"No Longer Binding"

“In the first-century situation with its generally patriarchal society, where women played little part in public affairs, teaching by women could be regarded as an unacceptable breach of behavior patterns, whether among Jews or also among some Gentiles. ACCORDINGLY, THE RESTRICTION CAN BE INTERPRETED AS A CULTURALLY SHAPED PROHIBITION THAT IS NO LONGER BINDING IN A DIFFERENT SETTING. The difficulty is in the appeal to Scripture that is used to back up the prohibition. It has a twofold argument that Adam was created prior to Eve (and therefore is superior), and that it is Eve who was deceived by the serpent (with the implication that women are still more likely to be deceived than men). THIS SEEMS TO BE A DOCTRINAL RATHER THAN A CULTURAL CONSIDERATION AND IS DECISIVE FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT THE AUTHORITY OF A PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE MUST BE ACCEPTED EVEN WHEN IT SEEMS TO RUN AGAINST THE GRAIN OF NT TEACHING GENERALLY (e.g., Gal. 3:28)” (I. Howard Marshall, “1 Timothy,” from “Theological Interpretation of the New Testament: A Book-by-Book Survey” by Kevin Vanhoozer, General Editor. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009, page 166).

Have you ever had a moment in which someone you admired or had great respect for said something that you disagreed with? I had that moment when reading the above quote. Marshall writes that the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12 could be interpreted as “a culturally shaped prohibition that is no longer binding...” These words trouble me greatly.

Now, I have to confess: I was raised in a very strict Christian home where the Bible was the infallible, inerrant, inspired, Word of God. No one questioned in my family that the Bible was the ultimate source of authority for godly living. But along with these presuppositions regarding Scripture was placed another presupposition: that is, that the words of Scripture themselves were always binding on God’s people; that is, that in every verse of Scripture, there was a principle that could be applied to contemporary living (as was the thought of two thousand years ago).

Imagine then, what I thought when I stumbled upon I. Howard Marshall’s words. I have great respect for Dr. Marshall. I read his work, own some of his work, and value him as a theologian and Greek scholar. But I disagree with interpreting 1 Timothy 2:12 as just a “culturally shaped prohibition.”

I think the problem with the universal principle behind 1 Timothy 2:12 involves how to take the prohibition, wrapped in its context, and “connect the bridge” (my hermeneutics professor once said) from the time of the first century to the twenty-first century. To discover the universal principle behind the verse, we must first accept the idea that the Scriptures are binding at all times, in all places. The universal binding of Scripture can be seen via two passages, 2 Timothy 3 and 2 Peter 1:

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17, NKJV).

“knowing this first, that NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE IS OF ANY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but HOLY MEN OF GOD SPOKE AS THEY WERE MOVED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT” (2 Peter 1:20-21).

2 Timothy 3:16-17 tells us that “all Scripture” is inspired and useful for “instruction in righteousness.” The word “all” in the Greek is “pas,” which, according to Thayer’s Dictionary means “individually, each, every, any, whole,” etc. The parts of Scripture comprise to create “all Scripture.” If this is the case, then everything that is said about “all Scripture” includes 1 Timothy 2:12. I’ll set up a syllogism:

1)”All Scripture” is inspired by God and useful.

2) 1 Timothy 2:12 is part of Scripture.

3) If all Scripture is divinely inspired and useful, and 1 Timothy 2:12 is a part of Scripture, then 1 Timothy 2:12 is divinely inspired and useful.

This being the case, we must find out what universal principle we can draw from the text itself. One of the main universal principles we can draw out of the text is to attack false teaching. In the immediate context of 1 Timothy 2 is 1 Timothy 1, where Paul gives Timothy his reason for leaving Timothy behind in Ephesus:
“As I urged you when I went into Macedonia---remain in Ephesus THAT YOU MAY CHARGE SOME THAT THEY TEACH NO OTHER DOCTRINE” (1 Timothy 1:1).

“knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate...and if there is any other thing that is CONTRARY TO SOUND DOCTRINE” (1 Tim. 1:9-10).

“desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm” (1 Tim. 1:7).

In the immediate context of chapter 2, the issue that plagues the church at Ephesus is false teaching. So, a universal principle could be, “contend for the faith that was delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) and put down the false teaching. Paul does this himself when he writes to Timothy in 1 Timothy 2:13-14, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” Here, Paul was setting the record straight: it was not Adam who was deceived (“Adam was not deceived”), it was Eve; and Adam was first in creation, not Eve (“Adam was formed first, then Eve”).

Now, by providing words above, I don’t mean to say that ONLY WOMEN who are teaching false doctrine should be put down. This is where I stand against many conservatives: I think that the Bible’s emphasis is to put down false teaching always, regardless of whether it comes from a man or a woman (1 Tim. 6:3-5; 1 Tim. 4; 2 Tim. 2:17-18; Titus 1:10-14 and Titus 2; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; Colossians 2:8-10; Galatians 3-5; Romans 11; etc).

Scripture seems to attack false teaching, from beginning to end. Even after the Pastorals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus) there is attack made on false teaching in the letters of 2 Peter, Jude, and so on. I. Howard Marshall errs in his argument when he writes that the prohibition is possibly a “culturally-shaped” prohibition without a universally binding principle. If one believes the Bible to be the ultimate authoritative standard for the Christian life, then one must affirm the universally-binding principles of the Word of God. Someone who fails to affirm a universal principle in the teaching prohibition might feel the need someday to argue that the biblical teaching on the exclusivity of Christ as “The Way, the Truth, and the Life” (John 14:6) is only a temporary statement as well.

"A Deeper Theological Issue"

“Why this concern to separate the roles of men and women and to silence women teachers in the church’s worship? At the practical level, SILENCING WOMEN TEACHERS CUT THE FALSE TEACHING OFF AT ITS SOURCE---wealthy women, as we have seen, were probably financing the false teachers and spreading the false teachers’ heresy themselves, and younger widows, happily released from any obligation to marry and care for children, were going about from house to house teaching the heresy” (Frank Thielman, “Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic Approach.” Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005, page 419).

Reading the above quote from Frank Thielman’s New Testament Theology encouraged my heart somewhat. I stayed up late this morning to see what he had to say about the Pastoral Epistles. I’ve read a great deal of his theology textbook this semester and I like the things he has to say. His work has been impeccable, in all of the letters of the NT he traces. So I wanted to know his thoughts. Immediately, I began to think of the site here, “Men and Women,” and it became clear to me that I would have a blog post---whether it would be a positive or negative one, I would have something new to add to the work done here.

I sat down and read attentively. And in his section titled “The Church Gathered For Worship,” I read the above quote. All along, Thielman implicated women in the false teaching at Ephesus:

“...false teachers are ‘ruining whole households’ (Titus 1:11). They apparently do this by insinuating themselves into homes and CONVINCING ALREADY CORRUPT WOMEN OF THEIR FALSE TEACHING (2 TIM. 3:6). PERHAPS WE CAN ALSO LINK TOGETHER PAUL’S claim that a desire for wealth motivated the false teachers (1 Tim. 6:5; cf. 6:6-10, 17-19), his concern that women not make ostentatious displays of their wealth (2:9), and HIS CONCERN THAT WOMEN NOT TEACH IN THE CHURCH (2:11-14). WEALTHY WOMEN IN EPHESUS MAY HAVE BEEN PAYING THE FALSE TEACHERS TO TUTOR THEM AND THEN CONVEYING THE FALSE TEACHING THEY LEARNED TO THE CHURCHES THAT MET IN THEIR HOUSES” (Thielman, 412).

“If men in the church are involved in angry disputes, they cannot lift holy hands in prayer, and if their behavior hinders their prayers, then it also hinders the advancement of the gospel (2:1-8). If WOMEN IN THE CHURCH ARE abandoning modesty and like Eve, succumbing to Satan’s offer of sinful knowledge, AND THEN TEACHING THIS ERROR TO OTHERS (2:9-14; 5:15), then their very salvation is threatened (2:15)” (414).

“WOMEN---particularly the wealthy women who may have paid the false teachers to tutor them, and the younger widows whom the church has supported from its common funds---ARE APPARENTLY AMONG THE CHIEF ADVOCATES OF THE HERESY THAT HAS LED TO THIS BEHAVIOR. WEALTHY WOMEN ARE PERHAPS TEACHING THE HERESY IN THEIR HOUSES while the men spend church meetings not in prayer but in angry disputes about the heresy. THE YOUNGER WIDOWS, freed by the largesse of the church from the responsibilities of marriage and child-rearing, which they do not believe in anyway, CAN SPEND THEIR TIME MAKING THE ROUNDS OF BELIEVERS’ HOUSEHOLDS ADVOCATING THE FALSE TEACHING” (417).

In these four references (the beginning quote plus the three quotes above), Thielman seems to link women with the false teaching: not only were they listening to it and entertaining it, they were also teaching it themselves. In the first quote above, Thielman states that to prohibit women from teaching would stop the spread of heresy. Since women were the ones propagating and clinging to the heresy, prohibiting the women teaching would stop the false teachers’ influence in the church at Ephesus. In turn, the false teachers would have to find some other way to stir up trouble (aside from the women).

But this is where Thielman then takes a turn for the worse:

“As is already apparent from Paul’s willingness to separate the roles of the sexes in worship in 2:8-9 and to silence all women teachers in 2:12, however, a deeper theological issue is at stake in this gender-specific ordering of worship. Paul states this issue explicitly in 2:13-15. God fashioned human beings in two genders, male and female, and the order in which he created them implies distinct roles in the church for each gender...women should submit to the authority of the church’s male leadership because ‘Adam was formed first, then Eve’ (2:13). Men, rather than women, should teach BECAUSE EVE RATHER THAN ADAM WAS SATAN’S FIRST VICTIM IN THE DECEPTION THAT LED TO THE DISOBEDIENCE DESCRIBED IN GENESIS 3:6. THE IMPLICATION IS CLEAR: Adam and Eve violated the divine ordering of the genders when Eve led Adam to disobey God’s command” (419).

Up to this point, Thielman has shown us in context that women were involved in teaching heresy; that women were not only soaking up the teaching but spreading that to others, presumably other women in the congregation. In addition there is evidence that these women may very well have been told to “learn in silence with full submission” (2:11) because they had been disrupting the learning process during worship services. But how then, does his last statement connect to the four quotes he made prior to this last one?

What I’m asking is, “How can Thielman connect women to false teaching in the context of 1 Timothy 2 and then “broaden” the scope of teaching to all teaching in general in his application of the text? Yes, hermeneutics (the study of biblical interpretation) teaches us that context-specific principles can be generalized and applied to everyday life; but why can this text not refer to anyone teaching falsely, whether it be man or woman? And why can’t it be the case that women are not to teach heresy, not that they are prohibited from teaching sound doctrine?

