Well, first, the Bible does make clear that this was Paul saying that, not God. "I do not permit a woman to teach," not "women are not to teach."
True, and I actually pointed that out on my blog. But of course, if we are to distinguish the words of man from the words of God in scripture and say that the former can be in error, then the doctrine of inerrancy is out the window and we have opened the door to the sort of theological liberalism to which I adhere. (Of course, I don't see that as a bad thing, but you might.)
I don't think you mean what I mean by "inerrancy," if that is your definition.
Of course the Bible does record the words of human beings and distinguishes them from the words and intentions of God. Paul, in using the word "I" elsewhere in his letters, tends to use it to refer to his own policies and ideas rather than direct commands from God, as in 1 Cor 7. Paul, of course, was anointed with wisdom from the Holy Spirit, but his use of the word "I" in 1 Tim. 2:12 may have simply been to show the temporary nature of his policy ("do not permit") can also be translated ("am not permitting," as I'm sure you're aware).
In any case, there are many different views of inerrancy. It's not an either-or thing-- either every word is a direct command from God, or every word is simply the word of human beings. Both of us, I'm sure, fall somewhere in between those two extremes.
The passage says,
"11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to wield influence over a man; she must be in quietness. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But she will be saved through childbearing–if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."
Forgive me, but I don't see how you can possibly read that as, "the women should get an education before they are allowed to teach."
We'll have to agree to disagree, then. I am starting from the presuppostion that Paul has received revelation from God that men and women are equal, as he says in Gal 3. I read the rest of his passages in light of that. If the "plain sense" of something he says flatly contradicts something else he says, then I look deeper. I'd rather do that than believe the Bible is not inspired by God. If you'd rather take the other approach, that's fine-- we are coming from two different perspectives and thus will probably not be able to see eye-to-eye. In any event, "let a woman learn" is the opening sentence of the passage. Is it so wrong to assume that someone talking about letting someone learn, might include the unspoken assumption that the learning will actually be absorbed and result in education occurring?
Fourthly, there is good reason to believe the passage should be better translated, "teach in such a way as to usurp authority."
I am not aware of any good reason to believe that. Andrew Perriman's exhaustive analysis of contemporary literature found that
authentein during this period had two related meanings. The first is to perpetrate a crime; the second is to actively wield influence over a person or to initiate an action. "To wield influence over" is contextually the most natural reading, especially in the context of a discussion of the Fall and Eve's culpability.
There are other sources and other research that disagree with Perriman. Here are two that support my point of view:
http://www.linguistsoftware.com/Payne2008NTS-oude1Tim2_12.pdf(this one shows how "teach" and "authentein" are most likely meant to be considered as one thing together, not two.
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/05/lcms-report-on-authentein.html(this one looks back at the actual texts where the word "authentein" was determined to mean "wield authority" and finds the textual evidence wanting.)
Two things.
First, you're right that it doesn't explicitly say "Eve sinned first". What it says is that "Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." This could either mean that "Eve sinned first," as I suggested, or-- much worse-- that Eve was the only one who sinned (i.e. Adam was innocent of sin). As you can see, my crude summary actually chose the more generous of the two readings. The "But she will be saved through childbearing" clause in verse 15 confirms that it is her special culpability that is in view in verse 14, not her lack of experience.
Her sin is mentioned as the result of her being decieved. It is not the point of the passage. I really don't see how you can see the point as being about Eve's sin and not Eve's deception. "Saved through childbearing" can mean a number of different things-- there are too many varied interpretations to go through right now. But one thing clear from "saved through childbearing" is that the meaning of the passage is unclear. If we were to take the plain meaning, we'd believe that childbearing, not Christ, saves women-- or else that Eve was somehow saved through bearing children. If the passage is unclear, why treat it like its meaning is plain?
Secondly, the verses say nothing at all about "experience". You are importing something into the passage that isn't there because you don't like what is there. The assumption of first century readers was that women were the weaker, more gullible sex. They absolutely would have read this passage with that assumption in mind. It would not even have occurred to them to read this as an analogy for the education differential between the genders.
Well, this is a letter Paul is writing to Timothy. Again, I'm assuming Paul had a revelation from God about the equality of women-- one that he would have shared with Timothy. There are plenty of other Pauline passages that make that clear. The audience is Timothy, Paul's student, not an entire group of first-century believers.
Text-critics generally hold that 1 Timothy is not authentically Pauline.
Whatever. Authorship is really not something I want to debate.
I
I agree that Paul in some places seems to teach full equality, but not that he consistently carried this doctrine to its logical conclusion. In 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 he wrestles with the implications of this teaching, but seems to cop out in vv. 13-16. Perhaps, like so many of us, his heart was not quite ready to fully accept and live out the truth that had been revealed to it.
I can accept the idea that Paul wrestled with the revelation he'd been given at times. But I do believe more than just Paul was behind his words. I read the texts with that idea in mind. You read them from a different starting point. It's no wonder we come to different conclusions.
Women learning along with the men, by the way, is not so radical. Women attended services at Second Temple Synagogues. To quote Donald Binder, "In some locales, they may have been separated from the men by a wall, which seems to have been the case in the Delos synagogue. More commonly, however, it appears that they commingled freely with the opposite sex." If Christian women were permitted to attend and learn with the men in Christian services, they were only doing what the Jews already did.
Ephesus was a Greek, not a Jewish, congregation.
In any event, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. We have different views of what the Bible is and what it means. You're not going to convince me, and I'm not going to convince you. We can both cite authorities until the cows come home, and they will say different things. The fact is that these matters are disputed, and that's ok.
One thing we can agree on is that a just, impartial God of love would not create women in God's image and then eternally relegate them to inferiority of role and status.
That's good enough for me.
Egalitarian Christian Alliance
