An Historian Looks at 1 Timothy 2:11–14

The Authentic Traditional Interpretation and Why It Disappeared

Brown

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2012
• eBook ISBN: 9781630879044
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

In the controversy over the role of women in the church, complementarians/hierarchists routinely claim to be upholding the traditional position. Like the little boy who declared that the emperor has no clothes, J. G. Brown exposes the fallacies in this claim. The authentic traditional interpretation of passages such as 1 Timothy 2:11-14 differs substantially from contemporary readings, whether egalitarian or hierarchist. Most prominent Protestant exegetes--from Luther and Calvin through those in the early nineteenth century--understood creation ordinances (male headship/female subordination) as foundational to the temporal world, not the church. An Historian Looks at 1 Timothy 2:11-14 brings history and theology together in a fresh way, with startling implications for the ongoing debate.

1

The Authentic Traditional Interpretation

Martin Luther begins his discussion of 1 Timothy 2:11 by connecting it to previous verses, in that “Paul is still speaking of public matters.” He goes on to say, “I also want it to refer to the public ministry, which occurs in the public assembly of the church.”1 The clear implication here is that “public matters” is a reference to female conduct in the public realm in general, but Luther extends this prohibition to include the church. What Luther says next needs to be read in full:

She is not to be the spokesman among the people. She should refrain from teaching, from praying in public. She has the command to speak at home. This passage makes a woman subject. It takes from her all public office and authority. On the other side is the passage in Acts (8:27) about Queen Candace. We read many such examples in sacred literature—that women have been very good at management: Huldah, Deborah, Jael, the wife of the Kenite, who killed Sisera (2 Kings 22:14; Judges 4:14, 17). Why, then, does Paul say here that he deprives them of the administration of the Word as well as work? You should solve the argument in this way. Here we properly take “woman” to mean “wife,” as he reveals from his correlative phrase (v. 12) “to have authority over man,” that is, over her husband. He calls the husband “man,” so he calls the wife “woman.” Where men and women have been joined together, there the men, not the women, ought to have authority. An exceptional example is the case where they are without husbands, like Huldah and Deborah who had no authority over husbands. Another lived in Abela (II Samuel 20:14–21). The evangelist Philip had four unmarried daughters, etc. (cf. Acts 21:9). He forbids teaching contrary to a man or to have the authority of a man. Where there is a man, no woman should teach or have authority. Where there is no man, Paul has allowed that they do this, because it happens by a man’s command. He wants to save the order preserved by the world—that a man be the head of a woman, as 1 Corinthians 11:3 tells us.2

At the beginning of this passage, Luther underscores the universality of female subordination in both church and state. Women are subject and are not to rule. That is the order “preserved by the world.” However, having stated the basic premise of the passage, he then acknowledges exceptions in the world and in the church. The first exception he names is Candace, Queen of Ethiopia, who held a position of civil authority. Since she is listed along with such women as Deborah and Huldah, women who held positions of spiritual authority, Luther, in naming exceptions, underscores the universality, in both church and state, of the basic principle. However, it is clear he also struggled with reconciling God’s work in history, as revealed in Scripture, with Paul’s admonitions. Luther resolves this apparent inconsistency by taking the word gynē to mean “wife” and anēr to mean “husband.” Therefore, the numerous exceptions listed above may be allowed if the rule of wives over husbands is avoided. Nevertheless, he goes on to build a case against women teaching or ruling over men in the general sense.

Luther then moves on to vs. 12. In English, his words are translated “to have authority.” He explains that this means “she ought not take over for herself the heritage which belongs to a man so that a man says to her: ‘My lord.’ She wants her own wisdom to have priority, that whatever she has said should prevail and whatever the man says should not.”3 We must conclude then that Luther sees this verse as a prohibition against women flaunting their wisdom over that of a man. The same spirit would be captured in a prohibition against women domineering men or usurping authority that rightly belongs to men.

First Timothy 2:13 makes it clear that Paul is not speaking arbitrarily, but that his principles are derived from creation. Luther later summarizes this position in his discussion of verse 14, by saying, “God himself has so ordained that man be created first—first in time and first in authority. His first place is preserved in the Law.”4 Luther also argues from experience, which he believes has shown man to be superior in wisdom and courage. Finally, male headship is further reinforced by Eve’s role in the fall. It was not Adam who went astray. Satan successfully approached and deceived the weaker vessel. “Adam sinned knowingly, but he wanted to agree with his wife and please her.”5 Creation and the fall establish Adam as superior in rank and in constitution (wisdom and courage).

Luther then goes into a rather lengthy exposition of verse 15. He brings his entire discussion of verses 9–15 to a close with the following statement: “Thus you see how he wants Christian women to behave in public life, in the home, etc. If the Lord were to raise up a woman for us to listen to, we would allow her to rule like Huldah. This first part was spoken to husbands and wives. What follows is the description of other estates—of bishops and of deacons.”6 Although Luther’s treatment of verses 9–15 is extensive and certainly digresses into general principles of male headship, he concludes by acknowledging the possibility of women within the Christian community exercising leadership under extraordinary circumstances and the primacy of the married relationship in understanding verses 11–12. Of special note are Luther’s application of this passage to public life in general; his reference to the fact that male headship is the order “preserved by the world,” as 1 Corinthians 11:3 tells us; and his additional comment, in the context of discussing creation, that this is the order “preserved by the Law.”

No doubt John Calvin was familiar with Luther’s commentaries. Calvin was considered the greatest exegete of his time and is still considered authoritative today. There is a remarkable coherence in his exegeses that creates complex connections between specific passages and the broader principles of the Christian faith. It seems as if one must know all of Calvin to truly understand any part of Calvin, yet I believe he has written enough on the subject at hand to put his ideas into their rightful context. By looking at the specific words he uses in his exegeses we can make correct assumptions about connections to his larger systematic worldview.

Calvin explains Paul’s instructions in 1 Timothy 2:11 as bidding women “learn quietly; for quietness means silence, that they may not take upon them to speak in public.”7 Calvin then expands on Paul’s argument in verse 12, which I think should be read in total:

But I suffer not a woman to teach. Not that he takes from them the charge of instructing their family, but only excludes them from the office of teaching, which God has committed to men only. On this subject we have explained our views in the exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. If anyone bring forward by way of objection, Deborah (Judges 4:4) and others of the same class, of whom we read that they were at one time appointed by the command of God to govern the people, the answer is easy. Extraordinary acts of God do not overturn the ordinary rules of government, by which he intended that we should be bound. Accordingly, if women at one time held the office of prophets and teachers, and that too when they were supernaturally called to it by the Spirit of God, He who is above all law might do this; but being a particular case, this is not opposed to the constant and ordinary system of government.

He adds—what is closely allied with the office of teaching—and not to assume authority over the man; for the very reason, why they are forbidden to teach, is, that it is not permitted by their condition. They are subject, and to teach implies the rank of power or authority. Yet it may be thought that there is no great force in this argument; for even prophets and teachers are subject to kings and other magistrates. I reply, there is no absurdity in the same person commanding and likewise obeying, when viewed in different relations. But this does not apply to the case of woman, who by nature (that is, by the ordinary law of God) is formed to obey; for γυναικοκρατία (the government of women) has always been regarded by all wise persons as a monstrous thing; and therefore, so to speak, it will be a mingling of heaven and earth, if women usurp the right to teach. Accordingly, he bids them be “quiet,” that is, keep within their own rank.8

For what reasons are women made subject? The argument is that it is so by God’s command, as revealed in the order of creation. In addition, woman’s condition is compounded and made “less agreeable” b...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Introduction: Concerning Arrows and Targets
• Chapter 1: The Authentic Traditional Interpretation
• Chapter 2: The Nineteenth Century: “A Mingling of Heaven and Earth”
• Chapter 3: Contemporary Interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:11–14
• Chapter 4: Where Do We Go From Here?
• Appendix: Excerpts from Luther’s “Temporal Authority” and Calvin’s Institutes
• Bibliography