The following is a unedited draft of Chapter 10 from my first book
"When Dogmas Die - The Return of Biblical Equality"
Douglas Moo recognizes the presence of false teaching in Ephesus in his essay What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?
Many interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 rely heavily on the nature of this false teaching at Ephesus in explaining what Paul means in these verses. There is nothing wrong with this in principle; good exegesis always takes into consideration the larger context in which a text appears. However, Paul tells us remarkably little about the specifics of this false teaching, presumably because he knows that Timothy is well acquainted with the problem. This means that we cannot be at all sure about the precise nature of this false teaching and particularly, about is impact on the women in the church – witness the many, often contradictory, scholarly reconstructions of this false teaching. But this means that we must be very careful about allowing any specific reconstruction – tentative and uncertain as it must be – to play too large a role in our exegesis. [1]
Yet, despite his caution, Moo believes the false teacher’s were “encouraging women to discard what we might call traditional female roles in favor of a more egalitarian approach,” and that by encouraging abstinence from marriage they were tearing down traditional female roles. The emphasis on “the traditional female role” found in complementarism is a product of Protestant theology with its rejection of monasticism and emphasis on domesticity, wherefore it is unlikely that the false teachers were attempting to subvert a role which did not exist until the sixteenth century. In addition, Paul encouraged celibacy in his letter to the Corinthians,[2] although he by no means rejected marriage, for he encouraged the younger widows to marry (1 Tim 5:11-15) in accordance with 1 Corinthians 7:9.
We know more about the false teachers than Moo allows for. In Revelations 2:1-8, in the letter directed to the Ephesians, Christ commended the believers for having tested “those who say they are apostles and are not,” and for hating “the deeds of the Nicolaitans,”[3] a Christian Gnostic group of the first century. Irenaeus mentioned the group in Against Heresies.
John, the disciple of the Lord, preaches this faith, and seeks, by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that “knowledge” falsely so called, that he might confound them, and persuade them that there is but one God, who made all things by His Word.[4]
According to Irenaeus, the Nicolaitans had existed for a long time before John wrote his gospel, which would place them in Ephesus in the middle of the first century – the decades of Paul’s missionary activities.
Paul called Gnosticism “knowledge falsely called” (pseudonumos gnosis) in 1 Timothy 6:20. The ones who professed the “knowledge falsely called” had strayed from the faith (1 Tim. 6:21) and having strayed, had turned to idle talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, not understanding the things they were saying and constantly affirming (1 Tim. 1:6-7). Paul warned Timothy, whom he had left in Ephesus, to avoid their profane and opposing arguments and to guard the Gospel which had been entrusted to him.
By the time John wrote the Revelation, the Ephesians had exposed the false apostles and were commended by the apostle for hating their deeds. But the Nicolaitans were not found only in Ephesus. Ignatius, the disciple of John the Apostle, exhorted the Christians in Tralles, a city nearby Ephesus, to flee from “the impure Nicolaitans, falsely so called, who are lovers of pleasure and given to calumnious speeches.”[5] He warned also the Philadelphians about the Nicolaitans who considered unlawful unions to be “a good thing” and placed the “highest happiness in pleasure.”[6] Ignatius did not believe Nicolaus, one of the first deacons (Acts 6:3-5), was the originator of the group, but Hippolytus wrote that Nicolaus “departed from correct doctrine and was in the habit of inculcating indifferency [sic] of both life and food,” and that he was the “cause of the wide-spread combination” of the numerous Gnostic sects.[7] Also pseudo-Tertullian thought Nicolaus was a “brother heretic.”[8] Clement of Alexandria agreed with Ignatius for he wrote that a group of heretics had named themselves Nicolaitans because of his phrase “to abuse the flesh,” which they interpreted to permit fornication, though Nicolaus had meant they should control its impulses.[9]
Tertullian believed the false prophetess in Thyatira had learned from the Nicolaitans, for she taught the believers to commit fornication and eating meats sacrificed to idols.[10] He may have made the connection because of the letter to the church in Pergamum, in which the Nicolaitans were compared to the teachings of Balam, “who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality” (Rev. 2:14-5). According to Tertullian, the Nicolaitans were known for their “maintenance of lust and luxury,”[11] and Fabius Marius Victorinus (Died A.D. 370) added they believed “what had been offered to idols might be exorcised and eaten, and that whoever should have committed fornication might receive peace on the eighth day.”[12]
In Gnosticism, the inner and spiritual man was redeemed by means of knowledge, for the material world, including the body, was believed to have been created through ignorance.[13] The “illuminated” Gnostics believed they were saved regardless of their conduct, because they were spiritual by nature and that which is spiritual cannot be destroyed. Hence, they ate meats offered to idols, and committed fornication - both considered major offenses by the church [14] – for good works and pure living was only necessary for the Christians, who possessed an “animal” nature.[15]