For Thielman, the answer is found in Paul’s usage of Genesis. I have stated here at the site, however, that Paul writes “And Adam was not deceived” for a reason: if Genesis does not provide these words, why does Paul use them? He does so to defend the Law as it was being attacked in the book of Genesis. Thielman notes this as well (page 410), but does not make the connection. He even goes on to talk about the Nag Hammadi document “On the Origin of the World,” which states that “the goddess Pistis Sophia created the god of Genesis (‘the ruler’) and then withdrew to her region of light, leaving ‘the ruler’ with the impression that ‘[he] alone existed’” (Thielman, 410; quoting “On the Origin of the World”). However, Thielman still does not put two and two together that, if the Gnostic document claimed that the woman “created the god of Genesis,” that she must have been seen as having been created first---before the man. Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2:13 make sense in light of this document. Paul then, was trying to refute the false (Gnostic) teaching that Eve was created before Adam, by affirming what the Bible teaches--- that Adam was created before Eve.

Thielman goes to such lengths to argue women as propagators of the false heresy (and students of the false teachers), not to mention that “proto-Gnostic teaching” (Thielman, 422) comprised the nature of the false teaching prevalent via women in the church at Ephesus. Why then, when he comes to his application, does he divorce the issue of false teaching from the application? Does God not want us to stomp out false teaching today? Does the Lord no longer care when falsehood is being taught in our pulpits, classrooms, and churches? Is it okay for Sunday School lessons to be plagued with gross statements about God that detract from (rather than reflect) His character? If God is still committed to this, then why is this theme of “anti-false teaching” not provided in Thielman’s analysis? Why is it that the point of Paul’s prohibition to the women is to keep them from teaching or holding offices of leadership in the churches?

In the end, all we receive of Thielman’s response to my questions above is “a deeper theological issue is at stake in this gender-specific ordering of worship” (419). But how do we know this “deeper theological issue” is really present in the text? In fact, Thielman’s words about women and the creation order are only mentioned for the first time in his modern-day application. All throughout his exegesis, he has focused on the false teaching and its impact. He has failed to do his homework and show us why Paul was so concerned with “putting women in their place” in the epistle.

Wanna know what my analysis is? I think Paul was concerned with the women neglecting duties of childbearing and homecare because to focus on such duties would prevent women from being prey to the false teachers and their heresy. Paul wanted women to do what was godly so that, by their example, they could serve as leaders in the church. After all, “if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?” (1 Tim. 3:5, NKJV).

What I Didn't Expect To Find...

I fought the urge to go to class today. Fall Break just came and went, almost as if it had never come. And sitting in my apartment today, I said out loud, “I don’t wanna go to class.”
I usually get in this “I-don’t-wanna-go” mood a lot...but a dear friend said to me, “Go to class”...so off to class I went.

I never expected to get to class and deal with the discussion of women in ministry. This subject has been mentioned before in my class, but whenever the topic arises, I know the theological slant of my professor and fellow students...so I just let it go and try to find something else with which to occupy my mind. Usually, I’ve found that when one disagrees, the best way to keep from getting angry is to find something else upon which to focus one’s attention. Sometimes, aversion is bliss...

Today, the text that my class spent almost an hour on was the controversial passage of 1 Timothy 2. My professor spent time examining this passage, telling the seminar class that “I’m a complementarian because of 1 Timothy 2.” For him, the chapter itself gives specific instructions (with no details hidden) that women are not to have spiritual authority over men in the church. I stayed quiet during the one-hour discussion because I wanted to find out my professor’s reason for so believing.

He did state, however, during his lecture time on the passage that “I think the best case an inerrantist can make for the egalitarian position is to argue that Paul wrote to Timothy regarding a specific case in the church at Ephesus, but that this specific situation was for the time of Paul’s letter and is not for today.”

Now, before I go on, let me say that I believe that Scripture itself can always show us something in the current era. We never arrive at a place where we have “outgrown” the Word of God. So, as an inerrantist (one who believes Scripture to be without error), I believe that Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2 are meant to teach us a universal principle. I simply disagree with complementarians over the nature of that universal principle (“what” the principle is).

After conceding that an inerrantist could hold to a rather formidable position (i.e., the church faced a specific, unusual situation) on the passage, the professor said, “Now, I’ll show you why I think the passage is teaching a universal principle. Turn to 1 Timothy 2.” With those words, the class (me included) feasted our eyes on a passage that I’ve read, seemingly, a million times. And then, the professor told us to turn to verse 13. The verse reads,

“For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression” (1 Timothy 2:13, NKJV).

The professor then said, “See, Adam was created first. This holds true for today, right? As a result, I think that this verse shows that Paul’s prohibition is still binding for all women in the church at all times.”

Let me first credit the prof with what he did right: first, he started at the beginning of the prohibition (1 Tim. 2:11), and it’s always a good thing to start at the beginning of any passage. However, let me now critique the prof: he did not finish the passage itself; rather, he arrived at verse 13 and read no further. What about verses 14 and 15? Don’t they play a role in the interpretation of the prohibition as well?

Let’s go back and evaluate the professor’s reasoning. Verse 13, according to him, is still binding today. That is true: Adam, according to Scripture, was created before Eve. That hasn’t changed, and neither has the Law (all of the Old Testament). God’s Word never changes, and, since this be the case, then Genesis has not changed. When it states that Adam was the first human created by God, it means it.

But my question to this prof would have been, “What about verse 14?” Why does Paul get defensive in his stance regarding Adam? That is, why does Paul state that “Adam was not deceived”? Where in the Scriptures themselves do we find these words? We don’t---not even in Genesis. So the fact that Paul is having to defend Adam’s non-deception and Eve’s deception lends credence to the idea that Paul is writing his prohibition against women in order to defend the Law---not because he’s giving a word or two on what he thinks women ought to do in the church.

And what about context? Does not 1 Timothy 1 serve as the immediate, surrounding context to 1 Timothy 2? Why was 1 Timothy 1 not consulted when the prof arrived at his interpretation? Now the professor did note that “there is much related to false teaching going on in the letter”; however, why not read the verses on that material to let the class see why the egalitarian position has some strength? Why instead, would the prof turn to the class and ask them, “What do you think are some of the possible evidences egalitarians would use to defend women in ministry?”

And this prof happens to be one who always says, “A text means what it means in its context.” If the text cannot be divorced from the context, then why does he divorce the text from its context in his own interpretation? If one has to go against his own beliefs in interpretation (i.e., if the prof has to take the passage out of context), doesn’t this signal that something is wrong with the interpretation? If we cannot sin and expect grace to abound (Romans 3:5-8), then how can we disconnect text from context and expect our interpretation to be correct? How can one start wrong and end up right? And if one starts wrong and ends up right, does this create a “Machiavellian” hermeneutic, where the end (i.e., what I think the text says) justifies the means (whether or not I place the passage in its context)?

What I didn’t expect to find today was a discussion on 1 Timothy 2. What I also didn’t expect to find, however, was a transgression of hermeneutic principles in the name of what he believed to be the right interpretation. Chalk it all up to what happens when we become the traditions we espouse so dearly.

Operation Giftedness: Resolving the Presumed Contradictions

It is through dialogue over the last few days that I have found the inspiration and idea to write this blog post.

I’ve been talking a lot at my other blog, the Center for Theological Studies (CTS), about contradictions and how to resolve them. In addition, I’ve also dealt with the contradiction here of “equal essence” but “subordinate function” as well when referring to Christ. The Law of Non-Contradiction states that two opposing concepts or things cannot co-exist in the same way at the same time. This means that “short and tall” cannot co-exist peacefully...unless we define “short and tall,” such as “she is shorter than her aunt but taller than her grandmother,” or “she is shorter than her aunt without heels, but taller than her aunt with heels,” etc. Either way, two opposing concepts or things must have “qualifiers,” more information in order to resolve the blatant contradiction.

And this concept of resolving contradictions is a good one to use when it comes to interpreting Scripture. I’m sure you all have run into the problem of what happens when someone says that there are two passages that “seem to be opposed” to one another. Complementarians have done this with regard to 1 Timothy 2 (see my post under the section “1 Timothy 2” titled “In The Name of 1 Timothy 2” for more information).

Here at “Men and Women,” we’ve been tackling the issue of Christ’s equality in essence and His subordination in function. What do you do when you find that, just as you emphasize the equality of Christ, someone else emphasizes the subordination of Christ? I initially tried to solve that thorny problem with the passage of Hebrews 5:8. The person I dialogued with conceded that I was right on that issue...but this still did not keep him from heaping up a dozen verses where Jesus exalts the Father above Himself.

I can’t promise you that attempts to reconcile Scripture will convince other people. In fact, I don’t think anything here at the blog is one-hundred-percent convincing to every single person! Complementarians, for instance, will most likely find none of my arguments appealing in any manner. Therefore, my goal is not to make you 100% convincing...but to give you sound argumentation and evidence so as to face someone who thinks that the egalitarian view is liberal and historically progressive with little to no backing...

Today’s topic is on “Operation Giftedness.” That’s right! I am writing another post where we are looking at two or more passages. 1 Timothy 2 will continue to be tackled here at the site because there are so many theologians and Christians alike who believe this chapter prohibits women from serving in the church. But, to counteract this passage, I will use other passages, such as 1 Peter 4 and Romans 12.

Let’s first place 1 Timothy 2 side-by-side with 1 Peter 4:

“Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I DO NOT PERMIT A WOMAN TO TEACH or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control” (1 Tim. 2:11-15, NKJV).

“As each one has received a gift, MINISTER IT TO ONE ANOTHER, as GOOD STEWARDS of the manifold grace of God. If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God. If anyone ministers, let him do it as with the ability which God supplies, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belong the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen” (1 Peter 4:10-11, NKJV).

Do you see the problem? In 1 Timothy 2, Paul is prohibiting women from teaching, but in 1 Peter 4, Peter himself is giving license to those with spiritual gifts to exercise them in a godly manner. How do we reconcile both of these passages? Is everyone to use their gifts—-- or only men? Which is it?

If that doesn’t disturb the atmosphere a bit, read Romans 12:

“Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given us, LET US USE THEM: if prophecy, LET US PROPHESY in proportion to our faith; or ministry, LET US USE IT in our ministering; he who teaches, IN TEACHING; he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness” (Romans 12:6-8, NKJV).

This is even more disturbing to the text of 1 Timothy 2 than 1 Peter 4 is. Paul says here that if we have a gift, “let us use” it. But this poses problems for 1 Timothy 2, which Paul also wrote to the church at Ephesus. How then, do we reconcile both 1 Peter 4 and 1 Timothy 2?

I think the answer can be found in not so much the use of gifts as in the MANNER of how the gifts are used. Look back at Romans 12, and this is what you’ll find:

(a) “if prophecy, let us use prophecy IN PROPORTION TO OUR FAITH” (Romans 12:6; the manner in which prophecy is used).

(b) “he who gives, WITH LIBERALITY; he who leads, WITH DILIGENCE; he who shows mercy, WITH CHEERFULNESS” (Rom. 12:8; the manner of giftedness)

Someone might say, “Well, what about verse 7? What does the “it” of verse 7 refer to? the answer can be found in verse 6: “if prophecy, let us prophecy IN PROPORTION TO OUR FAITH...” Further back in the passage lies verse 3: “For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one A MEASURE OF FAITH” (Rom. 12:3, NKJV).

In whatever gift we operate, let us use our gifts according to not only the grace we have been given, but our faith as well (Rom. 12:6).

What about 1 Peter 4? The answer of how to reconcile that passage with 1 Timothy 2 can also be found in the manner of how the gifts are used:

(a) “as each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as GOOD STEWARDS of the manifold grace of God” (1 Peter 4:10, NKJV).

(b) “If anyone speaks, LET HIM SPEAK AS THE ORACLES OF GOD. If anyone ministers, let him do it AS WITH THE ABILITY WHICH GOD SUPPLIES, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ...” (1 Pet. 4:11, NKJV)

As demonstrated with the above passages of Romans 12 and 1 Peter 4, the issue seems to be “how” the gifts and abilities are being used, not the giving of the gifts or even types of gifts (although they are mentioned).

Someone could say, “Well, I’ve seen all your evidence above. But how do these two passages meet head-on with 1 Timothy 2?” The problem in the church at Ephesus in 1 Timothy 2 was the “manner” in which the church was operating:

(a) “I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, WITHOUT WRATH AND DOUBTING” (1 Tim. 2:8, NKJV).

(b) In like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in MODEST apparel, WITH PROPRIETY AND MODERATION, NOT WITH BRAIDED HAIR OR GOLD OR PEARLS OR COSTLY CLOTHING, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, WITH GOOD WORKS” (1 Tim. 2:9-10, NKJV).

(c) “Let a woman learn IN SILENCE WITH ALL SUBMISSION” (1 Tim. 2:11, NKJV).

(d) “Nevertheless, she will saved in childbearing if they CONTINUE IN FAITH, LOVE, AND HOLINESS, WITH SELF-CONTROL” (1 Tim. 2:15, NKJV).

Notice that the men were praying with angry hearts (wrath and doubting); the women were dressing immodestly, which is why the emphasis is placed on “modest” apparel. In addition, Paul also wrote that they should do what is “proper,” which is “good works.” This is because what the women were doing in the church was anything but “good” work.

Then, there comes verse 11. Women are to learn “in silence with all submission.” This is the best way for learning to take place, but since the women need to know what “good work” is all about, Paul states it here: the women are to pay attention and submit to what they are being taught.

The question then becomes, what about vv. 12-15? First, let me point out that the word “authentein” does not mean “to have authority.” Although the NIV has put out this definition, modern research shows the word to mean something “other” than “to have authority.” For instance, my “A New Reader’s Lexicon of the Greek New Testament,” by Michael H. Burer and Jeffrey E. Miller, states that the word means “to give orders to”...this shows that the women in Ephesus were out of order, not that Paul simply was against them having a position of authority (Michael H. Burer and Jeffrey Miller, “A New Reader’s Lexicon of the Greek New Testament.” Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2008, page 398).

Burer and Miller both put out a definition that I think in some ways would work, but I don’t think fits the context. However, I’ve actually done some research on this subject (search for my posts on “Authentes” and “Authentein” in my section labeled “1 Timothy 2.” My word study will prove particularly helpful to those who desire to know more on this subject. In addition read Katherine Kroeger’s study of the word “Authentein” as well. She has some interesting insights. If you have any further desire to read on the subject, I suggest you read “Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy” by Pierce and Groothuis. Linda Belleville has done quite a study there and, while I disagree with her conclusion, she demonstrates (as do Burer and Miller) that the word “authentein” does not mean “to have authority.”

Next, what about verses 13 and 14? Do they appeal to some inherent “creation order”? Or is Paul just upholding the Law? My answer: the latter----Paul is defending the Old Testament Law from the heretical interpretations being tossed around in the church.

Someone may easily object and say, “Wait! How do you know this?” well, this is where context comes to the surface. Look back at 1 Timothy 1:

“As I urged you when I went into Macedonia— remain in Ephesus that you may charge SOME THAT THEY TEACH NO OTHER DOCTRINE” (1 Tim. 1:3, NKJV).

The problem in the church involved the teaching of “other doctrine.” This is Timothy’s whole reason for staying in Ephesus and not going to Macedonia with Paul. They were also paying attention to “fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification...” (1 Tim. 1:4)

In verse 7, we discover that there are those “desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm...” these believers want to teach the truth, but they confirm by their very words that they don’t know it themselves.

But verse 8 ties this passage with that of 1 Peter 4 and Romans 12:

“But we know that THE LAW IS GOOD, IF ONE USES IT LAWFULLY...” (1 Tim. 1:8)

So the law is good “if one uses it lawfully.” What Paul was saying to Timothy here is that the law is good when it is used in a GODLY MANNER. Teaching, then, like the other gifts mentioned in 1 Peter 4 and Romans 12, is a good thing when it is done in a godly manner, in a way pleasing to the Lord. When it is abused, however, it then becomes a tool for evil and wickedness, and must be suppressed. This is the reason for why the women of 1 Timothy 2 are being told they cannot teach. Unlike the complementarian view, women are not told they can’t teach because of a creation order, but because they do not understand what they are saying (1 Tim. 1:7) about the law. Paul has to defend that “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam WAS NOT DECEIVED, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression” (1 Tim. 2:13-14). Paul is only defending the events as Genesis records them--- not prohibiting women to serve because of some “creation order” in Genesis that automatically disqualified them from serving.

I will continue to use 1 Timothy 2 in relation to other passages to show the folly of those who base their view of women in leadership on one passage. Proper hermeneutics demonstrates that, when context is examined, reality is not what it seems to be at first glance...

Revisiting "Authentein" with Catherine Kroeger

The following commentary was written by Catherine Clark Kroeger from the book “Women, Authority, and the Bible” by Alvera Mickelsen, editor. I think Kroeger’s section on “authentein” (coming from the Greek verb, “authenteo”) is a wonderful one, and I wanted you, my readers, to get to read this. Pass it on to all you know and continue to read it over and over again.

“The Meaning of ‘Authenteo’”
If the religious environment surrounding 1 Timothy 2 is important, so is the language. ‘Authenteo,’ translated ‘to usurp authority’ in the King James Version, is a Greek verb so rare that it appears nowhere else in the entire New Testament. The concept of ruling or exercising authority over another occurs frequently in the New Testament, but always with other words. The French etymologist Pierre Chantraine suggested that ‘authentes,’ the noun from which the verb ‘authenteo’ is derived, had essentially the significance of the person beginning or being responsible (aitios) for an action, situation, or state. From this stemmed two other basic meanings, namely, to be in charge or rule over something and to be ultimately responsible for a terrible crime, usually murder. In this way, Chantraine resolved an etymological problem that had perplexed scholars since late antiquity. How could the same word denote both murderer and ruler? In the earliest usages, the concept of murder was almost always involved. The concept of ruling came later. For the verb ‘authenteo,’ there is only one attested use in the sense of ‘to murder.’

Let us turn to the value that Chantraine held to be most basic, that of originating something or being held responsible for it. By the New Testament era, ‘authentes’ was already being used to denote an originator or instigator (Josephus Wars 1.582; Polybius 12.14.3; 22.14.2; Diodorus of Sicily 16.61. Psichari, “Effendi,” p. 426). The related adjective, ‘authentikos,’ like the English ‘authentic,’ implies something original or genuine. In the sense ‘to begin something, to take the initiative, or to be primarily responsible for it,’ the verb ‘authenteo’ is even used by the early church fathers for the creative activities of God (Eusebius “de ecclesiastica theologia” 3.5; J.P. Migne, “Patrologia Graeca” (Paris, 1857-66), 24:1013A; Dihle, “Authentes,” pp. 82 n.2, 83 n.1.). John Chrysostom (late fourth century) discusses the replacement of Judas in the book of Acts and writes, “Protos tou pragmatos authentei” (“He was primarily responsible for the matter”). In a discussion of lapsed brethren, Athanasius (mid-fourth century) suggests leniency for those who defected under compulsion but had not themselves instigated (authenteo) the problem: “Tois de me authentousi men tes asebeias parasyreisi de di’ananken kai bian” (Athanasius “Epistle to Rufinus” (ed. Migne 26.1180C).

“Authenteo,” as well as the related “authentizo,” could also mean “to take a matter or inheritance into one’s own hands” (Berliner griechische Urkunden [Aegyptische Urkunden aus den koniglichen Museen zu Berlin), vol. 1 (1895), no. 103.3, 8 (p. 122).It was equated with “autodikein” (“to have one’s own law courts or to take the law into one’s own hands”) (Thomas Magister (ed. Ritschl) 18.8; Moeris (ed. Piers), p. 58). For example, a bishop was asked to take a difficult marital situation in hand, and the pope to take a matter under his jurisdiction (Berliner griechische Urkunden 103; Basil “Epistle” 69.4.389A). In the sixth century, Lydus used the verb in the sense of taking the initiative, in a manner that combined the concepts both of starting something and of having the authority to do so (Johannes Laurentius Lydus, “de Magistratibus populi Romani,” ed. R. Wuensch (Leipzig; Teubner, 1903), 3:131.

In the late Renaissance, an era when scholars studied classical texts more thoroughly than is customary today and had materials to which we no longer have access, another definition was cited by lexiocographers: praebo me auctorem (“to declare oneself the author or source of anything”). “Authenteo,” when used with the genitive, as it is in 1 Timothy 2:12, could imply not only to claim sovereignty but also to claim authorship. “To represent onself as the author, originator, or source of something” was given in various older dictionaries that I have been able to consult, such as the widely used work of Cornelis Schrevel and the still-fundamental “Thesaurus Linguae Graecae” by Stephanus (Stephanus, “Thesaurus Graecae Linguae, ed. Dindorf (Paris: Didot, 1831-1865). The earliest of these entries date back to the Renaissance, the latest to the last century. This value disappeared from classical dictionaries about the time when the translation of 1 Timothy 2:12 was being challenged by feminists.

The differentiation between being an originator and professing to be one is a valid point. In several texts, the meaning is strengthened by the sense of asserting oneself to be the author or source of something. For instance, Saint Basil was in anguish because the rumor had gone out that he had anathematized his old friend Dianius. Where was he supposed to have proclaimed the anathema? he asked. In whose presence? Was he merely following someone else’s lead, or did he himself instigate the outrage or even profess himself (authenton) to be its author (katarchon kai authenton tou tolmetos)?(Basil “Epistle” 51.1) “Authenton” is the climax of this carefully constructed progression. It moves from a passive role to an active one and then to claiming responsibility for that role of instigator. Constantine’s Edict speaks of God who proclaims himself to be the author of judgment (“tes de kriseos authentei ho hypsistos theos”) (Eusebius “Vita Constantini” 2.48). Leo wrote to Pulcheria of Eutychus, the self-avowed author (authentountos) of the dissension in the church at Constantinople (Leo the Great “Epistle” 30.1).

Thus there is support for “authenteo” as meaning “to proclaim oneself the author or originator of something.” If we apply this meaning of “authenteo” to 1 Timothy 2:12, we would have “I do not allow a woman to teach nor to represent herself as the originator or source of man.” This then might be a prohibition against a woman teaching a mythology similar to that of the Gnostics in which Eve predated Adam and was his creator. Certain Gnostic myths also included the notion that Adam, who had been deluded, was liberated by the Gnosis of his more enlightened spouse. (Catherine Clark Kroeger, "The Meaning of 'Authenteo'", from "Women, Authority & The Bible" by Alvera Mickelsen, ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986, pp. 229-232).

This concludes the article. If you have any question or comments regarding Kroeger’s article, please reply under the “comments” section of this post. I look forward to reading an interesting discussion!

"Authentein" Again...

I spent this past summer working on my other blog, titled “Center for Theological Studies.” As I’ve suggested often, anyone who wants to see other theological research of mine, go to the link for “Center for Theological Studies” at the top of the page to the right. Click on the link, and it should take you to the main page of the blog itself. Feel free to read there and post if you just wanna see some other work of mine.

Now, back to the task at hand. I’ve been studying Calvinism and Arminianism this past summer, so all my reading (20+ books) involved that subject. Everything I could find with Calvinism and Arminianism in the title or the subject matter, immediately became a part of my book collection this summer.

While reading on the subject of divine sovereignty and human responsibility and how both concepts work together, I read something in the book titled “No Place For Sovereignty: What’s Wrong with Freewill Theism” by R.K. McGregor Wright that motivated me to return to my blog here at Men and Women in the Church.

Yes, it does involve the Greek infinitival verb “authentein” once more. If you’ve read my 20 posts on 1 Timothy 2, you’ll find that I’ve done quite an extensive subject on this verb. Most notable of the work I’ve done on “authentein” is my work on Rebecca Groothuis’s book, “Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy.” In this book, I examine Linda Belleville’s word study of “authentein” and point out that, while her research is good, her conclusions are wrong. She shows that “authentein” in its earliest form often used an article (“ho”) in front of it, turning the infinitival verb into a subject (a noun). However, she then turns around and says that the infinitive (in everyday language) would have meant to domineer. The focus on the infinitive should be its appearance in literature, not necessarily its function in ordinary everyday use.

Just so we all know, an “infinitival verb” is a verb that functions as an infinitive. For instance, the word “authentein” serves as a verb in 1 Timothy 2:12. It also functions, though, as an infinitive. An infinitive in English is a verb that has the word “to” added to it. For example, “walk” is a verb. When you add the word “to” with the word “walk,” you now have “to walk.” The words “to walk” form an infinitive.

R.K. McGregor Wright writes the following on free will and its use in Scripture:

“Second Corinthians 8:3 (RSV) says that the believers of Macedonia ‘gave…of their own free will.’ The Greek word translated as ‘free will’ here is ‘AUTHAIRETOI,’ which simply means ACTING ‘OF THEMSELVES’ or ‘OF THEIR OWN ACCORD’” (R.K. McGregor, “No Place For Sovereignty.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996, page 164).

A light bulb went off in my head right away. If you notice, the word “authairetoi” has a prefix, “auth,” which is very similar to the infinitival verb of 1 Tim.2:12--“AUTHentein.”

This intrigued me greatly. All of a sudden, I wanted to study the other words in the New Testament that begin with this prefix and see if they had any linguistic connection whatsoever with “authentein.” There are two other words (in addition to “authairetoi,” and we will examine each of these words and the context of the verses containing them so as to see the connection between them.

Let’s look at the Greek word “authairetoi.” This word is found in the participle form (“authairetoi”) in 2 Corinthians 8:3—

3 I testify that, on their own, according to their ability and beyond their ability… (2 Corinthians 8:3, Holman Christian Standard Bible)

In the context, Paul is writing to the Corinthians here, discussing how the churches of Macedonia have given from their small means “for the privilege of sharing (D) in the ministry to the saints…” (2 Cor. 8:4, HCSB)

The word for “authairetoi” here means “of themselves or of their own accord,” as R.K. McGregor Wright states in the quote above from his book. The word “authairetoi” is made up of two other Greek words: “autos” (self) and “hairetizo” (to choose). So the word itself, with a literal translation, means “to self-choose,” to choose something on their own. What we see here is that the prefix “auth” has something to do with “origin.” Here in 2 Corinthians 8:3, the Macedonians themselves are the “origin” of their decision to give—no one made them give, or forced them to. It was their decision alone. The Macedonians themselves were the “origin” of their decision.

2 Corinthians 8:17 brings us up and close with this word again, except this time, the word is in a noun form:

“For he [Titus] accepted our urging and, being very diligent, went out to you by HIS OWN CHOICE” (2 Cor. 8:17, HCSB).

We see a word similar to “authairetoi,” but the word here is “authairetos.” Since the word is in a noun form here, the word would be translated as “self-choosing.” Titus’s own “self-choosing” is the reason why he went to the Corinthians.

The next word we find related to “authentein” is the word “authade,” found in Titus 1:7—

7 For an overseer, (U) as God's manager, must be blameless, not arrogant, not quick tempered, not addicted to wine, not a bully, not greedy for money…” (Titus 1:7)

The word “arrogant” here is “authade” in the Greek. What does it mean to be “arrogant”? Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary gives us this meaning:

1 : exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner

Notice the words “one’s own” in the definition? The prefix “auth” is responsible for such translations involving the concept of the self. So someone who is “arrogant” is “self-absorbed” and seeks to magnify themselves in the eyes of everyone else. To use biblical language, they “think more highly of themselves than they ought to think,” which is what the apostle Paul speaks against in the Roman church (Rom. 12:3).

So when we see this word in the context of Titus 1, we realize that being “arrogant” is not a good thing to be!! The word “authade,” in addition to meaning “arrogant,” can also mean “self-willed.” Once again, we see the word “self” as part of this definition as well. The “auth” prefix has everything to do with the “self.” This same word occurs in 2 Peter 2:10, referring to the false teachers.

All these words, starting with the “auth” prefix, have something to do with oneself as the starting point, or “origin,” of an action. Clearly then, “authentein” has something to do with the “self” as the “origin” of something. Much to the shock of many, the word cannot mean “dominate” or “exercise authority” (as defined in our day). If the women in 1 Timothy 2 are doing anything wrong in the church at Ephesus (which they are, since Paul prohibits their actions), then they must be saying something IN RELATION TO THEMSELVES, or ABOUT THEMSELVES. If Paul is writing for these women not to “exercise authority,” or “have authority,” as the NIV claims, then these women must have been in positions of leadership—for, until 1 Tim. 2:12, women are never given such a prohibition by the apostle. If women are dominating the church services, that would be a problem, but it wouldn’t fully explain Paul’s reasoning regarding the order of Adam and Eve’s appearance as well as the details of the Fall. However, if women are PROCLAIMING THEMSELVES TO BE THE ORIGIN OF MAN, then here, we see that the women are saying something ABOUT THEMSELVES, and they are saying something in relation to the Genesis account (the origin of mankind), which would match Paul’s response to the events in the church at Ephesus. This, then, would match Paul’s reference to “those desiring to be teachers of the law” in 1 Timothy 1:

3 As I urged you when I went to Macedonia, (F) remain in Ephesus (G) so that you may command certain people (H) not to teach other doctrine 4 or to pay attention to myths (I) and endless genealogies. These promote empty speculations rather than God's plan, (J) which operates by faith. 5 Now the goal of our instruction is love (K) from a pure heart, (L) a good conscience, (M) and a sincere faith. (N) 6 Some have deviated from these and turned aside to fruitless discussion. 7 They want to be teachers of the law, although they don't understand what they are saying or what they are insisting on. 8 Now we know that the law is good, (O) provided one uses it legitimately. 9 We know that the law is not meant for a righteous person, but for the lawless and rebellious, (P) for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and irreverent, for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral (Q) and homosexuals, (R) for kidnappers, liars, (S) perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching (T) 11 based on the glorious gospel (U) of the blessed God (V) that was entrusted to me.” (1 Timothy 1:3-11, HCSB)

Notice that the issue at Ephesus concerned “other doctrines” (v.3), “myths,” and “endless genealogies” (v.4), what Paul refers to as “fruitless discussion” (v.6).

Yes, I covered “authentein” again, and I will continue to do so from time to time should I find something that will help aid us in our study of this word. For now, though, you should know that my goal is to help us to logically and systematically approach the study of “authentein,” so that we will come away with an interpretation that best fits the context of the epistle of 1 Timothy (and matches the view of the remainder of the biblical canon itself). If 1 Corinthians 11 demonstrates that genealogy is nullified, then I doubt Eve’s appearance AFTER Adam would affect the right of women to exercise leadership in the church at any level.

"Authentein" To The Stand...

“I’d like to call Paul to the stand...” I really wish I could—but it’s quite impossible to do for ONE reason: Paul lived centuries before I did and has died (of course). There’s no way for me to be able to talk to Paul and ask him what he meant by his use of the word “authentein.”

There are many days I wish I could summon him to court and get him to tell me what “authentein” was all about so people could stop writing on this one Greek verb and focus on the WHOLE of the evidence regarding women in ministry. However, it will never be...and people will still keep writing on this subject, many years after I’m gone, too...

Well, if I can’t call Paul to the stand, I can call the Greek infinitive/verb “authentein” itself. I think that’s what I’ll do: I’d like to call “AUTHENTEIN” to the stand...

With the last two posts, I’ve been covering Linda Belleville’s work on “authentein,” how the Greek infinitive originated, and how the word itself evolved over time to come to have a more broad meaning to it by the time of the first century AD than it had a few hundred years prior (sixth century BC). After covering the meanings and how they still seemed connected to the parent word “authentes,” I’d like to spend this post on how we can KNOW for certain what “authentein” would have meant.
I stated it on the blog yesterday that Belleville’s research, while proving that complementarian translations of the infinitive are wrong, doesn’t prove the EXACT definition and translation of “authentein.” For one, the translation of “to dominate” doesn’t fit the context. But there is at least one more reason why; and I’ll get to that by the end of this post.

