For the Sake of the Body

I would like to begin this discussion with a short autobiographical anecdote. Growing up in Christian Sunday School as a somewhat rebellious youth, I frequently incurred castigation for my boyish delinquency. When my teacher was a woman, often I would retort in nose-thumbing fashion with a quote from 1^st Timothy and thus declare myself to be above reproach. Of course, this quickly landed me thumbed-nose in the corner of the classroom for the rest of the afternoon. However, during these times when I was becoming acquainted with the drywall of my church, I always had a smirk on my face—for I knew I had irked my teacher by pointing out, what we might now call, a “troubling text” in the Bible. This text reads:

Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.^[1]

Now, roughly a decade later, this text no longer causes me to smirk, but rather to furrow my brow. I could not have known it at the time, but this dictate from Paul would later serve as a wedge that splintered the heart of my family’s church.

Two years ago, the pastor of my family’s church chose a female seminary graduate to fill an assistant pastor position. As is customary in my church, the potential candidate was placed in front of the congregation and the people were asked if they would accept her. The majority vote was no.

For many members of the congregation, including the pastor, this came as an incredible shock. In my mother’s words, “It blew the lid off of something that I didn’t even know was simmering.” Virulent debates ensued within the congregation during specially-called meetings. Like two clenched fists, the members of the body rose up against one another. One hand, which might be called a “liberal universalist,” argued that “times have changed” and that we now know that men and women are equal, thus it stands to reason that a woman can be called to the ministry just as men are. The other hand, which reacted in an orthodox “literalist” fashion, argued that the Bible plainly states that no woman should have authority or teach a man. Tempers rose, and families who had worshiped together in fellowship for years denounced each other as “not Christian.” Finally, unable to reach an agreement, close to forty families from the “literalist” faction left the church, convinced that the church was not “biblical” and therefore not Christian.

The church is still reeling from this trauma. Prior to the split, it was growing so fast that a new wing and an extended sanctuary had to be constructed to fit the swelling masses. Now, with familiar friends gone, no longer on speaking terms, the church is struggling to repay the loans that were taken out to pay for the now unused space.

I do not envision that this paper will fully heal the suffering of my family’s church, but I would like to offer it as a step in the direction of repair. Within the limits of this essay I will attempt to provide a reading of Paul’s verse in 1^st Timothy that bypasses the bifurcation between “liberal” and “orthodox” interpretations. Focusing not on the dictum itself, but on the reason given for it, I will argue that this passage calls out for an interpretation that goes deeper than the plain sense. By placing this passage in relation to Paul’s other epistles, it can be interpreted as playing a part in an analogy based upon a typology. Interpreted in this way, the implications pertain not only to the role of women in the Church, but also to the relationship between Christ and the Church, the relationship between husbands and wives, and finally the practice of the Church as a body.

Viewed in light of Paul’s other writings, this passage in 1^st Timothy calls out for a deeper sense interpretation for two reasons. The first is rather explicit. If Paul meant that women were not permitted to be ministers or deacons in the Church, this would contradict his own writing in other places, such as his commendation of Phoebe, a female deacon of the church at Cenchreae, to the Romans,^[2] as well as his high regard for Prisca and Aquila, a wife and husband missionary team.^[3] The second reason stems from Paul’s justification for the dictum. We must remember that Paul not only gives a command to Timothy, but he also reaches back into scripture to point out the reason for this command. Yet, his allusion to Genesis 2 and 3 in this passage seems to be in tension with his other references to the Garden of Eden story.

In the 1^st Timothy passage, Paul seems to the place fault of transgression upon the woman, i.e. Eve, in contrast to Adam who “was not deceived.”^[4] However, in his other epistles, Paul faults Adam as the first transgressor, through whom sin and death enter the world.^[5] In these other passages, Paul makes no reference to Eve. Thus, in addition to the plain sense contradiction previously mentioned, this incongruity in Paul’s reasoning begs the reader to interpret the text beyond the plain sense. And in fact, Paul’s incongruous references to the Garden of Eden story provide us a place to start digging for a deeper sense interpretation.

