Book of 1 Timothy - Ch. 2, v. 12 | Part 3

Reading 1 Timothy 2:11–12 in Context

We'll go ahead and jump into it for the sake of time if y 'all want to turn to first timothy chapter 2 and. For the past three or four weeks. We have literally been picking up basically mid-sentence mid thought.

As we go through this so last week. We left off at the first part of verse 12. We now pick up at the second part of verse 12 and as I've said before There are times and this is one of them where it is important to slow down and to takes to take the word of God.

Quite literally piece by piece word for word sentence for sentence. Sometimes it's helpful to take a deeper look into The vocabulary that's being used the word choices that are being used and then use the context to define the way it is as we're.

Going to see in a little bit. You know, there are some common objections that are made to the interpretation we're taking in this passage are an appeal to the specific words that are used and what they They can mean and what they should mean here.

And so sometimes in order to counteract something like that you have to do the same thing. In other words, you have to take a look at the individual words their common usage. Some ways that you do that is typically how does the New Testament use it and then from there you can broaden the scope even?

More and say how was the kid? How did the the? Contemporary literature of the time used the word and things of that sort that's kind of what we're doing is we're zooming way into this passage in order to take a close look at the very things that more liberal theologians zoom in to take a close look at and That's why we're going so so slowly through it.

But as always by the time we get through some of this we'll zoom back out look at all of it. Is it? You know within the scope of the whole argument that Paul is making so that we never lose lose sight of the broader thing.

You never want to do that. As good as it can be in some cases to zoom way in. Maybe that means literally looking at the word its definitions its usage and things like that. Maybe even it's etymology. That could be good, but it's only as good as the broad content context is also in view.

You can get into some really met really messy Interpretations if you if you forget that concept there the large majority of fallacies that are made with regard to biblical interpretation. Have to do with word studies and it's not that word studies are intrinsically bad.

The bad part is forgetting the context context is king. Always and forever and that isn't just with the Bible. It's a funny because it's a very natural concept to us with any other thing any other piece of literature.

We ever read we understand if we're gonna pick up a book and open up the pages and read something. We're not gonna understand the paragraph unless we maybe at least go back and start at the beginning of that chapter and Ideally depending on the type of literature you're reading you would want to have read from the beginning forward.

So you understand what is going on in the narrative? So it's a very intuitive concept with interpreting anything else we read but for some reason when it comes to God's Word people really like to as death as dad has said a couple of times recently missed the forest for for the trees and so.

That's why we're going as slowly as we are. So with that being said take a look at chapter 2 of 1st Timothy and Let's look at verse 11 and 12 together once more and we'll pick up where we left off Paul.

Sorry. Did someone okay? Yeah. Sorry Ron verse. Chapter 2 verse 12 is where we'll pick it up. Or Actually, forgive me verse 11. Let's read verse 11 and 12 together and then pick it up. He says let the woman learn in silence with all subjection or with all submissiveness.

But I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man but to be in silence. So last week we spent all of our time talking. Primarily actually I take it back the last two weeks primarily about what it is.

To when Paul says I suffer not a woman to teach. So we defined what teach means in this con in this context. We harmonized this prohibition with other Scriptures that give instruction for the woman to teach and we harmonize that by taking a close look at the context of all these passages and understanding that each Of these things do come with their own context.

So we have a prohibition here For a specific context in other places. We have an instruction for a woman to teach in a specific context. One would be instructing and raising up the next generation. So in other words teaching children even authoritatively in Titus We see that older women are to teach younger women all that pertains to Christian living.

Specifically to love their children that love their husbands and to be keepers of the home. So that's an authoritative form of teaching the Proverbs 31 woman. It is instructive in her very behavior. She has the law of kindness exhibiting from her way of way of living.

In Colossians all people of the local church are told to admonish an instructor teach one another and. So that in and of itself implies there is a context in which it is appropriate for a woman to teach.

And not just appropriate but is instructed to do so. So we've looked at all of that we've looked at all of the scriptures. At least all of the primary scriptures that flesh all of that out for us and so we defined what it is to teach we looked at the context in which this prohibition is most appropriate and.

And so now we need to focus in on this second clause of verse 12 Which is I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over The man but to be in silence and so we'll now look at all of this together.

Before going into one of the most interesting aspects of this passage which is actually verses 13 and 14 where the Apostle Paul gives us the grounding or the basis for Why all of these things are to be so in the first place?

“Nor to Usurp Authority Over the Man”

So Paul includes the phrase nor usurp authority over the man. Another way you could translate that is For the woman not to exercise authority over a man now. Just like we asked the question. What does it mean to teach in the first clause?

We now ask the question. What does it mean to exercise authority? What does this mean? Within Paul's use of the phrase. What is Paul's intent when he brings this phrase to the table for us? And this is where we start to see some In very inconsistent more egalitarian or feminist arguments in the church.

And I've told y 'all for the last three weeks I've been alluding to this idea of looking at objections looking at objections in this particular Clause is the big one that a woman should not usurp authority over the man.

This is where a lot of objections start to really hit hit the ground because if What Paul means what it sounds like it means it then eliminates a large majority of ministerial Job descriptions and things that have been given or yielded to women in the church today all the way up to Pastor itself now, there are a lot of churches that are smart enough to at least realize.

Well, if we are that on the nose with it, we could get in trouble. So let's be more sneaky and they come in and they start creating other job descriptions and other positions of authority. It's not pastor.

And so therefore it's okay if what Paul if Paul means what it sounds like he means here then all of that is undermined and It's a big problem for a great majority Of churches in the West today. So this is why we start to see objections come into play.

I'm gonna give you one of them just right off the bat here one of the objections to our Interpretation of this passage, which is that Paul is prohibiting authority or any authoritative position in the church whatsoever.

Which is it's the interpretation we're taking it's also the interpretation of the church for the last 2 ,000 years up until about the midway point of the 19th century. Okay, if that's the interpretation we're taking what are some of the objections to it so number number one is In Explain what I mean by inconsistent here in just a moment.

But this is this is the first argument the first kind of egalitarian argument that comes which states that What this means here when Paul says I would not that women should usurp authority over the man or exercise authority.

What it means is that women should never domineer or assume authority over men. There are even some modern Bible translations that choose a wording that kind of carries that connotation. In other words a woman should not assume authority or domineer men.

In other words, they take this word in the negative sense and Think about that logically for just a second and kind of the sneaky spin that comes with it. If we apply the negative connotation To the authority that Paul speaks of here.

In other words, I don't want women domineering men Inappropriately or something like that if you take that specific angle what that means By implication is that women can positively take authority over?

Men or take positive positions of authority over men as long as they're not domineering about it. You see how the argument can begin to construct from there. So what is the presupposition underneath? Modern egalitarian Theology which states that there is there can be an equality of men and women with regard to church positions.

The presupposition going into it is that this is okay as long as women are not domineering about it. And so that is the first it's kind of an objection slash argument at the same time. The objection of course is that what we are saying the passage means is not what it means that that Paul means positive authority.

But the argument the counter argument in the same in the same breath is that we we would say that of course. It's bad for women to domineer men or to negatively possess that kind of authority now um. Let's think about this for a second if this specific interpretation or Translation even I mean again you have this is why we're getting into this as much as we are is because it begins with a Translational issue.

It's not even interpretive yet. They go they go even deeper than simple interpretation and they want they begin with an argument for what should the proper? Interpretation be excuse me. Wow. I'm really confusing everybody now.

I'm sure They go deeper than interpretation than say what should the proper? Translation of the word be and that is where we see domineering enter the picture in some English translations, it's very few.

But it is in there in a couple of them now. If it did mean that if Paul's if Paul's use of the Greek term That they are wanting to translate into Into domineering into the English or something like that.

In other words a word that denotes negative authority. If it did mean that Then what they could say is that there is an appropriate way for women to have authority over men in church. Which is exactly what they do but if they are wrong about the translational issue and This is authority in a positive sense.

In other words, the Apostle Paul is saying I would not That women should usurp authority over the men in a positive sense in other words, even not domineer not a domineering sense, but simply getting up and Authoritatively proclaiming the Word of God explaining the Word of God or reading the Word of God, etc.

