Tim Foster presented the aforementioned exegetical paper in seminar form during the conference. The full paper was presented, and a second edition of the paper appeared in the second running of the session on (14th June). The following abstract and conclusion are sourced from the first version of the paper which I was given.
Abstract
Evidence within the Pastoral Epistles suggests that the heresy afflicting the Ephesian church was embraced exclusively by women, and by all the women at Ephesus. This makes sense of several aspects of 1 Timothy 2:8-15, such as the relationship of verse 8 to the restof the passage, and why men and women are addressed separately in this section. When verses 13 and 14 are taken as a single point, namely that deception arises from a failure to listen to God’s word, they function to support Paul’s demand in verse 12 rather than support an [sic] general principle about the nature of women. The submission demanded in verse 11 is to the teaching of the church, while the authority on view in verse 12 carries the nuance of assertiveness or domination and is not concerned with gender-based hierarchy. Thus, the text does not provide a general injunction against women teaching or having authority, but addresses a particular situation whereby the Ephesian women embraced the heresy causing gender-based division. Paul’s solution is that the men stop quarrelling with the women, while the women are to be silent, stop asserting themselves and listen to the teaching of the church.
Conclusion
Despite the apparent simplicity of the command that a woman is not to teach, its meaning and force can only be understood within the entire passage, and the following two verses in particular. Any interpretation requires a certain amount of reconstruction and inference, and our interpretation is no exception. While it cannot be certain that the heresy has taken root along gender lines, we have provided a reconstruction that draws its inferences from within the text, and which takes account of the details of the passage.
The argument of the passage is that the problem of false teaching will not be resolved by a slanging match across the congregation. Rather, if the men stop quarrelling with the women, and the women lose their arrogant demeanour, are silent and submit to the authority of the authorised teacher(s), they will learn and be corrected. Just as the men are to desist from quarrelling with the women, a woman is not to teach or usurp authority in the congregational gatherings. Eve is a salutory lesson since she, having been created after Adam, did not hear God’s command, and so was deceived and sinned. However, they will be saved from the consequences of their sinfulness by appropriate behaviour and humility.
There is nothing in these verses to suggest a transoccasional application of the command to women not to teach or to be silent. Nor is there any requirement that the women at Ephesus or anywhere else submit to men, rather they must submit to the teaching of the church. The universal principle is that failure to listen to the word of God renders a person more open to the deceits perpetuated by false teachers. All of us must always submit to the word of God, or else we are susceptible to false teachers and are in danger of falling away.
Loading tweets...
28 comments
Luke says:
June 14, 2010 at 7:23 pm (UTC 10 )
Has Tim’s paper been put online?
Luke says:
June 14, 2010 at 7:28 pm (UTC 10 )
By the way I think your the only person who has blogged the conference.
Mark says:
June 14, 2010 at 10:01 pm (UTC 10 )
Luke, I’m not sure mate. I’ve been billeted with Rev. Chris Appleby (a really top guy) who is looking after the website, so I’ll ask him tomorrow. Yes, I’m not surprised I’m the only one – there were a few taking notes, and a few typing a lot of things down – but not many of us! Hope it’s helpful mate. I’ll be putting some personal reflections online soon also.
Blessings,
Mark
Jereth says:
June 16, 2010 at 9:27 pm (UTC 10 )
Hi Mark,
What I find bewildering is the inability of egalitarians to come to any kind of consensus on 1 Timothy 2:8-15. This disarray does not help persuade me to accept egalitarian theology.
* Some say that Paul meant what he said and the clear reading understands him correctly, but
– Paul’s thinking was limited by his culture
– the command is bound to a particular phase of redemption (eg. Webb)
– Paul privately supported egalitarian practice but was being seeker sensitive and “missional”
– 1st century women weren’t educated enough to teach or preside
* Some say that Paul meant what he said but the clear reading misunderstands him because he was only dealing with a local crisis (eg. NT Wright, Krogers, Bilezikian), concerning which there are many suggestions
– Artemis cult
– Gnostic heresy
– congregational disorder / lawlessness
– asceticism / over-realised eschatology
[Tim Foster's hypothesis appears to be a re-statement of this opinion, though taken to an implausible extreme -- all women were heretics in Ephesus]
* Some say that Paul meant what he said but we have translated him wrongly and he never in fact supported the submission of women, for local reasons or otherwise (eg. Keener, Belleville, Groothuis)
* Some say that Paul actually never meant to restrict women in Ephesus, he was just guilty of some kind of lapse or poor communication (eg. Jewett, Reiher, NT Wright)
I cannot but honestly wonder if egalitarian “exegesis” of 1 Tim 2 is just an exercise in coming up with so many “proposed new readings” that the the traditional, straightforward understanding is simply submerged from view in a sea of paper. However, proper exegesis is not about seeing how creative you can be with a text; and the creativity evident here just convinces me that what is going on is eisegesis not exegesis.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to share with us your experience at the conference.
