My colleague Ben Dunson has written a great review of scholarly approaches to individual / communal issues since Bultmann and Käsemann, with helpful suggestions for further avenues of research and a call for integration of the individual and the communal elements in Paul.

What is the most polite way to refer to an old person? Have you noticed how the words we collectively use to refer to old people in the media and in private conversation keep changing? It’s a strange process. We start using a word or phrase, for example, ‘old man’, ‘old woman’. After a while, we decide that this phrase is really a little derogatory, and so we change to another, more neutral phrase, such as ‘senior citizen’. But after a while, ‘senior citizen’ sounds condescending and slightly offensive. So we try another, more neutral, word—like ‘elderly’. But the same thing happens: after we use the word ‘elderly’ for a while, it starts to sound a bit insulting. So we try ‘aged’. Then ‘ageing’. And so on. The reason this keeps happening is that our underlying concept of ageing itself is negative. It doesn’t matter what word we choose to express it; that word will start to take on the negative connotations that we associate with the underlying concept.

Ageing, for us, is a terrible thing. Nobody wants to be old. We have created an entire cosmetic industry dedicated to covering up the disastrous effects of ageing. We don’t want to be look old because we don’t want to be old. Why are we so negative about ageing? It’s because ageing represents the opposite of our core values. We live in a society that puts a huge value on freedom, choice, fulfilment of desires, strength and independence. All these values are far more obtainable by the young than by the old. Increasing age means diminishing freedom, limited choice, lower potential for fulfilment, increasing weakness and growing dependence.

Furthermore, we believe that old people actually limit the potential of the young people around them. Old people are a ‘burden’, a challenge, an increasing demand on an economy that is ‘driven’ by the young. Or at least, this is the way we often talk about ageing.

What light does the gospel of Jesus Christ shed on ageing? The doctrine of creation remind us that God has created a good and ordered world for humans to rule under his loving oversight. Old people, by virtue of their greater experience in this world, have invaluable wisdom to offer the young. Young people need the presence, experience and wisdom of godly old people in our communities, in our homes (e.g. Prov 23:22) and in our churches (e.g. Titus 1:5, 2:3). Old people are not a burden. In fact, we can’t do without them.

Nevertheless, ageing is a reminder that our world is under a curse. The increasing weakness, futility and numbness of old age (Eccl 12:1-6) is merely the forerunner to death (Eccl 12:7), which all stems from God’s judgement for our rebellion against him (Gen 3:19). The debilitating effects of ageing remind us that there is something terribly wrong with our world and our relationship with God, and that should make us turn to him for salvation.

The fact that Jesus came as a servant to die as a ransom for our sins and to help those who cannot help themselves (Mark 10:45 , Romans 5:6) teaches us that God cares for the weak, the feeble, the vulnerable. Following the crucified saviour means caring for those who need our care (Mark 10:43-44, Phil 2:4-11), including the aged among us (1 Tim 5:8). We all need to acknowledge the great value of aged care, and support those individuals and professionals who care for old people.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ shows us that mortality, frailty and death are not God’s final plan for humanity. Jesus’ body didn’t see decay (Acts 13:37); likewise, all those who trust in him look forward to receiving renewed, immortal bodies from God (1 Cor 15:42-44). In Christ, old people, as much as young people, are created in the image of an imperishable, immortal saviour (1 Cor 15:49) and share equally in that massive potential for freedom, glory and fulfilment in the new creation.

But the gospel demands faith and repentance. Do we trust in God’s promises enough to also entrust him with our fears and anxieties about our own ageing? Do we need to change our attitudes and our actions so that we properly value and love the old people in our midst?

• How is the story of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection made “real” to us in our own lives now?
• How is the promise of new creation, which we know will be truly physical and not just a fluffy boring harp-playing cloud-sitting eternity, made “real” to us now who still live embodied lives in the midst of the old creation?

