As announced earlier, this will be the final issue of Creative a Learning Site for a while. It also marks the learning letter’s tenth anniversary! Ten years of monthly inputs, documenting my learning journey – I am ready to take a break, not from writing as such and certainly not from studying and learning, but from writing for immediate publication. I decided to finish by building on last month’s issue. Time to face 1 Timothy 2 and Cynthia Long Westfall’s (2016) take on it.
By the way, if you immediately knew what the passage in question is about, you probably score high on the Bible geekiness/nerdiness scale. Congratulations, and welcome to the club.
You can also watch this content as a VIDEO PODCAST
Building a House with One Brick
I will start with a general observation. 1 Timothy 2:12 is the only Bible passage that, at least in most translations and at first sight, prohibits women from leadership in the church. That alone should be a red alert. It is a sound principle of Bible interpretation to not base a doctrine or practice on a single passage, especially not if it is a difficult or unclear one (as is the case here).
This applies even more if the practice entails something as sweeping and far-reaching as excluding half the church from certain significant positions and activities. You don’t build a house with one brick.
Women in Ephesus, Not Women Everywhere
Another sound principle of interpretation is the consideration of historical background or context. We cannot assume that Paul throughout is writing straightforward universal rules in his letters. Something is going on, and Paul is responding to it. Understanding what that something is will give us a better handle on what Paul wants believers to do. Case in point: last month’s issue, where it became clear that to veil or not to veil is not the question.
In 1 Timothy, there are serious problems with false teaching and with the way certain women are involved, both in spreading and in being swayed. Recognizing this opens a real possibility that Paul is not writing general principles but is giving specific instructions to deal with this situation.
A second point related to context: It is usually assumed to be public worship, but Westfall (2016: 286f) points out that Paul speaks of prayer “in every place”. In other words, the instruction may not be limited to church meetings. This is confirmed by the fact that childbirth, discussed later in the passage, does not normally take place in a worship setting. In addition, 1 Timothy 2:11-15a surprisingly shifts from the plural to the singular for woman and man, which may suggest that the activities concerned are private rather than public, between husband and wife at home rather than between men and women in the church (so ibid.: 288f).
1 Timothy
A third and final point related to context: We also need to consider the kind of letter this is. 1 Timothy is not written to a church. It is not exactly private either; like Titus, it serves as the written mandate empowering Timothy to deal with the Ephesian church situation. But it is personal, written to an individual, not to a church or a group of churches.
Timothy has been a trusted coworker of Paul for many years. Paul can assume they are on the same line. There is no need to explain things or defend a course of action. He can take many things for granted.
This makes the letter harder for us because we are not ‘in the know’ to the extent that Timothy was.
Therefore, rather than read Paul’s other letters, written to a wider audience, in the light of 1 Timothy (as is often done when it comes to women), we should do the opposite: read 1 Timothy in the light of those more general letters by Paul, where he provides more extensive explanation. How might these letters help us to make sense of 1 Timothy?
The Priority of Gifts over Gender
When it comes to various public ministries in the church, Paul writes at length in Romans 12:1-8, 1 Corinthians 12-14, and Ephesians 4:7-16. There is a wonderful diversity of gifts and ministries involved in being the body of Christ.
Who or what determines the distribution of gifts? The answer is obvious: It is the Spirit of God. It is always a gift of grace, freely given, and therefore depends on the Giver, not the recipient. It appears that all members are expected to be gifted and to be active; Paul does not limit his address or certain gifts to the men in Rome, Corinth, and Ephesus. Gender plays no role here.
Should we now fall back on that relatively obscure statement in 1 Timothy 2:12 to bring in that limitation? Or should we rather conclude, based on Paul’s general, extensive teaching on ministry elsewhere that gifts do not depend on gender, and therefore something ‘else’, something out of the ordinary, is behind 1 Timothy 2?
In conclusion, even before we look at our passage, we have a strong, a priori case in favour of women teaching and leading. ‘Something else’ is going on in 1 Timothy 2:8-15 that leads Paul to issue unusual instructions, departing from normal practice.
What We Need to Consider
To get a grasp on the ‘something else’ in 1 Timothy 2:8-15 we need to consider (a) a unique word, (b) the exact nature of the prohibition, (c) Paul’s logic related to Adam and Eve, and (d) the promise of salvation through childbearing.
The difficulties are real and significant; it is not a case of ‘disliking’ the plain and obvious instruction of the text and seeking a way out. Therefore, this passage should not be our starting point or even less our cornerstone for thinking about female leadership: don’t build a house on it!
A Unique Word: Authentein
The word in question is a verb, authentein. Like head in 1 Corinthians 11 and other passages, its meaning is much debated. (For an extensive but far from complete bibliography see Westfall 2016: 290f. For an extensive treatment, read Westfall 2014.)
Different from head, however, authentein is used only once in the entire NT. This should give us pause; why did Paul use such a rare word? It is rare in Greek too; Paul’s usage is the first occurrence of the verb that we know of (ibid.; related words do occur earlier, but not the verb). If Paul wanted to speak of authority in the church, there would have been other words used more regularly. Why such an unusual choice of words?
Authentein is commonly translated with some variation of to have or to exercise authority. Occasionally, it is translated to usurp authority. This alerts us to another question related to its meaning: Is the activity in question neutral, as in exercising authority? Or is the activity negative, as in usurping authority? It is usually assumed the activity is off-limits for women but acceptable or even right for men. But as Cynthia Westfall (2016: 292f) points out,
… the prohibition of this action by women is not an endorsement of the action by men, as is often taken to be the case. In fact, the closest parallel passage to 1 Timothy 2:12 is in Chrysostom’s Homilies on Colossians, where he commands husbands not to authentein their wives.”
And:
However, out of the over three hundred occurrences of the verb in the TLG [Thesaurus Linguae Graecae] database, no one has identified a case where it refers to any kind of benevolent pastoral care of an individual or group by a pastor or church official. (ibid.: 35)
In her study of the term, Westfall is the first to systematically apply modern linguistic theory to the question. This includes paying attention to how a word is used in different contexts and settings (such as a public church meeting and the sphere of the home). It also means distinguishing between uses with or without an object, and if with an object, noting whether the object is a person or impersonal. After all, what might be okay to do to an object may not be okay to do to a person (Westfall’s example is the eradication of illiteracy versus the eradication of illiterates; 2014: 169).
One crucial linguistic question is what various uses have in common, that is, what connects them.
After analysing all relevant occurrences, Westfall (2014: 171) concludes that the basic meaning underlying the verb is “the autonomous use or possession of unrestricted force”. If the term is used with people rather than objects or actions as the object, the verb has a decidedly negative sense, with two exceptions.
The first is the use of force or violence used legitimately by government officials or in divine judgment. The second is its use by the later Church Fathers (significantly later than Paul) for ecclesiastical authority and therefore rightly translated to have authority. This meaning appears too late to be relevant for 1 Timothy.
In Westfall’s words:
In the Greek corpus, the verb authenteo refers to a range of actions that are not restricted to murder [yes, the verb could mean this, too] or violence. However, the people who are the targets of these actions are harmed, forced against their will (compelled), or at least their self-interest is overridden, because the actions involve the imposition of the subject’s will over against the recipient’s will, ranging from dishonor to lethal force. (Westfall 2016: 292)
In the final analysis, we are left with a measure of uncertainty. There is the possibility that Paul is reacting to something quite specific that was related to the false teaching in Ephesus for which authentein was the perfect term. Catherine Clark Kroeger (Kroeger and Kroeger 1992, but going back to work published in 1979) was the first to offer such a proposal. She translated the word to claim to be the author or originator of (ibid.: 99-103) and argued that female teachers may have been claiming that Eve was created first and gave life and/or knowledge to Adam (ibid.: 117ff).
This and other attempts at reconstructing a background setting tend to have a speculative edge to them; 1 Timothy does not give us sufficient information. If this is indeed the reason for the use of authentein, we may never know what exactly it refers to.
Alternatively, authentein may refer to culturally inappropriate behaviour by women. Most likely, this was happening in the household rather than in the context of the church. If so, it is perhaps best translated to domineer or to exercise force (not necessarily of a physical nature), although such a translation may be a bit too weak considering the shock and offence that such behaviour caused.
Either way, in the days of Paul, authentein did not signify legitimate teaching and leadership by women; it had nothing to do with church leadership or pastoral office. And it is not what women ought not to do, but men should:
Consequently, the prohibition that restricts the way a woman should act toward a man in 1 Timothy 2:12b … does not constitute a reversed mandate or a command for a man to act like a master toward his wife, or for men to act that way toward the women in the church. Here Paul prohibits a woman from subjugating, controlling, or abusing a man, but he never commands a man to subjugate, control, master, or abuse … a woman, even though such behavior was acceptable in the Greco-Roman culture. (Westfall 2016: 75)
What Is Prohibited?
Before we investigate the prohibition any further, we should take note of the fact that there is a positive command or imperative as well: “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness” (1 Tim. 2:11). Most women in the congregation would be years younger than their husbands and were far less likely to have been educated. Therefore, they should learn – by being taught, most likely at home by their husbands, who were to pass on the teaching that Timothy could not give to women directly. Paul is establishing a process to eradicate the false teaching in the church.
That women generally lacked even basic education may well play a role in the prohibition that follows: these women were simply not qualified to teach (yet). Educated women should hold back as well; they should not reverse cultural roles and boss their husbands around at home (or in public). If women had been particularly impacted by the false teaching, being vulnerable in their relative ignorance and perhaps also playing a role in spreading it, it makes sense for Paul to put a stop in place – not for all women generally, but for the women in Ephesus at this time. First, women had to be properly taught.
With the prohibition itself, we face a crucial question. There are two ways to read it. Is Paul prohibiting one thing or two?
Do the two elements in verse 12 form a single idea or action, to teach&authentein (the technical term for this is hendiadys, two out of one)? In that case, the two halves mutually define each other. But then the issue in view is not simply to teach, not even to teach in a church context. The combination with authentein gives it a decidedly dark and negative twist: it is this kind of teaching and this kind only that is prohibited. It is not entirely clear what kind that is, but it is certainly not a form of otherwise legitimate church ministry. It is not women doing it that made it wrong, but the combination with authentein.
On the other hand, Paul may be giving two distinct prohibitions. In that case, the prohibition of teaching stands on its own, independent of authentein. This leads to a highly problematic reading: Paul does not permit a woman to teach period.
No schoolteacher. No Sunday school teacher. No instructing of women by women (contradicting Titus 2:3f). Of course, one could argue that the prohibition only applies to a church context, not to the world at large. That would still exclude Sunday school and teaching women. If the prohibition concerns the home, a woman cannot instruct her own children.
So what is a traditionalist, who wishes to uphold the exclusion of women from the position of pastor, elder, or pulpit preaching, but not more, to do? He (most likely it is a he, although women have defended female exclusion as well, somewhat contradictorily, if women are not to teach) may opt for:
- Hendiadys: the two elements of the prohibition form
indeed one action. It is assumed we are dealing with a church setting (which is
somewhat doubtful); authentein must mean to have authority over
(which it does not), and therefore women are to be excluded from ecclesiastical
offices. - Extension of the addition “over man” at the end of the
verse, qualifying the verb authentein, to qualify the verb to teach
as well. At this point we need a little bit of Greek grammar. As Westfall
(2016: 77) points out, authentein takes the genitive, therefore man
is a genitive form. But the verb to teach does not take the genitive. Man
does therefore not qualify or restrict the verb to teach. Paul does not
say: “I do not permit a woman to teach a man”.
If Paul is issuing a universal command here (for the church rather than the household), it is about more than ecclesiastical office. He would be ordering a restriction on women that is so comprehensive and absolute that virtually no one today is willing to go as far.
The Logic of Adam and Eve: Scripture as Illustration and Parallel
In 1 Timothy 2:13, Paul gives a reason for … For what? For the prohibition in verse 12? This is often thought. That women are not to teach somehow follows from the order of creation (and Eve’s deception). Strange logic: Whoever is first is not to be taught (or led) by whoever comes later? What’s more, Genesis itself does not follow that logic:
Throughout the Genesis narrative, it is clear from the beginning that someone who was born or came first did not necessarily have authority. Primogeniture among brothers was continually subverted, so Genesis cannot be used to provide an argument for male authority based on Adam being formed first. (Westfall 2016: 78)
The alternative to seeing verse 13 as a reason for the prohibition is usually overlooked: Paul may be linking verse 13 with verse 11, explaining why women are to learn, quietly. After all, that idea is repeated at the very end of verse 12.
And the function of the Genesis story may not be biblical truth and dogma, but ‘merely’ that of an illustration, a parallel to the situation of women in Ephesus: swayed by deception just like Eve. And since the men had had recourse to education and teaching before their wives, they were able to teach – just like Adam in Genesis 2f, who knew God’s commandment firsthand. Again, Paul simply may be seeking a path to counter the influence of false teaching in Ephesus:
If Paul was not setting a false myth straight [the view of Kroeger and Kroeger 1992: Eve was created first and offered enlightenment to Adam, a distinct possibility, but impossible to prove or disprove], or explaining the reason for maternal mortality, he might have been using typology to indicate a sort of order in spiritual formation in the correction of deception and false teaching. In 1-2 Timothy, Paul was carefully guarding the transmission of that trust; it could make sense that Paul is trusting the men in Ephesus as those who are or would be spiritually formed first to guard the transmission of the trust in their households and correct the problem of deception and false teaching among the women … (ibid.: 79)
In short, the reference to Adam and Eve either corrects the ‘story’ going around in Ephesus or draws a parallel between the Ephesian situation and Adam and Eve in the garden.
The Logic of Adam and Eve: Eve’s Deception
The truly traditional position, rarely put forward today even by the staunchest conservatives, justifies the exclusion of women simply and bluntly with their inferiority. Women are inferior to men, as demonstrated by Eve; therefore, they should not teach or lead men. This position at least makes some sense. If it were true. (Why else would Eve’s deception lead to a prohibition for all women to teach?)
One way in which women have been deemed to be inferior is their presumed greater susceptibility to deception.
Problem 1: Does this lead to a certain co-responsibility of God as the creator for this female weakness?
Problem 2: Does not Adam’s wilful and conscious disobedience of God’s commandment disqualify him and all other men from leadership?
Problem 3: As with many presumed differences between the sexes, we are dealing with statistics and averages. Even if the average is different, there is substantial overlap between the sexes. Men on average may be physically stronger than women, but many women are nevertheless stronger than many men. Therefore, if there is a difference in susceptibility to deception between men and women, some men will still be more susceptible than many women.
Problem 4: However, research has failed to confirm such a difference in ‘deceptability’ even in the form of an average. Women are not more susceptible to deception than men. And Paul is far from believing that men are exempt:
One cannot argue that Paul describes men as less prone to deception than women in the rest of the Pauline corpus or even in the Pastoral Epistles. Even though Eve was a woman, according to Paul the possibility of being tempted or deceived by Satan or sin is a universal experience. Eve’s deception is a paradigmatic example of the human condition. (Westfall 2016: 111)
This takes us back to the idea that Paul does not use Genesis 2f as biblical and universal truth about male and female but as an illustration. Women in Ephesus are in the position of Eve, and the men are in the position of Adam, ahead of women and therefore called upon to instruct:
The text in 1 Timothy 2:14 does not generalize Eve’s deception as a pattern of all women, and the text does not demand such a generalization, particularly since Paul is simply summarizing the Genesis narrative. It is certain that the account of the fall is relevant to the command for a woman to learn and the prohibitions in 1 Timothy 2:11-12, but that relevance may be easily found in the context of the incorrect myths, false teaching, and deception among the women of Ephesus. (ibid.: 118)
One more thought on this: Regardless of what Eve did wrong and whatever its consequences for women, the cross should put an end to it – not necessarily physically, but socially and spiritually:
In light of what Jesus Christ did for men, how can we understand the effect of Jesus Christ’s work on the consequences of the fall for women? If there is no condemnation for those in Christ, then women should no longer bear a sense of guilt, shame, consequences, or restrictions for Eve’s behavior any more than men do for Adam’s behavior. If women are led by the Spirit, then they are identified with the life and righteousness of Jesus Christ; they are not identified with Eve’s violation of God’s command or any additional susceptibility to deception and sin. To be consistent, Paul’s narrative summary of Eve’s actions in the fall would not be the reason or justification for prohibitions or restrictions in the body of Christ, or else we would have to say that the actions of Eve were outside of the effects of the death of Jesus Christ. (ibid.: 129)
Excursus: “The woman”
Sometimes (so David Hamilton in Cunningham et al. 2014: 213-16), it is pointed out that 1 Timothy 2:14 shifts from “Eve” to “the woman”. It is then argued that this is a reference to a specific woman in Ephesus who was the source of deception and false teaching. Throughout, so it is argued, Paul has this woman in mind. Therefore, the prohibition concerns her as well, not women in general: “I do not permit this woman to teach”.
I don’t find this view persuasive. In verse 10 and 11, Paul uses the plural, “women”. In verse 12 and 13 he indeed uses the singular, “woman”, but without an article. This indicates he does not have one specific woman in mind. No individual woman has been identified or pointed out at this point, so any reader would be at a loss to know which woman Paul would be speaking of. It is not until verse 14 that Paul speaks of “the woman”. The proximity of verse 13 and the reference to Eve make her the obvious referent. No other woman is in sight.
Salvation through Childbirth
We now come to the strangest element in the passage: salvation by childbearing (1 Tim. 2:15). Rather different solutions have been proposed. Many have seen a link to the birth of Jesus, with him as the child that saves. This at least rescues salvation by faith.
Others have argued that childbirth here is a synecdoche representing the whole of the Christian life expected of a woman as a mother and wife, from giving birth to raising children and caring for a family.
The alternative is to take salvation literally instead of spiritually:
A woman will be brought safely through childbirth. [This] view has had the least support, but it is the most likely reading in the context of the epistle, the passage’s ties with Genesis 2-3, and women’s concerns in Ephesus … The references to Eve’s role in the creation and fall accounts in Genesis 2-3 are linked to the consequences that God proclaimed to Eve, so that the reference to childbirth would be most naturally understood as an allusion to Genesis 3:16-7: “To the woman he said, ‘I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you’” (NRSV) …
The reference to childbirth is the concluding and most prominent part of Paul’s instructions to women, which makes sense if Paul was addressing a major legitimate concern that made women susceptible to false teaching …
Childbirth was and is a complex problem for women in terms of survival and quality of life, so that the promise of safety while giving birth addresses a crucial felt need …
The objection that women still died from childbirth does not recognize the specific conditions of the promise in the passage, and it invalidates parallel biblical promises of healing and rescue. (Westfall 2016: 129-132)
Because of the substantial link to Genesis 2f throughout, I find this a convincing interpretation. Especially considering the strength of Artemis worship in Ephesus:
Artemis was the patron goddess of the city of Ephesus, and she was literally the savior to whom the women went for safety and protection in childbirth. Her role in the lives of women is illustrated in Greek mythology, where she serves as a midwife to her own mother. (ibid.: 136)
1 Timothy 2:15 shows an interesting shift to the plural: she will be saved, provided they continue… Who is “they”? Women? But then why the shift from a singular to a plural pronoun?
More likely, we are to think of husband and wife. As Westfall argues:
This is also supported by the command that a “woman/wife” [one word, two possible meanings; likewise for man/husband] should learn in verse 11, the reference to Adam and Eve in verses 13-14, and the use of the singular “woman/wife” and “man/husband” with the prohibitions in verse 12. The command that a woman should learn suggests that she should be taught by her husband at home, just as Paul directed in 1 Corinthians 14:35. Furthermore, Adam and Eve represent the prototypical relationship of a husband and wife … With the conclusion that deals with a woman’s childbirth, there is a confirmation that the entire passage lies in the domestic sphere … The closest grammatical referents to “they” in verse 15 who must continue in faith, love, and holiness with self-control would be a husband and wife in verse 12, also typologically represented by Adam and Eve in verses 13-14 …
Assigning joint responsibility to a husband for his wife’s safety in childbirth would have been relevant, revolutionary, and effective. Men controlled the size of the family and the resources that could secure greater care, health, and safety during pregnancy and childbirth. Furthermore, it was common for men to order their wives to have unsafe abortions as a form of birth control. (ibid.: 138f)
Paul recognizes the legitimate risk that childbirth poses for women (maternal mortality) and encourages the husband and wife to trust God for the wife’s protection as she goes through childbirth. He also offers pragmatic help in the command for both of them to treat each other with love, holiness, and self-control (ibid.: 312)
Whether in salvation from sin and death or salvation during pregnancy and childbirth, Jesus, not Artemis, is the true Saviour. In every way.
Therefore, in him, there exists no ‘No Entry’ sign for women in church leadership – not even in 1 Timothy 2:12.
Attribution
Sammy-Sander. 2021 <https://pixabay.com/photos/kidnapping-kidnap-crime-abuse-5923532/> CC0
SyauqiFillah. 2020 <https://pixabay.com/photos/studying-teacher-students-sunset-5831644/> CC0
Andrewlister. 2010 <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brick.jpg> Public Domain
PublicDomainPictures. 2012 <https://pixabay.com/photos/no-access-no-entry-fence-keep-out-71233/> CC0
Falco. 2015 <https://pixabay.com/photos/adam-and-eve-church-window-church-798376/> CC0
Bhatigajendra. 2019 <https://pixabay.com/photos/pregnant-woman-belly-pregnancy-4442859/> CC0
References
Unless indicated differently, Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
The title and concluding paragraph (“No Entry”) were crafted with the assistance of ChatGPT.
Cunningham, Loren, David J. Hamilton, and Janice Rogers. 2014. Why Not Women? A Fresh Look at Scripture on Women in Missions, Ministry, and Leadership (Seattle, WA: YWAM Publishing) (paid link)
Kroeger, Richard Clark, and Catherine Clark Kroeger. 1992. I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House) (paid link)
Westfall, Cynthia Long. 2014. ‘The Meaning of Αὐθεντέω in 1 Timothy 2.12’, Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism, 10: 138-73
———. 2016. Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle’s Vision for Men and Women in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic) (paid link)
Disclosure of Material Connection: Some of the links in this text are ‘affiliate links’. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. This means if you click on the link and purchase the item, I will receive an affiliate commission. If you purchase anything through such a link, you help me cover the cost of Create a Learning Site.