Tertullian provided his readers with a comprehensive list of the Gnostic groups and their beliefs:
Besides all this, I add a review of the doctrines themselves, which, existing as they did in the days of the apostles, were both exposed and denounced by the said apostles. For by this method they will be more easily reprobated, when they are detected to have been even then in existence, or at any rate to have been seedlings of the (tares) which then were. Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, sets his mark on certain who denied and doubted the resurrection. This opinion was the especial property of the Sadducees. A part of it, however, is maintained by Marcion and Apelles and Valentinus, and all other impugners of the resurrection. Writing also to the Galatians, he inveighs against such men as observed and defend circumcision and the (Mosaic) law. Thus runs Hebion’s heresy. Such also as “forbid to marry” he reproaches in his instructions to Timothy. Now, this is the teaching of Marcion and his follower Apelles. (The apostle) directs a similar blow against those who said that “the resurrection was past already.” Such an opinion did the Valentinians assert of themselves. When again he mentions “endless genealogies,” one also recognizes Valentinus, in whose system a certain ¦on, whosoever he be, of a new name, and that not one only, generates of his own grace Sense and Truth; and these in like manner produce of themselves Word and Life, while these again afterwards beget Man and the Church. From these primary eight ten other ¦ons after them spring, and then the twelve others arise with their wonderful names, to complete the mere story of the thirty ¦ons. The same apostle, when disapproving of those who are “in bondage to elements,” points us to some dogma of Hermogenes, who introduces matter as having no beginning, and then compares it with God, who has no beginning. By thus making the mother of the elements a goddess, he has it in his power “to be in bondage” to a being which he puts on a par with God. John, however, in the Apocalypse is charged to chastise those “who eat things sacrificed to idols,” and “who commit fornication.” There are even now another sort of Nicolaitans. Theirs is called the Gaian heresy. But in his epistle he especially designates those as “Antichrists” who “denied that Christ was come in the flesh,” and who refused to think that Jesus was the Son of God. The one dogma Marcion maintained; the other, Hebion. The doctrine, however, of Simon’s sorcery, which inculcated the worship of angels, was itself actually reckoned amongst idolatries and condemned by the Apostle Peter in Simon’s.[16]
Christian Gnosticism developed early and Simon Magus, whom Luke mentions in Acts 8, has been accredited for its creation.[17] Simon was a native of Gitta in Samaria and known for his sorcery and magic.[18] He denied the God of the Old Testament and the prophets, and that God had created the heavens and Earth.[19] He claimed that “he himself was God over all, and that the world was formed by his angles.”[20] Menander, who succeed Simon Magus, claimed to be the Savior who would help mankind gain mastery over the world-creating angels through magic and by being baptized by him, and thus gain perpetual immorality on earth, for he did not believe in the immortality of the soul and the resurrection.[21]
The Gnostics believed that salvation was attained through right knowledge, attainable only for a small elite and therefore a mediator was not needed between humanity and God. Paul reminded Timothy that he was not lying, that God desired all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, for there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:3). Since the heresy in Ephesus involved sexual immorality, and good works were not considered applicable to the Gnostic, Paul exhorted the women in Ephesus to adorn themselves with good works instead of jewelry and expensive clothing (1 Tim. 2:1-10). He warned also Timothy to avoid youthful lusts. Instead, Paul wanted him to ”pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart“ (2 Tim. 2:22-26), for every Christian ought to depart from iniquity (2 Tim. 2:19). In 2 Timothy 3:1-9 Paul mentions women whom the Gnostics had captivated and who were “loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts.” They were always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of truth, for the Gnostic teaching, which Paul called fables and old wives’ tales (1 Tim. 1:4; 4:7) - a term used later by Irenaeus[22] - did not lead to the truth. Paul wanted Timothy to reject the profane old wives’ tales and instruct the believers in the “good doctrine,” which he had carefully followed (4:6-7). Paul wanted him to also be an example to the believers “in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity” (4:12) which the Gnostics had rejected and consequently had “suffered shipwreck”; Paul mentions Hymenaeus and Alexander as examples of such a fate (1:19-20). Tertullian listed also Hymenaues and Philetus (2 Tim. 2:17) as false teachers who had deserted Apostle Paul.[23]
Because the Gnostics believed in salvation through knowledge and because the Nicolaitans were lascivious, Paul wrote, “But shall be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith, love and holiness with sobriety.” In other words, Paul affirmed the gospel: salvation is made available through the birth of Christ, but the believers must also live holy lives (compare with Philippians 2:1). We find the same theme in 1 Timothy 2:15, ”Now the purpose of the commandment [to abstain from false teaching] is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk.”
In 1 Timothy 4:1-5 Paul warned Timothy that in later times some would forbid marriage and command abstinence from foods and these are found in the writings of Marcion, whose Gnosticism Tertullian refuted in his work, Five Books Against Marcion. Tertullian connected Gnosticism also to the “fables and endless genealogies,” which Paul warned believers should not pay attention to.
Let, however, any man approach the subject from a knowledge of the faith which he has otherwise learned, as soon as he finds so many names of ¦ons, so many marriages, so many offsprings, so many exits, so many issues, felicities and infelicities of a dispersed and mutilated Deity, will that man hesitate at once to pronounce that these are “the fables and endless genealogies” which the inspired apostle by anticipation condemned, whilst these seeds of heresy were even then shooting forth? [24]
The most revealing aspect in determining the nature of the false teaching in Ephesus is the Gnostics’ own refusal to accept 1 and 2 Timothy. According to Tertullian, “their vain presumptions must needs refuse to acknowledge the (writings) whereby they are refuted.”[25] Also Clement wrote that, “convicted by this utterance, [1 Tim. 6:20] the heretics reject the Epistles to Timothy.”[26]
In the fourth century, when Gnosticism no longer posed a threat for the church, the “fables and genealogies” became Jewish, perhaps because of Titus 1:14.[27] Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke and Barnes continued the tradition of affirming the Jewish origin of the “fables and genealogies,” but Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown’s Commentary points out that Paul would never call the Jewish genealogies “fables.”[28] Also the twentieth-century Wycliffe Commentary recognized these as Gnostic in origin.
The myths and genealogies were probably Gnostic or proto-Gnostic teachings. Gnosticism had two extremes: asceticism, as in 1 Tim 4:3, and antinomian license, as the context intimates here. Erroneous discourses on law, and Gnostic speculations left plain matters of immorality uncorrected. The dispensation of God (ASV; AV, godly edifying) is the proper issue of sound teaching, and therefore parallels the "love" of verse 5, and the "good warfare" of verse 18. Love is Paul's summary of religious and ethical duty (Rom 13:10; Gal 5:6). The sound teaching brings God's ordering or God's superintendence of the life.[29]
***
Grudem and Piper do not view 1 Timothy 2:12 as “an absolute prohibition of all teaching by women” for “teaching and learning are such broad terms that it is impossible that women not teach men and men not learn from women in some sense.”[30] Schreiner agrees with Grudem and Piper.
“And I think women can proclaim the gospel to men in those [secular] cultures, for 1 Timothy 2:11-15 prohibits only authoritative teaching to a group of Christians within the church, not evangelism to those outside the church. Such proclamation of the gospel is not limited to men. She should clearly explain, however (as man missionary women have done in history), that men should assume leadership roles in the governance and teaching ministry of the church as soon as it is established. … There are also some way in which women can instruct both men and women, in my opinion, if the function of authoritative teaching to men is not involved. Thus, it is appropriate for women who travel as speakers to address a mixed audience as articulate and thoughtful representatives of a feminine perspective of life.[31]
One wonders if Schreiner does not consider unbelieving men to be truly men since women are allowed to teach them regardless of the creation principle. And the question remains also why Luther allowed women to preach in the absence of a qualified man, a principle Weinrich approves of, if the prohibition for women to teach is based on Creation. Not surprisingly, Knight disagrees with Schreiner for he sees the prohibition as an unqualified one which “extends to every situation in the life of the Christian community where these is actual, recognized teaching of the Scriptures and the Christian faith to a group that includes men, e.g., a Sunday School class, a small group meeting, a couples group, etc.”[32] Moo himself adds that in 1 Timothy 2:12-18, the principle cannot be separated from the form of behavior for “a woman to teach a man or to have authority over a man is, by definition, to void the principle for which Paul quotes the creation account.”[33]
Prior to the twofold subjection, Adam’s prior creation did not restrict public teaching only to men. For example, Chrysostom believed that Paul denied women the right to teach because of the Fall.
If it be asked, what has this to do with women of the present day? it shows that the male sex enjoyed the higher honor. Man was first formed; and elsewhere he shows their superiority. “Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” (1 Cor. xi. 9) Why then does he say this? He wishes the man to have the preeminence in every way; both for the reason given above, he means, let him have precedence, and on account of what occurred afterwards. For the woman taught the man once, and made him guilty of disobedience, and wrought our ruin. Therefore because she made a bad use of her power over the man, or rather her equality with him, God made her subject to her husband. “Thy desire shall be to thy husband?” (Gen. iii. 16) This had not been said to her before… The woman taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he saith, let her not teach. But what is it to other women, that she suffered this? It certainly concerns them; for the sex is weak and fickle, and he is speaking of the sex collectively. For he says not Eve, but “the woman,” which is the common name of the whole sex, not her proper name. Was then the whole sex included in the transgression for her fault? As he said of Adam, “After the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come” (Rom. v. 14); so here the female sex transgressed, and not the male. Shall not women then be saved? Yes, by means of children. For it is not of Eve that he says, “If they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.” What faith? what charity? what holiness with sobriety? It is as if he had said, “Ye women, be not cast down, because your sex has incurred blame. God has granted you another opportunity of salvation, by the bringing up of children, so that you are saved, not only by yourselves, but by others.”[34]
Because it seemed irrational that women should earn their salvation through works, and because virginity was so highly valued in the fifth century church, Chrysostom felt compelled to explain the inconsistency, but he could only conclude that “this is the amount of what [Paul] says.”
After Gnosticism was vanquished, 1 Timothy 2 was re-interpreted according to the principle of the sole guilt of Eve, which was believed to be the cause of the woman’s subjection and exclusion from teaching. In 412, Jerome sent a letter to Principia in which he praised the great learning of Marcella.
Consequently after my departure from Rome, in case of a dispute arising as to the testimony of scripture on any subject, recourse was had to her to settle it. And so wise was she and so well did she understand what philosophers call το πρεπον, that is, the becoming, in what she did, that when she answered questions she gave her own opinion not as her own but as from me or some one else, thus admitting that what she taught she had herself learned from others. For she knew that the apostle had said: “I suffer not a woman to teach,” and she would not seem to inflict a wrong upon the male sex many of whom (including sometimes priests) questioned her concerning obscure and doubtful points.[35]
The first-century Christian bishop Clement of Rome wrote that the apostles “preaching through countries and cities… appointed the first-fruits [of theirs labors], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.”[36] Since “first-fruits” signify the first ones to come to faith, and because women were among the first ones to believe, the apostles appointed also women as bishops and deacons.
***
In 1 Timothy 2, the text changes from plural to singular at verse 11, indicating that the subject changes. Paul is writing about a woman, whom he does not permit to teach or authentein andros. Perseus Online Dictionary gives authenteo the meanings “to have full power over” and “to murder.”[37] Hence Paul wrote that he did not permit the absolute rule of the woman in question, for men and women were to work together as equals. It is also not certain that we should connect didasko and authentein andros. It is possible Paul wrote, “The woman in silence let learn with all subjection, and I do not permit [the] woman to teach [in general] nor to rule over the man with absolute power, but to be in silence.”
If the exclusion of women from teaching men is based on the order of creation and is absolute in nature, why did Paul use the word epitrepo (“permit”) which expresses the granting or withholding of a request and is never used of a commandment based on creation?[38] For example, Moses permitted (epitrepo) men to divorce their wives, due to the hardness of their hearts, but Jesus revoked the permission, basing his commandment on the original creation of man and woman (Mark 10:1-12). Also Paul wrote, “Now to the married I command [paraggello], yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband.” (1 Cor. 7:10) As seen in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul distinguished between that which the Lord had commanded and that which he himself judged as a faithful steward (1 Cor. 7:12, 25).
We find epitrepo also in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. The verse connects the withholding of permission to a law, which shows epitrepo needs a corresponding commandment. First Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 are the only contexts where permission is withheld in the New Testament. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 withholds permission for women to speak in the church, but a commandment which forbids female speech in a religious setting is not found in the Old Testament or the Gospels, which strengthens the likelihood of an interpolation or a quote from another source.[39] In 1 Timothy, 1) either Paul is withholding permission as a response to a request, or 2) he is forbidding teaching temporarily, in the same sense Moses permitted divorce. In the latter case, Paul would go against a commandment which allowed women to teach due to a temporary situation; in the former he would be affirming a commandment based on the creation.
Complementarians believe Paul is withholding permission for a woman to teach a man based on the man’s prior creation and the woman’s assumed subjection to the man. The immediate problem with the view is that the man’s prior creation is not used as a foundation to exclude women from teaching men in the Mosaic Law or the Gospels. For example, teachings concerning marriage are found abundantly in both the Old and the New Testament and the woman’s creation from the man is always the foundation for the existence of marriage (Gen. 2:23-25; Mal. 2:14-15; Mark 10:5-12; Eph. 5:30-31). In fact, teaching is not restricted to men in the Gospels or the epistles.
Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men (anthropos) so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 5:19-20)
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen. (Matt. 28:18-20)
Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; or ministry, let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching; he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness. (Rom. 12:6-8)
And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men (anthropos) who will be able to teach others also. (2. Tim 2:2)
For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. (Heb. 5:12)
Paul wrote to Timothy, “As I urged you when I went into Macedonia--remain in Ephesus that you may charge (paraggello) some (tis) that they teach no other doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:3). Timothy was to charge also women to teach no other doctrine, for the word tis (some) is gender neutral.[40] Hence we find that 1 Timothy mirrors the problem found in 1 Corinthians: the concept of some teaching others found in 1 Timothy 1:3 is gender neutral but 2:12 appears to restrict the activity to men, and in both chapters reference is made to both the creation and fall of mankind.
It is not without significance that Grudem must base the man’s authority on an inference due to the conspicuous absence of a corresponding commandment.
The fact that God first created Adam, then after a period of time created Eve (Gen. 2:7, 18-23), suggests that God saw Adam as having a leadership role in his family. .. .The creation of Adam first is consistent with the Old Testament pattern of “primogeniture,” the idea that the firstborn in any generation in a human family has leadership in the family for that generation. The right of primogeniture is assumed throughout the Old Testament text.[41]
The secular custom of primogeniture is applied only to boys, wherefore Grudem makes the inference that because Adam was male, he had the privileges of the firstborn. But this inference would make only Adam - not every man - the firstborn of the human family, for not every man is a firstborn. In fact, if it is argued that every firstborn is a leader, women cannot be excluded from leadership, since also females are among the firstborns, as is seen in England where, as a consequence, Queens have ruled the nation. But most importantly, it is Jesus who is the firstborn of the creation, of the dead, and the church (Col. 1:15, 18; Heb. 12:23). It is He who is the heir (Heb. 1:2) with whom we will inherit the kingdom (Gal. 4:7) for every believer becomes a co-heir with Christ and becomes part of the household of God, wherefore also Peter reminded the husbands to give honor to their wives as co-heirs (1 Pet. 3:7). All believers have God as their Father, and as is true in the natural family, the younger siblings all share the same privileges and responsibilities. Thus primogeniture as an analogy is invalid.
***
Although we cannot say with absolute certainty what Paul referred to in 1 Tim. 2:11-15, it is most likely connected to the Gnostic heresy which was being taught in Ephesus, and therefore his withholding of permission was directed to a woman who held absolute power over men and taught a Gnostic heresy which involved the Creation and Fall accounts. We do know that the Gnostics delighted in giving the creation and Fall accounts novel meanings in an effort to explain the existence of evil in the world. The God of the Old Testament was viewed as an angry and jealous God who wanted to keep humanity in perpetual slavery to Himself.
