The short answer is no, but that has to be substantiated.
In his book From Pentecost to Patmos (363-65), Craig Blomberg writes regarding 1 Timothy 2 (italicized statements below are his):
Verses 11-15 next call on the women of Ephesus not to supplant the male role of leadership in church. Verses 11-12 define this role as one of authoritative teaching. . . . Verse 12, at first glance, seems to make two separate prohibitions (”teach” and “have authority”), but they are probably intended as mutually defining (a figure of speech known as a hendiadys). After all, Priscilla and Aquila taught Apollos (Acts 18:26), women apostles like Junia by definition would have taught multigendered audiences (see on Rom. 16:7), and women deacons like Phoebe obviously exercised delegated authority under the eldership over the rest of the congregation (see on Rom. 16:1-2). What is more, 1 Timothy 2 seems to be full of pairs of roughly synonymous expressions that say basically the same thing in two different ways (cf. vv. 1a,b; 2a,b,c; 3; 4; 7a,b; 8b; 9b; 11). . . . The authoritative teaching role that Paul prohibits women from taking would thus be the office of the overseer or elder, inasmuch as 3:2 and 5:17 assign the combined function of teaching and exercising authority uniquely to this office. . . . The bottom line for this interpretation would then be that the ultimately authoritative teacher in a given church should be male . . . In congregationally structured churches this would be the senior pastor; in other forms of church government it might be a person “higher up” (e.g., a bishop or pope).
There are a number of issues in this statement that need to be taken one by one.
- Blomberg asserts that the two things prohibited–teaching and exercising authority–form a hendiadys. He cites many scholars in his discussions, but he doesn’t cite Douglas Moo, who argues that this is not a hendiadys. Moo argues against Philip B. Payne, an egalitarian whom Blomberg does cite, that while teaching and exercising authority are closely related, they are nonetheless distinct, as can be seen from the way that they are distinguished from one another in 1 Timothy 3:2, 4-5 and 5:17. Nor does Blomberg interact with Andreas Köstenberger’s argument that this is not a hendiadys. Köstenberger has shown (in the first  and second  editions of Women in the Church) that there is a partial overlap between the two terms–teach and exercise authority–with teaching being one manifestation of the exercise of authority—but these are two activities, not one. Nor does Blomberg answer William D. Mounce, who noted in his commentary on the Pastorals that in the original Greek these two terms—teach and exercise authority–are separated by five words, which argues against them forming a hendiadys, wherein words are usually side by side. The likelihood is that this is not a hendiadys. This means that a central element of Blomberg’s argument that women should do exactly what this text says they are not to do (teach men, which Blomberg indicates women should do more of, he even says they should have opportunities to preach—as long as they’re not elders), is highly disputed and probably wrong.
- Blomberg refers to Priscilla and Aquila teaching Apollos in Acts 18:26. Some observations about this text need to be patiently restated every time it comes up in these discussions: (1) from what this verse says, we do not know who did the teaching. For all we know, Priscilla could have been silent the whole time. (2) Even if Priscilla did all the talking on this occasion, which the text does not indicate, there is no evidence that Priscilla and Aquila had more than one teaching session with Apollos, nor is there evidence that they ever again taught an adult male. (3) The text specifically states that they took Apollos aside, indicating that this time of instruction took place in private. (4) The book of Acts is a narrative, which on any hermeneutical scheme is less prescriptive than descriptive. In other words, Luke is more describing what happened rather than prescribing what ought to happen. (5) Since Luke and Paul traveled together, the likelihood is that they would have agreed on this matter, which means we probably don’t have tension between 1 Timothy 2 and Acts 18.
- Blomberg unblushingly states that Junia was an apostle and that “by definition” she would have taught multigendered audiences. Blomberg cites several scholars on this point, but he does not cite the Wallace/Burer article, originally published in NTS, arguing that Romans 16:7 should read “well known to” rather than “well known among” the apostles (he alludes to the article’s content but does not give the bibliographic data, merely citing the egalitarians who have argued against the article). But even if we grant for a moment Blomberg’s reading, the text says nothing about what Junia did as an “apostle.” So, for the sake of argument, if she was an “apostle,” this has to mean something like “missionary.” She was not one of the twelve, as Blomberg rightly acknowledges. So one can easily imagine her serving as an “apostle” in that she was sent out as a missionary by her church, and as a missionary, she could have served in thousands of ways without ever teaching or exercising authority over men. Where is the evidence that she “by definition” would have taught multigendered audiences? I do not think such evidence is to be found in the pages of the New Testament.
- Whatever authority Phoebe may have exercised as a woman deacon, her primary role was to serve. This is what the term deacon means–one who serves. From what we see in the New Testament, the likelihood is that if she had authority, it was authority over women.
- Köstenberger observes that the “pairs of roughly synonymous expressions that say basically the same thing in two different ways” to which Blomberg appeals are almost all nouns, whereas the two activities in 1 Timothy 2:12 are verbs (Women in the Church, 2d ed., 79).
- In 1 Timothy 2, Paul seems to be addressing what happens when Christians gather for worship. 1 Timothy 2:1-8 deals with the kinds of prayer that need to be offered; 2:9-10 deals with how women adorn themselves; and 2:11-15 asserts that women are to learn and be in submission, not teach and exercise authority over men. The chapter does not breathe a word about a teaching office. Two activities are prohibited—teaching men and exercising authority over men—and nothing is said about an office. These are the two activities that distinguish the office of elder/overseer/pastor from the office of deacon, but if Paul had wanted to merely say that women cannot serve as elders, he could have said that when he discussed elders in 1 Timothy 3. Paul seems to prohibit women teaching and exercising authority over men, not the assumption of an office. The prohibition of the activities, however, does preclude them from the office.
For all these reasons, I am unconvinced by Blomberg’s discussion. He seeks to be neither egalitarian nor complementarian, but his choices of which scholars he cites and which arguments he discusses seem to lean him definitely to the egalitarian side of things. Further, arguing that women can and should teach Bible and theology to men in church is an egalitarian position.
It seems to me that Paul says that he does not permit women to teach men, then he bases that prohibition on a trans-cultural appeal to the created order. On this interpretation, encouraging women to teach Bible and theology to men at church is encouraging them to do exactly what the Bible says they should not do.
For other posts on this topic, see:
An Open Letter to Susan Wise Bauer
Q & A on Paul and Jesus, Women and the Law
Pastors Are Not Elders: An Egalitarian Suggestion?
Unity, Liberty, and Charity: Does This Mean Women Can Teach Men?
A few thoughts:
Your 2nd point: You said “from what this verse says, we do not know who did the teaching. For all we know, Priscilla could have been silent the whole time.”
Are you serious? Do you know how silly this sounds? If she didn’t say a thing but just sat there listening to her husband talk the whole time then why say she taught him? Why put her name first when mentioning her and her husband and the fact that they taught Apollos?
It seems like you’re also building a big case for what it doesn’t say besides the fact that it says Priscilla and Aquila taught him.
Besides how do you know he didn’t stay quiet the whole time while she did the teaching?
Also who cares if it never says whether she ever taught another adult male? Seriously if she was smart enough to better instruct someone like Apollos in the ways of God do you really think it was her first or last time teaching a man?
Your 3rd bullet: I’m confused at your defining apostle as Missionary. It seems you are equating the work of an Apostle with the more modern idea of mission trips sort of like the way that youth go to another country and help build a house. But really, is this the idea that they had when they thought of an Apostle. Granted I could see the idea of Missionary but not in the sense of visiting a place for a couple of weeks to hand out food, but instead going to teach and spread the gospel and start new churches.
In your 4th bullet you said “This is what the term deacon means–one who serves.”
Yes, but what exactly does it mean to serve? Paul speaks about him serving other and he was an Apostle. Seriously if it just meant getting drinks for people and sweeping the floor then why put such high requirements on it? Maybe the emphasis on serving, is serving God and Paul says he serves God by preaching the Gospel.
You also said “From what we see in the New Testament, the likelihood is that if she had authority, it was authority over women.”
Where is the evidence for this? Only by some circular reasoning where your interpretation of 1 Timothy controls everything else you read, causing you to dismiss evidence away or explain that it can’t mean what it says, can you say this.
You said “but his choices of which scholars he cites and which arguments he discusses seem to lean him definitely to the egalitarian side of things.”
The same can be said of you. What egalitarian scholars are you interacting with? You chose to argue against someone who’s not even an egalitarian but a semi-complementarian. And then you piled up the references to complementarian scholars to build your case.
You said, “Paul says that he does not permit women to teach men, then he bases that prohibition on a trans-cultural appeal to the created order. Is it safe to encourage women to do exactly what the Bible says they should not?”
I have my doubts that Paul was actually backing up his statement with a transcultural appeal to the created order. Instead I think he’s using the story of Adam and Eve because of its similarity to what’s going on in Ephesus. What specifically leads me to think this is the case (that Paul’s appealing to the actual Gen 2-3 narrative and not just the created order) is that Paul doesn’t just say, “man was formed first then woman”, he says, “Adam was formed first, then Eve.” He also goes on to say, “And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” (Whereas elsewhere he speaks of sin coming through Adam).
Paul’s appeal to the Genesis text in 1 Tim 2:13-14 seems to be brought up for reasons that have to do with the situation going on in Ephesus and how it’s related to the story of the Fall. Paul urges Timothy to correct the false teachers (1:3) who are involved in “things taught by demons” (4:1), and then goes on to say that some women have “already turned away to follow Satan” (5:15). Before that he counsels the young widows to “marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander” (5:14 see 2:15). He talks about young widows going house to house speaking foolish talk and saying things they shouldn’t. Taking into account the fact that Eve through her deception causes Adam to fall as well, there just seems to be too many links with the actual story of the fall in Gen 2-3 to believe that Paul is just referring to the order of creation as support for his argument.
I don’t think you are taking the whole context of 1 Timothy serious and the situations that were going on in Ephesus and the pastoral way Paul was responding to them. 1 Timothy was such a situation specific letter that I find it hard to believe you would take something Paul says there, that is really different from anything he says elsewhere, and put all the weight of your beliefs about women in ministry on it to support it.
Dr. Hamilton, I have spent a lot of time reading the literature on both sides of this debate, and slowly over time I have been persuaded of the basic rightness of the complementarian view, and I believe the typical egalitarian responses pail drastically compared to strength of the primary arguments for the historic/traditional view that women should not teach or have authority over men in the church period. However, I do agree with Bryan (only on this one thing!) in that your explanation of Priscilla and Aquilla is very flawed and weak, and I know for sure it would do nothing for anyone leaning towards the egalitarian position. It has been a while since I have looked at the literature on this passage in Acts; do you know of any solid readings of this passage from the complementarian side? Thanks!
Nor does Blomberg interact with Andreas Köstenberger’s argument that this is not a hendiadys.
But when I try to interact with both you and Kostenberger, I am deleted. And I do want to interact.
Now, my problem is first that I can’t find any evidence for saying that authentein means “exercize authority”. So first, this needs to be defended. Then the discussion can unfold.
Next, you must realize that Wallace and Burer did not present their material properly in their article. I have heard by email from Burer who agrees that the hypothesis needs a defence. Epp is right to say it is a shambles. This is all well known.
Linda Belleville uncovered the original mishandling of the evidence and the hypothesis is admittedly undefended. The quote from Psalms of Solomon (mentioned in the NET Bible notes) was not properly quoted. I studied with the editor of the New English Translation of the Septuagint and I was very surprised to see that Wallace and Burer never mention this translation for the Psalms of Solomon.
The main problem is that when I look at the original Greek documents for every single one of the examples that Wallace and Burer cite, I see how many times they misrepresent the evidence. A lot. This is a problem.
The real problem is that women are uncovering basic, very basic errors that men make in Greek and then include in their articles. Please take time to verify this information.
Response to Michael Burer
Please check out this link. My presentation of the arguments stands without response.
The same NT said that we should greet each other with a holy kiss, but we don’t. It’s a cultural thing! Couldn’t this passage about women be a cultural thing too. I look at Jesus in His ministry. He celebrated women who should and sought to be quiet according to the tradition at that time. Ex. the women with the issue of blood. He told Mary to stay at the front of the church even when tradition dictates that she should be in the kitchen. About preaching, the woman at the well did a big one in her village. Indeed the Bible says that she told the ‘men’ the gospel- Jesus, Messiah, is here come and find Him and believe Him. Mary Magdalene also brought the Gosppe that He is risen and He is God toooo the men. Were these coincidences or the plan and will of God. And of the women in the upper room, the HS annointed all the occupants in the room. Jesus told them wait for this annointing to go out in His name to the world. He did not disect the group for good reasons. He also said ‘no man lights a lamp and put it under a table/bushel. Shall He then annoint with fire/light a lamp and put her in the closet or behing some slop of a man? The incident of the ‘woman’s seed’ point to te redemption of the women of the curse of ‘under her husband’ in Genesis. And let’s never forget Gal 3.28- neither male nor female…
Bryan, Nick, Suzanne, and Judith,
Thanks to all of you for reading my blog.
Bryan and Nick,
NAU Acts 18:26 “and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.”
Priscilla and Aquila are always named together in the NT. My point is that we don’t know who did the talking, and egalitarians need this verse to say a lot more than it does if they’re going to use it for their cause. Elsewhere in Acts, when Luke gives an instance of something that commonly happened, he says that a lot more like this happened. See, for instance, an individual conversion account (Acts 16:32-34) which is almost immediately followed by a comment that “a great many” were converted (Acts 17:4). Luke doesn’t give any indication that there were many more instances of Priscilla and Aquila teaching. Compare that with Paul’s sermon in Pisidian Antioch in Acts 13, followed by the statement that he preached the same way in Iconium in Acts 14:1.
Bryan, as for your comment about her being “smart enough” to instruct Apollos, we’re only told that they instructed him in the way of God more accurately. It doesn’t take a genius to know the gospel. It’s a simple message. We don’t know what they said to Apollos. Maybe Priscilla was brilliant, but there’s not enough evidence in Acts 18:26 to build a case for that.
Blomberg uses the word “missionary” with reference to Junia, too. I think she would have served as a missionary in a way that corresponded with the texts I’m about to cite.
Please see my essay “What Women Can Do In Ministry,” recently published in a book called WOMEN, MINISTRY AND THE GOSPEL from IVP, for my interaction with recent egalitarian scholarship.
Suzanne, I think it was Spurgeon who said something like, “You don’t have to defend a lion, just let him loose.”
NAU 1 Corinthians 11:3 “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.”
NAU 1 Corinthians 11:7-10 “For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”
NAU 1 Corinthians 14:34 “The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.”
NAU Ephesians 5:22-24 “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.”
NAU Colossians 3:18 “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.”
NAU 1 Timothy 2:11-15 “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”
NAU 1 Timothy 5:14 “Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach;”
NAU Titus 2:3 “Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, 4 so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.”
NAU 1 Peter 3:1-6 “In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 2 as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. 3 Your adornment must not be merely external– braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; 4 but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; 6 just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.”
Judith, please see the other posts linked above.
Thanks to Jim and all the respondents for taking my work as worthy of this kind of interaction. As you can imagine, in doing a survey of Acts through Revelation, there is scarcely room for the kind of detailed interaction with scholars that I am chastised for not undertaking. In my complementarian chapter in the revised edition of Two Views of Women in Ministry I have more space and try to do that. Even then, there has been so much written on this topic that I cannot cite everyone, but I have read and worked through all the studies cited above.
Just a couple of points here. The real gist of my argument about the paired infinitives in 1 Tim. 2:12 is not that they are a formal, irrefutable hendiadys, but that there is a remarkable pattern of Paul using overlapping terms in virtually every verse from 2:1 onward, sometimes more than once in a verse to say the same basic thing twice. That’s the piece I wish more folks would interact with if they are going to reject my interpretation of v. 12.
Second, encouraging women to teach the Bible to men in church is by no means an egalitarian position. Read Ruth Tucker’s and Walter Liefeld’s wonderfully even-handed treatment of what women have and haven’t done throughout church history and you’ll see numerous models of women doing precisely this under male authority, headship, or leadership, whatever you want to call it. I’ve been a part of churches myself that have done it.
I’m surprised, Jim, as fine a scholar that you are, that you end your blog with the cheap shot that you do. Of course, if I believed v. 12 was saying what you said it was saying, then given the creation ordinance of v. 13 I wouldn’t permit what you don’t permit. But as you state clearly earlier that’s not how I take it. You may reject my interpretation but please don’t misrepresent my views, or deny my complementarianism or implicitly make it sound like I’m flatly contradicting Scripture. One of us is and we’d both better be prepared to say that it could be us and not be nearly so confident that we know it’s the other one!
