μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα :: One-Woman-Man

The phrase μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα in 1 Tim 3:2 has often been misunderstood and used in inappropriate ways. The phrase literally refers to a “one-women-man.” While some have suggested polygamy as the background, this is unlikely.[1] It is also unlikely that this refers to the requirement for an overseer to have a wife.  Rather, many scholars take this as a reference to marital faithfulness, understanding this as the quality of relationships expected from those who are married.[2]

I would like to suggest that the counterpart in 1 Tim 5:9 adds to the probability of this interpretation. In 5:9 Paul refers to ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνη, literally a “one-man-women.” In the first century women were not allowed to have multiple husbands or partners. Next, the context of chapter five is a discussion of widows (χήρα). The phrase must therefore refer to the quality of relationship experienced between the widow and her now deceased husband. To be accepted as a widow on the list, the widow must have been faithful in her marital relationship.

Thus, in 3:2, where Paul is discussing the character of leaders, it does not refer to the marital status required for those who are overseers, but rather the quality of relationship expected from those who are or were married. And thus, it refers to fidelity in marriage. This fits well with the whole section which focuses more on character qualifications than on status.

Douglas Moo acknowledges that this phrase need not exclude “unmarried men or females from the office … it would be going too far to argue that the phrase clearly excludes women….”[3] Thomas Schreiner acknowledges, “The requirements for elders in 1 Tim 3:1–7 and Titus 1:6–9, including the statement that they are to be one-woman men, does not necessarily in and of itself preclude women from serving as elders….”[4]

This is consistent with the argument above which notes that the most plausible explanation is to take the phrase μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα as a reference to marital fidelity.

See further: What is the meaning of “husband of one wife” (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα) in 1 Timothy 3:2? and Does “One-Woman Man” in 1 Timothy 3:2 Require that All Overseers be Male? 

NOTES

 

[1] Although, S. M. Baugh, “Titus,” in Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary ed. C. E. Arnold (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 3:501-2, suggests that this may be a directive prohibiting men from having concubines, and thus committing adultery, which amounts to polygamy.

[2] Sydney Page, “Marital Expectations of Church Leaders in the Pastoral Epistles,” JSNT 50 (1993): 105-20 and Towner 250-51 n. 42.

[3] Douglas J. Moo, “The Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11–15: A Rejoinder,” Trinity Journal 2 NS (1981): 198–222, 211.

[4] Thomas R. Schreiner’s “Philip Payne on Familiar Ground: A Review of Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters.” JBMW (Spring 2010): 33–46, 35.

Why Complementarians are Wrong about 1 Tim 2:12

I recently participated in a conversation about Women in Leadership, and the focus was on Women in the New Testament, and especially 1 Timothy 2:12. 

During the discussion I noticed something that I've not realised before.  Paul's injunction, I am permitting no woman to teach or to dominate a man, is a blanket statement with no exceptions provided.  This is not the way complementarians understand this verse.  Complementarians understand this verse to mean that women are not allowed to teach men, but ἀνδρός, is a separate part of the statement relating to αὐθεντεῖν, and Paul does not say that women are not allowed to teach men, but rather that they are not allowed teach, as well as not being allowed to dominate men.

We are stuck with two options.  Either this blanket prohibition forms a contradiction with a passage like Titus 2:3, where women are to teach what is good (καλοδιδασκάλους); or we understand that this is a contextually determined statement, and the women are not to teach in this situation because they are part of the problem of spreading heresy (1 Tim 5:13-15; 2 Tim 3:6), and thus they are instructed to learn (μανθανέτω). 

The more I read the Pastoral Epistles, the more I am convinced this is a highly contextual letter, and attempts to read it without reference to the socio-historical context are dangerously misleading. 

Arsenokoités - ἀρσενοκοίτης - Responding to Dale Martin #3

3. Usage and Meaning

Martin draws attention to its various usages in various contexts and claims that these contexts provide the interpretive clues to understanding this term. Martin cites one example where the term is found, “among vices related to economic injustice or exploitation.” And that is in the Jewish writing, Sibylline Oracles. Martin suggests that the term relates to some kind of economic exploitation relating to sex, but not necessarily homosexual activity. How Martin arrives at his understanding that this word pertains to sex, without appealing to some etymological understanding, we are not told. Furthermore, John J. Collins, an expert on the Sibylline Oracles suggests no hesitation in understanding, and translates, μὴ ἀρσενοκοιτεῖν, categorically as, “Do not practice homosexuality” (Sib. Or. 2:73).  When there are other ambiguous words in this writing, Collins provides some comment. But with regards to ἀρσενοκοίτης, he does not. This suggests that there is no ambiguity with regards to the meaning of this word. And contextual factors are obscured by the fact that this writing contains various interpolations that may have separated this section from its original context.

