This just in to The Messianic Torah Observer—recent leaks to non-mainstream Christian and Messianic sources—affirm that the Apostle Paul—formerly Saul of Tarsus—affectionately known to many as Rav Shaul—never, ever wrote, nor did he ever give instructions to the Churches of God—the Assemblies of YHVH—that women were prohibited from teaching and preaching Torah and the Gospel. This bombshell revelation dramatically blows out of the water the centuries’-long teaching that women are restricted from teaching, preaching, prophesying, and leading church groups in the Body of Messiah. Could this be another case of the “Faith-based fake news” that seems to have been fed to the Body of Messiah? Possibly. I guess the only pertinent question that remains to be asked is: what will we do with this corrected information?

This is “Paul Never-Ever Prohibited Women From Teaching and Preaching in the Church—Part-14 of the Paul and Hebrew Roots Series.”

Given that we’ve spent so much time going over what I felt to be foundational elements to understanding our focus passage of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, I want to dive right into the 2nd half of our focus passage, beginning with verse 11.

I would encourage you, if you’ve not done so and you are interested, to first read or listen to Parts 12 and 13 of this series to bring you up to speed with our study for today (). Parts 12 and 13 establish the foundation upon which this installment is built. But if you’d prefer to just continue on with this installment, that’s fine as well. I’ve tried to include as much foundational content as I could to make this installment stand alone as a single part to this series.

Verse 11–Educating the Women (or THE WOMAN) of the Ephesian Assemblies

“Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection” (vs. 11; KJV & DRA).

Here Paul seems to be providing instructions to his young apprentice Timothy on the education of “the woman” (as offered by Dr. Eddie L. Hyatt) or “any woman” as translated in the ESV, ASV, CJB, DBY, NAS, NET, NIV, NJB and YLT; “a wife” as translated in the CEB; and “women” in general in the NLT.

Regardless whether Paul was actually addressing a single, unnamed individual as alluded to be Dr. Hyatt, or all Ephesian women as the other English bible translations seem to suggest, Paul wanted them to learn. Learn what? Learn Torah—learn the teachings of Yahoshua Messiah and the Gospel of the Kingdom.

Shattering First-Century A.D. ANE Convention Regarding Female Learning

The first thing I want to point out regarding this critical verse is Paul’s insistence that the women of the Ephesian assemblies be afforded the opportunity to properly learn scripture. It is widely accepted by ANE experts that it was unheard of for women to undergo formal learning/education of any type in first-century ANE, apart from general teaching they received related to the management of their homes.

The first 4-words of this verse, from a historic perspective, are absolutely stunning: let the women (or woman) of the Ephesian Assemblies learn. This simple instruction not only commanded Timothy to see to the formal education of the Ephesian assembly women, but it implied that their learning should not be impeded or prohibited in any way.

Now, in all honesty, most every Christian and Messianic congregation I’m aware of today happily permits their women to receive formal bible instruction in their assemblies. However, the focus of most anti-women faith leaders in the past as well as today, as it relates to this verse, is Paul’s presumed use of the terms “silence” and “subjection/submission/submissiveness” to define all women’s participation in the so-called Churches of God. And the conventional wisdom that surrounds women being silent and in submission, in most cases, is that women are to be seen and not heard especially in the assemblies and Body of Messiah. And of course, the Church Triumphant loves to erroneously lay responsibility for this doctrine or mindset at the feet of the Apostle Paul. To the Church—in most cases–if Paul said it, it must have come directly from God or Jesus Christ Himself. Well, as we will discover in our study, Paul never instructed women be “silent” and “subject to men” in the so-called Church in the way millions throughout Christiandom and the Messianic communities have come to understand and practice.

Historically speaking, there is substantial evidence that women were allowed formal education opportunities in some of the more progressive societies of the Roman Empire, such as Corinth and Ephesus. However, these cities and regions tended to be the exception to this norm. For if you weren’t a hetairai or oracle (referring to our discussion on pagan temple prostitutes in these Greek cities) in these Greek cities, as a woman you were for the most part marginalized and you were not permitted to receive any education apart from what would normally be received by woman related to homemaking duties. In particular for our purposes, orthodox Jewish women from an educational perspective were limited to being homemakers; they were subject to their husbands in every way. 

None of this is to say that women serving as homemakers back then and even today are to be viewed as marginalized members of society. Biblically speaking, there is no higher calling than for a woman to raise her children in the fear and admonition of YHVH our Elohim, and to lovingly care for her husband and the home. What we’re saying here, however, is that if you were a woman back in the day, you would not have the option of learning bible, nor of being heard by others discussing bible, outside the Body of Messiah.

The fact that Paul, a once extreme and esteemed orthodox Jew would even broach the idea of women receiving formal teachings outside the home was revolutionary to say the least. And this understanding is rarely if ever taught in our assemblies today. I agree with Donna Howell when she asserts in her book “The Handmaiden’s Conspiracy,” that the shock of this portion of Paul’s letter would not have been the “silence” aspect or part of the verse, but the “let the woman learn” (Howell; pg. 136). Thus Paul either wittingly or unwittingly—no doubt directed by the Holy Spirit–was asserting gender equality in the Body of Messiah.

The other thing regarding this verse that must be recognized is the word “let.” Some would attribute a “permissive” meaning to the term as used in this verse. But truth be told, the term “let” is nowhere to be found in the Greek text.