Aside from this passage in 1^st Timothy, wherever Paul speaks of Adam, it is always in relation to Christ in the form of a typology. According to Paul, Adam is “a type of the one who was to come.”^[6] Hence he writes:

If, because of the one man’s trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all.^[7]

Now, if we posit that Paul does not give up this typological trope between Adam and Christ, which he uses in all of his other references to Adam, this would imply that his reference to Eve must also serve as a type—but for who or what? Another of Paul’s references to Genesis 2 provides us with a clue. In Ephesians he writes:

He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, because we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church.^[8]

This “great mystery” is a reference to Genesis 2:24, which takes part in the story of Adam and Eve. And if Paul applies this “mystery” to Christ and the Church, this would mean that just as Adam is a type for Christ, Eve is a type for the Church.

Looking back to Paul’s dictum in 1^st Timothy, we find that after making a slight translational change, this typology fits in nicely. The Greek word for “woman” in this passage, “gune,” can also mean “wife.” Similarly, the word for “man,” “aner,” can also mean “husband.” Thus, with this change the passage reads, “Let a wife learn in silence with full submission. I permit no wife to teach or to have authority over her husband; she is to keep silent.”^[9] It therefore follows that the subsequent justification for this dictum is based upon a reference to the first husband and wife. However, if the typology between Adam and Christ, and Eve and the Church holds, then this implies that the dictum requires further interpretation. Reading it in light of the typology, the dictum can be read as part the analogy: the church is to Christ as wife is to husband.

If this is so, then the deeper sense of this passage could be seen as instructions for the disposition of the Church in relation to Christ. In other words, the Church should learn in silence with full submission, and it is not to think that it can have the authority or the ability to teach Christ. And this fits perfectly with Paul, citing Isaiah, who writes, “For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?”^[10] Yet what does this mean in relation to the role of women in the church? Does interpreting the dictum as part of an analogy imply that women can in fact have authority over men and teach them? –No.

If the analogy holds true, it must apply in both contexts. In other words, if we are to understand the relationship between Christ and the Church as analogous to the relationship between husbands and wives, then this marital proscription must hold, otherwise the analogy would be nonsensical.

While at first this interpretation may seem no better than the so-called “literalist” reading, there is a surprising catch. For, because women may not have authority to teach men, this does not mean that the reverse is necessarily the case, i.e. men are given authority and the mandate to teach. In fact, this analogy implies that neither men nor women have authority or the right to teach the church. Of course this may seem quite strange, for if not a man or a woman, who is to have authority and the right to teach? Again, Paul provides an answer—Christ and the Spirit in his stead.

In Paul’s depiction of the apostles and deacons, the person filling these positions is never considered to have authority or power in themselves. Rather, Paul continually refers to himself as a servant and a slave, not only to Christ but “to all.”^[11] Hence, one who preaches the gospel does not personally have total authority; rather, that person is a servant to Christ and to Christ’s body, the Church. As Paul writes, “Think of us in this way, as servants of Christ and stewards of God’s mysteries.”^[12] Thus he chastises the factions of the Church who began making claims like, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos.”^[13] According to Paul, he and Apollos are nothing; they are merely servants. Hence, he says, “Let no one boast about human leaders…all belong to you, and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God.”^[14]

As for teaching, Paul certainly maintains that there should be teaching in the Church by a person, but this person is no human person. Teaching is one of the spiritual gifts bestowed upon the members of the body of Christ ^[15] by the Spirit, the third person of the Trinity—the promised Advocate who the Father sends in Christ’s name, who teaches everything, and who reminds the Church of all that Christ has said.^[16] Hence, according to Paul, when one teaches truthfully, it is not in words taught by human wisdom but in words “taught by the Spirit.”^[17] In fact, according to Paul, humans do not even have the power to pray on their own, but rather “the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but that very Spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words.”^[18]

Now, is the Spirit only for men? Surely not. In another reference to Genesis 2:24, (“the two shall be one flesh”), Paul writes that “anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.”^[19] To be of one flesh with Christ is to be part of his body, i.e. a member of the Church. Thus, just as a wife is of one flesh with her husband, so too is the Church of one flesh with Christ, as his body. And though this body has many members, it is still one, and partakes of one Spirit.^[20]

When thought of as a body in this sense, the implications for Church practice are quite different than what one might be accustomed to in a typical non-liturgical Protestant church (like my family’s). In such a church service, the congregation gathers together and might sing a few hymns, bow their heads as the pastor prays, and then listen to a half-hour sermon on the topic of the pastor’s choosing, finally closing with another hymn and going their separate ways. Of course this depiction is a touch oversimplified, but nevertheless, church services of this type appear to be discordant with Paul’s instructions for practice during church gatherings.

In contrast to the monologic style of sermonizing described above, Paul’s proscription for church practice appears much more dialogical. Like parts of a body, each member participates for the good of the whole. Yet, as Christ is the head of this body, there is no member who solely leads the other members. Rather, like eyes, ears, and hands, each member serves the others and plays an integral role in the functioning of the whole.^[21] Hence, Paul’s instructions for church gatherings are akin to group discussions, with each member speaking in turn and allowing time for intelligible interpretations for the common good.^[22] And according to his epistle to the Romans, Paul thinks that women can participate in this practice. Introducing the 12^th chapter with “I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters…” Paul writes:

For as in one body we have many members, and not all the members have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually we are members one of another. We have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us: prophecy, in proportion to faith; ministry, in ministering, the teacher, in teaching; the exhorter, in exhortation; the giver, in generosity; the leader, in diligence; the compassionate, in cheerfulness.^[23]

Paul neither distinguishes between men and women in respect to the distribution of these spiritual gifts, nor does he claim that these gifts of the spirit are relegated to men. Rather, as he writes in 1^st Corinthians, all members have their own function, given through the Spirit, which is for the service of the whole. Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, “When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.”^[24]

This mutually supportive relationship, or partnership, if you will, among the Church as a body brings us back to Genesis once again and to certain implications about marital relations. Just as the relationship between wives and husbands shaped our discussion about the Church and Christ, so too must the relationship between the Church and Christ shape our ideas about wives and husbands if the analogy is to hold. Again, Paul provides us with a place to start:

Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands.^[25]

Now, according to the translator’s note in the New Oxford Annotated Bible, “The best understanding of head appears to be ‘source,’ rather than either ‘authority over’ or an ontological subordination or ‘chain of being.’”^[26] If this is so, then the typology between Adam and Christ, and Eve and the Church holds, insofar as Adam is the source from which Eve derives, and Christ is the source from which the Church derives. And in both cases, the latter is formed from the flesh of the former. Additionally, Paul makes the analogy—Church is to Christ as wife is to husband—explicitly clear. Elaborating on this analogy further he writes, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.”^[27]

Though some might claim that this passage is misogynistic, due to its seemingly-unbalanced power relationship, when viewed in light of Paul’s other writings, this is not necessarily the case. In fact one could say that once in the relationship, each party is for the other. Christ is sent for the Church, and he “gave himself up for her, in order to make her holy”^[28] and likewise, the Church exists for Christ. If we take this a step further, the two also exist for each other insofar as they become one flesh. Hence, according to Paul, “the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.”^[29] As one flesh, there is no differentiation between “selves” and thus, ideally, no more self-interest. Thus, once married, the husband no longer exists for himself, but for his wife, and similarly the wife no longer exists for herself, but for her husband. Yet, as Paul writes, “He who loves his wife loves himself.”^[30] However, this need not be seen as a contradiction, because she is one with his flesh. In other words, they share one body. Thus, in loving her, the man loves their shared flesh, which is himself; in the sense that his body as a husband is in fact their two bodies combined. Though Paul does not state it, we would expect that the relationship also works vice versa, i.e. she who loves her husband loves herself.

Now, there is one verse in our selected passage from 1^st Timothy that has yet to be discussed—“Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.”^[31] In the plain sense, this is surely an odd soteriological claim for Paul to make. Not only does it seem to fly in the face of his arguments for justification by pistis Christou (“faith in Christ” or “faith of Christ”),^[32] it is also incongruent with Paul’s advice that the unmarried and the virgins should remain as they are if they can, because of the “impending crisis.”^[33] However, using the typology and analogy previously discussed, we can begin to locate a deeper sense interpretation of this verse.

Because this verse follows immediately after Paul’s explicit reference to Adam and Eve, in the typological interpretation, the deictic pronoun “she” can be seen as a continuation of Paul’s reference to Eve—the mother of all living, whose penance for her transgression pertains to the act of childbearing. Now, in terms of the analogy, it is perhaps not a coincidence that the pronoun shifts from the singular signifier “she,” to the plural “they.” (“She will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith…”). Hence, in reference to the body of Christ, the singular pronoun applies, but in reference to members of the Church, the plural form is required.

Yet, what does it mean for the Church to be saved through childbearing? Well, in the plain sense, a woman must lie with her husband and “become one flesh,” before a child can be conceived. In the deeper sense, the Church must also become one flesh with her husband Christ. In practice, this occurs through the Eucharist, which was commanded by Christ for the anamnesis^[34] of him. According to Aquinas “the ‘spiritual benefit’ received in the sacrament ‘is the unity of the mystical Body,’” which echoes the words of Paul: “Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.”^[35]

In many interpretations, this unity with the flesh of Christ means salvation for the Church. As Paul writes, through baptism the Church is baptized into Christ’s death, yet through unity with the body, the Church shares in the Spirit and his resurrection.^[36] Other interpreters argue that through unity with the body of Christ, Gentile Christians are able to participate in the covenant and promise given to Israel: “And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.”^[37] Hence Paul’s metaphor is that the Gentiles are like wild branches unnaturally grafted onto the root of the olive tree, which is Israel.^[38] Yet, these branches are only made holy because they are attached to the holy “root” of Israel, which, according to the analogy, coincides with Paul’s claim that a heathen wife is made holy through a faithful husband.^[39] In other words, the unworthy spouse is saved because she is of one flesh with one who is righteous, i.e. part of the body of Christ.^[40]

However, if our analogy for 1^st Timothy holds, then the Church needs to do more than become one flesh with Christ; it must also bear children. Yet what does it mean for the Church to bear children?

If Christ is the husband of the Church, then the children the Church bears would be children of God. Yet, in accordance with Paul’s writings, these children are not the product of procreation, but rather adoption. He tells the Romans:

For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of adoption. When we cry, “Abba! Father!” it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ.^[41]

If the Church is to bear children of God, this means it has a duty to try to extend its community, so that others may be adopted into the body of Christ. This coincides with what Paul calls the “mystery,” that “a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved.”^[42] In other words, God has postponed the eschaton for the Israelites so that Gentiles can be incorporated into Christ’s body, thereby becoming adopted into Israel as “joint heirs with Christ” and thus gaining inclusion when “all Israel will be saved.”

This depiction finds a degree of support from 1^st Timothy after a slight translational change. The Greek word for “saved,” “sozo,” can also be translated as “made whole.” With this change, the 1^st Timothy passage therefore reads: “she will be made whole through childbearing.” Thus, in the context of our discussion, the Church will be made whole, (i.e. the full number of Gentiles comes in), through childbearing, (i.e. extending the body of Christ), so that others may be adopted as children of God. Yet, this requires that they, the members of the Body, continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. The implication here is that if this is not maintained, the Body will decay and fail in its mission to grow, and thus will not be made whole.

With this idea of the Church’s mission in mind, we can also understand Paul’s plea to the Corinthians: “Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose.”^[43] The purpose of the Church is to extend the body of Christ, not to divide it. Hence in rhetorical fashion Paul asks, “Has Christ been divided?”^[44] Yet now, more than 1800 years later, the Body is certainly divided. And these divisions signify a failure of the Church in its quest to be “made whole.”

Paul wants the Church to be united in the same mind, and this mind is the mind of Christ.^[45] Thus, throughout his work he criticizes those who rely on human wisdom and are led to boast and judge others. Now, returning to the debate that tore my family’s church apart, it seems as though the two sides that rose up against each other—“liberal universalism” and “orthodox literalism”—both failed to follow Paul’s commands.

The liberal faction privileged their own human reason and the contemporary wisdom of the world over the scriptural text. Thus they claimed that they now know that men and women are equal and subsequently brushed Paul’s dictum under the rug by claiming that it was historically contingent and no longer applies. The orthodox literalists also embodied the same faults, although in mirrored opposition to the liberals. They too privileged their human reason, insofar as they claimed to know the “true” meaning of scripture. Thus they rejected the notion of gender equality in the Church and supported this argument by claiming that the plain sense reading of a few verses were what Paul really meant, thereby ignoring the possibilities of intra-Scriptural interpretation.

To my understanding, during these debates, the Bible itself was rarely used. Rather, when it did play a role, it was used only for short citations in order to support arguments already in progress. Thus for example, our selected passage in 1^st Timothy was used by the “literalist” side to argue for the “truth” of their position because “the Bible says it.” The liberals would then respond with arguments that appealed to reason, using examples from the past practices of the congregation. Thus they pointed out the fact that many women, including those with whom they were arguing, had been Sunday school teachers, music ministers, youth coordinators, etc. within the church in the past without problem. Additionally, having women fill these positions seems to violate the very same passages the literalists were citing. Tempers rose, and the judgments and denouncing began.

