Reviewing A Woman's Part In Teaching
In the March 7, 1983, issue of the Guardian I had an article entitled "A Woman's Part in Teaching." In response to this article Brother Bernard Bolton has written a letter (sent to the Guardian) questioning some of the conclusions reached. I appreciate the good attitude manifested in the letter. It demonstrates the fact that while people sometimes differ, they can express their convictions without maliciousness. I shall reply to those things pertinent to the issue.
There seems to be one particular point that Brother Bolton questions quite strenuously — can a woman "conduct a class" (teach) in the church? Actually, all that I said about such was: "Therefore, we conclude that there are places where a woman could teach without violating 1 Tim. 2:11-12." Will Bro. Bolton deny this? No! He said that he would affirm that "she could teach others in other places at other times." This was the force of my whole argument! I showed: (1) That a woman cannot teach in the public assembly. (2) Nor in any position over the man, but that there are other places where she can teach.
It seems that Bro. Bolton gets confused on I Cor. 14 and I Tim. 2:11-12. He said that a woman couldn't speak in a group study because of I Cor. 14. Had he read my article closely, he would have noticed that "this passage cannot be properly used in reference to private instruction or group teaching without removing it from its context." This passage was dealing with spiritual gifts in the whole assembly! Then Bro. Bolton wants to apply I Tim. 2:11-12 only to the whole assembly. It seems to me that he has the passages confused.
Defining Some Terms
Perhaps some of our difficulty comes from a lack of proper definition of terms. So in order to help clarify our study, please observe:
(1) By "church" we mean an assembly as in I Cor. 14:23. In this study we are not thinking of "church" in terms of the local church or in the aggregate.
(2) By "private instruction" we mean one person's teaching another.
(3) By "group study" we mean more than two people's studying the Bible together whether it be in a person's dwelling place or in a class-room somewhere.
The restriction of I Cor. 14:35b, "... for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" would apply to the first definition. I Tim. 2:11-12 would apply anywhere.
A Sunday School?
Another point of clarification is needed. I do not endorse a "Sunday School" as it is commonly looked upon. I oppose any organization other than the local congregation. The denominational Sunday School is without authority as an organization. However, I will defend the right of group teaching or Bible class study. This is all that I am defending in this article.
"Over The Man"
Bro. Bolton denies that "over a man" modifies "teach" in 1 Tim. 2:12. If the word, "teach," is not modified by the expression "over a man" then a WOMAN CANNOT TEACH ANYONE, ANYWHERE, AT ANY TIME. Yet, Bro. Bolton admits that she can "teach others in other places at other times." But, Bro. Bolton, if "I suffer not a woman to teach" is unmodified then that is all there is to it. She cannot teach, period!
However, since she can teach other women (Tit. 2) and children (2 Tim. 3:15), we know that the passage is modified. The passage is dealing with a woman's position in reference to man. The example of Adam and Eve shows this to be true. (1) Adam was first formed, then Eve. (2) When Eve took the leadership, she plunged man into sin. Thus, she is not to be a teacher or leader of man. This is precisely what Paul is saying. Hence, he is not saying that a woman cannot teach at all; but she cannot teach over man. Just as in Acts 4:18 where the phrase "in the name of Jesus" modifies both "speak at all" and "teach," so in I Tim. 2:12 the expression "over a man" modifies both "teach" and "usurp authority."
Bro. Bolton says that we never heard of anybody "teaching over a man" before the controversy on classes. Well, this controversy has been here much longer than we both have lived. However, I Tim. 2:11-12 itself shows that there can be "teaching over a man." I believe that Bro. Bolton recognizes that neither The New English Bible nor the Modern English Translation by Phillips are word-for-word translation, but are more of running commentaries. Even so, the same idea is inherent in them — she is not to be a teacher over man.
Bro Bolton makes a serious error in discernment when he says that prophets, teachers, etc., are positions of authority in the church and then says that women may not have these positions. But there were women prophets (Acts 21:8-9; I Cor. 11.). Now he is either wrong in saying that this was a position of authority or in saying that women did not have these positions. They did have the position of prophecy. They were teachers. Then he referred to 2 Tim. 2:2: the word "men" is not from aner meaning males, but from anthorpos meaning mankind, either male or female.
Bro. Bolton says that I did more twisting than does a Baptist on Mark 18:18 when I set forth I Cor. 14:35 and I Tim. 2:12. I simply set forth what the passages teach. I showed that I Cor. 14:35 could apply only when "the whole church is come together in one place." It does not apply to group study. It would be "sho 'nuff" twisting the passage to apply it to every kind of Bible study arrangement. I have already shown what is involved in I Tim. 2:11-12.
My brother wants to know where the scripture or logic is that would allow a woman to do in any group study what she would do in a home study. That is simple. In a person's dwelling place some people may come together to study the Bible. Will anyone say that a woman could not ask a question in this study? Here you have a group study located in a person's home. Will a change of locations for this group study affect what a woman can or cannot do? Not at all! It she could ask or answer a question in one group study, she could in another.
"Five Erroneous Conclusions"
Bro. Bolton says that I have five "erroneous conclusions stated in the negative" from I Tim. 2:11-12, Yet, he affirmed exactly the same truths that I was stating. If my conclusions are erroneous, then so are his. I will agree that: (a) She could teach others in other places at other times. (Now if this is not group study, then, pray tell me what it is?) (b) She could teach her children (2 Tim. 3:15) and by the same right, other children. (c) She could teach another woman (or women) (Tit. 2:3-5). (d) It would not make sinners of those who did teach (Acts 18:26), and (e) She could sing. This is what I have stated in both articles. If he is right In his analysis of I Tim. 2:11-12, then she could NOT do these things.
Does I Timothy 2:12 Apply Only To The Assembly?
Our brother seems to think that I Tim. 2:12 is speaking of the activities of the church (evidently meaning the assembly). However, an examination of the context shows that this is not the case.
(1) The woman is to adorn herself in modest apparel. Where? In the assembly only? No. At all places.
(,2) The woman is to adorn herself with "good works." Where? Certainly not just in the assembly.
(3) She is to be in quietness. Where? Not just in the assembly.
(4) She shall be saved in child-bearing if she continues in faith and love. Does this refer to the assembly?
I maintain that a woman cannot teach or usurp authority over the man anywhere!
Then he says that a woman cannot speak out in public gatherings of the church which I also showed in my first article. We are agreed on that point.
He speaks of women prophets and asks when they ever prophesied or taught a group in a gathering of the church. I showed that they could not prophecy in the assembly; therefore, it had to be in a group other than the assembly. But he says, "Philip's daughters prophesied at home." Brother Bolton, where is the book, chapter, and verse for your statement? This is a "bland assumption" on your part.
As to where the teaching of Apollos was done by Aquila and Priscilla the Bible does not say. The idea of "at home" is not demanded by the word in the original. It does not matter, for we know it was not in the assembly. But here is group teaching illustrated. I maintain that this kind of teaching may be done today either in a dwelling place or a class-room.
Brother Bolton missed the point of my argument concerning a woman's asking a question of a man. I was showing that when a woman asks a question of a man that she is not usurping any authority over him. My proof was this: a woman could ask a question of her husband. She is not usurping any authority over him when she does so. Therefore, a woman may ask a man a question without usurping authority over him. I was not speaking of her doing so in the assembly.
Bro. Bolton misrepresents my position when he says that I "come to the conclusion that women may teach and ask and answer questions in the church." I specifically pointed out that she could not do so. But I have shown that there are other places where she can.
Brother Bolton, I appreciate your letter and the spirit in which it was written. Perhaps you may have something further to say. If so, we shall be glad to hear from you. I stand willing to defend the proposition that a woman may ask or answer questions in a group study without sinning when she does so.
5140 Planet Parkway Sacramento, California