The Testimony of Truth, for example, tells us the story of the Garden of Eden from the viewpoint of the serpent! Here the Serpent, long known to appear in gnostic literature as the principle of divine wisdom, convinces Adam and Eve to partake of knowledge while “the Lord” threatens them with death, trying jealously to prevent them from attaining knowledge, and expelling them from Paradise when they achieve it.[42]
The Serpent becomes the hero and humanity conquers God who can only expel them from the garden in his fury. The theme found in 1 Tim. 2:11-15, the man’s prior creation, is often reversed in Gnostic literature as seen in The Reality of the Rulers (third century C.E.).
The rulers took counsel with one another and said, “Come, let us cause a deep sleep to Fall on Adam.” And he slept. Now, the deep sleep that they caused to Fall on him, and he slept, is ignorance. They opened his side, which was like a living woman. And they built up his side with some flesh in place of her, and Adam came to be only with soul. The woman of spirit came to him and spoke with him, saying, “Rise, Adam.” And when he saw her, he said, “It is you who have given me life. You will be called ‘mother of the living.’ For she is my mother. She is the physician, and the woman, and she was given birth. … Then the female spiritual presence came in the form of a snake, the instructor, and it taught them, saying, “What did he say to you? Was it, ‘From every tree in the garden you shall eat, but from the tree of recognizing evil and good do not eat?’… And the woman of flesh took from the tree and ate, and she gave to her husband as well as herself, and those beings, who possessed only a soul, ate. And their imperfection became apparent in their lack of knowledge….They turned to their Adam and took him and expelled him from the garden along with his wife, for they have no blessing, since they too are under the curse.[43]
God is not viewed as the source of salvation; instead humanity must save itself through Gnostic knowledge, wherefore Paul wrote, “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:3-4).
Also the woman’s deception is reversed in Gnostic literature for the tree of knowledge of good and evil represents salvation through knowledge.
They [the rulers] were troubled because Adam had sobered up from all ignorance. They gathered together and took counsel and said, “Look, Adam has become like one of us, so that he understands the difference between light and darkness. Now perhaps he will be deceived as with the tree of knowledge and will come to the tree of life and eat from it and become immortal and rule and condemn us and the world. Come, let’s cast him out of paradise down to the earth, the place from where he was taken, so that he will no longer be able to know anything better than we can.” And so they cast Adam and his wife out of Paradise.[44]
Although it has been suggested that women are easily deceived because of 1 Tim. 2:14, Paul admitted to have been deceived by sin (Rom. 7:11), and he was fearful that the Corinthians would be deceived by false teachers (2 Cor. 11:3). Thankfully the image of the gullible woman is being rejected by the modern church, but historically the deception of Eve has barred women from teaching in the church. Thomas Aquinas considered the woman’s punishment to be more grievous than the man’s and therefore her sin was also more grievous. He considered her to more puffed up than the man in as much as she believed through deception that she was able to attain God’s likeness by eating of the forbidden fruit while the man wished to attain to God’s likeness by his own power and because he had not yet experienced God’s severity. Moreover, the woman suggested sin to the man and therefore sinned against God and her neighbor, but the man consented to the sin out of good-will.[45]
***
According to Knight, the masculine language in 1 Timothy 3 is the reason for the exclusion of women from leadership in the church.[46] Yet, he only phrase which is masculine is mias guinakos andra (“one woman man”) found in verses 2 and 12. Knight writes that aner (“man”) is used to distinguish men from women, which is correct, but because Greek is an androcentric language, aner functions also as a generic term and includes women, as seen in Romans 4:6-8
Just as David also describes the blessedness of the man [anthropos] to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are those whose [hos, neut.] lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose [hos, neut.] sins are covered; Blessed is the man [aner] to whom the LORD shall not impute sin."
