4 The Great Watershed—Intentionality and Particularity/Eternality: 1 Timothy 2:8–15 as a Test Case
4
THE GREAT WATERSHED—INTENTIONALITY AND PARTICULARITY/ETERNALITY: 1 TIMOTHY 2:8–15 AS A TEST CASE[1]
In the preceding two chapters it has been argued (1) that evangelical hermeneutics has as its primary task the need to hear God’s word within the human words of Scripture, neither diminishing it as an eternal word, as liberal hermeneutics so often does, nor enshrining all the particulars, as fundamentalism so often does—but in inconsistent and frequently cavalier ways; (2) that the way forward still lies with the question of authorial intent; to discover what the human author meant by his words, and why, is at the same time to hear God’s eternal word; and (3) that a hermeneutics of the New Testament imperatives should have a reflection of the gospel as its aim rather than a law code.
In this essay I want to return to the matter of imperatives and author’s intent, and I will do so by raising one of the more difficult of our hermeneutical problems—created by the distancing factors of time and culture noted in chapter 2. The question is: Since God spoke his word in historically particular circumstances, how much of the particularity itself is a part of the eternal word? For example, if we agree that the texts call us to practice hospitality, must we wash feet as a way of showing such hospitality? Is the particular (washing feet) the only—or necessary—way in which one is obedient to the eternal (showing hospitality)? If we agree (and not all do, despite 1 Corinthians 11:5) that women may pray and prophesy, must they do so with heads covered in order to keep male and female distinctions intact?
Let it be noted at the outset that we come now to one of the truly ticklish issues for evangelical hermeneutics. Indeed, some would reject the very way I have phrased the question, and in particular how I have phrased the two examples. Nonetheless, I am convinced that all evangelicals make this distinction in some way or another—although they rarely, if ever, articulate it—and that the lack of articulation on this matter is a major reason both for many hermeneutical inconsistencies and for many of the behavioral legalisms that abound among us.
To get at this question, therefore, what I call the great watershed, I propose to speak once more to one of the thorniest of our contemporary issues and to use it as a case study for several of the hermeneutical suggestions that were put forward in the previous essay. The issue: the role of women in ministry in light of Paul’s intent in 1 Timothy 2:8–15.
The hermeneutics of liberalism has basically dismissed this text as irrelevant for today, usually on the grounds of a canon within the canon, in which allegedly deuteropauline texts reflect an early degeneracy from Paul’s more open stance.[2] Among evangelicals the issue has been over cultural relativity. Some argue for the absolute normativeness of 1 Timothy 2:11–12—in all cultures at all times—on the grounds of a so-called creation order, based on vv. 13–14.[3] Other evangelicals, on the other hand, argue from the apparently culturally relative matters about dress in vv. 9–10, plus the fact of women’s ministries found elsewhere in the New Testament, that vv. 11–12, though certainly intended to be binding on the local situation to which they were addressed, were not intended to be normative for the church throughout its history.[4] The anxiety most frequently expressed about this position arises from what is suspected to be hermeneutical arbitrariness or relativism. Who determines what is culturally relative if the text does not so express itself? And if this is culturally relative, then why not prohibitions against sexual immorality, or idolatry, or hatred, as well?[5]
I. The Historical Setting of 1 Timothy 2:8–15
Let us begin with an exegetical overview of our text, beginning at step 1—the occasion and purpose of 1 Timothy. Since my exegetical stance as to the purpose of 1 Timothy is spelled out in detail in the introduction to my commentary on this letter,[6] let me here simply outline the conclusions of that argument, without all the supporting evidence.
In contrast to an older view, which treated 1 Timothy as a kind of “church manual,” I have argued that the key to understanding the letter lies in taking seriously that Paul’s stated reason in 1:3 for leaving Timothy in Ephesus is the real one; namely, that he has been left there to combat some false teachers, whose asceticism and speculative nonsense based on the law are engendering strife, causing many to capitulate to the false teaching.
The key to identifying these false teachers is to be found in Acts 20:17–35, where in an address to the elders of this church Paul prophesies in v. 30 that from among their own number will arise those who will lead the church astray. This probability is supported by several data in the letter itself:
The fact is that the false teachers in this case are clearly insiders, not outsiders as elsewhere. Since teaching is the one clearly expressed duty of the elders (3:3; 5:17), it follows naturally that the false teachers were already teachers, thus elders, who have gone astray.
It seems certain from 2:9–15, 5:11–15, and 2 Timothy 3:6–7 that these straying elders have had considerable influence among some women, especially some younger widows, who according to 2 Timothy 3:6–7 have opened their homes to these teachings, and according to 1 Timothy 5:13 have themselves become propagators of the new teachings.
Several pieces of evidence suggest that corporate life in the church in Ephesus was experienced not in a large Sunday gathering in a single sanctuary, but in many house-churches, each with its own elder(s). The issue, therefore, was not so much that a large gathered assembly was being split down the middle, as that various house-churches were capitulating almost altogether to a leadership that had gone astray. Some new ideas that had been circulating just a few years earlier in Colossae and Laodicea had made their way to Ephesus, but now as the “official” line being promulgated by some of its elders. They must be stopped, and Timothy was left in Ephesus to do it.
The purpose of I Timothy, then, arises out of these complexities. The letter betrays evidence everywhere that it was intended ultimately for the church itself, not just for Timothy. But because of defections in the leadership, Paul does not, as before, write directly to the church, but to the church through Timothy. The reason for going this route would have been twofold: (1) to encourage Timothy himself to carry out this most difficult task of stopping the erring elders, who were creating strife as well as promoting errors; and (2) to authorize Timothy before the church to carry out his task. At the same time, of course, the church will be having the false teachers/teachings exposed before them, plus Paul’s instructions to Timothy about what he was to do.
II. The Argument of 1 Timothy 2:8–15
In order to see the place and meaning of 2:8–15 in the letter, it might be helpful to review the overall scheme of the argument as it relates to this view of its occasion and purpose.
The letter itself is all business, lacking both the standard thanksgiving and concluding greetings. Instead, it both begins and ends with a charge to Timothy (1:3–7; 6:20–21), urging upon him the task of stopping the false teachers and counteracting their teaching. The opening charge (vv. 3–11) is basically a spelling out of the error of the false teachers, which is then, in a somewhat digressive way (vv. 12–17), contrasted with the gospel—in the form of personal testimony. This digression in turn is followed in vv. 18–20 by a resumption and repetition of the charge to Timothy.[7]
Chapters 2 and 3, then, joined to the charge by a “therefore,”[8] serve to give Timothy guidelines for restoring proper behavior to the church(es), both in their times of worship and in the appointment of new leaders. The concern in each instance has to do with conduct in the community, vis-à-vis the false teachers.
Chapter 4 then elaborates in some detail upon the two matters expressed in the charge in chapter 1: (a) the nature of the errors of the false teachers, insisting on their demonic origins (4:1–5), and (b) Timothy’s role in Ephesus (4:6–16). Finally, Paul moves on to give instructions about how Timothy is to deal with the two specific groups who are the problem element—some young widows (5:3–16) and their “captors,” the straying elders (5:17–25). This in turn is followed by a concluding indictment of the false teachers (6:3–10) and a final appeal to Timothy (6:11–16, 20–21). Thus the whole letter deals basically with the false teachers and Timothy’s role in Ephesus to stop their activity.[9]
First Timothy 2:8–15 is the second paragraph in the section on conduct in the community at worship, which is concerned first, in 2:1–7, with the proper objects of prayer—all people, because God wants all people to be saved as is evidenced by Christ’s having given himself to redeem all people. Almost certainly this paragraph stands over against the elitism/exclusivism of the “new doctrines.”
Then in vv. 8–15 Paul moves to proper demeanor in prayer. The men (v. 8) are to pray without getting involved in the quarrels and disputes engendered by the false teaching. The women likewise are to deport themselves in a manner befitting godly women. But the section about women receives a considerable elaboration, which is of high interest, both because it is so much longer than that of the men (cf. also 5:3–16 and 17–25) and because the final resolution is so clearly like that given for the young widows in 5:11–15. The paragraph is in four parts, each closely interrelated to what has gone before. In vv. 9–10 the concern is with dress; vv. 11–12 argue for a quiet and submissive spirit. In vv. 13–14 the modest dress and quiet demeanor are supported by illustrations from Genesis 2 and 3, while v. 15 sums up the whole by arguing that women’s salvation lies in their accepting the role of mother, provided of course that they are truly women of faith, love, and holiness.
