1 Timothy 2:11-12 is one of the pivotal scriptures in shaping our view of what women can and cannot do in the assembly. Interestingly enough, it isn’t really an assembly passage, although the instruction there certainly would govern what happens in the Christian assembly (church).

Before we start I want to tell you my intent. I am not going to tell you what to believe. That is between you and God. I am not going to attempt to force anything on anyone. I am going to tell you what is in the text and let you wrestle with it yourself.

Here is the text in question from several translations:

1984 NIV – “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”

2011 NIV – “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.”

NASB – “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.”

KJV – “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”

There is one word in the Greek text that is translated by 2-3 words in these English translations. The Greek word is “authentein” (which is an infinitive of authenteo) and the English translation of that word is in bold above.

Words Paul uses for authority

There are several words that get translated as “authority” in English translations. The NIV has 21 Greek words translated as “authority.” The word used most often is “exousia” (used nearly 100 times in the Greek New Testament). This word means to be in charge, have power or control.

Obviously the word in 1 Timothy 2:12 is not the word used most often. In fact the word in 1 Timothy 2:12 is only used once in the Greek New Testament. Once! Why did Paul change words? Would this make any difference in our view on women in the assembly?

What does this word mean?

Bauer gives it this definition, “to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate”

Because we don’t get any other uses of this word in the New Testament, scholars have to look outside the Bible for help.

Here is info from a chart in “Women in the Church” by Kostenberger (who is a complimentarian and who believes that cultural influences are weighing on Christianity – which is certainly true and always has been so), p.78-79

Extra-biblical usages of authenteo over time
1 – “To rule, to reign sovereignly”
Used this way four times from 1 century BC to 6th century AD

2 – “To control, to dominate”
Used this way from four times from the second century AD to the 12th

2a – “To compel, to influence”
Used this way three times from 27 BC to 690 AD

2b – “In the middle voice – to be in effect, to have legal standing”
Used this way twice – in 235 AD and the 7th century AD

2c – “To domineer”
Used this way once by Chrsostom in 390AD

2d – “To grant authorization”
Used this way three times from 350-638 AD

3 – “To act independently”
Used this way three times from 390-6th century AD

3a – “To assume authority over”
Used this way three times from 390-9th century AD

3b – “To exercise one’s own jurisdiction”
Used this way four times from 2nd century AD to the 14th century AD

3c – “To flout the authority of”
Used this way twice – once in 690 and again in the 10th century AD

4 – “To be primarily responsible for, to instigate”
Used this way three times from 325 to 10th century AD

5 – “To commit murder”
Used this way once all the way over in the 10th century

The noun form of this word can mean murder but as you see above, the verb form under consideration, is rarely ever used that way and when it is, it is 900 years after Paul.

Remember, letters are situational/occassional. That means they are written to group of people with specific issues going on. I want to point out that for most of these definitions, we would all agree that in almost every instance, men shouldn’t do what this word means either. Read all of 1 Timothy to get an idea of what is going on with the women there. This is a necessary step for us to make application today. We cannot understand what a passage means for us now if we don’t also consider what it meant for its first audience.

What does Kostenberger conclude? That the only viable options based on the context are: 2, 2a, 3a, and 3c. Of those only 3a and possibly 2a do not contain a negative connotation in regard to the kind of actions the women are exhibiting.

Rejecting the “it’s just cultural” rationale

Whatever this word means I do not believe we dismiss it as some kind of cultural artifact. Everything is embedded with culture on some level. I believe that even things embedded with cultural meaning and value still have eternal truths we must learn and apply today.

From what you can see above, the word itself typically does have a negative meaning associated with it unlike typical words in Greek for authority. This is noted by Keener citing Scholer in “Paul, Women & Wives,” 108-109. Here is what Keener (an egalitarian) concludes on this matter,

“The evidence is not entirely clear, as Scholer observes, but Scholer is right that this is not Paul’s usual term for exercising authority. The context, which helps us reconstruct the situation, suggests that Paul may here be warning against a domineering use of authority, rather than merely any use of authority.” (p.109)

Here is the point I want to bring up and make you aware of. When people discuss this passage and apply it that rarely ever know that this is a word only used once that typically has a harsh edge to it – not the typical word use for authority.

Here are some questions to wrestle with. I am not going to attempt to tell you what to think. I want you to be informed.

Why did Paul use a different word here?

Did it have something to do with what women in Ephesus were doing?

If this is domineering, does that, as some scholars point out, also tie into the prohibition on teaching since women did teach in the early church, pray, etc – that possibly Paul is saying the teaching has a quality that is unacceptable in Ephesus and then gives a prohibition on it, not because they are women but because the women are the ones doing it (teach/have authority) in a way that is harmful to others?

I am not going to answer those questions for you but I do want you to ponder them.

We must go with Paul says. We must determine the meaning of what he said before we can apply it.Let’s actually look at what he wrote and form our conclusions. There are many things women are not allowed to do because the conversation is had like this word for authority is the same as the word he always uses.

Does anything change in your understanding of what women can or cannot do based on this word? Whatever this word means, women cannot/should not be doing it (and quite possibly men as well). Would violating this word keep women from praying, reading scripture, passing collection, doing announcements (We already dealt with the silence passages)?

Let us humbly and prayerfully consider these things.


11 Responses

  1. I especially appreciate this line of thinking, which I rephrase here:

    If “usurping authority” (KJV) means “domineering in an oppressive manner”, is that a universal prohibition of appropriate teaching for all women? Didn’t women teach, pray, and exhort in the early church? Is Paul saying that the intimidating and bossy teaching by women in Ephesus has a quality that’s unacceptable and is thus prohibited? Does 1 Tim. 2:12 not allow browbeating and harmful teaching because of a person’s gender? Or is it because the women are the ones who are iron-fisted, harsh and arrogant in their teaching at Ephesus?

