Rex Banks
Part 2: 1 Timothy 2:8-15
Background to 1 Timothy 2:8-15
When students of scripture describe the New Testament epistles as "occasional documents," they are reminding us that these missives were initially addressed to specific individuals and groups, and that they frequently dealt with certain problems, needs and challenges confronting the original recipients. This is an important reminder, because clearly our understanding of a particular letter is greatly enhanced if we know something about the addressees' historical background, something about any peculiar circumstances which may have impacted upon their faith, and something of their relationship with the writer of the letter. For example, Paul's stormy relationship with some at Corinth helps explain the personal, emotional and often indignant tone of 2 Corinthians, while his warm, complimentary language to the brethren at Philippi reflects his deep appreciation for their ongoing support, and especially for the visit of Epaphroditus. Specific problems with Judaism occasioned Paul's letter to the "churches of Galatia," much of 1 John is a response to false christology which has arisen in Asia Minor and so on. Clearly our ability to interpret and apply a particular letter is enhanced if we have some knowledge of such details.
The occasional character of 1 Timothy is evident from the opening words of the letter, where Paul reminds the young man:
"As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus, in order that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith." (1 Tim. 1:3, 4)
As we read these words, we recall Paul's earlier warning to the Ephesian elders that from among themselves certain ones would arise "speaking perverse things, to draw the disciples after them," (Acts 20:30) and it seems quite likely from this warning and from clues in 1 Timothy, that the errorists at Ephesus were not outsiders, but rather from the ranks of the eldership itself. Anyway, it is clear from the opening words of the epistle, that Timothy has been left at Ephesus to deal with a specific problem in the local church, namely the problem of doctrinal error, (cf. 1:18-20; 4:1-10; 5:11-15; 6:3-10, 20, 21.) Too, the occasional nature of the epistle is evident from the fact that it contains material of a personal nature. For example, the apostle addresses the young man as "Timothy, my son," (1:18) expresses the hope that he will see him soon, (3:14) urges his co-worker to "stop drinking only water" (5:23) and so on. The point is this: along with the other New Testament epistles 1 Timothy contains material which reminds us that it was written under specific circumstances and obviously some knowledge of the situation of the church at Ephesus is helpful to our interpretation and application of this document.
Unfortunately it is apparent that some students of scripture draw unwarranted conclusions from the fact that the New Testament epistles are occasional in nature. Armed with their own agendas, some approach scripture having already ruled out the very possibility that the Bible could teach a particular doctrine, and frequently those passages of scripture which do not support their presuppositions are treated as nothing more than ad hoc instructions, relevant only to a specific group of people in a particular setting. Often this involves ignoring the immediate and remote context of scripture, along with the inspired writer's own explanations, but some are prepared to pay this price, and this is evident from the treatment which 1 Tim. 2:8-15 is receiving from many today.
As we will see, many today are claiming that the apostle's instructions concerning men and women in 1 Tim. 2:8-15 are not universally applicable, but simply reflect his concern with the behaviour or circumstances of a particular group of women in a specific setting. For example, many argue that in this passage Paul does not place restrictions upon all Christian women in all worship assemblies, but simply upon certain women at Ephesus who (for various reasons) are engaged in inappropriate behaviour. Allegedly Paul's instructions in 1 Tim. 2:8-15 are no more part of the eternal apostolic pattern than his instructions in 5:23 ("stop drinking only water"). However, as we said in Part 1, and as we will repeat below, such an approach completely ignores Paul's own claim that female subordination is grounded upon creation law.
This approach also reveals a failure to appreciate the true nature of the Pastoral Epistles, (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus) since it is very clear that one purpose of these documents was to provide a permanent pattern for church order. In this context it is clear that 1 Timothy 2:1 - 3:16 forms a unit, the purpose of which is explained in 3:14, where Paul writes:
"Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you may know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth." (N.I.V)
The N.I.V. rendering above captures the sense well. Ralph Earle is quite correct in his comment that in this verse: "The apostle is laying down rules for church members and their leaders." (The Expositors Bible Commentary vol. 11) He is quite correct that: "This (verse) is a summary of what we find in chapters 2, 3," (ibid) and the fact is that nothing in these chapters suggests that the apostle is responding to a particular problem at Ephesus. Context suggests that 1 Tim. 2:8-15 has nothing to do with a particular situation at Ephesus and everything to do with how all Christians everywhere are to "conduct themselves in God's household." Because of the chapter division between 2:15 and 3:1, some overlook the connection between male leadership in worship (chapter 2) and the presupposition of 3:1ff that men alone are qualified to act as overseers in the local church. However the connection is significant, reinforcing the fact that 1 Timothy 2:1 - 3:16 forms a unit in which Paul is "laying down rules for church members and their leaders." One of these rules relates to leadership in the assembly.
