I think the NIV’s translation is letting us down there Danni, it seems there is some suggestion that the word translated as “slave traders” in the NIV or “enslavers” in the ESV and “menstealers” in the KJV apparently has more to do with kidnapping slaves (possibly), which was already illegal, as opposed to the legal slave trade. If anyone wants to pick that topic up, would make for a good new thread.

Back on women & 1 Tim 2, reading one of the essays Janice linked to earlier was quite interesting, insofar as it summarizes Kroeger and Kroeger’s book “I Suffer Not A Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence” (the author of the essay also read the book in response mentioned here earlier, and found it unpersuasive).

I’ll quote at length:

Kroeger and Kroeger argue that the key to understanding this section of 1 Timothy, and indeed, all the pastorals, is the nature of Gnostic (or, more accurately, proto-gnostic) teaching at that time. They not only point out the deep-seated obsession with mother-goddess worship found in Asia minor and especially Ephesus (where Timothy was at the time) but also document that Gnostic teachers had adopted many of the same notions and loosely synthesized them with the Old Testament and Christian teaching.

Most important in this regard are two specific doctrines. First, the mother-goddess cults that held all life (including men) had come from the original earth mother. This is well known. But they also show that Gnostics had adopted this belief, and attributed the earth-mother role to Eve. In numerous texts (included in the book) Gnostic teachers maintained that Eve was the original human, and that she gave life to Adam. Readers will immediately realize that if this teaching was current in Ephesus, and if it was being advocated by women in the church, it would perfectly explain why Paul would follow his imperative limiting women’s teaching by saying, “For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.”

Secondly, Kroeger and Kroeger show that the Gnostics also taught that when Eve ate the forbidden fruit, she was not in error, but actually brought Adam liberation from the oppressive god of the Old Testament. Most of us are aware that the Gnostics usually viewed the God of the Old Testament as a lesser god who foolishly created the material world—a big mistake to dualists who deplored all that is material as sub-spiritual. According to the Gnostics, Adam was suckered by this lesser deity when he claimed to be the only God. But new to me was the Gnostic teaching that Eve set him straight when she listened to the wisdom of the serpent and broke from YHWH. This teaching, which they amply document from source material, may have been current in Ephesus at the time Paul wrote his letter. Again, readers who accept this will immediately see that Paul’s following comment, “And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression,” makes perfect sense.

The documentation doesn’t absolutely show that Gnostics teaching this particular doctrine were present in Ephesus contemporary to the writing of 1 Timothy. However, it does show that such teaching was present in that area not long after the writing. We know that Paul, like other New Testament authors, was already struggling against an early form of Gnosticism because of his comment in 1 Timothy 6:20,21

O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called “knowledge” [gnosis] - which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith.

Aside from this apparent direct allusion to the movement, interpreters deduce that the heretical teachers in view here, in the pastoral epistles, and elsewhere (such as 1 John) were proto-Gnostics because the nature of the arguments in these books imply that their opponents must be teaching something very similar to what Gnostics are known to have taught.

Kroeger and Kroeger enter into exactly this sort of argument to show that the opponents often referenced in the pastorals were Gnostics, or at least proto-Gnostics, who taught in germ form what was later developed into full-blown Gnosticism. In reaching this conclusion, they are in step with most interpreters. But I thought the discussion was very helpful, especially in light of the Gnostic material on Eve, and the feminine origin of the human race.

Kroeger and Kroeger conclude, along with many evangelicals, that women in Ephesus were intimately involved in spreading the new false doctrine that Paul so dreaded. This case, which is too elaborate to develop here, has always been convincing to me. Their translation work on a number of passages made significantly more sense than what we have in the NASB or NIV versions. For instance, the reference to “wives tales” (NIV), “fables fit only for old women” (NASB), or literally, “old women’s tales” in 1 Tim. 4:7 has always seemed strangely sexist and out of character for Paul. But Kroeger and Kroeger show that this was actually a term in contemporary use, referring to old women who were the storytellers in the earth-mother cults. In these cults, such elderly women were the main propagators of their fertility doctrines and mythology. Now these same false teachings were showing up in the church, again propagated in part by women.

In a final coup, Kroeger and Kroeger lay out a study of the word used in 1 Tim. 2:12 for “exercise authority” (NASB) “have authority” (NIV) or “usurp” (KJV). The word, authentien, is rare, and only used this one time in the New Testament. Its origins go back to a word for murder, and in a related form means “original” from which, they argue, we get the word “authentic.” A cognate of this word is related to our word for “author,” meaning to originate. They argue that the word can mean, “to claim ownership or authorship.”

Based on this research, they argue that the verse could easily be translated, “I do not allow a woman to teach or proclaim herself author [or originator] of man…” This translation, which fits so logically with the following verse (about Adam being created first) has some syntactical problems (see below) but seems possible in my opinion. Meanwhile, Paul’s call that they should be “quiet” (not “silent") and “in submission,” is in line with all who take the posture of learners according to the New Testament.

...

...

Even the very strange verse 15 “But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety,” is explained by their interpretation much more plausibly than by the various traditional readings. Many Gnostics held that sex was all right, but not if it resulted in childbirth. Children are material beings, and therefore bad. Some even argued that women might lose their salvation if they had kids (documented by K&K;). But Paul may be reassuring them that nothing is wrong with having children. The sense would be that women will be saved regardless of whether or not they have children.

As I considered Kroeger and Kroeger’s final argument and the research on which it is based, I found myself substantially won over to their view. This whole passage probably has nothing to do with the role of women in the church, but is a refutation of a specific position being advanced by false teachers in Ephesus!

Fascinating, anyone have any thoughts in response?

Hi Phil,

Sorry to have taken so long with this. It’s hard to say exactly what you want to say - no more and no less - and I’ve no assurance that I’ve managed it this time.

Jason H actually persuaded me that Powers’ limitation of 1 Tim 2.11-15 to refer exclusively to husbands and wives did not stand upon closer scrutiny.

What Jason H said was that the statement, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man” does not logically entail that all men have authority over, and may teach, all women.  A woman may teach a woman or a man may teach a woman.

My problem is with the idea of “authoritative” teaching as though this is something other than, or additional to, the authority that anyone may have merely by being (known to be) a faithful teacher of God’s word. 

If a woman’s husband isn’t qualified to teach his wife “authoritatively” some other person will have to do it.  But what man who is not the woman’s husband (or what woman) can have “authority” over her?  Or are we talking about different sorts of “authority”?  If we are, what sort of “authority” (authentein) over a man is 1 Timothy 2:12 referring to?

This word ‘authentein’ occurs once only in the Bible and very rarely anywhere else.  Strong’s says that the word ‘exousia’ is translated as ‘authority’ 29 times and 69 times as ‘power’.  I have read complementarians who, when it is suggested that ‘authentein’ was probably chosen because it carried a meaning not carried by ‘exousia’, have said that ‘exousia’ is ambiguous and then, somehow, concluded that ‘authentien’ means ‘authority’ in the normal, legitimate, sense.  This is very bad, even dishonest, reasoning and leads me to suspect that, at root, those who reason like this are less concerned with discovering truth than they are with getting, or preserving, some personal advantage. 

I’ve read that when the neither/nor construction is used the correlates are either both positive or both negative.  If ‘authentein’ is negative Paul could have used ‘heterodidaskein’ (other teaching/strange doctrines/false teaching) but he didn’t.  Therefore, because ‘didaskein’ is positive then ‘authentein’ must also be positive.  Yet there are these verses:

Matthew 15:9 & Mark 7:7 “in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.” (didasko)
Titus 1: 11 “who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not” (didasko)

And then there is this.

If the distinction between the woman being deceived and Adam not being deceived is just about sin being sin, why does Paul refer to it when discussing men and women and teaching and authority?

Well, that’s the question, isn’t it?  Maybe it’s because the teaching Paul objected to was that Eve did not sin.  After all, death entered the world through Adam.  Eve doesn’t get a mention in Romans 5 or 1 Corinthians 15.  Speculative?  Yes.  But so is it speculative that ‘authentein’ means ‘authority’ of the normal, legitimate, sort.

After a lot of reading around on the subject I’ve come to the conclusion, for two main reasons, that 1 Timothy 2:12-15 is a corrective to a particular culturally bound situation.  First, because Paul was the apostle of grace.  Those who appeal to law, e.g., as the reason why women should not speak in church (as in 1 Cor 14:34) ought to be condemned as strongly as those who believe(d) male Gentiles should be circumcised.  Second, because those of us who belong to Christ are in the Kingdom of Heaven now.  That we’re still living in this world is beside the point.  We don’t just get to be saved when we die.  We get to be heirs now. 

The rain falls on the just and unjust alike and thorns and weeds grow on the lands of the just and unjust alike.  But just as it is no human’s job to insure that weeds choke my vegetable garden it is no human’s job to ensure that I am ruled over by any man - not even by the man who is my husband. 

It may strike some men as odd to say this but being ruled over by a man can be a great cop-out for women.  I learned that from having been a woman for a long time. 

He says I have to do so and so.  I go along with it out of the belief that I must obey but also, and maybe primarily, because I don’t want to make him cranky and start feeling like he might love me less if I don’t.  Sometimes the thing I go along with limits my freedom or causes me other problems.  Sometimes it just makes me feel like this is not the best or right thing to do.  But all the time I can sit back and think that the result of all this is his responsibility; if it’s wrong he’ll have to bear the flack - and he has.  I’ve just been an obedient wife (even if I’ve obeyed only grudgingly).  Nevertheless, however it works out I’m in the clear.  Not very loving, is it?

Now I’ve finally realised, clearly, that to be “an helper equal to” my husband means that there will be occasions when, because he’s a sinner just like me, I should refuse to obey him.  I should be prepared to fight him when necessary and deal with the consequences of that for our relationship.  Though I want my husband to love me and care for me and always be there for me it’s much more important that, first and foremost, I love and obey God.  I cannot be a proper helper to my husband if I don’t desire God more than I desire him. 

So if you blokes can subdue your desire to rule over women (result of the curse) and women can subdue their desire to do whatever it takes to keep their husband happy with them (result of the curse) then maybe we can, together, do better at furthering the Kingdom of Heaven.