Other Books at Freedom's Ring

Chapter 15

Prayer, Quietness, Exercising Dominion

I Timothy 2:8-15

"I desire therefore..."

It should be noted up front, in an exegesis of this passage, that Paul had already exhorted that "supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings be made for all men or kings, and for all in high places," I Timothy 2:1-2.

Paul would have Timothy and any and all brethren to so pray that the church could "lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity," verse 2. The whole church was to pray for such. These prayers were not limited to men any more than the command to pray without ceasing in I Thessalonians 5:17 was limited to men.

Paul then said, in 2:4, that "God, our Savior, would have all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth." Who would conclude that God would "silence" capable women from bringing "all men to a knowledge of truth" and salvation? Why would the presence of able men alter an able woman's role or limit her from exercising her talents or gifts?

In I Timothy 2:8 Paul said, "I desire therefore that men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands without wrath and disputing." In order to understand this scripture, we must first understand how we have conveniently applied it to uphold a tradition of the church. It has been the "proof text" which gives males the exclusive privilege of "leading" in public prayer and which proves that women cannot "lead" in public prayer if a believing man or boy is present.

But note: Nothing in this text even suggests a worship service. Nor does it use the word "lead," let alone "lead only." If we take it just as it reads in most translations, only one thing is required: Men are to pray in every place. Does that mean that men only are to pray both silently and audibly in every place, including assemblies, but that women are limited to praying silently and audibly in some private places? Or, may they also pray silently in every place? If not, the only logical conclusion is, women cannot pray in any place where only men can pray - that is, in public places. Women would have to cover their ears while men pray in public places, since only men can pray in public places. Moreover, if only men can pray audibly in assemblies, women cannot sing a song of prayer, because audible prayers are limited by this scripture to men, according to our tradition.

Traditionally we, with one voice, have said that "every place" means "every assembling place." But that isn't what this scripture says. It says, "men are to pray in every place." If we add that men "only lead in prayer in every assembly, class and devotional," and Paul does not, then you have our doctrine and practice. The scripture would have read like this if it taught our practice: "I would that men only lead in prayer in every place." Can this mean that women can only pray silently even if no baptized man is present? If we interpret it to read only men can lead in prayer in every place, we eliminate women from leading in prayer anywhere, at any time, since only men can lead in prayer in every place. But why are they permitted to pray even silently, if men are the only ones who may pray in every place? To get our practice, Paul would also have had to add, "But women can pray silently or in song in every place." But he didn't.

It seems strange that we, who have traditionally also added, "only men may lead in prayer, in worship, classes, and devotionals" to this scripture, do not emphasize "lifting up holy hands." I confess not knowing how high hands are to be lifted or how holy these hands must be before God listens. But I do know that those who generally demand an absolute adherence to the doctrine that only men are to lead in prayer in every assembling place, seldom, if ever, lift their hands at all, nor do they teach others to. Yet, "lead" and "only", which are not in this text, are added to get their doctrine.

The question must be asked: If the first part of this verse is literal, and if it really means only males can lead in prayer in all situations where men and women are gathered together, why do not these men have to lift up their hands during the prayer? What kind of consistency is there in saying that the first portion of this text must be altered, added to, and then adhered to, but that no one must adhere to the last portion? There is no sound hermeneutic that would allow anyone to so interpret this passage. Where does God give anyone the right to bind human additions and a skewed interpretation onto the first part of this verse to get a doctrine and to refuse to even acknowledge and then utterly disobey the second half of the verse?

It must be noted and acknowledged that "worship service," "class," "devotional," "prayer meetings," "home Bible study," "lead," "males only," are not found in the entire context. Men add them, contrary to God's revelation, in order to justify their doctrine and their practice. Does the Church of Christ speak where the Bible speaks here, or does the Church add to and take from the Bible to accommodate its practice? I Timothy is not about worship, so the church is forced to add to this scripture, "lead," "only," and "worship services," and delete "lifting up holy hands" to get its doctrine and practice. But logic would forbid women from ever leading prayer in any place because we actually teach that scripture says that only men may lead in prayer in every place.

To understand I Timothy 2:8-15, we should recognize a number of problems which must have existed regarding relationships that Paul addressed here. In this letter, he first said there is a need to respect civil authority. So he said, "Pray for kings and those in authority," 2:1. The "man only" rule does not apply to this prayer. The letter was written to a man. Should we conclude women can't pray for kings? Children of elders were to be in subjection, 3:4. Deacons were to rule their children in their houses as well, 3:12. Elders were not to be rebuked, but respected, 5:1. The younger men were to be treated as brethren, 5:1. The elderly women were to be treated as mothers and the younger women as sisters, 5:2. Widows were to be honored, 5:3. Children were to take care of their own kinfolk who were widows, 5:4. A man was to take care of his own household, 5:6, and on goes Paul's discussion of relationships and responsibilities which each member of the church had toward others. Servants were to honor their masters, 6:1-2. The rich were to respect the poor, 6:17,19. It is clear this book emphasizes relationships and personal behavior and that it is not about worship services.

Some will argue from 3:14-15 that these instructions to Timothy were about behavior in the "house of God" and that thus they are about worship. Such a conclusion is in direct opposition to the total instruction of the entire book, which is "seven days a week" behavior.

Threaded through all of I Timothy there is a discussion of human relationships and how we should behave one with another. If, in many of these relationships, there is to be submission or subjection, why do we think it is strange that Paul would not address husbands and wives and their relationships in 2:8-15? In verse 8 he writes, "I desire that men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands without wrath and disputing." The Greek word for men here is "andras," and it can be translated "men" or "husbands." It is the same word found in I Corinthians 14:35 in the passage, "ask their husbands at home." I think it is interesting to note that had the translators translated "gune" to wives and "andras" to husbands, instead of men and women, no one would have been hung up on this issue. There is no other Biblical reason, or even the slightest Biblical suggestion, that only men should pray or lead in prayer in every place. If we translated the Greek for "men" and "women" to husbands and wives as the translators did in the following passages, we would decide that it was to husbands and wives that Paul wrote verses 8-15. Notice John 4:18; I Corinthians 14:35; Ephesians 5:22,25; Colossians 3:18-19; I Timothy 3:2; Titus 2:4-5; and I Peter 3:7. If Paul wanted citizens, servants, widows, the young, the aged, the elders, and others who were under someone in authority or who were in authority to act in certain ways, would he not also want husbands (andras) and wives (gunaikas) to also act in certain ways?

Now let's translate andras (husbands) for "men" in this passage, and see how husbands would relate to the context, rather than imposing our presumed and forced conclusions that Paul is talking about men praying and leading in prayer in all worship services. "I would that husbands pray in every place lifting up holy hands without wrath and disputing." What kind of persons does Paul say husbands should be? Men of prayer - ones who pray everywhere. They are not to be filled with wrath. Husbands were not to have doubts and disputes as they prayed, just as James instructed others to pray in James 1:16. We must emphasize again, there is not the remotest suggestion that the prayer here involves any kind of worship service, or devotional, or lectureship, or chapel service, or Bible class, or home Bible study. Rather, he is simply saying to husbands, "I want you Christian husbands to be men of prayer wherever you are, and I want you to lift up holy hands without wrath or disputing."

In verses 9-15 Paul's letter would read like this, if we translated "gune" to "wives," in the place of "women": "In like manner that wives adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly raiment; but (which becometh wives professing godliness) through good works. Let a wife learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a wife to teach, nor to have dominion over a husband, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, followed by Eve. Adam was not beguiled, but the wife, being beguiled, hath fallen into transgression. But she shall be saved through her childbearing, if she continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety." In verse 8, Paul had told husbands some qualities he wanted in them, and then he told wives in verse 9 how they should dress and how they should behave and how they should care for their hair, and he emphasizes that good works are the things that wives should be noted for. In verse 11, these wives were told to learn in quietness. The King James version mistakenly translated in Greek, "hesuchia," "silence" instead of "quietness." When students of the King James version and some other early versions read "silence" in this passage, they connected it with the "silence" in I Corinthians 14:34 and concluded that one passage fortified the other for silence in the church on the part of women. But, in truth, the word translated "silence" in I Corinthians 14:34 is "sigao," which means "to hold one's peace, to be silent," or "to cease chattering or babbling." But it doesn't mean "to be mute or muzzled." Remember that is the Greek word, "phimoo."

Later English translations correctly use the word "quietness" instead of "silence," thus weakening further the argument for silencing women in the worship services. But we must remember that a worship service is not even suggested in this context. Rather, Paul is telling wives how to dress and how to behave.

The same Greek word for "quietness" used in II Thessalonians 3:12 says, "Now, them that are such, we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work and eat their bread." No one would argue that these men and women could not talk while they worked and ate.

In I Thessalonians 4:11 Paul used the same root word when he said, "Study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and work with your own hands." We do not believe that these people could not talk or speak while they worked.

I Timothy 2:2 reads, "That we might lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity." We will not argue that talking or speaking is forbidden in this tranquil or quiet life.

Then, what was Paul saying to these wives in I Timothy 2:9? He was saying that wives were to be quiet-spirited, not loud and brassy as they lived in subjection or submission to their husbands.

Women may, and do, teach their husbands or other men, but not in a way that creates confusion, disturbs the peace, or forces their husbands into submission. If women may teach their unbaptized husbands who voluntarily allow it without being guilty of exercising unscriptural authority over them, they likewise may teach believing men.

In verse 12 we read, "I permit not a woman to teach nor have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness." Some have decided that the first part of the verse, "I permit not a woman to teach," means a woman should never teach a man under any circumstances. This makes the rule absolute. But I know of no one who practices the absolute position that a woman is not to teach any man. We know she can teach and did teach, for Priscilla had apostolic approval in teaching Apollos. Philip's daughters taught. Many women joined Paul as fellow workers in teaching and preaching the gospel.

Some say it means a woman cannot teach a man in a public Bible class or in a public worship service. We know this is not true, since women prophesied both in I Corinthians 11 and I Corinthians 14 to the edification of the whole church when it assembled together. Women are also permitted to teach and edify in public Bible classes today. We know we allow women to teach and admonish in song because of our traditional interpretation of key scriptures. Women were to be teachers of that which is good, and obviously at any opportunity (Titus 2:3-4). Certainly older women were not limited to teaching only younger women. The Great Commission was not limited to men. We send women on missions every year.

Paul instructed Timothy to commit what he had learned to faithful men (anthropois) that they might teach others also, II Timothy 2:2. Anthropois was the generic word for men which included male and female. So, Paul had already given his approval for men and women both to learn and teach others, regardless of sex.

Hebrews 5:12 reads, "For when, by reason of time, ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that someone teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God: and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food." By reviewing these scriptures, we can conclude that women or wives should teach the gospel anywhere or at any time. Expediency is the only limiting factor, and it also applies to men.

"I permit not a woman to teach" stands alone in the Greek, but few doubt that it is connected to the phrase following, "nor to have dominion over a man." The Greek word for "dominion" is "authenteo." I cannot find that it is used in any other New Testament passage. It literally means to exercise authority on one's own account, to act on one's own authority. Its early usage meant to use one's own armour to kill. It had its roots in the practice of infanticide - killing one's own. As it changed to the concept of dominion or usurping authority, it still referred to dominion over one's "own." Thus, in this text, it refers to the wives not exercising authority over their "own" husbands, not over men who are not their own.

If Paul really meant "women," and not "wives," were not to teach or exercise authority over men, what were the limits? Was teaching and exercising authority limited to church services? The text does not so indicate. Can a female college professor teach men English, History, Greek, or Science, but not teach in the religion department? Or does the prohibition apply to all teaching? God didn't reveal the answer; we decide the answer based only on human reasoning and tradition, not law. In essence, we vote on when and where women can teach and exercise authority over men. Whose reasoning will we accept as God's law?

