalē in other literature, that is its main use here. In any case, the application of headship in the context of 1 Corinthians 11 is to the covering of the woman’s head during ministry, not to her ministry as such. Whatever meaning one assigns to headship, its use in this passage cannot be claimed to exclude women from prophetic ministry in the church. In this conclusion many traditionalist as well as feminist scholars would agree.
Related to this is the question of whether 1 Corinthians 11 is teaching a “chain of command” in which woman is under man. Actually the order in which Paul lists the various relationships is not from God to women, as a chain of command theory would imply, but refers to man and Christ, woman and man, Christ and God. There is certainly order within the pairs, but not some overall movement from greatest (God) to least (woman).
Veiling
Clearly for a woman to have her head uncovered (or hair not modestly bound up)8 brought disgrace (v. 5). Words about honor, dishonor, shame, and glory are prominent in this passage. Such terms were in common use among moralists in Paul’s day to brand what was or was not acceptable morality. Without becoming involved in the many details of the passage, it should be apparent that when Paul writes about headcovering or the binding up of hair, he is dealing with a common symbol of what was honorable in that society.
Authority
Verse 10 says that a woman should have authority (or “right,” exousia) over her head. Since the publication of a significant study on this verse twenty-five years ago,9 exegetes have generally accepted its conclusion that “to have authority” means here, as elsewhere in the New Testament, to possess authority, not to be under it. The noun exousia followed, as in 1 Corinthians 11:10, by epi, “over,” appears with (1) the verb “to have,” as in our passage (cf. Luke 9:1; Rev. 11:6; 14:18; 16:9; 20:6), (2) “to give” (Matt. 28:18; Rev. 2:26; 6:8; 13:7) and (3) the simple verb “to be” (Rev. 22:14, declaring that there is a “right” to the tree of life that the blessed ones will have). In none of these instances is the idea passive—that is, that one is subject to authority.
The Greek word exousia in 1 Corinthians 11:10 probably does not mean ecclesiastical authority in this context, but simply the right to do something. It is common now to conclude that Paul was giving a woman the right to speak if she had the appropriate hair style or covering. However, it could also be argued on the basis of syntax and context that the right she has is to decide whether or not to wear a head covering.10 The entire structure of the passage has been the subject of much study.11
The small Greek word plēn that introduces verses 11ff. indicates some sort of break in the argument. It could be translated “however.” The question is whether the word is used in a strong sense to indicate that Paul is setting aside the previous argument or whether it is used simply to indicate a modification or shift in emphasis. In either case, the implication is that what follows expresses elements of Paul’s theology that did not appear in the first part. These elements are, first, that (whatever authority a woman may have) woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. Second, in support or explanation of this, just as the woman came from man (Adam), so, in reverse, man comes through woman (by birth). Neither can argue preference; all is “from God.” This reciprocal idea has a parallel in 1 Corinthians 7:4, where Paul teaches that a man and his wife “rule” (exousiazō) over each other’s bodies.
By using the word for “however” or “nevertheless,” Paul gives a hint that while what has preceded is appropriate behavior (perhaps the way for a woman to maintain honor in accordance with both biblical principles and conventional morality), yet fundamentally there is a reciprocal relationship between men and women, as indicated in verses 11 and 12.
In any event, Paul calls the appropriate binding up or covering of the hair, not doctrine, but “custom” (v. 16, NIV “practice”). This fact suggests that a reasonable understanding of the passage is that Paul has established a practice or custom that is an appropriate application of biblical doctrine. Such an understanding bridges two polar positions: one is that the passage contains a timeless command that is to be universally obeyed in the form in which it was given (i.e., women are to wear headcoverings). The other is that the passage is to be interpreted as culture-bound and, therefore, not applicable today. If the above understanding is correct, the passage does contain a theological principle about the relationship of men and women. It is associated with the concept of headship on the one hand, and with an appropriate application (the “custom”) to all the Pauline churches on the other.
