Silenced Women of Corinth: The Text Critical Solution

I need to update this 2008 blog article. For a recent academic discussion: http://alesjalavrinovica.blogspot.com/2017/08/all-churches-of-saints-never-appears.html

The Silenced Women of Corinth

A passage found variously in 1 Corinthians 14 reads,

As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches.  They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.  If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church (NIV).

The passage reduces down to five important points: 

1.      This dictum is for all the congregations of the saints.  This point makes the passage universally binding for all time.

2.      Women are to be silent, and not speak.  This is the definite meaning of sigavw (sigao), which is not ambiguous as its synonym hesuchia is (see above concerning 1 Tim 2:11-12).  Paul is not merely telling them to have a quiet demeanor, but not to speak at all at any time in the church.

3.      In case the previous point is missed, Paul reiterates that women are not allowed to speak.

4.      Specifically, women may speak in their homes, but not in the congregation.

5.      Women speaking in church is disgraceful.

Any attempt to render an interpretation of this passage must deal honestly with all five points.

The prima facie reading of this text is that women must not participate in the Church's worship life vocally or verbally.  It envisions women sitting quietly at all times when the congregation is gathered.  They are not to pray aloud.  They are not to prophesy aloud.  They are not to speak praises or testify to the goodness of the Lord aloud.  Accordingly, the flow of argument in this chapter is that there is a time for speaking in tongues in the church under the right circumstances, and likewise, there is an appropriate time for prophetic utterances.  But never under any circumstances is it appropriate for a woman to make any vocal contribution in the church.  Such is the vision of women for all the congregations of the saints, for, as the text explains, "it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

Because God's Holy Spirit teaches us—all of us—that we must not impose such strictures on women, we hardly do have any churches today which obey this passage.  Our churches do not really know how to understand this passage, and so they do their best to follow the leading of the Spirit, even though their practice is contrary to the outright meaning of the text.  Consequently, we find rather desperate and implausible attempts to explain away the plain meaning of the text.

Most frequently, it is suggested that the silenced women were actually silenced wives.  However, it helps not at all to translate wives for women, although such a translation is altogether reasonable.  We must remember that married women enjoyed a higher status than single women.  If wives were forbidden to speak in church, how much more were unmarried women!  Forbidding wives to speak would a fortiori prohibit all women from speaking.

Moreover, this interpretation assumes an old speculative notion that wives sat on one side of the synagogue, and their husbands on the other, and that some bonehead woman would holler to the other side of the building asking her husband for an explanation in the middle of the service.  This imaginative speculation has been rather thoroughly repudiated, for archaeological excavations of synagogues have proven otherwise (the sexes were not separated from one another).  And besides, Christians met in house churches, making the scenario altogether implausible. 

More problematic with this suggestion is that the point of the passage boils down to be that women must not embarrass their husbands.  This is just insufficient for the sweeping magnitude of the text.  We do not otherwise have any indication that the dignity of the husbands is anywhere at stake in the Corinthian correspondence.  If the passage is authentic, then we must face the possibility that it cannot mean what it says.

The question then becomes whether Paul really wrote this passage.  In 1987, Gordon Fee surprised the academic and evangelical community when he argued in the prestigious and widely acclaimed New International Commentary on the New Testament (F.F. Bruce, ed.) that the silencing of women in 1 Cor 14:33b-35 was not original, nor Pauline, nor inspired.  The claim was significant as it came not from some far out radical feminist who lacked a zeal for scripture.  Rather, it came from a person whose reputation in both textual criticism and Pauline studies made him the foremost expert in the merged field of Pauline textual criticism, as well as one of the most biblically committed scholar-preachers in North America.[1]

            Fee's argument was primarily a textual one.  He noticed a textual problem, evaluated various ways to explain the phenomenon, and then decided the best way to explain it was that it must have been a non-Pauline interpolation; it first must have been written into the margin as some scribe's own personal views, and then migrated into the text at two different places in the manuscript tradition.  However, Fee did not stop there.  Rather, his own exegesis of the text and analysis of the flow of argument led him to confirm his explanation.  Here is his discussion.

