Analysis for a Baby Christian - On Women Pastors

 In her article, "6 reasons 1 Timothy 2:12 is not as clear as it seems" (https://margmowczko.com/1-timothy-212-not-as-clear/), Marg Mowczko lists 6 reasons to bring in a non-traditional interpretation to that passage.  I will go over them here.  Here's the verse for reference:

"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet." (1 Timothy 2:12)

1) She says the word for "allow" is specific and not a command.  Her reasoning muddles between specific permission given for a specific instance and commands told to Timothy to tell others.  Since the command type of word wasn't used in this verse, she argues that there is no command!  I think that this is a very weak argument.

First, her declaration that the word in question is always used for a single or specific instance is simply wrong.  In Matthew 19:8 we see the word used in reference to Moses' allowance for the men to divorce their wives (because of their hard hearts, he allowed it).  That became a general rule, and so the word is not only used for specific instances as Marg claims.  

Second, her comparison of the word with a different type of verb (from passive to active) does not remove the reality that Paul did not allow it.  He gives the reasons for not allowing it, too - because God created Adam first, and because Adam was not deceived, but Eve was deceived.

Marg seems to think that the passive nature of the verb means it is not a direct command or a strong statement, but it is just the difference between saying "I don't allow it" and "You, be sure not to allow it".  That doesn't change the meaning at all.  Thinking that it does change the meaning is surface thinking or over thinking - she might be so wrapped up in the specifics of language that she misses the overall force of meaning for this thing she is trying to discount and change for her own reasons.  It looks to me like a case of not seeing the forest due to a close inspection of the bark on one of the trees.

This is very good instruction for a new Christian.  Let's keep going.

2) Marg questions Paul's change from the plural in the preceding verses to the singular in verses 11, 12 and 15.  She mentions the concept that Paul suddenly was talking about a specific woman that he doesn't allow to teach (such as Jezebel).  But Paul is giving Timothy general instruction about the matter, not updating him about some specific instance in one of Paul's churches.

I think that he would have said so if he was doing that.  The Bible says what it means, unless there's a purposely hidden thing that is supposed to be found (there are many of those - consider the gospel given in the meanings of the names in the genealogy between Adam and Noah, and there might be special meanings to the order that the tribes are listed and whenever a tribe is kept out of the list, yet always including 12 of them with the use of the half-tribes which come from Joseph's two sons - but they don't ever interfere with the straightforward interpretation, but the hidden things are in addition to the surface things).  

On the other hand, if Paul was mentioning a specific instance with the later singular reference, then surely that would be an example of a situation known to Timothy that shows what might happen if the general instruction already given is not followed.

Is this helping you?  Are you reasoning it out?  Maybe I'm wrong.  I'm no Greek scholar, after all.  You must find sincere Christians on both sides of the issue.  I suggest you always look for their statement of faith that Jesus' death is both necessary and effective to save all who call on His name, and believing His Resurrection tends the saved toward righteousness.  Then, if you think they pass the bare minimum of being Christians in that way, you can go ahead and listen to their scholarship, but with a critical view, comparing all with the Bible, like Acts 17:11 says.  This is what it means to not accept anybody's person and to see us all as equals: we are all equally wrong and under the authority of the Bible.  So read the thing yourself, like a little child, accepting everything at first just the way it sounds but also then looking for the best scholarship on BOTH sides of the issue.  Also, ask God to give you insight into any particular matter.

3) The definite article speaks toward Paul's reference to a specific woman, again.  It's ambiguous, which Marg admits.  But this is not really a point in her favor, because she is simply not convinced that the reference *is* to Eve.

4) The use of a word (translated "authority" in verse 12) that doesn't appear anywhere else in Scripture seems to make wiggle room away from the basic understanding of the text (and of the past centuries of interpretation by the Church, which only definite and strong evidence should appear to overcome). She finds another ancient use of the word in John Crysostom's writings that applies that verb to the husband, saying the husband should not do it to the wife.  But John is not Scripture!  The word seems to mean something like "authority", but in John Chrysostom's homily, it is taken (in another English translation, remember) to be "act the despot", which would, indeed, change that verb from acceptable in some situation to unacceptable all the time.  It's ambiguous.

In connection with the preposition which is added for English clarity, as is common practice in translating work, Marg seems to think that "over" is unacceptable here.

This is again ambiguous.  If she is already correct in her overall view, then "over" might be the wrong preposition, but if she is not correct, then over might be - so it's not useful evidence to guess at the reasons the translators chose that preposition instead of another one to join the verb with the object.

5) The specificity of the subject of the statement (a woman or women in general) has already been discussed, and in point 5, Marg similarly questions the specificity of the object - is Paul talking about a specific teaching that should not be taught by this woman or by these women, or is he referring to all teaching?

This seems to be an argument against her conclusion, but she neatly spells it out, makes an additional requirement that the woman whom Paul said is not allowed to teach in general is uneducated, because earlier he said that the woman (singular) should learn "in silence with all subjection" (verse 11).  She then concludes the point by asserting that nothing says her new and improved subject (an educated woman) cannot teach: of course nothing says that, because Paul said the more general thing.  I think Marg made up a straw man argument, and by defeating it makes it seem like her argument carries, but it does not.

Remarkably, Marg does not address the point she raises here, that Paul does not permit a woman to exercise authority over a man.  Authority (more than mere teaching) is the theological point under consideration.  A woman can do anything in the Church except act as a pastor, which is a leader.  A teacher is a helper to that leadership.

6) The word "silence" is used in both verses 11 and 12, making a sort of linguistic device that binds both verses together.  This, along with the change to singular, gives some evidence that a specific woman was in question.  Furthermore, the word translated "silence" is different from the word that means "silent" elsewhere in Scripture, and this particular word means more like "settle down" instead of complete verbal or audible silence.  Marg makes the point that the repetition of that verb suggests that a specific woman was under consideration.  Maybe and maybe not.  The whole teaching, and all the teachings of Scripture, have to be put together to get the sense.

Sincere Christians can have differences about things, but we must "study to show [ourselves] approved to God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth" (2 Timothy 2:15); even IF that verse was about something else than seems applicable here very specifically, it is still a direct command, and I prefer to take it generally.

____________________________

Here's another place that speaks to this issue: 1 Corinthians 14:34. It also has a theoretical framework of applicability to the local situation instead of being a general command.  Since this type of interpretation problem comes up multiple times, it is well for us to get a handle on it, possibly from a more general point of view: Is there 1) a place where we *know* (probably from other direct statements elsewhere in Scripture) that it refers to a local situation and 2) follows the same linguistic forms as these questionable places, so that we find a precedent in the grammar to indicate the scope of the meaning?  I leave it to you for an exercise.

___________________________

I shouldn't leave you with the impression that Marg is wrong in her analysis, even though I question some of the specifics in it.  Overall, it might be that Paul's teaching to Timothy was only about specific situations in the church in Ephesus which Paul started and Timothy was overseeing.  

Personally, I see specific things for specific situations as generally applicable.  I also see a danger in trying to reduce it down to the nub of perfect understanding when we are really guessing at probabilities.  Starting with only what is said and putting those direct, unequivocal statements together, prayerfully, bearing all things and with belief of all things (like 1 Corinthians 13:7 says that love does) and being like little children in our faith, suggests the general and inclusive point of view more than the specific, but I do not disregard specificity in its place.

This has been somewhat helpful to me, and I have some hope that you have been given an example of how these things are contemplated.  I know I use a lot of big words and snappy prose, but don't let that throw you off by seeming to indicate extreme intelligence is necessary.  That's really a big point with all of this.  If we allow subtleties of language to override the main and obvious instruction, we're really just allowing our flesh to be petulant and trying to wheedle out of what we already have guessed is true.  Allow God's Holy Spirit to guide you - indeed, test the spirits to determine their truth, based in Scripture, and get understanding with many studies like this one, but don't allow such studies to override what you knew at the beginning, unless you can wholeheartedly say that your point of view has been changed with new understanding.  There is a way to deceive yourself when the mind seems to understand something new but the heart does not.  Watch out for that.

"Master Jesus, You are good to us.  Thank You for giving us the ability to think for ourselves as well as to learn from those whom The Holy Spirit has gifted with the ability to teach.  Make us sensitive to Your truth, so whatever form it takes, we will recognize it.  We know that we hear Your voice.  Let us be decent, and forgiving and give as much latitude as we conscientiously can to those we disagree with - all to Your glory, and with our thanks, our same Master and Savior, Jesus Christ.  Amen."