skip to main |
skip to sidebar
…continuing breakdown of 1 Timothy 2:11-15
Conclusion
(Please MAKE comments on this post)
When 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is reviewed with close scrutiny of the Greek text and a mind on the overall context of the first 2 chapters of the letter, a stunning realization occurs. Not only is this passage of Scripture poorly translated, but the interpretation and application of those poor translations are completely erroneous. Entire philosophies about marriage and church leadership and conduct have been developed around this foundational error. It may be that only men should lead churches, that women should be silent, and that a woman’s place is in the home bringing up children, but Paul’s letter to Timothy does not teach it. What this passage does teach is that false teaching and domineering behaviors in the home require special handling, but even in that most private of settings, a remedy and restoration can be found in Christ.
To conclude, here are our two versions of 1 Timothy 2:11-15. First, our template from the Contemporary English Version:
and they [women] should learn by being quiet and paying attention. They should be silent and not be allowed to teach or to tell men what to do. After all, Adam was created before Eve, and the man Adam wasn't the one who was fooled. It was the woman Eve who was completely fooled and sinned. But women will be saved by having children, if they stay faithful, loving, holy, and modest.
Now, our multi-version rendering (with the addition of martial nouns):
A wife should learn in peace, being ready to cooperate in everything. But I do not allow the wife to teach [false doctrine] or to be domineering over the husband, rather, she is to remain at peace. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, has come to be in transgression. But she will be saved through the birth of the child, if she and her husband continue to live in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.
What a difference! One more time, here it is broken down by verse noting the translation used at each step. When it says “common” that means that there are no difficulties with translation of that particular section. In those cases, I use the NASB.
Verse 11
A wife should learn (Aramaic Bible English Translation)
in peace, (The Complete Jewish Bible)
being ready to cooperate in everything. (New Century Version)
Verse 12
But I do not allow (common)
the wife (The Word of Yah)
to teach (common)
[false doctrine] (my extra-biblical addition)
or to be domineering over (Concordant Literal New Testament)
the husband, (The Word of Yah)
rather, she is to remain at peace. (The Complete Jewish Bible)
Verse 13
For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. (common)
Verse 14
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, has come to be in transgression. (Analytical-Literal Translation)
Verse 15
But she will be saved (many, although not the NASB)
through the birth of the child, (God’s Word Translation)
if she and her husband continue to live (Weymouth New Testament)
in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. (common)
This concludes the show stoppers series. This last entry is an important show stopper not because of interpretations that use it to dictate church policy, but because of interpretations that use it to define a particular feminine nature (easily deceived, deceitful) or confine women to a particular “role” (domestic nurturer). Until men get over the idea that women are stupid and they should therefore remain “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen” or “seen but not heard”, there is no use having any further discussion on the marriage relationship. My hope with these posts is that minds will be changed through careful consideration of what Scripture says regarding men, women, and marriage and that the equal status of women not only in the Spiritual realm but in the domestic realm will be embraced by everyone. Only then can we explore further the more difficult passages such as Ephesians 5, 1 Peter 3, and 1 Corinthians 11.
Show Stoppers - 1 Tim 2 Series:
Introduction
Verse 11
Verse 12
Verse 13-14
Verse 15
Conclusion
…continuing breakdown of 1 Timothy 2:11-15
(Please make comments on the concluding post)
In order to fully address this section of 1 Timothy and adequately demonstrate the translational problems with it, I need to go into a very detailed, sometimes word for word, breakdown of the text. This will be tedious but necessary. Suffice it to say that ALL English translations of this passage contain translational errors. Yet, most get some things right as well. What I propose to do is take the translation that is the most flawed and use it as a template. I do this not only because it will provide the starkest comparison to what I believe is the correct translation of the text but also because it highlights all of the various subsequent interpretational errors. So, here is 1 Timothy 2:11-15 from the Contemporary English Version:
[11] and they [women] should learn by being quiet and paying attention. [12] They should be silent and not be allowed to teach or to tell men what to do. [13] After all, Adam was created before Eve, [14] and the man Adam wasn't the one who was fooled. It was the woman Eve who was completely fooled and sinned. [15] But women will be saved by having children, if they stay faithful, loving, holy, and modest.
Verse 15 – “But women will be saved by having children, if they stay faithful, loving, holy, and modest.”
We now come to the end of the passage. Paul is giving a remedy for the situation that confronts Timothy. As we have learned, this situation is far different than the one traditional teaching presents. Still, verse 15 holds even more clues that confirm this fact.
15a “But women” – Verse 14 proved beyond doubt that false teaching of a specific Ephesian woman is the subject of Paul’s instructions. Again, as it is throughout the passage, the grammar here is singular.
A Proper Translation – is simply “But she”
15b “will be saved” – Note that the salvation comes in the future. Any doubt about whether or not the woman is Eve should now be removed.
15c “by having children” – This is the point where many complementarians tie this passage into marriage. To paraphrase, a woman’s place is “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen”. Complementarian authors use this little phrase in 1 Timothy 2:15 to define the female’s “role” as domestic helper and to exclude her from both church and home leadership. Frankly, they get a lot of mileage out of “she will be saved by having children”.
There are two disturbing results with such an interpretation and application of this text. One – it creates a works based salvation. Two – it provides no guidance for single and infertile women. On the basis of these difficulties alone, we should dismiss such a notion. But, the situation gets worse, for, as has consistently happened throughout this passage, a translation that suggests “having children” is actually wrong!
In the Greek, the word translated “having children” is not a verb as the translation implies, but a noun. Moreover, it has the definite article with it. The correct translation is “the childbirth”. The source of salvation for this woman who is in error is not her act of having children, but the birth of the child who brings salvation to all! Matthew 1:21 says “And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.” Paul has already referenced the saving power of Jesus birth in chapter 1, speaking of his own state of “having fallen into sin”: “It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost.” Paul is continuing on the same theme when dealing with this particular sinning woman.
Why Does It Matter – More damage has been done by the mistranslation and misapplication of this passage, and particularly this verse when it comes to marriage, than possibly any other in scripture. 1 Timothy 2:15 has no more to do with a woman’s “role” or “position” or “nature” than the whole passage has to do with the conduct of worship services. A specific woman has fallen into sin and Paul is prescribing a specific remedy to that specific situation, nothing more.
A Proper Translation – As pathetic as the scarcity of proper translations of verse 14b is, the situation here is even worse. There are only 2 translations that get this completely right (focus on a single woman, salvation as the result, identification of the birth of the child). The better is Young’s Literal Translation. The best to highlight the birth of Jesus is God’s Word Translation. It falters in the verse as a whole because it carries through the notion that all women are being addressed, but since I am cherry-picking, I will bypass the erroneous and extra-biblical text it introduces and simply take “through the birth of the child”.
15d “if they stay faithful, loving, holy, and modest.” – The various translations of the multiple states “they” should “stay” in are all reasonable. The key to the final part of the verse is “they”. It should be clear by now that “they” are not all women, but are the specific couple being addressed. Indeed, it now becomes overwhelming clear that a married couple have been the subject all along.
A Proper Translation – At this point, (and in prior verses where applicable), it should now be reasonable to use a translation that points out the obvious fact that a married couple is in view. As has often been the case, few translations do so (most are still obsessed with women even at this late stage). One that blatantly states it, albeit as a paraphrase, is the Weymouth New Testament which reads “if she and her husband continue to live…” The remainder of the verse can be selected from any source. My default choice is the New American Standard Bible, which has “…in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”
Here, then, is verse 15 from our template and with our multi-translation version:
Template: “But women will be saved by having children, if they stay faithful, loving, holy, and modest.”
Multi-version: “But she will be saved through the birth of the child if she and her husband continue to live in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”
Show Stoppers - 1 Tim 2 Series:
Introduction
Verse 11
Verse 12
Verse 13-14
Verse 15
Conclusion
…continuing breakdown of 1 Timothy 2:11-15
(Please make comments on the concluding post)
In order to fully address this section of 1 Timothy and adequately demonstrate the translational problems with it, I need to go into a very detailed, sometimes word for word, breakdown of the text. This will be tedious but necessary. Suffice it to say that ALL English translations of this passage contain translational errors. Yet, most get some things right as well. What I propose to do is take the translation that is the most flawed and use it as a template. I do this not only because it will provide the starkest comparison to what I believe is the correct translation of the text but also because it highlights all of the various subsequent interpretational errors. So, here is 1 Timothy 2:11-15 from the Contemporary English Version:
[11] and they [women] should learn by being quiet and paying attention. [12] They should be silent and not be allowed to teach or to tell men what to do. [13] After all, Adam was created before Eve, [14] and the man Adam wasn't the one who was fooled. It was the woman Eve who was completely fooled and sinned. [15] But women will be saved by having children, if they stay faithful, loving, holy, and modest.
Verses 13 and 14 – “After all, Adam was created before Eve, and the man Adam wasn't the one who was fooled. It was the woman Eve who was completely fooled and sinned.”
13 “After all, Adam was created before Eve “ - There is nothing wrong with the various translations of this verse, as the Greek is fairly straightforward and factual. The problem lies in the assumed reason that Paul brought Adam and Eve into the discussion. Remember that the common belief is that this entire passage is 1) about the conduct of church services, and 2) about women as a group, represented by a generic individual woman. Why bring the creation and fall into the discussion then? As much as it pains me to say it, many teach that Paul is pointing out a fatal, universal, female flaw. This teaching takes one of two forms – either all women are easily deceived or all women are deceitful. In either case, the teaching claims that the prohibition on women teaching and taking leadership positions in the church (or the home) is necessary due to this fatal flaw. Some will even bring in the created order argument that I discussed in the first post in this series as further evidence that God, even in the beginning, set it up for men to be in authority.
But what does our discovery so far do to that teaching? We know that the church service is not even the setting here. We also know that it is not the sound teaching of true doctrine that is being addressed, nor is any good or benevolent authority at issue. As difficult as it would be to justify the argument that ALL women are easily deceived or deceitful, it is preposterous to claim that ALL women are violent, domineering, heretics.
So if it is not Paul’s purpose to address women globally by bringing up Adam and Eve, what is his purpose. Or are Adam and Eve the issue at all? Let’s read on.
14a “and the man Adam wasn’t the one who was fooled” – Nothing wrong here, although the use of “deceived” in most translations has more power behind it. It should be noted that deception is at the forefront of Paul’s thought right now, further confirming that false or deceptive teaching is the broader subject.
14b “It was the woman Eve who was completely fooled and sinned.” – Most people who have sat through sermons on this passage would agree with this blatant condemnation of Eve. In fact, most translations say “the woman”, although rarely is it considered that the phrase “the woman” may not be referring directly to Eve. But we have already considered, and hopefully concluded, that women in general are not the issue here and therefore using Eve as a generic representative for women seems suddenly, strangely out of place. Maybe a further examination of this woman is in order.
The actual text says “the woman” including the definite article. In Greek, the use of the definite article is very…well…definite. If the text says “the woman”, it is talking about a specific woman. As I said above, most people assume that specific woman is Eve. But when we look closely at the deception of the woman and her descent into sin, we discover an astounding translational error.
Our template translation says “was completely fooled and sinned”. All of that is simple past tense[1]. But is that what the Greek really says. The “to be” verb that goes along with “sin” and is translated in almost every version as past tense is actually in perfect tense in the Greek. Here is how the perfect tense is described at the Resources for Learning New Testament Greek site:
The basic thought of the perfect tense is that the progress of an action has been completed and the results of the action are continuing on, in full effect. In other words, the progress of the action has reached its culmination and the finished results are now in existence. Unlike the English perfect, which indicates a completed past action, the Greek perfect tense indicates the continuation and present state of a completed past action. (emphasis mine)
A proper transliteration of 14b, from the Scripture 4 All online interlinear new testament is: “the yet woman being seduced in transgression has become”. In other words, the transgression, or “sin” is ongoing at the time Paul is writing Timothy. The question that must be asked is: “is Eve’s sin still happening”? The answer is obviously “no”. Therefore, the specific woman being spoken of can not be Eve, although she suffers from the same sort of deception that Eve did.
Why Does It Matter – Verse 14 clears up two main misconceptions about this passage. First, it can not be about all women or a group of women because verse 14 is clear that a specific woman is in view. For the same reason, it can not have anything to do with sound teaching or conduct in the normal course of church worship. This passage is about a specific woman and a specific man in her life. It is almost certain that the man is her husband – Paul’s use of the first marriage is just more, albeit ancillary, confirmation of that fact.
A Proper Translation – Sadly, only a few of translations get the tense of the verbs correct. The one which uses the most contemporary English is the Analytical-Literal Translation: “but the woman, having been deceived, has come to be in transgression.”
Here, then, are verses 13-14 from our template and with our multi-translation version:
Template: “After all, Adam was created before Eve, and the man Adam wasn't the one who was fooled. It was the woman Eve who was completely fooled and sinned.”
Multi-version: “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, has come to be in transgression.”
Notes
1. Translating tense between Greek and English is a little troublesome because the two languages don’t exactly treat tense the same way. In English, tense deals almost exclusively with time. In Greek, tense reflects both time and kind of action.
Show Stoppers - 1 Tim 2 Series:
Introduction
Verse 11
Verse 12
Verse 13-14
Verse 15
Conclusion
…continuing breakdown of 1 Timothy 2:11-15
(Please make comments on the concluding post)
In order to fully address this section of 1 Timothy and adequately demonstrate the translational problems with it, I need to go into a very detailed, sometimes word for word, breakdown of the text. This will be tedious but necessary. Suffice it to say that ALL English translations of this passage contain translational errors. Yet, most get some things right as well. What I propose to do is take the translation that is the most flawed and use it as a template. I do this not only because it will provide the starkest comparison to what I believe is the correct translation of the text but also because it highlights all of the various subsequent interpretational errors. So, here is 1 Timothy 2:11-15 from the Contemporary English Version:
[11] and they [women] should learn by being quiet and paying attention. [12] They should be silent and not be allowed to teach or to tell men what to do. [13] After all, Adam was created before Eve, [14] and the man Adam wasn't the one who was fooled. It was the woman Eve who was completely fooled and sinned. [15] But women will be saved by having children, if they stay faithful, loving, holy, and modest.
Verse 12 – “They should be silent and not be allowed to teach or to tell men what to do.”
Word order is a little backward in this translation, so I will rearrange it into the literal word order, but keep the translation the same.
“They should not be allowed to teach or to tell men what to do, [but] should be silent”
12a “They” – i.e. women. The plural is maintained in the translation even though it is singular in the original text.
12b “should not be allowed” – The actual text states “I [Paul] am not allowing”. This is a huge omission in the CEV and many other translations. By making it a global statement – “women should not be allowed”, it gives the impression that a general law or prohibition is being conveyed here. But there is no law prohibiting women to teach in religious gatherings, either Jewish or Christian. Paul is making a specific appeal to his own authority. But why? Cheryl Schatz points out that this particular phrasing by Paul – “I am not allowing” – is unique in scripture, and quite a departure from Paul’s usual instructive form to Timothy within this letter. She makes the case in her blog post Using Paul’s Authority that Paul needs to take a unique approach to a unique problem.
…May I suggest that Paul is giving his own apostolic authority to Timothy to act in a very sensitive situation.
Timothy was a young man who in his youthfulness would have had a difficult time going past another man’s wife in order to stop her from teaching. In that culture a man’s home and family was his own responsibility alone. If you were going to deal with a man’s wife, you needed to go through the husband. But if the man of verse 12 was another “Adam” character who was saying and doing nothing about his wife’s deception, who could interfere? Paul could.
In the church Paul had the apostolic authority to go around the husband to stop the deception and false teaching of the wife. By Paul saying “I am not allowing” Paul is giving his authority to Timothy to act on his behalf in one of the most uncomfortable tasks that Timothy had to accomplish….
Why Does It Matter – The nearly universal teaching on this passage is that it is dealing with conduct in the worship service. If that is incorrect, if the passage is really dealing with a very personal and isolated problem within one or a few families in Ephesus, the entire authoritarian paradigm based on this passage breaks down. It is crucial that we understand the proper context of this verse.
A Proper Translation – At the very least, a translation should make clear that Paul is appealing to his authority. Many do, so for both 12a and 12b we will use the rather generic “I do not allow a woman”.
12c “to teach” – Now we are getting to the real fundamentals of this passage. Again, the presumption is that teaching to the congregation (if one could even call 1st century gatherings that) is what is being prohibited. But the entirety of 1 Timothy 1 and 2 is dealing with false teaching. Did Paul suddenly turn his attention to the prohibition of sound biblical teaching? Certainly not! The teaching involved here is not the teaching of the gospel to believers and seekers but more of the same false teaching and heresy that was rampant in Ephesus at the time and that Paul has consistently been addressing in the letter to this point. At best we can only assume that Paul is prohibiting false teaching to the congregation, and that a woman is the false teacher. But again, there are nagging clues which indicate that the audience for the false teaching was much more confined.
Why Does It Matter – It should be more and more apparent that our traditional view of this passage is completely off track. It will get even more apparent with further work. What one needs to take away from this is that the teaching of sound biblical principals and doctrine is not in view. Any interpretation that begins with that premise is off base at the outset and needs to be reevaluated.
A Proper Translation - There is nothing wrong with the almost universal translation “to teach”. One just needs to keep in mind that the Greek word translated “teach” has no inherent good or bad connotation. In context of the first 2 chapters of the letter, this refers to false teaching.
12d “or to tell men what to do” – Many of the translations sound a little more ominous, using some variant of “have” or “exercise” “authority” or “dominion”. Still, even slight changes convey subtle differences in meaning. Consider several variations using “authority”.
Easy English Bible Translation – “take authority”
King James – “usurp authority”
Today’s NIV – “assume authority”
Douay-Rheims – “use authority”
International Standard Version – “have authority”
English Standard Version – “exercise authority”
Recovery Version NT – “assert authority”
Meanings can range from simply being granted some kind of authority to snatching authority out of the grasp of a man or men. The one consistency is the assumption that the authority in question would be just fine if wielded by a man. It isn’t the authority that is the problem, it is the woman’s involvement.
There are also subtle differences in what noun is used. “Dominion” and “rule” seem slightly more negative than authority. Most people would agree that domineering behavior is not loving, and we have already discussed in a prior post in this series the true negative connotation of “rule” from Genesis 3:16. So, some translations at least indicate that something more than godly leadership, whether in the home or in the church, is at issue here.
And yet, none of them capture the true nature of the obscure Greek word authenteo (its only occurrence in the bible is in this verse) which is most often translated “authority”. Is it the benevolent kind of loving “servant” leadership one expects form a husband or pastor or elder? If not, then what possible connection could this portion of the passage have with teaching and leading a Spirit filled worship service? The answer should no longer be a surprise. The first, oldest, use given in Thayer’s Lexicon is “one who with his own hands kills another or himself”! The word is used in other Greek texts in relation to murder and rape. Thayer’s also has “an absolute master”. Hardly the kind of biblical leadership traditional teaching claims a woman is “usurping”.
Why Does It Matter – I believe the answer here should be obvious. Something quite different and sinister than conduct in worship services is going on in this passage. The woman or women in question are teaching heresy or worse and engaging in possibly violent domineering over the man or men in question. Moreover, the relationships in question are one-to-one, woman to man (contrary to the CEV continuation of the plural, “man” is singular in the original text). We have now entered an entirely different world than Christian worship services, and any teaching that misses or avoids this truth is itself misleading at best and downright devious at worst. In fact, it could not matter more that we get this verse correct because the interpretation of verse 12 colors everything in verses 13-15.
A Proper Translation – although some variations on “authority” have more negative connotations, they are not evident on our translations. “authority” is simply too benign a word to grasp the true idea behind authenteo. “Rule” comes closer, especially if the reader has Genesis 3:16 in the back of their mind. But the sheer severity of authenteo demands an even harsher word. Variations on “dominate” come closest, for even in the church setting, no one would accept domination as an acceptable leadership practice. We also need to eliminate verbs such as “have” and “usurp”, for this domination is not endowed as a Christian characteristic, nor is it taken from someone who rightly possesses it. It must be clear that the domination is forced on the other person.
We also have more confirmation that a husband and wife are in view, although the evidence is not yet conclusive. As stated before, when a singular man and woman are spoken of within a passage and there is clearly a relationship between them, it is generally assumed that a married couple is the subject. Several versions take that leap at this time and read “husband” instead of “man”. But I won’t go there quite yet. There is one more piece to this puzzle to make it conclusive.
With those two thoughts in mind, the Concordant Literal New Testament comes the closest: “to be domineering over a man”.
12e “but should be silent” – This mirrors the discussion of verse 11.
Here, then, is verse 12 from our template and with our multi-translation version:
Template: “They should be silent and not be allowed to teach or to tell men what to do.”
Multi-version: “But I do not allow a woman to teach [false doctrine] or to be domineering over a man, rather, she is to remain at peace”
Show Stoppers - 1 Tim 2 Series:
Introduction
Verse 11
Verse 12
Verse 13-14
Verse 15
Conclusion
…continuing breakdown of 1 Timothy 2:11-15
(Please make comments on the concluding post)
In order to fully address this section of 1 Timothy and adequately demonstrate the translational problems with it, I need to go into a very detailed, sometimes word for word, breakdown of the text. This will be tedious but necessary. Suffice it to say that ALL English translations of this passage contain translational errors. Yet, most get some things right as well. What I propose to do is take the translation that is the most flawed and use it as a template. I do this not only because it will provide the starkest comparison to what I believe is the correct translation of the text but also because it highlights all of the various subsequent interpretational errors. So, here is 1 Timothy 2:11-15 from the Contemporary English Version:
[11] and they [women] should learn by being quiet and paying attention. [12] They should be silent and not be allowed to teach or to tell men what to do. [13] After all, Adam was created before Eve, [14] and the man Adam wasn't the one who was fooled. It was the woman Eve who was completely fooled and sinned. [15] But women will be saved by having children, if they stay faithful, loving, holy, and modest.
Verse 11 – “and they [women] should learn by being quiet and paying attention.”
