NOT THAT SIMPLE [part 2]

In the previous post we considered significant exegetical challenges we face in interpreting 1 Timothy 2:12. These are challenges first met by translators in determining how to render words and sentence structure. This is where it is unhelpful to suggest that we ‘just take the text at face value’. For example, up until the 1950’s the verb authenteo in verse 12 was translated with a negative connotation: “to have dominion over” (ASV); and “to usurp authority” (KJV). Though, post-WWII translations altered this to a more neutral tone, connoting an ordinary exercise of authority: “to exercise authority” (NASB/ESV); or “to have authority” (NKJV; NRSV). One has to wonder how the cultural shifts of that era may have influenced this subtle but significant shift in translation (e.g., the stronger roles women took outside the home during the war; as a response to the outworking of the Women’s Rights Movement of the early 20th century.) Which would be ironic, considering the fears of some that a departure from a ‘traditional’ view is driven by the influence of pop-culture.

Some claim that Paul’s appeal to Adam and Eve in verses 13-15 provides universal grounding for Paul’s prohibition, making this a timeless truth. This invites the question of whether we apply the same reasoning with consistency to 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 about the ‘natural order’ of things (i.e., the necessity of head coverings for women and the disgrace of men with long hair)? Since Paul grounds his argument in both places in the creation order of Adam and Eve, then shouldn’t we uphold his instruction from both passages? Yet, there we allow for much more nuance of socio-cultural setting in our interpretation. Once again, we encounter layers of complexity in the text that make moving from observation to interpretation not as straight forward as we might like.

Ultimately, if Paul’s prohibition is grounded in the creation order, then why would Christian women be permitted to hold positions of teaching or authority over men in other spheres of life (business; management; education)? Though, maybe that is where MacArthur’s comment hits the hardest, “Go home.” (At least he is consistent??) The point here being, if the appealing to how God inherently ‘designed’ male and female roles of leadership and subordination, then it is difficult to see how this ethic is confined only to the organizational leadership of the church, at least for followers of Jesus.

Beyond the text of First Timothy, assumptions about God’s ‘order and design’ for male and female/husband and wife roles can be challenged as well. There isn’t much outlined in Scripture regarding such roles, and where it is alluded to is typically (if not always) framed within the socio-cultural life of the original audience. For example, in Ephesians 5:21–6:9, Paul specifically addresses social roles as understood within the context of household codes in the first-century Mediterranean world (i.e., husband and wives; parents and children; slaves and masters).

The timeless principles undergirding this passage are mutual submission and self-sacrificial love for one another, irrespective of social status. Paul is not seeking to undermine the functional nature of these roles in ancient culture but to infuse them with the way of Jesus. What is shockingly counter-cultural in this particular text is not his affirmation of a wife’s submission to her husband or a slave’s submission to his master, but his call for husbands to sacrificially love their wives and masters to treat their slaves with kindness and respect. Paul is not necessarily affirming the culturally bound nature of these roles (e.g., over time we departed from the cultural belief that Paul supported slavery); rather, he is teaching his readers how to relate to one another with Christlike character within these specific roles. Perhaps an interpretive question here might be, whether Paul is using the headship of Christ as an example of what one in a role of ‘headship’ (i.e., the husband in the ancient Mediterranean world) ought to be like; or if he is arguing that Christ’s headship is the pattern of the husband’s role in marriage (universally/all-times & all-places)?

Appealing to the woman’s created role as “helper” (Genesis 2:18) isn’t without its challenges either, as every other time this Hebrew word (eyzer) is used, it is a reference to the ‘greater lifting up the lesser,’ in referring to help from God, the king, an ally, or an army. Fifteen of the nineteen Old Testament references speak of the ‘help’ God alone can provide (Exod. 18: 4; Deut. 33: 7, 26, 29; Ps. 20: 2; 33: 20; 70: 5; 115: 9-11 [3x]; 121: 1-2 [2x]; 124: 8; 146: 5; Hos. 13: 9). The description of Eve as “helper” doesn’t inherently imply hierarchical order in being assigned a subordinate position. Rather, it speaks of the truly complementary relationship between male and female (husband and wife), working in partnership together as image-bearers of God over creation.

Read Genesis 1-2 and notice that there is nothing explicit in the context about specific roles, outside of how male and female uniquely and distinctively, yet equally, complement one another; namely, with the purpose of companionship and procreation. In Genesis 1:26-28, you’ll notice that “mankind” is referred to generically (ʾā·ḏāmʹ = humanity/humankind as ‘male and female’), created with the equal calling to ‘fill’, ‘subdue,’ and ‘rule’ over creation– together. Something to take into account as you wrestle through this question for yourself, and how you engage with those who arrive at different conclusions. Perhaps it is their unique role in procreation that Paul is challenging women in Ephesus to reclaim in 1 Timothy 2:15, broadly speaking; or, perhaps even as an admonition to certain women who persisted in disruptive and domineering ways, seeking to seize power from/over men in the community (possibly echoing Genesis 3:16?).

There is certainly much more that could be said on all of this (too much for a blog!). To be fair, there are well-argued treatments of these and other relevant texts from both the prohibitive and permissive perspectives (see resources below). In the end, I find it difficult to be dogmatic in how one understands passages such as 1 Timothy 2:11-15; Ephesians 5:22-24; and Genesis 1-2 in relation to non-reproductive gender roles (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:2-16; Galatians 3:27-28). Ultimately, there is only one answer to this question, whether it be on the most restrictive or more permissive ends of the spectrum, or some nuanced view in-between. But to presume we’ve got the answer locked down on this side of things is arrogant, distracting, and destructive to both Christian fellowship and the Church’s witness in the world.

Wherever you land, may you arrive there after having thoughtfully and prayerfully wrestled with the challenges of these texts. And being that this issue isn’t as simple as it may seem, may you develop spaciousness in your convictions for hermeneutical humility and ecclesiological generosity in how you approach the positions of others. Even in disagreement, remember that we are inextricably bound together in Christ, through the Spirit, as beloved children of God. As Paul wrote,

“Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit— just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Ephesians 4:3-6)

NOT THAT SIMPLE [part 2]

Further Reading

Share this: