Tape 12 (I have no material for tape 12, so either it is missing for some reason or the tapes were numbered incorrectly.  On to tape 13.)

Tape 13

In 1 Cor. 11, we learned what was happening in the church at Corinth and that during the worship services, men and women were participating publicly in prayer and prophecy together.  But there was something going on while they were participating in prayer and prophecy to which Paul was responding.  We saw that it had nothing to do with hats and that it had to do with a confusion that existed in the church at that time which led the Corinthian Christians to misconstrue spiritual maturity and sexual ambiguity.  A rejection of cultural signs of distinctiveness between male and female in regard to hair length was occurring during the worship services.  It was this that Paul was speaking against; the women were letting their hair down, unloosed and uncovered.  In Numbers 5:18, we see that in the Old Testament this was a sign of suspected adultery.  At the beginning of the trial by ordeal, the priest would loosen the suspected adulteress’ hair, (here, a Greek word describing this act) and this is the same word Paul uses in 1 Cor. 11 when he talks about the head being uncovered.  It is actually the term for loosening of the hair, the background then is probably that the Corinthians were in a state of sexual ambiguity thinking that because Paul had preached equality of male and female and of freedom in Christ, they were therefore now totally free to abolish any distinctions that existed between male and female.  There was a movement towards sexual ambiguity.  The women were letting their hair down and the men were letting their hair grow (opposite to the social norm of the day).  Paul rejects that.  He says that men and women are free and have the authority to participate together in public worship as men and women, but to abolish sexual distinctiveness between male and female in worship is not a sign of Christian liberty as the Corinthians thought it was.  Actually, it was a bondage they were placing themselves under.  Paul makes a very clear warning – “if you are going to take on the sign of suspected adultery, then you may as well go all the way and have your head clipped or shorn, which is the sign of a convicted adulteress.” 

So, in 1 Cor. 11, Paul is speaking very clearly to how worship is to happen in the Corinthian church, that it was not in any way to deny distinctiveness between male and female, that unity does exist.  If we look at the chronological progression that exists between the three headship relations, we see that unity exists but that unity does not overrule distinctiveness, i.e. sexual differentiation.  Paul does not speak against women participating in their public worship, but when they participate, they are to participate as women, and men are to participate as men.

1 Cor. 14:33b-36 – “(as in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches.  For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says.  If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home.  For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.  Or did the word of God originate with you?  Or are you the only ones it has reached?)”

This is without a doubt the strongest statement Paul makes in favour of the participation of women in public worship.  How does vs. 36 relate to 33b-35?  Who is the audience in 33b-35?  What is the source of 33b-35?

Without any warning, Paul, after teaching 1 Cor. 11 and in his awareness that women are participating in public worship and there is no mention of any kind of censoring in relation to that, Paul serves up an abrupt, unqualified, unmitigated statement of prohibition i.e. that women are reduced to absolute silence in the church.  This is at best confusing.  How do we deal with 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Cor. 14?  Some individuals have chosen to take this uncritically and accept 1 Cor. 14:33-36 word for word that women are not allowed to speak in the church.

Some individuals have said that 1 Cor. 14 is not Pauline in the sense that it was somebody else who added this later on, someone who didn’t like what was going on so they inserted it in later copies of the manuscript.  This is a very common understanding especially among liberal scholars.  Others have tried to solve the problem by doing some interesting things with what the “speaking” is intended to mean in 1 Cor. 14 explaining it as a lot of babbling and confusion going on in the church.  Or another common explanation is that the “speaking” was in regard to the judging of prophecy.

How are we to respond to 1 Cor. 14?  What we have here is a serious and very strong statement endorsing the public participation of women in worship in the church.  How does vs. 36 relate to 33b-25?  Is vs. 36 a summation of vs. 33-35 or is it a challenge in opposition to vs. 33-35?  What is the relationship of vs. 36 to 33-35?

(My Note:  the speaker talks about a Greek particle, one single letter – sounds like ‘hey’.)  This Greek particle is really untranslatable.  Particles are used to contribute a vividness or force to the Greek language and they are best understood in terms of inflections or moods.  In English an equivalent example is reading an English text where an exclamation mark at the end of a sentence, though it cannot be translated, tells the reader how to speak the sentence.  Similar also to something underlined or italicized, it focuses your attention on the mood of the sentence.  This is what a particle in Greek does.  There is a particle here and it isn’t translated into English.  The particle (hey) serves many different functions, but one of the most common functions that it serves is to convey the idea of disjunction or a comparative conjunction in a sentence or idea or conviction – something along that line.  If I were to say ‘the Bluejays are winning, but it is the third inning’ – you would catch the meaning.  You would say, ‘the Bluejays are winning, but it is only the third inning’ – you would catch the meaning that there is probably going to be trouble, or they are probably going to lose, or something like that.  You wouldn’t just associate those two things in parallel; they are not just two unrelated facts in your mind when you hear that, you get the meaning of ‘they are probably going to lose later on.’  That is a disjunctive sentence – the thought is in disjunction.  The particle (hey) in Greek has that kind of meaning in its translation.  It has the strongest disjunctive function when it is found at the beginning of an interrogative sentence, where the sentence acts as a question.  Then, in Greek grammar, the (hey) tells you that there is going to be a strong disjunction in the thought that is coming.  ‘The Bluejays are winning, but it is only the third inning’ – the sentence increases the idea of ‘don’t get your hopes up.’  One stands in opposition to the other and in the Greek language when a particle (hey) comes in an interrogative sentence, then it has its strongest disjunctive function.

The common reading of this passage fails to take into account the importance of the (hey) in this text.  Traditionally, in most versions, the idea is communicated that vs. 36 is a summation of what Paul is talking about in vs. 33-35.  It would convey the idea – “truly, did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones that it has reached?’  After speaking vs. 33-35, he would sum his arguments in vs. 36 – “do you think the word of God has originated with you?”  (Do you think you are the only ones? - the summative aspect of vs. 33-35.)

If we take seriously Greek grammar in our translation, if we accept that this particle (hey) serves a disjunctive function, then we have to ask some questions about how we read this particular text.  The particle, which introduces this interrogative sentence, indicates a disjunction and because it is in a question it indicates one of the strongest disjunctions in the Greek language.  It indicates that the answers to the rhetorical questions of vs. 36 stand in disjunction to the thought that is developed in 33-35.  It is a refuting of the idea that is conveyed in 33-35.  ‘The Bluejays are winning, but it is only the third inning’ – meaning they are going to lose in the long run!  We have to read this particular passage in this way.  Vs. 33b-35 are not internally unified in the sense that they are a straightforward argument for a unified condemnation of women participating in the worship of the church, but rather, the silencing of women in the church is to be questioned, is to be refuted, and is to be overcome by the twofold negative question raised in vs. 36. 

In 1 Cor. 11:20-22, listen for the disjunction in thought “when you come together, etc.”  (Hey) would occur at the beginning of vs. 22 – “don’t you have homes to eat and drink in?”  There is a very strong disjunctive element – ‘you guys are out to lunch, you are doing something very very wrong, this is what you are doing and that is a wrong thing to do’ – this is a disjunctive element.  In the King James 14:33-36 uses the word “What” (KJV tries to convey the disjunctive, that what has just gone on is going to be refuted) – ‘what!  I don’t believe what I am hearing!’

You can trace through other instances in 1 Cor. of (hey) – a thought, a disjunction that is brought on.  We suggest then that in vs. 33-35 there is a statement that is then countered in vs. 36 by the rhetorical questions that Paul introduces.  It has the effect of saying – “What!  I can’t believe what I am hearing.  Has the word of God originated with you?  Do you think you are the only ones that it has reached”?  The grammatical structure of this section indicates a sharp break with the preceding statement and this idea can be followed through in other passages where (hey) is used to convey disjunction. 

The second question is to whom is the audience addressed in vs. 33b-35?  The traditional interpretation assumes that the passage is to admonish the women of Cor. for speaking in the church and that it concludes in vs. 36, that is if it is assumed that women are the audience and they are being chastised for what is going on).  To me, this is an unsatisfactory interpretation on two accounts.  First of all, it doesn’t take into account the grammatical use of the particle (hey), which brings an 180-degree turn in the text; and secondly, the pronouns here seem to indicate something different.  The pronouns used in vs. 36 are ambiguous, we do not really know who the ‘you’ is.  The second pronoun is modified by a masculine adjective ‘alone’ – “are you alone the only ones that the word of God has reached?”  The adjective is clearly masculine which would indicate the likelihood that the pronouns involved are masculine in intent.  The adjective has to match the pronoun or noun in the Greek.  The adjective is masculine; the pronoun is likely understood as masculine.  The gender in vs. 36 is masculine, not feminine, as is commonly assumed.  We therefore can conclude that vs. 33b-35 are not addressed exclusively to women and if we were to study more closely, we would see that in vs. 33b-35, Paul is not speaking to the women, he is speaking about the women – “For they are not permitted to speak, etc.”  In vs. 36, we are faced with a dramatic shift and Paul speaks very directly to his audience when he uses the masculine pronouns, he is addressing particularly the men of Corinth.  “What!  Did the word of God originate with you?”  The inquiry in vs. 36 is a refuting of the self-righteous statement immediately preceding, made by the men about the women in the church of Corinth.  Vs. 36 refutes vs. 33b-35 and 33b-35 is a statement made by men about the women.  The men believed that they were the mediators of the faith.  By virtue of being male, they felt the word of God originated with them and that they were the rightful distributors of the word of God.  Vs. 33b-35 is talking about the women to the men and vs. 36 is addressed to the men about their self-righteous assumptions.

If all of this is true, what then is the source of vs. 33b-35?  Paul was plagued by a group of individuals called Judaizers who were following Paul around and after he would move into a city, they would come in and disrupt.  Paul had preached a gospel of faith and then they came in and said – “but in addition, you must adopt the practices and ways in which the people of God have done things all through the centuries, if you really want to be part of the people of God.”  These Judaizers were coming in and following Paul and preaching this kind of message (also seen in Galatians).

The best interpretation is to see that vs. 33b-35 is written as another one of the Corinthian slogans requiring quotation marks.  Paul condemns the self-righteous attitude of the men, who, thought that simply because they were male they had a special relationship with the word of God.  “What!...” and as a result the men were refusing to allow the women to participate freely according to their gifts in public worship.  The slogan is another one of the many slogans that Paul quotes in Corinthians and then refutes.  (Reference:  1 Cor. 1:12; 3:4; 6:12, 13; 6:18; 7:1; 8:1, 4, 8; 10:23)  All of these are slogans of the Corinthians; Paul quotes them back to them and then refutes them.  In the same way as - “Food is for the body etc.” – is a slogan in quotations marks which Paul then refutes, so also 33b-35 is another slogan propagated in the Corinthian church which Paul refutes in vs. 36 and says – ‘this is not right.’ 

In this passage alone, there is a fair bit of evidence to support this interpretation, not just the grammatical evidence, it also has to do with Paul’s style.  There is a lot of evidence in the actual passage (vs. 33b-35) that would suggest that this is not Paul speaking for Paul, but Paul quoting someone else.  In vs. 33, “all the churches of the saints” is different from the way Paul speaks.  The usage of ‘saints’ was originally designated exclusively for the Jewish Christians.  Later as the gospel spread, it became a common word for all Christians.  But the phrase – “the churches of the saints” – remained a kind of consecrated term to designate Jerusalem Christians, that was how they were referred to.  Again, the practice of the original Palestine-based Christian communities was quite often presented to churches outside Palestine as being a paradigm as to how the Christian life was to be lived in experience.  So, they would take what was a commonly accepted practice in the churches of the saints in Palestine and they would say ‘you guys up here in Bithynia or wherever, should do the things that we, over here have adopted as our practices.’  In Galatians and Philippians, we read of the conflict relating to circumcision.  In 1 Cor., Romans and Acts, there were conflicts regarding eating meat, and in this passage, there is a conflict relating to the silencing of women in religious gatherings.

(Reference vs. 34)  Wherever Paul gives instructions that are common to all the churches (a matter of style) it is his style to identify himself very clearly as the author of those directions.  Ref.  1 Cor. 7:17, 11:16, 16:1, 1 Tim. 2:12, Paul clearly endorses what he is saying if it is a clear prescription he is giving to the churches.  He identifies himself very clearly.  But here in 33-36, there is no endorsement by Paul of this particular statement.  Also in vs. 34, Paul reiterates an appeal to the Old Testament covenant idea meant to justify a Christian practice under the Judaizing legalism, and Paul always violently opposes such thinking.  It is never Paul’s style to establish a Christian practice based on an Old Testament practice.  It would be contrary to his style to do so.  He quite often used illustrations in relation to developing doctrines but, in relation to Christian practice, you don’t see that in Paul.  In vs. 34, then, you have the phrase – “the law” – in the NIV version, they have capitalized the word “Law” indicating that there is something in the law that is actually being referred to.  But look if you will and you will not find any statement in the law that says what this is supposed to say (silence of women in religious gatherings).  There is not the slightest hint of any regulation in the Old Testament that can be interpreted in this manner and that creates a problem.  Even Hurley recognizes that and states – “It is difficult to figure out how it could be said that the law i.e. the Old Testament taught that women should be silent at all times in worship.  There is no evidence in the Old Testament about that.”  But in the Talmud, the Jewish “law” which they used to regulate their practice, you will find it many times.  We have looked at many examples.  From the Talmud we have – “It’s a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men.”  “Out of respect to the congregation, a woman should not herself read the law.”  “Let the words of the law be burned rather than committed to a woman.”  This is found often in the Talmud but not in the Old Testament.

Question ref “If they want to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home.”  That statement reflects more of a Judaic origin than a Christian origin.  For instance, women in the Judaic culture were not qualified to be learners of the Old Testament but they could be hearers.  In the synagogue, below where the men were, women could hear but not learn.  But that is a contradiction to what Paul in 1 Tim. 2 says a woman must do and Paul, in 1 Tim 2 commands that a woman learn.  Secondly, the fact that a woman might wish to come out from her passivity in order to learn something – “if they wish to learn” (conveyed here as an exception) - contradicts what appears to be going on as a matter of custom in chap. 11.  In the Judaic culture women were expected to marry; however, a Pauline conception (1 Cor. 7) suggests that Paul would actually prefer the single lifestyle.  The assumption that the woman would be married fitted into the Judaic background far more than a background coming out of a Gentile church which Paul had planted and where many women might be single.

Another point is the basic assumption that the husbands would be sufficiently knowledgeable to answer their wives questions.  This again reflects a Judaic background more than the background of the churches that Paul would be ministering to.  The Judaic background, of course, instructed only the men in the Old Testament law.  The men would be learned and a wife would be able to go to her husband and get an answer.  But if you look at the nature of the churches that Paul was establishing outside Jerusalem, the opposite was true.  A lot of churches were planted with predominantly female congregations, for example, Lydia and her group of women.  The assumption that men would learn goes against that.  Women would probably be more learned than their Gentile pagan husbands.  Why would Paul say – ‘go and ask your Gentile pagan husbands when he may not have as much knowledge as you since you’ve been coming to church for five years and he just started last year?’  So the tone seems to reflect an understanding that would be more characteristic of Judaic cultures rather than the Greek cultures.

I am therefore suggesting that Paul’s reaction (vs. 36) to the ‘prohibition’ statement in 1 Cor. 14:33b-35 should be heard even in a rather sarcastic tone.  It is an outburst directed at the male Corinthians reproaching them for entertaining alien ideas and could be paraphrased this way – “Since when have you (men) become the source of divine revelation so that you (men) make your own rules?  Are you (men) the exclusive recipients of divine revelation that the rest of us should know about?”  What we have is a strong sarcastic refuting of the assumptions that the men of Corinth were accepting and promoting.

Question re women in leadership roles in church as opposed to mainly men in New Testament Scriptures.  This is going from general to specific.  Even if there were no evidence that women participated in leadership roles in the church, that would not mean they could not participate in leadership.  Even if there were no evidence that they did not participate in leadership roles, that would not mean that they could not.  In order to go to the statement that they could not, there would have to be some clear unambiguous statements of the normative weight equal to the normative statements of Acts 2 and Gal. 3.  Both normative statements indicate that racial, social, economic and sexual differences are transcended as far as ministry in the local church is concerned.  But there is much evidence indicating that women did participate.  These transitions did not occur smoothly by any means.  You can see the racial tensions that exist in Peter’s visions (Acts 10-11), the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, the whole tone of Galatians and the whole purpose of Romans is to deal with the tension between the Jewish and Gentile populations.  As they are implementing the principles of the new age, there was a lot of conflict, it just did not happen smoothly. 

In the same way, the socio-economic distinctions did not happen smoothly.  James 2 presents a description of what was going on between the rich and the poor.  Nor did it happen smoothly in relation to sexual differences (1 Cor. 11, 14 and 1 Tim. 2).  The transitions just did not happen smoothly in this in-between age (between the ‘already’ and the ‘not yet’), there was tension in the movement.  But the fact remains that there is a very significant amount of positive evidence that women did participate in leadership function in the church.  The apostle Paul recognized that participation. 

Both the teaching and the practice of the apostle Paul are founded on the prominent place given to women in the ministry of Jesus.  I say it is significant given the religious and social norms of the day.  Had I been doing it, I would have been far more conservative than either Jesus or Paul in implementing the theory into practice.  Let’s not forget that this is a new, young, vulnerable movement in a hostile environment that was looking for any official reason to stamp it out.  If you look at first century church history, you learn of Nero’s persecution.  They used to call each other ‘brothers and sisters’ and declare love for each other.  That became a rumour of incest and a reason to oppose the new movement of Christians.  They used to talk of having love feasts and of eating the body.  That became talk of cannibalism only providing another reason to stamp out this new movement.  Loyalty to the Kingdom of God was being talked about and that became treason against the Roman government of the time.  The Roman government was shutting down other cults in which women temple prostitutes were taking a very active role, being disruptive in society and the Roman government was closing down such things.  Here we have a very young vulnerable movement in a hostile environment trying to implement some very radical changes in how men and women get along together. 

We do have evidence that women had a foundational and prominent role in all of the anticipated events of the breaking in of the Kingdom of God.  We looked at the role of women in relation to Jesus and His ministry.  Who was it that played the foundational and prominent role regarding the breaking in and resurrection?  It was women, when men could have been chosen.  The spread of the gospel was presented primarily through women and, again, it could have been men.  In the teaching of Jesus, women were only used in positive ways and never in negative ways.  We looked at the radical evidence of women in the ministry of Jesus a few weeks back.  Biblical evidence in Rom. 16 and 17 shows that Junia was a woman and that she was an apostle.  It was understood by all the church leaders in the ensuing centuries that she was a woman until the 12th century, and then ‘she’ became a ‘he’ in church history.  The individuals closest to her had no problem in accepting the fact that Junia was a woman.  That fact suggests that those earlier church leaders were not insulted by the concept that a woman would participate in church leadership.  It must have been more common than we anticipate, as they did not recoil from it.  All the early references indicate that early church leadership recognized Junia as a woman. 

Phoebe is designated as a deacon, not a deaconess, having distinct duties.  There is no such word as deaconess in Greek.  She was a deacon and Paul says she has been a “helper”  (Greek word is provided) – all references to this word indicate that she was exercising a leadership role in the churches.  That is how the Greek word was meant.  Therefore, because she has been a (Greek word for helper), Paul is asking the Roman church to help her.  Priscilla (Acts 18) was a teacher; Phoebe (Rom. 16:1 and 2) was an overseer, probably the closest to what we would call a pastor.  II John 1 – the elect lady – evidence indicates very strongly that this was a person who was a woman and she was charged with the oversight of the church that John was writing to in II John.  There are six passages that mention house churches in the New Testament and, of the six; five are indicated as being under a woman – a woman is addressed as being the leader of the house churches. 

Paul refers to co-workers and workers, Euodia and Syntyche (Phil.).  Co-workers as used in the Greek indicates – ‘this is my colleague, this is the person who works with me in the same work that I do.’  Paul ascribes this to Euodia.  (Name of someone who wrote a commentary) who generally takes a very negative stand on the role of women says – “this verse does prove that Euodia and Syntyche had themselves played an active role in the preaching and teaching of the gospel.”  In Rom. 16, Paul refers to Mary and Persis as workers and the word he uses is (Greek word) which is ‘ministerial labour in the gospels.’  Paul uses the same word in I Cor. 15:10, 1 Thess. 5:12 where the churches are called to respect those who are working in the gospel.  There are many words for work in the Greek, but Paul uses (Greek word) which has the designation of ministerial labour in the gospel.

What is involved in church leadership?  We need to be cautious about thinking that church leadership is what happens in church boards.  What is leadership in the New Testament?  Is it not learning from Scripture, evangelism of the unconverted, disciplining one another, encouraging, counseling, confronting one another, individual and corporate discipline, facilitating wise administrative decisions?  All of this is leadership in the church.  And the question is – “Is there any evidence that these gifts have not been given to women and, if they have been given to women, is there any evidence to suggest that they are not to be encouraged to exercise them or that they are encouraged to exercise them only in relation to other women?”  Not in Scripture.  Church leadership is not, then, deciding when the hydro bill is to be paid.  If you are involved in Bible study, determining what the word of God says and relating that to a pagan culture, that is church leadership.  In the Kingdom of God, that is church leadership.  If you are doing that in relation to other Christians, in edification, in building up other Christians, that is church leadership in the highest sense.  Whether the hydro bill gets paid or who shovels the snow or who decides when the grass gets cut, is not church leadership.  Let’s not place what goes on between 7:00pm and 2:00am every month as church leadership and only church leadership.  Church leadership has to do with teaching, expounding, and building up of individuals in their faith. 

Tape 14

(Reference 1 Tim. 2: 11) – “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.  I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent.  For Adam was formed first and then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.  A woman will be kept safe in childbirth if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”

Heresy is nothing new.  As a matter of fact, it is as old as the church itself.  Paul combated it in Galatia, combated it in a different form in Colossi and, in Revelation, John makes some strong warnings to the seven churches in relation to the danger of heresy.  In Acts 20, Paul meets with the elders at the church of Ephesus and warns them about the dangers of heretical teaching and he makes clear that, as is true about all heresy, it spreads and destroys from the inside out.  Acts. 20:27-31 – “For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God.  Guard yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers or bishops, be shepherds of the church of God, which He bought with his own blood.  I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.  Even from your own number, men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them, so be on your guard.  Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.”

As we turn to the Pastoral Epistles, I and II Tim. and Titus, we see that that is exactly what happened.  What Paul predicted in Acts 20 is what happened and Paul responds to it in the Pastoral Epistles written to Timothy.  Paul, at the end of his life, wrote to Timothy in the city of Ephesus and, when Paul had left Macedonia, he urged Timothy to stay on in Ephesus, 1 Tim. 1: 3 – “so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer.”  Later on in vs. 6 – “some have wandered away.  They want to be teachers of the law but they don’t know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.”

In the midst of this struggle, young Timothy needed this instruction from the old veteran Paul, vs. 18 and 19 – “so that by following it you may fight the good fight, you may hold onto faith and a good conscience.  Even while others have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander.”

Paul had hoped to come to Timothy to support this young man personally but because of the possibility of delay and because of the urgency of the situation at the church at Ephesus, he wrote these instructions to him.  Now what is going on in Ephesus at this time that apparently struck fear into the heart of Timothy (1 Tim. 2:7) and caused Paul to be concerned lest Timothy give up the faith, give up the fight (6:12), lose hold of the faith (1:19 and II Tim. 3:14), and give up the faith that he had learned from infancy (II Tim. 3:15)?  What is Paul saying here in the Pastoral Epistles to Timothy and Titus?  In the pastorals, we have short, crisp letters written to Timothy and later on to Titus, friends and colleagues in the ministry, younger sensitive persons who were ministering in a very difficult city in a church with very specific problems.  Timothy needed some specific help to know how to respond.  The situation was urgent.  This was not a time for abstractions or for generalities.  It was a time for very specific and concrete advice that Timothy desperately needed.

We cannot understand or hear the answers clearly in the pastorals unless we know the questions.  And we cannot hear how the answers apply to us in the 20th century unless we hear how they were first heard in the first century.  There is a strong emphasis in the pastorals in stopping heretics from teaching (1 Tim. 1:3) – “they are not to teach false doctrines.”  In vs. 20, Hymenaeus and Alexander have been handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.  Later, in Titus vs. 10 Paul says that heretics must be silenced, must be shut up.  A careful study of the pastorals will show that there was not just one heretical group that is involved here, there are two.  There is a Judaizing element and there is a libertarian element.  The two problems in the church at Ephesus resulted in the interface of these two heretical groups.  Each group intensified the reaction of the other group.  The Judaizing element, an extremely conservative group, and the libertarian group, very much like the elements we see all the way through Corinthians who like to throw off all restrictions whatsoever (antinomianism).  The evidence suggests that there are two interfacing elements in the church at Ephesus.  The rough water that Timothy is dealing with happens when these two elements come into contact with each other.  As we look at the pastorals, there are six basic problems that seem to focus all the way through the pastorals - Paul’s teachings, controversies, people leaving the faith, meaningless talk, antinomianism, Judaist legalism. 

In 1 Tim. 5:11-15, women were very much involved in the problem that similarly existed in the church at Corinth, and Paul says – “as for younger widows, do not put them on such a list.  For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry.  Thus they bring judgment on themselves because they have broken from their first pledge.  Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house and not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies saying things they ought not to.  So I counsel young widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander.  Some in fact have already turned away to follow Satan.” 

II Tim. 3:6-7 – “they are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth.”

These and other passages indicate very clearly that women were involved in the problem of the church at Ephesus.  A wanton and immoral behaviour was part of the problem with these female apostates – ‘who were turning away from the faith.’  Apparently, heretics were creeping into the private homes, captivating sinful women who wanted to educate themselves in an Gnostic way – ‘always hoping to acquire knowledge and who vainly hope to arrive at the truth by their association with these false teachers.’  They were seeking to become wise, much the way Eve sought to become like God.  They had no orthodox teaching as a controlling norm.  They had not been theologically educated.  This is much like Eve who did not receive the prohibiting revelation directly from God but secondarily through Adam.  Eve was not present when God gave Adam the prohibition.  Similarly, these women were vulnerable to the heretical teaching of the false teachers, much as Eve was vulnerable to the deception of Satan in the garden.  The desire to become wise coupled with their vulnerability to deception left these women easy targets for the false teachers and their unorthodox teaching.  Believing the false teaching led these women into a lifestyle of propagating what they were learning – going from house to house, talking about things they should not talk about and even to a lifestyle of sexual immorality and wantonness. 

The church at Ephesus, as Paul sees it now, could be destroyed just as Adam and Eve destroyed themselves in the Garden of Eden.  Hence we have Paul’s allusion, his illustration of the ‘Eve as sinner’ theme in the passage just read.  Eve wanted to become wise for selfish reasons and she chose her terms rather than God’s terms, which was an act of disobedience.  This act of disobedience on Eve’s part led to destruction.  But then in 1 Tim. 2, we see that there was another way to knowledge, a way that was modeled in the life of Mary.  Mary chose the glory of God rather than self-aggrandizement.  Mary chose the path of obedience over the path of disobedience.  The end of that path led not to destruction but to salvation and that through “the” childbirth.   (Reference Luke 1:26-38)

1 Tim. 2:13 – “for Adam was formed first and then Eve and Adam was not the one deceived, it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.  But women will be kept safe through (and the Greek says) “the” childbirth if they continue in faith, love, and holiness with propriety.”  The response of Eve is contrasted with the response of the second woman, Mary.  Paul saw the danger in Ephesus much like the danger in Eden, selfish desires for self-aggrandizement, vulnerability to deception, the presence of false teaching, the danger of yielding to temptation, and the disastrous and destructive results that would follow. 

How does Paul respond and instruct Timothy in this urgent situation in Ephesus?  Firstly, looking at all the pastorals together, false teachers are to be silenced whether they are male or female and those who are vulnerable are to be taught, whether they are male or female.  For instance, Timothy is vulnerable, and in response to that vulnerability, Paul, in the pastorals, teaches Timothy in order to protect him from giving up and succumbing to deception.  There is another very large group in the church at Ephesus who are more vulnerable to deception, to being deceived, to rejecting the truth and turning to an immoral way of living and leading others astray.  Paul responds very specifically to Timothy about this larger group, the women, at Ephesus.  In chap. 2 after giving instructions to Timothy about the men’s contentious attitudes while praying and then women’s adornment while praying, Paul says in 1 Tim. 2:11 – “a woman should learn in quietness and full submission.  I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent.  For Adam was formed first and then Eve, and Adam was not the one deceived, it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.  But women will be kept safe through childbirth if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.” 

The focus of vs. 11 is where Paul says a woman should learn.  Paul does not simply say that a woman may learn, or should learn, the impact of the Greek is that women must learn.  Women must learn (he gives Greek word, sounds like menfano?) and it signifies learning of a particular kind.  It is the same word that is used in John 7:15.  Paul is stating a command that unfortunately does not come clear in our English texts.  This is not just something that would be nice, it is a direct command, it is in the imperative mood and the word (Greek word) is the same word used in John 7:15 talking about Jesus – “the Jews were amazed and asked, ‘How did this man get such learning without having studied?  What rabbinic school is he from?’” – and the word (Greek word) is the Greek word for learning as in a rabbinic school.  It is not just learning in a casual-type way as we learn day-by-day, it is a rabbinic-type learning.  Women, as the men, must not merely hear the word of God, but they must study the word of God in the same way that men of that culture were called and commanded to study the word of God.  The structure of the synagogue quite often had the men on a lower floor and the women somehow separate, usually above and behind.  The reason for that was that women were not to study.  They may hear the word of God but they were not to learn the word of God.  Remember some of the quotes.  Here Paul is reversing that and saying that women must learn, they must study.  Recall the movie Yentl that dealt with the social culture of that day.  Women were to study and not just hear the word of God.  They are commanded to learn and to learn in the same way as men are commanded to learn.

One implication is that the prohibition in learning is now broken down (Gal. 3:28).  Secondly, there is an implication that the role of homemaker did not fulfill the ultimate priority for which women were created, which, again, is a reversal of the cultural expectation of the day.  Paul’s exhortation contradicts the first century Jewish practice that did not encourage the women to become educated because then their homemaking would take a lower priority.  Here, Paul is equalizing the relationship between men and women.  The women, as the men, are now commanded to learn and, in the same way, the men, as the women, are commanded to be concerned for their children (1 Tim. 3, Titus 1 and 2).  The division, even in relationships in the home, is now called into a form of equality.  No longer are men to place the full responsibility of the home on the women, they are commanded to be involved in the home and women are commanded to study.  Clearly, as we look at the Pastoral Epistles, there was an unorthodox teaching that runs all the way through.  It was occurring in the city and church of Ephesus and it consequently meant that there was an unorthodox learning that was going on. Paul’s goal is to assist the church under Timothy that was suffering from this unorthodox teaching and learning.

To learn was a privilege and a radical change for the women.  They needed such knowledge because previously they had not been encouraged to pursue theological training.  Since the women were less prepared to withstand heretical teaching, Paul was treating them as more vulnerable and a lot of women were becoming disobedient because they were vulnerable to deception.  The women needed to be taught as rabbinic students (Greek word).  Error can come from sinful wickedness and error can come from untutored ignorance.  Paul, in response to what was happening in the church at that time, is saying that women must learn.  The women were being deceived because of their untutored ignorance and they were enmeshed in a rather destructive situation surrounded with different doctrines.  These different doctrines were somehow seductive, as was true in the Garden of Eden, and very dangerous.  Women were learning unorthodox doctrines and were probably involved in propagating the same things they were learning.  No wonder that Paul says that a woman must learn.

Next phrase – “a woman must learn in quietness.”  They were not only commanded to learn, hey were commanded to learn in silence.  In the North American culture, silence has a derogatory connotation.  It is rather like saying to a kid in a school ‘shut up and listen’, which has a negative connotation to it – ‘you are not worthy of speaking, you must listen.’  There is a derogatory aspect to this.  The question is how would they have heard that word in the first century.  Today, the remark – ‘children should be seen and not heard’ – would denote an attitude of silence in a negative way.  How would that word regarding silence have been heard in the first century?  What would learning in silence signify to a devout, Pharisaic Jew such as Paul?  Silence, first of all, in the first century was a positive attribute in a male as well as a female.  It was a positive attribute, not a negative term.  Not only was it a positive attribute, it was a positive attribute for rabbinic students.  Women were to learn in the same manner as rabbinic students.  There are several words in the Greek that could be used for silence and usually they mean the rather modern meaning of silence that we have today.  It is a derogatory word used in Titus where Paul talks about heretics.  “They must be shut up” is a very literal translation.  In I Peter 2:15 we have – “the Christians by their good deeds are to shut up the ignorant talk of foolish men.” 

In Matt. 22, it is the same type of word that Jesus uses in talking about the person who comes into the wedding feast and doesn’t have the right garments on.  He was shut up out of embarrassment – there is a negative connotation to the word.  But those are not the words that Paul uses in 1 Tim. 2.  The word is (he gives the Greek word) and wherever it is used, it is always used in a positive connotation.  It means, I’m silent, I rest, and I cease from labour.  In every instance in the New Testament, this silence is meant as something appropriate and is meant to encourage an ideal state of repose.  II Thess. 3:12 – “all people are exhorted to live a quiet and peaceful life in all godliness and proper conduct.”  In Thess, Paul says we are to work in silence.  This does not mean we are not to talk on the job; it is an attitude that is being advocated of silent respect, an attitude of respect.  The goal of such living that Paul talks about in 1 Tim. 2:2 is the same word – “that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.”  The goal of such silent living is not to decrease the noise pollution of the ancient world but to increase the respect of outsiders and therefore encourage them to become Christians.  Silence might and might not have anything to do with speaking.  (Greek word) connotes respect on the part of an audience, an audience in silence is an audience of respect, they may or may not be talking, but it is an attitude of respect that is involved. 

Prov. 15:15 – “the eyes of the wicked are always looking for evil things, but the good are always silent.”  Isaiah 66:2 – “who is the person I respect, it is the one who is humble and quiet and trembles at my word.”  1 Peter 3:4 – the inner adornment of women as opposed to the outer adornment – they are to be in an attitude or respect.  All through the Jewish literature, learners were to be silent; teachers and all wise persons were to be silent as well.  (Comments on Rabbi Judah (?) – ‘for thee, silence is praise.  The best medicine of all is silence.’  Rabbi Demy (?) said this – ‘they say a word is Selah, blessings, silence is two Selahs.’  Rabbi Isaacs (?) – ‘indeed, in silence speak righteousness.  Judge uprightly the sons of men.  What should a man’s pursuit be in this world?  He should be silent.  Perhaps he should be so with regard to the words of the Torah, it therefore says, speak righteousness.’)

Prov. 11: 12 – “he who belittles his neighbour lacks sense, but a man of understanding remains silent.  If silence is better for the wise, how much more so for the fools.”  All these quotes present the idea of an attitude of respect for what is going on, it has nothing to do necessarily with speaking or not speaking.  Teachers are to be (Greek word); learners are to be (Greek word); all Christians are to be (Greek word), it is an attitude of peace, or rest, of calmness, of lack of contentiousness, an attitude of respect that is involved here.  This is the way it was understood for centuries after (Ignatius etc.). 

How are we to understand God’s word when he uses the word ‘silence?’  If we hear 1 Tim. 2 as not ‘speaking’ or not ‘talking’, then I suggest we are not hearing God’s word.  That is not the way the original hearer would have heard the word ‘silence.’  Women are called to a life attitude of peaceful respect as, indeed, all Christians are.  Here that respectful attitude is to characterize the manner in which they, as well as men, are to approach and learn the Torah.  It is not a silence in relation to men, but a silence in relation to truth.  Men are not mentioned here.  They are to learn the truth in silence, an attitude of respect in relation to the truth.  A silent respectful attitude is to characterize their learning of the truth.

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.”  The submission brought into this text is not in reference to men but what you have is a very simple parallelism.  “In silence and in submission” – they are dynamic equivalents, they mean the same thing.  When Paul commands women to learn in silence, he is commanding them to be students who respect and affirm the truth.  “In all submission” is a synonym for ‘silence.’  Paul is not exhorting the women always to be submissive to men.  “In submission as in silence” modifies the manner of learning that women are to do.  The women have not been silenced out of punishment, but the women are to choose silence as an ‘attitude of conviction’ because of the awesome nature of truth in an atmosphere where false doctrines are being propagated.

Paul says – “do not permit a woman to teach.”  Here again, if we are to take the Bible seriously, we have to be serious about taking the Bible seriously.  We have to pay close attention to what the Bible is really saying here.  Here, Paul does not command the women not to teach.  Here, he employs the present active indicative, which is translated – “I am not now allowing women to teach.  I am not presently allowing women to teach.”    There are many tenses in the Greek, many more than in English, which could convey an imperative.  Paul could have used an aorist tense or future indicative, all of these would have meant a woman must not teach – as a command.  But Paul doesn’t use that.  He uses the present active indicative.  Nor does he use the perfect tense, which would connote a change that happened in the past which then changes everything from here on in.  Paul uses the present active indicative – “I am not now allowing…” 

What we have then is a command – how a woman must learn is described in two ways.  They are to learn in silence and in submission followed by a present active indicative, a command followed by a statement in relation to the present.  Why does Paul write it this way?  Note the grammar – ‘learning’ is a command; ‘allowing to teach’ is a present action.  Why?  In the Greek, vs. 11 and 12 are joined together by a particle (de?) means ‘but.’  The emphasis is – “I command a woman to learn, however, I am not now allowing them to teach.”  The (Greek de) ‘but’ indicates that the two instructions are somewhat contradictory and contradictory because, if anyone is taught, the reason that they are taught or they are learning is so that they can teach.  II Tim 2:2 – “these things entrust to faithful people (he does not say men or only men) who will be able to teach others as well.”  Heb. 5: 12 – “for though by this time you ought to be teachers, you are still in need of teaching.”  Paul is saying – ‘The natural purpose of learning is to teach and that is what we are commanded to do; we learn so that we can teach by word or by example; learning for learning sake is not part of our heritage; we are to learn so we can be obedient teachers of the word of God.’  This is the very same way as the rabbis put it – “a learner is one who learns in order to teach and learns in order to practice.”

The verb Paul uses for “I am not allowing” is a present active indicative, and it refers whenever it is used in Scripture to a present particular situation and is valid in relation to the particularities of that situation as long as the particularities exist.  But, it is not applicable when the particularities of the situation no longer exist.  The weight of the present active indicative says – ‘when these particulars are in effect, this action is in effect, but when the particularities cease, the practice ceases.’  That is the way it is used in Genesis, Esther, Job, and in the New Testament.  Whenever this word is used, it is used in relation to a specific time or to a short time of duration.  There is no grammatical evidence at all to indicate that Paul’s command can have any continuing effect, and the burden of proof lies with those who would universalize this verse, who would say that because Paul said what he did to the situation at Ephesus, that it then has a universal effect.  The grammar will not allow it.  Learning and teaching are intertwined and that is why Paul puts that little “but” in there – I command women to learn, but right now I am not allowing them to teach because they have not been taught sufficiently to teach.  That is why Paul puts that ‘but’ in there – it shows that there is some contradiction in what Paul is saying.  The women at Ephesus had to learn; consequently, they were not ready to teach.  Paul wanted to restrain the women. 

In Acts 18 and 1 Cor. 16, Priscilla and her husband, Aquilla, had a teaching role in the early stages of the church at Ephesus.  If this is a universal prohibition, then we have problems.  Does that mean that women are not to write theological books, theological articles, are they not to write or sing hymns all of which have a teaching impact on the church?  Are they not to teach in seminaries or the mission field?  What is being prohibited is not teaching men, but teaching anyone, i.e. men or women. It is ‘teaching’ that is being prohibited here and again the Greek will not allow ‘men’ to be the objects of the teaching.  The syntax of the sentence and the literal translation of the Greek is this way – “to teach, however, on the part of a woman, I am not now allowing, neither to lord it over a man.”  ‘Man’ is very far removed from the action of teaching.  The grammar will not allow it either.  ‘Man’ is in the genitive case.  Words that mean ruling or authority always take the genitive of who the person is that is being ruled.  The object of teaching – who is being taught – always takes the dative case.  Here ‘man’ is in the genitive case.  The grammar clearly presents that the object ‘man’ relates to authority not in relation to teaching.  If we take the Bible seriously, then teaching is being prohibited here and, if that is universalized, then any teaching ministry of any woman under any situation is prohibited in this verse.

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over man.”  Here again, the word Paul uses is not the common word for authority (Greek word).  Paul chooses another word (Greek word).  This is the only place in the New Testament that the word appears.  It appears in many other instances in the Greek language at that time.  Greek society understood the word in a very different way to what appears in our Bibles today.  It is used in Greek society to commit murder or to kill with one’s own hand either others or one’s own self.  It is used to have full power or authority over (Josephus uses this word as a noun to describe assassins, murderers of a Galilean on the way to a festival in Jerusalem).   It is used to describe parents who were slaughtering parents, wishing to kill defenseless souls by their own hand.  Josephus, in his work, describes Herod’s son who was accused of killing his two brothers and attempting to kill his father by that word – the noun of the word that is used here.  Philo uses the same word to describe the person who tried to destroy the virtues and became his own murderer.  What I am saying is that the word (Greek word) is a very very powerful word – “I do not permit women to (Greek word) a man.”  Would they have understood this as being part of a participatory, decision-making process like deciding a budget?  No, they would not have heard that in this word.  It is far too powerful a word that is used here.  This is a word that indicates and is similar to the concept that Christ uses when He says the Gentiles lord it over (a domineering-type thing). 

Peter says the elders are not to domineer over the flock.  (Greek word) at its very least would be a kind of leadership that overpowers and destroys the individuality of another person – that would be its very least meaning.  And this, Paul says, is not to happen, indicating that it most likely was happening by this libertarian group here.  That is what it means at the very least.  There is a doctoral dissertation underway right now by (name unclear) who is looking at this word (Greek word) and is coming up with strong proof that what is involved in that word is also a kind of sexual destruction – that there is a domineering sexual immorality that is involved.  This is what Paul is admonishing against.  Whether she can prove that through the use of the Greek is one thing, but at the very least, the word (Greek word) means that women are not to domineer in a way that destroys another person.  In no other verse in Scripture is it stated that women are not to be in authority over men, this is the only instance.  And I am suggesting that it is very precarious to build a church practice on this verse.  To deny that women should never be in positions of responsible leadership on the basis of this verse is extremely precarious. 

From the meaning of (Greek word), the manner of authority is not to be evidenced by anyone, male or female in this way.  There is evidence that this is exactly the type of problem that existed in the church in Ephesus and that Paul is here condemning this specific attitude.  There is very clear evidence that women did participate in positions of responsible leadership in the first century church.  With all of that, to go to 1 Tim. 2:11 and say that women may not participate in leadership when the only word that is used to connote that is this very strong word (Greek word) is precarious at the very least.

If what we have looked at is true, the obvious question we have to respond to is, are we individually and collectively responding obediently to that truth, if it is truth?  If it isn’t truth, then it is untruth, and if it is untruth, it needs and must be challenged.  Is Scripture our authority or is tradition our authority?  This is as vital an issue in the church as if there were segregation in terms of race or socio-economic status.  Would any of us maintain membership in a church that said because you were Italian or black, you may participate with us but not actively?  Would any of us allow ourselves to maintain membership in that group if there were discrimination on the basis of socio-economic status, can we honestly say that that is being obedient to Scripture?  I could not.  And on that same ground, on the basis of what we looked at in the inaugural and normative sections of the New Testament (Gal. 3 and Acts 2), I would have to say that all distinctions in church ministry on the basis of race, socio-economic status and sex are transcended in the family of God.