11a “and they [women] should learn” – Paul actually transitions from plural in the preceding verses to singular here. Women – plural – are no longer in view. Some translations assume women are still in view by interpreting Paul’s singular as meaning a generic woman. That is why most translate this as “a woman”. It still leaves the sense that “a woman” is every woman. Never the less, to keep the plural is incorrect. It also seems incorrect to assume this is a universal generic woman. Paul previously was speaking of the conduct of men and women in the Ephesian church. So, it appears at the very least, that a generic Ephesian, or possibly, a generic Christian woman would be intended. Traditional teaching takes the latter view. Regardless of the grammatical number employed in the translation, it is assumed that this verse continues on with the discussion of Christian women in the worship service that began in verse 9. But why then the change from plural to singular? Why wouldn’t Paul just continue on the discussion as this translation does – with “and they” (the conjunction also does not exist in the Greek and is therefore erroneous)? Surely the translators of the CEV assume this to be true. But the actual Greek indicates anything but a continuation of prior thought. The common sense reaction to such a dramatic shift in grammar is that this is something new.
Why Does It Matter - Because the entire interpretation of the passage proceeds on this assumption – that the conduct of women in the Christian worship service is (or really, continues to be) the topic. What if that is wrong? What if all women aren’t the objects of discussion and what if the worship service isn’t the setting? Doesn’t that completely change both the teaching about this passage and its applicability to other scripture? I certainly think it does.
A Proper Translation – There is no definite article with “woman” in the verse so technically, “a woman” is a correct translation. The King James and a few others have “the woman” but it is clear from the rest of those translations that what they really mean is “the woman [of the species]”. So they are using a generic as all the others, just a more formal way of expressing it.
Two translations have “wife” instead of “woman” – the Aramaic English Translation and The Word of Yah. Since Greek had no independent words for wife or husband, context must dictate if “woman” actually means “wife”. In general, when a man and a woman are spoken of together in the New Testament, there is an assumption that husband and wife are being addressed (even if generically). But that is not universally true. Does the context support such a notion here. I believe there is a strong case for that, although we need to read a little further to flesh that out. But, since there is no man yet mentioned, we can’t, in my opinion, leap to that translation just yet.
There are a couple translations we can reject outright. It is very unlikely that Paul means “a [certain] woman”. The Greek supporting text indicating a “certain” individual is often used by Paul but absent here. Simply put, if he had meant to say that he would have said it. We also can exclude “the woman [who you – Timothy – wrote to me about]”. Again, the text does not support this as a translation. Now, it may turn out that either of those are correct paraphrases of Paul’s meaning. But literally, we can’t accept them.
We will see as the passage goes on if “a woman” is some generic representing all women, a more specific subset of women like Christian women, an even more narrow subset such as wives, or a specific woman who Paul is making generic for illustrative purposes. At this point, I accept any of the dozens of translations which has “let a woman learn”, or equivalent (there is no problem with the translation of “learn”).
11b “by being quiet” – Many translations use “silent”. They imply that a lack of speaking or making noise is involved. But is that actually what the Greek says? The Greek word translated here as “quiet” is hesychia. It is fairly rare in the bible, occurring only 4 times.. Thayer’s lexicon has this as a definition: “quietness-description of the life of one who stays at home doing his own work, and does not officiously meddle with the affairs of others” although they grant a definition of “silence” in this particular verse for unexplained reasons. The verb that the noun is derived from is defined: “to rest, to lead a quiet life, to be silent as in to ‘hold one’s peace’”. The adjective is defined as “tranquil”. Certainly this word has much more to do with demeanor and state of mind than it does literal silence.
Why Does It matter – Because teachers and theologians have used the definition of “silence” to dictate that women should make no noise at all in church or any other Christian learning situation. “Seen and not heard” is the mantra. Under this system, women can not ask questions or even engage in useful “classroom” discussion.
A Proper Translation – The translations that have a form of “quiet” are far preferable to those that have “silence”, but the most accurate translation I can find is The Complete Jewish Bible which has “in peace”.
11c “and paying attention” – There are a wide variety of translations besides “paying attention” for the Greek word hypotage in this verse including: “under authority”, “humble” or “with humility”, “being ready to obey”, “keeping with her position”, “under complete control”, “ready to cooperate”, “showing teachers deference”, and “obediently”. By far, the most common are “submissively” and “with subjection” and their variants. In reality, this is one instance where our template translation is a little less strict than the word might suggest.
Why Does It Matter – Because this is interpreted as some sort of extra submission for women only. The problem isn’t in the translation itself, but in its use as a universally female directive. The reality is that any person in a learning environment, male or female, young or old, should learn with a peaceful demeanor and a submissive attitude toward the teacher.
One potential translation – “keeping with her position” – also points to a theme that will be repeated as we move through the verses. Two typical teachings really come out of this passage. One is the main idea that women are to be quiet in church and not ever teach men. The other is more camouflaged and has a more subtle effect, but it is still there and it impacts directly on marriage. It is the idea that “a woman’s place is in the home”. This is where 1 Timothy 2:11-15 plays into the role based hierarchy of complementarians even in the marriage realm. We will see more of that in verse 15.
On the egalitarian side, some accept the translations but don’t accept the applicability. These people point to this and the subsequent verse as indicators that something unusual was going on with the Ephesian women in the church service – that they were being boisterous and disruptive when there was teaching going on. Those who follow this line of thinking agree that Paul’s instructions are related to the worship services, but that they are for a specific anomaly and therefore have no universal applicability. In other words, if you are acting up in the service, you should be quiet, but otherwise there is no prohibition on women to speak or teach or anything else in the worship service. This analysis has possibilities, but we still need to see if it fits with the rest of the passage.
A Proper Translation – “submission/subjection” are the most literal translations of hypotage and are acceptable, even though they sound a little harsh. “ready to cooperate” and “show [teachers] all deference” are paraphrases that fit the context of a learning environment a little better and seem a little less oppressive. For an accurate and applicable translation, I am going to go with the former paraphrase which is from the New Century Version.
Here, then, is verse 11 from our template and with our multi-translation version:
Template: “and they [women] should learn by being quiet and paying attention.”
Multi-version: “Let a woman learn in peace, being ready to cooperate in everything”
Now, there isn’t much difference…yet. But we have 4 more verses to go.
Show Stoppers - 1 Tim 2 Series:
Introduction
Verse 11
Verse 12
Verse 13-14
Verse 15
Conclusion
Note – this will be an in depth and lengthy study and will therefore be conducted over several posts. I will post them all at once. I would prefer that any commentary and discussion be conducted in the final post only. Thank you.
I end the Show Stoppers series with a passage that some may think an odd choice. Traditional teaching on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 states that the passage relates to the conduct of women in worship services. As such, it seems out of place in a series on equality or hierarchy in marriage. But that is only if we 1) assume traditional teaching is correct, and 2) we don’t look too closely at the details of that teaching.
Imbedded in much of the teaching of the second half of 1 Timothy 2 are some assumptions about women in general, which certainly includes wives. Moreover, the inclusion by Paul of narrative involving Adam and Eve specifically, indicates to many that this passage has a dual function, or at least, that it addresses male/female relationship in two distinct realms: church and marriage. Finally, there are many who use the passage as a basis for more specific discussions of the marriage relationship in Ephesians 5, and even more importantly, 1 Corinthians 11.
Because of both the generalization that this passage makes universal statements about women and the belief that this passage forms a basis for interpreting specifically marital passages, it is indeed a show stopper in the equality/hierarchy debate.
I need to begin with a rather bold and inflammatory statement but it is an essential prerequisite to this analysis: 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is one of the most erratically and erroneously translated passages in all of scripture. Now – I don’t expect anyone to take my word on that. I do intend to prove that that statement is sadly but most definitely true. In turn, it is bad translations that lead to even worse interpretations and ultimately to a view of women and men that is completely antithetical to Paul’s teaching. Put simply, we have completely missed the point of this passage. With my premise in view, let’s take a look at this final show stopper.