It is increasingly recognized today (even apart from the “women’s issue”) that Paul was concerned that Christian practice not run counter to the accepted moral norms in society. His concern was that unbelievers would not think that Christians were behaving inappropriately and therefore be repulsed by the behavior and dress of their women. What Paul counsels is not capitulation or conformity to culture, much less a personal lapse into old rabbinic modes of thought, but a deliberate theologically based approach to his society in conformity to biblical principles. By being properly attired, a woman would avoid criticism from conservative Jews and pagans. It might also, if some recent research on the matter is correct, avoid any appearance of homosexuality or a ritual sex change.12 Paul seems to be showing that the church must not be drawn into pagan ways, while, at the same time, it should make sure that its moral distinctives are not so unconventionally displayed that they appear to be immoral.
In the preceding chapters (1 Cor. 8–10) Paul had shown that some of the freedom he passionately argued for in Galatians must be yielded so that he would be like “those under the law” (Jews) or “those without law” (pagans) “in order to win some” (9:18–23). It may be worth considering whether this is an appropriate approach to other passages as well. Few Christians today insist on a headcovering for women, reasoning that this is a cultural matter. Yet the same Christians may insist on women’s silence in the church, not realizing that a woman’s presence, especially if she spoke, likewise communicated something symbolically to her own society. If the above approach is correct, avoiding the extremes both of culturalizing Paul’s instructions on the one hand and of absolutizing them on the other could draw Christians together in an understanding of his instructions, not only regarding women, but on other topics as well.
1 Corinthians 1434–35
In 1 Corinthians 14 the issue is whether Paul commands permanent silence on the part of women in the church. No one debates that the verb itself means absolute silence. The question is whether women were to be silent under certain circumstances only or at all times. The references to “all the congregations of the saints” in verse 33 and to “law” in verse 34 suggest a universal application. On the other hand, the fact that the two other groups (tongues-speakers and prophets) who were told in the same context (vv. 28, 30) to be silent obviously did normally speak suggests that women likewise normally spoke but had to be silent under some specific circumstances.
It is important to note that the issue here is not over whether the silence of women is irksome today, but whether this passage contradicts the privilege Paul seems to give women to pray and prophesy publicly in chapter 11. Further, that privilege (or, better, ministry) is in accord with the declaration of Peter in Acts 2:17–18, quoting Joel 2:28–29, that a major characteristic of the new age of the Spirit was that both men and women would prophesy. (Some distinguish between the infallible prophecies of Old Testament prophets and the prophecies given in New Testament churches which are to be evaluated [1 Cor. 1429].) Therefore, three options are available: (1) It is a misunderstanding that Acts 1:17–18 and 1 Corinthians 112–16 permit women to prophesy in the church. (2) It is a misunderstanding that 1 Corinthians 14:34b–35 forbids all vocal, audible participation in the church by women. (3) Scripture contradicts itself. For the Evangelical, at least, this is not simply a “feminist” issue, but an exegetical one that relates to the integrity of Scripture.
Several solutions have been proposed:
1. Verses 34–35 were not originally in this passage at this place, and perhaps were not even written by Paul. There is some textual evidence that they originally occurred later in the passage. Manuscripts in the so-called “Western” tradition, that is, used in the churches in the western part of the Roman Empire, had the verses at the end of what we know as chapter 14. This suggests that the verses originally constituted a comment some scribe wrote in the margin of a manuscript, which were then incorporated into the body of the text by different scribes at different places. In support of this it has been observed that, if that section is omitted, the wording of the text flows very smoothly from verse 33 to verses 36 and following. This solution has naturally been considered with great caution. It is difficult for many people to realize that there are words, phrases, and even entire verses in the present text of the Bible that were introduced into the manuscripts after the originals were completed. But that is the case, and it is a matter of careful judgment on the part of skilled textual scholars, not the feelings of the reader, whether a given text is original or not. That is where the decision on verses 34–35 must rest.13
2. The word “law” in verse 34 refers to rabbinic tradition.14 In support of this theory it is proposed that the first word in verse 36 (usually translated “or”) indicates strong disagreement with what precedes.15 The theory based on these observations is that, as happens occasionally elsewhere in this epistle, Paul is quoting something said by people at Corinth, something he proceeds to reject.
This theory faces some difficulties: (1) Paul never elsewhere uses the word law to refer to rabbinical tradition. (2) Although the word that begins verse 36 in the Greek is indeed used elsewhere to indicate a disjunction of thought, there is no context that is an exact parallel. In the closest parallel, 1 Corinthians 6:18–19, what precedes is not an opponent’s view but Paul’s own command. It is reasonable to infer that what is negated in the present passage is, as in 6:18–19, the implied disobedience to Paul’s command.
As for the meaning of “law,” the reason some have suggested that it refers to rabbinical tradition is that there is no clear text in the Old Testament to which this refers. Another possibility to be kept in mind is that it may refer both to the Jewish laws and to various provisions in civil legislation to keep women “in their place.” This latter theory avoids the argument against “law” referring to rabbinic tradition, for, although Paul would probably not dignify rabbinic tradition with the term law (something he does nowhere else), he may well have used the term in a more general way. It is important to observe that what the “law” commands is “submission.” This is seen as the opposite of speaking. There is no Old Testament text that specifically commands a woman to be submissive or to be silent. The consequence of the Fall was male domination (Gen. 3:16), but this is expressed, not as a command, but as a description of the way things would be. It is possible that Paul had in mind the insubordination and consequent judgment of Miriam and Aaron (Num. 12:1–15). Miriam was a leader and prophetess in her own right, but she should not have opposed Moses.16 Perhaps Paul is suggesting that although women could minister in the church, they should assume a submissive attitude in regard to judging or evaluating the prophecies others gave.
3. Paul restricted women only in the matter of participating in the evaluation of the prophets’ words. Paul had commanded silence twice previously in this chapter: first, in verse 28 to those speaking in tongues if no interpreter were present and, second, in verse 30 to prophets if a revelation came to another. It is reasonable to ask whether there were some circumstances under which women were to be silent. These circumstances could be the evaluation of prophecies, which was mentioned in verse 29. The structure of the passage can be analyzed as follows: Paul gave instructions (1) for prophesying (v. 29a), then (2) for weighing what was said (v. 29b), followed by (3) further instructions in verses 30–33 concerning the prophesying described in #1 and (4) further instructions in verses 34–36 concerning the weighing of the prophecies described in #2. Some scholars today are tending to see a reference to the “judging of the prophets” as the best solution presently in view, but the matter is by no means settled.17
Whatever the case may be, it may be significant that when Paul summarizes his teaching at the end of chapter 14, he refers to prophesying and to speaking in tongues but makes no mention of women’s silence. If it were a major point in his teaching, one would expect that he would mention it in his summary.
Ephesians 5:21–33
The main issues in this passage are the meanings of “submit” and of “head.” The latter has already been discussed. The word submit does not occur in verse 22 in the manuscripts generally considered more dependable. It was probably assumed there from the preceding use in verse 21. In turn verse 21 is actually part of the construction that begins in verse 18. The filling of the Spirit is to be accompanied by speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making music to the Lord, giving thanks, and submitting to one another (vv. 19–21).
The approach adopted by many today, therefore, is that the submission of wives to husbands is part of a mutual submission, reciprocated by the husband, rather than a one-directional submission, as it is usually understood. The traditional understanding is that submission is in one direction only, with some holding that it implies obedience. The verb submit can, in fact, be used in situations where one obediently yields to the authority of another, but some traditionalists soften the obedience idea by suggesting that a voluntary, not a forced obedience is taught here. While it is hard to see how the fulfillment of a command can be voluntary, what they mean is that the wife is to do this willingly for the Lord’s sake, not in cringing obedience to the husband.
Traditionalists argue that submission can be in only one direction, because it is inconceivable, on Paul’s analogy in verse 23, that Christ should be subject to the church. The other point of view is that for Christ to give himself in death for the church was actually a voluntary kind of submission. By analogy, the husband should be willing to forgo claim over his own life, and to yield his life for his wife.
The response on the part of traditionalists would again be that this is not the usual meaning of submission. That is true; we should note, however, that in each of the other two cases, children and parents, slaves and masters, there is a reciprocal, if not submissive, action on the part of the one who demands obedience. Fathers are not to exasperate their children (6:4), and masters are not to threaten their slaves (6:9). It is suggested that Paul is asking fathers and masters to modify their response in a way that was not normal in the ancient world. It is further noted that the word obey, which occurs with regard to children and to slaves, is conspicuously absent in the section about wives. In addition, not one of the instructions to the husbands pertains to ruling. All have to do with caring for and enhancing one’s wife.
Probably the arguments on both sides have been overstated. A realistic observation is that women in the first century did not need a command to tell them to be submissive to their husbands. That was already expected of them in their pagan society. The point of the passage on this view is that the expected social relationships were to be carried out “in the Lord” by Christians. Paul is not merely repeating a pagan “household code” (as scholars call this type of instruction) but is presenting a theologically based teaching. Far beyond expectations, the relation of husband and wife are revealed to be based on the mystical relation of Christ and the church.18
1 Timothy 2:11–15
This passage is another center of controversy. Some of the issues have already been discussed in this volume, specifically (1) the issue of Paul’s reference to the order of creation; (2) the question of Paul’s intent, that is, whether he intended this as a permanent universal command; and (3) the semantic problem revolving around the words “teach” and “assume authority.” Extensive exegetical work has been done on the issues.19
One of the major issues is the meaning of authentein, translated “usurp authority” in the King James Version, but simply “have authority” in the New International Version. Countless churches have barred women from ministry on the basis of this verb. It is reasoned that if it forbids any kind of authority over men, and if a given church ministry is understood to carry authority, women must be excluded from that ministry.
Interaction thus far has been vigorous. The problem is that the verb is used nowhere else in the New Testament and only rarely in other Greek literature. It is not the common word for exercising authority. Perhaps the first of the contemporary studies on the meaning of authentein was Catherine Kroeger’s article, “A Strange Greek Verb.”20 The author cited such meanings of the authent- word group in ancient Greek usage as sexual aggression, murder, and suicide. The very mention of such meanings, which seem far removed from the context of 1 Timothy, caused many to be skeptical of her conclusions, but it served to open up the discussion and to caution against assuming that Paul was denying any authority at all to women.
A subsequent article by George W. Knight, III, offered material that, in his opinion, proved the simple meaning, “to have authority.”21 Kroeger has continued her own study on the passage itself22 but, although she has made some telling points against the meaning “to have authority,” she has not yet published a full response to Knight.
Some problems have surfaced relating to Knight’s citations and interpretations, and more careful study is needed before the matter can be considered settled. This applies especially to the context and dating of some of the occurrences of the verb authenteō; around the time of the writing of the New Testament there is evidence of its use in a strong sense of assertiveness (such as “to originate” or “to take authority to oneself”). In the meantime, it would seem premature to conclude that this rare verb has the simple meaning, normally expressed by exousiazō, “to have authority.”