Next Martin appeals to the Acts of John, and makes the kind of argument that this relates to some kind of economic exploitation because it does not occur in contexts which discuss other sexual sins. However, what Martin fails to disclose is the context of the passage, and how critical editions of the Acts of John have translated this particular passage. J. K. Elliott’s, The Apocryphal New Testament, which provides a critical translation of these texts, offers the following translation: “In like manner the poisoner, sorcerer, robber, defrauder, sodomite, thief, and all who belong to that band, accompanied by your works you shall go into the fire that never shall be quenched, to utter darkness, to the pit of torture, and to external damnation” (Acts of John 36). The context is one of the apostle John pronouncing judgement on the men of Ephesus for various activities which shall incur the wrath of God. The list which contains various activities which are illustrative of pagan society that has rejected God and thus shall face judgement. The list is reminiscent of Romans 1:18-32, which is a standard Jewish critique of pagan practice culminating in a pronouncement of judgement by God.

What Martin fails to note, and we may only speculate why, is the specific Christian contexts in which this word is found. 1 Cor. 6:9, issues a list of activities that, if characteristic of the Christian life, will mean a forfeiting of God’s kingdom. In this list Paul appeals to several sexual sins, πόρνοι (illicit sexual activity); μοιχοὶ (adultery); μαλακοὶ (passive homosexual practice); ἀρσενοκοῖται (active homosexual practice). The context here is clearly sexual sins that if habitually practiced will entail a forfeiting of God’s kingdom.

Then, the list in 1 Tim 1:10, is prefaced by a statement affirming the goodness of Torah (1 Tim. 1:9), and then Paul offers a list that echoes various elements of the Torah, and perhaps even the Decalogue. This provides a contextual clue for how Paul understood ἀρσενοκοίται, and confirms the appeal to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. The Mosaic moral code is explicitly appealed to as an aid to instruct those who engage in the list of vices mentioned in these verses. The addition of the phrase, “and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me” (1 Tim 1:10-11), suggests that this list is not exhaustive, but rather illustrative of vices that are destructive for God’s people.

Finally, we may appeal to another specific from the early Christian letter of Polycarp, who writes the following to younger men in the city of Philippi.

Polycarp, Phil. 5:3

Similarly, the younger men must be blameless in all things; they should be concerned about purity above all, reining themselves away from all evil. For it is good to be cut off from the sinful desires in the world, because every sinful desire wages war against the Spirit, and neither fornicators nor me who have sex with men (whether as the passive or as the active partner - οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται) will inherit the kingdom of God, nor will those who do perverse things. Therefore one must keep away from all these things and be obedient to the presbyters and deacons as to God and Christ. The young women must maintain a pure and blameless conscience.

The context given here is specifically that of sexual desires and activities that may defile the community. Polycarp appeals to the congregation to have self-control concerning these desires, and in a passage reminiscent of 1 Cor. 6:9, warns of the devastating consequences of those who participate in such activities.

Why has Martin not mentioned these contexts in his contextual analysis? Is it because it radically undermines his case that the word relates to economic exploitation? His case rests on one contextual case from the Sibylline Oracles which is plagued with textual issues, and experts who offer no comment on the supposed ambiguity of the word; one reference from the Acts of John, which does not help his case; and finally the avoidance of counter-evidence which directly undermines his case. Martin’s contextual argument has not been demonstrated, and fails to convince. Rather, a contextual analysis confirms the etymological analysis provided above, that this word was created with reference to Lev. 18:22 and 20:13, with which most scholars agree. Furthermore, this fits accurately within the context of Second Temple Judaism, with its overwhelming critique of homosexual practice.

Arsenokoités - ἀρσενοκοίτης - Responding to Dale Martin #2b

At this point we must cite the conclusion of Dan O. Via, a New Testament scholar who advocates for homosexual unions. 

I believe that Hays is correct in holding that arsenokoitēs refers to a man who engages in same-sex intercourse (Hays 1997, 97). The term is a compound of the words for “male” (arsēn) and “bed” (koitē) and thus could naturally be taken to mean a man who goes to bed with other men. True the meaning of a compound word does not necessarily add up to the sum of its parts (Martin 119). But in this case I believe the evidence suggests that it does. In the Greek version of the two Leviticus passages that condemn male homosexuality (Lev 18:22; 20:13) a man is not to lie with a male as with a woman each text contains both the words arsēn and koitē. First Cor 6:9-10 simply classifies homosexuality as a moral sin that finally keeps one out of the kingdom of God.

Dan O. Via and Robert A. J. Gagnon, Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 13.

Thus, there is no ideological bias here.  Our quest here is historical accuracy, with little thought for the practical consequences that follow from the conclusions reached. 

Arsenokoités - ἀρσενοκοίτης - Responding to Dale Martin #2

2. Etymology

ἀρσενοκοίτης is a compound word which is derived from two words, ἄρσην (male) and κοίτη (a bed; sexual promiscuity). To decipher it’s meaning, it would be helpful to look at other similar compound words. Wright provides a list of various compound words which have the -χοίτης suffix. These are, χλεψιχοίτης, refers to someone seeking illicit sex; δουλοχοίτης, refers to sexual relations with slaves; μητροκοίτης, to sexual relations with one’s mother; πολυχοίτoς, sexual relations with many people; and ἀνδρoχοίτoς, one who has sex with a man. These compounds are important to note, because they offer direct evidence against Martin, who claims that, “It is highly precarious to try to ascertain the meaning of a word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts.” All of the above compound words gain their meaning from their component parts and thus do provide supporting evidence that there were many variations of the -χοίτoς, group that gained their meaning from their component parts. Thus Martin’s appeal to an etymological fallacy on the part of those who take this as a reference to same-sex activity is mistaken.

Wright’s list of compound words lists ἀνδρoχοίτoς, one who has sex with a man. This raises the question about why Paul used ἀρσενοκοίτης instead of ἀνδρoχοίτoς. The reason for this is clear when we see the origin of ἀρσενοκοίτης.

Lev. 18:22

•  καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν
• You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Lev. 20:13

•  ὃς ἂν κοιμηθῇ μετὰ ἄρσενος κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα ἐποίησαν ἀμφότεροι θανατούσθωσαν ἔνοχοί εἰσιν
• If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

As you can see, the bold/underlined parts of the Greek phrase are strikingly similar, almost exactly so, to the word ἀρσενοκοίτης.  Hence, most scholars take this as the idiom from which the word ἀρσενοκοίτης was coined. As Wright notes, “If, as seems likely, the ἀρσενοκοίτ- group of words is a coinage of Hellenistic Judaism or Hellenistic Jewish Christianity, the probability that the LXX provides the key to their meaning is strengthened.” Thus, the component parts of the word contribute to its meaning, and the LXX references to Leviticus provide the origin and context of this specific word, both suggest that the meaning relates to male homosexual activity.

We may now explore whether there are further reasons to accept this basic understanding, or whether it gained some specific nuanced meanings in other contexts.

Arsenokoités - ἀρσενοκοίτης - Responding to Dale Martin #1

In this brief section I will offer critical comments on the meaning and usage of ἀρσενοκοίτης (and cognates), as well as a critical interaction with the proposal of Dale Martin.

1. Lexical Definitions

The first place to begin any serious investigation of biblical texts, is with the original languages. This raises several questions of interpretation and nuance in understanding the semantic range of particular words under consideration. When faced with the complexities of New Testament linguistic investigation, the student of these scriptures has several standard tools which have been tested through decades of scholarship and remain the standard and primary reference tools for scholars. These resources are periodically updated to keep up to date with the latest in scholarship, and they also represent a wide variety of ideological views, thus eliminating biased approaches. The quickest way to identity linguistic ambiguity in a given word, is to see the semantic range given by the various lexicons and dictionaries.

If there was ambiguity with the word ἀρσενοκοίτης, we would see this ambiguity reflected in the definitions offered by the following representative lexicons and dictionaries.

• BDAG, “A male who engages in sexual activity with a person of his own sex.”

• Louw-Nida, “Male partner in homosexual intercourse – ‘homosexual.’”

• Balz & Schneider, “Referring to a male who engages in sexual activity with men or boys.”

• NIDNTT, “male homosexual, pederast, sodomite.”

• LSJ, “lying with men, N.T.”

• Gingrich, “one who engages in same-sex activity, sodomite, pederast.”

There is no ambiguity mentioned in any of the lexicons above, and these are the standard tools for academic lexical, philogical and semantic analysis. The only lexicon to offer any semantic range beyond that of same-sex activity, is Louw-Nida which suggests that, “It is possible that ἀρσενοκοίτης in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with μαλακός, the passive male partner (88.281).”  Note, it says that it is possible, not that it always works like this.  Bruce Winter has provided a substantial argument for this position in 1 Cor. 6:9 [See B. W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth]. 

Next we'll offer a critique of Martin's appeal to the etymological fallacy. 

Contextual Summary on Why Paul Prohibited Women Teaching in 1 Tim 2:12

Paul’s letter to Timothy and it’s various instructions must be understood within the context within which it was written. The letter itself provides most of the evidence needed to reconstruct the problem, and understand Paul’s instructions within that context. Paul is writing to Timothy to deal with a serious problem of false teaching and those who are spreading it (1:3-4; 6-7; 19-20). A careful reading of the letters to Timothy reveal that Paul describes these false teachers in strikingly similar ways to the way certain women are described.