If that is what Paul actually means here That it's the positive sense of authority then this passage alone completely prohibits female leadership in the church in any form In any form and so this is why this is why this is a battleground in the in the 21st century.

For us here now contextually It wouldn't make any sense at all. And again, we're using We're using logic here in concert with The Apostles argument in concert with the Apostles use of his terms of his phrases of his context.

Contextually, it wouldn't make any sense at all for Paul to prohibit only women from the negative behavior of domineering because as we know as you read the full narrative of Scripture is that Domineering is a negative whether it is a woman doing it or whether it is a man doing it.

So while while the Bible teaches headship while it teaches a patriarchal structure while it teaches that there is hierarchy in family in government in every sphere. That that does not necessitate authoritarianism or domineering or Anything of the sort and so why is it that Paul would come in here and give this very odd Prohibition for women not to domineer men.

But not on the same token prohibit men from domineering women if he is talking about the negative form of authority. So there's the first thing is of course Paul wouldn't have done that. He would not have only Prohibited women from negative behavior of domineering if the meaning were negative here Paul would have prohibited both men and women from engaging in domineering behavior Toward one another and we know that that is the case elsewhere where the That particular form of behavior is just outright.

It's outright prohibited and so. And so there you go. Sorry, I lost my spot in my notes here. Okay, all right, so we have this first idea of if it were Prohibition simply for the negative sense. We would have seen a broader prohibition of it Not simply focusing on women, which doesn't make a lot of sense in and of itself.

But in addition to that if you remember in verse 11 It says let the woman learn in silence with all subjection or with all submissiveness. So the very preceding preceding thought Within the same argument that Paul is making here is talking about the submission of women in the context of church order in church Governance and things of and things of that sort.

And so if Paul were coming in here and saying now, I don't want women domineering men. So as long as it's only positive authority, it's okay, but it can't be in the negative. They can't be domineering about it.

If that is what Paul was actually saying then his preceding argument that they need to be learning in silence with all Submissiveness wouldn't make any sense because to submit is to avoid Exercising even positive authority over another person.

So if I submit to the authority of another person if we submit Let's just use super obvious categories for a second when the populace submits to the authority of the king. What that means is that we are?

Relenting our our Ability or certainly our desire. Or anything like that even our right to ever even in a positive sense assume authority over the king. He is the one that comes up with With law that he's the the main Legislative source he is the one that determines the mood of the land.

Okay, so There when you are submitting to the king you are submitting all to the king. You could get even more obvious to that when we submit to Christ. We are submitting all to Christ. We're not saying that we submit only in these negative areas, but over here we get to be totally independent.

Autonomous libertarians we submit our entire life the entirety of our life to Christ. So if you then go down a little bit and you start to zoom in into the specific spheres that God ordained Church being one of them and you say that women are to learn in silence and all subjection.

Unless they're teaching in a positive sense. It undermines the argument that Paul just finished making and so It's so again. It would it would come in and contradict the very the very preceding argument if you were to submit it's to avoid Exercising even positive authority over another person.

And so in short if you were just to kind of Think about this as a consistent whole. The grammar that we see in these in these two verses together, but even just in verse 12 the grammar itself enforces either a Negative meaning for both terms that Paul is prohibiting here.

What are his two prohibitions that the woman I suffer not a woman to teach there's number one or to usurp authority over a man. That's number two. So you have two prohibitions in verse 12 based on the grammar itself.

You would have to have either a negative meaning for both terms or a positive meaning for both terms. Now that starts to get kind of wacky. Because there is not there. There is no negative use of the term for teach.

In any of the contexts in the New Testament. So in the first clause where he says I should not a woman to teach. That is used in the positive connotation and it's not only using the positive connotation here.

It's used in a positive connotation in every other use of the term throughout the pastoral epistles. So every time Paul uses the word to teach it is always in the positive sense. So here in the first clause of verse 12, he's saying that I don't want a woman doing that in the church I know in the positive sense.

I don't want a woman teaching but rather to be. Again going back to verse 11 learning in silence with all subjection. You can't do both. You can't you can't be learning in silence with all submissiveness and teaching simultaneously teaching is in the positive there and so.

When the more liberal theologians come in and they attempt to shoehorn Kind of this clunky translation of domineer into the end of the second clause of verse 12. What it would do is it would violate the grammatical structure of this individual verse.

But it would also be a really strange Anomaly when it's held up against the rest of Paul's writings on this topic because it would it would veer away from the way he has made similar arguments in all of the rest of the pastoral epistles and.

So once again, it comes back to context and authorial intent. How does the author intend? What does the author intend? With what he is saying here if you zoom way in on simply the definition of a single word and say that's.

That is how I think it should be translated. Because you could translate that word as domineering. Then all of a sudden you've lost the the plot which is that we are following a higher Transcendent instruction that we have been given here.

We weren't given these words in order for us to kind of fit it into the mold of our preferences. Even though there is a wide Domain of use for all of these words. That's not how you get to use that kind of data.

It's the same in English. We can't you know, take a person's if a person writes us a letter and. And it's in English. It's not even we're not even talking about Greek and They use a specific word that can mean a number of different things in isolation.

We don't get to pick which of those meanings that it could be in isolation and say I'm gonna say This is what the person writing the letter to me means I'm going to insert this specific, uh use of the word.

What you do is you read the letter and you let them define the use of The word that they are bringing bringing into their Dialogue and so the same is true here. It would be extremely clunky to translate.

Nor usurp authority over the man to mean not to domineer the man. Because it would violate the grammatical structure. It would violate the uses of the terms that Paul uses in all of his other contexts.

And it would violate or I should say it would be inconsistent with the preceding Argument that he just made in verse 11 as well. And so with all of that kind of under our belt now. Which is important because the translation of domineering is kind of the prime the first prime move.

That the more liberal theologians will make to say that Paul doesn't actually mean that women can never have authority over the man ever in church. But as long as it's not as long as it's not domineering, it's okay.

This is the first step. To addressing that issue because that's going to be the primary issue that they bring to the table. So With all that being said if Paul is talking about exercising authority. And is uh in a positive way.

As well, which he is in other words that that women cannot teach even in a positive way. They cannot exercise authority even in a positive way if that is what he means uh. Now we have to ask the question.

What is the contextual focus of this prohibition? We ask the same question with that. That antecedent prohibition when he says I don't want women teaching. We said okay. What does that mean exactly because we know about Priscilla and Aquila we know about the virtuous woman we know about uh.

We know about women teaching children. We know about women teaching younger women. So what exactly does he mean when he gives us this very black and white prohibition women cannot do this thing? We so we addressed it.

We said what is the contextual? Focus of that one. So now we need to ask the same question here. And really it comes down to essentially that it's answering in the same way we did using the similar passages.

That we did but it's still it's still a good exercise for us to do here. What is the contextual focus of paul saying? Nor to usurp authority over the man. But to be in silence. We just finished showcasing last week.

How the prohibition to teach? Also has a specific context and focus. Because of scriptural instruction to teach in other contexts. Where paul wants women to teach now interestingly? If there is a context in which it is good and appropriate for a woman to teach.

That implies that women are also to exercise authority. In some of those contexts because teaching is inherently authoritative so for example when A woman is teaching the next generation when she is teaching and discipling children.

Or when she when an older woman is teaching and discipling a younger woman. She is exercising authority in those situations. So once more when we look at verse 12 here in the second clause specifically.

It's not a matter of an outright prohibition in every context Across the board in which a woman is never to exercise authority. We know that that uh, Women when they are in it when they're teaching any other form of class, so, you know, they're teaching high school literature or grammar or History or whatever it may be she is in an authoritative position there as well.

What is the context here in which we receive this prohibition what it is. Is that what paul is saying? Is women are not to exercise authority over men in in the context of christian gatherings in the context of christian gatherings and we can gather this not only from The immediate context that we have but from the rest Of the scriptural narrative as well.

Y 'all remember the question I left y 'all with at the end of last week I wanted y 'all to be thinking about. As we were addressing some of these issues kind of in we were asking questions at the end.

And mimi was asking some questions about certain contexts and we addressed that. And I said I want you, you know, what about uh, what about sunday school? You know, what about seminary? What about small groups, which is a thing these days?

Um, what about discipleship classes and things of that sort so. This is the funniest part to me about the church today. Is everybody like the large majority of christians detest legalism? Uh and rightfully so.

But some of them detest it perhaps for the wrong reason and what I mean by that isn't to say that legalism is ever good. But what they do is they will hold legalism up as kind of a boogeyman to excuse them in their pursuit of.

Kind of a libertarian christian living in other words. I get to do whatever I want because grace says so something like that um. Here's the ironic part about it though. Um luther coined the term antinomianism which means anti-law and he didn't mean law in the sense of keeping the mosaic, uh, Sacrificial system or anything like that.

He just meant Let me put it this way christians. The people of god have never and will never be a lawless people. That's a good way to remember it. We will always have positive instructions from the lord on how to live our lives in the most thriving flourishing type of way.

And even in the millennial kingdom. The prophet isaiah tells us in the prophet Micah also tells us that the coastlands will seek the law of god and what it's talking about is his instruction. So even the millennial kingdom with the renewal of the garden of eden, but on a global scale we will have christ on the throne.

Bearing justice which implies there is law to adjudicate from and we know there will be some lawbreakers. Because he rules with a rod of iron. All right, so the people of god will never be a lawless people.

So martin luther coined the term antinomianism. Or because he was fighting a particular heresy at the time where christians were saying because of grace. And interestingly, they were using luther's teachings because luther's the one that birthed the reformation.

Saying that all of this weird catholic stuff from indulgences to uh to the the sacramental system there, uh. And all of these on all these types of things. They're they're essentially heresy and he was teaching a salvation by by grace and not by Paying the treasury of merit and things of that sort.

So what was happening is people were taking luther's teachings and running with it way too far in the opposite direction. And they were they were then becoming the very people that paul said not to be.

Should we send more that grace may abound? They they turned into those kinds of people. They were sending more so that grace could abound all the more and of course paul answered god forbid and luther answered god forbid.

And that's why he coined the term antinomianism to label that specific type of thought. Uh in in way of being so here's why I say all that. Here's the irony. In being an antinomian or being the kind of person That wants to take god's word.

And try to fiddle with it a little bit so that I can really kind of do whatever I want. What a lot of people will do is they will look at this verse. And they will grant that what it means is that maybe women shouldn't get behind the pulpit now listen closely for a second.

Because this is so sneaky they will grant that women probably shouldn't be behind the pulpit, but You know what it doesn't say. Is that they can't lead a small group? What it doesn't say is that a woman shouldn't teach a seminary class.

To men that are learning to be pastors if you think about that long enough it's more absurd. The longer you think about it. It doesn't say that a woman can't teach a sunday school class. It doesn't you know, okay, you get the point.

Antinomians will inevitably treat the word of god like it's a piece of wood just like legalists do where they say. Here's what it says. And we we want the rule book and so now we cannot actually we don't ever have to think because we have our rule book.

Antinomians will do it but with a twist what they'll say is that because we don't have the specific wording in this spot. We get to we get to. Exercise women get to exercise authority authoritatively positively in all of these other contexts so.

That that is just something to to think about as we address some of these issues and now answer the question. What about exercising authority in those other places? Sunday school seminary, etc. The prohibition here that paul is giving is not.

Um, it is not limited to the pulpit alone. And one of the reasons why we know this which we will dive into more next week in the weeks following is verses 13 and 14 but we also know it from Paul's teachings in the epistle of the first corinthians.

We know it in the structure of The this kind of the civil structure of ancient israel. We know it from the way the church operated in the new testament of the first. In the in the new testament and also in the the first century.

The prohibition is that women should not exercise authority over men. In any kind of church or I should say christian gathering. And which would include things like a woman teaching a seminary class. And and teaching men how to go and do their job, which is for only men, but they're learning how to do it from a woman.

Doesn't make a lot of sense. It would apply even to Constructs such as small groups sunday school. When is the night bible study because it is essentially Coming down to a public gathering in which the word of god is being enunciated.

