Understanding “I do not permit a woman to teach…”

February 2, 2013 in Kingdom Women with 33 Comments

Firstly, a big welcome to those of you who have come here via Frank Viola’s blog, Beyond Evangelical and his mention of my enhanced e-book on hearing God.  My blog, SimplyChurch, generally looks at different aspects of life in the Kingdom, especially as it relates to the simple/organic/house church movement. However, at present, I’m doing a series of posts on the topic of women because I’m in the process of co-writing a book on this subject. Frank is one of the contributors to the book.

I hate headlines like this one:

In this particular case, the lady, who had been a member at that church for more than 60 years and a Sunday School teacher for 54, was fired, at least in part, because of the verse in 1 Timothy 2:12. The pastor of the church wanted to be sure they were obeying the Scriptures. While I respect him for his desire to be Biblical, it is very sad, not only for the lady concerned, but also because of the negative publicity it engenders for the Body of Christ.

We all want to obey the Scriptures. So how can we understand a verse like this?

I discussed the background to the verse (which is very relevant) in this post. The purpose of Paul’s letter to Timothy in Ephesus was to stop false teachers who were causing problems in the church there  (1 Timothy 1:3-4). We also know that this is the only verse that apparently forbids women to teach–elsewhere there is every indication that women were free to bring a teaching.

Here’s the challenging passage in full:

I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting;  in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing,  but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.  Let a woman learn in silence with all submission.  And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.  For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control. (1 Timothy 2:8-15 NKJV)

Notice that sometimes the word “woman” is singular and at other times plural. Women (plural) are to adorn themselves modestly. However, “a woman” (singular) must learn in silence and is not allowed to teach or have authority over the man.  She (singular) will be saved in childbearing, and women (plural) are to continue in faith, love and holiness with self control.

Here’s the likely scenario that would explain it: There was a woman who was promoting false teaching in the church in Ephesus. Paul wants to stop this, and so he commands that this particular woman is to learn quietly, and is not permitted to teach. This is a disciplinary action against a woman who, like the “Jezebel” mentioned in Revelation 2:20, was causing problems by false teaching. Paul had no intention of it being applied to other women, just the one causing turmoil in the church.

According to Philip B. Payne in his excellent theological treatise, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters,  the verb “permit” with one dubious exception, never refers to a universal or permanent situation. So the chances are that this was a temporary disciplinary measure.

I’ll be looking into other aspects of this passage in future posts, but I’m interested in your comments as to where we are so far.

 

  • Trish

    Interesting scenario that could possibly explain this perplexing passage. It may not be truly knowable this side of heaven. But in any case, I think that Jesus Himself is the key to understanding Scripture. Jesus did not deal with women in the same
    oppressing way that His culture and religion did, much to the perplexity of His disciples!

    Jesus never forbade women to speak. Instead we see time and time again Jesus being gracious to women, welcoming their approaches, commending their faith and boldness.

    For example, the woman who broke the law to touch the hem of His garment was not rebuked, but rather was commended by Him for her boldness and faith.

    The deep emotional response of the woman who wept at His feet was despised and misinterpreted by the men in the room; but Jesus commended her for her love.

    He conversed with the woman at the well (to the amazement of His disciples), and she became the first evangelist (do not evangelists teach?) to Samaria.

    After His resurrection Jesus revealed Himself first to Mary, then. He sent her to tell (teach?!) the men that Jesus is alive.

    I am by no means a “feminist.” I joyfully submit to my husband as my head. However, the same Holy Spirit that is in my husband is in me, and therefore he is as eager to hear what Jesus may give to me as I am to hear what Jesus may give to him. Why would men shut themselves off from the risen Jesus who is in women, since Jesus Himself welcomed women?

    I don’t have any particular desire to “teach men,” but if the Lord lays a teaching on my heart for His people, I do desire to have the same liberty and boldness of faith I see in the women which Jesus personally commended, and to bring that teaching in obedience to Him.

    In any case, and in any gathering, women should not dominate, and neither should men dominate. All ought to submit to Jesus and the leading of His Holy Spirit, whether at home or in gatherings outside the home.

    • felicitydale

      Trish, thanks for these comments. Like you, I’m not a feminist, and i find that mutual submission–as expressed in Ephesians 5–works very well in our marriage. I willingly submit to my husband as he lays down his life for me. It’s a race to go lower–yet another of those beautiful paradoxes of the Christian life.

  • Joel Zehring

    Thanks for shedding some light on this, Felicity.

    If only we would read the Bible to know God better, rather than using it as “how-to” manual for writing new religious regulations.

    • felicitydale

      Joel, you are so right. Under the New Covenant, God has written his laws on our hearts, and we now live from the Spirit within rather than trying to follow a religious rule-book.

  • Sarah Culverhouse

    I think we should all ‘submit’ to one another rather than making it exclusively a female to male degree. My husband is not ‘head of the home’ and neither am I, Jesus is.

    • felicitydale

      My home too, Sarah. Thanks for commenting

    • Jolie

      well said

  • http://www.facebook.com/pdeniet Peter Deniet

    Thanks, Felicity, for your thoughts.

    There are, however, a couple things that need correction. If we are to think clearly in the Word in order that it may direct our lives, we need to make sure we take in as much of the whole picture as is possible. So, I appreciate that you have opened this for further comment.

    You make the statement, “We also know that this is the only verse that apparently forbids women to teach–elsewhere there is every indication that women were free to bring a teaching.” Please take a look at I Corinthians 14:34-35. I can’t see how your statement can be true in the light of these verses.
    You also make the statement that there is no indefinite (“a”) or definite (“the”) article in the Greek language. This is a false statement. There is indeed no indefinite article, but there is definitely a definite article, in all the noun cases, and both singular and plural, much more defined than in English.
    If there is something about the passage in I Timothy that argues the case that there was one particular woman who was not to speak openly in teaching others, including men, it would be the fact that there is a definite article, not that the word is singular.
    In Him,
    Peter

    • felicitydale

      Hi Peter,

      Thank you for commenting. It sounds like you have studied Greek? I defer to your knowledge of the Greek language.

      This post is one of a series of posts on women and I looked at 1 Corinthians 14 a few posts ago. There were several posts on this subject, and they begin here http://bit.ly/YCBUwZ. Also see this post on teaching http://bit.ly/WCXH4C

      As to the definite and indefinite article, thank you for your correction. I am not a Greek scholar, although I studied Latin for several years. For the sake of integrity, I will make an apology and correction in a future post but first, it would help me if you would explain the plural and singular uses of woman in these verses.

  • Cee Cee Dickers

    Is there still the possibility of purchasing “The Final Assault” by Steve Smith?

    • felicitydale

      I don’t see it on Amazon. As I understand it, the novel was released for a short time so that people could give feedback and Steve could make corrections. When that has happened, I believe it will be released in its final version (maybe as two books?) I hope this helps. You might check out this site http://bit.ly/11F63YS

  • http://twitter.com/Bill99 Bill99

    In your work on this series, have you considered this verse: Galatians 3:28? I haven’t read all your posts yet, so I don’t know. Your topic is an important one.

    • felicitydale

      I haven’t yet looked at this verse, but it is the backdrop to much of my thinking in this area. Thank you for your encouragement.

  • kenneth dawson

    I stand behind you all the way girl–im an egalitarian

    • felicitydale

      Thank you!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/pdeniet Peter Deniet

    Upon further study of the passage in I Timothy, I see that all the references to “woman” are preceded with no article, which means that an indefinite article is implied. An
    indefinite article would mean that no particular (definite) woman is being referred to; if it were a particular woman, the definite article would have been used.

  • TheDude

    Without arguing the point either way, my concern is primarily with your method of Biblical interpretation. There is always a problem when people tend to add “facts” we aren’t given. An example of this is when you say “Here’s the likely scenario that would explain it.” What you are doing is starting with the conclusion you wish to arrive at, then attempting to back into the scriptures by adding a factual scenario.

    The reason people do this is that the scripture, taken at face value, would not support the preferred conclusion. God warns us not to add or take away from His word. If you remove your “factual” scenario, and just relied on scripture alone, could you still justify your conclusion? This is the true test of Biblical interpretation.

    The book of Acts, as well as portions of the gospels clearly give us detailed facts that God, in His eminent wisdom, determined that He wanted us to know. It naturally follows that when God doesn’t give us detailed facts (such as 1 & 2 Timothy), the facts are not necessary.

    This is the same issue I have with Jon Zens book “What’s With Paul and Women”. Jon takes the position that Paul was dealing with the Athenian cult in Ephesus to justify the same conclusion you start with. How in the world would the average Christian reading these passages know anything about the Athenian cult when the Bible is silent on that issue?

    If we believe what you are saying (the “likely scenario”) or what Jon Zens is saying (the “Athenian Cult”), then you are implying that the average believer would need some sort of special knowledge that cannot be gleaned from scripture.

    Furthermore, for the sake of argument, if either you are Jon Zens is right, then that means that one of you must be wrong as to your “facts”. This is the problem with adding factual scenarios to scripture. If everyone starts adding “facts” to scripture to justify conclusions, then we will spend our time arguing about whose “facts” are true.

    These are all just questions to ponder.

    • felicitydale

      TheDude, thanks for your thoughtful comments. I’m aware I’m opening a can of worms here! I agree with you that the average Christian would have no idea of the cultural implications in Ephesus. Ditto Corinth.

      I’m not sure I’ve added facts. Just a possible scenario that could explain the verses, especially since it’s very likely from the pronouns used that both men and women were involved in the heresy. That’s the problem with going from Greek to English (and I’m no Greek scholar).

      There’s an excellent theological treatise on the challenging Scriptures to women called Man and Woman, One in Christ by scholar Philip B. Payne. Have you come across it?

      Some things in the Scripture only make sense if we understand the culture. For example, if we take what you say to its logical conclusion, all women would wear head coverings and would not wear pants. (Maybe you think all women should wear hats.) Personally I believe that understanding the background to the epistles helps considerably in interpreting them. Some things have to be taken culturally otherwise all women who don’t wear head coverings are being disobedient to the Scriptures.

      I keep coming back to the issue of slavery. Slavery is apparently condoned in the Scriptures on multiple occasions–way more than the passages on women. Yet no one today believes we should own slaves. The culture has changed.

      • TheDude

        I appreciate what you are saying and understand many share your position. I haven’t read Philip Payne’s book, but will definitely take a look at it.

        The head covering issue is an interesting one and this is not the place to go into that here. I will admit thought I’ve struggled with that one, although I still ask myself “Is my struggle a cultural one or a spiritual one?”

        Regarding slavery, God never condoned it just as he has never condoned many other factual practices (e.g. polygamy, divorce, etc.). What God has done is recognize the sinful nature of man and that we will engage in practices He does not approve of. Additionally, the concept of slavery in the Bible wasn’t always the concept of slavery as we understand that term today and as it was practiced in this country for many years. We have to be careful not to overlay our own cultural experiences with a culture that existed outside of our country and thousands of years ago.

        That being said, I’ve always found safety in relying upon Jesus’ admonition “If you love me, then you will obey my commandments”. Life is simpler that way and I really don’t think when we stand before the bema seat of Christ we will be criticized for obeying the clear word of God.

        At least that is my very simple way of looking at God’s word.

        • felicitydale

          Philip Payne’s position on this is very different. Apparently there is a word in the Greek that in all the writings that are directly attributed to Paul are used to link things into one idea. So teaching and usurping authority is a single idea. I don’t think anyone would have a question over that being wrong for either male or female.

          If I don’t allow for another interpretation of this, then I’m in a very difficult position. The Lord has led me to write books, I teach all over the world and I write this blog. Shall I stop? Or is the Holy Spirit really leading me. I have to trust the leading of the Holy Spirit.

          • TheDude

            I know you are very sincere in your desire to follow our Lord and I respect that. Absolutely all of us should trust the leading of the Holy Spirit, however, we have to compare that “leading” with God’s word. We can be deceived at times thinking we are being lead by the Holy Spirit (I’m not implying your are or aren’t being deceived) which is why God gave us His word to judge the Holy Spirit against. God, through the Holy Spirit, would never lead us in a direction contrary to His words in the Bible.

          • felicitydale

            The Holy Spirit never contradicts God’s word. And therein lies the problem. Was it sin for Deborah to lead Israel? Was Priscilla going against God’s express commands to explain “a more excellent way” to Apollos? If the answer is no, then we have to re-examine our understanding of the Bible.

          • Jolie

            There is a very interesting book out called Slaves, Women and Homosexuals. The author shows that the bible has shown ‘progression’(for the better) in the area of ‘Slaves and Women’ over the years in contrast to how they were treated in the old pagan cultures around at that time. (which was so much worse.) And its interesting that as we look at the bible in its over all entirety, God shows through his word that he had started a ‘movement’ of change and we see this coming in fruition more fully in Jesus time as he includes and reaches out to women. It is amazing and wonderful how God in working out his plan through his Holy Spirit.

          • TheDude

            Going down the “cultural” route of Biblical interpretation is a very slippery slope indeed. This leads to confusion. Who is the “expert” on what the culture was? Would we not resort ourselves to arguing which historian is more accurate regarding the culture of those times?

            If we determine that some scriptures are merely cultural, why would God include them in His word? How do we determine those scriptures that are scriptural and those that are not? Doesn’t this lead to further confusion as we argue over which are and which aren’t?

            Our cultures change as time progress. God’s word is timeless.

            We have to begin with a very basic question: Do we accept the Bible as the complete infallible word of God or not? If you do, then the whole issue of “culture” shouldn’t even come up. If you don’t, then there isn’t any reason to engage in a discussion since we are beginning from two opposing viewpoints that cannot be reconciled.

          • felicitydale

            TheDude, It’s not as if the cultural experts disagree, whether secular or Christian. There are certain things there have so much archeological and textual evidence, there’s no room for dispute. It’s not as though we are picking up one stray thought from a single text somewhere (that would be open to misinterpretation).

            It’s like saying you can’t prove the NT doesn’t have lots of mistakes. There are so many early-dated fragments that agree, that there’s no question as to its overall inerrancy in terms of the text itself.

            The Bible speaks to all cultures at all times–I agree with that. But there are many things that all of us do that don’t fit in with the Old Testament Scriptures and often the New too. For example, have you given everything away like Jesus instructed the rich young ruler? Do you fast with sackcloth and ashes? Do you treat your slaves well?

          • TheDude

            Jesus’ instruction to the rich young ruler was not meant as a commandment to all believers. He knew the man’s heart and knew that despite the young man’s adherence to the law that he wasn’t willing to do what was necessary to follow Jesus. Jesus knows each of our hearts and knows that in our flesh we could never make Him lord of our lives. Only through the indwelling work of the Holy Spirt can this be done.

            The more important question is what “riches” are each of us holding onto that prevents us from obeying our Lord and Savior? To each it might be different. The young ruler you refer to wasn’t willing to give up his riches. Are we willing to give up our cultural correctness in order to follow Jesus?

            Fasting with sackcloth and ashes was a symbol of humility before the Lord. It had nothing to do with the culture of the day. Furthermore, you are pointing to the Old Testament and we aren’t not instructed to follow the requirements of the Law. (This is a larger subject not germane to this discussion).

            Do I have fast with humility? Of course. True fasting involves humility before the Lord.

            God never condemned slavery either in the OT or the NT. If He wanted to He could have, but didn’t. I’m not advocating slavery by any means, but by the same token, you can’t take what our culture considers morally correct and overlay that on God’s word. Are we greater than God Himself? Absolutely not! Who are we to impose on God our sense of fairness and equality?

            Do I treat those under my care well (employees)? Yes I do.

            In God’s eyes, a slave was no different than a free man, yet he remained a slave. If God had wished to condemn slavery, He could have told slave owners to release their slaves and make them free.

            We have to be very careful not to distort and twist scriptures to fit around our view of the world. All of us are sinners at heart and the enemy, the devil, is right there to deceive us into thinking we are like God, to have the knowledge of good and evil in our own eyes. Wasn’t this the original sin? Do we want to fall for that same deception and go down that same path? I choose not to. There is comfort and peace in total submission to God. Not that I am perfect for like Paul, the apostle, I am the “chief of all sinners”. Only through the saving grace of the blood of Jesus do I stand righteous before God.

            God’s truth isn’t “new”. Real truth is as old as God Himself (to paraphrase Spurgeon). Truth may be hard to swallow at times, but this is all part of dying to our flesh and giving up our “rights” in order to follow Jesus.

          • felicitydale

            TheDude, thanks for a stimulating discussion.

            Your treatment of the rich young ruler is similar to mine of 1 Timothy 2:12. You say that Jesus’ injunction to the rich young ruler was situational–he was only speaking to this man, not to everyone. I’m saying that Paul’s instruction to Timothy was equally situational with a woman/women in Ephesus who was a false teacher.

          • felicitydale

            Jolie, some interesting thoughts. I believe that God is going to bring that “movement” to increasing fruition and fulfillment in our day.

          • Jolie

            Yes, i believe so Felicity, praise God. Its not about winning, its about getting back to Gods original plan and thankfully the New Covenant brings things into perspective.

    • Jolie

      I was always taught at Bible College to ask the who, when, why questions of Bible Passage. Who wrote it, when was it written and why and to whom. Most members of a congregation do not really delve into all this without being taught by a gifted teacher. It now makes perfect sense to me when you think about a ‘letter’ that has been written, for instance, that you want to know the historical and cultural background of it all, and then when a person does, often so many things are revealed and those areas of a scripture that never made sense before, open up to give greater understanding of the passage.

      • felicitydale

        Jolie, those are very useful questions for any Bible passage. Thank you for suggesting them. I love how Frank Viola sometimes “mirror” reads the epistles, almost reconstructing the letters to which Paul was responding. We need to dig deeper into the Word.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gus-Mueller/1126894782 Gus Mueller

    give up, lady. god does not like women. if you want your gender respected, form a new religion and watch christianity become as irrelevant as the old greek religions (which taught similarly stupid things, though had moments of wisdom as well)

    • felicitydale

      If I thought that was true, I might even consider it. Thankfully, there’s plenty of evidence that God honors and respects women and regards them as equal to man. It’s man’s reaction that’s the problem.