Much of the modern controversy over men and woman centers on the interpretation of one text in the Pauline corpus. 1 Timothy 2:1-15 gives us the Apostle’s teaching on the contribution of men and women in the church. In verses 9-15, the Apostle deals with women and restricts their function in the church based upon the creation order. 

Introduction

In his recent article for The Calvinist International, Steven Wedgeworth once again shows his quality. In particular, his methodological comment that:

For the believer, the task is more difficult. They must not only accept the “letter” of Paul’s teaching, but they must seek to understand what precisely he means by it, and how his argument makes sense. They must submit to his method as well as his conclusion. But pursuing that kind of angle is worth the additional mental and emotional labor. It will helps us better understand the logic and purpose of Paul’s arguments. Doing so will open up even more categories.

Steven Wedgeworth, “Man and Woman: A Biblical Systematic Anthropology,” on The Calvinist International, May 17th, A.D. 2020.

This is the elusive task of biblical exegesis. Not merely engaging in lexicographic analysis, not committing improper totality transfers, but discerning the mind of the Spirit as it is displayed in the logical and literary geography of the text of Scripture.

While there is much to commend in Mr. Wedgeworth’s article, there is one section that misses the logic and purpose of the Apostle’s teaching on men and women. After the introduction to Paul’s gender categories, Mr. Wedgeworth presents a protological section dealing with Paul’s use of the creation order as one of the paradigms for understanding male and female. He also notes that there is an eschatological paradigm present in the Apostle’s teaching on men and women.

At this point, I should note that Mr. Wedgeworth is interacting with Dr. Swain’s article. In that article, Dr. Swain posits the need for more categories within which we can reason properly and capture the complexity of that creature which is man. Whereas one of the prime fallacies in reasoning is a category error, a converse fallacy is too much categorization. With the multiplication of categories, we run the risk of dividing into our categories that which the Scriptures unite according to the logic of the mind of the Spirit. It is in the protological section of Paul’s teaching on the sexes, that Mr. Wedgeworth errs. He errs both in perceiving the logic of the Apostle and in the categorization of the Apostle’s teaching in 1 Timothy 2:14.

A word of warning. What I am engaged in is polemics. This is as aspect of theology that has fallen by the way side. This branch of theology reached its Reformed zenith in Turretin’s Elenctic Theology. But, given the modern penchant for agreeableness, that branch of theology wherein pastors actively disagree has been neglected. I hold Mr. Wedgeworth in high regard. And my taking to keys and digits is not meant as any insult to him. Rather, it is due to my regard for him as a scholar and, more importantly, as a pastor, that I offer this critique.

The Point at Issue

Much of the modern controversy over men and woman centers on the interpretation of one text in the Pauline corpus. 1 Timothy 2:1-15 gives us the Apostle’s teaching on the contribution of men and women in the church. In verses 9-15, the Apostle deals with women and restricts their function in the church based upon the creation order. In verse 14 Paul writes, “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” Mr. Wedgeworth gives his understanding of this verse below:

In 1 Tim. 2:14, Paul will also add a punitive element to this discussion. In addition to being “second,” Eve was also “deceived and became a transgressor.” Many commentators have read into this a sort of essentialist gender deficiency, that women are “more liable to be deceived” and, on that ground, unfit for authority. But I do not believe this interpretation is the most reasonable one. Indeed, if one did take this approach, then they would predictably invite attempts to falsify the claim. After all, women come in many intellectual and emotional varieties, and man can themselves be quite gullible at times. We see a number of “crafty” women in the Bible who deceive men, even in arguably just ways. Rebekah’s deception of Isaac is controversial, but capable of rational explanation. The Hebrew Midwives seem more obviously in the right. Even Jael employs deception to lure Sisera to his death. Rather than feel the need to make a forced and awkward argument about the capabilities of women, it seems that Paul is appealing to the curse placed upon the woman in Gen. 3:16. Because Eve was deceived, she will experience and increased sort of subjection. The fact that Paul goes on to talk about the significance of childbirth in 1 Tim. 2:15 reinforces the fact that he has Gen. 3 in mind. This is also what Paul means in 1 Cor. 14:34, when he says that “the law” states women must be in submission to their husbands. Modern commentators are reluctant to take this approach because they believe that if women are disallowed certain positions because of God’s punishment for sin, that they must then be granted those positions after Christ atones for our sin. But as Calvin points out, “there is nothing to hinder that the condition of obeying should be natural from the beginning, and that afterwards the accidental condition of serving should come into existence; so that the subjection was now less voluntary and agreeable than it had formerly been” (Calvin, Commentary on 1 Tim. 2:14).

Thus, a harsh subjection or a subjection involving conflict is the thing experienced as punishment, whereas a natural and more instinctually agreeable submission was assigned as a creation ordinance. In Christ, the relationship of authority and submission is not undone but rather progressively made more like it originally was, voluntary and agreeable because it is rightly ordered towards an upright nature. These are Paul’s protological categories.

Steven Wedgeworth, “Man and Woman: A Biblical Systematic Anthropology,” on The Calvinist International, May 17th, A.D. 2020.

Read More