First, in his 1987 publication, Fee concedes that all known manuscripts, including versional manuscripts, include the disputed passage.  However, in the manuscript tradition, the passage is located in two different spots in the chapter, begging an explanation:

Traditional Placement in 1 Cor 14 (as found in both Byzantine and Alexandrian mss)

What then shall we say, brothers?  When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation.  All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.  If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret.  If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.  Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.  And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop.  For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged.  The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets.  ³³For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.  As in all the congregations of the saints,  women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.  If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.  Did the word of God originate with you?  Or are you the only people it has reached?  If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command.  If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.  Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.  But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.  Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.  By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you.

Placement in 1 Cor in Europe Prior to 400 A.D. (as found in the pre-Vulgate Western mss)

What then shall we say, brothers?  When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation.  All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.  If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret.  If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.  Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.  And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop.  For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged.  The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets.  For God is not a God of disorder but of peace as in all the congregations of the saints.  Did the word of God originate with you?  Or are you the only people it has reached?  If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command.  If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.  Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.  ⁴⁰But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.  Women should remain silent in the churches.  They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.  If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.  Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.  By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you.

Fee explains that "the reading which best explains how all others came about is to be preferred as the original."[2]  There are three possible explanations:

1.      Paul put the words precisely where they are presently found in all our translations, attached to verse 33.  This follows the Alexandrian and Byzantine tradition.  Then someone moved the block passage down to the end of the chapter, after verse 40, which is where the Western tradition has the text.

2.      The reverse of #1:  Paul put the words at the end of the chapter, after verse 40, as reflected in the Western manuscript tradition.  Then someone moved the block passage up several verses, attaching them to the end of verse 33, which is where the Alexandrian and Byzantine traditions have the text.[3]

3.      The block passage was not original, but was a "very early marginal gloss that was subsequently placed into the text at two different places."  According to this theory, the motivation for the marginal gloss was to suppress the favorable status Christian women enjoyed during the apostolic era—an altogether historically plausible motivation.

The external evidence for #1 and #2 are equal.  To be sure, the pre-Vulgate Western text is not attested as widely as the Byzantine and Alexandrian.  However, the manuscripts attesting the Western placement represent the entire Western tradition of the church up to the end of the fourth century, and geographically extend to the Eastern Church.  Fee adds, "All the surviving evidence indicates that this was the only way 1 Corinthians appeared in the Latin Church for at least three hundred years."  Thus, the placement of the block passage at the end of chapter fourteen goes back to a source as equally ancient as the placement of the passage at the end of verse 33.  No doubt, had it not been for the influence of Jerome's Latin Vulgate, or if Jerome had done his translation in Italy or somewhere else in the West, the Western placement would have persisted up to Erasmus' printed Greek New Testament, and perhaps have altered its placement in the KJV!  As Fee explains, "…both readings must theoretically be given equal weight as external evidence for Paul's original text" (1994, 275).

Since the issue of which placement is original cannot be solved by external evidence, we must turn to transcriptional likelihoods.  Again, the first rule for transcriptional probabilities is Griesbach's first principle:  "that form of the text is more likely the original which best explains the emergence of all the others."

In this case, Fee details how one might argue that the flow of argument is both equally good and equally bad for either placement!  (He also elaborates on the flow of argument, as it is affected by either placement.)  The fact that either placement was equally good and equally bad contextually would be unlikely if one placement was original and the other not.  Moreover, the net effect of this is that there are good reasons why a marginal gloss could be interpolated into either position! 

In a different, vein, it is claimed that the block text is a transpositional variant, as if a scribe transposed the seven lines of text from one place to another.  However, transposition is usually a matter of a letter or two, or perhaps a word or two, but not a matter of seven lines.  No other example in the NT can be cited for such a large "transposition," except for the Adulterous Woman pericope which might be said to have been "transposed" from John 8 to various other places in the NT manuscripts.[4]  The "transposition" of the Adulterous Woman pericope to various places in the NT manuscripts is one of the very reasons why biblical scholars almost unanimously reject its originality to John's gospel.  With the very same "transpositional" phenomenon at work here in 1 Cor 14:33b-35, perhaps similar doubts should also be projected onto our passage.

Further, to "transpose" the block text would produce an entirely different line of argument, with an altogether different interpretation.  In effect, as Fee argues, the scribe would have been playing the role of redactor, and this sort of redaction is unprecedented in the manuscript tradition of the Pauline epistles.

All these reasons make it difficult to accept either the first or second option, leaving only the third option.  Here, Fee argues that a migrating marginal interpolation makes perfect sense in light of the historic bias against women in the post-Apostolic period.  Here is a graphic depiction of Fee's suggested reading which best explains how the passage came to be located in two locations:

What then shall we say, brothers?  When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation.  All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.  If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret.  If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.  Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.  And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop.  For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged.  The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets.  For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.*  Did the word of God originate with you?  Or are you the only people it has reached?  If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command.  If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.  Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.  But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.*  Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.  By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you.

 

*As in all the congregations of the saints,  women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.  If they want to inquire about anything, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

From here, Fee turns to the internal evidence.  I won't elaborate at this point, except to say that the silencing of the women in such a wide, sweeping, and universal way completely undermines his earlier discussion about method and manner of how women should pray and prophesy in 1 Cor 11, not to mention the previous discussion about how each one should participate in various ways in worship in chapter 14.  We might try to explain the obvious and unmitigated contradictions between those two passages and the silencing of the women in 14:33b-35, but surely everyone will recognize that the easiest resolution to the contradiction is that Paul did not write 14:33b-5.

This is substantially where Fee's argument stood in 1994.  Basically, Fee had conjectured that the earliest manuscripts did not have the silencing of women in either place.  This was a bold claim to make, since not a single manuscript was known to support his view.  This was a purely rationalized conjecture, based on a hypothesis, without manuscript evidence.

Much has changed in the last decade.  Fee's hypothesized conjecture now has been found to have manuscript support.  This attests to Fee's brilliance and handling of the text.  He came to his conclusions without physical evidence, but on various re-examinations and discoveries, we find that history has vindicated Fee's claim that early manuscripts—at least some—did not include the passage.  (See P.B. Payne, "MS. 88 as Evidence for a Text without 1 Cor. 14.34-5," NTS 44[1998] 152-58, and idem. Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14:34-35 in NTS 41 (1995) 250—251.) 

This manuscript evidence is found in perhaps the most important Latin codex (Fuldensis, c. 547) and from Codex Vaticanus (B) which is deemed our most reliable complete NT manuscript by the vast majority of text critics.  In both of these manuscripts, there are markings to indicate text critical issues, and these markings show that the scribe was aware of other manuscripts which omitted the verses.  Likewise, the non-Western Greek miniscule ms 88 has been shown to have been copied from a manuscript which did not have the passage in question.  Thus, we have evidence of the text's omission both in an Alexandrian and a pre-Vulgate Western

manuscript, and  as well as in the distinctive text of ms 88.

In the end, I find it remarkable that Fee did his work out of pure conjecture, and that, sure enough, upon closer examination, we have found evidence to substantiate his work. 

Our discussion then, concludes that this passage which God's Holy Spirit has led us not to interpret according to its prima facie meaning, is actually a passage that Paul was never inspired to write.  On the contrary, an overly zealous scribe after Paul's death must have added it as commentary into the margin of his Bible, and that a patriarchal and sometimes misogynistic church too eagerly incorporated it into its text.  As such, we cannot appeal to this text either to silence women altogether (as it says), nor to keep them out of the pastorate.

---

[1] Fee was not the first to make this claim.  He cites a German scholar, G. Fitzer, 1963, as having done so, while citing a number of others with him, including C.K. Barrett, Hans Conzelmann, and even E. Earle Ellis (with some qualification).

[2] This is Fee's rendition of Griesbach's first principle of textual criticism (God's Empowering Presence, 272 n.2).

[3] I'm not sure anyone thinks #2 is a viable option. 

[4] Instead of the usual placement as John 7:53-8:11, it is also found after John 7:36, 7:44, John 21:24, and Luke 21:38.

Gordon Fee and Textual Criticism

(This is the text of my successful argument that Gordon Fee should be given the 2006 Hall of Fame/Lifetime Achievement Award by the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog.)



Perhaps the student can be forgiven for nominating, from his limited experiences, his own favorite professor to an award. Perhaps, despite the student's own experiential limitations, that professor really is deserving. Let me argue such on behalf of Gordon Fee in regard to the highly esteemed and world renowned Evangelical Textual Criticism Hall of Fame/Lifetime Achievement Award.

First, let me explain that as a student of Prof. Fee, amazingly, I actually never read a single textual critical work of his. I came to study with him well after he had established his reputation as text-critic-turned-exegete, and my work with him was exegetically oriented, with only sideward glances at text criticism. What I know of his tc work comes from informal readings after my graduate degree.

In this light, I was surprised to find in my first real tc research paper how often I resorted to citing Prof. Fee's various works. The variety and scope of his writings and their strategic importance necessitated such frequent citation.

With a few exceptions, scholarship in textual criticism is not so much reflected in tomes, but in shorter research articles (Colwell and Birdsall, for example, had but two tc books published between them). Prof. Fee has written two volumes on tc, but his research articles are of such importance that we recall them as quickly as we recall the names of the few larger, important books in the field. These works are often definitive, and future scholarship will not be able to avoid prefacing their work with reference to Prof. Fee's works.

One example of this is William L. Petersen's 2002 article, "The Genesis of the Gospel" (in A. Denaux's New Testament Textual Exegesis) wherein he argued for a closer look at the early Fathers to determine gospel texts which look quite different from our canonical gospels. Despite his recognition of the cautions expressed in Prof. Fee's article, "The Text of John in Origen and Cyril of Alexandria" (Bib 52 [1971], 357-394), one wonders if the phenomena Petersen observed in citations from Theophilus (40) and the Didache (51-53) may be explicable in terms proffered by Prof. Fee thirty years earlier. Prof. Fee's passionate cautions regarding Patristic evidence were such as to have spilled over even into his introductory exegesis courses. One suspects that the radical revision of the Patristic evidence in the apparatus of NA-27 had a portion of its impetus from Prof. Fee's own writings (see also "The Text of John in The Jerusalem Bible: A Critique of the Use of Patristic Ciations in New Textament Textual Criticism" and "The Use of Greek Patristic Citations in New Testament Textual Criticism: The State of the Question").

Prof. Fee has had a knack for publishing strategically important articles for the discipline. This was true of his debunking of the myth that the "Alexandrian" text form was a recension. To a large degree, this work confirmed the basic Hortian program of reconstructing the NT text largely on the basis of the strict text form behind B, at a time when such confidence was beginning to lag.

Prof. Fee has been in the frontlines on issues which have been polemical. At a time when some Christian conservatives (Evangelicals and Fundamentalists) were being swayed by a revival of the Majority Text, Prof. Fee entered the arena and published several articles and debates on the issue. The same is true over the issue of eclecticism; his arguments for a reasoned eclecticism have seemed to have won the day against the rigorous eclecticism of Kilpatrick and Elliott.

Prof. Fee's work still speaks to current issues in tc. The last two decades have seen an increasing interest in the relationship between tc and gospel formation prior to 180 CE. Much of this scholarship would undermine our confidence in our critical text and in the "original text." Prof. Fee has probably written the definitive work looking at the implications of synoptic harmonization for the Synoptic Problem ("Modern Textual Criticism and the Synoptic Problem: On the Problem of harmonization in the Gospels"). Also, he himself has recognized the first 300 years as the "Period of Confusion," yet gives an analysis of this period which is far more sympathetic to Evangelicals and to the issue of biblical authority than is often given ("Textual Criticism of the New Testament;" cf. Koester, Petersen, Ehrman). In a short review of Ehrman's The Orthodox Corruption of the Text, Prof. Fee politely and with some subtlety shreds methods and conclusions so thoroughly that the book needs to be re-read with great reservation (Critical Review of Books and Religion, Aug 1995, 203-206).

I wonder if Prof. Fee has made his own contribution to the canons of criticism. He argues that "one criterion above all others superintends the scholar's choice at any point of textual variation: the variant that best explains the origin of all the others is most likely original." This probably is not original to Prof. Fee, but in my own limited experience, I have not seen the criterion stated so lucidly elsewhere.

A word should be said in regard to Prof. Fee's relationship to evangelicalism. As a Pentecostal, he admits to having some tensions within his evangelical world. One of these tensions is his emphasis on the Spirit's role in interpreting the text. He is more concerned with what, for example, Paul meant than what the text actually said. As such, he has been a little outside of the issue of inerrancy, and one wonders if maybe his emphasis on the Spirit has more in common with Prof. Parker and the living text approach than the earlier comment may suggest.

More importantly, however, Prof. Fee's evangelicalism can be seen in his far-reaching exegetical work. In an era when the Pastorals were considered not even deutero-Pauline, but trito-Pauline, Prof. Fee argued for their authenticity, and his tiny commentary on the Pastorals (New International Bible Commentary) rocked liberal scholarship way back on its heels. The same is true in regard to Paul's Trinitarianism; while it had become commonplace to dismiss orthodox Trinitarianism as a later Church development, Prof. Fee has boldly argued that the Trinitarianism of the later creeds is latent in Paul's writings, and largely assumed in his theology (God's Empowering Presence, 898; cf. Pauline Christology, 2007).

One important exegetical insistence of Prof. Fee's has import for some recent developments in tc. In the attempt to reconstruct primitive forms of the gospels prior to 180 C.E., a number of scholars have argued that the early Fathers and texts seem uninformed in regard to Jesus' life and teaching. They point out that this is a feature of the earliest Christian writings, and surmise that the four canonical gospels must not have been widely received by the Church in the first two centuries. In so doing, they point to the Pauline writings which have little to say about Jesus' life and ministry, suggesting that Paul knew little of Jesus' life. Prof. Fee would cry foul to this line of reasoning, arguing first of all the ad hoc nature of the Pauline epistles, and that they were task oriented, not treatise of theology or ethics. Typically, Paul wrote to fix problems, and the situation rarely would have required Paul to cite sayings or deeds of Jesus. In this regard, Prof. Fee was fond of pointing out that overly skeptical scholars would assume that Paul knew nothing of the Lord's Supper, except that, quite incidentally, observance of the institution had become a problem in Corinth, requiring Paul to address the situation. Likewise, in our attempt to push the text beyond the 180 C.E. barrier, we should remember this admonition, and ask whether a writing or a writer really had the occasion to refer to Jesus' life and ministry.

But for Prof. Fee, the goal of exegesis is hermeneutics…how one applies what was said back then to our lives today. I think if this is not the essence of evangelicalism, it is very close to its core. For it is only the appropriation of the text into our lives that we are truly Christian. And this is clearly evident in Prof. Fee's life's work.

Authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles

Back in the 60s and 70s, you could only find people who accepted Pauline authorship of PE (Pastoral Epistles) among the more conservative schools not exactly well known for critical scholarship.

Then in the early 1980s, Gordon Fee wrote his small but groundbreaking commentary on the PE which 1) provided a reconstruction of the situation behind the PE which made sense of the textual data; and 2) gave critical reasons refuting liberal interpretation of some of the data--yes, there are some significant differences of style, but they can be accounted for.

