This is just a quick post about the term "Mashal" used in Genesis 3:16. I will also discuss other things in Genesis that relate to some Complementarian arguments about women's place before the fall.
"Mashal" is the Hebrew word for "rule". Some Complementarians try to argue that the rule of Adam over Eve that came as a result of the fall (when God prophesied to Eve that Adam would rule over her, after she "turned" to him.) was a dominating, "lord it over" kind of rule, not the righteous ruling they have in mind when they say a husband should have authority over his wife.
Mashal: To rule, to have dominion, to have authority.
This word is the generic term for "rule", it is not negative. It is used of God's rule over people, even Israel, many times. It is also used of the rule of Israel over the nations, if they remained obedient to God (Deut 15:6) In 1 Kings 4:21, it is used of Solomon's reign. In 2 Samuel 23:3, God says that when men "mashal" over others righteously, in the fear of God, it is likened to good and refreshing things. So obviously, "mashal" does not denote negative rule primarily or only. This is merely a small sample of the positive uses of "mashal".
Therefore, it is pretty clear that Adam ruling over Eve at all is the "ruling" God predicts will happen because of the fall, not only a negative, domineering rule. This is very convincing evidence that there was no such "ruling" over each other before the fall between man and woman, and that the "ruling" that comes after the fall is similar to the curse on Eve's reproductive endeavors, and the curse on the ground for Adam's sake, with his need to toil in order to grow food. They were all God's predictions of what would happen because of sin, or what God would make happen (pain in childbirth) because of the first couple's sin.
Many men work in offices, far away from the toil of the field today, and farmers use technology to rid themselves of troublesome plants. We use medicine to lessen the pain of childbirth, and to lessen the pain and severity of the injuries we get from working and toiling away at our jobs. We use life support technologies to avoid returning to the ground, and turning back to dust.
We try to avoid the negative repercussions of the fall all the time; yet, when it comes to Adam's "rule" over his wife, some want that repercussion to stay in full force. Despite what the NT really says about rule and authority within the body (check my last post for an in-depth look), some men and women today prefer to keep Adam's prophetic ruling over Eve as a sacred pre-fall ordination. One wonders why they object to embracing the other curses?
In the second part of this post, we will look at the "naming of woman", the central "act of authority" (or so some say) that Adam exercised over Eve before the fall, when he officially named her "woman".
The verse is Genesis 2:23
It states that Adam said "she shall be called woman", because she was taken from man. The word "name" is not in this text, unlike Gen 3:20 where Adam calls woman's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. God (or Moses who wrote this at least) had already called Eve "woman" before she was given to man to "call" woman in Genesis 2:22. Of course, God already knew what Adam was going to call her, or rather, what she would be called. Eve named Seth (Gen 4:25), but that did not mean she had authority over him for his entire life simply because she named him.
Hagar did not only call God something, but like what Adam did when he called his wife's name "Eve" (same words used for both instances in Hebrew), she called His name "El-Roi" (You are God who sees) in Gen 16:13. Hagar did not have authority over God, yet she named Him. She did this out of intimate appreciation and love for God's help... just like Adam did with Eve.
Why calling someone something means you have authority over them, I do not know. Maybe it's because we associate naming with authority in our culture. However, two friends or lovers can make up names for each other, and it is a special act done out of fondness. In the Garden of Eden, there was nothing but love and friendship, so why not have your husband and lover name you? It is a pleasant thing for both parties, especially because Adam loved her and gladly proclaimed that she is right for him, and that she is of him. People in the Bible named their children,
God named people, Jesus named some of His disciples, and Hagar named God, but that doesn't necessitate that naming something means you have authority over that which you name. People also "helped" other people under them in authority, Jesus "helped" us, and God was "a helper" to many, but that doesn't mean that Eve, although called a "helper" with the same Hebrew word that was used of God, therefore had authority over Adam (since he was the one who needed help).
Adam did name the animals (Eve did not exist yet), but it seems the purpose of this was for Adam to realize his need for the woman, his true corresponding helper (the animals were all inadequate for this role). Adam and Eve both were called to rule over the animals and the Earth as God's representations however, it was not only Adam's job just because he alone named them. Adam and Eve would have had authority over the animals whether either of them named the animals or not.
Remember that both Adam and Eve were to subdue the Earth and have dominion, not Adam alone. When Adam and Eve sinned, both were held accountable seperately, and each was spoken to by God about what they had done and what would happen as a result by themselves. Adam was not held accountable for Eve's sin as if he ruled her and was therefore accountable for her. Eve was questioned by God and punished accordingly herself.
Adam was called out first by God after both Adam and Eve sinned for some reason, perhaps because he sinned willingly (Eve was very deceived, but Adam was not deceived, according to St. Paul in 1 Tim 2:13-14) and had more experience with the garden and God than Eve (she was younger and did not get to see the animals being made and brought to her, nor God growing the garden and placing her in it, as Adam did.) Having more knowledge and privilege than Eve as the "older child", Adam was more culpable for his own willful action, and lack of action in protecting Eve as her partner while he watched her discuss the fruit with the serpent (and Eve was culpable for handing the forbidden fruit to Adam who was with her, which she should not have touched or handed out). I think this is a plausible reason why God went to Adam first and then Eve in order to discuss their sin, but whatever reason God did what He did, to make this action imply Eve's subjugation to Adam and his rulership over her is I think going WAY further than Scripture.
The serpent is cursed first and God prophesies that the woman's seed will crush him (he sinned first)
Then the woman is cursed and God prophesies that she will turn to the man and he will rule over her (she sinned second)
Then the man is cursed and God prophesies that he will eat from the ground through toil and hard labor until he returns to dust in death (he sinned third)
These curses that God pronounced on either sex are not exhaustive; just because God doesn't tell the woman that she will turn to dust like Adam doesn't mean that she won't, just like Adam's curse of thorns and thistles and hard labor aren't male-exclusive curses. If Eve died solely because of Adam's sin and not her own, then Eve would have died if Adam only had sinned. God would be putting to death someone who was not in Adam when he sinned, and remained innocent of any personal crime, for Adam's sin. Is that fair?
Honestly, I think using Scripture like some Complementarians do would lead me to associate Eve's "helpership" and Adam's "needing help" as Eve having authority over Adam, since he needed her first and she was his helper (rescuer), like God when He helped His people (who were under his authority). Or that Adam is himself not as "good" as Eve, because Creation was only called "very good" after Eve was made. Or that Eve had rulership over Adam before the fall, because she talked to the serpent while Adam was silent, and part of the fallen order was that Adam would rule over her at some point in the future (suggesting he didn't before).
Or I could read all sorts of things into the text that are unfounded and ridiculous, like that men shouldn't have authority over women because they are too susceptible to willful sin (Adam's sin was treachery, he was not deceived like Eve, Hosea 6:7, 1 Tim 2:13-14) and trying to "rule over" women, and Adam did not save Eve or do anything to help her when he was with her as she talked to the serpent (therefore he is prone to avoiding protecting his wife or aiding her).
Or I could use 1 Cor 11:10-12, Gen 21:12, and 1 Tim 5:14 to say that, since all men after Adam come through women (in birth), and since a woman should have authority over her head (man is her figurative "head"), along with God telling Abraham to listen to whatever Sarah told him, and young widows are told to "rule the home" (oikodespoteo), women should rule over men. In accordance with the curses given to Adam, men must only work the ground (no desk jobs) with sweat and toil (no easy stuff that doesn't cause sweat) until they die (no retirement).
I don't believe any of those improperly derived conclusions, I think they are unjustified speculation or simply inappropriate conclusions that don't fit the rest of the Bible, nor are most of those ideas explicit or even implied (unless you try really hard to make them implications, to justify your position.)
At this point, I lean Egalitarian, but even if I was totally and utterly convinced of a strongly "feministic" form of Egalitarianism in every respect, I would not strain passages to try to prove "female rule", but rather affirm the equality between men and women.
If you have read this and were unconvinced because you are under the impression that 1 Tim 2:12 says women shouldn't "exercise authority" over men (or that men are to exercise authority or rule over others in the Church), or that women never had Church offices, or that only women are instructed to "submit", please see my last two posts: authority and submission, 1 Tim 2:11-15.You may be very surprised at what you find in these verses that you may never have had adequately explained to you by Complementarian teachers (or Egalitarian ones).
My next post will be probably be on 1 Cor 11:1-16, so I can go through the text and hopefully help my readers understand what the verse really means, and what it almost certainly does not or cannot mean. (this verse has been poorly translated in many modern Bibles; it may shock you how some translators misrepresented God's words in that passage.)
Friday, January 4, 2013
Monday, December 17, 2012
Ruling over one another, or submitting to one another?
Man, I'll tell you what. I've learned a lot about Jesus' stance on authority over the past few months. I'd like to discuss some of what I've found.
We probably all know the three passages in Matthew and Luke about Jesus' disciples not being allowed to "Lord it over" or "exercise authority" in Christ's Church like the kings and "benefactors" of the gentiles do to those under them. But did you know that Luke uses slightly different wording than Matthew and Mark for "lord it over" and "exercise authority" to make a similar argument?
Check it out:
Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them (katakurieuo), and they that are great exercise authority upon them (katexousiazo).
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister (deacon);
Mat 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar 10:42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them (katakurieuo); and their great ones exercise authority upon them (katexousiazo).
Mar 10:43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
Mar 10:44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luk 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them (kurieuo); and they that exercise authority upon them (exousiazo) are called benefactors.
Luk 22:26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
Luk 22:27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both Matthew and Mark use intensified versions of "kurieuo" and "exousiazo", but Luke uses the unintensified, normal words for lordship and exercising authority. Yet, I have found in several translations that "Lord it over" is made to fit "kurieuo" as if this word only restricts a bossy negative rulership, and not "good" lordship. The fact is, this word is used for the lordship of Christ, in Rom 14:9 and 1 Tim 6:15.
Peter, perhaps the most "authoritative" Apostle (in some people's eyes), recognized that "katakurieuo'ing" was inappropriate for him to do, or any other shepherd to do over "The Flock" in 1 Peter 5:3.
But Paul recognizes that even the benevolent lordship that "kurieuo" represents was inappropriate for such an illustrious Apostle as he. Christians are a band of brothers who shepherd and look after one another, not lords or masters of each other in Church Life. In 2 Corinthians 1:24, Paul says that he and his cohorts do not "have dominion over" or "rule over" the Faith of the Corinthians. Oddly, in many translations, like the NAS (can't say I'm surprised), Paul is only saying he and his comrades don't "lord it over" the faith of the Corinthians, which to our ear today sounds like he is only avoiding domineering, and not also avoiding proper rulership, which is what the word really means.
However, when women and authority are being spoken about, particularly in 1 Tim 2:12 and 1 Cor 11:10, suddenly the words that are known to refer to either true domineering (authentein) or positive authority that one has oneself (exousia) are covered over.
1 Cor 11:1-16, a passage that is about how women are the glory of men, their metaphorical heads, so they shouldn't shame their husbands by how their hair or head appears. It goes on to say that women are to have authority over their own heads, and that men and women are not separate in The Lord, since both are sources of the other, and all of those things are of God.
This passage has been made into a text enjoining symbols of subordination or symbols of male authority, with what seems to be stunningly brazen disregard for what the words of the passage really mean, especially when you compare the words used of women having authority over their heads in 1 Cor 11:10 and other Scriptures where people or things have "authority over" other things using "exousia" and "epi":
( Matt 9:6, Matt 28:18, Mark 2:10, Luke 5:24, Luke 9:1, Luke 10:19, Luke 19:17, Acts 26:18, Rev 2:26, Rev 6:8, Rev 11:6, Rev 13:7, Rev 14:18, Rev 16:9, Rev 20:6, the last one means that death does not have authority over the Saints because the word "not" is added before "have authority", unlike 1 Cor 11:10 where women do have authority.)
(fyi, I used page 266, note 43, from the book "Why not Women?", by Loren Cunningham and David Joel Hamilton to find this list, along with page 182 of Dr. Philip Payne's book "Man and Woman, One in Christ".)
And with regard to 1 Tim 2:12, just check the concordances linked to the words "kurieuo" and "exousiazo". The possible definitions given are almost all neutral or positive definitions of having lordship or having delegated authority.
Then check the lexical data for "authentein", which is what a woman is prevented from doing in 1 Tim 2:12. The range of this word is transparently more extreme and negative than either "kurieuo" or "exousiazo", even in such patriarchally-inclined concordances as these, and "authentein" is never used again for any positive authority in the whole Bible.
(fyi, I do not put much weight on the NAS exhaustive concordance's opinion, because as I have shown in my last post, this 1980-1998 translation clearly mistranslates many of the verses about women in ministry or authority, and appears very biased against women.)
"Katakurieuo", the "darkest" word found in these verses, still has a range that includes plenty of neutral connotations, like "exercise lordship over, be master of". In fact, it seems like "authentein" is more synonymous with this word than "exousiazo". But even here, authentein still has the "autocratic, undelegated and self-assumed" aspect to it that not even "katakurieuo" can match.
Yet, the words that limit men, as well as all believers, from exercising authority and ruling as lords, are given dark connotations in some translations that appear to be unjustified. "Exousiazo" is even used of the positive authority that husbands and wives have over each others bodies in 1 Cor 7:4, it does not appear to be negative in the least.
We can't always use concordances and lexicons exclusively when trying to understand rare, era-dependent words like "authentein", but we sure can use them as a support structure and base.
Despite all of this, I have noticed that many "in authority" today, especially some CBMW-style Complementarians (when I refer to "Complementarians", I am actually talking about Patriarchalists who still call themselves "Complementarians". I see Patriarchy as rule by fathers, or rule by males only/male only authority.), ignore in large part the call to avoid katakurieuo'ing, kurieuo'ing, kataexousiazo'ing, and exousiazo'ing others in the Church, and obsess over who may have authority and who may not, making lists and decrees of what women may not handle, or what they may not touch, or what they shall not taste, but these appear to be commandments and teachings of men. (Col 2:20-22)
One wonders if such men ponder these "limiting" Scriptures that apply to them as much as they do women's roles, or if they even truly fear God, that they might be careful not to abuse His Scripture and His people (I am speaking of the well-known scholars who truly understand what they appear to be rebelling against, not ignorant Complementarians who have scarcely cracked an interlinear and have never deeply studied these things.).
These high and lofty leaders do actually appear to be going against the clearest Scriptures we have, even in defiance of them, since some of the "chiefest" among them do know these Scriptures quite well, in the original languages, and just don't obey or care to emphasize them like they do their "favorites" about women being submissive.
In Scripture, no Church leader is ever said to have even the rather mild "exousiazo" over another Christian. The following are the words used in Scripture to refer to Church leaders:
sunergos, a fellow worker: many people, including the Apostles and a woman, are called "fellow workers"
kopiao, grow weary, toil, work hard: A word used for Paul and other Christians. Many of those mentioned in conjunction with this word were women. Apparently women are not merely "relationship-oriented" and not "work-oriented" as some seem to assert.
exousia, a right or authority: This is probably the closest thing to the typical idea of someone having "authority" that others do not in the Christian community, like the way Catholics view their Priests/Bishops/Cardinals/Pope and Protestants view their Deacons/Pastors/Elders/Overseers. However, much of the time this word simply means a right or a liberty to do a particular thing (marry a woman, get monetary support) rather than an "authority over" others.
This term is also used however of "governing authorities", ie worldly authorities that bear the sword and are God's servants to take vengeance on evildoers, which we all must be subject to. (Rom 13:1-4) This is pretty obviously not talking about Church discipline, since we do not jail or kill erring Christians but rather exhort them in gentleness and excommunicate them if they refuse to repent. Nor do we need to "fear" Elders like we "fear" worldly authorities when we do evil, as if Elders had the power to throw us in prison or burn us at the stake for crimes.
But let's look at the surprisingly few places were the Apostles describe their "authority" in a way that could mean a power over the whole Church that is only for a specific office. We will not discuss verses that talk about the authority that one has to marry a believer (even women have that right) or that the workers of the Gospel have to receive monetary support and not work secular jobs (1 Cor 9:11-12, 18) (1 Cor 9:5-6) or free food, since many women were workers with Paul (Rom 16 throughout) and would also be worthy of support and help. Even "true widows", old women, who have served God well and have no children to help them, are entitled to Church funds (no "male elder authority" needed for monetary support.).
2 Cor 10:8: This is were Paul says he and some others (the other Apostles perhaps, or simply his "fellow workers"?) have authority only to build up and not to tear down the Churches. This authority was given by The Lord to "them".
2 Cor 13:10: Paul says he writes what he does so that when he is present with the Corinthians, he will not use sharpness with them, according to the authority given to him only for building up the Church and not tearing down.
These are the only two places I have found where any Church leader flaunts his authority in general, and both times Paul carefully qualifies his "right" as restricted to edification only. None of us today are Apostles (in the sense of those who knew Jesus in the Flesh and were sent by Him specially), nor can we write binding Scripture like they did, so we cannot assume the authority of modern Elders is equivalent to Paul's authority.
Paul also called himself a Deacon, which was the title Jesus said the greatest or the chiefest of Christians would be called (an office described as serving as a servant).
Not that I am arguing that Elders don't lead by being "esteemed" (by example) or that there is no authority of any kind given to the offices of Elders and Deacons (for these people must have lofty Christian credentials to even by ordained), but I am saying that sometimes military-like rank and authority is inappropriately thrust out as the defining feature of Christian officers, when it is their personal faithfulness that is their primary feature.
The "authority" and rights to such offices can be lost by bad behavior and sin, so no one should be of the mind that they are above correction or discipline.
For example, why do you think Elders are called to pray over the sick? (James 5:14-15) I think it is because the prayers of righteous people accomplishes much, and in order to be an Elder you must be very demonstrably righteous, not a novice in The Faith. It does not appear to be at all linked to some kind of hierarchical "authority" that they have above other Christians, but it is rather their truly mature Faith seen through a life of good works which makes the prayers of the Elders heard by God to raise the sick.
dunamis, power, miracles, strength, ability: This word, despite seeming similar to the word "exousia" in meaning, does not appear to be even used once to denote Church leader's "power" over the congregation. All Christians are said to have power from Christ (2 Pet 1:3), especially Jesus' Apostles who were given power and authority over every evil spirit and disease by Jesus. It is also used to denote miracles and works of power, particularly those through which the Gospel and Apostleship is shown through.
hegeomai, to esteem, suppose, think, or regard, or its other use which is to lead or govern. This word means to either lead or go first, or to think or esteem. Phil 2:3, a clear case of "mutual esteeming of the other being superior" being commanded of the brethren, in the sense of thinking or deeming others as higher than oneself.
diakonos, a servant or minister (deacon): Jesus said "The greatest among you will be your diakonos" (Matt 23:11, Matt 20:26, Mark 10:43). Paul calls himself as well as other men (and a woman) "diakonos" in 1 Cor 3:5, 2 Cor 6:4, Eph 3:7, Eph 6:21, Col 1:25, Rom 16:1, and many other places in Scripture.
diakoneo, like "diakonos" but verbal, it refers to serving, waiting tables: All Christians should do this in some form, but some as official Church Deacons. (1 Pet 4:10-11)
proistemi, one who stands or goes before, one who presides, a manager or maintenance worker, a protector or guardian, to lead/rule by example: Those who protect and preside over others, they lead by setting a good example.
prostatis, a feminine derivative of the word "proistemi", used only of Phoebe the female deacon, a protectress or a patroness, a woman who is set over others: Strangely, this word is only given the meanings that don't explicitly denote ruling, even though this word is basically the same as proistemi. Often times it is translated "helper", even "benefactor", which isn't really the appropriate definition. More anti-female bias perhaps?
episkopos, literally an "over-watcher" or "on-looker" or overseer, one who watches over, a supervisor, a guardian: The emphasis is on care-taking and looking out for others, not ruling over them or having authority over them.
presbuteros/presbuteras, elders, old men or women, people who are old in The Faith and respected as if fathers and mothers of The Church. Some lead, some teach, some exhort, some comfort, all must be reverent and live Holy lives. Female elders are mentioned (1 Tim 5:2), and as far as I have seen the only time anyone is told directly to "submit" to the elders specifically is when the younger are told to submit to the plural "presbuterois", and mutual humility is enjoined on all in the same passage. (1 Pet 5:5) I don't see why the plural "presbuterois" must only refer to men and no women, when the masculine plural terms for "brethren" and "deacon" can and do sometimes include women.
presbutes and presbutis, also terms for old men and women: Paul calls himself a "presbutes" in a passage where he seems to pointing out his eldership to get someone to agree with him (Philemon 1:9). It appears that presbutes and presbutis are somewhat synonymous with "elder". Presbutidas, aged women (or simply women elders) are told to be teachers of the good, in order to train younger women how to be righteous. (Titus 2:3)
oikonomos, a household manager, steward (of someone's/God's house): Used for Elder qualifications, and of all Christians in 1 Pet 4:10.
hupakouo, to obey, to listen, to hearken to, answer: This is the word typically translated "obey", of children to parents (Eph 6:1, Col 3:20) and slaves to masters (Col 3:22, Eph 6:5), and of everyone to God and Christ, and of Sarah when she obeyed Abraham, calling him "Lord" (like "sir", a respectful title).
Women are never explicitly instructed to obey their husbands like children and slaves are to their parents and masters, but Sarah is given as an example of how righteous women adorned themselves of old, with submission and respect toward their husbands (1 Pet 3:6). In this case, she was also obedient to her husband. Women are told they have become Sarah's children, if they "do good" and do not "fear any terrifying thing".
Obeying a husband when he is following God is a very good thing, and respecting a husband (even if he isn't righteous) is also right.
However, lest we forget, Abraham was also told to obey Sarah by God when she was right about sending away Hagar and Ishmael, so it is not wrong for a man to also obey his wife when she is right about something. (Gen 21:12)
In 2 Thess 3:14, Paul commands that anyone who does not obey his instruction (to busybodies who were not working and being disorderly, that they must in quietness work and eat their own bread, verses 11-12; or possibly his whole Epistle) they must be marked out and not mingled with to shame them. Paul can do this, of course, because he is a Divinely ordained Apostle sent specifically by Jesus to establish Church doctrine, and therefore has unique rights as a writer of Scripture to command obedience.
hupakoe, appears to be the noun form of "hupakouo", and means basically the same thing; obedience, compliance, to listen to someone in the sense of obeying them.
peitho, to persuade or have confidence, to urge: This word is related to "obedience" as a concept, but it looks to be a bit softer. It appears to be a general persuading or gaining/having confidence in someone or of something. Used in Heb 13:17 of Christians being persuaded by or having confidence in their leaders. Sometimes it is translated "obey", but I think it is better to translate it "be persuaded by" in order to get the full nuance of this word, since making "peitho" mean "obey" makes it sound like it's the same word as "hupakouo".
Other words describing how the brethren should relate to one another:
huperecho, above, higher, supreme, excel, surpass, superior: This one is very interesting, because it is demanded of every Christian to esteem (word here for "esteem" is "hegeomai") others as "superior" to themselves. (Phil 2:3) Does that sound like it is in line with the proposed "Creation mandate" of male-only authority and male/female role-oriented superiority and inferiority to you?
douleuo, to serve as or like a slave: It is used of what actual slaves did for their masters, of Christians in comparison to God and Christ, and for what all Christians should do mutually. In Gal 5:13 Paul tells us we have been made free, but we are to use this liberty to serve one another (allelon) in love. We are literally told to be slaves in this sense to each other, through love.
Interestingly, this word is not "diakoneo", the somewhat more typical word for "serve". "Douleuo" appears to be referring to a lowlier form of service than even waiting tables, enjoining a submissive, even obedient state to the one serving even more so than does "diakoneo".
One commentator that I've read, I. Howard Marshall (Chapter 11 of "Discovering Biblical Equality"), considers this even stronger than the idea of "mutual submission". To "serve" (like a slave) is both submitting to another person and doing so like a slave would! Slaves were the property of their masters, they were under someone else's authority by definition, and lower in rank. Yet all are told to mutually serve each other as if slaves to each other, mutually, in and through Love.
kepheles, a person's physical head, source of something or beginning of something, cornerstone, top, it might mean chief or most prominent, maybe leader or lord [this is debated]: fyi, these particular concordances seem to be sparse on the details on this word and I would recommend checking other resources, as I would with all of these words, especially due to the heavy patriarchal biases inherent in seemingly all of these concordances on Biblos.com.
Husbands are said to be heads of their wives, just like Christ is head of His Wife, the Church.
Headship appears to be related to or synonymous with saviorship, beginning, provider, or a source of life and sustenance in almost every verse discussing Christ's headship, especially when His headship is mentioned comparatively with the Church, where head is elaborated on by the words in the context, or were it is probably explicitly defined as "savior" by apposition in Eph 5:23.
Even when Christ is said to be "head over all rule and authority" (Col 2:10), it was only one chapter before this that Christ was said to be The Creator of all thrones/lordships/principalities/authorities and all things, being their source of existence as creator and the reason for their existence (Col 1:16).
Just because "head" is mentioned in the same sentence as "authority", doesn't mean that head=authority. "Head" may also carry the connotation of "top" or "preeminence" in some cases.
I think this may be sufficient to elucidate the others passages I would otherwise discuss here. See also Dr. Philip Payne's research and conclusions about the meaning of "kepheles" in Paul's writings on pages 117-139 of his book "Man and Woman, One in Christ".
Remember that 1st century Jewish or Gentile Greek speakers did not understand the biology of heads and bodies just like we do in our modern scientific era, nor did "head" as a metaphor necessarily mean the same thing to them as it does to English speaking moderns like us today. We must be careful not to be too anachronistic.
oikodespoteo, probably the verbal form of "oikodespotes", to rule the home as chief, manage a house as a master of it: Only used of young widows in 1 Tim 5:14. It literally means to rule a household as the ruler/chief/master, and not merely to clean and tend to house chores. This is a strange choice of words, methinks, if Paul believed that leadership and rulership were improper roles for women.
hupotasso, submission, be subject to, submit oneself, to be arranged under, sometimes to obey: This one is very important, so I'll expand on this one more than most of the others:
a. Everyone is told to be subject to the "higher authorities" (the government) in Rom 13:1-5. Also, Titus 3:1, 1 Pet 2:13. One must ask oneself, if a wife may not have authority on par with her husband because she must be submissive to him, why may Christian men take on governmental authority and have equal or greater authority than those to whom it is necessary for them to be "subject" to? Furthermore, slaves should be subject to their masters in the flesh and obey them (but get free if they can), and children must obey parents and be in subjection to them. Does that mean slaves can have no Church office because they would then have authority over their master? Must offspring be eternally subject and obedient to their parents, never taking an office that affords any amount of authority equal to or above their parent's authority?
b. (1 Cor 16:16) Everyone is told to be subject to everyone who works with Paul (fellow workers) and who labor hard with him (same word used in Rom 16:6 and verse 12, for multiple women). I don't know how it can be escaped that this passage is potentially calling for at least some men to be subject to some women who have been laboring hard with Paul.
c. (Eph 5:21) Calls for everyone to mutually submit to one another in the fear of Christ. This is especially born out by women submitting to their own husbands in all things, and men giving themselves up for their wives and loving them just as their own selves. It seems like some Complementarians largely ignore or attempt to explain away the part about everyone submitting to one another, or the man giving himself up for his wife's benefit and loving her as he does himself, and only focus on the wife's submission in everything to the husband.
Those Complementarians may say that "one another" in verse 21 really means "some to others", not that every person should submit, but only some should to others, and never others to those some who must submit. But look here for a list of how "one another" is used in Scripture, or a more complete list here: allelon. Most of these in Paul's writing (and probably the whole of Scripture) must be in the sense of "mutually, one person does the action to the other and the other person does the same action to the first one at some point."
Look especially at those in the context of the other places in Ephesians where "allelon" is used. (remember the original Scripture did not have chapters and sections to split it up by topic like English Bibles as far as anybody knows, so we don't have good reason to dissociate Eph 5:21 from Eph 4 on the basis of it not being in the same chapter.)
Eph 4:2 - with all humility, and gentleness, with patience, bear with one another in love. Sounds pretty "mutual" to me. It does not seem possible that only some should do these things to others and those others should not reciprocate the same at all.
Eph 4:25 - we are to put off all falsehood, and speak truth each with his neighbor, because we are members of one another. We are all part and members of the same body, some are not part of others who are in turn independent.
Eph 4:32 - be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving the other like also God in Christ forgave you. Certainly all must be kind to all others, no exclusive class of "those who are kind" and "those who only receive kindness".
Eph 5:21 - submit to one another in fear of Christ. It also good to consider what Eph 5:19-20 says just before this verse, about speaking to each other in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, making melody in our hearts to The Lord, and giving thanks at all times for all things in Christ's name to The Father. Just like the other three uses of "allelon" in Ephesians, it seems like this cannot be a case of "only some to others who in turn cannot or should not do the same in return ever." (yes, there are Complementarians who say that it is wrong for a man to submit to a woman at any time).
Paul then emphasizes the wife's submission in all things as an example without implying that it is wrong for a man to submit to his wife, but goes on to say that a man gives himself up in service to his wife and loves her just as he would like to be loved, since she is his own body.
Do men like to be treated with a submissive attitude? Do men love to be submitted to themselves? Should they then not love their wives as they love themselves, even submitting sometimes?
Does Christ ever not do what is good for his own Body in preference to what is only beneficial for Himself as Head? Is Christ too high and lofty in His inherent authority to ever submit to or humble himself before mere humans or for the Church?
No man as authority over Christ, yet He submitted Himself to His parents (Luke 2:51) and to the Law, and to worldly authorities (when they were not telling Him to disobey God). He did not come to be served but to serve.
Christ even humbled Himself so far that he became obedient unto death itself for our good (Phil 2:8), and what thing has less authority over Christ than death? So we see that one can submit to things that are not in authority over them, and Christ did just that.
Therefore, even if women did not have authority equal to their husbands, it would not preclude mutual submission. Also, Christ's "Head" (God) gives Christ all things, even all authority to judge which The Father Himself stopped doing in favor of allowing Christ to do it (John 5:22).
God put everything under Christ's feet, and then God gave Christ as head of these things to the Church (that She might share the authority as His body)(Eph 1:22-23)(1 Cor 3:21-23) Should men then, as head, give all things, even their own authority, to their wives, in the sense of mutual sharing? Does the physical head of a person have authority that their body does not share?
For the Church will reign in Her perfected state over all things with Christ, who reigns with God; Christ shares His authority to rule with her; she is not under His feet like the nations. How could She be? She is His feet!
See here for another close look into the nature of submission in Christianity and marriage: http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/submission-in-marriage/
Christ will always be ruler in a way over the Church and everything else that a man can never be over his wife or anyone else, since Christ is eternally God and infinite, while men are not, nor will they ever be.
I think it is dangerous to go beyond Scripture when it makes analogies, and make men=Christ in every respect and woman=Church in every respect, or man= the human head in all ways and woman= the human body in all ways. We would end up with nearly endless absurdities, just like if we took "God is our Rock", or "God is a consuming Fire" as absolutes instead of limited analogies.
d. (1 Pet 5:5) Younger people are told to be subject to the older people (elders, plural), but all are enjoined to be humble toward one another in mutual humility, because God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. This makes me wonder, do Complementarians truly obey this to the letter and submit (viewed as obedience) to every Christian who is older than them? Are all older Christians the "authorities" over all younger ones, and therefore the younger should never have any authority equal to the older? I wonder if "submission" goes from meaning "unchanging hierarchical Creationally-based gender-role obedience" when it's asked of a woman to merely "a humble spirit" when it is asked of a man.
Interestingly, in some versions, like the KJV and YLT, mutual submission is enjoined on all in 1 Pet 5:5, like Eph 5:21. I am not sure if this is due to a variant in 1 Pet 5:5 in the Textus Receptus or if the latter half of these verses might simply take the verb "submit" from the part before them like how the older manuscripts of Eph 5:22 must take Eph 5:21's verb "submit", which is not itself present in Eph 5:22 in the older manuscripts.
e. We are all also to be subject to God, of course. (James 4:7)
f. Wives are told to be subject to their own husbands in everything, to love them, to avoid shaming them, and to respect them. Men are told to love their wives sacrificially like Christ, honor and be understanding of their wives, not be bitter towards them, and love their wives as themselves.( Eph 5:21-33, Col 3:18-19, Titus 2:5, 1 Pet 3:1, 7, 1 Cor 11:5-6)
But we know all Christians should treat everyone else as they would like to be treated and prefer one another in honor, be considerate of others (especially the weak, who are not all women), and love each other in imitation of Christ's sacrificial Love, so wives should do the same for their husbands shouldn't they?