It is amidst the shouting of these two sides that we can hear the voice of Paul pleading with the church to submit to Christ, to stop claiming Christ’s authority, to listen and be silent. Do not presume to already know what the text says, “for who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?”^[46] Rather, the church should be unified in submission to the mind of Christ.

Yet how are we to know Christ’s mind? Paul tells us, “I have applied all this (not relying on human wisdom, claiming authority, and passing judgment) to Apollos and myself for your benefit, brothers and sisters, so that you may learn through us the meaning of the saying, ‘Nothing beyond what is written,’ so that none of you will be puffed up in favor of one against another.”^[47] In other words, read the scripture together, and do so with a fully submissive disposition. Do not impose your teaching on it, but rather submit to its authority. In accordance with Paul’s recommendation for the Corinthian church, give each person a chance to speak when they wish and allow adequate time for interpretation. And most importantly, “Let all things be done for building up”^[48]; your motivation should be for the benefit of the Body.

ENDNOTES

^[1] 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (all biblical citations are from the NRSV translation unless otherwise stated)

^[2] “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well” (Romans 16:1-2).

^[3] C.F. Romans 16:3, 1 Corinthians 16:19, and 2 Timothy 4:19.

^[4] 1 Timothy 2:14.

^[5] See 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, and Romans 5: 12-21, in which Paul writes “Death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam…” (Romans 5: 14).

^[6] Romans 5:14.

^[7] Romans 5:17-18.

^[8] Ephesians 5:29-32.

^[9] 1 Timothy 2: 11-12 (my italics).

^[10] 1 Corinthians 2:16.

^[11] “For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them” (Romans 9:19).

^[12] 1 Corinthians 4: 1.

^[13] C.F. 1 Corinthians 3: 4.

^[14] 1 Corinthians 3:21-23.

^[15] See 1 Corinthians 12.

^[16] John 14: 26; Jesus tells his apostles, “the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you.”

^[17] 1 Corinthians 2:13.

^[18] Romans 8:26.

^[19] 1 Corinthians 6:16 (my italics).

^[20] 1 Corinthians 12:12-13: “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in the Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of the one Spirit.”

^[21] See 1 Corinthians 12:14-25.

^[22] See 1 Corinthians 12: 26-31.

^[23] Romans 12: 4-8.

^[24] 1 Corinthians 14:26.

^[25] Ephesians 5:22-24.

^[26] The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha, ed. Michael Coogan et al. trans. Theodore Bergren et al., (Oxford University Press, 2001), NT 283n

^[27] Ephesians 5: 25.

^[28] Ephesians 25:26.

^[29] 1 Corinthians 7:4.

^[30] Ephesians 5:28.

^[31] 1 Timothy 2:15.

^[32] I choose to retain the Greek for this phrase because I think the translational debate between using the objective genitive and the subjective genitive is very significant for Pauline interpretation; however, within the confines of this paper I will not be able to discuss it in detail.

^[33] 1 Corinthians 7: 26.

^[34] The translation as “remembrance” seems to miss the significance of this word. While there is no direct analogue in English, anamnesis means something along the lines of a “re-calling,” “re-presenting,” or “re-actualizing” a thing in such a way that it is not so much regarded as being “absent” and in the past, but rather is itself presently operative by its effects.

^[35] 1 Corinthians 10:17.

^[36] See Romans 6 and 8.

^[37] Galatians 3: 29.

^[38] See Romans 11.

^[39] See 1 Corinthians 7: 14.

^[40] Though I do not have time to explore this issue, based on this, it would seem that the benefits of being one flesh with Christ are vicariously extended to spouses of one flesh with the Church members, even if the spouses, as individuals, are not members of the Church.

^[41] Romans 8: 15-17.

^[42] Romans 11: 25-26.

^[43] 1 Corinthians 1:10.

^[44] 1 Corinthians 1:13.

^[45] 1 Corinthians 2:16.

^[46] 1 Corinthians 2:16.

^[47] 1 Corinthians 4:6.

^[48] 1 Corinthians 14:26.

© 2007, Society for Scriptural Reasoning

Return to Title Page