1 # 1 Tim 2:11 A woman should learn in quietness (hesuchia) and full submission (hupotasso) NIV
What is so strange about the idea that a Christians should learn in quietness instead of interrupting the speaker?
Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense." When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they became very quiet (hesuchia) (Acts 22:1-2 NIV)
What is so strange about the idea that a Christian shouldn't be a busybody in the affairs of others?
We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down (hesuchia) and earn the bread they eat. And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right (2 Thess 3:11-13 NIV).
There is nothing strange about it, for quietness is essential for godliness and holiness.
I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone- for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet (hesuchios) lives in all godliness and holiness (1 Tim 2:1-2 NIV).
But what about submission, why is it connected to learning? Can we not learn without submission? Not really, for learning requires an attitude of quietness, and quietness requires submission.
Only the pure can submit, for submission requires the forsaking of self-seeking, a work of the flesh (eritheia, Gal 5:22); where self-seeking is found, so is every evil work (Jas 3:16). Only those whose hearts have been purified by faith are able to submit to others and consider also the interests of others instead of seeking only their own interests and vainly considering themselves better than others (Phil 2:3-4).
The flesh, and an impure heart, causes us to desire that which we cannot have, which causes us to fight, covet, and kill (Jas 4:1-4). A pure heart causes us to be respectful and gentle towards others, as submission leads us to cooperate with others instead of resisting them, which leads to conflict.
Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet (hesuchios) spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight (1 Peter 3:1-4 NIV).The quiet spirit is gentle, respectful, and pure. It listens to others, cooperates, and is therefore able to learn from others - and also teach others.
If a woman whose spirit is quiet is able to teach an unbelieving husband with her behavior (because he is unwilling to listen to her words), why should she not be able to teach a believing husband, or another Christian man with her words? Are Christian brothers unwilling to listen to their Christian sisters? Or does God prohibit Christian women from teaching Christian men?
2 # 1 Tim 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority (authenteo) over a man; she must be silent (hesuchia). NIV
If quietness is part of godly living, why does quietness mandate that women refrain from teaching men? If all Christians must adopt an attitude of quietness, why does quietness come with separate instructions for men and women?
A quick reading indicates that women must refrain from teaching men because they are not allowed to dominate men. The attitude of quietness requires that they consider also the interests of men instead of being self-seeking and demand that men give up their interests. The women should submit to men and possessing the attitude of quietness listen carefully to what is being said instead of causing a tumultuous uproar through disputing.
It all seems rather straightforward, doesn't it? But this doesn't explain why women shouldn't teach men, considering also men should refrain from dominating women. Instead of being self-seeking, men should consider also the interests of women (Phil 2:1-5). Men should submit to women (Eph 5:21), listen carefully to what is being said instead of causing a tumultuous uproar through disputing (1 Tim 2:8).
It is here that the key to the whole confusion is found, for we are told that men should not submit or listen to women, because Adam was created first.
3 # 1 Tim 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. NIV
Adam was created first, that we know. But does it give the man authority over the woman?
Because the text in Genesis 2 doesn't mention the man's authority, and because we know that creation based female subjection was created by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, those who support the idea that the man's prior creation gives the man authority must resort to other means to find evidence.
Evidence # 1 The woman is called a help
We are told that the woman was created to "help" the man in his work. The problem is that the Bible never calls the woman a help; instead, the help the man needed was the woman. The man was alone, which was "not good." None of the animals proved to be a suitable companion for the man, wherefore God took a piece of the man and made a woman. When the man saw the woman, he exclaimed, "This one!" He had found what he had been looking for: another human. If the man was looking for someone who would obey him and help him rule the animals, a dog would've done the job splendidly. Had he only needed someone to give him children, there would have been no need for the woman to speak (she could have been mute the way the animals were, and the man would've been just as happy). But the man needed something more: a companion, someone who would speak to him, reason with him, and tell him she loved him; God's love is spiritual, the animals love silently, the woman loves with her body and her words. Since the woman was created to speak to the man, why should she not tell him about God's wondrous works, words that bring life?
Evidence # 2 The man calls her a woman
Naming someone is considered a prerogative of the one who has authority we are told. But is that what the text says?
The man sees the woman and exclaims "This one!"
The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh (Gen 2:23-24 NIV).The man does not say:
"This one! She is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she will be my subject for I will name her a woman. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and he will become her ruler."
The man calls the woman a "female human" (ishshah). How does it prove the man has authority over her? The man named the animals, but the man was given the task to rule over the animals before he named them. God never says, "And let the man have authority over the woman" in Genesis 1, wherefore the man didn't prove his authority when he called the woman a woman, he simply recognized who she was, a female human, especially since God had already called her a woman before her creation.
Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man (Gen 2:22 NIV).What is usually ignored is what the man says about the woman: "she is bone of bones and flesh of my flesh."
The phrase "this is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” is found four times outside of the Creation account.
And
Laban said to him, "Surely you are my bone and my flesh." And he
stayed with him for a month. Then Laban said to Jacob, "Because you are my
relative, should you therefore serve me for nothing? Tell me, what should your
wages be? (Gen. 29:14-15)
Then
Abimelech the son of Jerubbaal went to Shechem, to his mother's brothers, and
spoke with them and with all the family of the house of his mother's father,
saying, "Please speak in the hearing of all the men of Shechem: 'Which is
better for you, that all seventy of the sons of Jerubbaal reign over you, or
that one reign over you?' Remember that I am your own flesh and bone" (Judg.
9:1-2).
So King
David sent to Zadok and Abiathar the priests, saying, "Speak to the elders
of Judah, saying, 'Why are you the last to bring the king back to his house,
since the words of all Israel have come to the king, to his very house? You are
my brethren, you are my bone and my flesh. Why then are you the last to bring
back the king? (2 Sam. 19:11-12)
Then all
Israel came together to
David at Hebron,
saying, "Indeed we are your bone and your flesh (1 Chron. 11:1).
Bones and flesh denote kinship, belonging to the same family. The woman was a human contrasted to the animals, someone the man could relate to, his equal; God was above him, the animals were below him, the woman was equal to him. This was the reason for the great joy the man experienced when he saw the woman. Not that she would obey him, not that she would give him children, not that she would serve him, but that she was a human.
All humans are created in the image of God; all humans were given the mandate to care for the created world; all humans were given the mandate to be fruitful and fill the earth (Gen 1:26-28). The man is not elevated above the woman in Genesis 1 or Genesis 2. Hence, when Thomas Aquinas decided to subject the woman to the man from creation, he had to use Aristotle's philosophy to give the man the authority.
“Further,
subjection and limitation were a result of sin, for to the woman was it said after sin (Genesis 3:16):
"Thou shalt be under the man's power"; and Gregory says that,
"Where there is no sin,
there is no inequality." But woman is naturally of less
strength and dignity than man;
"for the agent is always more honorable than the patient," as Augustine says (Gen. ad
lit. xii, 16). Therefore woman
should not have been made in the first production of things before sin.”[1]
Thomas answered, “as regards the individual
nature, woman is defective and misbegotten [i.e. an impotent male].” But “as
regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten,
but is included in nature's
intention as directed
to the work of generation.” He concluded that the woman’s subjection is
twofold: sin causes a subjection which is “servile, by virtue of which a
superior makes use of a subject for his own benefit,” but the subjection from creation
is based on reason which predominates in the man, for good order can only be
preserved if people are governed by those who are wiser.[2] In other words, because the woman is a defective
human being, she cannot possess the man’s reason, wherefore her subjection from creation is due to her body, while the subjection which begun after the fall
was caused by her sin.
4 # 1 Tim 2:14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. NIV
Before Thomas, the 4th century church gave the man authority because of the woman's sole guilt in the introduction of sin to the world. The 4th century church believed the fall was the woman's fault; the man was innocent. Because the woman took the apple and gave it to the man, the woman was punished with subjection to the man. As a result Genesis 3:16 was understood as God's commandment for the man to rule over the woman.
Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you" (Gen 3:16 NIV)
But why was this part of a verse considered a commandment from God? Did God command the woman to have children in pain; the earth to produce thistles and thorns; for humans to die? Of course not. The 4th century theologians succumbed to the culture of their own time. Because the Romans believed everything was always the woman's fault (for she was a power to be reckoned with), and that the proper punishment for an equal who hurt another equal (contrasted to slaves and other inferior beings) was the enslavement of the one who caused the hurt. Thus Eve, who had been by creation the man's equal, was considered to have been punished with subjection to Adam. Hence Romans were able to continue to subject married women to their husbands, while elevating virgins and continent married women to equality with men in accordance with Genesis 1-2 (Against Jovinianus, Book I; 27.Apology of Jerome, Book I, 28-29).
In 1990s the church reversed their longstanding position and began to teach Genesis 3:16 as a consequence of sin. But now the translations hailing from the Reformation period caused unexpected problems. Instead of the original "You will turn to the man, and he will rule over you," Myles Coverdale had translated the verse with, "Thy lust shal pertayne vunto yi husbande, and he shall rule the." The creators of King James Version re-wrote the verse, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Hence when the theologians had to explain how the verse described a consequence of sin, they had two options. They could say:
a) the man rules over the woman as a result of her desire
or
b) the woman desires to rule over the man and as a result the man rules over her
Theologians chose the latter one. But there is one problem: women have never desired to rule over men, as seen in the glaring lack of Matriarchs and the abundance of Patriarchs. Men have always ruled over women, and not with kindness.
If the fourth century got it wrong, and the modern theologians get it equally wrong, how should we understand the deception of the woman in light of the man's authority? Clearly the fact that the woman was deceived was not a reason for God to subject her to the man; instead the man has used the consequence of her deception as an excuse to rule over her (just think of the first man's words: "The woman YOU gave me, SHE gave me the fruit." No acknowledgment of his own guilt, which prompted God to bring it to his attention, "Because YOU listened to your wife.").
When Paul referred to Eve's deception elsewhere, he didn't speak of the man's rule. Instead he warned the Christians to remain vigilant, and expose false teaching instead of accepting it without discernment.
But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough (2 Cor 11:3-4 NIV).
We are all equally deceivable. The man doesn't need authority to protect the woman from deception; he is just as likely to fall for it himself. What we all need is knowledge and discernment, which leads us back to the beginning: why are women not allowed to teach men if men have an equally great need to be taught the truth? Why should women not occupy the positions of teaching, preaching, and shepherding God's flock if all Christians must speak the truth in love to each other, whereby we all grow together into our head, Jesus?
It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work (Eph 4:11-16 NIV).We grow into Jesus when we speak the truth to each other. When we become collectively perfected in our knowledge of God's will ("love and serve your neighbor"), we begin to live the truth, and living the truth causes us to grow, as other people recognize us as disciples of Jesus by the love we have for each other and join us (John 15:1-17). Why should women not teach for the edification of the whole Body of Christ, if the purpose of our growth is to become teachers (Heb 5:12)? The answer: because the proper "role" for women is to bear and rear children.
5 # 1 Tim 2:15 But women will be saved through childbearing-if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. NIV
The final reason for women to remain listeners instead of becoming teachers is their biological ability to bear children. It is a vital function, there is no question about it, but does childbearing hinder women from assuming a teaching role in the church? Let's consider this verse.
"Women will be saved through childbearing." That should raise a red flag immediately, for either we are all saved by the death and resurrection of Jesus, or no one is saved that way. It raises an other important question: if women are saved through childbearing, are men saved through leadership, if that is their proper "role"? Is a man who is an incompetent leader really saved? Is a woman without children saved?
Do our "roles" save us, or does God? If God saves us, why should biology dictate spirituality?
But why does Paul talk about childbearing in the context of holiness? The chapter he is obviously referring to is Genesis 3. Does it speak about childbearing? It does, in fact, twice.
The serpent is told that the woman's offspring would crush its head, and the woman is told that she would give birth to children in pain. That childbearing would become painful does not mean childbearing is her "role" for also the man was told to be fruitful and multiply. It does, after all, take two to make a baby. Yet, having a baby has nothing do with salvation; people have babies every day, whether they are saved or not. But that a child would be born who would crush the serpent's head has everything to do with salvation.
Widely regarded as a prophecy about the coming of the Messiah, Genesis 3:15 speaks of an offspring that would come and destroy the work of the devil (1 John 3:8). This offspring would bring salvation to all of humanity, but in order to do so, he would have to be born. Born of a woman, Jesus came and ended the tyranny of sin and death, and brought us salvation. It is because of him that we are saved.
Just as we should all live quiet lives, without the turmoil that the desires of the flesh create, so should our lives be filled with faith, love, and holiness. We know whom we have believed in, and our lives should reflect that knowledge. Nothing about faith, love, and holiness bars Christian women from teaching Christian men; in fact, faith, love and holiness requires that Christian women assume the position in the Body that the Holy Spirit has given them, whether it be a message of wisdom, healing or prophecy (1 Cor 12:7-11), for "God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline" (2 Tim 1:7 NIV).
In conclusion: 1 Timothy 2:11-15 gives us five reasons to say Yes! to equality.
1. Both men and women should live quiet lives and listen carefully
2. Both men and women should submit to other Christians
3. Both men and women are created in the image of God
4. Both men and women must learn the truth and speak the truth
5. Both men and women must use their gifts for the benefit of the entire church
Thanks for your great insight, and brave stand...
ReplyDeleteThanks Gerald! I feel very passionately about equality and my hope is that the church will one day embrace it for the benefit of all.
ReplyDelete