Greg Anderson

Cheryl,
As you and others have shown convincingly, a gender-based hierarchy cannot be conclusively established from Gen 1 & 2. Even with no knowledge of Greek (septuagint) or Hebrew (masoretic text), it is simply not there. So the question remains, why does Paul reach back into the Genesis account from his vantage point in 1 Tim. 2:9-15 ? There are two options here: 1) Paul is legislating anew, but instead of the Moses model to the children of Israel, it is to the church universal from the 1st cent. onward; with the epistles forming a new body of law for observance. 2) Paul is simply refuting a set of false teachings spread about by specific individuals at Ephesus.

Let’s look at option one: In order for it to hold true, the components of male headship have to be “choppered in” to the Genesis account and constructed on site. The problem with this approach is that it leads to other components having to be “ferried in” to other sites. It is a problem of systematic reconciliation and rationalization of Biblical texts which appear to be at odds with the concept of a pre-fall gender-based hierarchy. In the OT there is the problem of Deborah. Dr. Wayne Grudem in his book Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth , makes the claim that God only used Deborah in a limited figurehead capacity, because there were no good men available at the time, and that she did not really exercise governing authority over Israel (p131-136). The Biblical text says no such thing. Either Deborah was a judge over Israel, or she was not.

The New Testament book of Acts poses a similar difficulty for a divinely mandated gender-based hierarchy. In chap. 15 we see that there are only four things enumerated in verses 19 & 20, and then repeated in verses 28 & 29; that the church is to observe. Not a hint of a gender-based hierarchy is to be found anywhere in the chapter.

Option two is a simpler solution. It requires no on-site construction and lets both texts (1 Tim. & Genesis) speak for themselves on the basis of historical and grammatical perspective. This option also allows 1 Tim. to be seen in its common sense form. When a Godly woman teaches the Bible in a corporate setting, where does the “authority” reside, in her, or in God’s word? And if the over-arching context in 1 Tim. is false teaching, how can orthodox Christian teaching to men be off limits to women?