DBE: Chapter 12 – Teaching and Usurping Authority: 1 Timothy 2:11-15

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part II: Looking to Scripture (The Biblical Texts)

Chapter 12 – Teaching and Usurping Authority: 1 Timothy 2:11-15. By Linda L. Belleville.

1 Timothy 2:11-15

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing-if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (NIV)

Dr. Belleville opens her essay with the following:

The battle over women leaders in the church continues to rage unabated in evangelical circles. At the center of the tempest sits 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Despite a broad spectrum of biblical and extrabiblical texts that highlight female leaders, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 continues to be perceived and treated as the Great Divide in the debate. Indeed, a hierarchical interpretation of this passage has become for some a litmus test for the label evangelical  and even a necessity fro the salvation of unbelievers.

The complexities of 1 Timothy 2:22-25 are many. There is barely a word or phrase that has not been keenly scrutinized. The focus here will be on the key interpretive issues( context, translation, the Greek infinitive authentein, grammar, cultural backdrop) and some common concerns regarding what this text says about men and women in positions of leadership and authority. This analysis will make use of a wide array of tools and databases now available with the advent of computer technology that can shed light on what all concede to be the truly abstruse, head-scratching aspects of the passage. (205)

Context

Dr. Belleville shows that the major thrust of this letter is corrective instruction against false teaching. About half of the letter is devoted to false teachings. She also observes that women seem to receive inordinate attention in this letter.

Behavior befitting women in worship (1 Tim 2:10-15), qualifications for women deacons (1 Tim 3:11), appropriate pastoral behavior toward older and younger women (1 Tim 5:2), support of widows (1 Tim 5:11-15) and familial responsibilities toward destitute widows (1 Tm 5:3-8, 16) are all concerns of Paul. Moreover, Paul speaks of widows who were going from house to house speaking things they ought not (1 Tim 5:13). That something more than nosiness or gossiping is involved is clear from Paul’s evaluation that “some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan” (1 Tim 5:15). (206-207)

Belleville turns her attention to the specifics of the Chapter 2 context. Verses 1 and 8 are linked in that Paul begins by saying in verse one, "I exhort, therefore," and then verse 8 opens with, "therefore I want." (Some translations in English do not explicitly say "therefore" in these passages, but Belleville is working from Greek.) The first seven verses give Paul's vision and purpose concerning godly worship. Next, Paul turns to correcting practices that detract from this vision and purpose: Angry, contentious men (v. 8) and women coming improperly attired for worship (v. 9-10). Then comes the passage that is the topic of the essay.

Verse 11 begins by calling for "quietness" (some translations "silence") and "submission." The Greek word translated into quietness here is hesychia. Silence is not a good translation of the term. It is not translated that way elsewhere in the Bible. Belleville points out that it has already been used in this chapter in verse 2, where Paul wrote, "…we may live peaceful and quite lives…." The idea here is to behave in a peaceable non-disruptive manner. Belleville shows that submission is to the teaching and the teacher. In other words, just as Paul has told the men to cease their angry disputes (are they angry about the women and their behavior/attire?) and be peaceable, he is telling the women to do the same thing. Belleville suspects a battle of the sexes here.

Translation

Belleville next addresses the Greek underlying the phrase "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man," as worded in the NIV above. This is how modern translations have translated the passage since World War II. Key to this passage is the Greek word authentein translated as "have authority" here. More common words could have been used for "authority," but this is the one used here. It is the only place it appears in the Bible. Note how the word was translated over the centuries before World War II:

• Old Latin (2nd-4th cent. A.D.): "I permit not a woman to teach, neither to dominate a man [neque dominari viro]. (209)
• Vulgate (4th-5th): "I permit not a woman to teach, neither to domineer over a man [neque dominari in virum]." (209)
• Geneva (1560 edition): "I permit not a woman to teache, nether vfurpe [usurp] authoritie ouer the man." (210)
• King James Version (1611): "I suffer not a woman to teach, neither to usurpe authoritie over the man." (210)

Some more recent translations have retained this connotation as well.

• New English Bible (1961): I do not permit a woman to be a teacher, nor must woman domineer over man. (210)
• New Translation (1990): "I do not permit a woman to teach or dominate men." (210)

Dr. Belleville gives a lengthy examination of the development of the Greek word authentein and interacts with the work of hierarchicalist George Knight who argues for "exercised authority" as the translation. Belleville exposes the inaccuracy of Kinght's analysis. Concluding this section, she writes:

So there is no first-century warrant for translating authentein as “to exercise authority” and for understanding Paul in 1 Timothy 2:12 to be speaking of the carrying out of one’s official duties. Rather the sense is the Koine “to dominate, to get one’s way.” The NIV’s “to have authority over” therefore must be understood in the sense of holding sway of mastery over another. This is supported by the grammar of the verse. If Paul had a routine exercise of authority in view, he would have put it first, followed by authentein as a specific example. Given this word order, authentein meaning “to dominate” or gain the upper hand” provides the best fit in the context. (216-217)

It would appear that translators predisposed to a hierarchical understanding have altered the interpretation of this text.

Grammar

So how did "exercise authority over" seep into modern translations? Belleville writes:

He [Andreas Kostenberger] argues that the Greek correlative pairs synonyms or parallel words and not antonyms. Since “to teach” is positive, authentein must also be positive. To demonstrate his point, Kostenberger analyzes “neither” + verb 1 +”nor” + verb 2 constructions in biblical and extrabiblical literature. (217)

This is the justification for changing the historic translation of this passage. However, Belleville writes:

Yet there is a grammatical flaw intrinsic to this approach. It is limited to formally equivalent constructions, excluding functionally equivalent ones, and so the investigation includes only correlated verbs. Thus it overlooks the fact that the infinitives (“to teach,” authentein) are functioning grammatically not as verbs but as nouns in the sentence structure (as one would expect a verbal noun to do.) … The verb 1 Timothy 2:12 is actually “I permit.” “Neither to teach nor authentein” modifies the noun “a woman,” which makes the authentein clause the second of two direct objects.(217)

Belleville points out that correlate nouns serve to move us from the general to the particular. "(e.g., "where thieves break in nor steal" [i.e., break in to steal], Mt 6:20)." (218)

Of the options listed above, it is clear that “teach” and “dominate” are not synonyms, closely related ideas or antonyms. If authentein did mean “to exercise authority,” we might have a movement from general to particular. But we would expect the word order to be the reverse of what we have in 1 Timothy 2:12, that is, “neither to exercise authority [general] nor to teach [particular].” They do not form a natural progression of related ideas either (“first teach, then dominate”). On the other hand, to define a purpose or goal actually provides a good fit: “I do not permit a woman to teach so as to gain mastery over a man,” or “I do not permit a woman to teach with a view to dominating a man.” It also fits the contrast with second part of the verse: “I do not permit a woman to teach a man in a dominating way but to have quiet demeanor [literally, ‘to be in calmness’].” (218-219)

Culture and Common Concerns

Timothy was in Ephesus, the center of worship for the goddess Artemis. (Her temple was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world.) Belleville writes that according to the Greeks:

It was believed that Artemis (and brother Apollo) was the child of Zeus and Leto (or Latin Latona). Instead of seeking the fellowship among her own kind, she spurned the attentions of male gods and sought instead the company of a human male consort. This made Artemis and all her female adherents superior to men. This was played out at the feast of the Lord of Streets, when the priestess of Artemis pursued a man, pretending she was Artemis herself pursuing Leimon. (219)

Belleville notes that Artemis appeared first and then her male consort. I know from other sources the Artemis worshipers often were syncretistic, infusing stories from other religions with this Artemis template. Adam and Eve was one such story. It is reasonable to conclude that what Paul is addressing here is Artemis influenced women attempting to dominate men because of their superior status and possibly teaching that Eve came first. When 1 Timothy 2:13-14 says, "For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." It corrects the false teaching about the creation order and clarifies that Eve is not superior, as she was deceived. As to safety in childbearing, Belleville says that verse 15 implies that it is Christ who will keep them safe; therefore "…they need not look to Artemis as the protector of women, as did other Ephesian women who turned to her for safe travel through the childbearing process." (219-220)

Summary

A reasonable reconstruction of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 would be as follows: The women at Ephesus (perhaps encouraged by the false teachers) were trying to gain an advantage over the men in the congregation by teaching in a dictatorial fashion. The men in response became angry and disputed what the women were doing.

This interpretation fits the broader context of 1 Timothy 2:8-15, where Paul aims to correct inappropriate behavior on the part of both men and women (1 Tim 2:8, 11). It also fits the grammatical flow of 1 Timothy 2:11-12: “Let a woman learn in a quiet and submissive fashion. I do not, however, permit her to teach with the intent to dominate a man. She must be gentle in her demeanor.” Paul would then be prohibiting teaching that tries to get the upper hand – not teaching per se. (223)

Dr. Belleville does a great job explaining an exceedingly complex passage in a short essay. She presents a great deal of linguistic analysis, of which I presented only the conclusions, and she also addresses some side issues that I chose to omit for this summary.

If you are interested in a book-length discussion of this passage, I would recommend Richard and Catherine Kroeger's book I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of the Ancient Evidence. Three years after its publication, a collection of essays called Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 was published by those of a hierarchicalist persuasion. I suspect it was partly published as a rebuttal to Kroeger's work. It is clear from the footnotes in Bellville's book that she is rebutting some of the work done in these essays. Kroeger's book and this essay by Belleville will give a very good, in-depth introduction into how many nonhierarchical complimentarians understand this passage.

Author:

Linda L. Belleville received her M.A. from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Ph.D. from the University of Toronto. She is professor of biblical literature at North Park Theological Seminary and an ordained minister with the Evangelical Covenant Church. Her publications include 2 Corinthians (IVPNTC), Women Leaders in the Church: Three Crucial Questions and a contribution to Two Views on Women in Ministry.

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

Comments

[RonMck]

Michael
When Christians disagree, it is usually becuase we have go the issue wrong. Our problem on this one is that we have misunderstood "teaching".

To understand what Paul is saying, we must remember that he is not using the word teach in the modern sense. In the New Testament all teaching took place within a relationship of authority. So when Paul speaks about “teaching” and “having authority” he is not speaking about two different things. The two go together. There cannot be teaching without authority. Paul is speaking about what we would understand by “discipling”. Teaching is the formation of Christian character within a relationship of authority.

Modern preaching or seminary lecturing is not "teaching" in the New Testament sense of the word. A preacher or lecturer generally does not have a relationship of authority with those who listen. Because preaching and lecturing is not “teaching with authority”, Paul’s words do not apply. It is quite legitimate for women to preach to or lecure men.

What Paul is saying is that women should not be allowed to disciple men. It would be wrong and dangerous for a woman to gather a group of men and make disciples of them. But the converse is also true. Men should not be allowed to disciple and teach women. When men disciple women, and women disciple men, gossip and temptation follow closely behind (from Women and Ministry).

Ron

[Michael Kruse]

Thanks Ron for your comment and the link. I am persuaded by something similar to Bellville’s position for several reasons.

First, the word translated “teach” in 1 Tim 2:12 is didasko which literally means “to give instruction.” Matt 4:23 says, “Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom …” The word teaching here is the same as in 1Tim 2:12. It is also the word from which we get didactic. While I agree that modern preaching or seminary lecturing may not be precisely the same as what the ancients did we do know that didactic teaching went on in the synagogues and the churches are believed to have adopted similar didactic models, although they tended to include considerable interaction with the students. So I am no inclined to narrow “teaching” in 1 Timothy to discipleship per se.

Second, The real sticking point in the passage is the word authentein. If Paul just means women shouldn’t “exercise authority over,” then why doesn’t Paul just use exousia and say it in the most straightforward way? Why does he instead use the more obscure authentein? It is the only place it is used in the bible. From extra-biblical sources we learn that it has the connotation of seizing control of something; to “self author” (authenticate) one’s self over and against another. By the second century it is carried connotations of violence and murder. Something more than just discipleship seems to be in mind hear.