In Psalm 32, which Paul quotes in Romans 4:6-8, the Hebrew word for “man” is ‘adam, which means “a human being.” Similarly, in Matthew 19:5 the word for “man” is anthropos, although Genesis 2:24 uses ‘yish, the Hebrew equivalent of aner. D.A. Carson, one of the contributors to Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, acknowledges that “people considered generically are regularly found in the masculine gender in Greek.”[47] James, for example, used aner often as a generic term when writing to all believers.[48]
The overwhelmingly masculine language of the Bible has caused unexpected problems in traditional theology, one of them being the denial of the resurrection of the female body.[49] Because the body of Christ is called a man (aner) in Ephesians 4:13, and because the saints are being conformed into the image of the Son of God (Rom. 8:29), some early church theologians concluded that women will rise as men. Augustine denied this because the female is a nature, not a vice, and therefore part of the original creation.[50] He corrected also those who believed adelphos (“brother”) excluded women.[51]
In the Tenth Commandment, all of Israel was told not to covet their neighbor’s wife (Exod. 20:17); in 1 Corinthians 7:1-2 Paul writes that it is not good for a human (anthropos) to touch a woman and in 1 Corinthians 7:25-28 he again writes that is it good for a human (anthropos) to remain as he is: the one bound the a wife should not seek to be freed, and the one who is unmarried should not seek a wife. In all cases women are included, although the language is masculine. Because Greek is an androcentric language, it is not possible to exclude women from masculine language; it is only possible to exclude men from feminine language. In 1 Timothy 5:9, the same phrase is found in the feminine (henoos andros gunee) because Paul is writing exclusively about women. In 1 Timothy 3:1-2, the office of bishop is open to anyone (ei-tis), and therefore the masculine gender is necessary, but it does not exclude women.
Ei-tis is used 62 times in the New Testament but it is never used in a gender exclusive manner.[52] It has been suggested that mias guinakos andra is equivalent of monogamy, but it is a false assumption, for monogamos is a Greek term (monos “single” and gamos “marriage”) and both Greece and Rome were monogamous societies wherefore Paul did not have to forbid polygamy. But he did have to exhort both men and women to remain faithful to their spouses, wherefore the one who wished to become an overseer had to have a disposition of faithfulness. Considering that, at least, Paul and John were unmarried, and because Paul wished all to be as he was, i.e., celibate (1 Cor. 7:7), it is unlikely that marriage was a requirement. Therefore it is better to understand mias guinakos andra as “faithful.”
[2] “But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am” (1 Cor. 7:8).
[3] According to tradition John resided in Ephesus, wherefore he would have known the Gnostic sect Nicolatians: “And there are those that heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe in Ephesus and seeing Cerinthus within, ran out of the bath-house without bathing, crying, ‘Let us flee, lest even the bath Fall, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within’ (Eusibius, Pamphilius, The Church History of Eusibius, Book IV, XI). John’s Gospel and letters emphasize the reality of the incarnation, denied by the Gnostics. E.g., “By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world” (John 4:2-3).
[4] Against Heresies, Book III, Ch. XI.
[5] Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians, Ch. XI.
[6] Ignatius, Epistle to the Philadelphians, Ch. VI.
[7] Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, Book VII. XXIV.
[8] Against the Heresies, Ch. I.
[9] Stromata, Book III. Ch 4.
[10] Tertullian, On Modesty, Chapter XIX.
[11] Five Books Against Marcion, Book I, Ch. XXIX.
[12] Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, From the Second Chapter, 6.
[13] Against Heresies, Book I, XXI.4.
[14] Ibid., Ch. VI.
[16] The Prescription Against Heresies, XXXIII.
[17] Against Heresies, Book III, Preface,1.
[18] Refutation of All Heresies, Book IV, II.
[19] Letter to the Philadelphians, Ch VI
[20] Against Heresies, Book II, Ch, IX.
[21] Pamphilus, The Church History of Eusebius, Book III, Ch. XXVI.
[22] Against Heresies, Book I, Ch. XIII, XVI.
[23] The Prescription against Heretics, Ch. III.
[24] Tertullian, Against the Valentinians, Ch. III.
[25] The Prescription Against Heretics, Ch. XVII.
[26] Stromata, Book II, Ch. XI.
[27] Rufinus, The Apology of Rufinus, Addressed to Apronianus, in Reply to Jerome’s Letter to Pammachius, Written at Aquileia a.d. 400.
[28] Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown, “1 Timothy 1:4, ” Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Electronic Database, 1997.
[29] ”1 Timothy 1:4,” Wycliffe Bible Commentary.
[30] Piper and Grudem, 69-70.
[31] Ibid., 223.
[32] Ibid., 354.