His answer to these questions involved more than 3 hours of lectures and question times, but it can be summarised in two words: “the sacraments”, by which he meant primarily the physical activities of the “Eucharist” and water Baptism but also other traditionally “Catholic” sacraments such as marriage, confession, confirmation, etc.

Wright’s basic argument was that because the new creation in Christ is real, material and physical, it is appropriated in real, material and physical ways, through physical sacrament as well as through spoken word.

On the positive side, Wright said many interesting and helpful things about physicality and Christian community. As usual he offers correctives to modern over-individualistic “disembodied” misunderstandings of the gospel. And he was at pains to keep God’s word and the sacraments together; he certainly didn’t believe in a “magical” operation of the sacraments where they just “work” regardless of whether God’s Word is being preached.

Nevertheless after a while, something struck me. During the entire three hours, he never spoke about the Holy Spirit’s vital place in the answer to these (above) questions. From memory, all I can remember about what Wright said about the Holy Spirit was:

• A passing mention when referring to Romans 8 (but he didn’t really make anything of it)
• Another passing acknowledgement when quoting a poem that mentioned the Holy Ghost
• An acknowledgement that Calvin talked about a “spiritual” eating and drinking in the Lord’s Supper, after which he immediately said that while he basically agreed with Calvin, nevertheless he wanted to emphasise the physical, material aspect of the sacraments (implying that he believed that Calvin was right when it came to a “real presence” and not quite right when he emphasised the spiritual rather than the physical).

Wright also made quite a few negative comments about the “spiritual” nature of much modern reflection about the Christian life and church, which he frequently connected with un-Christian individualism and gnosticism. In the vast majority of cases, “spirit” and “spiritual” were neutral or negative concepts for him.

Before I criticise Wright, I need to concede a few things. Yes, he was asked to speak on the sacraments, not the Spirit, so of course he should be focussing on them. Yes, I know that Wright would never deny that he believes in the Spirit (he frequently mentions the Spirit in his writings on Jesus and Paul). And yes, even at the beginning of his lecture series, Wright acknowledged that he was being exploratory in his own reflections about the sacraments, and that most of his beliefs about the sacraments in his life so far had come through his church experience, so this isn’t his “final word”.

Nevertheless, despite all these caveats, I still think there is something deeply wrong here. Wright deliberately went out of his way to frame his discussion in terms of these questions (above) about the way in which the story of Jesus and the new creation is made “real” in our lives. The answer of the Bible to these questions (e.g. Romans 8), which is also the answer of John Calvin, is that these things happen primarily by the Holy Spirit. This is not to deny that the new creation is physical, nor to deny that there should and will be physical manifestations of the new creation in our lives and communities, nor to deny that sacraments are or should be involved. But to spend more than three hours answering the question in relation to the sacraments, without any real discussion of the Spirit, is a very grave error. I content that Wright, at this point, has substituted the sacraments of the church for the Holy Spirit of God.

I’m thinking of asking a dangerous question. It’s a question that I need to ask, but the very act of asking it threatens to lead me astray. The question is this: ‘What is St. Blogg’s?’ This may seem like a strange question, but let me explain why I need to ask it, and why it’s so dangerous.

St. Blogg’s is a group I belong to.[1] It has about 200 members of various ages, most of whom attend (with varying regularity) one or both of its two so-called ‘Sunday services’ where we engage in singing, prayer, Bible instruction, symbolic meals, and other assorted activities, followed by tea and biscuits. As a group, we tend to like spending time together both during and outside the ‘services’. We share biblical truth with outsiders. Many of us attend mid-week groups for Bible study, prayer and training. St. Blogg’s owns some buildings, and many (but not all) of its members dwell close to these buildings. The membership has a high turnover, reflecting the high mobility of the locality. There are so-called ‘ministers’ who lead many of our activities. St. Blogg’s belongs to the Reconstituted Calathumpian denomination. According to our vision statement, we have a rich heritage and a promising future. According to some others, we have a chequered past and an uncertain outlook.

I’ve just described St. Blogg’s in a few different ways.[2] But this doesn’t actually answer the question: What is St. Blogg’s? St. Blogg’s isn’t necessarily something that God cares about very much, and this is what makes the question dangerous. By the very act of asking it, I might focus so much on St. Blogg’s that I neglect God’s concerns. Nevertheless, I need to know what St. Blogg’s is—because if I don’t know what it is, I won’t know how to behave towards it. I might unduly despise it, or unduly adore it, or stay in it when I should leave, or leave it when I should stay, or unwittingly destroy it, or prolong it when it should be disbanded.

The Assembly

Now you might think that the answer is obvious: St. Blogg’s is clearly a church. You just look up the word ‘church’ in your Bible concordance, read the appropriate verses, and there you have it. But it’s not so easy, because the Greek word usually translated ‘church’ in our Bibles (ekklēsia) actually means ‘assembly’. So when you read the word ‘church’ in your Bible, the immediate picture you form in your mind should not be something like St. Blogg’s (the thing that I’ve just described) but rather an actual ‘assembly’ of people in direct proximity to one another, in one place, engaged in a common activity (more like what we at St. Blogg’s call a ‘service’ or a Bible study). The word ‘church’ in the Bible[3] always carries with it notions of particular people actually assembled in a particular place, for a particular reason.[4]

In the Old Testament, the most significant assemblies were assemblies of the nation of Israel at Mount Sinai or Mount Zion for the purpose of hearing and responding to God’s word (e.g. Deut 4:10, 18:16; 1 Kings 8, Neh 8:2). Israel was not an assembly all the time; it was only described as an assembly when it actually assembled. At other times it was described as a ‘people’. Nevertheless, these assemblies were very significant, for they were the foundational and ongoing events that gave the ‘people’ its meaning and identity as God’s people, in God’s place, under God’s rule (e.g. Deu 23:3, Psa 68:26).

In the New Testament, we find that the assembly is still very significant, but it has moved to a different location. The assembly is not at Mount Sinai, but rather it is at ‘Christ’. This may sound strange until you realise that God is where Christ is (John 14:7-11). Jesus Christ is God’s presence and his rule (John 17). And so we see God’s purposes being fulfilled as he gathers people around Christ, in obedience and response to Christ. The Christian ‘assembly’ is the assembly around Christ. But where is Christ now? He has ascended to heaven (Acts 2:33). He is with God, ruling from heaven, gathering a people to himself. One day he will return from heaven to bring consummation to the creation, but for now he is in heaven (Acts 1:11). So the primary, most important, assembly is ‘in heaven’, where we are actually assembled with Christ even though we are on earth (e.g. Col 1:18, 3:1-4; Eph 3:10-12; Heb 12:22-24).[5]

Yet here on earth, Christ is present with us by his Spirit. As the Holy Spirit brings God’s word to us and works obedience in us, Christ is there in us (Romans 8:1-11). Hence, whenever and wherever Christians assemble on earth in Christ’s name, drawn together in fellowship by the Holy Spirit to hear God’s word and respond in faith and love, which all centres on Christ, then that assembly can also be described as the true Christian assembly (e.g. Col 4:15). Thus each ‘local assembly’ is truly the heavenly assembly on earth: e.g. the ‘assembly of God which is at Corinth’ (1 Cor 1:2), ‘assemblies of Galatia’ (Gal 1:2), etc.[6]

But where does that leave St. Blogg’s? It does have regular assemblies in Christ’s name. But those assemblies usually stop at about 11:30 on Sunday mornings when the biscuits run out and we all go home. St. Blogg’s itself is not an ‘assembly’ as such; it’s a ‘community’ with relationships that can persist outside the assemblies. Because of this sort of distinction, some have suggested that the idea of ‘assembly’ is far too inadequate to capture the range of biblical expressions for Christian community. Cole, for example, suggests that the ‘people of God’ is a much more inclusive organising principle in the New Testament. In this view, St Blogg’s would be a subunit of the larger earthly society. It would not gain its meaning from its ‘assemblies’, but from its status as part of the ‘people of God’. This would also provide Christians with a corporate face towards the rest of the world, explaining such things as denominations, evangelism and social action.[7]

However, this view doesn’t do justice to the weight that the Bible places on the ‘assembly’ (ekklēsia). In the Old Testament, it is the act of assembling around God’s word that makes Israel God’s people, from exodus to exile.[8] And as we have already seen, the New Testament uses the word ‘assembly’ (ekklēsia) in a highly exalted way. Paul describes the heavenly assembly around the ascended Christ as a key to the fulfilment of God’s cosmic plan (Eph 1:22, 3:10, 3:21; Col 1:18), and often uses ekklēsia as the primary term of corporate address to his readers (1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1; Phm 1:2; cf. Rev 1:4). Whatever we say about St. Blogg’s, we can’t ignore the centrality of the ‘assembly’.

The Body

A key to understanding how the assembly is essential to our corporate Christian identity is the word ‘body’. The heavenly assembly is not simply an assembly around Christ; it is his very body (e.g. Eph 1:22-23, 5:23, 5:29-30; 1:18, 3:15). This means that there is a close, intimate relationship between Christ and his people, a ‘fellowship’ which is ours through the Holy Spirit who brings us the word of Christ and anchors us together in him (1 Cor 1:9; 10:16; 2 Cor 13:14; Eph 4:4; Phil 2:1; 1 John 1:3-7). Furthermore, this ‘fellowship’ is bound up with Christ’s bodily (human) nature, especially his death for us (1 Cor 11:24; Col 1:22, 1:24; 1 Pet 2:24) and his resurrection which secures our own resurrection (Phil 3:21; Heb 10:5, 10).[9]

This means that all legitimate earthly manifestations of fellowship in Christ (that is, sharing corporately in faith, hope and love in the gospel of Jesus’ death and resurrection, e.g. Col 1:3-5) are grounded in the heavenly assembly which is Christ’s ‘body’. The earthly ‘assembly’, where we gather to hear the word of Christ and to love and serve one another in close physical (bodily) proximity, is, of course, the primary expression of this fellowship (e.g. 1 Cor 10:17, 12:27-28; Col 3:16; possibly Rom 12:5-8).[10] But heavenly fellowship in Christ can also be expressed in other ‘earthly’ ways even when the ‘assembly’ is not actually gathered (e.g. by sharing money: Rom 15:26; 2 Cor 8:4; Phil 4:14-15). Hence the people of St. Blogg’s can act as the body of Christ, both during its ‘assemblies’ and at other times, whenever they express fellowship in teaching and living out the gospel of Christ.

The Household

But is there more we can say about St. Blogg’s? The three occurrences of ekklēsia in 1 Timothy (3:5, 3:15, 5:16) are worth looking at more closely.[11] 1 Timothy 3:15 is particularly significant, because it relates the ‘ekklēsia of the living God’ (a very exalted phrase) to the earthly concept of the ‘household of God’. We’ll look first at 1 Timothy more broadly, and then return to 3:15.

In 1 Timothy, Paul displays a deep concern with the connection between God’s word and earthly relationships. God’s word both affirms and revitalises earthly relationships. For example, the teaching about the oneness of God, the incarnation and the substitutionary atonement underwrites a concern with the entire social order (2:1-6, 4:10). While demonic teaching denies the goodness of marriage and food, God’s word and prayer is able to sanctify them (4:1-5). Timothy’s training in the words of the faith and the good teaching holds promise for both the present life and the life to come (4:6-8). Paul expects his apostolic command to set up a just system of social welfare for widows (5:3-16).[12]

Conversely, revitalised earthly relationships provide the form for God’s word to be expressed. That is, God’s word brings salvation in and through earthly relationships (e.g. 2:1-4, 2:15). Paul refers to various dimensions of relationship in and through which God’s word is taught and obeyed: men and women (2:8-15), fathers and children (3:4-5, 12), insiders and the wider community (3:7), created things such as wine and money (3:3), youth and age (5:1-2), etc.[13]

A word group commonly used by Paul to refer to a complex of earthly relationships is oiko-, ‘house-’. The ‘household’ in the ancient world was the basic unit of society. It was a group of people who lived together and were related to each other by kinship and economic ties (though the actual structure of households was quite varied).[14] At the start of 1 Timothy, we read that the purpose of God’s word is to promote the ‘stewardship (oikonomia) of God’ (1:4). Children, grandchildren and widows, for example, have significant roles to play in the household (oikos, 5:4, 8, 14). Significantly, the Christian ‘overseer’ must

manage his own household (oikos) well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s assembly (ekklēsia)? (1 Tim 3:4-5, modified ESV. Cf. 3:12)

It is in this context that Paul writes 1 Timothy 3:15. Here is a literal translation aiming to bring out the precise connections between the words:

[. . .] that you may know how it is necessary, in a household (oikos) of God, to behave, which is the assembly (ekklēsia) of the living God, the pillar and buttress of truth. (1 Tim 3:15)

The word ‘behave’ means consistent habits of earthly living in relationship with others.[15] This is entirely consonant with the tone of 1 Timothy. Similarly, as we have seen, the word ‘household’ is best understood as a social entity with some measure of continuity, an earthly ‘community’.[16] The ‘household of God’ is not necessarily a ‘house-church’ (cf. 1 Tim 5:4, 8, 14 with 5:16). Nevertheless, it does appear to be a close-knit earthly community.[17]

Paul seems to envisage that wherever Christians are living in close proximity, such that they are regularly and prayerfully interacting with each other, and the word of God is being taught, believed and obeyed, their ongoing conduct towards one another may be said to constitute ‘assembly’, or ‘church’ (ekklēsia). More broadly, to whatever extent that such regular word-and-prayer-based fellowship is happening amongst a discernible social group, that social group may be said to be ‘assembling’ in the name of Christ; and that social group may be called a ‘household of God’. This ‘household of God’ is certainly not the only possible form of earthly assembly.[18] However, the household of God is a particularly powerful form of assembly because it is a locus of direct word-and-spirit-based interaction between God and human relationships.

What is St. Blogg’s?

To answer our question, then, what is St. Blogg’s? Provided it sticks to God’s word in its teaching, its fellowship, and its ongoing life, it is a household of God. It is an earthly community, but it is a special earthly community because it is a place where God’s word directly affects earthly relationships. How, then, should I act towards it?

Firstly, I need to discern the earthly character of the ‘household of God’. God’s creation exhibits both regularity (which is good, e.g. Gen 1:18) and variety (which is good, e.g. Gen 1:12, 21, 25). This will also be true of St. Blogg’s. We should expect God’s word to revitalise and reform relationships between parents and children, men and women, younger and older, in line with the good regularity of the created order; and we should expect these properly ordered relationships to inform the way in which we bring God’s word to each other in fellowship (e.g. 1 Tim 2:8-15; 5:1-4). Yet we should also expect variety and fluidity in how these relationships are expressed, as they both reform and are informed by the culture in which the household of God finds itself.[19]

But more importantly, I must be concerned to ensure that St. Blogg’s remains intimately connected with its source of life: God’s word. If St. Blogg’s loses constant contact with hearing and responding to God’s word (even if it remains a nice friendly community doing lots of helpful things in society), it will no longer be a household of God, because it is no longer in fellowship with Christ; it is no longer Christ’s body (Col 2:19). I must avoid being led astray by my own question, because what ultimately matters is not St. Blogg’s, but the heavenly assembly in Christ (Col 3:1-4).

1. Different scholars and respected authorities disagree on the interpretation of the relevant Bible passages (especially 1 Timothy 2:8-15)
2. Therefore the Bible is unclear on the issue
3. However, there are a lot of women preaching to mixed adult congregations. Not many people are bothered by this, the outside world thinks it’s a good idea, and we should be egalitarian.
4. In the absence of any clear biblical mandate, we should go with what works.
5. Therefore, women should preach to mixed adult congregations

John Stott can be cited as a very well-respected scholar who has added to the different ‘interpretations’ of 1 Timothy 2:8-15. I want to argue that, despite the many great things that Stott has contributed to evangelical scholarship and understanding, his explanation of 1 Timothy 2:8-15 is not in line with what the text actually says. I suspect this is true of a lot of ‘interpretations’ of this and other passages; and therefore that the Bible is a lot clearer than many people want to make out.

Before I begin, I’d better state my background. I have experienced much excellent and edifying gospel ministry from women. I became a Christian through a woman Scripture teacher, I am constantly amazed at the godly example and Scriptural insight of both my wife and my mother, and I have worked alongside and learned from many fabulous full-time Christian workers who are women. Their Christian ministry and biblical modelling and encouragement has been a tremendous help to me. Therefore, I don’t actually see a need for women to preach to mixed adult congregations, because there’s so much of a need for them to be getting on with other, equally important, gospel ministries, including preaching to women. So what appears to me to be the ‘plain meaning’ of 1 Timothy 2:8-15 doesn’t bother me all that much and I don’t feel the need to look for alternative interpretations. Please be aware of my background as you read this; and I also urge you to be aware of the background and motivations of any other writer who writes on this (and any other) biblical issue.

John Stott’s position on 1 Timothy 2:8-15

This is a summary of Stott’s argument in: Stott, John R. W. The Message of 1 Timothy & Titus. The Bible Speaks Today. Leicester: IVP, 1996.

On pages 73-78, Stott argues for the mediating position (between literalism and liberalism) of ‘cultural transposition’. This means that one must distinguish between essential, changeless revelation and changeable, cultural expression. Then one must ‘transpose’ the changeless revelation into our own cultural expression.

On page 78 he states (non-controversially) that both verse 8 and verses 9-10 contain easily distinguishable elements of essential revelation and cultural expression.

Then, on page 79, he states (more controversially!) that we should apply the same principle to verses 11-15:

• ‘Submission’ is unchangeable revelation (cf 1 Cor 11:2ff),
  • expressed in that culture by ‘silence’
• ‘Not exercising authority’ is unchangeable revelation,
  • expressed in that culture by ‘not teaching’

Page 79: ‘Some readers will doubtless respond that there is no indication of this distinction in the text itself. For verses 11 and 12 contain just two prohibitions (teaching and having authority) and two commands (silence and submission). This is true. But the same could be said about verses 8 and 9. There is nothing in the text of verse 8 which requires us to distinguish between the commands to lift up holy hands and to be rid of anger and argument. Nor is there anything in the text of verse 9 which requires us to distinguish between the commands to women to dress modestly and to avoid hair – plaiting and jewellery. Yet a Christian mind, schooled in the perspectives and presuppositions of the New Testament, knows that its ethical commands and their cultural expressions are not equally normative and must therefore be distinguished.’

Page 80: ‘May not the requirement of silence, like the requirement of veils, have been a first – century cultural symbol of masculine headship, which is not necessarily appropriate today? For silence is not an essential ingredient of submission; submission is expressed in different ways in different cultures. Similarly women teaching men does not necessarily symbolize taking authority over them.’ Examples of women teaching men, according to Stott, include prophesying (1 Cor 11:5, Acts 2:17 , 21:9) and Priscilla teaching Apollos (Acts 18:26 ).

On pages 80-81 he explains (quite persuasively) that the theological explanation from the creation narrative relates directly to the issue of submission.

On page 81 Stott states the conclusion for our time: ‘If then a woman teaches others, including men, under the authority of Scripture (not claiming any authority of her own), in a meek and quiet spirit (not throwing her weight about), and as a member of a pastoral team whose leader is a man (as a contemporary cultural symbol of masculine headship), would it not be legitimate for her to exercise such a ministry, and be commissioned (ordained) to do so, because she would not be infringing the biblical principle of masculine headship?’

A criticism of John Stott’s position

Stott’s argument is:

1. We need to distinguish ethical commands and changeable cultural expression
2. There is no indication in the text how we might make such a distinction
3. Therefore we have to use common sense and general Bible knowledge to do this
4. Then we can work out how to make the ethical commands work in our own cultural expression

I will tackle point 2 first (exegetically, i.e. from the text itself) and then point 3 (theologically, i.e. from general biblical principles)

Exegesis (from the text)

I have drawn a detailed structure and syntactical diagram of the text, below.

From this analysis, there are very good reasons in verses 8 and verses 9-10 to distinguish between changeless commands and particular cultural expressions. Namely,

• the commands themselves are infinitival objects of the main verb: ‘I wish … men to pray … women to adorn.’,
• while the ‘cultural expressions’ are dependent participial or prepositional phrases that follow the command: ‘raising devout hands’, ‘without anger or disputing’ (which appears to have been a particular problem for that time, as it is in our time!), ‘not by braided hair …’.
• Those expressions which Paul sees as transcending culture are either placed before the command for emphasis (e.g. ‘in appropriate apparel’) or preceded by a universalising statement (‘as is fitting for women who profess piety, through good works’).

None of these arguments applies to verses 11-12! The infinitives (which in verses 8-10 were top-level commands) are

• ‘to teach’ (prohibited), and
• ‘to give orders to’ (prohibited) – i.e. exercise authority in the context of word-based teaching,
• ‘to be in quietness’.

Theology (from general biblical principles)

• Stott claims that ‘silence’ and ‘not teaching’ was simply a cultural expression of man-woman order just like the wearing of a veil in 1 Corinthians 11.
  • Yet theologically, those who believe in Sola Scriptura (including Stott himself, in his book I Believe in Preaching) believe that teaching is more than a cultural symbol; it is an activity right at the heart of Christian fellowship; a proper extension of the authority of the God who speaks and brings creation into being, the God who speaks and brings the dead to life in salvation.
  • Teaching God’s word implicitly carries authority with it.
  • This is strengthened by the Old Testament context of verses 12-15 (Genesis 3). The issue is God’s word and teaching; the woman is ‘deceived’ into doubting, distorting and contradicting God’s word.
• Clearly, there are ways of speaking and edifying others in a non-authoritative way.
  • Prophesying is an activity that involves the whole congregation weighing what is said (1 Corinthians 11-14).
  • Priscilla privately exegeted the gospel (Acts 18:26), the word ‘teach’ is not used, and it was not public.
• But this is not ‘teaching’, and it is never called such.

How should we apply this passage?

Women are not to teach adult males, in the sense of preaching the word of God and exhorting the congregation. This is not a cultural expression of biblical reality, it is biblical reality.

‘Teaching’ does not become something else when a cultural ‘symbol’, like a male congregational leadership structure, is added. Such symbols, rather, are more appropriate when other speaking activities are taking place in the congregation (1 Corinthians 11), such as sharing wise observations about life, reporting aspects of congregational life, etc. It is highly questionable whether a male congregational leadership structure is a ‘symbol’ like a veil anyway, since it is not visible at the time when teaching is taking place.

Detailed structure of the text

This is based on the basic syntactical structure of the Greek clauses and phrases.

Overview

• 8-10 Paul’s 2 wishes
  • 8 For men: pray (in a certain manner)
  • 9-10 For women: adorn (in a certain manner)
• 11 A command for women
  • Learn (in a certain manner)
• 12 Paul’s 2 prohibitions (+ alternative) for women
  • To teach
  • To give orders to a man
  • (Alternative: to be in quietness)
• 13-15 Explanation: from creation and salvation.

Details