Jereth says:
June 16, 2010 at 9:45 pm (UTC 10 )
P.S. (slightly tongue in cheek)
Just looking at that title – “Gender Wars”.
Is it just me, or is this an anachronistic reading of the 20th and 21st century gender wars into the 1st century??
It doesn’t make sense. On the one hand, Paul was a champion of egalitarianism (Gal 3:28). So what does he do when all the women of Ephesus embrace his Gal 3:28 teaching and rise up together against all the men in a righteous Gender War? Suppress them and re-instate male hegemony for the next 1900 years.
Then, when 20th century feminism rises against 1900 years of male hegemony, igniting another Gender War, what do we do? Pat them on the back and tell Paul he got it right the first time!
Mark says:
June 17, 2010 at 1:16 am (UTC 10 )
Jereth,
Thanks for your time in writing these thoughts – I’ve not read this widely, so really appreciate your clarity in summarising these thoughts.
What Tim Foster does is follow through what he calls an “intriguing possibility” from Mounce’s “Pastoral Epistles” where he (Mounce, 125) states: “If all the women, and only the women, are deceived, then this [situational] interpretation would be more feasible.”
Mounce dismisses the argument based on the fact that Priscilla was there at the time. Foster sets the context such that Priscilla and Aquila were not there at the time, and follows Mounce’s possibility through with some other steps.
In any case, I haven’t done the exegetical legwork, but Foster’s case rests on the premise that a) all women were deceived, and b) Priscilla wasn’t there. As noted, I’m no authority on it, but it seems to me that it’s resting a whole lot of those two debatable points.
Blessings brother – thanks for dropping by!
Mark
Tim Foster says:
June 18, 2010 at 8:34 am (UTC 10 )
Hi Jereth
“What I find bewildering is the inability of egalitarians to come to any kind of consensus on 1 Timothy 2:8-15. This disarray does not help persuade me to accept egalitarian theology.”
Mate, having read copious amount amounts of material from both sides of the debate I can assure you that Complementarians also have a wide range of views. Like Egalitarians, they share the same conclusion, but differ in how they understand the details. Even Moo and Grudem differ, for example on their view of verse 14, and Moo has changed his mind in a couple of things. Also, there are a range of views among Complementarians about the nature of the heresy.
So, if your logic is that the Egalitarian case is weak due to a lack of consensus, the same conclusion must be made for the Complementarian case.
BTW – my case doesn’t rest on the premise that a) all women were deceived, and b) Priscilla wasn’t there.” Rather, my paper demonstrates that there is good evidence from within the epistle for reading it this way, and (b) the argument of many Complementarians that the heresy concerns women wanting to take over from men or undermine gender-based hierarchy is groundless.
I realize that I have made it difficult for you to engage with the paper by not putting it on the web, but it is not yet finalised and I am wanting to submit it for publication.
Regards, Tim
Luke says:
June 18, 2010 at 8:51 am (UTC 10 )
Hi Tim,
While I disagree with you I admire the fact your out on the blogisphere defending your paper.(Will it be online, my memory of your presentation in class is a little vague and we only have the abstract and conclusion above?) Firstly I don’t think I’ve told you this but I admire your desire to make a case from Scripture, it creates common ground.
Secondly however, your crucial premise is of course your opening sentence: “Evidence within the Pastoral Epistles suggests that the heresy afflicting the Ephesian church was embraced exclusively by women, and by all the women at Ephesus.” You’ve got two problems here; proving all the evidence points to an exclusively female heresy at that time, in that place and the problem of occasional markers, sometimes Paul will provide textual markers indicating occasional application, you’d have to prove they exist in this passage.