In 1:4, the problem is various “myths” (μύθοις) and in 4:7 “myths” (μύθους) characterise some of the old women. In 1:4, the false teachers “promote controversies” and in 5:14 the widows are instructed not to give an enemy opportunity for slander, with 3:11 stating “women must … not be malicious talkers.” Then in 1:6 “some persons (τινες) want to be teachers of the law but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.” While in 2:14 Paul notes that, “the woman are thoroughly deceived.”

The problem is acutely stated in 1 Tim 5:13 which describes certain women as, “going about from house to house… talking nonsense, saying things they ought not …” The same situation is described in 2 Tim 3:6-7, where the writer notes that there are those, “who make their way into households and take captive ignorant women.” In 4:1: “some persons (τινες) will follow deceiving spirits of things taught by demons” and in 5:15 “already some [younger widows] have turned away to follow Satan.” They have, according to 5:11 “set aside their first faith.”

Thus when Paul states the problem in the opening verse 1:3: “certain persons (τισὶν) teach false doctrines” he has in mind that there are false teachers who have persuaded certain women to believe their false teaching and they are now spreading that false teaching. Paul’s response to this is clear in 2:11, “let a woman receive instruction with submissiveness … without disruption” and 2:12: “I am not permitting a woman to teach.” The reason for this is abundantly clear: Women have been deceived, just like the example of Eve in 2:14. Paul’s instruction is that they should receive instruction and not be allowed to presently teach because what they are teaching is false and dangerous. Paul offers a temporary injunction on women teaching so that they can learn the truth of the gospel.

I imagine that after they have learned, they would resume normal teaching responsibilities as did Phoebe in Romans 16:1; Priscilla in Acts 18:26; and implied in her apostolic status, Junia in Romans 16:7.

The Opponents in the Pastoral Epistles #2

The quest to understand and identify the opponents has left many an interpreter confused.  The simple fact is that our data is incomplete, and we do not have a full profile of these "opponents".  However, that does not mean we are completely ignorant about them, and today I'd like to propose that the opponents were Christians. 

We may draw from several strands of evidence within the letters to come to this conclusion.  Firstly, 1 Tim 1:6-7 speaks of those who have "deviated" [ἀστοχήσαντες] from the faith.  Then, in 1:19-20 the author speaks of Hymenaeus and Alexander, as those who have “shipwrecked the faith.”  This suggests that they had faith, or were faithful, but now this has been destroyed.  The result of this shipwrecking of faith, is that they have been "delivered to satan so that they may learn not to blaspheme.” 

The second letter to Timothy speaks in a similar fashion of those, namely Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have “swerved from the truth” [2:18]  This suggests that they had the truth, but have now abandoned it in favour of a different view.  In 3:8 the author uses Jannes and Jambres as an illustration of the opponents who have a "corrupt mind and counterfeit faith". 

Thus, we may conclude that the opponents identified within the letters to Timothy were at one stage part of the Christian community in Ephesus, and were at one stage considered fellow Christians. 

The Purpose of 1 Timothy

1 Tim 1:3-7 - a working translation.

Just as I urged you to remain in Ephesus, as I was going into Macedonia, so that you may command/instruct certain people a) not to teach a different/divisive doctrine; b) not to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies which give rise to useless/empty speculation rather than focussing on the work/economy of God [“the way God has organised life”] which is by/through trust/faithfulness.

The goal of [this] instruction is love from a pure heart; a conscience that is good; and trust that is sincere, which some have missed out on by turning to meaningless conversations; desiring to be teachers of the law and yet not having understanding about that which they are so confident in communicating.

1 Timothy, like Galatians, opens without a “thanksgiving” prayer. The prayer is delayed until 1:12-17, where Paul gives thanks as it relates to his own experiences and mission, and not for Timothy and the audience. Rather, what we find in this opening section is the programme for the letter as a whole. Here we have mention of the decisive issue that will shape our entire understanding of this letter, and how it must be understood within its specific context, dealing as it does with the specific issues at hand. Timothy is charged with protecting the gospel, and the community created by the gospel, because there are some within the community who have turned.

The key to understanding the letter lies in taking seriously that Paul’s stated reason in 1:3 for leaving Timothy in Ephesus is the real one; namely, that he had been left there to combat some false teachers, whose asceticism and speculations based on the Law are full of empty words, engendering strife and causing many to go astray. [Fee, God's Empowering Presence, 757.]

This is a corrective letter, much like 1 Corinthians and Galatians. This suggests that as we read this letter, and each section that makes up this letter, we should constantly be aware of this major issue currently plaguing the Christian community in Ephesus. This problem forms the matrix within which we are to read and understand Paul’s letter.

Theological Presuppositions and Authorship Issues

In discussing issues of the authorship of the New Testament writings, I often hear the claim that if one accepts a high view of Scripture, one should never entertain thoughts of pseudonymity (the view that someone other than the named "author" has written the particular writing in question).  The converse of this, is that only "liberals" embrace ideas of pseudonymous writings in the New Testament canon. 

And yet I wish to suggest that it is not as simple as, holding to view "A" of Scripture, that therefore one automatically holds to view "Z" of authorship. I know quite a few scholars who have a very high view of Scripture and it's authority, and yet for evidential reasons cannot accept that Paul wrote certain letters within the canon. Howard Marshall is perhaps the best example of someone who holds to a high view of Scripture, and yet does not think Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles.  Equally, I know of so-called "liberal" scholars who do not have a high view of Scripture and yet hold to the view that some of the disputed writings were in fact written by the named author. 

One cannot come to a conclusion on the issue of authorship, based on a theological presupposition.  That is an invalid move.  How can a theological conclusion change a historical event/process? 

The reason the writings of the New Testament are considered authoritative is because they are understood to be inspired by the Spirit. It is on the basis of their divine inspiration that they are authoritative, and not on the basis of the specific human author that was an inspired instrument (although, historically speaking, it seems likely that many of the writings were chosen because of who authored them [could Hebrews be the exception?]). While these specific writings are inspired they are also human products, in that human processes--including language, style, rhetoric, etc., are part and parcel of these writings. Pseudepigraphy could also be a part of that historical process that gave birth to the writings known as the New Testament.   As Paul Trebilco notes,

We should note that pseudonymous writing was not considered improper in the ancient world, and was common in Judaism.  If the Pastorals are by someone other than Paul the author, who stands in the Pauline tradition and has been considerably influenced by Paul, would be applying the Pauline tradition to new problems in some Pauline churches in his own day, and would be expressing what he believed Paul would have said.  However, because he saw himself as faithful to Paul's understanding, he wrote in his name.  Scholars argue that this was in no way to attempt to deceive; rather it was a way of acknowledging his indebtedness to Paul's theology. 

[Paul Trebilco, and Simon Rae, 1 Timothy. Asia Bible Commentary Series. (Singapore: Asia Theological Association, 2006), 3.]

Conclusions concerning the authorship of a particular writing should be judged on the external and internal evidence of each specific writing, and not assumed due to a theological presupposition.

The Opponents in the Pastoral Epistles #1

Despite the numerous scholarly attempts to ascertain both the nature of the disease and the author’s precise definition of “healthy teaching,” the issue remains unresolved because the author’s purpose was not to draw a profile of this disease, but to warn against it. The primary focus is not the nature of the heresy, but the moral consequences of both healthy and unhealthy instruction. [Thompson, Moral Formation according to Paul, 200-1.]

The origin of this "disease" is found in those who are commonly referred to as the "opponents".  The opponents of Paul/Timothy/Titus in these letters are addressed throughout the letters, but more specifically in 1 Tim 1:3-7; 1:19-20; 4:1-3, 7; 6:3-5; 6:20-21; 2 Tim 2:14-18; 2:22-26; 3:1-9; 4:3-5; Titus 1:10-16; 3:9-11. While we are not able to draw a profile of the details of the false teaching and the opponents, there are certain things that we can know about them. What follows is an engagement with the evidence and argument presented by Paul Trebilco in The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius.

Trebilco, notes that “Much of what the Pastor writes about the opponents is general; in fact it seems very likely that much of the language used in a number of passages against the opponents is typical of the polemic that philosophers used against the Sophists” [Trebilco, 209-10]. 

The conclusion Trebilco draws from this similarity, with Towner, is that we therefore cannot be certain that the description given, for example in 2 Tim 3:2-5, actually describes said opponents because this is a standard description.  Towner notes that "By and large the purpose of this catalogue was to identity the opponents as belonging to the apostates of 'the last days'" [Towner, The Goal of Our Instruction, 28]. 

While these conclusions are sound, I wonder if there is not more to the comparison.  What if the author of these writings is using a standard critique of the Sophists in an analogous way.  Perhaps the author wants the audience to realise that he is a true "philosopher" unlike the Sophists who seek to take advantage of people.  Perhaps the author wishes to denounce the opposition by this very comparison, that his Philosophy is "sound" and "healthy" (using language from the Philosophers (see Malherbe, "Medical Imagery in the Pastoral Epistles"), and that his opponents teaching is a "disease" that stems from a corrupt source, and produces corrupt lives. 

Perhaps these descriptions are not merely part of the standard critique, but do help us to understand the author's reasons for using this specific polemic. 

Translations of 1 Timothy 2:12

Linda L. Belleville, in her insightful and helpful essay, “Teaching and Usurping Authority: 1 Timothy 2:11-15,” in Discovering Biblical Equality. Complementarity without Hierarchy. eds. R. W. Pierce and R. M. Groothuis, with G. D. Fee. (Illinois: IVP, 2004, 205-223) offers a list of the way bibles have translated 1 Tim 2:12, διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.  

With this she shows how the often debated word αὐθεντεῖν has been understood from the 2nd century, through the ages. 

Old Latin (2nd-4th cent. A.D.): "I permit not a woman to teach, neither to dominate a man [neque dominari viro]" 

Vulgate (4th-5th): "I permit not a woman to teach, neither to domineer over a man [neque dominari in virum]!' 

Geneva (1560 edition): "I permit not a woman to teache, nether to vfurpe authoritie ouer the man"

Casiodoro de Reina (1569): "I do not permit the woman to teach neither to take [tomar] authority over the man/'

Bishops (1589): "I suffer not a woman to teach, neither to usurpe authoritie over the man.

KJV (1611): "I suffer not a woman to teach nor usurp authority over a man."

L, Segond (1910): "I do not permit the woman to teach, neither to take [prendre] authority over the man."

Goodspeed (1923): "I do not allow women to teach or to domineer over men"

La Sainte (1938): "I do not permit the woman to teach, neither to take [prendre] authority over the man "

NEB (1961): "I do not permit a woman to be a teacher, nor must woman domineer over man."

JBCerf (1973): "I do not permit the woman to teach, neither to lay down the law for the man."

REB (1989): "I do not permit women to teach or dictate to the men."

New Translation (1990): "I do not permit a woman to teach or dominate men."

CEV (1991): "They should... not be allowed to teach or to tell men what to do!'

The Message (1993): "I don't let women take over and tell the men what to do!'

Belleville states that, "In fact, there is a virtually unbroken tradition, stemming from the oldest versions and running down to the twenty-first century, that translates authentein as to dominate rather than to exercise authority over."  The pedigree of this view is impressive.  Those who wish to argue that αὐθεντεῖν means to exercise authority, must offer some explanation for the history of how this term has been understood.  

For what it's worth, Sean du Toit (2012) translates it the following way: I am not allowing a woman to teach (nor/so as/and) to dominate a man; she is to keep calm/respectful (non-disruptive).  The brackets and slash's indicate where grammar and semantic range come into play, and require further comments and investigation.  

The Problem with Silence in 1 Tim 2:12

ἡσυχία is an interesting word, usually translated as "silent" in 1 Tim 2:12.  But this seems an unlikely translation, as a brief tour of the lexical data will show.  BDAG, #3463 describes the concept with the following: 

1. state of quietness without disturbance, quietness, rest (Diod. S. 4, 2, 2 opp. to accompaniment of thunder and lightning; 16, 13, 2 without any fanfare; 18, 9, 3 without experiencing disturbance; Diog. L. 9, 21 of a quiet scholar’s life w. implied contrast of being engaged in public affairs; Pind., P. 1, 70  ‘to harmonious peace’ among citizens; Jos., Ant. 18, 245 opp. bustle of city life)  Hm 5, 2, 6 (TestAbr A 1 p. 77, 3 [Stone p. 2]). Of living in a way that does not cause disturbance (Mel., HE 4, 26, 6) 2 Th 3:12; Sotades 6, 8f [Coll. Alex. p. 241]; in Diod. S. [s. above] and SIG 1109, 64f of an injunction to bit-players in a cultic drama not to overplay or ‘ham it up’; UPZ 8, 17 [161 BC]; BGU 614; Sir 28:16). to have respite from someth. ApcPt 17:32.
2. state of saying nothing or very little, silence (Pla., Ep. 2, 312c; Pr 11:12; Philo, Rer. Div. Her. 14; Jos., Ant. 3, 67) IEph 15:2. in silence (Philo, Somn. 2, 263) 1 Ti 2:11f; IEph 19:1. quiet down, give a hearing (cp. Jos., Ant. 5, 235; cp. Just., D. 115, 5) Ac 22:2 (is it prob. that here such concepts as ‘reverence’, ‘devotion’, ‘respect’ may have some influence? Cp. Dio Chrys. 68 [18], 10: Herodotus should be read ‘with much respect’). 21:40 D (cp. Dio Chrys. 13 [7], 26; Philo, Vi. Cont. 75).—Schmidt, Syn. IV 248-64. DELG s.v. M-M. TW. Spicq. Sv. 

Louw-Nida #3050 make similar comments:  ἡσυχία: a state of undisturbed quietness and calm - 'quiet circumstances, undisturbed life.'  

We should note that ἡσυχία is not usually used to refer to “silence” in Paul’s letters, but rather “calmness” and the absence of disruption (1 Thess 4:11; 2 Thess 3:12; 1 Tim 2:2; cf. 1 Pet 3:4).[1]  In 1 Tim 2:2, the community is encouraged to live a ἡσύχιον βίον, which certainly does not mean a muted life, but rather one that is calm and peaceful, not disruptive and causing trouble.  Thus, it seems that something similar to BDAG option #1 is being advocated in 1 Tim 2:12.  The women who are deceived, are to cultivate an ability to learn in a calm and non-disruptive manner, obeying what is being taught.  In this way, they will learn the truth, which will affect the way they live.  This knowledge combined with praxis will ultimately *save* them (1 Tim 2:15).  Even in the second option provided by BDAG, the word appears to refer to not strict silence, but the demeanour of quietness and respect, of listening carefully.  Thus, either way, our writer is advocating a position of calm, non-disruptive learning.  This is especially focussed on those who are deceived, and those who are sharing the false teaching in this Christian community (1 Tim 5:13-15).  This injunction is thus aimed directly at those women who have been causing trouble in the community, the men having already been excommunicated (1 Tim 1:20).  

It is not enough to merely read the various bold options given in BDAG.  We must carefully sift through how the word is used by various writers and understand the concept to which it refers.  And in this case, the concept does not strictly refer to pure silence, but rather the demeanour and character of those who are calm, non-disruptive, not making a fuss but learning respectfully.  

---

[1] When Paul does want to refer to “silence” he uses a different word, σιγάω, found in Rom 16:25; 1 Cor 14:28, 30, 34.

Adam in 1 Tim 2:13-14

The mention of these two figures in this passage has perplexed many interpreters.  While much of the focus has been on Eve, see here, I’ve recently been thinking through the function of Adam in this section. 

For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was wholly deceived and became a transgressor.

What does the temporal priority of Adam, that he was created first, have to do with anything in this passage?  And why is it important to note that Adam was not deceived?  If as we have suggested before, Eve provides us with a helpful paradigm for understanding the problem with some of the women in Ephesus, being deceived and thus transgressing, then I wish to suggest that Adam plays much the same role in this passage.  Keener provides a helpful insight by noting the following:

Paul intends to connect Eve’s later creation to why she was deceived: she was not present when God gave the commandment, and thus was dependent on Adam for the teaching.  In other words, she was inadequately educated – like the women in the Ephesian church.[1]  

Ben Witherington further comments on this issue by stating,

[T]he reason why Paul mentions that Adam was formed first, before he speaks about Eve, is to remind the audience of the context of the story in Genesis 2.  That story is quite clear that Adam alone was formed and was present for God’s original instructions about what was prohibited.  Eve was not there for proper divine instruction, and thus she was more susceptible to deception.[2]  

Both these writers hint at, though do not explore, the role that Adam plays in this story.  Adam provides another illustration of this situation in Ephesus, elders (those who were Christians for a long time, and thus temporally before others?), have not instructed the people well.  This has led to some of the women being deceived, which has led to transgressions.  The problem started with Adam, and his poor teaching.  Even though he was not deceived, it was partly due to him that Eve was deceived and transgressed. 

One may perhaps accuse this line of reasoning of reading too much into these two short verses, but that need not be the case.  Many commentators that I have consulted suggest two specific elements that need to be in play when reading this passage.  Firstly, that the story in Genesis 2-3 provides the matrix within which to read and understand these references.  Secondly, that Eve is an illustration or type of the women in Ephesus.  What I am proposing is that Adam is just as much in view in this story as is Eve.  I am proposing that the explanation offered for the prohibition in 2:12 accurately illustrates two central problems in Ephesus, bad teaching and deception.[3]  And this passage provides a warning to the Church in Ephesus, as well as an explanation for the prohibition offered in 2:12.  It is because of bad teaching and deception that Paul issues the injunction that women should not be teaching, but rather learning.  It also explains the insistence throughout these letters on "healthy" teaching, and "sound doctrine."  

Thoughts?  Comments?  Criticisms?  All welcome.  

---

[1] Keener, Paul, Women and Wives, 116.

[2] Witherington, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John, 229.

[3] “[T]he conjunction gar (“for”) typically introduces an explanation for what precedes, not a cause.”  Belleville, “Teaching and Usurping Authority,” 222.  Italics original.

Overseers and Instructions to Women in the Pastoral Epistles

Below is a brief table that explores the various qualifications for leadership listed in 1 Tim 3:1-7, and the instructions to women.  I sense, given the similarities of instruction, that this is caused by the problems Paul and Timothy are dealing with in Ephesus, especially by the false teachers who have targeted women. 

