Don’t forget that Ephesus (where Timothy was ministering) was the location of the cult of Artemis. This was a female run cult by priestesses who often chanted or recited. The temple was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. The myth of Artemis involved women being created before men and sin entering the world because of a man. Artemis was a goddess who supposedly helped her mother deliver her brother and so she was the goddess of childbirth. Women wore a certain hairstyle to show their loyalty to Artemis. Honestly, having that background knowledge makes the whole passage make sense.
I’m going to attach a really great video I found a few years back by a professor associated with Asbury.
Eventually I'll do a post on Artemis, too. I haven't seen that video yet but I read a fascinating article he wrote about it, as well as the first century Greek novel that he interacts with. Very interesting!
I’m also curious about the Ephesus connection. Reading Bobby’s work has prompted me to explore further the potential connections between Paul and John (my area of specialty). It’s intriguing to consider Paul writing to Timothy in Ephesus in the 60s AD, and then the Gospel and Letters of John being written/finalized in Ephesus around 90-110 AD. The way these groups of NT texts approach issues in the church are starkly different. The fact that they all (likely) address the Ephesian context seems significant. Eg, here’s one simplistic theory: John’s writings and the esteemed position of women as teachers and evangelists suggest Paul’s concern in the 60s was no longer an issue.
Yeah, that's a fascinating connection. I wonder if there's any insight to glean from the message to the church in Ephesus in Revelation 2:1-7. I have no idea, but maybe a historical construction is possible. For instance, in verse 2 he says, "I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false." I wonder if that could be in reference to the aftermath of 1 and 2 Timothy. Just speculating here.
Yes! At first glance, I find the Rev 2:1-7 to be more connected to the Gospel of John, which never uses “apostle” to refer to Jesus’ 12 disciples. One of John’s sub-plots is “who is a good shepherd, and how do we know?” I was hoping to publish something on this today, but realized there was way too much material and need more time to study. Here is the surprising amount of NT material devoted to Ephesus:
AD 52-55 Paul’s ministry in Ephesians (Acts 19:1-41)
AD 57 Paul addresses Ephesian elders (Acts 20:17-37)
AD 62 Paul’s Letter to Ephesians
AD 62-64 Paul’s First Letter Timothy (in Ephesus)
AD 64-67 Paul’s Second Letter to Timothy (in Ephesus)
AD 90-100 Gospel of John (finalized in Ephesus)
AD 90-100 Revelation of John (addresses Ephesus)
AD 95-110 First, Second, and Third Letters of John (in Ephesus)
It's interesting that guys like Jerome had such low opinions of womanhood in general when, in fact, they worked closely with women and praised those particular women very highly.
Thank you, Bobby. As I read this I was thinking about church last night. One of the pastors—a woman—preached her last homily because she’s moving out of state, and it was one of the most beautiful, anointed sermons I’ve ever heard. As I listened I kept wondering, who could possibly think this isn’t exactly what God put her on this earth to do? So, again, thanks for sharing your work, and your heart for mutuality.
You know, I really think one of the biggest problems people have with women preachers is they've never heard one, so it feels jarring to them. It's like when Piper says that Christianity "has a masculine feel" or Mohler says, "There's just something about the male voice." It's a culturally conditioned response. I'll also never forget attending a lecture on this subject with people at all ends of the spectrum of opinion. The speaker asked for a show of hands of those who have had significant platonic friendships with members of the opposite sex. The ones who raised their hands were also the ones most open to women preaching. The others were more likely to believe that there are "male things to do" and "female things to do," and that preaching is a male thing.
That is fascinating and makes perfect sense. In fact, you may have just prompted my next post and I might share some of your wise insights if that's okay. :)
I was going to comment on last weeks article asking if you were going to take up Glahn, Westfall, and others argument for 1 Tim. 2 not being the local church setting!
I figured you might. So glad you did. I’ve become convinced of it myself. Very well done. Can’t wait to read next week!
It really does! I remember sitting at my desk reading this interpretation for the first time. 1 Tim. 2 “clicked” in a way I couldn’t reconcile up to that point, even as a new mutualist/egalitarian.
Again, thank you for taking up this whole discussion. Really enjoying it.
With due respect to the author and his evident desire to engage Scripture faithfully, as an Orthodox Christian I must respectfully but clearly disagree with the central claim of the article.
The passage in 1 Timothy 2:11–15 is not a commentary on a particular marriage situation in Ephesus, but a universal apostolic teaching grounded in the created order and the Fall. Saint Paul explicitly appeals not to local custom, but to the primordial relationship between Adam and Eve:
“For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression.” (1 Tim. 2:13–14)
This appeal to Genesis shows that the Apostle’s concern is not temporary or cultural, but ontological and theological.
In the Orthodox Church, Scripture is not interpreted according to private judgment or contemporary cultural assumptions, but within the living Tradition of the Church, guided by the mind of the Holy Fathers. No Father of the Church neither St. John Chrysostom, nor St. Basil the Great, nor St. Theophylact of Ohrid ever interpreted this passage as limited to marriage. All understood it as pertaining to the order of the Church and divine worship.
This teaching does not demean women, but honors the distinctive vocations of men and women within the Body of Christ. The Theotokos, female martyrs, ascetics, and countless saints show the heights to which women are called not through ecclesiastical authority, but through holiness and obedience.
Attempts to reinterpret apostolic teaching through the lens of modern egalitarian ideology, however well meaning, risk undermining the very authority of Scripture and the unity of Christian Tradition. The Church cannot follow the shifting sands of culture; she must remain rooted in the rock of divine revelation.
There is nothing to the created order argument, as I showed in the several preceding articles. With all due respect to the Orthodox church, I am not a member nor persuaded by these arguments, but thanks for stopping by!
Saint Paul does not justify his statement based on a temporary or cultural issue in Ephesus, but on the order of creation:
“For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression.” (1 Tim. 2:13–14)
This is not allegorical language it is Pauline theology. The same reasoning is found in 1 Corinthians 11 and elsewhere. To dismiss the created order as irrelevant is not only to dispute Orthodoxy, but to reject the interpretive consensus of the early undivided Church, both East and West.
The Orthodox Church does not read Scripture in isolation. It receives it through the living continuity of the Holy Spirit in the Church from the Apostles through the Fathers to this day. And that Church has always recognized the distinction in ecclesial roles between men and women as rooted not in prejudice or culture, but in divine wisdom.
You are of course free to hold your view. But respectfully, the Orthodox Church stands on the foundation not of contemporary logic, but on the harmony of Scripture, Tradition, and the saints who embodied both.
Disputing the created order hypothesis is not the same as disputing orthodoxy, nor is it a consensus of East and West. Ontological inferiority was the consensus prior to the last 40 years. This is very well documented already, all over the place. I’ll eventually write on it. Also, I’m not claiming Paul’s language is allegorical. I’ve written on this quite a few times. Last, you are contradicting things I’ve heard from several Orthodox folks but as I’m not an authority of the Orthodox Church, I am not in the position to say who is right (specifically, other Orthodox folks, including a priest and a history professor, have said the Orthodox Church is not against women preaching and teaching men although it is “patriarchal” in categories that don’t fully relate to Protestant categories. Peace to you, as well.
Don’t forget that Ephesus (where Timothy was ministering) was the location of the cult of Artemis. This was a female run cult by priestesses who often chanted or recited. The temple was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. The myth of Artemis involved women being created before men and sin entering the world because of a man. Artemis was a goddess who supposedly helped her mother deliver her brother and so she was the goddess of childbirth. Women wore a certain hairstyle to show their loyalty to Artemis. Honestly, having that background knowledge makes the whole passage make sense.
I’m going to attach a really great video I found a few years back by a professor associated with Asbury.
https://youtu.be/tsyQlaC0btY?feature=shared
Eventually I'll do a post on Artemis, too. I haven't seen that video yet but I read a fascinating article he wrote about it, as well as the first century Greek novel that he interacts with. Very interesting!
Oh, I’d love a link to the article!
I don't think it's online - I'll message you!
Thanks!
Ooh, even the comments on this one are promising. Seems like an excellent explanation of the text. Can't wait to watch!
I’m also curious about the Ephesus connection. Reading Bobby’s work has prompted me to explore further the potential connections between Paul and John (my area of specialty). It’s intriguing to consider Paul writing to Timothy in Ephesus in the 60s AD, and then the Gospel and Letters of John being written/finalized in Ephesus around 90-110 AD. The way these groups of NT texts approach issues in the church are starkly different. The fact that they all (likely) address the Ephesian context seems significant. Eg, here’s one simplistic theory: John’s writings and the esteemed position of women as teachers and evangelists suggest Paul’s concern in the 60s was no longer an issue.
Oh what a great connection! Now I’m curious too. Context and culture is SO important!
Yeah, that's a fascinating connection. I wonder if there's any insight to glean from the message to the church in Ephesus in Revelation 2:1-7. I have no idea, but maybe a historical construction is possible. For instance, in verse 2 he says, "I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false." I wonder if that could be in reference to the aftermath of 1 and 2 Timothy. Just speculating here.
Yes! At first glance, I find the Rev 2:1-7 to be more connected to the Gospel of John, which never uses “apostle” to refer to Jesus’ 12 disciples. One of John’s sub-plots is “who is a good shepherd, and how do we know?” I was hoping to publish something on this today, but realized there was way too much material and need more time to study. Here is the surprising amount of NT material devoted to Ephesus:
AD 52-55 Paul’s ministry in Ephesians (Acts 19:1-41)
AD 57 Paul addresses Ephesian elders (Acts 20:17-37)
AD 62 Paul’s Letter to Ephesians
AD 62-64 Paul’s First Letter Timothy (in Ephesus)
AD 64-67 Paul’s Second Letter to Timothy (in Ephesus)
AD 90-100 Gospel of John (finalized in Ephesus)
AD 90-100 Revelation of John (addresses Ephesus)
AD 95-110 First, Second, and Third Letters of John (in Ephesus)
I find this article helpful as well: https://juniaproject.com/translation-1-timothy-212/
It's interesting that guys like Jerome had such low opinions of womanhood in general when, in fact, they worked closely with women and praised those particular women very highly.
Really appreciate this piece Bobby! I think Westfall and Hubner have some great stuff written on it too.
Part of what sparked my study, and change of view, was my study on the commonality of Paul’s word choice for authority.
Thanks, Tim! It's really fascinating that he chose to use that word.
Thank you, Bobby. As I read this I was thinking about church last night. One of the pastors—a woman—preached her last homily because she’s moving out of state, and it was one of the most beautiful, anointed sermons I’ve ever heard. As I listened I kept wondering, who could possibly think this isn’t exactly what God put her on this earth to do? So, again, thanks for sharing your work, and your heart for mutuality.
You know, I really think one of the biggest problems people have with women preachers is they've never heard one, so it feels jarring to them. It's like when Piper says that Christianity "has a masculine feel" or Mohler says, "There's just something about the male voice." It's a culturally conditioned response. I'll also never forget attending a lecture on this subject with people at all ends of the spectrum of opinion. The speaker asked for a show of hands of those who have had significant platonic friendships with members of the opposite sex. The ones who raised their hands were also the ones most open to women preaching. The others were more likely to believe that there are "male things to do" and "female things to do," and that preaching is a male thing.
That is fascinating and makes perfect sense. In fact, you may have just prompted my next post and I might share some of your wise insights if that's okay. :)
Absolutely!
Excellent work! This really untangles the knot of 1 Tim 2.
Thanks, Meredith!
I was going to comment on last weeks article asking if you were going to take up Glahn, Westfall, and others argument for 1 Tim. 2 not being the local church setting!
I figured you might. So glad you did. I’ve become convinced of it myself. Very well done. Can’t wait to read next week!
Yeah, I think it makes so much sense. Thank you, Casey!
It really does! I remember sitting at my desk reading this interpretation for the first time. 1 Tim. 2 “clicked” in a way I couldn’t reconcile up to that point, even as a new mutualist/egalitarian.
Again, thank you for taking up this whole discussion. Really enjoying it.
With due respect to the author and his evident desire to engage Scripture faithfully, as an Orthodox Christian I must respectfully but clearly disagree with the central claim of the article.
The passage in 1 Timothy 2:11–15 is not a commentary on a particular marriage situation in Ephesus, but a universal apostolic teaching grounded in the created order and the Fall. Saint Paul explicitly appeals not to local custom, but to the primordial relationship between Adam and Eve:
“For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression.” (1 Tim. 2:13–14)
This appeal to Genesis shows that the Apostle’s concern is not temporary or cultural, but ontological and theological.
In the Orthodox Church, Scripture is not interpreted according to private judgment or contemporary cultural assumptions, but within the living Tradition of the Church, guided by the mind of the Holy Fathers. No Father of the Church neither St. John Chrysostom, nor St. Basil the Great, nor St. Theophylact of Ohrid ever interpreted this passage as limited to marriage. All understood it as pertaining to the order of the Church and divine worship.
This teaching does not demean women, but honors the distinctive vocations of men and women within the Body of Christ. The Theotokos, female martyrs, ascetics, and countless saints show the heights to which women are called not through ecclesiastical authority, but through holiness and obedience.
Attempts to reinterpret apostolic teaching through the lens of modern egalitarian ideology, however well meaning, risk undermining the very authority of Scripture and the unity of Christian Tradition. The Church cannot follow the shifting sands of culture; she must remain rooted in the rock of divine revelation.
There is nothing to the created order argument, as I showed in the several preceding articles. With all due respect to the Orthodox church, I am not a member nor persuaded by these arguments, but thanks for stopping by!
Saint Paul does not justify his statement based on a temporary or cultural issue in Ephesus, but on the order of creation:
“For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression.” (1 Tim. 2:13–14)
This is not allegorical language it is Pauline theology. The same reasoning is found in 1 Corinthians 11 and elsewhere. To dismiss the created order as irrelevant is not only to dispute Orthodoxy, but to reject the interpretive consensus of the early undivided Church, both East and West.
The Orthodox Church does not read Scripture in isolation. It receives it through the living continuity of the Holy Spirit in the Church from the Apostles through the Fathers to this day. And that Church has always recognized the distinction in ecclesial roles between men and women as rooted not in prejudice or culture, but in divine wisdom.
You are of course free to hold your view. But respectfully, the Orthodox Church stands on the foundation not of contemporary logic, but on the harmony of Scripture, Tradition, and the saints who embodied both.
Peace in Christ brother.
Disputing the created order hypothesis is not the same as disputing orthodoxy, nor is it a consensus of East and West. Ontological inferiority was the consensus prior to the last 40 years. This is very well documented already, all over the place. I’ll eventually write on it. Also, I’m not claiming Paul’s language is allegorical. I’ve written on this quite a few times. Last, you are contradicting things I’ve heard from several Orthodox folks but as I’m not an authority of the Orthodox Church, I am not in the position to say who is right (specifically, other Orthodox folks, including a priest and a history professor, have said the Orthodox Church is not against women preaching and teaching men although it is “patriarchal” in categories that don’t fully relate to Protestant categories. Peace to you, as well.