1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and Silence

April 24, 2021

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 commands silence for women in the assemblies of the saints. Is that absolute, qualified, circumstantial, quoting opponents, an interpolation? Its meaning and application are contested, and in the history of that discussion, both in the American Restoration Movement (e.g., Guy N. Woods, B. B. James) and in other traditions of Church history (for centuries women were not permitted to sing in the sacred gatherings and excluded from choirs), some have taken the plain and clear meaning of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 to include the exclusion of women from singing in the assembly.

Issac Marlow, an English Baptist, published a tract in 1690, and, in part, stated: “The Women ought neither to teach nor pray vocally in the Church of Christ, is generally believed by all Orthodox Christians, and is asserted from 1 Cor. 14.34, 35. . . and 1 Timothy 2, 11, 12. . .I therefore greatly marvel that any Man should assert and admit of such a Practice as Women’s Singing; and that any Women should presume to sing vocally in the Church of Christ, when he positively and plainly forbids them in his Word: for Singing is Teaching, Coloss. 3.16. and Speaking, Ephes. 5.19, both of which are plainly forbidden to Women in the Church.”

Marlow’s question is this: if silence means women cannot speak, and singing is a form of speaking, then why do most [Protestant] congregations encourage women to sing when they are discouraged from other forms of speaking based on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35?

Marlow is cited by Beth Allison Barr, The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth, pp. 120-1, an excellent book about the history of patriarchy or complementarianism.


Renew-Hicks Articles on Women and the Assembly

April 23, 2021

For convenience, below are links to the discussion between Renew and myself. I hope you find the series informative as well as reflective of attitudes that honor God and bear witness to the fruit of the Spirit.

I only respond to Renew posts that explicitly interact with my book Women Serving God.

  1. Renew’s Review (Part 1): Hermeneutics.
  2. My Response to Part 1.
  3. Renew’s Reply to my Response to Part 1. (I also copied it into #4 below.)
  4. My Rejoinder to Renew’s Reply to my Response to Part 1.
  5. Renew’s Review (Part 2): 1 Corinthians 11.
  6. My Response to Part 2.
  7. Renew’s Review (Part 3): 1 Corinthians 14.
  8. My Response to Part 3.
  9. Renew’s Review (Part 4): 1 Timothy 2:8-15.
  10. My Response to Part 4.
  11. Renew’s Review (Part 5): Elders.
  12. My Response to Part 5.
  13. Renew’s Review (Part 6): Marriage.
  14. My Response to Part 6.
  15. Renew’s Review (Part 9): Where Does Egalitarianism Lead?
  16. My Response to Part 9.

ELEVEN QUESTIONS ABOUT AND SIX INTERPRETATIONS OF 1 TIMOTHY 2:13-15

March 19, 2021

For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

If the reasons Paul gives for 1 Timothy 2:11-12 are difficult to understand and subject to a wide range of meaning in addition to the questions and interpretations surrounding 1 Timothy 2:11-12 themselves, it is precarious to assume their universal import and impose restrictions on women based on this text. There may be situated cultural reasons rather than universal ones for Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2:8-15.

Eleven Questions

1.  What is the significance of “first”? Is it prominence in a marriage, primogeniture rights, narrated chronological sequence? What does “first” entail? What sorts of honors, rights, privileges, inheritance, or authority are involved? Why does Paul appeal to “first” rather than “headship” explicitly if this is his meaning?

2.  What is the significance of the fact that Adam was not deceived but Eve was? Does this imply something about women as weaker, uneducated, more gullible, or inferior? How does this factor into Paul’s rationale?

3.  Why is it important to emphasize that Eve was deceived? How does this illuminate the situation in Ephesus? How does it illuminate why women are not permitted to “teach or have authority” over a man?

4.  Why is the transgression of the woman noted but not the transgression of Adam when in other places Paul highlights the transgression of Adam and the responsibility of Satan?

5.  What is the transgression of Eve? Is it merely the eating of forbidden fruit or is it also the assumption of leadership authority in the marital or spiritual relationship between Adam and Eve? Is the transgression of Eve the same as the transgression of the women in 2:9-12, or is the transgression of Eve similar because both the women of 2:9-12 and Eve were deceived?

6.  What is the nature of the rationale? Does it provide a ground for a universal principle or an example (narrated story) of why deceived people (in this case women) should not teach?

7. Why does the rationale contain events from both creation and the fall? How is the “fall” part of the rationale for 2:11-12? Are these two separate rationales (creation and fall) or is this a narrated sequence derived from Genesis 2-3 about Eve as a deceived woman?

8.  What does “saved” mean? Does it refer to salvation from sin, from the curse (a reversal of Genesis 3:16), from death, or taking her proper place in the domestic world rather than public life?

9.  What does “childbearing” mean? Does it refer to the birth of the Messiah, to child-rearing, to childbirth itself, or is it a metaphor for domestic life in general?

10.  Who is the “she” of verse 15 and who are the “they”? Is this merely stylistic? How are the “she” and “they” connected? Is it Eve who represents all women and “they” are all women? Is it about husband and wife (“they”)? Are the “they” the women of 2:9-10?

11. To what extent does Genesis 3:16 as the reversal of the fall through salvation and hope for healthy marriage and/or sexuality play a factor in understanding Paul’s rationale?

Six Interpretations

The first three interpretations are essentialist readings (that is, there is some thing about the created nature of reality) of Paul’s rationale while the final three interpretations are about the situated nature of Paul’s rationale. The former lend themselves to universal applications (though there is a difference in whether it applies to home alone, home and church, or to home, church, and society). The latter lend themselves to limited applications to the situation in Ephesus.

1. For Adam was formed first as the image of God, then Eve as an inferior helper; and Adam was not deceived because he was not as gullible as Eve, but the woman was deceived because her nature is more gullible and became a transgressor that ruined the whole human race for which she is punished, according to Genesis 3:16. Yet she [Eve or women] will be saved from further sin, ruin, pain, or perhaps even death through childbearing as she keeps to her domestic responsibilities, provided they [all women and/or her children] continue their Christian discipleship in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

This is the dominant interpretation of the post-Constantinian church. The rationale suggests that women are not equipped for leadership in the home, church, and society because of their secondary essence. Their role is confined to the domestic sphere.

2. For Adam was formed first with primogeniture rights where the chronological order is an enactment of a divine hierarchical intent, then Eve as a dependent helper in the human vocation; and Adam was not deceived as a good, instructed leader would not be, but the woman was deceived as she listened to the serpent and became a transgressor when she assumed a leadership that did not belong to her and led her husband into sin. Yet she [Eve or women] will be saved from the further effects of Genesis 3:16, sin, ruin, pain, or perhaps even death through childbearing as she keeps to her domestic responsibilities, enjoys renewed marriage/sexuality with her husband in reversal of Genesis 3:16’s distortion of the intended created order, and refrains from public leadership in the church, provided they [all women or her children] continue their Christian discipleship in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

This interpretation grounds Paul’s teaching in a hierarchy of roles. Because men have primogeniture rights, which is how “first” is understood, they are invested with the responsibility to authoritatively lead the home and church. It is a hierarchy of authority. For some, this includes society as well, but for others it is restricted to the home and church alone. Women are excluded from particular roles by virtue of a hierarchy of authority.

3. For Adam was formed first as the prominent leader, then Eve as a co-worker and marriage partner in the human vocation; and Adam was not deceived because he was instructed well, but the woman was deceived because she was uninstructed and the woman became a transgressor due to her lack of learning. Yet she [wife] will be saved from the further effects of Genesis 3:16, sin, ruin, pain, sexual exploitation, or perhaps even death through childbearing in the context of her married home life as a kind of reversal of Genesis 3:16’s corruption of God’s intent, provided they [husband and wife] continue their marital relationship and life in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

This interpretation locates Paul’s rationale in the marriage relationship as grounded in the story of Adam and Eve. The application of the text, according to this interpretation, relates to household relationships rather than public leadership in the Christian community. This may be an accommodation to culture, or it may reflect an understanding of husband-wife relations patterned after Adam and Eve in creation.

4. For Adam was formed first, then Eve in contrast to pagan and Gnostic myths that say otherwise or give prominence to the woman; and Adam was not deceived and, though instructed, sinned with his eyes wide open, but the woman was deceived by the lies of the serpent and became a transgressor. Women should learn the mystery of godliness rather than trust the deceivers and their myths. Yet she [women] will be saved from pain and death through childbearing as a kind of reversal of Genesis 3:16’s corruption of original mutuality and/or sexual exploitation, provided they [all women] continue their Christian discipleship in faith and love and holiness, with modesty rather than seeking the help and aid of Artemis or other pagan gods.

This interpretation locates the rationale in the context of the conflict with false teaching in Ephesus. Some were promoting female dominance and priority (including teaching that Eve was created first or had some priority). Paul responds with the chronology of the Genesis narrative and the role of Eve in the fall. Further, in contrast to how women sought protection (salvation) in childbirth from Artemis, Paul counsels they trust God through continuing in faith, love, and holiness.

5.  For Adam was formed first in chronological sequence, then Eve was created to complete humanity so that together they might pursue the human vocation; and Adam was not deceived and, though instructed, sinned with his eyes wide open, but the woman was deceived because she listened to the serpent and then Adam listened to Eve and through her deception the woman became a transgressor. Women should learn the mystery of godliness rather than trust the deceivers and their myths. Yet she [women] will be saved from this false teaching through honoring their marriages and having children rather than embracing asceticism as part of the false teaching as a kind of reversal of Genesis 3:16’s corruption of original mutuality, provided they [Christian women or husband/wives] continue their discipleship in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

This interpretation believes the problem in Ephesus was generated by the presence of false teachers. Just like Eve, some women were deceived into following and promoting their myths. Paul’s resolution is the rejection of the asceticism that plagued this false teaching and encourages women and men to embrace healthy sexuality, including having children as well as continuing in a godly marriage and community.

6. For Adam was formed first in chronological sequence, then Eve was created to complete humanity so that together they might pursue the human vocation; and Adam was not deceived and, though instructed, sinned with his eyes wide open, but the woman was deceived because she listened to the serpent and then Adam listened to Eve and through her deception the woman became a transgressor. Women should learn the mystery of godliness rather than trust the deceivers and their myths. Yet she [Eve] will be saved from her transgression through the birth of the Messiah [“the childbearing”], provided they [all women or the women of 2:9-10] continue their discipleship in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

This interpretation understands the problem in Ephesus was generated by the presence of false teachers. Just like Eve, some women were deceived into following and promoting their myths. Paul’s resolution is the birth of the Messiah who will save from sin all those who continue in faith, love, and holiness.


Response to Renew’s Review (Part 9) of Women Serving God

January 11, 2021

Renew has recently published the ninth part of their series on Bible, gender, and the church. This is my response.

However, attention to my book is only minimal. Consequently, I will only respond to places that explicitly address my own particular thoughts.

I found this article problematic in many ways. I think there are too many assumptions and projections rather than helpful interactions with the claims of evangelical or biblically-based egalitarians. But I will not take the time to note this. I will only address what explicitly overlaps with my own book, Women Serving God.

Renew’s series, as a whole, responds to the publication of my book, Women Serving God. The following are links to the discussion between myself and Renew in the blogosphere.

  1. Renew’s Review (Part 1): Hermeneutics.
  2. My Response to Part 1.
  3. Renew’s Reply to my Response to Part 1. (I copied it into #4 below.)
  4. My Rejoinder to Renew’s Reply to my Response to Part 1.
  5. Renew’s Review (Part 2): 1 Corinthians 11.
  6. My Response to Part 2.
  7. Renew’s Review (Part 3): 1 Corinthians 14.
  8. My Response to Part 3.
  9. Renew’s Review (Part 4): 1 Timothy 2:8-15.
  10. My Response to Part 4.
  11. Renew’s Review (Part 5): Elders.
  12. My Response to Part 5.
  13. Renew’s Review (Part 6): Marriage.
  14. My Response to Part 6.
  15. Renew’s Review (Part 9): Where Does Egalitarianism Lead?

