THE REBUTTAL, PART 1/3, FOUNDATIONS

INTRODUCTION

You know that feeling when you see someone else doing something you really don’t like and you say to yourself, “I’d never be caught dead doing that!” only to find yourself a day or a week or a month later doing the very same thing?

I do. It’s the feeling that I had after my debate with Catherine last Thursday. Let me explain something- I love debates! In fact, if I’m honest, sometimes I insist that Lebron James is the GOAT basketball player just so I can fight with the Jordanites, despite the fact that I know and care so little about basketball.

On second thought, let me qualify- I love GOOD debates! You see, debates are not like pizza. There’s good pizza and there’s bad pizza, but it’s all delicious. Debates are more like movies. The good ones bring me joy, and the bad ones bring me pain.

Just one more explanation- a GOOD debate is not necessarily defined merely by the conduct of the debaters. In terms of the way we spoke to one another, I think Catherine and I had an excellent debate. But in my opinion, that is not the most important element of a debate. At the end of any debate, the most important question to me is whether or not the two debaters actually got to the heart of their disagreement. It is important to say this because I have witnessed terrible debates between two excellent debaters. They were cordial, well prepared, and good public speakers, but they spent anywhere from 1-3 hours talking past each other.

Hindsight is 20/20, and in retrospect, we should have discussed only 2 things: 1) philosophy of bible interpretation & 2) 1 Timothy 2. But since there are no real life mulligans, I will have to settle for living, learning, and having that discussion in writing.

THE HISTORICAL-GRAMMATICAL METHOD

In order to discuss this properly, we need to begin with a key term. The goal of the historical-grammatical method is to interpret every Biblical text by determining the original intended meaning of the human author. Put simply, every text of Scripture means today the same thing it meant when written. The tools of this method include grammar, literary structure, literary genre, original language, and cultural and historical context.

Catherine and I both claimed to use this method in our arguments. Admittedly, I offered very little in the way of substance. I think I finally understand why.

TEXTUALISM

My name is Luke and I am a Biblical textualist. More specifically, I am a historical-grammatical textualist. Here we have to begin splitting hairs. As I said earlier, we have many tools at our disposal when employing historical-grammatical interpretation. To rightly understand any text of Scripture, we must use all of these tools.

However, in my view, the single most important tool we have is the Biblical text itself. Furthermore, when I interpret any Biblical passage, I attempt to exhaust the text for information before I consult extra-Biblical resources. This is not to say that I don’t use those resources, but it is to say that I never begin with them.

As a result, I begin with a plain reading of the text, and then I submit that reading to all the relevant extra-Biblical information. Sometimes that information nuances the plain reading. Sometimes it alters it significantly. Still other times, it turns it on its head.

Having said all of this, here is what I think is at the heart of my and Catherine’s figurative ships passing in the night: I do not see any of the historical-grammatical information as overturning the plain reading of 1 Timothy 2.

ENOUGH SETUP, TIME FOR THE PUNCHLINE

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man” (1 Timothy 4:12, ESV). This is the key passage over which we disagree. The plain reading is unmistakable, but is it the best reading? I will now take each tool in the historical-grammatical toolbelt, and show how the relevant information does nothing whatsoever to overturn the plain reading.

Grammar: The key grammatical points of contention in this verse are 1) the change from “women” in verse 10 to “a woman” in verse 11 & 2) Paul’s use of first person (“I do not permit”). Let’s take each in turn.

1) Some interpreters suggest that Paul’s change from plural “women” to singular “a woman” indicates that his instructions in verses 11 & 12 are to one particular woman and not to women in general. There is no textual basis for this conclusion. Paul uses the singular “a woman” in 1 Cor 11:15 and 1 Cor 14:35, and in both cases he is using the term generally. In 1 Timothy 3:2, Paul uses the singular “an overseer,” but in 3:8 he uses the plural “deacons.” Should we then conclude that his qualifications for “deacons” are universal, but his qualifications for “an elder” only apply to one particular elder? The obvious answer is of course not. Singular and plural nouns can both be used generally. “A man” in 1 Corinthians 5:1 is an appropriate example of the singular being used to refer to one particular person. 1 Timothy 2 is not.

2) Paul’s use of first person, if it is to be used as a basis to undermine the universality of this principle in verse 12, also overturns the rest of chapter 2. Paul uses “I urge” in verse 1 and “I want” in verse 8. If the idea is that 1 Corinthians 7:12, in which Paul uses the phrase “I, not the Lord,” is supposed to be read into Paul’s every use of first person, then we cannot say that the Bible teaches “that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people” or that “men everywhere [should] pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing.” These are just things that Paul said to Timothy in a letter.

To be clear, I am not denying that there are certain instructions in the epistle that are distinct to Timothy. For example, in 1:3 Paul writes “I urged you [. . .] stay there in Ephesus.” This is clearly not a command for all Christians everywhere at all times to stay in Ephesus. But this leads us to the next pair of tools.

Literary Genre: At risk of stating the obvious, 1 Timothy is a letter. While the epistles certainly have some challenging literary features, compared to other Biblical genres (e.g. poetry, apocalyptic) they are relatively straightforward.

Literary Context: Chapter 1 is Paul’s introduction and instructions to Timothy. Chapter 2 begins Paul’s instructions to the church. In 2:8, Paul refers to “men everywhere.” In 2:10 he instructs “women who profess to worship God.” These are clearly general instructions.

Original language: Catherine and I have already had a lengthy discussion of “exercise authority” that does not need to be rehashed. She translates it “dominate/domineer” and I translate it more plainly. But it is a Greek word that is only used once in the New Testament, so it may seem like splitting hairs. With that said, even if I were to concede her definition of authunteo (which I do not), this does not yield the egalitarian interpretation of the whole verse, because it fails to deal with the other verb in which Paul forbids women to participate: teaching. The Greek didasko is not difficult to translate. There are only 2 grammatical options. Either Paul is forbidding women to teach, or he is forbidding women to teach men. Either way, one controversial Greek word does not undo the complementarian thrust of this passage.

Cultural/Historical Context: 1 Timothy was written to a young pastor in 1st century Ephesus. There is often much ado made about the Ephesians’ worship of Artemis and the prominence of women in their religious practices. No doubt, this information helps to explain why Paul is so concerned with roles of women in his letters to the Ephesian church.

With that said, allow me to make a rather controversial statement- this particular tool of the historical-grammatical method is frequently overrated (gasp!). I do not say this to deny that historical and cultural context can often do wonders for our understanding of the Bible. But in order to be cited in attempts to make the instructions in 1 Timothy 4:12 specific to Ephesus alone, it must be wildly inflated.

The basic arguments presented are 1) Paul was writing to a culture in which women sometimes dominated men & 2) The women in Ephesus were poorly educated and teaching pagan heresy. Therefore, Paul was just trying to teach women to submit to properly trained teachers. This passage says nothing about women, per se, but is instead about the importance of doctrinally sound teachers.

And this now brings us full circle. As I acknowledged at the beginning of this article, I am a textualist. Is my goal in Bible interpretation to determine the original intended meaning of each human author in each text? Yes! Do we need historical/cultural context to properly understand that meaning? Absolutely! But is cultural/historical context our most important tool? Absolutely not. Our most important tool is the Biblical text. The authors of Scripture did not express with intentions or purposes. They expressed with words. We determine original intended meaning primarily (though not exclusively) through the words and phrases of the Biblical text. Grammar, literary context, literary genre, and original language take priority. Historical/cultural context can be of great value when it serves our understanding of the text.

But the egalitarian treatment of historical cultural context does not serve our understanding the text. It undermines it. It seeks evidence against the plain reading because it begins with the assumption that the plain reading CAN NOT be the best reading.

CONCLUSION

There is one more important historical-grammatical tool that we have not yet utilized- the rest of the Bible. Scripture is best interpreted by Scripture. The most important cross-references are those written by the same author. Consider the following Pauline instructions to women:

“But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”
-1 Corinthians 11:3

“Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.”
-1 Corinthians 14:34

“Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.”
-Ephesians 5:22

There are no comparable instructions to men in Paul’s writings. Nor are there any from other Biblical authors (like Peter) who offer similar instructions.

So, there you have it. Grammar matters, genre matters, culture matters, history matters. First and foremost, the text matters. We want to understand every Biblical text in the way the author originally intended. We have many tools to help us discern that meaning. But in the case of 1 Timothy 2:12, none of the information offered by those tools can successfully invalidate the plain reading and application of Paul’s instruction to women, in 1st century Ephesus and today in our own culture.

“I do not permit a woman to teach a man.”