I Timothy 1:18-20 Paul is instructing Timothy to keep his faith, and then states: "...whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme." What is Paul saying?
First, let's dispose of some false understandings of this verse. It has been proposed by some that this verse alludes to the ancient church practice of secretly executing those in their midst who opposed the teachings of Christ. In later times (during the Inquisition, for example), this verse was one of those used to justify torture and burning of heretics. (Dictionary of New Testament Theology, I, 466) Modern commentators, however, are unanimous in stating that this verse refers to a form of excommunication in the case of major moral or doctrinal infractions by church members.
Since the best interpreter of Scripture is Scripture itself, consider some parallel passages:
“If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone...If you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you...If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” (Matthew 18:15-17)
“Take note of those who do not obey what we say in this letter; have nothing to do with them, so that they may be ashamed. Do not regard them as enemies, but warn them as believers.” (II Thessalonians 3:14-15)
“For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing [committed incest with his stepmother]. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.” (I Corinthians 5:3-5)
This last passage is an especially close parallel to that in I Timothy, and is instructive since it shows the action taking place solemnly with the concurrence of the church. The main areas of uncertainty in the I Corinthians verse concern the exact meaning of the word “flesh” and the means by which Satan will act in this situation.
Those who take the word “flesh” literally are best represented by The New Bible Commentary, which states that the excluded person would thus be “exposed to the dominion of Satan and particularly to his power to inflict physical disease.” Orr and Walther (I Corinthians) go further in stating that destruction of the flesh equals premature death. “Under such circumstances the man would have some time to come to repentance, and so his spirit would finally be saved.”
Others take “flesh” in a more figurative sense. Thus, Manfred Brauch (Hard Sayings of the Bible) and others take “for destruction of the flesh” to mean “so that the sinful nature may be destroyed.” When excluded from the protective sphere of church fellowship filled with examples of the Spirit's transforming power, the excommunicated person could possibly come to his senses.
In either case, it is obvious that the ultimate purpose of the excommunication in these New Testament passages is merciful and corrective, not merely punitive in nature.
I Timothy 2:11-12 Is this command meant to be literal and to apply to the church today?
The key word authentein appears only here in the NT and can mean both to have authority over and to
domineer. (DNNT) Other possible translations are “teach in such a way as to take authority,” “seize
authority,” “domineer in a murderous way,” or “proclaim oneself originator.” Regarding the last
possibility, one of the Gnostic teachings was that Eve was the originator of man. (Dictionary of Jesus
and the Gospels) Other possibilities are “usurp authority” or “lord it over.” (Donald Guthrie, The
Pastoral Epistles)
The probable context of the passage is that certain women in the congregation had come under the
influence of Gnostic teachers. (Guthrie)
Paul's main concerns in this case are (1) that women “are following a dangerous cultural trend” and
that (2) “public perception of church activity is supremely in mind.” The cultural trend may have
consisted in following the lead of rich, liberated Roman women in the congregation who served as role
models in matters of dress and outspokenness. Similarly, they may have been following false teachers
who were teaching a form of realized eschatology in which all gender distinctions were to be
immediately removed. (Philip Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus)
Some hold, probably erroneously, that the phrase “I do not permit” means that Paul is only speaking
his private opinion. It is more likely that the phrase indicates “an ad hoc solution to a newly-
encountered situation.” (Towner)
II Corinthians 9:13 shows that the same requirement to be a submissive listener applied to men as well
as women. (Towner)
I Timothy 3:11 indicates that women took part in some leadership roles, so 2:12 “should be taken as a
safeguard against abuse of authority rather than an exclusion from any leadership function.”
(Dictionary of Later New Testament and Its Development)
Parenthetically, the suggestion that church services were segregated by gender like the synagogues has
been rebutted by the architecture of both synagogues and house churches of the time. (Dictionary of
Paul and His Letters)
I Timothy 2:15 Does this mean that women who have no children have no hope of salvation?
First of all, let's point out some obvious principles:
1. One's interpretation must not teach the idea of salvation by works, rather than grace.
2. Any important theological truth will be mentioned more than once in the Bible.
3. Whatever the interpretation, it is obvious that faith is still involved.
Next, consider the literal, and somewhat awkward, wording of the Greek: “The woman transgressed but she shall be saved if they abide in faith.” This is a tip-off that Paul is alluding to Eve's sin in the Garden of Eden, but combining it with a message for his immediate audience.
Here are several possibilities that have been proposed to explain this difficult verse.
A Christian woman will experience the fullest blessings of salvation through having children, unlike the original curse on Eve of pain through childbirth.
She will come safely through childbirth.
She (referring to Eve's “daughter” Mary) will be saved by means of The Childbirth (the birth of Christ).
The first part of the verse applies mainly to Eve (she) and by extension to all Christian women (they) in the last part of the verse.
She will be saved even though she might have to undergo childbirth.
The way of salvation for a woman is not in assuming a masculine role but in simply being a woman (typified by childbearing) and responding to God in faith.
The background of the passage is that some married women of Paul's audience were following a heresy advocating abstinence from sexual relations and child-rearing. Paul is reminding them of the importance of having and raising children as part of rejecting these heretical teachings.
Some Christian women were having abortions. Paul says that only by rejecting such sinful acts can they continue in a state of salvation.
By devoting herself to child bearing and raising she will be saved from the error of trying to lord it over her husband.
By staying at home raising her children she will be kept from the corrupting influence of the world.
She will thereby be preserved from the role of insignificance in her family.
This passage is sometimes used to prove that the only purpose of marriage is to have children. However, the OT commands to multiply were given at the Beginning and after the Flood. In both cases, the earth obviously needed filling. And while Psalm 127:3-5 mentions the advantage of having many sons, remember that was very important in the mainly agrarian society of the time. The best scriptures for understanding that marriage is primarily for the filling of a need within men and women are Genesis 2:18-24 and I Corinthians 7:1-9.
I Timothy 3:1-2 Paul lists one of the elder roles as 'teaching.' Therefore doesn't it follow that only males can teach in the church while females can teach one another and children?
I would have to disagree with your conclusion on several grounds:
1. The various lists in the NT of the gifts of the Spirit include teaching, and there is no restriction in these passages as to whom the Spirit is going to give these gifts. One passage of interest is I Corinthians 14:26: “When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation.” To deny a woman who obviously is gifted in this way runs the risk of offending the Holy Spirit.
2. As far as I can see, it is not exactly clear that Paul states that the elders are necessarily all to be teachers. I Timothy 5:17 mentions “ruling” the church as their main duty and singles out for special honor those elders who do happen to preach and teach, which implies that not all elders did this. I Timothy 3:1-7 doesn't mention teaching as a duty of the elders, only caring for and managing the church. Titus 1:5-9 states that elders must be able to preach and refute the arguments of unbelievers. Since preaching and teaching are distinguished from one another elsewhere in the NT, neither of the two duties in Titus indicates a teaching ministry within the church.
3. Even if one can make the case that one of the roles for an elder is teaching, that does not in the least eliminate other people, male or female, from also serving in that role. To use that reasoning would be the same as saying that only elders in the church are to be “hospitable, a lover of goodness, prudent, etc.” just because Titus 1:8 gives those as characteristics of an elder. Deacons, for example, have much the same list of qualifications.
4. Regarding your last conclusion, Titus 2:3-5 is the only place I know where a positive teaching role in the church might be mentioned. It is usually the passage used to justify women teaching children in junior church or Sunday school, and perhaps leading a woman's seminar on occasion. Actually, there is absolutely no justification for these practices if one wishes to be strictly literal in interpreting the Bible. I think that these exceptions have been made in the modern church because few men are interested in such teaching ministries, not because the NT necessarily allowed it.
This passage only alludes to older women, probably widows. None of these women is given permission to teach children, other than their own, and certainly not in a church setting.
Their “teaching” of the younger women, according to evangelical commentaries I have read on this passage, consists of “encouraging,” “teaching by example,” “by their lives and behavior, not formally accredited teachers of the younger women,” “not public teaching, but ministry in the home,” “teaching them about their duties,” “modeling or mentoring in areas ranging from domestic responsibilities to personal godliness,” and “teaching younger women and children in their own household only.” Thus, even women teaching children in junior church or leading a woman's seminar sponsored by the church fall outside the strict scriptural mandate. That is especially true if the teacher is not an “older woman.”
In conclusion, many conservative churches are quite inconsistent in applying the NT to actual practice, accommodating to the current situation where it pleases them but hanging on to literal teachings in other cases to demonstrate their supposedly high view of scripture. Two examples of conservative Christian organizations trying to find scriptural permission for women to teach are both derived from the story of Priscilla and Aquila “explaining” (not teaching) things to Apollos.
When I was attending one church, our Sunday school class was told by the elders that we could on occasion have one of our women teach a class as long as she was under the headship of her husband and that he had reviewed what she was going to say ahead of time. The other example is the fact that conservative seminaries sometimes have women professors on their faculty but limit their teaching activities to “non-doctrinal” areas like computer programming, archeology or church history, etc. The idea seems to be that they are merely following the pattern of Priscilla in explaining factual matters only.
Concerning the actual definition of “teaching” in the Pastoral Epistles, the Greek word (didasko) has a variety of meanings in the NT depending on the actual context. Here are some comments from the Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 3, regarding the meaning of the word in other passages:
“What is taught may be knowledge, opinions or facts...The aim of all teaching is to communicate knowledge and skill with a view to developing the pupil's abilities, but not to force his will in a particular direction...what is taught is sound doctrine passed down from others...to teach in the sense of handing down a fixed body of doctrine which must be mastered and then preserved intact...men holding this office had the task of explaining the Christian faith to others and of providing a Christian exposition of the OT...in the Pastorals it is usually prefaced by 'sound,' meaning a fixed orthodoxy which the churches have received and which it is their duty to preserve against heresy.”
I Timothy 3:2,12 In listing the qualifications to be a church leader, it seems to state that only a married man with children could fill those roles. So how would Catholics justify single priests?
New Testament teachings: The priesthood is the possession of all believers (I Peter I:9 – “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood...”) and not a title to be held by some only. The high priest is Jesus himself (Hebrews 4-5). Paul teaches that celibacy is a gift and not for everyone, but it does prevent distractions from missionary efforts in light of the coming Day (I Corinthians 7:1,7,32-40). Christ taught the same thing in general (Matthew 19:10-12). Paul warned against false teachers who would come later forbidding marriage (I Timothy 4:1-3).
Excerpts from Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians:
“In c. 172, Tatian...returned from Rome to the Near East with teachings which denounced marriage and enjoined chastity on all Christians.” “In the mid-century, we know...how the bishop of Corinth corresponded with the bishop of Cnossos in Crete, encouraging him to consider the weaker Christians and not to lay the burden of chastity on everyone.” (p. 356)
“'Let marriage be honored in all circumstances,' stated the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, exhorting his readers not to sin against it, perhaps by rejecting it altogether. Those authors who were most directly influenced by a Jewish context were at first most favorable to marriage's cause. After Clement, no Christian author wrote anything so positive about the married state, and even Clement's views had hardly been straightforward praise....In 251, Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, was telling his Christians that the plague in the city had its advantages; it allowed the Christian virgins to die intact.” (p. 359)
“When Galen encountered Christians in Rome at the same period (170's), he was impressed by their willingness to abstain from sex, men and women alike.” (p. 361)
“Did virgin priesthoods, perhaps, set the Church an example, encouraging Christians to excel the practice of rival pagan cults?..Celibacy was not required of priests in the Church, though the demand for it grew in the fourth century.” (p. 362)
“Christians had been freed from the details of the Jewish law and its daily observance, but those who wished for an obvious context, where merit and failure were clearly marked, could now find it in a battle against their own instincts. The ideal had the simple merit of being difficult, but self-centered.” (p. 368)
The requirement for elders and deacons should probably be taken as general guidance but not bar an unmarried man or one with no children from seeking these offices. However, if he is married, it should only be to one wife at a time (probably does not bar widowers from remarrying, but may bar those who are divorced and remarry, except for cause). Opinions vary. Also, if he has children, they should be obedient.
It was generally expected of rabbis that they would be married. Paul wasn't married at the time he wrote I Corinthians 7:8 (perhaps a widower) but implies that he is (or was) in I Corinthians 9:5. Peter was married (Mark 1:30). Timothy was fairly young so he may not have been married yet. The example of Jesus was very influential for some.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments