Luke Stevens - 13 July 2008 09:57 PM

I think you can make a powerful case for the inferiority of women in general from the latter half of v14 alone -

…

Personally, I always encourage women to get preggers too (v15), just to ensure their salvation - better to be safe than sorry!

So Luke - what’s your take on the passage?

Mike

John asked:

If 1 Timothy 2:8 is a timeless command, why don’t we hold up our hands when we pray? this one has always puzzled me.

What makes you think I don’t ..??..??

Actually I think the emphasis in the sentence is that men are to pray (’to pray’ being the infinitive, while others are participles). The second part of the sentence puts the emphasis on having holy or devout hands rather than (over against) using them in anger or disputing. Men are often quick to jump in with fists (lifting them up) or with ‘fighting words’ rather than praying or otherwise being devout. I think the use of ‘lifting up’ is tied to this juxtaposition rather than teaching a position for praying . . .  But as I say, hands lifted up to say to chest height or clasped together under the chin could be very appropriate postures for prayer.

I don’t wish to be unfair, so tell me if I am misreading you… and by the way i think I agree.
When Paul says “I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing”
We can say that men everywhere should pray. They should do this without anger or disputing. Where they put their hands is however not binding on us.
fair enough?

Mike Doyle - 13 July 2008 10:30 PM

So Luke - what’s your take on the passage?

Well, first we need to establish whether the ‘traditional’ reading (that women are inferior) is correct, along the lines of my previous post, if we’re going to argue from historical orthodoxy.

Hands up complementarians who agree with such a ‘traditional’ reading?

In my view, the Sydney complementarian line “Equal but different” is historically novel - women being equal is a relatively modern idea coming out of the 19th & 20th centuries (with some way to go) - the church hasn’t always held such a line (thanks to passages like 1 Tim 2:14). Post-women’s rights movements however, from women’s suffrage of the late 19th c./early 20th c. right through to feminism and our current post-feminism society, we tend to take women’s rights and equality for granted, and believe it was ever thus. 

That, and the fact we’ve been so wrong about equality in the past makes it frankly embarrassing to look back on!

So, we have to accept we’re taking one modern view or another. Of course, which modern view is a perfectly acceptable question, but in asking that question we are already assuming a different view of women, and their nature, than has historically been the norm, and that extends back to NT times too. We—on either side of the debate—simply don’t share the same view of the nature of women that was socially accepted when Paul was writing.

What’s my take on v14 then?

I honestly don’t have a hard and fast view on the passage, other than to say I’m comfortable with the more egalitarian readings (which I guess some may consider somewhat of a hard and fast view ;), simply because I think there are reasonable egalitarian readings, and that the modern complementarian view is both historically novel and logically incoherent.

So in regards to v14, I’m partial towards the following ideas:
- Paul was addressing a geographically local concern about what was going on in Ephesus only.
- Paul was addressing a historically local concern in a specific cultural context where women were uneducated due to a social view that they were inferior, which we’ve moved beyond.
- In v13-14 Paul is not making a timeless command from nature, but is allegorizing from the creation account to illustrate the local problem in Ephesus.

Reading v13-14 more as allegory of a specific situation than timeless command seems to make the most sense to me, especially in the context of the other factors I outlined above.

If people find that unsatisfying, so be it, but it’s really incumbent upon them to run with the true historical reading of the passage and argue for women’s inherent inferiority. (*Shudder* I feel bad just saying it!)

edit: removed an aside, which was probably a distraction

Luke Stevens - 14 July 2008 01:54 PM

Reading v13-14 more as allegory of a specific situation than timeless command seems to make the most sense to me, especially in the context of the other factors I outlined above.

If people find that unsatisfying, so be it, but it’s really incumbent upon them to run with the true historical reading of the passage and argue for women’s inherent inferiority. (*Shudder* I feel bad just saying it!)

Thanks Luke - I really appreciate you laying your cards on the table.

To inform my own ignorance - can you point to something to back up the claim that the true historical reading is for the inherent inferiority of women?

I don’t doubt the passage has been used that way - but has that been the exclusive historic reading of the passage? (of course - I’m sure there’s a whole other debate about what a true historic reading is.)

Mike

No worries Mike. Here are a few quotes from church fathers that are indicative of what I was talking about (NB I only link to that blog for the quotes, I’m not endorsing it’s content either way! :). A friend showed me some other, fairly telling quotes recently that were utterly unequivocol in their view on women, and lets just say the sentiment wasn’t exactly uncommon!

The modern complementarian position is highly refined in historical terms alone - for instance the riders that are often placed on the prohibitions on women’s ministry are not there in the scriptures, as far as I can see. Eg take 1 Cor 14:
“As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”
No matter which side of the debate you’re on, those comments get numerous qualifications attached which are simply not there in the text.

Still, I think complementarians need to step up and advocate that it is a disgrace for a woman to speak in the church (or ask a question!) if they want to appeal to the so-called “plain reading” of these texts.

In fact, given how historically abnormal Sydney complementarianism is, I’d almost go so far as to say it would be better termed “qualified egalitarianism”, though that may annoy egalitarians and complementarians alike ;) It’s not really accurate of course, but what’s considered complementarianism here in Sydney is probably a lot closer to modern egalitarianism than historical/traditional gender roles and understanding. (It’s still very ‘complementarian’ though!). That says more about how badly wrong those views have been historically than anything else, and how fraught with danger it is to appeal to them!

Luke Stevens - 13 July 2008 09:57 PM

I think you can make a powerful case for the inferiority of women in general from the latter half of v14 alone - “it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner”. (Emphasis mine). Indeed, many prominent (male) figures in church history have done so. Women are, from the passage, quite clearly more prone to being deceived and becoming sinners, and are therefore likely to lead men into sin, who are by implication less prone to deception (except, oddly, when taught by women), perhaps due to superior intellect. Therefore, being inherently more prone to deception and sin, women shouldn’t teach. In fact, they should be silent.

Luke,
To save scrolling back through a fairly long thread, here are some comments I made previously regarding the significance of Eve being deceived:

On the deception of Eve, and why this disqualifies women, whereas Adam’s knowing sin doesn’t disqualify men, it seems to me that there is a direct connection between being deceived and the role of a teacher.  That is not to say that men can’t be deceived (hardly!); only that women are precluded from teaching men because of the particular character of Eve’s failure which, as Michael B points out, is a Federal faliure (i.e., a failure in her role as the mother of all women).

and

I don’t think that the argument in 1 Timothy 2 is that women are more prone to being deceived generally, but that they are precluded from the role of teaching in regard to men because of the nature of Eve’s failure (when she was deceived) in relation to hers and Adam’s responsibilities before God.

Bob

Hi Bob, thanks for the response and apologies for the slow reply.

I can see where you’re coming from, but I have some questions about your position.

On the deception of Eve, and why this disqualifies women, whereas Adam’s knowing sin doesn’t disqualify men, it seems to me that there is a direct connection between being deceived and the role of a teacher.  That is not to say that men can’t be deceived (hardly!); only that women are precluded from teaching men because of the particular character of Eve’s failure which, as Michael B points out, is a Federal faliure (i.e., a failure in her role as the mother of all women).

I agree that Paul seems to connect women teaching to Eve being deceived. However I don’t see nuance in Paul’s argument that you seem to vis a vis Eve’s ‘federal’ failure in her role as the mother of all women. Paul says “And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner” (my emphasis). Paul is making a direct contrast between Eve, who was deceived, and Adam, who was not.

Now if this is a timeless argument from creation as the complementarian argument goes, then surely it’s not a matter of roles, so much as it is being deceived. Eve was, Adam wasn’t, and therefore women shouldn’t teach. People who are easily deceived shouldn’t have authority or teaching roles. Makes sense to me. That’s Paul’s argument (in the complementarian reading), so far as I can see. There’s no nuance about women being “equal but different”, or encouraging them to womens ministry. Eve was deceived and became a sinner, women shouldn’t teach or have authority over men (Adam wasn’t deceived remember), and women should “learn in quietness and full submission.”

This goes straight to the nature of the respective genders in creation. I don’t see where you can bring in this nuance of it being about the ‘nature’ of Eve’s failings, as opposed to the actual failing itself (being deceived), which seems on a pragmatic level at least, to be quite pertinent to the issue of teaching.

I find it hard to read (in the complementarian sense) as anything other than Paul arguing that women are more prone to being deceived (Eve was, Adam wasn’t), and therefore they shouldn’t teach. I just find it strange that complementarians don’t own up to it :)

Even if you do say it’s not about being deceived per-se, but rather about the ‘nature’ of the failing, then that seems like you’re just shifting the location of the failing. Relative to Adam, Eve still failed.

If Paul is arguing from our nature in creation, then women, in your argument, are still, relative to men, more prone to failings of one kind of another (if not being deceived, then in their roles before God as you say). The actual locus of the failing isn’t so much an issue as the fact you’re still essentially arguing there is something lesser, or inherently morally/spiritually weaker in women, and that is the basis for Paul’s argument.

However if we reject the idea that women are inherently more prone to deception, or weaker spiritually or morally, then that closes off the line of arguing from our intrinsic nature from creation.

Therefore, as I see it, we’re left with options such as:
* Paul is only addressing concerns local to Ephesus,
* Paul is illustrating the situation of false teaching in Ephesus, possibly coming from women, by way of allegory to the creation account
* Paul is arguing from a first-century view of women, which may have seemed true at the time if women were largely uneducated, but which we have come to realise is not true when you give both genders equal opportunities

Either way, I don’t see how it’s possible, desirable or reasonable to maintain that Paul was correctly arguing about the intrinsic, timeless nature of men and women.

Luke, I appreciate your arguments, but I think it would be helpful to ask ourselves why Adam sinned even though he was deceived.  We can understand that once Eve was deceived about the danger of eating the fruit, it was logical for her to feel free to take it, but what excuse could Adam offer?

The answer seems to be that unlike Eve, Adam was guilty of hypocrisy in eating the fruit even though he knew all the while that this would lead to his death!

Applying this at the federal level, we conclude that saying women are more spiritually deceivable than men is only half the story.  The other half is that men are more prone to spiritual hypocrisy of believing and teaching the truth even while they practice the error they condemn with their mouth and even their heart!  Cf. Matthew 23:2-3.

So, it’s not a question of saying that women are simply moral failures compared to men.  Men and women tend to fail in different ways:  women by being deceived about the truth, and men by failing to practice even that truth which they hold.  ‘Equal but different’ indeed!

I would also like to suggest that these conclusions are well borne out by common observation and recent church experience.

(1) Most generally, we are generally agreed, aren’t we, that the different cerebral hardwiring in women and men means that men are better able to separate different ideas and functions, while women are more integrated in this regard.  This explains (or reflects) women’s greater spiritual consistency (whether right or wrong) and men’s greater ability to carry on teaching truth even where their personal lives fail.

(2) As examples of the latter, consider how many conservative male Christian leaders of late have been teaching sexual truth even while practising the very sins they regularly condemned.  Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Roy Clements and Ted Haggard come to mind; doubtless you can think of others.

(3) And as a striking illustration of the typically female failing, consider how a survey a few years ago found that the present batch of women priests in the CoE are notably more liberal than their male colleagues.  Given that the forces pushing the CoE to liberalism presumably act on women and men to the same degree, the fact that the women have ended up markedly more heretical in general, IMHO strongly corroborates the proposition that women as a class are inherently more spiritually suggestible, and therefore corruptible, in their thinking and therefore fitness to preach and teach the whole counsel of God.

Naturally there will be exceptions to the general patterns, but Paul is talking in broad brush strokes.  Hard cases make bad laws; and the fact that some men might be better ‘motherers’ than some women, doesn’t obliterate the rightness of establishing gender-specific roles in the home either.

In 1 Timothy 1:13 Paul describes his former self:

I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

That sounds to me like Paul is saying he was deceived.

Good point Janice, but everyone knew he wasn’t a Christian at that time.  What Paul’s talking about in the next chapter is which Christians (hopefully real ones!) are best appointed to teach the church as a whole.

As an Anglican in England myself, I’d be interested to learn what folks think is the true cause of why the women priests over here are so much more liberal than the men (which in itself is saying quite something!).

Dan,

everyone knew he wasn’t a Christian at that time

Neither was Eve.

Yes ... but, Janice.
Yes Paul sounds like he was deceived (because he was) ... but the issue in 1 Timothy 2.14 is that Adam was not deceived, whereas the woman was.
It’s this distinction which is cited as part of Paul’s reasoning in not permitting a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.
V.14 doesn’t mean that countless men since have not been deceived, including Paul.
I don’t know that the distinction between Adam and the woman in v.14 should be treated apart from the previous verse. In light of v.13 I take it to mean that the woman’s being deceived at the beginning was a reversal of a created difference in which man as first born was to exercise authority (as apparent in his naming the animals and later the woman).
Paul argues in the same way for male headship / authority from the first man’s prior standing in creation, in 1 Cor 11.8-9.
The issue in the woman’s being deceived and Adam’s knowing acqiuescence in sin is about abusing God’s created pattern, a pattern reinstated in Christ, rather than v.14 being about the comparative deceivability of men and women since the Fall.
Phil

Fine, Phil, but are you really saying that in vv. 13 and 14 there aren’t in fact two concurrent reasons against women teaching/ruling a congregation, but that v. 14 states an example of violation of the order given in v. 13?  Then v. 14 isn’t really a reason against women’s headship, but just an historical account whose significance can’t be understood without the information represented by v. 13?

The trouble is I don’t see where the text actually says that the problem was Eve illegitimately taking precedence over Adam in Gen. 3, even though she did.  Rather, it does seem to contrast their respective deceptabilities at that moment.  We get the impression that what Eve did showed her weakness whether or not Adam had joined her in taking the fruit.