The Limits of 1 Timothy 2:11-12

Posted on April 27, 2018 by John Samson

Article by Richard Holdeman – Called to faith in 1987; to marry Amy in 1989; to coach college hockey in 1992; to have daughters in 1996; to teach at I.U. in 1997; to pastor the Bloomington Reformed Presbyterian Church in 2005. (original source here)

Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. (1 Timothy 2:11-12, NKJ)

Last year at about this time our congregation hosted Rosaria Butterfield to speak to our community about how to love people struggling with their sexual identity in ways that honor the law of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ. Our event was held at a large church in town, and Dr. Butterfield’s talks were well-attended. It was a challenging and edifying couple of days for the evangelical churches in our community. Notably absent from our gatherings were men from some of the more conservative churches in our community. In what I suspect was an effort to honor God’s word through Paul (quoted above), the leaders of these congregations encouraged women to attend but did want their men coming to be taught by a woman.

While I applaud the desire to be biblically faithful, the conclusion that 1 Timothy 2:11-12 teaches that men can never be taught by women is not warranted by this text. Paul’s prohibitions against women teachers have a context. They are not absolute prohibitions. For starters, reading the verses surrounding those quoted above shows us, without question, that the context of the requirement for silence is the church. Paul here is not making any comment about women teaching in schools or universities or in other settings. Paul is also not addressing whether a woman could teach men about the process of childbirth (say, in Lamaze class) or the intricacies of organic chemistry (say, in a graduate chemistry program) or the details of budgeting (say, in a personal finance class).

I have known men, who objected to women teaching adult men in ANY setting, but this is simply not what Paul is talking about. It is a perversion of this text to insist that women are never to teach men.

Ok, back to Dr. Butterfield. She was speaking in a church about spiritual issues. Does that mean her speech is prohibited if men are in the audience? Once again, we must look more closely at the context of 1 Timothy 2:11-12. It is helpful to note that Paul later writes in 1 Timothy: “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine” (1 Timothy 5:17, NKJ). He describes the office of elder as having a two-fold function. There is a ruling function in which elders act with the judicial and governing authority given to them by Christ as His under-shepherds (1 Peter 5:1-4) and there is an authoritative teaching function, which is especially the work of the teaching elder/pastor (2 Timothy 4:2).

In light of this description of the work of the eldership, it seems that what Paul is doing in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is excluding women from serving in the office of elder, in which they would need to have judicial authority over men and women. Paul is also excluding women from the authoritative teaching office of the church – the pulpit ministry, which is the responsibility of the eldership (Acts 20:28-31). If we allow Paul to define what he means by teaching and authority within the book of 1 Timothy, we have a clear context in which to evaluate his prohibitions against women teaching or having authority over men. What Paul is actually teaching here is that women may not serve as ruling or teaching elders in the church. What Paul is NOT doing is saying that there is an absolute prohibition against women having any responsibility within the church or being able to do any teaching within the church setting.

What do I mean? It is not a requirement for all Sunday school classes to be taught by elders. Sunday school is not the same as the authoritative teaching ministry of the pulpit. The elders are responsible for everything that is taught publicly in the church but they may delegate some teaching in non-pulpit settings to other qualified individuals in the congregation. In our church we often allow younger men, whom we think have potential to become ruling elders, to get experience teaching a Bible study or Sunday school class. This always happens under the oversight of the elders, who are ultimately responsible. In the same way, there may be circumstances when a woman has a special expertise that would make her the most qualified person to teach a class or Bible study (also under the oversight of the elders). One recent example comes to mind when we had a husband and wife team teach a class on parenting. Perhaps a woman might have expertise in financial planning or stewardship that would make her the best person to teach a class on that subject. I believe she can teach in the church (even classes with men in them) without violating what Paul is forbidding in 1 Timothy.

A number of years ago I preached a sermon series through a book of the Bible, in which I consulted a dozen commentaries. The most helpful commentary was written by a female professor of theology. We are to welcome the truth wherever we find it. I did so, and my congregation benefited from it.

I also think that women can have real responsibility (i.e., authority) in the church that does not violate 1 Timothy 2:11-12. In the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America we affirm that the office of deacon is open to women. In talking about the qualifications for the office of deacon, Paul says in 1 Timothy 3:11, “Likewise, women must be…” (literal translation). Deacons are ordained officers of the church. They serve under the authority of the elders. They have real responsibility that includes benevolence, mercy ministry, budgeting, finance, and facility maintenance (among other things). This is an authority of sorts but it is not the type of judicial/ruling authority that Paul is addressing in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

Understanding that Paul is addressing particularly the functions of the eldership in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 will help us resist the tendency in conservative, Reformed congregations to go beyond scripture in imposing limitations on the service of women in the church and the culture. We can uphold biblical standards and resist the feminizing forces in our world without reflexively restricting Christian women in the exercise of the myriad gifts they’ve been given by our Lord. The church faces enough challenges without unnecessarily imposing limitations on her members.

