An Exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:8-14
A Block for Stumbling
This post is part of a series from my other blog.
1 Timothy 2:12-14 is one of those passages that has fallen out of favor in various circles in modern days because of what some people think it says.
But let us first draw back and see what Paul[14] says prior to the offensive passage in verses 8-10, which read in the English Standard Version,
I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.
While there is in some sense a generality made here by the use of the terms “men” and “women”, some commentators have noted that these terms should likely be understood in more functional and relative terms such as “husbands” and “wives”, while not excluding their generality.[15] The formula that the apostle adopts here is a rhetorical form called a “household code”, which helps to establish principles around the various social relationships that one would encounter as they moved through life and society.[16] Not only do the codes help the participants in the relationships understand their roles in such, but also establishes the hierarchy that ought to exist within the relationship.[17]
Notice that the apostle states that he desires “in every place” the men and the women to do specific things. Men are instructed to do certain things, namely to engage in worship “without anger or quarreling”. The apostle does this by adopting the language of priestly worship, as Philip Towner notes,
The background is the biblical tradition in which prayers in various contexts (invoking God’s intervention, pronouncing blessing on others) were accentuated by the raising or extending of hands. Within Israel’s cultic regimen, the actual outward act of washing the hands was a fundamental preparatory step for priests to enter the Tent of Meeting (Exod 30:19-21)[18]
The caution of the worship being free of anger and quarreling has both an emotional and behavioral aspect that echoes the admonitions of Jesus in regard to propriety in worship, that wherever one has unresolved anger or an unforgiving spirit, then such will find an outlet and destroy the relationship the church.[19]
Then he addresses the women, that they should seek to adorn themselves with good works, rather than with ornaments, pomp, or attention-seeking attire.
Men should conduct themselves peacefully with understanding, women with self-respectful decorum that doesn’t cause a distraction (cf 1Peter 3:3). The fact that Paul dares to criticize how a woman might dress immediately gets under the skin of many moderns, but such criticism often serve to display just how arrogantly narcissistic and pridefully rebellious against any authority our culture has become, as well as reveal just how similar the problem that the apostle was addressing could be.
Paul’s redressing women for their public presentation of themselves gives us some indication that those being addressed, both men and women, were wealthy and of high social status.[20] Throughout Asia Minor, in and around the time period of the Pastorals, we find mentions of a number of wealthy women who were benefactors to the various pagan temples and shrines as well as serving as priestesses in those temples.[21] It is therefore reasonable to assume that as some became Christians that they would seek to act in a similar manner, and Paul intends to have them included in some aspect of worship by the use of the word translated as “likewise”.[22]
But then comes something that is truly remarkable, what Paul says in v11,
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.
Both attitude and action are emphasized here and may possibly reflect a greater concern for what was perceived as a generalized decay in social propriety.[23] Wealthy women generally had more time on their hands and could dedicate themselves to intellectual pursuits. Such pursuits softened opened them to access to debate and rhetoric where they might be just as or more skilled and knowledgeable than the men and even other women. When brought into the context of the first century church, such skills and knowledge might be perceived as a threat to good order.[24] As such, a woman—as skilled and capable as she might be—could be perceived as troublemaker or prideful, so a humble, teachable spirit would defuse such perception. Furthermore, such a command removes any barrier for education based on sex and makes the teaching of women in the faith not only a duty but an obligation.[25] This brings us to the controversial passage of v12:
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
Here Paul is continuing his instruction regarding propriety is the broader social venue of the church and home. Most importantly regarding this statement is that the verb translated “I do not permit” is in the present tense, and so the exhortation—based upon apostolic authority—cannot be presumed to have an expiration date.[26] At the same time though, the form of the verb cannot be presumed to have a perpetual enforcement.[27] The prohibition seems to be limited more to public acts rather than private instruction, but such an interpretation seems to avoid the absoluteness implied by it.[28] When considered against previous examples (eg Acts 18:26, 21:9, 1 Corinthians 11:5) the induction appears targeted at a specific group of women by the fact that they are prohibited from having “authority”.[29]
Linguistic searches have found that the word translated “authority” is usually understood in some negative sense, such as “domineering” or having “an absolute sway” over another.[30] Some have taken the verb and Paul’s prohibition to understand that the issue that was plaguing the Ephesian church was due to behaviors of the women that were being imported from the established worship of Artemis found there.[31] Others have argued that since “teaching” is percieved as positive then the sense by which authority must be understood is likewise positive.[32] With that in mind, how Paul justifies the prohibition therefore must be considered, v13-14
For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
There is some debate over whether Paul’s appeal to the primeval story of Adam and Eve is meant to serve as a ground or example in the text.[33] What can be said for certain is that Paul appears to be adopting a common rabbinic position that emphasizes the superiority of men against the inferiority of women, specifically in regard to order in creation, not in regard to ability, dignity, or faculty.[34] Most feminist interpretations want to ignore the element of order that Paul invokes, preferring to focus on the second element.[35] If Paul is seeking to establish and maintain good order then by appealing to creation, he is not being spiteful in his prohibition, but insisting on propriety.
