For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.

Since Witherington started all this mess, I’ll let him comment first:

nothing is said here [in 1 Tim 3] about women being subordinate to men. What vs. 11 speaks about is learning quietly and so being in submission to the teaching and what is being required of the listener. One can say much the same about 1 Cor. 14.33b-36. Nothing is said there about women submitting to men. Scholars have often pondered what in the world Paul is referring to in 1 Cor. 14.34 when he says women are to be silent as even the Law says’. Where exactly does the OT law say that? The answer is nowhere. But what is said in various places is that everyone in worship should be silent in the presence of those who are speaking the Word of God, which is clearly the context in this Corinthians passage— “let all mortal flesh keep silence. The Lord is in his holy temple and will speak”. This is actually a sort of exhortation that was common in all kinds of ancient worship, including the pagan worship many Corinthians had been previously part of. For example, the priest would cry out ’silence’ (tacit) as the sacrifice was about to be offered and the blood would be poured out and prayers would go up. In short, 1 Tim. 2 is talking about silence and submission in the presence of authoritative teaching and teachers. One can understand why high status Gentile women in Ephesus might think they could immediately teach in their new chosen religion: 1) women were frequently priestesses and prophetesses in the religion they had come from; 2) if one already had an education, including some education in public speaking (rhetoric) one assumed that one was equipped to go ahead and speak or even teach, especially teach those less literate and of lesser social status. Notice that Paul has restricted what these women are to wear in worship. Clearly enough, he is correcting high status women who actually had fine clothes and jewels to wear, and could come to worship with high coiffed hair. It is these sorts of women he has in mind in 1 Tim. 2

I’d imagine that you’d next ask about the following verse in 1 Cor 14, verse 35: “If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”

I’d say in the context that Witherington has developed that this text is not referring to teaching by a qualified (i.e., trained and mature) woman. To do so is to read “formal teaching” into “speak.” Since the context is orderly worship, I think it more likely that Paul was addressing a specific situation in Corinth: women (perhaps the same kind of women of high status as in Ephesus) who are being disruptive in public worship by thinking they have the right to “chat” about what is being taught while the service is going on.

Cynthia, I thought your point about the implication of such ideas for the application of redemption to women was excellent.

the use of the example from Genesis presupposes that Timothy knows his Bible. In particular he knows the following— that in the original creation story, only Adam is alive when the instruction is given not to eat of the tree. Early Jewish teachers then assumed that this meant Adam had taught Eve about the ban, but clearly enough he had not instructed her well enough, since she goes on to say to the snake that they were not even to touch the fruit. It is interesting that the verb deceived here is used elsewhere in Paul to once again refer to this story (see 2 Cor. 11.3). What does ‘deceived’ mean here? It is not a comment about the woman’s nature or naivete, but rather about her lack of adequate teaching. A person not properly instructed is much more easily deceived. Such was the case with Eve, and so, Paul implies in 1 Tim. 2 such is the case with these high status women who are new converts, but who think they can immediately instruct others including men

And he does address the singular/plural mismatch, something that many modern English translations just gloss over:

The phrase in question says ‘the childbearing’ referring to a particular one, and there is the odd toggling in the Greek between the singular childbearing and the ‘they’ who are saved through this. Last I checked multiple women cannot give birth to a single child. This means Paul is referring to a particular childbearing– namely the birth of Jesus through Mary. Mary is seen as Eve in reverse. Just as Eve disobeyed and the fall ensued, Mary consented to God’s plan and salvation came through her into our world. The curse on us all, including the curse on women was reversed in Mary. I would add that we must remember that the original curse involved these words— ‘your desire will be for your husband and he will Lord it over you’. To love and to cherish has been twisted into to desire and to dominate. In other words, both lust and the domineering of men over women are a result of the fall, which Jesus, coming through Mary came to reverse!

My other observation/question is the singular “she” and plural “they” in verse 15 — why aren’t those subjects the same number?? Does W. address this is his exegesis? I am definitely intrigued by the idea of “THE Childbearing” as an interpretation to that bizzare verse.

Last semester we had a panel discussion in my ministerial formation class. The idea was for people in leadership of church and parachurch ministries to share their experiences with us. I was told that one pastor would not participate if there was a woman on the panel because she would be “teaching” ministerial candidates!

In response to your assertion of eisegesis; yes, of course, an end to a temporary ban is not in that text. However, in a follow-up comment on his own post, Ben Witherington gives several examples in the New Testament text that he thinks demonstrate that women teaching in the church was not abnormal. I’ll quote him here:

1) [Paul supports] women praying and prophesying in church (1 Cor. 11). We need to understand that in Paul’s world preaching was not somehow seen as a more authoritative role than prophesying. In fact, Paul says very little about preaching per se as a gift one is called to. One could talk about being called to be an evangelist in Ephes. 4, but that is not preaching to the choir— so to speak. The prophetic office clearly involved Christian women in Paul’s day and it clearly involved proclaiming the Word of God directly to some group. It does not make sense that it was o.k. for women to do this, but not to exposit texts; 2) Acts 18 is clear enough about Priscilla and Aquila instructing Apollos. The issue of the venue of this teaching is unimportant. There were no church buildings in the first century anyway, and worship and Christian teaching took place in homes, in the streets, in rented halls and so on; 3) Even more to the point it is not up to us to decide who gets which spiritual gift or grace-filled task. 1 Cor. 12 is perfectly clear that the Spirit decides who gets which gift, and nothing is said about the Spirit preferring men for some of them. The issue then becomes is there evidence that this particular person is called and gifted for this or that form of ministry; 4) if you look carefully at Phil. 4 you will see Paul correcting two women who are his co-workers. The term co-worker here and elsewhere refers to co-worker in ministry. It is not clear what sort of ministry in this case, but Paul would not be correcting them in a public letter if it were not something of importance, and the implication at a minimum is that they are some kind of leaders, setting a bad example, in that church.

You can still claim that Witherington is arguing from silence (there is no text saying, “Now when women teach…”), but it is proper to argue from probabilities, and at this point I think the citations he gave above offer a reasonable probability that there were situations in which women taught men.

However, Witherington continues…and here I think he does get on to very thin ice.

4) Romans 16 is equally clear that women can be both deaconesses, patrons, and also apostles– see Eldon Epp’s new book on Junia. To be an apostle, in Paul’s view, meant one had seen the risen Lord, and was meant to proclaim and share about it; 5) 1 Timothy 3 refers to men as overseers and to women as deaconesses along with the men deacons. Why no women overseers here? That has been explained in 1 Timothy 2– they need to be trained first. Notice 1 Tim. 2.6 is specific that the person in question is not to be a new convert.

The whole “Junia” question has been around for a long time. I would have to see Epp’s book to be convinced that he has resolved an issue that no one’s been sure about for centuries. But the real weakness I wanted to address is point #5 (actually should be 6, but who’s counting?). This is indeed a leap: we are to assume that only women were untrained and immature in both the Ephesian church and Timothy’s church. That seems a big stretch to believe. Women were only left out from Paul’s list of elder qualifications because…only women were “untrained”? So I’ll grant you that one.

However, I think Witherington’s original argument is still worth considering if we allow that there were teachers other than elders…unless you believe the first Christian churches were all members of the OPC!

Setting aside the question of whether women may be pastors/elders, which is not what is in dispute in this passage, I’ve long suspected that the prohibition against women teaching men, even mature, competent Christian women, was based in weak exegetical arguments. This passage is a case where translation is critical, and it may be that most of our modern translations are based on ecclesiological presumptions.

I’d like to see any strong counter-arguments to Witherington. I’ll be monitoring his post for comments and will report here if anyone comes up with something.