This post is a continuation of a response I am offering to Dr. Gordon Hugenberger’s March 18 (2024) Christianity Today article, entitled “Complementarian at Home, Egalitarian at Church? Paul Would Approve.” My first post was already published and you can find it HERE.
[UDPATE: After reading a helpful comment, I want to add: the Title for this post should be: “Is 1 Timothy 2 ONLY about Husbands and Wives?”
In this second post, I want to address a key piece of Hugenberger’s argument, namely that 1 Timothy 2 (presumably 2:1-15), with its prohibition on women teaching and having authority, is not about the church, but about the home. I commend Hugenberger’s attempt to advocate for support of women in ministry, but I am afraid in doing so he creates confusion about women’s roles in the home, and also raises questions about women who are single by choice or otherwise (widowed, divorced, etc.). I don’t think any of the theological issues are resolved or explained by this move; and moreover, I don’t think there is enough evidence in 1 Timothy 2 to make that case anyway. Just to lay my cards out on the table: (1) I think 1 Timothy 2 is talking about an ecclesial setting (though most churches met in homes, which is partly why this is tricky), (2) The false teaching is a direct and core issue in this letter, which affects the church and its leadership, (3) 1 Tim 2 transitions pretty quickly into leadership in the church (1 Tim 3), and (4) I take Paul’s firm prohibitions in 1 Tim 2:11-12 as calling out domineering behavior, not “all-things-being-equal” situations between men and women.
Most of this post will be point-counterpoint, where I explain one of Hugenberger’s points, and then I discuss it, often challenging, questioning, or refuting it. I want to be fair to Hugenberger, so please do read his article first (HERE).
Anēr and Gynē (Man and Woman, or Husband and Wife?)
One of the key issues Hugenberger raises is that in Greek there is no specific terminology for “husband” and “wife.” That is, the words anēr (“man”) and gynē (“woman”) can be interpreted and translated as “husband” and “wife” if the context demands it. Hugenberger is right about that part.
So, he argues that readers have to discern for clues that a marriage/home situation is involved. He reasons that the interrelationship of man and woman in 1 Tim 2 points to a home context. He points to the Common English Bible: “A wife should learn quietly with complete submission. I don’t allow a wife to teach or to control her husband” (2:11-12). What Hugenberger leaves out, though, is that the CEB has a footnote that explains “wife” here could mean “woman” and “husband” could mean “man.” So, the CEB committee was not certain, it was a flip of a coin (or not unanimous) and they leaned in favor of the wife/husband reading. Another important observation, though: no other major translation agrees with the CEB. “Man/woman” is the preferred translation for 1 Tim 2:11-12 in: KJV, RSV, NRSV, NET, NIV, NASB, ESV, CSB, NLT. All the translators on these committees know that gynē can mean “wife” and anēr can man “husband,” but they reasoned here it does not.
One of the challenges is that because churches met in home, the life of the family intermixed with the life of the church. That is a major factor that comes into play in the Household Codes (e.g., Col 3-4; Eph 5-6) and in Paul’s letter to Philemon, which is about a master-slave relationship (a household relationship) that affects the church (which meets in his home).
Adam and Eve
Another factor in play for Hugenberger is the reference to Adam and Eve. Because this is a married couple, this seems to Hugenberger to relate to a marriage relationship in general. But if you read 1 Tim 3:13-14 carefully, the Genesis reference is not to Adam’s relationship with Eve, but rather Eve’s being deceived (by a third party, the snake), and then even when it comes to her child-bearing, it refers to her salvation (sōzō), which is not something we typically associate with human marriage.
Wifely Adornment?
Another argument Hugenberger uses to support his argument that 1 Tim 2 is about marriage is Paul’s reference to a wife’s modesty, without braided hair or expensive jewelry, or fine clothes (1 Tim 2:8-9). Hugenberger connects this to 1 Peter 3:1-7, which also mentions braided hair, but in the context of the good Christian wife. I can see the value in making that connection, but Peter uses a more explicit Household Code formulation in 1 Peter 3, addressing men directly: “[Hey] wives!” (1 Peter 3:1); “[Hey] Husbands!” (1 Peter 3:7). Furthermore, I have found some interesting research that suggests that jewelry and fancy personal adornment and style were not just a “marriage” thing, but also reflected a woman’s status and wealth publicly. (Check out Dr. Alicia Batten’s excellent work on this HERE). So, Paul could have been calling women in the church out on status-broadcasting. Just as we see in James 2: “If a person with gold rings and in fine clothes comes into your assembly, and if a poor person in dirty clothes also comes in…” (2:2-3). James goes on to argue against partiality in the community (not marriage exclusively). So, I would say James 2 is as relevant to 1 Tim 2 as 1 Peter 3 is.
If you really want to go down the rabbit hole on this (I got lost for a few hours on women’s jewelry in Antiquity, occupational hazard!), I suggest reading the work of Ria Berg, “Wearing Wealth: Ornatus and Mundus Muliebris as Status Markers of Women in Imperial Rome”). Berg explains that “An adorning object could be conveniently spoken of as ‘concentrated' property. [Ancient] Authors often call jewelry ‘portable property,’ naming it metonymically census or testimonia” (p56). Also, “Adornment seems to have a more visible role in signalling official rank and the status of woman in the hierarchy of the state” (72). If that is true, Paul was more than concerned with what women wear and do vis-a-vis their husbands; this had much wider implications for thinking about economics, power, and status in church and society.