In vv. 11–12 she is also forbidden to teach and domineer a man, but it is clear from the whole paragraph, first, that this is only part of the problem—and not necessarily the most significant part—and, second, that the greater concern is for her to take her standard place in society, and thus in the church, as befits a woman who professes religion.
What is striking about this paragraph is its several points of correspondence with 5:11–15. First, it should be noted that in chapter 2, vv. 9–10 and 11–12 go together as two sides of one coin. There is an abundance of texts in antiquity that suggest that “dressing up” and insubordination on the part of women, and especially wives, go hand in hand.[10] It is therefore not clear here whether the chief concern is with the women acting as women who are bent on seduction (vv. 9–10) or with their insubordination (vv. 11–12). In either case, they are “playing loose” with the norms of society, which is exactly what Paul says of the younger widows in 5:11–15. Rather than displaying the “good works” of the older widows, which includes rearing children well (5:10), they have apparently “given themselves to pleasure” (v. 6), have grown wanton against Christ in their desire to remarry (v. 12; apparently outside the faith). Furthermore, they have become busybodies, going about from house to house (house-church to house-church?) talking foolishness[11] and speaking of things they should not (v. 13; the false teachings? cf. the description of the false teachers in 1:6–7). As such they have already gone astray after Satan (v. 15). Paul’s solution here is for them to remarry (vis-à-vis the false teachers; cf. 4:3) and bear children, so as not to give the enemy cause to reproach the gospel (v. 14).
The concern and solution in 2:9–15 are nearly identical. Instead of living for pleasure and becoming wanton against Christ, they should dress modestly and do good works (vv. 9–10, cf. the older widows). Instead of being busybodies and going about from house to house speaking foolishness and talking about matters that are none of their business, they are forbidden to teach, but rather are to learn in all quietness.
The point of vv. 13–14, therefore, is not primarily with the illustration from Genesis 2, about Adam’s having been formed first—although that is clearly there and is not to be dismissed. What needs to be noted is that Paul does not elaborate that first point. He merely states it; its application can only be inferred. The second point, however, from Genesis 3, seems to be his real concern, since it receives an elaboration and leads directly to the conclusion in v. 15. Based on words of Eve in Genesis 3:13 (“the serpent deceived me, and I ate”), Paul states that Adam was not deceived (by the snake, that is), but rather it was the woman (note the change from Eve to “the woman”), who, having been deceived (by Satan is implied) fell into transgression.[12] That is exactly the point of 5:15—such deception of woman by “Satan” has already been repeated in the church in Ephesus. But, Paul says in v. 15,[13] there is still hope. She can be saved (eschatological salvation is ultimately in view, but in the context she shall be saved from her deception with its ultimate transgressions), provided she is first of all a woman of faith, love, and holiness.
This, then, is the point of the whole—to rescue these women and the church from the clutches of the false teachers. Their rescue includes proper demeanor in dress, proper demeanor in the assembly (including learning in all quietness), and getting married and bearing children (one of the good works urged in v. 10, seen in light of 5:9–10).
III. Application and Historical Particularity in 1 Timothy 2:8–15
That leads us finally to ask the ultimate hermeneutical question, How does it apply? which in light of our original question may now be put something like this: Given the ad hoc nature of 1 and 2 Timothy, with their own specific historical particulars, how do the instructions given by Paul to that historical situation function as an eternal word in the church for all times and climes? Or, to put that in another way, in hearing that word in our day, how much of the original historical particulars is also part of the eternal word to our lives?
The problem here is exacerbated in part by our own inconsistencies. For example a considerable literature has emerged over verses 11–12, pro and con, as to whether women may teach, preach, or be ordained; but there is not a single piece that argues from 5:3–16 that the church should care for its widows over sixty or require the younger ones to be married. One can understand the reasons for this, of course; our agendas have been set by our own cultural or existential urgencies. But the inconsistency is there; to get those who are doing battle over 2:11–12 to own up to it is extremely difficult.
I would propose here that at least a part of the solution toward greater consistency lies with authorial intentionality. What did Paul himself intend by these instructions? Would he have considered them all applicable to all believers at all times? In answer to that question, I suggest that a variety of kinds of statements are made in his letters, with differing kinds of particularity and intentionality.
Let me illustrate—and do so by starting with an extreme end, so as to clarify my point. In 2 Timothy 4:13 Paul, sitting in a Roman prison and asking Timothy to come before winter, tells him (by way of imperative) to bring the cloak he had left in Troas with Carpus. How many of us have ever tried to obey that text? And why not? Because common sense tells us that all of it was for Timothy and therefore was not meant for our obedience. In this case the statement is so ad hoc that it had no intent of any kind beyond the personal concern to stay warm next winter.
But let’s take another text—from the same letter. In 2:3, in equally ad hoc circumstances, Paul tells Timothy to take his share of suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. This one, we instinctively sense, could well apply to us. For good reason. For although Paul had no one else but Timothy in mind when he dictated those words, lying behind this personal injunction is a considerable appeal to Christian discipleship, based on Christ’s and Paul’s example (1:8–14), that we ourselves recognize as moving beyond that historical particular to all who would be disciples of Christ.
So also with all the second person plural ethical imperatives to the communities in Paul’s letters. We sense that they are intended to transcend the particulars.
We, too, should be forgiving, walk in love, be full of compassion, do all things without grumbling and complaining. I would argue that an inherent universality is latent in Paul’s own intent.
That brings us to the more difficult texts: those that lie somewhere in between. Here consistency is hard to achieve, because eternality in terms of the particulars is not at all clear. It is at this point that I would place 1 Timothy 2:11–12, where Paul enjoins that the women in that context are to learn in a quiet demeanor; they are not to teach or domineer a man. And I want to make sure that we look at such a text in conjunction with its companion texts, vv. 9–10 and 15, which equally enjoin that women are not to dress expensively, to plait their hair, or wear pearls, and that their salvation lies in bearing children. Moreover, we must also bring into the discussion the companion texts in 5:3–16 that widows over sixty, who are known for good works, who have no family, and who have not remarried, are to be supported by the church, while the younger widows are required to remarry, bear children, and keep house.
Let us begin with 5:3–16, because so few of us bring that to the twentieth century. Indeed, for most of us it’s a matter of, Who cares? The reason for this is quite simple. Even though we still have widows, in most cases in our culture they have a considerably different status, and thus it is simply not an issue for most of us. Besides, we let the state handle these matters for us. Here we have clearly let changes in culture determine how we particularize for ourselves their historical particulars. We simply do not think that widows under sixty are disobedient to God if they do not remarry. In any case, we have some ambiguities here, since in 1 Corinthians 7:39–40 Paul discourages such remarriages.
So also with 2:9–10 and 15. We relegate those texts to cultural changes, and rightly so. We still need to hear the word about modesty and appropriateness of dress, but on the specifics most evangelicals have long ago yielded to cultural change. Almost certainly Paul himself did not intend these instructions to address all Christians in all churches universally. All of these instructions, including 2:11–12, were ad hoc responses to the waywardness of the young widows in Ephesus who had already gone astray after Satan and were disrupting the church.
It simply cannot be demonstrated that Paul intended 1 Timothy 2:11–12 as a rule in all churches at all times. In fact the occasion and purpose of 1 Timothy as a whole, and these verses in particular, suggest otherwise. Nor will it do to appeal to vv. 13–14 as though there were some eternal order in creation, since neither Genesis nor Paul makes that point. After all, in Romans 5:12ff., in a quite different context where Christ serves as the representative man whose death and resurrection is for all (male and female), Paul argues considerably differently about the origin of sin in the human race. In that context Adam, not Eve, is seen as the origin of sin—precisely because Adam was a man, and thus the representative man whose sin led all (male and female) into sin.
I would argue, therefore, that the answer to our hermeneutical question lies in the area of our obedience to the ultimate concern of the text, even if at times the particulars are not carried over to the “letter.” This is how all of us treat 1 Timothy 6:1–2 (about slaves and masters)—although such was not always the case. This is probably how many would argue that they are obeying 5:3–16—although I for one would like to probe about a bit more here. Why not, then, with 2:11–12, since all do it with the preceding vv. 9–10?
Such a hermeneutical stance makes some people nervous. They see this as hermeneutical arbitrariness or relativism, a kind of capitulation to culture that causes us to go contrary to God’s word. That this is indeed a somewhat culturally conditioned response I would not deny, just as our response to 5:3–16 is equally culturally conditioned. That in itself is not a bad thing, given the very ad hoc nature of Scripture that demands we regularly hear the word anew in our own contexts. But that it is a capitulation and that it leads to disobedience, I do deny. To the contrary, such a view seems further supported by several other hermeneutical considerations put forward in the two preceding essays.
First, here is a clear case where, just as with the remarriage of widows, there is a diversity of witness within the New Testament itself. Most who oppose women in ministry recognize this, but have argued either (a) that this is a didactic text, while all others are descriptive, or (b) that this text at least prohibits women to teach when adult males are present, although other ministries such as prophecy are open to them,[14] or (c) that this prohibits any form of “ruling leadership” (including ordination), although other ministries are available.[15] The problem with these solutions, however, is that they are not only casuistic—some of them would do the Pharisees proud—but that they seem to turn the New Testament evidence on its head.
For example, it is especially difficult to see how, in the New Testament, teaching is a more authoritative ministry than prophecy or evangelism—especially in light of 1 Corinthians 12:28 (second prophets; third teachers), or how teaching in this passage involves “ruling leadership” or “ordination.” Moreover, it is in fact the only certain text of its kind in the New Testament;[16] whereas, the rest of the New Testament evidence indicates that women had a considerable role in ministry and leadership in the early church—especially so in light of both Jewish and Greco-Roman culture.
My point is a simple one. It is hard to deny that this text prohibits women teaching men in the Ephesian church; but it is the unique text in the New Testament, and as we have seen, its reason for being is not to correct the rest of the New Testament, but to correct a very ad hoc problem in Ephesus.
Second, I would like to pursue further one of the hermeneutical models for the future that I proposed in the previous chapter. The concern has to do with our tendency to turn the gospel into law, or canon law, that essentially rejects the freedom and redemption of the gospel itself. There are several factors involved here. One is our tendency to miss the profoundly Spirit-centered nature of New Testament ethics, so that God’s righteous requirements are written on our hearts by the Spirit, and we thus live and walk in the Spirit. Paul says that for such ethics there is no law. This does not mean freedom to do anything one wishes; rather, it means freedom to live out the gospel redemptively and relationally in a fallen world. In such an ethics obedience is not to rules and regulations, but to God himself, who has both created us and gifted us richly to serve him by serving one another.
The second factor is closely related: It is to argue that such a hermeneutical paradigm calls us to see the redemption of the cross as its primary pattern and focal point. In our present case, it is to argue that the atonement of Christ has overturned all the effects of the Fall, including the blighting curse on both men and women pronounced in Genesis 3. This does not mean a denying of male and female distinctiveness—that is a part of creation and the image of God—but it does mean a restoration of their lost joint mandate both to image God (now in a fallen world) and to serve together in having dominion over the earth. It is hard to imagine under any circumstances how the denial of one half the human race to minister to the other half brings glory to the gospel, which intends to break down such barriers and bring redemption to the whole body.
The third—and related—factor is the clincher for me: To deny women to minister and teach in the church is to deny the clear gifts of God himself. Here we would do well to learn from Peter in Acts 10–11, when the Holy Spirit did the unthinkable thing of falling on Gentiles who were uncircumcised, and say to the religious, “Who was I that I could withstand God?” If God had never gifted a woman to teach, then of course one might have a case—but such a person would also be living in a radically different culture from ours—or with his or her head in the sand.
IV. Conclusion
In conclusion, I realize, of course, that not all will be satisfied with this articulation. But one must allow that it comes from a New Testament scholar who is also a believer, and whose great passion is the gospel and our own response of obedience. For those who disagree, may I kindly urge that they articulate their own hermeneutical model, but let it be a model that reflects redemption, not law.
