This is the last chapter summary of Cynthia Long Westfall's book: Paul and Gender. Get comfortable because I believe this is my longest one. This Chapter is entitled 1 Timothy 2:11-15. When my husband gave me (Abby) this book last Christmas, I first turned to the back and read the conclusion and the last couple of chapters. I was surprised and intrigued, but I did not see how Westfall had arrived at her conclusions. Therefore, if you're reading this summary without having read the other summaries, this chapter might not seem sufficiently supported by evidence. Click on the Table of Contents link above to read the other chapters. Now, on to the controversy! How exciting! I had no idea there was so much controversy about the authorship of 1 Timothy. Some people claim this book wasn't written by Paul at all. In fact, Westfall says that a majority of people claim this book wasn't written by Paul himself to Timothy himself (Westfall, 281). According to Greek scholars, this book lacks the style and cohesion like most of Paul's other letters. It's almost like someone else wrote 1 Timothy. Because of 1 Timothy's differences, scholars have come up with various theories about this book. 1) Paul didn't write it, but it's still all true. 2) Someone else made it up and it's a book to disregard in some ways. 3) Paul told the gist of this letter to someone else who wrote it down. 4) Paul himself wrote it and had some reason to alter his style. Westfall argues against points 1-3 and petitions for option 4: Paul wrote it, but the tone, style, and Greek grammar of this book differ from Paul's other letters because this is a personal letter meant for Timothy to read and explain to others. Thus, without Timothy, people wouldn't necessarily have known what this letter was about. Timothy knew what Paul was talking about because Paul and Timothy knew each other well. They'd spent 14-16 years working together (Westfall, 284). "...when we read someone else's private mail, it tends to appear incoherent and even to lack cohesion because contexts, acquaintances, and connections are shared (yet not explained) between writers and recipients who know each other well" (Westfall, 284). Doesn't it seem like Paul's reference to Timothy drinking a little wine in 1 Timothy 5:23 is rather a private affair? That isn't the sort of detail to read to a crowd. That's not to say that Timothy wouldn't let others read this, but that Timothy's presence was vital to explaining the contents of this letter. By the way, Paul wrote this letter to Timothy while Timothy was in Ephesus. Paul had asked him to stay in Ephesus because Ephesus was having issues. "As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine" (1 Tim. 1:3 ESV). I (Abby) get the impression that Paul is giving a written wink to Timothy here: "Certain persons," you know who I'm talking about, Timothy. Westfall argues that false teaching and the correcting thereof is the point of Timothy's letter. This was defended earlier in her book.
In Church or Out of Church
Another item up for debate is the assumption that 1 Timothy is Paul's instructions to Timothy about how church gatherings ought to be conducted. This is often assumed because Paul is talking about prayer in 1 Timothy 2. Westfall argues that 1 Timothy 2 isn't about behavior in church for several reasons. One: Paul mentions prayer in 1 Tim 2:8 that is taking place in every place not necessarily in a worship service. And in 1 Timothy 2:1-2 there is no indication that prayers here are to be made in church only. "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way" (1 Tim. 2:1-2 ESV). Paul talks elsewhere and often about praying in all places at all times, and prayer in the Jewish, Christian, and Greco-Roman world wasn't confined to worship places. Two: Paul's instructions to pray in 1 Tim 2:8—"I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling;"—are followed by how women ought to conduct themselves seemingly in their everyday lives too. It's like Paul's saying, "This is how you ought to conduct yourselves in your everyday lives. Men, instead of arguing, go about praying. Women, instead of going about all fancy-like, adorn yourself with godliness." Prayer seems to be the antidote to men's anger in everyday life, and godliness seems to be the antidote to women being too concerned about fancy attire (Westfall, 288). Interesting side-note. If this had been instructions on how to pray in church, shouldn't Paul have mentioned women wearing veils? Rather he's talking about hair styles (2:9). Here's the link to Westfall's chapter on veils where she talks about how Paul argued for women veiling in church.