[34] Chrysostom, Homilies on First Timothy, Homily IX. “The weakness and light-mindedness of the female sex (infirmitas sexus and levitas animi) were the underlying principles of Roman legal theory that mandated all women to be under the custody of males” (Pomeroy, 150).
[35] Jerome, “Letter CXXVII,” The Letters of St. Jerome, 7.
[36] The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter XLII.
[37] Perseus Digital Library, www.perseus.tufts.edu (accessed June 29, 2009), s.v. “authenteo.” Euripides wrote, “Power absolute, I say, robs men of life” (Justin on the Sole Government of God, Ch. V).
[38] See Matthew 8:21,31; 19:8; Mark 10:4; 5:13; Luke 8:32; 9:59, 61; Acts 21:39,40; 26:1, 27:3, 28:16; 1 Corinthians 14:34; 16.7; 1 Timothy 2;12; Hebrews 6:3
[39] Even if we would affirm that women were created subject to the man, it could not be used to impose silence, for even though believers are subject to God, they are not forbidden from speech in His presence; in fact most churches actively encourage people to pray more. It is because speech, not the sword, gives people power in the church that women are silenced, just as the peasants and serfs were before the Reformation.
[40] In Revelation 2:20 John rebukes the Christians of Thyatira for they allowed a woman to teach and seduce the people to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. The stress is not on the fact that she is a woman, but that she is leading people away from the truth.
[41] Systematic Theology, 461.
[42] Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels, (New York: Vintage publishers, 1989), 17.
[43] Willis Barnston and Marvin Meyer, ed, “The Reality of the Rulers,” The Gnostic Bible (Boston, MA: New Seeds, 2003), 170-172.
[44] Barnston and Mayer, “On the Origin of the World,” The Gnostic Bible, 433
[45] Summa Theologica, Second part of second part, Q 163, Article 4. Thomas quotes Augustine’s The City of God, “[A]nd as it is not credible that Solomon was so blind as to suppose that idols should be worshipped, but was drawn over to such sacrilege by the blandishments of women; so we cannot believe that Adam was deceived, and supposed the devil’s word to be truth, and therefore transgressed God’s law, but that he by the drawings of kindred yielded to the woman, the husband to the wife, the one human being to the only other human being. For not without significance did the apostle say, “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression;” but he speaks thus, because the woman accepted as true what the serpent told her, but the man could not bear to be severed from his only companion, even though this involved a partnership in sin. He was not on this account less culpable, but sinned with his eyes open” (City of God, Book XIV, Ch. 11).
[46] Piper and Grudem, 353.
[47] Piper and Grudem, 148.
[48] See James 1:7-8, 12; 19-20, 23-24; 2:1-2,; 3.1-2.
[49] When a group is considered inferior, the only option for them is to be transformed into their superiors. We find this very clearly in racism, “If I were God, what would I do to improve the lot of the Negro? If I were God, I’d make everybody white.” (Peggy Streit quotes a parent from Queens, New York, in “Why They Fight for the P.A.T.” New York Times Magazine, September 20, 1964, quoted by James P. Comer, Beyond Black and White, 71) When the white people began their exodus from the Northern inner city as the black people moved in, it signaled to the black people “that the ‘Christian’ God was a white God and that he was unwilling and incapable of accepting black as equals, unless they first whiten their skins and their souls” (Salley & Behm, 47).
[50] The city of God, Book XXII, Ch. 17.
[51] “Quarrels should be unknown among you, or at least, if they arise, they should as quickly as possible be ended, lest anger grow into hatred, and convert “a mote into a beam,”and make the soul chargeable with murder. For the saying of Scripture: “He that hateth his brother is a murderer,” does not concern men only, but women also are bound by this law through its being enjoined on the other sex, which was prior in the order of creation” (Augustine, Letter CCXI. 14).
[52] In 1 Cor 7:12-13 ei-tis is connected to adelphos (“brother”), and in the context the gender distinction is clear for the next sentence speaks of women. But also adelphos is also used as a generic term for all believers, in the same manner as aner is used as a generic term of all humans, (See 1 Cor. 10:1; Gal. 1:11; 1 Thess. 1:4; etc.). In James 5:19, James uses the modified form ean tis, when he writes, “Brethren (adelphos), if anyone among you wanders from the truth.” Also women are included in adelphos and therefore neither adelphos or ean tis creates a gender distinction.