Covetousness

Posted on April 26, 2018 by John Samson

By John Newton – October 2, 1795

“For of this you can be sure: that no sexually immoral or impure nor covetousness person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.” Ephesians 5:5

What is covetousness?

Covetousness is a besetting sin, from which few people are entirely free.

Covetousness is eminently a deceitful sin! It is decried and condemned in others—by multitudes who live in the habit of it themselves! It is very difficult to fix a conviction of this sin—upon those who are guilty of it!

Whether drunkards or profligates regard the warnings of the preacher or not, when he declares that those who persist in those evil practices, shall not inherit the kingdom of God—they know at least their own characters, and are sensible that they are the people intended.

But if the preacher adds, “nor the covetousness person—such a man is an idolater” —the covetous man usually sits unmoved, and is more ready to apply the threatening to his neighbor—than to himself! If he is willing to entertain the minister sometimes at his table; if he now and then gives a few dollars to some charity—he does not suspect that he is liable to the charge of covetousness!

There are two words in the Greek Testament, which are rendered covetousness in our version. The one literally signifies, “the love of money”; the other, “a desire of more”. The senses are indeed concurrent, for no man would desire more of that which he does not love; and as he who loves silver cannot be satisfied with the silver that he already possesses—he will of course desire more.

Money is generally loved and valued at first, as a means of procuring other things which appear desirable; but many, who begin thus, are brought at length to love money for its own sake. Such people are called misers. We meet with those who, so far from being benevolent to others—are cruel to themselves, and, though abounding in wealth, can hardly afford themselves the necessities of life. But a man may be very covetous, though, not being yet given up to this mental infatuation—he may congratulate himself, and thank God that “he is not a miser!”

I consider covetousness as the most generally prevailing and ensnaring sin, by which professors of the gospel, in our materialistic society, are hindered in their spiritual progress. A disposition deeply rooted in our fallen nature, strengthened by the custom of all around us, the power of habit, and the fascinating charm of wealth—is not easily counteracted.

If we are, indeed, genuine believers in Christ—we are bound by obligation, and required by our Scriptural rule—to set our affections on the things that are above, not on the things on the earth. Christ has called us out of the world, and cautioned us against conformity to its spirit. While we are in the world—it is our duty, privilege, and honor, to manifest that grace—which has delivered us from the love of the world. Christians must indeed eat and drink, and may buy and sell, as other people do. But the principles, motives, and ends of their conduct, are entirely different—they are to adorn the doctrine of God their Savior, and to do all for His glory!

By His wisdom and providence, he places them in different situations, that the power and sufficiency of his grace may appear under a great variety of outward circumstances. He gives them talents, to some more, to others less; but all to be improved for him. Whether they are rich or poor, bond or free, they are so by his appointment—with which, if they cheerfully comply, they shall, in due time, be sensible that he chooses better for them, than they could have chosen for themselves.

The language of faith, when in exercise, will not be, “What is most conducive to my temporal ease and prosperity?” But “What will give me the best opportunity of glorifying him, who has bought me with his blood, and called me out of darkness into his marvelous light? Too much of my time has already been wasted—how shall I improve the little uncertain remainder of my time for his service? I am too short-sighted to judge for myself—but he has thus far determined it. I am where he has placed me; and the calling in which his mercy found me, (if it be a lawful one,) is that in which, for the present, I am to abide, as the best for me. When it ceases to be so, I may depend upon him to appoint me another. But, until then, I desire to be contented with such things as I have, and to be thankful for them. He knows my frame, my feelings, my needs, and my trials; he permits, yes, invites me to cast all my cares upon him. He assures me that he cares for me, and therefore I only wish to do or to suffer according to his will today, and to leave the concerns of tomorrow in his hands. While I live—may I live for him! And when I die—may I go to him! May his grace be sufficient for me—and all shall be well.” Continue reading →

TULIP series

Posted on April 25, 2018 by John Samson

B.R.I.D.G.E. Ministries is currently making a series of podcasts available on the doctrines of grace (the so called TULIP acrostic). Here (below) are the finished podcasts so far.

1. The Sovereignty of God – Dr. John Frame: