WESLEY’S NOTES
Verse 12. To usurp authority over the man-By public teaching.
WIERSBE’S EXPOSITORY
In 1 Cor. 14:34–40, Paul amplifies this commandment. Just as Satan got a footing in Eden through Eve, so he can get a footing in the local church through some sincere, misguided woman. (Misguided men can also be a problem; see 1 Tim. 1:20.) When the local church meets in assembly, the women are instructed to exercise submission. If they have any questions, rather than interrupt the meeting, they should ask their husbands at home. This rule does not prevent a woman from teaching or from leading in ministries assigned by the local assembly.
Paul undergirds this ruling with a solid doctrinal foundation: Adam was created first and had precedence over Eve. (See 1 Cor. 11:8–9.) Headship is written into the very course of nature; when we violate this principle, we invite confusion. The Corinthian church was confused and carnal partly because the women were taking precedence over the men, and neither the men nor the women were submitting to the Word of God.
Paul gives a second reason for this principle: Satan finds it easier to deceive women than men (v. 14, and see 2 Cor. 11:3). Eve was deceived by Satan and sinned. Had Adam been at her side protecting her, she might not have yielded to Satan’s lies. Adam sinned with his eyes wide open, choosing rather to be with his wife (now a sinner) than to walk with God.
WORD BIBLICAL COMMENTARY
12 διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ ʼ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳͅ, “but I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but [she is] to be in quietness.” This is the second qualifying clause Paul uses to explain what he means by ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ, “in quietness.” Paul means that a woman (cf. v 11) may not exercise authority in the church (cf. 1 Tim 3:15) over men (possibly the male overseers; general principle), and this includes teaching (specific application). While the text never says women are teaching the heresy, names only men as teachers (1 Tim 1:20; 2 Tim 2:17; 3:6), and explicitly pictures only women as being influenced by the heresy (2 Tim 3:6–7; possibly 1 Tim 5:11–13, 15), the charge here suggests that women, at least in some way, are promulgating the heresy even if they are not leaders of the opposition. The repetition of the initial phrase ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ here and in v 11 serves to highlight quietness as Paul’s basic concern. γυνή, “woman,” and ἀνδρός, “man,” are both generic singulars, appropriate for the statement of a general rule (see Comment on v 15).
Three specific issues have been raised concerning the phrase οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, “I do not permit,” each of which would limit the applicability of Paul’s instruction. To be consistent, if v 12 is temporally and geographically limited to ancient Ephesus, then other statements made in the immediate context should be so limited, statements such as Paul’s admonition for women to learn (v 11). (1) Some feel that Paul’s use of “I” represents his personal opinion and not his binding judgment. Comparison is often made to 1 Cor 7 where Paul differentiates between a charge coming from himself and a charge coming from the Lord (vv 10, 12). His language is even less authoritative when he encourages single people not to get married: “I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. I think that . . .” (1 Cor 7:25–26). However, Paul is discussing two different (but related) items: divorce and marriage/remarriage. On his comments about divorce (1 Cor 7:10–16), it is generally agreed that Paul is not distinguishing between command and opinion but between traditions coming [Page 121] from the earthly Jesus through the church and what he, as an apostle of Jesus, knows to be true. This does not lessen the authority of his pronouncements but rather identifies their authoritative source as Jesus (cf. Barrett, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 163). In fact, Paul equates, in terms of authority, the Jesus traditions and his own judgments. In v 10 he says, “To the married I give charge,” and to make sure they realize that his charge carries full authority, he identifies the ultimate source of authority by adding “not I but the Lord,” making reference to the tradition as recorded in Mark 10:11–12 (cf. 1 Cor 9:8; 14:37). In other words, Paul can say “I command” or “the Lord commands,” and to him they are both fully authoritative. However, when Paul discusses marriage/remarriage, he is not making an authoritative judgment, and in fact does not require the Corinthians to follow his advice (1 Cor 7:38). But in 1 Corinthians, it is the context—specifically his qualifying statements, his vocabulary, and his reasons (1 Cor 7:32, 35, 40)—that show he is giving his opinion, not that he says “I.”
Paul uses “I” throughout his writings, often speaking with absolute authority (e.g., Rom 8:38; 12:1; 14:14; 1 Cor 5:3; 10:20–21; 13:1; Gal 5:16; also Rom 15:8, 30; 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10; 4:16; 7:10; 11:3; 12:3; 14:5; 15:50, 51; 16:1; 2 Cor 10:1; 12:11; Gal 4:1; 5:3; Eph 4:1,17; Phil 4:2; 1 Thess 4:1, 10; 5:14; 2 Thess 3:6, 12). This same pattern continues throughout the PE (1 Tim 1:20; 2:8; 5:21; 6:13–14; cf. 1 Tim 1:11; 2:1; 5:11; 2 Tim 1:6; 2:7; Titus 1:5; 3:8). Only someone who considers his personal judgment to be absolutely binding could say “Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me” (2 Tim 1:13). It does not matter whether Paul says “I do not want the rich of this world to be haughty” or “As for the rich in this world, charge them not to be haughty!” (1 Tim 6:17). Paul can mix the indicative and imperative, and both forms carry his full authority (cf. 2 Tim 4:1–2; 1 Cor 11:34).
(2) The second concern has to do with the word ἐπιτρέπω, “I permit.” To some this suggests that this is not a command but an opinion that may or may not be followed (e.g., J. M. Ford, JES 10 [1973] 682; Kaiser, Worldwide Challenge [September 1976] 10; G. R. Osborne, JETS 20 [1977] 347; Payne, Trinity Journal 2 [1981] 170–73; G. Redekop, SR 19 [1990] 235–45). Much of what has been said regarding Paul’s use of “I” also argues against this interpretation. But there are additional considerations. Perriman argues that v 12 is parenthetical as evidenced by the shift from the imperative to the indicative (TynBul 44 [1993] 129–30, 139–40); but the indicative can carry the force of the imperative contextually, and v 12 is an explanation of v 11 and should not be separated from it. The word ἐπιτρέπειν, “to permit,” can be a strong term (MM, 249, cite its use in a legal context). It occurs elsewhere in Paul in 1 Cor 14:34 (women are not permitted to speak in church) and 16:7 (Paul wishes to spend time with the Corinthians if the Lord permits; cf. Heb 6:3). Elsewhere in the NT it describes the permitting of divorce by Moses (Matt 19:8; Mark 10:4), of the demons to go into the pigs (Mark 5:13; Luke 8:32), of the burial of one’s father (Matt 8:21; Luke 9:59), of saying farewell prior to discipleship (Luke 9:61), and of the removal of Jesus’ body by Joseph of Arimathea (John 19:38). The word is also used in Paul’s request of permission from the tribune (Acts 21:39, 40), from Agrippa (Acts 26:1), from a centurion (Acts 27:3), and from the Roman authorities (Acts 28:16). ἐπιτρέπειν can be an authoritative demand bordering on the legal (cf. also 1 Cor 7:17; 11:16; Phil 3:15). Spicq says it is a rabbinic formula for prohibition (1:379). While at times it does refer to a specific situation (Matt 8:21; Mark 5:13; John 19:38; Acts 21:39, 40), it is the context that [Page 122] limits its scope and not the intrinsic meaning of the word (so Moo, Trinity Journal 2 [1981] 199–200; contra Payne, Trinity Journal 2 [1981] 172; cf. 1 Cor 14:34; Heb 6:3; Ignatius Eph. 10.3). The point is that if the semantic force of the word is authoritative, the use of the indicative does not lessen its force. The imperative in v 11 has already established the tone of the passage. It can also be argued that the shift from βούλομαι, “I desire” (v 8; itself a strong term), to the stronger ἐπιτρέπω, “I permit,” signals an increasing sense of authority.
(3) The third issue raised concerning the phrase οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, “I do not permit,” has to do with the present tense of the verb. It is argued that because the present tense is used, it should be translated “I am not presently allowing a woman to teach” (Spencer, Beyond the Curse, 85) or “I am not permitting” (Payne, Trinity Journal 2 [1981] 172). Spencer comments, “Yet at this time Paul wanted to restrain the women at Ephesus from teaching the men until they themselves were well instructed” (JETS 17 [1974] 219). If Paul had intended the instruction to be for all time, it is argued, Paul would have used another form such as the imperative or future indicative or aorist subjunctive, or otherwise specifically indicated such (Payne, Trinity Journal 2 [1981] 171; Fee, 72; Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles, 180; Padgett, Int 41 [1987] 25; Witherington, Women in the Earliest Churches, 120–21; Kroeger and Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman, 83). This is the least convincing of the three attempts to weaken Paul’s language. (a) Wallace points out that the generic γυνή, “woman,” indicates that ἐπιτρέπω, “I permit,” is gnomic and concludes that “the normal use of the present tense in didactic literature, especially when introducing an exhortation, is not descriptive, but a general precept that has gnomic implications” (Greek Grammar, 525, citing forty-one passages). To argue that Paul would have had to use a different verbal form if he were to indicate a timeless truth is simply not correct; this is the force of the gnomic use—to describe an action that always occurs (cf. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 208–17). (b) If use of the present tense automatically necessitated that the statement be relegated to the author’s present, then this would raise serious problems with much of Paul’s writing. In his thirteen epistles, Paul uses 1,429 present-tense active indicative verbs (out of a total of 2,835 indicative verbs). If this objection is true, then almost nothing Paul says can have any significance beyond the narrow confines of its immediate context. To be sure, many of these present-tense verbs refer to a specific historical situation (e.g., 1 Cor 8:13); but the reference is indicated not by the tense of the verb but by the context of the verse (cf. Wallace’s comments on Eph 5:18; Greek Grammar, 525). (c) When one looks at the use of the present tense in the PE, the general, universal scope of the tense is continually illustrated. In the PE there are 111 present-tense indicative verbs. If all of these were relegated also to the author’s present situation, then the PE would no longer teach that the law is not for the just (1 Tim 1:9), that God wishes that all could be saved (1 Tim 2:4; 4:10), that it is a good thing to pursue the office of elder (1 Tim 3:1), that the mystery of the Christian religion is great (1 Tim 3:16), that physical exercise is of some value but godliness is infinitely more valuable (1 Tim 4:8), that children should take care of their parents and grandparents (1 Tim 5:4), that there is great gain in godliness (1 Tim 6:6), that those desiring to be rich fall into temptation (1 Tim 6:9), that the love of money is a root of all evils (1 Tim 6:10); and the list goes on (cf., e.g., 1 Tim 3:2–13; 4:5; 5:4–18; 24–25; 6:7). While the use of the present tense does not require that a statement be true in the future, neither is there anything in the tense that [Page 123] requires it to be true only in the present but not later. Spencer’s translation, “I am not presently allowing a woman to teach” (Beyond the Curse, 85), implies to many ears that the statement would not be true later, something the present tense cannot by itself connote. (d) The previous counterargument also holds for first-person (see above) present-tense verbs. Moo finds twelve uses of the first-person-singular indicative in Paul that make a universal statement (Rom 12:1, 3; 1 Cor 4:16; 2 Cor 5:20; Gal 5:2, 3; Eph 4:1; 1 Thess 4:1; 5:14; 2 Thess 3:6), two of which (1 Tim 2:1, 8) specifically indicate that the statement is universal, which would imply by default that Paul uses the construction to make a universal statement (Trinity Journal 2 [1981] 200). Wallace argues that there is no instance in Paul that the combination “first person singular present tense with an infinitive ever means ‘right now, but not later’” (Greek Grammar, 526 n. 30; see Comment on 1 Tim 2:1 regarding the same construction). The present tense views an action from inside the action “without beginning or end in view” (Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 103). It says nothing about the completion of the event but only that from the speaker’s point of view it is an ongoing process. οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, “I do not permit,” therefore, represents the apostle’s binding command for all churches.