1 Timothy 2:8-15
2:8 "Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands without wrath and dissension."
a) The word translated "therefore" has the meaning "then, therefore, accordingly, consequently, these things being so" (Thayer) and likely signifies a return to the subject of prayer with which the chapter began (vs 1, 2).
b) Some insist that the words "I want" (boulomai) indicate that Paul is expressing a wish or a preference rather than issuing a binding command, but this position is untenable. Significantly, "Three times Boulomai is used in the Pastorals with reference to ordering by apostolic authority" (Gottlob Schrenk Theological Dictionary of the New Testament vol. 1.) Schrenk cites this verse along with 1 Tim. 5:14 and Titus 3:8 as examples of Paul's ordering by apostolic authority. Keep in mind too that "The most important point in terms of biblical theology is the empaling of the will of God, His Son and the Spirit (7 times)." (ibid) Thus God wills to make know the unchangeableness of His promise (Heb. 6:17), desires that none perish (2 Pet. 3:9), resolves to give new life (James 1:18) and so on. The contention by some that boulomai expresses nothing more than a wish or preference is clearly incorrect.
c) Paul wants "the men (tous andras)" to pray. Now in v. 1, "men" is from "anthropos" meaning "a human being, whether male or female" (Thayer). However, andras means "with reference to sex 1a) of a male 1b) of a husband 1c) of a betrothed or future husband." (ibid) Clearly by andras here Paul means "man" rather than "husband" since it makes no sense to limit praying to married men. The apostle here is speaking of man as opposed to woman, and the use of the definite article ("the") before "man" also places maleness (v. 8) in direct antithesis to femaleness (v. 9). Paul wants men as opposed to women to pray. Now clearly, since all Christians, male and female are to "pray without ceasing," (1 Thess 5:17) the command in v. 8 must be looked at in context.
d) First, it is clear that in v. 8 Paul is speaking of prayer in a particular setting. Although the words "in every place" do not, in and of themselves, tell us that the apostle has the public assembly in mind, it is evident that this is the case. On "every place" Marvin R. Vincent has: "Wherever Christian congregations assemble" (Word Studies in the New Testament). A.T. Robertson has: "It is public worship, of course, and 'in every place' (en panti topoi) for public worship." (Word Pictures in the New Testament) Rienecker/Rogers has: "The expression is used for public worship." (Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament) William Hendriksen has: " 'in every place' of public worship." (N.T.C. Thessalonians, Timothy and Titus) Commenting upon this expression in 1 Cor. 1:2 Gordon Fee says: " 'Everywhere' is probably not quite the nuance of Paul's Greek, which rather implies 'in every meeting place'." (The New International Commentary on the New Testament, The First Epistle to the Corinthians)
e) Too, it is clear that Paul is not merely speaking of prayer in the public assembly, but of a particular kind of prayer in that assembly, namely prayer which involves exercising authority over those present (cf v. 12). When an individual prays out loud in the presence of other Christians, who then "say the 'Amen' at (the) giving of thanks," (1 Cor. 14:16) that individual is thereby exercising authority the assembly, and it is this kind of praying which is restricted to men. However not all prayer in the assembly is of this kind. It is also possible to pray as Hannah prayed: "She spoke in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard." (1 Sam. 1:13). Christian women along with Christian men are to pray in the assembly, but Paul's point is that they should pray as Hannah did and thereby avoid exercising authority over the men present.
f) In light of vs 12, 13 (which tell us that limitations upon women in the public assembly are not restricted to prayer) it is best to treat "pray" in v. 8 as a synecdoche, or a figure of speech in which "one word receives something from another which is internally associated with it by the connection of two ideas." (E. W. Bullinger: Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, p. 613) Examples of synecdoche abound in scripture.
· When Jesus said that John came neither "eating nor drinking," (Matt. 11:18) we understand that "eating and drinking" stand for all such aspects of John's austere lifestyle. (His dwelling, clothing etc. were all equally austere.)
· The meeting in Acts 20:7 was "to break bread," and we understand that "bread" here stands for the elements of the Lord's Supper including "fruit of the vine."
· So too the words "pray" or "prayer" can stand for worship in general, as for example in Acts 16:13 where "place of prayer" means place of worship.
Thus when Paul says "I want the men in every place to pray," (v. 8) it is likely, in light of what follows, (vs 11,12) that he has in mind all acts of worship. In short the point of v. 8 is not simply that males are to lead in prayer in the assembly, but that males are to lead in worship, as subsequent verses make clear.
h) On "lifting up holy hands without wrath and dissension" Douglas Moo has:
"This caution about anger and quarrelling during prayer is almost surely occasioned by the impact of the false teaching on the church, for one of the most obvious results of that false teaching was divisiveness and discord" (see 1 Timothy 6:4-5)." (What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men 1 Timothy 2:11-15, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood [RBMW])
2:9 "Likewise I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modesty and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments."
a) "Likewise" (hosautos) is a connective word, indicating that the verb ("I want") is to be taken over from the previous verse. Clearly the instruction of this verse is linked to that of the previous one. As in 3:8, 11, hosautos connects items in a series of instructions. Thus Paul is still discussing aspects of the same setting, and has in mind womens' appearance in the public assembly. However it is not only in the public assembly that women are "to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modesty and discreetly."
b) Peter uses similar language in 1 Pet. 3:3 where he says: "And let not your adornment be merely external - braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewellery, or putting on dresses." The translators have quite rightly added the word "merely" to the text here, and clearly Peter is not forbidding women to put on dresses under any circumstances. The apostle is not setting forth an absolute prohibition here, anymore than Jesus is setting forth an absolute prohibition against working for food when He says, "Do not work for the food which perishes..." (physical food)
c) We will not pause here to comment on various aspects of these instructions relating to women's adornment, "good works" and "godliness" in v. 9, since our focus is elsewhere. We simply note that (among other things) the emphasis is upon womanly reserve, modesty, and discretion. As we will see in the next verse, this same reserve, modesty and discretion is to extent beyond clothing.
2:11, 12 "Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet."
a) The word for "woman" can mean "wife" but context (the public assembly) and the contrast with "men" in v. 8 make it clear that Paul is not simply speaking of married women. The absence of the definite article ("the") before "woman," reinforces the fact that Paul is speaking here of females in general rather than of a particular group of women. Contrasts between vs 11 and 12 are obvious. The command to "quietly receive instruction" (v. 11) stands in contrast with command not to "teach," (v. 12) while "entire submissiveness" (v. 11) is opposed to "exercise authority" (v. 12). The woman's role is to be characterized by submission and learning, and in the present context this excludes such actions as teaching and exercising authority.
b) Notice that unlike some of his contemporaries, Paul takes for granted that women are to learn scripture. Unlike many Jewish leaders, Paul wanted women to be educated in scripture. However the emphasis of v. 11 is upon the way in which she is to learn. She is to learn "quietly" (N.A.S.V.) "in silence" (K.J.V.) "in quietness" (N.I.V.) (en hesychia). Under hesychia Thayer has:
"1. quietness; description of the life of one who stays at home doing his own work, and does not officiously meddle with the affairs of others 2 Thess 3:12. 2. silence: Acts 22:2; 1 Tim. 2:11."
From the word itself it is not clear if Paul is speaking of learning in quietness, that is in a gentle, non-contentious manner, (as in v. 2) or of learning in complete silence, (which is the natural antonym to "teach" [v. 12]). We will say more about this when we look at Paul's instruction concerning women in 1 Corinthians 14:34, but the main point is that in the setting under discussion, women are to learn in a particular way.
c) Women are also to receive instruction "with entire submissiveness," or in all submission (hupotage). This submission is to those from whom they were to "quietly receive instruction," namely those male teachers exercising authority in the assembly. On hupotage Thayer has: "1) the act of subjecting; 2) obedience, subjection." All (or entire) stresses that the submission is full or complete. It is significant that female submission is frequently stressed in connection with the most basic male-female relationship, namely that of the husband and wife. (Eph. 5:24; Col. 3:18; Tit. 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:1) In light of the fact the woman is to be in submission to the man in the family setting, it comes as no surprise that she is also to be in submission in God's family, the church.
d) Paul the apostle (and hence the Lord) does not allow a woman "to teach (didaskein) or (oude) exercise authority (authentein) over a man." (v. 12) First, let's say a word about teaching. The words teach, teaching (didaskalia) and teacher (didaskalos) are most often associated with authoritative instruction by those who are specially equipped to carry out the task. However, this word is also used in a more general sense (e.g. reciprocal "teaching" by way of "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" Col. 3:16). When we look at the pastoral Epistles, we find that in 1 Tim. 4:11 and 1 Tim. 6:2 didaskein is "the privilege and responsibility of Timothy: in 2 Tim. 2:2 it is the task of those who have the necessary personal qualifications." (Rengstorf, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament vol. 2.) In 1 Tim. 2:12, it is authoritative teaching of this sort which is forbidden to women.
e) Now, Paul is not here forbidding a woman to impart spiritual teaching in any situation. Older women are to impart spiritual instruction to younger women (Titus 2:3). Nor is Paul saying that women are never to impart spiritual teaching to men. Priscilla, along with Aquila "explained to (Apollos) the way of the word more accurately" (Acts 18:26) in a private setting. In fact, Paul is not even saying that women cannot teach men when the church is assembled for worship. After all, each time the church assembles to sing "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs," all members, including women, engage in reciprocal "teaching (didaskontes) and admonishing" with divine approval (Col. 3:16).
f) The key point here is that some teaching in the public assembly involves exercising authority in that assembly and some does not, just as some praying in the public assembly involves exercising authority in that assembly and some does not (see notes d and e on v. 8 above). The woman who engages in reciprocal teaching by way of "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs," (Col. 3:16) as part of an assembly lead by a male song leader, does not violate Paul's command in v. 12. It is one thing to engage in reciprocal teaching as part of an assembly by singing psalms hymns and spiritual songs, and quite another thing to address that assembly as Paul did in Acts 20:7 when he "began talking to...(the assembly) and...prolonged his message until midnight."
g) Clearly then, Paul's refusal to allow a woman to "teach or exercise authority over a man" is an obstacle to those who advocate female leadership in the assembly, because when a woman is in control of any act of worship and the minds of the worshipers, she is a position of authority over those present. Understandably then, 1 Tim. 2:12 has received a great deal of attention from liberationists in recent decades, and most of the debate has focused upon the meaning of didaskein and authentein in this verse. The arguments are quite involved, and for this reason we will consider them separately below under the heading Objections to 1 Timothy 2:12. However the bottom line is that all attempts to overturn the clear meaning of 1 Tim. 2:12 have been unsuccessful.
2:13 "For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve"
a) Here Paul explains the basis for the prohibition of verse 12. He is telling us why women are not to teach or exercise authority over men, and it is vital that we listen to him and permit him to make his own argument. Verse 13 begins with the word "for" gar, concerning which Strong says:
"A primary particle; properly assigning a reason (used in argument, explanation or intensification; often with other particles): - and, as, because (that), but, even, for indeed, no doubt, seeing, then, therefore, verily, what, why, yet."
b) According to Paul, the reason that a woman is not to teach or exercise authority over a man in the setting under discussion is that "it was Adam who was first created and then Eve." Thus the very design of creation undergirds the prohibition. The role of the man and the role of the woman in the setting under consideration is governed by creation law, and as we have pointed out, laws of this kind are permanently relevant (Part 1). Significantly, Paul also appeals to creation law in 1 Corinthians chapters 11 and 14 where he discusses limitations upon the role of women in the assembly (see Parts 3 and 4).
c) By telling us in so many words that the prohibition of 1 Tim. 2:12 is grounded upon facts of creation which are relevant to all men and all women in every culture and in every age, Paul rules out any explanation of this prohibition which appeals to culture, custom or to the local situation at Ephesus. Unfortunately many do not hear Paul at this point, and they replace the apostle's explanation with their own. They insist that the apostle's prohibition in 1 Tim. 2:12 is to be explained in terms of some local problem, historical situation or cultural tradition, and that therefore it is of limited application. A good example of this approach is to be found in a very influential book by Richard and Catherine Kroeger published in 1992.
d) In their I Suffer Not a Woman, Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence, the Kroegers affirm that within the temple systems of Asia Minor "matriarchy prevailed" and that "Ephesus stood as a bastion of feminine supremacy in religion." Allegedly, in 1 Tim. 2 "Paul addresses the notion that women were necessary to communicate ultimate truth...(and) combating the willingness of women to assume that they had a monopoly on divine enlightenment." According to the Kroegers, 1 Tim. 2:12 "is not directed against participating in leadership but rather against monopoly on religious power by women," and the prohibition only applies to women in the church at Ephesus. Of course the problem with this argument is that Paul's own explanation in v. 13 ("For it was Adam who was first created...") is completely ignored. Paul grounds his argument on the very design of creation, but the Kroegers do not hear him and locate the reason for this command in culture.
(For a good refutation of the argument that Ephesus was a "bastion and bulwark of women's rights" see the essay by S. M. Baugh entitled A Foreign World: Ephesus in the First Century, in Women in the Church, editors Andreas J. Kostenberger, Thomas Schreider and Scott Baldwin).
e) Others who seek to explain Paul's prohibition in terms of a temporary cultural situation take another route and insist (against the Kroegers) that Paul's instructions simply reflect first century practice. For example William Barclay opines: "If, in a Greek town, Christian women had taken an active and speaking part in its work, the church would have inevitably gained the reputation of being the resort of loose women." So according to this view, Paul's instructions are nothing more than a concession to first century practice and are not transcultural. Again the problem is that the apostle's own explanation in v. 13 is lost.
f) In another attempt to explain 1 Tim. 2:8-15 as a temporary regulation designed to address a particular situation, some argue that Paul is probably placing limitations upon women at Ephesus "because some of them have been so terribly deceived by the false teachers." (Gordon Fee, New International Commentary 1 and 2 Timothy) Commenting upon authentein in v. 12 Fee says:
"In context it probably reflects again on the role the women were playing in advancing the errors - or speculations - of the false teachers, and therefore is to be understood very closely with the prohibition against teaching."
Once again this position is completely at odds with Paul's own explanation in v. 13. Moreover, if Paul's purpose here is to limit the influence of errorists, why does he not say so, and why does he single out women in this context? After all, he had earlier predicted that certain (male) elders at Ephesus would speak "perverse things, to draw the disciples after them" (Acts 20:30), and what's more, the only heretics mentioned by name, Hymenaeus, Alexander and Philetus are male. (1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 2:17) Finally, are we to take it that all the sisters at Ephesus were being led astray?
g) The bottom line is that we simply must let Paul make his own case, and no amount of speculation about female dominance at Ephesus (Kroegers), cultural sensitivities (Barclay) or the effect of false teaching upon the sisters at Ephesus (Fee) alters the fact that Paul himself grounds the prohibition of v. 12 upon an eternal unchanging fact of creation, namely the fact that it was Adam who was created first (v. 13). Those who prefer their own explanation to that of an apostle are on dangerous ground indeed.
