For His Renown

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 [1995] and second [2005] 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:

Amen to the Attitude!

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?

May Women Teach Men at Church?