Three: (Westfall calls this the fourth reason but I can't for the life of me find her 3rd point. Is it possible she miscounted?) In verses 8 and 9, Paul uses the plural men and women, but when Paul gets to verses 11 and 12, "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man..."—he switches to woman and man singular. If Paul is talking about conduct in church, shouldn't that read, "Let women learn quietly... I do not permit women to teach or exercise authority over men..." This might seem minor, but Westfall seems to think it's grammatically strange to switch like this. If Paul is talking about one woman speaking to one man, that wouldn't take place in a worship service. Where would a man and woman speak one to one? Westfall proposes that Paul is most likely referring to family matters between a husband and wife. Add to this the fact that Greek uses the same word for husbands/men and wives/women. It seems likely that this is now talking about husbands and wives. Four: Paul's seemingly random reference to a woman being saved through childbirth in 1 Tim 2:15: yeah, that has nothing to do with a worship service or men and women's conduct in the church. Therefore, Westfall argues that 1 Timothy 2 isn't talking about proper order and behavior in a worship service but something else. The beginning of this letter indicates that the point of this letter is to address false teaching. Here's the 1 Timothy 1 intro again for you. "As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions." (1 Tim. 1:3-7 ESV) I believe Westfall is proposing that some of these certain persons who were devoting themselves to myths and who needed correcting were wives who, without understanding what they were talking about, were teaching and exercising authority over their husbands.
That Questionable Greek Word
Westfall next explains some of the work that's been done around that Greek word in 1 Timothy 2:12 "to have authority over" (αὐθεντεῖν.) She says that this is the primary word used to exclude women from various forms of leadership in the church (Westfall, 294). As such, the church really needs to flesh out what this word means based on lexicography and linguistic methodology. In a footnote, she mentions how most discussions on this word haven't been informed by the theory of collocation (word patterns) or appraisal theory, which determines if something talked about is an approved thing or not (Westfall footnote, 294). "There is now ample evidence that was not available to the nineteenth-century lexicons which we tended to depend on for our glosses; the database, search engines and linguistic theories are now in place to move forward. The church has reached its age of accountability. It is time to assume responsibility (or liability) for excluding women from church leadership positions based on the word αὐθεντεῖν." (Westfall, 294). Yikes! I wouldn't want to mess with this woman. Speaking of footnotes, check out how much space Westfall devotes to footnotes on this page. Behold, the largest group of footnotes known to mankind! Westfall could practically write another book with all her footnotes.
Anyway, here's the short version of what she says about this word. In Greek, it's αὐθεντεῖν, which is pronounced authentein and is usually translated "to have authority over." I (Abby) will use the word "coerce" for easy reading in this summary, but FYI, this is an Abby translation, not a Westfall one. I'll keep the word in quotes throughout so you remember that. "Coerce" isn't found elsewhere in the Bible, but in the more than 300 places where "coerce" is found outside the Bible, it has violent connotations. John Chrysostom who wrote in the fourth century used this word to tell husbands not to "coerce" their wives, but rather to love their wives. Interesting tidbit: in the places outside the Bible where "coerce" is found, nowhere is it used as a positive thing for ministers in the church to do to others (Westfall, 292). "In the Greek corpus, the verb αὐθεντεῖν refers to a range of actions that are not restricted to murder or violence. However, the people who are the targets of these actions are harmed, forced against their will (compelled), or at least their self-interest is overridden, because the actions involve the imposition of the subject's will over against the recipient's will, ranging from dishonor to lethal force" (Westfall, 292). Westfall states that "coercing" would be appropriate for an authorized code-enforcer to do on someone who broke the law, i.e. manhandling them and taking them to jail. "Coercing" would also be appropriate for God to do . . . well, because he's God. See the Old Testament. Thus, wives "coercing" their husbands as used in 1 Timothy 2 isn't a good thing. Nor is "coercing" a good thing for anyone to do but God and authorized police or military. This has not been the traditional reading of this verse. Rather, people read Paul's prohibition as if "coercing" is only wrong for women to do. It's a negative thing for women to do, but a positive thing for men to do. Westfall reminds readers of what she discussed in a previous chapter, and that is that Paul's prohibition here doesn't imply that men/husbands are allowed to do this. Westfall argues that "coercion" isn't appropriate for church life or marriage. Nowadays, this might be considered abuse in marriage, but back in the Greco-Roman times, it was considered okay for men to "coerce" their wives or slaves into doing x, y, or z. Paul challenges that norm by urging husbands to love their wives instead. So put it all together and what do we have? Paul doesn't allow a wife in her private life or home to "coerce" her husband. What might women have been "coercing" their husbands about? Stay tuned.