Belleville sees in this as progression or action (teaching) taken in pursuit of goal (seizing Artemis-like authority). The idea is the “teaching with an aim to sieze control.” Some have objected such a construction based on the “neither-nor” grammar but as she notes, the “action in pursuit of a goal” grammar is found elsewhere in Greek including in the Bible.

“where thieves neither break in nor steal” Mt 6:20

“they neither sow, nor reap, nor gather into barns” Mt 6:26

“neither hears nor understands” Mt 13:13

A simple “exercising of authority” seems in adequate to word authentein.

Third, is the placing the passage within its larger context:

1 Tim 2:8-15

8 I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; 9 also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, 10 but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. 11 Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

The passage seems to me to be talking about what people do when they come together as a community and not about one-to-one or small group discipleship. Also, when we understand the syncretistic teaching of the Artemis worshipers and Gnostics that Artemis came before man, that men are deceived, and that women have superior secret knowledge, the passages in verses 13 and 14 make perfect sense. The fact that Paul is dealing with false teaching and that women seem to be a particular problem throughout is apparent throughout the letter. So while I don’t dispute that women closely discipling men, or men women, might not be well advised, and especially in Greco-Roman culture, it doesn’t seem to me to be an adequate paradigm to account for all the peculiarities of this complex passage.

I’m not picking a fight with you. Just thought I would elaborate more. :)

[Jared]

I want to also point out something to build on the teaching that is clincher for my understanding.
The Artemis followers in Ephesus believed that virginity was next to divinity. As well, Artemis was the symbolism of rejection of men. Artemis was held a beautiful goddess lusted after by men and by gods.
As these women in Ephesus were teaching that woman had a superior role they were dressing themselves with the intent to outdo one another. As Paul states rather than adorning themselves with the things of God. This is important due to the Artemis temple priestesses were young beautiful and virgins these women in the local assembly were bringing this concept of beauty being a sign of a “closeness” to diety. They were dressing themselves with an aim to “knockout”.
Paul was correcting them by stating that they had to dress themselves with works not with things that enhance beauty. Paul needed to correct these individuals that thought, beauty was bringing a woman closer to divinity. He had to readdress their concept of divinity.
Hence the restatement of what the Gospel message was. We can see from Context that “who the mediator between God was” was coming into doubt among this congregation. Perhaps these women believed in a female mediator. We know the church adopted Mother Mary’s Virginity as sinless perfection and gives her a level of divinity. This teaching of the Virgin Mary bearing the Christ Child would have thrown these people for a loop. Catholics today are a result from this teaching, which Paul was working to correct.

This really brings into view these verses.

1 Tim 2:13-15
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing — if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
NIV

They believed from the simple fact they were women they were closer to divinity. They were teaching this viewpoint with the intent to dominate the men. In fact, that virginity was the means of obtaining a closeness to diety. Paul corrects this view point with an arguement.

I will quote the concept:
“If Men were first, then women were not. This makes men potentially greater.
To top that the woman was the one quite deceived and became a sinner.
This makes the concept of the woman being inherently greater by what she is a bogus concept.”

It does not make men greater or women more deceived only teaches that a domination teaching from women is not plausible from this first teaching in the Bible.

Now the capstone which draws this concept in view if there is any doubt as to the Isagogics of this chapter. With an adversative Paul states:
“But women will be saved through childbearing — if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety”
He is drawing a direct contrast that virginity does not bring a woman closer to divinity but the opposite. It is through Childbearing that a woman comes closer to understanding the things of God.
Incredibly powerful capstone, the church has floundered over this verse and most ignore it. When you have this understanding the entire book of 1 Timothy comes into light. Most Pastors should recognize this teaching as truth when this principle is relayed. It brings an understanding to a very hard to understand part of the Bible, that being women are saved through Childbearing.