Can a woman be a supervisor of believing and unbelieving men in a secular job, in a government position, or in the military? Is a Christian woman forbidden to supervise or have authority over her Christian farm hands? Must a Christian woman who owns a farm or factory submit to all her male employees?

This text does not restrict the teaching or the dominion to the church or the church activities. So, how do we decide where to draw the line? Human "reasoning" is the answer. The command, in its current translation, sounds absolute, doesn't it? Christian women, those subject to Christian teaching, were not to teach, nor were they to exercise authority over men, period! That would include authority over men at work or in classrooms on the campuses of schools and colleges.

We permit women who own farms and businesses to teach, train and exercise authority over Christian and non-Christian men whom they employ. It is evident that we must have misapplied and misunderstood Paul's instruction in this passage.

Now, let's see how this passage reads when we translate "woman" to "wife" and "man" to "husband" in verse 12. "But I permit not a wife to teach, nor to have authority over her husband, but to be in quietness."

Now, what is Paul really saying? He is saying, "Wives are not permitted to teach (over) or exercise authority over your own husbands, but to be in quietness." Such a translation agrees perfectly with Ephesians 5:22, Colossians 3:18, and I Peter 3:1. This passage is not about authority or delegating authority in the church. It is about wives dominating their husbands.

Again, I emphasize "quietness" here is not "silence." But a wife is to be quiet-spirited and learn without being loud, brassy, pushy, and boisterous. She is to act quietly. This conclusion would very well correspond with I Corinthians 14:35. The instruction of two passages would thus be: Wives are not to rule husbands at home or rule over or interrogate their husbands publicly at church. Rather, they were to live and learn in quietness and in peaceful ways in family relationships, in church, and in the world. Likewise, Paul would not approve loud, brassy, pushy and boisterous men. All Christians are to lead the same quiet and tranquil lives (I Timothy 2:2).

Then, Paul continued his instructions to confirm the argument that this passage refers to the husband and wife relationship and not to a man and woman relationship. "For Adam was first formed and then Eve." Their relationship was a husband and wife relationship, not a man and woman relationship.

In verse 15, Paul made it unmistakably clear that the passage refers to husbands and wives, and not to men and women. He writes, "But she (the woman addressed above) shall be saved in child bearing." Now whom does God permit, and whom would Paul permit to bear children? Single women? Widows? Divorcees? Or married women? We all know that in God's kingdom only wives were to bear children. So it is unmistakably clear that Paul was speaking to husbands and wives and how they were to act in their relationships.

The "she" in verse 15 is the same "gune" of the earlier verse. The "she" is a woman who bears children. The "she" who bears the children is the wife of the man who is to be a man of prayer, who lifts holy hands without wrath or disputing, while praying everywhere, obviously a husband. When we compare this reading with I Peter 3:1-7, we see an almost identical wording and instruction for wives' behavior. The only difference is that Peter concludes his passage with instruction on prayer to husbands, instead of beginning as Paul does, with instructions on it.

In like manner, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, even if they obey not the word, they may without the word be gained by the behavior of their wives: Beholding your chaste behavior coupled with fear, whose adorning let it not be outward adorning of braiding the hair and of wearing jewels of gold, or of putting on apparel: But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in the incorruptible apparel of a meek and quiet spirit, which in the sight of God is of great price. For, after this manner the holy women also, who hoped in God, adorned themselves being in subjection to their own husbands: as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord: whose daughter, ye are if ye do well, and are not put in fear or any terror. Ye husbands, in like manner, dwell with your wives according to knowledge, giving honor to the woman (wife) as unto the weaker vessel as being also joint heirs of the grace of life that your prayers be not hindered.

Here he says, "You are to live in such a way, [no doubt with holy hands, without wrath and disputing] that your prayers be not hindered." And in I Timothy 2:8 Paul says, "Pray everywhere" and live in such a way that your prayers will not be hindered. They give similar instructions on husbands' prayer. In this passage in I Peter, wives were to try to convert their husbands by teaching them the word. That's no prohibition on teaching their husbands, let alone other men. But, if teaching the word failed, perhaps then, he says, their behavior and manner of dress might cause their husbands to be won.