  2. Enjoyed the article on the use of “authentein” in 1 Tim 2:12. Philip B. Payne, in his book “Man and Woman, One in Christ” (2009) devoted 80 pages (three chapters) to the historical usage and translation in historical context in 1 Tim 2:12, and how we should regard it today. Payne is an egalitarian. His study includes critique of Kostenberger. His study is technical in nature and fully referenced back to the oldest extant transcripts. He believes the real problem is not how it is presently translated but that we disregard the historical context of the situation and that Paul was using the word in a limited, situational context that was not ever meant to be understood as a universal prohibition. He concludes that the word should be understood as “to teach with self assumed authority” and that the common translation of 1 Timothy 2:12 (NIV2011) “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” is a proper translation, just not understood and taught in proper historical context. He also points out that the same false teaching by men was occuring and also restricted by Paul: “1 Timothy 1:3 (NIV2011) 3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer” and “1 Timothy 1:20 (NIV2011) 20 Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.” The restriction in 2:12 on women teaching false doctrine is the same as on men teaching false doctrine. Paul wrote letters addressing present situations and problems when applying restrictions. To read/understand/teach this in the modern sense as a universal prohibition instead of the historical/cultural sense as a local and limited prohibition that would go away when the problem was eliminated is to disregard the true historical context all together and limit our understanding of what Paul was saying. The universal application has become a false teaching based in a tradition of patriarchal/hierarchal thinking. I think we are all in agreement that traditions in Christianity when wrong are extremely hard to kill! Another study that is available that deals more deeply with the cultural side of Ephesus and the gnostic style of thinking that was already in the pagan religions and starting to invade the church in Ephesus in the 1st Century is “I Suffer Not a Woma” by Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger (1992). They devote quite a bit of the book to how the culture of gnostic thinking was starting to develop in Ephesus and in the church. Included is their stury and translation in context of “authentein”. Some of what Paul says in 1 Tim is directed at that early gnostic practice that was creeping into the church through the false teaching of both men and women but that is generally not understood, disregarded, and not taught in our churches.

  3. I appreciate this article, Matt. I was indeed unaware about the uniqueness of the word in this passage, so it was helpful to my thinking, and how that idea applies to other passages.

    I do still have some questions about how this ties into teaching, however. In the context of 1 Tim. 2, while the discussion of authority is important, it’s not the only activity Paul is concerned with, teaching being a separate activity in mind. I don’t think we should assume that the prophesying that happened in the early church (e.g. in Corinth) is equated with teaching, at least in the sense that he is discussing here in 1 Timothy. That they prophesied does not necessarily imply that they taught doctrine or things of that nature. The only place I know of that talks about a woman teaching is Priscilla and Aquila with Apollos, but that situation seems dissimilar to what Paul is addressing here. When we add v.11 to the discussion, which is emphasizing learning with submissiveness, I struggle to see how an egalitarian approach is viable without significant assumptions that aren’t in the text itself. It seems to me the emphasis in the text is not on the quality of the teaching, but on the activity of teaching itself, with authority being a different issue.

    I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on this, either here or in a subsequent post. I know there’s a lot to cover and I appreciate your thoughtful approach.

    1. Great thoughts and questions Les! I will be addressing some of this in the next post. Just so you know, I am not egalitarian. But I think we have been too restrictive in certain ways. My hope is to be as biblical as possible. These are important conversations and I appreciate you engaging. I will try to work through addressing this in my next article.

  4. I think, too what is being neglected is the “where” of Timothy. He is in Ephesus which is the seat of the Temple of Artemis. From my understanding it was a religion where women were completely in charge–one where women were thought to believe to be the “source” of man (rather than interdependent).

    Artemis was also the goddess of childbirth and many were concerned that if they did not honor Artemis then they might die in childbirth (does that give insight to the phrase, “saved through child-bearing”? As in, “don’t worry, you won’t die in childbirth just because you aren’t following Artemis”?)

    I highly recommend Gary Hoag’s dissertation: “The teachings on Riches in 1 Timothy in light of Ephesiaca by Xenophon of Ephesus”–he deals with the worship of Artemis and its relation on the context of this passage. You can check it out here: https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.204/e37.819.myftpupload.com//wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Hoag.Dissertation.TitlePage.Abstract-copy.pdf

    Also his Seven Minute Seminary video “Why Women Must Learn in Quietness and Submission: Xenophon of Ephesus and 1 Timothy 2” (spoiler: this title is tongue in cheek)…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsyQlaC0btY

    Just something to explore…

      1. I agree, it was more likely cultic/liturgical power than political power.

        What is important to realize (and you’ve stated it well) is that it is irresponsible to come to the text and give it a cursory reading and think we understand it completely. To try to understand an ancient Near Eastern Text 2,000 years old or older, written in a different language, from a different culture as if it were written in 19th or 20th century and in English is to guarantee misinterpretation.

  5. I find Marg Mowczko’s comment interesting, too, that Chrysostom used authentein when writing (in the fourth century) on Colossians 3:19. He uses the word to command husbands not to dominate (or “act the despot over”) their wives.

    In this case, the understanding of the word would be to tell women (many suggest the Greek indicates a specific woman) to not act in a domineering, dominating, over-bearing way–a way that is inappropriate for any Christian regardless of his or her sex.

Leave a Reply