Likewise, everyone is told to mutually submit, to respect others and therefore avoid bringing shame upon them if possible, to humble themselves towards one another, to avoid "exercising authority" and ruling over each other like lords in Church life, and to esteem each other as superior to themselves, so shouldn't husbands submit to wives as well?
Perhaps wifely submission and respect is different in some ways than husbandly submission and respect, and maybe husbandly love and self-sacrifice is somehow not expressed exactly like it's feminine counterpart, but each is still at it's core the same thing; imitating all the aspects of Christ in our own individual yet similar ways that make us all One in Him, not separate or rigidly and exclusively complementary, nor perhaps in every way precisely the same. Everyone is an individual and differs from others in gifting and exact characteristics, not just by gender, so this goes for all people to some degree as well I think.
But I also think that certain characteristics are emphasized for certain genders because the Church was not to unnecessarily offend the patriarchal cultures of the Roman world, in order to win more to Christ (same with the passages about slavery).
Also, perhaps submitting in all things and being loving in a respectful husband-glorifying way is a task that is especially hard for women, and loving a wife sacrificially as oneself while giving honor to her in understanding, along with avoiding bitterness towards her is a harder task for men, so these things are emphasized for either sex to compensate for weaknesses inherent in our flesh.
g. (Heb 13:17) Everyone is told to submit (word here, "hupeiko", is not the same word used elsewhere for "submit", this one literally means to "yield oneself, to give way, to not resist") to their leaders in The Faith, and be persuaded or have confidence in them (sometimes the word used here, "peitho", is translated "obey", but it could also mean simply to have confidence in or be persuaded by.)
hupotage, to be in/under control, to be in subjection/submission, sometimes to be in obedience: Apparently this is the noun form of "hupotasso", it's meaning appears to be the same.
proegeomai, to lead onward by example, go before, prefer: This word is only used in Rom 12:10, another "one another" passage. We are to prefer one another in honor.
Now for the words that aren't apparently used for NT Church leadership.
katakurieuo, rule as a total lord and master, exercise authority over, master, control, subjugate, overcome, "lord over": This kind of rulership is probably similar to "authentein", in that it is dominating and not proper for anyone to do in The Faith.
kurieuo, have authority over, rule over: This word is used of Christ and is not in itself a negative word. However, it is still inappropriate for Christians within the Faith community.
katexousiazo, to wield full authority over, exercise authority over, perhaps to dominate: Not permitted among Christians.
exousiazo, a proper exercising of authority over another, delegated power and authority over something: this term is used mutually in terms of husbands and wives having authority over each others bodies in marriage, but it is still not used of Christian leadership, because Jesus said it should not be so among his disciples.
authenteo, dominate, domineer over, take up self-assumed (undelegated/unrecognized) authority, force one's way on/compel, usurp authority, act as an autocrat, maybe perpetrate a crime against/instigate conflict, murder, be absolute master of, or flout the authority of: Only used of what a woman should not do to a man in 1 Tim 2:12, and never used again in the rest of the NT. I would say that this act is almost certainly inappropriate for anyone.
I do not include "exercise authority over" or "have authority over" in the possible definitions of this word, because, according to Dr. Payne who has done years of research on this word and issue, the first unambiguous use of "authenteo" to mean "exercise authority" comes from about 370 AD, hundreds of years after Paul, in the letters of St. Basil (a man who, in my opinion, would have probably been soaked in patriarchal culture and Church traditions, and therefore the word could have been skewed by this time). I took some of these definitions from what Payne has said other scholars believe the word's range must be, some of whom I believe are Complementarians.
Firstly, it is important not to assume that just because a woman is told not to do this to a man, that all men may do it to all women. Consider the surrounding context of 1 Tim 2:12: males specifically were just told to pray with "Holy Hands" and not with wrath and arguing in verse 8 of 1 Tim 2, and women were told "similarly" (probably referring to praying) to dress with modest apparel that wasn't flaunting their wealth (braided hair and gold (note: there is an "and" between "braided hair" and "gold" connecting them perhaps into one thought, "braided hair with gold plating", unlike the other two items which are separate things), pearls, or very costly clothing).
Both genders clearly have to obey the commands given to only one gender in these verses (1 Tim 2:8-10), and this same principle is obviously applicable to 1 Tim 2: 11-15, being directly before it. Only one gender is called out in each case because this letter of Paul's is a personal pastoral letter to Timothy to deal with specific problems in Ephesus at that time (especially false teaching and unlearned teachers, which is explicitly stated in 1 Tim 1 throughout), and certain genders were probably transgressing these commands more than others.
Secondly, men are never told or permitted to "authenteo" anyone explicitely at any point in Scripture. Men (and women) are not even supposed to "exercise authority over" or "rule over" each other in The Faith (Luke 22:25-26), though men and women should mutually "exercise authority over" each other's bodies in marriage. (1 Cor 7:4)
Thirdly, there is evidence that "authenteo" and it's related noun "authentes" meant "to perpetrate a crime" or "to murder" or "to be a murderer" before and perhaps during the time of Paul. It was not until much later, particularly in Patristic writings (Christian writings) hundreds of years after Paul, that "autheneo" began to take on the meaning of "positive authority or rulership".
This is significant, because many Patristic writers were known to be slightly to extremely misogynistic in their worldviews, and they would have had plenty of reason to gradually skew the meaning of "authentein" to mean proper authority, because there was a strong desire to keep women out of authority in many, if not most Churches from around 200-300 AD onward.
Before Paul however, the meaning of the word would not have been affected or skewed in such a way, and it is therefore more wise to look at the material before or very close to the time of Paul than to use much later (largely Patristic/Christian) uses of the word that would have a greater possibility of heavy bias.
See this article (the discussion of "authenteo" begins at about the middle of the page) to help you get a better understanding of authenteo/authentes and it's history, in addition to information supporting it's connotation being "murder" or "perpetrate a crime".
Also, see section 5 of my last post, which contains more information about "authentein", and see Chapter 20 of Dr. Philip Payne's book "Man and Woman, One in Christ" for a scholarly discussion of authenteo, it's proper range of meaning for 1 Tim 2:12, and why "have/use/exercise authority has become a popular rendering despite the historical evidence against it (has to do with mistakes and misrepresentations in scholarly materials on this subject that are only now being corrected, especially through the use of technical searchable databases that were not available before).
Surprisingly, Paul does mention murder multiple times in 1 Tim, in conjunction with The Law and sound teaching. (1 Tim 1:8-10) Despite this, I do not feel that "authentein" means precisely murder in this instance, because Paul could have just used one of those other words for "murderer" if that's what he wanted to say, or use another verbal word for "kill" or "murder" like "phoneuo" (even though Paul never uses this word, except when he directly quotes the Old Testament law about murdering.).
I do think it is possible that Paul meant a figurative murdering of some kind, like in a similar manner to how we say "your killing me" when we mean we are getting irritated or dominated or harmed verbally. I also think it is possible that authenteo may mean to commit a crime, or perpetrate a crime, or be the mastermind behind a crime. That would make sense in the context, but there are probably better options, like "to domineer/boss around/act like an autocrat".
Regardless, I don't think this word can mean a general exercise of properly delegated authority.
archo, to rule or reign, be first.
archon, ruler, prince, leader, governor: I am pretty sure that the one time this word may be used for Church leadership (Rom 13:3), it is referring strictly to secular/worldly rulers, "higher authorities" and "the authority" (with a definite article, like "the government"), because these same rulers and authorities "bear the sword", which is not Church discipline, but capital punishment. These authorities are also the ones to whom we pay taxes to, and tribute.
arche, beginning, initial starting point, first, ruler, magistrate.
hegemon, governor, commander, leader: This word is taken from the word hegeomai, but it is used to refer mostly to worldly governors, especially those who, as "institutions of man", take vengeance on evildoers on God's behalf.(1 Pet 2:14) They are clearly designated as worldly governors in almost every case, Matt 10:18, Matt 27:2, 11, 21, 27, 14-15, Matt 28:14, Mark 13:9, Luke 20:20, Luke 21:12, Acts 23:24, 26, 33, Acts 24:1, 10, Acts 26:30, 1 Pet 2:14, but in Matt 2:6 it is used of Judah's leaders and Jesus. Therefore it is not used of those in the Church as a title of rulership.
basileus, emporer, king, ruler: just like it sounds, wordly kings and supreme rulers.
kathegetes, leader, teacher, guide, master: We are expressly forbidden to call ourselves this, whatever it precisely means. The only Kathegetes we have is Christ. (Matt 23:10)
kurios, lord, master, title of respect like "sir": Used of God and Christ extensively. Sarah called Abraham "kurios" once and obeyed him (1 Pet 3:6), but Abraham also was told to obey Sarah by God another time (Gen 21:12), and "kurios" can also simply be a title of honor like "sir", given to any man of distinction (which Abraham was). Also used of people who were masters of slaves in the flesh (Eph 6:9, Col 4:1), but this is not a Church office or designation.
despotes, used of absolute masters, owners: This word is used of God, but also of masters of slaves in the flesh, like "kurios". (1 Tim 6:1-2, 2 Tim 2:21, Titus 2:9, 1 Pet 2:18)
kuriotes, lordship, dominion, dignity, divine lordship: Used apparently always in Scripture to denote either angelic rulers or government (worldly dominion, governing lords).
When you look into "authority" in the New Testament, is there any whiff of "man is by creation ruler and authority over woman" if you don't make "head" = lord/master/authority over?
Is there a hint that there is some indignity about a man submitting, respecting, and being a servant toward a woman, because that is primarily the role of women to men? Or that a woman should not Agape her husband as her own flesh, live with him in understanding and honor him, and give herself up for him in sacrifice because that is primarily the role of men?
(Women are never told directly to "Agape" their husbands, only to "philandros", "be fond of/friend of/love men". But all believers are told by Jesus to Agape each other, so a wife must do this to her husband. And I think therefore it is thus similar to the topic of submission and men.)
Do we see an authority and a dignity that is only the man's in Scripture, which a woman is inferior to?
Or do we see a call for all to submit, for all to serve, for all to be humble, for all to consider others before themselves, for all to yield to their leaders, and to avoid exercising authority and becoming lords of each other in the faith? Without doubt, "lording it over" is also precluded, along with usurped autocracy.
But we find really only a minor difference in typical word usage between man and woman, for even in marriage there is mutual submission and mutual "giving oneself up" for the other (what is "giving oneself up" but a kind of submission?).
Did Christ come to be served and not to serve? Did Christ come to be submitted to but not be subject to God, to other people, and to death itself? Christ washed and served the Church and gave Himself up for her; He even learned obedience through His sufferings, despite being a Son (Heb 5:8).
Yet, He is God, and therefore He is unlike any other husband in many ways, being Lord of all and perfect, needing no "ezer", unlike Adam. But stunningly, He counted it a proper thing to submit to His own, and for His own, in the time of His humiliation (The Incarnation).
Now of course, the time of His subjection is over, and He reigns and will reign Supreme with His Father on His Throne. It goes to show you that being subject and obedient can be an act of the greater to the lesser, as well as an act of the lesser to the greater. The first will be last, and the last will be first.(Matt 19:30, Matt 20:16, Mark 10:31, Luke 13:30) The younger shall be served by the older. (Rom 9:12, Luke 22:26, Luke 9:48 ) God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. (1 Cor 1:27)
I just keep becoming more convinced that we are One in Christ in more than just our opportunity to inherit salvation. Studying these things has also given me a new appreciation for Christ's humility and therefore God's humble nature, as well as fixing some of my deficient thinking about The Church's destined authority.
I want to make it clear that I am by no means anti-authority, I absolutely believe in being submissive to authority, and even obedient unless asked to sin. I absolutely believe in submitting to Church Elders and Overseers, and Deacons; but I also believe it's appropriate to do so with every believer, as long as it's not unto sin. Furthermore, I believe wives should submit in all things to their husbands when appropriate (not into sin) by respecting him and loving him , and husbands should submit when appropriate to their wives by giving up their own desires (dying to selfishness) for the good of their wife. What do I think this looks like in practice? You guessed it, submitting to one another; mutual submission.
I can't see any reason why women shouldn't have proper authority and serve in Ministry (like Phoebe, Junia and Priscilla), since submission does not preclude authority (all must submit to one another, and even Elders should submit to each other, shouldn't they?), nor does esteeming others as superior to yourself and preferring others before yourself in honor mean you cannot teach or exhort them. Plus, I've already given manifold evidence in my last post that "authentein" does not restrict women from proper authority.
Here is another interesting blog article about Church authority that may be of help: http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/authority-in-the-church/
By the way, if you are using the WOT (Web of Trust) addon, don't be scared off of newlife.id.au just because of the red ring. It was hacked in 2010 apparently, but it is safe now and can be a very helpful resource, so I recommend bookmarking it.
So, I leave you with these words of mutual (allelon) Love.
John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
We probably all know the three passages in Matthew and Luke about Jesus' disciples not being allowed to "Lord it over" or "exercise authority" in Christ's Church like the kings and "benefactors" of the gentiles do to those under them. But did you know that Luke uses slightly different wording than Matthew and Mark for "lord it over" and "exercise authority" to make a similar argument?
Check it out:
Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them (katakurieuo), and they that are great exercise authority upon them (katexousiazo).
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister (deacon);
Mat 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar 10:42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them (katakurieuo); and their great ones exercise authority upon them (katexousiazo).
Mar 10:43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
Mar 10:44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luk 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them (kurieuo); and they that exercise authority upon them (exousiazo) are called benefactors.
Luk 22:26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
Luk 22:27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both Matthew and Mark use intensified versions of "kurieuo" and "exousiazo", but Luke uses the unintensified, normal words for lordship and exercising authority. Yet, I have found in several translations that "Lord it over" is made to fit "kurieuo" as if this word only restricts a bossy negative rulership, and not "good" lordship. The fact is, this word is used for the lordship of Christ, in Rom 14:9 and 1 Tim 6:15.
Peter, perhaps the most "authoritative" Apostle (in some people's eyes), recognized that "katakurieuo'ing" was inappropriate for him to do, or any other shepherd to do over "The Flock" in 1 Peter 5:3.
But Paul recognizes that even the benevolent lordship that "kurieuo" represents was inappropriate for such an illustrious Apostle as he. Christians are a band of brothers who shepherd and look after one another, not lords or masters of each other in Church Life. In 2 Corinthians 1:24, Paul says that he and his cohorts do not "have dominion over" or "rule over" the Faith of the Corinthians. Oddly, in many translations, like the NAS (can't say I'm surprised), Paul is only saying he and his comrades don't "lord it over" the faith of the Corinthians, which to our ear today sounds like he is only avoiding domineering, and not also avoiding proper rulership, which is what the word really means.
However, when women and authority are being spoken about, particularly in 1 Tim 2:12 and 1 Cor 11:10, suddenly the words that are known to refer to either true domineering (authentein) or positive authority that one has oneself (exousia) are covered over.
1 Cor 11:1-16, a passage that is about how women are the glory of men, their metaphorical heads, so they shouldn't shame their husbands by how their hair or head appears. It goes on to say that women are to have authority over their own heads, and that men and women are not separate in The Lord, since both are sources of the other, and all of those things are of God.
This passage has been made into a text enjoining symbols of subordination or symbols of male authority, with what seems to be stunningly brazen disregard for what the words of the passage really mean, especially when you compare the words used of women having authority over their heads in 1 Cor 11:10 and other Scriptures where people or things have "authority over" other things using "exousia" and "epi":
( Matt 9:6, Matt 28:18, Mark 2:10, Luke 5:24, Luke 9:1, Luke 10:19, Luke 19:17, Acts 26:18, Rev 2:26, Rev 6:8, Rev 11:6, Rev 13:7, Rev 14:18, Rev 16:9, Rev 20:6, the last one means that death does not have authority over the Saints because the word "not" is added before "have authority", unlike 1 Cor 11:10 where women do have authority.)
(fyi, I used page 266, note 43, from the book "Why not Women?", by Loren Cunningham and David Joel Hamilton to find this list, along with page 182 of Dr. Philip Payne's book "Man and Woman, One in Christ".)
And with regard to 1 Tim 2:12, just check the concordances linked to the words "kurieuo" and "exousiazo". The possible definitions given are almost all neutral or positive definitions of having lordship or having delegated authority.
Then check the lexical data for "authentein", which is what a woman is prevented from doing in 1 Tim 2:12. The range of this word is transparently more extreme and negative than either "kurieuo" or "exousiazo", even in such patriarchally-inclined concordances as these, and "authentein" is never used again for any positive authority in the whole Bible.
(fyi, I do not put much weight on the NAS exhaustive concordance's opinion, because as I have shown in my last post, this 1980-1998 translation clearly mistranslates many of the verses about women in ministry or authority, and appears very biased against women.)
"Katakurieuo", the "darkest" word found in these verses, still has a range that includes plenty of neutral connotations, like "exercise lordship over, be master of". In fact, it seems like "authentein" is more synonymous with this word than "exousiazo". But even here, authentein still has the "autocratic, undelegated and self-assumed" aspect to it that not even "katakurieuo" can match.
Yet, the words that limit men, as well as all believers, from exercising authority and ruling as lords, are given dark connotations in some translations that appear to be unjustified. "Exousiazo" is even used of the positive authority that husbands and wives have over each others bodies in 1 Cor 7:4, it does not appear to be negative in the least.
We can't always use concordances and lexicons exclusively when trying to understand rare, era-dependent words like "authentein", but we sure can use them as a support structure and base.
Despite all of this, I have noticed that many "in authority" today, especially some CBMW-style Complementarians (when I refer to "Complementarians", I am actually talking about Patriarchalists who still call themselves "Complementarians". I see Patriarchy as rule by fathers, or rule by males only/male only authority.), ignore in large part the call to avoid katakurieuo'ing, kurieuo'ing, kataexousiazo'ing, and exousiazo'ing others in the Church, and obsess over who may have authority and who may not, making lists and decrees of what women may not handle, or what they may not touch, or what they shall not taste, but these appear to be commandments and teachings of men. (Col 2:20-22)
One wonders if such men ponder these "limiting" Scriptures that apply to them as much as they do women's roles, or if they even truly fear God, that they might be careful not to abuse His Scripture and His people (I am speaking of the well-known scholars who truly understand what they appear to be rebelling against, not ignorant Complementarians who have scarcely cracked an interlinear and have never deeply studied these things.).
These high and lofty leaders do actually appear to be going against the clearest Scriptures we have, even in defiance of them, since some of the "chiefest" among them do know these Scriptures quite well, in the original languages, and just don't obey or care to emphasize them like they do their "favorites" about women being submissive.
In Scripture, no Church leader is ever said to have even the rather mild "exousiazo" over another Christian. The following are the words used in Scripture to refer to Church leaders:
sunergos, a fellow worker: many people, including the Apostles and a woman, are called "fellow workers"
kopiao, grow weary, toil, work hard: A word used for Paul and other Christians. Many of those mentioned in conjunction with this word were women. Apparently women are not merely "relationship-oriented" and not "work-oriented" as some seem to assert.
exousia, a right or authority: This is probably the closest thing to the typical idea of someone having "authority" that others do not in the Christian community, like the way Catholics view their Priests/Bishops/Cardinals/Pope and Protestants view their Deacons/Pastors/Elders/Overseers. However, much of the time this word simply means a right or a liberty to do a particular thing (marry a woman, get monetary support) rather than an "authority over" others.
This term is also used however of "governing authorities", ie worldly authorities that bear the sword and are God's servants to take vengeance on evildoers, which we all must be subject to. (Rom 13:1-4) This is pretty obviously not talking about Church discipline, since we do not jail or kill erring Christians but rather exhort them in gentleness and excommunicate them if they refuse to repent. Nor do we need to "fear" Elders like we "fear" worldly authorities when we do evil, as if Elders had the power to throw us in prison or burn us at the stake for crimes.
But let's look at the surprisingly few places were the Apostles describe their "authority" in a way that could mean a power over the whole Church that is only for a specific office. We will not discuss verses that talk about the authority that one has to marry a believer (even women have that right) or that the workers of the Gospel have to receive monetary support and not work secular jobs (1 Cor 9:11-12, 18) (1 Cor 9:5-6) or free food, since many women were workers with Paul (Rom 16 throughout) and would also be worthy of support and help. Even "true widows", old women, who have served God well and have no children to help them, are entitled to Church funds (no "male elder authority" needed for monetary support.).
2 Cor 10:8: This is were Paul says he and some others (the other Apostles perhaps, or simply his "fellow workers"?) have authority only to build up and not to tear down the Churches. This authority was given by The Lord to "them".
2 Cor 13:10: Paul says he writes what he does so that when he is present with the Corinthians, he will not use sharpness with them, according to the authority given to him only for building up the Church and not tearing down.
These are the only two places I have found where any Church leader flaunts his authority in general, and both times Paul carefully qualifies his "right" as restricted to edification only. None of us today are Apostles (in the sense of those who knew Jesus in the Flesh and were sent by Him specially), nor can we write binding Scripture like they did, so we cannot assume the authority of modern Elders is equivalent to Paul's authority.
Paul also called himself a Deacon, which was the title Jesus said the greatest or the chiefest of Christians would be called (an office described as serving as a servant).
Not that I am arguing that Elders don't lead by being "esteemed" (by example) or that there is no authority of any kind given to the offices of Elders and Deacons (for these people must have lofty Christian credentials to even by ordained), but I am saying that sometimes military-like rank and authority is inappropriately thrust out as the defining feature of Christian officers, when it is their personal faithfulness that is their primary feature.
The "authority" and rights to such offices can be lost by bad behavior and sin, so no one should be of the mind that they are above correction or discipline.
For example, why do you think Elders are called to pray over the sick? (James 5:14-15) I think it is because the prayers of righteous people accomplishes much, and in order to be an Elder you must be very demonstrably righteous, not a novice in The Faith. It does not appear to be at all linked to some kind of hierarchical "authority" that they have above other Christians, but it is rather their truly mature Faith seen through a life of good works which makes the prayers of the Elders heard by God to raise the sick.
dunamis, power, miracles, strength, ability: This word, despite seeming similar to the word "exousia" in meaning, does not appear to be even used once to denote Church leader's "power" over the congregation. All Christians are said to have power from Christ (2 Pet 1:3), especially Jesus' Apostles who were given power and authority over every evil spirit and disease by Jesus. It is also used to denote miracles and works of power, particularly those through which the Gospel and Apostleship is shown through.
hegeomai, to esteem, suppose, think, or regard, or its other use which is to lead or govern. This word means to either lead or go first, or to think or esteem. Phil 2:3, a clear case of "mutual esteeming of the other being superior" being commanded of the brethren, in the sense of thinking or deeming others as higher than oneself.
diakonos, a servant or minister (deacon): Jesus said "The greatest among you will be your diakonos" (Matt 23:11, Matt 20:26, Mark 10:43). Paul calls himself as well as other men (and a woman) "diakonos" in 1 Cor 3:5, 2 Cor 6:4, Eph 3:7, Eph 6:21, Col 1:25, Rom 16:1, and many other places in Scripture.
diakoneo, like "diakonos" but verbal, it refers to serving, waiting tables: All Christians should do this in some form, but some as official Church Deacons. (1 Pet 4:10-11)
proistemi, one who stands or goes before, one who presides, a manager or maintenance worker, a protector or guardian, to lead/rule by example: Those who protect and preside over others, they lead by setting a good example.
prostatis, a feminine derivative of the word "proistemi", used only of Phoebe the female deacon, a protectress or a patroness, a woman who is set over others: Strangely, this word is only given the meanings that don't explicitly denote ruling, even though this word is basically the same as proistemi. Often times it is translated "helper", even "benefactor", which isn't really the appropriate definition. More anti-female bias perhaps?
episkopos, literally an "over-watcher" or "on-looker" or overseer, one who watches over, a supervisor, a guardian: The emphasis is on care-taking and looking out for others, not ruling over them or having authority over them.
presbuteros/presbuteras, elders, old men or women, people who are old in The Faith and respected as if fathers and mothers of The Church. Some lead, some teach, some exhort, some comfort, all must be reverent and live Holy lives. Female elders are mentioned (1 Tim 5:2), and as far as I have seen the only time anyone is told directly to "submit" to the elders specifically is when the younger are told to submit to the plural "presbuterois", and mutual humility is enjoined on all in the same passage. (1 Pet 5:5) I don't see why the plural "presbuterois" must only refer to men and no women, when the masculine plural terms for "brethren" and "deacon" can and do sometimes include women.
presbutes and presbutis, also terms for old men and women: Paul calls himself a "presbutes" in a passage where he seems to pointing out his eldership to get someone to agree with him (Philemon 1:9). It appears that presbutes and presbutis are somewhat synonymous with "elder". Presbutidas, aged women (or simply women elders) are told to be teachers of the good, in order to train younger women how to be righteous. (Titus 2:3)
oikonomos, a household manager, steward (of someone's/God's house): Used for Elder qualifications, and of all Christians in 1 Pet 4:10.
hupakouo, to obey, to listen, to hearken to, answer: This is the word typically translated "obey", of children to parents (Eph 6:1, Col 3:20) and slaves to masters (Col 3:22, Eph 6:5), and of everyone to God and Christ, and of Sarah when she obeyed Abraham, calling him "Lord" (like "sir", a respectful title).
Women are never explicitly instructed to obey their husbands like children and slaves are to their parents and masters, but Sarah is given as an example of how righteous women adorned themselves of old, with submission and respect toward their husbands (1 Pet 3:6). In this case, she was also obedient to her husband. Women are told they have become Sarah's children, if they "do good" and do not "fear any terrifying thing".
Obeying a husband when he is following God is a very good thing, and respecting a husband (even if he isn't righteous) is also right.
However, lest we forget, Abraham was also told to obey Sarah by God when she was right about sending away Hagar and Ishmael, so it is not wrong for a man to also obey his wife when she is right about something. (Gen 21:12)
In 2 Thess 3:14, Paul commands that anyone who does not obey his instruction (to busybodies who were not working and being disorderly, that they must in quietness work and eat their own bread, verses 11-12; or possibly his whole Epistle) they must be marked out and not mingled with to shame them. Paul can do this, of course, because he is a Divinely ordained Apostle sent specifically by Jesus to establish Church doctrine, and therefore has unique rights as a writer of Scripture to command obedience.
hupakoe, appears to be the noun form of "hupakouo", and means basically the same thing; obedience, compliance, to listen to someone in the sense of obeying them.
peitho, to persuade or have confidence, to urge: This word is related to "obedience" as a concept, but it looks to be a bit softer. It appears to be a general persuading or gaining/having confidence in someone or of something. Used in Heb 13:17 of Christians being persuaded by or having confidence in their leaders. Sometimes it is translated "obey", but I think it is better to translate it "be persuaded by" in order to get the full nuance of this word, since making "peitho" mean "obey" makes it sound like it's the same word as "hupakouo".
Other words describing how the brethren should relate to one another:
huperecho, above, higher, supreme, excel, surpass, superior: This one is very interesting, because it is demanded of every Christian to esteem (word here for "esteem" is "hegeomai") others as "superior" to themselves. (Phil 2:3) Does that sound like it is in line with the proposed "Creation mandate" of male-only authority and male/female role-oriented superiority and inferiority to you?
douleuo, to serve as or like a slave: It is used of what actual slaves did for their masters, of Christians in comparison to God and Christ, and for what all Christians should do mutually. In Gal 5:13 Paul tells us we have been made free, but we are to use this liberty to serve one another (allelon) in love. We are literally told to be slaves in this sense to each other, through love.
Interestingly, this word is not "diakoneo", the somewhat more typical word for "serve". "Douleuo" appears to be referring to a lowlier form of service than even waiting tables, enjoining a submissive, even obedient state to the one serving even more so than does "diakoneo".
One commentator that I've read, I. Howard Marshall (Chapter 11 of "Discovering Biblical Equality"), considers this even stronger than the idea of "mutual submission". To "serve" (like a slave) is both submitting to another person and doing so like a slave would! Slaves were the property of their masters, they were under someone else's authority by definition, and lower in rank. Yet all are told to mutually serve each other as if slaves to each other, mutually, in and through Love.
kepheles, a person's physical head, source of something or beginning of something, cornerstone, top, it might mean chief or most prominent, maybe leader or lord [this is debated]: fyi, these particular concordances seem to be sparse on the details on this word and I would recommend checking other resources, as I would with all of these words, especially due to the heavy patriarchal biases inherent in seemingly all of these concordances on Biblos.com.
Husbands are said to be heads of their wives, just like Christ is head of His Wife, the Church.
Headship appears to be related to or synonymous with saviorship, beginning, provider, or a source of life and sustenance in almost every verse discussing Christ's headship, especially when His headship is mentioned comparatively with the Church, where head is elaborated on by the words in the context, or were it is probably explicitly defined as "savior" by apposition in Eph 5:23.
Even when Christ is said to be "head over all rule and authority" (Col 2:10), it was only one chapter before this that Christ was said to be The Creator of all thrones/lordships/principalities/authorities and all things, being their source of existence as creator and the reason for their existence (Col 1:16).
Just because "head" is mentioned in the same sentence as "authority", doesn't mean that head=authority. "Head" may also carry the connotation of "top" or "preeminence" in some cases.
I think this may be sufficient to elucidate the others passages I would otherwise discuss here. See also Dr. Philip Payne's research and conclusions about the meaning of "kepheles" in Paul's writings on pages 117-139 of his book "Man and Woman, One in Christ".
Remember that 1st century Jewish or Gentile Greek speakers did not understand the biology of heads and bodies just like we do in our modern scientific era, nor did "head" as a metaphor necessarily mean the same thing to them as it does to English speaking moderns like us today. We must be careful not to be too anachronistic.
oikodespoteo, probably the verbal form of "oikodespotes", to rule the home as chief, manage a house as a master of it: Only used of young widows in 1 Tim 5:14. It literally means to rule a household as the ruler/chief/master, and not merely to clean and tend to house chores. This is a strange choice of words, methinks, if Paul believed that leadership and rulership were improper roles for women.
hupotasso, submission, be subject to, submit oneself, to be arranged under, sometimes to obey: This one is very important, so I'll expand on this one more than most of the others:
a. Everyone is told to be subject to the "higher authorities" (the government) in Rom 13:1-5. Also, Titus 3:1, 1 Pet 2:13. One must ask oneself, if a wife may not have authority on par with her husband because she must be submissive to him, why may Christian men take on governmental authority and have equal or greater authority than those to whom it is necessary for them to be "subject" to? Furthermore, slaves should be subject to their masters in the flesh and obey them (but get free if they can), and children must obey parents and be in subjection to them. Does that mean slaves can have no Church office because they would then have authority over their master? Must offspring be eternally subject and obedient to their parents, never taking an office that affords any amount of authority equal to or above their parent's authority?
b. (1 Cor 16:16) Everyone is told to be subject to everyone who works with Paul (fellow workers) and who labor hard with him (same word used in Rom 16:6 and verse 12, for multiple women). I don't know how it can be escaped that this passage is potentially calling for at least some men to be subject to some women who have been laboring hard with Paul.
c. (Eph 5:21) Calls for everyone to mutually submit to one another in the fear of Christ. This is especially born out by women submitting to their own husbands in all things, and men giving themselves up for their wives and loving them just as their own selves. It seems like some Complementarians largely ignore or attempt to explain away the part about everyone submitting to one another, or the man giving himself up for his wife's benefit and loving her as he does himself, and only focus on the wife's submission in everything to the husband.
Those Complementarians may say that "one another" in verse 21 really means "some to others", not that every person should submit, but only some should to others, and never others to those some who must submit. But look here for a list of how "one another" is used in Scripture, or a more complete list here: allelon. Most of these in Paul's writing (and probably the whole of Scripture) must be in the sense of "mutually, one person does the action to the other and the other person does the same action to the first one at some point."
