“I do not permit a woman to
teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather she is to remain quiet.”
If, however, you turn to
this verse in the recently published and widely acclaimed International Standard
Version, it reads:
“Moreover, in the area of
teaching, I am not allowing a woman to instigate conflict toward a man. Instead,
she is to remain calm.”
Evaluating the ISV
translation
I was involved in academic
and semi-academic work using New Testament Greek for over twenty years
(although never in a teaching capacity). During that time I spent countless
hours studying passages of the Greek NT and reading scholars’ interpretations. For
me personally, the ISV translation
of 1 Tim. 2:12 is one of the most astonishing treatments of NT Greek I have
ever seen. It literally left me with my mouth wide open in amazement when I
read it.
I don’t want to spend time
discussing the Greek in detail here, since most readers of this article will
not be familiar with its rules. I can recommend William D. Mounce’s commentary
on the Pastoral Epistles in the Word Biblical Commentary series for a sound treatment
of this verse.
However, I will make a few very
brief comments about the Greek text of the verse.
It is true that there is
scope for discussion about some aspects of the text. But there should be no
question at all that the infinitives didaskein and authentein both have the
same grammatical relationship to the verb epitrepo. This means that the verse certainly
says, “I do not permit a woman to teach.” There is no doubt either that, taken
in the wider context of verses 11-14, this verse also forbids women to be in
authority over men in a church setting. It does not say what the ISV tries to make it say.
The influence of modern Western culture
I think I know what has
gone on here. It seems that the translators of this part of the ISV have been massively influenced by modern
Western culture. And they have then allowed that to determine their translation.
The usual translations of 1
Tim. 2:12 forbid women from teaching in church or holding leadership positions.
However, this way of doing things is completely at odds with mainstream Western
beliefs. The translators seem to have been so convinced that Western culture is
right on this issue that they have contrived a way to get the Bible to agree
with that culture.
If my understanding of the
psychology behind what has gone on here is right, the translators have got their
priorities exactly the wrong way round. One of the main reasons that God has
given us Scripture is so that the influences of the cultures surrounding us are
corrected by what He has to say. There should always be one-way relationship
between the Bible and the Christian. It should influence us, but we should
never allow ourselves to influence it by mistranslation or misinterpretation. It
seems that the translators of 1 Tim. 2:12 in the ISV
have seriously failed to live up to this principle.
Like all cultures, modern
Western culture gets some things right and some things wrong. This culture is
very strong on equality between men and women. Christians can voice a loud “Amen”
to that. It is also very strong on criticising men in positions of authority for
using that authority to mistreat women. Again, Christians are totally on side.
However, Western culture is
completely wrong to say that because men and women are equal, there is
therefore no place for men being in authority over women as a matter of
principle.
Crucially, even the Trinity
itself shows us how being under authority does not mean inferiority in value or
worth. According to the Bible, God the Son is eternally under the authority of
God the Father. However, this in no way means that the Son is less in value or
any less God than the Father. And the fact that the Father has authority over the
Son in no way means that the Father is greater in value or any more God than
the Son.
Given that having authority
over or being under authority doesn’t mean greater or lesser value even within
the Trinity itself, the same could easily potentially be true of men and women.
And passages like 1 Tim. 2:11-14 make it clear that in church leadership men do
indeed have a God-given authority over women that women don’t have over men.
1 Timothy 2
Here is 1 Tim. 2:11-14 in
full:
“11 Let
a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a
man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13
For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14
and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a
transgressor.”
(Scripture readings in this article are from the
English Standard Version except where otherwise stated.)
This passage tells us that
women shouldn’t teach in churches or be in church leadership positions, and any
translations or interpretations that deny this should be firmly rejected.
I have already mentioned
the deeply flawed ISV translation
of v. 12.
Similarly, there are those
who say that in these verses Paul is just referring to a situation in which women
were misinterpreting the Genesis account of creation. They claim that he is not
using Genesis to back up his instruction that women shouldn’t teach or lead. However,
this too is a contrived way of avoiding the sense of the text, and shouldn’t be
accepted.
It is also unwarranted to claim
that barring women from church leadership is merely something that was
culturally appropriate for the churches Timothy was involved with. Nor should
we think that this was appropriate only for all Christians in the first century.
The way that Paul appeals to the creation account in Genesis shows that he
views male leadership in churches as a principle that isn’t dependent on
culture. Instead, it is something that fits with God’s created order.
1 Corinthians 14
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
points in the same direction. Here Paul writes:
“34 .
. . women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak,
but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their
husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”
The phrase “as the Law also
says” shows that Paul isn’t thinking of a principle that was dependent on
cultural conditions in Corinth. Rather, he is implying that women’s subordination
and silence in church gatherings is based on a principle in the Law of Moses that
goes back to ages past. This principle is clearly presented as one that applies
to the whole Christian era.
In the same letter, women
are referred to as praying and prophesying in church gatherings (1 Cor. 11:5). And
in light of the teaching of chap. 14 on prophecy, it seems that 11:5 is referring
to women praying and prophesying out loud.
The silence of women in 14:34-35
therefore mustn’t be taken too literally. Nevertheless, this passage strongly
suggests that women do not have authority to teach in churches – at least, to
teach adults – and that they shouldn’t be leaders.
A principle that applies to every century
So the New Testament tells
us that women shouldn’t teach in churches or be church leaders. And this is a
principle which is based on God’s created order and therefore applies to the church
in every century.
Allowing for possible exceptions
So that’s that, then, is it?
Women should never be teachers or church leaders, should they?
Actually, things are not so
simple. Importantly, it is going too far to treat 1 Tim. 2:11-14 and 1 Cor.
14:34-35 as cast iron rules that need to be followed no matter what. Instead,
these passages should be treated as giving a principle that may potentially
allow for exceptions in special cases.
Scripture often gives a
general principle with the unspoken assumption that there may be exceptions to
that principle.
For example, in Mark 10:10-12
Jesus teaches that anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits
adultery. That might seem to conflict with Matt. 5:31-32 and Matt. 19:9, which
allow for divorce and remarriage in the case of sexual immorality.
However, it would be wrong
to conclude that there is a conflict between Matthew and Mark here. Instead, Mark
provides a general principle whose exceptions have been left unexpressed. Matthew
goes into a bit more detail, giving an exception to the principle in Mark.
Modern Western Christians often
get confused in issues like this because they are unaware that the culture of
the biblical writers allowed for unexpressed exceptions to things more than we
are used to in our culture today.
It is unwarranted, then, to
conclude from 1 Tim. 2 and 1 Cor. 14 that there must never, ever under any
circumstances be women leaders of churches. And it is just as unwarranted to
conclude that women must never, ever under any circumstances teach adults in
churches.
When no men are available
Quite apart from the issue
of how we interpret 1 Tim. 2 and 1 Cor. 14, every reasonable Christian would
surely agree that there are some exceptional situations when women should be
church leaders. Take the following scenario, for example:
In a country where there
are very few Christians, there are fifteen people in a church, and no other
Christians are known for a hundred miles in any direction. Of these fifteen,
five are children, and of the ten adults, seven are women.
Let’s suppose that of the
three men, one is not very committed. He doesn’t play much of a part and isn’t
very reliable, only rarely turning up to gatherings etc. It would surely be
wrong to insist that he becomes a leader, something that he would probably
refuse to do anyway.
Let’s suppose also that the
two other men are devout and serious about following Jesus, but that they are
both recent converts, whereas a few of the women have been Christians for decades
and are very devout. Again, it would surely be wrong to insist that either of
these new converts becomes a leader. That would be to get priorities all wrong.
So, in a situation like
this there is no doubt that women should take on leadership and teaching
responsibilities.
Men failing in their duty
Another situation when it
makes sense to think that there should be women leaders is when men fail to
take up leadership roles.
Let me give an example of
the sort of thing I mean. I am a member of the Church of Scotland denomination,
and I am part of a local congregation in the town where I live. The Church of
Scotland on the whole is in a dire spiritual state. Most congregations are as
dry as dust and are taught heresy in some areas of doctrine and/or morals. (There
is a minority of evangelical congregations, like my own church, that are
serious about following Jesus and the authority of Scripture.)
In the Church of Scotland
there is a serious shortage of pastors. People are simply not applying for these
positions. Many churches therefore have to make do with retired pastors and elders
filling in. Furthermore, most of the people who do become pastors are not fit to
be pastors.
I have personally known
devout Christian women, who are pastors within the Church of Scotland. They are
fully orthodox in doctrine and morals, and they are convinced that God has
called them to this ministry.
Given the terrible state of
affairs, where flocks are taught heresy or have no pastor at all, I find it quite
plausible that these women have correctly heard God call them into this work. I
don’t find it hard to believe that He has to some extent set aside the
principles of 1 Tim. 2 and 1 Cor. 14 and is raising up women for leadership
positions in the Church of Scotland.
Other biblical passages
As well as situations where
it seems to make sense that women become leaders and teachers, there are also other
passages in the New Testament that need to be allowed their due weight.
We must resist at all costs
the temptation to simplify things by ignoring or explaining away biblical texts
that seem to fit awkwardly with others. The Bible contains more tensions and
paradoxes than we are used to in our culture, and we must never try to force
Scripture into a Western mindset.
Acts 18
Acts 18 is relevant here.
In Acts 18:2 Luke introduces
us to Aquila and his wife Priscilla, some Jewish Christians (or at least Jews
who will be Christians by the time of v. 18).
Then in Acts 18:18 Luke writes:
“. . . and with him [Paul]
Priscilla and Aquila.”
Note how Priscilla is
mentioned before her husband in this verse.
