1 Tim 2:12 and Authentein
Guest post by Margaret Mowczko
 |
Authentein as Bad Behaviour in 1 Timothy 2:12
3 reasons why “to have authority over” is an inadequate understanding of 1 Timothy 2:12
Margaret Mowczko
Introduction
I do not allow a woman to teach, or authentein a man; rather, she is to be in quietness. 1 Timothy 2:12
For some, 1 Timothy 2:12 is a clear verse with a clear message which is usually understood as women can never be pastors or teaching elders in congregations. For others, 1 Timothy 2:12 presents some genuine hermeneutical challenges, especially in the Greek. Understanding precisely what Paul meant when he used the word authentein is one of these challenges.
The Greek word authentein (from the verb authenteō) is a relatively rare word in surviving documents, and I used to think its meaning was a bit of a mystery. But after looking long and hard at the meagre ancient evidence, I no longer hold this view. Instead, I believe there should be a consensus on the general sense, if not Paul’s precise meaning, of authentein.
In this blog post, I briefly outline three reasons why I believe the general sense of authentein in 1 Timothy 2:12 is self-centred, domineering behaviour.
Authentein is translated in early translations of 1 Timothy 2:12 with a negative sense.
The first translations of 1 Timothy 2:12 from the Greek were in Latin, Sahidic Coptic, Syriac, and Arabic, and authentein was understood by the translators as a negative behaviour, not as a healthy or beneficial kind of authority.
For example, the Vetus Latina (Old Latin translations) (second-fourth centuries) render authentein as dominari (“to dominate”) or, occasionally, words with similar senses. The Vulgate (fourth-fifth centuries) likewise has dominari. The Sahidic (third century) has erjoeis (“to be lord”). And these translations were done when Koine Greek was a well-known living language. For someone to dominate another person, or act as their lord, is not what Jesus wants for his people (Matt. 20:25-28).
I have more about ancient translations of authentein in 1 Timothy 2:12 (as well as authenteō in ancient papyri) here.
Chrysostom used authentein in a negative sense when speaking about the actions of people.
Writing in the fourth century, admittedly 300 years after 1 Timothy was written, Chrysostom used the verb authenteō several times in his sermons.
For example, in his tenth homily on Colossians, Chrysostom comments on Colossians 3:19 (a verse addressed to husbands) and says that a husband should not authentei his wife. This is translated into English as “act the despot” in Volume 13 of The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (First series). (Online source: New Advent)
In his eleventh sermon on Colossians, he refers to Paul’s exhortation, “Act wisely toward outsiders, making the most of (or, redeeming) the time.” Using the word authentein, Chrysostom warned against self-centredness: “… the time is not yours, but theirs. Do not then wish to have your own way (authentein) but redeem the time.” (New Advent, see under “verse 11”)
In his sermon on Matthew 12:46-49, Chrysostom interprets Mary wanting to speak to Jesus as wanting “to show the people that she has power (kratei) and authority over (authentei) her Son.” From his use of authentei with kratei, a word with a strong forceful sense, we see that Chrysostom did not see authenteō as a benign or beneficial authority. (New Advent)
In his day, Chrysostom understood authenteō as referring to harsh, selfish, or ruling behaviour when the verb is used in the context of the actions of people, male and female, and he didn’t approve.
Authentein can refer to the supreme power and rule of divine beings and celestial bodies.
A primary meaning of authentein is to exercise full power or absolute rule. (See, for example, the entry in Liddell and Scott’s Intermediate Greek-English lexicon, here, or their exhaustive lexicon here.) Authentein and the related noun authentia are used with these senses in both pagan and Christian texts when speaking about various deities, including God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
For example, Chrysostom comments on Paul’s words about the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:11 and says that the Spirit is “exercising autonomous authority (authentoun), not being subject to supreme authority (authentia).” Chrysostom’s Second Homily on Pentecost PG 50, 464.
Authentein also occurs in ancient astronomical texts, dating to the first-third centuries, when describing the controlling influence of celestial bodies such as planets. (More on this here.) But exercising this kind of power is not for husbands or wives or for any Christian. Christians are called to mutually serve and submit to one another, not rule over capable, fellow believers.
In the context of human behaviour, authentein can mean to domineer or control. Writing about authentein, Cynthia Westfall notes that "the people who are targets of these actions are harmed, forced against their will (compelled), or at least their self-interest is being overridden because the actions involve an imposition of the subject’s will, ranging from dishonour to lethal force."
Cynthia Long Westfall, Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle’s Vision for Men and Women in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016), 292.
Conclusion
I make every effort to see the validity of different interpretations of Bible verses through the eyes of Christians who hold to different views than mine. However, I have become reasonably convinced that Paul’s general sense of authentein in 1 Timothy 2:12 was self-centred, domineering behaviour.
