1 Timothy 2:12

[Guest]

When Paul used the word we define as teach--Greek didaskos--what did he have in mind? Are we looking at a very specific usage of the word such as an ordained teaching or at a more generalized understanding?

[Guest]

As one who has spent several years studying Hellenistic Greek, it is my opinion that the word "disaskO" wherever it is used, simply means "teach" in a general way, just as it is used in English today. This becomes obvious when one looks up all instances of the word in the New Testament.

[Guest]

The larger question is, from the viewpoint of the Greek language, can we surmise what Paul was wanting Timothy to understand when he said he did not permit a woman to teach a man? I understand all the viewpoints re: custom, pagan ritual, etc. but does the language itself help us to look inside Paul's mind.

[_Steve]

I don't believe that Paul was opposed to women teaching men informally. Priscilla seems to have taught Apollos the way of God more perfectly (Acts 18:26), and she was one of Paul's disciples or associates. She probably functioned in a manner acceptable to Paul.

Teaching and exercising authority in the general congregation was the function of elders, or overseers (1 Tim.3:2; 5:17). In the context of your verse (e.g. chapter 3:1ff) Paul is instructing Timothy concerning the appointment of such people in the Ephesian church.

I think Paul is simply saying that a woman should not be placed in that authoritative teaching position (2:12ff), and that an elder must be a "husband"(3:2). The word "husband" cannot be substituted for the more generic "spouse," in this case, since it specifically mentions his leadership of his family as a prerequisite for leading the church (3:4-5).

In God's design, it is the husband, not the wife, that provides this leadership in the home. Even though a wife may exercise authority over the household children, she does not exercise authority over her husband's decisions. He is the head of the wife (1 Cor.11:3), as well as being over the children, and her role is to submit to him as the church is to submit to Christ (Eph.5:24).

Despite the objections of some of our correspondents here, the word "head" (Gr. kephale) has never been shown to mean "source" in New Testament Greek, and everywhere carries the concept of authority or leadership.

If I were making this up, I could be more politically correct, but it is not the role of a Bible teacher to innovate—only to faithfully teach the doctrines of Christ and the apostles.

Therefore, when no desperate ploys to manipulate the text are employed, it is clear that Paul objected to women being in the leadership of the general assembly, though he had great respect for many women of his acquaintance (Rom.16:1-2/Phil.4:3), and apparently did not object to their teaching children (2 Tim.1:5), other women (Titus 2:3-5), or men in informal settings (Acts 18:26).

Why did Paul follow such a policy? Simply for the reasons that he gives in situ (1 Tim.2:13-14), namely, it reflects the relationship that God intended at creation, and which was reaffirmed after the fall. These historical realities are never going to change, so the shifting of cultural attitudes about women's functions will never render the instructions invalid.

[Guest]

Steve

Why did Paul follow such a policy? Simply for the reasons that he gives in situ (1 Tim.2:13-14), namely, it reflects the relationship that God intended at creation, and which was reaffirmed after the fall. These historical realities are never going to change, so the shifting of cultural attitudes about women's functions will never render the instructions invalid.

You mentioned that a transcendant historical reality dictates that a woman shouldn't be in formal leadership of an assembly by referencing 1 Timothy 2:13-14.

Why do we apply I Corinthians 11:1-16 (i.e. head covering for women) as a cultural application only instead of a universal since Paul is appealing also to historical realities?

Can you clarify as it seems these similar passages are being applied differently?

[_Steve]

It is true that, in both passages, Paul refers back to the creation order, and for that reason, I believe there is abiding truth to follow in both passages. The abiding truth that Paul is discussing in 1 Corinthians 11 is, I think, summarized in verse 3 of that chapter:

"But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God."

This is essentially the same truth that lies behind the instructions of 1 Tim.1:12ff. Both passages are about the woman's role vis-a-vis her husband and the issue of male leadership. Both also appeal to the order of creation in Genesis 2 as their basis.

In the case of 1 Corinthians 11, however, Paul addresses a custom of dress that reflected a person's attitude to this abiding truth. Paul indicates, in the passage, that while the principle is universal, the cultural expression of that principle varies from culture to culture. This is what I understand to be his meaning in verse 16:

"But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God."

