Typology: Women and the Church tagged: , , , , , , ,

Typology: Women and the Church

Posted by in Bible & Theology, Church & Missions

The blogosphere is the worst place for a reasoned debate. You lack the ability to see and pick up on non-verbal cues from your challenger, it depersonalizes him, and it is easy to miss his point or the thrust of his argument.

I like to read Tim Challies’ blog. He provides links to other blogs and news articles that are usually fresh, interesting, or funny. A couple weeks ago he linked to a blog article that attempts to interpret the following passage:

“Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” (1 Timothy 2:11–15, ESV)

This had the potential for debate. So I bit.

Mary Kassian is a dear sister in Christ. She has written books, studied theology, and teaches at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. She’s a complementarian, so it’s hard to believe she could take a stance on a subject relating to this passage that I’d disagree with.

Since our discussion in the comments section came to a halt pretty quick when neither of us wanted to budge, I thought it appropriate to lay out key segments of her argument here and voice my concerns though this medium. You might benefit from reading her article before what follows, since you might take it differently than I did.

Based on Typology

Mary’s conclusions stem from her understanding of typology. That’s a fancy word for the study of divine foreshadowing in the Bible. It is very similar to allegory except it doesn’t deny the historical reality of the type, and it speaks of a greater fulfillment in the antitype (the foreshadowed object).

Jesus saw Jonah’s time in the fish as a type of His own burial and resurrection (antitype). Matthew saw the Exodus as a type of Jesus’ childhood escape to and from that country (antitype). These examples might seem to suggest that almost any connection we can make between two events in the Bible form a type/antitype relationship. My goal here is not to establish a framework for determining if or when a type/antitype relationship exists, but to determine if Paul is intentionally asserting a type/antitype relationship in 1 Timothy 2:11-15, and if so, what that relationship is.

Adam, Eve, Christ, and the Church

Mary correctly points out that Paul viewed Adam as a type (foreshadowing) of Christ. In Romans 5 Paul specifically calls Adam “a type of the one who was to come” and in 1 Corinthians 15 he calls Christ the “last Adam.” The only other time Paul specifically refers to Adam by name is in this passage. This would seem to lend some credibility to her position.

Mary’s argument for why Eve is a type of the Church universal flows thus:

  1. Adam is a type of Christ (Romans 5, 1 Corinthian 15).
  2. The Church is described as the Bride of Christ (Ephesians 6).
  3. Eve was the bride of Adam (1 Timothy 2).
  4. Therefore Eve is a type of the Church.

Just to show that I am faithful to her logic, this is what she actually said:

We know for sure that Paul viewed Adam as a type of Christ. We also know for sure that he viewed marriage as type of the relationship between Christ and the church — in which the role of husband is a type of Christ and the role of the wife is a type of the Church. Thus, we can justifiably extrapolate that Paul also viewed Eve as a type of the Church.

Mary has just begun to swerve away from the meaning of this passage and sound interpretive principles. First, she creates an Adamic filter with Paul—anytime Paul mentions something pertaining to Adam, he must be applying a type/antitype filter relating to Christ. She appeals to an Adamic principle of interpretation to supersede the immediate context of the passage to help determine meaning. Although only Adam is mentioned in the context of the fall, Mary applies her filter to argue that Paul is making a veiled allusion to Christ. That should sound warning bells in your head.

The second indication of an interpretive problem is she uses two different typological relationships and a literal relationship to prove a third typological relationship. This does not make sense logically. She connects Eve to the Church in a typological relationship through an unrelated typological relationship between Adam and Christ.

A stronger argument for her claim (which would still be problematic) could be made from 2 Corinthians 11:2-3,

For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

It is important to remember the difference between a comparison and a typological relationship. Typology carries with it the sense of a greater fulfillment. While we do see a much stronger relationship here between marriage, the Church, and Eve, it is still not a typological one, even less an interpretive framework for understanding other passages about Adam and Eve in the New Testament.

If this is a typological relationship, does that mean that God giving Eve to Adam as a wife was a foreshadowing of Paul presenting the Corinthian church to Christ? Was the serpent’s deception of Eve a foreshadowing of false teachers leading the church astray? Obviously not. This New Testament example is not fulfilling something that was lacking in the Old Testament, it is a comparison. Just because we can find parallels between two events, people, or things, doesn’t mean there is a typological relationship. Even less an interpretive key.

What’s Really Going on Here?

Let’s take a look at the original passage in context:

8I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; 9likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. 11Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. (1 Timothy 2:8-15, ESV)

In context, this passage is dealing with men and women in the church. Men are specifically advised about prayer and attitudes, women about modesty and godliness. Continuing on, Paul gives more guidance on women in the church. Mary sought to avoid hashing out exactly what Paul meant here in order to focus on the last verse. I agree. The meaning of those verses is not what is at issue.

But they give us the context and in that sense they are important and deserve a few words.

In verses thirteen through fifteen Paul gives us the reason, the justification, for his statement in verses eleven and twelve. Yet these end verses also back up his whole train of thought from verse eight through twelve. He is dealing with men and women in the church. Therefore, it is most natural to take Adam and Eve in this verse as analogous to men and women, not Christ and the church. Some reasons why:

  1. Most tellingly, Paul has made no mention of Christ whatsoever in this passage. In the other passages (Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15), Paul explicitly differentiates between Adam and Christ. The only way to write Him in is to establish that Paul always considers Adam and Eve as a type of Christ and the Church. If the thought crossed his mind, it did not make it from the quill to the papyrus.
  2. Only two things are mentioned about Adam in this passage—he was formed first, and he was not deceived. Although these are positive (or at least not negative), the context of the story is the Genesis fall, not Christ and redemption. We have to remember that Paul is seeking to explain why he does not permit a woman to teach/exercise authority. He is not trying to clarify how she “will be saved through childbearing.” Reading Christ into this passage to explain a confusing phrase completely changes Paul’s line of reasoning for why women are not to teach/exercise authority.
  3. If this is really speaking about Christ, the Adam figure becomes Savior and the woman figure becomes sinner. This seems much more derogatory to women than most other interpretations of this passage, as if Adam were guiltless.
  4. The Eve figure is analogous to the women, since Paul is giving a basis for his determination not to let women teach/exercise authority. If it is also analogous to the Church, which is made up of men and women, why would it be used to justify denying only women the right to teach/exercise authority?
  5. If this really were referring to Christ and the Church we have to ask, In what way was Christ “formed” first? How was the Church “deceived and became a transgressor?” Why does Christ have to “continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control?” How do the answers to those questions explain why Paul does not permit a woman to teach/exercise authority?

Then What Does it Mean?

I don’t pretend to be an expert on this. I’m not arguing against Mary’s approach here because I think I have a better answer. I’m arguing against it because it doesn’t fit the biblical evidence. There are much more learned people who’ve looked at these verses in Greek, compared translations, looked at the uses of “saved” in other contexts and who’ve come back with a “I think this might be what it means.” My opinion wouldn’t be any better. But just because we may not have a satisfactory alternative doesn’t mean we should settle for an unsatisfactory answer that causes more problems than it can hope to solve.

 —————————————————————————————-

I want to affirm once again that I see Mary as a sister in Christ. That’s primarily why I call her Mary throughout my article instead of Ms. Kassian. In the grand scheme of things, I don’t believe this passage is a major issue. Our salvation doesn’t depend on an accurate understanding of this text. And it is a good thing to hear another perspective. My concern is more over the method of interpretation than the interpretation itself.