A Response to John Dickson's Hearing Her Voice (3 of 7)

Critique | Does teaching really mean ‘preserving and laying down’?

The heart of John’s argument in Hearing Her Voice is that what we do in contemporary sermons is a different activity to the teaching that Paul forbids to women in 1 Tim 2:12.  

I don’t think the first stage of his argument is really in dispute.  He simply shows that there are numerous speaking ministries mentioned in the Bible.  They may have significant areas of overlap.  But the fact that different words are used to describe them means that they are clearly distinguishable from each other.  Only one of them – teaching (Greek didaskō) – is forbidden to women in 1 Tim 2:12.  So far, nothing too radical.

Source: iStockphoto.com

From here, John questions the easy assumption which is often made, that what we do in contemporary sermons is the same activity of teaching that Paul talks about in 1 Tim 2:12.  He says that it's not.  Rather, for Paul, teaching referred to a very specific activity found within the writings, and the historical context, of the New Testament.  Therefore, women today should be allowed to give sermons.  Rather than viewing them as New Testament teaching, John suggests they may be closest to the New Testament ministry of exhorting (Greek paraklēsis).  In support of this he pays particular attention to Acts 13:15, 15:31-32, and 1 Tim 4:13.

What then is the ministry of teaching that Paul forbids to women in 1 Tim 2:12?  John begins his answer by distinguishing between a general type of ‘teaching’ and a specific or technical meaning of the term.  This seems plausible, given that Paul’s instruction in 1 Tim 2:12 can’t really contradict his instruction in Col 3:16 that everyone in the congregation to be involved in teaching one another.  And so the word-ministry of teaching that Paul prohibits to women in 1 Tim 2:12 should be understood with this specific, or technical, meaning, which John describes as preserving and laying down the fixed traditions of and about Jesus as handed on by the apostles.

Where does this definition of teaching come from?

John says that this definition of teaching comes from historically informed exegesis: from thinking through the historical situation that existed at the time Paul gave this instruction, and then considering the exegetical implications that flow from this.  1 Tim 2:12 was written at a time when the apostolic letters and the gospels had not yet been collected into what we now have as the New Testament.  Therefore churches were highly dependant on oral transmission to pass on the teaching of and about Jesus that was given by the apostles.

The idea of fixed oral transmission is not controversial, and John gives several examples of New Testament texts that indicate its use: 1 Cor 11:2; 11:23-24; 15:1-5; Gal 1:6-9; 1 Thess 4:1-2.[1]  He also gives several texts that show this body of traditions was fixed not flexible:[2] the reference to the apostolic ‘deposit’ (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:14), the ‘faith that was once for all delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3), and the ‘traditions delivered/received’ (1 Cor 11:2; 15:1-3; 2 Thess 3:6).  Then crucially, the final step in John's section on oral transmission is to say that this fixed body of tradition is frequently called ‘the teaching’ (citing Rom 6:17; 16:17; 1 Tim 6:1; Titus 1:9; 2:10 etc.).  He says that in these references, ‘the teaching’ is not Bible exposition but recently transmitted apostolic traditions.[3]

Having laid this groundwork, John goes on to argue that teaching is Paul’s preferred word, in the Pastorals at least, for this preserving and laying down process.  I don’t think John ties himself down to any one particular ‘proof text’.  He is trying to observe the general, consistent pattern of Paul’s usage.  Nevertheless, some passages occupy a more prominent place in his thinking, such as Gal 1:12, where Paul declares with synonymous parallelism, ‘I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it’, and 2 Tim 2:2, where Paul instructs Timothy, ‘what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also’.

For me, it’s in amongst all these details that John’s argument doesn’t work.  

As a first observation, for example, earlier on in his argument when he explains that teaching isn’t everything, John repeatedly insists that different words are used to describe different word ministries, and that despite whatever overlap they share they are also clearly distinguished one from another.  But this insistence seems to virtually disappear in his discussion of fixed oral transmission.  As a result, we’re told that four very different words, or sets of words, can all now refer to the same process – the apostolic deposit, the faith once for all delivered, the traditions delivered/received, and the teaching.

In addition, John’s explanation of the meaning of teaching is of specific and technical process already described by other New Testament words.  These are the ‘traditions delivered/received’ words, words like paradosis (tradition), paralambanō (receive), and paradidōmi (deliver over).  These words are widely understood with the technical meaning of preserving and laying down, which is why in the majority of references in John’s section on oral transmission, it’s these words that are used, not teach words. 