It's being explained. It's being exegeted. It's being interpreted. It is being taught. So just because you know, it would be like in the first century receiving this instruction from paul and then everyone's saying, okay.

Well, we want we really want our women teaching those so let's gather for wednesday night bible study Paul that they would not have been doing that at the time that they received paul's words here and took it in in the broad view Of the old testament scriptures they had as well.

They would have known what he was talking about. And so verse 12 is essentially paul's prohibition Of women being in any form of leadership position in the context of the church broadly uh, and there by the way, there's a one way that we know this just from uh, The the scriptures itself actually, you know what I have it just a little bit further in my notes.

So i'll get to that in just a second um, I one way one reason we know that paul means this within the context of the church broadly and not Not narrowly in on just the lord's day. Just at pulpit time.

But rather broadly in the church within christian living. There's a way within the the text of first timothy that we know that and we'll take a look at it In a minute, but just to kind of keep the wheels turning for a second.

As we think about these kinds of arguments coming at us and coming at the word of god here is as a parallel. Men if we if you just think about the verses that we've read leading up to this point in verse 8 It says I will therefore that men pray everywhere.

Okay, let's just remind ourselves of a few things. I will therefore that men pray everywhere lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting. Okay, that was right before verse 12 in verse 9 It says in like manner also that women adorn themselves in modest apparel with shamefacedness.

Or shamefastness if y 'all recall or study there and sobriety not with broided hair gold pearls all these types of things but which become if um. Women professing godliness with good works. Okay. These are the verses that literally just happened.

This was the if paul were just speaking that would have been his last sentence as he then begins to talk. In verse 12 as a parallel. Men should still pray. And women should still dress modestly and practice good works of god outside of the singular public assembly on the lord's day so once more.

The burden of proof would be on the person to say that this one clause in this one broad argument means singularly on the lord's day. During the main worship service because everything else paul has talked about so far would be applied broadly.

No one would argue that men should only pray during the service on the lord's day. No one would argue that women should dress in a way that elevates their femininity and elevates their glory only on the lord's day.

And then they can be frumpy. Just kidding. Um, No one would argue that then they can uh, you know. They should only do works on the lord's day and then they can stop doing good works as soon as the lord's day is over.

No one would make those arguments, but the moment you get to verse 12 They make the argument that it only applies singularly to pulpit time on the lord's day during the main service, so That logic is applied without issue to other things.

I'll give you another example. The authority that is exercised by the church elders by pastors or bishops. However, you want to put it overseers of the church that authority is carried with them outside Of the public service once a week.

No one would argue that a pastor is only a pastor on sundays for two hours. No one would make that argument. They know that the pastor has spiritual authority over his his flock seven days out of the week.

Now, of course it defines what that authority looks like in hebrews and in first peter and in the pastoral epistles. So You'll know what I mean, but the point is That which they are instructed to manifest.

Yes, primarily during the main worship on the lord's day doesn't end With worship on the lord's day they carry it with them outside of the church as well. So when christians are gathered. So taking this logic and the way it applies consistently with all of these other categories.

When christians are gathered in any christian setting Paul is saying women are not to exercise authority over men or teach them. And the way that you can know when a line is crossed Is when an authoritative action is taking place.

So for example. And we I think we even mentioned this example last week if you go to a conference. And you hear the testimony of a woman of god. That is a wonderful thing. That's a great thing. We've had testimonies like that in this very church.

Where we have seen the works of god in the lives of our people. Both men and women that's wonderful but If that woman then begins teaching on atonement theories. Then something has gone awry a line has been crossed and it needs to be addressed at that point.

Paul does not want that happening. And when I say paul, you'll know i'm talking about the lord and his inspiration of these words and various prohibitions. Because it would violate this concept and so with all of that being said We've already thought about one objection being well, maybe the translation needs to be different.

Maybe it means or should mean that women just simply don't need to be domineering. But other than that We're all equal. In everything in all positions all the time. But there are more to it than that.

The Cultural-Context Objection

What are some other objections to the traditional interpretation of this passage? There are at least three more. We won't have time to look at all of them. But i'll just kind of break the ice on one more of them really quick because we have just a little bit of time.