I’d be really interested in reading your answers to both problems.
Rachel Lotherington says:
June 18, 2010 at 6:57 pm (UTC 10 )
Hi Mark,
Thanks again for your summaries of the conference.
I have not read as widely as many of you have, however I have read 1 Timothy carefully.
I respect Tim Foster’s decision to wait until his paper is finished, and to publish it properly.
In the meantime, however, I would appreciate being pointed in the direction of the Bible verses stating that some, most or all of the women at Ephesus were heretics and the men were not. I haven’t found that in my reading of the New Testament, but I am ready to be corrected by Scripture.
Tim Foster says:
June 20, 2010 at 7:45 pm (UTC 10 )
Hi Luke and Rachel
Thanks for your comments.
Luke writes: : “Evidence within the Pastoral Epistles suggests that the heresy afflicting the Ephesian church was embraced exclusively by women, and by all the women at Ephesus.” You’ve got two problems here; proving all the evidence points to an exclusively female heresy at that time.”
What kind of evidence would you expect to find if this was the case?
Luke says:
June 20, 2010 at 10:25 pm (UTC 10 )
Hi Tim,
Because I reject the premise based on (among other things) insufficient evidence, I’d find it difficult to imagine evidence for an alternative view, I was hoping you’d provide it!
Generally evidence for any interpretation should be clear, connected to the premise and consistent with other theological patterns.
Thanks for the dialogue!
Jereth says:
June 21, 2010 at 12:00 am (UTC 10 )
Friends,
In answer to Reverend Luke’s question there are 2 texts which supposedly hint at the idea that there were some dodgy women in Ephesus: 2 Tim 3:1-7 and 1 Tim 5:11-15.
However, 2 Tim 3:1-7 reveals that the real dodgy people were *men* who were captivating “weak women”. 1 Tim 5:11-15 talks about young widows gossiping with each other, which is a far cry from teaching bra-burning heresy; and furthermore 1 Tim 5:5, 9 & 10 make it clear that there were in fact some top quality ladies in town.
1 Tim 1:20 names two blokes who were dangerous heretics. 5:20 and 6:3-5 provide yet further evidence for the presence of dodgy men.
So on my survey of the epistle, it is simply against the plain facts to say that all the women were dodgy and all the men were good.
It is also helpful to quote Don Carson, whose reasoning is spot on. This is actually his comment on 1 Cor 14:34-35, but the precise same logic applies to 1 Tim 2.
“There is a more foundational objection: these [egalitarian hermeneutical] approaches are unbearably sexist. They presuppose that there was a major heresy in which one of the following was true: (a) only women were duped, yet Paul arbitrarily silences all the women, regardless of whether they were heretics or not; (b) both some men and some women were duped, but Paul silences only the latter, thus proving to be a chauvanist; or (c) Paul was entirely right in his ruling, because *all* the women and *only* women in all the Pauline churches were duped–which perhaps I may be excused for finding hard to believe. Has that ever happened in the history of the church? The truth of the matter is that this passage raises no questions of heresy, but if it did, some explanation would still have to be given for the fact that Paul’s response silences women, not heretics.”
Cheers,
Jereth
Tim Foster says:
June 21, 2010 at 9:30 am (UTC 10 )
Thanks Jereth and Luke
Jereth, I think Carson dismisses option (c) too quickly and with an argument from silence.
1. Distinction between Teachers and Victims
In response to your survey: There is a distinction between those who introduced the heresy, Hymenaeus and Alexander, (who have since been excommunicated (1:20)), and the victims who remain in the church.
This is recognized by Mounce (a Complementarian):
“while the text never says women are teaching the heresy, names only men as teachers (1 Tim 1:20; 2 Tim 2:17; 3:6), and explicitly pictures only women as being influenced by the heresy (2 Tim 3:6–7; possibly 1 Tim 5:11–13, 15), the charge here [1 Tim 2:12] suggests that women, at least in some way, are promulgating the heresy even if they are not leaders of the opposition.”
And so he notes, for example, that the language directed to the women is far more gentle than the language used of the false teachers.
2. The Heresy
It appears to be an ascetic heresy in which true spirituality is found in denial.
The teach abstinence from food, marriage, sex. Physical rigour (1 Tim 4:3, 7-8). Some sexually immoral (1 Tim 5:11)
Importantly, there is no evidence that gender roles are bring undermined and therefore male-female hierarchy needs to be reasserted.
3. Evidence that Victims were Exclusively Women
The victims of the heresy were exclusively women, and that they constituted the vast majority of women in the Ephesian church. Though it is not necessary to posit that all women were victims of the heresy
• 21 out of 113 verses regard women exclusively – more than any other Epistles
• Men are never singled out as victims of false teachers
• The mode of operation of the false teachers is to “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” (2 Tim 3:6).
This results in gender-based division and conflict in the church
Women are refusing marriage and sex, some are falling into immorality (1 Tim 4:3, 7-8; 5:11). Men are quarrelling with the women in their meetings (2:8).
The separate instructions in 1 Timothy 2:8-15 establish a way forward for the church out of the heresy.
Specifically, Paul is saying in 2:8-15:
• Problem will not be solved by a slanging match
• Men to stop quarrelling with the women
• Women are to learn without creating disruption, submitting to authorised teaching, and not assuming authority and presumptuously teach a man.
• Adam and Eve’s experience of deception parallels their own and points to restoration.
A great strength of this approach is that the logic fits in well with the context. Verse 8 and the material in chapter 3 make little sense in the Complementarian reconstruction.
The problems with the Complementarian argument are:
• have no exegetical grounds for claiming that the heresy promoted the abandonment of traditional female roles, indeed some of the material, such as 1 Tim 2:9-10 speaks against this view)
• fail to take into account the nuances of much of the vocabulary in verses 11-15.
• import a great deal into the dense argument of verses 13 & 14,
• offer a reading that fits awkwardly into the flow of the argument form verse 8 and into chapter 3 despite the grammar which links them closely
Regards
Tim
Jereth says:
June 21, 2010 at 1:59 pm (UTC 10 )
Mates,
I suggest we continue this on Luke’s blog (if Luke agrees, of course) rather than continuing to hijack some poor Sydney guy’s blog.
regards, Jereth
Luke says:
June 21, 2010 at 2:17 pm (UTC 10 )
Hi Jereth,
I don’t think Mark minds us on his blog? I haven’t blogged specifically on Tim’s paper, only on Cole’s one from 2006.
Hi Tim,
I think you’ve made two incorrect assumptions about heresy in the Pastoral Epistles. You’ve assumed the heresy being spoken about is monolithic like Arianism with a particular focus. You’ve also assumed that only one particular heresy is in operation in the church at the time Paul wrote. One of the interesting features of the New Testament is the way in which false teaching is rejected and warned against, but not a big deal is made of all the ins and outs of false teaching, the emphasis, understandably is on the boundaries and nuances of the truth faith. So in the Pastoral Epistles we see various manifestations of possibly several different heresies. Paul simply does not identify a single unique heresy.
Your major lines of evidence:
“21 out of 113 verses regard women exclusively – more than any other Epistles”
A large number of references isn’t persuasive, just as the large number of references to “the Jews” in John’s gospel doesn’t make John anti-Semitic.
“men are never singled out as false teachers”
You ruled out an argument from silence earlier in your post but you appeal to one here, this is inconsistent.
“victims” versus “teachers”
Your argument requires the male false teachers Hymenaeus and Alexander to introduce the false teaching to the female victims who then become the false teachers. There is no direct evidence connecting 1 Tim 1:20 with 2 tim 3:6, so it’s only conjecture that the victims become false teachers, assuming those verses are even talking about the same heresy.
An underlying assumption to all your evidence is that we need to build elaborate reconstructions to interpret the text. While I agree it is sometimes necessary to build reconstructions to understand the text it is not always necessary. For example Bauckham has shown we don’t need to reconstruct the audiences of the four gospels to interpret them.
I’m sure others will make the Complementarian case better than I (eg Knight in NIGTC series) but it’s bad argumentation Tim to appeal to complexity. All issues are complex and all issues can be spoken about simply, neither argument advances either case. By saying the Complementarian case makes light of a complex argument, begs the question.
Mark says:
June 21, 2010 at 4:44 pm (UTC 10 )
G’day all,
Thanks for all your GREAT thoughts and engagement. I’m currently working away for my exams, so am enjoying just reading your posts, but will probably keep my head down until the storm of exams is over.
Please DO feel free to keep engaging here. I’m thankful that we’ve got *brotherly* engagement over this issue, so please do keep it up!
Blessings,
Mark
Tim Foster says:
June 21, 2010 at 7:02 pm (UTC 10 )
“it’s bad argumentation Tim to appeal to complexity. All issues are complex and all issues can be spoken about simply, neither argument advances either case. By saying the Complementarian case makes light of a complex argument, begs the question”
Where did I appeal to complexity?
You seem to be saying that the heresy is complex, I’m saying it’s simple.
Do you mean that I am appealing to complexity by reading the passage in the light of the epistles as a whole?
Tim Foster says:
June 21, 2010 at 9:17 pm (UTC 10 )
“I think you’ve made two incorrect assumptions about heresy in the Pastoral Epistles. You’ve assumed the heresy being spoken about is monolithic like Arianism with a particular focus…
This was not an assumption on my part. An assumption is when you take something to be self-evident. My discussion of the heresy is based on the text and is shared by many commentators on both sides of this debate (I follow Mounce, a Complementarian here). There are one set of false teachers identified, and therefore most likely one heresy. Despite your comments, there is quite a lot of material in the Pastoral Epistles that describes the heresy and its impact, and they form a coherent set of beliefs.
As for the other issues you raise Luke, it comes down to what kind of evidence you want. Hence my question earlier. Paul doesn’t describe what is happening at Ephesus since the Ephesians know their own circumstances. If the situation was as I describe it, then what would we expect to find? What we do find is the very things I describe which are compelling, despite your protestations.
“21 out of 113 verses regard women exclusively – more than any other Epistles”
A large number of references isn’t persuasive, just as the large number of references to “the Jews” in John’s gospel doesn’t make John anti-Semitic.
It all depends on the point you are trying to make as to how persuasive it is. If you are wanting to say, as I am, that exclusively women were victims of the heresy, then you would expect (a) only women to be singled out for inappropriate belief/behaviour, and (b) for that to be strongly apparent, then it is very suggestive.
“men are never singled out as false teachers”
You ruled out an argument from silence earlier in your post but you appeal to one here, this is inconsistent.
I ruled out Carson’s point because he dismisses the possibility on the basis that it is unprecedented in history. My difficulty with that is, does he know every situation in every church in history so that he can validly make that conclusion? And if it is unprecedented what does that prove? My argument is not an argument from silence, but abductive reasoning (ie. an inference that is consistent with the point that I am trying to demonstrate).
“victims” versus “teachers”
Your argument requires the male false teachers Hymenaeus and Alexander to introduce the false teaching to the female victims who then become the false teachers. There is no direct evidence connecting 1 Tim 1:20 with 2 tim 3:6, so it’s only conjecture that the victims become false teachers, assuming those verses are even talking about the same heresy.
I maintain, with support from Mounce previously cited, that the victims become agitators within the congregation, but not false teachers in the sense of H. and A. There is, in fact, direct evidence connecting 1 Tim 1:20 and 2 Tim 3:6 and it may be found in 2 Tim 2:17 where the same culprit is named.
An underlying assumption to all your evidence is that we need to build elaborate reconstructions to interpret the text. While I agree it is sometimes necessary to build reconstructions to understand the text it is not always necessary. For example Bauckham has shown we don’t need to reconstruct the audiences of the four gospels to interpret them.
As I said in my first post, both sides develop a reconstruction. The Complementarian case relies on a reconstruction that requires reading the present passage through the lens of 1 Cor 11. As I stated, they build these reconstructions, despite evidence to the contrary within the passage (eg. Verses 9-10). My reconstruction is relatively simple., and is based on evidence from the PE. Furthermore, it begins to make sense of elements of the present passage so frequently ignored – such as the point of verse 8, and the logical relationship of ch. 3. It also answers the most basic question as to why men and women are addressed separately in this section.
I’m sure others will make the Complementarian case better than I (eg Knight in NIGTC series) but it’s bad argumentation Tim to appeal to complexity. All issues are complex and all issues can be spoken about simply, neither argument advances either case. By saying the Complementarian case makes light of a complex argument, begs the question
As I said, I do not appeal to complexity, and I cannot see where I have said anything to the effect that the Complementarian case makes light of the argument.
Tim Foster says:
June 21, 2010 at 9:19 pm (UTC 10 )
Sorry, didn’t realise I had to use [i] square brackets[i] to get italics, and so I have not clearly deliniated my remarks from Luke’s in the previous post.
Apologies.
Mark says:
June 21, 2010 at 10:11 pm (UTC 10 )
G’day Tim,
I just went through and modified it for you? Is that what you were after? Happy to change the placement of the tags if you’d like…
Oh, and I used < em > and < /em > for it! Just take out the spaces between ‘< ‘ and ‘e’ and it will work! Gee, these blogs have a mind of their own
Luke says:
June 21, 2010 at 11:58 pm (UTC 10 )
(It seems neither us were appealing to complexity! I didn’t describe the heresy as complex and you didn’t accuse the Complementarians of making light of a complex interpretation.) I think our discussion is coalescing around three themes.
Was the heresy embraced exclusively by Women?
We’ll have to leave the question of how monolithic the heresy was; your following Mounce and I’m following Knight who argues for more diversity in its manifestations. However even if we grant a broadly similar heresy it clearly wasn’t a uniquely female phenomenon. Firstly the fact that a large number of verses are about women doesn’t prove anything expect that a large number of the verses are about women. Frequent references to “the Jews” in John doesn’t imply an anti-Semitic agenda. Secondly an example of how the false teachers work is simply an example of how the false teachers work and can’t be turned into a comprehensive description of their mode of operation, it’s only a single verse tucked into a description of the end times. Lastly you can’t escape the fact your making an inference from an absence of data, logically just because men aren’t mentioned as victims doesn’t mean they weren’t victims.
Is an elaborate reconstruction really necessary?
Tim, you require a reconstruction because the plain reading of 1 Tim 2 isn’t about heresy. As I said earlier, Bauckham liberates us from elaborate audience reconstructions. Even if were to conclude there was a heresy uniquely effecting women at the time, which given the problems with the evidence above is unlikely, its hard to see why it must be connected to the false teachers. It’s arguable whether or not the Complementarians require a reconstruction, if we do it’s simply the context of the surrounding passages the community of the church at worship and then its leadership, this incidentally (following Knight) makes sense of verse 8, returning to the theme of verse 1. (Verse 8 is incidentally doubly problematic for the Egalitarian interpretation because it’s addressed only to men, does this require another separate heresy?)
Is an occasional reading even permitted?
Finally even if a reconstruction led us to believe this controversial passage was addressing a unique situation in Ephesus, there are no textual markers indicating it’s occasional. Why are these particular verses occasional? What about chapters 1 and 3, or the entire epistle? Cole escapes this conundrum by making an extra-biblical argument, which is disappointing. (Just to head off two counter-arguments at the pass: all Scripture is both occasional, written in a context, and trans-occasional, inspired by God, with universal principles that still apply to us today.)
Jereth says:
June 22, 2010 at 12:42 am (UTC 10 )
Mark, thanks for letting us stay here and play. We’ll try not to break anything. Good luck with those exams.
Luke & Tim, thank you for the conversation. A little while ago I wrote down my musings on 1 Timothy in a bit more detail, I’m willing to let you (and Mark) have a read:
http://jereth.customer.netspace.net.au/Gender%20roles%20-%20sect8%20onlyB.pdf
Apologies to Tim that it will not engage with your current theory but I wrote this some time back.
I confess having a lot of trouble accepting your scenario Tim. The text says to me quite clearly that in Ephesus there were some very dodgy men, some dodgy women, some good men, and some good women. Quite what you’d expect in any church, really. You are making far too much of 2 Tim 3:6–7 & 1 Tim 5:11–13 to conclude that all or even most of the women in the city had gone dodgy.
In 2:8, Paul tells the men not to quarrel but he does not say “with the women” does he? I feel that you are much too eager to read a “slanging match” / “gender war” into this. I reckon Paul is just having a go at some macho men who are banging heads together over creation science and the timing of the rapture.
4:3 does not say that women are refusing marriage and sex. Again, you are reading in far too much. All this verse says is that the heresy was anti-marriage. For all we know, the dodgy men didn’t want marriage either. (Though men who don’t want sex is something of a stretch I admit…)
You say there is no evidence that gender roles are being undermined; yet asceticism and rejection of marriage (4:3) are precisely the things that go along with rejection of gender roles, no?
If the big problem here is dodgy women, why does Paul say that the women must not teach the men? (2:12) So it is ok for dodgy women to teach other women? And there is no need to restrain the dodgy men from teaching anyone? (1 Tim 6:3-5; 2 Tim 3:6-9, 13)
Your argument seems to rely heavily on 2:8-10 being situation-specific. But 1 Peter 3:3-4 goes against this, it is almost exactly the same as 1 Tim 2:9-10 yet written to a totally different place, where there is no heresy. I think what we’ve got here is a general Christian ethic — clothes purchased on Chapel Street aren’t what make godly women hot. 2:8, similarly, is a general command to all blokes everywhere to keep their testosterone in check. Hey, 1 Tim 2:1-6 seem quite general too, as do chapter 3:1ff. I wonder if that means that 2:11-15, sandwiched in between, might be a general command too! (grin)
Jereth
Tim Foster says:
June 22, 2010 at 10:18 am (UTC 10 )
Luke,
Nice job of focusing the discussion.
I think you are wrong to say “it clearly wasn’t a uniquely female phenomenon.” There is nothing clear about it.
We find in the letter exactly the kind of evidence we would expect if the situation was as I describe it. The fact that all the negative material is addressed exclusively to women, and that a proportionally large number of verses are addressed exclusively to women, that the false teachers’ method is described as going from house to house to deceive weak willed women, and that men and women are addressed separately in 1 Tim2.8-15 is strongly suggestive. And let’s face it, that’s all it can ever be, but it is quite appropriate to infer b from a, especially when it is consistent with c, d and e AND there is nothing that contradicts b. Interestingly, Complementarians like Knight, Moo and Grudem reconstruct the heresy with far less support than I offer for my own reconstruction.
I understand that you don’t like reconstructions or think they are necessary. However, you should note that the type of reconstruction that Bauckham liberates us from is nothing like the one I offer here (or that Complementarians offer, for that matter). He argues against the critical approach which presumed problems or difficulties in hypothetical communities, (eg. An imagined Johannine Community). We don’t have to recreate a community when we examine the Epistles, because there is one, and the situation can be discerned.
Nevertheless, at one level I agree, and could quite happily exegete the passage without requiring a reconstruction. I certainly do not require it as you suggest. Moreover, I do not say that Complementarian require a reconstruction. But they do offer one, and it is tenuous.
But, along the way I am going to have to make some exegetical decisions, and it is normal practice to use material from the broader context to help make those decisions. This is standard operating procedure in exegesis.
Verse 8 is no problem, if you read my earlier remarks you will see how I make better sense of it than Complementarians.
Whether or not the specific demands are transoccasional or occasional will depend on our exegesis of the passage. Textual markers are not necessary. However I agree that “all Scripture is both occasional, written in a context, and trans-occasional, inspired by God, with universal principles that still apply to us today.”
Jereth, the text makes it clear that the dodgy men have been excommunicated, while it suggests that the dodgy women are still in the congregation. You think I’m making too much of these verses, I think you are making light of them. No, Paul does not say in verse 8 ‘with women’, but why do commentators all assume it is with one another? I think it is valuable to show that there is another possibility here, especially since it relates more logically the verse the what follows as required by the grammar.
I do not see how asceticism, and the behaviour described in 4.1-11 relates to gender roles.
The dodgy men are not just restrained, they have been booted out.
I am going on three weeks holiday on Thursday and my time on this blog is short. But I will try to respond to any further comments if I can.
Tim
Jereth says:
June 22, 2010 at 6:45 pm (UTC 10 )
Tim,
Sorry but I have to strongly disagree with you about the church being purified of dodgy men. Two ringleaders have been given the boot, that’s all.
1 Tim 1:3-6; 1 Tim 4:1-3, 7; 1 Tim 5:20, 24; 1 Tim 6:3-5, 20. (I love the hover feature on this blog!)
None of these verses are directed specifically at ladies. Several of them use male pronouns or refer directly to sinful males.
Please read 1 Tim 1:19-20 carefully. “SOME have made a shipwreck of their faith AMONG WHOM are H & A who I have handed over.” This indicates that only the 2 ringleaders have been excommunicated, those who are capable of repentance have been allowed to stay; Tim is charged with keeping the lid on their babble (1:3).
Why does Paul need to give such a sharp warning to Tim about the bad men in 2 Tim 3:6-9 if they are already well and truly on the outside? Verse 9 says “their folly will be plain to all”, in other words, it isn’t yet clear to everyone how bad these guys are (compare 1 Tim 5:24 – the sins of some guys are not yet obvious). They are still operating semi-covertly within the church.
And I still don’t feel that you have taken adequate account of the evidence for godly women in the church, 1 Tim 5:3, 5, 10. Verse 15 says “some” (not “all”) have strayed — and note he’s only speaking of the young girls here. You know, reading these verses in chapter 5 carefully it sounds like there are a lot of champion 60+ women in the Ephesian church who could be given some fantastic ministry to do!
With all due respect, brother, I have to end up back with Carson on this. He’s not making an argument from silence — there is ample evidence in the epistle that there were good women and bad men in the church.
Have a great holiday!
cheers
Jereth
Tim Foster says:
June 23, 2010 at 5:56 pm (UTC 10 )
Hi Jereth
Thank you for your thoughtful points and the stridency with which you express them. It’s good to be exhorted to look at the passages closely.
As I leave first thing in the morning I will be unsubscribing from this blog later tonight. I hope to catch a reply before I do, but you are welcome to the last word.
Your counterclaim is that the two ringleaders have been given the boot, but the rest of the false teachers (male and female) remain.
1 Tim 1.3-6 concerns Hymenaeus and Alexandra (note the repetition of ‘certain persons’ in verses 3 & 19 (same word in Greek) followed by reference to H. and A. in the latter case.
1 Tim 4.1-4; 7 – doesn’t mention the ladies because it is talking in general terms about the false teaching (not false teachers).
1 Tim 5.20 is a reference to the elders against whom an accusation has been made and where they do not repent (verse 19), it therefore is unlikely to concern the heresy.
1 Tim 6:3-5, 20 are references to A.and H.
I have read 1 Tim 1:20 carefully. Your point seems to be that the language of the verse implies A. and H. are a subset of a larger group (again of men and women). The Greek tells a very different tale. “SOME” means “Certain people”, it does not mean a subset. AMONG WHOM “ho estin” means “namely” (see Mt 1.23; 27:33; Mk 3:17). It adds specificity. So the sense is “Certain people have suffered shipwreck in the faith, namely H. and A.”
Paul gives a sharp warning because, while they are outside the congregation, they are working from house to house and clearly having an impact. Their folly is not plain to all, not because they are operating semi-covertly (now, that’s a speculation), but because some remain convinced. We must not underestimate how difficult it was for the early church to sort out true doctrine from false without the benefit of a bible, and with charlatans around.
1 Tim 5:3, 5, 10 says nothing about the actual demeanor of the women. They are a set of conditions that must be met before the widows get on the roll. There is no indication that “champion 60+ women” actually exist in the church. This may well form some of the incentive for these recalcitrant widows to reform.
1 Tim 5:15, again the Greek is not so simple. I would need more time to investigate this fully, but the word tines followed by the passive is a speculation, “By this time some may have turned away to follow Satan”. In any case, I would put these women in the same basket as the excommunicated heretics. They have gone too far.
Thanks for the stimulation.
Tim
Mark says:
June 23, 2010 at 6:25 pm (UTC 10 )
Just before you head on your holidays Tim, I just wanted to thank you for giving up your time to comment about the issue.
Jereth and Luke, thanks also for engaging on it.
Since I originally posted the blog, I feel like a slacker for not engaging, but thanks for continuing it whilst I furiously studied away
I’m grateful for brotherly engagement on the topic, and glad for mutual learning, as per iron sharpening iron (Prov. 27:17).
Luke says:
June 24, 2010 at 11:28 am (UTC 10 )
I realize the debate’s effectively over on this thread of comments but I’ve made a meta-reflection on my blog highlighting the problems with Tim’s methodology.
http://post-apocalyptictheology.blogspot.com/2010/06/reflecting-on-problems-with-tim-fosters.html
Thanks again Tim, if your back to read this, for a polite defense of your argument.
Mark says:
June 24, 2010 at 11:58 am (UTC 10 )
Luke, cheers for putting some closing thoughts to it on your blog! I’ll be keen to keep popping over to your blog – looks like great stuff there. Keep loving Jesus brother! Mark.