From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Sat Dec 02 1995 - 18:13:10 EST
At 12:09 PM 12/2/95, BibAnsMan@aol.com wrote:
> Regarding the discussion of whether women can be elders, I think it
>important to consider 1 Timothy 2:11ff. Many have proposed that the reason
>why Paul didn't want women teaching men is because of the Jewish culture of
>those days. Some state that women weren't educated at that time and thus
>were not to teach. Still others will make ANHR out to be husband, thus
>making Paul say that women (wives) ought not to teach their husbands, but to
>remain quiet. I would prefer not to accept any of the above explanations
>because they do not rely on the text but rather upon conjecture. Paul's
>reason for giving the instruction for women not to teach men is not cultural.
>
> There is one very important Greek word that people often overlook here.
> It is the simple conjunction GAR in verse 13. This causal GAR gives us the
>reason why Paul gave the command. Paul said that a woman should not teach a
>man because Adam was created first, then Eve. In other words, it stems to
>the very foundation of creation itself. This transcends culture and history
>and lands on the foundation of how God created man and woman. In Genesis,
>man was created first and then woman as a helper.
>
> Further, some have understood in verse 14 that the woman being deceived
>indicates a difference in constitution. Men are designed by God different
>from women. The Bible supports different roles for men and women. They are
>equal in value and essence, but the difference could very well be implied
>here in this verse.
>
> If we let the text of Scripture speak here, we will have to admit that
>Paul's reasons given there for women not teaching or exercising authority
>over men is not cultural. Paul didn't say women shouldn't teach men because
>they weren't educated, or that was the practice of those churches (as head
>coverings cf. 1 Cor. 11:16). But Paul's reason transcends all this and lands
>on creation, the foundation.
>
> In any interpretation of Scripture, one should always bear in mind the
>historical record. One must ask the question why church history for 1900
>years has interpreted this different from some of the more modern
>interpretations. Have we all of a sudden discovered something that has been
>missing for centuries from any records except a few stray cultish brands? I
>do not believe this subject is that hard to understand biblically.
>
> I fully expect that this will be viciously attacked here. Some will
>claim that such exegesis as this does not belong on this list. Others will
>say that it is eisegesis. Still others will attack my character or say that
>I have made up my mind before coming to the text. And even some might say
>they are ashamed at such a presentation because it lacks the "scholarship"
>they require for their approval. Attacks such as these are not Christ-like
>nor helpful for our goal. It is doing the very thing one is accusing others
>of doing.
I shall have to disagree profoundly with the above interpretation, not
because I consider it a misreading of the Biblical text that is being made
the foundation of the exegesis, but rather because I believe it is more
reasonable to establish an understanding of NT doctrine underlying the
whole argument over women in positions of the authority in a very different
way. I am violating my own principle here--that we should be discussing the
Greek text and not arguing theological positions, but frankly, I think this
is a point on which our theological positions have a profound bearing on
what we are ready to see in the NT texts presented to us.
Let me first state the points for which I myself may be attacked in the
same way that Jim expects to be attacked for his points. I appreciate his
full exposition, because I can understand the basis on which he holds what
he holds to be true on this matter. I hope that he and others will bear
with my setting forth, as clearly as possible, why I hold a different view
of the same texts.
I find no fault whatsoever with Jim's reading of 1 Tim 2:13; it is quite
clear that the author bases his view that women should not teach on grounds
of the secondary status of woman in creation. My response is that this is a
wholly inadequate justification for women not teaching. Why? Because I
don't think Paul wrote 1 Timothy? Well, in fact, I DON'T think Paul wrote 1
Timothy, but I do not reject 1 Timothy's canonical status just because I
don't think Paul wrote it. Why then do I think it inadequate? For two
reasons:
(1a) I think that the Genesis creation narrative is being misapplied in 1
Tim 2, is being applied to a matter on which it has no bearing. In my
judgment the key element in the Genesis 2 account of the creation of the
man and the woman is to be found in Genesis 2:23 where "the man" recognizes
that "the woman" is a true and valid mate to himself. The point is not that
woman is secondary to "man" but rather that man and woman are fundamentally
and essentially one in nature. (If there should be any question about this
being the REAL point of this narrative of the "how" of woman's creation,
then it should be resolved, in my judgment, in consideration of the key
text from the earlier creation narrative, Genesis 1:27 (TEV): "So God
created human beings, making them like himself. He created them male and
female, blessed them ..." So I can see no basis in the Creation stories for
any assertion of the secondary nature or status of females to males.
(1b) I think the argument of 1 Timothy 2:14 might as well be taken up at
the same time. KAI ADAM OUK HPATHQH, hH DE GUNH EJAPATHQEISA EN PARABASEI
GEGONEN. This is no more adequate a justification for not allowing women to
teach than is the preceding argument; in fact, its foundation is even
shakier, because it is in clear contradiction to the facts of the narrative
in Genesis 3. If Adam was "not deceived," and if it is the woman who "was
deceived and was in transgression," then why is the punishment in Genesis
3:14-19 laid upon all parties involved, serpent, woman and man? The man is
not a whit less guilty than is the woman. So it appears to me that the
argument presented to justify not permitting a woman to teach is itself
grounded in an inadequate reading of Genesis 2 and 3. I would even go a
step further, and say that it might theoretically have been grounded on the
subordination of the woman to the man in the "sentencing phase" of those
verses in Genesis 3:14-19, BUT (a) that was not offered as a justification,
and (b) even if it had been offered, it would have been based upon an
understanding of the "fallen" human condition and would have dubious
validity as an argument for the relationship of the sexes once they are "in
Christ."
Which brings me, or will bring me, after a preliminary explanation, to my
second point. It will be said that I am accusing the apostle of bad
theology. If I am so be it, for it IS bad theology and I can see no
soundness in the argument. In point of fact, I don't believe Paul wrote
this, but I also do not dispute the canonical status of 1 Timothy, no
matter WHO wrote it. How then can I dispute the teaching of 1 Timothy 2 on
the status of women in the church?
(2a) As an adherent of reformed theology, I hold that scripture interprets
scripture, meaning that it is the whole of canonical scripture, and not the
part, that is authoritative. What do we do when we find something as
problematic in scripture as the doctrine set forth in 1 Timothy 2? We look
elsewhere in scripture. We look for a "canon of the canon." In general, I
would hold that the teaching of the New Testament outweighs a teaching of
the Old if there is a conflict (which, superficially, makes it appear that
I am letting my understanding of Genesis 2 and 3 outweigh the doctrine of 1
Timothy 2). But what if there is something problematic--a contradiction or
apparent contradiction in the NT (and I am one who thinks that I have found
a few such contradictions), how to resolve it? I would resolve it first and
foremost by attempting to ascertain whether the matter in question is
consistent with the teaching and action of Jesus as set forth in the gospel
accounts. If I find a what appears to me to be a conflict between what
Jesus teaches and does and what Paul teaches, and if I can find no other
way of resolving the conflict, I will deem the teaching and action--the
example--of Jesus as the greater authority.
(2b) So far as the status of men and women in the church (and, by
implication, in the way women and men should relate to each other
institutionally and socially in general), I believe that Paul has stated
the nature of redeemed humanity in fully egaliarian terms in full
accordance, so far as I can see, with the teaching and practice of Jesus,
in Galatians 3: OUK ENI IOUDAIOS OUDE hELLHN, OUK ENI DOULOS OUDE
ELEUQEROS, OUK ENI ARSEN KAI QHLU: PANTES GAR hUMEIS hEIS ESTE EN XRISTWi
IHSOU. I would hold this to be the canon of the canon when it comes to
questions of authority or competence to perform a function in the church.
One may perhaps discriminate on the basis of a judgment of intelligence or
character of suitable gifts to carry out a task, but one may NOT
discriminate on the basis of ethnic status, or on status in the social
hierarchy, or on gender.
I apologize for the length of this post, and I apologize all the more for
violating my repeated request that we avoid theological argument in this
forum. But I felt that it was important to demonstrate (a) that one need
not need not resort to personal attacks upon one who espouses an
alternative viewpoint on how a Biblical text may be read in order to
disagree with that reading of the text, and also (b) that it really is
possible to approach this question of women in positions of authority in
the New Testament without violating a fundamental respect for scripture
itself. I suspect that Jim and I will continue to disagree sharply with
each other over this issue, and that we will hold the views we do hold on
the basis of how we understand scripture.
Having said my say, let me say that I don't wish or intend, having stated
this thesis, to defend it or argue it further in this forum, which really
has another purpose altogether. I think it all started with the latest
round of attempts to make sense of the enigmatic verse at the end of 1
Timothy 2, a verse which, in my view, is just as enigmatic now as when I
first pondered it. I still like the idea of the Moffat translation, "A
woman will come safely through childbirth, provided that ..."--but the
shift from the singular in the first clause to the plural in the second
clause is just as puzzling as ever. Or did it really start with
Junia/Junias?
The next thing I'd like to investigate is the usage of APOSTOLOS in
different NT authors. The evidence ought to be readily available, and I
suspect that it has already been analyzed. My question is to what extent
the word is, in fact, used for others besides "the twelve."
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:33 EDT