1 Timothy 2:12 prohibitions revisited
Apr 14th, 2011 by Cheryl Schatz
I started a post months ago and then life became so complicated I had to set my blog aside to cope. This post will now be the new “home” on the discussion on whether 1 Timothy 2:12 has two prohibitions or one. As a review here is what I originally wrote:
Complementarians typically say that Paul is prohibiting two things (teaching and exercising authority over a man) while many egalitarians are taking the position that there is only one thing that Paul has prohibited. The prohibition is listed as God is against women assuming authority for themselves to teach men. This view has been brought out by Philip B. Payne in “Man and Woman One in Christ” pg 338.
I do not agree with complementarians that there are two entirely separate prohibitions that are not connected. But I do not agree with Philip Payne either that there is only one prohibition and that this prohibition is to be defined as the forbidding of women to assume authority for themselves to teach men without a properly delegated authority from men.
As I have been reading through Philip B. Payne’s book, I have been paying special attention to his process of reasoning. First of all I should say that I really appreciate the fact that Mr. Payne has written this book in an effort to affirm women’s place in the body of Christ. I know that many have found his work very compelling even though I have some serious disagreements with his work. I want to affirm him as a dear brother in Christ at the outset and I appreciate any man willing to stick his neck out to support his sisters in Christ.
Philip B. Payne’s thesis starts in chapter 19, as he asserts on page 338 that the Greek term “oude” (English “or”) is typically used by Paul to join together expressions that reinforce or make more specific a single idea. Here it is in context:
1 Timothy 2:12 (NASB95)
12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
Rather than the conjunction “or” connecting two related terms, Payne concludes that it must be the type of teaching that is forbidden thus it is one prohibition and not two. His view is that “authentein” means to “assume authority” so that the one prohibition that is forbidden to women is to “assume authority” to teach men. Payne writes:
Since false teaching is the occasion of this letter (1 Tim 3:1-11), and since false teaching influenced the women in Ephesus particularly, Paul first commands that women learn in silence and full submission in order to turn deceived women away from the false teaching and to encourage them to embrace the true gospel. Combined with this, he institutes a present prohibition against any woman seizing authority for herself to teach a man. Paul’s goal is to exclude any unauthorized woman from teaching men in the church. This prohibition does not, however, restrict teaching by authorized women, such as Priscilla, (2 Timothy 4:19), since just such teaching might be critical in influencing deceived women to reject error and embrace the truth.
Paul’s prohibition of women with self-assumed authority teaching men does not imply that he approves men teaching with self-assumed authority, particularly if they also promote false teaching. Indeed, he had already commanded certain men not to teach false doctrine (1 Timothy 1:3, 20).
There are several problems with Payne’s view. The first problem is why Paul would restrict women from teaching men but not restrict them from teaching women. No such prohibition exists against a woman from “seizing authority for herself” to teach women. Why is it that a woman must have an authorization to teach men but not have to have an authorization to teach women? It also doesn’t make sense that men are not generically forbidden to “assume authority” to teach men. Payne states that men are not approved of teaching with self-assumed authority because they had already been commanded not to teach false doctrine. The problem is that the quote from 1 Timothy 1:3 that Payne gives is not a term specific to males but an inclusive term used for people. Also the quote from 1 Timothy 1:20 that he gives was also not a command to men in general but a statement about delivering over of two specific deliberate deceivers so that they will be taught not to blaspheme. Those who do things defiantly, such as teaching error deliberately with full knowledge of the truth, are said to be blaspheming the Lord. We see this clearly in Numbers 15:30 -
Numbers 15:30 (NASB95)
30‘But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the Lord; and that person shall be cut off from among his people.
Paul saw the false teaching of two specific men as blasphemy and their defiant teaching against the truth was cause to turn them over to satan. Paul did not turn those who had been deceived over to satan, but the defiant false teachers were treated in a special way. So even though Payne says that men were specifically told not to teach with self-assumed authority, the verses that Payne quotes are generic verses for false teachers, and two specific men who are teaching error in a defiant manner such that they are said to be blaspheming. There are no specific commands to males not to “assume authority” to teach men or women.
The assumption that Payne brings to his view, is that only women need to be authorized to teach males. This brings a very serious problem for Payne’s position because it makes women less than “one” with men. How are man and woman “One in Christ” if one must be authorized to teach, while the other needs no authorization? Payne shows no difference between the women who were teaching the truth and the women who were teaching error. All were required to be authorized first before they could teach men. This provides a less than “oneness” with men who are never said to need authorization to teach the truth.
Was there really a need to authorize women to teach men? Jesus speaks in Revelation 2:20 about a woman teacher:
Revelation 2:20–22 (NASB95)
20‘But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.
21‘I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her immorality.
22‘Behold, I will throw her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds.
Notice that Jesus said that He has this against the Church in Thyatira, that they allow the woman Jezebel, as she teaches and leads Christ’s bond-servants astray. Notice that there are two things that are tolerated from Jezebel and although one is normally a good thing (to teach), in the context both “to teach” and “to lead astray” are related as evil acts. The teaching is listed as teaching Christ’s bond-servants to eat things sacrificed to idols. This act of teaching error implies that she is teaching men to go against their conscience. Her related activity of leading astray is defined as leading Christ’s bond-servants into sexual immorality so that they commit adultery with her.
If we took Philip Payne’s view, Christ would only be saying that Jezebel has done one thing wrong with teaching error, while the list of what she did involves two things: teaching error and leading into sexual immorality. While the two are related, they are two problems not one.
We can also notice from Jesus’ words that the Church at Thyatira is not being corrected because they allow a woman teacher. They are being corrected because they tolerate a teacher who is teaching error and they are tolerating her leading Christ’s servants into immorality. The Church is not corrected because Jezebel is teaching without proper authority from the men.
Notice also in verse 21 that Jesus gave Jezebel time to repent of her sexual immorality. He did not say that He was giving her time to repent from teaching truth to men nor did He say that He was giving her time to repent for the sin of not getting proper authority to teach. It is what she was teaching and what she was leading into that was the cause of the problems. The problem was not the fact that she was a woman nor the fact that she had not received an authority to teach men while men were home free not needing to obtain authority from men before they taught other men.
Philip Payne also states that Priscilla was able to teach because she had received the proper authority to teach and she had not taken this authority upon herself, yet he gives no verse that would show this needed authority that was given to her. The fact is that Priscilla taught because she had truth that someone else needed to hear. Apollos had a need for an expanded view of the truth and Priscilla did not withhold from him the knowledge of the truth that she had. The Bible shows that having the knowledge of the truth requires us to use this information for good.
Luke 12:48 (NASB95)
48…From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.
Priscilla had the knowledge of the truth and she used it for the glory of God as she corrected Apollos. She did not need to ask men for the authority to teach Apollos since she had been entrusted with the truth by God. She used what she had been given for Apollos’ good and she used her knowledge without prejudice.
I will go through more of Philip B. Payne’s writings sometime in the future and I hope that this post has been helpful.
Interesting interaction. I don’t yet have Payne’s book so I can’t read the full context. I would agree with you, that no woman needed to be “authorized” to teach. I am not sure if that is what Payne is saying. Have you thought to direct this question to him over on his blog. http://www.pbpayne.com I would be interested in his response. If the context of the problem being addressed in the letter to Timothy was related for example to a Cybelian type cult influence, it could be that instruction was made particularly in that situation about women assuming authority and acting in that assumed authority to teach men as inferiors. Also incipient gnostic teachings may be coming into the picture, where the woman was seen as the enlightened, thus the superior teacher, one in creation.
Jay– yes, that was my understanding from Payne’s book. Payne believes that because of the particular situation of false teaching in Ephesus at that time (false teaching that was particularly impacting women), Paul’s policy was that women should not assume authority for themselves to teach men in congregational church settings, without authority being delegated to them.
To clarify: Payne believes that Paul was in effect saying, “because authority to teach is being abused by women who are under false teaching in this church at this time, I’m going to restrict women’s teaching in the congregational setting to being subject to approval, for now.”
Ok, thanks for your explanation. I guess I might differ from the view of Payne’s a bit if it is indeed as you say. I would prefer to see that the situation might have been that because of the false teaching that women are superior to men as celebrated in the cult of Cybele, that Paul is telling that he is not allowing women to teach in a way assuming that women have (strong, even violent) authority over men. If this was the situation, there was no need to emphasize that these women should not have the same “authentein” over women, because the nature of the false teaching in this example would be just that, that women should rule over men, therefore these teaching and ruling women would not be seeking to rule over other women so much as they would seek to rule over men. Actually, any idea of anybody in the church assuming authority over someone else, women or man is against the spirit of the NT writers and Christ himself.
Jay, I agree that if there was a situation where assumed authority was a problem, it seem much more reasonable that Paul would forbid an action “assuming authority” over anyone, not just men. It is untenable to think that Paul would only be concerned about the men in the congregation, while thinking that the women can handle themselves and maybe there might be some good correction when women assumed authority over other women. It just doesn’t make sense. And if Paul was already stopping men (and women) from assuming authority by his restriction in 1 Timothy 1:3, there would have been no need to single out all women in 1 Timothy 2:12.
I find other people’s theories interesting, but I always go back to my own understanding of 1 Timothy 2:12 because I don’t like these huge holes in other theories. And if I can find the holes in the arguments, complementarians won’t likely be convinced either.
Payne’s argument flows along the same lines with the mushy middle egalitarian arguments about 1 Tim 2 being situational to Ephesis alone and not universal. Although it is a nice attempt to argue against complementarianism, or more specifically, male dominance, it is not supported in the verses in question, as Cheyl points out, or in the subsequent verses which complete Paul’s instruction.
Actually, Gengwall, I found Payne’s “middle egalitarian arguments about 1 Tim 2 being situational to Ephesis alone and not universal” to be quite persuasive. Among the arguments was a detailed examination of the word “permit” in koine Greek and why it almost always referred to a temporary, situational restriction– particularly when it is in first person indicative tense, as it is in 1 Tim 2:13.
Don’t get me wrong Kristen. I’m not saying there wasn’t a situation to which Paul was writing. What I’m saying is that such a situation is not confined to first century Ephesus. Paul’s instructions are universal. The mushy “situational” interpretation offered by many egalitarians is that the situation was confined to Ephesus and therefore no longer applicable to today. Such and interpretation gives ground to complementarians by basically accepting their argument about the passage.
I have not read Payne’s book so I can not comment conclusively. But from what Cheryl has related, it seems to strike a similar cord - “Paul may be sounding complementarian but that’s ok because he is dealing with an isolated, Ephesian, 1st century situation.” At least that is what it sounds like to me.
Hi Gengwall,
You may be having a similar problem with definitions to what I had a few months ago. Please correct me if I am wrong Kristen, but I think you would see a universal, general command or principle as one that could be written by Paul to any church throughout history, without any personal knowledge of the church or situation or time they existed. For example, “serve one another in love” is a universal command. However “wash one another’s feet” is a particular command to a particular time and situation based on the universal command.
If v12 was a universal command, it would mean that to teach or authentein is something bad only for women to do, and not for men. It could also mean that women universally have a problem with this, but men never do. Paul would not address every church this way unless the command only applied to women.
For egals to assert that to teach or authentein is always something bad for both men and women to do, Paul must have spoken in terms of “a woman” because there was a specific problem occurring in that specific church involving a woman.
So egals are saying that the command is specific to the situation at Ephesus, and not universal, because Paul only applies it to women. This is the same with the commands of v8-10.
Wow, just stumbled here and I’m amazed how much of a power-trip some women seem to get into over not being allowed to have teaching authority according to the Bible. This site is far from convincing.
Interesting perspective Rob. So let me see if I understand you. Women seeking to equally share their God given gifts with the Church are on a power-trip, but men who pull gender trump cards and try to squelch women’s gifts for their own agrandization are not. Yes. That about sums it up.
Now, if you really believe that the bible gives men exclusive teaching authority, why not engage in the discussion? Your claim the site is far from convincing is far from convincing.
Oh, yes. We uppity educated women who dare to challenge our betters. Our desire to be fully equal is obviously just a cover-up for our conspiracy to take over and bend men to our will.
Hi everyone. Just thinking about the “I do not presently permit” argument that egals discuss from 1 Tim 2:12.
Some egals say how “I do not permit” does not mean “I forever do not permit” but rather “I at the present time do not permit”. This is used to emphasize that Paul is not giving a universal law, but is rather addressing a particular situation.
So he is saying that after she has learned correct doctrine she will be able to teach. But if “authentein” is something that is always bad, then it would be strange for Paul to be saying “at the moment, I am not permitting her to teach or authentein, but later on, once she has learned true Christian teaching, she will be able to teach or authentein.
It would seem that if the “I do not presently permit” argument is to really work well, then it works better with a more positive view of “authentein”, so that after learning, it will be OK for her to teach or authentein.
Any thoughts to help with my confusion? Thanks.
Hi Craig,
Thanks for your good questions. Here is the meaning of the Greek present tense:
The only way that one can get a temporary meaning from the present tense is if the context limits the continuing action since the verb tense itself does not determine that there is an end in sight. There doesn’t seem to be an end to the prohibition regarding authentein and no Christian is ever given the right to authentein another person.
There is a limitation implied by verse 15 but the solution is not a lifting of a ban on a Christian woman, but a resolution that will bring the woman to salvation. This implies that the prohibition is toward an unsaved person even if they think themselves as a Christian. If the authentein is something that an unsaved person is doing spiritually, then the problem should be solved once she is saved and has come out of her deception, since authentein is not a work or a condition of a truly saved person. The issue of not teaching would be resolved when the deception is gone.
So the issue is not just about time, i.e. what she cannot do now, she can do later. The issue is about deception and salvation. Once saved the spiritual issues are dealt with and the positive side of teaching should not be an issue once she is solidly in the truth.
So, no, I do not agree that once the woman is no longer deceived that she will be allowed to authentein the man. I have personally not seen any positive rending of authentein and so I believe this to be a solidly negative term, something that allowed for anyone.
Does this help or have I missed addressing part of your question?
By the way, Craig, this last post of your was exceptionally well-thought out and a very good question!
Thanks again Cheryl for your comments and encouragement.
This is what is now in my head.
1 “I am not permitting” is an indication that Paul was addressing a local situation (as in 1 Cor 7:6-8, 25-40.) rather than stating a universal law that could be written in the sky for all people for all time.
2 But “I am not permitting” does not necessarily mean “I am … temporarily, just for the moment, due to the current situation which will hopefully change …. not permitting”.
(I have understood some egals to be saying this - but I may well have misunderstood! This is what led to my question, because if authentein is bad why would Paul only temporarily prohibit it?)
3 If “I am not permitting” does not necessarily mean “I am only temporarily not permitting ”, then I can understand that
4 Authentein is negative.
This makes sense to me. Does it sound on the right track?
Craig,
1. Paul’s words “I am not…” is the main key that the prohibition is a local situation since his prohibition is not tied to any law instituted in the OT. Since God’s laws are always clear, always have a second witness and never stated as an origin of man i.e. “I am not…”, Paul’s words to a single individual regarding a known problem in a church cannot be stretched to match any of God’s laws therefore they cannot be universal indicting all godly women.
2. The words “I am not permitting…” present tense cannot in and of themselves show whether or not the prohibition was time limited and would end. The context must show the context of limiting the application to confirm that this is what is meant. The fact that one of the prohibitions is a negative action that is never given as permission to any Christian to act upon would show that at least one of the prohibitions cannot be time limited and then it is okay to act in this way.
Some egalitarians say that Paul was not prohibiting two things but only one thing - a type of teaching that is domineering. If these same egalitarians teach that the prohibition is only for a time, then their argument is self refuting as it would make Paul agree that domineering teaching will be okay in a bit. That just doesn’t make sense.
3. The term “I am not permitting” does not have a grammar qualification that makes it automatically a time limited prohibition. While it can be limited by the context, it is never assumed to be that way without context proof.
4. If authentein is an admirable action that is allowed for Christian men but denied for Christian women, Paul made a huge mistake by never using the word again thus no foundation is ever set for a good and moral activity. One thing we can be sure of and that is that a woman is never denied something in the term authentein that a man is given because of his gender.
It sounds like you are on the right track. Your questions really caused me to think especially with the thought that there would be allowance for a woman to do something seriously negative to a man. That doesn’t make sense.
I appreciate it when people pick up on something that didn’t readily come to my mind. Good job!
Thanks again Cheryl for helping me to clarify this.
Perhaps the verse should read like this…
“I do not permit a women to teach So As(OUDE) to domineer a male but to hold her peace”.
Perhaps the old wives tales Paul mentions later alludes to the Ephesian cults(perhaps a Gnostic Cult) that proclaimed women as superior to males and thus permitted them to treat other men with utter disdain.