As with all interpretation of scripture, we need to begin by understanding the context surrounding and informing a section of text, and the intended audience. That is especially true of 1 Timothy 2:11-15. First, the entire letter to Timothy is a personal letter to the addressee who Paul had left in Ephesus to watch over the church there. In fact, the letter is a response to Timothy based, presumably, on a letter Timothy had written Paul concerning the issues that Timothy was dealing with. One of those issues, and possibly the most distressing one facing the young disciple, was the rampant paganism, false teaching, and heresy that existed in Ephesus at the time. Specifically for the Ephesian Christians, false teaching was a growing concern. Paul spends the entirety of the first 2 chapters of the letter (as we know them – the letter itself was not split into chapter and verse) dealing with false teaching, instructing Timothy on how to deal with both specific false teachers and Christian behavior in the presence of false teaching. That includes verses 11-15 of chapter 2. We must keep in full view that false teaching was the issue being addressed, and that Timothy, not the church at large, was who Paul was speaking to and instructing.
In order to fully address this section of 1 Timothy and adequately demonstrate the translational problems with it, I need to go into a very detailed, sometimes word for word, breakdown of the text. This will be tedious but necessary. Suffice it to say that virtually ALL English translations of this passage contain translational errors. Yet, most get some things right as well. What I propose to do is take a translation that is predominantly flawed and use it as a template. I do this not only because it will provide the starkest comparison to what I believe is the correct translation of the text but also because it highlights all of the various subsequent interpretational errors. So, here is 1 Timothy 2:11-15 from the Contemporary English Version:
[11] and they [women] should learn by being quiet and paying attention. [12] They should be silent and not be allowed to teach or to tell men what to do. [13] After all, Adam was created before Eve, [14] and the man Adam wasn't the one who was fooled. It was the woman Eve who was completely fooled and sinned. [15] But women will be saved by having children, if they stay faithful, loving, holy, and modest.
In the next four posts I will break this text down, highlighting the translational errors and how they impact the traditional interpretations, discussing the impact of these errors, and proposing, from other bible versions, a more proper translation.
Show Stoppers - 1 Tim 2 Series:
Introduction
Verse 11
Verse 12
Verse 13-14
Verse 15
Conclusion
The third show stopper in the gender relations debate is not so much a verse or passage but a concept. In six places in the New Testament epistles[1], Paul employs a head/body metaphor to discuss relationships. The key element in these head/body verses and passages is the Greek word “kephale” which is literally translated as the English word “head”. That word is defined and interpreted in virtually opposite ways by the two sides of the debate and therefore creates a show stopper to any further discussion. So, we now turn our attention to kephale and its definition and usage in Pauline metaphor.
Before we look at the usage of kephale in the bible (and in Greek in general), we need to spend a little time looking at the word “head” in English. “Head” has many definitions in English. A quick review on dictionary.com showed 85 usages including noun, adjectival, and verb forms, and idioms. The definitions range from the anatomical head of an animal to the bathroom on a ship. In summary, “head” is a very versatile word in English.
One such usage is to designate a leader or authority. Phrases such as “head of state”, “head of the company”, and even “head of the household” convey this meaning[2]. Another usage designates the source or origin of something. That is the meaning when we say things like “the head of the river” or form compound words like “headwaters”. It is these two definitions which are most in view when discussing kephale. In fact, the ongoing debate between these definitions is at the forefront of discussion of the difficult text of 1 Corinthians 11. Fortunately, that is not one of our head/body metaphors, so we need not get into that maelstrom[3].
Within the metaphorical passages, the debate is not so much between “leader” and “source”, but between “leader” and “???”. Complementarians are steadfast in their assertion that kephale means leader whenever it is used in the New Testament to describe relations between people. Egalitarians, on the other hand, claim that kephale never, ever, even has the definition of “leader” in Greek. Both sides have their favorite lexicon which they say proves their point. I would like to suggest that, when it comes to the head/body metaphors, the focus on whether or not kephale means “leader” is completely misplaced.
What is lost in the whole debate is that the literary device being employed is a metaphor. So, what is a metaphor? How is it used? What do we need to know about metaphors to understand Paul’s intent?
A metaphor is a figure of speech concisely expressed by an implied analogy between two objects or ideas, conveyed by the use of a word instead of another.
…metaphor is in two parts: the tenor and the vehicle. The tenor is the subject to which attributes are ascribed. The vehicle is the subject whose attributes are borrowed.
A metaphor is more forceful (active) than an analogy, because metaphor asserts two things are the same.[4] (Emphasis mine.)
In the head/body metaphors in the bible, the tenors – Christ, Church, husband, wife, fellow Christians – are ascribed the attributes of the vehicles – the anatomical head and body. Therefore, in this usage, the definition of kephale/”head” in human relations is irrelevant! What is important is how the anatomical head and body relate to each other. Paul is saying that Christ/Church, Husband/Wife, and Christian to Christian relationships should follow the pattern of the anatomical body. Put simply – people should relate like the body relates. It is irrelevant how human relations generally operate because the relationship whose attributes are borrowed in the metaphor is the anatomical one. So, the only thing that is necessary to resolve the debate is to determine if the anatomical head is in authority over the anatomical body, or conversely, if head and body operate in some form of symbiosis.
Now, I could do a whole lot of research into Greek and Roman philosophy and ancient medical and psychological thought regarding anatomical relationships, but, fortunately, I don’t have to do that. Paul tells us within these passages exactly how he views the relationship between head and body.
But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing [gifts] to each one individually just as He wills. For even as the body is one and {yet} has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not {a part} of the body," it is not for this reason any the less {a part} of the body. And if the ear says, "Because I am not an eye, I am not {a part} of the body," it is not for this reason any the less {a part} of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those {members} of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, whereas our more presentable members have no need {of it.} But God has {so} composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that {member} which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but {that} the members may have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if {one} member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it. (1 Corinthians 12:11-27 NASB)
In Paul’s general use of the body metaphor (of which the head is a part), it is clear that all parts are equal, and even more important, that the head has no superior position and certainly no authority over any other part of the body. Relations in the church, even those between the body and its head, contain “no division”, sharing equally in both “suffer[ing]” and “honor”. Paul gets more specific when Christ is directly called “head”.
{There is} one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift. Therefore it says, "WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH, HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES, AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN." (Now this {expression,} "He ascended," what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.) And He gave some {as} apostles, and some {as} prophets, and some {as} evangelists, and some {as} pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all {aspects} into Him who is the head, {even} Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love. (Ephesians 4:4-16 NASB [5])
Again, the body proper, which includes Jesus and us, grows in a mutually beneficial manner. There is no authority of any part over the other, including the head. All work in a equal way to create the unity that is the Body of Christ.
Now, this should not surprise us. We all know this to be true. In the anatomical context, neither head nor body can survive alone. Each supplies what the other needs and each works on behalf of the other for the growth of the whole. It is this symbiotic, anatomical paradigm that Paul is invoking and that must be superimposed over the human relationships that the metaphor addresses. No authority exists. In fact, hierarchy is not even remotely in view. It has no relevance in the anatomy of the human body.
I admit this is hard for many people to swallow. They can’t wrap their head around a context where Jesus isn’t in authority. But Paul specifically uses the anatomical body to demonstrate that in certain contexts, Jesus is an equal partner, just like your head and body are equal partners in the growth of the whole person. This Christ/Church arrangement is such a context.
It is no mistake that the other metaphor employed when the Christ/Church relationship is in view is marriage. In Ephesians 5, Paul quite explicitly extends the head/body metaphor to husbands and wives. Now, that doesn’t make the husband a Christ figure in the wife’s eyes. No one can fill that role but Christ himself. Never-the-less, husbands need to show the kind of sacrificial love that Christ shows the church. In turn, wives need to show the kind of humble submission and respect toward their husbands that everyone within the body is to show to one another and that we all are to show to Christ. This is how Christ and the church interact, and their “marriage” is the model for the rest of us. There is no hierarchy involved; to assume hierarchy exists is to either naively miss or purposely reject Paul’s pointed and purposeful use of the head/body metaphor.
Notes
1. The six verses/passages that have head/body metaphors: Ephesians 1:22-23, 4:4-16, 5:22-33, 1 Corinthians 12:4-27, Colossians 1:18-24, 2:7-19. In 1 Corinthians 12, head and body are spoken of in general terms of how they relate and in turn show how we should relate to each other. In the remaining passages, Specific people represent the head (Christ, husband) and body (the Church, wife).
2. Interestingly, the similarly constructed “head of the class” does not convey any authority or leadership, but instead indicates “prominence” or “honor”. In several places in the bible where Old Testament prophecy is quoted regarding Jesus being the “head” or “chief” cornerstone of the Church, the Greek and English share this meaning.
3. This is not to suggest that the “leader” vs. “source” issue doesn’t also need resolving. For interested readers, Susanna Krizo provides an appendix in her book “When Dogmas Die” with numerous quotes from early church fathers where they use kephale as “source” or “origin”. These are, of course, many of the same theologians and church leaders who promoted the authority and superiority of males. Hypocrisy knows no time boundaries.
4. Excerpted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor.
5. This is repeated in abbreviated form in Colossians 2:19
Just a quick note while I work on the next post. As I have often said, one needs to make a distinction between biblical history and biblical teaching. It is clear in biblical history (as well as most of the history of the church) that authoritarian patriarchy and misogyny have been and continue to be the predominant patterns of human behavior, particularly in males. The mistake that is often made is to interpret those behaviors by flawed, fallen humans, as a godly concept or design. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just because people did it, doesn't mean that God wants them to do it. As we transition from the Old Testament into the New in the Show Stoppers series, please remember that what we are searching for is God's desire for humans. We will not find that in the tendencies and treacheries of man as reflected by biblical (and church) history. No, we must in most cases discard history as a basis for behavior (except when it shows us what not to do) and instead look to what the bible teaches in proverbs, psalms, and the inspired instruction of the apostles to the church
In the previous post I explored how one’s interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2, and resulting belief in either hierarchy or equality between husband and wife, must be addressed if any meaningful discussion from the rest of the bible can take place regarding gender relations. Specifically, if one believes that there is hierarchy in the pre-fall marriage, they are compelled to believe that hierarchy continues to be God’s “very good” design even today. Put simply: it is useless to talk to them about equality if, in their view, hierarchy is godly.
But what if they are swayed by my previous arguments? What if they now understand that equality between the sexes is actually what God intended? Does that mean that they now will see equality as the “very good” design after the fall? Unfortunately, the answer is “definitely not”. That brings us to the second “show stopper” in this series, and we don’t have to go very far to find it. Genesis 3 describes the fall of mankind into sin and, for many complementarians, the God ordained initiation of overt male authority in the marriage in verse 16. Let’s see what Genesis 3, and specifically 3:16, has to say (or not say) about male “rule”.[1]
If a person comes to understanding that the pre-fall marriage was one of equality, they still can come to the conclusion that males were put in charge by God after the fall. There are several similar arguments that lead to this conclusion.
A. Eve was easily deceived and subsequently all women need someone less easily deceived to “rule” over them to keep them from being deceived.
B. Eve was deceitful because she used her feminine wiles to trick Adam into eating the fruit and subsequently all women need someone to “rule” over them to keep them in line.
C. Eve tried to take control of the situation and subsequently all women will try to control their husbands, necessitating male rule to curb the sinful controlling behavior of women.
In either case, the message is clear: women are weak and/or evil - the main cause of sin entering the world - and therefore men have been lifted up by God to heroically right this horrible wrong and make the world a better place. Oh sure, maybe there might be a man now and again who takes this “rule” thing a bit too far. But in general, men are kind and loving rulers who never let their authority go to their head. Men are God’s “servant leaders”, who always put their wives first. So, what’s wrong with this picture (this one shouldn’t be hard to figure out)?
There a two fundamental problems, or really, misperceptions, with this view. Not surprisingly, the misperceptions are about Adam and Eve themselves (and ultimately men and women). Fortunately, the bible contains the answers to correct those misperceptions.
Was Eve the villain of the fall?
Curiously, the name “Eve” (Hebrew - Chavvah, Greek - Heua) does not occur anywhere outside of Genesis 3 and 4 and two brief mentions by Paul, one related to creation order (1 Timothy 2:13), and one highlighting her ignorant state when being deceived by the serpent (2 Corinthians 11:3). If Eve were the villain in the fall of mankind, one might expect the occasional mention in such a context of her in the rest of the bible. Or is it that the fall isn’t referenced again after Genesis 3? Certainly not! The fall is referenced by both old and new testament writers with fingers pointing to a singular name as the responsible party – “Adam”. Here is a quick review.
Hosea 6:7 “But like Adam they (Israel) have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me.”
Romans 5:12-19 “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like {that which came} through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment {arose} from one {transgression} resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift {arose} from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.”
1 Corinthians 15:21-22 For since by a man {came} death, by a man also {came} the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
Could it not be more clear that Adam is the cause of sin in the world and the villain in the garden scene?
“But what of Eve’s deception and/or deceit”, some say. I ask in reply: “are either susceptibility to deception or deceit only female traits?”. Moreover, did Eve really deceive Adam, or was she only herself deceived by the serpent?
Paul deals with deceit in his first letter to Timothy, where the first two chapters address false teaching in Ephesus. Indeed, it is a woman who is deceived in Ephesus similarly to Eve – “Adam wasn't deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience;” (1 Tim 2:14 HNV). But Paul was just as deceived before coming to Christ – “even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy[2] because I acted ignorantly in unbelief;” (1 Tim 1:13). Moreover, it is men who are the blatant and willful deceivers – “some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme.” (1 Tim 19b-20) The charge of deceit against Eve is unfounded at its core, because it requires that Eve sought out and tricked an ignorant Adam. Paul declares Adam was not deceived (by the serpent or Eve - 1 Tim 2:14a), and the Genesis 3 account shows that Adam was present for the whole deception – “So she ate some of the fruit. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her. Then he ate it, too.” (Genesis 3:6b NLT).
The charges against Eve are a baseless smoke screen. Although she was truly deceived, her ignorance grants her mercy. Moreover, the deception she fell prey to is not unique to her. Satan is the author of lies and he uses deceit and confusion in an attempt to deceive us all. We are all potential victims. Being male grants no one special immunity, not even Paul.
Was Adam the hero of the fall?
