Pastoral Epistles - Lesson 6

Pastoral Epistles

Dr. Bill Mounce

nt630-06

1 Timothy 2:11–13

Lesson Transcript

 

We have come to the women's passage, as it's generally called, first Timothy 211 to 15. Um, and as I said, when we first got together there, so much more in the past than these few versus, uh, I wish they weren't even there. I would like specialist in the Ephesians maybe to have to deal with this issue. Uh, but they were an issue in emphasis and so they've made it into the pastoral. So we'll, we'll give the few verses their, their, the amount of time they deserve uh, relative to the other 13 chapters. It's obviously a very controversial passage. Almost every single word is questioned. Um, I struggle a bit with verse 14. I happen to think that most of this passage is pretty straightforward. I think that for the history of the church, it's been very straightforward. Um, but you. We still have to. We have to deal with the culture in which we live. Let me stress a couple of things upfront, though. And again, these are my personal positions. This is simply not an issue of orthodoxy. I don't believe the issue of can women be pastors or elders is an issue of orthodoxy. We we left it out of our statement of faith for biblical training and for the church. And just in case you're wondering if what forces are at work behind me, my grandma and my mother and my sister and my wife are for the best teachers I've ever known. I don't have, I believe, any cultural biases pushing me against women. And what's very interesting is my daughter wants to go to seminary. And so it kind of live in an interesting family, a conservative family, a complementary and family. So my daughter loves French people and she's she's doing a master's in art history right now, but she wants to go to seminary and she wants to go to the west side of the French side of Africa and teach the Bible.

 

And so that's kind of what's behind me. Kirsten, my daughter, has helped me understand certain things I did not understand before, and I'll tell you about it in a bit. But this this just isn't. I don't. I don't. Well, we all have cultural biases. And just say that we don't is unwise. But I have that's just my background. I grew up in a family where the women are very, very good teachers. And so I don't that's not pushing me anyway. The while we did put for the church. We didn't put this issue into the statement of faith because it isn't an issue of orthodoxy. Um, probably in all of our bylaws, this issue does have to be dealt with, not as a statement of faith, but are we wear it. What is the relative relationship not only of women in ministry, but men the ministry? And that's one thing that's lost in all of this. This isn't it isn't just women that may or may not have positions of leadership in the church. It's what's the relationship of the men to the leadership in the church? And so, I mean, there's this whole leadership thing is a much bigger issue. The context of this passage, again, we're still in disruption in the church. We've dealt with one issue relative to the men. We've dealt with one issue relative to women, and that how they dress and how they carry themselves. Paul is now moving into the issue of disruption caused by leadership. And so he's going to talk here about women and leadership issues. And then chapter three, he's going to talk about elders and leadership, and then he's going to talk about deacons and leadership. So we're really beginning here a topic that carries all the way through chapter three.

 

So Paul says, Let a woman learn quietly. And again, this is going to be my interpretive positions. Let a woman learn quietly the need to find quietly by saying I mean in submissiveness. Quietly means submissive. Then he's going to spell out in details what that means. He says, I don't permit a woman. And I believe the structures is that he's limiting women's roles in two areas. I don't allow women to teach, and I don't allow women to exercise authority over a man. Rather than doing that, she has to. And again. I don't like the translation. Remain quiet. This was a and I believe I believe this phrasing is ESV right now. And what he's doing is he's providing bookends. Where you've got let a woman learn quietly. She has to remain quiet. So this whatever hace2 here means, the translated quiet is what's bookending this discussion. And that becomes very, very important. So that's the the the opening up into this discussion. Let a woman learn quietly. First of all, there are strong there are strong statements in Jewish literature that women were not to be allowed to learn. There's one rabbi quoted in the commentary said, Better to burn the Torah than let a woman learn. So what is seen as a highly restrictive passage also was what was actually quite revolutionary is that Paul sees that women have a role where they should be learning. So that needs to be pointed out. But as women learn, they are to do so. He's still here. All right. Translated quietly. What does this word mean? Well, the word can mean silence. The word can mean absolute silence. There are hace2 here and its cognates occur. I think it's eight times and is split 50, 50, 50% of the times.

 

The word in is cognates mean absolute quiet. There was the protest in the temple, and when they heard Paul speaking in Aramaic, they became quiet. They stayed. Okay. So there are there are cases where it means absolute quiet. The problem is the first Corinthians 11 five guarantees women a vocal role in the public worship service. And so I just. Had a hard time believing that. What Paul says is they absolutely have to keep their mouth completely and totally shut. I don't think that's what's going on. The word doesn't necessarily mean it. If the issue is one of submissiveness. Submissiveness does not require total silence. Those are those are two different things, right? And perhaps most importantly, the cognate. I think it's the cognate occurs up in first Timothy two two. I mean double check my Greek um in first Timothy. I'm not texting. I'm checking my Bible. I. It is. First Timothy two to its faces here. Yeah, well, it's a it's a cognate. It's a suitcase, isn't it? Yeah. It's a cognate that I, that I want women that. That I thought were that, that I want people to live a peaceful and quiet life. Does. Does Paul want us to live a life that's absolutely silent? No, that's not what it means. So while it is a cognate, which means it doesn't necessarily have exactly the same meaning, it does have the same basic meaning. So you have the use of the word not to mean silent, but a quiet kind of life. And so that I think is a pretty strong argument that just a few verses later that it's Paul is not requiring the women to not ever open their mouths, but it is dealing with their demeanor. It is it is dealing with an attitude of submissiveness.

 

So that's why I came out in that position in the commentary. The problem is submissive to whom? Submissive to whom? And there are people that will argue that it means submissive to any and all men, and they get the man from the middle part of verse 12. I don't permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. So the object of the authority and the object of the submissiveness would be the same thing. So let a woman learn quietly being submissive to the men in the church. The problem is, is that is nowhere taught in Paul. And there is no way that my wife and daughter are called by the Bible to be submissive to every one of you. That's just not a biblical threat. Not biblical. There are people who say this. I just think that they're wrong. And I just I just don't think there's any passage in Scripture that teaches submission of any and every woman to and every any and every man. So I, I just don't think that's what it says. I don't think it's appalling. The place where I come out in the commentary is that the submission is to the ruling elders in the church. And that may be men, depending upon what we're going to do later on with the passage. But I think that because the context is one of learning and because the people who both the primary responsible for teaching in the church were the elders, that when you start talking about learning submissively that you are being submissive to the teachers, to the elders in the church. And so I you don't know this about me. I'm really cautious about going beyond the text. I really, really don't like adding to the text.

 

There's something in Revelation about that, and I'm very, very careful about that. But because Paul doesn't teach submissiveness of all women to any and all men, I have to have, there has to be some kind of contextual limiter on this verse. And so because it's a teaching and a learning experience, I think it's submissiveness to the ruling authorities. And again, you had to quickly point out men that were not leaders in the church were also called to be submissive to the authorities. Right. So this is just not a female thing. This is this is how we are to learn that there are God is gifted the church with administrators with lots of different gifts. But some of those gifts are teachers and evangelists. And when you have a teacher who is in a position of official leadership in the church, then the people in the church are called to respect that person and to submit to submit to the authority. I think it's the language in Hebrews, right? I think that's where that passages. No, it's it was I reread the commentary last night on this and it just it was just a reminder how. How many things are are different angles there are on approaching this text. And you're going to hear me say this over and over again the next hour about some of the theories that I don't agree with. And that is it just doesn't say it. Now, sometimes things are implied in the text. I understand that. But one of the things that is often said is that with that, Paul is saying that women must learn quietly and submissiveness so that once they know they can teach. You heard that argument. It's a very common one that this is not a permanent learning and submissiveness, but it is it is a learning so that they can eventually teach.

 

And I think the answer is it's not what the deck says. It's not what the Texas Hull books are written around that thesis or articles, I should say. It doesn't it doesn't say that. And so I'm not going to go there. There are many reasons for women to learn and men, too, and not all of them are to move into leadership. You learn the Torah so that you can be obedient to the Torah. Lots of reasons to learn that don't involve becoming a teacher. So we start out by saying, Let a woman learn quietly and by quietly. I'm not talking about dead silence. I mean in a submissive attitude, and I'm interpreting it submissive to the teaching authority of the church, something that men and women likewise are called to do. Paul then in verse 12, restates verse 11, but with an eye to a practical application, is the connection. I think there is between 11 and 12. And he says, I don't permit a woman to teach. Or to exercise authority over a man as opposed to teaching and exercising authority. She is to be an hazuki. She is to be in quietness. She is to be in submissiveness. I tried to get the ESV to agree instead of quietly to quietness. It's not really good English, and that's probably why it didn't pass the vote. But it was I wanted some word that Dad allowed for speech and put the focus on demeanor. Um, but I don't think there is a word in English that does it. That was the problem we couldn't come up with. With the ESV. Um. Well, that's probably a little too interpretive for the ESV and its multiple words to translate a single English word. And so in the ESV there's a preference to try to keep 1 to 1 if you can.

 

Something like that would fit more in an Ivy Theory of translation or an adult. Okay. Almost every single word in this versus question. And and again, let me just go through them the documentations in the commentary, but I want to give you the. Make sure you're aware of broad stroke of what the issues are. First of all, I didn't get very far into the verse. There are some people who argue that when he says I that he's stating his personal opinion, not fact. And that people are comfortable saying, well, that's his opinion, but it's not my opinion. And they often make reference to Paul's discussion of marriage in first Corinthians seven. And there's a couple of different places in first Corinthians seven and verses ten and 12. He says to the married, I give this charge. And he says, Not I, but the Lord. The wife should not separate from her husband. And then in verse 12, to the rest, I say, I not the Lord, that if her brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and he goes on. And the argument is that Paul is giving his opinion that does or does not have to be followed. The problem with that is is generally accepted is that Paul is not saying some of this is fact, some of this is opinion. He's simply identifying the source of the authority that in one of these when he says not I, but the Lord is saying this is the Jesus tradition, when he says I not the Lord is saying this is what I authoritatively teach. And that's pretty much understood, I think, in First Corinthians seven. That is not an opinion versus fact. The other place they go is versus 25 and 26, which says Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, so not Jesus tradition, but I give my judgment as one who, by the Lord's mercy, is trustworthy.

 

I think that in view of the present distress, it is good for a person to remain as he is. Now, Paul, in that passage, is certainly giving his opinion, but as we know, it's his opinion, not because he says I, but because he contextually makes it very clear this is my preference to do with it. As you wish. Right. In fact, he goes on to say, you know, if you if you really want to get married, go ahead. It's nothing wrong. And so it's not the fact that he says I that makes it his opinion. It's the fact that he says it's his opinion that makes it his opinion. So we come back to our passage and it says, I do not permit this is the Apostle Paul speaking. This is the apostle who tells the Thessalonians that if someone doesn't listen to what I say and if he doesn't work hard, then socially ostracize them. I mean, Paul expected the church to follow every single thing that he said. Unless he specifically said, this is my opinion. So I don't think that drawing attention to the eye is that significant. I do not permit present tense for. The comment is made that the tense is saying that this is only temporary. In fact, they will translate it. I am not permitting a woman or interpreter. I am currently not permitting a woman. And so the argument is that because it's the present tense for it's only temporary. Um. The fact of the matter is that is not what the Greek presented says. That the essence of the Greek tense in the present is to not look at the beginning of the end, is to describe something as a process, and it says nothing about the conclusion of an action.

 

The quotes, the references are in the commentary to the grammars that make this clear that there is nothing inherent in the present tense that implies that the present action is a temporary action. It may be a temporary action, but is not the present tense that's going to convey that meaning. It'll be something else in the context that makes it clear. And I go through and I've actually gotten quite a few emails on this part of the commentary, people thanking me for it because I start identifying all the present tense verbs that we take as eternal, and there's thousands of them. And if the present tense by definition is temp describing something as temporary, then God only temporarily wants all people to be saved. Then then wanting to be an elder is only temporarily a good thing. I mean, the list goes on and on and on. I think there are some arguments against the position that I've taken that are good arguments and that you really need to think carefully about and extend a lot of grace to and saying, well, that could be possible. This is not one of them. This just simply isn't what the Greek tense present tense means. And I don't think there's any question about it. But, um. So some people say I am currently not permitting. But the idea is that once they have learned, then I'm going to permit them to do other activities. I do not permit a woman, and I should say, and I went looking for this in the commentary. And I think if I do a second edition, I'm going to make a bigger deal of this. The word translated woman can also be wife. And also and there are reasons for treating this as a man woman thing, not a husband wife thing.

 

But I got to tell you, the more I think about it, the more I wonder if the husband wife isn't more prominent. Now the arguments are why would you limit the role of a wife but not of a single girl? And the answer may be because the issue is marital relations, know husband, wife and how husbands and wives relate to each other. And that's how much how any man and any woman relate to each other. I, I just find myself wondering more and more about that decision and whether I gave it enough time to think through it. So if I get to do a second edition, you'll see a lot more discussion on whether this is a woman or a wife thing. But most people go with a woman in this passage. In other words, all women single or married. If you if you took the husband wife thing could still apply to both work. Yeah, it would. It would be how husbands and wives are two relate to each other in the public worship setting. And then elsewhere, you have how husbands wives relate to each other in private settings. I mean, we have all those teachings and Paul as well. So I again, it's just I'm not willing to say I'm going to go there, but I I'm going to think a lot more about it, I think. First Corinthians 14 comes into play for. He says that the government should ask the. Yeah. Yeah, we have again. That would be a good argument that a this is silence and not quietness. And that submissiveness means that, um, the women need to wait till they get home to ask their. The wives need to wait to get home, to ask their husbands. But you would.

 

Here's the problem there. First of all, almost everyone, almost everyone is married. But you also have the women going home and asking their fathers. I mean, it's really very, very complicated as how I'm just saying this is an issue that I've not seen discussed a whole lot. And I think it's one that's worth being discussed. But most people prefer that this is a woman thing and not a wife's thing. I don't permit a woman to teach. All right. Teach what? Teach where? Paul, give us an object. There is no object. He just says teach. And so it raises all kinds of questions. And let me try to cover what some of those questions are. I was scribbling this last night, and I can't read my handwriting. Just second. Some people will say that what Paul is prohibiting is that I do not permit a woman to teach heresy. In other words, they supply the object of the false teachers. Um, the counterargument is it's not what it says. And why would Paul say don't permit a woman to teach what is false? Wouldn't you say? I don't permit people to teach what is false. What is there? Why would if it's a matter of teaching heresy, teaching the false teachings. Why limit it just to women? What makes this argument stronger is that it appears and again, this is an interpretive issue, but it appears that the actual teachers who were teaching the false doctrine were all men. Every indication we have is that the false teachers themselves were men. Now we know that the false teaching was having a dramatic effect within the female community. Among the young widows first Timothy five. So we and the assumption is certainly they would have been promulgating the false teaching as well.

 

But if there were clear evidence that the false teachers were women, then it would make a little more sense just to understand the object of teach as teach heresy. Well, because we don't have any evidence that the women were actually leading the false teaching, that it makes that supplying that object a little more difficult. And again, it introduces all of the kinds of problems. The other argument that's made against the idea of teaching heresy is that the words teach in the past rules are unanimously positive. In other words, when he talks about teaching, he's talking about teaching the gospel. He's not talking about teaching bad things. He's talking about teaching the gospel, teaching good things. And when Paul wants to say, like to teach false teachings or to teach other teachings like we saw in first Timothy one, the word actually says it's federal to disclose, it's to teach other things. But the idea of teaching as a noun or teaching as a verb in the past rules is always a positive thing. It's always teaching the gospel. And so, again, there would have to be some pretty strong contextual clues that he's talking about teaching something other than the gospel just because of how the word is use. That makes sense. All right. So I think it's I don't permit a woman to teach the gospel is the idea. But you also have not only the idea of teaching what, but teaching where. What is the context? What is the social context of this verse? Again, there are some people that will say it's ubiquitous, it's absolutely everywhere. Women can't teach, period. The problem, of course, with that is that it contradicts Scripture. It contradicts Scripture in the past, rules that contradicts other passages in Scripture where women clearly are instructing will kind of avoid the problem by using a different verb, by instructing others.

 

It doesn't actually say that Priscilla taught a policy, but she instructed him. She and her husband instructed them. You know the argument as well, the name Priscilla's name before husbands. So she was the primary teacher. Is one of the arguments. And I go, Well, I don't know, maybe she was a sanguine and he was a quiet person. And, you know, maybe she was vivacious and he was boring and all. Maybe they just named her first because the person I mean, we don't know why her name is first. And it's it's part of the frustrating thing in dealing with this whole debate is is so much can be can be made by some people of what's not there or what's between the lines. There's there's no indication that Priscilla was viewed as an official teacher in the church and that she becomes an example for how other women are to behave. Um. And the teaching, which is where I'm getting the Priscilla and Aquila teaching. Paulus was a private thing in their home. So the other question is, I don't permit a woman to teach. Is there a spatial limitation? And I think yes, I think we're talking about the assembled church. And now I have friends that want to extend beyond this. I have friends that that, um. Well, I have friends that think this is all first century and doesn't apply at all. Gordon Fee is a very good friend of mine. I have spent hours with Gordon because I respect him so much and I want to understand I did not want to misrepresent his position. And Gordon graciously when he didn't know, didn't know me from Adam. We spent too long breakfasts together at national meetings saying, Gordon, help me understand your position.

 

I love you. Come here and Corinthians, I love your commentary in Philippians. I respect you, but I disagree with you on this. And I don't like disagreeing with people I respect so much. So help me understand your position. And Gordon did very cautiously and generously. I disagree with Professor Fee on this point, but so I have very good friends that say that this is totally first century, totally fusion. I have other friends that say that I don't permit a woman to teach applies to everything. They don't like women teaching in universities. They don't like women teaching economics in universities. I mean, not biblical things. Understand, there's a wide variety here. And I just there's just no way this refers to secular education. We have women teaching women. We have women teaching children. We have we have many different ways in which women are able to instruct, let's just say, other people. And so there has to be some kind of contextual limitation. And I think it's. Paul, it's not. He's saying that that women are not to take a primary teaching role in the assembled church, which gets back to your verse in first Corinthians 14. By the way, people will say sometimes to me, So I hear you have a problem with women teaching. My answer is always not having any problem at all. That's the problem. Paul has a problem with it. I don't have a problem with it, but Paul does and I have to follow the text. You know, it gets it gets interesting, doesn't he? What about parish church organizations? What about Sunday schools? I mean, this this is a issue. And again, what I would encourage you to do is for classes to do the position paper on leadership and get all your verses together.

 

If you have elders, get with your elders, come to a conclusion, write it out. Let the young girls in your church know why they may or they may not do. Things in the church. When I preach to first Timothy at our church, and when I got to this passage, I was a little hesitant, didn't know what was going to happen. I thought I'd be okay. I thought I had earned trust from the church at this point. And so I wasn't expecting to be tarred and feathered. And I went through the passage. And you know what? The largest group of people after the sermon, This is terrible. What the largest group was. It was the teenage girls. And I saw him coming. I go, Oh, I'm going to get crucified. And they to a person said, thank you. We've never understood why all the preachers around here are men. At least we know now there's a reason. They had never been taught. There was a reason. So that's why I like these position papers so much. It's not an issue of orthodoxy, it's not an issue of gospel, but it gives you a chance to go through the data and to interpret it. Have your elders agree, disagree, refine however you want to do it, and they say, Hey, at least there are. We may be wrong, but at least there are reasons for why we do what we do. You know, do you baptize right away, which is the only biblical model, or do you wait until we're really sure the salvation Experience A has taken hold of the person? Get it or do you get it out of your way when you're babies and Presbyterians? Yeah, just the disposition papers, I think, are just wonderful tools anyway.

 

Um, let, let especially the young girls in your church know why. The position that I came to is that when it says I do not permit a woman to teach, the position I came to was that I don't permit a woman to teach the gospel in an authoritative fashion within the context of the assembled church. That. That's just where I came up. I don't. Had a friend of Gordon Kahnwald who said at the end of the day that the the people who have the responsibility to say this is the official doctrine of the church are the elders and they are to be men. And I just you know, it's not a position I'm crazy about. I don't like being persecuted. Um, that's. I'm just not it's not my personality. But I think the text is pretty clear that that's what it means. So anyway. So teaching. Teaching what? Teaching where? This is why the first Timothy 314, 15 and 16 are so important to me because they provide a context, I think, from two, one and following. Okay. I don't permit a woman to teach. That's an expression of what submissiveness is. And then he says, or to exercise authority over a man. And it gets really, really complicated at this point. What is the relationship between teach and exercise authority? And I've given you the references so that if you want to read, there's some really good articles. BALDWIN Does one in Costa Rica does one that really spells out what exercise authority means and what the relationship of awe is. And the conclusion that I came to was that teaching is the de is the specific application, and that exercise authority is a general principle. Now there is a position Phil Payne argues for.

 

And in fact, if you want to have some fun reading in jets there, I forget who came first, but Phil Payne and Doug Mu went back and forth. And what's helpful is, is to hear an argument, then hear the counterargument, then hear the counter counter argument. And it's a very, very helpful interchange. And I think of of all the stuff that I read and I read a lot, that exchange was the most helpful. Because it's just fun to see two scholars interacting. And so this is something that you really want to pursue. I would encourage you to pick up those articles and look at them. I mean, it's all summarized in the commentary, but if you want to do that. All right. Payne's position is that, um, teaching and exercise authority is a single event and that it's, it's, uh, teaching in a domineering way. And so the prohibition is not so much the act of teaching, but it's the act of teaching poorly. Um, I don't think that he proved his point. I think costume Berger did a better job at arguing and mood did a better job of arguing as to the nature of what order means in Greek. And I think that the exercise authority is the principle. And teaching is one expression of how a person exercises authority. Let me talk about the exercise authority issue. This is the hypoxia. Dominant is the only place that occurs in the Bible. It's often tell. It's a rare, rare word. And I don't know why Paul used such a rare word. But, you know, Jesus says, give us this day our. Blank bread abuse. It doesn't occur anywhere else to an extent. Greek literature. And I want to ask Jesus, Jesus, when you're teaching someone to pray, why don't you use the word that no one ever, ever, ever, ever uses? You know, why would you do that? I'm really curious what his answer is going to be.

 

If I if I care enough about it to ask him when I get there. But I do want to ask Paul, why did you choose such a rare word that it is hard to define? Um. No, it's also intel. No, no. But you expect. Oh, I would expect something like extra CIA or ours or something. That kind of a word that I'm used to. Here's the two basic positions on Often tell. Often tell can mean to simply possess authority. So the to exercise authority over a man evolves into or means the mere possession of authority. Then what Paul is prohibiting is in fact that it's is a woman being in a position that puts her in a position of authority to power over a man slash husband. All right. The other possible meaning of often tell is to dominate near. In other words, it's to not just possess power. But to grasp power to too long for the power to. To use power in a bad way. And so the R is that's what our phantom means. It means that Paul is saying, I don't permit a woman to to exercise authority improperly over a man. Entourage for you. Yeah, that's what the King James is, is. Well, I don't know what Usurp meant 400 years ago, but it's how we read it today. To usurp authority. And that's why if you look at some of the different translations, you can see them struggling with this particular one. In the ESV we went with, I did not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man. What you have in the phrasing, if you go to the new Navy, it's a do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority.

 

Okay, so the Navy is going with the second possible meaning? Um, it's kind of fun to see what some of these other folks come up with. Eight CSB was a Southern Baptist one. Yeah. Have authority on what the penalty does have. To have authority. Okay. So most of the translations are actually done with the NRIs. V does. That would be the other one? That'll be interesting to watch. Do I? Uh, I don't. I don't. I don't have to. They want to have to. The Navy is have authority. That's that's very interesting. That puts the Navy out there by itself. These are those translations. But that's that's the dividing factor is, is Paul prohibiting the possession of institutional authority or is it the past or is it the wrongful exercise of authority? So, yeah, you have the same whole range of questions. Why would Paul prohibit a woman to domineering and not people, the domineering? I mean, anyone who exercises authority in a coercive way should be stopped, right? Um, anyway, there's, there's ongoing discussions. The article by I think this one was, um, the costa merga and with the references in the commentary. Uh, there's, it's, it's, it's laborious reading, but yeah, it was custom merger that, that argued that I think very convincingly that our central means the possession of authority not how you work out your authority. I think it fits the context better and I think it's what the word means but I can't go through the argument here would be, um, be way too long. So it appears to be, at least to me, what Paul is saying is that I it is my rule that women in general are not allowed to teach the gospel. And I would say in a in a manner in which they're saying this is what we believe.

 

This is the church's official position. I think the implicit contrast here is between the women in general and the elders. It's not men in general. It's the elders. And the elders are called to be the teke to lead the church by teaching. They're the ones that are declared, thus believes the church, so to speak. And that is the role that is left for the elders. And the Fijian women were trying to, um, to do that. And Paul was saying that they couldn't. I don't permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man. This is this is the hard one. This. This is a hard one. Who is the man? Is it? Every man. Any man. Is it husband? Or is it? And think this is one of those places where I mean. I was nervous when I wrote this part because I kind of felt like I was being more interpretive than I wanted to be. But the conclusion I came to was that this authority over a man is the same thing as the submissiveness, that they're parallel to each other. And so the issue is who's running the church? And so the man here becomes the elder in my interpretation. It's been a lot easier. If Paul had said Elder, it would. It would have removed a whole lot of the problems in interpreting the passage. Um, but as it is, you have all kinds of problems with the application of this truth. Okay. How old does the boy have to be to become a man? Sunday school teachers, youth group, adult ministries. You know, I mean, it it doesn't it makes the application of this passage difficult. And so I was a little nervous about doing this. But the conclusion I came to is that even though it says, man, that contextually Paul is thinking of the male elders.

 

Paul when he's speaking institutionally, when he's thinking about the church gathered, when he's talking about the leadership issues of the church, that Paul wants the men to be, the leaders in the church, not the women. That seems to be the general, I think I would say general rule, because there are so many things that only women can do that men can do. There's so many things that women should be doing in the church. But when it comes to the final, this is what we believe. This is the official doctrine of the church. This is what all people in the church, men and women together have to submit to. I think that's the function of the elders. That's this. That's how I put all the pieces together. Okay, before we get on, let me just stop and say any comments or questions or one question. You walk back and I noticed that comment in your commentary about that said the player for her or for the digital woman. And I think about when I read that about Luke 1038. What's that? Mary and Marco. Oh, yeah. So I heard some. Some compared to the fact that they can go out there and teach a lesson now. Yeah. Yeah. Jesus and Paul aren't. I mean, they're so often viewed in our culture as incredibly restrictive, and they were very revolutionary. They were. They were not status quo people. I mean, they disrupted so many things. Eating with tax collectors, the singers, sinners, singers, sinners. And is there a difference between that two? Yes. But Jesus's willingness to associate with women in a culture that really firmly divided the genders was absolutely revolutionary. We bought a bought a Honda the other day that was 100. We bought a car from for my daughter to go to school.

 

And it was it was from a muslim husband and wife and he was the head of radiology in this hospital. And she taught Islamic women's studies at a university in, um, in Oregon. Fascinating people to talk to. And, and we had a lot of interesting interchange when I first met her. She moved her hand, something like this. And I thought she was wanted to shake my hand. And I'm old enough to know that women that men can extend hands to men. But men don't extend this. I was taught men don't extend hands to women unless the woman extends the hand. I don't know. That's how I was raised. So when I saw this hand moving, I thought she wanted it to shake. And I extend my hand. Man, did her hand pull back in a hurry? And I looked at it and she explained that in their area Muslim philosophy that this is part of the separation of the genders. And I really like that. I don't like hugging other women. I'm married. I'm really tired of this thing in the church where if you don't hug every woman you see, you're somehow viewed as being mean. And I try to teach my sons especially. I don't know why I'd be my son's. That that you shake the handshake means something. And every time I shake one of my son's hands, he can look at them like, What is wrong with you? And he gives me a hug. But I'm getting off track here. The the Muslim culture has what I think to be a pretty healthy separation of the genders of the sexes. And I think it's much more indicative of what this culture was like. So for Jesus to associate with the women, to to teach the women to let them care for his needs.

 

I mean, this stuff should stand out as just really, really, really revolutionary. And. Valuing a downtrodden part of society that that day and age or they were just objects. So I don't know how I got off on that. Um, anyway. Yeah, I've no idea how I got off and that I watched the video. Yeah. It's my understanding most will take this to show the whole. Role of the ownership teaching and. So he's saying women can't be donors? Well, I mean, that's that's the interpretive position you have. You got to make up your mind on that. The church, the Pauline Church is clearly had elders. The elders had to be able to teach. And I think they led by teaching. I don't think the church was led by administrators. It certainly wasn't led by businessmen. The church was led by teachers. And so you have the that's the basic structure of the I won't say power structure, but, you know, I mean, as the basic power structure of the church that there are elders, the people had to submit to them, had to respect them, had to make their job a joy. And the elders likewise had to lead by teaching. That's how they led the flock. And so and that's why it's what is the context of this passage? Is it just broad stroke, any kind of teaching in any kind of content? I don't think so. I think it's the churches together. The church is saying this is what we believe. That is the function of elders. And based on this passage, the elders would be males. Okay. We'll get us we'll plod on through and get through these other versus if we if we get through first Timothy two by lunch, that'd be great.

 

We'll be able to handle the three in the afternoon. Paul, after having said this goes diverse 13 and he gives and then your phrasing is marked reason one and reason two we're going to talk about whether verse 14 actually is the reason or not, but I think it's very clear that verse 13 is a reason for this. The reason for this rule is Adam was formed first, then Eve. This is if verse four, if verse 13 were not here, I would probably be an egalitarian. I think this is this is that important of reverse? And is that determinative of a verse? It's I just think it is. I was thinking about this in relation to Jesus to talk about. Marriage and divorce. He goes all the way back to the beginning. Right back to basics. Yeah. St Paul Yep, yep. And what Paul is basically doing is the way it's generally stated is that Paul is grounding his argument in creation and he's saying part of being. Well, yeah, the egalitarian position sometimes we want tried well will not view verse 13 as a reason. They'll view it as an illustration of what happens in emphasis when you don't have male headship, which does not translate into our culture. I mean, that that would be the standard. That would be the way in which an egalitarian would handle the passage. But let's let's look at it and I'll leave those things out for you. The question is, what is for me? What is for me? The most basic function of GA in Greek is called its elliptic views. So you'll see this word used in the commentaries. I L'attivita of the elective use of GA is to give a reason. I mean, that's by default.

 

That's what this word means for. I've made a statement. Now I'm going to give you the reason for that statement, for there is a very rare use of GA to elicit to introduce an illustration. So it would be let me tell you something and then let me illustrate something about it. And so that's why I was saying there are people that will say that this GA is not emotive, it's simply introducing an illustration. And the idea is in Ephesus, when the women tried to assume positions of authority and teaching in the Effusion Church in the first century. That the kinds of turmoil that resulted. Are illustrated by the mess in Genesis three. I don't think you can make that argument in verse 13. The the nonselective function of GA is so rare that there needs to be something in the context that says I'm not introducing a reason, I'm introducing an illustration. And in fact, again, the substantive commentary that every single time in the New Testament when you have an imperative or an imperative idea, like let a woman learn, let a woman, you know, whatever, when is followed by GAAR, the GAAR always gives the reason. So you're going to have to have some pretty strong contextual reason to see verse 13 as something other than the reason for verses 11 and 12. So I think think verse 13 has to be a reason. In fact, I, when you read the discussions of how verse 13 illustrates the kinds of things that happen in emphasis when there's not male headship, I just don't see how Genesis two actually illustrates anything. It just it just does. It doesn't follow. Yes. Okay. What Paul is doing is saying, this is my position on how the church is run.

 

Because of what I know from Genesis two. That's what's going on here. And here's the here's the interesting linkage. The normal Greek word for create is did. So it's what you have in Genesis one. It's just a sign of the fact. It's the default word for formed for created. Okay. Paul uses a somewhat unusual verb as Plosser. And the question is why Plosser? And the answer is that's the verb used in the Septuagint of Genesis two. In other words, he's using an unusual word for formed or created because he wants you to go to Genesis to. And in the formation of atoms and in the formation of Eve. He does want you go to Genesis one. That's not what he's thinking about. He wants you to go to Genesis two. And so he chooses the verb out of the Septuagint of Genesis two to do that. And so what he's doing is he's referring back to the whole thing that we know verse 18 than the Lord God said, It is not good that a man should be alone. I will make a helper fit for him. So out of the ground, the Lord God formed every beast of the field and brought them to Adam to see what he would name them. He named them. But in the process of naming the animals, obviously what God's doing is saying, None of these are your helper. None of these are are fit for you, right, man And giraffe doesn't go together. Okay, that's clear. So the Lord God caused the deep sleep to fall on the man. And while he slept, he took one of the man's ribs, closed up his place with flesh and the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man.

 

In the words Eve was created from the man, not from the ground. He was made into a woman and brought her to the man. And then the man said, It is a great expression, your whole bone on my bones and flesh of my flesh. Finally, some want to share my life with. I don't want to share my life intimately with lions and tigers and bears all my. Finally, some one that's made for me. I imagine Adam was very relieved at that point. So it's that whole story that Paul is referring to. And he's and he so he says Adam was formed first then Eve and that whole story in Genesis two and how Eve was created from Adam and for Adam and, and everything that goes on in Genesis two is the argument as to why he has male headship in the official structures of the church versus 11 and 12. Men and women are both created equally in God's image, something that our misogynist culture for years has refused to acknowledge. Equally valuable different roles he was created for. Adam Moses writes. And I think that the differences goes far beyond just bearing children. There's there's men and women are so radically different. It doesn't amuse me. But in one sense it does. When people try to say that men and women are so identical and and it's such a such defiance of everything we are learning about biology men, Did you know that your brain cells are thicker than women's brain cells? So when your wife says you're bullheaded, you are. I mean, and the women have more synaptic connections between the left and the right hemispheres of their brains. That's why they can they can multitask so much better than we can.

 

They just have the ability to communicate in ways that we don't. I mean, I mean, just these differences just go on and on and on and on. And I've got friends who are scientists and they're always filling me in on this stuff. But in the language of Moses, um, Eve was created as a, quote, helper fit for him. And that whole scenario is worked itself out in the Fusion Church with male headship. Now, what is Paul not saying and this is is really important. Number one, Paul is not arguing. Primacy based on the order of creation. He is not saying whatever was first is more important than what is second. Paul Jewett was the full professor that that really headed up evangelical. The movement, I think, of evangelical feminism. And I think it's fair to call that. You can be you can be an evangelical and you can be a feminist. It's not. Those are not mutually exclusive terms. And Paul Jewett was my systematics Prophet. Fuller is a phenomenal teacher, unbelievable teacher. But he wrote his book, Man is Male and Female. And in his argument in his book, he just says, Paul's wrong. And is the way in which he argues it is. He says if Paul's argument is right, then the animals are more important than Adam. The ground is more important than animals. If whatever is created first is more important or more of a power, a position of authority than what is created. Second, and the fact of the matter is that simply, with all due respect to Professor Jewett, um, and I do mean that that is not what Paul is saying. He's not saying whatever is first is primarily what is second. He was saying, look at the story in Genesis two.

 

Adam was created. Eve was then created from him for him. And that should tell us something. So there is no broad stroke teaching on on primacy creation. The fact of the matter is, in Genesis one. We are created as the apex of creation. And so the final act of creation is more significant than the initial ones, right? We are not primordial scum that washed up on the beach somewhere. We are created intentionally with purpose as the apex of God's creation, the only part of creation that has the ability to image him to one another and to image him back up to him. We're the only ones that are capable of living in communion with God. We are the apex of creation. And so the message of Genesis one is that which is created last is the most significant. But in Genesis two, there's something totally different going on. You're saying that the first. First. It's. I mean, it's just kind of a. Barbie plays. And this is what Paul does all the time when he when he quotes the Old Testament. He expects you to know the whole context of it. You get into Romans four and there's there's quotations from David in there and at first glance didn't make any sense. Then when you read the thing about David in context, you go, Oh, that's what's going on. And Paul expected this people to knew the whole story. And I think the same way here he's used plots. So the poor people, if he just talked about creation, be confusing. But he chooses the rare verb that is used in Genesis two to pull people's attention to the whole story of Genesis two and what Genesis two teaches us. Um, I don't know if I'd call it metonymy, but it's.

 

It is. It is a part for the whole. Yes, in that sense. Yeah. Kelvin, just so she says that it's not like John the Baptist is great. Jesus. Yeah. The relationship. He was created specifically to be a helper for him. Right. Right. And so, yeah, John the Baptist was. I never thought of it that way. Which was the help of Jesus. Yeah. You just had to get Calvin into the discussion. I think we know about this. Um, yeah. So it's. Maybe that that's number one. A second thing that is said about this verse is that the hot, the real and they would say the underlying. I think it's a very what I'm trying to be really fair in how I say things. So if I say something that sounds like I'm not adequately describing the other positions, let me know and I'll try to fix it. There is a lot written that the underlying thing going on here is everything is due to Eve's lack of education. And so the issue is not something about maleness and femaleness. It is that there is that there is a you know, Adam was formed first. He was the one that was educated by God. He was the one that was taught. And Eve wasn't. And the the the the project re trajectory of the argument is that if if women are taught, then none of the restrictions in 1112 are going to apply to them. And so just the the argument is that a lot of a lot of what's going on here is due to the lack of education. The assumption is that Adam was not that Eve was not taught. I would say, um, well, first of all, it's not what the tech says. But secondly, I think Eve clearly was taught.

 

When the snake came to her, when Satan came to her, she even though she added to it. She clearly had been taught that she was not to eat of the tree. So. That Eve was taught and that again, the ideas that of the vision women would be taught, that none of this would apply to them. Well, it doesn't work with Adam and Eve. Eve had been taught. Adam had to have totter or God had to. We just we don't know. We're not told. A third thing that is that is often said about verse four, about verse 13. Is that the reason that Paul puts verse 13 is not because he really. Not because he really believes it at a deep, universal, abiding level, but rather he just said, you know, if we have a bunch of women teaching in the church is going to cause this culture so much offense that they won't listen to the gospel. And so this is just some kind of temporary argument that Paul puts in place because of cultural mores. Not a fair way to say it. Right. And the comparison is often made to slavery. And Paul's a what appears to be his tacit acceptance of slavery. If Paul had preached against slavery, it would have greatly endangered the spirit of the Gospel. A third of the Roman Empire were slaves. And if you start saying that slavery is inherently evil, then you would you would have such ramifications that the gospel would no longer spread. And so a comparison with slavery is made. And I guess I would have to reactions. One is that Paul doesn't tacitly accept slavery. He plants the germs. And eventually the full statement and finally even further abolition of slavery. And so he obviously he wasn't that concerned about the social cultures of the day.

 

His focus was on evangelism. His focus was on discipleship. His focus wasn't on changing social structures. That doesn't mean he liked it and it doesn't mean that he said things that eventually helped Wilbur Wilberforce, among other people, get rid of, of, at least at some level, the slave trade. Slave trade. So I don't accept the parallel with slavery because I think slavery is wrong, and I think the Bible says it's wrong. But I guess I would also say to people who say, well, Paul was just afraid of offending people. I say, I don't think Paul was afraid of offending people. I mean, I really don't. Jesus wasn't afraid of offending people. And the gospel spread just fine. Thank you very much. I think this idea of doing things because it might bring offense is you've got to be really, really careful with that argument. Certainly, you got Paul Romans 13, you know, saying, you know, respect the governing authorities, respect nearly of Jesus, saying give to Caesar what is Caesar and then give to God what is God's? So, I mean, you have some deference to social customs and mores and things like that. But if if if if it's simply if women and men are supposed to have exactly equal roles, I can't imagine Paul saying, well, I don't want to offend anyone, so I'm not going to say it. I just I just don't think that's Paul. So I see verse 13 as Paul grounding his reason. In creation, I should also add. Um, there's a lot in the literature about needing to get back to the pre-fall condition. If you've heard this, a lot of people are saying that the concept of authority, if you've read The Shack, you've got a really good dose of this.

 

And I like the shack, by the way. I, I love God being portrayed as a black woman. I just think it's a it's a wonderful image. And God is neither male or female. I don't I don't I'm in trouble with black women as an image for God. But Paul Young did have that entire chapter on the complete lack of any kind of authority within the Godhead. Did you did you read that? How many of you read the check? It's very interesting. I'd really encourage you to read it. It is the story of the lavish love of God. And there'll be things that you don't like in it. Like there are things that my commentary you don't like, that you don't read books that you like 100%. And Paul Young, It's not a universalist. I've heard him say it repeatedly in print, on the radio. He is not a universalist. He he believes in a heaven and hell. He doesn't believe that everyone's gone to heaven. I don't. Yeah. Going to heaven. I mean, these are charges that are made against him. And there are people that don't like the fact that he wrote only on the love of God and not on the wrath of God. And you. I mean, I've been in theological debates where. So you can't talk about the love of God without talking about the wrath of God. Phooey. Of course I could talk about the love of God. There's nothing wrong in that. But anyway, he is a there. There are completely getting off track. You. What was I saying? So I went and got a000, yeah. And so the idea is that the relationships of authority between husbands and wives and men and women is the result of the fall.

 

And all in all, authority is inherently evil. Right. I mean, that's that's core and feminism. All authority is inherently evil. And so what we have to do is push back through the fall to the pre-fall condition. The problem with the argument is. Genesis two comes before Genesis three. But whatever you want to do with Genesis two, it happened in creation as part of God's design before the fall. And it's such an easy argument. I'm not really quite sure why. Very bright, intelligent people argue that we have to get past the fall to where there is no authority structures when there I think are authority structures in Genesis two. Every time I go back to Genesis one. Male and female. Male and female. We created them. But I mean you. But that that would mean that one and two are contradictory. And one in Genesis one and two just have different purposes. I don't I don't I don't think you can make them contradictory, but yeah. Anyway, so this is Paul grounding his argument and creation. And did I mention it was a you I mentioned that my favorite time in grad school was the arguing I had with Darrell and Craig on Thursday afternoons. And this is something that came up and part of the discussion and, and it was this is what I heard over and over again build. This is grounded in creation. This isn't a temporary thing. This is how God built things. And they convinced me. They convinced me at that point. So I think verse 13 is very important. Uh, we you've got to raise the question though, is verse 13 cultural? Is this whole argumentation cultural? I've been talking a bit about that. And again, let me stress, there are very good people that say this is cultural.

 

I don't agree with them, but I've learned to respect them. I respect Gordon to the highest. There have been other people that I've worked with, that I've talked with, that I've argued with that has read the commentary before it went to the printer to, you know, in my representing your positions fairly, all this kind of stuff. There are there are good evangelicals that I respect and that I care for that say, no, this is totally cultural. I just can't get past verse 13 and I don't want to get past verse 13. I believe God created this differently. He created two different roles. The gender differences are not due to sin. I do not believe that androgynous beings are God's ultimate design, and I think the gender differences are woven into the very fabric of creation. And those gender differences are to be reflected in our marriages. They are to be reflected in how we run our church. I will tell you that if I ever change my mind, this is this is what I would do. There are some people that say that even in first century Ephesus, that Paul wasn't really prohibited limiting the role of women. I just don't. I just. I just can't get there. I just. In first century emphasis, it has to be a limitation of roles. I just can't read the text any other way. But I think Gordon feels position where he says everything is ad hoc, meaning everything in the past rules. Is that the superstructure is that it is a reflection of the problems in emphasis. And once those problems are gone, the teaching doesn't apply in other contexts. If I were to ever change my mind, I think I would go that direction. Partly out of my love for Gordon, but also, um, it's just the only way I could move away from what I think the text says.

 

What keeps me from thinking that what applied in emphasis doesn't apply to us now is verse 13. And Paul doesn't list cultural reasons. He lists creative reasons in creation. And so that's there. Now, having said that, though, I want to read you a couple of things, because we're all guys here, and it's really hard to understand women from women's standpoint, isn't it? I mean, and this is it's really important that we do understand our wives and our daughters and the women in our churches because they come from a different kind of context. We were raised, many of us in in cultures that really viewed women as second class citizens. And so it is not a surprise to me at all that so many women are so angry. I think if I were raised, if I were female, I'd probably be mad, too. This is housekeeping monthly. All right. This is 1955. So this is two years after I was born. So it's 58 years ago. This was the Good Wife Guide. All right. You're not going to believe what I'm about to read, but it's it's a Xerox out of the magazine. This was what was being taught. This is what it took to be a good wife. Have dinner ready. Plan ahead. Um. Prepare yourself for your husband coming home. Take 15 minutes to rest so you'll be refreshed when he arrives. Be a little gay and a little more interested in him. Clear away the clutter. One last trip through the main part of the house just before your husband comes home from work. Gather up all the schoolbooks and clean up the house. Over the cooler months of the year, you should prepare and light a fire for him to unwind by.

 

Your husband will feel free as he has reached a haven or rests, cater for his comfort and it will give you intense personal satisfaction. Ha ha ha ha. No. Show sincerity in your desire to please him. Well, yeah, by itself. That's true. And I should show sincerity to please Robin as well. Remember, his topics of conversation are more important than yours. No, no, no, no. Never complain if he comes home late or goes out to dinner or other places of entertainment without you. Instead. Understand? Don't complain if he's late home for dinner or even if he stays out all night. Now you are again being recorded. You do know that that Mike is turned on in the middle of the river to have a cool or warm drink ready for him. Don't ask him questions about his actions or question his judgment. You have no right to question him. And the final statement is a good wife always knows her place to. I did it for her. Yeah. That is the culture that our wives were raised in. It is a culture that says women are not as important as men. Their daughters are not as important as sons. I show my bias on something. The Suns go out and play. The girls are only good to cheer their brothers on. I despise the concept of cheerleaders. I'm sorry. It's just. It's. It is. I'm a man, and that's demeaning to me for women. Um, uh, it's so, it's so hard to remember men. The culture that has formed that our wives and our daughters grew up in. But my daughters, Kirsten, my daughters, Kirsten, she's 23 now. And as I told you, she's a grad student of the University of Oregon and church history.

 

If you want to hire someone with a master's in church history, let me know. As far as I know, there are no jobs in church history. But I always told my kids, You go to college, you learn to think. You worry about jobs later. And they believe me anyway. Gwen Kirsten, We're a pretty conservative home. My wife is especially conservative. Um, we we had TV, but we didn't watch much of it. We homeschool, so there was quite a bit of control that Robin had over the kids. Uh, they absolutely love being homeschooled, and my son's never had a bee in his life. So this whole myth of homeschool kids are not as bright or not as social. They really need to meet my two kids because they're brilliant out of their minds and they're just people magnets. Anyway, um, but what I'm trying to say is that we really put our arms around our kids very carefully. All right? No feminist influences, that kind of stuff. Walked into Kirsten's room, and I think she was six years old and her bulletin board, she had Xeroxed a Bible verse and it was out of the ESV. So it had a he and she had crossed out he and put her. And pinned it up on her bulletin board. So, Robin, what do you teach our daughters? You know, and I just said, you know, do you know anything about this? Robyn goes, No, I've never seen it before in my life. So we talked to Kirsten later on, say, okay, I saw it. We call her cake. The cake. I saw your, your thing on your bulletin board about the verse. Yeah. It's a neat verse isn't it, Daddy. And I go, Yeah, that's a good verse.

 

I noticed that you. You crossed out to him and put out her. No. And I said. Did you feel that you were left out because it said him or not her and and her? I'll never forget the look on her face. It was. Well, of course. How else would I read it? I mean, the verse reads like it's written to my big brother. It's not written to me. And I. I think it's written to me. It applies to me, too, Daddy, doesn't it? And I go, Yes, sweetie, it does apply to you as well. So here's a girl who's protected with no very little outside influence that sees the male oriented language. And she thinks that she's left out. It's why I'm on the Navy. That was why that was kind of the thing that pushed me onto the Navy, is that I wanted a Bible for Kiersten, but one that was true to the Greek and true to the Hebrew, but one that she wouldn't have to be crossing words out before she pinned them up. Honorable Board. So I just say this to say, guys, we need to understand the women are have such a totally, radically different set of pressures on them. Now, men are getting a different set of pressures, aren't they? We have a rule in our house called Dumb Male Lads, and that I mean, males are stupid in ads now, aren't they? I mean, it used to be the women were stupid. Now the men are stupid. And so we just have this ongoing list of how many dumb male led ads that portray men as stupid that that we can possibly see. And I saw the statistics the other day. Um. Ten times more men than women are arrested for drunkenness.

 

83% of serious crimes in America are committed by men. 25 times more men than women are in jail. The SAT scores of men over the last about ten years have dropped 400 points. There are now more women in grad school than there are men because our culture has decided to flip flop and to punish men for being males. So our boys are growing up in a totally different culture where we're viewed as the enemy and the stupid, and we the kind of thing and the women are the are the smart ones that really should be running the homes. So this is just the force of culture on us. So what I'm asking you is that for those of you that are complimentary and like I am, please understand the incredible cultural forces that are worked on our wives and our children and that are seeking to define them as second class citizens.