The Application of Genesis
The next debated section is Paul's reference to Genesis in 1 Timothy 2:13-14. "For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." Paul's Genesis reference is brief, and Westfall argues it is meant to remind Timothy of some important information in the narrative of Genesis 2 that both Timothy and Paul know. I (Abby) found Westfall's explanations on this difficult to wrap my head around and synthesize. Thus, I'm inserting my examples in this section to make it easier for you. Abby example: Let's say I have a roofer-friend who is getting complaints from clients that the wind keeps ripping shingles off his newly installed roofs. Let's say I'm pretty sure that the roofer's problem is cheap materials. So I wrote him a letter saying, "Dear Friend, I see your roofs' shingles are ripping off in the wind. I think I see the problem. It's the same problem that two of the three little pigs had. Remember, that childhood story. All the wolf had to do was huff and puff and blow those pigs' houses down." You'd probably understand what I was talking about because you know the story of the three little pigs. You'd remember that two pigs built their houses out of straw and sticks. If you knew the story, you'd know that without my saying so. Thus, from my referencing the story and leaving out certain facts, you'd understand that the nature of the roofer's problem probably has to do with his roofing materials. Maybe they're cheap or unreliable. We would think it odd if someone read my letter and assumed I was saying some sort of universal truths about pigs and houses. However, this is what interpreters have done with 1 Timothy 2 and its reference to Genesis. They have used it to apply universal traits to women's nature (easily deceived, easy prey for false teachers, gullible, not trustworthy) and to make universal rules for women in the church (no teaching men, be quiet in church, no authority over men, the proof of your salvation is in having babies...) Westfall does a good job throughout her whole book of pointing out these assumptions we make when we approach passages about men and women. One of the assumptions I (Abby) think we also have about this particular passage is that Paul is finally answering that age-old question of why God made Adam first. Who doesn't want to know the answer to that question? However, I don't know that Paul is answering that question. Here again, Westfall reminds readers of what she has already discussed in Chapters 3 & 4 about creation and the fall. I'm not going to re-summarize it here again, but here are links if you want to look at those summaries again.
Before reading Westfall, I (Abby) read 1 Timothy 2:13-14 as if Adam being created first was like being the oldest kid in the family and thus being oldest had certain privileges. But if we change what Adam first experienced, it changes how we think about Paul's use of the word "first." Another Abby example: if Adam was the first person to relay the message in the game of Telephone, you know that "first" means Adam probably got the message most accurate. We wouldn't assume Adam was the leader of the other people in his line or had special innate abilities. We would just assume he probably got the message the most accurately. I think this is how Westfall is challenging us to rethink Paul's Genesis reference here and the word "first." Westfall states that people make all sorts of assumptions about the significance of Adam being formed first. But perhaps man being created first isn't what Paul is emphasizing, but rather the result of being created first, which is found in Genesis 2 itself. That is, receiving God's instructions about not eating from the tree. Westfall suggests that Paul is reminding Timothy of the Genesis 2 story to explain the nature of the Ephesian women's problem. Eve didn't receive the instructions about the tree from God &/or received the instructions second-hand from Adam, thus she was deceived. The Ephesian women aren't receiving &/or need to be receiving the correct instructions from their husbands so that they won't be deceived. This understanding makes this passage far more cohesive than traditional interpretations. The advantage of being created first wasn't physical or mental, but being the one to receive God's instructions first. This would have huge implications for the Jewish people who received the law and were supposed to be a light to the Gentile nations. Instead the Jews thought they were superior to Gentiles because God gave them the law. This alternative way of understanding Genesis implies that the ones who have an "advantage" are the ones who receive God's revelation. (This is Abby's paragraph here. Westfall doesn't make this connection in her book.) Westfall states that people tend to see this Genesis reference as an indication that what Paul says about men and women is a universal statement about male priority or firstborn rights or leadership qualities, but Westfall argues that it makes more sense that Paul's Genesis' reference has to do with the nature of the false teaching in Ephesus and how to correct it: namely, Ephesus' women are deceived because they haven't received or aren't being taught the truth. I've noticed, (Abby here) how this way of viewing these verses, ties in 1 Timothy 1:7 "desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions." And it also ties in 1 Timothy 1:13 where Paul admits his own ignorance: "though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus."
The Nature of the False Teaching
So what was the false teaching about and how was it spread? Paul states that the false teaching had to do with "myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith" (1 Tim. 1:4). We learn more about the false teaching in 1 Tim. 4:1-3a: "...some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons . . . who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving" (ESV). And Chapter 5 gives us an indication of perhaps how the younger widows are involved in the false teaching: "...they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not." (1 Tim. 5:13). Westfall doesn't state who started the false teaching, but she takes note of how the false teaching is affecting the men and women at Ephesus. The results of the men listening to the false teaching is that they are in opposition to Paul, angry, arguing, and exploiting the church for money. Westfall cites 1 Timothy 6:3-5 for this. The result of the false teaching for women is the spreading of "myths, genealogies, and destructive speech passed along from house to house" involving false ideas about marriage and celibacy (cf 1 Timothy 4:1-5) (Westfall, 300). "The doctrines of the false teachers may have had an attraction to women who, already terrified by the horrendous risks of childbirth, sought to reverse the effects of the fall by refusing to have children by abstaining from sex. This could be done by avoiding marriage or staying celibate within marriage" (Westfall, 301). Westfall gives several other scholars' recipes on what these myths may have been: maybe a distorted creation story with some Ephesian cult practices mixed into a batter of Jewish ideas with a dash of Christianity on top. Viola! False-teaching-pie! Westfall states that Paul's solution to saving a woman's life through childbirth (i.e., she lives through it) was faith in the Lord, not cult practices or celibacy. Paul also addresses women dressing immodestly in this letter. Immodest dress among women was not solely a Christian concern. "This kind of immodest behavior of women was of great concern in the Greco-Roman culture, and the prohibition of immodest or ostentatious clothing was sometimes enacted in law" (Westfall, 302). "The fact that widows in Ephesus could possibly engage in such a display of luxury may indicate independence, wealth, and control (not only over themselves but also over any children) that they were unwilling to relinquish" (Westfall, 302). So we have women dressing too worldly, believing false teachings, and going from house to house spreading myths about marriage and celibacy.
How to Correct False Teaching
Westfall argues that 1 Timothy 2 is Paul's idea on how to correct the false teaching in Ephesus. Men, instead of arguing, pray. Women, instead of spreading false teaching while prancing around in fancy attire, dress modestly and get your correct doctrine from your husbands. Westfall says this is the correct discipleship procedure for women at that time. Paul tells Timothy. Timothy tells the husbands. The husbands teach their wives correct doctrine in the privacy of their own homes. 1 Timothy 2:11-12 parallels 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 where wives are also told to learn from their husbands at home, suggesting this was Paul's procedure for women's spiritual formation. They hadn't quite gotten around to forming women's Bible Studies yet or letting women into seminary schools. Both passages indicate that "generally there was a significant gap between husband's and wives' theological and biblical understanding, and 1 Corinthians 14 also shows that at least some women lacked the understanding of proper social behavior during public/religious education and exhortation. This reflects the differences in the literacy levels and in the practice of education of men and women... It is also consistent with the traditional gender roles promoted by household codes in the first-century Greco-Roman world" (Westfall, 307). It would've been a role reversal for wives to teach their husbands in the home, thus undermining the Greco-Roman social structure. Add that to withholding sex and walking around in fancy dress, and we have a rather modern depiction of "woman being independent from man" right there (cf 1 Corinthians 11:11). Westfall calls it "emancipated tendencies" (Towner as quoted in Westfall, 301). Westfall states that Paul's instructions for the women in 1 Timothy could be taken as Paul's general practice and procedures for women's spiritual formation or as a continuation of a previously made mandate for the Ephesians to get their act together. The prohibition of teaching is the prime correction in this place. The added prohibition of the "coercion" that some Ephesian wives have been doing to their husbands could be a result of the wives acting as teachers instead of learners. It might also be the "emancipated woman" taking over, or a result of the wife having the money in the relationship. Westfall suggests Paul's correction helped in three ways: One: it would stop the spread of these myths, and redirect wives to where they ought to get their info. Two: It would prevent a role reversal that would peg Christians in Ephesus as trying to undermine the social pyramids. Three: It pictured marriages in a counter-cultural healthy light where neither husband nor wife "coerced" one another. Westfall adds here that "coercion" for the Ephesian women might be referring to "withholding sex" from their husbands as a way of saving themselves from the dangers of pregnancy and childbirth. Oh wow! That seems very possible. That's the oldest trick in the book. Control him with sex. "Paul would not tolerate any justification of that practice" (Westfall, 308).