Put this way, the idea seems preposterous. Yet that is exactly how complementarians view Genesis 3:16 and therefore justify male hierarchy. After all, there has to be some counter balance[3] to the perceived harm from deceived/deceitful women. Who else but males are available to provide that balance. But how can they feel they are up to the task? Although they would never (anymore) say such a thing out loud, they simply think men are better than women. Men, they claim, are more logical, less emotional, and mentally and physically stronger and so are designed to lead. Women, in turn, are designed to follow. If a man refuses to lead or a woman refuses to follow, they are denying their design and sinning against God. EVEN IF there was equality in the garden, the introduction of sin has created the need for leaders and followers and God has answered that need by elevating males. “He shall rule over you”, therefore, is a remedy for the negative impact of woman’s influence on the world. Can’t you just hear Underdog’s famous call being echoed by men: “here I come to save the day!” After all, that’s what Genesis 3:16 says (*rolls eyes*)
So what kind of “rule” is this that is spoken of in Genesis 3? Is it benevolent, or malevolent? The Hebrew word used is mashal and is fairly benign. It simply means to exercise authority. Whether or not that authority is good or bad depends on context. So, what is the context of Genesis 3:16. Is it describing a good or bad situation? Is the “rule” a prescription for bad behavior on the part of the “subjects”? Or is the “rule” heavy handed and cruel? Most importantly, is the “rule” God ordained, or even commanded? The answer to these questions helps to determine if Adam is hero or tyrant.
The initial overriding thought that comes to my mind when dealing with God’s pronouncement of judgment in Genesis 3:14-24 is that none of it is good. In fact, it seems the antithesis to the “good” that God saw in His original creative work. What this part of the fall narrative says to me is that now, “it is bad”. But specifically with Genesis 3:16, it seems illogical to me that God would insert a prescriptive measure in the midst of all the punishment, curses, and predictions for a now fallen and sin filled world. Certainly, God does not consider the male less prone to sin than the female. I do not believe anyone would try to make that argument. It is also certain that the man failed in his one responsibility – to guard the garden[4]. So why give him more responsibility? A God ordained authority for Adam over Eve makes no sense to me. Not only did she not need to have an authority over her, but Adam would hardly have been the first choice if she did.
Now let’s look at those questions to help clarify the context.
Is it (Genesis 3:14-24) describing a good or bad situation?
Hmmm. Well, sin has just entered the world and condemned the human race to death. I’d say that is pretty bad. Moreover, literally every other phrase but 3:16b[5] is either a direct curse or punishment or describing negative future events. I say this one is a no-brainer.
Is the “rule” a prescription for bad behavior on the part of the “subjects”?
As we have already seen, Eve was not guilty of intentional behavior. She is not portrayed at all in the narrative as unruly or requiring some type of rule over her. The answer to this question is a definite “no”.
Or is the “rule” heavy handed and cruel?
History gives the rest of the story. The rule of males, while kind and loving in individual cases, has on the whole been very heavy handed, often cruel, and just as often abusive. Which leads to…
Most importantly, is the “rule” God ordained, or even commanded?
Based on the infamous history of that rule, it seems absurd to suggest that it comes from God (see note 3 again). Really, is God in the business of inflicting perpetual punishment on those who sin in ignorance. Again, Paul gives us the answer.
“Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief; and the grace of our Lord was more than abundant, with the faith and love which are {found} in Christ Jesus. It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost {of all.} Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.” 1 Tim 1:13b-16
Not only did Eve not deserve or require a human ruler, but the faithless watchman, the treacherous, “eyes wide open” sinner Adam, was disqualified from such a role. The lesson from Genesis 3:16 is that marriage would now, in a fallen world, be filled with bad behavior and its negative consequences. “He will rule over you” is not a remedy for bad marital relations, it is a dire prediction of the male contribution to bad marital relations. How one views “he will rule over you” will govern their entire approach to marriage. If they believe it is a remedy, they will continue to argue for it strongly because the disease they perceive it cures is female domination and deceit. On the other hand, if they see it as part and parcel of the consequences of the fall, they will resist it and seek true godly solutions to the marital problems it creates. Which is why, “he will rule over you” is a “show stopper” to any further meaningful discussion of gender relations.
Notes:
1. As I have already discussed, a Genesis 2 belief in hierarchy necessitates a belief in hierarchy going forward into Genesis 3. If one has that perspective, they see hierarchy all over the narrative of the fall. Eve is seen as rebelling against Adam’s authority by talking to the serpent and it goes downhill for women from there. I am not taking time in this post to deal with the arguments based on the false premise of male authority based on Genesis 2 because it is my hope that the first post in the series will get a person beyond that point. That doesn’t mean that such a post shouldn’t be written, it just means that the “show must go on” in dealing with the progression of show stopping passages/concepts. Other arguments for future consideration are:
* Is there anything in the Eve-serpent dialog that hints at an in-place authority structure?
* Does the order in which God interrogated Adam and Eve say anything about hierarchy?
* What, if anything, does the content of God’s “sentence” on the participants in the fall contribute to hierarchical designs.
2. Eve also was shown mercy because of her ignorance as she was the only one of the three participants in the fall to not be cursed or have a curse associated with her sin.
3. Some even go as far as to claim that women deserve punishment for Eve’s treachery (funny how Hosea calls Adam the treacherous one) and male “rule”, even if harsh, is that deserved punishment. This is a fairly antiquated idea, but I do not doubt that there are a few out there who still hold to it.
4. For an excellent treatment of “The Unfaithful Watchman” see this blog post on the Women in Ministry Blog.
5. Although it is out of scope for this discussion, I hold this to be true also of “your desire will be for your husband”. I know that will agitate some women out there, but I simply can’t see anything positive in this passage. Whatever this “desire” or “turning” is, it has a negative impact on marriages in my opinion. A more detailed look at that phrase will have to wait until a future post.
“Let’s start at the very beginning; a very nice place to start” – Maria, The Sound of Music
The first “show stopper” in the gender hierarchy/equality debate occurs at the very beginning of the bible – Genesis 1 and 2. Indeed, it is the complementarian view that a male headed authority structure existed even in the garden that supports and even dictates their view of the rest of scripture when it comes to gender relations. As long as a person holds to that view there is no use in talking to them about any other problematic verses or concepts. Indeed, this is logical. For if there was a hierarchy in the perfect setting of the garden, then certainly that hierarchy (God’s “perfect” marriage design) would need to be carried into an imperfect world in order to avoid anarchy and chaos. A person who believes in this garden power structure can’t help but believe that it should be maintained in a fallen world. So, is such a power structure evident in the garden narrative? That is what we will explore in this first installment of the “Show Stopper” series.
Although I believe the complementarian view on authority is almost universally presumptive, it is not so much so with Genesis 1 and 2. The foundation of their position lies in the text of those chapters. We will take a look at both the text they use to support hierarchy, as well as the text they ignore which shows equality.
Complementarians do agree with egalitarians on one important point: both males and females are equal image bearers of God[1]. So, in terms of “essence”, men and women are equal. So, the equality seen in Genesis 1 is acknowledged…to a point. Where Complementarians split from egalitarians is when the soul and spirit of humans gives way to their physical beings and the supposed “roles” here on earth that those beings fulfill. Once Adam and Eve become flesh and bone in Genesis 2, Complementarians see a fundamental shift in their inter-relationship. Put simply, although men and women are equal in “essence”, they are not equal in function: men are in charge and women are subject to that male authority. So, where do they see that in the text of Genesis 2.
In the second installment of my series “Equality in the Original Marriage Design”[2], I discuss in detail the three main arguments in favor of male authority. I will summarize them here. Please see the original post for the full rebuttal. I believe all three, while being based upon the text, still beg the question and are therefore in error. The three main arguments for male authority are: order of creation, naming rights, and method of creation.
The order of creation argument states that because Adam was created before Eve, he has a natural, God given authority over her. This argument is false because there is no basis for concluding that order of creation grants order of authority. In fact, the entire creation account argues against such a notion (animals were created before humans but are not in authority over us). Moreover, biblical teaching never supports such an arrangement and in a number of places actually refutes such an arrangement (see Jesus’ “last will be first” and similar teaching). So, the order of creation argument is based on an unsupported presumption that first means authority. Scripture never, ever, suggests such a concept, and often argues against it.