I will begin by quoting the first set of paragraphs from Renew’s article (Part 9) that address my book.

“For example, a careful reading of John Mark Hick’s Women Serving God shows an advocacy for men and women achieving egalitarian ideals: equal status, equal power, equal opportunities in all that is done in the gathered church—but in a way that rejects biblical hierarchies as something distasteful.

Servanthood seems somehow antithetical to clerical authority and hierarchy.[2]

In fact, Hicks infuses secular ideals, without acknowledging their source, with Jesus’ teachings on service, humility, and the importance of using one’s giftedness.

Infusing secular ideals with Jesus’ teachings seems like a smooth mix appropriate for this cultural moment. But is it scriptural? And where does an unchecked egalitarianism lead?

Bizarrely, the egalitarian and individualistic ideals in Western civilization are in the midst of working themselves out and are now being mixed into Critical Theory and the new cultural Marxism. These ideals continue to evolve and merge, being fueled by the new focus on human emancipation from all perceived forms of systemic oppression. Critical Theory derives its ideas of power, justice, and equality from postmodernism and soft forms of Carl [Karl, JMH] Marx’s ideas. Critical theorists place the blame for all that’s wrong in the world at the feet of unjust social structures and systems. According to Critical Theory, these systems maintain power by truth claims.”

My response.

I found this rather strange. I never use the term egalitarian in my book. I do make a biblical case for the full participation of women in the “gathered church” (assembly). This is based upon the giftedness of women and that God distributes these gifts to both male and female for the common good of the assembly.

With respect to the assembly, Renew actually agrees with me in this regard with the one exception of preaching or “authoritative teaching” (as is claimed in earlier blogs). So, because I affirm the privilege of women to preach in the assembly or teach authoritatively, I have now “infuse[d] secular ideals . . . with Jesus’ teaching.” Moreover, I am, in some way, indebted to or profoundly influenced by Critical Theory and the new cultural Marxism.

I wonder how many people actually see cultural Marxism in Women Serving God. I don’t think it is there at all. I think I would need a bit more evidence from Renew that I have been shaped by such thinking and utilized it “without,” Renew charges, “acknowledging” the source of those ideas. I affirm the source of my ideas in the book. I get them from the Bible.

It seems, as I read Renew, it is cloaked under this assertion: “Servanthood seems somehow antithetical to clerical authority and hierarchy.”

The footnote to that statement refers to a section entitled “At Table with Jesus” (pp. 145-146).

Renew actually quotes part of a paragraph later in the blog. Here is the paragraph they quote.

“The table of Jesus is not about power and control. It is not about clerical authority. It is not about prerogatives and status. It is not about hierarchy. It is about mutual service and ministry. The table is where we serve each other.…unfortunately, the table—like leadership in the worship assembly—has become the place for hierarchical positioning.”

Renew characterizes “hierarchy” as a “human structure in which some people have more authority or power than others who are in submission to them.”

Renew affirms the “hierarchies” of “male headship in marriage (Eph. 5:3), a dad’s leadership in families (Eph. 6:4), and elderships in churches (1 Tim. 3:1ff).”

My “distaste toward hierarchy,” as Renew calls it, does not entail a distaste for spiritual authority and submission as Renew claims. I affirm that the Spirit’s gifts to the body carry authority with them and the response of others is to submit. At the same time, this does not institute a hierarchy that stratifies a community on the basis of race [Jew/Gentile], gender [male/female], economics [enslaved/free], ecclesiastical status [clerics] and cultural status [e.g., political or celebrity figures], but a community of mutual submission (Ephesians 5:21). Rather, the distributed gifts function within the community as expressions of spiritual authority and submission.

The question, then, is not whether there is authority and submission but rather the nature of that authority and submission. I contend it is not a matter of gender or clerical hierarchialism.

More specifically, my discussion of the table is directed at power, control, and clericalism that institute a status that ranks the participants at the Lord’s table in some way. I am describing what happens at Eucharist or at the Lord’s Supper. We are at the table together as mutual servants, not as ranked agents of power.

Is there gender hierarchy, much less clerical hierarchy, at the table of the Lord? May only men serve the table of the Lord? May only men officiate at the table of the Lord and speak the gospel at the table? May only clerics officiate at the table of the Lord?

I suggest that one of the great contributions of the Restoration Movement is the subversion of sacerdotal or clerical authority and the practice of the priesthood of believers (though only male in the assembly for much of the Restoration Movement). Alexander Campbell debated this point with N. L. Rice. Campbell (Campbell-Rice Debate, p.583). Of course, Campbell maintained the gender hierarchy (p. 584: “We never, by word or action, sanctioned either female or minors as baptists”). I assume–I would be happy to know for certain–Renew encourages women who disciple others to baptize them (which is a revision of the historic Christian position).

The gathered community comes together as a priesthood of believers without clerical distinctions. There is no hierarchy at the table of the Lord, either clerical or gendered. We sit at the table as fellow-servants, priests of God, members of the body of Christ, and without unique rank, status, or prerogatives.

When we turn the table of the Lord or the assembled gathering into a clerical and/or gendered expression of hierarchical stratification, then we undermine the meaning of the table and the quench the Spirit’s distribution of gifts within the body.

This is not Critical Theory or a new Marxism. It is a biblical theology of giftedness and the priesthood of all believers. As to specifics of male headship and elders as an expression of male hierarchy, I encourage readers to read the interactions in the previous blogs for a discussion of the texts and particulars.

To end, I am disturbed by the rhetoric present in the blog. “It requires scholars (like John Mark Hicks and Scot McKnight) and church leaders to re-interpret or explain away at least 8 male authority roles in Scripture…” Renew apparently thinks it is the “university elites, cultural influencers, and evangelical scholars like Hicks and McKnight” that come to conclusions that women may fully participate in the assemblies of God. This sets up the potential for a kind anti-intellectualism, which I know Renew does not want to cultivate. It does, it seems to me, play to a base with whom such rhetoric will resonate and create an automatic suspicion without hearing the evidence. In the same way, using the buzz words “Critical Theory” or “Marxism” functions as a kind of red flag (even red meat) that creates even more suspicion without hearing the evidence of the book.

More to the point, it is inaccurate. There are examples of such advocates who came to their own conclusion without university elites or scholars. For example, the early 19th century African American Jarena Lee (d. 1864) was the first female AME preacher. I could name more, such as Phoebe Palmer among others. In any event, such characterizations as “elites” is ad hominem; it is a rhetorical appeal to a base that mistrusts “university elites.” I think that unworthy of the history of our dialogue through these blogs. It participates more in the political partisan rhetoric of our time than it does in a biblical and theological discussion among people who both affirm the authority of Scripture.

Moreover, the charge that I have re-interpreted and explained away texts equally applies to Renew’s position. The soft complementarianism Renew affirms has to reinterpret 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 so as to permit women praying and prophesying in the public assembly, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as only applying to disorderly women or the function of weighing the speech of other prophets, and 1 Timothy 2:12 as only applying to the authority of elders (and perhaps preachers). Each of those is a re-interpretation of the historic position of the church which explains away the dimensions of the text that are inconsistent with a soft complementarianism–which is a new position in the history of the church, just as much as egalitarianism is.

Further, the charge that one needs a 1,000 page book to understand the Scriptures in order to be an egalitarian instead of reading the plain text of Scripture is equally true for the soft complementarian who has re-read Scripture through the explanation of books, articles, and blogs in order to maintain a soft complementarianism. One needs a 1,000 page book to defend such re-reading and explanations as well.

I trust readers who have ingested Renew’s blog will give a fair hearing to my book. If so, I have no ill will toward those who disagree with me.

Peace to my friends at Renew.


Response to Renew’s Review (Part 6) of Women Serving God

September 30, 2020

Renew has recently published the sixth part of their series on the Bible, gender, and the church. This is my response.

Renew’s series, as a whole, responds to the publication of my book, Women Serving God. The following are links to the discussion between myself and Renew in the blogosphere.

  1. Renew’s Review (Part 1): Hermeneutics.
  2. My Response to Part 1.
  3. Renew’s Reply to my Response to Part 1. (I copied it into #4 below.)
  4. My Rejoinder to Renew’s Reply to my Response to Part 1.
  5. Renew’s Review (Part 2): 1 Corinthians 11.
  6. My Response to Part 2.
  7. Renew’s Review (Part 3): 1 Corinthians 14.
  8. My Response to Part 3.
  9. Renew’s Review (Part 4): 1 Timothy 2:8-15.
  10. My Response to Part 4.
  11. Renew’s Review (Part 5).
  12. My Response to Part 5.
  13. Renew’s Review (Part 6): Marriage.

This present post is my response to Renew’s Part 6. Renew’s blog is over 7000 words. My response is brief–only 500 words. Renew’s blog series (now in six parts) is over 44,000+ words and my responses are about 22,000+.

As Renew turns its attention to the topic of marriage, it moves beyond the specific thesis and interest of my book, which Part 6 recognizes.

The purpose of my book is to explore the participation of women in the assembly. I make no sustained argument in the book that addresses the specific question of marriage.

Whether husbands have authority over their wives in the home is materially irrelevant to the topic of whether women are invited to fully participate in the assemblies of the saints unless husbands as authorities in the home have some specific function or giftedness in the assembly that excludes women. Yet, no such exclusive function or gift is found in Scripture unless 1 Timothy 2:12 addresses it. I discussed 1 Timothy 2:12 in my book and in my review of Renew’s Part 4.

In other words, whatever “male headship” or submission means for marriage, there is no text in Scripture that denies the use of gifts by women in the assembly. In fact, the one text that describes any correlation between headship and the assembly–which is 1 Corinthian 11–describes the use of gifts by women in the assembly. When women use their God-given gifts, they do not subvert “male headship” (however that is defined) but honor it.

Since I am not quoted or referenced in the article other than in the second sentence of the article and my book does not address any of these texts in any detail or at all, I will forego any review of their article because it does not engage my purposes in my book.

I have written a blog on 1 Peter 3:1-7 if any are interested in how I address this text.

Peace to Reneé and Rick!


Three Video Courses Available

September 23, 2020

The video Course “Anchors for the Soul: Trusting God in the Storms of Life” is available through RightNow Media as well as at HIM Publications (DVD or digital access for $19.95). It contains eight 10-15 minute videos plus an introduction and conclusion. The videos are based on the book by the same title. The series offers some anchors for living through loss, grief, and struggles as well as suggestions for how to help those who are struggling. The anchors are: God loves, God listens, God understands, God reigns, and God wins.

Tokens, a ministry led by Lee C. Camp, has produced a video course based upon my book Searching for the Pattern. There are six videos that address patternism, reading the Bible like Jesus and Paul, and finding our lens for reading the pattern in the Bible. A study guide for the course is available.

Praise and Harmony TV, a ministry led by Keith Lancaster, has produced eight videos based on my book Come to the Table. Topics range from the table in Israel to the table in the ministry of Jesus to the table in the church. This series offers a theological and practical understanding of the Lord’s Supper for the contemporary church. This is a link to the first video. A study guide is available for the course.


Women, Assemblies, and Churches of Christ

September 22, 2020

Several have asked for a briefer and more focused articulation of the topic of my book Women Serving God: My Journal in Understanding Their Story in the Bible that they could share with friends.

I have uploaded a PDF file entitled “Women, Assemblies, and Churches of Christ.” This essay offers a succinct case for the full participation of women in the assemblies gathered for prayer, praise, and mutual edification. I do not entertain the potential objections and alternative perspectives in this short piece. Women Serving God contains more detail and fuller argumentation for those who are interested.

This link will connect you with the study/teaching guide for the book, if someone is interested in more detail without purchasing the book.

Of course, one can only fully engage the argument through the book itself. But, hopefully, these two resources provide helps that are more accessible.

Peace upon the church of God.


Response to Renew’s Review (Part 4) of Women Serving God

September 4, 2020

Renew has recently published the fourth part of their review of my book, Women Serving God. This is my response.

Renew’s series responds to the publication of my book, Women Serving God. The following are links to the discussion between myself and Renew in the blogosphere.

  1. Renew’s Review (Part 1): Hermeneutics.
  2. My Response to Part 1.
  3. Renew’s Reply to my Response to Part 1. (I copied it into #4 below.)
  4. My Rejoinder to Renew’s Reply to my Response to Part 1.
  5. Renew’s Review (Part 2): 1 Corinthians 11.
  6. My Response to Part 2.
  7. Renew’s Review (Part 3): 1 Corinthians 14.
  8. My Response to Part 3.
  9. Renew’s Review (Part 4): 1 Timothy 2:8-15.

This present post is my response to Renew’s Part 4. Renew’s blog is over 8000 words. My response is almost 7500 words.

Once again, there is not much interaction with McKnight’s book but almost wholly with mine. Given that the coming blogs by Renew will address elders and marriage, perhaps McKnight will become their focus because I do not attempt to make any sustained case one way or the other about either of those topics in my book (though I do touch on them in tangential ways when my interest in the assembly overlaps them).

Ten Points of Agreement

Despite a significant difference, particularly in application, Renew and myself share considerable common ground. I will explore this agreement in light of both the blog (Renew Review #4) and the White Station teaching document (SWS), which Renew has consistently quoted not only in this blog but in their previous blogs.

1.  Though 1 Timothy 2:8-15 “likely applies to the assembly” (SWS; emphasis mine), we agree the instructions are not limited to the assembly. In other words, men should always pray with holy hands (and women, too), women should always dress modestly (and men, too), women should be encouraged to learn in every circumstance (rather than simply in the assembly, though this statement “may be focused on the assembly” [SWS; emphasis mine]), and women are prohibited from teaching and authentein  (whatever those two verbs entail) in the assembly as well as in other spaces. Whatever Paul’s point is in 1 Timothy 2:8-15, it is not restricted to the assembly.

2.  We agree 1 Timothy 2:8 does not restrict leading prayer to men alone. As Renew (quoting SWS) says, “Paul’s instruction seeks to reestablish this witness, not by restricting prayer to men, but by addressing the specific issue with the prayers these men were offering alongside their quarreling.” The “purpose” of 1 Timothy 2 “is not to give instruction on who gets to pray and who does not.”

3.  We agree the term for “quietness” in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 describes “a quietness of demeanor (a common meaning of the relevant Greek term in the NT) rather than silence.”

4.  We agree there is a significant problem or disturbance among some women in the Ephesian church. This includes some overlap between the women of 2:9-10 and the younger widows described in 5:13 who were going from house to house “saying things they should not say.” These women are associated in some way with false teachers (cf. 2 Timothy 3:7). As Renew (quoting SWS) states, “If these women are to mature in the faith, it is clear their posture must change to one more conducive to learning.”

Note: the historical reconstruction of the origin and precise nature of this disturbance (whether related to Artemis, some kind of proto-Gnosticism, household dysfunction, or “New Women” in Roman society) is uncertain. There are clues, as Rick notes. The women are associated with the upper class, for example. Renew suggests that “Hicks makes much of [Artemis] cult.” Actually, I don’t. I make some suggestions, offer some possibilities, but I don’t provide a precise historical reconstruction nor commit myself to one scenario alone but attempt to work with the explicit evidence in the letter. Whether these women are associated with Artemis or not, to what degree seduction is part of the problem, is interesting, perhaps illuminating, but ultimately uncertain. The primary point—Rick and I agree—is that the context and language of the letter are how we gain insight into the dysfunction present in the congregation among both its men and women. I don’t put much stock in any historical reconstruction (including Hoag), though we often gain helpful perspectives from attempts. Rather, we must work with the letter as we have it and connect it, as best we can, with humility, to the known culture of the first century.

Additional Note: Rick thinks I “painted these women in 1 Timothy to be the most sinister, evil women in the Ephesian church. I know he’s tried to liberate them in a sense, but his path to get there is overdone.” Rick also suggests that if the women were that bad, Paul would have been much more forceful in his condemnation and not nearly “as gentle” as he was. I think Rick underplays the problem here. “Some have already,” Paul wrote, “strayed after Satan” (1 Timothy 5:15). I think that says something about how seriously Paul took the danger these women represented. Paul had already turned Hymenaeus and Alexander “over to Satan” (1 Timothy 1:20), and now some of these women were following the path of Satan (much like Eve was deceived by the serpent).

5.  We agree that the invitation for women to learn is an astonishing one for a letter situated in Greco-Roman culture. This highlights a high view of women. Women are encouraged to learn in a submissive and quiet manner, that is, with a humble and peaceable demeanor, which is characteristic of all good learners (male and female).

6.  We agree women are called and gifted as teachers. As Renew (quoting SWS) says, “clearly women are to serve in some teaching responsibilities.” We also agree that 1 Timothy 2 does not prohibit girls from delivering a lesson in the presence of their fathers, women teaching baptized teenage males, or leading prayers. In other words, we agree that 1 Timothy 2 does not support what Reneé calls a “rigid complementarianism.”

7. We agree women were teaching false doctrine in the Ephesian church. Renew (quoting SWS) says, “Paul’s concerns here about women teaching men is not designed only to address a situation in which some women are teaching false doctrine” (emphasis mine). While Paul only names male false teachers who have already been excluded from the community (1 Timothy 1:19-20; 2 Timothy 2:17-18), some women were teaching false doctrine by “saying what they should not” (1 Timothy 5:13). Some women were teaching in some unacceptable form or else Paul would not have forbidden them to teach.

8.  We agree that whatever authentein means (the word behind “usurp authority” [KJV], “assume authority” [NIV 2011], “exercise authority” [ESV], or “have dominion” [ASV] in 1 Timothy 2:12), it describes the manner and/or content of teaching. This is why, it appears to me, Renew and SWS refer to “authoritative teacher” or “authoritative teaching,” that is, “teachers who determine or communicate the spiritual direction of the church.” We agree that the word authentein, in some way, modifies “teach.” It is a kind of teaching that authents a man. [As in my book, I transliterate the controversial verb authentein (1 Timothy 2:12) because its meaning is disputed.]

9.  We agree creation theology is relevant and contains normative principles. There is no dispute about that, though we do disagree about what use Paul is making of the creation (and fall) narrative in 1 Timothy 2:13-14.

10.  We agree that Paul’s epistles are occasional and the theology present in Paul’s occasional letters are applicable to the church across time. I affirm this in Searching for the Pattern as well as in Women Serving God. I am in full agreement with Reneé’s point that the “goal” is to understand “what Paul is saying in this particular historical and cultural context and how we can obey his teaching today.” I do not suggest—as Rick recognizes—there is an eternal truth that is disconnected from the situation addressed. One must seek to understand Paul’s theology through the situated context of the text. At the same time, everyone recognizes that some applications in Scripture are limited to the situation and not intended as universal, timeless commands. For example, we no longer wear veils, and we no longer prohibit the wearing of pearls and gold or braided hair.

Renew’s (and SWS) Uncertain Conclusion: What is Prohibited?

Reading Renew and SWS, I discovered how uncertain the interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:8-15 was in their own presentation. In my own work, I recognized that I might be wrong due to the severe difficulty of the text. I think I offered a credible interpretation, but it may not be entirely correct. Renew seems more certain than I do, or do they?

At first, it seems they are rather certain. Renew (quoting SWS) says, “women must not tarnish their witness through authoritative teaching (2:11-15). 1 Tim. 2:12 clearly states, ‘I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent’” (emphasis mine). This, however, is a rather curious descriptor: “clearly.” This is particularly confusing since Renew (quoting SWS) has already substituted “quiet” as a better translation than “silent.” So, it seems it is not exactly accurate to say “1 Timothy 2:12 clearly states” and then quote this particular translation. But that is rather minor. I think the following two points are much more substantial.

1.  Is “teach” so clear? Apparently not.

  • Renew has to sort through all the various uses of “teach” in the Pastorals, in Paul’s writings, and the rest of the New Testament to discern its particular understanding of “teach.” It infers that “teach” means something like an “authoritative teacher” that is responsible for guiding the church.
  • Renew must distinguish between the kind of teaching that is forbidden to women and the kind of teaching women are encouraged to do. “Clearly women are to serve in some teaching responsibility” because “they are gifted to do so” (emphasis mine).
  • Renew must discern how this instruction applies and to what settings it applies—only the assembly, or does it apply to small groups, Bible classes, house churches, and other sorts of meetings where disciples gather to pray and learn? How is “authoritative teaching” defined in terms of house church meetings, Bible classes, and small groups? Or, does it only apply to preaching in the assembly? When does teaching become “authoritative” and when is it not “authoritative”? What text of Scripture identifies that? Do prophets speak authoritatively? Do evangelists speak authoritatively? Do Bible class teachers speak authoritatively? How does one decide?
  • Renew (quoting SWS) understands “teach” as “a spiritual gift and office (see Eph. 4:11) for the expounding and applying of Scripture,” even though 1 Timothy 2:12 does not describe an office or the task of expounding or applying Scripture as belonging to only one, or even two, offices.
  • In other words, “teach” in 1 Timothy 2:12 is not clear but has to be interpreted, restricted, and limited in some way. That involves several sorts of judgments about its meaning in the context of the New Testament and the Pastorals in particular. This move from “teach”(1 Timothy 2:12) to teach authoritatively as an elder, teaching pastor, or preacher-teacher is neither a plain reading of the text nor clear.

2.  Is the meaning of “have authority” clear? Apparently not.

  • Renew (quoting SWS) states, “we are not entirely sure how it [authentein] should be translated. It likely means that women should not be in a teaching role” (emphasis mine). Yes, you read that correctly. Renew says “likely” and confesses uncertainty about the translation of this term. Renew, however, provides no detailed discussion of its lexical meaning and the difficulties surrounding this hapax legomenon (only used once in the whole New Testament corpus).
  • Authentein, Renew (quoting SWS) says, “likely means that women should not be in a teaching role.” But “teaching role” has to be defined, and it is narrowed to preaching and/or elders ultimately or is there more or something else? How would we know without an official office of some kind? How does authentein give us this particular meaning?
  • The teaching prohibited women was the sort that was “like priests and rabbis” and involved them in “congregational leadership” (emphasis mine). From where does the comparison to priests and rabbis arise in the context of 1 Timothy 2? Is it only “like priests and rabbis”? How like are they? Were there distinct official (even professional) functions in the Ephesian church that operated the same as priests and rabbis in Israel? How do we know this? This equivalency is simply assumed in this review, and I addressed it previously in my review of #2. Moreover, it is strange to think that the prophets, judges, and queens (where women served in Israel) have no relation to this “authority” (if authentein has a positive or official meaning). Deborah had authority to prophesy, judge, and lead Israel (Judges 4:4-6), but apparently would not have authority to teach in the church today, according to Renew. Esther had authority to institute a new feast (not authorized in the Torah) and command Israel to keep it (Esther 9:29-32), but apparently would not have authority to teach in the church today, according to Renew. [I know Rick made a sharp distinction between prophecy and teaching in this review, but I covered that ground previously in my review of #2.]
  • Renew (quoting SWS) concludes, “In 1 Tim. 2:12, therefore, Paul is likely declaring that women cannot serve in that role” (emphasis mine). Yes, you read that correctly. Renew says “likely.”
  • The word “authority” or “dominion” has to be interpreted, restricted, and limited to the a specific positive function in the community of faith for it mean that Paul “likely” excludes women from the office of elder/pastor/lead minister or from preaching in the assembly. This is problematic because (1) authentein must be restricted to a positive meaning that is equivalent to that function even though there is no evidence that authentein had a positive meaning until centuries after Paul wrote, (2) Paul does not use his typical positive word for authority (exousia) or other similar characterizations in the Pastorals (e.g., Titus 2:15; 1 Timothy 3:4-5), and (3) Paul has a word for these offices or functions but does not use them here and thus does not identify the precise nature of the office or function (e.g., pastor-teacher in Ephesians 4:11) in 1 Timothy 2:12. Paul could have simply said, I don’t want a woman to be a bishop or evangelist [both terms occur in the Pastorals]. That would much clearer than “teach” if Paul intends to exclude women from authoritative functions in the community.

As a result of these uncertainties (among others I could name), Renew states (quoting SWS), “Likely [1 Timothy 2:12] means that Paul permits no woman to serve in the role of authoritative teacher” (emphasis mine). You read that correctly. Renew says “likely.”

I don’t begrudge the term “likely.”  I think it is judicious, though I believe my understanding of 1 Timothy 2:12 is more probable and credible. What is important is to recognize that 1 Timothy 2:12 is not as plain or clear as many suppose it is on first reading. In fact, the interpretative changes among complementarians over the past thirty years indicate how difficult this text is to understand and apply. 

Hūbner illustrates the notorious difficulty of 1 Timothy 2 in his 2016 essay. The text is far from clear or plain. One example from Hūbner illustrates this (his article has many more). While hapaxes (a word only used once in New Testament) appear once every eighty-three words (1.2%) in the New Testament as a whole, there are six hapaxes (including authentein) in eighty-two words in 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (7.3%). That alone signals a level of difficulty that should give us some pause, humility, and circumspection about how we apply this text to the contemporary church.

Yet, according to Renew (SWS included), half of the church (half of the human race created in the image of God) is excluded from “authoritative” teaching among the people of God because it is “likely” this is what Paul means even though Renew (quoting SWS) is not “entirely sure” how to even translate authentein.

Likely” is a precarious and uncertain basis for excluding women from authoritative teaching.

Where we Disagree

While our agreements in reading this text are significant and we share a sense of “likelihood” about respective views, our differences identify the fork in the road between Renew’s perspective that the participation of women in the assembly is limited and my understanding that women are gifted to fully participate in the assembly (which is the thesis of my book).

1.  Prohibition: Authoritative Teacher

As noted above, Renew (and SWS) concluded that 1 Timothy 2:12 “means [a woman] should not be permitted to serve in the authoritative teacher role comparable to priests in the OT.” [Remind me, where does the text make this link to the priests of Israel in the context of church offices or functions? Were priests the only ones who taught Israel? Do women, as priests in the new creation, offer up spiritual sacrifices like the priests of Israel?]

The prohibition, according to Renew, does not rest on the fact that women were teaching false ideas alone, but on the fact that they are women, who ought to submit to God’s design for male headship in the church. In other words, Renew (quoting SWS) says, “Paul’s statement here is not about what a woman might teach; it is about the fact of her teaching at all.”

Rick says, “If these women were false teachers, if they were promoting pagan myths, Paul wouldn’t say don’t let them teach men. He would say don’t let these crazy, heretical women teach anybody.” Is that not the effect of saying, “I do not permit them to teach”? That is exactly what Paul says. The grammatical relation of “authentein over men” to this prohibition is debated. It may very well be that Paul is prohibiting these women (whom I believe are involved in false teaching) from teaching at all. Moreover, we might say that teaching men was exactly what these women were doing, and that is why Paul identifies it specifically (if we take “over men” as modifying “teach” as well as authentein). We don’t know what else they were doing, but they were targeting men (1 Timothy 5:11; see the fuller argument in my book).

But what does “authoritative teaching” or “authoritative teacher” mean? From where is the notion of “authority” derived? It is derived, in this context, from Paul’s use of authentein. Whatever authority is prohibited in 1 Timothy 2:12 is based on this word. But the word, as I noted above, does not carry a positive meaning. It carries the meaning of independence, self-assertion, or abuse. I provide some evidence for that reading in my book, which Renew does not engage in their review.

My point is confirmed by the contrast in the text itself:  “neither teach nor authentein a man, but she is to be quiet.” “Quiet” stands in contrast to teach and authentein. Since the verb authentein modifies “teach” in some way (as Renew and I agree), then, it characterizes the manner of the teaching because (1) authentein contrasts with quiet, and (2) the meaning of authentein is negative or pejorative (it is not peaceable or “quiet”). In fact, the uses of authentein in the century before and after the writing of 1 Timothy have negative meanings (demonstrated by Hūbner and Westfall). What Paul forbids is a style that is bossy or boisterous. In contrast to a gentle, mild, and peaceful demeanor, Paul prohibits a manner of teaching that is abusive and unruly. Or, as Bartlett suggests, it is an aggressive teaching that overcomes or persuades the other through abusive pressures, or the attempt to control, dominate, or gain the upper hand (Belleville). This is the manner in which the women of 2:9-10 were pressing their ungodliness upon men in the community of faith at Ephesus. Whatever word we might use to convey this negative meaning, it is how Eve treated Adam and he listened to her even though he knew better.

If we give a positive meaning to authentein (which I don’t concede), there is still the problem of identifying exactly what kind of authority this is and how it is exercised in the church. Complementarians can’t agree among themselves except that it excludes the function of an elder/bishop. As to what happens in the assembly, it is wide open for discussion. This indicates Paul is not as clear or plain as some think he is. Bobby thinks a woman may share the preaching stage but not preach solo. Some complementarians think a woman may preach to an assembly, serve on boards, vote, etc. Some complementarians exclude women from leading worship, speaking words at the table of the Lord, or even leading prayer. In other words, it is difficult to decide exactly who exercises authority, what the nature of the authority is, and what is the line that cannot be crossed in the assembly.

Moreover, even if I grant a positive meaning to authentein (which I don’t concede), the question still remains why Paul does not want women to assume this authority. Is it because of “male headship” or is it because these women have been deceived and are teaching false doctrine? Even if we assume a positive meaning, the prohibition may only mean something like: “I don’t permit these women who dress immodestly and promote ungodliness to teach and assume authoritative roles in the community because, like Eve, they have been deceived and are persuading men to follow them just like Eve did Adam who knew better because he was created before Eve.”

SWS says, “The closest equivalent to the role of Timothy and Titus in today’s churches would be the preacher, who is something more akin to the ‘pastor-teacher’ from Ephesians 4:11.” Or, Renew says, “That would be equivalent to a senior pastor or preacher in today’s context.” Seeking such an equivalency in the modern context is inferential at best. In other words, it is an application of 1 Timothy 2:12 that is far from certain or clear. Indeed, it assumes structures and practices that are not even clearly present in the practice of the church at Ephesus. If it were clear, complementarians would not have a wide disagreement, would they? Unless . . . soft complementarians are actually influenced by egalitarian culture rather than reading the Bible accurately, as rigid complementarians claim.

2.  Rationale: Headship Rooted in Creation.

Renew assumes that Paul teaches women in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 to submit to men in the assembly. But Paul does not say that. When asked, Rick reminds us that 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 call women to submit based on the creation story. However, 1 Corinthians 11 never uses the word submit, and the submission in 1 Corinthians 14:34 (as I suggested in my response to Renew Review #3) is submission to order within the assembly (just like the prophets in 1 Corinthians 14:32). In any event, Paul does not here say to whom or what women are to submit in 1 Timothy 2:11. I think it is more probably submission to teaching, to sound doctrine, or submission to God. It seems to me they are to submit to what they are learning.

Renew (quoting SWS) says, “It is worth noting that 1 Tim. 2 shares with 1 Cor. 11:2-16 and 1 Cor. 14:34-35 a conviction that the creation narrative is the ground for the biblical doctrine of headship.”

  • It is far from certain that 1 Corinthians 14:34 describes headship (that language is not used in that text) and grounds it in the relationship between Adam and Eve (see my discussion in Response to Review Part 3). It seems to me the principle of submission there reflects the concern for order in the assembly.
  • “Headship” in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 does not entail authority (see my discussion in Responses to Review Part 2 and Part 3). The word submission does not appear in 1 Corinthians 11.
  • “Headship” is not mentioned in 1 Timothy 2:8-15. Paul does not say, for example, “women should not teach a man because man is the head of woman”–which, of course, he could have said if that is what Paul intended.

I suggest in my book that Paul is not grounding his instruction in the principe of primogeniture. Rather, it is a narrative sequence of events from creation (Adam was first formed, then Eve) to fall (Eve sinned) to redemption (Eve—and the women of 2:9-10 [“they’]—will be saved through the childbearing, who is Jesus). I argue this extensively in the book. Renew does not address my argument which seeks to listen closely to Genesis 2-3 (as Rick says we should). Rather, Renew articulates their own argument for a creation norm for male authority over women based on primogeniture.

Primogeniture does function within the culture of Israel and Paul. However, Paul does not name the principle—he only provides the chronological information. Moreover, in the biblical story, especially in Genesis, the rights of the firstborn (primogeniture) are subverted: Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, Judah over Rueben, and Ephraim over Manasseh. (Renew does not engage the majority of my arguments against the primogeniture interpretation.) The chronological statement does not necessarily entail the ideological principle of primogeniture, but it may be read quite differently as sequential story-telling. In fact, the form of the text uses sequential language (“first . . . then;” note how this same language is used in 1 Timothy 3:10, one example among many). In my book, I argue that Paul’s language is about narrative sequencing to tell the story of Eve’s deception rather than about a normative principle of primogeniture (see the next section for a brief articulation of this viewpoint).

The “biblical doctrine of headship” as male authority over females whereby authoritative leadership in the assembly is invested in men alone is not only a misreading of Paul’s point but fails to make the interpretative move that is part of the historic understanding of this text within the church. I think this is critically important.

If the doctrine of male headship (understood as male authority over women) is rooted in creation, then—as the church for over 1800 years argued—it should apply not only to the home and church but to society. This is why women were excluded from social positions of power in the historic Christian tradition. The church, from early days, understood this text to apply to society as well as the home and the church. Consequently, within the last century many Christians opposed suffrage (the woman’s right to vote) and the participation of women in “secular” careers, including holding political offices as well as professional careers in medicine and law. If male authority is grounded in creation, then it applies to all of life. But the examples of Deborah and Esther demonstrate that it does not apply to political authority. Consequently, to see male authority over women as grounded in creation is problematic within the biblical story itself. When male authority is grounded in creation, there is no room for the divinely sanctioned and honored positions of authority Deborah and Esther exercised over men in both political and religious contexts.

Bobby and Danny suggest Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 concerns all women. But I believe it is about the women described in 2:9-10, which is not all women. 2:9-10 does not describe all women but the women who dressed immodestly and promoted ungodliness. 1 Timothy 2:11-12 addresses women involved in the same agenda because they, like Eve, are “teaching and authenting” men in order to lead them into evil.

And, they ask, “why did Paul ground his statement in the created order itself (2:13)?” Actually, Paul grounded it in the narrative of Genesis where Eve was deceived (which is emphasized by stating it twice) rather than the idea of primogeniture (not stated at all). I argue this extensively in my book, but many of my arguments are not addressed in the review. Reneé asked, “if Adam was persuaded by Eve, who believed a lie wouldn’t that mean Adam was also deceived?” No. Adam was persuaded to disobey, but he was not deceived. He rebelled against what he knew was true and sinned with his eyes wide open.

Reneé reminds us that creation theology is relevant and contains normative principles. I agree. Moreover, I also see authority relations in Scripture (there are proper modes of authority). I have no intention of explaining them away. What I want to see, however, is the biblical text that says men have authority over women in such a way that women are excluded from participation in certain activities in the assembly. I don’t think 1 Timothy 2:12 can supply that, and no other text excludes women from the exercise of their gifts in the assembly. Renew and I agree 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 do not exclude women from the exercise of their gifts.

Bobby and Danny list Grudem’s ten reasons for why gender “roles” are grounded in creation. I addressed almost all of these in my book. There is no interaction in the review with my discussion of these points nor explanation of how each point in the list is rooted in the text to support the theological case. So, I will leave it to the reader of both the blog and the book to make their own assessment.

Bobby and Danny believe Genesis 3:16 did not “create Adam’s headship [by which I assume they mean male rule or authority over women, JMH]; rather, it corrupted it.” Yet, the only time rule, dominion, or authority is explicitly identified in Genesis 1-2 is something the man and woman actually share (Genesis 1:28). Historically, the church believed Genesis 3:16 was the beginning of the rule of men over women. Genesis 3:16 is the first time the word “rule” occurs in the whole of Genesis 1-3 in relation to men and women.

Given the reference to Grudem, I remind readers of something I point out in my book. When Grudem attempts to apply 1 Timothy 2:12 to the contemporary church (first in 1995, then a second edition 2006—with changes that highlight the difficulty of his project), he identified nine governing activities, ten teaching activities, and one “public visibility or recognition” position that are restricted to men, while he detailed nineteen governing activities, twenty-five teaching activities, and nineteen activities related to “public visibility or recognition” that are open to women. This is primarily based on his understanding of 1 Timothy 2:12. The vast majority of churches of Christ would not agree with his distinctions, perhaps many Renew members either (I don’t know enough to speak about Renew’s constituency). In churches of Christ, we have our own lists, and we have a wide diversity among ourselves—both now and historically. Interestingly, Grudem himself has demonstrated how complicated the soft complementarian position really is.

In contrast to Grudem, Paul wants Timothy to entrust both men and women with teaching people. Like men, women learn so they can teach. Just as Paul entrusted Timothy with teaching (1 Timothy 1:18), so Paul intends Timothy to entrust this to others (including women). 2 Timothy 2:2 reflects this Pauline agenda—people learn so they can teach. Paul wants Timothy to entrust the gospel with “faithful people” (anthrōpous) who are “able to teach others.” Paul uses anthrōpous (people) rather than aner (male as in 1 Timothy 2:8). Anthrōpous always refers to men and women in the Pastorals (plural form; 1 Timothy 2:1, 4; 4:10; 5:24; 6:5, 9, 16; 2 Timothy 3:2, 8, 13, 17; Titus 1:14; 2:11; 3:2, 8, 10). Since women are commanded to learn, they are also empowered to teach once they have learned.

3.  Childbearing: Forbidding Marriage and Childbearing

Renew may be correct about 1 Timothy 2:15, or they may not. Who can be sure about this difficult ending to Paul’s rationale for 1 Timothy 2:11-12? Indeed, the uncertainty of the text adds to the problematic nature of applying 1 Timothy 2:8-15 with any certainty, which Renew already recognizes (remember: “likely”).

Interestingly, SWS suggests that 1 Timothy 2:15 reflects the content of some of the false teaching. The false teachers were probably advocating “asceticism” as “a way toward greater piety.” I can see that possibility. Indeed, SWS thinks, “Perhaps Paul is correcting a strain of this heresy in 1 Tim. 2. In view of the kinds of opponents present in Ephesus, it may be that Paul is recasting a statement made by the false teachers” (emphasis mine). In other words, part of Paul’s rationale for 1 Timothy 2:11-12—and this is a significant point—is the rejection of what false teachers were teaching. That is how I understand, in part, 1 Timothy 2:13. I think it likely that Paul begins the sequence here, in part, to oppose what some false teachers were saying. The false teachers, perhaps based on some kind of early Gnosticism or due to the teaching of the Artemis cult, believed women were the origin of men or had some kind of priority over men. If so, part of the point of 1 Timothy 2:13 is to oppose the false teaching present in Ephesus. But who can be certain?

Reading 1 Timothy 2:13-14

Renew and I identify two different principles grounded in two different hermeneutical moves. Neither the ground nor the principle are explicitly stated in 1 Timothy but are inferred from what both think is going on in the text.

  Renew   Hicks
Text (2:13) Adam was first formed. Adam was first formed.
Ground Invests Adam with the rights of primogeniture (firstborn) between the sexes. Appeals to the narrative where Adam, first created, was first instructed but listened to his deceived wife.
Principle Primogeniture entails the principle of male authority over women. Eve functions as a typology for deceived women in order to warn the Ephesian church.
Application No woman should teach men or have authority over men. Deceived women must first learn before they teach; let them learn in quiet respect.

My approach has the benefit of intertextuality as what is explicit in Genesis 2-3 is weaved into Paul’s rationale. The italicized lines below are explicit in 1 Timothy 2:13-15 in the chart below while the parenthetical statements are the background story explicit in Genesis. This flow contains no inferred principle but intersects the text of 1 Timothy 2 with the text of Genesis 2-3—this is an example of intertextuality within the biblical canon. This flow, in fact, reflects the broad biblical drama of creation, fall, and redemption.

Creation                Adam was first formed (1 Timothy 2:13).

                        (The man was formed from the ground, Genesis 2:7.)

                        (The woman was formed from the man, Genesis 2:21-22.)

Fall                        Adam was not deceived (1 Timothy 2:14).

                        (He knew the command of God, Genesis 2:15-17.)

                        (But he listened to Eve, Genesis 3:17.)

                  Eve was deceived (1 Timothy 2:14).

                        (The serpent tricked her, Genesis 3:13.)

                  Eve became a transgressor (1 Timothy 2:14).

                        (She ate the fruit, Genesis 3:6.)

Redemption          She will be saved through the childbearing (1 Tim. 2:15).

                        (God promised a seed to crush the serpent, Genesis 3:15.)

                  If they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with modesty (1 Timothy 2:15).

Eve is only named in two passages in the New Testament: 2 Corinthians 11:3 and 1 Timothy 2:13-14. In both texts Eve functions as a type of deceived people, including both men and women in 2 Corinthians. In 1 Timothy, she is a type of deceived women (“they” in 2:15) who were teaching false doctrine (going from house to house “saying” nonsense). Because they were deceived by others, they were teaching pagan myths and behaving immodestly.

Significantly, the only word repeated in 1 Timothy 2:14 is “deceived.” That underscores the point—it is a deception problem, not a male leadership or authority problem. Eve represents the women in the Ephesian house churches who had been deceived by false teachers. She illustrates the danger of listening to deceived women. The specific situation in Ephesus involved deceived women, not deceived men. Paul is neither describing every woman nor the nature of women but identifying one woman from the Biblical story who was deceived in order to highlight the local problem in Ephesus. Deceived women were going house to house teaching pagan myths and cultivating relationships with men. It is not a universal statement about women any more than some who had been, similar to Eve, deceived by Satan in the Corinthian church is a universal statement about men and women (2 Corinthians 11:3-4). Just as some Corinthians had been deceived by some who taught a different (heteron) gospel, these Ephesian women had been deceived by those who taught a different (heteron) doctrine.

False teaching is the context of the whole letter (1:3-4, 18; 6:2-4, 12), and the specific context of 1 Timothy 2:8-15. Some insist nothing is said about false teaching in 1 Timothy 2:8-15. This fails to recognize how the letter flows from “therefore” to “therefore” (2:1, 8) as well as how the whole letter is framed by the concern about false teaching.

Fight the good fight, Timothy (1:18-20).

“Therefore, I urge prayer” (2:1-7).

“Therefore, I want men to pray . . . likewise women to . . .” (2:8-15).

Paul wrote 2:8-15 because of what he said in 2:1-7. He wrote 2:1-7 because of what he said in 1:18-20. In other words, given these causal connections, what Paul wrote in 2:8-15 is directly related to the false teachings about which he charged Timothy. Whatever is happening in 2:8-15 and whatever Paul meant by those instructions, they are part of his response to the presence of false teaching in the Ephesian house churches. The topic of false teaching is integral to 2:8-15.

When Paul addresses the situation envisioned by 2:8-15, he is well aware of the false teaching, who is involved, what is happening among the house churches in Ephesus, and who the excommunicated protagonists were (e.g., Hymenaeus and Alexander). Far from a digression about prayer and public worship or an intentional blueprint specification, 1 Timothy 2:1-15 develops the letter’s theme—opposition to the presence of false teaching and associated behavior in the Ephesian house churches.

Some women were promoting ungodliness, and they were teaching false doctrines. Consequently, Paul does not permit these deceived women to teach and authent (overcome, persuade in a negative, controlling, or abusive manner) men. It is not because they were women but because they were acting like Eve who was deceived by the serpent and persuaded Adam to share her transgression. That is what Paul wants to stop.

Thirst for Power?

Bobby and Danny write: “And here we arrive at an important truth that we all need to pay attention to: Nobody naturally tends toward the kind of biblical, sacrifice headship described throughout the Bible. Do people thirst for power? Absolutely. But as both head of the church and submissive Son of God, it is Jesus who teaches us what actual headship and submission look like. None of it look like the ugly power plays of Genesis 3:16 which come so naturally to us humans.”

There are several dimensions of this paragraph that I find probematic. For example, I don’t see “headship” as authority. But we have covered that ground previously.

This language, however, draws an analogy that I find disturbing. If men are the head of women (in the sense in which I think intended), then it is men who exercise power sacrificially just as Jesus does as head of the church. Women, then, sacrificially submit to men just as men (and women) submit to Christ as the head of the church. In other words, men rule and women submit, just as men submit to Christ as the head of the church, and the Son of God submitted to God as his head. That analogy is open to significant abuse, and, in my opinion, misses the whole point of headship in 1 Corinthians 11 and Ephesians 5. But that is not really my main concern with the paragraph.

The “thirst for power” is certainly part of the brokenness of the world, and it is reflected in Genesis 3:16 to one degree or another. But I do wonder to whom (if anyone) or what specifically (if anything) Bobby and Danny are referring. They may have no specific reference in mind. I accept that. At the same time, I have heard many make this point in the context of women who “thirst for power” because they seek to use their gifts in the assembly. Bobby and Danny are clear that “nobody” escapes this fallen desire that comes “naturally to us humans.” So, I accept this is not their charge here.

Nevertheless, in the context of our present discussion, it raises an important question. Do women who seek to use their gifts in the assembly reflect a “thirst for power”? What if the problem is not so much women who have a thirst for power as it is men who want to maintain power. But that is unfair, one might say. Perhaps men are not so much concerned about maintaining power but obeying God’s directives. Exactly! That is exactly what interests me and interests the women whom I know that seek to use the gifts God has given them but are constrained by the exercise of male power and authority in the church. Consequently, the discussion must stay at the level of what does the text mean rather than who is thirsting for power.

Everyone in our discussion wants to live according to God’s intent in creation and God’s design for the eschaton. I don’t find it helpful, in this context, to quote some as saying, “This is unfair. It can’t possibly be right. We have to look like the world.” No serious disciple of Jesus that I know talks like that. Rather, it is a matter of what is the divine intent, what does Paul actually teach, and how do we love one another in healthy ways that reflect the gospel and its norms? This is, it seems to me, where the discussion ought to lie.

Summary

It seems to me that the bottom line for Renew is something like this: “teaching” in 2:12 is the function of a person in authority (perhaps an “official” capacity?) invested with the responsibility to guide the church and protect it from false teaching, and this is restricted to men because men are the head of women by virtue of God’s creative act in Genesis 2.

There are many assumptions embedded in that statement as well as concepts imported into 1 Timothy 2:12 that are not explicitly there. Here are a few.

  • Definition of “teach”
  • Identification of the “authoritative teacher”
  • Definition of authentein
  • Definition of headship (the meaning of kephale)
  • A particular interpretation of Paul’s use of Genesis 2
  • A particular interpretation of Genesis 3:16 as the corruption rather than the beginning of the rule of men over women.

None of these are absolutely clear, and taken together it is difficult to even use the word “likely.” There are too many assumptions to be certain. Renew’s conclusion is an inference rather than something explicit in the text. The text does not explicitly say what Renew claims the text means.

In fact, Renew’s conclusion is a reinterpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12 that explains away the traditional and historic understanding of the text that the church has held for centuries from near its beginning (I was charged with reinterpretation and explaining away texts in Renew’s first review). Renew’s blog contains many reinterpretations. Here are five.

  • “Teach” as a specific office or status (“authoritative teacher”) that permits some women to teach some men in some circumstances when the historic interpretation is the exclusion of women from any teaching of men in assembled groups.
  • “Authority” as a specific modifier for the kind of teaching Paul envisions when the historic interpretation is the exclusion of women from any kind of leadership in the assembly (including serving at the table of the Lord or leading worship, even prayer) or within the church body (voting, business decisions, etc.).
  • Eve’s role as an example of the negative impact of female leadership in positions of authority when the historic interpretation is that women are too gullible and weak, too easily deceived for leadership.
  • The application of 1 Timothy 2:12 to only the home and church when the historic interpretation is that women are excluded from leadership in society as well as the home and church because this is rooted in God’s creative act and thus applies to this relationship within the whole of God’s good creation.
  • The judgment that Genesis 3:16 is a corruption of God’s design for male authority when the historic interpretation is that it is the beginning of a male rule divinely prescribed as a punishment of Eve.

I wonder if these reinterpretations are also due to “egalitarian notions of humanity” dominating the current culture, which is the implied accusation against my position. For example, 1 Timothy 2:12 was once used to deny women the right to vote less than a hundred years ago. Did the church change its understanding of 1 Timothy 2:12 under pressure from the suffrage movement (the first wave of Feminism)?

As Rick says, perhaps “with some historical and cultural background” and more careful exegesis, we can see “what is happening here.” Exactly! That is my claim as well. So, let’s discuss the details of the text rather than project a claim of egalitarian cultural influence. I might say as well that each of the above five reinterpretations also reflect the influence of egalitarian cultural influence in the last hundred years–I am fairly sure that is what rigid complementarianism (the historic traditional position) would say. It is good to remember that the soft complementarian position is itself of rather recent origin.

Conclusion

1 Timothy 2:12 remains the only text that explicitly identifies a gender boundary in the exercise of the Spirit’s gifts. Renew agrees that 1 Corinthians 11 requires different clothing but does not restrict the exercise of the Spirit’s gifts. Renew agrees 1 Corinthians 14 does not restrict the exercise of the Spirit’s gifts but forbids disorderly conduct. Only 1 Timothy 2:12 remains as a potential text that provides a boundary for the exercise of gifts.

Renew, it seems to me, never really answered the question I asked in my response to Part 3.   What, precisely, is the difference between a leadership function and a headship function? What plain reading of what text clearly identifies that distinction? 1 Timothy 2:12 does not clearly do that, and its plain reading does not fit the soft complementarian position.

Remember, Renew says (emphasis mine),

  • Likely, it means Paul permits no woman to serve in the role of authoritative teacher.”
  • “It likely means that women should not be in the teaching role.”
  • “Paul is likely declaring that women cannot serve in that role.”
  • “we are not entirely sure how [authentein] should be translated.”

Given all the “likely”s and uncertainties present, how can this be a certain conclusion, and how can it be taken so seriously that it excludes half the church from teaching authoritatively in the assembly?

For me, to exclude half the church whom God has gifted for the edification of the body of Christ from full participation and “authoritative teaching” in the assembly on the basis of a “likely” (according to Renew) interpretation of a single text in Scripture is unsafe and dangerous, especially in light of Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Esther, Anna, Mary Magdalene, the Corinthian prophets, Philip’s daughters, Phoebe, Junia, Priscilla, and others I could list. I can no longer do that as I once did.

May God have mercy. Peace to my siblings and friends at Renew!


Response to Renew’s Review (Part 3) of Women Serving God

August 27, 2020

This is getting a bit confusing. Responses to Reviews by Renew with further Rejoinders. Way too many “Rs”. So, I’ll identify the contributions to this series at the beginning of each of my responses.

Renew, unfortunately, does not link my responses to their reviews on their blog. This is particularly unfair given that the most recent Renew review (number 7 below) responds to my #6 in addition to my book, Women Serving God. Their readers are not necessarily aware of my responses even though Renew is responding to them. Renew readers have no way of knowing or checking whether they are representing me accurately or the potential to read my supporting points.

Here are the links to the exchanges in one place. I respectfully ask Renew to provide the full links as well in their future responses and add links to past responses. I would be grateful for the courtesy.

Of course, Renew’s series started as a response to the publication of my book, Women Serving God. From there, we have the following in the blogosphere.

  1. Renew’s Review (Part 1): Hermeneutics.
  2. My Response to Part 1.
  3. Renew’s Reply to my Response to Part 1. (I copied it into #4 below.)
  4. My Rejoinder to Renew’s Reply to my Response to Part 1.
  5. Renew’s Review (Part 2): 1 Corinthians 11.
  6. My Response to Part 2.
  7. Renew’s Review (Part 3): 1 Corinthians 14.

This present post is my response to Renew’s Part 3. Renew’s blog is almost 7,000 words. My response is about 3,500 words.

Some Brief Notes

1. A Plain Hermeneutic. I affirm a “plain reading hermeneutic,” as Bobby describes it. In fact, my book (pp. 165-166) explicitly says that the grand story of God is readily available in sermons, songs, wisdom, narrative, and letters as one reads the Bible. It is available to all readers. Everyone, no matter what their educational or social backgrounds, may respond to the gospel through reading or hearing Scripture read. I believe the Spirit works powerfully to transform people and conform them to the image of Christ through the hearing and/or reading of Scripture.

At the same time, not everything is equally available or readable. As Peter said, and Bobby acknowledges, Paul wrote some things that are difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:16). Might 1 Corinthians 11, 14, and 1 Timothy 2 be examples of such difficult texts? Given the diversity of their interpretation in the history of the church, I think so. But this does not undermine the clarity of the gospel message about which Paul is so adamant throughout all his letters.

One example of this difficulty, and why the plain reading is not always the best reading, is the word head. When we read “head” in English, a dominant denotation is ruler, rank, boss, etc. However, this is not true in Greek. The semantic range is much broader, and the meaning of “ruler or rank” is not a dominant meaning or even part of the classical meaning of the term.  Consequently, an English reader may read “head” and take its meaning as plain, but while its English meaning is plain, the Greek range of meaning is obscured. Consequently, plain does not always work well in translation, particularly when the English does not maintain the ambiguity or the primary sense of the Greek.

2.  On Veils. To be clear, I did not say or imply Rick’s understanding of Roman head-coverings in Corinth was “some gloss or a fringe interpretation.” In fact, I acknowledged it had “merit” and noted Rick had “demonstrated” the significance of Roman head covering practices. In fact, I provided a link to Massey’s article in my own review (which Bobby quoted in Renew review #3). Rick has made a tremendous contribution to scholarship by noting the Roman practice. Both men and women covered their heads when they led worship practices in Roman religion. That is widely acknowledged.

At the same time, according to Rick, Paul differentiates between men and women in terms of authority and that the head-covering now represents male authority over the woman rather than the meaning of piety in Roman practices. In other words, Rick believes Paul changed both the meaning and practice of the Roman custom to conform to the “biblical idea of headship.” That is where the dispute lies. The Roman practice is not in question. Rather, the question is, why did Paul change the Roman practice (men uncovered rather than covered), what other cultural factors are in play at Corinth (why are women still covered?), and what is the theological meaning of the head-covering for Paul (male authority, sexual propriety, or other possible reasons)? That is much more disputed than the Roman practice itself.

3.  On Photius. My point, of course, in quoting Photius and other Nicene theologians in history is not to say this is an argument for understanding Paul’s meaning as a principle of exegesis. Rather, it was to illustrate that many theologians don’t see a problem with understanding God as the “source” of Christ, which Rick had dismissed in the earlier review. According to Nicene theology, the Father is the source of the Son, whether in terms of the immanent Trinity (through eternal generation of the Son) or in terms of the incarnation (the Father sends the Son and the Son comes from the Father). The idea that God is the “source” of Christ does not create Christological problems, whether in the biblical text or Nicene theology.

4.  The Submission of the Messiah (Christ) to the Father for Eternity. I understand Rick to describe the relationship between the human Messiah, the incarnate Logos (to use John’s language, John 1:1, 14) and the Creator God the Father. The language of “son” in this context, as Rick describes it, is Davidic royalty; it is Messianic language. In terms of the incarnation, we are agreed. This is the case for Psalm 110 and Psalm 2, to be sure, as it is applied in 1 Corinthians 15. I have no qualms with that point. Jesus is resurrected as the new human of new creation and exalted to the throne of David. At the end, the Messiah will hand over the kingdom to God the Father. The Davidic king—the incarnate Messiah who is descended from David as a human being and now reigns in resurrected human form—will turn the kingdom over to the Father. The Davidic king, as the human representative of all humanity, will turn the kingdom over to the Father. There is no disagreement that the incarnate Messiah was submissive to the Father and, as human, will reign in the kingdom of God in a subordinate position to God.

If 1 Corinthians 11:3 means that God is the head of the Messiah (Christ) in the sense that the Messiah is submissive to God and God has authority (rank, power, rule) over the Messiah, then we are talking about the incarnate Christ rather than the eternal Logos. But note this “headship” (and its attendant submission) entails an ontological difference. God has authority over the incarnate Messiah. That authority, then, is ontological in character because God has authority over the human Davidic king. I don’t think we want to say that male headship over women is analogous to that kind of authority, or is that what complementarianism entails?

The idea that Christ submits to the Father as the incarnate Messiah is true, and this assumes an ontological inequality because the incarnate, human Messiah submits to the divine Father.  If we proceed on that basis, then a strict analogy with men and women (“man is the head of woman”) entails that there is an ontological difference between men and women and that women must show the same kind of submission to men that the incarnate Jesus shows to God the Creator. But Paul says men and women have mutual authority (1 Corinthians 7:4). The analogy of authority does not hold.

If, however, one believes 1 Corinthians 11:3 is about the immanent Trinity, then it describes the relationship between God and Christ (Logos, the divine one through whom the world was created) before the creation. To say that the Creator has an eternal authority (power, rank) over the divine Logos within the one being of God is to introduce an ontological inequality into the being of the one God who is Father, Son, and Spirit. Reading kephalē as “authority/rank/power” creates a problem for understanding the ontological equality of the immanent Trinity.

These difficulties are one of the reasons—and I gave other reasons in my previous response—that I prefer “source/origin of life, kinship, head-body oneness” for the meaning of kephalē. It seems to me, this is the analogy Paul is drawing in 1 Corinthians 11:3, and Paul is quite explicit about the idea of source in 1 Corinthians 11:8-12 (woman from man and men now come through women).

At bottom, Nicene theology has affirmed taxis (order) within the immanent Trinity, and this order is one of relation for the sake of differentiation within the one being of God. That eternal differentiation is not about authority because they are equal in power (authority), glory, and honor because there is only one God who is Father, Son, and Spirit. The differentiation between Father, Son, and Spirit is about relation, origin, or source (eternal generation and eternal procession) rather than authority, glory, and honor.

5. On Torah. Rick rightly points out that the Greek word nomos (law) may refer to any part of the Hebrew Bible. I had no intention of saying otherwise. In fact, in the same chapter, Paul described his quotation from Isaiah as something written in the law (nomos; 1 Corinthians 14:21). I agree with Rick that Paul’s use of “law”may refer to Genesis 1-2.

Common Ground on 1 Corinthians 14:34-36

1. We agree that 1 Corinthians 11-14 is describing activities in the regular assemblies of the Corinthian church. Therefore, we must account for the fact that women prayed and prophesied in the assembly in 1 Corinthians 11:5 when we seek to understand what Paul means in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

2. We agree that 1 Corinthians 14:26-40 is about the orderly exercise of gifts in the assembly. Paul silences three disorderly groups: tongue-speakers, prophets, and women. None of the groups are totally silenced, but each are silenced with regard to their specific disorderliness, or, as Rick put it in the case of the women (wives), “vocal disruptions.” Renew, quoting the White Station document, identifies these as women who are “asking interrupting questions.” That is the interpretation I offered in my book.

3.  Whatever male headship means, there is no indication in 1 Corinthians that the exercise of any gifts were limited to men alone. In fact, “all” are invited to prophesy (1 Corinthians 14:31), and “each one” brings their gift to the assembly, including hymns, revelations, and teachings (1 Corinthians 14:26). Even if wives submit to their husbands by abstaining from disorderly conduct, the silence is relative to disorderliness and not because the headship principle itself demands silence. As I have heard Rick note on several occasions (including his commentary on 1 Corinthians), the law asks for submission, not silence.

These are significant and important agreements. It is the common ground of “limited” and “full” participation perspectives. In 1 Corinthians, only disorderly women are silenced, but they are not silenced from praying and prophesying in the assemblies of God.

The Disagreement

Rick says, “Paul is saying that male headship is being dishonored by the way some of the women are interacting with some of the men.” If Rick means that woman ought to honor their heads in the sense of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, I can see that. However, Rick understands “head” to include a notion of male authority over women and concomitant submission. I don’t think male headship entails such, as I suggested in my response to Review #2. Paul does not actually use the language of headship in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, and he does not use the word submission in 1 Corinthians 11.

In essence, we disagree about the meaning of submission in 1 Corinthians 14. In essence, this is the only disagreement Rick and I have about 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

Renew suggests submission evokes “the biblical doctrine of headship,” even though “submission” is not used in 1 Corinthians 11 and principle of headship is not explicit in 1 Corinthians 14. Paul’s reference to the law in 1 Corinthians 14:34 is understood as a reference to the creation story in Genesis 2, which coheres with Paul’s use of the creation story in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 (if Paul means for the creation story to teach female submission to males).

This is the heart of our disagreement regarding 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. I don’t think Renew’s understanding is as clear, plain, or certain as Renew seems to think it is.

1. A Reinterpretation. (Remember in the first Renew review, I was charged with reinterpreting texts to fit my agenda.) The historic understanding of the church from the 2nd century into the 20th century was that the “law” to which Paul referred was Genesis 3:16, which is the only Hebrew text that explicitly describes how men “rule” over women. Consequently, Renew and Rick reinterpret the meaning of “law” as a reference to Genesis 2 rather than 3:16.

Further, they also reinterpret the meaning of silence since the historic position of the church required absolute, total silence in the assembly. In other words, if Rick and Renew are correct, this text has never been clear or plain to the church throughout its history. This is even more the case if one thinks the prohibition only refers to the evaluation the prophetic message. That reinterpretation is of quite recent origin.

Bobby recognizes some complementarians argue 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 only forbids the participation of women in the judging (evaluation) of prophetic revelation, which—it is suggested–is the function of an authority figure in the congregation. [This is the position Reneé takes in her book, On Gender.] But why did not Paul use the specific word (judge) for the prohibition if he had that specific action in mind? Paul’s language is more general (speak). Moreover, Paul says, “let the others weigh what is said.” Who are the “others”? Most likely, it is other prophets, including female prophets. The others includes “all” who might prophesy and not a particular class of people who have special authority. In other words, the prophets (or perhaps even the whole congregation) evaluate the prophecy. Nothing suggests an authority figure evaluates the prophecy distinct from the prophets themselves.

These reinterpretations suggest that the historic, even plain, reading of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is inadequate and misunderstands Paul’s point. A plain reading, as Bobby recognizes, must pay attention to context, language, and canonical theology. On this, we agree.

2.  Since the activities of the women are disruptive and shameful, they need to stop, at the very least, out of a sense of respect or deference (appropriate meanings of the term “submit” [hupotassō]). If this means wives (women) must submit to husbands or men in the church (which Paul does not explicitly say which or either), it does not necessarily imply any male authority over wives (women). Since husbands and wives share mutual authority over each other’s lives (1 Corinthians 7:4), this mutual submission (Ephesians 5:21) entails mutual respect and deference. As a result, if submission to husbands or men is the correct way to read this text (which is not certain), women should respect their husbands/men by not creating a disorderly disturbance within the assembly. Authority is not necessarily involved. It would also be shameful and disorderly if men interrupted and talked over others, including female prophets. They, too, would need to submit out of respect as well.

3.  One might respond that since “authority” has already been introduced in 1 Corinthians 11 through the idea of “head,” then submission in 1 Corinthians 14:34 must refer to a woman’s submission to her head (husband or males in the assembly).  As I noted in a previous blog, (1) the word head does not necessarily entail authority, (2) the only authority mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11 is the authority a woman possesses in her own person before God—she has authority over her own head (11:10), and (3) authority between men and women is mutual rather than hierarchical, according to 1 Corinthians 7:4. Further, Paul never uses the word “submit” or “submission” in 1 Corinthians 11. He does refer to “honor,” but honor does not necessarily entail authority.  In fact, according to 1 Corinthians 12:23-24, every part of the body is to honor every other part of the body. Honor is mutual. “Honor” in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 refers to acknowledging the source of one’s life, just as each member of the body is to show honor to every other member of the body. Honor belongs to the whole body and is mutual.

4. We do have another place in 1 Corinthians that refers to submission. It is not chapter 11, but chapter 14. I think that is quite significant. The only places where Paul uses the verb “submit” in the context of the Corinthian assemblies (1 Corinthians 11-14) are within two verses of each other (verses 32 and 34). They occur in the same immediate context of disorder (14:26-40).

Just as the prophets should submit themselves to order within the assembly, so disorderly women should submit themselves to order within the assembly. The disruption is disorder, and the submission is to order. The facts are that Paul does not say (1) to whom the women are to submit and (2) where the law says women should submit. These two points are ambiguous and unstated.

There are clues in the immediate context, however.  First, Paul uses a middle/passive form of hupotassō (submit) in 14:32. The prophets must control themselves, that is, “the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.” Second, Paul grounds this call to submission in God’s own identity. “Because” (gar), Paul writes, “God is a God not of disorder but of peace, as in all the assemblies of the saints.”

This parallels Paul’s language in 14:34.  First, Paul uses a middle/passive form of hupotassō (submit). The women are to control themselves; they submit themselves. Second, Paul grounds this call to submission in the law. “Because” (gar), Paul writes, “the law also says.”

  • The prophets must submit themselves because God is the God of peace rather than disorder or confusion.
  • The women must submit themselves because of what the law says.

The parallelism suggests Paul is probably referring to something general in the law parallel to the principle that “God is not the God of disorder but peace” rather than a specific text. The Hebrew Bible is replete with the theological idea that God brings order and battles chaos, which is the point of Genesis 1 itself. That God is the God of peace rather than confusion is something the law teaches. Everywhere else in 1 Corinthians when Paul refers to what is said or written in the law (1 Corinthians 9:8-9; 14:21), he explicitly quotes the text except here. He expects everyone who is disruptive to submit to order in the assembly and practice self-giving and humility rather than boisterous, talkative, or disruptive speech.

Consequently, I believe Paul is silencing the women on the same basis as he silences the prophets: the law teaches that God is the God of order and peace rather than confusion. The law teaches submission to that principle.

It seems to me, at the very least, it is good to acknowledge that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is a difficult and unclear text in many respects. It does not have a plain meaning unless one simply absolutizes the language and demands total silence on the part of women in the assembly. Consequently, the text has significant ambiguities and thus is a precarious basis upon which to build a theology of gender in relation to the assembly.

Leadership and Headship

This brings us to the bottom line of our disagreement, which I suspect will emerge even more clearly in the next posting by Renew.

  • We both agree women are gifted to actually lead (including speaking—such as prayer and prophecy) in the assembly in many diverse ways with diverse gifts.

Renew, however, believes there are functions, roles, or gifts pertaining to the assembly that belong only to men. These functions are, in Renew’s language, expressions of “the biblical idea of headship.” If a function, role, or gift in the assembly of God embodies the principle of headship, then it is reserved only for men.

  • The critical questions, then, are (1) what roles, gifts, or functions belong to headship in the assembly, and (2) how do we discern which roles, gifts or functions belong to headship in the assembly?

Or, to put it another way: what precisely is the difference between a leadership function and a headship function? What plain reading of what text identifies that distinction? This is the crux, it seems to me.

Renew believes women may not “serve in the role of the lead teacher/preacher” in the assembly. That language, however, is not found in the New Testament. But there is only one text in the New Testament that might even approximate that answer to the question. It is the one to which Rick and Renew point us. It is 1 Timothy 2:8-15.

In other words, the whole case for soft complementarianism—in terms of identifying what specific roles, gifts, or functions belong only to males in the assembly (which is the burden of my book)—boils down to a particular understanding of 1 Timothy 2:8-15, which is–in fact–their own reinterpretation of 1 Timothy 2. The historic interpretation of this text excludes women from much more than the “lead teacher/preacher” role in the assembly.

I welcome the discussion of 1 Timothy 2 that is coming in the next Renew review.

Peace upon my friends at Renew!


A Reply to Renew’s Response to My Response

August 14, 2020

I am pleased to receive an answer to my response to Renew’s review (first installment) of my book Women Serving God. I appreciate the tone and care in this piece. I reproduce, with Renew’s permission, their response below in toto from their Facebook page. My response follows their text below.

Renew wrote:

Reflections on Part 1 of On Gender and the Bible
(a Response to John Mark Hicks)
By 
Renew.org

Many thanks to John Mark Hicks for engaging us in dialogue about his recent book Women Serving God. We are grateful for the gracious tone he responded with and we appreciate him as a brother in Christ. We agree with John Mark on a great many important things, including the importance of arriving at biblical views of gender and church ministry.

In addition, there is a great deal in his book which is admirable. Very importantly, he champions servant leadership, encourages leaders not to stifle giftedness, and calls us back from traditionalism to the standard we should all affirm: the Word of God. Hicks writes, “Sadly, control and power are more often at play among the people of God than self-giving service” (146). This is a sad, true observation, and one which has often gone under the radar even as Christians have busily tried to cultivate correctness regarding these issues.

It will become clear in upcoming articles that we at Renew.org arrive at different conclusions from Hicks when it comes to the meaning of some biblical texts relevant to this topic. Our first article, however, dealt with how we interpret the Bible as distinguished from Hicks’s methodology. We are writing this to engage with some of Hicks’s responses to our first article.

A Possible Overstatement

It is true, as Hicks notes, that he never uses the word egalitarian to describe his position. Likewise, the point of Women Serving God is not to give a sustained argument about leadership structure in the church or in the home. Rather, the point of Women Serving God is more modest: he argues for full participation of men and women in their areas of giftedness when the church assembly is gathered. For this reason, we might have been overreaching to call Hicks’s position “egalitarianism.” He has the right to label his own position, and we don’t want to attach a label which isn’t the best fit.

Elsewhere, Hicks has defined egalitarianism as “the full equality of role relationships and functions within the leadership and ministry of the church. This position denies male headship as a theological value and opens all functions in the church/assembly to the church/assembly to women. There are evangelical (those who believe in biblical authority) and non-evangelical versions of egalitarianism.”[1] From this definition, we see that Women Serving God is arguing for at least some of the egalitarian perspective as he has defined it, although he hasn’t yet dealt specifically with leadership offices per se (i.e., “functions within the leadership”).

To be fair, however, Hicks gives arguments in his book which match the egalitarian position as we have seen it articulated by others. Whenever male authority is mentioned in his argument, it is implied to be something which is merely situational, with no binding implications. This is true of the maleness of the first human (121), the maleness of the Old Testament priests (138), the maleness of Jesus (143), and the maleness of the 12 apostles (148).

Whether or not the label fits, Hicks has certainly set up premises for an egalitarian conclusion. He is right that leadership is a gift the Holy Spirit gives to men and women (Romans 12:8). However, add in the idea that male leadership in the Bible is merely situational, and it takes no imagination at all to land on a church structure with female elders and senior ministers. The argument for egalitarianism has practically already been made. Yet the label “egalitarianism” can bring in unwanted or unintended connotations which we didn’t mean to import by calling his position egalitarian.

Q: A subjective hermeneutic?

It is indeed all too easy to use the label “subjective” for other people’s interpretations which you don’t like. Hicks is absolutely correct that the “blueprint” when it comes to gender roles “is not as clear as we have sometimes assumed” (26). To look at someone’s honest hermeneutical attempts and immediately cry, “Subjective!” would be ungracious and unfair.

When we use the word subjective, it isn’t because Hicks is trying to use cultural discernment in reading the text (as he points out, aren’t we all?). Rather, when it comes to Hicks’s hermeneutics regarding gender issues, it’s a selectivity which suggests subjectivity. He seems to be selective in what he emphasizes. Hicks articulates his case in a way that makes it appear the Bible is overwhelmingly stacked against the norm of male authority, except for one verse: 1 Timothy 2:12. Numerous times (116, 152, 153, 157, 160), he sets the rest of the Bible against this single verse when it comes to male authority in the assembly. Indeed, it was his one remaining “firewall” to embracing the full participation view.

To be fair, his book does present a defense of a particular position, and he is marshalling the best evidence for the full participation view. As a defense of a position (and since this isn’t a systematic theology of the entire Bible), there is going to be selectivity involved when it comes to which passages receive emphasis. When does selectivity therefore become problematic?

Being selective when it comes to Scripture becomes problematic when it brings about an overemphasis which overshadows other important truth. Hicks’s sincerity and diligence cannot be called into question. Still, in the interest of showing each and every actual and possible instance when women held positions of leadership in the Bible, there does seem to be an unfortunate overshadowing of a norm of godly male leadership which God set forth in both Old and New Testaments.

For example, the Persian Queen Esther gets her own subsection as a political and religious leader over God’s people, yet the book contains no mention of God’s pattern of placing kings over Israel (with the only queen in Israel being the usurper Athaliah). Shouldn’t either fact be just as frankly acknowledged? Another example: In describing Eve, Hicks uses language such as “powerful helper or rescuer,” “full and empowered partner,” and “the one whose creation fully equips humanity” (121-22). Meanwhile, Hicks implies that Adam holds “no hint of any rank or authority” before the Fall (123). That language feels a bit imbalanced, and the presentation a bit selective.

Q: The full story?

One of the definitive features of Hicks’s hermeneutic is to read each text through the lens of the eschatological goal (i.e., the new creation). When reading and applying Scripture, it is indeed imperative to know where we are in the storyline of Scripture. Likewise, we shouldn’t attempt to fossilize ourselves in First Century cultural norms; we should be diligent about effectively and faithfully contextualizing the kingdom of God in whatever culture we find ourselves in.

Still, we wonder if Hicks’s way of framing the Bible’s big-picture story of the Bible is complete enough. Is it the case that the complementarian view bloats a few texts (most notably, 1 Timothy 2:12) out of all proportion so that the larger trajectory of Scripture is muted and truncated? On the contrary, we suggest that it is soft complementarians who are best positioned to apply the whole of Scripture. While we gladly acknowledge the glorious giftedness that the Spirit pours out on woman and man alike (i.e., numerous passages of Scripture), we also recognize godly male leadership as a norm that God employs in both Old and New Testaments (i.e., numerous passages of Scripture).

It seems that Hicks minimizes the latter of these two Scriptural realities. Is the maleness of Old Testament priests significant, given that many ancient pagan civilizations had priests and priestesses? Probably not, Hicks concludes; he suggests that the maleness of the Old Testament priests was probably no more theologically significant than having something to do with women’s menstruation periods: “The sanctity of blood probably excluded women from the priesthood due to their menstrual cycle” (138). We are told that the maleness of the apostles is no more instructive of how Jesus wants the church to be led than their ethnicity as Galilean Jews (148). However, why was it that the apostles chose ethnically diverse men to lead in the Acts 6 distribution of food? And when the church branched out into Gentile territory, why was it that Paul continued to plant churches with male elders? There appears to be a norm of godly male leadership over the church, something which traces back to the church’s Founder. When you deemphasize this norm of godly male leadership which spans both testaments, you end up deemphasizing seemingly relevant parts of Scripture’s storyline. Even when it comes to the first stage in the storyline—Gen. 1-2—Hicks claims there is “no hint of any rank or authority” for Adam, yet Gen. 1-2 is precisely where Paul goes when establishing gender distinctions in church and marriage (1 Corinthians 11:8; 1 Timothy 2:13-14; Ephesians 5:31).

This metaphor is an oversimplification; so please don’t take this as a summary statement of Hicks’s position. But it’s almost as if the big-picture story of the Bible is being portrayed as a train which could move forward unimpeded, if it weren’t for a single log in the way. The train symbolizes full participation in the assembly with no gender distinctions in leadership, and the log is 1 Timothy 2:12. The log, we are told, can be removed if rightly interpreted. Could it be that, in keeping with the train metaphor, a more accurate portrayal would be that a healthy church moves forward when everybody’s giftedness is recognized and encouraged, and that the norm of godly male leadership—properly understood and humbly exercised—is not logs to be removed but rather railroad ties upon which a gifted church can move full speed ahead?

Ours is not a statement endorsing male leadership per se. We’ve all experienced how power-hungry males in leadership can completely wreck whatever they touch—including churches. Instead, ours is an endorsement of humbly following God’s way of doing church. We share this goal with our brother John Mark, but we suggest that there is a fuller way of incorporating all the relevant Scripture regarding this important topic than the model we read in Women Serving God.[2]

Two Final Observations

Hicks takes issue with our statement that he “interprets away the key texts.” As he puts it, “It is rhetorical flourish rather than an argument.” Hicks is right that we made that assertion without making the argument. That argument will come in future articles, in which we will do a deep dive into these key texts. For now, please note that it’s a point well taken, and we should have waited to make such a claim until we presented the argument on which it is based. We anticipate waiting until after we have published the rest of the series before we respond to any of Hicks’s future responses to our articles.

Finally, we want to close with a very helpful statement from Hicks’s book, followed by a single reflection. Here’s his statement: “It is time to honor all the gifts God has given to women and for male leaders to recognize those gifts, share God’s mission with the other half of the church, and hear the gospel through the faithful voices of our sisters” (207). Yes, there are areas of disagreement we have with Hicks’s argument, but let us punctuate this summary statement of our brother with an “Amen.” This statement is precisely what we want to see in our churches.

[1] See John Mark Hicks, “Hermeneutics and Gender,” https://johnmarkhicks.com/…/2…/06/hermeneutics-and-gender.doc.
[2] For more on this fuller way of incorporating all the data, please read “Q: Is there a better way than seeing WDWD passages and WKSP passages as exceptions to each other?” at 
https://renew.org/on-gender-and-the-bible-what-john-mark-h…/.

My Response

To be sure, there is overlap in my position and egalitarianism, specifically the full participation of women in the assembly. At the same time, egalitarianism typically involves a much broader vision than I articulate or defend in this book. The term “egalitarianism” has connotations and associations that would have distracted from what I was doing in this book, and some of those associations are not commitments I share. My book focuses on a specific question. I appreciate Renew’s recognition that I wanted to keep this focus and not import extraneous meanings often associated with the term egalitarianism into their review of my book.

I’m not clear as to how my selectivity (which we all do in marshalling an argument or proffering an interpretation of Scripture, as Renew notes) is subjective when I address the perceived male patterns that supposedly ground male authority over women in the assembly.  They seem to think I ignored that. More on that in moment.

The only two instances of my supposed subjective selectivity noted are: (1) I call attention to Esther, but I don’t mention the Kings of Israel, and (2) I imply that Adam did not hold any rank or authority before the Fall.  I’m not sure how these are examples of selectivity, especially #2. I don’t think Genesis 2 teaches that the man held any authority or rank over the women before the Fall unless one adopts a misreading of Paul’s understanding of Genesis 2. The book addresses this in relation to both 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2.

As to (1), I don’t see how this is subjective selectivity when the point of the section in which I talk about Esther is discussing the activities of women in the story of Israel. As a godly ruler, she exercised religious and political authority among God’s people. (Athaliah ruled in ungodly ways, just as many men did.) Male kings also exercised authority as well, which is uncontested and well-known by students of Scripture. Both did. And that is the point. Both did.

I do address each of the points raised to support the “norm of godly male leadership”—male priests, Jesus as male, male apostles, and male elders. The reader can see how I address those topics in the book. More on that in a moment. At the same time, it is important to remember that Scripture also pictures women who exercise authority and leadership over men like Deborah and Esther (consistent with the theology of creation since God does not sanction what violates the divine intent in creation, right?). It is not a uniform “norm of godly male leadership.”

I am grateful to see the affirmation of reading Scripture through the lens of the eschatological goal (new creation). Is it true, however, that I bloat the significance of 1 Timothy 2:12 for soft complementarianism?  Is this not the primary text, if not the only one, in the New Testament that is used by soft complementarians to delimit women from preaching or speaking authoritatively in the assembly (however authentein, “exercising authority” or “usurping authority,” is understood)? What other text does a soft complementarian (limited participation) use since 1 Corinthians 11 & 14 are typically understood to permit rather than prohibit the participation of women in the assembly, even encouraging praying and prophesying in the assembly (unless 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 prohibits “judging” as an authoritative function)? I am open, however, to hearing how the Corinthian texts might supply a principle or prohibition that grounds the “norm of godly male leadership.” I will await that discussion.

The part of the story Renew thinks I too easily dismiss is the thread of male leadership from priests in Israel to Jesus as male to male apostles to male elders. Thus, my understanding of the story, Renew claims, is incomplete. There is an assumption that this trajectory entails a pattern or norm of male leadership and authority over women. In the Lord, however, women are priests. Jesus represents all humans, and the goal is to conform all humans to the image of Christ. Nowhere does Scripture ever limit the gifts or authority of women because of the male gender of Jesus. The Twelve was limited to Jewish males, but this places no limit on the gift of apostleship Post-Pentecost (others than the Twelve are called apostles without being included in the Twelve, including a woman, Romans 16:7). Even if I grant only male elders for the moment (which I do not explicitly contest in the book), does this limit the gifts of women in the assembly? Is there a role in the assembly that belongs only to male elders? What text would provide that limitation other than 1 Timothy 2:12? So, we are back to 1 Timothy 2 as the lone text for delimiting the participation of women in the assembly.

Permit me to drill a bit deeper for a moment. Renew asks, “why was it that the apostles chose ethnically diverse men to lead in the Acts 6 distribution of food?” We are not told why. If we understand this as part of a pattern or “norm” of male leadership, would we not have to say a woman should never have that kind of function in the ministry of benevolence within the church? If we are going to use the exclusive male selection in Acts 6 as an example of a pattern or norm of male leadership and authority, then we must be careful to make sure that part of the pattern is carried out in the contemporary church? If that is a blueprint pattern, then may women ever serve as deacons? May they lead benevolent ministries? In what ways may they “serve tables” or are they excluded from serving the sorts of tables Acts 6 envisions? The illustration of Acts 6 and male leadership, it seems to me, highlights the danger of seeking male patterns where there are none explicitly identified or explained as such. This is the danger of inferences. This argument would exclude women from “serving tables” and ministries for which they are gifted and for which we have examples in Scripture, even as deacons (Phoebe, for example). It seems to me this illustrates how one might mistakenly discern a male “norm” and extrapolate from it more than intended by the story of God or the narrator (Luke).

It is nowhere stated that male priests are chosen because of some pattern or “norm” of male leadership rooted in creation. It is an inference that fits a particular way of reading. This inference, even if correct, is tempered by the fact that, in the Lord, women are priests who offer sacrifices of praise and serve as well as men. There are many examples of this kind of movement in Scripture. Why are not eunuchs chosen as priests in Israel? They are, nevertheless, priests in the Lord. Just as with eunuchs, there may be reasons for the exclusion of women from the priesthood that have nothing to do with the “norm” of male leadership.

Contesting my claim that there is “no hint of any rank or authority” for the man over the woman in Genesis 1-2, it is suggested that Paul sees it there. I don’t think he affirms that. In my opinion, that is a misreading of Paul. But we will get there when we discuss 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 and 1 Timothy 2:13-14 in later posts.

I appreciate Renew’s concern to combat male abuse and power-seeking male leadership. I fully believe Renew wants to embrace God’s design for humanity. Where we disagree, after we fully incorporate “all the relevant Scripture,” is whether God intends women to fully participate in the assemblies of the saints or not. I think “all the relevant Scripture” answers “Yes”.  Renew thinks otherwise.  We will let the readers judge as they walk with us through the various texts in future posts.

Renew, thank you for the response.  It is much appreciated, and I look forward to further discussion through the blog posts.