1 Timothy 2 is considered the hammer that nails the coffin of the dead arguments in favor of equality. But although we are told the text speaks for itself, the writers of "Recovering" cannot agree what the text actually says.
Contradiction # 4: 1 Timothy 2:11-15
Four writers of "Recovering" cannot agree to the meaning of 1 Tim 2:11-15. Moo considers any teaching by a woman to void the creation principle because a principle cannot be separated from behavior, Schreiner thinks women can teach men outside the church and Christian men in carefully guided circumstances, Grudem concedes that it is impossible for women to never teach men because teaching is such a broad term that it is impossible for women never to teach men, while Knight sees the prohibition as absolute and that extends to every situation in the church in which teaching is present. So which one is it?
Find it Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
Moo: p 180-181, 191
Grudem: p 80-81
Schreiner: p 223
Knight: p 354
Moo recognizes the presence of false teaching in Ephesus in his essay What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?
Moo recognizes the presence of false teaching in Ephesus in his essay What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?
Many
interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 rely heavily on the nature of this false
teaching at Ephesus
in explaining what Paul means in these verses. There is nothing wrong with this
in principle; good exegesis always takes into consideration the larger context
in which a text appears. However, Paul tells us remarkably little about the
specifics of this false teaching, presumably because he knows that Timothy is
well acquainted with the problem. This means that we cannot be at all sure
about the precise nature of this false teaching and particularly, about is
impact on the women in the church – witness the many, often contradictory,
scholarly reconstructions of this false teaching. But this means that we must be very careful
about allowing any specific reconstruction – tentative and uncertain as it must
be – to play too large a role in our exegesis. [1]
Yet, despite his
caution, Moo believes the false teacher’s were “encouraging women to discard
what we might call traditional female roles in favor of a more egalitarian
approach,” and that by encouraging abstinence from marriage they were tearing down
traditional female roles. The
emphasis on “the traditional female role” found in complementarism is a product
of Protestant theology with its rejection of monasticism and emphasis on
domesticity, wherefore it is unlikely that the false teachers were attempting
to subvert a role which did not exist until the sixteenth century. In addition, Paul encouraged celibacy in his
letter to the Corinthians,[2]
although he by no means rejected marriage, for he encouraged the younger
widows to marry (1 Tim 5:11-15) in accordance with 1 Corinthians 7:9.
We know more about the false teachers than Moo allows for. In Revelations 2:1-8, in the letter directed to the Ephesians, Christ commended the believers for having tested “those who say they are apostles and are not,” and for hating “the deeds of the Nicolaitans,”[3] a Christian Gnostic group of the first century. Irenaeus mentioned the group in Against Heresies.
John, the disciple of the Lord, preaches this faith, and seeks, by the
proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been
disseminated among men, and a long time
previously by those termed
Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that “knowledge” falsely so called, that
he might confound them, and persuade them that there is but one God, who made
all things by His Word.[4]
Paul called Gnosticism “knowledge falsely called” (pseudonumos gnosis) in 1 Timothy 6:20. The ones who professed the “knowledge falsely called” had strayed from the faith (1 Tim. 6:21) and having strayed, had turned to idle talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, not understanding the things they were saying and constantly affirming (1 Tim. 1:6-7). Paul warned Timothy, whom he had left in Ephesus, to avoid their profane and opposing arguments and to guard the Gospel which had been entrusted to him.