The naming rights argument states that because Adam named Eve[3], he has a natural, God given authority over her. This argument fails for the same reasons as the order of creation argument: it has no support in biblical teaching. Not only are men not unique in naming rights, but naming something is never a cause for authority over that something. It is simply a function of life without any inherent grant (or dismissal) of authority. Adam (and Eve, as co-rulers of the earth) did not have authority over the animals because he named them. He and Eve had authority because God granted it to them in Genesis 1. Naming is just a task. Eve named things too (specifically, sons). So one can not draw any conclusions about authority just by the act of naming something. Again, the argument is presumptive and has not one verse of support in scripture.
The final argument is a little outdated and not generally presented, but I include it just in case there are a few die hard female inferiority adherents out there. This argument states that because Eve was made from a piece of Adam, she is somehow less of a human than he is. Of course, as we shall soon see, Adam himself certainly did not think this. Nor does scripture ever say it. What scripture does say in Genesis 2 is that Eve’s creation was unique amongst all living creatures (even Adam). She alone was created from another living being – the real “first born” of creation, in a sense. While Adam was made in the same manner as the animals, Eve was not. If anything, her method of creation sets her apart and above everything else, not underneath it.
In the end, the three mainstream arguments in support of male authority and a hierarchy in God’s marriage design all fail for the same reason – they presume the conclusion is true before examining the evidence, of which there is none. This is called “begging the question” and is a logical fallacy. Even worse than providing no support for the argument, proponents of male authority ignore all of the scriptural evidence against it. In conclusion, I reject all three arguments for male authority for being not only unsupported but directly rebutted in scripture.
But what of equality? Is that equally presumptive, or is there solid evidence in Genesis 1 and 2 that the first marriage was indeed a marriage without human hierarchy? I will turn to that next.
The first mention of human gender occurs in Genesis 1:27: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (NASB). As mentioned before, virtually everyone in the gender debate considers this to be a statement of equality between the sexes; at least equality of “essence”. Where Complementarians diverge is in their view of equality or division of “roles” here on earth. It makes me wonder if they have even read the next verse (Genesis 1:28) in the text: “God blessed them; and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’” Is this not a command to both men and women? Is this not specifically related to their “role” here on earth? In the broadest sense at least, scripture clearly teaches that the “role” of men and women is a shared one and that males and females are equal in their contribution. The conclusion from the text of Genesis 1 is that the equality of men and women goes beyond just their “essence” as equal image bearers of God; it extends to their “role” on earth as equal, co-leaders and administrators for God. The question then becomes: “did that equality extend into their inter-relatedness in marriage”. For that answer we move to Genesis 2?
I have already rebutted the arguments for hierarchy derived from the Genesis 2 text. I will now present the several text based arguments which support equality within marriage. An important distinction needs to be made before I begin. The elements which form the basis for hierarchy arguments are non-relational – creation order (an external reality), naming (a task), and creation method (another external reality). None of these things speak directly to the inter-relationship of the two people involved; they are merely ancillary factors in those people’s lives. Although they may possibly impact the relationship, they don’t define the relationship. Conversely, the scripture I am about to explore goes to the very heart of Adam’s and Eve’s relationship – it is the “essence”, to borrow the phrase, of Adam’s and Eve’s marriage. While external factors such as creation order may signify either hierarchy or equality, they may also have no impact at all on the debate (which is actually the case). On the other hand, internal relationship factors can only point us in one of two directions: towards hierarchy or towards equality. Relationship factors can not possibly be benign to the inner workings of the relationship. The challenge is to determine to which pole – hierarchy or equality – the “rest of the story” of Genesis 2 leads.
After we get a detailed description of the garden and the creation of Adam in the beginning of Genesis 2, God makes a startling statement – “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Gen 2:18). We need to pay particular attention to this proclamation because it defines the reason for Eve’s creation. Eve was not created for some practical purpose like as an assistant grounds keeper or domestic underling. No, Eve was created for a strictly relational purpose – Adam was alone. The importance of this relational purpose can’t be lost because it requires a relational focus on the description of Eve as ’ezer neged; a “help meet” to Adam(4). Again, this is crucial to understand. The "help" that Eve provides Adam is not practical or vocational; it is relational. She is the only one who can fill his need for companionship because, as Adam soon finds out, she is the only one who is like him, i.e. human.
The question now becomes: which organizational paradigm – hierarchy or equality – best fits this relational purpose for Eve? Since the purpose is not practical or vocational we can dismiss any idea that Eve was somehow created to be subservient to Adam or to perform any particular task in the Garden. In other words, Eve was not created to do “women’s work”. Work of any kind, vocational, domestic, or otherwise, is simply not applicable to Eve’s creation. Of course, we should know this since God already proclaimed in Genesis 1 that the “work” of the human race was to be enjoined equally by all humans, whether male or female.
Conversely, since Adam’s dilemma is that he is alone, we can conclude that Eve was created to somehow complete or fulfill him. Indeed, that is what we find at the end of the chapter when the first couple are proclaimed to be “one flesh”. Adam says as much when he exclaims “this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh!” Why is he so excited? Is it because he was so worn out being provider/protector in the garden that he is finally relieved that the maid has arrived to clean up around the “house”? Such an idea is nonsensical based on his statement. He is excited because he finally has a fully formed being like him that he can “relate” to. There is not even the slightest hint of hierarchy in this very relational exclamation. Quite to the contrary, it screams equality. Adam and Eve were already identified in Genesis 1 as being equal in spiritual essence. Now Adam confirms they are equal in the physical, earthly essence as well.
To conclude, Genesis 1 and 2 never even refer to any hierarchy between the first man and woman or in the first marriage. Moreover, any hierarchical inferences that may be drawn from some of the practical realities of the first couple’s creation are presumptuous at best. On the other hand, both Genesis 1 and 2 speak of the equality between Adam and Eve in purpose and creation. In particular, in Genesis 2, that equality is expressed in strikingly relational terms. When it comes to how Adam and Eve relate to each other in that first marriage, authority is non-existent and equality is stunningly expressed.
That is what makes this a show stopper. If a person can not see the equality so blatantly modeled in Genesis 1 and 2, not to mention the complete lack of hierarchy in the same, it is useless to proceed in any other discussion with them about the marriage relationship. If they dogmatically insist on hierarchy in the original marriage design despite all evidence to the contrary, they will, and indeed must, project hierarchy onto every subsequent marriage. If you are in a discussion with someone over marital “roles” and “jobs” and “organization”, find out first if they see those same things in Genesis 1. If they do, it’s time to stop the show until they can be persuaded to take a second look at the first marriage.
Notes
1. This certainly was not always so. In her book, “When Dogmas Die”, Susanna Krizo gives a comprehensive review of the degrading view of the “essence” of women throughout history in general, and especially the history of the Christian church.
2. The full “Equality…” series
Equality in the Original Marriage Design
Equality…Part II
Equality…Part III
Equality…What About Paul
3. There are some egalitarians that claim that Adam did not actually assign the gender “name” woman to Eve, but instead simply repeated the name God had already assigned in Genesis 2:22 (the first mention of the Hebrew word for “woman” which Adam gives her in the next verse). Although a exegetical argument can be made to that point, the fact that Adam inarguably names her “Eve” in Genesis 3 makes the argument rather moot. Either way, at some time or other, Adam engaged in naming of the female.
4. See my posts on "Eve the Helper" for a deeper discussion of the Hebrew phrase "’ezer neged" which describes what Eve will be for Adam.
Eve the "Helper" - The Wit and Irony of God's Word
Eve the "Helper" - The Complete Picture
Posts
