An Historian Looks at 1 Timothy 2:11–14: The Authentic Traditional Interpretation and Why It Disappeared

By J. G. Brown

In the controversy over the role of women in the church, complementarians/hierarchists routinely claim to be upholding the "traditional" position. Like the little boy who declared that "the emperor has no clothes," J. G. Brown exposes the fallacies in this claim. The authentic traditional interpretation of passages such as 1 Timothy 2:11-14 differs substantially from contemporary readings, whether egalitarian or hierarchist. Most prominent Protestant exegetes--from Luther and Calvin through those in the early nineteenth century--understood creation ordinances (male headship/female subordination) as foundational to the temporal world, not the church. An Historian Looks at 1 Timothy 2:11-14 brings history and theology together in a fresh way, with startling implications for the ongoing debate.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Release date: Feb 9, 2012
• ISBN: 9781630879044

J. G. Brown

J. G. Brown resides in St. Louis, Missouri, and has recently retired from a career of teaching history and government on the high school and community college levels.

Book preview

9781610976008.kindle.jpg

An Historian Looks at 1 Timothy 2:11–14

The Authentic Traditional Interpretation and Why It Disappeared

J. G. Brown

18420.png

An Historian Looks at 1 Timothy 2:11–14

The Authentic Traditional Interpretation and Why It Disappeared

Copyright © 2012 J. G. Brown. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Wipf & Stock

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

ISBN 13: 978-1-61097-600-8

EISBN 13: 978-1-63087-904-4

Manufactured in the U.S.A.

Unless marked otherwise, all scripture references are from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®. Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

To Bob

Preface

As a history teacher, I have long been aware that prior to the nineteenth century the general population applied the creation order, as they understood it in Genesis 2 and 3, to the culture at large. This mandated the subordination of women to men in the arenas of government, business, the academy, et cetera—and in the church, or so I assumed. Then, when traditionalists lost the culture wars of the nineteenth century, they jettisoned the application of creation ordinances to the civil kingdom and sought to defend what turf they had left (the church) ever more vigorously—or so I assumed. What I was not able to do was reconcile the traditional theological position with the clear connection the early women’s rights movement had with evangelical revival and reform. This appeared to be evangelical Protestantism against itself and remained a conundrum until I read David VanDrunen’s book, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms. VanDrunen’s thesis, combined with my own extensive research, led me to the discovery that all prominent exegetes prior to the nineteenth century, including Luther and Calvin, saw creation ordinances as foundational to the civil kingdom, but not to life in the church. Most churches honored creation ordinances in their ecclesiastical polity concerning men and women; however, they did not see creation ordinances as organic to the church. This not only made sense in terms of what the exegetes themselves have written, but it also provided a framework for understanding the events of the nineteenth century. I am now convinced that the authentic traditional interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11–14 no longer exists. I have approached this study from an historical perspective and have not ventured into VanDrunen’s critique of neo-Calvinism, although the two may not be completely unrelated. In any event, complementarians/hierarchists need to look anew at their arguments and the presuppositions behind those arguments. The case for male headship / female subordination in the church is not nearly as well anchored in Protestant theological tradition as has been assumed.

Since I have been busily engaged in the classroom, I am deeply indebted to various persons who have helped me put this research project together. First of all, I would like to thank the scholars who either encouraged me and/or pointed me in the right direction in my search for leading traditional theologians. So, thank you Jerram Barrs, Nicholas Perrin, David W. Spencer, Aida Besançon Spencer, Philip B. Payne, Barry Hamilton, Douglas Cullum, and Gregory Wills. I am also deeply indebted to Ellen Wolkensperg and Bonni Morrell for reading and critiquing my work in its early stages. The love and support of my children; friends; and former students, such as Olivia Lahman; were essential to seeing this project through to the end. Lastly, I would like to thank my husband, Bob, without whom the entire project would have floundered in a sea of computer and word processing glitches.

2 Corinthians 10:5

Introduction

Concerning Arrows and Targets

A woman must quietly receive instruction with all submissiveness.¹² But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. ¹³For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. ¹⁴And it was not Adam who was first deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. (1 Tim 2:11–14, NASB)

Once upon a time a nobleman rode into the forest to practice his archery skills. He had not gone far when he began to notice a series of targets painted on various trees. Someone had shot an arrow into the exact center of each target. The nobleman was very impressed with such talent and consequently sent his men in search of the unknown archer. After some time, the men learned that the archer for whom they were searching was but a lad. They found the boy and brought him to the nobleman, who immediately asked him the secret of his extraordinary skill. The boy quickly responded, That’s easy. First I shoot the arrows; then I paint the targets.

No story better illustrates many of the attempts to interpret and apply the 1 Timothy 2: 11–14 passage over the last one hundred and fifty years. The problem of allowing desired outcomes to dictate evidence exists across the board, but is especially egregious among those who claim to uphold a traditional exegesis. This monograph is a humble attempt to bring greater clarity to the authentic traditional interpretation of this passage, as well as to why it disappeared, and to explore how the true historic interpretation stands up against accusations that Christianity has been a bulwark of patriarchy in the modern world.

Theologians have not been the only ones shooting arrows and then painting targets. Secular historians, through textbooks and in the classroom, have played no small part in sowing the seeds of doubt and skepticism that characterize our culture today. They often portray Christianity as the primary source of bloody crusades, witch-hunts, patriarchal domination, imperialism, and other crimes against humanity. The following quote concerning Reformation-era women is taken from a widely used world history textbook and illustrates the point:

The Reformers appealed to religious sentiments, but political and social agendas inspired many who joined them. Part of the appeal of Lutheranism to German-speakers was in reaction to the power of Italians in the Catholic church. Peasants and urban laborers sometimes defied their masters by adopting a different faith. Neither tradition had a special attraction for women, since both Protestants and Roman Catholics believed in male dominance in the church and family.¹

The elevated status of women in Western civilization is truly an historical anomaly. So, if Christianity was not a primary source of this elevated status, what was? I have asked this question and have come full circle—back to Christianity, particularly the Protestant Reformation and its emphasis on the priesthood of all believers. The Reformation doctrine of the priesthood of all believers was like a stone thrown into the center of a tranquil pond. Over the centuries this doctrine had a ripple effect on churches first, and eventually on social and political institutions. By the nineteenth century the continuing rise of religious individualism became the great liberator of ordinary women in the English-speaking world. While keeping all this in mind, my primary purpose here is to explore the charge against Christianity of male domination by looking at one of the few New Testament passages that might be interpreted to promote just that.

The legacy of Christianity is indeed a curious thing—upholding hierarchies and patriarchal assumptions on the one hand, and on the other hand, topping these age-old structures with egalitarian doctrines, such as the priesthood of all believers. Do we simply acquiesce to the idea that the Bible can be used to support anything, or is there a coherent historical and theological framework for better understanding this paradox? I would contend for the latter. One key to solving this puzzle lies in understanding pre-nineteenth-century assumptions concerning the relationship between the temporal and spiritual kingdoms. The population in general, including most prominent Bible commentators, believed that the creation order was foundational to civil authority, but not necessarily to the church. This assumption also characterized the authentic traditional interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11–14.

It is commonly acknowledged that the emancipation of women in the Western world was closely associated with