Peter also speaks of a meek and quiet spirit, not a silent one. "Quiet" is the same root Greek word as is used in I Timothy 2:11-12. Peter also emphasized respect for civil authority just as Paul did in his letter to Timothy: "Be subject to civil authorities," 2:13-14. Servants were to be in subjection, 2:18-19. Wives were to be in subjection, 3:1,7. Younger people were to be in subjection, 5:5. There are many similarities between Paul's letter of I Timothy and Peter's first letter in regard to relationships of Christians, of mates, of older people, of younger people. This very similarity adds great weight to the argument that the use of "gune's" and "aner's" is referring to husbands and wives in I Timothy 2 the same as they refer to husbands and wives and their relationships in I Peter 3.

This conclusion also adds weight to the argument that the early translators may have used their own prejudices when they translated silence for quietness into text, just as they translated "baptizo" to "baptize" instead of "immerse." To translate it immerse would have gone against their practice of sprinkling and pouring as baptism. We should also note here that Peter told his audience, men and women, in the 15th verse of this same chapter: "But sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord, being ready to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason for the hope that is within you." "Every man" includes believers and unbelievers, Jews and Greeks, bond and free, males and females. By answering questions regarding their faith, whether we translate the first portion of this chapter "women" or "wives," women would still be teaching (every man) through their answers. Women are not excluded from giving answers in public assemblies or in privacy.

There is no compelling reason textually to translate the Greek words in I Corinthians 14 and I Timothy 2 to "man and woman," instead of "husband and wife," as we have indicated, but there are very good textual reasons for translating these words "husband and wife." If they had been so translated in early versions of the English scriptures, they would agree with all other scriptures regarding the husband and wife relationship and who is to be in submission to whom. This would also not have had Paul making one statement in chapter 14 of I Corinthians, which contradicts many other of his clear statements which approve women's participation in evangelism and public worship.

Is it not strange that we can translate "andras" men and then add "only lead in prayer in every assembly where men are present," and turn around and take away "lifting holy hands" in verse 8? We then conclude that women are to be silent from verses 11 and 12 even though the correct translation is quiet as admitted by all Bible scholars. Furthermore, we conclude that if a woman leads in anyway it is an exercise of dominion or usurpation of authority. But there is no Biblical text which suggests that anyone, male or female, is exercising dominion or usurping authority just because he or she delegated the authority anymore than a 12-year-old boy usurps authority when he leads, especially when any assembly of any kind is not so much alluded to , let alone mentioned, in the entire context.

Stranger still, than our adding to verses 8, 11, and 12 to get our tradition and doctrine, is the utter disregard to the clear teaching on women's or wives' dress in verse 9. When has some preacher, elder, or editor demanded that women with braided hair or with a permanent wave come to church with straight hair? When has one demanded that women quit wearing pearls or gold? When have we demanded anyone to quit wearing expensive apparel?

If this scripture applies to assemblies, as many falsely assume it does, then may the same women dress immodestly, have fancy hairdos, wear pearls and gold outside the assembly?

If verse 8 limits praying or leading in prayer to men only, it prohibits women from lifting holy hands, since this instruction is to men only, according to our tradition. If women are forbidden from prayer by this verse, and therefore from lifting holy hands (since we claim the instruction is to men only), may women lift unholy hands to God?

We cannot maintain our integrity and add to, take from, and then totally overlook the wresting of this text in an attempt to bolster our traditional application. Wise, honest and responsible Christians will recognize this, and cease teaching false conclusions from this text.

The only logical conclusion we can reach from this text is that husbands should be men of prayer everywhere and lift holy hands without wrath and disputing or doubting, and that wives should dress modestly, not braid hair, wear pearls or expensive clothing, be quiet spirited. They are not to teach , usurp authority, or exercise dominion over their husbands.

To conclude otherwise is to emasculate this text and misuse it to justify our traditions. The apparent contradiction of the teaching in I Corinthians 14:34 with chapter 11 on women praying and prophesying in the church is hereby further explained.