The Pagan Cults and Artemis
This alternative way of understanding 1 Timothy creates more flow to Paul's argument and ties in the reference of childbearing, which the Ephesian women might've been trying to avoid through celibacy. "One thing that ancient women's religion had in common was the use of magic, sacrifices, and prayer for help and protection in time of childbirth; perhaps women felt that they found the needed protection through the false teaching" (Westfall, 309). Luke in the book of Acts notes the worship of Artemis, the burning of magic scrolls, and the riot with the silversmiths that all occurred in Ephesus. "We certainly may assume that it (cult practices) continued to be an issue among the woman who would tend to use the local tried-and-true "home remedies" in childbirth and midwifery, what was an indivisible mix of natural medicine and magic in pagan practice." (Westfall, 310). Westfall briefly describes the research and history of Artemis' importance in Ephesus at that time. Artemis was the patron goddess of childbirth and a significant source of good health. An inscription dating 104 CE describes how every two weeks thirty-one images—nine of which were of Artemis— were processed through the city. This supposedly gave the people a sacred grounding to meet daily struggles and challenges. More interesting bits: Artemis' name means "safe and sound" or "healthy" and one of Artemis' titles was "savior," which shows how "to save" was a common way in the Greek to describe "Artemis's help, healing, and protection in the areas of life that would encompass childbirth" (Westfall, 310). This explains why Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:15 "Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control" (ESV). Paul is using the same sort of language typical of the psalmist and elsewhere in scripture about the Lord being our protector and savior from real danger on earth. And that last bit about self-control is a little hint to the couple, particularly the husband, to be wise in the decision of how many times he's going to impregnate his wife. In conclusion, Westfall reminds us that we all approach the text here with assumptions already in mind about what Paul is talking about. She says that the best indications of what Paul means are located in the book of 1 Timothy itself. "The controversial passage that addresses women in 2:9-15 does not fit the setting of a church service either. It is better understood as a type of household code, whereby the heresies involving women that had invaded the household were to be corrected in each household by the husband, who was in the best position to take responsibility for the spiritual formation of his wife. Rather than prohibiting women from participating as leaders in the church, Paul addressed the lacuna in discipleship that is holding the Ephesian women believers back from maturity and sound teaching. Paul's references to the creation and fall are directly relevant to marriage, sex, and childbirth—issues that Paul identifies as problem areas among women later in the letter. Paul concludes his instruction by addressing women's very real concerns about the results of the fall on the ordeal of childbirth, and he offers both a spiritual promise of healing and a pragmatic solution." (Westfall 311-2).
1 Timothy 2:11-15 (Abby Version)
Let me put it all together for you in another Abby version. Please remember, this is my best attempt to understand Westfall, but these are not her words or God's. I have added many extra words to clarify what Paul would omit because this was a private letter to someone who already understood the situation and the implications of the Genesis story. 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (Abby Version) 11 The best way to disciple the women who are spreading these false myths is for them to learn quietly with all submissiveness from their husbands. 12 I do not permit these wives to be their husband's teacher or to coerce their husbands into practicing pagan ways of surviving childbearing; rather, wives learn from husbands who learn from you, Timothy, the truth 13 just like Adam was formed first and received God's teachings first, then Eve learned from Adam. 14 And recall how it wasn't Adam who was deceived about the tree, but the woman who was deceived because she didn't understand the commandment and thus sinned unknowingly. Likewise, these women are deceived about how to save their lives during childbirth. 15 Yet a wife's life and health will be spared even through the ordeal of childbearing—if the husband and wife continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control, particularly on the husband's part. Phew! That about wraps it up. Thank you for joining me in this adventure. If you'd like an overall conclusion and some Abby thoughts about what to do with all this information, click on the conclusion link below after Sunday April 14th.
Yes! Phew! I appreciate all your work on this Abby!