Look especially at those in the context of the other places in Ephesians where "allelon" is used. (remember the original Scripture did not have chapters and sections to split it up by topic like English Bibles as far as anybody knows, so we don't have good reason to dissociate Eph 5:21 from Eph 4 on the basis of it not being in the same chapter.)
Eph 4:2 - with all humility, and gentleness, with patience, bear with one another in love. Sounds pretty "mutual" to me. It does not seem possible that only some should do these things to others and those others should not reciprocate the same at all.
Eph 4:25 - we are to put off all falsehood, and speak truth each with his neighbor, because we are members of one another. We are all part and members of the same body, some are not part of others who are in turn independent.
Eph 4:32 - be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving the other like also God in Christ forgave you. Certainly all must be kind to all others, no exclusive class of "those who are kind" and "those who only receive kindness".
Eph 5:21 - submit to one another in fear of Christ. It also good to consider what Eph 5:19-20 says just before this verse, about speaking to each other in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, making melody in our hearts to The Lord, and giving thanks at all times for all things in Christ's name to The Father. Just like the other three uses of "allelon" in Ephesians, it seems like this cannot be a case of "only some to others who in turn cannot or should not do the same in return ever." (yes, there are Complementarians who say that it is wrong for a man to submit to a woman at any time).
Paul then emphasizes the wife's submission in all things as an example without implying that it is wrong for a man to submit to his wife, but goes on to say that a man gives himself up in service to his wife and loves her just as he would like to be loved, since she is his own body.
Do men like to be treated with a submissive attitude? Do men love to be submitted to themselves? Should they then not love their wives as they love themselves, even submitting sometimes?
Does Christ ever not do what is good for his own Body in preference to what is only beneficial for Himself as Head? Is Christ too high and lofty in His inherent authority to ever submit to or humble himself before mere humans or for the Church?
No man as authority over Christ, yet He submitted Himself to His parents (Luke 2:51) and to the Law, and to worldly authorities (when they were not telling Him to disobey God). He did not come to be served but to serve.
Christ even humbled Himself so far that he became obedient unto death itself for our good (Phil 2:8), and what thing has less authority over Christ than death? So we see that one can submit to things that are not in authority over them, and Christ did just that.
Therefore, even if women did not have authority equal to their husbands, it would not preclude mutual submission. Also, Christ's "Head" (God) gives Christ all things, even all authority to judge which The Father Himself stopped doing in favor of allowing Christ to do it (John 5:22).
God put everything under Christ's feet, and then God gave Christ as head of these things to the Church (that She might share the authority as His body)(Eph 1:22-23)(1 Cor 3:21-23) Should men then, as head, give all things, even their own authority, to their wives, in the sense of mutual sharing? Does the physical head of a person have authority that their body does not share?
For the Church will reign in Her perfected state over all things with Christ, who reigns with God; Christ shares His authority to rule with her; she is not under His feet like the nations. How could She be? She is His feet!
See here for another close look into the nature of submission in Christianity and marriage: http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/submission-in-marriage/
Christ will always be ruler in a way over the Church and everything else that a man can never be over his wife or anyone else, since Christ is eternally God and infinite, while men are not, nor will they ever be.
I think it is dangerous to go beyond Scripture when it makes analogies, and make men=Christ in every respect and woman=Church in every respect, or man= the human head in all ways and woman= the human body in all ways. We would end up with nearly endless absurdities, just like if we took "God is our Rock", or "God is a consuming Fire" as absolutes instead of limited analogies.
d. (1 Pet 5:5) Younger people are told to be subject to the older people (elders, plural), but all are enjoined to be humble toward one another in mutual humility, because God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. This makes me wonder, do Complementarians truly obey this to the letter and submit (viewed as obedience) to every Christian who is older than them? Are all older Christians the "authorities" over all younger ones, and therefore the younger should never have any authority equal to the older? I wonder if "submission" goes from meaning "unchanging hierarchical Creationally-based gender-role obedience" when it's asked of a woman to merely "a humble spirit" when it is asked of a man.
Interestingly, in some versions, like the KJV and YLT, mutual submission is enjoined on all in 1 Pet 5:5, like Eph 5:21. I am not sure if this is due to a variant in 1 Pet 5:5 in the Textus Receptus or if the latter half of these verses might simply take the verb "submit" from the part before them like how the older manuscripts of Eph 5:22 must take Eph 5:21's verb "submit", which is not itself present in Eph 5:22 in the older manuscripts.
e. We are all also to be subject to God, of course. (James 4:7)
f. Wives are told to be subject to their own husbands in everything, to love them, to avoid shaming them, and to respect them. Men are told to love their wives sacrificially like Christ, honor and be understanding of their wives, not be bitter towards them, and love their wives as themselves.( Eph 5:21-33, Col 3:18-19, Titus 2:5, 1 Pet 3:1, 7, 1 Cor 11:5-6)
But we know all Christians should treat everyone else as they would like to be treated and prefer one another in honor, be considerate of others (especially the weak, who are not all women), and love each other in imitation of Christ's sacrificial Love, so wives should do the same for their husbands shouldn't they?
Likewise, everyone is told to mutually submit, to respect others and therefore avoid bringing shame upon them if possible, to humble themselves towards one another, to avoid "exercising authority" and ruling over each other like lords in Church life, and to esteem each other as superior to themselves, so shouldn't husbands submit to wives as well?
Perhaps wifely submission and respect is different in some ways than husbandly submission and respect, and maybe husbandly love and self-sacrifice is somehow not expressed exactly like it's feminine counterpart, but each is still at it's core the same thing; imitating all the aspects of Christ in our own individual yet similar ways that make us all One in Him, not separate or rigidly and exclusively complementary, nor perhaps in every way precisely the same. Everyone is an individual and differs from others in gifting and exact characteristics, not just by gender, so this goes for all people to some degree as well I think.
But I also think that certain characteristics are emphasized for certain genders because the Church was not to unnecessarily offend the patriarchal cultures of the Roman world, in order to win more to Christ (same with the passages about slavery).
Also, perhaps submitting in all things and being loving in a respectful husband-glorifying way is a task that is especially hard for women, and loving a wife sacrificially as oneself while giving honor to her in understanding, along with avoiding bitterness towards her is a harder task for men, so these things are emphasized for either sex to compensate for weaknesses inherent in our flesh.
g. (Heb 13:17) Everyone is told to submit (word here, "hupeiko", is not the same word used elsewhere for "submit", this one literally means to "yield oneself, to give way, to not resist") to their leaders in The Faith, and be persuaded or have confidence in them (sometimes the word used here, "peitho", is translated "obey", but it could also mean simply to have confidence in or be persuaded by.)
hupotage, to be in/under control, to be in subjection/submission, sometimes to be in obedience: Apparently this is the noun form of "hupotasso", it's meaning appears to be the same.
proegeomai, to lead onward by example, go before, prefer: This word is only used in Rom 12:10, another "one another" passage. We are to prefer one another in honor.
Now for the words that aren't apparently used for NT Church leadership.
katakurieuo, rule as a total lord and master, exercise authority over, master, control, subjugate, overcome, "lord over": This kind of rulership is probably similar to "authentein", in that it is dominating and not proper for anyone to do in The Faith.
kurieuo, have authority over, rule over: This word is used of Christ and is not in itself a negative word. However, it is still inappropriate for Christians within the Faith community.
katexousiazo, to wield full authority over, exercise authority over, perhaps to dominate: Not permitted among Christians.
exousiazo, a proper exercising of authority over another, delegated power and authority over something: this term is used mutually in terms of husbands and wives having authority over each others bodies in marriage, but it is still not used of Christian leadership, because Jesus said it should not be so among his disciples.
authenteo, dominate, domineer over, take up self-assumed (undelegated/unrecognized) authority, force one's way on/compel, usurp authority, act as an autocrat, maybe perpetrate a crime against/instigate conflict, murder, be absolute master of, or flout the authority of: Only used of what a woman should not do to a man in 1 Tim 2:12, and never used again in the rest of the NT. I would say that this act is almost certainly inappropriate for anyone.
I do not include "exercise authority over" or "have authority over" in the possible definitions of this word, because, according to Dr. Payne who has done years of research on this word and issue, the first unambiguous use of "authenteo" to mean "exercise authority" comes from about 370 AD, hundreds of years after Paul, in the letters of St. Basil (a man who, in my opinion, would have probably been soaked in patriarchal culture and Church traditions, and therefore the word could have been skewed by this time). I took some of these definitions from what Payne has said other scholars believe the word's range must be, some of whom I believe are Complementarians.
Firstly, it is important not to assume that just because a woman is told not to do this to a man, that all men may do it to all women. Consider the surrounding context of 1 Tim 2:12: males specifically were just told to pray with "Holy Hands" and not with wrath and arguing in verse 8 of 1 Tim 2, and women were told "similarly" (probably referring to praying) to dress with modest apparel that wasn't flaunting their wealth (braided hair and gold (note: there is an "and" between "braided hair" and "gold" connecting them perhaps into one thought, "braided hair with gold plating", unlike the other two items which are separate things), pearls, or very costly clothing).
Both genders clearly have to obey the commands given to only one gender in these verses (1 Tim 2:8-10), and this same principle is obviously applicable to 1 Tim 2: 11-15, being directly before it. Only one gender is called out in each case because this letter of Paul's is a personal pastoral letter to Timothy to deal with specific problems in Ephesus at that time (especially false teaching and unlearned teachers, which is explicitly stated in 1 Tim 1 throughout), and certain genders were probably transgressing these commands more than others.
Secondly, men are never told or permitted to "authenteo" anyone explicitely at any point in Scripture. Men (and women) are not even supposed to "exercise authority over" or "rule over" each other in The Faith (Luke 22:25-26), though men and women should mutually "exercise authority over" each other's bodies in marriage. (1 Cor 7:4)
Thirdly, there is evidence that "authenteo" and it's related noun "authentes" meant "to perpetrate a crime" or "to murder" or "to be a murderer" before and perhaps during the time of Paul. It was not until much later, particularly in Patristic writings (Christian writings) hundreds of years after Paul, that "autheneo" began to take on the meaning of "positive authority or rulership".
This is significant, because many Patristic writers were known to be slightly to extremely misogynistic in their worldviews, and they would have had plenty of reason to gradually skew the meaning of "authentein" to mean proper authority, because there was a strong desire to keep women out of authority in many, if not most Churches from around 200-300 AD onward.
Before Paul however, the meaning of the word would not have been affected or skewed in such a way, and it is therefore more wise to look at the material before or very close to the time of Paul than to use much later (largely Patristic/Christian) uses of the word that would have a greater possibility of heavy bias.
See this article (the discussion of "authenteo" begins at about the middle of the page) to help you get a better understanding of authenteo/authentes and it's history, in addition to information supporting it's connotation being "murder" or "perpetrate a crime".
Also, see section 5 of my last post, which contains more information about "authentein", and see Chapter 20 of Dr. Philip Payne's book "Man and Woman, One in Christ" for a scholarly discussion of authenteo, it's proper range of meaning for 1 Tim 2:12, and why "have/use/exercise authority has become a popular rendering despite the historical evidence against it (has to do with mistakes and misrepresentations in scholarly materials on this subject that are only now being corrected, especially through the use of technical searchable databases that were not available before).
Surprisingly, Paul does mention murder multiple times in 1 Tim, in conjunction with The Law and sound teaching. (1 Tim 1:8-10) Despite this, I do not feel that "authentein" means precisely murder in this instance, because Paul could have just used one of those other words for "murderer" if that's what he wanted to say, or use another verbal word for "kill" or "murder" like "phoneuo" (even though Paul never uses this word, except when he directly quotes the Old Testament law about murdering.).
I do think it is possible that Paul meant a figurative murdering of some kind, like in a similar manner to how we say "your killing me" when we mean we are getting irritated or dominated or harmed verbally. I also think it is possible that authenteo may mean to commit a crime, or perpetrate a crime, or be the mastermind behind a crime. That would make sense in the context, but there are probably better options, like "to domineer/boss around/act like an autocrat".
Regardless, I don't think this word can mean a general exercise of properly delegated authority.
archo, to rule or reign, be first.
archon, ruler, prince, leader, governor: I am pretty sure that the one time this word may be used for Church leadership (Rom 13:3), it is referring strictly to secular/worldly rulers, "higher authorities" and "the authority" (with a definite article, like "the government"), because these same rulers and authorities "bear the sword", which is not Church discipline, but capital punishment. These authorities are also the ones to whom we pay taxes to, and tribute.
arche, beginning, initial starting point, first, ruler, magistrate.
hegemon, governor, commander, leader: This word is taken from the word hegeomai, but it is used to refer mostly to worldly governors, especially those who, as "institutions of man", take vengeance on evildoers on God's behalf.(1 Pet 2:14) They are clearly designated as worldly governors in almost every case, Matt 10:18, Matt 27:2, 11, 21, 27, 14-15, Matt 28:14, Mark 13:9, Luke 20:20, Luke 21:12, Acts 23:24, 26, 33, Acts 24:1, 10, Acts 26:30, 1 Pet 2:14, but in Matt 2:6 it is used of Judah's leaders and Jesus. Therefore it is not used of those in the Church as a title of rulership.
basileus, emporer, king, ruler: just like it sounds, wordly kings and supreme rulers.
kathegetes, leader, teacher, guide, master: We are expressly forbidden to call ourselves this, whatever it precisely means. The only Kathegetes we have is Christ. (Matt 23:10)
kurios, lord, master, title of respect like "sir": Used of God and Christ extensively. Sarah called Abraham "kurios" once and obeyed him (1 Pet 3:6), but Abraham also was told to obey Sarah by God another time (Gen 21:12), and "kurios" can also simply be a title of honor like "sir", given to any man of distinction (which Abraham was). Also used of people who were masters of slaves in the flesh (Eph 6:9, Col 4:1), but this is not a Church office or designation.
despotes, used of absolute masters, owners: This word is used of God, but also of masters of slaves in the flesh, like "kurios". (1 Tim 6:1-2, 2 Tim 2:21, Titus 2:9, 1 Pet 2:18)
kuriotes, lordship, dominion, dignity, divine lordship: Used apparently always in Scripture to denote either angelic rulers or government (worldly dominion, governing lords).
When you look into "authority" in the New Testament, is there any whiff of "man is by creation ruler and authority over woman" if you don't make "head" = lord/master/authority over?
Is there a hint that there is some indignity about a man submitting, respecting, and being a servant toward a woman, because that is primarily the role of women to men? Or that a woman should not Agape her husband as her own flesh, live with him in understanding and honor him, and give herself up for him in sacrifice because that is primarily the role of men?
(Women are never told directly to "Agape" their husbands, only to "philandros", "be fond of/friend of/love men". But all believers are told by Jesus to Agape each other, so a wife must do this to her husband. And I think therefore it is thus similar to the topic of submission and men.)
Do we see an authority and a dignity that is only the man's in Scripture, which a woman is inferior to?
Or do we see a call for all to submit, for all to serve, for all to be humble, for all to consider others before themselves, for all to yield to their leaders, and to avoid exercising authority and becoming lords of each other in the faith? Without doubt, "lording it over" is also precluded, along with usurped autocracy.
But we find really only a minor difference in typical word usage between man and woman, for even in marriage there is mutual submission and mutual "giving oneself up" for the other (what is "giving oneself up" but a kind of submission?).
Did Christ come to be served and not to serve? Did Christ come to be submitted to but not be subject to God, to other people, and to death itself? Christ washed and served the Church and gave Himself up for her; He even learned obedience through His sufferings, despite being a Son (Heb 5:8).
Yet, He is God, and therefore He is unlike any other husband in many ways, being Lord of all and perfect, needing no "ezer", unlike Adam. But stunningly, He counted it a proper thing to submit to His own, and for His own, in the time of His humiliation (The Incarnation).
Now of course, the time of His subjection is over, and He reigns and will reign Supreme with His Father on His Throne. It goes to show you that being subject and obedient can be an act of the greater to the lesser, as well as an act of the lesser to the greater. The first will be last, and the last will be first.(Matt 19:30, Matt 20:16, Mark 10:31, Luke 13:30) The younger shall be served by the older. (Rom 9:12, Luke 22:26, Luke 9:48 ) God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. (1 Cor 1:27)
I just keep becoming more convinced that we are One in Christ in more than just our opportunity to inherit salvation. Studying these things has also given me a new appreciation for Christ's humility and therefore God's humble nature, as well as fixing some of my deficient thinking about The Church's destined authority.
I want to make it clear that I am by no means anti-authority, I absolutely believe in being submissive to authority, and even obedient unless asked to sin. I absolutely believe in submitting to Church Elders and Overseers, and Deacons; but I also believe it's appropriate to do so with every believer, as long as it's not unto sin. Furthermore, I believe wives should submit in all things to their husbands when appropriate (not into sin) by respecting him and loving him , and husbands should submit when appropriate to their wives by giving up their own desires (dying to selfishness) for the good of their wife. What do I think this looks like in practice? You guessed it, submitting to one another; mutual submission.
I can't see any reason why women shouldn't have proper authority and serve in Ministry (like Phoebe, Junia and Priscilla), since submission does not preclude authority (all must submit to one another, and even Elders should submit to each other, shouldn't they?), nor does esteeming others as superior to yourself and preferring others before yourself in honor mean you cannot teach or exhort them. Plus, I've already given manifold evidence in my last post that "authentein" does not restrict women from proper authority.
Here is another interesting blog article about Church authority that may be of help: http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/authority-in-the-church/
By the way, if you are using the WOT (Web of Trust) addon, don't be scared off of newlife.id.au just because of the red ring. It was hacked in 2010 apparently, but it is safe now and can be a very helpful resource, so I recommend bookmarking it.
So, I leave you with these words of mutual (allelon) Love.
John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
The big one: 1 Tim 2:11-15
Hello there,
This new blog is a place for sharing discussions and information about a Christian woman's place in Christianity, the Church, society, and the home. The following entries and articles will be my opinions as a woman in Christ who has been searching and sifting through Biblical data on women in order to know God's will on these matters.
We should all realize that all believers are exhorted in many clear, unambiguous passages to teach each other:
Rom 2:21, Rom 12:7, Col 1:28, Col 3:16, 2 Tim 2:2, Heb 5:12
Older women are also called to be "teachers of what is good", in order to (but not only to) train the younger to be Godly (Titus 2:3). Now I'm not that old, but I don't think this passage is only for the old, particularly because the Godly wife in Proverbs 31:26 is said to "teach kindness" and "speak with wisdom", and all women and men should not be "addicted to much wine", should be "reverent", and "not slanderers".
Additionally, in Titus 2:2, only older men are told to be "sober, dignified, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience.", but all those things are required of everyone, young and old.
So I think it is obvious that all people should also be teachers of goodness.
I do not know yet if I am a Complementarian or an Egalitarian, or some position that neither of these labels properly represents. I am open to whichever side has the evidence, or if neither do completely, then whatever in-between state is true. I do lean egalitarian on this verse however.
There appears to be only one passage in the entirety of Scripture, Old and New Testament, where at least one woman is told not to teach anyone at all, nor to hold some kind of authority over a man. That passage is 1 Tim 2:12, in the context of 1 Tim:11-15.
But, is that really what this passage is saying? Is there really no better way to interpret this passage, than to say all women everywhere and in all times are barred from either all teaching, authoritative teaching, teaching over men, or "having authority over" a man, either in The Church or in all walks of life?
I believe I have found a much better way to understand this passage, that is actually more sensitive to the context of the passage, more accurate when it comes to the meanings of the actual words of this passage, and much more faithful to the grammar of the whole verse. This is not merely my interpretation however: I am for the most part only repeating the discoveries of others that I have had the privilege to become acquainted with. I am attempting to distill all of the best information on these verses into one "most likely" interpretation.
This interpretation also gets rid of any possible conflict between this passage and other Scriptures that actually tell women point blank to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, or that show a righteous woman teaching a man in a positive light, or that say all believers should teach each other, or that glorify a woman for her teaching and wise speaking, or that show God raising up certain women to places of leadership and authority over men by His own decree.
It may surprise you that there are clear Scriptures that teach all of these things, which I will point out and get into later on. All of the Scriptures that laud women for teaching and rightly being in positive authoritative positions are easy to understand and plainly written without much difficult language and grammar to deal with, unlike 1 Tim 2:11-15.
But 1 Tim 2:11-15 itself is no hindrance to the rest of these Scriptures if properly translated, with faithful renderings of the words used in light of their historical meaning and in the way the same words are used elsewhere in Scripture, in conjunction with renderings of the grammar that preserves it's nuances, instead of covering over the nature of the complex grammar of the passage in order to support a particular interpretation.
(please use This interlinear Bible to help you check what I am saying, if you would like to.)
I'm going to dive deep immediately and get into interpretations of probably the most controversial and difficult passage in all of Scripture concerning women: 1 Tim 2:11-15
It reads (in my own amplified translation):
This is my translation based on the KJV (because it isn't copyrighted) text, the interlinear found here: Interlinear 1 Tim 2:11 and assorted other translations, Philip B. Payne's research and book "Man and Woman, One in Christ" ( http://www.pbpayne.com/ ), and through vigorous study along with comparing the words in this text with other occurrences of the same word in Scripture using the Greek interlinear Bible from Biblos mentioned above.
I will be trying to provide convincing evidence that:
a. Paul may be only presently not permitting a woman to teach, or to take up self-assumed authority over a man, because of the word "epitrepo", and it's tense, which is present-indicative-active-1st-person-singular.
b. "hesuchia" means calm-peacefulness or non-absolute quietness in this passage, as it does elsewhere in Scripture where it is used.
c. Men and women are both called to be submissive to other Christians in the Church, it is not only for women.
d. "to teach" may be referring to false teaching, because that is one of the major issues Paul tells Timothy to deal with in the Ephesian Church in this letter, and "a woman" appears to be the same person as "the woman" of verse 14-15, who like Eve, has been deceived and was presently in her transgression as a living person at the time of Paul. Also, I will show that "to teach" can and is used to refer to false teaching elsewhere in Scripture.
e. "Authentein" means to assume a personal stance of undelegated authority (act like an autocrat or absolute master, to dominate) or to usurp authority, but disagree with some that it means to "exercise authority".
f. As Dr. Philip Payne argues, Paul may only be prohibiting a woman from teaching in conjunction with assuming a stance of independent authority over a man. That means the only thing a woman is not permitted to do is "teach with usurped authority over a man"; she may still teach with properly delegated authority (if the Church leaders give it to her), like how Priscilla taught Apollos appropriately, as a fellow worker with Paul.
g. This passage is referring to a single deceived woman in Ephesus, who is at first called "a woman", but then becomes a definite "the woman" in verse 14, who I will argue must be a living woman and cannot be Eve because of the grammar, and the woman is the one who "will be saved" from her current state of transgression if some "they", either she and "a man" or she along with the rest of the Church stay in true faith.
h. "The Childbirth", a singular, definite, noun, refers to the birth of Jesus as the means through which salvation will come to "the woman", not that all women must give birth or be mothers to be sanctified or saved.
i. "They" of verse 15 probably refers to "the woman" and "a man" (who may be Timothy, her teacher, who must teach her and charge her not to teach at all, or at least not with personally assumed authority for the time being, and thereby save her from teaching wrong things. "A man" could also be simply another man who she has been teaching/usurping authority over, maybe her husband).
Lets go through this passage piece by piece:
1. Quietness or Silence?
Notice Paul requires a woman to learn (which is an imperative command) in "quietness" (hesuchia) rather than "silence" (sigao, sige).
In my research so far I have found it asserted by many (including Dr. Payne on pages 314-315 of his book "Man and Woman, One in Christ") that this word, the noun form of hesuchia, (also used in Acts 22:2 and 2 Thess 3:12) denotes both being in a state of calmness and quietness of speech, and a quiet demeanor, within which one should work (2 Thess 3:12) and, in 1 Tim 2:11, how a lady should learn. It is not the word used for muteness ("alalos", "phimoo", "siopao") or a more complete silence ("sigao", "sige").
The adjective form of "hesuchia", "hesuchion" is used a few verses prior to 1 Tim 2:11 in 1 Tim 2:2, to describe the kind of "quiet" life Christians should desire to lead in general. Obviously that does not entail absolute silence.
Furthermore, for those who may not know this, it is not the same word used for women's silence in the Churches in 1 Cor 14:34-35. That word is "sigao", which is not a form of the word "hesuchia".
I have found nothing substantial, to my knowledge, in my search so far that contradicts the meaning of "a quiet disposition, calmness, non-absolute quietness" for "hesuchia", and it seems to be widely accepted as true even by very conservative scholars.
2. "All submission"
Yes indeed, a woman is called to be in total submission to her authorized teachers in the Church; in other words, she needs to stop arguing and fighting with her teachers and willingly submit, remaining in a calm quiet manner while being taught.
To put this into perspective, men and women are both called to submit to the Church elders, pastors, and assorted leaders, and to others in the Church. Men should likewise also learn in submission to their teachers and brethren, love and honor the others in the Church even above themselves, and not argue and contend with each other (1 Tim 2:8, 1 Thess 5:12-13, Heb 13:17, Eph 5:21, Phil 2:3-4, Rom 12:10, 1 Cor 10:24, Eph 4:32, Col 3:12)
Submission is not unmanly or only for women, and Agape love, expressed through sacrificing oneself for others, is not only for men or husbands.
3. " I am not permitting "
The reason I favored this translation is because the word often translated "I do not permit", "epitrepo" from verse 12, is in the present, indicative, active, first person singular form. Paul uses other verbs with the same form in 1 Cor 7:7, 1 Cor 7:26, 1 Cor 7:32, 1 Cor 7:40, and Phil 4:2.
Dr. Philip Payne argues on pages 319-325 of his book "Man and Woman, One in Christ" that verbs in this form are used predominantly in the New Testament to state Paul's current desire or conviction, and not for universal commands.
He also claims that every occurrence of "epitrepo" in the Greek OT (LXX), and the majority of this word's occurrences in the NT, refers to specific situations, and not to universal permissions or prohibitions applicable in all times and places. See his book for a complete list of citations and the full argument.
Dr. Payne concludes that the present indicative form of this particular verb favors a time-bound, situation specific application. He also wishes this verb to be translated as "I am not permitting", because in English this better represents what the Greek actually means.
I believe this is a fair translation.
Also, I tried to separate "to teach" further away from "usurp authority" than what is in most translations because in the Greek, the two verbs are actually separated far apart like this.
you can see the verse in Greek with the English translation here: http://interlinearbible.org/1_timothy/2-12.htm
Paul did this intentionally, he doesn't always do this in his "ouk, oude" comparative sentences. Greek does not require separating verbs in sentence this way in order to have a "not this, nor that" comparison.
You may be realizing at this point that "to teach" does not have any noun attached to it. It does not say "to teach a man", just "to teach".
Dr. Payne makes the argument that it is not proper in this situation to apply "man" to the verb "to teach" because "to teach" does not require a modifier like "man" to make sense, and it is about as far away from "man" in the sentence structure in Greek as possible. So, unless "to teach" and "to usurp authority over a man" is taken together as one prohibition "to teach along with usurping authority over a man", the word "man" should only be attached to "usurp authority". See Dr. Payne's book "Man and Woman, One in Christ", pages 337-359,
4. "The woman" is not being permitted to teach
Why do I say "the woman" instead of "a woman", which is what the Greek literally reads in 1 Tim 2:11-12? Because of anaphoric references and anarthrous nouns in Greek. See here:
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/08/03/a-woman-anaphoric/
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2011/06/25/specific-or-general-woman/
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2011/09/22/eve-prototype/
Okay, now we have a verb to look into. It is the word "didasko", or the generic word for "to teach".
"Didasko" is usually a positive verb, and often refers to positive teaching in the New testament.
Conversely, the verb "heterodidaskaleo", used in 1 Tim 2 twice and no where else in the entire NT (1 Tim 1:3, 1 Tim 6:3), is the word that precisely means "false teaching" or "teaching other things" that in context means false teaching.
So it looks like positive teaching is in view here; or is it?
Actually, "didasko" can and does refer to false teaching sometimes, but this is discerned by context rather than from the word itself. For example, in Titus 1:11, "didaskontes" is used of people teaching things they "ought not" teach for shameful gain.
These people, some of whom were of the circumcision party or were Jewish, were to be silenced because they were insubordinate, vain talkers, and deceivers. (Titus:1:10) This verse sounds very much like a more severe form of what is happening in 1 Tim 2:11-12.
Other examples of "didasko" referring to false teaching: Rev 2:14, Rev 2:20, Acts 21:28 (the teaching in this case was actually right teaching, some may protest. But the Jews who were railing against Paul in this passage, used this word for his teaching, though they believed he was teaching falsehood. They still used didasko to describe it.), Acts 5:25 (similarly with the last one, the teaching was actually true, but it was viewed as evil by the people who called it simply “didaskontes”.), Mark 7:7 (Matt 15:9 parallel), Matt 5:19
So clearly, the word “didasko” and it’s derivatives can be used for false teaching, even in Paul’s pastorals, and the verb heterodidaskaleo is not required, nor is it often used (it is never used elsewhere in the NT, it only appears two times in 1 Tim and then disappears). Whether “didasko” is a good, neutral, or negative teaching is determined by context.
But yet, "didasko" can and does also refer to general positive teaching most of the time in Scripture, so we can't necessarily rule out the possibility that Paul is referring to general teaching, whether bad or good, in 1 Tim 2:12, on this evidence alone.
Do note however, the other two instances where "to teach" occurs in 1 Tim, both times it is modified by "these things" (1 Tim 4:11, 1 Tim 6:2), the positive things Paul has mentioned beforehand that Timothy should teach. So, the reason we know "to teach" is positive in these other two instances, is because of the other words that elaborate on the kind of teaching being referred to. It is the context that decides this.
However, we also must take into account that the occasion for this particular letter from Paul to Timothy was explicitly stated to be false teaching in Ephesus, (1 Tim 1:3) as well as Paul teaching Timothy how he (using the singular "you", not "the whole Church" like a plural "you") should conduct himself in the House of God if Paul should be delayed.
Paul specifically charges Timothy to stay in Ephesus to try to stop the mouths of false teachers, whether they were false teachers through ignorance of The Law, or were willfully shipwrecking their faith and the faith of others. Fighting falsehood is the main reason Paul begged Timothy to remain in Ephesus.
Here is 1 Tim 1:3-20 (based on the KJV, emphasis mine)
So all of this needs to be taken into account when we are trying to decipher 1 Tim 2:11-15, since 1 Tim 1:1-20's purposes are directly linked to 1 Tim 2:1-10's exhortations by Paul with "therefore".
This may add to the mounting evidence that the "didasko", teaching, of 1 Tim 2:12 is that of a deceived woman (1 Tim 2:14-15), since the people that Timothy was explicitly ordered to stop were those ("tines", meaning "some", inclusive of both men and women, not "aner" which means "male human") who wanted to teach the law but did not know what they were saying nor what they affirmed (1 Tim 1:7), and false teachers, not true teachers of either gender who had already learned in quietness and submission and knew what they were saying and what they affirmed.
Is the picture becoming clearer yet? Let's continue...
The next question that may arise in one's mind is why Paul would prohibit a woman from specifically only teaching "a man" if she is teaching falsely. Shouldn't he prohibit her from teaching anyone?
Yes, and he does. As I have mentioned already in this post, 1 Tim 2:12 is written so that "to teach" is about as far removed from "usurp authority over a man" as possible. It is like this:
"To teach however, a woman not I am permitting, nor to usurp authority over a man, but to be in quietness."
It does not say a woman may not "teach a man", it says that she is not being permitted to teach at all. A woman (who I believe, from the grammar, is a single, unnamed woman from Ephesus) is not presently being permitted by Paul "to teach" anyone spiritual things, because she needs to learn and be saved from her deception and ongoing transgression (verses 11, 14-15)
Furthermore, the only way you can rightly (from my research) attach "a man" to "to teach" is to take both activities, teaching and usurping authority over a man, as one activity of teaching with usurped authority over a man, instead of two separate, different activities which a woman is not being permitted to do. Dr. Payne argues for the combined prohibition approach here. This approach also seems to coincide nicely with what the rest of the paragraph says, because:
a. A woman should learn: in calmness and full submission. A woman is to learn combined with being in calmness and all submission. All elements are combined, not seperated into three activities of learning, being submissive, and being calm, without relation to one another.
b. Right after Paul prohibits a woman from teaching/dominating a man, he contrasts this with one activity that he does want the woman to practice that apparently is the opposite or nearly opposite of the previous prohibited actions, which is "to be in calmness/quietness/peacefulness".