2:14 "And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression."
a) It is important to keep in mind that in v. 13, Paul grounds the prohibitions of v. 12 upon order of creation ("For it was Adam who was first created...[v. 13]) rather than upon the fact of the Fall. It needs to be emphasized that God's plan for male leadership and female subordination antedated the Fall, and that the Lord does not assign different roles to the man and woman simply because of circumstances surrounding Adam and Eve's sin. I say this because the connection between the prohibition of v. 12 and the appeal to the Fall in v. 14 is not clear to me.
b) Perhaps v. 14 contains an additional reason for female subordination, namely the fact that Eve, rather than Adam was deceived. Some believe that this is the case. However I incline to the view that Paul is here using the example of our first parents to illustrate the fact that tragic consequences followed the violation of the headship principle in the Garden. This principle was violated when Eve took the lead and Adam weakly yielded to her. Likely Paul's point is "let none of her daughters follow her in reversing the divinely established order. Let none assume the role that was not intended for her. Let not the daughter of Eve teach, rule lead, when the congregation gathers for worship. Let her learn, not teach; obey not rule; follow not lead." (William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary)
c) Anyway, if the connection between this verse and the prohibition of verse 12 is not clear, this is not true in the case of verse 13. Verse 14 may contain an additional reason for female subordination, (the Fall) or (more likely) it may illustrate the point that tragic consequences followed the violation of the headship principle in the Garden. Either way, this must not blind us to the fact that according to v. 13 the prohibition of v. 12 is grounded upon creation law.
d) This is an important point because some virtually ignore Paul's own explanation in v. 13, and then argue on the basis of v. 14, that female subordination is nothing more than a consequence of the fall. In the words of one liberationist "Both (male dominance and death) are the result of sin, itself instigated by Satan. Their origin is satanic." (Gilbert Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles) Beginning with this unscriptural premise that male headship is the result of sin, many then "reason" that since the effects of the Fall are removed in Christ, Christian women are free from the "curse" of subordination. Clearly such tortured "logic" simply ignores the apostle's own explanation in v. 13 ("For it was Adam who was first created...").
2:15 "But women shall be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self restraint."
Because this verse does not deal directly with the role of women in the setting under discussion, and because the interpretation of this difficult verse does not materially affect our understanding of the preceding verses, we will not list the many suggestions as to its meaning. Likely Paul's point here is that women will be saved, not by seeking man's place (i.e. public leadership vs 8, 12, 14) but through motherhood (teknogonias). Teknogonias is not limited to bearing children, but includes the rearing of children. Having told women to adorn themselves with good works rather than immodest clothing, (vs. 9, 10) and having instructed them to learn quietly and submissively (v. 11) and to refrain from taking positions of authority over men, Paul now adds that it is in faithful service in the family/domestic realm that women will fulfil their God-given roles.
Concluding comment: Although not every point in 1 Tim. 2:8-15 is beyond dispute, it is abundantly clear from these verses that the principle of male headship and female subordination is grounded upon the very design of creation, and that in keeping with this principle Paul requires men to lead in worship and women to quietly submit to that leadership in the setting under consideration. As we will see, other passages in 1 Corinthians dealing with the role of women in the assembly (chapters 11 and 14) reinforce this teaching, and what's more, it is in complete harmony with the biblical teaching concerning the roles of men and women in the marriage relationship.
Objections to 1 Timothy 2:12
Not surprisingly, 1 Timothy 2:12 has been the subject of much discussion and debate in recent decades, and the main focus of attention has been the meaning of the words authentein ("exercise authority" [NASV] "usurp authority" [KJV] ) and didaskein ("to teach") in this verse. Some who reject the "traditional" interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:12 have suggested new and exotic definitions for authentien, and some also insist that in this verse didaskein cannot mean simply "to teach," but must refer to a particular kind of teaching. Of course this has provoked a response from language specialists in the "conservative" camp. The result of all this is that there is now a vast amount of scholarly and not-so-scholarly literature on the subject, and some of the issues raised have become so involved that many Bible students, lacking the skills and resources of the "specialists," have simply thrown in the towel. Unfortunately this is often the outcome when those who are reluctant to accept the clear Biblical teaching on a particular subject work hard to create the impression that the relevant passages of scripture are so fraught with difficulty that the truth is unknowable.
Catherine Kroeger was among the first to suggest a strange new meaning for uthentein in a 1979 article entitled Ancient Heresies and a Strange Greek Verb. Having affirmed that "virtually without exception, female teachers among the Greeks were courtesans" Kroeger goes on to argue that in 1 Tim. 2:12 authentein may have had sexual overtones. Specifically, she suggests that Paul may have been saying, "I forbid a woman to teach or engage in fertility practices with a man," adding:
"(This) would imply that the woman should not involve a man in the heretical kind of Christianity which taught licentious behaviour as one of its doctrines. Such a female heretic did indeed "teach to fornicate" in the Thyatiran church mentioned in Revelation 2:20 (cf. 2:14f.; Num. 25:3; 31:15f.)."
Later in their I Suffer Not a Woman, Kroeger and her husband Richard, attempt to prove that authentein has a wide range of possible meanings in 1 Tim. 2:12, and express a preference for the following translation: "I do not allow a woman to teach nor to proclaim herself author of man." Clearly this is a far cry from traditional translations of this verse. The Kroegers also believe that in 1 Tim. 2:12 Paul uses the word didaskein ("to teach") to refer to teaching error, affirming that "the verb here forbids women to teach a wrong doctrine, just as 1 Tim. 1:3, 3 and Titus 1:9-14 also forbid false teaching." Thus, according to the Kroegers, women are not forbidden to teach per se, but simply forbidden to teach error. The Kroegers claim that in 1 Tim. 4:7; 5:11-13; 2 Tim. 3:6-7 and Titus 1:11 Paul "has made it clear that women were somehow involved in the false teaching."
While most liberationists share this conviction that the traditional understanding of 1 Tim. 2:12 is to be rejected, many recognize the technical shortcomings of the Kroegers' word studies, and neither of the above meanings for authentein has been widely accepted in academic circles. Another approach which has enjoyed more scholarly support among liberationists, involves treating the two infinitives (didaskein and authentein) as a form a hendiadys. Now, hendiadys is "A figure of speech in which two words connected by a conjunction are used to express a single notion that would normally be expressed by an adjective and a substantive..." (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language) By way of example consider the following:
- in Matt. 4:16 N.A.S.V. has: "the land and shadow of death," (a non-hendiadys rendering) whereas N.I.V. treats this as hendiadys and translates "the land of the shadow of death."
- in Acts 23:6 N.A.S.V. has: "the hope and resurrection of the dead," (a non-hendiadys rendering) whereas N.I.V. treats this as hendiadys and translates "my hope in the resurrection of the dead."
- in Col. 2:8 N.A.S.V. has: "philosophy and empty deception," (a non-hendiadys rendering) whereas N.I.V. treat this as hendiadys and translates "hollow and deceptive philosophy."
Thus in hendiadys two concepts (philosophy and empty deception) are treated as a single, modified concept (hollow and deceptive philosophy). Now in the case of 1 Tim. 2:12 some are arguing in the following manner:
- didaskein and authentein are to be treated as a single concept, and authentein modifies didaskein.
- thus together these terms (didaskein and authentein) describe a particular method or kind of teaching which is prohibited to women.
- the key to understanding what kind of teaching is forbidden, lies in the meaning of authentein, and in 1 Tim. 2:12 authentein does not mean "to exercise authority," but rather "to dominate" or "to get one's own way."
Putting this all together, some liberationists are affirming that the kind of teaching which is prohibited in 1 Tim. 2:12 is teaching which involves domineering or gaining mastery over another. Thus in this verse Paul is not forbidding a woman to teach a man in the public assembly, but simply forbidding her to teach him in such a way as to gain mastery over him or to dominate him.
Among the growing number of prominent liberationists who take this position is Linda L. Belleville of North Park Theological Seminary who argues as follows:
"If Paul had wanted to speak of the ordinary exercise of authority (in 1 Tim. 2:12) he could have chosen any number of words, the most common one being exousia/[kat]exousiazo. But he did not. The term authentein must therefore carry an essential nuance that other more commonly used words do not." (Two Views on Women in Ministry, editors James R. Beck, Craig L. Blomberg)
Bellview's argument is that authentein does not mean simply "exercise authority," but instead carries the negative connotation of "domineer," and she concludes that Paul's meaning in this verse is either: " 'I do not permit a woman to teach in order to gain mastery over a man,' or 'I do not permit a woman to teach with a view to dominating a man'." (ibid) Accordingly "Paul would then be prohibiting teaching that tries to get the upper hand (not teaching per se)." (ibid) Thus a woman may teach a man in the setting under consideration provided she does not use this as a means of gaining mastery over him or dominating him. In this context Belleville tells us that "a reasonable reconstruction" of the situation at Ephesus is as follows:
"The women at Ephesus (perhaps encouraged by the false teachers) were trying to gain the upper hand over the men in the congregation by teaching in a dictatorial fashion. In response, the men became angry and resisted what the women were doing...
Why might the Ephesian women have been teaching in a dictatorial manner? One explanation is that they were influenced by the cult of Artemis, where the female was exalted and considered superior to the male...(ibid)
Now, clearly Belleville's "reasonable reconstruction" is completely speculative. Nothing in the text even hints that this was the situation in the church at Ephesus, or that the error which Paul was combating involved elements of the above. Speculations about the influence of the Artemis cult count for nothing in light of the fact that Paul himself explains that his prohibition is grounded upon creation law.
But are liberationists like Belleville and the Kroegers on more solid ground in arguing for alternative meanings for didaskein and authentein? Is it possible that in 1 Tim. 2:12 the former refers to teaching error as opposed to simply teaching per se as the Kroegers suggest? Is there any real support for their suggestion that in 1 Tim. 2:12 Paul is instructing the woman not to engage in fertility practices or to proclaim herself the author of the man? Alternatively, do the terms didaskein and authentein form a hendiadys in which the latter limits the former to describe a particular kind of teaching, namely teaching which involves lording it over or gaining mastery over another? In the following paragraphs we will attempt to show that such arguments are without merit.
Didaskein: to teach or to teach error?
The claim that in 1 Tim. 2:12 Paul's prohibition is not against teaching as such, but against teaching false doctrine, flies in the face of all the evidence. The fact is that in the Pastoral Epistles the verb didasko has positive connotations. Clearly when Paul tells Timothy to "Prescribe and teach these things" (1 Tim. 4:11) and to "Teach and preach these principles," (1 Tim. 6:2) he has sound doctrine in mind, and obviously this is also the case in 2 Tim. 2:2 where he speaks of "faithful men, who will be able to teach others also." The fact is, that in and of itself, the word didasko describes an activity which is viewed positively in the New Testament, and it only carries negative connotations when the context so indicates. For example, Paul clearly has false teaching in mind in Titus 2:11 where he speaks of those who must be "silenced" because they are "upsetting whole families" by "teaching (didaskontes) things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain," but it is context rather than the meaning of didaskontes which conveys the negative meaning here. However, nothing in 1 Tim. 2:12 suggests that Paul has false teaching in mind. What's more, word studies aside, it is abundantly clear that didaskein (v. 12) stands in contrast to "quietly receive instruction," (v. 11) and since "teach" rather than "teach error" is the antithesis of "quietly receive instruction," it is clear that Paul has in mind, not false teaching but teaching per se.
In addition the Kroegers' assertion that in 1 Tim. 2:12 the verb (didaskein) "forbids women to teach a wrong doctrine, just as 1 Timothy 1:3-4...also forbid(s) false teaching," completely overlooks the fact that in 1 Tim. 1:3 Paul uses the term heterodidaskaleo. This is a compound word in which didasko is joined with heteros, a term which is variously translated another, different, and such like. Paul also uses this compound in 1 Tim. 6:3 where he speaks of those who advocate "a different doctrine," a doctrine which "does not agree with sound words" and which is contrary to "the doctrine conforming to godliness." The point is that in this very letter Paul twice uses heterodidaskaleo to speak of erroneous teaching, but he does not use this word in 1 Tim. 2:12. Instead in 1 Tim. 2:12 he employs didaskein, a term which, in and of itself, carries a positive connotation.
Too, the Kroegers' claim that in 1 Tim. 4:7; 5:11-13; 2 Tim. 3:6-7 and Titus 1:11 Paul "has made it clear that women were somehow involved in the false teaching," simply will not stand up under scrutiny. Paul speaks of "worldly fables fit only for old women" (1 Tim. 4:7) and of idle young widows going from house to house acting as "gossips and busybodies," (1 Tim. 5:13) but nothing in these verses suggests that he is combating the problem of false teaching by women at Ephesus. Moreover it is clear that when Paul speaks of "weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth," he is not describing influential female teachers of error, but rather sisters who are captives of the false teachers (2 Tim. 3:6, 7). The women at Ephesus are victims of the false teachers not leaders in teaching error.
The bottom line is that all the evidence supports the "traditional" understanding of didaskein in 1 Tim. 2:12. Paul is not forbidding women to teach error, but to teach per se, and those who are not blinded by their presuppositions have no difficulty recognizing this fact.
Authentein
Because the word authentein occurs only here in the New Testament, language specialists look to extra biblical references for clarification of the meaning of this word. Since it does not occur in the Septuagint, and is rare before patristic times, some studies have included non-verbal forms of the word, especially the noun, and because of this the validity of these studies has been called into question by scholars on both sides of the argument. Furthermore, authentein is a combination of two words, and while there is general agreement that autos ("self") makes up the first part of this compound, there is no general agreement about the identity of the second word. These and other uncertainties explain why authentein has received so much attention with the growth of liberation theology. In fact even the translation of authentein in respectable Bible versions carries different nuances, the K.J.V's "usurp authority" suggesting a negative connotation not found in N.A.S.V's "exercise authority," for example.
In 1995 a collection of essays on 1 Tim. 2:9-15 appeared in a book entitled, Women in the Church. A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (editors A. J. Kostenberger, T. R. Schreiner and H. S. Baldwin) Considered by many scholars to be the most comprehensive treatment of this passage to date, the collection includes an essay by Baldwin entitled, A Difficult Word: authenteo in 1 Timothy 2:12, in which he explains that the material presented in his essay "is an attempt to provide an exhaustive list of the ancient uses of the verbal form known to the scholars to date." Baldwin examines 82 occurrences of the verb, (listed in a 36 page appendix) and concludes that the range of meaning for authentein in 1 Timothy 2 can be narrowed down to the following:
- To control, to dominate
- To compel, to influence someone/thing
- To assume authority over
- To flout the authority of. (compare pp 73 and 80 Women in the Church)
This conclusion is yet another nail in the Kroegers' coffin, since it shows that the meanings which they suggest for authentein in no way reflect usage of this word in the New Testament period. However, as Baldwin points out at the conclusion of his essay, "Further syntactical/contextual studies of 1 Timothy are required to decide with certainty among (the above) meanings." Baldwin is telling us that his study does not exclude the possibility that authentein carries the negative meaning of domineering suggested by Belleville and others, and that it does not exclude the possibility that didaskein and authentein form a hendiadys describing a particular kind of teaching, namely teaching which involves dominating another. To decide these matters, certain points of syntax need to be considered as well, and this brings us to another excellent essay in the same book.
A. J. Kostenberger's essay entitled, A Complex Sentence Structure in 1 Timothy 2:12 goes a long way to solving the debate on the meaning of authentein in 1 Tim. 2:12. Briefly, Kostenberger sets out to consider syntactical parallels to 1 Tim. 2:12 in both the New Testament and in extra biblical literature. Specifically, he examines sentences in which two concepts are connected by oude in the same way that didakein and authentein are linked by this conjunction. Allowing for verbal forms other than infinitives to be linked by oude, Kostenberger identifies a total of 53 parallels to 1 Tim. 2:12 in the New Testament, and 48 parallels in extra biblical Greek literature. Having carefully examined every example, Kostenberger points out that in every case "the conjunction oude coordinates activities of the same order, that is activities that are either both viewed positively or negatively by the writer or speaker." By way of illustrating the point, consider the following examples where two concepts are connected in the same way that didakein and authentein are linked:
a) The birds of the air do not "reap, nor gather into barnes" (Matt. 6:26)
b) The lilies of the field do not "toil, nor do they spin" (Matt. 6:28)
c) In heaven, thieves do not "break in or steal" (Matt. 6:20)
d) Soldiers are not to "take money from anyone by force or accuse anyone falsely" (Lk. 3:14)
Thus in a) and b), oude links two activities which are viewed positively, (i.e. reaping and gathering, toiling and spinning) while in c) and d) oude links two activities which are viewed negatively (i.e breaking in and stealing, taking money by force and accusing falsely).
Now the implications of the above for 1 Tim. 2:12 are obvious: either didaskein and authentein are both viewed positively by Paul, or they are both viewed negatively by Paul. In other words, if the word "teach" in 1 Tim. 2:12 carries a negative connotation, authentein also carries this same negative connotation, and must mean something like domineer, as Belleville and others suggest. If on the other hand the word "teach" in 1 Tim. 2:12 carries a positive connotation, authentein also carries this same positive connotation, and must mean simply exercise authority or something similar. As we have seen, it is certain that in and of itself "teach" carries a positive connotation throughout the New Testament, and thus Kosetenberger concludes his study as follows:
"Since then the first part of 1 Timothy 2:12 reads 'But I do not permit a woman to teach' and the coordinating conjunction oude requires the second activity to be viewed correspondingly by the writer, authentein should be regarded as viewed positively as well, and be rendered 'to have (or exercise) authority' and not 'to flout the authority of' or 'to domineer'."
The suggestion that Paul prohibits, not teaching, but false teaching is wrong.
Another significant finding of the study is that "Neither the syntactical parallels in the New Testament nor the extra biblical parallels lend support to the contention that the second term linked by oude modifies the first term adverbially." So the argument that in 1 Tim. 2:12 the second term, authentein modifies the first term didaskein adverbially to give the meaning "teach domineeringly," is "contradicted by the fact that oude does not function as a subordinating but as a coordinating conjunction" (ibid).
(A coordinating conjunction joins things like words, sentences and phrases which are equal, whereas a subordinating conjunction makes one thing subordinate to another. Now clearly if one term modifies another term, the modifying term is subordinate, and Kostenberger's point is that since oude is not a subordinating conjunction, authentein is not subordinate to didaskein, and therefore does not modify didaskein.)
The bottom line in all this is that modern scholarship confirms the correctness of the traditional understanding of 1 Tim. 2:12. Recent debate on 1 Tim. 2:12 has not been stimulated by (for example) the fact that new principles of hermeneutics have shed more light upon this verse or by the fact that new computer-assisted word studies have made older views untenable. Rather, opposition to the traditional view is the fruit of the spirit of our age, a spirit which leads many to regard individual freedom as the ultimate good, and restraint as the ultimate evil. As one traditionalist explains:
"In secular settings, it is almost axiomatic to every popular debate that, as long as they inflict no direct harm on anther, people should be free to do whatever they want. Populist philosophy, from public schools to public advertisements, agrees that people should be free to dream any dream, to aspire to any legal goal. In this atmosphere, secular and secularized thinkers find it half-quaint, half-revolting that some Christians actually debate whether women should be allowed ("free") to preach, teach, and lead the church." (Daniel Doriani, A History of the Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2, in Women in the Church)
We see this same spirit at work in the approach which many adopt to certain passages in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 which also relate to the role of women in the church (see Part 3).