The main argument I bought this book for was its take on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 which in the NIV is:
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Already with this verse, I had some history with and buy into the ESV argument that the word "assume" isn't in the original and even in the NIV84 the word "assume" wasn't there ("I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.")
This book puts forward an argument questioning the whole context in which this passage is to be read. The NIV put this passage under the title "instructions for worship", letting the reader think this is about corporate worship. However, the author points out that this passage is more likely located in the realm of home and family relationships and not public worship. This chapter mentions prayer, dress and hairstyles that do not seem to be limited to a worship setting but to general life. Adam and Eve are also present, who in Eph 5:31 are referenced as the prototype of husband and wife. Not to mention childbearing is referenced, something part of a marriage relationship and not of corporate worship.
The crux of the argument comes down to how you translate the words γυνή or ἀνήρ as depending on the content it could mean to be either talking about women and men in general, or wife and husband. Putting this verse in the context of the family aligns it with a handful of other texts in the New Testament, in particular, 1 Peter 3:1-7. There are many parallels with this 1 Peter passage as it also talks about wearing jewellery, and elaborate hairstyle, in contrast to an inner beauty of living peaceably and in doing good deeds. In this passage, the same greek words are translated as "husband" and "wife", whereas in 1 Timothy 2 they are translated as "man" and "woman". Why wouldn't both passages be talking about marriage and not church?
 |
| The Holman use of γυνή and ἀνήρ, taken from Logos 9 |
I found this reasoning novel and interesting. As I pointed out to the lecturer when I first heard this, the fly in the ointment was that it goes against every major English translation. For some reason, the NIV, ESV, HCSB, and NASB all translate 1 Tim 2:12 to be about men and women and not husband and wife. It still means it is possible for a fair translation for this to be about husband and wife and not corporate worship, but it can be hard to argue against the translation. It can be noted that in 1 Cor 11 the ESV goes with "wife" and not "woman" unlike the other translations, showing that there is some discrepancy in how these two words can be taken, depending on how you assume the context.
When I brought up this argument with some people in my circles I asked if they had heard this before, and some had and thought it was old news. I on the other hand appreciated hearing and reading this view.
The rest of this book had a few other arguments about women in ministry, in general terms it was arguing for a complementarian position. Placing the 1 Timothy 2 passage within the family context removes one of the more explicit aspects of women in ministry and opens the door for women to preach or teach, as 1 Cor 11:5 says they can. However, the book still argues that while women can preach, the position of elders in the New Testament seems to be reserved for men, whereas being a deacon is open to all.
On the topic of prophecy, Powers thinks Grudem has over-defined what it is, and instead he sticks more closely to what the text says for his definition. Powers take is that prophecy is what we might call a sermon, it is for upbuilding and edification (1 Cor 14:3-4) and revealing sin (1 Cor 14:24) instruction and encouragement (1 Cor 14:31), strengthening (Acts 15:32). This task was predicted in Joel 2:28 and referred to by Peter in Acts 2:17 that sons and daughters will do it.
On women forbidden to speak in church (1 Cor 14:34), it must mean something more nuanced as in the same letter Paul assumes women will prophesy and pray in a public gathering (1 Cor 11:5). Powers argues the word λαλέω means informal conversations or chatter during the service and not a formal way of teaching (κηρύσσω or διδάσκω).
On headship, Powers agrees with Grudem and his work on the greek word for head (κεφαλή), which years ago I posted on this debate.
There were also sections on Phoebe (Rom 16:1) and Junias (Rom 16:7), arguments I already found convincing. Phoebe is a deacon and Junais (a female name - Origen and Chrysostom thought so) was well known by the Apostles, which doesn't mean she was an Apostle or an elder and was perhaps with Andronicus were "sent-ones" or missionaries.
There was also an interesting (controversial?) point about the role of elders and deacons, saying that since deacons were those who are known for their active service, it makes sense that deacons can serve the Lord's Supper. Nowhere in the Bible does it say the person who serves the Lord's Supper presides over it, they only serve it, so we shouldn't restrict the role of the diaconate this way.
There was much more in this book, but I mainly bought it for its first argument. Which has given me something to think about. While this book was first published in 1996 and some people in my circles have encountered this argument about the context of 1 Timothy 2 before, I am now interested in some follow-up reading.
0 comments:
Post a Comment