Thanks for your comment on my blog, and thanks for your many helpful writings. I have learned a great deal from you, especially your book on the historical reliability of John’s Gospel. My high regard for you makes me appreciate your words very much.
I apologize for offending you with that last paragraph. For what it’s worth, that was not my intention. Nor was it my intention to misrepresent your position. I will edit the last few lines address these concerns.
You yourself imply that one of us is flatly contradicting Scripture, and that we had both better be prepared to say that it could be us. I am open to that possibility. I could be totally wrong on this point, but from everything I can see, I am convinced of the interpretation that I have adopted is correct.
Is it possible to humbly assert what one believes with confidence? That was all that I meant to do.
You write that it is by no means egalitarian to encourage women to teach the Bible to men in church. We disagree, and an appeal to church history is not going to help us here. Perhaps Russell Moore is correct, and the words “complementarian” and “egalitarian” are no longer useful for this discussion.
To my thinking, the emasculation of the church has not happened as a result of a mighty influx of female pastors. The statistics show that, proportionally speaking, there are not many women who pastor churches. The church has conformed to the culture on the issue of gender roles not through the influence of women pastors, but through the female Sunday School teachers, female Bible study leaders, and prominent female preachers who are on billboards and television screens whether they pastor a church or not.
I say all this because more and more it seems to me that whether women will teach Bible to men in church–regardless of the question of ordination–is the key point of dispute.
Paul’s “First of all, then,” in 1 Tim 2:1, seems to indicate that he is giving something of a list of instructions so that Timothy will know how to conduct himself in church (3:14-15). This list then deals with what men and women do in worship (2:1-15), elders and deacons (3:1-13), the danger of false teaching (4:1-16), how to deal with older and younger men, older and younger women, and widows (5:1-16), how to care for elders (5:17-25), how slaves should conduct themselves (6:1-2), how to deal with those who disagree (6:2b-16), and how to instruct the rich (6:17-19). If this is correct, it indicates that Paul is very concerned about who does what in church and how the members of the church relate to one another. It would also give the references to “these things” (3:14; 4:6, 11, 15; 5:7; 6:2b) a compounding sense, such that Paul is referring to all the instructions he has given.
If this is right, it has implications for where the instructions are placed–suggesting that if Paul had merely wanted to say that women cannot serve as elders he would have put it with his other comments on elders. It also raises the stakes on the prohibition Paul states in 2:12. Part of “these things” Paul wants Timothy to “teach and urge” (6:2b), which if he does he will be a good servant of Christ Jesus (4:6), which he is to practice and devote himself to (4:15), is this point that women not teach or exercise authority over men.
I never doubted for a moment your awareness of the arguments and writings I allude to in my post. I am always struck by how thorough your coverage is. We can never cite everything we read when we write up our views, nor can we begin to sketch all the contours of the scholarly discussion. My point is that what we do cite, what we do choose to interact with, has a way of setting the mood for the music we play. Our dialogue partners influence our discussion because it is their contentions, their interests, and their conclusions with which we will interact. And it seemed that you mainly discussed egalitarian scholarship, which results in your treatment giving certain impressions. The arguments discussed are egalitarian arguments.
I hope that you will accept my sincere apologies, and I hope that my comments–I apologize that they are so lengthy–give warrant to the gravity I feel about this issue.
May the Lord continue to bless you and your ministry,
You are right about where the influence on the church’s view of gender roles is coming from. The activities allowed by Blomberg’s position (as stated in the excerpt) are the reason that egalitarianism is winning the day.
Can someone point to a good article summarizing what constitutes a hendiadys? I don’t mean an article explaining what it is; I mean what aspects are required for two words to even be considered as a hendiadys.
I’ve heard that a true hendiadys is a pairing of two nouns by the word “kia” (or maybe another coordinating conjunction) which results in one of the words being used adjectivally. In this sense, we might say something is “nice and warm,” by which we mean that it is “the perfect temperature for an object that should be slightly heated.” I know this doesn’t really work since “nice” and “warm” are both adjectives, but I don’t have time to think of a true hendiadys in English right now.
I may be way too conservative on this, but shouldn’t we limit the labeling of something as a hendiadys to those phrases which have become cliché? If the reader can not clearly see that the first word is being used adjectivally, and the author knows that this would cause confusion, wouldn’t he just use an adjective to make it clear? The phrase “Nice and warm” works because the conjunction compounds the adjectives, but also because it is so common. If we were to say that it was “horrible and cold” yesterday, we would not necessarily mean that it was “horribly cold.” The phrase isn’t common and so we need more from the context to tell us whether we are referring to something else in the environment that might have made it so horrible, such as rain or snow.
I wonder if another possibility might be that the word being used adjectivally is commonly used adjectivally in various hendiadyses. Since the word “nice” in English can be used with various phrases, “nice and hot” (as in pizza) or “nice and cold” (as in beer), could it be that Greek acts similarly?
Well, you can see why I’d like to see a good article on this. It seems that scholars get a lot of mileage out of this grammatical construction, and this particular stretch (authoritative teaching) is showing that we are riding on flat tires.
Mounce cites BDF $442.
Wallace doesn’t have “hendiadys” in his index, nor does Porter (Idioms), nor Moule (Idiom Book), nor Dana and Mantey (Manual Grammar).
Robertson lists it as something “We need not tarry over” (1206).
Turner only mentions it under the “adverbial or epexegetical kai” (Syntax, 335).
David Alan Black has a very brief note in Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek, 135.
Smyth (Greek Grammar, $3025 [p. 678]) writes, “Hendiadys . . . is the use of two words connected by a copulative conjunction to express a single complex idea; especially two substantives instead of one substantive and an adjective or attributive adjective.”
I smell a doctoral dissertation.
Some thoughts on your first response
You said “Priscilla and Aquila are always named together in the NT. My point is that we don’t know who did the talking, and egalitarians need this verse to say a lot more than it does if they’re going to use it for their cause.”
You point to them being always named together which is true, but why is she always named first (except for in 1 Cor)? I think that is an important question to ask about what it might imply.
You mention that we don’t know who did the talking, but I don’t think we need to have either one or the other of them doing the talking while the other is silent. It says they both taught him, so why don’t we settle for that? If we had to pick one or the other I would think because she is mentioned first, that she did the talking, otherwise why mention her at all? I don’t think egalitarians need it to say a lot more than it does to use it in our cause. Instead I think complementarians are trying to make it say a lot less than it does so that it can be dismissed as evidence.
You seem to keep appealing to what the text doesn’t say rather than what it does say, as is evidence with you saying that Luke never again talks about them teaching again. I think some arguments from silence can work, but I don’t believe this is one of them. You would need to show more convincingly why Luke would have needed to or should have mentioned them teaching again.
You said “It doesn’t take a genius to know the gospel. It’s a simple message. We don’t know what they said to Apollos.”
I agree that you don’t need to be a genius to know the Gospel and that it is a simple message. At the same time Jim, the Gospel doesn’t have an easy explanation. We may be able to make concise or brief presentations of the Gospel but I don’t believe we should confuse that with the actual complexity of the Gospel and what it could take to explain it to someone. After all we send people to Seminary just to get M.Divs so that they can be pastors and preach the Gospel. And considering how learned Apollos was and that he already knew about Jesus and I don’t think it would have been easy to convince him that Jesus was crucified but that God resurrected him (not resuscitated him) and that not only is he actually God he is also coming back one day. That’s a big jump from regular Jewish expectations of the Messiah. On top of that considering that right after they taught him it says he began to debate with the Jews proving from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ, I don’t think it’s a far stretch to believe they also taught him this and that sure isn’t an easy topic to teach, especially to Jews who really know their Bibles. My point in all of this is that for someone like Priscilla to teach someone like Apollos all of this (or co-teach), I have a hard time believing it was her one and only time teaching, or that Apollos was the only male she taught after that.
You said “I think she (Junia) would have served as a missionary in a way that corresponded with the texts I’m about to cite.”
The text you cite mostly have to do with marriage, so would you be a little clearer about how those text relate to being a missionary. It seems it would be better to point to verses about what apostles do since that’s what we are defining missionary with. It just appears like a bait and switch to me, to argue that apostle should be defined as missionary and then use marriage verses to define what it means to be a missionary.
As far as the verses you bring up, only 2 of them have to do with the topic of the post and one of those verses is textually suspect (1 Corinthians 14:34-45) and the other one is the one we are discussing (1 Tim 2:11-15). The others are primarily about marriage and equally have their own issue (what does kephale mean? how culturally conditioned are these statements etc…) so I don’t know that it is actually that helpful to cite them to Suzanne to prove your case, or that it is really in fact letting a lion loose.
Thanks for the discussion and the article. Have a good one.
Thanks for your note.
She’s named first. And Paul and Barnabas are named a lot together in Acts, with Barnabas named before Paul in Acts 11:30. What might this imply about the relationship between Barnabas and Paul?
We would need a much larger sample of males and females being named together to establish anything from which person gets named first.
So they both taught him. This shows that a male and a female can give instruction to one male at a time in private. That’s as much as it shows. Is that all that egalitarians are trying to establish from this text?
Acts 18:25 says that Apollos knew only the baptism of John. From the other things said in the context, it looks like Apollos just needed to be brought up to date on what had happened.
The texts I cite cover every aspect of life and ministry: how men and women relate to one another (see also 1 Tim 5:1-17, single, widowed, old, young), how men and women conduct themselves in marriage (Eph 5, Col 3; 1 Pet 3), how men and women conduct themselves in worship (1 Cor 11, 14), who does the teaching in church and how the women are to be when the men teach (1 Tim 2:11-12), and if we add 1 Tim 3, we see that men only serve as elders, while women can serve as deacons. Relations between single men and women, relations between married men and women, and the worship, teaching, and service of the church. That seems pretty comprehensive. Has anything been left out?
I think the Bible is pretty clear on these issues.
On the issue of Junia being an apostle, look at the use of the term “apostle” in John 13:16, Phil 2:25, 2 Cor 8:23, and then you’ve got various references to “false-apostles” (2 Cor 11:5; Rev 2:2, etc.). These people are in no way identified with the 12.
The 12 seem to have been joined by Matthias, plus those who saw the Lord and were commissioned by him (1 Cor 9:1; 15:7-9), and so with the 12 (counting Matthias) we can class James, Paul, and Barnabas (cf. Acts 14:4, 14). These 16 men (counting Judas) were apostles of Jesus.
So if Romans 16:7 is saying that Junia is an apostle, I would see her as being like Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25) or “the brothers” (2 Cor 8:23)–messengers (apostles) of the churches. We’re given so little evidence about these people–the ones in 2 Cor 8:23 aren’t even named–that any attempt to base an argument on them that goes against what the text explicitly says elsewhere looks suspicious. It just seems to me that even if Junia was an apostle (which has not been established), if she was an apostle of Jesus we would hear a lot more about her (unless you think that some misogynous males deleted her name from the four Gospels and Acts!). So, if Rom 16:7 is calling her an apostle, which is questionable itself, she was probably an apostle of her church, a messenger. Doesn’t it seem plausible–given the culture and the kinds of things said in the rest of the NT–that if she was an “apostle” she would have been one in a way that did not transgress anything stated in 1 Cor 11, 14; Eph 5; Col 3; 1 Tim 2; 1 Pet 3?
Grudem has defintively established the meaning of kephale. Baldwin and Kostenberger have definitively established the positive meaning of authentein.
These verses have to do with marriage? Then in that culture these verses pertain to all of adult life. The Bible seems to assume that adulthood equals marriage (acknowledging exceptions), so if the Bible speaks to marriage it speaks to adulthood.
The lion is on the loose,
Word. Good call Jim.
I have read the trail of this debate and my first thoughts were WOW! Unbelievable!
Before adding my two cents, I wanted to take a little time to study this out so that I could comment in confidence. In doing so, the Holy Spirit led me to Phil 1:15-18…
1:15 Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from goodwill. 1:16 The latter do so from love because they know that I am placed here for the defense of the gospel. 1:17 The former proclaim Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, because they think they can cause trouble for me in my imprisonment. 27 1:18 What is the result? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is being proclaimed, and in this I rejoice.
Now I am sure you asking, what in the world does this have to do with what is being discussed? I think Paul said it best, “What does it matter? The important thing is whether false or truth motives, Christ is being preached and in that I rejoice. In this case Paul was speaking of those who were preaching about Christ for personal gain, but don’t you get the overall point here? As long as Christ is proclaimed who cares what their motives were and I will add; who cares who (male or female) brings forth the truth. As long as Christ is preached, God’s purpose is being fulfilled. God will use anyone ‘willing’ to be used by Him regards of gender.