The impact of Fee's analysis was so great that my survey of the best six commentaries on PE earlier in this decade showed that four of the six accepted Pauline authorship. In my estimation, the best commentary on PE is by Robert Mounce in the Word Biblical Commentary, which is profoundly indebted to Fee in reconstructing the situation behind the PE.

I just finished reading through the PE in French and Greek. Time and time again, I found myself saying, "If this is by a forger or a pseudepigrapher, why would he have have bothered mentioning this detail?"

Part of the problem leading up to belief that PE are inauthentic is that scholars took Timothy and Titus to be pastors who were supposed to establish fledgling churches with a proper church order. This certainly isn't the case for 1 Timothy, for Ephesus was one of Paul's oldest churches, they had had elders there for at least half a dozen years, and Timothy was not serving as a pastor, but as an apostolic delegate to fix major, major problems there. (Many older commentaries and Bible helps such as the notes from NIV Study Bible are badly mistaken on these things).

The issue of ordaining elders is also a misstep behind the acceptance of the inauthenticy of PE. According to Luke, the laying on of hands as an act of commissioning for a specific role in the evangelical task is attested prior to Paul's missionary journeys. Why would he not lay hands on elders as he appointed church leaders?

In the case of Ephesians, Paul was not giving instructions on which people should be ordained as church leaders in a new church. Quite the contrary. The only reason why he had to appoint new leaders was because he, apparently, had laid hands hastily on several of them a few years earlier, and they turned out to be scoundrels. He disfellowshiped them, and the resultant vacancies necessitated the appointment of new elders.

Much more could be said.

Background Analysis of 1 Timothy

Background Analysis of 1 Timothy

James M. Leonard, PhD

A Statement Verse

On any reading of 1 Tim 3:14-15, Paul clearly states his reason for having written this epistle, and so the verse is extremely important for the exegesis of the epistle:

“Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household....”

The passage indicates that Paul’s letter is, in large part, a corrective to the people of the church, although he does give words of personal encouragement to Timothy.

Timothy Sent to Fix the Church at Ephesus

We must remember that the church at Ephesus was practically in full revolt against Paul.  Paul had heard of the problems at Ephesus.  So, he dispatched his “go to” man Timothy to fix the problems (maybe Paul and Timothy were traveling through Ephesus, discovered the problem, and Paul left Timothy behind).  Note how often Timothy is given the most difficult tasks in Paul’s missionary work; he must have been an incredibly dependable man, worthy of Paul’s comment “I have no one else like him” (Phil 2:20). 

Timothy’s Initial Failure

After some time in ministry at Ephesus as Paul’s itinerant representative, Timothy had had enough of the church at Ephesus.  (He sounds like some of the beleaguered pastors I know!)  It seems that Timothy excused himself from Ephesus, and traveled some distance to meet Paul at some location as Paul was journeying on to Macedonia in northern Greece (1 Tim 1:3).  In reporting to Paul on his hardships at Ephesus, it seems that Timothy broke down and wept uncontrollably over his inability to get the church headed in the right direction (or at least, we might think this is a likely explanation of Timothy’s tears in 2 Tim 1:4).  We infer that the church leaders had refused to submit to Timothy’s leadership and exchanged the gospel for a bunch of meaningless talk, myths, and insipid controversies (1 Tim 1:3-6, etc.). 

Radical Feminism

Not only was Timothy having severe problems with the church’s male leadership, but also with the women as well.  Ephesus, in its socio-historical context, specifically with its Artemis cult (KJV: Diana) may well have had a society in which some women wielded and modeled a feminine abuse of power that was unusual for the ancient world. The Artemis cult was a religion dominated by the daughters of influential families, and projected a disdain of marriage. The cult provided midwife priestesses and promised delivery and deliverance of women in childbearing, a practice which perhaps invoked Paul’s sideward and otherwise bizarre comment that “women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety” (1 Tim 2:18).