I realise that none of this is unknown to John.  His explanation is that the ‘traditions delivered/received’ words are typically used to refer to the evangelistic process, whereas Paul typically uses ‘teach’ to refer to the ongoing process of preserving and laying down the apostolic traditions.  But given the synonymous parallelism of receive and taught in Gal 1:12, it means another layer must now be added to our understanding of the meaning of these different words:

·       paradosis, paralambanō, and paradidōmi are specific technical words that denote the initial evangelistic passing on of apostolic traditions of and about Jesus

·       teaching also has this specific technical meaning, although it can also have the more general meaning of a passage like Col 3:16; but in addition to all this, when it carries the specific technical meaning, teaching can refer either to the initial evangelistic passing on of apostolic traditions, or the ongoing process of passing on apostolic traditions

Perhaps this is what the words actually mean.  Just as a ‘gut feel’, though, it’s not the way I naturally read the word.  Although maybe I have been too shaped by the evangelical ‘plain reading’ that John is trying to challenge, which simply assumes what needs to be shown.

Most problematic for me, though, is the suggestion that teach has two distinct meanings: the general one found in a place like Col 3:16, and the specific and technical one found in 1 Tim 2:12.  This begs the question, of course, about how you know when Paul has the general meaning in mind and when he has the specific and technical meaning in mind, to which the obvious answer is that you can only know by looking at the particular context.  And I think this issue of particular context is a much better explanation of the different ways that Paul uses the word teach, than anything inherent in the word itself which says it has either the general meaning or the specific and technical meaning. 

For example, in 2 Tim 2:2, isn’t it the combined effect of all the other words in Paul’s instruction that lead us to the preserving and laying down process?  Consider what the verse looks like even when the word teach is blanked out:

and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to _____ others also.

In other words, it’s not anything inherent in the meaning of the ‘_____’ word that tells us it means preserving and laying down the apostolic traditions for future generations.  It’s the particular context of the whole sentence that gives this meaning.

Or, to think of it a different way, consider what the verse would mean if instead of the word teach, Paul had used exhort:

and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to exhort others also.

If Paul had written such a statement, would that now mean that the word exhort carried the meaning of preserving and laying down that John gives to teach?  It would if this you could track the word through the New Testament and show that this is consistently what it means.  But probably not, if in its other uses the word was left without qualification by the particular context.  In such a situation, it would simply mean that here in 2 Tim 2:2, the content of the faithful men’s exhortation of others is whatever Timothy had heard Paul say in the presence of many witnesses and entrusted to them?

I think it’s more accurate, therefore, to say that the word teach can carry a range of meanings.  In some particular contexts, such as Col 3:16 or 2 Tim 2:2, the surrounding words dictate the manner, or the content, of teaching, so that we understand Paul is talking about something specific.  But when we come to passages where Paul uses the word teach, and there’s nothing in the particular context which means we should narrow our understanding of what he means by the word, why would we take the narrower understanding of the word from a different passage, where there are all sorts of clues to say we must narrow our understanding of what Paul means, and overlay that narrower meaning onto the passage we are working on? 

In other words, Paul’s usage of teach could be represented like this:

general		passages where clues in the particular context mean Paul is using teach very generally				e.g. Col 3:16
		passages where there are no clues in the particular context that focus our understanding of how Paul uses teach				e.g., Rom 12:7
specific		passages where clues in the particular context mean Paul is using teach more narrowly				e.g., 2 Tim 2:2

I think John sees a passage like Col 3:16 as the exception, and passages like 2 Tim 2:2 as the precedent by which passages like Rom 12:7 should be understood.  (I realise John’s argument is not based on 2 Tim 2:2 alone, which is why I’ve listed it as an example, and why I just used the plural: passages like 2 Tim 2:2.) 

Isn’t it better, though, given that historically teaching has typically been understood more generally, and without the specific technical meaning of words like paradosis, paralambanō, and paradidōmi, to say that it has not narrowing of meaning, unless the context demands it, as in the case of Col 3:16 or 2 Tim 2:2?

Conclusions about the meaning of teach

I’m sure some people will think I'm just splitting hairs.  I hope, at the very least though, that I’ve fairly represented John’s argument!  

More posts will follow.  At this point, though, my main goal has simply been to explain why I don’t think the specific and technical definition that John gives to teaching really works.  The word has a range of meanings, and has normally been understood quite generally.  Occasionally, such as in Col 3:16 or 2 Tim 2:2, the particular context that we narrow our understanding of what Paul is talking about.  But where the context makes no such demand – and I would argue 1 Tim 2:12 is an example of such a passage – I don’t think there are good reasons for narrowing our understanding of what Paul is talking about.

---

[1] p27.

[2] p29.

[3] p29.