Paul specifies that he does not permit γυναικί, “a woman,” to teach. Padgett and others suggest that Paul is thinking only of the women deceived by the heresy (Int 41 [1987] 25). However, if Paul had meant “deceived women,” he could have said so. A decision here is usually made by one’s general approach to the passage and by how tightly one sees vv 8–15 tied to the specific teachings of the opponents, but the text makes the statement general. Grammatically, the anarthrous noun functions generically (cf. on v 11); Padgett’s view requires the article.
Paul continues by saying, “I do not permit a woman to teach [διδάσκειν].” Actually, the verb διδάσκειν, “to teach,” is the first word in the sentence and as such stands as the most important and contrasts with the previous μανθανέτω, “should learn.” Much of the problem in Ephesus came from incorrect teaching, and Paul is saying that the Ephesian women may not be involved in this teaching process. Beyond this, there are questions regarding exactly what he means.
(1) There is no supplied object for διδάσκειν. (a) The statement cannot be a blanket prohibition of women teaching anyone. Older women are told to teach what is good (καλοδιδασκάλοῦ) and so train (σωφρονίζωσιν) younger women (Titus 2:3–4). Timothy has the same faith as did his mother and grandmother (2 Tim 1:5; 3:15; Paul never says they taught Timothy, but it is the apparent meaning of the text). Priscilla, along with her husband, Aquila, taught Apollos (Acts 18:26). Believers are to teach each other (Col 3:16; even in Judaism women could teach little children; Str-B 3:467). The context thus limits the universal application to some extent.
(b) Context and grammar allow ἀνδρός, “man,” to be the object of both διδάσκειν, “to teach,” and αὐθεντεῖν, “to exercise authority.” Moo notes, “In Greek, objects and qualifiers of words which occur only with the second in a series must often be taken with the first also (cf. Acts 8:21)” (Trinity Journal 2 [1981] 202). In this verse, the case of the object (ἀνδρός in the genitive) is determined by the closer verb (αὐθεντεῖν, not διδάσκειν; cf. Smyth, Greek Grammar §1634). ἀνδρός is not too far removed from διδάσκειν for it to function as its object (contra Payne, Trinity Journal 2 [1981] 175; Fung, “Ministry,” 198–99). διδάσκειν is moved forward in word order for emphasis, separating it from ἀνδρός further than perhaps expected. If v 12b is a general principle and v 12a a specific application (see below), the meaning remains the same.
[Page 124] (c) But which men must not be taught? All men? Because there are no limiters in v 12 and because vv 13–14 are general in scope, it would appear that Paul is saying that women may teach no men, understanding ἀνδρός as older males as suggested by the historical situation. But there may be contextual hints that the scope of ἀνδρός should be more limited. (i) The scope of ἀνδρός here could be the same as the object of women’s submission (v 11) since v 12 is defining ὑποταγῇ, “submissiveness.” Because the idea of a woman being submissive to all men is foreign to Paul’s teaching, it is more likely that he means that they are to be submissive to a certain group of men. It fits within Pauline theology for women to be submissive to their husbands and for all believers, men and women, to submit to the leadership of the overseers (see Comment above). (ii) Saying that women cannot teach men may come within a contextual limitation since women are allowed to teach in other circumstances. This suggests that ἀνδρός does not refer to all men. (iii) 1 Tim 2:9–15 is closely related to the subsequent discussion of overseers (see Form/Structure/Setting), and there Paul states that overseers must be able to teach (3:2; also 2 Tim 2:2). The church is led by its overseers, and they lead by teaching truth and refuting error (see Form/Structure/Setting on 1 Tim 3:1–7). Since this is the context within which Paul says women may not exercise teaching authority over a man, it is possible that the ἀνδρός a woman is not to teach is an overseer. (iv) The limitation of ἀνδρός to overseer accords well with the Ephesian situation. The opponents are teaching error, and the women are being deceived, perhaps also promoting the heresy (although the text never says the latter). Part of Paul’s overall response is to ensure that the overseers are able teachers, able to teach truth and refute error. Women may not, therefore, authoritatively teach the men in authority. For the same general conclusion, see Lenski, 564; Spencer, JETS 17 (1974) 220; Moo, Trinity Journal 1 (1980) 65–66; id., “What Does It Mean?” 183; Clark, Man and Woman, 199; Foh, Women, 125–26; Hurley, Biblical Perspective, 201; Howard, EvQ 55 (1983) 31–42; Dockery, CTR 1 (1987) 363–86; Blomberg, CTR 2(1988) 413.
The criticisms of this interpretation, however, are several. (a) The text does not say ἐπίσκοπος, “overseer”; it says ἀνδρός, “man” (generic). (b) The object of submission (v 11) does not necessarily have to be the same as ἀνδρός (v 12). (c) Vv 13–14 deal with the man-woman relationship, not leader-woman. Why would Paul appeal to Adam’s priority in creation and his not having been deceived if Paul is not concerned with the man-woman relationship? (d) The examples of women teaching seen in the PE do not involve the authoritative transmission of the gospel, and the text does not say that the women taught men (1 Tim 5:10, 14; Titus 2:2–3). (e) This interpretation would make application difficult, to the point that one wonders if Paul could have meant this (e.g., a woman could teach men authoritative doctrine only if any overseers present first excused themselves).
(2) Paul does not identify what it is that women may not teach. (a) Many argue that Paul’s prohibition is that the Ephesian women not teach error. Kroeger and Kroeger state that “the verb here [i.e., διδάσκειν in 1 Tim 2:12] forbids women to teach a wrong doctrine, just as 1 Tim 1:3–4 and Titus 1:9–14 also forbid false teaching” (I Suffer Not a Woman, 81). There are several problems with this argument, however. (i) The text does not specify wrong doctrine when it easily could have. (ii) In 1 Tim 1:3–4 the verb is not διδάσκειν but ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν, which explicitly states that what is being taught is ἑτερο-, “other,” and context makes it clear in Titus 1:9–14 that the heresy is being discussed (cf. Liefeld, [Page 125] “Response,” 245; Wolters, CTJ 28 [1993] 210). (iii) διδάσκειν is used almost always in a positive sense in the PE, i.e., to teach truth (see below). (iv) While the cognate διδαχή, “teaching,” can refer to the content of what is taught (Titus 1:9; 2 Tim 4:2), the verb διδάσκειν refers exclusively in the PE to the act of teaching as would be expected of a verb. Twice it occurs in summary admonitions (1 Tim 4:11; 6:2), each time with the object specified (ταῦτα, “these things”). In 2 Tim 2:2, Timothy is to entrust the gospel to faithful men/people who will teach others (ἑτέρους). In Titus 1:11 the opponents are teaching ἃ μὴ δεῖ, “what is not proper.” But here in v 12 Paul supplies no object, and the verb refers to the act of teaching (cf. Liefeld, “Response,” 245). (v) It seems a strange twist of logic to say that women may not teach error while implicitly allowing men to teach error. If all the women, and only the women, are deceived, then this interpretation would be more feasible. Yet it seems unlikely that Priscilla would have been tricked (2 Tim 4:19; Acts 18:24–28). (vi) An appeal to v 14 does not help because it too does not say that women may not teach men error, nor does its OT background in Gen 3:13, which never says that Eve taught Adam (cf. Comment on v 14). Rather, the implication of the Genesis account is that Adam was present, watched his wife being deceived, was not deceived himself (1 Tim 2:14a), and yet said nothing. Paul says, “Let a woman learn”; he does not say, “Let the women convinced by the opponents learn.” This suggests that Paul is thinking of all the women in the church and argues against limiting the command elsewhere to women teaching error. (vii) 1 Tim 5:13 is not necessarily parallel (contra Keener, Paul, Women, and Wives, 108). There the women are “talking” (λαλεῖν), not “teaching” (διδάσκειν, but cf. Fee’s comments), and the opponents who are identified are all male ( 1 Tim 1:20; 2 Tim 2:17–18; cf. 2 Tim 4:14). The picture in the text is of the women being influenced by the opponents (1 Tim 5:11–15; 2 Tim 3:5–9). In fact, 2 Tim 3:7 describes some women as always listening but never being able to arrive at the truth. But the women in 2:11 can learn (cf. Foh, Women,122). (viii) If Paul is prohibiting women from teaching error, v 13 seems irrelevant, even if the γάρ, “for,” is illustrative. (ix) Liefeld points out that the Greek word order places emphasis on διδάσκειν and γυναικί, whereas Kroeger proposes to demonstrate that the emphasis of the text is on the implied object, error (“Response,” 245).
(b) Rather, διδάσκειν in the PE is used in a positive sense of teaching the truth of the gospel (1 Tim 4:11; 6:2; 2 Tim 2:2; cf. Comment on 1 Tim 1:10 and discussion of the noun cognate in Comments on 2 Tim 4:2 and Titus 1:9), except in Titus 1:11, where the context shows that it is false teaching (but still authoritative instruction). (In 1 Tim 1:3 and 6:3, which speak of teaching false doctrine, the verb is ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν, “to teach another doctrine.”) The cognate noun διδαχή, “teaching,” occurs twice in the PE, both times describing the gospel message. The cognate διδασκαλία, “teaching,” occurs fifteen times in the PE, and every time except once (1 Tim 4:1, referring to doctrines of demons) it refers to the gospel (1 Tim 1:10; 4:6, 13, 16; 5:17; 6:1, 3; 2 Tim 3:10, 16; 4:3; Titus 1:9; 2:1, 7, 10). While elsewhere Paul speaks of teaching in more general terms (1 Cor 14:26; Eph 4:11–12; Col 3:16), the overwhelming use of the word group in the PE is to describe the positive teaching of the gospel, often (as the context shows) by a person in authority (especially 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Tim 5:17; Titus 1:9; cf. 1 Tim 3:2). Elsewhere in the PE Paul specifies the content (1 Tim 4:11; 6:2) or object (2 Tim 2:2; Titus 1:11) of teaching. That διδάσκειν here has no object or any term indicating false teaching proves that the verse is a positive command not to [Page 126] teach “the authoritative and public transmission of tradition about Christ and the Scriptures (1 Cor. 12:28–29; Eph. 4:11; 1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 3:16; James 3:1)” (so Schreiner, “Interpretion of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, ” 127, citing Fung, “Ministry,” 198; cf. Clark, Man and Woman, 196; Moo, Trinity Journal 1 [1980] 65–66; id., “What Does It Mean?” 185–86; Towner, Goal, 215). Saucy (JETS 37 [1994] 81–91) develops the thesis that the concept of teaching in the PE, while capable of a wider range of meaning in Paul and in general usage (cf. also Payne, Trinity Journal 2 [1981] 173–75), carries the meaning of authoritative instruction, “the preservation and transmission of the Christian tradition” (87), hence the teaching appropriate to an overseer. On the view that Paul is telling women that they can teach after they learn, see on μανθανέτω, “should learn” (v 11), above.
(3) Paul does not specifically identify where women may not teach men. ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ, “in every place” (v 8), and the general nature of v 12 may suggest that this applies everywhere one finds the house of God. We do know that Priscilla and Aquila “expounded” (ἐξέθεντο) the way of God to Apollos (Acts 18:26), but this reference can hardly bear the weight often placed on it. ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ can also mean “in all the churches” (cf. Comment on 1 Tim 2:8), and 1 Tim 3:15 defines the scope of this passage as how one ought to act in the household of God (cf. Comment on v 9). How one defines the scope of “household of God” (e.g., wherever believers are gathered; public worship) is problematic, but in the Comment on 1 Tim 3:15 it is defined as primarily public worship. The conclusion suggested here is that Paul says women may not authoritatively teach the gospel to men (possibly overseers) in the public assembly of the church.
Paul joins the prohibition of teaching with another: “I do not permit a woman . . . to exercise authority over a man [οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός].” The translation of αὐθεντεῖν, “to exercise authority,” has become the crux of the passage.
αὐθεντεῖν is a difficult word to define. It occurs nowhere else in the NT and rarely in secular Greek. Most agree that its basic meaning is either the neutral “to exercise authority” or the negative “to domineer” in the sense of exerting authority in a coercive manner. Either definition provides an adequate parallel to ὑποταγῇ, “submission,” in v 11. For the translation “to exercise authority,” see Lock, 32; Guthrie, 76–77; Kelly, 68; Moo, Trinity Journal 1 (1980) 66–76; Hurley, Biblical Perspective, 202; Panning, WLQ 78 (1981) 185–91; Knight, 141–42; id., NTS 30 (1984) 143–57; Fung, “Ministry,” 198; Padgett, Int 41 (1987) 25 n. 27; Wilshire, NTS 34 (1988) 120–34; Barnett, EvQ 61 (1989) 231–32; Gritz, Paul, Women Teachers, and the Mother Goddess, 134–35; Baldwin, “Difficult Word,” 65–80; Schreiner, “Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, ” 130–33. For the translation “to domineer” (in a coercive manner), see Simpson, 47; Dibelius-Conzelmann, 47; Barrett, 55; Payne, Trinity Journal 2 (1981) 175; Osburn, ResQ 25 (1982) 1–12; Fee, 73; Spencer, Beyond the Curse, 86–87; Scholer, “1 Timothy 2:9–15, ” 204–5; Witherington, Earliest Churches, 121–22; Towner, 77; id., Goal, 215–16; Harris, EvQ 62 (1990) 335–52; Keener, Paul, Women, and Wives, 108–9 (who says that the evidence is not entirely clear); Boomsma, Male and Female, 71–72; Kroeger and Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman, 84–104; Motyer, Vox Evangelica 24 (1994) 95–96; Groothuis, Good News, 215–16. Oberlinner does not commit himself to a position (96).
H. S. Baldwin gives an excellent summary of research on the meaning of αὐθεντεῖν (“Difficult Word,” 66–69). (1) Historically the word in this context was understood to mean “to have authority” (but cf. the KJV’s “to usurp authority”). (2) [Page 127] C. C. Kroeger originally argued that it was an erotic term meaning “to thrust oneself” and was used in connection with fertility practices (Reformed Journal 29 [1979] 12–15). (3) Osburn faults Kroeger’s argument, showing that she had misread the supposed parallels (see also Gritz, Paul, Women Teachers, and the Mother Goddess, 134) and concludes that αὐθεντεῖν means “to dominate or domineer” (ResQ 25 [1982] 1–12; see also Panning, Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 78 [1981] 185–91). (4) Knight argues against the translation “to usurp authority” and also advocates “to have authority” (NTS 30 [1984] 143–57). (5) Wilshire finds 314 occurrences of αὐθεντεῖν and cognates used in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae database and translates “instigating violence,” stating that the issue in 1 Tim 2:12 is one of authority (NTS 34 [1988] 120–23). He has since raised the issue of whether he has been correctly understood (EvQ 65 [1993] 43–55; see summary in Schreiner, “Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, ” 130–31). (6) R. C. and C. C. Kroeger have returned to the discussion with a presentation of four possible meanings: “(a) to begin something, to be responsible for a condition or action, (b) to rule, to dominate, (c) to usurp power or rights from another, (d) to claim ownership, sovereignty, or authorship.” In 1 Tim 2:12 they translate αὐθεντεῖν as “proclaim herself author of man,” relying heavily on a reconstruction of Ephesian culture (I Suffer Not a Woman, 84–104, 185–88; see critiques by Perriman, TB 44 [1993] 132–34; Wilshire, EvQ 65 [1993] 54; Wolters, CTJ 28 [1993] 210–11; and responses to C. C. Kroeger’s “1 Timothy 2:12” article by Liefeld, 244–48, and Holsey, 248–53; see Comment on v 13 for further discussion).
(7) H. S. Baldwin himself argues that αὐθεντεῖν and its cognate noun αὐθέντης do not have the same range of meaning and therefore concentrates on the eighty-two occurrences of the verb (searching for the forms αὐθεντ- and ηὐθεντ- in the Greek Documentary CD-ROM [#6] and Thesaurus Linguae Graecae CD-ROM #D), not including the more than twenty direct references to 1 Tim 2:12 in the church fathers and the ten occurrences in Alexander Romance (because of dating problems). He gives a helpful listing of all these occurrences, Greek with English translation, in his “Appendix 2: αὐθεντέω in Ancient Greek Literature,” as well as a summary of all usages. He settles on five possible meanings of αὐθεντεῖν, and “the one unifying concept is that of authority” (73). (a) “To rule, to reign sovereignly: unhindered authority to act based on inherent or divine right.” (b) “To control, to dominate: reflecting authority from the standpoint of actually having control or ability to dominate an object” (which he firmly separates from “to domineer, tyrannize, coerce,” which results from improper domination). He cites Chrysostom’s statement that Eve “exercised authority once wrongly [ηὐθέντησεν ἅπαξ κακῶς],” the significance being that αὐθεντεῖν does not contain an inherently negative meaning as evidenced by the necessary addition of κακῶς, “wrongly.” He finds only one unambiguous instance where αὐθεντεῖν “is plainly intended to convey the negative meaning ‘tyrannize.’” (See also his comments on the appearance of “domineer” in BAGD, which is not necessarily a translation of the German herrschen über jemand [67j].) (c) “To act independently: being one’s own authority” is a meaning that occurs eight times and, he argues, is not inherently negative (but see his qualifications on the subcategory “to exercise one’s own jurisdiction”). (d) “To be primarily responsible for or to instigate something.” Baldwin claims that Kroeger and Kroeger have mistakenly taken this usage “to mean ‘to be the organic origin of something’ with a sense analogous to γεννάω or τίκτω”; rather, the five [Page 128] uses of αὐθεντεῖν with this meaning are closer to Lampe’s definition “to instigate,” showing that two of these five uses are directly paralleled by προϊστάναι, “to be the leader, to direct, to be the ringleader.” (e) “To commit murder.” Baldwin shows that while the cognate noun does have this meaning centuries earlier, the earliest use of the verb with this meaning is in the tenth century A.D. Baldwin also discusses the issue of whether the noun is the root of the verbal form and what, if any, are the implications. Of the several subdivisions of Baldwin’s five categories, he suggests four as possible in 1 Tim 2:12: “To control, to dominate; To compel, to influence; To assume authority over; To flout the authority of” (78–79).
The question of the meaning of αὐθεντεῖν is not insignificant. If it means “to exercise authority,” then Paul is prohibiting any type of authoritative teaching (see the next phrase) that places a woman over a man (cf. 1 Cor 11:2–12; Eph 5:22–33; 1 Pet 3:1–7). If it means “to domineer” in a negative sense, then it is prohibiting a certain type of authoritative teaching, one that is administered in a negative, domineering, coercive way, thus leaving the door open for women to exercise teaching authority in a proper way over men. While word studies have their limitations, as Baldwin points out, he has proven his point. His definition of αὐθεντεῖν is also supported by the context in 1 Timothy. The parallel of αὐθεντεῖν with διδάσκειν, “teaching,” suggests that it is a positive term (see below). Especially Kroeger and Kroeger’s translation raises serious contextual problems. It seems doubtful that Paul would prohibit only women (and not men) from teaching in a coercive way, especially since the text only names male opponents (1 Tim 1:20; 2 Tim 2:17–18; 4:14). This same argument applies to the suggestion that Paul is saying the women may not teach error (see above); in the PE neither women nor men are allowed to teach error.
A crucial question concerns the relationship between the two prohibitions, i.e., the significance of οὐδέ, which is translated here as “or.” (1) Some argue that the two prohibitions are a hendiadys, the use of two different terms to denote one concept. Paul would then be prohibiting women from authoritative teaching (or domineering teaching, depending upon the translation of αὐθεντεῖν; cf. Hurley, Biblical Perspective, 201; Payne, “οὐδέ”; Motyer, Vox Evangelica 24 [1994] 96; Saucy, JETS 37 [1994] 90; Boomsma, Male and Female, 72–73 [although Hurley’s and Saucy’s understandings of the meaning of the text differ significantly from the others]). The problem with this is that διδάσκειν and αὐθεντεῖν are separated by five words; words forming a hendiadys are usually side by side since the construction is used “to avoid a series of dependent genitives” (BDF §442[16]). Payne argues that the conjunction οὐδέ links not two unrelated terms but two related concepts in order to convey a “single coherent idea” (“οὐδέ,” 1). He likens it to the slang connective “’n” as in the phrase “hit ’n run” where the two different verbs, “hit” and “run,” describe one event. His translation is built on his conclusion that αὐθεντεῖν means “to domineer.” Payne concludes, “[οὐδέ] joins together two elements in order to convey a single coherent idea, or if it conveys two ideas these should be very closely interrelated. Since the two elements joined by οὐδέ in 1 Tim 2:12 are not nearly as closely interrelated as any of the other such pairs of separate ideas in the Pauline corpus, they should be translated as a single coherent idea” (“οὐδέ,” 4).