I have written extensively on this passage in an article posted at my website: www.thenarrowpath.com, where it can be found by clicking the "topical articles" link.

[Guest]

When speaking of coverings could the passage in Corinthians contextually be used accurately to speak to being covered by the righteousness of Jesus? In 1 Peter 3:1-7 are both the unbelieving husband and Christ the woman's true head or could Christ be both her head and her covering?
With respect,
Mark

[Guest]

In my opinion the literal head covering for women is still applicable today.
It is symbolic of a woman's submission to her husband. Symbolic acts are still for today regardless of cultural changes. For example, the taking of bread and wine to symbolize the body and blood of Christ upon which we must feed if we want the life of Christ within us. Yet it is more than a symbol. As we eat the bread and drink the wine outwardly, we are actually feeding upon Christ inwardly and spiritually. So with a woman's head covering. Outwardly she is merely covering her head, but inwardly, she is submitting to the authority which God has established in her life --- namely her husband.

It is highly unlikely that, after having written verses 5-15 in a very decided manner, indicating the importance of a woman's headcovering that he should negate the whole thing by saying "we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God".

So this could not possibly be his meaning. But the Revised Standard Version does not do justice to the text, by inserting the word "other" (we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God). For there is no justification in translating this way, except that it doesn't make sense that Paul would end up his discourse by negating everything he said about the importance of a woman covering her head.

Let's examine the text again:

But if anyone is disposed to be contentious—we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

Does not Paul say that they, the apostles and the churches of God have no such custom as being contentious?

[_Steve]

Hi Paidion,

Many of my friends have felt as you do about 1 Corinthians 11:16, but I see it differently. I don't think it so strange for Paul to give a disclaimer at the end of the discussion.

I believe he is saying, essentially, "I think it very advisable that you women observe the local custom of covering your heads, as other local women do, because of the valuable symbolism it involves. However, if someone really objects strenuously to this practice, it is not worth fighting about or dividing the church over. Let's keep it in perspective: we and other non-Greek churches actually don't have the practice—that is, it isn't a moral issue, but a matter of local custom worth observing."

I don't consider the above to be an actual paraphrase, just an attempt to catch Paul's concern. The customs he advocates in Corinth involve, equally, women wearing long hair and a covering while praying, and men wearing their hair short, and no head covering. We know that Paul himself did not follow the customs he advocates in the passage, nor did the Jews—nor, probably, many Gentiles.

As for Paul's own practice, he took a Nazirite vow while in Corinth, and shaved his head when he left (Acts 18:18). That means that Paul wore his hair long while in Corinth—the very custom that he says would be naturally regarded as shameful for the Greeks of that culture (1 Cor.11:14).

Similarly, the Jewish priests were required to wear mitres, or turbans, while they ministered (Exodus 28:4), demonstrating that God knows of no universal inappropriateness of men praying with their head covered.

Paul indicates that it was shameful, in Corinth, for a woman to shave her head (1 Cor.11:6), but doing so was actually a pious thing for a Jewish woman to do, if she was completing a Nazirite vow (Numbers 6).

When writing to women of Roman (not Greek) culture, Paul simply told them to avoid elaborate hair styles (1 Tim.2:9), which would seem a moot point, if he expected them to be wearing coverings over their heads, concealing their hair.

Though the universal church follows the custom of the bread and wine, as you mentioned, this seems like a very different case to me. Jesus Himself instituted the Lord's Supper, but there is no place in the Bible where God, or a prophet, or an apostle, instituted any custom of head coverings. There is no evidence that Paul instituted the custom in Corinth, but he seems to be talking about an established practice that had the approval of the local conscience.

I have never had any objection to Christian women wearing a headcovering in deferrence to Paul's instructions here, but I have not felt it to be a matter that Paul would press upon Christians outside of those cultures where such practice was considered normative in the community at large.

[Guest]

Steve and Paidion,
Could you look back at my Nov. 2 post ? I agree that Paul was talking about literal headcoverings and we know that varying cultures had varying customs. But beyond custom, would it be importing something into the text to say that Paul and Peter recognized that Jesus, as head of the church, with all authority as God incarnate, could cover all believers, even those believing women whose earthly "heads" did not believe?

Respectfully,

MARK