I've long wondered why Paul wrote this to Timothy. Perhaps you have too.
If so, you should know we're not the first ones to recognize that some teachings of Paul are tough to understand--and easily mishandled.
Far from it.
Discussing Paul's letters, his friend Peter wrote, "There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:16)
Wow! Serious stuff. So what are we to do?
In one of my all time favorite books, Ellen White notes: "Some portions of Scripture are indeed too plain to be misunderstood, but there are others whose meaning does not lie on the surface to be seen at a glance. Scripture must be compared with scripture. There must be careful research and prayerful reflection. And such study will be richly repaid." (Steps to Christ, p.90)
This seems to be one of those cases.
Recently, I decided to dig a little deeper. Today I concluded that Paul is in no way the misogynist some of his critics have made him out to be. Actually, if anything, Paul was a counter-cultural advocate of women. Here's how I arrived at this conclusion*:
If you haven't yet, you may like to open up to 1 Timothy and follow along.
Paul's first letter to Timothy opens with him explaining that there are some teaching the law who don't know what they're talking about (1:7). Their problem is that they deviated from what the whole thing is about: "The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith" (1:5).
We later learn that these unqualified teachers includes a group of women who are also described as needing to learn and shouldn't have the authority to teach (2:11-12). Notice, Paul also encourages them to "continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control" (2:15).
The structure of the letter helps us recognize that Paul is discussing a particular group of women that are part of a larger problem in Ephesus that Timothy needs counsel on how to handle. Paul is writing to address "certain persons" (1:6), not all people. We cannot divorce his counsel from the situation that called for it.
Who are these women? They are likely new to the community (thus 3:6) and thought they could immediately start teaching because they had a high status in society (2:9). But Paul doesn't care about their status; he esteems people based on their character and actions (2:10). Thus he tells them to hold off on teaching (in the Greek, "I do not *now* permit...") to continue learning respectfully (2:11).
It is noteworthy that there is one other time when Paul commands a group of individuals to exercise ἡσυχία (translated in 1 Tim 2:11-12 as quietness or silence) and that's to a group of Thessalonians that Paul describes as "disorderly, not working as all, busybodies" (2 Thess 3:11-12). Similarly, Paul commanded them to work in quietness.
In neither case is Paul's concerned about gender. Rather, he's addressing situations of disorderly conduct--one case largely involves men, the other women.
Next in his letter to Timothy, Paul appeals to the story of Eve being deceived by the serpent to serve as a potential warning of the seriousness of the situation. Why cite Eve? Because the situation occurring in Ephesus involves people incorrectly teaching the law and Eve is the ultimate example of someone misquoting the law. In her conversation with the serpent, Eve stated that the commandment said, "You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die" (Genesis 3:3). However, that's wrong. She added the clause "neither shall you touch it" (compare with Genesis 2:16).
Ellen White perceptively explains how this led to her deception:
In Eve’s controversy with the serpent, she added “Neither shall ye touch it.” Here the subtlety of the serpent appeared. This statement of Eve gave him advantage; he plucked the fruit and placed it in her hand, using her own words, He hath said, If ye touch it, ye shall die. You see no harm comes to you from touching the fruit, neither will you receive any harm by eating it. (Confrontation, p. 14)
By appealing to this story, Paul isn't teaching that Eve was deceived because she was a woman. He is making the point that she was deceived because she didn't properly handle the law--the very situation that Timothy was dealing with (1 Tim 1:7).
By also mentioning Adam, who was formed before Eve and wasn't deceived (1 Tim 2:13-14), Paul seems to be softly rebuking those in the community who may have been around longer than this group of women and had a better understanding of the law, but who, like Adam, went along with the situation instead of lovingly addressing it.
Yet, to be clear that he isn't just Eve-bashing, Paul reminds his readers that salvation came through her offspring, the Messiah (1 Tim 2:15; compare Gen 3:15). Paul also seems to have high hopes for what can come out of this controversy.
What Paul does in the next part of his letter is incredible.
Significantly, the very things Paul instructs the women to learn are included in the qualifications for servant leadership positions (1 Tim 3). For instance, Paul only mentions κόσμιος (good conduct) twice in all of his writings: once when describing what this group of women should learn (2:9) and again when describing what attribute the overseer of a church should have (3:2). Paul also, right before calling out this group of women, had called out a group of men and told them that they needed to learn some things too (2:8), which he also includes in his list of qualifications (1 Tim 3)--such as how to control their anger. Also, Paul lists "husband of one wife" to condemn bigamy and affirm the value of marriage (contrast with 1:10, 4:3). The point is he is unpacking what it means to be "above reproach" (3:2) in light of recent situations in the church.
By blending the instruction that he had just given to both the group of men and the group of women to form the list of qualifications, Paul accomplishes two things. First, he prevents those causing the problem--both the group of men and the group of women--from taking over leadership positions in the community. Second, however, he suggests that in time, those very ones causing the problems may become qualified men and women to take over those roles. Paul's solution is both practical and redemptive.
Does Paul really envision both men and women serving as leaders? Indeed, elsewhere he mentions women who were serving in leadership roles, such as Phoebe serving as a deacon and Junia serving as an apostle (Rom 16:1-6). Granted, some scholars argue that there is some ambiguity of the Greek here that might allow for alternative readings of the roles of these two particular women. Whatever the case, there's no ambiguity when it comes to Prisca. Acts records Paul met Aquila then his wife Prisca (Acts 18:2-3). But then Acts goes on to address them as Prisca and Aquila--breaking the cultural trend by putting the wife's name first (Acts 18:18, 26). Of note, the context is them teaching Apollos, indicating that Prisca was leading out in the teaching.
Similarly, in his earliest letter, Paul sends greetings from Aquila and Prisca (1 Corinthians 16:19), but moves on in later letters to addressing them as Prisca and Aquila (Romans 16:3, 2 Timothy 4:9), affirming her role as a teacher and challenging his culture.
Granted, as revolutionary as Paul was, he was just following the example of Jesus who intentionally challenged the status quo by elevating women and giving them roles of supreme importance. For instance, after His resurrection, Jesus first appears to a group of women and tells them to spread the word that He had risen, despite the fact that the testimony of women was considered unreliable.
Moreover, Paul was responding to the sacrifice of Christ, since he believed the Cross-event gave all people equal standing before God. In another letter, Paul taught, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)
*Note well, my understanding of Scripture is constantly growing, especially on some of these less plain passages. "We see in a mirror dimly." If you walk away with a different understanding, that doesn't bother me in the least. I agree with White: "We cannot then take a position that the unity of the church consists in viewing every text of Scripture in the very same light." Here's an excellent article that explores further how Ellen White and the early Adventist Church promoted unity while allowing for some theological diversity.
No comments:
Post a Comment