And in any case, in all that we do, let us talk to one another—and fervently love one another.
1 The substance of much of this chapter was first presented at the Evangelical Women’s Caucus, Wellesley, Mass., June 1983.
2 See, e.g., Robin Scroggs, “Paul and the Eschatological Women,” JAAR 40 (1972) 283–303. The term “liberalism” is not intended to be pejorative, but is used to distinguish a certain stance with regard to Scripture, as presented in chapter 2.
3 See, e.g., D. J. Moo, “I Timothy 2:11–15: Meaning and Significance,” TrinJ 1 (1980) 62–83; J. B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981) 195–221; and scores of others in a variety of forms.
4 See inter alia, D. M. Scholer, “Women’s Adornment. Some Historical and Hermeneutical Observations on the New Testament Passages,” Daughters of Sarah 6 (1980) 3–6; Fee and Stuart, How to Read, 66–69.
5 See esp. the various anxieties raised by J. R. McQuilkin, “Problems of Normativeness in Scripture: Cultural Versus Permanent,” in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy and the Bible. Papers from ICBI Summit II (ed. E. D. Radmacher and R. D. Preus; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984) 219–40; and G. W. Knight, “A Response to Problems of Normativeness in Scripture: Cultural Versus Permanent,” ibid., 243–53.
6 In the New International Biblical Commentary series (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1988) 1–31.
7 The resumptive nature of these verses, picking up the argument from v. 7, is made clear by the language (parangeilēs, 1:3; parangelias, 1:5; parangelian, 1:18), which is unfortunately glossed over in most English translations (the RSV being a happy exception).
8 It is also commonplace both in translations (e.g., NAB, JB, Moffatt) and commentaries (e.g., Barrett, Hanson, Hendriksen, Moellering, Scott) to slide past this oun (“therefore”) as though it were not there. But that will scarcely do, since oun appears regularly in Paul to press home an exhortation on the basis of what precedes (see e.g., Rom 12:1; 1 Cor 4:16; Eph 4:1).
9 See the radically different, and generally unsupported, overview of 1 Timothy given by Hurley, Man and Woman, 195–97, and notice how it affects his entire hermeneutical endeavor.
10 See Scholer, “Women’s Adornment,” and Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, 39.
11 There is no known instance in Greek where the word phylaroi means “gossips.” In fact it means to talk foolishness and is often used in contemporary philosophical texts to refer to “foolishness” that is contrary to “truth.”
12 It is absolutely foreign to the text and to Paul’s argument to suggest, as does Moo, that women by nature are more susceptible to deceit and “that this susceptibility . . . bars them from engaging in public teaching” (p. 70 [see n. 3]).
13 A clearly adversative de that begins this clause is omitted in most English translations. The contrast is to the “woman falling into transgression; but she shall be saved . . . .”
14 See, e.g., Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1988), a popularized and expanded version of the author’s published Ph.D. dissertation, The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians (Washington: University Press of America, 1982). This position is based on a series of unverifiable arguments, which in turn function as assumptions, to the effect that (a) OT prophecy was primarily an authoritative, revelatory function; (b) in the NT apostles function as the OT prophets; therefore (c) NT prophecy is a different thing altogether; (d) since teachers are also authoritative persons, women may prophesy, but not teach, since (e) despite what Paul actually says, teaching is a more authoritative gift than prophecy. Much of this argumentation is simply specious and has little to do with the concerns of Paul in his letters.
15 I had this argument presented to me by two different scholars from the Reformed tradition in two different public debates at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. In both cases I found it quite impossible to get past the hurdle of presbyterial church order, which they simply assumed as the biblical one and insisted must be in view in this passage. Despite what the text actually says, one was quite insistent that “some sort of juridical authority must be in view here.” The issue thus turned out to have little to do with the function of teaching as such, but with the role of women in the governmental structures of the church, which seems to be a reading of the text on the basis not of Paul’s own concerns but of one’s own theological urgencies. [See chapter 5.]
16 Since 1 Cor 14:34–35 is almost certainly a textual corruption, as I have argued in my commentary (NIC on 1 Corinthians, Eerdmans, 1987).