Women in the Church an exegetical analysis

[Pastor Johnny Freemont III]

In my critical review of Women in the Church, edited by

Kostenberger, Schreiner, and Baldwin, it was asserted

that, “All the contributors are convinced that 1Timothy

2:9-15 prohibit women from teaching or exercising

authority over men in the church (10).” To build this

argument Baugh begins with an essay discussing the

historical and cultural background surrounding the text.

To refute the arguments of a “feminist” Ephesus and a

cultural environment dominated by the worship of the

goddess Artemis Ephesia, he makes the point that the city

was founded by a Greek hero named Androclus and not the

Amazons. The cultural heritage was Greek and in Paul’s

era the political climate was Roman, not feminist. He

makes his argument by outlining the political structure

and organizations of Ephesus was run by male dominated

leadership and that the supreme control of the Artemisium

was exercised by civil magistrates and Roman governors,

who happen to be all males.
Furthermore, Gordon wrestles with the genre of 1Timothy.

He substantiates that it is an epistolary genre, which

addressed a specific issue at a particular location. The

issue was false teachers deceiving followers and

primarily women in Ephesus. However, he concludes that

the specific issue at this particular location does not

negate the transcendence of the principles of the text

and that Paul’s prohibition of women’s role in the church

is grounded in the creation account in Genesis

establishing divine order and not the specific issue or

imprisoned to the particular location. Additionally,

Baldwin gave some profound insight on the hapax

legonmena, authenteo, and the effects of the limitations

of words studies and methodologies of word studies. He

concluded that the meaning of authenteo is “to assume

authority over” opposed to “to control or domineer.”

Kostenberger furthers this train of thought with his

insight on the syntactical effect on sentence structure

in verse 12. He examined syntactical parallels in the

New Testament and in extrabiblical literature. His line

of reasoning was center around the word oude and whether

or not the two issues in verse 12, the teaching or

assuming authority over a man, could be viewed positively

or negatively. Schreiner then invites the reader into a

dialogue with scholarship on the passage 1Timothy 2:9-15.

He favors the historical view, which asserts that women

should not minister in the positions of pastor, elder, or

overseer. He opposes the progressive position, which

argues for indiscriminative roles of women in the church

and leadership. He argues that the progressive position

is exegetically unpersuasive. Yarbrough strengthen

Schreiner’s position with his work on the hermeneutics of

the same passage. He argues that the exegesis of a text

must be strengthened with healthy hermeneutics to

establish the contemporary significance of the text. “We

must permit the message to convey to the reader the

signification that inheres in the original document and

that the author intended to pass on (159). Finally,

Brown concludes the essays with an exploration of the New

Testament divided against itself. The basis for his

argument is that 1Tim2: 9-15 and Galatians 3:29 would be

at odds if the egalitarian position was to be determined

as relevant. In sum, they are conclude that the passage

in 1Timothy 2 should be interpreted in light of God’s

established creative order in Genesis and his

distinctions between the role of women and men in

society.
Jouette Bassler in Adam, Eve, And the Pastor asserts that

the author (whom she deems as the pastor) of the passage

in 1Timothy 2 makes reference to the Yahwestic account of

creation in Genesis 2 with the presupposition that all

recognize the primacy and the superiority of the first-

born in creation, being Adam. Therefore, a woman

teaching or exercising authority over a man is breaking

the divine order in creation by God. She further

supports her claim by mentioning that the emphasis was on

the deception of Eve was practical for the “pastor”

because of the Sitz im Leben of the epistle. She then

gets into typology by making parallels with Eve being

deceived with the false teachers who were being deceived

and deceiving the daughters of Eve in the church. Adam

was a type of the male leadership who was not deceived

and she even compared Timothy to the guarding cherub who

was left to guard the tree of life when Adam and Eve were

cast out of the garden. Likewise, she presupposes that

the reference to child bearing was to refute the ascetic

teaching against marriage. She favors that the

prohibition in 1Timothy 2: 9-15 was due to the specific

situation in Ephesus.
I agree with the historic view on the interpretation of

the passage in 1Timothy 2. I agree with the syntactical

analysis concerning the two issues of teaching or

assuming authority over a man as positive because of

there are two different Greek words, one translated as

teaching a different doctrine and the other as teaching.

I as believe in the PE’s being a manual for church

structure and leadership today as it was in the first

century. I also agree that our interpretation of the

text should have sound hermeneutics. However, I also

believe that the hermeneutic of suspension cannot be

negated. I believe that the specific situation and

location plays a significant role in how we interpret

this passage. I believe that the reference in the text

has to do with husband and wife not male and female. My

line of reasoning lies in the exegesis of Genesis 2 and

that Adam and Eve were husband and wife not just male and

female. Finally, why has Genesis 1:26 not come into play

with this interpretation? It is clear that God created

Adam or mankind in his image and said let them have

dominion. Therefore, I conclude that God declared that

they should have dominion over the animals not another

human being until after the fall.