By noting that Adam was “formed first”, he is essentially appealing to Adam’s status as “firstborn”, an office which entailed both privilege and responsibility.[36] However for one to use their status, their superiority of rank to disparage and demean their inferior was seen as unbecoming; likewise, the inferior in rank was to recognize that their duty was to their superior to work to their benefit in order to preserve honor and promote unity.[37] Paul having gone all the way to the beginning, moves forward to the Fall, not ignoring what Adam did but focusing on Eve’s actions, which initiated the event.[38]
Much historic speculation has gone into the cause of Eve’s surrender to the serpent’s temptation, from intellectual gullibility to sexual innuendo.[39] However, Paul’s language regarding Eve’s offense is rather simple by implying that she simply overstepped a defined boundary, however by reverting simply to “the woman” Paul appears to want his female hearers to put themselves into Eve’s position.[40] Whether or not women are more susceptible to false teaching or even prone to abuse their sexual wiles is off the table with regard to Paul’s application; Paul’s focus is on what happens when God’s order, an order established from creation, breaks down.[41]
Paul’s flat, unembellished appeal to the creation and fall is a scalpel that cuts through any number of problems that might have plagued the church at Ephesus, from possible heretical interpretations of the creation story to abuses by specific women against their husbands and other men in the church, which was potentially making the body of Christ—the redeemed, holy body—indistinguishable from the world from which they had been rescued.
Notes
14. There is significant contention in the realm of critical scholarship concerning the authenticity of the Epistles addressed to Timothy as to whether Paul is the actual author or if Timothy refers to the specific individual or some idealized individual. This author takes the position that the letters are authentically Pauline to his protege and that the moves by modern scholars to the contrary are fallaciously assuming what needs to be proven. For more information see “Timothy, Critical issues” (The Lexham Bible Dictionary [Lexham, 2016]).16. Angela Standhartinger. “Reading the Household Codes Critically”. https://www.bibleodyssey.org/passages/related-articles/reading-the-household-codes-critically/
17. Carolyn Osiek. “Household Codes”. https://www.bibleodyssey.org/people/related-articles/household-codes/
18. Towner, p. 301
19. Ibid, p.301-2
20. Ben Witherington III. Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Volume 1: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy, and 1-3 John. InterVarsity Press. 2006. p. 271 (ePub)
21. Ibid, p. 271-3
22. Towner, p. 303
23. Ibid, p. 314-5
24. Raymond F. Collins. I & II Timothy and Titus. Westminster John Knox Press. 2002. p. 69
Witherington, p. 280
25. I. Howard Marshall w/ Philip H. Towner. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. T & T Clark International. 1999. p. 454
26. Witherington, p. 280-1
27. Marshall w/ Towner, p. 455
28. Ibid.
29. Witherington, p. 281
30. Marshall w/ Towner, p. 457
31. Ibid, p. 458
32. Towner, p. 305
33. Marshall w/ Towner, p. 462
34. Towner, p. 307
35. Chad Chambers. “Firstborn”. The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Lexham Press. 2016.
36.David A. de Silva. Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture. 37. InterVarsity Press. 2000. p. 180 (ePub)
38. Towner, p. 309
39.Howard w/ Towner, p. 464
40. Towner, p. 309-10
41. Ibid, p. 312-3
Comments
Post a Comment