Finally, in Acts 18:26 Luke
says:
“. . . but when Priscilla
and Aquila heard him [Apollos], they took him aside and explained to him the
way of God more accurately.”
Greek manuscripts of v. 26 differ,
but the original text very probably mentioned Priscilla before Aquila, as New
Testament textual analysts widely agree.
The name Aquila begins with
an alpha, the first letter in the Greek alphabet, while Priscilla begins with a
pi. So, in mentioning Priscilla before Aquila in verses 18 and 26, not only is
Luke going against the cultural norm of mentioning the husband first, but he is
going against alphabetical order too.
Clearly, we don’t have much
information to go on here, and certainties are not possible. However, we get the
impression in these verses that Priscilla was probably a more prominent figure
in the early church than her husband. And v. 26 suggests too that she probably took
more part than Aquila in explaining the way of God to Apollos.
It is true that the
situation envisaged in v. 26 is a private meeting, not a church gathering. Nevertheless,
this verse seems to stand as a warning against taking the prohibition of women
teaching in 1 Tim. 2 and 1 Cor. 14 too rigidly.
Romans 16
There is also Romans 16:7
to consider, where Paul instructs the church in Rome to greet two specific Christians.
There is a big debate about this verse, one that affects how it is translated
into English.
The ISV, for example, translates
in this way:
“Greet Andronicus and Junia
[Iounian], my fellow Jews who are in prison with me and are prominent among the
apostles.”
However, the ESV translates
as follows:
“Greet Andronicus and Junia
[Iounian], my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles
. . .”
There are a number of areas
of uncertainty in the interpretation of this verse, the following two of which
are the most significant:
(1) The phrase that the ISV
translates as “prominent among the apostles” is translated by the ESV as “well
known to the apostles.”
If the ISV and other similar
translations are correct, then the people Paul refers to by name in this verse are
described by him as apostles.
If, however, the ESV and other
translations are correct, it would mean that these two people were not
themselves apostles, just that the apostles knew of them.
Having spent more than a
little time examining the Greek of this verse myself, it seems to me that either
of these interpretations could fit comfortably with the Greek text.
The New Testament actually
uses the term “apostle” (Greek: apostolos) in different ways. Sometimes it
refers exclusively to those who were members of the select group of twelve
(e.g., Rev. 21:14). However, at other times it is used more broadly to refer to
those Christians who received an extraordinary commission for ministry by the
risen Jesus (e.g., Acts 14:14).
If the two people Paul
names in Romans 16:7 were apostles, then they would obviously have been apostles
in the second of these senses.
(2) There is also the issue
of what Greek word was in the original.
The text contains the word Iounian,
which is a noun in the accusative case. This could potentially refer to the woman’s
name Junia (Greek nominative: Iounia). Or it could refer to the man’s name Junias
(Greek nominative: Iounias), considered to be a short form of the name Junianus.
Accordingly, some have argued that it should be translated Junias and that Paul
is referring to a man.
The problem with this latter
view, however, is that there is no evidence that anyone called Junianus was
ever referred to as Junias. The name Junias is not found in any other surviving
ancient literature.
By contrast, Junia is well known
to have been a woman’s name. It seems much more probable, therefore, that this verse
is referring to a woman, Junia, although this is not certain.
When all uncertainties are
taken into account, I think a balanced conclusion is that this verse may well
refer to a woman apostle.
It is true that we know of
no other female apostles in the early church, but we do know of numerous male
apostles. Nevertheless, in the time of the judges almost all the judges were
men, yet God chose Deborah as an exception (Judges 4-5). It seems perfectly
possible that He could also have chosen a female apostle as an exception to the
rule. Perhaps He even chose more than one, since it is highly likely that the
names of some apostles have not been recorded.
If there was a female
apostle called Junia, it is true that this in no way has to mean that she had
authority over male Christians. The precise roles that apostles performed no
doubt varied to some extent.
Nevertheless, apostles do
seem by definition to have had some degree of authority within their office. So
Rom. 16:7 is another verse that should make us wary about taking the
prohibition of women teaching and leading in 1 Tim. 2 and 1 Cor. 14 too
rigidly.
Conclusion
In the discussion above I
have tried to emphasise two points:
First, although men and women
are equal in God’s eyes, His standard pattern is for men and not women to be
church leaders and teachers.
Second, there are good
reasons to believe that it is sometimes God’s will for there to be exceptions
to the standard pattern. Some situations arise when it makes perfect sense that
women should lead and teach. And the New Testament itself contains passages
that serve as warnings against pressing the prohibition of women leading and
teaching in 1 Tim. 2 and 1 Cor. 14 too far.
How often God approves of such
exceptions is a difficult issue. But Christians must not ignore 1 Tim. 2 and 1
Cor. 14. Every time a woman becomes a church leader or teacher, there needs to
be a very good reason indeed for choosing to step outside the standard pattern
revealed in Scripture.
See also:
