Do I Allow a Woman to Teach Men?
1 Timothy 2:12-14
“But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet. For Adam was formed first and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived, fell into transgression.”
There are a few ways in which this passage has been taken. These go from the most conservative (hard complementarian) to the most liberal (hard egalitarian):
1. Under no circumstances can women teach men in any setting.
2. Under no circumstances can women teach men spiritual truths.
3. Under no circumstances can women teach men theology.
4. Under no circumstances can women teach men the Bible.
5. Women can teach men when there is no male who is willing and able to teach, but this is not ideal (i.e. Deborah as a Judge).
6. Women can teach men in the church but should not be the primary teacher of men.
7. Women can teach men, but they should not hold a position of authority (i.e. elder) in a church setting.
8. Paul did not let women teach due to the often combative nature that teaching must entail concerning the confrontation of false doctrine, but this is limited to similar contexts.
9. Paul did not let women teach, but this was more of a proverbial suggestion rather than an absolute command. This would be likened to Paul’s suggestion that people remain single (1 Cor. 7:26) due to the “current distress.”
10. Paul’s command was purely cultural without any necessary abiding or eternal principles. Because the culture of the day was not prepared to tolerate women teaching men, Paul accommodated the culture by restricting all teaching of men to men, but this is not how God intends things today. Therefore, all teaching roles are equally accessible to both women and men.
My position is a combination of 5, 6, and 8. I reject all the others.
Focusing in on 8 for a moment:
8. Paul did not let women teach due to the often combative nature that teaching must entail concerning the confrontation of false doctrine, but this is limited to similar context. Therefore, men must be the teachers only when combating false teaching. However, because the role of a teacher in the church is so often to combat false doctrine, and because false doctrine is always a problem, generally speaking, the principles are always applicable. The “exercising of authority” is inherently tied to teaching and its necessary condemnation of false doctrine, not administration of those within the church.
The combative nature of teaching is particularly relevant to a broader understanding of the characteristics of men and women. The other day, my wife was confronted by another couple who did not believe that she was doing what was right. She used to do princess parties where she would dress up as a princess (Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty) and go to little girls’ homes and entertain them for an hour or so. She was really good at this. After we moved from Frisco to Oklahoma, she still had one party on the schedule. She called her boss and let her know that she could not do it since we had already moved. Her boss became very angry and began to threaten her. She also said that she was going to bring in her husband (who was a lawyer) and sue Kristie. Kristie became very scared and did not know how to handle this situation, especially since her boss was now using her husband as part of the threat. She told me about this and I told her not to speak to her boss anymore, but to let me handle it. I did. I stepped in and confronted both her boss and her husband’s threats concerning the issue. In the end, they backed off.
I felt that it was my duty and obligation to step in and be strong on behalf of my wife as the situation became confrontational. Kristie is both tender, gentle, and, in those situations, frightened. She was going to give in and travel back to Texas to perform this last party even though she would lose money in the gas it took to go there and back. Her boss refused to pay her mileage.
My point is that men are conditioned to handle confrontation better than women. It is not that Kristie could not have done the same thing as me, it is just that this was not her bent. Women, generally speaking, are not bent to deal with confrontation the same way as men. Teaching in the church involves, more often than not, confronting false understanding.
Can women teach? Absolutely! Can women understand and think as well as men? Most certainly. But the bent of a man is better able to handle the type of teaching that is always necessary in the church.
Would I let a woman teach from the pulpit from time to time? Yes. Paul is not restricting women teachers over men in the absolute sense. The infinitive here, “to teach” is in the present tense which suggests the perpetual role of teaching which exercises authority (confrontation).
I also believe that with the way that most elderships are set up in the Evangelical church today that women can and should be elders. I believe that women should be ordained into ministry. And I believe that women can have the gift of pastor/shepherd and carry this office, understanding that the office of pastor does not necessarily mean primary teacher.
OK, I am now going to get it from my strong complementarian friends and from strong egalitarians friends alike. At least you can say that I am not trying to be a people-pleaser!!
There is still time to enroll. The Theology Program online Summer semester begins June 3. Enroll today.
Support Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as we make theology accessible. Donate today.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- Do I Allow a Woman to Teach Men?
- The Bent of a Woman
- How bad can a Christian’s theology be?
- Men and Women: What they like and don’t like—and why it matters
- Top Ten Reasons I am a Chauvinist

watchman on 07 May 2008 at 3:08 pm #
I thought this was a strong and well reasoned approach.
2 questions:
1. I know many women who are wonderful at confrontation. Let’s say they are gifted teachers, also. Would they then be qualified for the senior ministerial position?
2. I know far too many pastors that are pansies when it comes to confrontational preaching. Should they step down?
Joel D. on 07 May 2008 at 3:30 pm #
I guess I just don’t find this women-aren’t-combative thing in the Bible anywhere. Some of the most combative people I know are women.
Maybe you could address Paul’s actual stated reasons for his position, which had nothing to do with either combativeness or culture. You quoted that verse there at the beginning and then forgot about it.
C Michael Patton on 07 May 2008 at 3:42 pm #
Good point Joel. The word “deceived” here has to do with weakness of resolve with regard to the mind, not the weakness of the mind in general. Therefore this would fit well with what I have argued. BAGD has “to cause someone to accept false ideas about someth.” The emphasis is on “to cause” and therefore the ability to be manipulated. I do believe that, generally speaking, women can be pressured and manipulated more than men.
C Michael Patton on 07 May 2008 at 3:44 pm #
Watchmen, thanks for the questions:
“1. I know many women who are wonderful at confrontation. Let’s say they are gifted teachers, also. Would they then be qualified for the senior ministerial position?”
Yes, I think that they may be qualified, but I would still say that this is not ideal.
“2. I know far too many pastors that are pansies when it comes to confrontational preaching. Should they step down?”
Great point. I do think that when men are weak with regards to issues, they should not be in a position of authority.
dac on 07 May 2008 at 3:48 pm #
I also believe that with the way that most elderships are set up in the Evangelical church today that women can and should be elders.
I would like more detail on that before I drink the kool aid.
as to this…
I believe that women should be ordained into ministry. And I believe that women can have the gift of pastor/shepherd and carry this office, understanding that the office of pastor does not necessarily mean primary teacher.
I agree
Eric on 07 May 2008 at 3:51 pm #
Odd that a couple days ago (http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/05/06/where-i-stand/) you described yourself as a complementarian - because here you have articulated, abiet with some nuance, what is basically an egalitarian position with regard to roles in the church.
Jeff_R on 07 May 2008 at 3:52 pm #
Seems to me that your (8) is based on gender role assumptions that you later, in the comments, admit to being stereotypical and not archetypal. So wouldn’t the more accurate position to be that only women or men with the appropriate training, talent and disposition for dealing with confrontational or adversarial teaching environments be encouraged/allowed to publicly teach on behalf of the church?
That seems to me to not only be much more even-handed, but significantly more reasonable and defensible as a position v. simple gender stereotyping if the foundational principle is the ability of the person as a teacher.
C Michael Patton on 07 May 2008 at 3:52 pm #
Dac,
All of the churches that I have been involved in structured the church where pastor and elder were distinct. Very rarely did the elder lead through teaching. In fact, I can’t think of an elder who ever taughts. If the eldership government that existed in the day of Paul required that elders teach and lead by teaching, they don’t do so today. I am not saying that this is necessarily wrong as I believe that there is a lot of freedom in church structure.
My thoughts are that women should have a voice in the leading of the church, even if this voice is not the ultimate authority.
C Michael Patton on 07 May 2008 at 4:00 pm #
Jeff, my argument is that the exception does not provide the rule. From the beginning I have said that men and women have inherent characteristics that define the gender. When these characteristics are celebrated, we function better.
I believe that Paul works off this assumption as well. Do you expect him to let the exception define the rule?
dac on 07 May 2008 at 4:02 pm #
My thinking (formed by my experience as much as scripture) has been that elders form the primary spiritual decision making board of the church.
It seems to me that the primary characteristic of elder is of spiritual maturity and ability to manage, to lead.
….The overseer then must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher,
… Elders who provide effective leadership must be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching
….Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, to acknowledge those who labor among you and preside over you in the Lord and admonish you
I am not sure teaching is a mandatory requirement of elder, but one of high moral character and leadership certainly is
An interesting discussion should lead from this (and you will be again be called a heretic, but you should be used to that by now) ;0
C Michael Patton on 07 May 2008 at 4:06 pm #
Eric, many complementarians do not believe that these principles are absolute. We would all except that God had to go outside the ideal in the days of the Judges because men were not being men. If culture creates situations where men and women are not recognized in their strengths, the situation worsens. When we do recognize and honor this distinction, people develop in the way they were created to.
At least this is my opinion. But there are many people smarter than me who disagree. Although, there are people smarter than me who agree as well
As always, even though we need to recognize and honor the exception, the exception cannot determine the rule
dac on 07 May 2008 at 4:16 pm #
To me, #7 holds the most logic to me.
But then again, I hold to the elder/overseer as providing overall leadership to the church, not so much as all of them being teachers
This summarizes my views well
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=433
I will be interested in how this discussion develops
David
Jeff_R on 07 May 2008 at 4:25 pm #
I don’t think Paul was making a rule at all.
You write, “my argument is that the exception does not provide the rule”. Yet you earlier wrote, “men must be the teachers only when combating false teaching.” followed by “I do think that when men are weak with regards to issues, they should not be in a position of authority.”
So, in sum, according to what you’ve written, women can teach in non-combative scenarios, men can teach in combative scenarios; weak men cannot teach in combative scenarios; strong women can teach in combative scenarios.
Based on these slippery positions, it’s difficult to see any clear normative practice you are endorsing other than your personal judgment.
I’m not trying to be difficult, I just don’t see the connection to your initial point (8) or how you’ve remotely established or defended this position other than by very selective, personal anecdote.
C Michael Patton on 07 May 2008 at 4:27 pm #
Dac, would you be indifferent to a woman being the primary teacher/pastor of a congregation?
Why wouldn’t you let a women be an elder if the role does not involve the primary role of teaching?
C Michael Patton on 07 May 2008 at 4:33 pm #
Jeff, I don’t think you are recognizing my suttle yet important nuances here.
You said:
“You write, “my argument is that the exception does not provide the rule”. Yet you earlier wrote, “men must be the teachers only when combating false teaching.” followed by “I do think that when men are weak with regards to issues, they should not be in a position of authority.””
I also said that teaching within the church will necessarily involve combative situations since most teaching is combating false understandings.
The ” “I do think that when men are weak with regards to issues, they should not be in a position of authority” was essentially saying that if one cannot confront false teaching effectively, he does not have the gift of pastor-teacher in the church (at least in a primary role).
I feel as if my position was backed up.
I will ask you Jeff, which positions of the 10 do you think best represents the truth? Is there any situation where you believe that a woman can teach a man?
C Michael Patton on 07 May 2008 at 4:35 pm #
As usual, I have many other things I have to get to. Please forgive me if the comments to many if I don’t recognize you.
I have to go teach on Roman Catholicism and it is bound to get combative. Actually it won’t since I am teaching only Protestants.
dac on 07 May 2008 at 4:43 pm #
To me it comes down to the issue of authority, not teaching
For example, this am I sat down with our Senior Pastor to discuss coordinating the teaching about Communion and Baptism in our children’s ministry with his teaching that he is planning this summer in our church service on the same. He had influence on the SS teaching, and I have influenced the Church teaching
We discussed and agreed to the approach, and I am now drafting the material (for SS) for his review ( I will also be doing the majority of the teaching (in SS), but not all of it - part of our team will be doing so)
Now, if one of the women in our children’s ministry team had done what I did (and will do) I have no issue with it - it is being done under the authority of the Senior Pastor. And indeed, we will have women coordinating various aspects of both the church service and sunday school, making decisions in regards to materials, songs, etc.
But it is all done under the authority of the Senior Pastor
Jeff_R on 07 May 2008 at 4:44 pm #
“I also said that teaching within the church will necessarily involve combative situations since most teaching is combating false understandings.”
I don’t agree with this or see how you have established it or defended it as a proposition.
I hold to position (10) roughly as you describe it.
“I feel as if my position was backed up.”
I feel as if it isn’t, so I guess we’re even.
I will ask you, Michael, if, out of every 10 scenarios, and, subsequently, every 10 potential teachers for each of those 10 scenarios, there are 7 scenarios that are exceptions to your scenario rule (i.e., 7 of 10 teaching situations are collaborative, not combative), and for the 3 scenarios that meet your rule (i.e., combative), there are 5 of 10 teachers in each who are exceptions (either way, with regard to gender) to your stereotypes (either weak men or strong women), how useful or meaningful is such a rule given the prevalence of the exceptions?
Further, if you trend history and extrapolate both of the two sets above - the teaching scenarios and the teachers (by gender and ability), I would argue you see a trend away from combative teaching and toward gender neutrality (that is, you’re more and more likely to find a qualified female teacher for a combative situation as time moves forward), so that the exceptions are growing against the rule.
So the entire “exception v. the rule” presupposition seems flawed in this application. Certainly it was more appropriate in Paul’s culture and time, but is arguably useless today and will be more compellingly argued as useless tomorrow.
C Michael Patton on 07 May 2008 at 4:51 pm #
Dac, I agree. So long as the role functions as one of authority, these are positions that women should not be in. Just like my illustration above.
My point about the elders is that most that I have ever seen are not in this type of contact with the congregation. They are usually involved in general decision making in the church (budget, buildings, moving to a third service, etc). In this, I believe women should be involved. But when it comes to positions that involved confrontation, men need to be prepared and step up. It is a shame that today’s context is becoming less and less likely to honor this role of men. Men are not encouraged to be men. Where do we go then? Sometimes a Deborah does step up.
Jeffrey on 07 May 2008 at 4:52 pm #
This is part of a passage that includes:
“Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments.” - I Timothy 2:9
Regarding Paul’s prohibition of braids, would you agree that Paul’s command was purely cultural?
What’s the difference between verses 9 and 12?
C Michael Patton on 07 May 2008 at 4:54 pm #
Jeff, if the situation is such as you describe, then people are not being encouraged in the way that God created them. I found myself in such a situation often. No men would step up to leadership. Therefore women, capable women, had to. This was not ideal, but I would not necessarily say that it was unbiblical.
dac on 07 May 2008 at 5:01 pm #
They are usually involved in general decision making in the church (budget, buildings, moving to a third service, etc). In this, I believe women should be involved.
I agree also - that was the the information in post 5 I wanted before I drank the kool aid.
glug glug
Sue on 07 May 2008 at 5:17 pm #
Men are more able to handle confrontation, therefore they are more suited to authority. Therefore men are by nature suited for the higher roles and women for the lower roles. This is straight out of Aristotle. “Men are more suited for command.” You don’t need the scriptures at all. The hierarchy between men and women is because men are by nature superior (suited for the higher and more authoritative roles.) You can derive this teaching directly from scientific observation of men and women.
You also don’t need to have gender enter into it at all. You can simply say that one who demonstrates the appropriate leadership qualities can be a leader. Gender is simply a shorcut to selection. Since men are more likely to be better leaders, let’s allow men only. This makes the shortlist shorter.
However, statistics show us that women score slightly higher than men on average at learning a foreign language. Why has not all exegesis and Bible translation been assigned to women?
Can we not say that men are reserving the teaching roles that they want for themselves and giving the others to women? If all teaching was of the same value, wouldn’t men be happier teaching bike maintenance and cooking to the weeknight groups and letting women exegete the scripture. Men should be involved in more visual - spatial activities.
Wayne Leman on 07 May 2008 at 6:10 pm #
The typo (?) of “a women” in the post title may be subconsciously indicative of how so many of my Bible-believing fellow Christians take this verse to refer to women in general rather than a singular specific woman, which the context quite possibly requires. The Greek is singular. We don’t know whether it is intended to be a singular indefinite, as English grammar allows, referring to women, in general, or a singular definite, a specific woman who was teaching error in Ephesus (note the following verses). No other passage of the Bible states that women are not to teach (men or anyone else), preach, prophesy, etc. Just this one difficult passage whose referential status is unclear.
C Michael Patton on 07 May 2008 at 6:22 pm #
Good point Wayne. But I think that the debate comes not so much from “women” or “a woman” but from Paul’s grounding of this statement. I think that most striking is not his statement of Eve’s deception, for this could be said to be purely illustrative, but his statement about man being created first lends much more support to the complementarian position.
Cadis on 07 May 2008 at 6:35 pm #
Dac,
“They are usually involved in general decision making in the church (budget, buildings, moving to a third service, etc). In this, I believe women should be involved.
I agree also - that was the the information in post 5 I wanted before I drank the kool aid.
glug glug”
ttm on 07 May 2008 at 7:21 pm #
I am so confused…how does your view of the triune God factor into all of this? For example, are the three (father, son, spirit) egalitarian in essence but complementarian in role? And if they are complementarian in role, which is the leader and which is the follower? Or does that change DEPENDING UPON THE SITUATION? (For example, the father has committed ALL things to the son and the son is given complete power to determine to whom the father is revealed–Luke 10:22. So who is the one leading and confronting? The father or the son?)
According to comment #25, the head (man, in your opinion) was created before the not-head (woman, in your opinion) which somehow proves (in your opinion) that the first created is first in line for the seat of power or the mantle of leadership. The father, son, and spirit were not created. Therefore, none is first. Does that mean there is no head? Then how is I Corinthians 11:3 properly translated?
Or, if you say that the father is the head after all, then how do you deal with Colossians 1:15ff which indicates that Christ, the son “…was BEFORE all things…so that he (the son) might have the supremacy…” Does that mean that the son, and not the father, is actually the leader?
How does the concept of “oneness” in marriage relate to the “oneness” of the trinity? Who’s the leader in the trinity? Who’s the confrontational one? Who’s the nurturing one? Who’s the one who can fix the flat tire? Does it really matter?
Puzzled on 07 May 2008 at 7:27 pm #
Since Paul seems to ground his argument in the creation/fall account, it seems to be applicable to male-female relationships, and not just “in the church.” Therefore a Christian man who is convinced that a woman should not teach or exercise authority over a man should refuse to work for a company in which his supervisor is a woman, and if he is an employer or manager, he should refuse to let a woman supervise or manage any man in his employ or under his management/authority.
Correct?
Greg on 07 May 2008 at 7:42 pm #
Just so I can plug the book one more time, Wayne Grudem answered all these questions and more (including how Deborah isn’t an exception to the rule) in his book “Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth”
Its a 900 page tome that really leaves no stone unturned in this nauseating debate, and one I think would be good to consult on all these issues.
Here it is, and I placed it at the “Deborah” section just for fun: http://www.efbt100.com/evangelical_feminism.pdf#page=131
Mitch on 07 May 2008 at 7:57 pm #
CMP
Using your hermeneutic, or your methodology, I cannot see any theological position that can’t be justified. I think this is one reason so many young people that I deal with in High Schools have little to know interest in becoming biblical scholars.
I hate being so negative, although you wouldn’t know it by my posts. I promise to restrict myself to posts I basically agree with. I really do respect the amount of study you do. I come to this blog in hopes of being edified. Keep studying. Keep posting.
Cadis on 07 May 2008 at 7:59 pm #
Puzzled #28
I think Michael hit on a very valid point and that was when he used the word ‘ideal’
Ideally I’m to love my nieghbor as my self, but when the nieghbor breaks down my front door with an axe to to rob me of everything I own do I love him in this act?
Ideally if men did all that they were supposed and created to do, and women did all that we were created to do we would have the ideal, harmony.
We don’t have God’s ideal we have what we ushered in. This does not excuse us though to not strive for the ideal. We cannot control everything around us in the world I can only strive for what God ideally intended for me.
Sue on 07 May 2008 at 8:24 pm #
Michael,
First let me say that I do not understand whether bent and conditioned are the same or different. Are women bent, that is conditioned, so that they cannot handle confrontation? Couldn’t women experience a different conditioning and be able to handle confrontation? How do single women survive?
Next, I would like to return to the text. You say,
Yes. Paul is not restricting women teachers over men in the absolute sense. The infinitive here, “to teach” is in the present tense which suggests the perpetual role of teaching which exercises authority
You seem to agree that “to exercise authority” qualifies the teaching that is not permitted to women. Many people hold this view.
However, this now means that the crux of the matter rests on the meaning of authentein.
I have read the studies and looked at the evidence and I have some fundamental questions.
What if authentein means “to dominate” then the verse would mean,
“Yes. Paul is not restricting women teachers over men in the absolute sense. The infinitive here, “to teach” is in the present tense which suggests the type of teaching which dominates. ”
In fact, this word authentein was translated with such a meaning for 1500 years. The word used was the identical word used in Gen. 3:16. Let me rather suggest,
Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”
I do not permit a woman to teach or to rule over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
My sources are,
Jerome
Gen. 3:16
et sub viri potestate eris et ipse dominabitur tui
(and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.)
1 Tm. 2:12
docere autem mulieri non permitto neque dominari in virum sed esse in silentio
(But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over the man: but to be in silence.)
Erasmus had usurpare auctoritatem in this verse.
Luther translated according to Jerome,
Gen. 3:16
und dein Verlangen soll nach deinem Manne sein, und er soll dein Herr sein. (be your master)
1 Tim. 2:12
Einem Weibe aber gestatte ich nicht, daß sie lehre, auch nicht, daß sie des Mannes Herr sei, sondern stille sei. (be the master of)
But Tyndale translated from Erasmus for this verse and not from Luther. “Usurpare” has a range of meaning in Latin from “seize” to “take” to “use” and so Tyndale simply said “to have authority,” for authentein.
In fact, Erasmus was only paraphrasing and revising Jerome’s Vulgate to go along with his Greek text. It appears that Tyndale may have misunderstood Erasmus use of “usurpare.”
In any case, a translation which uses “to exercise authority” is actually revision of Tyndale, which is a translation of Erasmus, which is a revision of Jerome, which is a translation of the Greek.
So, I am very surprised by those who say that Tyndale got it right and Jerome, Luther and Erasmus all got it wrong. That seems so unlikely as to be impossible.
But what about occurrences of authentein at the time of the NT? Here is what Andreas Kostenberger writes,
owing to the scarcity of the term in ancient literature (the only NT occurrence is 1 Tim. 2:12; found only twice preceding the NT in extrabiblical literature) no firm conclusions could be reached on the basis of lexical study alone.
The two pieces of evidence which Kostenberger cites are,
Philodemus (1st cent. BCE): “Ought we not to consider that men who incur the enmity of those in authority (authent[ou]sin) are villains, and hated by both gods and men”;
and BGU 1208 (27 BCE): “I exercised authority (authentekotos) over him, and he consented to provide for Catalytis the Boatman on terms of full fare, within the hour.” For full Greek texts and translations, see Baldwin, “Appendix 2” in Women in the Church, 275–76. (in the PDF page 13)
But, of course, the first piece of evidence does not exist as many people now recognize, and I can demonstrate this without a doubt.
In the second occurrence authentein is usually translated as “compel.” There was no official authority of any kind. One person made someone else do something. Grudem agrees with Baldwin that one person “compelled” another person in this citation. This citation is listed under the category of “compel, influence” in Baldwin’s study.
This one citation is the only evidence contemporary with the NT.
Later evidence is varied but one well-known occurrence is in Chrysostom where he tells men that they are not to authentein a wife. It is forbidden to treat her so harshly.
It appears from this that the following translation is most valid,
Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”
I do not permit a woman to teach or to rule over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
This is consistent with the teaching that sin is the cause of the domination of woman by man, and that because man was created first, woman is not to dominate man.
In any case, before Erasmus, there was no suggestion that authentein referred to “teaching with authority.”
I would very much like to see a response to this, since I do not find that “to have authority” accords with the traditional way to translate the Hebrew mashal or the Greek authentein.
In view of the evidence I do not believe that one can in good conscience regard “to have authority” as a possible translation of authentein. Our understanding of this verse must be revisited.
Sue on 07 May 2008 at 8:39 pm #
Forgive such a long comment but I believe the issue is crucial and long overdue.
Sue on 07 May 2008 at 8:46 pm #
PS Greg #29
I have read Grudem’s book and found that the footnotes and appendix are excellent. That is where I found the evidence that authentein meant “compel” or “prevail” in the only occurrence that is contemporary with the epistle.
BGU 1208 is listed in the original study by Baldwin under “compel, to influence someone.” and Grudem agrees with this assessment. Ev. Fem & Biblical Truth. page 677 - 680. According to Grudem other translators suggest “prevail” and mention that this is a hostile relationship involving insolence.
The fact that Baldwin was able to find someone who would provide a translation with “exercise authority over” has no relevance whatsoever to the argument. As Grudem says, page 680, “The translation of this text is disputed.”
You could check this out. There are no other occurrences of authentein which are usually brought into this debate once we are aware that the Philodemus segment is an untranslatable fragment.
Paul on 07 May 2008 at 8:53 pm #
How can you claim to hold to Sola scriptura when your interpretation tries to look into Paul’s mind about WHY he gave such an order, when there is no actual statement that says it?
For example, the idea that Paul gave the order because it is a combative situation. Well, that’s pure speculation.
The idea that women can teach but it’s not ideal - that’s not in the text.
The idea that it is just about “theology” and “spiritual truths”. Yes but, Paul goes to use Adam as the prototype and it doesn’t seem like this is a theological situation.
The idea that it was a cultural problem - again, not in the text.
It seems to me that you’ve got to pick between sola scriptura and many of these stances, because you can’t have both.
C Michael Patton on 07 May 2008 at 9:25 pm #
Paul, I think that it would be better put that I have to choose between your interpretation and mine
I will try to get to some of the comments soon.
you all are great!
Mike on 07 May 2008 at 9:57 pm #
C Michael.
In my thinking teaching 5,6,8 today will lead to 10 tommorrow or the next day [referring to the original post]. If they were true then obviously teach them you must. However, it seems clear to me that these 3 views are not in line with the passages and their contexts (Joel D. summed things up well).
In my thinking this whole issue is an area that really needs a reclaiming of the mind. Culture at large has done a number on Christians in influencing what they view as true equality and greatness.
Mike
Eric W on 07 May 2008 at 10:08 pm #
Sue (#32): Since Genesis 3:16 in the Greek does not use authentein, but kurieusei (rule over), how strongly does the fact that Jerome, et al, translated both it and 1 Timothy 2:12 with dominor support importing the meaning of kurieusei (rule over) into authentein in 1 Timothy 2:12? (I think that’s what you’re saying; forgive me if I misread you.)
Greg on 07 May 2008 at 10:51 pm #
Sue,
Thank you. I am happy and eager to see Grudem’s work interacted with.
Very interesting study on “authentein” as well. I may have missed it, but, pertaining to the current debate, what is its significance? (Honest question!)
Does the specific meaning you wrote in favor of influence the meaning of the verses CMP quoted to any real degree?
From my limited understanding, it would seem that “to rule over” and “to exercise authority over” are two sides of the same coin. To rule is to exercise authority, right? And exercising authority over someone implies that you already rule over them. Or am I just missing it?
Now do the two meanings bring with them a different level or severity of rule or authority? For example, would I prefer having someone exercise authority over me, as opposed to ruling over me? The former just sounds…I don’t know, less invasive I guess.
Confused!
KWK on 07 May 2008 at 11:12 pm #
To CMP,
I’ve been following the multiple posts on this topic, and I’ve not yet seen you make clear why (or if) you think that idea of distinctive “bents” of men and women are provable from Scripture (i.e. does Paul explicitly teach something like this?), or if they are only your psychological assessment. To be perfectly honest, your statements feel more like eisegesis to me, so I’d appreciate it if you could provide the foundation for your convictions on this matter.
To all,
One twist to this interminable debate which I have not yet seen addressed: in some contexts, the Greek word for “woman” is correctly translated as “wife”, and likewise “man” can mean “husband”. This, then, gives quite a different meaning to the text at hand: perhaps, Paul is not stating that (all) women are forbidden to teach and/or authentein (all) men; rather, wives are not permitted to have this role over their husbands. The reference to Adam and Eve, then, builds on their marital status rather than their status as stand-ins for “all men” and “all women”. Thoughts?
C Michael Patton on 07 May 2008 at 11:15 pm #
KWK and others,
Are you all assuming that all knowlege that Scripture assumes necessarily comes from Scripture?
Jonathan Enns on 07 May 2008 at 11:24 pm #
I think part of the confusion is the definition of what an elder is vs. what a deacon is.
Many churches have different definitions for these.
We have a senior Pastor, then elders who are MEN, able to teach, able to lead, and are in positions of authority.
Then we have deacons and deaconesses which are people who serve in the church in other capacities (ie. Finances, Building Management). The Deacons are not called to the same level of responsibility as the elders. Elders would be involved in teaching adult sunday school, leading discipleship, leading wednesday services, etc…
Deacons serve “officially” in other non-spiritual-leader roles. That being said, we have Women deacons who may lead a small womens group, or we definitely have wives who admonish their husbands!
I believe an elder should consult with his one wife when making decisions
Sue on 08 May 2008 at 12:11 am #
Greg,
Since Genesis 3:16 in the Greek does not use authentein, but kurieusei (rule over), how strongly does the fact that Jerome, et al, translated both it and 1 Timothy 2:12 with dominor support importing the meaning of kurieusei (rule over) into authentein in 1 Timothy 2:12? (I think that’s what you’re saying; forgive me if I misread you.)
Yes, the range of authentein from contemporary sources can be simply “to control absolutely” or “to take over.” It seems that Jerome interpreted it as “to be master of” which is kurieuo in Gen. 3:16. The closest that Jerome could get for authenteo was to make it a synonym of kurieuo. I think this was a fair decision although possibly authentein has a much more negative meaning even than that.
I would be interested in researching the more negative possibilities at some other time. I have not done enough research to support anything more negative than “to rule absolutely.”
So, let’s suppose this or “to be the master of.” What is significant here is that no Christian is ever told to be the master of another in the sense of “to rule absolutely.” Chrysostom also told men not to behave in this way to their wives.
We don’t really know what Paul had in mind when he wrote this word authentein. However, let us suppose for a minute that our best knowledge is that it is a synonym of the Hebrew mashal, as Jerome and Luther thought, then what does that mean?
How is mashal usually interpreted? Is it a good thing for a man to rule his wife absolutely? Not at all. Is anyone in the church told to behave in this way? Never. Does Paul ever talk of ruling? Does he describe the leadership position as rule? No. Are men to rule in this way? Never.
So, in 1 Tim. 2:12 a woman, or women in general, are told not to rule a man absolutely. There is no connection between this word and any position of proper leadership, which ought rightly to be authority on behalf of.
To interact with Grudem further, on page 34 of Biblical Foundations of Manhood and Womanhood he writes regarding mashal in Gen. 3:16,
“In any case, the word does not signify one who leads among equals, but rather one who rules by virtue of power and strength, and sometimes even rules harshly and selfishly.”
So clearly, Grudem is saying that man is “leader among equals” over woman from creation. However, because of sin, man rules woman by virtue of strength and power, sometimes even harshly.
Grudem, and I think most complementarians, have divided the exercise of power into two. First, man has authority over woman, as leader among equals, but ought not rule her harshly. Second, woman cannot even teach and be a leader among equals over men. But this is denied to woman without scriptural support.
But the text says, “I do not permit a woman to teach and rule a man by virtue of power even harshly and selfishly.”
The scriptures never once say that a woman cannot be a leader among equals.
Either no one has power over another except as a result of sin, or there is a proper leadership among equals that women are nowhere denied.
Regardless of what furhter hermeneutic this leads to, I would be more than happy to see the unsupported and highly derivative “to have authority” replaced with the more representative “dominate” or “be the master of” as we see in Luther’s translation.
And, yes, Greg, to rule over someone is invasive. A man should not rule a woman and vice versa. It is very painful to be ruled.
I have also read many of Grudem’s books and would be quite happy to interact with any of his points.
Sue on 08 May 2008 at 12:58 am #
Timothy: Introduction, Argument, Outline by Dan Wallace.
Fee is quite wrong that aujqentevw (2:12) “has the connotation of ‘to domineer’” (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 73), forsuch a meaning is almost completely unattested until the fourth century CE and is not widely used until the ninth century! (Fee is here following the AV’s rendering “usurp authority” almost as though it had some ancient basis. In reality, the AV translators knew Latin better than they knew Greek and the bilingual text they used to prepare the NT was essentially Erasmus’ text [Beza’s edition]. Erasmus published the first Greek NT [Novum Instrumentum, 1516; later called Textus Receptus] in order to defend his revised Latin translation. And since the meaning of aujqentevw had changed after Jerome translated the Vulgate, Erasmus used a different Latin verb to communicate the idea of “usurp authority.”)
And here,
1 Tim 2.12 (“I do not permit a woman to usurp authority over a man”). Many a woman preacher has said, “I am not usurping any man’s authority; the authority to preach to you today has been granted to me by the elders of this church.” That is an understanding of 1 Tim 2.12 that is based on the KJV, not modern translations.
Where did the KJV get that notion? Not from Tyndale, since he translated this verse as follows: “I suffer not a woman to teach, neither to have authority over a man: but for [her] to be in silence.” The KJV here has “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”
The key difference is in the translation of aujqentei’n. Tyndale renders it “have authority,” while the KJV renders it “usurp authority.” From what I can gather, the verb did not bear the force of “usurp” until Chrysostom (fourth century AD) gave it that spin in his comments on this text. Further, “usurp” was not the predominant meaning of aujqentevw until the ninth century A.D.
But since the word occurs less than 125 times in all of Greek literature (according to a search of the TLG database of 64 million words from Homer to A.D. 1453), the KJV translators were at a loss. Hence, they relied on Erasmus’ Latin (which, you may recall, he put forth as a correction of Jerome’s) of usurpare.
Now the Oxford Latin Dictionary gives as the first definition of this term, “To take possession of (property) on one’s own initiative (and without strict legal claim).” Jerome’s translation, incidentally, was dominare (OLD gives as its first definition of this verb, “To exercise sovereignty, act as a despot, rule”).
Thus, Tyndale’s translation was more accurate to the Greek than either Jerome’s or Erasmus’ (though Jerome’s was fairly literal, since there is no verb in Latin that is a cognate to either potestas or auctoris. Thus, if a verb has to be used, dominare is the most neutral term available and therefore the most accurate.)
But the KJV translators knew Latin better than they knew Greek, so when it came to this verb they relied on Erasmus’ erroneous Latin translation rather than the true meaning of the Greek, thereby spawning generations of faulty interpretations on the role of women in ministry. And where did Erasmus get this notion? He was a Roman Catholic priest: he read the patristic writers. In fact, he knew them as well as he knew the scriptures.
It is a remarkable thing that many today read this text as though the KJV was the accurate rendering. But most modern translations render the term neutrally (cf., e.g., RSV, NKJV, NIV [“have authority”], RV, ASV [“have dominion”], NASB [“exercise authority”], etc. Remarkably, even the NRSV, with its strong bent toward inclusive language and egalitarianism [as in 1 Tim 3:2: “married only once” for “husband of one wife”] here reads “have authority”).
There are clearly two strongly opposed points of view. One agrees with Tyndale, and the other with Jerome, Luther, Erasmus and the translators of the KJV. I would like to defend Gordon Fee’s opinion and point out that it accords with Luther, Jerome, Erasmus and the KJV. I do not share Dan Wallace’s opinion that Tyndale, one person, knew Greek better than the assembled translators of the KJB.
When Wallace writes,
From what I can gather, the verb did not bear the force of “usurp” until Chrysostom (fourth century AD) gave it that spin in his comments on this text.
He does not support this with any evidence at all. In fact, the evidence that I have provided above is quite the opposite.
We cannot have it both ways. It is time to reopen this. I do not believe that the evidence exists to support the view cited above, that authentein is a positive rule.
One of the reasons that authentein is considered a synonym for mashal is that both are used for the control that astronomical bodies were thought to have. Both are sometimes translated “to be a tyrant” or “to be a despot.” I don’t think that there is any doubt that authentein is intended as a synonym of mashal, as Jerome and Luther agreed.
I am sorry if this seems overly academic. However, I believe it is important to establish the meaning of the text. What better place? Thank you, Michael, for your patience.
Wayne Leman on 08 May 2008 at 1:00 am #
“I think that most striking is not his statement of Eve’s deception, for this could be said to be purely illustrative, but his statement about man being created first lends much more support to the complementarian position.”
I think that’s reasonable, but there was only one man created before one woman. I’ve always understood this passage as referring to women in general, but I have recently read a quite reasonable exegesis of this passage that ties everything together with “a woman” referring to a single woman teaching error at Ephesus.
I sure do appreciate the tone of your post as well as the comments. I’m not accustomed to such an irenic tone in debates on these issues. I personally think it’s good to speak with grace as you have done, especially when we really do not know what a passage means. An entire set of beliefs has been systematized based on passages which do not clearly state anything about whether gender plays any role in preaching, prophesying, or teaching. And each side calls themselves “biblical”. Would that we would take just as seriously the biblical passages which are very clear and whose teaching is repeated many times in the Bible.
Cheryl on 08 May 2008 at 1:47 am #
Hi,
What an interesting discussion! I find it especially interesting because of point #8:
“8. Paul did not let women teach due to the often combative nature that teaching must entail concerning the confrontation of false doctrine, but this is limited to similar contexts.”
My own gifting is in the area of apologetics and I have been in many situations where I needed to confront false doctrine. In fact for 16 years I led a support for ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses who had come out of the Watchtower but who came with their false doctrinal baggage. I taught them true biblical doctrine and refuted the error. I have a pastor’s heart of love for the sheep and I specialize in nurturing the sheep in the true doctrine of the faith. I also stand up to false doctrine and I do not back down from error until it is exposed and corrected. So am I an exception to God’s “rule”?
I merely follow in the calling that God has given me and I pay close attention to the inspired words and the inspired grammar of scripture. I love to teach and help others to find the truth of God’s word. I have never yet turned away a man from my bible studies because of his gender. I do not believe that God has called me to be prejudiced against any one because of their race, their social standing or their gender.
I have been privileged to have pastors and elders come to the group to listen and learn and many have been helped to understand Jehovah’s Witnesses and to learn how to share their faith with those who come knocking on their door. Many Pastors were happy to have me come and share with their congregations how to witness to the cults since seminary did not equip them for this task. Others who cannot see “a woman” in 1 Timothy 2:12 to be anything other than “all women” thus making a prohibition against all godly Christian women teaching correct biblical doctrine to men. These ones say that I am sinning against God by refusing to be prejudiced against my brothers in Christ.
Which really is it? Is it sin or is it obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ? I believe that the grammar of 1 Timothy 2:15 where Paul says “she” will be saved…if “they” shows that Paul is talking about a specific woman and a specific situation of error that necessitated Paul’s words to Timothy to make sure this specific woman is taught the truth and stopped from teaching her error. If we are to see it as a general prohibition there are many contradictions to overcome. Why would God create a brand new prohibition that restricted godly women from using their God-given gifts for the benefit of men when women were never before restricted from teaching men in the OT? Why then would Christian women have less freedom then their OT sisters? Why also would this prohibition be the only prohibition that doesn’t have a second or third witness? Why are all other laws against sin repeated in scripture at least two or three times so that there is no doubt what sin is and how to avoid it? Why is this the only “law” that is different? There are many more problems if we take this as a universal command, but no such problems if Paul was dealing with a specific situation in Ephesus.
I base my authority to use my gift with the very authority of God because of what Peter wrote:
1Pe 4:10 As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.
1Pe 4:11 Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Peter said that those (whoever) have been gifted are to use their gift to serve one another (the ones who are to serve is not gender specific) and we are to speak as one who is speaking the utterances of God. That allows all of us to use our gift with God’s authority. Amen! I will serve whomever God puts in my path and I will speak with God’s authority because he is the one who gave me that authority when he gave me his gifts. It is for the glory of Jesus Christ and he alone should receive the praise!
Sue on 08 May 2008 at 2:38 am #
Errata: The Beza edition has “authoritatem usurpare”
Chris on 08 May 2008 at 4:44 am #
“Are you all assuming that all knowlege that Scripture assumes necessarily comes from Scripture?”
If you’re assuming that a sole infallible rule of faith assumes you have other fallible sources of knowledge…. Well what was the point of assuming it is infallible and those other things are not?
Ellen on 08 May 2008 at 6:21 am #
I believe that we can learn about “authentein” from looking at the context. One word in one passage. If we allow Scripture to interpret itself, what does the context say?
Generally, the letter is about how to lead a church.
1) guard against false teachers (and we are not told who they are or what they are teaching, only that it appears to be (in part) about myths and endless genealogies. This is a wise move no matter what the false doctrine.
2) Teach the gospel - and two false teachers ARE named, leading to the knowledge that if a particular false teacher is involved, Paul names names.
3) Pray a lot
4) men…women
5) and then the passage that we zone in on here now.
a) what is proper for women
b) a woman should learn quietly in submission
c) I do not permit a woman to teach or [authentein]
d) a woman is to remain quiet
e) there is a created order
f) the verse about childbearing (which has questions all of its own)
6) and we go on to more general information, qualifications of elder and deacon
Why?
I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God
The context of the letter is how to behave in the household of God.
And in this letter, we have general, general (and naming of names), general…specific (maybe…and without naming of names), general, general, general.
If this were the only place in Paul’s writing where we are told that women were to hold their peace in church, then I’d more seriously consider the concept of one woman being a false teacher. But this isn’t the only place.
bethyada on 08 May 2008 at 7:28 am #
Wayne Leman The Greek is singular. We don’t know whether it is intended to be a singular indefinite, as English grammar allows, referring to women, in general, or a singular definite, a specific woman who was teaching error in Ephesus
This does not seem to make sense to me. You are suggesting that Paul may mean?
1. a woman (specific: ie. Gertrude)
2. a woman (general: ie. any woman)
But if it was the first option, why would Paul not write, “that woman Gertrude” when he names people elsewhere?
And even if we concede he was not going to name her, would he not write, “the woman” or “that woman”?
Could you point to your recent exegesis you read that explained this?
Kaffinator on 08 May 2008 at 9:10 am #
CMP, you wrote, “If the eldership government that existed in the day of Paul required that elders teach and lead by teaching, they don’t do so today.”
If that is true today, then it reflects a problem with our present conception of eldership, because 1 Timothy 3:2 demands that that elders/overseers are “able to teach”, and 1 Peter 5:1-2 has elders “exercising oversight”.
If the Biblical definition has elders teaching and exercising authority of some kind, and Paul says that the burdens and challenges of these roles are not for women to bear, then I have a hard time understanding why you would advocate female eldership instead of admonishing churches to conform first to biblical eldership.
C Michael Patton on 08 May 2008 at 9:17 am #
Kaff, I sometimes tend to agree, but I also understand that the roles of elders/pastor/deacon are not necessarily based on a prescriptive role, but one that was established in many different ways. This just happened to be the way it was set up in Ephesus at the time Paul wrote to Timothy.
The principles will be the same no matter how it is set up, but I am not sure it must be set up in one particular way. I think there is some freedom here.
Kaffinator on 08 May 2008 at 9:20 am #
?!
You think 1 Timothy 3 is not prescriptive?
I think I’m pulling the little chain and getting off the bus now.
Sue on 08 May 2008 at 9:37 am #
Ellen,
That makes sense. But let’s try,
1) One mediator between God and all people
3)Men should pray a lot but mostly don’t fight with each other
4) Women dress modestly
5) and then the passage that we zone in on here now.
a) what is proper for women
b) a woman should learn quietly in submission
c) I do not permit a woman to teach or [authentein]
d) a woman is to remain quiet
e) there is a created order
f) the verse about childbearing (which has questions all of its own)
6) and we go on to more general information, qualifications of elder and deacon
Frankly, Paul is not saying that only men are to pray and not fight, but that is the issue for men
Paul is not saying that only women are to learn n submission and not authentein, but that is the issue for women.
Elsewhere in scripture we do have women who prophesied, testified, taught, learned, hosted churches, acted independently as letter-bearers and receivers of letters. There were leading women, coworkers and an apostle. Women were not exluded from the discourse. They did not make up a different class of participants.
The only other passage that relates so directly to women in the church is 1 Cor. 14, which has its own difficulties. It is found in the margins of some early manuscripts and is in some way parenthetical.
It is worth noting that some of the very earliest manuscripts available demonstrated bias against women by changing the line “Nympha and the church in her house,” to “Nympha and the church in his house.”
It is rather sad that there is not one century that does not display bias against women in manuscript copying or Bible translation. Women are not well protected but suffer much disservice.
C Michael Patton on 08 May 2008 at 9:54 am #
No Kaff, just that the office of elder functioned in a certian way and it was in this way that Paul was addressing. Some churches, say of the congregationalist model, need to apply these principles, but they are going to be applied to different roles since their offices do not mirror exactly the situation in Paul’s day. In fact, I would argue that none of the current church governmental structures today mirror the situation to which Paul wrote to Timothy.
Wayne Leman on 08 May 2008 at 10:10 am #
bethyada asked:
Could you point to your recent exegesis you read that explained this?
Yes, but first let me note that your comment only deals with English words and grammar, not Greek. We must get the meaning from the Greek, not English. We must try to figure out what Paul meant from the Greek that he wrote. We have to figure out the meaning of that Greek based on the syntax of Greek dealing with the presence or absence of an article. Greek and English syntax with regard to articles sometimes differ. Is this one of those places? I cannot say. But it is a point that those who know Greek better than I do need to wrestle with.
OK, the exegesis is from Cheryl Schatz who has just jointed this comment thread. She explains the exegesis of a specific woman teaching error in Ephesus in her DVD series titled Women in Ministry: Silenced or Set Free?. There is info about this DVD series on a page of her website.
And, of course, you can interact with Cheryl directly here in the comment thread. Or you can do so on her own blog. Click here to read her blog post about the DVD series.
bethyada on 08 May 2008 at 11:15 am #
Thanks Wayne, I can’t answer this either, all I know is that Greek doesn’t have an indefinite article, though they do use their definite one a lot including frequently in front of names.
But if Michael or Cheryl are interested perhaps we could know whether the lack of a definite article with a singular noun really would apply to a specific individual. (comment 50 for more specifics)
C Michael Patton on 08 May 2008 at 12:12 pm #
I have been reading Finally Feminist by John Stackhouse Jr. (a egalitarian). He brings up the egalitarian focus on realized eschatology as compared to the complementarian focus on an unredeemed form of hierarchy. I find this interesting as complementarians feel as if the glory of the sexes will be forever complementary, even if the necessary hierarchy in certain areas is no longer needed.
Just thought I would share that.
Cheryl on 08 May 2008 at 12:13 pm #
Bethyada,
In answer to comment #50 Paul’s habit was not to identify those who were teaching error because they were deceived but he did identify those who knew the truth but were deliberate deceivers and distorted the truth. In 1 Timothy 1 Paul says that there were those who wanted to be teachers but who were completely ignorant of what they were teaching. They were not teaching the truth and they must be stopped from teaching error. Yet Paul does not name them. Paul does name the deliberate deceivers Hymenaeus and Alexander.
I believe the reason that the deceived are not named is because they still are able to be taught the truth and to turn from their error. Their names are not recorded for all time as ones who were deceived. They are to be cared for by the congregation by teaching them the truth. The deceivers on the other hand are not teachable. They already know the truth and distort it. Paul turns these ones over to Satan to be “taught” not to blaspheme. The deliberate deceivers are the only ones who are named by Paul.
Paul also spoke about “a man” not using the definite article:
2Co 12:2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago–whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows–such a man was caught up to the third heaven.
2Co 12:3 And I know how such a man–whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows–
2Co 12:4 was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak.
2Co 12:5 On behalf of such a man I will boast; but on my own behalf I will not boast, except in regard to my weaknesses.
Paul did not name this man and most people think that it was Paul himself, but it certainly was not generic man just because Paul did not use the definite article.
Paul also did not name “a woman” in 1 Timothy 2:12, but the fact that he likens her to the situation with the first deceived woman puts her in the category of a deceived person who must be taught. In 1 Timothy 2:11 he commands that she be allowed to learn. This shows that she is not a deceiver deliberately distorting the truth but one of the deceived. Verse 15 is the conclusion of the prohibition and here Paul says that “she” will be saved….if “they”. The only “she” that can be saved in the future is “a woman”. Eve is already dead and cannot do anything about her salvation. Since Paul makes a distinction between “she” and “they” there must be a single woman that “she” can be attached to. “She” cannot be the exact same as “they” or the passage would be confusing with improper grammar. It is only when we understand that “she” is a single woman and “they” can refer back to “a woman” plus “a man” from verse 12 can we finally understand that Paul is not talking about all women but a specific situation in Ephesus concerning a specific deceived woman. Since Paul never names the deceived we can then understand why this woman is not named. Make sense?
Susan on 08 May 2008 at 12:27 pm #
Cheryl, I will give you a hardy high-five for all that you are doing to reach out to Jehovah’s Witnesses/ former J.W.s with the truth! Also I commend you for sharing your expertise with the leaders/pastors of churches. I tend to agree with Michael Patton’s statements here– the position he holds. I don’t see a conflict between what you are doing, and what Michael has stated. I doubt that Michael would either. If you were to take over a church as head pastor, that would be where Michael (and I, and complementarians of even the most moderate variety) would then part company with you.
Jeff R ,and Paul, Interestingly, this is the subject of John MacArthur’s radio broadcast today. He is in the middle of a series on family roles. He was discussing the issues of wives submitting this week, and today interacted with the women in teaching roles issue. He said that Paul was responding to a cultural “women’s liberation”( or whatever his exact terminology was ?) at that time. MacArthur said that he’d done quite a bit of research on this…… so, I guess this is not only a modern day issue.
One thing I would add to Michael’s #8, is that if a woman has to take on a confrontational situation (assuming a woman is in an authority leadership position) with a man, there is a much greater likelihood that a man will be resistant to a woman confronting him, than he would be if this confrontation comes from a man (I’m thinking –in a church setting). These types of situations can become heated; power-plays.
Susan on 08 May 2008 at 12:29 pm #
Cheryl, I will give you a hardy high-five for all that you are doing to reach out to Jehovah’s Witnesses/ former J.W.s with the truth! Also I commend you for sharing your expertise with the leaders/pastors of churches. I tend to agree with Michael Patton’s statements here– the position he holds. I don’t see a conflict between what you are doing, and what Michael has stated. I doubt that Michael would either. If you were to take over a church as head pastor, that would be where Michael (and I, and complementarians of even the most moderate variety) would then part company with you.
Jeff R ,and Paul, Interestingly, this is the subject of John MacArthur’s radio broadcast today. He is in the middle of a series on family roles. He was discussing the issues of wives submitting this week, and today interacted with the women in teaching roles issue. He said that Paul was responding to a cultural “women’s liberation”( or whatever his exact terminology was ?) at that time. MacArthur said that he’d done quite a bit of research on this…… so, I guess this is not only a modern day issue.
One thing I would add to Michael’s #8, is that if a woman has to take on a confrontational situation (assuming a woman is in an authority leadership position) with a man, there is a much greater likelihood that a man will be resistant to a woman confronting him, than he would be if this confrontation comes from a man (I’m thinking –in a church setting). These types of situations can become heated; “power-plays”.
Jason Dulle on 08 May 2008 at 12:47 pm #
Paul gives the reasons for his position in the text, and they have nothing to do with culture, or a woman’s ability to handle confrontation. Why do we feel the need to ignore Paul’s reasons, and postulate our own? I’m not saying there can’t be any other reasons, but clearly any other reasons than those Paul supplied in the text are speculative, and secondary. In this post, they seem to have been made primary.
Furthermore, I think most would agree Paul’s point was that a woman does not have the authority to teach her husband. If a woman does not have authority to teach her own husband, how is it that she has the authority to teach everyone else’s husbands? It makes no sense. This whole idea of “she can teach men so long as she is not the main teacher, or so long as she is submitted to a higher authority” has no basis in the text. In fact, the Greek oude (“nor”) seems to mean that a woman usurps authority by teaching a man (because it serves to continue a negation, and places side by side things that are equal and mutually exclude each other). In other words, there is no case in which she can teach a man. BTW, Daniel Wallace points out that “usurp authority” is an improper translation. The Greek authenteo means “have authority.” So this takes away the argument that a woman can exercise teaching authority so long as there is an authority over her. Women are not prohibited merely from usurping authority over men, but from having authority over men at all.
Furthermore, Paul said a woman wasn’t even to ask questions in the assembly (she was to wait and ask her husband at home). If she wasn’t even supposed to ask questions in the assembly, what makes anyone think she can be the one doing the teaching?
Personally, I do not like any of what I said. I would much prefer to take an egalitarian approach to all of this, but I don’t see how we can based on the text.
Cheryl on 08 May 2008 at 12:52 pm #
Susan,
Thanks for those kind words! My main work right now is research, writing and video editing and most of the work is focused on helping the church to witness to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Our newest project which will be filming this week is on the Trinity. It will teach the doctrine of the Trinity as well as refute the distortions of the Trinity taught by such groups as the Jehovah’s Witnesses. It will also deal with the distortions in the church brought in by those who teach that Jesus cannot be prayed to and that Jesus has inherently less authority than the Father so that they are not equal in their actions or function. Once filming is done I will be busy editing the project over the summer.
John MacArthur is a great teacher in a lot of areas but he has a definite blind spot when it comes to women teachers. He does not allow women to teach men even in private home bible studies. His view is that Eve brought sin into the world and that women are given the privilege of raising godly seed to balance the shame they have because the woman was the original sinner and she became the destroyer of the man. In my DVD on the subject of women in ministry I use a lot of John MacArthur’s audio clips regarding his very strong view of women that he has taught over the years and I use scripture to refute these views. John MacArthur has a copy of my DVD (he received it by request) and although he has been treated very kindly and with love as a dear brother in Christ, he has not answered the foundation of the arguments that have refuted his view. I do view him as a brother in Christ, but I think most people do not realize his very harsh view of women.
Suzanne on 08 May 2008 at 12:58 pm #
Jason,
BTW, Daniel Wallace points out that “usurp authority” is an improper translation. The Greek authenteo means “have authority.”
Dan Wallace does not support this assertion with evidence. Jerome, Chrysostom, Erasmus, Luther, the 47 translators of the KJB, Gordon Fee, and many, many others assert that authentein has a meaning synonymous to the Hebrew mashal and judged by many to be negative.
The footnotes to Baldwin’s study in Grudem’s Ev. Fem and Biblical Truth are clear. The one and only occurrence of authentein contemporary with the NT is ” compel.” That is all the evidence that there ever has been. There is no more evidence than this.
I think we have to go with the weight of scholarship. There is a real need for scholars to interact with the historical record and the issue of authentein. Until then, I suggest that we use a term such as “rule over.” But there is no connection whatsoever with church leadership, or proper comprtment in the home of either husband or wife.
The bahaviour referred to by authentein is indeed comparable to the Hebrew mashal, and is strictly forbidden by Chrysostom for men as well as women.
Cheryl on 08 May 2008 at 1:18 pm #
Jason,
I certainly understand where you are coming from, but there are things in the “hard passages” on women that many have missed that adds much to the understanding of the passages. For example do you know that there are common words for “authority” that are not used by Paul in 1 Timothy 2:12? Instead of using a word for “having authority” over someone, Paul picked an extremely obscure word that is never repeated in scripture. This means that men are never given the okay to “authenteo” anyone. Why? I think we can get a good idea of what this word means by reading The Complete WordStudy Dictionary which gives this meaning for authenteo:
murderer, absolute master, which is from autós (G846), himself, and éntea (n.f.) arms, armor. A self-appointed killer with one’s own hand, one acting by his own authority or power.
This would not be acceptable for a male or a female and thus helps us to understand why Paul never says that men can “authenteo” any person.
Also as far as women are to keep silent in the church, 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 has several noted words and phrases that are a part of the oral law of the Jews and which are not found in scripture. For example the words that say “it is improper for a woman to speak in church” are literally the term that calls a woman’s speaking as “filthy”. This is the exact same term that is used by the Talmud regarding women’s voices. They were not allowed to speak in the presence of a man because their voices were considered filthy and sexually seductive. No woman was allowed to read the Torah in the Jewish assembly because she was considered to be a stumbling block to the men because her voice was considered sexually seductive (hence filthy) so her silence was mandated by the oral law.
The question then is why would Paul agree with the Jewish oral law that a woman’s voice is filthy and why would he appeal to an oral law that forbid women from speaking in the assembly? There is no biblical law that forbid women from speaking in the assembly so this could not possibly be a biblical “law” that was referred to. However we can clearly understand Paul’s reasoning if we understand that in 1 Corinthians Paul is answering questions and conflicts brought to him by the Corinthians. Paul mentions the letter written to him from the Corinthians and he gives his answers in 1 Corinthians to the conflicts and questions. Many have brought out the fact that verses 34 & 35 are a quote from the Corinthian’s letter to Paul demanding that women be silenced in the congregation just as women’s voices were silenced in the Jewish synagogue. Yet Paul’s answer to the quote is in conflict with the claims of the Jews. In verse 36 Paul exclaims “what!” Did the word of God only come forth FROM you (men) and did it only come TO you (men)? The Jews wanted women to learn at home (let them ask their husbands at home) and no speaking in the assembly, yet Paul refutes that. Paul let women learn and let them speak (see Paul’s instruction about all learning and all given freedom to prophesy in the first part of 1 Cor. 14) Paul’s wording in verse 36 uses the Greek word ??? which causes us to understand that Paul is refuting the words in verse 34 & 35.
For a complete explanation of how Paul refutes the teaching that women’s voices are filthy and refutes the idea that God has a “law” that forbids women to speak in church I would recommend my DVD called “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” All of the documentation is there and I think it will open your eyes to things that you have never considered before from the text.
C Michael Patton on 08 May 2008 at 1:43 pm #
Here is the best information we have on this word. It is from BDAG which most scholars would agree is the best Greek Lexicon there is.
If one has a mind to, they can look up all of these references and then see that the translators know what they are talking about when they translated it “to have authority over.”
authenteo, (Philod., Rhet. II p. 133, 14 Sudh.; Jo. Lydus, Mag. 3, 42; Moeris p. 54; cp. Phryn. 120 Lob.; Hesychius; Thom. Mag. p. 18, 8; schol. in Aeschyl., Eum. 42; BGU 1208, 38 [27 BC]; s. Lampe s.v.) to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to w. gen. of pers. (Ptolem., Apotel. 3, 14, 10 Boll-B.; Cat. Cod. Astr. VIII/1 p. 177, 7; B-D-F §177) avndro,j, w. dida,skein, 1 Ti 2:12 (practically = ‘tell a man what to do‘[Jerusalem Bible]; Mich. Glykas [XII AD] 270, 10 ai` gunai/kej auvqentou/si t. avndrw/n. According to Diod. S. 1, 27, 2 there was a well-documented law in Egypt: j, cp. Soph., OC 337-41; GKnight III, NTS 30, ’84, 143-57; LWilshire, ibid. 34, ’88, 120-34).—DELG s.v. authenteo. M-M.
If one were to translate it “to tell a man what to do” I have no problem. I think it supports the best evidence. In the context then, what we have is a position of authority. The implication is that a man can tell another man or women what to do in the church setting. This often will have confrontational implications. A women should not. I believe this is also do to the confrontational nature of what may be involved. The women was not able to confront the serpent and, in this sense, was deceived. I suppose Paul believes that this illustrates that men are, generally speaking, going to be better leaders in the church setting. I think it is the best we can do.
But, again, the primary issue is not just the statement of Paul, but how he backs this up theologically. I would also focus on his “Man was created first” argument. I think it ties in sufficiently to the argument I have made in this post.
I would also look up the word in Moulton and Milligan’s vocabulary of the Greek New Testament.
Cheryl on 08 May 2008 at 1:52 pm #
What we can see is that males are never given the right to authenteo other men or women. It is not a “right” or a good thing. So Paul takes an obscure word and applies it to a situation that in context has to do with teaching and deception. The context confirms that what is prohibited is not a good thing but a thing to be avoided. We cannot simply turn the words around and say that Paul is prohibiting women from doing something that men are allowed to do thereby making a distinction between men and women’s spiritual use of their gifts. If Paul were indeed disallowing women to teach the bible to men then we would expect to find this confirmed in other passages of the bible or in actual practice. Yet we do not find either another confirmation that the prohibition is for women in general nor do we find anyone rebuking women or disciplining women for teaching the truth of the bible to men. We need to ponder this and ask ourselves why?
Suzanne on 08 May 2008 at 2:06 pm #
Michael,
You have helped a great deal in quoting from BDAG. THe primary meaning you cited,
to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to
is not appropriate for man or woman. It does not apply to the proper exercise of authority in the church.
Your implication here,
“The implication is that a man can tell another man or women what to do in the church setting”
is not supported by the evidence. If this word refers to the result of sin in Gen. 3:16, then it refers to an improper use of authority. If we had evidence that a man may normally authentein another man or a woman, then that would be fine. In the absence of this evidence, we must reconsider.
C Michael Patton on 08 May 2008 at 2:15 pm #
Yes Suzanne, but this is only for a woman. If Paul did not mean such then the passage loses all meaning.
Cheryl on 08 May 2008 at 2:21 pm #
Michael,
It doesn’t lose its meaning at all if it is for a particular woman and not all women in general.
C Michael Patton on 08 May 2008 at 2:28 pm #
I am sorry, but I fail to see how this would not make it lose relavance. I could just as well take an anarthrous reference to anything, change it into a particular and do away with pretty much all of the commands in the NT. The context does not at all suggest that this is dealing with a particular woman. I am sorry, but to me that is grasping a more straws than the homosexual defense of nature in Romans 1 refering to “going against their own homosexual tendancies.”
I think it would be better to take the cultural approach, the illustrative approach, or the proverbial approach. Each of those has much more credit in my opinion.
WAIT A MINUTE!! Are you trying to teach me?
Cheryl on 08 May 2008 at 2:38 pm #
Cute, very cute
Now, let me ask you who the “she” is that Paul refers to from 1 Timothy 2:15 and who are the “they”? This is connected to the prohibition … Paul says “for” in verse 13 “and” and “yet” in verse 14 and “yet” in verse 15. All the verses are connected to the prohibition. It is important for the context for us to know who Paul is talking about thus knowing who “she” is, is very important.
Susan on 08 May 2008 at 2:52 pm #
Jason, you said “Women are not prohibited merely from usurping authority over men, but from having any authority at all”
I would say that a woman can teach mixed-gender groups without exercising authority over the men.
Jason, (and Cheryl) (and Sue),
As to your comment about a woman waiting to ask her husband at home…. I just read the sn note in the NET Bible. This note may have been written by Daniel B. Wallace, at least it was approved by him (Sr. NT editor of that translation).
” ‘For they are not permitted to speak.’ In light of 11:2-16, which gives permission for women to pray or prophesy in church meetings, the silence commanded here seems not to involve the absolute prohibition of a woman addressing the assembly. Therefore (1) some take ‘be silent’ to mean not taking an authoritative teaching role as 1Tim 2 indicates, but (2) the better suggestion is to to relate it to the preceding regulations about evaluating the prophets (v.29). Here Paul would be indicating that the woman should not speak up during such evaluation, since such questioning would be in violation of the submission to male leadership that the OT calls for (Gen 2:18).”
(this is how this passage was recently handled by pastors at my church).
For those who are interested in the manuscript evidence for this, and following verses, there is a very lengthy discussion of it in the translator’s note which follows (this translation… the scriptural text, (new) and notes are accessible at bible.org).
Cheryl, you are correct in assuming that I might not know much about MacArthur’s teaching on this subject. It sounds as if he takes an extreme comlplementarian position. Even this morning I only caught a small segment of his talk. Where would you place yourself in the spectrum between the equalitarian and complementarian positions?
bethyada on 08 May 2008 at 3:09 pm #
Cheryl, I don’t speak Greek but I understand English grammar. I don’t deny the singular of any word can be specific. The boy saw a car. We know nothing about the the car but it had a specific licence plate. The same can be said for a man caught up to heaven. This is because Paul is clearly talking about a specific event (whom we know is Paul because he later identifies himself). Thus far we agree.
But the comment we are debating is a general comment by its construct.
But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.
In English it cannot mean a specific woman, but perhaps there is something about Greek grammar that means this situation is different from English. And if this is the case then a second question: can the indefinite man also be a specific person?
An aside: I don’t agree that Paul does name people who can be corrected, he does in Philippians 4. Elsewhere he mentions how he rebuked Peter.
Cheryl on 08 May 2008 at 3:10 pm #
Susan,
There are problems with that interpretation and I deal in detail with the problems in my DVD. To be brief, the first problem is that a “law” is appealed to regarding the “silence” whatever you take the silence to be. However there is no such law in the OT. Genesis 2:18 says nothing about submitting to male leadership. The word “helper” is a term used often of God in the OT and he certainly is not submitted to our leadership.
The second problem in the 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 passage is that the description of a woman’s voice is “filthy” the same as the oral law. Paul never appealed to man’s law to support a Christian rule. The last problem is that the wording of verse 36 shows that it is contradicting the preceding verses. Would Paul suddenly contradict himself or is Paul contradicting a quote from the Corinthians. This has been a very troubling passage and more and more theologians are coming to the conclusion that Paul is refuting a demand by the Corinthians to limit the women’s speaking in the congregation. Paul refused to do this just as he gave women freedom to speak in prophesy in the earlier part of chapter 14.
Lastly if Paul was forbidding women to judge truth from error in judging the prophets, then women are not allowed to “judge for yourselves” as Paul taught Christians to do to be mature. Women then would have to rely on men’s judgment of what is right and wrong instead of judging for themselves. It would also mean that women apologists would be forbidden. That would be me. Am I disallowed to judge truth from error and forbidden to show Jehovah’s Witnesses correct doctrine and refute the error? I don’t think so. God’s gifts are not given to people who cannot use those gifts for the common good.
A much better interpretation is that Paul is refuting some of the Corinthians who wrote him regarding his teaching on women. Paul freed women to serve the Lord Jesus but those who believed that women were restricted from learning in the congregation and restricted from speaking with their filthy voices in the congregation were insisting that Paul stop the women. Paul’s indignant what! and his questioning those men that only they should learn and only they should speak is not God’s way. Rather God’s way is the commands that have come from Paul (plural commands). These commands have been expressed throughout chapter 14 and they include allowing women to prophesy (using their godly voices
) in the congregation!
Cadis on 08 May 2008 at 3:15 pm #
I’m not understanding the weight of the “mashal” /”authentin point that is being made. I understand it but I don’t understand what it proves.
In Gen. 3:16 , and he shall rule over thee.
You only offer 2 options. This is good or this is bad. Brute force being bad thus it is a bad thing.
The ground being cursed was a bad thing, but we are told it was cursed for Adam’s sake “cursed is the ground for thy sake”
Was the cursing of the ground a good thing or a bad thing?
I wouldn’t say that anyone would think that “mashal” is a good thing but it is a result of the fall no doubt. There were only two people there and this ruined thier relationship from harmony in thier roles to knowing good and evil and competing against each other, Mis-trust was also now a reality. Adam because of the fall could no longer easily be the head but would at times, and many times have to strive or struggle to overcome the woman for it.
He now went from guiding and a peaceful headship to a sin filled war zone. No this is not a good thing. Option 3 is.. it is the reality and at times a neccessary thing. It is good in that it is what needs to be applied at times to keep order and some harmony because of the fall.
Cheryl on 08 May 2008 at 3:17 pm #
Bethyada,
You said: “But the comment we are debating is a general comment by its construct.”
The context is what defines whether the comment is general or specific. I contend it is specific because of the specific grammar in verse 15. Paul specifically says “she” and “they” in this verse and there is no other “she” in the singular to attach this to that is not the same as “they” other than a single woman from verse 11 & 12.
You also said: “An aside: I don’t agree that Paul does name people who can be corrected, he does in Philippians 4. He mentions how he rebuked Peter.”
What I actually said is that Paul does not name those who are deceived and therefore are in a position to learn and correct their doctrine. In the case of Peter, Peter was not deceived. Peter was acting publicly as a hypocrite and Paul called in on it publicly. This is not the same situation as a deceived teacher teaching in ignorance. I use this exact same illustration in my DVD so it is a good point but not the same as the situation with the unnamed false teachers.
By the way, I appreciate your graciousness. It is very refreshing.
Cheryl on 08 May 2008 at 3:22 pm #
Cadis,
May I respectfully suggest that it is not a good thing for a husband to take authority over a wife against her will. God has not given the right for a man to overrule his wife’s will.
When Jesus was here on this earth and he wanted to wash the feet of his bride, he did not force his will on Peter. Peter said “no” but instead of taking authority over Peter against his will, Jesus did what a godly husband should do. Jesus explained to Peter why Jesus’ sacrifice was needed. He said that if he did not wash him, he would have no part in him. Once Peter was reasoned with and understood the importance of Jesus’ service to him, Peter submitted out of his own free will. Jesus never gave an example of himself as a godly husband forcing his bride and overruling her will. He also did not give any example in scripture where the husband is told to take authority over his bride. This is not God’s way. Respect, love, sacrifice and free will submission are God’s way and any other way is the way that has become ours because sin entered the world.
Wayne Leman on 08 May 2008 at 3:23 pm #
But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.
In English it cannot mean a specific woman, but perhaps there is something about Greek grammar that means this situation is different from English.
Actually, in English it can refer to a specific woman. English indefinites (corresponding to Greek anarthrous) can refer to a specific person or to persons in general.
We don’t easily understand how in this context it can refer to a specific woman, I would suggest, because that is not how we have been taught the meaning of this passage. I don’t know if that is the case with you, but it has been for me. I never realized that this could be an anarthrous specific until fairly recently.
C Michael Patton on 08 May 2008 at 3:23 pm #
Cadis, I agree.
The biggest problem with the proposed interpretation is that it makes no sense. Are we suggesting that Paul really felt it necessary to instruct Timothy in saying that he (Paul) does not allow a women (or even the particular women) not to rule over a man with brutality?
If this is the case, I think that the men in Ephesus needed a daddy. Something has gone wrong. Were these women/woman from Themyscria?
Cheryl on 08 May 2008 at 3:30 pm #
Michael,
I think that we need to consider what harm comes when a man who knows the truth of God’s word let’s a woman teach him her error and he does not stop her. Does this remind us of the first couple. Did Adam know the truth? Absolutely! The bible says that he wasn’t deceived. Was Eve deceived by the serpent? Yes, she was and that is her testimony and the testimony of Paul who said that she was deceived. Yet we find the one who knew the truth saying nothing and letting the one who was deceived give him the fruit and he eats it. How does the situation of Adam and Eve relate to one woman teaching her error to her husband? I think the comparison is very meaningful and the result of the woman offering her husband the fruit and him choosing to reject God’s word and reject God’s command and eat of that fruit was the very act that brought sin into our world. I believe that it is an interpretation that is worthy of consideration.
Wayne Leman on 08 May 2008 at 3:30 pm #
I could just as well take an anarthrous reference to anything, change it into a particular and do away with pretty much all of the commands in the NT.
And the key word there is “could”. The answer is that we *shouldn’t*. Context can often help us determine whether an anarthrous noun phrase is generic or specific.
The context does not at all suggest that this is dealing with a particular woman.
That’s a statement of your opinion, not a statement