Authentein is a rare word in surviving ancient texts that date roughly to the first century. The verb doesn’t occur elsewhere in the New Testament or in the ancient Greek Old Testament. Yet Paul chose it because it conveyed a particular sense; he was addressing bad behaviour when he used authentein in 1 Timothy 2:12.
In fact, all of 1 Timothy 2:8-15 is Paul addressing bad behaviour from certain people in the Ephesian Church: angry quarrelling men in verse 8, overdressed rich women in verses 9-10, and a woman who needed to learn quietly (as it says in verse 11) and not teach, and not domineer a man, probably her husband. 1 Timothy 2:8-15 is not Paul’s general teaching on ministry.
Precisely how a woman was controlling or domineering a man is not known. Nevertheless, I suggest we can apply a general sense of “domineer” in 1 Timothy 2:12. One thing I am certain of is that Paul was not disallowing capable women from ministering, even as leaders. Paul valued the ministry of leading women such as Priscilla, Phoebe, and Nympha.
I do not allow a woman to teach, or to domineer a man; rather, she is to be in quietness. 1 Timothy 2:11-12
(All my articles on 1 Timothy 2:12 are here.)
This was a nice article and I learnt some new stuff about early translations of this word into other languages. Thanks for that!
On the broader egalitarian v complimentarian debate I am reminded of the calvinism v arminism debate. Calvinists mostly focus on Romans 9 plus a verse here and there whereas arminists draw on broad themes from many parts of scripture where the language of choice and UR is used. Both sides argue that the other is taking an awkward reading of a certain set of scriptures where Molinism is a 3rd option that tries to accept a straight forward reading of both scriptures
In this case, 1 tim 2 is the equivalent of Romans 9 and complimentarians seem to read many other scriptures like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRnyfVgQbXk
Is the analogy of molinism to this debate pentecostal complimentarianism?
In this case passages like 1 tim 2 are interpreted to be a husband and wife context like other complimentarian passages (my wife isn't expected to submit to all men this is based on the use of aner and gune). Also we similarly note the use of authentin and also the unusual word used for silence here.
But in submission/headship we note the example of Jesus and the church referred to in Ephesians and look at when Jesus talked about washing the feet and mentioning that is the job of a slave. Jesus explicitly said that whoever wants to be leader must be slave to all. Therefore in pentecostal premarriage counselling we were instructed on how to have a fair labour division of household chores and all different strategies to achieve that.
Many also reject Tim Keller's model that leadership means we make decisions in a tie-breaker sense. Jesus doesn't claim a decision making role in secular matters e.g. Luke 12:14. We also aren't called into an aristolean model of superiority because we "there are no male or female..we are one in Christ".
Jesus clearly had some sort of leadership role over his deciples dispite being the servant, not claiming priveledges or superiority (phillipians 2) or control (Luke 12). Even many radical feminists accept a complimentarian role in the area of romance. The man pursues, buys flours, organizes dates, makes the first move. In the same way, there is a spiritual initiator role men are called into. "Let's have a Bible study, let's worship, let's pray". That doesn't mean I call foul if my wife does that any more than I would if she organizes a date. But this is the role God is calling husbands into and it is no different when Paul (or even pseudo paul for the skeptics, still inspired imo) calls us into that than if a pastor encourages men to buy flowers for their wives.
Incidentally, I see this as subversive of the patriachy rather than promoting it. Women are traditionally stereotyped to be more spiritual, even today women almost double the number of men in the church. Yet men are called into traditionally feminized roles and women in romans 16 and other places are called into masculinized roles of teaching and apostle ship (the dangerous job of being sent) as well as financier. This is because we are not conformed to societies culture of what is male or female, but both genders are to immitate Christ emphasizing areas of traditional weakness.
Of course someone could pushback by pointing out examples of sexist pentecostals, fair enough we can't generalize. But as far as I presented it, pentecostal complimentarianism does the least violence to scripture or conscience much like molinism does in the free will/predestination debate in my opinion
Interesting analysis. However, I noticed the author doesnt deal with the 'I don't permit a woman to teach a man' part of the same sentence. Understanding the meaning of a single word does not explain that.
Also It doesnt seem to take into account Paul's very next sentence, in which he seems to be using the order of creation of man first then woman to justify his instructions. The distinct impression being given is that because God has ordained certain things, that determines how people should behave within the church. Paul's words do not appear to present himself as a total egalitarian when it comes to men and women in the church.
I would be very interested in Michael Bird's or others responses. I often think Paul is, like the rest of us, a product of his own generation and culture and we therefore should not assume that everything he wrote in the first century is God's word for all generations and cultures.
Peter