I do not believe that Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2:12 are limited to a particular problem in Ephesus because he backs up what he says in verse 12 with an appeal to the pre-fall created order in verses 13-15. I think that if Paul were addressing a particular problem in Ephesus, he would have said so. Since Paul appeals to the pre-fall created order, I understand what he says in 1 Timothy 2:12 to be trans-cultural.
I was enormously helped a few years ago when I heard Tom Schreiner preach Genesis 2, and he made several observations on gender that help explain what Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:13-15, 1 Corinthians 11:8-9, and 1 Corinthians 14:34. These “Observations on Gender in Genesis 1-3” have been noted in print by other scholars, but maybe it will be helpful to post them here as well.
Comments are closed.
Jim,
You said, “I think that if Paul were addressing a particular problem in Ephesus, he would have said so.”
I think it’s pretty obvious from the letter that he’s addressing particular problems. Just read the whole letter especially the 2nd half. Fee’s commentary is a good short commentary that you can read through that shows how what Paul emphasizes in the letter has to do with what was probably going on in the church (from what Paul’s emphasizes in the letter). Your teacher Schreiner even gave it a really good review (although I’m sure he disagrees with Fee’s Egalitarian interpretation).
Also it doesn’t appear that he’s backing up his statement with a reference to pre-fall created order as much as he’s addressing the story of Adam and Eve and it’s similarity to what’s going on in Ephesus (e.g. 1 Tim 5:15 “Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan. see Fee). He doesn’t say man was formed first then woman, he says Adam was formed first then Eve and then “Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.”(whereas in other places he talks about sin coming through Adam). Paul was too careful an interpreter of scripture to just site an OT verse casually (as people like Francis Watson have shown in Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith). Instead he appears to have has a much deeper reason related to the circumstances in Ephesus with the widows, specifically the younger ones, or maybe even the “new Roman women” as Towner has argued for.
Anyway that’s how I see it.
Blessings,
Bryan L
Bryan,
Thanks for your note. I am persuaded by the exegesis of the passage in Mounce’s commentary on the Pastorals, Schreiner’s essay in the book Women in the Church, and Moo’s essay in the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
All this is laid out in my essay, “What Women Can Do in Ministry,” which can be found at http://www.swbts.edu/faculty/jhamilton under “presentations.
Blessings!
JMH
Have you read Fee? Did you read all of Mounce’s commentary to see how he deals with everything from 1 Timothy? BTW Mounce says he was most indebted to Fee in writing his commentary. Just out of curiosity what have you read from the opposite side? Do you think it’s even possible for us to read something from the opposite side without predetermining that it will be wrong; so that any book we read will never get a fair hearing?
Blessing Jim and thanks for the conversation,
Bryan L
Bryan,
Have you read my paper “What Women Can Do in Ministry”? Click the link “Women, Ministry, and the Gospel” under “Books” on the right of my blog page, and it will take you to my essay. You can see from my footnotes what I’ve read.
Enjoy!
JMH