According to Dr. Payne, this kind of sentence structure is used elsewhere by Paul to combine two activities separated by "oude" into one activity, which is then contrasted to a single other activity or item with "but". In "Man and Woman, One in Christ", Payne has also found nearly or exactly similar constructions in other Greek texts that he believes also must be combined, like he believes 1 Tim 2:12 should be, in order to make sense.
c. Paul links Adam's "being first formed" to Adam's "not being deceived" state with "and" when he is either justifying or explaining the exhortations and prohibitions he has just given in 1 Tim 2:13. This may combine two reasons into one reason; Adam was formed first and he was not deceived, but Eve was formed second and she was deceived, so a woman shouldn't teach with usurped or self-assumed authority over man before she has first learned properly.
d. The ISV, a very new and freshly updated translation which has had time to consider the new research in this area, takes a similar approach to Payne's in combining 1 Tim 2:12's prohibitions into one prohibition. However, the ISV renders "authentein" as "instigate conflict", which is different than Payne's translation, but I think this rendering is still well within the realm of possible meanings and contrasts nicely with "calmness/peacefulness".
Those who want "to teach" to take the modifier "a man" divorced from "usurping authority" have referred to Acts 8:21 as an example where the two elements joined by an "oude" can both take the qualifiers from the second element. However, there are problems with this example.
a. "Part" and "share" in Acts 8:21 are synonyms and seem to combine to make a single point, 1 Tim 2:12's "to teach" and "to usurp authority" are not synonyms like this.
b. "A man" is not in the correct case to fit "to teach". "A man" is genitive, which is not the proper case for "to teach", unlike in Acts 8:21 where the transferred element matches the first element, "part", properly.
c. "To teach" does not need any modifier like "a man" to make sense, unlike Acts 8:21's "you have no part", which appears to demand something like "in this matter" to make sense.
"To teach" is often used in Scripture as a stand alone activity, it does not need a personal object like "to teach men", or "to teach them". In fact, no other time in 1 Tim 2 does "to teach" or "to teach different doctrine" have personal objects attached to them.
d. In Acts 8:21, the qualifier "in this matter" is as close as possible to both "part" and "share", unlike 1 Tim 2:12's "to teach", which is very far away from "to usurp authority over a man".
e. Combining "to teach" with only "a man" as separate prohibition instead of combining it with the whole "usurping authority over a man" conflicts with Priscilla's teaching of Apollos in Acts 18:26, and the other places in Scripture where women are told to teach. Acts 8:21 does not conflict with the rest of Scripture when "in this matter" is attached to "part".
See pages 353-356 in Dr. Payne's book "Man and Woman, One in Christ" for more information on why "to teach" is not to be attached to "a man" unless "to teach" is combined as one prohibition with "assuming/usurping authority over a man", which then would only be prohibiting a woman from teaching with usurped/self-assumed authority over a man, not all teaching.
5. "Nor authentein a man"
There is a lot of controversy surrounding this word here, "authentein", which the KJV translates as "usurp authority". This is the only time this word is used in all of Scripture, and this verbal form is rarely found it documents dating from the time of Paul.
According to some researchers, this word meant "to murder" or "to perpetrate crimes with one's own hands" several hundred years prior to Paul's time. Several hundred years after Paul's time, the first clear witnesses to this word's meaning being synonymous with "exousiazo" (which means to exercise authority, used in Luke 22:25), are found.
Interestingly enough, Paul does mention murder multiple times in 1 Tim, in conjunction with The Law and sound teaching. (1 Tim 1:8-10) Despite this, I do not feel that "authentein" means murder in this instance, even if there is a slight chance of that.
So the question is, what does this word really mean, and what did it mean to Paul in his time period? A general, "positive", "normal" exercising of authority, exactly like exousiazo? Or something distinctly less wholesome or mild?
Other translations that are possible, according to a few NT lexicons that I've read, for "authentein" are "to assume (personal/independent) authority over", "to use authority over", "to rule over as a master", "to dominate/domineer", "to be a self-appointed autocrat", "to govern".
Check yourself, but keep in mind these particular lexicons can sometimes be biased toward patriarchy (especially the NAS in my opinion), and newer data may not have been considered when compiling these, since some appear to be several years old, or in the case of the NAS, over a decade old (which may be why it seems off): http://biblesuite.com/greek/831.htm
A relatively new translation has come into vogue, "to exercise authority". Many have shown that this rendering is unlikely (and is not even the historical rendering). I would refer you to several resources:
Firstly, Suzanne McCarthy's series of blog posts about this word and it's history. Suzanne knows how to read Greek, unlike a lot of us lay folk, and she gets into the actual manuscript evidence.
1. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2007/09/authority-part-1.html
2. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2007/09/authority-part-2-philodemus-fragment.html
3. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2007/09/authority-part-3-fragment-and.html
4. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2007/10/authority-4-fragments-non-existance.html
5. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2007/10/authority-4-chrysostom.html
6. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2007/10/authority-6-returning-to-evidence.html
7. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/06/response-open-letter.html
8. http://bltnotjustasandwich.com/2012/11/25/denny-burk-corrects-tom-wright-not-his-best-moment/
9. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/12/request-re-authentein.html
10. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/11/authentein-in-wolters.html
11. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/11/i-am-going-to-try-and-summarize-various.html
12. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/05/lcms-report-on-authentein.html
13. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2010/11/1984-and-complementarians.html
14. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/05/to-dictate-to.html
15. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2010/11/denny-burk-on-niv-2011.html
Secondly, Dr. Philip Payne's book "Man and Woman, One in Christ", pages 361-397. You should simply buy this book, it is well documented and very scholarly, but rather easy to read. I don't agree with Dr. Payne in everything he asserts (particularly his interpolation theory for 1 Cor 14:34-35), but the book is really a must-read if you are interested in the topic of women in the Bible.
Thirdly, "Discovering Biblical Equality, Complementarity without Hierarchy", another book I think is worth getting, that contains an argument for how authentein is not best translated "exercise authority over"on pages 205-223.
So what do I think authentein means?
I am of the mind that the best rendering of 1 Tim 2:12's "authentein" would be something like " but to teach, a woman I am not permitting, nor to force herself on a man, but to be in quietness." This would contrast nicely with learning in all submission while remaining in quiet calmness, because teaching with forceful bossiness is pretty much the opposite of this.
It does not appear that "teaching with authority" is opposite of "learning in all submission with quiet calmness", since positive authorities in Church would also have to mutually submit to others (Eph 5:21), be humble towards others (1 Pet 5:5), live quiet/calm lives (1 Tim 2:2, 2 Thess 3:12), and think of others as superior to themselves (Phil 2:3). These things can all be done while remaining in proper authority. Bossy, forceful teaching, however, would make submission impossible, as well as being humble, being calm and quiet, exhorting with gentleness, and deeming others as superior.
In addition to this, the etymology of "authentein" lends itself to this reading, since it basically means "self-doing" or "self-achieving" which can also include the connotation doing something for one's own advantage. Dr. Payne says on page 363 of MaW,OiC, that typically, the words that spring from the "authent-" root are strongly emotional and negative, with meanings akin to "dominate" or "autocrat".
Lastly, probably the best evidence we have from the time of Paul for the meaning of this word comes from BGU 1208.38, a papyrus letter from a man named Tryphon to a slave owner named Asklepiades, written around 27/26 BC, in which Tryphon explains that he did "authenteo" Asklepiades' slave in order to get the slave to agree to pay a boatman the boat fare that the slave owed.
Dr. Payne says Tryphon "assumed authority over" the slave to get the slave to agree to pay the fare (since Tryphon did not have "exousia" over another man's slave, it was self-assumed, unrecognized authority), and later on the slave's actions are called "insolence", since the slave didn't end up obeying Tryphon and paying, though the slave had consented to pay within the hour after Tryphon "authenteo'd" him. Others have rendered "authentein" here as "I compelled him" or "I called him to account", or "I had my way with him", even "I domineered him".
I personally think "I forced [dominated] him" is the best rendering, but some do not like this because they don't think someone would admit to dominating another person if it was a negative thing.
However, some today use "dominate" as a positive term in certain situations, to show their power or success over others. For instance, I know that many video-game players today like to use "dominate" positively, of someone who totally "owns" (defeats easily or utterly) someone or something else in a game. "Domination" is seen to be, in this context, akin to winning without much competition, or to win so utterly that it makes the defeated opponent look weak.
In this context, and other competitive contexts, domination is seen as a highly sought-after, positive goal. Tryphon may have been "showing off" in a sense, telling how he dominated the slave and made him agree to pay the fare. I can't prove that this connotation would be used by some Greek speakers of the 1st century, but I don't think it can be ruled out. It fits nicely in my opinion.
I believe "authenteo" may also mean to "assume an unrecognized stance of personal authority, like that of an absolute master", or rather, "assume unrecognized authority over as an autocrat". I believe this could either be bad authority, like "to boss around, to dominate or domineer, to wrongfully usurp personal authority" or even "to perpetrate a crime against", or neutral authority, "to rule over as an autocratic/absolute master, to be the sole lord of another." However, I think the "neutral" meanings come in to play primarily hundreds of years after Paul, so they may not be appropriate.
I come to this conclusion through several lines of evidence, in addition to the evidence given above:
1. As Suzanne McCarthy says in her blog post here , the way this word has been translated in the past favors it conveying a stance of authority that is stronger than simply a general exercising of authority. Her listing of the way old translations translated authentein appears as follows from her blog post:
2. This is not the usual word Paul, or anyone else in Scripture, uses for positive authority. In fact, this word never occurs anywhere else in Scripture for any positive thing, or anything at all. Paul could have used many other more common words for authority or having authority like "exousia" "exousiazo" "hegeomai" "kurios" and "kurieuo" to express a general exercising of authority or general lordship. All these are used multiple times in scripture. Why the rare verb authentein if he meant the exact same thing as exousia or exousiazo, or kurieuo?
3. Paul expressly says a woman has authority over her own husband's body (1 Cor 7:4) using "exousiazo", so if authentein=exousiazo in meaning, than that means a woman cannot do this, since she is not permitted to exercise authority over a man, and her husband is a man. (unless, as some complementarians believe, a woman is only barred from teaching authoritatively, but not from separately having authority or separately teaching.)
Some will object, and point out that a woman is only said to be exercising authority over a man's physical body; but why is that not also part of the whole "man" that she is prohibited from "exercising authority" over in 1 Tim 2:12? A woman can have physical authority over a man, but not any other kind? Really?
I will concede this is a possibly, since the context is the Church in 1 Tim 2:12 and the context in 1 Cor 7:4 is personal home life; plus, the Church's jurisdiction is the Spiritual. But I do not think the Church's jurisdiction is entirely spiritual.
The Church leaders can also tell you what to do with your physical body (not allowed to fornicate, head covering/no head covering, eat meat/don't eat meat, not allowed to wear costly garments and gold, not allowed to marry an unbeliever, not allowed to remarry after divorce, etc).
If the Church leaders told you they wanted you to fast, and you were healthy and capable, should you not obey? The church does have some kind of right over our physical bodies, to an extent, even if many today are insubordinate to it.
4. Authentein (authenteo) and it's related noun authentes both had very negative connotations before the Time of Paul (murder/murderer), and those connotations may have still colored it's meaning later on.
According to Dr. Payne in MaW,OiC ( page 364), one deuterocanonical book of the LXX (Septuagint), the Book of Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon), in Wis 12:6, uses the noun form of "authenteo", "authentes", to mean murderer of children. Paul may have known of this, since he seems to have used The LXX extensively, and therefore may have known about this deuterocanonical book's use of the word "authentes".
See this article also, about half way down the page, for more on the "murder/commit a crime" interpretation.
5. The few unquestionable scraps of evidence we have that actually contain this verb in and around the time period of Paul seem to make "authentein" out to be either neutral (when talking about celestial bodies) or rather negative (with people involved) in their connotative range. I don't recall seeing any that were obviously positive, but I have seen some that were potentially or obviously negative. See Suzanne's blog posts linked above for more information.
6. This is how several lexicons interpret this word. Here is an example of how some lexicons have interpreted this word: http://biblesuite.com/greek/831.htm
The only one here that disagrees with the rest substantially among these specific concordances is the NAS exhaustive concordance. The NAS NT was first published in the late 1960's, then updated later. It may have more bias than the others when it comes to women, because the time period when it was written in was a time when feminism and egalitarianism was making inroads, against the desires of many conservative scholars. The NAS concordance available on Biblos also appears to be over ten years old, whereas the others appear to be much more recently updated (which means they had access to more of Payne's extensive research, his book was released in 2009).
Also, the NAS mistranslated verse 14 and 15 of 1 Tim 2:11-15, making "she" into "women" (plural) and "The Childbirth" (singular noun) into "the bearing of children" (plural), along with making verse 14's "is fallen into transgression" into a past tense action without a hint of it's perfect tense nature.
The NAS also added the non-existent term "symbol of" to 1 Cor 11:10's "authority", which is not the proper rendering of this verse and shows Complementarian bias.
This version also fabricates a very spurious and undoubtedly incorrect translation of "other" for the word that always means "such" in 1 Cor 11:16's "we have no such practice", which inverts the meaning of the sentence.
Additionally, in Rom 16:1 it makes Phoebe into a mere "servant" instead of a Deacon or Minister (it does translate "deacon" as "minister" or "deacon" many times when males are called "deacons" however.), and calls her a "helper" instead of a protector, patroness or leader, which is what the word translated as "helper" really means.
Lastly, it incorrectly translates "Junia" as a masculine "Junias" in Rom 16:7, which is not the historical rendering, nor is it supported by modern scholarship. However, it may have been done to cover over the evidence that Junia, a woman, was an Apostle.
Therefore, I do not put much weight on the NASB's translation, especially when we have better translations and resources to work with that have included and considered more recent research. The NASB appears to be one of the most biased translations out there when it comes to women. This is especially sad, because the NASB claims to be faithful to the grammar of the Greek, and a literal translation.
Some people claim (Andreas Kostenberger being the "head" of this theory) that both activities connected by an "oude" like 1 Tim 2:12 must either be positive in their connotation or negative, there cannot be one positive activity (didasko as true teaching) and one negative negative (authentein as bad authority) taken together like this in one prohibition. Both must be either positive activities (good teaching and good authority) or negative (false teaching and bad authority).
It is then many times asserted that,
despite the evidence for the present indicative form of "epitrepo" denoting a limited, temporary prohibition,
and despite the evidence favoring a negative meaning for authentein, and despite the fact that "didasko" can and is used for negatively perceived teaching in Scripture around seven times other than here in 1 Tim 2:12, even in Paul's pastorals (Titus 1:11),
and despite the fact that false teaching (1Tim 1:18-20) and unlearned teachers (1Tim 1:6-7) are some of the stated reasons for Paul's letter to Timothy to begin with, and these are the people Paul specifically tells Timothy to "charge" not to teach wrong things (1Tim 1:3-7),
and despite the fact that Eve-like deception and transgression that "the woman" is still "in" at the time of the writing of this letter (perfect tense) are explicitly given as reasons for why "a woman" is not being permitted to teach (1Tim 2:14),
and despite the nouns of verses 11-15 all being singulars and verse 15 being hard to interpret because of the change of grammar from the singular "she"to the plural "they", and the difficulty of the perfect and future tenses involved that seem to rule out Eve as being "the woman" and "she" in verses 14-15,
this passage must be barring all women from positive and true teaching of men and positive ecclesiastical authority over men in The Church for all time because Adam was first formed (even though all men now come through women, and man and woman are not separate in The Lord, 1 Cor 11:11-12.),
and because "the woman", who like Eve, was deceived, and who was remaining in her transgression to that very day, and Adam was not deceived (even though the whole Church, men included, are said to have their minds potentially corrupted just as Eve was deceived, 2 Cor 11:3, and Paul claims he and all The Church (plural "we") were once "deceived" before we came to Faith in Christ, Titus 3:3, plus any man or woman that does not bridle their tongue deceives themselves and has false religion, James 1:26)
For me, it has become hard to believe this interpretation; an interpretation that at first, before I studied these verses closely and in the original language, I thought was unshakable and the clear truth. But is this claim even correct, do both activities connected by an "oude" need to be either positive or negative? If they do, than the case is strengthened that Paul has prohibited positive authority of some kind (still appears to be self-appointed, judging by the etymology of authentein and it's related word group), because although "didasko" can and is used negatively, it is usually used for positive teaching in Paul's epistles.
Dr. Payne has also addressed this assertion of Kostenberger's in his book "Man and Woman, One in Christ" on pages 356-359. He has shown that two activities connected by "oude" do not always have to agree in their moral connotation of either being both viewed as negative things or both viewed as positive things. See his book for a list of examples and the full argument.
However, even if both verbs did have to be either both positive or both negative, I still feel the context suggests a negative connotation for "didasko" in 1 Tim 2:12, because:
a. The explicit concern in this letter is with false teaching, deception, and people wanting to be proper teachers of the law without knowing or realizing what they are saying or what they confidently affirm. (1Tim 1:6-7)
b. the fact that young widows in particular seem to be the ones singled out later in 1 Tim as being those who should not be put on the "true widow" list because they will incur condemnation by turning from their faith, learning (same word for "learn" in 1 Tim 2:11, "manthano") to be idle by going from house to house ( possibly house Church to house Church ) being foolish-talkers ("phlyoroi"), speaking ("laleo", the generic usually positive term for speaking used here, like "didasko", but which is obviously negative speaking in this context) things they ought not (1Tim 5:13)
Some Complementarians seem to believe that the women were not themselves the false teachers mentioned in 1 Tim, but those who were in danger of being decieved. I can find nothing to justify this conclusion, especially because the word for "those" who are said to be trying to teach The Law without understanding is the generic word for anybody, male or female. Also, if women were the ones who were the primary targets for the decievers, the women who believed the deception would in turn naturally begin teaching false things themselves, thereby becoming decievers. (2 Tim 3:13) Furthermore there is no reason to suppose that women were susceptible to this deception, but not the men, as if men are not in danger of deception.
c. "The woman" of verse 14, and possibly "a woman" of verses 11-12, is said to have been deceived, and in her transgression in the perfect tense ( denoting an action that occurred in the past, but the results of which continue into the present). She also needs to be saved (future tense) from her current state of transgression, and her salvation is contingent on her and someone else (her teacher, "a man" from verse 12 perhaps?) remaining in true faith that works through love. Eve does not appear to fit as the "she", nor "the woman" because of the grammar (Eve is dead and cannot do anything to be saved, nor is she still in her transgression).
d."A woman" is commanded to learn in quietness and submission instead of teach and usurp authority, which may imply she is lacking in some knowledge and has not been learning in quietness and submission. Teaching falsly and usurping/domineering is the opposite of learning truth and submitting completely.
e. "Authentein" really does seem like it means usurped or self-assumed authority from the evidence we have to look back upon today, or "acting autocratically", which is also what the lexicons permit for this word. Check Dr. Payne's research in his book "Man and Woman, One in Christ", pages 361-397.
I believe Dr. Payne said the NIV 2011 changed authentein in it's translation from "exercise authority" in the 1980's to "assume authority" in 2011 based in part on his own research into the nature of this rare word "authentein" that he submitted to the translation committee. It is a very convincing study.
7. Even if "authentein" meant the same thing as "exousiazo", to exercise authority, is that not one of the things that is prohibited by Jesus, our Servant-Lord, for His own disciples within the "leadership" structures of the Church in Luke 22:25? Therefore, if authentein meant "exercise authority over", then would it not simply be prohibiting in 1 Tim 2:12 the same thing that was already prohibited for everyone in the Church?
As an example of a prohibition that is both explicitly for one sex and yet prohibited elsewhere for both, take 1 Tim 2:8's prohibition of "reasoning" for men while praying;
1Tim 2:8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting (literally "reasoning").
The word for "doubting/reasoning" in this verse is "dialogismos". It can mean morally neutral or morally negative thinking or reasoning both, depending on context (somewhat like "didasko", to teach.).
So Paul is saying specifically to men only in this passage, using the word for males,"aner", that they should not "reason/doubt" in prayer.
However, this same thing is prohibited to everyone in The Church in Phil 2:14. No one is permitted to "doubt/dispute" at any time, yet Paul applies this principle only to the men in 1 Tim 2:8.
And so it may be with "exercising authority over" someone. No one may do it, not a woman in 1 Tim 2:12 (if authentein means exercise authority), and not anyone in Luke 22:25 (and it's parallel passages in the other gospels.)
Yes, I know, there are "leaders" within the Church that have charge over the flock, and we are to obey those in general authority (although the term "exousia", which is sometimes used of Church authority, and the term for "rulers" (Greek "archais") tend to be used of secular rulers and authorities that we are to be subject to more so than for Church authorities, Titus 3:1); but perhaps "exercising authority over" each other is not what Christ meant by Church leadership. In fact, exousiazo is not even used to describe the authority of Church leadership in Scripture, not even once.
See for yourself: http://biblesuite.com/greek/1850.htm
One begins to wonder if a false edifice has been built up in the Church to foster authority-centric "leaders" to wield supposedly "benevolent" power over others without having to worry about submitting themselves, when all along it has been totally unbiblical.
And would it be so surprising? Don't many of us conservative Protestants believe this happened with Catholicism from even the early centuries of the Church, and is still happening? Perhaps it's happened to us too.
6. Adam first, Eve second; the first formed was not decieved.
So why does Paul use the creation account to justify this lack of permission? What does Eve having been formed after Adam, and Adam not having been decieved have to do with this?
We know from 1 Cor 11 that the order and the purpose of the creation of the first humans says something about who they were meant to be. We know that a man is "head" of a woman because of him being the one through whom woman was made, and for whom she was made.
It was not good that the man should be alone, he was the one who needed Eve in order for things to be "very good". Eve also needed Adam, because without him needing her she would not have been made (we presume). Woman was to be a "helper", an "ezer", which is never used in the Old Testament to show that a person is subordinate in rank to the one he or she is helping, but several times of God Himself. see here: http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/strongs_5828.htm
Both Adam and woman were given rule over the Earth together as equals in the beginning and called collectively "Adam". Neither was said explicitly to be "over" the other, though Adam did get more privileges than Eve, in that He saw God miraculously growing the garden and creating the animals that were brought to him, he got to hear the first commands of God, and he got to call Eve "woman" when she was brought to him.
If this is the earliest case of primogeniture in The Bible, it meant more privileges for Adam, but not more authority to rule, since the first-born sons in Hebrew culture did not automatically "rule over" their siblings for their whole lifespan, but rather were given more inheritance from their father when he died. Many men who were not first-born ruled over their older siblings in secular and religious matters.
It appears that the purpose of Adam naming the animals was so that he might realize he needed a suitable helper that corresponded to him, and he bursts into poetry when he awakes to meet woman, calling her "ishshah". Ishshah just means woman, Adam did not name her "Eve" until after the fall. Interestingly, she was called "ishshah" by the writer of Genesis before Adam had even seen her yet, which may mean God had already "named" her but wanted Adam to realize this and be in agreement. (Gen 2:2)
Therefore, there are at least three possible reasons for why Paul used Adam's prior formation by God to ground his prohibitions on a woman:
a. Man is a woman's "head" in the sense of authority from the beginning simply because he was formed first, so she must not have authority over him nor teach him. Somehow being born first makes you an authority over those born after instead of simply allotting you more privileges (like more inheritance), and subordinates teaching superiors, at least in an authoritative manner, is bad. If this is true, than subordination and the sin of having authority over someone made before you is a Creation principle, and may have everlasting implications.
But if this is true, why did God raise up Deborah, and Miriam, and Hulduh, and the other women who had authority over men and spoke words that instructed men in the most authoritative way possible, prophecy? Was it a sin for a man to teach or hold authority over his older brother? Was it a sin for a man to hold authority over his own father or teach him authoritatively once he had grown to maturity?
We are told to respect and submit to our elders in Scripture, but that does not mean that you may never teach your mother authoritatively or be in spiritual authority over your father, or that you must obey your parents in all things when you are an adult and have your own household, does it? Is it a sin for a woman to hold authority over her son, who is told to obey her by God? When does the man not have to obey his mother because he has become her "head" (authority) by becoming a grown man, and now she must submit to him?
And we also have the Creation principles of God hallowing the Sabbath, but yet not requiring Christians to keep it anymore, and meat was not given to man for food until Noah got off the Ark, only seed-bearing plants were given to man and beast in the garden for food, but yet God permits us to eat meat still. Man and woman were naked in the garden, clothes did not come until the shame of sin, but yet we must wear modest clothes in public or we sin, and we will be wearing garments in the Kingdom of God.
So there does appear to be some flaws in the logic that a man being formed first makes him the superior to the second-formed, and that principles that were "from the beginning" are always everlasting or applicable for us today.
This view is also largely dependent on "head" in 1 Cor 11 meaning "authority over".
b. Man is "head" of a woman in the sense that he is her source of life and nourishment, so she should respect him by not teaching him anything in a usurping way, or that she should not teach him false doctrine nor assume for herself unrecognized authority over him. Similarly, we have reverence for our "sources of life", our parents and grandparents, and our progenitor's in The Lord. We do not sharply rebuke them but treat them as fathers and mothers, with carefulness and respect. This is basically Dr. Payne's view.
It avoids the difficulty of seeing primogeniture, or "first-formedness" if you will, as a hierarchical structure that makes God's called women of the Bible seem to be transgressing this proposed Creation principle in obedience to Him in many places in Scripture.
This view is largely dependent, however, on "source of life" or "beginning" and not "authority over" as being the proper definition of "head" in 1 Cor 11, the (only?) place where Paul's understanding of the meaning of the creation accounts of man and woman are elucidated.
c. Adam's being formed first is directly related to him not being deceived. Rather than Adam's priority in creation being seen as a reason in itself for a woman not teaching nor usurping authority over a man, Adam's privilege of being first formed is why he was not deceived, and this taken together is why a woman should learn first and not be teaching at that time. Eve was deceived, like "a woman" or "the woman" of 1Tim 2:11-14, because she had not been around as long as Adam, so she didn't experience all the miracles of God like Adam did, and so was easier to deceive because of her relative inexperience as being the younger and less knowledgeable.
This theory is nice because it ties it all together, and shows how a woman should properly learn first, verse 11, like Adam who was "not deceived" and who, in this case, she should prefer to emulate. She should not be like Eve, the second one formed, because Eve was deceived by her lack of experience compared to Adam.
This explanation has difficulties with it as well, because it seems like Adam's first formation was a separate reason for either both prohibitions separately, both prohibitions combined as one prohibition (Dr. Payne's view), or only the last one about not usurping authority. Similarly, it seems like "the woman's" deception and continuing transgression is a separate reason either for both prohibitions separately, both prohibitions combined as one prohibition, or only the first one about not teaching.
let's look at a ditilled version the verses in question with this interpretation overlayed:
1Tim 2:13-15 For (the reason she is commanded to learn in quietness and all submission along with being prohibited from teaching and usurping authority a man is that a similar and comparable devastating incident happened in humanity's history when) Adam was first formed (then Eve), and (because he was first formed) Adam was not deceived; but the woman (like Eve, being formed after "a man"), having been deceived (because she was formed last and was younger and less "learned"), has become a transgressor. But she, "the woman", will be saved, if she (learns the faith properly and) stays in faith along with "a man".
I can't honestly say I think this is the most likely interpretation in my opinion, but I don't know exactly how to understand this yet. I'm thinking there is something to this theory, but that I've not been given the ability to see it yet by God.
d. Paul was simply refuting what this wannabe Law-teacher was erroneously teaching about the Law by just stating the facts of Creation and the fall. The woman had been teaching that Eve was first formed, and Eve was not deceived, which would make sense in Ephesus where Artemis worship was present, and a woman teacher would be the one with the reason to try to make Eve sound more prominent than Adam, since it would increase her sense of pride.
The "for" at the beginning of verse 13 is therefore corrective and not a reason for the prohibition exactly, although in some sense it shows that "a woman" was teaching wrong things about The Law. So indeed, it is both corrective of "a woman" and a justification for the prohibition and command to learn placed upon her.
I believe that either "b", "c", or "d" may be correct, or a combination of these. I lean toward combining the best of all three, but I just don't know for sure which way is the overall best. I do not think "a" is likely, but it is possible; perhaps, however, in some restricted form, or in part only.
Some may say that these verses about "the woman" being deceived and Adam not being deceived implies that women are more easily deceived then men. They may say Paul wrote "the woman" instead of "Eve" in verse 14 because he wanted to show how her womanliness was part of the reason she was deceived, as if it is inherent in all women to be deceived more readily, or that she is representing all women here as women.
However, why then does Paul not say "and the man was not deceived" instead of "Adam" if he wanted to show how Adam's maleness was important to him having avoided deception, and that he represents all men in his non-deception? For this reason in particular I think Adam and Eve may be being used here to speak about a specific woman and man, and "the woman" is not Eve, but has been deceived like Eve was, as opposed to "a man" in verse 12, who is probably her husband (but Paul chooses not to explicitly "out" this couple), who are both living out the incident in the garden at that time in Ephesus.
Certainly, all women are not still in their transgression and all were not thoroughly deceived in the past like Eve any more than the men were. In the same way, all men have not been spared from being thoroughly deceived, unlike Adam. I have already shown before that Paul fears an entire Church may succumb to a corrupt mind just as Eve's was deceived by the cunning of the serpent, and Paul says he and all The Church were once deceived before Christ came and saved us. James states that any man who seems religious but does not bridle his tongue deceives himself and his religious is worthless; given this is God's Word, how many deceived men do you know? Quite a few probably.
Women are specifically told to be wise, to speak with wisdom, to teach kindness, and be teachers of what is good, along with all of the general calls to teach one another in The Lord. Even in many Complementarian circles, they are at least responsible for teaching their children and other women "good" things (is Scripture not a "good" thing?). Should a person prone to deception by nature be teaching the easily deceived by nature, women and children? That doesn't make sense to me.
Therefore, it makes little sense to make Adam and Eve's character flaws apply to all their children absolutely, but separate them by gender. Besides, if this were true, all men would be prone to deliberate, willful sins, like Adam, which deserves worse punishment according to The Law than a sin done in unbelieving ignorance. (1Tim 1:13)
Finally, the text says nothing about either Adam nor Eve, or man and woman, being more prone to anything. It just states the facts about what happened in the OT, related to the non-permission of a woman teaching and usurping authority. Putting "proneness to deception" into the text is an interpretation that one brings of themselves in order to try to understand why "the woman's" sin is a reason for a woman (viewed as all women everywhere) not to teach nor usurp authority over a man (viewed as all men). I suggest it should no longer be considered a valid implication, and some Complementarians who formerly held to this position have agreed to some extent that it is unlikely to be what Paul meant.
There are those who also say that women are not allowed to teach men, because Eve taught Adam once wrongly in the Garden of Eden, and therefore all her daughters are forever banned from teaching her sons as punishment.
However, Genesis does not say Eve taught Adam anything, nor even spoke to him about the fruit. She only talked to the serpent. Eve merely handed the fruit to Adam who was with her, and he ate it without a word from Eve about it. All she did was hand him the fruit, there is nothing in the text that says she enticed him or told him to eat it. Check it out:
But some may say, why does God get mad at Adam for "listening to his wife's voice?" Isn't it because she should have obeyed his voice as the leader, and she shouldn't have lead him at all?
Adam did not say anything to Eve (that is recorded for us) the whole time while he was listening to her conversation with the serpent. He overheard her speaking with the serpent, since he was with her. The word for "listen" in Gen 3:17 is the same word used twice before in Gen 3:8 and Gen 3:10 for the humans "hearing the sound" of God walking in The Garden.
It is assumed that "hearing or listening" means "obeying", as if Eve commanded Adam to eat the fruit. But this word can and does also mean simply the hearing, or overhearing of voices or sounds, not that it means only to "listen" in the sense of "obey". In this case, God may have been faulting Adam for hearing his wife's conversation with he serpent and not doing anything to stop her, but instead eating the fruit that they both knew not to eat.
We also know that later Abraham "listens to the voice of his wife" (in the sense of obeying) and takes Hagar as another wife on order to produce Ishmael in Gen 16:2.
Today, in modern Protestantism, we tend to see this as a sinful, faithless action on the part of Abraham and Sarah, but Sarah did not yet know that she was the one who would bear Abraham's promised child. That information was not given to her until later, all she knew was that Abraham was the one who would produce the child through some woman. They were also not chastised by God for this action. This actually may have been an act of Faith that both Sarah and Abraham thought was a Godly idea, even if they were misguided.
Later, Abraham is commanded by God to "listen to the voice of his wife" in Gen 21:12. This time, the "listening" is also in the sense of obeying. Why would God say this if women should not be obeyed, because of what Eve did in the garden? So we see that Eve's daughters are not banned from audible "teaching" because of some audible teaching of Eve's that corrupted Adam, which isn't even recorded in Scripture if it happened. Rather, if anything, Eve's actions should forever bar women from handing anything to a man, which we know is not a prohibition that God has ever placed on all women.
7. "The woman" was deceived, and is a transgressor.
So we know a single woman here is who is deceived. It seems like "the woman" is just another reference to Eve at first, until you realize that this woman was not only fully deceived at some point (Greek "exapatetheisa", aorist-participle-active) in the past, but remains in her transgression to the day that Paul wrote his letter. How do we know this?
The Greek word for "is become" or "has become", "gegonen", is in the perfect, indicative, active form. The perfect tense means something happened at a point in the past with results that continue into the present. For example, "it is written" means something has been written in the past, but remains written to that day and can be found to still be written in the present.
Therefore, Eve cannot be "the woman", because she is not still in her transgression to that day, she is dead. Furthermore, it is almost assured that Eve was saved, because Eve extols The Lord after the birth of Cain as a believer would (Gen 4:1), and she extols The Lord again later at the birth of Seth (Gen 4:25), and God issued the promise of "The Seed" of Eve's who would crush the serpent's head (and therefore save her, by implication) in Gen 3:15. Adam and Eve were both clothed with skins after the fall, picturing the Covering of Christ and blood atonement (Gen 3:21).
As if we needed more proof, Adam and Eve's children, Cain and Abel, were openly sacrificing to God without any obvious sign of their parent's disapproval, and God was pleased with Abel (Gen 4:3-5).
I personally believe both Adam and Eve were saved.
8. She will be saved through The Childbirth
"She" is the one who is said to be the one who "will be saved", Greek "sothesetai". This is a future, indicative, passive, 3rd person singular form of the word "to save". Paul always uses this word to mean spiritual salvation from sin, not to sanctification or being kept safe physically. It is virtually assured that Paul is referring to how "the woman" will be saved spiritually, not how she will be sanctified or kept safe physically. Additionally, spiritual salvation makes perfect sense in this context, since "she" needs to be saved from deception and from being in her transgression, not the potential deadliness of giving birth to a child, nor merely potential deception from Satan.
These almost certainly faulty renderings of "will be saved" as "will be kept safe/preserved" have become popular because of how people interpret "the childbirth" in the same verse. It is often translated as "through bearing children"(a plural verb, which "the childbirth" is not.) or "childbearing"(which sounds like a verb) with no hint of the definite article that is actually in the Greek, which specifies "childbearing" as a definite single childbirth. They then must ask themselves, how can a woman's salvation depend on giving birth to children, is that not contradictory to everything else in the Bible? But this is not what the text is actually saying.
Dr. Payne's book "Man and Woman, One in Christ" discusses this part of 1 Tim 2:15 on pages 417-441. Check his research and citations on these pages for the complete argument.
The text literally says "She shall be saved through the childbirth". "Childbirth" is also a definite singular noun, not an indefinite plural verb. Lets look at the verse with other definite, singular nouns that we may understand better:
"But she shall be saved through The Christ" - You may not know this, but in Greek, when "Christ, or "God", or "Lord" is mentioned, they often have a definite "the" attached to them. This is many times left out in English translations, because we do not say "The God", we just say "God". The "the" specifies that it is a singular specific "God" being referred to, not just any god.
"But she shall be saved through The Child" - It is not through the woman's action of "childing" (that is a verb, not a noun) that a woman is saved, but rather by another person saving her, the single definite noun "Child" (Jesus).
"But she shall be healed through the operation" - It is through a single definite operation that a woman will be healed, not by operating herself or through multiple operations.
"But she shall be saved through the baptism" - We all have one particular, definite baptism by which we were baptized into Christ, not multiple baptisms, nor is someone saved by "baptizing" (again, that is a verb, not a noun).
"But she shall be saved through The Appearing" - "The Appearing" would refer to a special, particular appearing. But if we rendered this verse "She shall be saved through appearing", which is akin to how many translations render verse 14 of 1 Tim 2, then it sounds like a woman is saved by her action of appearing, not by "The Appearing" of Christ.
"But she shall be rescued through the ambulance" - It is through a singular definite ambulance that a woman shall be rescued. The ambulance is what her rescue comes to her through, though the ambulance itself is just the mechanism.
"But she shall be protected through the government" - Through the actions of a single, particular government (an entity), she shall be protected, not through her own "governing".
"But she shall be saved through The Gospel" - She is saved through the means of a definite, singular message that together is referred to as "the gospel". She is not saved through "Gospeling", but rather through what The Gospel as a single entity brings to her.
"But she shall be saved through The Faith" - a woman is not saved by any and all faiths, but by one particular faith.
"But she shall be saved through The Gathering" - The Gathering, a distinctive group of people who become a single gathering (a single entity), not any and all gatherings, is from whom her salvation will come through to her, but she is not saved by her own action of "gathering".
So as I have shown, "The Childbirth" is a single distinct entity, a specific unified event or person through which "the woman" will receive her salvation. It is the vehicle through which her salvation comes to her, it is not the basis of her justification itself. is a single, distinct, definite noun, like "Our God" or "The Christ". "The Childbirth" is not an indefinite verb (something which is done as an action), like "to bear a child", nor is it plural, like "to bear children" or "the childbirths", nor is it indefinite, like " a/any childbirth".
Some of the problem comes from the fact that in English, "Childbearing" sounds somewhat like a verb, something which someone does as an action, not an entity or a collective idea or thing like a noun. That's why I chose (as did Dr. Payne in his book) to use the term "childbirth", since it doesn't sound so much like a verb.
Think of it as an specific, important, definite "episode" or event. The Childbirth "episode/event/entity", the specific important Childbirth event through which salvation has come to us (Christ's birth). Similarly, we are said to be saved through (same Greek word "dia", "through") "His Life" (Rom 5:10), though it was specifically through His birth, life, death, resurrection, sinless state, and The Faith He gave to us to become One with Him in all of these things, that we were actually saved by.
Check these other places (I believe this list is exhaustive) in Paul's writings where salvation is said to come "through" something by the Greek word "dia":
1 Cor 15:1-2, Eph 2:8, Titus 3:5, 1 Cor 3:15, Heb 7:25, Rom 5:10
Are these words ("sozo" + "dia") ever used in a way not related to Christ or spiritual salvation? Why would 1 Tim 2:15 differ radically with Paul's typical usage of something being "spiritually saved through/by means of" something, and be about a woman having to give birth to children in order to be sanctified or about being kept safe from dying in childbirth?
"Through" (Greek "dia") childbearing/childbirth is indicating the agency by which a woman's salvation will come to her, not the attendent circumstances which must accompany her salvation like the things listed after the "if" clause in verse 15, thing which "they" must remain "in" (Greek "en") for "the woman" to be saved.
Furthermore, the word used for "childbearing", "teknogonias", has a verb form, "teknogoneo", which Paul could have used if he meant a woman is saved through the means of giving birth to a child. Paul used this verb in 1 Tim 5:14 for what he wanted young widows to do in order to avoid giving the adversary an occasion to slander (not in order to be saved).
I believe "teknogoneo" and "teknogonias" can in some instances refer to more than just giving birth to children, as a synecdoche (similarly to how "pray or prophecy" is, I think, used in 1 Cor 11 to denote public spiritual activities in general). I think they can also refer to the whole aspect of child-rearing in a metaphorical sense, though this is not what the words literally mean (they refer specifically to birthing children or a child, not mothering in general), but I don't think the definite form of the noun "teknogonias" in verse 15 is appropriate for that implication. I do think the present infinitive verb "teknogoneo" is appropriate for such an implication.
Why would Paul being referring to Christ by "The Childbirth"? I think it obviously highlights the fact that though "the woman", and Eve to whom she is being compared, have been deceived and transgressed, it was through their sex that "The Seed" that would crush the serpent's head would be born. The pain of childbirth because of Eve's sin and the promise of the deliverer through her specific Reproduction were both important parts of the creation narrative that Paul had just been using to justify (or explain) his prohibition and command.
It isn't referring directly to Mary, but rather the female contribution to salvation (Jesus, The Seed of a woman, not of a man) that should deflect potential blame coming to the female sex through Paul's prior chastisement of Eve, as if they were only contributors to sin and not to salvation, so that "the woman" might be encouraged.
Paul recognized that "The Seed" of Abraham was Jesus in Gal 3:16-19, so I think it is ridiculous to think Paul didn't associate "The Seed" of a woman in Gen 3:15 with Christ as well. (Gal 4:4)
In 2 Tim, Grace is referred to as having been revealed through "the appearing" of Jesus Christ, (2 Tim 1:10) and Jesus is called "The (one who) comes" (The Coming One) in Heb 10:37.
Additionally, several early Church theologians used the expression "the child-bearing" with the definite article to express the incarnation event. (pg. 439-440 of "Man and Woman, One in Christ")
If women were required to literally bear children as a necessary good work in order to be saved, or even just to show that a woman has obtained True Faith by accepting her "God-Ordained role", that contradicts Paul's affirmation of celibacy throughout 1 Cor 7 for men and women who have been given that gift, and his own desire that all be like he himself is (single), because it spares believers worldly troubles.
He explains further that celibacy allows people to focus on spiritual matters, particularly in times of trouble, but also throughout the entirety of the "last days", which we are still in. Paul, in essence, would be asking women to forfeit salvation in order to be spared worldly troubles, or give up their primary God-Ordained role that exhibits their faith just to avoid troubles. Does that make any sense? Even Jesus himself also praised eunuchs in the Gospels, and told people to accept it if they were able. (Matt 19:12) Clearly, there are major problems with either of the aforementioned interpretations.
Far from denigrating the importance of traditional roles for women, interpreting "The Childbirth" as the bearing and birth of Jesus Christ (the incarnation event) ennobles the role of women in their own acts of childbearing as well, highlighting a woman's pivotal role through the incarnations event.
However, it more importantly also affirms that Christ is the One through whom a woman's salvation comes, not her good works or ability to procreate, nor her ability to "mother" or "keep house" (which many women cannot do because of sickness), even though these things are good works which she should do, if called to them. This interpretation fits the facts and accords beautifully with the rest of Scripture.
9. If "they" remain in true faith.
This "they" is the pivotal switch that a lot of people do not want to interact with. "She" is the one who will be saved in the future at some point, if "they" stay in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control. Who is the "they"?
"They" are either Adam and Eve from verse 13, "the woman" and "a man" from verses 11-12, 14, "women" from verse 9-10, or "all men and women" from verses 8-10.
It does not appear for it to be possible for "they" to be "Adam and Eve", because both are dead and cannot "remain in" anything like the living, unless they are in heaven, which then would make "the woman" not Eve, since she can't still be in her transgression if she is saved and in heaven.
"They", Adam and Eve, can do nothing to cause "her", Eve, to be saved in the future, they are already saved and with the Lord (presumably and probably), or in hades awaiting the lake of fire. Furthermore, Eve is not in her transgression at the time of Paul's writing, being dead and probably washed in The Blood of The Lamb, unless she has already been judged and is on her way to the lake of fire, in which case she has no hope of future salvation so she cannot be the "she" that "will be saved" if "they" continue to be faithful. "She" is directly connected to "the woman" before it, they refer to the same person.
If Eve cannot be the "she", and is very unlikely to be "the woman" who remains a transgressor because that would make Eve hell-bound, and there is evidence in Genesis that she was a believer, than "they" is certainly not referring to Adam and Eve.
These are the other places where Paul uses the future, indicative, passive, 3rd person singular form of "sozo": Rom 9:27, Rom 10:13, Rom 11:26, 1 Cor 3:15. It is used of either people presently alive at the time of Paul's writing, or of those who will be alive at some time in the future, but not of those long dead at the time of Paul's writing.
So what about "they" being "the/a woman" from verses 11-12, 14, and "a man" from verse 12? This seems to be the closest and most natural reference for "they" to be referring to. It would be hard for "they" to be referring to "women"(plural) from verses 9-10, because that would mean Paul used "she" generically to mean any woman/all women, and "they" to mean the same thing, any woman/all women. Why not just use another generic-for-all-women singular like "if she continues" instead of changing to the plural "they" when there was no need to, even perhaps improper to do so if "she"="they"?
Or does one woman's salvation, the "she" of verse 15, depend on the entire female population of the Church of Ephesus continuing in faith with her? Notice it is only "she" that will be saved, if "they" stay in faith. That is "she" + someone else or everyone else having to do something in order to save a single "she", unless "she" means the exact same group of people as "they", which doesn't seem to make any sense.
For example, you wouldn't say:
If you meant "she" and "they" to refer to the same generic group of any or all women, this sounds improper. Instead, you would say:
So it appears the best candidate for "they" is "the/a woman" and "a man" interpreted as a single definite woman and a single man ( "a man", although indefinite, is many times used in Scripture of a definite single man; it can be either definite or indefinite.) That were playing out the scene in the garden; The man may have been being compared to Adam; he was formed first (either older physically or spiritually, being "formed" metaphorically in the faith and therefore being more learned. Paul uses metaphorical meanings of words in other places as well, like "the body" of Christ, and "the head" of someone being someone else figuratively.), and was not deceived. But "the woman", like Eve, was formed second (physically or in the faith, therefore she still needs to learn.), and she was deceived, and is in her transgression.
Switching from Adam and Eve as typology in verses 13-14 to "the woman" in place of Eve may be Paul's way of obviously comparing but still separating Eve and "the woman", so that there wouldn't be confusion about Adam and Eve being the only ones being discussed in these verses.
So "a man", who may be her husband, or Timothy her teacher, needs to stay in faith with "the woman" in order for her to be saved (not him, since he is probably already saved, being the one not deceived). Why would her salvation depend on him remaining in faith with her?
Similarly to being "saved" by baptism (1 Pet 3:21), which is administered by another person, or Timothy "saving" himself and his hearers by keeping his life pure and teaching sound doctrine (1 Tim 4:16), or simply those who need to be sent out preach the Gospel in order for others to hear and be saved (for faith comes by hearing, Rom 10:17), everyone is often times at some point dependent on others for their salvation in some sense. "The woman" needs "a man" (perhaps her husband or Timothy) to guide her and teach her the truth; he must remain faithful in order to do this, for she is depending on his help to be saved from deception and her ongoing transgression.
In summation, this is a possible interpretation of 1 Tim 2:11-15, and it is the one I am leaning towards at this time. I do not say it is the only one, but it does seem to be the most coherent in my opinion, and does not conflict with such scriptures as:
Titus 2:3, Where older women are told to be teachers of what is good. They are specifically told to teach younger women, but it seems untenable to suppose that only older women could teach other women, or that they could only women good things and no one else. Paul doesn't so "so that they may only teach the younger", but perhaps that is their primary duty, seeing as there are some things that women are best suited to teach other women about.
Secondly, Paul tells the older women specifically in this verse to be reverent, not slanderers, and not addicted to much wine. Is this not also for all people? Of course. So clearly, all people, including young women, should be teachers of the good.
Some have also suggested that the older women are to teach the younger in a mostly non-verbal manner, only by example, and not in any official capacity. But this makes no sense, for every other use of a form of the word "didasko", when it is being used to describe what people do, meant teaching by word, and possibly also by deed. There is no talk of where or when they can do this, nor that it cannot be in an official capacity, or in a large group.
Furthermore, how does one even teach someone how to be "good", "kind", "self-controlled", or "pure", if they don't speak to them about nor teach them the Scriptures related to this topic? It is pretty absurd to say the least, in my opinion.
Acts 18:26, Where Priscilla is said to have expounded the Way of Jesus (The Faith) to Apollos, a male teacher and preacher. She did this with her husband, Aquila, probably because it would have been scandalous for a woman to teach a man who was not her husband alone (as it can be today as well.)She is specifically included in the teaching, for "they" (plural) expounded together, not only Aquila.
I have actually heard someone say that Priscilla may have been there, and maybe fixed some beverages for Aquila and Apollos, but did not herself expound. This is most untenable, for the Scriptures explicitly say she did expound, not just serve drinks or any such thing (though she may have done that too, as that would have been a kind thing to do. The Scriptures say nothing of the sort however.).
Finally, it seems some believe that it was okay for Priscilla to teach Apollos because she was under her husband's authority and was simply helping him. But 1 Tim 2:12 gives no exception for a woman to teach as long as she is under a man's authority or watch, nor does it say that a woman may not simply regularly teach a man, but can once in a while. It also does not say that she must only not teach in an official capacity in the Church; rather, it says a woman is not being permitted to "teach", period.
If Dr. Payne is right about two activities involved in an "ouk, oude", "not, nor" construction like 1 Tim 2:12 actually being one activity, in this case "a woman is not permitted to teach with assumed authority over a man", than there could be an argument made that this is only restricting an official teaching capacity over men: but, that would probably require authentein to mean positive exercising of properly delegated authority, which from my research of the word, and other people's studies on it, seems very unlikely.
For Dr. Payne's argument about the prohibition of 1 Tim 2:12's two activities actually being one activity merged together, read his book "Man and Woman, One in Christ", or check this link for a PDF version of the argument on his website: Dr. Payne's study
Proverbs 31:26. Proverbs 31 starts out with:
then after a few verses, proceeds to say:
2 Tim 1:5, 3:14-15: Eunice and Lois, Timothy's mother and grandmother, were the ones who in all likelihood taught The Faith and the Scriptures to Timothy since his childhood, since his dad was said to be simply "a Greek" in Acts 16:1, and is not spoken of as being a believer, in contrast to the praise given to Tim's mother, who was called a believing Jew. This is properly an example of a woman teaching a child (or at least "from childhood") Spiritual things, not necessarily a grown man, but are we to assume that a mother cannot teach her own son anything more about spiritual things after he is grown?
I want to make it clear that many, if not most Complementarians would agree that a woman can teach a man in a private, unofficial capacity, so this would not disturb them.
Psalm 68:11: The women (YLT's "female proclaimers") who publish the good news are a great host. This sounds awfully prophetic, considering it was the women who proclaimed the good news of Christ's Resurrection to the Apostles. (John 20:17-18)
So perhaps, although good and a Holy Callings, marriage combined with house-keeping and child rearing is not every woman's highest and primary role, as some Complementarian's seem to forcefully insist on. Perhaps, as 1 Cor 7 throughout suggests, as well as Jesus' teaching on Eunuchs in Matt 19:12, and Luke 10:42's affirmation of Mary's better choice, that a woman can find her fulfillment in Christ alone and spiritual services instead of marriage and childbearing, if she is not called to those things by God.
Rather than God insisting that all woman have one primary and needful "role" through which she will be sanctified, bearing children and being domestic, He says instead that worrying about things such as how a woman may please her husband is something of the present world, a good but temporary role that is not given to all women. (1 Cor 7:34)(Matt 22:30)
When considering these things, take into consideration the many places in Scripture were all believers are told to teach each other:
Rom 2:21, Rom 12:7, Col 1:28, Col 3:16, 2 Tim 2:2, Heb 5:12
Never do these verses use gender exclusive language to restrict teaching only to males, Greek "aner".
However, in Greek, if a group of people includes even one male, the masculine form of the word referring to that group is used. This does not mean that only men are in view, since women are included within such groups as well, as in John 3:16, where "everyone who believes" is masculine, but includes women. It just means that males are also included in the group, not just women. That's why when you see the word "man" in Scripture, you should know that it is often translated from the word that means "mankind" (Greek "anthropos") , man and/or woman, and does not necessarily refer to males only. The word "aner" specifies males only, and "gune" women only.
Judges 4:4-5:31: A woman, Deborah, lead men and judged all of Israel, and the whole land had peace for 40 years because of it. She was a Godly woman, a mother of Israel, raised up by God.
2 Kings 22:13-20, 2 Chron 34:22-28: Hulduh, a female prophet. Some say her prophecy did not come true, but it may be that this situation was like that of Jonah, who was a true prophet, but his prophecy did not come true because Nineveh repented. God relented of his prophesied punishment they He was going to pour out on them, but that doesn't mean Jonah was a false prophet.
1 Sam 25:1-34: Abigail went to David behind her husband's back in order to save her people, because her husband was a fool. She was praised by David and became his wife after her foolish husband died. She was brave, and not willing to stand back and let a foolish husband ruin other people's lives.
Micah 6:4, Exodus 5:20-21: Miriam, along with Moses and Aaron, lead all Israel. Moses was however the primary leader, above (it would appear) both Miriam and Aaron because he was the most humble man in all the earth during that time (Num 12:3), and God spoke with him face to face (Num 12:8). Miriam saved Moses as a baby by putting him in the basket that was sent down the river. (Exodus 2:1-10)
Acts 21:9: Philip had four unmarried (virgin) daughters that prophesied. Being a Prophet is said to be the second highest appointment of God in the Church, after Apostleship, and before Teachers. (1 Cor 12:28)
Luke 2:36-38: Anna the widowed prophetess, who lived at the Temple and spoke with everyone who was looking for redemption in Israel about Jesus. Some of these people were males, since the "all those" that she spoke to is in the masculine form, which would include both men and women. Do you think they ever learned anything spiritual from her?
Rom 16:1: Phoebe is a deacon of a Church, and a "prostatis" (protector, one who goes before another) of Paul and others. She has an actual office that many others who are recognized as having authority in the Church have. Keep in mind that Jesus Himself said "the greatest among you will be your deacon" (also Matt 20:26, Mark 10:43), and "the one who leads should be as the one who serves" (this passage uses the verbal form of "deacon" for "serves", "diakoneo"). She has even been a protector or leader of Paul, which certainly shows that women can be strong and have authority.
more on Phoebe: http://abandonimage.blogspot.com/2008/07/phoebe-deacon-of-early-church.html
Rom 16:7: Junia, a woman, is "outstanding among the Apostles", and was in The Faith before Paul. Many believe she is conclusively designated an Apostle, which is the highest rank of Church appointment by God.
More on Junia here: http://www.godswordtowomen.org/rissjunia.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other questions:
Why does Paul only temporarily prohibit a woman from "usurping authority" or "teaching falsely" if those are bad things to do in general?
There is a possibility that Paul here is restricting all teaching (good or bad) and assuming personal (not Church-delegated) authority (in a non-pejorative, personal discipleship manner) for the woman instead of false teaching and domineering. The reason he would be restricting all teaching by the woman is because she wants to teach The Law but doesn't know what she is talking about (the woman is deceived and still in transgression, regardless of how we take "teach" and "usurp/assume authority".), so he forbids all teaching by her temporarily (epitrepo).
Under this scenario, we would take "epitrepo" to be the limiter, she is only presently being restricted from two positive or neutral activities, teaching doctrine and assuming her own authority (which is not always a bad thing, in theory.). However, epitrepo may also (perhaps) be a universal prohibition that was placed upon "the woman, barring her from teaching false doctrine or usurping authority/dominating a man.
Therefore we have two possible scenarios in my view:
a. Epitrepo is time-limited and is valid only at the time of Paul when there was false teaching problems at Ephesus. A woman is temporarily being banned from all teaching, either in conjunction with or separately from assuming undelegated authority for herself. She is banned fom all self-authorized (or just any) teaching for now because, as someone decieved, she is liable at any moment to teach falsehoods along with some truth and confuse people.
She is not being permitted to assume her own authority over a man, because it is disrespectful to a man to have a woman not get properly delegated authority to teach him (because Adam was first formed, then Eve, making him her source and senior. She should therefore respect him as one would an older person and in some ways, a parent.), especially if she is deceived and teaching some false doctrines mingled with truth. So, Paul stops her teaching entirely, or only her teaching when combined with self-proclaimed authority.
It may also be that the scenario was a woman teaching a single man (her husband perhaps), and that the man is being compared to Adam in that he was formed first ( he is either older, or was formed in The Faith before her), and he was not deceived, but she was deceived like Eve.
In that case, Paul was not permitting her to do the things he prohibits her from doing because she is deceived and should not assume authority over a man or teach him spiritual things as if she knew better than he, since he is not deceived like Adam and he was formed first. Therefore, she needs to learn from him and others quietly in all submission. She is not ready to teach or have personal authority.
Even if "the woman" is made into "all women", this prohibition is not valid for today because, like almost every other use of "Epitrepo" in Scripture (except perhaps 1 Cor 14:34's use, which may be an interpolation or a Corinthian quote and therefore not a true instance of this word being used for a universal prohibition.), it is specifically used for situation-specific prohibitions or allowances. In this case, women particularly were spreading false teaching, prattling, and saying things they shouldn't in Ephesus (home to a "goddess", and the Artemis cult), which Timothy must stop. There may also be gnostic teachings (1 Tim 6:20) about "The Law" being spread by women, where Eve was given a place of prominence over Adam in contradiction to the actual story recorded in Genesis.
b. Epitrepo, although usually time-bound and non-universal, is being used here as an eternal prohibition on a specific woman because of her deception. She is banned from only false teaching and usurping authority/dominating a man in a bad way, but she is not being limited from true teaching or delegated proper authority. This would also be the case if "the woman" was synonymous with "all women", and not a definite individual.
Therefore, since I can't be certain that "Epitrepo" is time-bound, or that "to teach" and "to usurp authority" are both negative things, nor that both are positive, or that one is positive and the other negative, I give evidence for two views. You may have to pick the one you think is most persuasive.
Why does Paul prohibit only "a woman" from teaching, and not all false teachers?
He does prohibit other false teachers who were male. See Payne's book "Man and Woman, One in Christ" pages 334-335
Consider that this verse may be about a single unnamed but definite woman who was deceived and is in transgression, in Ephesus, that needed to learn and be saved. If this is true, then the reason she alone was told to stop teaching at that time is because she was deceived like Eve. She was one of those people who wanted to be a teacher of the law, but didn't know what she was talking about.
This would also make sense of why Paul brings up Adam and Eve to make his point, since the story of their creation is written in "the Law" (which is what Paul called the Old Testament), and this lady wanted to teach it but was not correct in what she confidently affirmed. Perhaps she was teaching that Eve was first formed, then Adam, and Eve was not deceived? That would make verses 13-14 about correcting her misunderstanding of the Law.
Additionally and more subjectively, women were probably less educated than men, as appears to be the case in much of history, and they were probably also influenced by the fertility cults that were native to that region, particular Artemis, who was a goddess specifically mentioned to be "of the Ephesians" in Acts.
Furthermore, young widows are the one's mentioned as those who, "learn to be idle" and "go from house to house... talking foolishness... saying things they ought not". Not only young widows fall into these sins of course, but there was obviously a particular problem with women in Ephesus. Even in 2 Timothy, women are still a source of problems, which may be because of the Artemis cult that was stationed there.
The same question could be asked, why does Paul only tell women not to dress immodestly and opulently? Do men get to dress immodestly, but not women? You know that isn't what Paul means.
Why does Paul only tell men to lift up holy hands in every place, and not to be wrathful and wrangle when they pray? Does that mean women shouldn't lift up holy hands, and can be wrathful and wrangle?
Why does Paul ever tell specific people to do something, like telling "someone" not to have their father's wife (sexually) (1 Cor 5:1), if we know the same applies to all people? Why not just say no one can have their father's wife or they get kicked out of Church?
Because one person's actions were the problem at the time, and there are plenty of other Scriptures that would imply this principle even if it's not directly stated for everyone.
The fact is, Scripture reiterates many things over and over again without (seemingly) needing to, just because God found that to be a good thing to do. Why He did it, I do not know. But I know there is some good reason for it.
Furthermore, These pastoral letters, especially 1 Tim, which was written to instruct Timothy singularly throughout almost the entire letter and not all people in the Church like some of Paul's other letters, were tailored for specific situations actually occurring at the time in order to help particular people.
That does not mean everything in 1 Tim is only for the Church at Ephesus, for surely there are universally applicable commands or principles housed within the letter that all Churches are called to observe, since every Church must observe some universal principles. But not everything spoken of is applicable to all people in all times and places.
Then why does Paul not name this woman like Hymenaeus and Alexander?
Perhaps it was because she was a deceived person who was trying to teach The Law, but did not even know what she was saying nor what she affirmed (1 Tim 1:7). Hymenaeus and Alexander were blasphemers, they had shipwrecked their faith and cast away a good conscience concerning Faith (1 Tim 1:19-20). They are not said to be ignorant Law-teachers, nor deceived. Because it may be that "a woman" was ignorant of the truth, just like Paul was before he found mercy through Christ, he did not name her, that she might not be shamed. since Paul wanted her to learn within the body of Christ and come to faith through submissive, quiet learning.
In 2 Tim 2:25, Paul instructs Timothy to gently discipline those who oppose him, that they may be given repentance by God to acknowledge The Truth. But some have gone too far and are shipwrecking other people's faith, and they are the ones who need to be taught not to blaspheme outside the Church.
Paul has also kept to himself the names of other people who were either in sin and needed to be disciplined by simply referring to them as "someone" or "he" (1 Cor 5:1-5), or who he for whatever reason chose not to name even though what they had experienced was not a shame or sin (the man Paul knew that was caught up, ( 2 Cor 12:2). This also happens elsewhere in Scripture, were "a woman" and "a man" or "someone" are generic and remain unnamed but from the context we know are definite persons and do not represent all women and men.
But 1 Tim 2:8 says Paul "is presently desiring" some things that appear to be eternally valid, in the present, indicative, active, first-person, singular, tense, just like the tense of "epitrepo" in "I am not presently permitting" of 1 Tim 2:12. So are all these instructions temporary too?
Some of them very well could be. For example, men are told to "lift up Holy hands" "in every place", does that mean Paul wants males to eternally lift up their Holy hands in every place, or at least whenever they pray, in all times and all places? If so, men need to raise their hands in a Holy way every time they pray, at least in every Church.
Women are likewise told that Paul is presently desiring that they wear modest and proper clothing, but not to wear braided hair with gold and pearls and very costly garments. Does that mean braids are bad to wear in all times and in all places, as well as gold, pearls, and expensive clothes? Does this Scripture mean that a woman must always be modestly dressed everywhere and always, even in the doctor's office, while "knowing" her husband, in the shower, etc? So we know their are some obvious, but unstated limits to these "desires" of Paul.
So we do know that some of these things only apply while in public, and in Church, though some don't, since being wrathful and wrangling appear to be bad things everywhere and at all times.
Also, in 1 Tim 5:14, Paul uses the same word, "boulomai", or "I am presently desiring", to express his current desire for young widows at Ephesus to get married, bear children, to manage the house, so that on account of them Satan will no opportunity to slander.
We know that Paul had already said previously that he wants young widows to do this because if they don't marry and instead are put on the "Widows list", they become idle and cast off their former faith, and go about from house to house prattling and saying things they ought not. (1Tim 5:11-13) This is obviously not about all young widows everywhere. Nor does Paul desire every woman or widow to get married, in every place and for all time, as 1 Cor 7:1-40 shows.
Furthermore, the word used in verses 8-10 for "desire" is not the word "epitrepo", it is "boulomai".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In closing, I would like to propose that we cannot ignore the grammar of these verses, nor change the rules of Greek grammar to fit our preferred interpretations (myself included, so if I'm wrong, correct me in kindness). We can't ignore that Paul's use of "epitrepo" in the first person, singular, present, active, indicative is never used anywhere else for a universal, permanent prohibition or command, or that "epitrepo" is rarely ever used for a permanent universal prohibition or command, maybe never in fact. Check it's uses in all tenses here: http://biblesuite.com/greek/strongs_2010.htm
We must realize that there is a reason related to false teaching and learning for why "a woman" is told to learn in quiet calmness with all submission, but is not permitted to teach yet, nor to take up her own authority over a man. She is compared to Eve in her transgression and deception. False teaching is what Timothy is in Ephesus for, he is commanded to charge those who do not know what they are saying or who are deceiving others to stop and learn, either in Church or from satan.
Does this not obviously seem to be a situation where a woman is not allowed to teach because she is deceived and needs to be saved from ongoing transgression? When you factor everything in, it's just, well, pretty plainly apparent surprisingly. This verse really does seem to be about a specific person in Ephesus who is not yet able to teach properly and needs to learn instead. She will be saved through Christ's birth, if she and someone else stays in true faith. She is one of those people who need to be prayed for, because God desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, which she does not yet have. (1 Tim 2:1-4)
We also have do deal with the singular uses of "a woman", "a man" and "the woman" and "she" instead of just assuming it's generic for all women and all men before it's proven with evidence.
We cannot ignore the perfect tense of "to be in transgression", nor the future tense of "she shall be saved", as if they mean nothing of primary importance, or that they don't narrowly specify who is actually being called a transgressor and deceived, and who needs to be saved in the future under certain conditions.
We may not pretend that the "if they continue" of verse 15 is simply "all women", the same thing referenced by the singulars that precede it, without adequate proof that this is proper to do. It does not make much sense for Paul to change the grammar to the plural "they" if he meant "a woman" and "the woman" and "she" to be understood as generic for "all women" anyway, he could have just continued using a generic singular "if she continues". It is a distinct change in grammar, and it makes "she" dependent on someone else along with herself for salvation.
Nor can we forget and pass over that "a man" and "a woman" is the clearest reference to which "if they continue" should refer back to, not the plural "women" of verse 10, which is not directly connected to these verses with a connecting particle like "for", "but", "and", "therefore", or anything else other than the reference to a female person, unlike all the verses in 1 Tim 2:11-15. (See Acts 18:26 for an example of when two individual singular nouns, "Priscilla" and "Aquila", become the plural "they" that took aside Apollos to expound the Scriptures to him. Notice Priscilla was in fact teaching a man the Scriptures, and was not chastised for it, but lauded as Paul's fellow-worker later on.)
So many interpretations of this verse do not even consider that it could be referring to one woman, nor do they check to see if changing from a singular "she" to a plural "they" to represent the same group of people is proper Greek grammar, or ever done anywhere else in Scripture. I think this is because:
1. We often do not even realize when we use improper grammar even in our own languages on a daily basis, nor do we often have a firm grasp of what is improper grammar. The Holy Spirit does not make grammar mistakes.
An example: in English if I said;
You wouldn't take the "they" to mean "the women" when the closest and best reference for "they" is "a man" and "a woman", or you would take it to mean everyone, but not just "the women". Remember, 1 Tim 2:8 is explicitly connected to verses 9 and 10, but verses 8, 9, and 10 are not explicitly connected to verses 11 or the verses that follow. All of verses 11-15 are explicitly connected to each other with some connecting word, like "but" or "and".
Here is a another English example of a similar paragraph to 1 Tim 2: 8-15) (this is not perfectly analogous to 1 Tim 2:8-15)
The "they" in this sentence refers to either Phil and Amanda (but can't because both are dead), or "a man" and "the woman", or "all men" and "all women", but not to only "the women" of the previous sentences.
2. Koine Greek doesn't always easily translate into English or other languages with perfect preservation of the same nuances and tenses.
3. Many people do not use a Greek interlinear for their main doctrine-proving Bible. Rather, they use translations that distort the grammar of this text (as they do with other texts in Scripture, alarmingly), sometimes egregiously. These translations obscure the actual meaning of some of the words and do not do justice to the original Word of God. Do not be deceived, the studios and scholarly St. Paul did not use incorrect grammar in The Scriptures under the guidance of The Spirit. I would suggest only using literal translations of the Bible for doctrine-making, and a Greek interlinear with lexical support is even better for studying.
In relation to this, here is an extremely helpful website: http://interlinearbible.org/genesis/1-1.htm
Here is alittle illustration I put together, where the corresponding ideas from eariler passages in 1 Tim 1 are color coded to match the ideas from 1 Tim 2:11-15.
1 Tim 2:11, 15:
1Tim 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that you might charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
1Tim 1:5 Now the end (the whole point) of this command/teaching (the charge/teaching being Timothy commanding those who teach falsly to stop) is love out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned (faith that is continued in):
1 Tim 2:12, 14:
1Tim 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that you might charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
1Tim 1:6 From which (a good conscience) some having swerved have turned aside unto vain talking;
1Tim 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor what they affirm.
1 Tim 2:13-14
1Tim 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor what they affirm.
1Tim 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if anyone (generic, male or female) uses it lawfully;
1Tim 1:4 Neither give heed to fables (wrong teachings about Adam and Eve included) and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
I think 1 Tim 2:11-15 could be about the very thing that 1 Tim 1:7 discusses, a person trying to be a teacher of The Law, but needing to learn in subjection and quietness instead of talking vainly about things she does not understand. Timothy is in Ephesus still for this very thing, to charge such people to stop teaching different doctrine.
She is being stopped temporarily from all teaching and taking up of personal authority to teach about The Law because she is decieved and is transgressing, but she will be saved through Christ, and by being taught by Timothy.
Scripture even says Timothy will save his hearers and himself ( which would make Timothy perhaps "a man" who joins with "the woman" to become the "they" who need to stay in Faith for the woman to be saved) by his life and teaching, if he keeps it pure. (1 Tim 4:16)
So if she and her non-decieved teacher, who she must learn from and not usurp authority over (a man, maybe Timothy), remain in an unfeigned faith, the transgressing woman will be saved. (Timothy must also remain in Faith to keep his life and teaching pure, or he can not save his hearers or himself, 1 Tim 4:16)
The part about Adam and Eve may be a correction of her erroneous teaching about The Law, combined with a rebuke by comparing her to Eve and "a man" (maybe Timothy) to Adam (she may have been trying to denegrate Adam in favor of Eve), who was not decieved and became a Christian before her.
The Childbearing refers to Christ's birth, highlighting a woman's unique role in facilitating God's salvation, and as a means through which salvation will come to the woman.
Therefore I feel it is unlikely that this verse is prohibitng all women from teaching or exercising authority over men.
Thanks for reading. Please feel free to leave respectful comments and corrections below. Please do not fight nor bicker with each other in bitterness, but consider each other's opinions and weigh them carefully.
If you believe I'm wrong on something and want to correct me, please back up your claims with evidence and citations of Scripture. Please don't just assert things, unless you make it obvious to others that what you are saying is simply your opinion. Opinions and disagreements are okay to post, but do so respectfully.
This new blog is a place for sharing discussions and information about a Christian woman's place in Christianity, the Church, society, and the home. The following entries and articles will be my opinions as a woman in Christ who has been searching and sifting through Biblical data on women in order to know God's will on these matters.
We should all realize that all believers are exhorted in many clear, unambiguous passages to teach each other:
Rom 2:21, Rom 12:7, Col 1:28, Col 3:16, 2 Tim 2:2, Heb 5:12
Older women are also called to be "teachers of what is good", in order to (but not only to) train the younger to be Godly (Titus 2:3). Now I'm not that old, but I don't think this passage is only for the old, particularly because the Godly wife in Proverbs 31:26 is said to "teach kindness" and "speak with wisdom", and all women and men should not be "addicted to much wine", should be "reverent", and "not slanderers".
Additionally, in Titus 2:2, only older men are told to be "sober, dignified, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience.", but all those things are required of everyone, young and old.
So I think it is obvious that all people should also be teachers of goodness.
I do not know yet if I am a Complementarian or an Egalitarian, or some position that neither of these labels properly represents. I am open to whichever side has the evidence, or if neither do completely, then whatever in-between state is true. I do lean egalitarian on this verse however.
There appears to be only one passage in the entirety of Scripture, Old and New Testament, where at least one woman is told not to teach anyone at all, nor to hold some kind of authority over a man. That passage is 1 Tim 2:12, in the context of 1 Tim:11-15.
But, is that really what this passage is saying? Is there really no better way to interpret this passage, than to say all women everywhere and in all times are barred from either all teaching, authoritative teaching, teaching over men, or "having authority over" a man, either in The Church or in all walks of life?
I believe I have found a much better way to understand this passage, that is actually more sensitive to the context of the passage, more accurate when it comes to the meanings of the actual words of this passage, and much more faithful to the grammar of the whole verse. This is not merely my interpretation however: I am for the most part only repeating the discoveries of others that I have had the privilege to become acquainted with. I am attempting to distill all of the best information on these verses into one "most likely" interpretation.
This interpretation also gets rid of any possible conflict between this passage and other Scriptures that actually tell women point blank to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, or that show a righteous woman teaching a man in a positive light, or that say all believers should teach each other, or that glorify a woman for her teaching and wise speaking, or that show God raising up certain women to places of leadership and authority over men by His own decree.
It may surprise you that there are clear Scriptures that teach all of these things, which I will point out and get into later on. All of the Scriptures that laud women for teaching and rightly being in positive authoritative positions are easy to understand and plainly written without much difficult language and grammar to deal with, unlike 1 Tim 2:11-15.
But 1 Tim 2:11-15 itself is no hindrance to the rest of these Scriptures if properly translated, with faithful renderings of the words used in light of their historical meaning and in the way the same words are used elsewhere in Scripture, in conjunction with renderings of the grammar that preserves it's nuances, instead of covering over the nature of the complex grammar of the passage in order to support a particular interpretation.
(please use This interlinear Bible to help you check what I am saying, if you would like to.)
I'm going to dive deep immediately and get into interpretations of probably the most controversial and difficult passage in all of Scripture concerning women: 1 Tim 2:11-15
It reads (in my own amplified translation):
1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in quietness with all submission.
1Ti 2:12 But to teach I am not (presently) permitting the woman, nor to usurp (self-assumed) authority over a man, but to be in quietness.
1Ti 2:13-14 For Adam was first formed, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived; but the woman, having been deceived, is fallen into (is become in) transgression.
1Ti 2:15 However she shall be saved through The Childbirth, if they continue in faith and love and holiness with self-control.
This is my translation based on the KJV (because it isn't copyrighted) text, the interlinear found here: Interlinear 1 Tim 2:11 and assorted other translations, Philip B. Payne's research and book "Man and Woman, One in Christ" ( http://www.pbpayne.com/ ), and through vigorous study along with comparing the words in this text with other occurrences of the same word in Scripture using the Greek interlinear Bible from Biblos mentioned above.
I will be trying to provide convincing evidence that:
a. Paul may be only presently not permitting a woman to teach, or to take up self-assumed authority over a man, because of the word "epitrepo", and it's tense, which is present-indicative-active-1st-person-singular.
b. "hesuchia" means calm-peacefulness or non-absolute quietness in this passage, as it does elsewhere in Scripture where it is used.
c. Men and women are both called to be submissive to other Christians in the Church, it is not only for women.
d. "to teach" may be referring to false teaching, because that is one of the major issues Paul tells Timothy to deal with in the Ephesian Church in this letter, and "a woman" appears to be the same person as "the woman" of verse 14-15, who like Eve, has been deceived and was presently in her transgression as a living person at the time of Paul. Also, I will show that "to teach" can and is used to refer to false teaching elsewhere in Scripture.
e. "Authentein" means to assume a personal stance of undelegated authority (act like an autocrat or absolute master, to dominate) or to usurp authority, but disagree with some that it means to "exercise authority".
f. As Dr. Philip Payne argues, Paul may only be prohibiting a woman from teaching in conjunction with assuming a stance of independent authority over a man. That means the only thing a woman is not permitted to do is "teach with usurped authority over a man"; she may still teach with properly delegated authority (if the Church leaders give it to her), like how Priscilla taught Apollos appropriately, as a fellow worker with Paul.
g. This passage is referring to a single deceived woman in Ephesus, who is at first called "a woman", but then becomes a definite "the woman" in verse 14, who I will argue must be a living woman and cannot be Eve because of the grammar, and the woman is the one who "will be saved" from her current state of transgression if some "they", either she and "a man" or she along with the rest of the Church stay in true faith.
h. "The Childbirth", a singular, definite, noun, refers to the birth of Jesus as the means through which salvation will come to "the woman", not that all women must give birth or be mothers to be sanctified or saved.
i. "They" of verse 15 probably refers to "the woman" and "a man" (who may be Timothy, her teacher, who must teach her and charge her not to teach at all, or at least not with personally assumed authority for the time being, and thereby save her from teaching wrong things. "A man" could also be simply another man who she has been teaching/usurping authority over, maybe her husband).
Lets go through this passage piece by piece:
1. Quietness or Silence?
Notice Paul requires a woman to learn (which is an imperative command) in "quietness" (hesuchia) rather than "silence" (sigao, sige).
In my research so far I have found it asserted by many (including Dr. Payne on pages 314-315 of his book "Man and Woman, One in Christ") that this word, the noun form of hesuchia, (also used in Acts 22:2 and 2 Thess 3:12) denotes both being in a state of calmness and quietness of speech, and a quiet demeanor, within which one should work (2 Thess 3:12) and, in 1 Tim 2:11, how a lady should learn. It is not the word used for muteness ("alalos", "phimoo", "siopao") or a more complete silence ("sigao", "sige").
The adjective form of "hesuchia", "hesuchion" is used a few verses prior to 1 Tim 2:11 in 1 Tim 2:2, to describe the kind of "quiet" life Christians should desire to lead in general. Obviously that does not entail absolute silence.
Furthermore, for those who may not know this, it is not the same word used for women's silence in the Churches in 1 Cor 14:34-35. That word is "sigao", which is not a form of the word "hesuchia".
I have found nothing substantial, to my knowledge, in my search so far that contradicts the meaning of "a quiet disposition, calmness, non-absolute quietness" for "hesuchia", and it seems to be widely accepted as true even by very conservative scholars.
2. "All submission"
Yes indeed, a woman is called to be in total submission to her authorized teachers in the Church; in other words, she needs to stop arguing and fighting with her teachers and willingly submit, remaining in a calm quiet manner while being taught.
To put this into perspective, men and women are both called to submit to the Church elders, pastors, and assorted leaders, and to others in the Church. Men should likewise also learn in submission to their teachers and brethren, love and honor the others in the Church even above themselves, and not argue and contend with each other (1 Tim 2:8, 1 Thess 5:12-13, Heb 13:17, Eph 5:21, Phil 2:3-4, Rom 12:10, 1 Cor 10:24, Eph 4:32, Col 3:12)
Submission is not unmanly or only for women, and Agape love, expressed through sacrificing oneself for others, is not only for men or husbands.
3. " I am not permitting "
The reason I favored this translation is because the word often translated "I do not permit", "epitrepo" from verse 12, is in the present, indicative, active, first person singular form. Paul uses other verbs with the same form in 1 Cor 7:7, 1 Cor 7:26, 1 Cor 7:32, 1 Cor 7:40, and Phil 4:2.
Dr. Philip Payne argues on pages 319-325 of his book "Man and Woman, One in Christ" that verbs in this form are used predominantly in the New Testament to state Paul's current desire or conviction, and not for universal commands.
He also claims that every occurrence of "epitrepo" in the Greek OT (LXX), and the majority of this word's occurrences in the NT, refers to specific situations, and not to universal permissions or prohibitions applicable in all times and places. See his book for a complete list of citations and the full argument.
Dr. Payne concludes that the present indicative form of this particular verb favors a time-bound, situation specific application. He also wishes this verb to be translated as "I am not permitting", because in English this better represents what the Greek actually means.
I believe this is a fair translation.
Also, I tried to separate "to teach" further away from "usurp authority" than what is in most translations because in the Greek, the two verbs are actually separated far apart like this.
you can see the verse in Greek with the English translation here: http://interlinearbible.org/1_timothy/2-12.htm
Paul did this intentionally, he doesn't always do this in his "ouk, oude" comparative sentences. Greek does not require separating verbs in sentence this way in order to have a "not this, nor that" comparison.
You may be realizing at this point that "to teach" does not have any noun attached to it. It does not say "to teach a man", just "to teach".
Dr. Payne makes the argument that it is not proper in this situation to apply "man" to the verb "to teach" because "to teach" does not require a modifier like "man" to make sense, and it is about as far away from "man" in the sentence structure in Greek as possible. So, unless "to teach" and "to usurp authority over a man" is taken together as one prohibition "to teach along with usurping authority over a man", the word "man" should only be attached to "usurp authority". See Dr. Payne's book "Man and Woman, One in Christ", pages 337-359,
4. "The woman" is not being permitted to teach
Why do I say "the woman" instead of "a woman", which is what the Greek literally reads in 1 Tim 2:11-12? Because of anaphoric references and anarthrous nouns in Greek. See here:
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/08/03/a-woman-anaphoric/
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2011/06/25/specific-or-general-woman/
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2011/09/22/eve-prototype/
Okay, now we have a verb to look into. It is the word "didasko", or the generic word for "to teach".
"Didasko" is usually a positive verb, and often refers to positive teaching in the New testament.
Conversely, the verb "heterodidaskaleo", used in 1 Tim 2 twice and no where else in the entire NT (1 Tim 1:3, 1 Tim 6:3), is the word that precisely means "false teaching" or "teaching other things" that in context means false teaching.
So it looks like positive teaching is in view here; or is it?
Actually, "didasko" can and does refer to false teaching sometimes, but this is discerned by context rather than from the word itself. For example, in Titus 1:11, "didaskontes" is used of people teaching things they "ought not" teach for shameful gain.
These people, some of whom were of the circumcision party or were Jewish, were to be silenced because they were insubordinate, vain talkers, and deceivers. (Titus:1:10) This verse sounds very much like a more severe form of what is happening in 1 Tim 2:11-12.
Other examples of "didasko" referring to false teaching: Rev 2:14, Rev 2:20, Acts 21:28 (the teaching in this case was actually right teaching, some may protest. But the Jews who were railing against Paul in this passage, used this word for his teaching, though they believed he was teaching falsehood. They still used didasko to describe it.), Acts 5:25 (similarly with the last one, the teaching was actually true, but it was viewed as evil by the people who called it simply “didaskontes”.), Mark 7:7 (Matt 15:9 parallel), Matt 5:19
So clearly, the word “didasko” and it’s derivatives can be used for false teaching, even in Paul’s pastorals, and the verb heterodidaskaleo is not required, nor is it often used (it is never used elsewhere in the NT, it only appears two times in 1 Tim and then disappears). Whether “didasko” is a good, neutral, or negative teaching is determined by context.
But yet, "didasko" can and does also refer to general positive teaching most of the time in Scripture, so we can't necessarily rule out the possibility that Paul is referring to general teaching, whether bad or good, in 1 Tim 2:12, on this evidence alone.
Do note however, the other two instances where "to teach" occurs in 1 Tim, both times it is modified by "these things" (1 Tim 4:11, 1 Tim 6:2), the positive things Paul has mentioned beforehand that Timothy should teach. So, the reason we know "to teach" is positive in these other two instances, is because of the other words that elaborate on the kind of teaching being referred to. It is the context that decides this.
However, we also must take into account that the occasion for this particular letter from Paul to Timothy was explicitly stated to be false teaching in Ephesus, (1 Tim 1:3) as well as Paul teaching Timothy how he (using the singular "you", not "the whole Church" like a plural "you") should conduct himself in the House of God if Paul should be delayed.
Paul specifically charges Timothy to stay in Ephesus to try to stop the mouths of false teachers, whether they were false teachers through ignorance of The Law, or were willfully shipwrecking their faith and the faith of others. Fighting falsehood is the main reason Paul begged Timothy to remain in Ephesus.
Here is 1 Tim 1:3-20 (based on the KJV, emphasis mine)
1Ti 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
1Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
1Ti 1:5 Now the end of the commandment is love out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
1Ti 1:6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain talking;
1Ti 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor what they affirm.
1Ti 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if anyone uses it lawfully;
1Ti 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
1Ti 1:11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
1Ti 1:12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
1Ti 1:13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
1Ti 1:14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
1Ti 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
1Ti 1:16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
1Ti 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
1Ti 1:18 This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;
1Ti 1:19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
1Ti 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
So all of this needs to be taken into account when we are trying to decipher 1 Tim 2:11-15, since 1 Tim 1:1-20's purposes are directly linked to 1 Tim 2:1-10's exhortations by Paul with "therefore".
1Ti 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
1Ti 2:2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
1Ti 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
1Ti 2:8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
1Ti 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
1Ti 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
This may add to the mounting evidence that the "didasko", teaching, of 1 Tim 2:12 is that of a deceived woman (1 Tim 2:14-15), since the people that Timothy was explicitly ordered to stop were those ("tines", meaning "some", inclusive of both men and women, not "aner" which means "male human") who wanted to teach the law but did not know what they were saying nor what they affirmed (1 Tim 1:7), and false teachers, not true teachers of either gender who had already learned in quietness and submission and knew what they were saying and what they affirmed.
Is the picture becoming clearer yet? Let's continue...
The next question that may arise in one's mind is why Paul would prohibit a woman from specifically only teaching "a man" if she is teaching falsely. Shouldn't he prohibit her from teaching anyone?
Yes, and he does. As I have mentioned already in this post, 1 Tim 2:12 is written so that "to teach" is about as far removed from "usurp authority over a man" as possible. It is like this:
"To teach however, a woman not I am permitting, nor to usurp authority over a man, but to be in quietness."
It does not say a woman may not "teach a man", it says that she is not being permitted to teach at all. A woman (who I believe, from the grammar, is a single, unnamed woman from Ephesus) is not presently being permitted by Paul "to teach" anyone spiritual things, because she needs to learn and be saved from her deception and ongoing transgression (verses 11, 14-15)
Furthermore, the only way you can rightly (from my research) attach "a man" to "to teach" is to take both activities, teaching and usurping authority over a man, as one activity of teaching with usurped authority over a man, instead of two separate, different activities which a woman is not being permitted to do. Dr. Payne argues for the combined prohibition approach here. This approach also seems to coincide nicely with what the rest of the paragraph says, because:
a. A woman should learn: in calmness and full submission. A woman is to learn combined with being in calmness and all submission. All elements are combined, not seperated into three activities of learning, being submissive, and being calm, without relation to one another.
b. Right after Paul prohibits a woman from teaching/dominating a man, he contrasts this with one activity that he does want the woman to practice that apparently is the opposite or nearly opposite of the previous prohibited actions, which is "to be in calmness/quietness/peacefulness".
According to Dr. Payne, this kind of sentence structure is used elsewhere by Paul to combine two activities separated by "oude" into one activity, which is then contrasted to a single other activity or item with "but". In "Man and Woman, One in Christ", Payne has also found nearly or exactly similar constructions in other Greek texts that he believes also must be combined, like he believes 1 Tim 2:12 should be, in order to make sense.
c. Paul links Adam's "being first formed" to Adam's "not being deceived" state with "and" when he is either justifying or explaining the exhortations and prohibitions he has just given in 1 Tim 2:13. This may combine two reasons into one reason; Adam was formed first and he was not deceived, but Eve was formed second and she was deceived, so a woman shouldn't teach with usurped or self-assumed authority over man before she has first learned properly.
d. The ISV, a very new and freshly updated translation which has had time to consider the new research in this area, takes a similar approach to Payne's in combining 1 Tim 2:12's prohibitions into one prohibition. However, the ISV renders "authentein" as "instigate conflict", which is different than Payne's translation, but I think this rendering is still well within the realm of possible meanings and contrasts nicely with "calmness/peacefulness".
Those who want "to teach" to take the modifier "a man" divorced from "usurping authority" have referred to Acts 8:21 as an example where the two elements joined by an "oude" can both take the qualifiers from the second element. However, there are problems with this example.
a. "Part" and "share" in Acts 8:21 are synonyms and seem to combine to make a single point, 1 Tim 2:12's "to teach" and "to usurp authority" are not synonyms like this.
b. "A man" is not in the correct case to fit "to teach". "A man" is genitive, which is not the proper case for "to teach", unlike in Acts 8:21 where the transferred element matches the first element, "part", properly.
c. "To teach" does not need any modifier like "a man" to make sense, unlike Acts 8:21's "you have no part", which appears to demand something like "in this matter" to make sense.
"To teach" is often used in Scripture as a stand alone activity, it does not need a personal object like "to teach men", or "to teach them". In fact, no other time in 1 Tim 2 does "to teach" or "to teach different doctrine" have personal objects attached to them.
d. In Acts 8:21, the qualifier "in this matter" is as close as possible to both "part" and "share", unlike 1 Tim 2:12's "to teach", which is very far away from "to usurp authority over a man".
e. Combining "to teach" with only "a man" as separate prohibition instead of combining it with the whole "usurping authority over a man" conflicts with Priscilla's teaching of Apollos in Acts 18:26, and the other places in Scripture where women are told to teach. Acts 8:21 does not conflict with the rest of Scripture when "in this matter" is attached to "part".
See pages 353-356 in Dr. Payne's book "Man and Woman, One in Christ" for more information on why "to teach" is not to be attached to "a man" unless "to teach" is combined as one prohibition with "assuming/usurping authority over a man", which then would only be prohibiting a woman from teaching with usurped/self-assumed authority over a man, not all teaching.
5. "Nor authentein a man"
There is a lot of controversy surrounding this word here, "authentein", which the KJV translates as "usurp authority". This is the only time this word is used in all of Scripture, and this verbal form is rarely found it documents dating from the time of Paul.
According to some researchers, this word meant "to murder" or "to perpetrate crimes with one's own hands" several hundred years prior to Paul's time. Several hundred years after Paul's time, the first clear witnesses to this word's meaning being synonymous with "exousiazo" (which means to exercise authority, used in Luke 22:25), are found.
Interestingly enough, Paul does mention murder multiple times in 1 Tim, in conjunction with The Law and sound teaching. (1 Tim 1:8-10) Despite this, I do not feel that "authentein" means murder in this instance, even if there is a slight chance of that.
So the question is, what does this word really mean, and what did it mean to Paul in his time period? A general, "positive", "normal" exercising of authority, exactly like exousiazo? Or something distinctly less wholesome or mild?
Other translations that are possible, according to a few NT lexicons that I've read, for "authentein" are "to assume (personal/independent) authority over", "to use authority over", "to rule over as a master", "to dominate/domineer", "to be a self-appointed autocrat", "to govern".
Check yourself, but keep in mind these particular lexicons can sometimes be biased toward patriarchy (especially the NAS in my opinion), and newer data may not have been considered when compiling these, since some appear to be several years old, or in the case of the NAS, over a decade old (which may be why it seems off): http://biblesuite.com/greek/831.htm
A relatively new translation has come into vogue, "to exercise authority". Many have shown that this rendering is unlikely (and is not even the historical rendering). I would refer you to several resources:
Firstly, Suzanne McCarthy's series of blog posts about this word and it's history. Suzanne knows how to read Greek, unlike a lot of us lay folk, and she gets into the actual manuscript evidence.
1. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2007/09/authority-part-1.html
2. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2007/09/authority-part-2-philodemus-fragment.html
3. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2007/09/authority-part-3-fragment-and.html
4. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2007/10/authority-4-fragments-non-existance.html
5. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2007/10/authority-4-chrysostom.html
6. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2007/10/authority-6-returning-to-evidence.html
7. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/06/response-open-letter.html
8. http://bltnotjustasandwich.com/2012/11/25/denny-burk-corrects-tom-wright-not-his-best-moment/
9. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/12/request-re-authentein.html
10. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/11/authentein-in-wolters.html
11. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/11/i-am-going-to-try-and-summarize-various.html
12. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/05/lcms-report-on-authentein.html
13. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2010/11/1984-and-complementarians.html
14. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/05/to-dictate-to.html
15. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2010/11/denny-burk-on-niv-2011.html
Secondly, Dr. Philip Payne's book "Man and Woman, One in Christ", pages 361-397. You should simply buy this book, it is well documented and very scholarly, but rather easy to read. I don't agree with Dr. Payne in everything he asserts (particularly his interpolation theory for 1 Cor 14:34-35), but the book is really a must-read if you are interested in the topic of women in the Bible.
Thirdly, "Discovering Biblical Equality, Complementarity without Hierarchy", another book I think is worth getting, that contains an argument for how authentein is not best translated "exercise authority over"on pages 205-223.
So what do I think authentein means?
I am of the mind that the best rendering of 1 Tim 2:12's "authentein" would be something like " but to teach, a woman I am not permitting, nor to force herself on a man, but to be in quietness." This would contrast nicely with learning in all submission while remaining in quiet calmness, because teaching with forceful bossiness is pretty much the opposite of this.
It does not appear that "teaching with authority" is opposite of "learning in all submission with quiet calmness", since positive authorities in Church would also have to mutually submit to others (Eph 5:21), be humble towards others (1 Pet 5:5), live quiet/calm lives (1 Tim 2:2, 2 Thess 3:12), and think of others as superior to themselves (Phil 2:3). These things can all be done while remaining in proper authority. Bossy, forceful teaching, however, would make submission impossible, as well as being humble, being calm and quiet, exhorting with gentleness, and deeming others as superior.
In addition to this, the etymology of "authentein" lends itself to this reading, since it basically means "self-doing" or "self-achieving" which can also include the connotation doing something for one's own advantage. Dr. Payne says on page 363 of MaW,OiC, that typically, the words that spring from the "authent-" root are strongly emotional and negative, with meanings akin to "dominate" or "autocrat".
Lastly, probably the best evidence we have from the time of Paul for the meaning of this word comes from BGU 1208.38, a papyrus letter from a man named Tryphon to a slave owner named Asklepiades, written around 27/26 BC, in which Tryphon explains that he did "authenteo" Asklepiades' slave in order to get the slave to agree to pay a boatman the boat fare that the slave owed.
Dr. Payne says Tryphon "assumed authority over" the slave to get the slave to agree to pay the fare (since Tryphon did not have "exousia" over another man's slave, it was self-assumed, unrecognized authority), and later on the slave's actions are called "insolence", since the slave didn't end up obeying Tryphon and paying, though the slave had consented to pay within the hour after Tryphon "authenteo'd" him. Others have rendered "authentein" here as "I compelled him" or "I called him to account", or "I had my way with him", even "I domineered him".
I personally think "I forced [dominated] him" is the best rendering, but some do not like this because they don't think someone would admit to dominating another person if it was a negative thing.
However, some today use "dominate" as a positive term in certain situations, to show their power or success over others. For instance, I know that many video-game players today like to use "dominate" positively, of someone who totally "owns" (defeats easily or utterly) someone or something else in a game. "Domination" is seen to be, in this context, akin to winning without much competition, or to win so utterly that it makes the defeated opponent look weak.
In this context, and other competitive contexts, domination is seen as a highly sought-after, positive goal. Tryphon may have been "showing off" in a sense, telling how he dominated the slave and made him agree to pay the fare. I can't prove that this connotation would be used by some Greek speakers of the 1st century, but I don't think it can be ruled out. It fits nicely in my opinion.
I believe "authenteo" may also mean to "assume an unrecognized stance of personal authority, like that of an absolute master", or rather, "assume unrecognized authority over as an autocrat". I believe this could either be bad authority, like "to boss around, to dominate or domineer, to wrongfully usurp personal authority" or even "to perpetrate a crime against", or neutral authority, "to rule over as an autocratic/absolute master, to be the sole lord of another." However, I think the "neutral" meanings come in to play primarily hundreds of years after Paul, so they may not be appropriate.
I come to this conclusion through several lines of evidence, in addition to the evidence given above:
1. As Suzanne McCarthy says in her blog post here , the way this word has been translated in the past favors it conveying a stance of authority that is stronger than simply a general exercising of authority. Her listing of the way old translations translated authentein appears as follows from her blog post:
"Vulgate – dominari
Erasmus – autoritatem usurpare
Wycliffe – have lordship on the husband
Tyndale – have authority
KJV – usurp authority
Calvin – assume authority [1855]
Luther – herr sei"
2. This is not the usual word Paul, or anyone else in Scripture, uses for positive authority. In fact, this word never occurs anywhere else in Scripture for any positive thing, or anything at all. Paul could have used many other more common words for authority or having authority like "exousia" "exousiazo" "hegeomai" "kurios" and "kurieuo" to express a general exercising of authority or general lordship. All these are used multiple times in scripture. Why the rare verb authentein if he meant the exact same thing as exousia or exousiazo, or kurieuo?
3. Paul expressly says a woman has authority over her own husband's body (1 Cor 7:4) using "exousiazo", so if authentein=exousiazo in meaning, than that means a woman cannot do this, since she is not permitted to exercise authority over a man, and her husband is a man. (unless, as some complementarians believe, a woman is only barred from teaching authoritatively, but not from separately having authority or separately teaching.)
Some will object, and point out that a woman is only said to be exercising authority over a man's physical body; but why is that not also part of the whole "man" that she is prohibited from "exercising authority" over in 1 Tim 2:12? A woman can have physical authority over a man, but not any other kind? Really?
I will concede this is a possibly, since the context is the Church in 1 Tim 2:12 and the context in 1 Cor 7:4 is personal home life; plus, the Church's jurisdiction is the Spiritual. But I do not think the Church's jurisdiction is entirely spiritual.
The Church leaders can also tell you what to do with your physical body (not allowed to fornicate, head covering/no head covering, eat meat/don't eat meat, not allowed to wear costly garments and gold, not allowed to marry an unbeliever, not allowed to remarry after divorce, etc).
If the Church leaders told you they wanted you to fast, and you were healthy and capable, should you not obey? The church does have some kind of right over our physical bodies, to an extent, even if many today are insubordinate to it.
4. Authentein (authenteo) and it's related noun authentes both had very negative connotations before the Time of Paul (murder/murderer), and those connotations may have still colored it's meaning later on.
According to Dr. Payne in MaW,OiC ( page 364), one deuterocanonical book of the LXX (Septuagint), the Book of Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon), in Wis 12:6, uses the noun form of "authenteo", "authentes", to mean murderer of children. Paul may have known of this, since he seems to have used The LXX extensively, and therefore may have known about this deuterocanonical book's use of the word "authentes".
See this article also, about half way down the page, for more on the "murder/commit a crime" interpretation.
5. The few unquestionable scraps of evidence we have that actually contain this verb in and around the time period of Paul seem to make "authentein" out to be either neutral (when talking about celestial bodies) or rather negative (with people involved) in their connotative range. I don't recall seeing any that were obviously positive, but I have seen some that were potentially or obviously negative. See Suzanne's blog posts linked above for more information.
6. This is how several lexicons interpret this word. Here is an example of how some lexicons have interpreted this word: http://biblesuite.com/greek/831.htm
The only one here that disagrees with the rest substantially among these specific concordances is the NAS exhaustive concordance. The NAS NT was first published in the late 1960's, then updated later. It may have more bias than the others when it comes to women, because the time period when it was written in was a time when feminism and egalitarianism was making inroads, against the desires of many conservative scholars. The NAS concordance available on Biblos also appears to be over ten years old, whereas the others appear to be much more recently updated (which means they had access to more of Payne's extensive research, his book was released in 2009).
Also, the NAS mistranslated verse 14 and 15 of 1 Tim 2:11-15, making "she" into "women" (plural) and "The Childbirth" (singular noun) into "the bearing of children" (plural), along with making verse 14's "is fallen into transgression" into a past tense action without a hint of it's perfect tense nature.
The NAS also added the non-existent term "symbol of" to 1 Cor 11:10's "authority", which is not the proper rendering of this verse and shows Complementarian bias.
This version also fabricates a very spurious and undoubtedly incorrect translation of "other" for the word that always means "such" in 1 Cor 11:16's "we have no such practice", which inverts the meaning of the sentence.
Additionally, in Rom 16:1 it makes Phoebe into a mere "servant" instead of a Deacon or Minister (it does translate "deacon" as "minister" or "deacon" many times when males are called "deacons" however.), and calls her a "helper" instead of a protector, patroness or leader, which is what the word translated as "helper" really means.
Lastly, it incorrectly translates "Junia" as a masculine "Junias" in Rom 16:7, which is not the historical rendering, nor is it supported by modern scholarship. However, it may have been done to cover over the evidence that Junia, a woman, was an Apostle.
Therefore, I do not put much weight on the NASB's translation, especially when we have better translations and resources to work with that have included and considered more recent research. The NASB appears to be one of the most biased translations out there when it comes to women. This is especially sad, because the NASB claims to be faithful to the grammar of the Greek, and a literal translation.
Some people claim (Andreas Kostenberger being the "head" of this theory) that both activities connected by an "oude" like 1 Tim 2:12 must either be positive in their connotation or negative, there cannot be one positive activity (didasko as true teaching) and one negative negative (authentein as bad authority) taken together like this in one prohibition. Both must be either positive activities (good teaching and good authority) or negative (false teaching and bad authority).
It is then many times asserted that,
despite the evidence for the present indicative form of "epitrepo" denoting a limited, temporary prohibition,
and despite the evidence favoring a negative meaning for authentein, and despite the fact that "didasko" can and is used for negatively perceived teaching in Scripture around seven times other than here in 1 Tim 2:12, even in Paul's pastorals (Titus 1:11),
and despite the fact that false teaching (1Tim 1:18-20) and unlearned teachers (1Tim 1:6-7) are some of the stated reasons for Paul's letter to Timothy to begin with, and these are the people Paul specifically tells Timothy to "charge" not to teach wrong things (1Tim 1:3-7),
and despite the fact that Eve-like deception and transgression that "the woman" is still "in" at the time of the writing of this letter (perfect tense) are explicitly given as reasons for why "a woman" is not being permitted to teach (1Tim 2:14),
and despite the nouns of verses 11-15 all being singulars and verse 15 being hard to interpret because of the change of grammar from the singular "she"to the plural "they", and the difficulty of the perfect and future tenses involved that seem to rule out Eve as being "the woman" and "she" in verses 14-15,
this passage must be barring all women from positive and true teaching of men and positive ecclesiastical authority over men in The Church for all time because Adam was first formed (even though all men now come through women, and man and woman are not separate in The Lord, 1 Cor 11:11-12.),
and because "the woman", who like Eve, was deceived, and who was remaining in her transgression to that very day, and Adam was not deceived (even though the whole Church, men included, are said to have their minds potentially corrupted just as Eve was deceived, 2 Cor 11:3, and Paul claims he and all The Church (plural "we") were once "deceived" before we came to Faith in Christ, Titus 3:3, plus any man or woman that does not bridle their tongue deceives themselves and has false religion, James 1:26)
For me, it has become hard to believe this interpretation; an interpretation that at first, before I studied these verses closely and in the original language, I thought was unshakable and the clear truth. But is this claim even correct, do both activities connected by an "oude" need to be either positive or negative? If they do, than the case is strengthened that Paul has prohibited positive authority of some kind (still appears to be self-appointed, judging by the etymology of authentein and it's related word group), because although "didasko" can and is used negatively, it is usually used for positive teaching in Paul's epistles.
Dr. Payne has also addressed this assertion of Kostenberger's in his book "Man and Woman, One in Christ" on pages 356-359. He has shown that two activities connected by "oude" do not always have to agree in their moral connotation of either being both viewed as negative things or both viewed as positive things. See his book for a list of examples and the full argument.
However, even if both verbs did have to be either both positive or both negative, I still feel the context suggests a negative connotation for "didasko" in 1 Tim 2:12, because:
a. The explicit concern in this letter is with false teaching, deception, and people wanting to be proper teachers of the law without knowing or realizing what they are saying or what they confidently affirm. (1Tim 1:6-7)
b. the fact that young widows in particular seem to be the ones singled out later in 1 Tim as being those who should not be put on the "true widow" list because they will incur condemnation by turning from their faith, learning (same word for "learn" in 1 Tim 2:11, "manthano") to be idle by going from house to house ( possibly house Church to house Church ) being foolish-talkers ("phlyoroi"), speaking ("laleo", the generic usually positive term for speaking used here, like "didasko", but which is obviously negative speaking in this context) things they ought not (1Tim 5:13)
Some Complementarians seem to believe that the women were not themselves the false teachers mentioned in 1 Tim, but those who were in danger of being decieved. I can find nothing to justify this conclusion, especially because the word for "those" who are said to be trying to teach The Law without understanding is the generic word for anybody, male or female. Also, if women were the ones who were the primary targets for the decievers, the women who believed the deception would in turn naturally begin teaching false things themselves, thereby becoming decievers. (2 Tim 3:13) Furthermore there is no reason to suppose that women were susceptible to this deception, but not the men, as if men are not in danger of deception.
c. "The woman" of verse 14, and possibly "a woman" of verses 11-12, is said to have been deceived, and in her transgression in the perfect tense ( denoting an action that occurred in the past, but the results of which continue into the present). She also needs to be saved (future tense) from her current state of transgression, and her salvation is contingent on her and someone else (her teacher, "a man" from verse 12 perhaps?) remaining in true faith that works through love. Eve does not appear to fit as the "she", nor "the woman" because of the grammar (Eve is dead and cannot do anything to be saved, nor is she still in her transgression).
d."A woman" is commanded to learn in quietness and submission instead of teach and usurp authority, which may imply she is lacking in some knowledge and has not been learning in quietness and submission. Teaching falsly and usurping/domineering is the opposite of learning truth and submitting completely.
e. "Authentein" really does seem like it means usurped or self-assumed authority from the evidence we have to look back upon today, or "acting autocratically", which is also what the lexicons permit for this word. Check Dr. Payne's research in his book "Man and Woman, One in Christ", pages 361-397.
I believe Dr. Payne said the NIV 2011 changed authentein in it's translation from "exercise authority" in the 1980's to "assume authority" in 2011 based in part on his own research into the nature of this rare word "authentein" that he submitted to the translation committee. It is a very convincing study.
7. Even if "authentein" meant the same thing as "exousiazo", to exercise authority, is that not one of the things that is prohibited by Jesus, our Servant-Lord, for His own disciples within the "leadership" structures of the Church in Luke 22:25? Therefore, if authentein meant "exercise authority over", then would it not simply be prohibiting in 1 Tim 2:12 the same thing that was already prohibited for everyone in the Church?
As an example of a prohibition that is both explicitly for one sex and yet prohibited elsewhere for both, take 1 Tim 2:8's prohibition of "reasoning" for men while praying;
1Tim 2:8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting (literally "reasoning").
The word for "doubting/reasoning" in this verse is "dialogismos". It can mean morally neutral or morally negative thinking or reasoning both, depending on context (somewhat like "didasko", to teach.).
So Paul is saying specifically to men only in this passage, using the word for males,"aner", that they should not "reason/doubt" in prayer.
However, this same thing is prohibited to everyone in The Church in Phil 2:14. No one is permitted to "doubt/dispute" at any time, yet Paul applies this principle only to the men in 1 Tim 2:8.
And so it may be with "exercising authority over" someone. No one may do it, not a woman in 1 Tim 2:12 (if authentein means exercise authority), and not anyone in Luke 22:25 (and it's parallel passages in the other gospels.)
Yes, I know, there are "leaders" within the Church that have charge over the flock, and we are to obey those in general authority (although the term "exousia", which is sometimes used of Church authority, and the term for "rulers" (Greek "archais") tend to be used of secular rulers and authorities that we are to be subject to more so than for Church authorities, Titus 3:1); but perhaps "exercising authority over" each other is not what Christ meant by Church leadership. In fact, exousiazo is not even used to describe the authority of Church leadership in Scripture, not even once.
See for yourself: http://biblesuite.com/greek/1850.htm
One begins to wonder if a false edifice has been built up in the Church to foster authority-centric "leaders" to wield supposedly "benevolent" power over others without having to worry about submitting themselves, when all along it has been totally unbiblical.
And would it be so surprising? Don't many of us conservative Protestants believe this happened with Catholicism from even the early centuries of the Church, and is still happening? Perhaps it's happened to us too.
6. Adam first, Eve second; the first formed was not decieved.
So why does Paul use the creation account to justify this lack of permission? What does Eve having been formed after Adam, and Adam not having been decieved have to do with this?
We know from 1 Cor 11 that the order and the purpose of the creation of the first humans says something about who they were meant to be. We know that a man is "head" of a woman because of him being the one through whom woman was made, and for whom she was made.
It was not good that the man should be alone, he was the one who needed Eve in order for things to be "very good". Eve also needed Adam, because without him needing her she would not have been made (we presume). Woman was to be a "helper", an "ezer", which is never used in the Old Testament to show that a person is subordinate in rank to the one he or she is helping, but several times of God Himself. see here: http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/strongs_5828.htm
Both Adam and woman were given rule over the Earth together as equals in the beginning and called collectively "Adam". Neither was said explicitly to be "over" the other, though Adam did get more privileges than Eve, in that He saw God miraculously growing the garden and creating the animals that were brought to him, he got to hear the first commands of God, and he got to call Eve "woman" when she was brought to him.
If this is the earliest case of primogeniture in The Bible, it meant more privileges for Adam, but not more authority to rule, since the first-born sons in Hebrew culture did not automatically "rule over" their siblings for their whole lifespan, but rather were given more inheritance from their father when he died. Many men who were not first-born ruled over their older siblings in secular and religious matters.
It appears that the purpose of Adam naming the animals was so that he might realize he needed a suitable helper that corresponded to him, and he bursts into poetry when he awakes to meet woman, calling her "ishshah". Ishshah just means woman, Adam did not name her "Eve" until after the fall. Interestingly, she was called "ishshah" by the writer of Genesis before Adam had even seen her yet, which may mean God had already "named" her but wanted Adam to realize this and be in agreement. (Gen 2:2)
Therefore, there are at least three possible reasons for why Paul used Adam's prior formation by God to ground his prohibitions on a woman:
a. Man is a woman's "head" in the sense of authority from the beginning simply because he was formed first, so she must not have authority over him nor teach him. Somehow being born first makes you an authority over those born after instead of simply allotting you more privileges (like more inheritance), and subordinates teaching superiors, at least in an authoritative manner, is bad. If this is true, than subordination and the sin of having authority over someone made before you is a Creation principle, and may have everlasting implications.
But if this is true, why did God raise up Deborah, and Miriam, and Hulduh, and the other women who had authority over men and spoke words that instructed men in the most authoritative way possible, prophecy? Was it a sin for a man to teach or hold authority over his older brother? Was it a sin for a man to hold authority over his own father or teach him authoritatively once he had grown to maturity?
We are told to respect and submit to our elders in Scripture, but that does not mean that you may never teach your mother authoritatively or be in spiritual authority over your father, or that you must obey your parents in all things when you are an adult and have your own household, does it? Is it a sin for a woman to hold authority over her son, who is told to obey her by God? When does the man not have to obey his mother because he has become her "head" (authority) by becoming a grown man, and now she must submit to him?
And we also have the Creation principles of God hallowing the Sabbath, but yet not requiring Christians to keep it anymore, and meat was not given to man for food until Noah got off the Ark, only seed-bearing plants were given to man and beast in the garden for food, but yet God permits us to eat meat still. Man and woman were naked in the garden, clothes did not come until the shame of sin, but yet we must wear modest clothes in public or we sin, and we will be wearing garments in the Kingdom of God.
So there does appear to be some flaws in the logic that a man being formed first makes him the superior to the second-formed, and that principles that were "from the beginning" are always everlasting or applicable for us today.
This view is also largely dependent on "head" in 1 Cor 11 meaning "authority over".
b. Man is "head" of a woman in the sense that he is her source of life and nourishment, so she should respect him by not teaching him anything in a usurping way, or that she should not teach him false doctrine nor assume for herself unrecognized authority over him. Similarly, we have reverence for our "sources of life", our parents and grandparents, and our progenitor's in The Lord. We do not sharply rebuke them but treat them as fathers and mothers, with carefulness and respect. This is basically Dr. Payne's view.
It avoids the difficulty of seeing primogeniture, or "first-formedness" if you will, as a hierarchical structure that makes God's called women of the Bible seem to be transgressing this proposed Creation principle in obedience to Him in many places in Scripture.
This view is largely dependent, however, on "source of life" or "beginning" and not "authority over" as being the proper definition of "head" in 1 Cor 11, the (only?) place where Paul's understanding of the meaning of the creation accounts of man and woman are elucidated.
c. Adam's being formed first is directly related to him not being deceived. Rather than Adam's priority in creation being seen as a reason in itself for a woman not teaching nor usurping authority over a man, Adam's privilege of being first formed is why he was not deceived, and this taken together is why a woman should learn first and not be teaching at that time. Eve was deceived, like "a woman" or "the woman" of 1Tim 2:11-14, because she had not been around as long as Adam, so she didn't experience all the miracles of God like Adam did, and so was easier to deceive because of her relative inexperience as being the younger and less knowledgeable.
This theory is nice because it ties it all together, and shows how a woman should properly learn first, verse 11, like Adam who was "not deceived" and who, in this case, she should prefer to emulate. She should not be like Eve, the second one formed, because Eve was deceived by her lack of experience compared to Adam.
This explanation has difficulties with it as well, because it seems like Adam's first formation was a separate reason for either both prohibitions separately, both prohibitions combined as one prohibition (Dr. Payne's view), or only the last one about not usurping authority. Similarly, it seems like "the woman's" deception and continuing transgression is a separate reason either for both prohibitions separately, both prohibitions combined as one prohibition, or only the first one about not teaching.
let's look at a ditilled version the verses in question with this interpretation overlayed:
1Tim 2:13-15 For (the reason she is commanded to learn in quietness and all submission along with being prohibited from teaching and usurping authority a man is that a similar and comparable devastating incident happened in humanity's history when) Adam was first formed (then Eve), and (because he was first formed) Adam was not deceived; but the woman (like Eve, being formed after "a man"), having been deceived (because she was formed last and was younger and less "learned"), has become a transgressor. But she, "the woman", will be saved, if she (learns the faith properly and) stays in faith along with "a man".
I can't honestly say I think this is the most likely interpretation in my opinion, but I don't know exactly how to understand this yet. I'm thinking there is something to this theory, but that I've not been given the ability to see it yet by God.
d. Paul was simply refuting what this wannabe Law-teacher was erroneously teaching about the Law by just stating the facts of Creation and the fall. The woman had been teaching that Eve was first formed, and Eve was not deceived, which would make sense in Ephesus where Artemis worship was present, and a woman teacher would be the one with the reason to try to make Eve sound more prominent than Adam, since it would increase her sense of pride.
The "for" at the beginning of verse 13 is therefore corrective and not a reason for the prohibition exactly, although in some sense it shows that "a woman" was teaching wrong things about The Law. So indeed, it is both corrective of "a woman" and a justification for the prohibition and command to learn placed upon her.
I believe that either "b", "c", or "d" may be correct, or a combination of these. I lean toward combining the best of all three, but I just don't know for sure which way is the overall best. I do not think "a" is likely, but it is possible; perhaps, however, in some restricted form, or in part only.
Some may say that these verses about "the woman" being deceived and Adam not being deceived implies that women are more easily deceived then men. They may say Paul wrote "the woman" instead of "Eve" in verse 14 because he wanted to show how her womanliness was part of the reason she was deceived, as if it is inherent in all women to be deceived more readily, or that she is representing all women here as women.
However, why then does Paul not say "and the man was not deceived" instead of "Adam" if he wanted to show how Adam's maleness was important to him having avoided deception, and that he represents all men in his non-deception? For this reason in particular I think Adam and Eve may be being used here to speak about a specific woman and man, and "the woman" is not Eve, but has been deceived like Eve was, as opposed to "a man" in verse 12, who is probably her husband (but Paul chooses not to explicitly "out" this couple), who are both living out the incident in the garden at that time in Ephesus.
Certainly, all women are not still in their transgression and all were not thoroughly deceived in the past like Eve any more than the men were. In the same way, all men have not been spared from being thoroughly deceived, unlike Adam. I have already shown before that Paul fears an entire Church may succumb to a corrupt mind just as Eve's was deceived by the cunning of the serpent, and Paul says he and all The Church were once deceived before Christ came and saved us. James states that any man who seems religious but does not bridle his tongue deceives himself and his religious is worthless; given this is God's Word, how many deceived men do you know? Quite a few probably.
Women are specifically told to be wise, to speak with wisdom, to teach kindness, and be teachers of what is good, along with all of the general calls to teach one another in The Lord. Even in many Complementarian circles, they are at least responsible for teaching their children and other women "good" things (is Scripture not a "good" thing?). Should a person prone to deception by nature be teaching the easily deceived by nature, women and children? That doesn't make sense to me.
Therefore, it makes little sense to make Adam and Eve's character flaws apply to all their children absolutely, but separate them by gender. Besides, if this were true, all men would be prone to deliberate, willful sins, like Adam, which deserves worse punishment according to The Law than a sin done in unbelieving ignorance. (1Tim 1:13)
Finally, the text says nothing about either Adam nor Eve, or man and woman, being more prone to anything. It just states the facts about what happened in the OT, related to the non-permission of a woman teaching and usurping authority. Putting "proneness to deception" into the text is an interpretation that one brings of themselves in order to try to understand why "the woman's" sin is a reason for a woman (viewed as all women everywhere) not to teach nor usurp authority over a man (viewed as all men). I suggest it should no longer be considered a valid implication, and some Complementarians who formerly held to this position have agreed to some extent that it is unlikely to be what Paul meant.
There are those who also say that women are not allowed to teach men, because Eve taught Adam once wrongly in the Garden of Eden, and therefore all her daughters are forever banned from teaching her sons as punishment.
However, Genesis does not say Eve taught Adam anything, nor even spoke to him about the fruit. She only talked to the serpent. Eve merely handed the fruit to Adam who was with her, and he ate it without a word from Eve about it. All she did was hand him the fruit, there is nothing in the text that says she enticed him or told him to eat it. Check it out:
1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?Since all Eve did was hand Adam fruit, does that mean women should never hand anything to their husbands or to other men, because "Eve did so once wrongly"? If she can still give things to her husband, then God is not punishing all women from doing the thing that Eve did in the Garden, which was giving an object to her husband who was with her.
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
But some may say, why does God get mad at Adam for "listening to his wife's voice?" Isn't it because she should have obeyed his voice as the leader, and she shouldn't have lead him at all?
Adam did not say anything to Eve (that is recorded for us) the whole time while he was listening to her conversation with the serpent. He overheard her speaking with the serpent, since he was with her. The word for "listen" in Gen 3:17 is the same word used twice before in Gen 3:8 and Gen 3:10 for the humans "hearing the sound" of God walking in The Garden.
It is assumed that "hearing or listening" means "obeying", as if Eve commanded Adam to eat the fruit. But this word can and does also mean simply the hearing, or overhearing of voices or sounds, not that it means only to "listen" in the sense of "obey". In this case, God may have been faulting Adam for hearing his wife's conversation with he serpent and not doing anything to stop her, but instead eating the fruit that they both knew not to eat.
We also know that later Abraham "listens to the voice of his wife" (in the sense of obeying) and takes Hagar as another wife on order to produce Ishmael in Gen 16:2.
Today, in modern Protestantism, we tend to see this as a sinful, faithless action on the part of Abraham and Sarah, but Sarah did not yet know that she was the one who would bear Abraham's promised child. That information was not given to her until later, all she knew was that Abraham was the one who would produce the child through some woman. They were also not chastised by God for this action. This actually may have been an act of Faith that both Sarah and Abraham thought was a Godly idea, even if they were misguided.
Later, Abraham is commanded by God to "listen to the voice of his wife" in Gen 21:12. This time, the "listening" is also in the sense of obeying. Why would God say this if women should not be obeyed, because of what Eve did in the garden? So we see that Eve's daughters are not banned from audible "teaching" because of some audible teaching of Eve's that corrupted Adam, which isn't even recorded in Scripture if it happened. Rather, if anything, Eve's actions should forever bar women from handing anything to a man, which we know is not a prohibition that God has ever placed on all women.
7. "The woman" was deceived, and is a transgressor.
So we know a single woman here is who is deceived. It seems like "the woman" is just another reference to Eve at first, until you realize that this woman was not only fully deceived at some point (Greek "exapatetheisa", aorist-participle-active) in the past, but remains in her transgression to the day that Paul wrote his letter. How do we know this?
The Greek word for "is become" or "has become", "gegonen", is in the perfect, indicative, active form. The perfect tense means something happened at a point in the past with results that continue into the present. For example, "it is written" means something has been written in the past, but remains written to that day and can be found to still be written in the present.
Therefore, Eve cannot be "the woman", because she is not still in her transgression to that day, she is dead. Furthermore, it is almost assured that Eve was saved, because Eve extols The Lord after the birth of Cain as a believer would (Gen 4:1), and she extols The Lord again later at the birth of Seth (Gen 4:25), and God issued the promise of "The Seed" of Eve's who would crush the serpent's head (and therefore save her, by implication) in Gen 3:15. Adam and Eve were both clothed with skins after the fall, picturing the Covering of Christ and blood atonement (Gen 3:21).
As if we needed more proof, Adam and Eve's children, Cain and Abel, were openly sacrificing to God without any obvious sign of their parent's disapproval, and God was pleased with Abel (Gen 4:3-5).
I personally believe both Adam and Eve were saved.
8. She will be saved through The Childbirth
"She" is the one who is said to be the one who "will be saved", Greek "sothesetai". This is a future, indicative, passive, 3rd person singular form of the word "to save". Paul always uses this word to mean spiritual salvation from sin, not to sanctification or being kept safe physically. It is virtually assured that Paul is referring to how "the woman" will be saved spiritually, not how she will be sanctified or kept safe physically. Additionally, spiritual salvation makes perfect sense in this context, since "she" needs to be saved from deception and from being in her transgression, not the potential deadliness of giving birth to a child, nor merely potential deception from Satan.
These almost certainly faulty renderings of "will be saved" as "will be kept safe/preserved" have become popular because of how people interpret "the childbirth" in the same verse. It is often translated as "through bearing children"(a plural verb, which "the childbirth" is not.) or "childbearing"(which sounds like a verb) with no hint of the definite article that is actually in the Greek, which specifies "childbearing" as a definite single childbirth. They then must ask themselves, how can a woman's salvation depend on giving birth to children, is that not contradictory to everything else in the Bible? But this is not what the text is actually saying.
Dr. Payne's book "Man and Woman, One in Christ" discusses this part of 1 Tim 2:15 on pages 417-441. Check his research and citations on these pages for the complete argument.
The text literally says "She shall be saved through the childbirth". "Childbirth" is also a definite singular noun, not an indefinite plural verb. Lets look at the verse with other definite, singular nouns that we may understand better:
"But she shall be saved through The Christ" - You may not know this, but in Greek, when "Christ, or "God", or "Lord" is mentioned, they often have a definite "the" attached to them. This is many times left out in English translations, because we do not say "The God", we just say "God". The "the" specifies that it is a singular specific "God" being referred to, not just any god.
"But she shall be saved through The Child" - It is not through the woman's action of "childing" (that is a verb, not a noun) that a woman is saved, but rather by another person saving her, the single definite noun "Child" (Jesus).
"But she shall be healed through the operation" - It is through a single definite operation that a woman will be healed, not by operating herself or through multiple operations.
"But she shall be saved through the baptism" - We all have one particular, definite baptism by which we were baptized into Christ, not multiple baptisms, nor is someone saved by "baptizing" (again, that is a verb, not a noun).
"But she shall be saved through The Appearing" - "The Appearing" would refer to a special, particular appearing. But if we rendered this verse "She shall be saved through appearing", which is akin to how many translations render verse 14 of 1 Tim 2, then it sounds like a woman is saved by her action of appearing, not by "The Appearing" of Christ.
"But she shall be rescued through the ambulance" - It is through a singular definite ambulance that a woman shall be rescued. The ambulance is what her rescue comes to her through, though the ambulance itself is just the mechanism.
"But she shall be protected through the government" - Through the actions of a single, particular government (an entity), she shall be protected, not through her own "governing".
"But she shall be saved through The Gospel" - She is saved through the means of a definite, singular message that together is referred to as "the gospel". She is not saved through "Gospeling", but rather through what The Gospel as a single entity brings to her.
"But she shall be saved through The Faith" - a woman is not saved by any and all faiths, but by one particular faith.
"But she shall be saved through The Gathering" - The Gathering, a distinctive group of people who become a single gathering (a single entity), not any and all gatherings, is from whom her salvation will come through to her, but she is not saved by her own action of "gathering".
So as I have shown, "The Childbirth" is a single distinct entity, a specific unified event or person through which "the woman" will receive her salvation. It is the vehicle through which her salvation comes to her, it is not the basis of her justification itself. is a single, distinct, definite noun, like "Our God" or "The Christ". "The Childbirth" is not an indefinite verb (something which is done as an action), like "to bear a child", nor is it plural, like "to bear children" or "the childbirths", nor is it indefinite, like " a/any childbirth".
Some of the problem comes from the fact that in English, "Childbearing" sounds somewhat like a verb, something which someone does as an action, not an entity or a collective idea or thing like a noun. That's why I chose (as did Dr. Payne in his book) to use the term "childbirth", since it doesn't sound so much like a verb.
Think of it as an specific, important, definite "episode" or event. The Childbirth "episode/event/entity", the specific important Childbirth event through which salvation has come to us (Christ's birth). Similarly, we are said to be saved through (same Greek word "dia", "through") "His Life" (Rom 5:10), though it was specifically through His birth, life, death, resurrection, sinless state, and The Faith He gave to us to become One with Him in all of these things, that we were actually saved by.
Check these other places (I believe this list is exhaustive) in Paul's writings where salvation is said to come "through" something by the Greek word "dia":
1 Cor 15:1-2, Eph 2:8, Titus 3:5, 1 Cor 3:15, Heb 7:25, Rom 5:10
Are these words ("sozo" + "dia") ever used in a way not related to Christ or spiritual salvation? Why would 1 Tim 2:15 differ radically with Paul's typical usage of something being "spiritually saved through/by means of" something, and be about a woman having to give birth to children in order to be sanctified or about being kept safe from dying in childbirth?
"Through" (Greek "dia") childbearing/childbirth is indicating the agency by which a woman's salvation will come to her, not the attendent circumstances which must accompany her salvation like the things listed after the "if" clause in verse 15, thing which "they" must remain "in" (Greek "en") for "the woman" to be saved.
Furthermore, the word used for "childbearing", "teknogonias", has a verb form, "teknogoneo", which Paul could have used if he meant a woman is saved through the means of giving birth to a child. Paul used this verb in 1 Tim 5:14 for what he wanted young widows to do in order to avoid giving the adversary an occasion to slander (not in order to be saved).
I believe "teknogoneo" and "teknogonias" can in some instances refer to more than just giving birth to children, as a synecdoche (similarly to how "pray or prophecy" is, I think, used in 1 Cor 11 to denote public spiritual activities in general). I think they can also refer to the whole aspect of child-rearing in a metaphorical sense, though this is not what the words literally mean (they refer specifically to birthing children or a child, not mothering in general), but I don't think the definite form of the noun "teknogonias" in verse 15 is appropriate for that implication. I do think the present infinitive verb "teknogoneo" is appropriate for such an implication.
Why would Paul being referring to Christ by "The Childbirth"? I think it obviously highlights the fact that though "the woman", and Eve to whom she is being compared, have been deceived and transgressed, it was through their sex that "The Seed" that would crush the serpent's head would be born. The pain of childbirth because of Eve's sin and the promise of the deliverer through her specific Reproduction were both important parts of the creation narrative that Paul had just been using to justify (or explain) his prohibition and command.
It isn't referring directly to Mary, but rather the female contribution to salvation (Jesus, The Seed of a woman, not of a man) that should deflect potential blame coming to the female sex through Paul's prior chastisement of Eve, as if they were only contributors to sin and not to salvation, so that "the woman" might be encouraged.
Paul recognized that "The Seed" of Abraham was Jesus in Gal 3:16-19, so I think it is ridiculous to think Paul didn't associate "The Seed" of a woman in Gen 3:15 with Christ as well. (Gal 4:4)
In 2 Tim, Grace is referred to as having been revealed through "the appearing" of Jesus Christ, (2 Tim 1:10) and Jesus is called "The (one who) comes" (The Coming One) in Heb 10:37.
Additionally, several early Church theologians used the expression "the child-bearing" with the definite article to express the incarnation event. (pg. 439-440 of "Man and Woman, One in Christ")
If women were required to literally bear children as a necessary good work in order to be saved, or even just to show that a woman has obtained True Faith by accepting her "God-Ordained role", that contradicts Paul's affirmation of celibacy throughout 1 Cor 7 for men and women who have been given that gift, and his own desire that all be like he himself is (single), because it spares believers worldly troubles.
He explains further that celibacy allows people to focus on spiritual matters, particularly in times of trouble, but also throughout the entirety of the "last days", which we are still in. Paul, in essence, would be asking women to forfeit salvation in order to be spared worldly troubles, or give up their primary God-Ordained role that exhibits their faith just to avoid troubles. Does that make any sense? Even Jesus himself also praised eunuchs in the Gospels, and told people to accept it if they were able. (Matt 19:12) Clearly, there are major problems with either of the aforementioned interpretations.
Far from denigrating the importance of traditional roles for women, interpreting "The Childbirth" as the bearing and birth of Jesus Christ (the incarnation event) ennobles the role of women in their own acts of childbearing as well, highlighting a woman's pivotal role through the incarnations event.
However, it more importantly also affirms that Christ is the One through whom a woman's salvation comes, not her good works or ability to procreate, nor her ability to "mother" or "keep house" (which many women cannot do because of sickness), even though these things are good works which she should do, if called to them. This interpretation fits the facts and accords beautifully with the rest of Scripture.
9. If "they" remain in true faith.
This "they" is the pivotal switch that a lot of people do not want to interact with. "She" is the one who will be saved in the future at some point, if "they" stay in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control. Who is the "they"?
"They" are either Adam and Eve from verse 13, "the woman" and "a man" from verses 11-12, 14, "women" from verse 9-10, or "all men and women" from verses 8-10.
It does not appear for it to be possible for "they" to be "Adam and Eve", because both are dead and cannot "remain in" anything like the living, unless they are in heaven, which then would make "the woman" not Eve, since she can't still be in her transgression if she is saved and in heaven.
"They", Adam and Eve, can do nothing to cause "her", Eve, to be saved in the future, they are already saved and with the Lord (presumably and probably), or in hades awaiting the lake of fire. Furthermore, Eve is not in her transgression at the time of Paul's writing, being dead and probably washed in The Blood of The Lamb, unless she has already been judged and is on her way to the lake of fire, in which case she has no hope of future salvation so she cannot be the "she" that "will be saved" if "they" continue to be faithful. "She" is directly connected to "the woman" before it, they refer to the same person.
If Eve cannot be the "she", and is very unlikely to be "the woman" who remains a transgressor because that would make Eve hell-bound, and there is evidence in Genesis that she was a believer, than "they" is certainly not referring to Adam and Eve.
These are the other places where Paul uses the future, indicative, passive, 3rd person singular form of "sozo": Rom 9:27, Rom 10:13, Rom 11:26, 1 Cor 3:15. It is used of either people presently alive at the time of Paul's writing, or of those who will be alive at some time in the future, but not of those long dead at the time of Paul's writing.
So what about "they" being "the/a woman" from verses 11-12, 14, and "a man" from verse 12? This seems to be the closest and most natural reference for "they" to be referring to. It would be hard for "they" to be referring to "women"(plural) from verses 9-10, because that would mean Paul used "she" generically to mean any woman/all women, and "they" to mean the same thing, any woman/all women. Why not just use another generic-for-all-women singular like "if she continues" instead of changing to the plural "they" when there was no need to, even perhaps improper to do so if "she"="they"?
Or does one woman's salvation, the "she" of verse 15, depend on the entire female population of the Church of Ephesus continuing in faith with her? Notice it is only "she" that will be saved, if "they" stay in faith. That is "she" + someone else or everyone else having to do something in order to save a single "she", unless "she" means the exact same group of people as "they", which doesn't seem to make any sense.
For example, you wouldn't say:
A woman should teach good things. For just like Sally, my mother, a woman is intelligent; and if she speaks with wisdom, they will obey God.
If you meant "she" and "they" to refer to the same generic group of any or all women, this sounds improper. Instead, you would say:
A woman should teach good things. For just like Sally, my mother, a woman is intelligent; and if she speaks with wisdom, she will obey God.Similarly, making the "they" of verse 15 mean "all men and women" from verses 8-10 along with the "she" of verse 15 that needs to be saved, or making "they" Adam + Eve as representatives of all men and women (therefore "they" still equals all men and women without distinction), that would make the single "she" dependent on the entire Church remaining in faith with her in order to be saved. That appears rather unlikely. Even making "they" mean "all women" would still make "she" dependent on all women remaining in true Faith, including herself, for this one woman to be saved.
So it appears the best candidate for "they" is "the/a woman" and "a man" interpreted as a single definite woman and a single man ( "a man", although indefinite, is many times used in Scripture of a definite single man; it can be either definite or indefinite.) That were playing out the scene in the garden; The man may have been being compared to Adam; he was formed first (either older physically or spiritually, being "formed" metaphorically in the faith and therefore being more learned. Paul uses metaphorical meanings of words in other places as well, like "the body" of Christ, and "the head" of someone being someone else figuratively.), and was not deceived. But "the woman", like Eve, was formed second (physically or in the faith, therefore she still needs to learn.), and she was deceived, and is in her transgression.
Switching from Adam and Eve as typology in verses 13-14 to "the woman" in place of Eve may be Paul's way of obviously comparing but still separating Eve and "the woman", so that there wouldn't be confusion about Adam and Eve being the only ones being discussed in these verses.
So "a man", who may be her husband, or Timothy her teacher, needs to stay in faith with "the woman" in order for her to be saved (not him, since he is probably already saved, being the one not deceived). Why would her salvation depend on him remaining in faith with her?
Similarly to being "saved" by baptism (1 Pet 3:21), which is administered by another person, or Timothy "saving" himself and his hearers by keeping his life pure and teaching sound doctrine (1 Tim 4:16), or simply those who need to be sent out preach the Gospel in order for others to hear and be saved (for faith comes by hearing, Rom 10:17), everyone is often times at some point dependent on others for their salvation in some sense. "The woman" needs "a man" (perhaps her husband or Timothy) to guide her and teach her the truth; he must remain faithful in order to do this, for she is depending on his help to be saved from deception and her ongoing transgression.
In summation, this is a possible interpretation of 1 Tim 2:11-15, and it is the one I am leaning towards at this time. I do not say it is the only one, but it does seem to be the most coherent in my opinion, and does not conflict with such scriptures as:
Titus 2:3, Where older women are told to be teachers of what is good. They are specifically told to teach younger women, but it seems untenable to suppose that only older women could teach other women, or that they could only women good things and no one else. Paul doesn't so "so that they may only teach the younger", but perhaps that is their primary duty, seeing as there are some things that women are best suited to teach other women about.
Secondly, Paul tells the older women specifically in this verse to be reverent, not slanderers, and not addicted to much wine. Is this not also for all people? Of course. So clearly, all people, including young women, should be teachers of the good.
Some have also suggested that the older women are to teach the younger in a mostly non-verbal manner, only by example, and not in any official capacity. But this makes no sense, for every other use of a form of the word "didasko", when it is being used to describe what people do, meant teaching by word, and possibly also by deed. There is no talk of where or when they can do this, nor that it cannot be in an official capacity, or in a large group.
Furthermore, how does one even teach someone how to be "good", "kind", "self-controlled", or "pure", if they don't speak to them about nor teach them the Scriptures related to this topic? It is pretty absurd to say the least, in my opinion.
Acts 18:26, Where Priscilla is said to have expounded the Way of Jesus (The Faith) to Apollos, a male teacher and preacher. She did this with her husband, Aquila, probably because it would have been scandalous for a woman to teach a man who was not her husband alone (as it can be today as well.)She is specifically included in the teaching, for "they" (plural) expounded together, not only Aquila.
I have actually heard someone say that Priscilla may have been there, and maybe fixed some beverages for Aquila and Apollos, but did not herself expound. This is most untenable, for the Scriptures explicitly say she did expound, not just serve drinks or any such thing (though she may have done that too, as that would have been a kind thing to do. The Scriptures say nothing of the sort however.).
Finally, it seems some believe that it was okay for Priscilla to teach Apollos because she was under her husband's authority and was simply helping him. But 1 Tim 2:12 gives no exception for a woman to teach as long as she is under a man's authority or watch, nor does it say that a woman may not simply regularly teach a man, but can once in a while. It also does not say that she must only not teach in an official capacity in the Church; rather, it says a woman is not being permitted to "teach", period.
If Dr. Payne is right about two activities involved in an "ouk, oude", "not, nor" construction like 1 Tim 2:12 actually being one activity, in this case "a woman is not permitted to teach with assumed authority over a man", than there could be an argument made that this is only restricting an official teaching capacity over men: but, that would probably require authentein to mean positive exercising of properly delegated authority, which from my research of the word, and other people's studies on it, seems very unlikely.
For Dr. Payne's argument about the prohibition of 1 Tim 2:12's two activities actually being one activity merged together, read his book "Man and Woman, One in Christ", or check this link for a PDF version of the argument on his website: Dr. Payne's study
Proverbs 31:26. Proverbs 31 starts out with:
Pro 31:1 The words of king Lemuel, the prophecy that his mother taught him.
then after a few verses, proceeds to say:
8 Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction.
9 Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.
10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.
11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.
12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.
13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.
14 She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.
15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.
16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.
17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.
18 She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night.
19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.
20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.
21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.
22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.
23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.
24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.
25 Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.
26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law (teaching) of kindness.
27 She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.
28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.
29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.
30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.
So this is God's ideal wife, a woman who in fact both speaks with wisdom and teaches kindness. It doesn't say she only does this around other women and children either, in fact her husband trusts in her (so she must be wise and stable, not "easily deceived" and inherently prone to wantonness.) and he praises her, as do her works at the gates. This isn't obviously teaching or speaking in an official capacity (though some women did prophecy and lead in official capacities in the OT), but it is some sort of teaching and speaking by women that is praised by God.
31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.
2 Tim 1:5, 3:14-15: Eunice and Lois, Timothy's mother and grandmother, were the ones who in all likelihood taught The Faith and the Scriptures to Timothy since his childhood, since his dad was said to be simply "a Greek" in Acts 16:1, and is not spoken of as being a believer, in contrast to the praise given to Tim's mother, who was called a believing Jew. This is properly an example of a woman teaching a child (or at least "from childhood") Spiritual things, not necessarily a grown man, but are we to assume that a mother cannot teach her own son anything more about spiritual things after he is grown?
I want to make it clear that many, if not most Complementarians would agree that a woman can teach a man in a private, unofficial capacity, so this would not disturb them.
Psalm 68:11: The women (YLT's "female proclaimers") who publish the good news are a great host. This sounds awfully prophetic, considering it was the women who proclaimed the good news of Christ's Resurrection to the Apostles. (John 20:17-18)
So perhaps, although good and a Holy Callings, marriage combined with house-keeping and child rearing is not every woman's highest and primary role, as some Complementarian's seem to forcefully insist on. Perhaps, as 1 Cor 7 throughout suggests, as well as Jesus' teaching on Eunuchs in Matt 19:12, and Luke 10:42's affirmation of Mary's better choice, that a woman can find her fulfillment in Christ alone and spiritual services instead of marriage and childbearing, if she is not called to those things by God.
Rather than God insisting that all woman have one primary and needful "role" through which she will be sanctified, bearing children and being domestic, He says instead that worrying about things such as how a woman may please her husband is something of the present world, a good but temporary role that is not given to all women. (1 Cor 7:34)(Matt 22:30)
When considering these things, take into consideration the many places in Scripture were all believers are told to teach each other:
Rom 2:21, Rom 12:7, Col 1:28, Col 3:16, 2 Tim 2:2, Heb 5:12
Never do these verses use gender exclusive language to restrict teaching only to males, Greek "aner".
However, in Greek, if a group of people includes even one male, the masculine form of the word referring to that group is used. This does not mean that only men are in view, since women are included within such groups as well, as in John 3:16, where "everyone who believes" is masculine, but includes women. It just means that males are also included in the group, not just women. That's why when you see the word "man" in Scripture, you should know that it is often translated from the word that means "mankind" (Greek "anthropos") , man and/or woman, and does not necessarily refer to males only. The word "aner" specifies males only, and "gune" women only.
Judges 4:4-5:31: A woman, Deborah, lead men and judged all of Israel, and the whole land had peace for 40 years because of it. She was a Godly woman, a mother of Israel, raised up by God.
2 Kings 22:13-20, 2 Chron 34:22-28: Hulduh, a female prophet. Some say her prophecy did not come true, but it may be that this situation was like that of Jonah, who was a true prophet, but his prophecy did not come true because Nineveh repented. God relented of his prophesied punishment they He was going to pour out on them, but that doesn't mean Jonah was a false prophet.
1 Sam 25:1-34: Abigail went to David behind her husband's back in order to save her people, because her husband was a fool. She was praised by David and became his wife after her foolish husband died. She was brave, and not willing to stand back and let a foolish husband ruin other people's lives.
Micah 6:4, Exodus 5:20-21: Miriam, along with Moses and Aaron, lead all Israel. Moses was however the primary leader, above (it would appear) both Miriam and Aaron because he was the most humble man in all the earth during that time (Num 12:3), and God spoke with him face to face (Num 12:8). Miriam saved Moses as a baby by putting him in the basket that was sent down the river. (Exodus 2:1-10)
Acts 21:9: Philip had four unmarried (virgin) daughters that prophesied. Being a Prophet is said to be the second highest appointment of God in the Church, after Apostleship, and before Teachers. (1 Cor 12:28)
Luke 2:36-38: Anna the widowed prophetess, who lived at the Temple and spoke with everyone who was looking for redemption in Israel about Jesus. Some of these people were males, since the "all those" that she spoke to is in the masculine form, which would include both men and women. Do you think they ever learned anything spiritual from her?
Rom 16:1: Phoebe is a deacon of a Church, and a "prostatis" (protector, one who goes before another) of Paul and others. She has an actual office that many others who are recognized as having authority in the Church have. Keep in mind that Jesus Himself said "the greatest among you will be your deacon" (also Matt 20:26, Mark 10:43), and "the one who leads should be as the one who serves" (this passage uses the verbal form of "deacon" for "serves", "diakoneo"). She has even been a protector or leader of Paul, which certainly shows that women can be strong and have authority.
more on Phoebe: http://abandonimage.blogspot.com/2008/07/phoebe-deacon-of-early-church.html
Rom 16:7: Junia, a woman, is "outstanding among the Apostles", and was in The Faith before Paul. Many believe she is conclusively designated an Apostle, which is the highest rank of Church appointment by God.
More on Junia here: http://www.godswordtowomen.org/rissjunia.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other questions:
Why does Paul only temporarily prohibit a woman from "usurping authority" or "teaching falsely" if those are bad things to do in general?
There is a possibility that Paul here is restricting all teaching (good or bad) and assuming personal (not Church-delegated) authority (in a non-pejorative, personal discipleship manner) for the woman instead of false teaching and domineering. The reason he would be restricting all teaching by the woman is because she wants to teach The Law but doesn't know what she is talking about (the woman is deceived and still in transgression, regardless of how we take "teach" and "usurp/assume authority".), so he forbids all teaching by her temporarily (epitrepo).
Under this scenario, we would take "epitrepo" to be the limiter, she is only presently being restricted from two positive or neutral activities, teaching doctrine and assuming her own authority (which is not always a bad thing, in theory.). However, epitrepo may also (perhaps) be a universal prohibition that was placed upon "the woman, barring her from teaching false doctrine or usurping authority/dominating a man.
Therefore we have two possible scenarios in my view:
a. Epitrepo is time-limited and is valid only at the time of Paul when there was false teaching problems at Ephesus. A woman is temporarily being banned from all teaching, either in conjunction with or separately from assuming undelegated authority for herself. She is banned fom all self-authorized (or just any) teaching for now because, as someone decieved, she is liable at any moment to teach falsehoods along with some truth and confuse people.
She is not being permitted to assume her own authority over a man, because it is disrespectful to a man to have a woman not get properly delegated authority to teach him (because Adam was first formed, then Eve, making him her source and senior. She should therefore respect him as one would an older person and in some ways, a parent.), especially if she is deceived and teaching some false doctrines mingled with truth. So, Paul stops her teaching entirely, or only her teaching when combined with self-proclaimed authority.
It may also be that the scenario was a woman teaching a single man (her husband perhaps), and that the man is being compared to Adam in that he was formed first ( he is either older, or was formed in The Faith before her), and he was not deceived, but she was deceived like Eve.
In that case, Paul was not permitting her to do the things he prohibits her from doing because she is deceived and should not assume authority over a man or teach him spiritual things as if she knew better than he, since he is not deceived like Adam and he was formed first. Therefore, she needs to learn from him and others quietly in all submission. She is not ready to teach or have personal authority.
Even if "the woman" is made into "all women", this prohibition is not valid for today because, like almost every other use of "Epitrepo" in Scripture (except perhaps 1 Cor 14:34's use, which may be an interpolation or a Corinthian quote and therefore not a true instance of this word being used for a universal prohibition.), it is specifically used for situation-specific prohibitions or allowances. In this case, women particularly were spreading false teaching, prattling, and saying things they shouldn't in Ephesus (home to a "goddess", and the Artemis cult), which Timothy must stop. There may also be gnostic teachings (1 Tim 6:20) about "The Law" being spread by women, where Eve was given a place of prominence over Adam in contradiction to the actual story recorded in Genesis.
b. Epitrepo, although usually time-bound and non-universal, is being used here as an eternal prohibition on a specific woman because of her deception. She is banned from only false teaching and usurping authority/dominating a man in a bad way, but she is not being limited from true teaching or delegated proper authority. This would also be the case if "the woman" was synonymous with "all women", and not a definite individual.
Therefore, since I can't be certain that "Epitrepo" is time-bound, or that "to teach" and "to usurp authority" are both negative things, nor that both are positive, or that one is positive and the other negative, I give evidence for two views. You may have to pick the one you think is most persuasive.
Why does Paul prohibit only "a woman" from teaching, and not all false teachers?
He does prohibit other false teachers who were male. See Payne's book "Man and Woman, One in Christ" pages 334-335
Consider that this verse may be about a single unnamed but definite woman who was deceived and is in transgression, in Ephesus, that needed to learn and be saved. If this is true, then the reason she alone was told to stop teaching at that time is because she was deceived like Eve. She was one of those people who wanted to be a teacher of the law, but didn't know what she was talking about.
This would also make sense of why Paul brings up Adam and Eve to make his point, since the story of their creation is written in "the Law" (which is what Paul called the Old Testament), and this lady wanted to teach it but was not correct in what she confidently affirmed. Perhaps she was teaching that Eve was first formed, then Adam, and Eve was not deceived? That would make verses 13-14 about correcting her misunderstanding of the Law.
Additionally and more subjectively, women were probably less educated than men, as appears to be the case in much of history, and they were probably also influenced by the fertility cults that were native to that region, particular Artemis, who was a goddess specifically mentioned to be "of the Ephesians" in Acts.
Furthermore, young widows are the one's mentioned as those who, "learn to be idle" and "go from house to house... talking foolishness... saying things they ought not". Not only young widows fall into these sins of course, but there was obviously a particular problem with women in Ephesus. Even in 2 Timothy, women are still a source of problems, which may be because of the Artemis cult that was stationed there.
The same question could be asked, why does Paul only tell women not to dress immodestly and opulently? Do men get to dress immodestly, but not women? You know that isn't what Paul means.
Why does Paul only tell men to lift up holy hands in every place, and not to be wrathful and wrangle when they pray? Does that mean women shouldn't lift up holy hands, and can be wrathful and wrangle?
Why does Paul ever tell specific people to do something, like telling "someone" not to have their father's wife (sexually) (1 Cor 5:1), if we know the same applies to all people? Why not just say no one can have their father's wife or they get kicked out of Church?
Because one person's actions were the problem at the time, and there are plenty of other Scriptures that would imply this principle even if it's not directly stated for everyone.
The fact is, Scripture reiterates many things over and over again without (seemingly) needing to, just because God found that to be a good thing to do. Why He did it, I do not know. But I know there is some good reason for it.
Furthermore, These pastoral letters, especially 1 Tim, which was written to instruct Timothy singularly throughout almost the entire letter and not all people in the Church like some of Paul's other letters, were tailored for specific situations actually occurring at the time in order to help particular people.
That does not mean everything in 1 Tim is only for the Church at Ephesus, for surely there are universally applicable commands or principles housed within the letter that all Churches are called to observe, since every Church must observe some universal principles. But not everything spoken of is applicable to all people in all times and places.
Then why does Paul not name this woman like Hymenaeus and Alexander?
Perhaps it was because she was a deceived person who was trying to teach The Law, but did not even know what she was saying nor what she affirmed (1 Tim 1:7). Hymenaeus and Alexander were blasphemers, they had shipwrecked their faith and cast away a good conscience concerning Faith (1 Tim 1:19-20). They are not said to be ignorant Law-teachers, nor deceived. Because it may be that "a woman" was ignorant of the truth, just like Paul was before he found mercy through Christ, he did not name her, that she might not be shamed. since Paul wanted her to learn within the body of Christ and come to faith through submissive, quiet learning.
In 2 Tim 2:25, Paul instructs Timothy to gently discipline those who oppose him, that they may be given repentance by God to acknowledge The Truth. But some have gone too far and are shipwrecking other people's faith, and they are the ones who need to be taught not to blaspheme outside the Church.
Paul has also kept to himself the names of other people who were either in sin and needed to be disciplined by simply referring to them as "someone" or "he" (1 Cor 5:1-5), or who he for whatever reason chose not to name even though what they had experienced was not a shame or sin (the man Paul knew that was caught up, ( 2 Cor 12:2). This also happens elsewhere in Scripture, were "a woman" and "a man" or "someone" are generic and remain unnamed but from the context we know are definite persons and do not represent all women and men.
But 1 Tim 2:8 says Paul "is presently desiring" some things that appear to be eternally valid, in the present, indicative, active, first-person, singular, tense, just like the tense of "epitrepo" in "I am not presently permitting" of 1 Tim 2:12. So are all these instructions temporary too?
Some of them very well could be. For example, men are told to "lift up Holy hands" "in every place", does that mean Paul wants males to eternally lift up their Holy hands in every place, or at least whenever they pray, in all times and all places? If so, men need to raise their hands in a Holy way every time they pray, at least in every Church.
Women are likewise told that Paul is presently desiring that they wear modest and proper clothing, but not to wear braided hair with gold and pearls and very costly garments. Does that mean braids are bad to wear in all times and in all places, as well as gold, pearls, and expensive clothes? Does this Scripture mean that a woman must always be modestly dressed everywhere and always, even in the doctor's office, while "knowing" her husband, in the shower, etc? So we know their are some obvious, but unstated limits to these "desires" of Paul.
So we do know that some of these things only apply while in public, and in Church, though some don't, since being wrathful and wrangling appear to be bad things everywhere and at all times.
Also, in 1 Tim 5:14, Paul uses the same word, "boulomai", or "I am presently desiring", to express his current desire for young widows at Ephesus to get married, bear children, to manage the house, so that on account of them Satan will no opportunity to slander.
We know that Paul had already said previously that he wants young widows to do this because if they don't marry and instead are put on the "Widows list", they become idle and cast off their former faith, and go about from house to house prattling and saying things they ought not. (1Tim 5:11-13) This is obviously not about all young widows everywhere. Nor does Paul desire every woman or widow to get married, in every place and for all time, as 1 Cor 7:1-40 shows.
Furthermore, the word used in verses 8-10 for "desire" is not the word "epitrepo", it is "boulomai".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In closing, I would like to propose that we cannot ignore the grammar of these verses, nor change the rules of Greek grammar to fit our preferred interpretations (myself included, so if I'm wrong, correct me in kindness). We can't ignore that Paul's use of "epitrepo" in the first person, singular, present, active, indicative is never used anywhere else for a universal, permanent prohibition or command, or that "epitrepo" is rarely ever used for a permanent universal prohibition or command, maybe never in fact. Check it's uses in all tenses here: http://biblesuite.com/greek/strongs_2010.htm
We must realize that there is a reason related to false teaching and learning for why "a woman" is told to learn in quiet calmness with all submission, but is not permitted to teach yet, nor to take up her own authority over a man. She is compared to Eve in her transgression and deception. False teaching is what Timothy is in Ephesus for, he is commanded to charge those who do not know what they are saying or who are deceiving others to stop and learn, either in Church or from satan.
Does this not obviously seem to be a situation where a woman is not allowed to teach because she is deceived and needs to be saved from ongoing transgression? When you factor everything in, it's just, well, pretty plainly apparent surprisingly. This verse really does seem to be about a specific person in Ephesus who is not yet able to teach properly and needs to learn instead. She will be saved through Christ's birth, if she and someone else stays in true faith. She is one of those people who need to be prayed for, because God desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, which she does not yet have. (1 Tim 2:1-4)
We also have do deal with the singular uses of "a woman", "a man" and "the woman" and "she" instead of just assuming it's generic for all women and all men before it's proven with evidence.
We cannot ignore the perfect tense of "to be in transgression", nor the future tense of "she shall be saved", as if they mean nothing of primary importance, or that they don't narrowly specify who is actually being called a transgressor and deceived, and who needs to be saved in the future under certain conditions.
We may not pretend that the "if they continue" of verse 15 is simply "all women", the same thing referenced by the singulars that precede it, without adequate proof that this is proper to do. It does not make much sense for Paul to change the grammar to the plural "they" if he meant "a woman" and "the woman" and "she" to be understood as generic for "all women" anyway, he could have just continued using a generic singular "if she continues". It is a distinct change in grammar, and it makes "she" dependent on someone else along with herself for salvation.
Nor can we forget and pass over that "a man" and "a woman" is the clearest reference to which "if they continue" should refer back to, not the plural "women" of verse 10, which is not directly connected to these verses with a connecting particle like "for", "but", "and", "therefore", or anything else other than the reference to a female person, unlike all the verses in 1 Tim 2:11-15. (See Acts 18:26 for an example of when two individual singular nouns, "Priscilla" and "Aquila", become the plural "they" that took aside Apollos to expound the Scriptures to him. Notice Priscilla was in fact teaching a man the Scriptures, and was not chastised for it, but lauded as Paul's fellow-worker later on.)
So many interpretations of this verse do not even consider that it could be referring to one woman, nor do they check to see if changing from a singular "she" to a plural "they" to represent the same group of people is proper Greek grammar, or ever done anywhere else in Scripture. I think this is because:
1. We often do not even realize when we use improper grammar even in our own languages on a daily basis, nor do we often have a firm grasp of what is improper grammar. The Holy Spirit does not make grammar mistakes.
An example: in English if I said;
The men should run. The women should play. I want a man and a woman to dance, for she will have fun if they move their bodies.
You wouldn't take the "they" to mean "the women" when the closest and best reference for "they" is "a man" and "a woman", or you would take it to mean everyone, but not just "the women". Remember, 1 Tim 2:8 is explicitly connected to verses 9 and 10, but verses 8, 9, and 10 are not explicitly connected to verses 11 or the verses that follow. All of verses 11-15 are explicitly connected to each other with some connecting word, like "but" or "and".
Here is a another English example of a similar paragraph to 1 Tim 2: 8-15) (this is not perfectly analogous to 1 Tim 2:8-15)
"Hey Brian, these are the instructions for craft class. There are some people I want you to correct, but I may or may not name them by name. Here are my directions:
The men should craft quietly without stealing each others material. Likewise, the women should wear appropriate smocks and work quietly, like all good women do in craft class.
The woman should learn to make crafts peaceably and without distraction,
but I am not allowing the woman to make unattractive crafts, nor to get sidetracked and chat with a man;
for a previous female student who is now deceased named Amanda chatted and did not finish on time, but a previous but now deceased male student named Phil did not chat and finished on time,
additionally Phil made proper crafts, but the woman made undecorated crafts that are not attractive, and she has become (and still is) a wrongdoer. However, she can avoid doing wrong through these instructions, if they dedicate themselves to making proper crafts without chatting."
The "they" in this sentence refers to either Phil and Amanda (but can't because both are dead), or "a man" and "the woman", or "all men" and "all women", but not to only "the women" of the previous sentences.
2. Koine Greek doesn't always easily translate into English or other languages with perfect preservation of the same nuances and tenses.
3. Many people do not use a Greek interlinear for their main doctrine-proving Bible. Rather, they use translations that distort the grammar of this text (as they do with other texts in Scripture, alarmingly), sometimes egregiously. These translations obscure the actual meaning of some of the words and do not do justice to the original Word of God. Do not be deceived, the studios and scholarly St. Paul did not use incorrect grammar in The Scriptures under the guidance of The Spirit. I would suggest only using literal translations of the Bible for doctrine-making, and a Greek interlinear with lexical support is even better for studying.
In relation to this, here is an extremely helpful website: http://interlinearbible.org/genesis/1-1.htm
Here is alittle illustration I put together, where the corresponding ideas from eariler passages in 1 Tim 1 are color coded to match the ideas from 1 Tim 2:11-15.
1 Tim 2:11, 15:
1Tim 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that you might charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
1Tim 1:5 Now the end (the whole point) of this command/teaching (the charge/teaching being Timothy commanding those who teach falsly to stop) is love out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned (faith that is continued in):
1Tim 2:11 Let the woman learn (be charged) in quietness with all submission. (...But I am not permitting a woman to teach)
1Tim 2:15 However she shall be saved through The Childbirth, if they continue in faith and love and holiness (pure heart) with self-control (good conscience).
1 Tim 2:12, 14:
1Tim 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that you might charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
1Tim 1:6 From which (a good conscience) some having swerved have turned aside unto vain talking;
1Tim 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor what they affirm.
1Tim 2:12 But to teach (about The Law, including Adam and Eve) I am not permitting a/the woman (one of the "some"), nor to usurp (unofficial and personal) authority over a man, but to be in quietness.
1 Tim 2:14 but the woman, having been deceived, is fallen into (is still in) transgression. (this is the reason given "for" why she cannot teach now)
1 Tim 2:13-14
1Tim 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor what they affirm.
1Tim 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if anyone (generic, male or female) uses it lawfully;
1Tim 1:4 Neither give heed to fables (wrong teachings about Adam and Eve included) and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
1Tim 2:13-14 For Adam was first formed, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived; but (it is this) woman, (who) has been deceived (and thinks she is teaching correctly about The Law but got the Adam and Eve story wrong), (she is the one who) is fallen into (is now in) transgression.
I think 1 Tim 2:11-15 could be about the very thing that 1 Tim 1:7 discusses, a person trying to be a teacher of The Law, but needing to learn in subjection and quietness instead of talking vainly about things she does not understand. Timothy is in Ephesus still for this very thing, to charge such people to stop teaching different doctrine.
She is being stopped temporarily from all teaching and taking up of personal authority to teach about The Law because she is decieved and is transgressing, but she will be saved through Christ, and by being taught by Timothy.
Scripture even says Timothy will save his hearers and himself ( which would make Timothy perhaps "a man" who joins with "the woman" to become the "they" who need to stay in Faith for the woman to be saved) by his life and teaching, if he keeps it pure. (1 Tim 4:16)
So if she and her non-decieved teacher, who she must learn from and not usurp authority over (a man, maybe Timothy), remain in an unfeigned faith, the transgressing woman will be saved. (Timothy must also remain in Faith to keep his life and teaching pure, or he can not save his hearers or himself, 1 Tim 4:16)
The part about Adam and Eve may be a correction of her erroneous teaching about The Law, combined with a rebuke by comparing her to Eve and "a man" (maybe Timothy) to Adam (she may have been trying to denegrate Adam in favor of Eve), who was not decieved and became a Christian before her.
The Childbearing refers to Christ's birth, highlighting a woman's unique role in facilitating God's salvation, and as a means through which salvation will come to the woman.
Therefore I feel it is unlikely that this verse is prohibitng all women from teaching or exercising authority over men.
Thanks for reading. Please feel free to leave respectful comments and corrections below. Please do not fight nor bicker with each other in bitterness, but consider each other's opinions and weigh them carefully.
If you believe I'm wrong on something and want to correct me, please back up your claims with evidence and citations of Scripture. Please don't just assert things, unless you make it obvious to others that what you are saying is simply your opinion. Opinions and disagreements are okay to post, but do so respectfully.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)