By the time John wrote the Revelation, the Ephesians had exposed the false apostles and were commended by the apostle for hating their deeds. But the Nicolaitans were not found only in Ephesus. Ignatius, the disciple of John the Apostle, exhorted the Christians in Tralles, a city nearby Ephesus, to flee from “the impure Nicolaitans, falsely so called, who are lovers of pleasure and given to calumnious speeches.”[5] He warned also the Philadelphians about the Nicolaitans who considered unlawful unions to be “a good thing” and placed the “highest happiness in pleasure.”[6] Ignatius did not believe Nicolaus, one of the first deacons (Acts 6:3-5), was the originator of the group, but Hippolytus wrote that Nicolaus “departed from correct doctrine and was in the habit of inculcating indifferency [sic] of both life and food,” and that he was the “cause of the wide-spread combination” of the numerous Gnostic sects.[7] Also pseudo-Tertullian thought Nicolaus was a “brother heretic.”[8] Clement of Alexandria agreed with Ignatius for he wrote that a group of heretics had named themselves Nicolaitans because of his phrase “to abuse the flesh,” which they interpreted to permit fornication, though Nicolaus had meant they should control its impulses.[9]
Tertullian believed the false prophetess in Thyatira had learned from the Nicolaitans, for she taught the believers to commit fornication and eating meats sacrificed to idols.[10] He may have made the connection because of the letter to the church in Pergamum, in which the Nicolaitans were compared to the teachings of Balam, “who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality” (Rev. 2:14-5). According to Tertullian, the Nicolaitans were known for their “maintenance of lust and luxury,”[11] and Fabius Marius Victorinus (Died A.D. 370) added they believed “what had been offered to idols might be exorcised and eaten, and that whoever should have committed fornication might receive peace on the eighth day.”[12]
In Gnosticism, the inner and spiritual man was redeemed by means of knowledge, for the material world, including the body, was believed to have been created through ignorance.[13] The “illuminated” Gnostics believed they were saved regardless of their conduct, because they were spiritual by nature and that which is spiritual cannot be destroyed. Hence, they ate meats offered to idols, and committed fornication - both considered major offenses by the church [14] – for good works and pure living was only necessary for the Christians, who possessed an “animal” nature.[15]
Tertullian provided his readers with a comprehensive list of the Gnostic groups and their beliefs.
Besides all this, I add a review of the doctrines themselves, which,
existing as they did in the days of the apostles, were both exposed and
denounced by the said apostles. For by this method they will be more easily
reprobated, when they are detected
to have been even then in existence, or at any rate to have been seedlings of
the (tares) which then were. Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians,
sets his mark on certain who denied and doubted the resurrection. This opinion was the especial property of the
Sadducees. A part of it, however, is maintained by Marcion and Apelles and
Valentinus, and all other impugners of the resurrection. Writing also to the
Galatians, he inveighs against such men as observed and defend circumcision and
the (Mosaic) law. Thus runs Hebion’s heresy. Such also as “forbid to marry” he
reproaches in his instructions to Timothy. Now, this is the teaching of Marcion
and his follower Apelles. (The apostle) directs a similar blow against those
who said that “the resurrection was past already.” Such an opinion did the
Valentinians assert of themselves. When again he mentions “endless
genealogies,” one also recognizes Valentinus, in whose system a certain ¦on,
whosoever he be, of a new name, and that not one only, generates of his own
grace Sense and Truth; and these in like manner produce of themselves Word and
Life, while these again afterwards beget Man and the Church. From these primary
eight ten other ¦ons after them spring, and then the twelve others arise with
their wonderful names, to complete the mere story of the thirty ¦ons. The same
apostle, when disapproving of those who are “in bondage to elements,” points us
to some dogma of Hermogenes, who introduces matter as having no beginning, and
then compares it with God, who has no beginning. By thus making the mother of the elements a
goddess, he has it in his power “to be in bondage” to a being which he puts on
a par with God. John, however, in the Apocalypse is charged to chastise those
“who eat things sacrificed to idols,” and “who commit fornication.” There are
even now another sort of Nicolaitans.
Theirs is called the Gaian heresy. But in his epistle he especially designates
those as “Antichrists” who “denied that Christ was come in the flesh,” and who
refused to think that Jesus was the Son of God. The one dogma Marcion
maintained; the other, Hebion. The doctrine, however, of Simon’s sorcery, which
inculcated the worship of angels, was itself actually reckoned amongst
idolatries and condemned by the Apostle Peter in Simon’s.[16]
Christian Gnosticism developed early and Simon Magus, whom Luke mentions in Acts 8, has been accredited for its creation.[17] Simon was a native of Gitta in Samaria and known for his sorcery and magic.[18] He denied the God of the Old Testament and the prophets, and that God had created the heavens and Earth.[19] He claimed that “he himself was God over all, and that the world was formed by his angles.”[20] Menander, who succeed Simon Magus, claimed to be the Savior who would help mankind gain mastery over the world-creating angels through magic and by being baptized by him, and thus gain perpetual immorality on earth, for he did not believe in the immortality of the soul and the resurrection.[21]
The Gnostics believed that salvation was attained through right knowledge, attainable only for a small elite and therefore a mediator was not needed between humanity and God. Paul reminded Timothy that he was not lying, that God desired all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, for there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:3). Since the heresy in Ephesus involved sexual immorality, and good works were not considered applicable to the Gnostic, Paul exhorted the women in Ephesus to adorn themselves with good works instead of jewelry and expensive clothing (1 Tim. 2:1-10). He warned also Timothy to avoid youthful lusts. Instead, Paul wanted him to ”pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart“ (2 Tim. 2:22-26), for every Christian ought to depart from iniquity (2 Tim. 2:19). In 2 Timothy 3:1-9 Paul mentions women whom the Gnostics had captivated and who were “loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts.” They were always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of truth, for the Gnostic teaching, which Paul called fables and old wives’ tales (1 Tim. 1:4; 4:7) - a term used later by Irenaeus[22] - did not lead to the truth. Paul wanted Timothy to reject the profane old wives’ tales and instruct the believers in the “good doctrine,” which he had carefully followed (4:6-7). Paul wanted him to also be an example to the believers “in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity” (4:12) which the Gnostics had rejected and consequently had “suffered shipwreck”; Paul mentions Hymenaeus and Alexander as examples of such a fate (1:19-20). Tertullian listed also Hymenaues and Philetus (2 Tim. 2:17) as false teachers who had deserted Apostle Paul.[23]
Because the Gnostics believed in salvation through knowledge and because the Nicolaitans were lascivious, Paul wrote, “But shall be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith, love and holiness with sobriety.” In other words, Paul affirmed the gospel: salvation is made available through the birth of Christ, but the believers must also live holy lives (compare with Philippians 2:1). We find the same theme in 1 Timothy 2:15, ”Now the purpose of the commandment [to abstain from false teaching] is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk.”
In 1 Timothy 4:1-5 Paul warned Timothy that in later times some would forbid marriage and command abstinence from foods and these are found in the writings of Marcion, whose Gnosticism Tertullian refuted in his work, Five Books Against Marcion. Tertullian connected Gnosticism also to the “fables and endless genealogies,” which Paul warned believers should not pay attention to.
Let, however, any man approach the subject
from a knowledge of the faith which he has otherwise learned, as soon as he
finds so many names of ¦ons, so many marriages, so many offsprings, so many
exits, so many issues, felicities and
infelicities of a dispersed and mutilated Deity, will that man hesitate at once
to pronounce that these are “the fables and endless genealogies” which the
inspired apostle by anticipation condemned, whilst
these seeds of heresy were even then shooting forth? [24]
The myths and genealogies were probably Gnostic or
proto-Gnostic teachings. Gnosticism had two extremes: asceticism, as in 1 Tim
4:3, and antinomian license, as the context intimates here. Erroneous
discourses on law, and Gnostic speculations left plain matters of immorality
uncorrected. The dispensation of God (ASV; AV, godly edifying) is the proper
issue of sound teaching, and therefore parallels the "love" of verse
5, and the "good warfare" of verse 18. Love is Paul's summary of
religious and ethical duty (Rom 13:10; Gal 5:6). The sound teaching brings
God's ordering or God's superintendence of the life[29]
***
Grudem and Piper do not
view 1 Timothy 2:12 as “an absolute prohibition of all teaching by women” for
“teaching and learning are such broad terms that it is impossible that women
not teach men and men not learn from women in some sense.”[30]
Schreiner agrees with Grudem and Piper.
And I think women can proclaim the gospel to men in those [secular] cultures,
for 1 Timothy 2:11-15 prohibits only authoritative teaching to a group of
Christians within the church, not evangelism to those outside the church. Such
proclamation of the gospel is not limited to men. She should clearly explain,
however (as man missionary women have done in history), that men should assume
leadership roles in the governance and teaching ministry of the church as soon
as it is established. … There are also some way in which women can instruct
both men and women, in my opinion, if the function of authoritative teaching to
men is not involved. Thus, it is appropriate for women who travel as speakers
to address a mixed audience as articulate and thoughtful representatives of a
feminine perspective of life.[31]
If it be asked, what has this to do with women of the
present day? it shows that the male sex enjoyed the higher honor. Man was first
formed; and elsewhere he shows their superiority. “Neither was the man created
for the woman, but the woman for the man.” (1 Cor. xi.