However, an examination of Payne’s examples shows that they do not prove his conclusion (cf. Moo, “What Does It Mean?” 187). For example, Gal 3:28 speaks of Jew and Gentile, slave and free. While they are related concepts and are expressing [Page 129] a coherent idea (i.e., all people), one does not define the other; in fact they are opposites (cf. Rom 11:21). If 1 Tim 2:12b is a principle and 2:12a a specific application, then they are very closely interrelated and even by Payne’s approach do not support his conclusion. He also appears to equate a single coherent idea with very closely related events; these are not the same. 1 Tim 6:16 is helpful. Speaking of God, Paul says, “whom no human has seen or [οὐδέ] is able to see.” The latter is a general principle out of which the former specific historical assertion comes. A. J. Köstenberger provides a detailed critique of Payne’s work (“Complex Sentence Structure,” 82–84):
Since Payne presupposes that αὐθεντεῖν means “domineer,” he concludes that “teach” and “domineer” by themselves are conceptually too far apart to be joined by οὐδέ (which usually joins closely related terms) in a coordinating manner. Thus, Payne views the second term joined by οὐδέ in 1 Timothy 2:12, αὐθεντεῖν, as subordinate to the first, διδάσκειν. But if αὐθεντεῖν were to mean “to have authority” rather than “to domineer,” it would be quite closely related to διδάσκειν, “to teach.” In that case, consistent with Payne’s own observation on how οὐδέ generally functions, οὐδέ could well link the two closely related terms, “to teach” and “to have authority,” in a coordinating fashion. (“Complex Sentence Structure,” 83)
Cf. also Payne’s shift in definition for the third category from “those which specify with greater clarity the meaning of one word or phrase by conjoining it with another word or phrase” (“οὐδέ,” 1) to “[οὐδέ joins] together two elements in order to convey a single coherent idea” (“οὐδέ,” 4).
Kroeger and Kroeger’s position is especially tenuous when they translate “I do not allow a woman to teach nor to proclaim herself author of man” (I Suffer Not a Woman, 103). οὐδέ is a negative conjunction (BAGD 591) and yet, in Liefeld’s words, “[C. C. Kroeger] seems to assume that the authenteo phrase expresses the object of the teaching” (“Response,” 246). Köstenberger asserts, “The effort to make αὐθεντεῖν subordinate to διδάσκειν so that it in effect functions as an adverb and to give it a negative connotation, as in ‘to teach in a domineering way,’ is contradicted by the fact that οὐδέ does not function as a subordinating but as a coordinating conjunction” (“Complex Sentence Structure,” 90).
(2) The second possibility is that διδάσκειν and αὐθεντεῖν are distinct yet related concepts, both of which are prohibited to women by Paul or the author of the PE (most commentaries; Moo, Trinity Journal 1 [1980] 68; Fung, “Ministry,” 199; Schreiner, “Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, ” 133–34). Köstenberger provides a detailed analysis of this construction: “infinitive + negated finite verb + οὐδέ + infinitive” (“Complex Sentence Structure,” 84–103, noting that there does not seem to be any significance syntactically that the first infinitive precedes the negated finite verb). While Payne limits his study to the Pauline literature and includes constructions with nouns, Köstenberger limits his searches to verbal parallels, not only in the NT but also in the extrabiblical literature. There is only one close syntactical parallel in the NT (Acts 16:21). If verbal forms of any kind are allowed, there are fifty-two. In the NT he finds two distinct patterns: “Two activities or concepts are viewed positively in and of themselves, but their exercise is prohibited or their existence denied due to circumstances or conditions adduced in the context; two activities or concepts are viewed negatively and consequently their exercise is prohibited or their existence denied or to be avoided” (85). The most significant point is that both verbal forms [Page 130] must be positive or they both must be negative. After giving a complete listing of parallels he concludes, “There are only two acceptable ways of rendering that passage: (1) ‘I do not permit a woman to teach [error] or to domineer over a man,’ or (2) ‘I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man” (89). Later he adds, “Since, therefore, the term διδάσκειν is viewed absolutely in the New Testament for an activity that is viewed positively in and of itself, and since οὐδέ coordinates terms that are either both viewed positively or negatively, αὐθεντεῖν should be seen as denoting an activity that is viewed positively in and of itself as well” (91; it might be better to look at διδάσκειν in the PE and not in the NT as a whole). Köstenberger then turns to the IBYCUS computer system and finds forty-eight syntactical parallels to 1 Tim 2:12 (he lists the results), discovering that the two patterns exist there as well. In a final note he categorizes the NT passages based on the nature of the relationships of the two verbal forms: synonymous, conceptually parallel, complementary, sequential, ascensive, general to specific, and specific to general, which is where he places 1 Tim 2:12 (103 n. 15). αὐθεντεῖν is not adverbial, modifying διδάσκειν, “to teach in a domineering way”: “Neither the syntactical parallels in the New Testament nor the extrabiblical parallels lend support to the contention that the second term linked by οὐδέ modifies the first term adverbially” (Köstenberger, “Complex Sentence Structure,” 90–91).
It seems therefore that Paul is prohibiting two separate events: teaching and acting in authority. The relationship that exists between the two is that of a principle and a specific application of that principle (cf. Spicq, 1:379–80; Moo, Trinity Journal 1 [1980] 67–68; Saucy, “Negative Case,” 278). In conclusion: Paul does not want women to be in positions of authority in the church; teaching is one way in which authority is exercised in the church. This agrees with the same pattern noted in vv 9–10; the principles of modesty and dress appropriate to one’s character find specific application in the proper adornment of hair. It may be added as a hermeneutical observation that the specificity of the application does not relegate the principle to the halls of cultural relativity.
WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
I permit not (οὐκ ἐπιτρεπω [ouk epitrepō]). Old word ἐπιτρεπω [epitrepō], to permit, to allow (I Cor. 16:7). Paul speaks authoritatively. To teach (διδασκειν [didaskein]). In the public meeting clearly. And yet all modern Christians allow women to teach Sunday school classes. One feels somehow that something is not expressed here to make it all clear. Nor to have dominion over a man (οὐδε αὐθεντειν ἀνδρος [oude authentein andros]). The word αὐθεντεω [authenteō] is now cleared up by Kretschmer (Glotta, 1912, pp. 289ff.) and by Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary. See also Nageli, Der Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus and Deissmann, Light, etc., pp. 88f. Αὐτοδικεω [Autodikeō] was the literary word for playing the master while αὐθεντεω [authenteō] was the vernacular term. It comes from αὐτ-̔εντες [aut-hentes], a self-doer, a master, autocrat. It occurs in the papyri (substantive αὐθεντης [authentēs], master, verb αὐθεντεω [authenteō], to domineer, adjective αὐθεντικος [authentikos], authoritative, “authentic”). Modern Greek has ἀφεντες [aphentes]=Effendi=“Mr.”
WORD STUDIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
12. Suffer (ἐπιτρέπω). Lit. turn over to; thence, permit. See 1 Cor. 14:34.
Usurp authority (αὐθεντεῖν). N. T.o. oLXX, oClass. It occurs in late ecclesiastical writers. The kindred noun αὐθέντης one who does a thing with his own hand, Wisd. 12:6, and also in Herodotus, Euripides, and Thucydides. Ἀυθεντία right, 3 Macc. 2:29. The verb means to do a thing one’s self; hence, to exercise authority. The A. V. usurp authority is a mistake. Rend. to have or exercise dominion over.
WUEST’S WORD STUDIES IN THE GREEK
(2:11, 12) Paul is still dealing with the conduct of women in the assemblies. This admonition to the effect that women are to learn in silence with all subjection, is made clear as to its meaing by I Corinthians 14:34, 35, where the women were disturbing the church service by asking their husbands questions, presumably about that which was being preached. The silence here and in our I Timothy passage has to do with maintaining quiet in the assembly, and does not forbid a woman to take an active part in the work of the church in her own sphere and under the limitations imposed upon her in the contextual passage (I Tim. 2:12).
The correct understanding of Paul’s words, “I suffer not a woman to teach,” are dependent upon the tense of the Greek infinitive and the grammatical rule pertaining to it. In the case of the infinitive, the Greek has a choice between the present and aorist tenses, and he can use either at will, since the time element in the tense of the infinitive is not considered. When the Greek desires to refer only to the fact of the action denoted by the infinitive, without referring to details, he uses the aorist. Should he use any other tense, he is going out of his way to add details, and the student must pay particular attention to his choice of the tense.
Dana and Mantey in their Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (p. 199) have this to say on the subject: “The aorist infinitive denotes that which is eventual or particular, while the present infinitive indicates a condition or process. Thus pisteusai (πιστευσαι) (aorist) is to exercise faith on a given occasion, while pisteuein (πιστευειν) (present) is to be a believer; douleusai (δουλευσαι) (aorist) is to render a service, while douleuein (δουλευειν) (present) is to be a slave; hamartein (ἁμαρτειν) (aorist) is to commit a sin, while hamartanein (ἁμαρτανειν) (present) is to be a sinner.” Thus, didaxai (διδαξαι) (aorist), is to teach, while didaskein (διδασκειν) (present 2:12), is to be a teacher. Paul, therefore, says, “I do not permit a woman to be a teacher.” The context here has to do with church order, and the position of the man and woman in the church worship and work. The kind of teacher Paul has in mind is spoken of in Acts 13:1, I Corinthians 12:28, 29, and Ephesians 4:11, God-called, and God-equipped teachers, recognized by the Church as those having authority in the Church in matters of doctrine and interpretation. This prohibition of a woman to be a teacher, does not include the teaching of classes of women, girls, or children in a Sunday School, for instance, but does prohibit the woman from being a pastor, or a doctrine teacher in a school. It would not be seemly, either, for a woman to teach a mixed class of adults.
The expression, “usurp authority,” Vincent says, is not a correct translation of the Greek word. It is rather, “to exercise dominion over.” In the sphere of doctrinal disputes or questions of interpretation, where authoritative pronouncements are to be made, the woman is to keep silence.
Translation. Let a woman be learning in silence with all subjection. Moreover, I do not permit a woman to be a teacher, neither to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence.
THE WYCLIFFE BIBLE COMMENTARY
11, 12. The remainder of the chapter discusses official relations of women in the church. These two verses must be taken together: women are not to assume either leadership or the teaching office in the church. 13. To illustrate the principle of masculine leadership, Paul cites the order of creation, as establishing the man’s natural headship (I Cor 11:8, 9). 14. Adam was not deceived. This is to be taken relatively; Adam was deceived, but not so completely as the woman. The same Greek word is used of Adam followed deliberately instead of assuming leadership to repel the tempter’s suggestions