In any case, let’s look at Belleville’s words once more:

“Ancient Greek grammarians and lexicographers suggest that the meaning ‘to dominate, hold sway’ finds it origin in the first-century popular (‘vulgar’ versus literary) usage. That is why second-century lexicographer Moeris states that the Attic ‘autodikein, ‘to have independent jurisdiction , self-determination,’ is to be preferred to the Hellenistic (or Koine) ‘authentes’. Modern lexicographers agree. Those who have studied Hellenistic letters argue that ‘authenteo’ originated in the popular Greek vocabulary as a synonym for ‘to dominate someone’ (kratein tinos). Biblical lexicographers J.P. Louw and Eugene Nida put ‘authenteo’ into the semantic domain ‘to control, restrain, domineer’ and define the verb as ‘TO CONTROL IN A DOMINEERING MANNER’: ‘I do not allow women...to dominate men’ (1 Tim. 2:12). Other meanings do not appear until well into the third and fourth centuries AD” (216).

Here, Belleville discusses the evolution of the popular term “authenteo,” and what this term would have meant to the ordinary person. And modern lexicographers today do recognize the term as “to dominate.” Even my New Reader’s Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (cited in my last post) determines that the infinitival verb “authentein” means “to dominate.” However, what do we do with the other evidence Belleville provides? “Authenteo” does originate in the first century to the popular masses; but how did this word come into being? If it came to the popular masses in the first century, it HAD to come from somewhere. Remember Belleville’s words:

“While ‘AUTHENT’- appears QUITE REGULARLY IN GREEK LITERATURE...it first appears in NONLITERARY MATERIALS in the first century BC. The POPULAR FORM IS AUTHENTIKOS (from which we derive our English word ‘authentic’) and not ‘authentes’ (murder)."(213)

So even though the word itself changed (from ‘authentes’ to ‘authentikos’), the AUTHENT root is still present, thus preserving the basic meaning.

Belleville adds a footnote with the number ‘25’ to the above quote I just stated and wrote this by its number at the bottom of the page:

“The root ‘AUTHENT’ appears six times in the first-century AD inscriptions, ostraca and tablets: (1) AUTHENTEIA/AUTHENTIA (‘power,’ ‘sway,’ ‘mastery’)...(2) AUTHENTIKOS...and (3) AUTHENTES...it surfaces in the first-century BC papyri only once...it picks up steam in the first century AD., but VIRTUALLY ALL ARE THE TERM ‘AUTHENTIKOS’ (meaning ‘genuine,’ ‘authentic’)” (213).

Look at each of the three “AUTHENT” terms. First, we have “authenteia, authentia.” This word refers to “power” or “mastery.” It refers to an object of someone who’s FIRST. Let’s use an ordinary example of an eight-year old. What does it mean for the parents of that child to tell the child, “You pick your slice of the cake FIRST?” Well if you’re the child, it means a lot; for you can pick ANY slice of the cake you want—including the BIGGEST piece, or the piece with more icing on top, or the one with more balloons on it. In addition, if the eight year old helps slice the cake, he or she can carve out a HUGE piece of the cake. Being first has its privileges—and this is why being FIRST in anything can reap major benefits.

Reading Scripture, we find that this idea of honor as first applies. Let’s look at Romans 1. Paul writes this regarding the Gospel:

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, TO THE JEW FIRST and also to the Greek” (Romans 1:16, ESV).
See what he says about the gospel? The gospel is for EVERYONE, but it was given to the Jew FIRST. And the position of first carries with it some benefits. Paul tells us the nature of those benefits when he laments over the Jews’ current state:
“For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are ISRAELITES, AND TO THEM BELONG THE ADOPTION, THE GLORY, THE COVENANTS, THE GIVING OF THE LAW, THE WORSHIP, AND THE PROMISES. TO THEM BELONG THE PATRIARCHS, AND FROM THEIR RACE, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, IS THE CHRIST WHO IS GOD OVER ALL, blessed forever. Amen.” (Romans 9:3-5, ESV).

William McDonald elaborates on these benefits:

“God had adopted that nation to be His son (Exodus 4:22) and delivered His people out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1). He was a father to Israel (Deut. 14:1), and Ephraim was His firstborn (Jer. 31:9). (Ephraim is used here as another name for the nation of Israel.) The Shekinah or glory cloud symbolized God’s presence in their midst, guiding and protecting them. It was with Israel, not with the Gentiles, that God made the covenants. It was with Israel, for example, that He made the Palestinian Covenant, promising them the land from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates (Gen. 15:18). And it is with Israel that He will yet ratify the New Covenant, promising ‘the perpetuity, future conversion, and blessing of a repentant Israel (Jer. 31:31-40)’. It was to Israel that the law was given. They and they alone were its recipients. The elaborate rituals and service of God connected with the tabernacle and the temple were given to Israel, as well as the priesthood. In addition to the covenants mentioned above, God made innumerable promises of protection, peace and prosperity.

The Jewish people rightfully claim the patriarchs as their own—Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the twelve sons of Jacob. These were the forefathers of the nation. And they had the GREATEST PRIVILEGE OF ALL—THE MESSIAH IS AN ISRAELITE, as far as His human descent is concerned, though He is also the Sovereign of the universe, the eternally blessed God” (“The Believer’s Bible Commentary, Fourth Edition” by William McDonald and Art Farstad. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2005, page 1716).

Being first has its privileges. For Israel, it did as well.

Next, look at the word “authentikos.” We’ve already seen that this word, first appearing in the Greek popular vernacular, it means “authentic” or “original.”
What about “authentes”? As discussed a day ago, the word means “to do or ORIGINATE something with one’s own hand” (Belleville’s definition on page 212). All three words – “Authentes, authentikos, and authentia” have something in common—each word refers to an “author” or “source” or “origin” (“authentes” refers to an “originator,” “authentikos” refers to a “source” or “original” thing, and “authentia” refers to “that which an author possesses”; or, to use a Belleville statement, “authentia” refers to “the control of someone who is FIRST in rank, who is the SOURCE of the power.” As I said yesterday, remember that power (AUTHENTIA) resides with THE AUTHORITIES!! Greek and English are more connected than most people seem to understand...

Now, back to my point. As I said earlier in this post, the word “authenteo,” although appearing later, had to have some connection to “authentes,” “authentikos,” and “authentia,” for the “authent” prefix is attached to the word. “Authenteo” is simply a VERB as compared to “authentes” (noun), “Authentikos” (adjective), and “authentia” (noun). “Authenteo” is simply another form of these words—while serving a different function in the sentence, the inherent meaning of the prefix “authent” remains faithful. To deny that “authenteo” is connected to these words is to deny that the words “employ” (a verb), “employee” (a noun), and “employed” (an adjective) are connected—which is absurd!!

What I want to do at this point is go back through Belleville’s wonderful research and see what I think the solution is to this whole word study. Belleville opts for “authenteo” meaning “to dominate,” but I think that to do so requires one to overlook Belleville’s prior research.

Just to clarify, the word used in the Greek text in 1Timothy 2:12 is the infinitive “authentein.” So whatever this word means, we won’t be able to find the answer by focusing on anything EXCEPT this word in ancient study.

Now, off we go...

Belleville cites the Jewish historian Josephus and his use of “authentein”
“For instance, the Jewish historian Josephus speaks of the AUTHOR (authentein) of a poisonous draught (Jewish War 1. 582; 2.240)” (“Discovering Biblical Equality, 212).

Josephus uses the word we have in 1 Timothy 2:12 with an article (“ho,” meaning “the”) and translates the word as “AUTHOR.” Here, the word would refer to the “perpetrator” or “mastermind” of the evil plan (it is called “poisonous”).

Where does “authentein” pop up again? With the first-century grammarian Aristonicus:

“Commenting on a portion of Homer’s ‘Iliad...[:]...for it is usually spoken, where THE AUTHOR [HO AUTHENTEIN] of the message delivered something striking...” (quoted on 214).

Here the word “authentein” is used—and, like the last one, an article is placed with it, making it a NOUN instead of an infinitive/verb. The article is in front of it to change the FUNCTION that the word “authentein” serves. Without the article here, the word would have been an infinitive (just like 1 Tim. 2:12), and the commentator would have been referring to one “to whom the message belonged,” the ORIGINAL source of the message (who did the message come from?). The message writer is the TRUE OWNER of the message.

Belleville goes into the quote at the beginning of this post talking about the word in the popular masses; but I think she does this and, in turn, overlooks these two instances where the word is used [in conjunction with an article to make it a noun]. Looking at these two instances were “authentein” is used, both refer to an “author” of something. We can sit and debate “authenteo” all day—or we can look at the clearest evidence we have for translate. “Authenteo,” whether it is believed or not, did come from “authentein.” And “authentein” means to “author” or “originate” or “start or begin” something. The “authent” prefix gives it away...

"Authentes" and "Authentein"-- PART TWO

I will now pick up with the examples Belleville provides regarding the verb “authenteo”.

"The fourth use of ‘authenteo’ occurs in Philodemus, the first-century B.C. Greek poet and Epicurean philosopher from Gadara, Syria. He states, ‘Rhetors harm a great number of people in many ways—‘those shot through with dreadful desires.’ They [rhetors] fight every chance they get with PROMINENT PEOPLE—‘with POWERFUL LORDS [SYN AUTHENT[OU]SIN ANAXIN]’...” (Rhetorica 2 Fragmenta Libri [5] fr. 4 line 14) (page 215).

In this example, we see that Philodemus uses the word “authentousin” to refer to the lords as “powerful.” What does the word “powerful” mean? It means to be “preeminent.” And what does the word “preeminent” mean? The word “preeminent” is used in Colossians 1:18 (“preeminence”), meaning “to be first,” or “to have first place” (“A New Reader’s Lexicon of the Greek New Testament” by Michael H. Burer and Jeffrey E. Miller.” Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2008, page 380). So, to be “powerful” does mean to be “in control,” but, more specifically, TO BE IN FIRST PLACE, or, to BE THE ORIGIN OF POWER (the word “origin” being used here as SOURCE). The word “origin” is attached to source because the source is the FIRST, or BEGINNING, person or thing that someone seeks out or looks for in a given situation. When we speak of “the origin of life,” we want to know how life began, how did the FIRST sign of life enter into the world—and the SOURCE of life (from WHOM did life originate?).

In the example above, Philodemus talks about how the philosophers of the day gained power while the rhetors never obtained: “They [rhetors] fight every chance they get with prominent people...philosophers, on the other hand, gain the favor of public figures...not having them as enemies but friends...” (215). The philosophers gain power by getting along with THE SOURCE of power of their day—that being the “lords.” It’s not a mistake that Philodemus uses the adjective form here (“powerful”).

Last but not least, we reach Belleville’s last example, example 5:

“The fifth use of ‘authenteo’ is found in influential late-first- and early-second century astrological poet Dorotheus. He states that ‘if Jupiter aspects the Moon from trine...it makes them [the natives] leaders or chiefs [some of civilians and others of soldiers] especially if the Moon is increasing; but if the moon decreases, it does not make them dominant [AUTHENTAS] but subservient [HYPERETOUMENOUS]” (215).

Notice that the word used here is “authentas,” meaning “DOMINANT.” Looking up the word ‘dominant” in “The Oxford American Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus,” second edition, I found these definitions:

“prevailing, authoritative...chief, principal.”

To “prevail” means to defeat some situation or person; it literally means to be “IN FIRST PLACE.” To be “authoritative” means to have “authority.” And the word “authority” comes from a combination of “author” and the suffix “-ity”; literally translated, the word means “to be in the state of an author.” A person in authority is an author in their position—which means that, as an author is the SOURCE or ORIGIN of a book (how the book got started), the person in authority is the SOURCE OF authority itself (this is why we call law enforcement, teachers, principals, and other school administration THE AUTHORITIES!!).

Look at the word “chief.” To be chief means to be first, to be the head, to be FIRST before all the others. What does the word “principal” mean? It means to be first.
I can provide an example of “principal” here that will suffice. I pay college loans every month (now that I’ve graduated from college). Every month, my money goes to two sources online: the interest (accrued on my loan at a fixed percent) and THE PRINCIPAL. The principal is the FIRST amount that gets paid every month (for before any money is used elsewhere, it goes FIRST to the principal). Why? Because the principal is THE FIRST AMOUNT, or the TOP amount to pay.

In the example Belleville provides here from Dorotheus, we see that the opposite of “dominant” is “subservient.” To be in a “subservient” state is to be BELOW others—this is why the Greek root of “subservient” in the sentence is “HUPER,” meaning “BELOW.” So to be “dominant” means to be FIRST, to be ABOVE everyone else. If a person is ABOVE everyone, then they are first (such as being FIRST in line). The line then, STARTS with that person; in the same way, the word “authentes” (the parent word) tells us that the person being referenced in the word itself is the person who STARTED the plan, the person who BEGAN the act (“Who STARTED it?”)—the SOURCE (or ORIGIN) of all the trouble.

This concludes Linda Belleville’s examples of her word study of the Greek infinitive “authentein.” However, let me just say that example 2 shows us the Greek infinitive of 1 Timothy 2:12 used in an actual document. Since the infinitive there matches the one in our text, we can use this translation in 1 Timothy 2:12. But before we plug it in, we must know that to translate the phrase as “to be THE AUTHOR of man” doesn’t make any sense. The word “author” makes sense when referring to a book, article, or poem; but when referring to the source of man, one cannot use “author”. Rather, the best translation would be “source” or “origin” of man. In a later post, I will establish why this translation makes better sense than translating the infinitive “authentein” as “to dominate.”

"Authentes" and "Authentein"-- PART ONE

In my last post, I showed why the meaning of “authentein” as “to dominate” or “to control” will not work for 1 Timothy 2:12. However, I did make the point in the last post that, while “authenteo” (to dominate) will not work for this passage, I did state that the word itself comes from the parent word, “authentes.” So now, as promised, I’m gonna discuss the connection between “authentes” and “authentein.” As I said at the end of the last post, the research will stun you…

In Linda Belleville’s chapter called “Teaching and Usurping Authority” (from the book “Discovering Biblical Equality” by editors Ronald Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis), she writes the following on the etymology of “authentein” in literary sources:

“Lexicographers, for the most part, agree that the root of ‘authentes’ is ‘auto’ + ‘entes,’ meaning ‘TO DO OR TO ORIGINATE SOMETHING WITH ONE’S OWN HAND’ (LSJ ‘autoentes’). Usage confirms this. An ‘authentes’ is SOMEONE WHO ORIGINATES OR CARRIES OUT AN ACTION” (“Discovering Biblical Equality, page 212).

So the parent word “authentes” refers to the ORIGIN of a plan (the ORIGINAL person who started it or begun it). Notice here, however, that the GENERIC definition of the word has nothing to do with murder in any shape, form, or fashion; the general definition is one who does something on their own (someone who acts independently of others). I take time to state this to show that you can take away the references to murder and the term itself would still remain intact—for no one has to commit murder to do something of their own accord (there are numerous activities that people can do independently of other people).

But the definition of the word “authentes” was modified:

“During the SIXTH to SECOND centuries B.C., the Greek tragedies used it EXCLUSIVELY OF MURDERING ONESELF (suicide) or ANOTHER PERSON(S). The rhetoricians and orators during this period did the same” (212).

Even though the definition of “authentes” is associated with a specific activity (murder), the generic definition remained intact—the word still involved someone acting on their own, or originating a plan (notice the “murdering oneself”). Suicide is an often premeditated action, something that someone plans without prior warning to family and friends. The mere fact of naming the death “suicide” IMPLIES that the victim decided to kill themselves of their own volition and wasn’t forced to do it by someone else.

Now, what happened during the Hellenistic period?

“During the Hellenistic period the primary meaning of ‘authentes’ was still ‘murderer,’ but the SEMANTIC RANGE WIDENED to include ‘PERPETRATOR,’ ‘SPONSOR,’ ‘AUTHOR’ and ‘MASTERMIND’ of a crime or act of violence. THIS IS THE CASE REGARDLESS OF GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION, ETHNICITY OR RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION. For instance, Jewish historian Josephus speaks of the AUTHOR (‘authentein’) of a poisonous draught (Jewish War 1.582; 2.240). Diodorus of Sicily uses it of (1) the SPONSORS (authentas) of some daring plans (Bibliotheca historica 35.25.1), (2) the PERPETRATORS (authentais) of a sacrilege (Bibliotheca historica 16.61) and (3) the MASTERMIND (authentas) of a crime (Bibliotheca historica 17.5.4.5). By the first century A.D., lexicographers defined ‘authentes’ as the PERPETRATOR of a murder committed by others (not the actual murderer himself or herself)” (212, 213).

The Hellenization process saw the word broaden in its meaning from just a murderer to someone who committed “a crime or act of violence,” which could involve things like stealing, rape, shooting someone (injuring but not killing), etc. However, the original definition of “authentes” remains intact, even after SEVEN CENTURIES (from the sixth century BC to the first century AD): why? because the word “authentes” still refers to someone who “originates” a plan. While the idea that the person carries out the plan dropped, the original creator of the plan was still acknowledged by the changing definition. So as we can see, while there are slight nuances to the meaning of “authentes,” there is no record of the word changing its generic meaning entirely.

What about the NONLITERARY materials? We know that the word appeared in Greek classics and various genres, but what about in the everyday sources of knowledge for the commoner?

“While authent- appears quite regularly in Greek literature from the sixth century BC on, it first appears in nonliterary materials IN THE FIRST CENTURY B.C. THE POPULAR FORM IS ‘AUTHENTIKOS’ (FROM WHICH WE DERIVE OUR ENGLISH WORD ‘AUTHENTIC’) AND NOT ‘AUTHENTES’ (murderer). NUMEROUS EXAMPLES OF ‘AUTHENTIKOS’ CAN BE FOUND IN GREEK INSCRIPTIONS AND PAPYRI OF THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD” (213).

As we can see, the word “authentes,” a NOUN, became an ADJECTIVE for the commoner of the Greek era. However, even though a NEW FORM is used, the initial meaning is still intact: just as “authentikos” refers to something “original” or “authentic,” so does the word “authentes” refer to someone who ORIGINATES the plan or action (Linda Belleville said this on page 212: “someone who ORIGINATES or carries out an action”). Although the form has changed, the meaning has not. It is quite commendable to think that even though the word was adopted for the everyday commoner, the meaning still remained. Now this is what I call FAITHFULNESS to the inherent meanings of words…

But now, we look at the verb forms stemming from “authentes.” There are five verb uses, and I will have to go through each one in order to show why the generic meaning of “authentes” still stands...Belleville writes:

“The first is found in the FIFTH to FIRST centuries B.C. Scholia (or explanatory remarks) on a passage from Aeschylus’s tragedy ‘Euminides’...the commentator uses the perfect PARTICIPIAL form of ‘authenteo’ to capture the intentional character of the deed: ‘Were dripping’ is explained as ‘The murderer [ho phoneutes], who just now HAS COMMITTED AN ACT OF VIOLENCE [AUTHENTEKOTA]...’” (214).

In this example, ‘authentekota’ (committing an act of violence) is still connected to ‘the murderer’ (ho phoneutes). The parent word ‘authentes’ was connected to murder when placed in the context of Greek tragedies; so nothing stuns us here. Still, though, the murderer is the one who INITIATED the killing—so the generic meaning of ‘authentes’ is still valid. This confirms the idea of ‘authentes’ as ‘originator.’

Now on to example 2:

“The second use of ‘authenteo’ is found in the first-century B.C. grammarian Aristonicus. Commenting on a portion of Homer’s Iliad...he states, ‘This line [a line above], which appears in other places, does not fit well here; for it usually is spoken, where THE AUTHOR [HO AUTHENTEIN] of the message delivered something striking...’” (214).

Here, we see that the infinitive “authentein” is used with the article for “the” (ho). In translation here (Belleville gives us), the word “authentein” means “author.” This is important indeed, for both Catherine Clark Kroeger and Richard Clark Kroeger mention this in their book called “I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2: 11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence.” For all who haven’t read this book, I highly recommend it. I will write more on this book in the future (I plan to do a series on it); but for now, it will suffice to say that the Kroegers provide the same translation of “authentein” as is used in this example: “authentein” means “to be author of” man. This is the ONLY use of the infinitive in all of the five examples we will cover, which indicates to me that, unlike Belleville’s view, this would be the most accurate translation for the Greek infinitive (since it is used the same in 1 Timothy 2:12 as it is used here in this example). In any case, I’ll move on and we’ll come back to this example later.

“The third use of ‘authenteo’ is found in 27/26 B.C. letter in which Tryphon recounts to his brother Asklepiades the resolution of a dispute between himself and another individual regarding the amount to be paid a ferryman for shipping a load of cattle: ‘AND I HAD MY WAY WITH HIM [AUTHENTEKOTOS PROS AUTON] and he agreed to provide Calatytis the boatman with the full fare within the hour’ (BGU IV 1208)” (214).

Here, the term itself relates to negotiation and influence. The letter is showing that Tryphon was able to talk this guy into paying the fare TRYPHON wanted to pay the boatman. However, this doesn’t take away from the generic meaning of the word “authentes.” If you remember what I said earlier, “authentes” means to be the originator of something, the SOURCE of it. What Tryphon is doing in this letter to his brother is TAKING RESPONSIBILITY for what happened. Why did the boatman receive the fare he did? Because Tryphon INFLUENCED the other passenger, thus being the SOURCE OF INFLUENCE as well as the PERPETRATOR of the negotiation itself. You could even say that Tryphon was the MASTERMIND behind the negotiation—it went over, and Tryphon “had his way” with the passenger (he got the passenger to agree with him on the fare).

In this last example, I capitalized the word “influence” because Belleville uses this word as the translation of “authentein” (for her, it means “to control, dominate, influence”). However, it means more than that here: for Tryphon is NOT concerned about the ACT of influence so much as he is concerned about the fact that HE was responsible for the fare negotiation. This is why he writes, “I HAD MY WAY WITH HIM...” This is Tryphon’s way of saying, “I did it; I’m RESPONSIBLE for the negotiation. I take blame (good in this context) for what happened.”

I will comment on the last two examples Belleville provides in the next post. Part Two is coming your way...

"Authentein": A Word Study

If you’ve been to the blog, you’ll notice that I’ve spent quite a lot of time studying what the text of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is all about. I’ve found my own creative ways of approaching the text that will help the everyday man (instead of the Greek scholar) understand what the passage teaches. But I haven’t gone into a word study of the passage yet; and, although it would be somewhat comforting not to approach this study, it has to be done because as you know, A LOT hinges on this word…

In “Discovering Biblical Equality,” Linda Belleville, in her chapter titled “Teaching and Usurping Authority: 1 Timothy 2:11-15,” does a marvelous job of researching this ancient Greek word. She gives a list of translations of the word, starting from the 2nd century AD, and then discusses its use in the Apocryphal literature:

“Its [authentein] cognates are found merely twice elsewhere in the Greek Bible. In the Wisdom of Solomon 12:6 it is the noun ‘authentes’ (murderer) used with reference to indigenous peoples’ practice of child sacrifice:

‘Those [The Canaanites] who lived long ago in your holy land, you hated for their detestable practices, their works of sorcery and unholy rites…these parents WHO MURDER [authentas] helpless lives.’ (NRSV)

In 3 Maccabees 2:28-29 it is the noun ‘authentia’ (“original,” “authentic”). The author recounts the hostile measures taken by the Ptolemies against Alexandrian Jews toward the end of the third century B.C., including the need to register according to their original status as Egyptian slaves and to be branded with the ivy-leaf symbol in honor of the deity Dionysus[:]

‘All Jews [in Alexandria] shall be subjected to a registration [laographon] involving poll tax and to the status of slaves…those who are registered are to be branded on their bodies by fire with the ivy-leaf symbol of Dionysus and to register [katachorisai] in accordance with their [Egyptian] ORIGIN [authentian] of record [prosynestalmenen]’” (quoted by Linda Belleville, page 211).

We see from Linda Belleville’s work that two of the earliest uses for the Greek word “authentein” were “to murder” and “origin” or “to be the origin.” These references in the Apocrypha come from the first century BC, about two-hundred years before Paul wrote his first letter to Timothy.

Belleville, however, opts for a different meaning of the word:

“Ancient Greek grammarians and lexicographers suggest that the meaning ‘to dominate, hold sway’ finds its origin in first-century popular (‘vulgar’ versus literary) usage. That is why second-century lexicographer Moeris states that the Attic ‘autodikein,’ ‘to have independent jurisdiction, self-determination,’ is to be preferred to the Hellenistic (or Koine) ‘authentes’. MODERN LEXICOGRAPHERS AGREE. Those who have studied Hellenistic letters argue that ‘authenteo’ ORIGINATED IN THE POPULAR GREEK VOCABULARY AS A SYNONYM FOR ‘to dominate someone’ (‘kratein tinos’)” (216).

Here’s my question: why choose the popular language over the literary? It seems that “to dominate” and “to be the origin” are the two choices we have for deciding what this word means; however, why settle for “to dominate”? What makes it a better choice of selection than “to be the origin”?
“Authenteo” may very well have appeared in popular literature, but it doesn’t appear out of nowhere—it has ancestral words that relate to it. So “authenteo” very well may mean to control or dominate someone, but it stems from “authentes,” a word that has been around longer than “authenteo.”

Think about it like this: if a person holds sway over someone, or influences them, doesn’t that mean the person is “in charge?” And doesn’t this have something to do with the ancestral word “authentes”? This is what Belleville writes regarding the ancestral word:

“In the first and second centuries B.C. historians used it of THOSE WHO MASTERMINDED AND CARRIED OUT such exploits as the massacre of the Thracians at Maronea and the robbing of the second shrine at Delphi” (213).

If an “authentes” became someone who “masterminded” a plot, then he or she would be IN CHARGE of the conspiracy. Let’s look back one more time at the Apocryphal book of Wisdom of Solomon (chapter 12, verse 6):

“Those [the Canaanites] who lived long ago in your holy land…these parents who murder (authentas) helpless lives” (quoted by Belleville on page 211).

Notice that the writer of the Apocryphal work labels the children as “helpless,” which indicates to the reader that the parents “dominated” their children and “controlled” them—but they did so in the act of murder. So even in using “authentes” and tolerating its earlier references to murder, there is a connection between the earlier usage of the word and the modern translation (meaning to dominate).

Those who are “in charge” today are called “the authorities.” But, while carrying that name, we look to them as being the “origin,” or the beginning of persons to look to when something goes wrong in our society. They are always the first people we seek out when we’re having trouble with a classmate (teacher or principal), or someone is trying to hurt us (police, security guards) or when we’re struggling spiritually (Pastor, Deacon, Elder, etc.). And, yes, they do have control over us and sway us—we listen to their advice, we do what they ask, and, we’re even forced to do some things against our will at times (like let the police search our homes or apartments, or our cars, etc.; or be suspended from school by the principal when we misbehave).


In my next post, I intend to show the reader the etymology (word history) of “authentein,” with the word stemming from “authentes.” The connection between these two words is long-lasting and the evidence will surprise you.

The Complementarian Trap

On the subject regarding 1 Timothy 2 Sarah Sumner writes (regarding verse 12):

“There’s no way to interpret this verse at face value unless we’re ready to say that it is sinful for a man to learn about God from a woman. Of course MOST OF US HOLD A MORE MODIFIED VIEW. But that is the point. WE HOLD A VIEW THAT DIFFERS FROM A STRAIGHTFORWARD READING. We say, for example, this verse restricts women from teaching the Bible ‘with authority’ to men ‘publicly at the main church service in a pulpit on Sunday morning.’ In other words, WE ADD EXTRA PHRASES TO THE BIBLICAL TEXT IN ORDER TO MAKE SENSE OF THE VERSE” (Sarah Sumner, “Men and Women in the Church,” page 210).

This is the complementarian trap, according to Sumner: complementarians pull out their trap when it comes to explaining 1 Timothy 2:12, or any of 1 Timothy 2.

What is the trap? The complementarian trap is what happens when they come upon a passage they “invent” an interpretation of (based on presupposition) and then force themselves to QUALIFY the rest of the verse to fit their explanation. This is the problem they face with 1 Timothy 2:12-15. I don’t think that complementarians have stopped to consider that, if they have to qualify the Genesis reference in verse 13 (“Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, being deceived, fell into transgression”), that it’s possible that they might have their translation of the verb ‘authentein’ all wrong…

But I think that egalitarians (and I count myself among them) have somewhat given in to the complementarian trap. Instead of searching for a translation of ‘authentein’ that will maintain Paul’s use of the Genesis reference, we (see, I’m including myself) settle on a translation of the Greek verb first—and THEN we decide to explain Paul’s Genesis reference. Once we find a translation of the verb that suits us, then we proceed to explain Paul’s words—as if they need explanation…

We egalitarians do what Sarah Sumner accuses complementarians of—we “add extra phrases to the biblical text in order to make sense of the verse.” Look at Gordon Fee’s explanation of 1 Timothy 2:

“Paul appeals to the Genesis narrative to support his not permitting a woman to teach a man in order to domineer over him. That Paul is using the Genesis narrative for ad hoc purposes seems plain in light of his first assertion in 1 Timothy 2:14, that ‘Adam was not the one deceived.’ Paul’s interest in Genesis is with the language of ‘deception’—which does not come from the actual narrative of the Fall (Gen. 3:1-7) but from the woman, who responded to God’s ‘What is this that you have done?’ by excusing herself and blaming the serpent, who ‘tricked me, and I ate.’ Paul’s interest lies with the younger widows in Ephesus, whose deception by Satan is addressed in the rest of 1 Timothy 2:14-15, where he reflects the Genesis narrative: ‘the woman…was deceived and became a sinner.’ But as he will urge later (1 Tim. 5:14), her salvation rests in her ‘childbearing’ (cf. 1 Tim. 2:15). All of this to say that Paul’s use of the Genesis narrative is SCARCELY EXPLICIT THEOLOGICAL INSTRUCTION ON PATRIARCHY WITH REGARD TO MINISTRY IN THE CHURCH. His concern is not with establishing patriarchy (from man’s priority in creation) but with THE WOMAN’S DECEPTION BY SATAN (which is being repeated again in Ephesus). PAUL PROHIBITS A WOMAN FROM TEACHING A MAN SO AS TO DOMINATE HIM BECAUSE HE DOES NOT WANT THE WOMEN IN EPHESUS TO REPLAY THE SIN OF EVE, WHO WAS DECEIVED AND LED ADAM INTO SIN” (“Discovering Biblical Equality, pp. 376-77).

Notice something here? Fee ends the above quote with the words, “he[Paul] does not want the women in Ephesus to replay the sin of Eve, WHO WAS DECEIVED AND LED ADAM INTO SIN.” But did Eve lead Adam into sin? No—although Adam did blame her for the Fall. Adam sinned because Adam chose to; after all, between he and Eve, he was the only one who heard the commandment not to eat from the tree DIRECTLY from God Himself. Next, the text focuses on Eve’s deception, not Eve’s leading Adam into sin. Another clear observation from the text is that these women were not gonna lead the instructors into sin; she would simply start chaos in the worship services and wreak havoc on the order of the church—but she wasn’t in a place to deceive those who were in authority over her.