9) Why then does he say this? He wishes the man to have the preeminence
in every way; both for the reason given above, he means, let him have
precedence, and on account of what occurred afterwards. For the woman taught
the man once, and made him guilty of disobedience, and wrought our ruin.
Therefore because she made a bad use of her power over the man, or rather her
equality with him, God made her subject to her husband. “Thy desire shall be to
thy husband?” (Gen. iii. 16) This had not been
said to her before… The woman taught
once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he saith, let her not teach.
But what is it to other women, that she suffered this? It certainly concerns
them; for the sex is weak and fickle, and he is speaking of the sex
collectively. For he says not Eve, but “the woman,” which is the common name of
the whole sex, not her proper name. Was then the whole sex included in the
transgression for her fault? As he said of Adam, “After the similitude of
Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come” (Rom. v. 14); so
here the female sex transgressed, and not the male. Shall not women then be
saved? Yes, by means of children. For it is not of Eve that he says, “If they
continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.” What faith? what
charity? what holiness with sobriety? It is as if he had said, “Ye women, be
not cast down, because your sex has incurred blame. God has granted you another
opportunity of salvation, by the bringing up of children, so that you are
saved, not only by yourselves, but by others.”[34]
Because it seemed irrational that women should earn
their salvation through works, and because virginity was so highly valued in
the fifth century church, Chrysostom felt compelled to explain the
inconsistency, but he could only conclude that “this is the amount of what [Paul]
says.”
[2] “But I say
to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as
I am” (1 Cor. 7:8).
[3] According to tradition John resided in Ephesus,
wherefore he would have known the Gnostic sect Nicolatians: “And there are
those that heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe
in Ephesus and seeing Cerinthus within, ran out of the bath-house without
bathing, crying, ‘Let us flee, lest even the bath Fall, because Cerinthus, the
enemy of the truth, is within’ (Eusibius, Pamphilius, The Church History of Eusibius, Book IV, XI). John’s Gospel and
letters emphasize the reality of the incarnation, denied by the Gnostics. E.g.,
“By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus
Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess
that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit
of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the
world” (John 4:2-3).
[4] Against Heresies, Book III, Ch. XI.
[5] Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians, Ch. XI.
[6] Ignatius, Epistle to the Philadelphians, Ch. VI.
[7] Hippolytus, Refutation
of All Heresies, Book VII. XXIV.
[8] Against the Heresies, Ch.
I.
[9] Stromata, Book III. Ch 4.
[10] Tertullian, On
Modesty, Chapter XIX.
[11] Five Books
Against Marcion, Book I, Ch. XXIX.
[12] Victorinus, Commentary
on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, From the Second Chapter, 6.
[13] Against Heresies, Book I, XXI.4.
[14] Ibid.,
Ch. VI.
[16] The Prescription Against Heresies, XXXIII.
[17] Against Heresies, Book III, Preface,1.
[18] Refutation of All Heresies, Book IV, II.
[19] Letter to the Philadelphians, Ch VI
[20] Against Heresies, Book II, Ch, IX.
[21] Pamphilus, The Church History of Eusebius, Book
III, Ch. XXVI.
[22] Against
Heresies, Book I, Ch. XIII, XVI.
[23] The Prescription
against Heretics, Ch. III.
[24] Tertullian, Against
the Valentinians, Ch. III.
[25] The Prescription Against Heretics, Ch. XVII.
[26] Stromata, Book II, Ch. XI.
[27] Rufinus, The Apology of Rufinus, Addressed to Apronianus, in Reply to
Jerome’s Letter to Pammachius, Written at Aquileia
a.d. 400.
[28] Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown, “1
Timothy 1:4, ” Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary on the Whole Bible,
Electronic Database, 1997.
[29] ”1 Timothy 1:4,” Wycliffe Bible Commentary.
[30] Piper and Grudem, 69-70.
[31] Ibid., 223.
[32] Ibid., 354.
[34] Chrysostom, Homilies on First Timothy, Homily IX.
“The weakness and light-mindedness of the female sex (infirmitas sexus and levitas animi) were the underlying
principles of Roman legal theory that mandated all women to be under the
custody of males” (Pomeroy, 150).
No comments:
Post a Comment