Qualifications for Overseers (1 Tim 3:1-7)	Instructions to Women
καλὸν ἔργον, “good work”	ἔργον ἀγαθὸν, “good work” (2:10); καλὸν ἔργον, “good work” (5:10)
ἀνεπίλημπτος, “above reproach”	ἀνεπίλημπτος, “above reproach” (5:7)
μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, “‘one-women’ man”	ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή, “‘one-man women’” (5:9)
νηφάλιος,”clear-minded”	νηφάλιος,”clear-minded” (3:11)
σώφρων, “self-controlled”	σώφρων, “self-controlled” (2:9, 15)
κόσμιος, “dignified”	κόσμιος, “dignified” (2:9); σεμνος, “dignified” (3:11)
φιλόξενος, “hospitable”	ξενοδοχέω, “to show hospitality” (5:10)
τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου καλῶς προϊστάμενον, τέκνα ἔχοντα ἐν ὑποταγῇ, “must lead his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way” (3:4)	τέκνων καλῶς προϊστάμενοι καὶ τῶν ἰδίων οἴκων, “bear children, and manage their own households well,” (3:12); οἰκοδεσποτέω, “lead” (5:14)
ἵνα μὴ εἰς ὀνειδισμὸν ἐμπέσῃ καὶ παγίδα τοῦ διαβόλου, “so that he may not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil” (3:7)	μηδεμίαν ἀφορμὴν διδόναι τῷ ἀντικειμένῳ λοιδορίας χάριν, “giving the accuser no opportunity to slander us” (5:14)
διδακτικός, “able to teach”	καλοδιδασκάλος, “teaching what is good” (Tit 2:3)
ἐπιεικής, “gracious”	ἐπιεικής, “gracious” (Tit 3:2) – referring to everyone.
ἄμαχος, “not quarrelsome”	ἄμαχος, “not quarrelsome” (Tit 3:2) – referring to everyone.

One will also note that there is nothing specific within the qualifications listed for leadership, that does not equally apply to women.  This should give pause to those who would not allow women to function as overseers in Christian communities/churches.  Even Thomas Schreiner has noted that,  “The requirements for elders in 1 Tim 3:1–7 and Titus 1:6–9, including the statement that they are to be one-woman men, does not necessarily in and of itself preclude women from serving as elders.”[1]  What this helps us to realise is what Fee has long noted, that these instructions to leadership are ad hoc in the sense that they are shaped by the specific issues in this community that Paul/Timothy is dealing with.  These are not timeless leadership qualifications, but rather a framework and grid for analysing potential leaders who will not fall prey to the situations currently faced.  

---

[1] Thomas R. Schreiner’s “Philip Payne on Familiar Ground: A Review of Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters.” JBMW (Spring 2010) 33–46, here, 35.

False Teachers and Women in 1 Timothy

There seems to be a relationship between what is said about the false teachers in the Pastoral Epistles, and what is said about the women in these writings.  Below is a table that will help us to better understand the situation in Ephesus that Paul/Timothy is dealing with.  

The False Teacher’s Description	Similar statements concerning women
1:3: “certain persons (τισὶν) teach false doctrines”	2:12: “I am not permitting a woman to teach”
1:4: “myths” (μύθοις)	4:7 “myths” (μύθους) characteristic of old women
1:4: “promote controversies”	5:14  giving an enemy opportunity for slander 3:11  “women must … not be malicious talkers”
1:6 “some persons (τινες) want to be teachers of the law but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.”	2:14  “the woman being thoroughly deceived” 2:11  “let a woman quietly receive instruction with submissiveness … without disruption.” 5:13  “going about from house to house… talking   nonsense, saying things they ought not …”
4:1: “some persons (τινες) will follow deceiving spirits of things taught by demons”	5:15  “already some [younger widows] have turned away to follow Satan.”
4:2: “hypocritical liars whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron” 6:20: “opposing arguments of what is falsely called knowledge”	3:11  “women must … not be malicious talkers [but be] … trustworthy in everything.”
6:21: “which some have professed (ἐπαγγελλόμενοι) and in so doing have wandered from the faith.”	2:10  “women who profess (ἐπαγγελλομέναις) godliness” 5:11  “they have set aside their first faith.”

While we must not conclude that the false teachers are entirely women, it is likely that the women have become the focus of the false teachers, and that some women have fallen prey to the false teachers and are now part of the problem that Paul/Timothy is to deal with.  These parallels are instructive as they help us to understand better why Paul was offering his injunction of submissive and non-disruptive learning in 1 Tim 2:12-15.