As for the word “teach” (Greek, didaskō), insufficient attention has been given to the fact that this word and others drawn from the same root diminished in church usage while the use of katecheō increased. The latter verb related more narrowly to the instruction of converts rather than to teaching in a broader sense. “This marked change in vocabulary from the early to the later Patristic Period seems to correlate with the disappearance of the independent teacher who was responsible for accurately passing on the teachings of the apostles and prophets.”23
The didaskō word group seems to have been used in a more formal sense—that is, for the teaching of doctrine—than was true of the teaching that occurred during the ministry of prophesying (1 Cor. 14:3, 4, 31). There were teachers who carried the authoritative traditions of Jesus and of the apostles to the multiplying and growing churches of the first decades of the church. It was necessary that they be received as authoritative conveyers of the tradition. They were witnesses to what had been said and done. Jewish people would not accept women, nor would pagans. It has been shown that the ancient Greeks accepted women prophets but rejected women teachers.24
Another way to look at the word “teach” is to ascribe a particular authority to the role of teaching. Those who have that viewpoint think in terms of a “teaching office,” a concept that led to the teaching “magisterium” of the Catholic church. One problem with this is that the idea of a separate clerical “office” was, according to present evidence, a late development. There will be further discussion on ecclesiastical authority and office in appendix C.
Yet another possibility is that Paul is not permitting women to teach in such a way as to authentein a man.25 This takes didaskō and authentein, not as similar but as related. This takes into account that the word didaskō is widely separated grammatically from the word of woman, which seems to indicate that it is not a man teaching a woman that Paul objects to.
We must emphasize that Greek scholars differ among themselves on the relationship of these words. This should serve as a caution against taking a strong position on the basis of one interpretation.
One exegetical datum considered important especially by traditionalists is Paul’s reference back to the order of the creation of men and women and to the deception of Eve. The order of creation also constitutes part of Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 11:8–9. The alternatives would appear to be whether Paul (1) is lapsing into a rabbinic method of thinking (and is wrong), (2) is employing the creation narrative simply as an explanation (showing that this restriction is supported, though not required, by Scripture), (3) is using a legitimate method of argumentation (meaningful to his immediate readership to validate his principle and approach, but not necessarily leading only to the particular application he makes in that context), or (4) is grounding a permanent injunction on a fact that can never lead to any other conclusion. There is yet another option, but it is not a hermeneutical one. That is the critical theory that Paul was not the originator of the teaching in that verse.
The approach represented by option 1 was mentioned in chapter 10 in connection with the work of Paul K. Jewett. Option 2 takes the word “for” in Paul’s statement to introduce an illustration or explanation, rather than introducing a reason. This is a usage familiar in classical Greek and continued in Paul’s time, as the noted scholar of the history of Greek grammar, A. T. Robertson, pointed out.26
Option 3 and option 4 take the word “for” in the text as expressing cause, or logical grounds. That is, Paul is basing his argument on the creation order, not just using that as an illustration or explanation, as in number 2. The difference between options 3 and 4 may be explained as follows: in the former, while Paul’s restrictions are derived from creation order, that order could conceivably be honored and followed by other actions in other circumstances. View 4 insists, however, that there can never be any other way to express the order of creation; the restriction of women must be continued exactly as designated, no matter what the circumstances.
Another factor must be kept in mind in arriving at a decision concerning the significance of what is often called creation order. That is the hermeneutical approach of the New Testament to the keeping of the Sabbath, which was certainly a basic element in creation order. The discussion of that and of the whole matter of redemption and the new creation in appendix A should be read in conjunction with the present study of 1 Timothy 2.
Regarding the deception of Eve, it may be useful to keep in mind that in 2 Corinthians 11:3 Paul addresses the entire church with a warning lest they be led astray “just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning.” So man as well as woman can be deceived as Eve was.
