To say that 1 Timothy 2:12 is “difficult” but a concluding instruction regarding Phoebe in Romans 16 is “crystal clear” and then to use the latter to control the former is to turn the interpretation of texts on its head.
©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.
Resources
- How To Subscribe To Heidelmedia
- How To Make the Coffer Clink: Use the Donate Button Below This Post
- Heidelblog Resources
- The HB Media Archive
- Is 1 Timothy 2 Still God’s Word?
- “Gender Apartheid” And “Toxic Masculinity” In NAPARC? (1)
- “Gender Apartheid” And “Toxic Masculinity” In NAPARC? (2)
- A Peevish, Grudging Rancor Against Men
- Why Complementarianism Can’t Be a “Gospel” Issue
- S. M. Baugh on Women in the Church
- S. M. Baugh, “The Apostle Among the Amazons” WTJ 56.1 (1994)
R. Scott Clark
R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.
More by R. Scott Clark ›
1 Timothy 2:12 is “difficult” in the sense that some don’t like what it says and negotiate the text.
William Hendriksen, (after a long and through explanation of Romans 16:1): “The lesson is clear. Two extremes should be avoided: (a) that of ordaining women to an ecclesiastical office when there is no warrant for doing so in Scripture; and (b) that of ignoring the very important and valuable services devout and alert women are able to render to the church of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”
I find the Lutherans very helpful on this topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLkxl96LV24&t=1357s
Basically, what Scott said.
That is essentially what happens with any crux interpretum. Where one passage becomes a touchstone through which all other passages are interpreted. Galatians 3:28 is related to this and it is also often used to overrule passages like 1 Tim 2:12
Just realized, I also think it is equally wrong to use Galatians 3:28 to set aside 1 Tim. 2:12 as well.
This is intriguing. Did anyone say this in print or online? I’m interested in seeing the source.
Could someone paraphrase this post for me? I think I’m getting the gist but ask your help.
Keith,
What is unclear?
Some Christians will use Phoebe as an example of a woman deacon within the church and therefore conclude women can serve in church office. Whereas the text in 1 Timothy is pretty direct and clear that that not permissible. To interpret both texts with one another, one would have to conclude that Phoebe was not an officer of the church, or at the very least did not hold any position of authority within the church.