Nana Yaw Aidoo
One strategy that some have used to argue in favor of the “full participation” of women in the church or the expansion of their roles is the reconstruction of the historical situation surrounding a biblical text and then limiting the instructions in the text to the reconstructed historical situation. Consider one such example:
Paul’s first letter to Timothy begins and ends with some weighty words about false teaching that promoted myths and ungodliness. Timothy must “fight the good fight” against the false teaching. Therefore, Paul encouraged prayer and reaffirmed the basic story of salvation in Jesus the Messiah. Because of this concern for false teaching (“therefore”), Paul also addressed the problem of angry disputes among men, and the behavior of some women promoted ungodliness rather than good works.
Some women, including those who dressed immodestly, were going from house to house talking nonsense by promoting myths and saying what they should not. They were following the path of the false teachers into the clutches of Satan. Their teaching and self-promotion was (sic) disruptive and dangerous. Their style of dress promoted their ungodliness and association with false teachers, and they sought to persuade men to follow them. They targeted men due to their desire for wealth and power. Paul wanted to put an end to this kind of activity. “I do not permit…,” Paul wrote. He did not want these women to assert themselves and overpower men by enlisting them in their project. The prohibition intended to stop this activity. It did not intend to prohibit all women for all time everywhere from teaching men at any time (Hicks, 2020, p.9).
One problem with the foregoing approach is that Paul, the inspired writer, is not explicit about what problem undergirded his prohibition. The situation that apparently called forth the prohibition is the writer’s own reconstruction (which may or may not be accurate) based on certain clues in the book. Yet, he assumes that his subjective reconstruction of the historical situation gives him the right to limit the inspired prohibition to his reconstructed situation, when the text itself does no such thing, thereby sidestepping what God has actually said. But you see, another person can read the same text and imagine a totally different historical situation. I am not proscribing such reconstructions. Sometimes, they are “quite proper to an extent and often the only way to proceed in trying to get a deeper and more accurate understanding of the text” (Ferguson, 2015, p. 58). However, we err greatly when we have more confidence in our ability to reconstruct the historical situation surrounding a biblical text than in what the text itself says. As Everett Ferguson well notes,
The mistake [with this approach] comes in moving from the exegesis to the hermeneutical application. To limit the instructions given in a particular historical situation to that situation is an interpretive judgment and does not derive from the text (unless the text itself makes that limitation). One’s judgment about the application of a text is not the same as a “word of the Lord.” Nearly all the Bible was addressed to specific historical situations. God spoke through his representatives in those situations in order to reveal truths and teaching applicable at other places and times. Paul, for example, spoke not simply to correct given situations; in making his corrections he not only employed practical arguments directed to the particular viewpoints of the recipients of his correspondence but he also spoke out of fundamental doctrinal positions. We should apply the principles and the instructions revealed in given historical circumstances to our own situation today. The text itself is our authority, not our reconstruction of the context (Ferguson, 2015, p. 59).
Another issue that highlights the fallacy of John Mark Hick’s procedure is this: Why does Paul forbid only women from teaching? If the women were following false teachers who were men, why then does Paul not forbid all false teaching by both men and women? Why focus only on the women who were simply following the false teachers? Did Paul focus only on women because all the women and only the women in Ephesus were influenced by the false teachings and sought to spread them? That would make no sense unless we want to believe that Priscilla, who was at Ephesus at this time (cf. 2 Tim 4:19), was also influenced by the false teachings and sought to perpetrate them.
One final thing: in order to circumvent the force of 1 Timothy 2:13 as one reason for the prohibition, John Mark Hicks commented,
How does “Adam was first formed, then Eve” serve as a rationale for Paul’s prohibition? That is an important question. For a long time I simply assumed that the chronological fact entailed the principle of primogeniture (firstborn). In other words, since Adam was created first, therefore the first man had authority over the first woman. However, this is not explicitly stated. Only the chronological fact is explicit (Hicks, 2020, p.10).
It is interesting that in this instance, John Mark Hicks is not willing to go beyond the text. The text doesn’t explicitly state that “the first man had authority over the first woman.” So, he won’t put it there, even though the word “for” links verse 13 with verse 12, which speaks about male authority. Yet, this same brother had no problem putting the following into the previous verses:
[The women] targeted men due to their desire for wealth and power. Paul wanted to put an end to this kind of activity… He did not want these women to assert themselves and overpower men by enlisting them in their project. The prohibition intended to stop this activity. It did not intend to prohibit all women for all time everywhere from teaching men at any time.
Only John Mark Hicks knows where these things are explicitly stated in the text. I do not think John Mark Hicks forgot his principles. I think that the inconsistency is because he puts too much confidence in his ability to reconstruct the historical situation. Hence, he rejects the reason Paul actually gives for the prohibition and then tries to explain the prohibition by suggesting something that Paul doesn’t say. Friends, we’ll do well to learn what Everett Ferguson very brilliantly articulates: “The text itself is our authority, not our reconstruction of the context.”
References
Ferguson, E. (2015). Women in the church: Biblical and historical perspectives (2nd ed.). Desert Willow Publishing.
Hicks, J.M. (2020). Women, assemblies, and churches of Christ. https://johnmarkhicks.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2020/09/Women-Assembly-and-Churches-of-Christ-1.pdf.