Gordon Fee is right about one thing: Paul does seem concerned about the women being deceived by Satan (as evidenced throughout the rest of 1 and 2 Timothy), but Paul doesn’t use any literary technique here. He does so in other portions of his letters. For example, let’s look at 2 Corinthians 11:3 (ESV)—

3But I am afraid that(D) as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts(E) will be led astray from a(F) sincere and(G) pure devotion to Christ.

See the word “as” before the simile is used? A simile is “a comparison of two things using the words ‘like’ or ‘as’.” Notice something? A simile is used here. Two things are being compared: Eve’s deception by the serpent, and the Corinthians’ deception due to false teachers. Paul’s use of simile here is demonstrated by the simile indicator (the word “as”), so as to leave the reader with no confusion about Paul’s intention.

Paul does the exact same thing with allegory. The best passage for this would be Galatians 4:

21Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons,(AC) one by a slave woman and(AD) one by a free woman. 23But(AE) the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while(AF) the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two(AG) covenants.(AH) One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia;[e] she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26But(AI) the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. (Galatians 4:21-26, ESV)

For this second example, Paul uses an Old Testament reference to Sarah and Hagar to argue freedom in Christ. While coming from Genesis 16 and Genesis 21, Paul explains the important theological point behind it. How? “Now this may be interpreted ALLEGORICALLY—THESE WOMEN ARE TWO COVENANTS” (Gal. 4:24). Here, once again, Paul tells us what he’s doing with the use of the Old Testament text.

But when it gets to his Genesis reference in 1 Timothy 2, Paul doesn’t give a further explanation of why he refers to Adam and Eve’s creation and Eve’s deception—he simply states the events as they happened. The absence of Pauline explanation for the Genesis reference should make us wonder IF THERE IS EVEN A QUALIFIER FOR THE TEXT. Paul here is simply affirming the events of Genesis as they happened.

If this is true, then interpreting the Genesis account is futile. Instead, we should accept the Genesis text for what it is—an affirmation of the events recorded in the Law (Genesis being the first book).

I say this because I think egalitarians fall into the complementarian trap when they go into long explanations of Paul’s use of Genesis. But why do we go into these long explanations? Because we settle on a wrong interpretation of the Greek verb/infinitive “authentein.” What we must do as theologians and exegetes of Scripture is let Scripture determine what Greek verb translation we settle into—not the other way around. A good rule of thumb for anything (like figuring out crossword puzzles) is to start with what you know and work your way up to the stuff that you don’t know. It’s no different when we come to exegetical research…

If we look at the words of Paul, we discover that, unlike Paul’s reference to Eve’s deception in 2 Corinthians 11, Paul doesn’t comment on Eve’s deception here—except to say that Eve was deceived (and not Adam). In addition, notice that he is having to argue order (with use of the words like “first” and “then”) as well as argue against Adam’s deception (“And Adam was not deceived…”). The original text in Genesis mentions nothing of Adam’s deception—so we have to find a way to reconcile this with Paul’s argument. But we can only interpret this correctly alongside of Paul’s having to state that Adam was created FIRST. The issue seems to me to be one not of CHURCH ORDER but of GENEALOGY. Therefore, when Paul refers to Genesis, he is affirming the creation order and Eve’s deception because Genesis records these events as true.

So if Paul is arguing genealogy in 1 Tim. 2:13-14, then we have got to discover the meaning of the Greek verb/infinitive “authentein” in light of the Genesis reference. “Authentein,” then, CANNOT refer to “domineering” or “dominating”—because the Genesis text doesn’t give us that—NEITHER does Paul tell us that. We get no metaphor here—only a statement of the facts.

To help us with the translation of this Greek infinitival verb, we have something called “word cognates.” Cognates are similarities between words of two or more languages that help us understand the meanings of words in languages we know little about. For instance, the Greek word “kaleo” is where we get the English word “call” from—and the word “kaleo” means “to CALL.” The word “antitheseis” used in 1 Timothy 6 to refer to false teaching is where our English word “antithesis” comes from. “antitheseis” and “antithesis” both mean “opposite,” or “opposed to.” Another example comes from the blog. For the last few days, I’ve been taking the reader through New Creation Theology. Look back at the post I did on Galatians 6:15-16, and you’ll find that I looked at the Greek word “kanoni.” This word is a cognate of our English word “canon,” and it is the word from which “canon” derives. Both words, of course, mean the same thing—a standard or rule of judgment. These words make it clear to us that there are such similarities between Greek and English—for English is a GENTILE (or GREEK) language…

Using word cognates, we can figure out what “authentein” is. “Authentein,” as a word, is a cognate of our English word “authentic,” which means “original.” The “ein” ending on “authentein” is the Greek ending for an infinitive (meaning “to be”). So, “authentein” can be translated “to be original”. The verse in 1 Timothy 2, then, says that a woman should not teach “to be original” man…why? because “Adam was first formed, and then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, being deceived, fell into transgression.”

When placed in the verse, this translation of “authentein” (to be the origin of) makes a lot of sense. It shows us that some of the false teaching concerned “genealogies,” as 1 Timothy 1 gives us the context of the Ephesus situation.

Cognates are there to “bridge the gap” between the Greek language (that of the New Testament) and our language (a modern-day descendant of Greek). Using word cognates is the best way to help us get rid of all the constant writing done on the Greek verb “authentein.”

I wrote this post for no other reason than to help my fellow egalitarians. All I want us to do is avoid the complementarian trap of trying to explain what Paul would have meant. Paul surely never missed an opportunity for explanation; so if he fails to explain here, it’s because no explanation is needed.

For those who care to read more on the interpretation of this Greek infinitive and how the context matches this translation, read the book “I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 In Light of Ancient Evidence” by Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger.

Guilty Again

The last post, “Guilty as Charged,” spent time looking at 1 Peter 3 and how Peter’s discussion of dress referred to the behavior of the women and character of the heart. I spent some time going through the text of 1 Timothy 2 to show that it too, relates to the behavior of the women as well as their character of the heart. In this post, we will continue to exegete the text of 1 Timothy 2 and see what we can find that will aid us in our interpretation.

Then comes Paul’s prohibition: “But I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet” (v. 12, ESV).

Notice here that there is a “de” in the Greek, meaning “but” or “now.” This word always shows a CHANGE of something, whether it’s a change of time or the subject being discussed. Paul has allowed women to learn, but they cannot teach. It seems that in Ephesus, the women there were not learning QUIETLY, WITH ALL SUBMISSIVENESS—instead, they were causing commotion during instruction. Sarah Sumner stated in a post I placed under the “Hermeneutics” section of the blog that whenever Paul prohibits something or tells someone not to do something, he is responding to THE CURRENT SITUATION OF THE CHURCH TO WHICH HE WRITES. So, if he’s telling them to learn quietly and fully submit to what is being taught, then we know they aren’t. If he’s telling them to practice self-control, then we can imagine they aren’t. They don’t know how to dress properly, and they don’t know how to act properly in the house of God. This is why Paul states in 1 Timothy 3:14-15,

14I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, 15if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.

Paul’s concern with Timothy (and therefore, his congregation) is that they know proper behavior in God’s house. This implies that there is a CORRECT WAY to behave: not just any behavior will do.

These women are not learning with submissiveness, they are not submitting to their teachers, so they are unlearned and are bold about things which are heretical and false (1 Timothy 1:7). This is what happens when someone thinks they have the truth—they often fail to listen to those who may differ from them.

This idea of learning quietly is very similar to the situation of the Corinthian women in 1 Corinthians 14, where Paul tells the women to learn at home, and to maintain quietness in the church. The women at Ephesus, though, can’t seem to be quiet about what they “think” they know. Paul realized that if their teaching was wrong, with a bad attitude to go with it, the Ephesian women could end up doing more harm than good. Their situation is very much like a baby with a mousetrap. The baby has no idea how to set a mousetrap; if he tries, what’s going to happen? The baby will get his fingers stuck in the trap, and he might get a terrible injury from the trap’s snap. The baby handling a mousetrap WILL HURT the baby!

And this is what a teaching position will do for UNLEARNED people—it will be the “mousetrap” upon which they “get their fingers caught” and will hurt themselves and indoctrinate others with error.

As we’ve seen, in both passages of 1 Peter 3 and 1 Timothy 2, the issue of outward/inner dress has been the major emphasis. Grudem and Piper note the similarities:

“Now we know Peter is not condemning the use of clothes. He is condemning the misuse of clothes. This suggests, then, that the same thing could be said about gold and braids. The point is not to warn against something intrinsically evil, but to warn against its misuse as an expression of self-exaltation or worldly-mindedness.”

When it comes to both texts, the clothing is being addressed because “the point is not to warn against something INTRINSICALLY EVIL, but to warn against its MISUSE as an expression of self-exaltation or worldly-mindedness.”

In 1 Timothy 2, the issue regarding braids and gold refers to overdressing. According to Grudem and Piper, there’s nothing wrong with wearing these—so here, no one needs to interpret this to wage war against wearing such things today (this is theoretical, not applicable). However, when it gets to women teaching, what do Grudem and Piper say?

"Add to this that the commands concerning headship and submission are rooted in the created order (in 1 Timothy 2:13-14) while the specific forms of modesty are not. This is why we plead innocent of the charge of selective literalism."

Piper and Grudem now discuss “headship and submission,” two terms of which ONLY submission is mentioned. Nothing about these two verses discusses or even mentions headship. Yet and still, Piper and Grudem seem to use their male headship rhetoric to its full extent.

Next, they appeal to “created order.” Because of the created order, Adam coming before Eve, then women should not be over men in the church.

But Stanley Grenz hits the nail on the head when he speaks regarding created order:

“Rather than appealing to Adam’s firstborn status as the basis for a permanent male-dominated hierarchy, Paul declares that in Christ the creation order of woman coming FROM man is balanced by women giving birth TO men (1 Cor. 11:11-12). These precedents in the Pauline literature lead E. Margaret Howe to wonder, ‘It is hard to imagine, then, why the priority in time REFLECTED IN THE SECOND CREATION NARRATIVE would carry the significance attributed to it in 1 Timothy 2:13’” (Stanley Grenz, “Women in the Church,” page 136).

I won’t go into the details of 1 Corinthians 11, but I’ll say here that Paul levels the idea of first created by showing that today, the woman is FIRST—for it is she who gives birth to the man (not coming from the man). Therefore, when it comes to the Corinthian women wearing head coverings, Paul doesn’t argue for the convention because there is NO BIBLICAL BASIS IN CREATION that mandates women wearing them.
In my post on “Primogeniture Revisited,” I stated that there was no “law of primogeniture” which mandated Adam having authority as a male. Adam was simply created by God first and as the first human had privileges and responsibilities. But, if complementarians are too blind to see their error in Genesis, why can’t they open their eyes to the truth of 1 Corinthians 11? That is a text that I will cover next time.