The matter of circumstances and cultural factors also arises once again in connection with 1 Timothy 2. Several theories have been proposed, among them (1) that women were as yet so uneducated that they should not teach, (2) that the women converts in the church at Ephesus where Timothy was had not yet become mature or proved themselves sufficiently to be able to teach, (3) that among the heretical teachers at Ephesus were women who needed to be silenced, and (4) that the women at Ephesus were caught up with some kind of cultic or heretical doctrines that appealed especially to women. Suggestions regarding this last proposal have included an incipient form of gnosticism that exalted the role both of Eve and of other women and that postulated prominent female elements in a hierarchy of divine beings, and cultic activities that included the symbolism of the snake, with its obvious connection with the garden of Eden. The fourth proposal especially seeks to give due regard to the reference in 1 Timothy 2:13 to the deception of Eve. It is suggested that there is some possibility that ideas concerning the priority of Eve at creation were circulating and needed to be countered by a strong affirmation about the priority of Adam.27
A correct interpretation and application of the 1 Timothy 2:8–15 passage must take into consideration all of the exegetical data and whatever knowledge of the background can be accurately determined. The passage has tended to attract some careless and subjective interpretations. Disagreement is understandable, but carefulness and honesty in handling the Word of God is an absolute requirement of any who would seek to teach and apply such a crucial passage.
1 Peter 3:1–6
This passage seems to present fewer problems, because the submissive attitude required of the woman has a clear purpose. The believing wife of an unconverted man is to fulfill the expectations of submission in order that she might win him to the Lord. This purpose is in accordance with Titus 2 where Paul says that the young women are to be subject to their husbands “so that no one will malign the word of God” (v. 5). Likewise young men are to show integrity “so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us” (v. 8), and slaves are to be subject to their masters “so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive” (v. 10).
This emphasis on submission in personal relationships for the sake of winning the unconverted probably also lies behind 1 Corinthians 11 with respect to the appearance of women when participating publicly in the church. The emphasis on shame versus honor in that section of Corinthians likewise supports this probability, along with Paul’s injunction at the end of 1 Corinthians 14 that all things should be done “decently and in order.” Some take that to mean spiritual orderliness, but in view of the context, it very likely refers to an orderliness that will commend itself to the outsider. Paul also showed his concern for visitors to the church meeting in 1 Corinthians 1423–25, where he is worried about such people hearing unintelligible speech. So then the general direction of 1 Peter 3 is clear.
It was said above that this passage seems to present fewer problems than the previous. There are issues relating to the setting of the book and this passage. It is generally agreed that Peter, like Paul (Eph. 5:22–33; Col. 3:18–25; cf. Titus 22–10), has utilized a form common in the ancient world to list various mutual responsibilities within households (including slaves). Scholars today usually call such a domestic code by the German term Haustafel. There is some debate over the reason why Peter takes over this form. One suggestion is that persecuted Christians do not seek the highest places but are willing to take subordinate positions, welcoming and giving a home to those who are the disadvantaged, disinherited “strangers” of that society.28
Another approach is to see the domestic code as an expression of conformity to certain generally accepted secular conventions of behavior.29 Was Peter accommodating to the generally accepted norms of role relationships? Most likely where this was in accordance with biblical principle, he emphasized it so that the gospel would indeed commend itself to the outsider. But that does not mean that Peter modified biblical principles to suit society. In fact, it is assumed in the passage that the wife chose Christianity though her husband did not. But this was already in contrast to the idea of both Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Plutarch that a wife should keep to her husband’s religion.30 Plutarch said that “it is becoming for a wife to worship and to know only the gods that her husband believes in.”31 Therefore the Christian women addressed by Peter would seem to have already been in danger of being charged with insubordination because of their taking an independent stand religiously. They had to demonstrate that by submitting in other ways they were following accepted moral standards.
The other issue in this passage relates to Sarah and Abraham. One may understand the statement “as Sarah obeyed Abraham calling him lord” (v. 6 KJV) as defining submission as obedience. But it would seem that if this requires obedience, it also requires calling the husband “lord.” If, however, it is objected that the term “lord” was only the way Sarah expressed her obedience in that culture and need not be be used by Christian wives today, is it not logical to extend the point and say that obedience itself was only the way Sarah expressed her submission in that culture and need not be required of Christian wives today? It is probably best to understand Sarah’s obedience (including the term “lord”) as an illustration of her submission in a manner that was appropriate to her own society but not to ours.