This public setting is further reinforced by Paul’s reference to men in every place lifting up holy hands in prayer and not in anger (1 Tim 2:8). I don’t know any scholar that reads this in terms of the home. The liturgical reference points (again) to a church assembly setting. The academic commentary by Quinn and Wacker observes that when Paul refers to “in every place,” he means places of worship, i.e. churches (see 1 Thess 1:8; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 2:14).1
Didaskō (Teaching)
Hugenberger runs into a little bit of a bind trying to explain, if 1 Tim 2 is about marriage, why Paul talks about teaching (didaskō; 2:12). Hugenberger takes this as the potential problem of a nagging wife “lecturing” her husband. The problem is, Paul really doesn’t use this verb that way. Paul tends to use this verb in relation to theology, or the teaching of what we call Christian doctrine (see Rom 6:17; 12:7; 15:4; 16:17; 1 Cor 2:13; 4:17; 12:28; Gal 1:12; Eph 4:11, 14; Col 2:7; 2 Thess 2:15). And there is good reason to believe Paul’s reference to “teach” in 1 Tim 2:12 is related to the false teaching he mentioned in 1 Tim 1:3 (heterodidaskaleō). Let’s take a little tour and see how much 1 Timothy has to say about true and false doctrine/teaching.
These false teachers and their followers want to be “teachers of the law” (nomodidaskaloi; 1 Tim 1:7), and Paul warns all Christians that they must not teach what is contrary to sound doctrine (heteron…didaskalia; 1:10). Paul positions himself as a righteous apostolic “teacher” (didaskalos) of the Gentiles (2:7). In 1 Tim 3, Paul emphasizes overseers must be skilled in teaching (didaktikos; 3:2) and mentions later that in the end times people will be persuaded to follow demonic teachings (didaskaliais daimoniōn; 4:6), and Paul calls Timothy to hold true to sound teaching that was given to him (kalēs didaskalias; 4:6). He must teach the right things (4:11, 13, 16; 5:17). In total, Paul uses the language of teaching (some form of didaskō) fifteen times; and because false teaching is at the root of the problems in Ephesus, all signs point to not allowing a woman to “teach” men in 1 Tim 2:11 as an ecclesial problem; as in, Paul was calling Timothy to put out a wildfire of false teaching that especially preyed upon women in the church.
REFLECTIONS
I don’t fault Hugenberger for trying this tactic for taking the heat off of 1 Tim 2 as a problem text for women in ministry. I think he was trying to affirm and support women teachers and pastors, but because he doesn’t address the ontological/anthropological theological issues, he sidesteps the heart of the debate. And in this matter of treating 1 Tim 2 as a “marriage” issue, I just don’t see evidence for that in the text. You have to play the ball where it lands, even in the sandpit.
If you are interested in seminary, come study with me at Northern Seminary where we have degrees in ministry, Scripture, and theology. www.seminary.edu. We offer excellent distance programs that accommodate students wherever they live and allow you to work and stay in your preferred context while getting your degree. We are blessed with an incredible faculty including Dr. Beth Felker Jones, Dr. David Fitch, Dr. Matthew W. Bates, Dr. Ingrid Faro, Dr. Wayne Gordon, Dr. Marshall Hatch, and more!
Jerome Quinn and William Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary (The Eerdmans Critical Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000), 192.
Thanks for your work on this, Nijay.
What about the absence of Glahn’s or Hoag’s work in the article or your response? How convincing do you find are their solutions to 1 Tim 2? Perhaps this beyond the reach of a comment section.
Thanks for this work, Nijay. While I myself am an egalitarian, I agree with H that this is an intimate relationship situation opposed to corporate worship. The biggest clue for me in the text is the teaching/“strange doctrine” linked to Hymenaeus and Alexander and childbearing - an activity that rarely occurs in the corporate church gathering ;)
Dr. Lyn Kidson and her work on 1 Timothy 1: Persuading Shipwrecked Men is excellent on this.
We see elements of what this false teaching was in 1 Tim 4 and 5 and its impact on intimate relationships. (Ch. 6 links back to the women flaunting their wealth in 2:9-10) 1 Tim 4 link suggests that the “strange doctrine” insisted on an extreme aescetic practice of celibacy even in marriage. 1 Tim 5 - Paul affirms the goodness of sex and childbearing. So was “the woman” in 2:11, 12, 14 and “they” (husband/wife) afraid of losing her standing before God if she is shown to not have been celibate in marriage (childbearing).
We know, of course, that doctrine has real life implications in the church gathering AND in interpersonal relationships and how one views one’s self.
I think 1 Tim 2 which begins with an affirmation of salvation in Christ and to live at peace with propriety, ends with the same, a woman who has insisted on celibacy in her marriage (why were men angry in verse 8?) is to learn the apostolic teaching first-hand with full humility so she is not deceived by this strange doctrine like Eve was (see 2 Cor 11 for similar exhortation to see Eve as an example to both men and women in Corinth and cling to the apostolic teaching so they are not deceived). She will be saved THROUGH the childbearing - not because of it or in spite of it - if she and her husband proceed with faith, love and holiness with all propriety.
Paul addresses the impact of the false teaching from groups to the intimate and individual in ch. 2. Ch 3 begins in how to proceed at a leadership level to make sure this mess is fixed in an ongoing manner.