It really saddens me that you believe and interpret Paul to say, it fine for women to teach and have leadership over auxiliaries, to be a deaconess, or to lead/teach only women and children, but when it comes to heading a church or leading a man to know Christ, that is completely contrary to God’s word. One of things I love about God’s word; it will never ever contradict itself otherwise the word will be untrue and the good thing is we all agree the word is truth. God is not a respecter of persons and accepts all those who fear him and do what is right.
It is clear in 1Tim 2:11-15, Paul was addressing a specific issue with a specific church (the church of Ephesus) during a specific time. Paul speaks initially in his letter warning against false teaching in Chapter 1. In Chapter 2 he provides instructions on worship. Initially Paul starts off addressing the men and women in the plural tense, i.e. men pray every where lifting up holy hands… women dress themselves in modest apparel… But in verse 11, Paul gets specific. He now addresses in the singular tense. Why? He could have continued in the plural tense with women should learn in silence or in Verse 12, I do not permit women to teach or to have authority over men, they must stay silent…but that’s not what the word says…
So I want the men to pray every place, lifting up holy hands without anger or dispute. 2:9 Likewise the women are to dress in suitable apparel, with modesty and self-control. Their adornment must not be with braided hair and gold or pearls or expensive clothing, 2:10 but with good deeds, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. 2:11 A woman must learn quietly with all submissiveness. 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet. 2:13 For Adam was formed first and then Eve. 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived,fell into transgression. 2:15 But she will be delivered through childbearing, if she continues in faith and love and holiness with self-control.
The tense changed from plural to singular beginning in verse 11 hence the conclusion Paul was addressing a specific issue about a specific woman; a woman (a wife) who was deceived by the false teaching Paul spoke of in Chapter 1. Paul was speak in general in verses 8-10. Paul takes it back to Adam and Eve because the responsibility of the husband is to teach his wife (and children) God’s word. That’s where the hierarchy comes in…Christ head of every man, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. This applies to a man’s household. This hierarchy has no determination of women holding of an office or being senior pastor in a church. All the scriptures you quoted Dr. Hamilton deal solely on marriage or the relationship between a husband and wife. God is the God of order. Somehow this woman did not receive the full knowledge of the truth and as a result fell susceptible to false teaching. This woman may not have grasped the full understanding of the truth and therefore required further instruction and knowledge under the direction of her husband.
There are women mentioned in the bible that clearly had the knowledge and authority to teach the word of God. Some have been named already so I will not go there. I do not believe it was Paul‘s nor the Lord’s position to silence women or subject them to teach/preach just to the women and children. Paul rejoiced in anyone that would further the cause to preach Jesus Christ as Lord as should we.
God has called and will call women to lead churches. Some will be hindered because of misinterpretation of 1Tim 2:11-15. Let’s not stifle the Holy Spirit. Before commenting, consider what I have said. Allow the Holy Spirit to lead you into His truth. Sometimes we get so stuck on what we have been taught in the past, we don’t allow the Holy Spirit to lead us in to all truth. The word will never change, but just through my experience I have discovered I can read the same scripture on a different day and the Holy Spirit will reveal something new to me about it. I beseech you brother to dig a little deeper in this issue for the complete truth.
Incidentally, I have a son that will be a declared as man in the next couple years (18 yrs old). I have exercised authority over him and taught him as a child. Are you saying when he becomes a man, I no longer have the right to teach him because I’m a woman?
God Bless You Tremendously!
‘Nor does Blomberg answer William D. Mounce, who noted in his commentary on the Pastorals that in the original Greek these two terms—teach and exercise authority–are separated by five words, which argues against them forming a hendiadys, wherein words are usually side by side.’
Mounce understates his case. He is right that in the cases of hendiadys in Greek that are generally recognised the two words are side by side or almost so. He might well have pointed out in addition that all the cases that are cited, both in NT Greek and classical, involve the positive connective conjunctions καί or τε. Where is the evidence for hendiadys with οὐδέ? Both Mounce and Payne refer to BDF 442.16, which concerns καί not οὐδέ.
And, by the way, regarding hendiadys with verbs, Winer says: ‘To find a hendiadys in the verb.. is altogether absurd.’ [Winer Moulton 3rd ed, 786] Though to be fair, Denniston does find a form of it in the orators – with the two verbs side by side, joined by καί.
Leave a comment