Deborah…Unless There’s A Dude (Part 6)
In our last article, Deborah…Unless There’s A Dude (Part 5), we looked deeper into 1 Timothy 2 to recognize and understand that the prohibitions around speech, dress and appearance are all connected to the value of modesty, all seen as similar cultural applications of this value, and are all rolled up into the biblical principle of honoring the husband as the head of the household.
This leads us to the sixth article in our overall series (Deborah…Unless There’s A Dude), and the fourth and fifth final keys to understanding 1 Timothy 2.
The fourth key is that this passage is about wives, not women.
If you read the first articles in this series, you read the following about Greek terms:
The word for woman is the exact same as for wife.
The word for women is the exact same as for wives.
The word for man is the exact same as for husband.
The word for men is the exact same as husbands.Woman or man is most natural, but if context indicates it should be translated as wife/wives or husband/husbands, then that is appropriate.
All the indicators are present in 1 Timothy 2 to show this passage is not speaking about women any more than the Corinthian passage was.
1 Timothy 2 is all about the husband-wife relationship and there is great significance to that.
What are the indicators that this passage is about wives and husbands, not women and men?
There are 5 critical indicators.
We don’t have time to do an in-depth exposition on the significance of each one but think they are worth mentioning.
First, the reference to Adam and Eve in verse 13 points to a martial context.
Second, the language of submission.
Submission of women to men in the Bible is only found in the context of a wife to her husband, not all women to all men.
The submission language here with a word that can be translated wife and a word that can be translated husband should be a major clue that this is wives/husbands not women/men in view.
Third, men praying without wrath or dissension in verse 8 makes sense if it goes with what comes next (related to the husband and wife power struggle), but not if it just stands alone.
Fourth, the qualifications for leadership in the next chapter have to do with having our household in order, and that is a logical flow from addressing wives/husbands here.
Fifth, there is a reference to childbearing in verse 15, and we know the biblical design for childbearing is within the context of marriage.
Something else worth paying attention to that really drives home this point is the mention of men lifting up holy hands in verse 8.
In the first five verses of 1 Timothy 2 that precede verse 8, the word “man” also appears. However, there, a different word for man is used. It is the word anthropos, which can mean man/men or can be used for mankind but cannot mean husband.
But then here in verse 8, instead of continuing to use anthropos, Paul switches to aner/andros, which can mean “man or men” just as anthropos did but can also mean “husband.”
The switch from “anthropos” to “andros” so suddenly signals the meaning of husband; otherwise, why would Paul not just continue to use the general word for men (that cannot mean husband) that he had been using all along?
Interestingly enough, in 1 Corinthians 7, when Paul wanted to be clear, he did the exact same sudden switch.
When talking about men in verse 1, he uses anthropos, but when talking about husbands in verse 2, he uses andros.
So much more could be said on this, but in summary, we are proposing this passage should be translated as follows:
1 Tim 2:8-13: Therefore I want the husbands in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension. 9 Likewise, I want wives to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, 10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for wife making a claim to godliness. 11 A wife must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a wife to teach or domineer a husband, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
This leads to the fifth and final key we have to touch on for understanding 1 Timothy 2.
Paul here says “I do not permit a wife to teach.”
This too is not insignificant.
The word permit there is the word epitrepo.
It is used 18x in the New Testament, but it is never used of a command given by God.
In fact, interestingly one of its uses is when Jesus said Moses permitted giving a certificate of divorce.
Matthew 19:8: He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. (New American Standard Bible, 1995, Matt. 19:8).
To see the significance of what Jesus is saying here, let’s read this verse in context.
“Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to [b]divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 7 They *said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” — (New American Standard Bible, 1995, Matt. 19:3-9)
They said, “Why did Moses command?”
Jesus said, “Because of your hardness of heart he permitted.”
Jesus did not say commanded. He said permitted.
In other words, it was a concession to protect the rejected party. Since marriage takes two, God made a provision for the abandoned one, but it’s not God’s will for divorce.
To use the word epitrepo of a command of God would be non-normative.
In all cases where it is used in the New Testament, epitrepo is never a timeless moral command, but is always in response to a question or situation.
It’s either saying, “Yes” or “No.” It’s a responsive word. “Yes, I do permit this” or “No, that, I do not permit.”
Now consider this.
This word permit is also what we found in 1 Cor 14:34: The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak (spontaneously), but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.
Both cases of women being called to be quiet is the language of permitting/not permitting – epitrepo.
This shows us further it’s a reaction to a situation, but also is not the language for a timeless moral command of God’s, which explains why the entire Old Testament lacks any such command.
This, again, is a culturally conditioned application of the timeless principle of submission in marriage being worked out through modesty in dress and speech.
To summarize, what did it mean then?
The timeless principle was submission in marriage.
The timely application of that timeless principle was modesty (in speech and dress).
What does it mean today?
The timeless principle was submission in marriage.
The timely application of that timeless principle has to be worked out in our cultural context.
In summary, there is a timeless moral principle under this whole section. It’s submission of wives to husbands, and the coherent application for their context was modesty as an expression of submission - modesty of dress, appearance and speech.
Yes, the application of submission would look different today, but that’s the timeless moral principle under this passage – which is also why we believe that the complementarian position is true in marriage, but not elsewhere, and that the egalitarian position elsewhere is true, but not in marriage.
If you don’t hold to the complementarian position in marriage, it’s really quite impossible to reconcile these passages. If you try to apply it outside of marriage, it’s also impossible to reconcile all the passages.
So, are we complementarian or egalitarian? We’re complegatarians or egalmentarians. :)
Complementarian in marriage.
Egalitarian in all other places.
And why does this matter?
We do believe that God has given us a commission to raise up a Joshua and Caleb generation, that consists of young men and young women, who will believe God, be devoted to God no matter the cost, and serve God’s purposes wholeheartedly in their generation
Practically, it’s not equipping men or women for ministry, but men and women – and it’s not equipping men for all, and women for everything but leading, but teaching, but pastoring.
When I (Rebekah) was in seminary, I had a professor who was a complementarian in all settings - both home and ministry. And yet, he was a role model to me. To my surprise, he asked me to serve as his teaching assistant in Systematic Theology, and I’ll never forget what he said when he did. He said, “Young lady, you know my position on these matters (meaning women in ministry), but I have to admit, I could be wrong. I see God’s hand on you, and I don’t want to find out at the throne that I was the one who opposed what God wanted to do.”
I was extremely grateful for the opportunity but what marked me even more was his humility.
Church, as people of the Word, we are not moved by cultural conditions, nor by cultural opinions, nor by cultural arguments.
Our allegiance is to God, and our job is always to uphold and submit to the Word of God.
As we go to the Word, we do the hard work – to get with God and allow Scripture, all Scripture, to cut us, challenge us, shape us and correct us.
We do not pay attention to the passages that confirm our biases and ignore the passages that confront them. We allow the Word of God to rightly divide us.
As we close, we want to give a final encouragement related to this topic.
It is true that there are issues of utmost significance such as the Gospel and how we are saved at the top of the list.
While we wouldn’t put the issue of women in ministry in the same category, we would also say that this isn’t an issue of no consequence and this isn’t an issue of small significance. Rather, it is one that has profound implications.
We’re talking about the Great Commission and the body of Christ having to choose from half the population of Christians instead of all for all leadership and teaching roles. That’s a big deal.
So if you are still wrestling, if you are still working it out, keep at it. Keep going back to God and back to His Word. Keep pressing in and don’t quit.
Let all of us agree, the standard for where we stand is the Word of God, and let each of us say, “I stand where I stand because of the Word of God!”
© 2022 Shane Farmer, Rebekah Layton. All rights reserved.