teknomom

I’m glad the focus will be on 1 Tim. 2, because Dr. Nyland’s notes for this book are available for free at This Link as a PDF.

One point about this passage is that there were in fact female synagogue leaders in the first century. It is these who thought they could then automatically be teachers of the assembly. But Paul counters this notion by saying they have to first sit down and learn quietly with the other new believers before they can teach, regardless of their position in the synagogues.

Then of course Paul focuses on one particular woman who was teaching the Gnostic heresy that Eve was created first. Paul points out in vs. 13 that Adam was created first according to Genesis. This flow of thought makes perfect sense with the Gnostic heresy in view, but the referral to Genesis is illogical if the topic is instead some heirarchy based upon “outward appearances”. Dr. Rebecca Groothuis in her book “Good News for Women” (which I commented on Here) My comments on that part:

===========================
To say that woman must be inferior to man because she was created from him would be to also say that man must be inferior to dust! To say that man is superior to woman because he was created first is to also say that all the animals are superior to man! As Paul points out, other than Eve, all men have come from women, so by traditionalist logic this should mean that all mankind except Adam is inferior to Eve. And we see in the Bible that God frequently chose the younger to rule over the older (Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, etc.). So neither derivation nor prior existence can be used to argue in favor of male domination or superiority.
…
Traditionalist logic here is circular. They assume that Genesis supports female subordination, then when reading 1 Tim. 2:11-15 they appeal back to it as their justification for their view. In other words, they presume authority being established in Genesis, then use it to support their interpretation of Paul’s words to Timothy as being universally applicable since it refers to creation order.
===========================

And then there’s the whole “authority” issue, as we’ve discussed before. There is no such concept as “authoritative teaching” defined in the epistles. The apostles had authority as having seen the risen Lord, but even then they did not use this authority as hierarchical but laid down their rights and called themselves servants of the assembly. Yet The Institutional Church insists that there is a clergy and laity distinction in the Body of Christ, as if it is divided or has two Heads.

This authority view not only puts men over women but men over men as well. But the epistles know nothing of such division, and Paul spoke out against it. There is to be no “covering”, no “lording it over”, no “Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female” in the Body. The Holy Spirit is our “covering”, the NT is our authority, and no part of the Body can say to another, “I have no need of you!”

I have yet to hear any male supremacist be able to explain how it is not prideful to put onesself over another in the assembly. No matter how kindly, benevolently, or minimally they rule, they still RULE. They want final say in all spiritual matters, not based upon gifting or experience, but upon genetics– the flesh! They invent a “boys’ club” and thereby disqualify the people they’ve excluded from having the right to question them. Very convenient– and very cult-like.

Elders in the assembly were to be respected as teachers, as examples of spiritual maturity and good citizens. They were not to think of this as a position of power, but a service to their students. And the students are supposed to graduate someday, not remain in school forever. So knowing the qualifications of eldership are all about spiritual and behavioral issues, how can anyone be excluded from eldership on the basis of their physical appearance?

And where is the modern-day “Pastor” (spoken reverently) in the NT? Where is this spiritual CEO or sublevel management team called either “associate pastors” or “deacons”? (The word “deacon” is not a translation but a transliteration, and means “minister”, of which Phoebe was clearly called one!) Where is The Pulpit (spoken loftily)? Where is any kind of chain of command?

Typically they hold up 1 Cor. 11:3 for this. But, as is his habit, Paul is making a play on words with “kephale” or “head”. He’s about to discuss the Corinthians’ question concerning the social custom of head coverings, but he prefaces it with the statement here. Hierarchy is not the subject at all, but head coverings, and Paul only uses a common word for “authority” (exousia) when telling them that the woman has authority over her own head. So the use of “kephale” does not indicate “headship” in the modern sense at all. Rather, as Dr. Nyland shows from her notes concerning the semantic range of this word, God is the source of Christ who is the source of man who is the source of women.

Notice that God (theos) is the source of Christ, not the Father (patris). How could Christ have God, not just the Father, as his source unless he were also God, as Christians have always believed? Conversely, how could Theos be the “boss” of Christ when Christ contains all the fullness of Theos?

So Paul is giving a chronological order, not an order of hierarchy. First came Adam, then Eve, then Christ. It’s very simple and straightforward. We could even say it’s “the plain meaning of scripture”. But the supremacist view must impose a modern meaning for “head” onto the text and change the whole topic at hand in order to claim this verse as supporting hierarchy.

Sorry for the long ramble but it just had to be said. Hope it helps!