The abuse of power by women in Ephesus seems to have been a practice carried into the church by certain women. Paul points to certain women who were often idle and gossipy, “going from house[church] to house[church] saying things they ought not to” (5:13).  They dressed gaudily (2:9) to show their wealth to the false leaders of the church who were themselves motivated by greed (6:3-10).  During worship, these women seemed to have constantly wrangled with Timothy, undermining his authority (2:11-12).  It seems fairly sure that the false leaders and these domineering women were working in tandem with each other.

Timothy’s Despair

I get the impression from Paul’s reference to Timothy’s tears (2 Tim 1:4), that Timothy may have even asked Paul to release him from his ministry in Ephesus.  Some of us have been there and can sympathize with Timothy’s situation.  I’m sure Paul himself was grieved to have heard all these problems and to see his “true son in the faith” brought to tears.  However, he nonetheless returned Timothy back to Ephesus.  He writes, “As I urged you when I went to Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus and command certain men not to teach false doctrine...” (1:3).

Timothy Sent Back to Ephesus

Before sending Timothy back to Ephesus, it seems that Paul came up with a plan to help Timothy regain control of the church.  First of all, practical things such as prayer between Paul and Timothy and some useful words of wisdom would have been in order.  Next, Paul decided that it was necessary to excommunicate Hymenaeus and Alexander (1:18-20).  Third, Paul would write a letter to the Ephesians. 

Paul Addresses the Church through the Letter to Timothy

This third part of the plan, however, would have to modified somewhat.  If Paul wrote the epistle to the church, the church leaders would not even bother reading it, especially when they got to the part about Hymenaeus and Alexander.  So Paul sent Timothy back to Ephesus, promising to send a letter shortly.  To assure that this letter would actually be read, however, Paul addressed it not to the church, but rather to Timothy.  Timothy, of course, would announce that he received a letter from Paul and that he would read it to the church at Ephesus.

Meanwhile, Timothy did indeed excommunicate Hymenaeus and Alexander, under Paul's apostolic authority, and implemented other advice items while he awaited the letter.  When the letter did arrive, Timothy read it to the congregation.  On the surface, it sounded as if Paul were addressing Timothy directly.  Paul’s words, however, would constantly speak beyond Timothy to the members of the church themselves.  The transparency would have been quite thin!

Qualifications of Church Leaders as Case Specific

Note how much discussion Paul gives to qualifications of overseers, deacons, and deaconesses.  See how some of the qualifications directly reflect the failures of the church leaders at Ephesus.  The reason for this lengthy discussion is not so much to give us a set of ministerial qualifications for the 21st century North American scene, but rather because Paul had just excommunicated two of the church leaders, and there were some vacancies that needed to be filled.  How often it is that a pulpit committee interviews a pastoral candidate in light of the weaknesses and failures of the last pastor! So, much of 1 Timothy primarily addresses the specific situation at Ephesus, although we must not overlook the general principles which might apply to comparable situations in the modern church.

Epilog

In the end, we're not sure if Timothy's mission succeeded or failed. Certainly, Timothy was recalled and Titus was sent as his replacement, but this may not imply failure. It is possible that Timothy did as much as was expected, and like an interim minister, may have been recalled so that another specialist might take over the church.  In later years, John the Revelator took up residence in Ephesus and wielded great influence there.  In his address specifically to the Ephesians in Rev 3, he no longer needs to chide them for false doctrine.  Instead they had forsaken their first love.  The message seems to have been heeded, for early Christianity is attested in Ephesus well into the following centuries.

Timothy as a Model for Keeping the Faith

Nonetheless, one’s heart goes out to Timothy, who stood alone for God against a wayward, difficult church, despite severe opposition and lack of personal respect (1 Tim 4:12).  His stellar example should inspire future generations to keep Paul’s charge:

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.  

But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness. Keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.  Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses.

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction.  Keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time--God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever.  Amen” (a collage of texts from 1 and 2 Timothy).