A very raw reading of the Greek is as follows:

“A woman/wife in stillness/silence learn in all subjection/obedience” (BNT).

The better rendering contextually is that of “the woman (singular) is to learn.” However, the term “let” seems to have been added to the verse by Greek to English translators for whatever reason best appealed to their sensibilities, personal and religious convictions. Consequently, a great many in nominal Christianity and not too few Messianics assert that Paul was appealing to the necessity of women in the Body of Messiah to learn about their Faith and that their learning was to be limited to each woman’s personal edification and teaching of other women and children in the assemblies. Contextually and from what we have already established about Paul’s view of women in ministry, this interpretation makes absolutely no sense. 

Women or the Woman Learning in Silence

The Greek term Paul is said to use for our English term “silence” is “hesuchia” {hay-soo-khee’-ah}, which the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance translates as: “quietness” (which was common when describing the life of one who stays at home doing his or her own work and who does not meddle in the affairs of others) or “silence.”

Now, translating “hesuchia” as “silence” in our English texts can be misleading. Consider this: how can one effectively learn in any formal classroom setting silently? That is, the silent one would not be permitted to ask their teacher or their classmates questions nor discuss class content.

As was and continues to be the mainstay of rabbinic learning, all Jewish male students are required to interact with their teacher(s) throughout the course of their intense learning regimen. Students are required to ask and answer questions; expound upon various Torah and Tanakh passages; etc. Sadly, females have always been restricted from formal rabbinic training. Yet, the Jewish male student’s strict learning deportment was one of deep and utter respect for their instructors and their fellow students. A rabbinic student would never attempt or make a habit of trying to speak-over or disrespect his teacher. He would be described as learning in silence and subjection, believe it or not. Sound familiar?

We all know the pitfalls associated with learning the tenets of our Faith in isolation. When the student has no one in which to discuss their learning with, that which they’ve learned may be skewed, hindered, hampered, stalled, or just outright in error. 

As Bereans—as would-be bible scholars, we must resist the urge to be fully reliant upon the English translators’ renderings. For as we can clearly see from verse 11 of our focus passage, the term silence to the western mind denotes absolute quiet or the complete absence of sound. Thus, the use of the English term “silence” is antithetical to the formal learning process of any bible student. In other words, the English term “silence” cannot accurately define the type of learning that Paul had in mind for the Ephesian assembly women.

Thus, one must be aware of the Greek when assigning meaning and context to any New Testament passage—especially in regards to the writings of Paul.

What’s in the Word Silence—More Than One Silence

Case in point: Matthew 22:34:

”But when the Pharisees had heard that He (ie., Y’shua) had put the Sadducees to silence (ie., “phimoo”) they were gathered together” (KJV).

The Greek word for silence in this verse, phimoo, denotes the “muzzling” of an individual or animal and or to “place someone in check.”

Acts 15:12:

”Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them” (KJV).

Here, the Greek word for silence, “sigao,” denotes the holding of one’s peace. Now recall, “sigao” was the same Greek term Paul used in 1 Corinthians 14:28 and 34 where Paul instructed men and women to stop chattering or talking during fellowship gatherings but to respect one another and respect the officiators.

And then there’s Acts 21:40:

”…And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,…” (KJV).

The Greek word for silence here is “sigay,” denoting absolute silence. 

Stop Relying Solely on English Translations of the Bible to Provide the Truth of God’s Word—Be Bereans 

The point I’m trying to make here, of course, is that, just because an English translator at whatever time in history he was doing his translation work, chose to use the English term “silence” to define the Greek term “hesuchia” or “sigao,” or “sigay” doesn’t mean it was the best word choice to accurately convey what Paul was truly to get across in his readers. Word choice in Bible translations is vitally important. And the truth-seeker must have a mind to, at the very least, trust the English translations he or she has at their disposal, but verify. Verify if the English rendering he or she is seeing makes sense within the contextual, language, historical, cultural and geographical paradigm in which the text was originally written. Remember, we’re dealing with a 2,000+ year old, dead language, that requires one to employ proper hermeneutic principles (ie., the art of bible interpretation) in order to properly divide the Word of Truth.

So clearly, the use of the English term “silence” in verse 11 is a poor choice. As we just discussed, the proper instructing of the Ephesian assembly women could not take place in an environment that prohibited student questions, comments, discussions and answers to teacher questions. 

As it applies to our focus passage here, contextually, “hesuchia” is indicative of an ideal student, who is “enthusiastic and cooperative” and “who is willing to learn more in an area of life in order to please God” (Howell; pg. 136). Moreover, this content-rich Greek term is indicative of someone who sits on the edge of his or her seat at every word uttered by his/her teacher, giving over to that teacher the respect and adoration they rightly deserve as a teacher of the Gospel and Torah.

That being the case, the “hesuchia” female student doesn’t try to over talk or take over the class proceedings from the teacher. They sit and learn in utter subjection, or better, respect.

Dr. Eddie L. Hyatt beautifully expounds on the term “hesuchia” as follows:

“A life without upset and turmoil. Thus learning in hesuchia, ie., in calmness and quietness, was the Greek-Socratic method for all students to learn. Paul wants this woman (and all women) to be able to learn in this sort of quiet and peaceful environment, without upset and turmoil” (ibn; pg. 93).

Let Women Learn

If we invoke the concept of Internal Consistency to our study of this verse, it would seem evident that Paul’s learning policy, which for a while became the general practice of the Way Movement, was for any and all women of Faith to be educated in the things of the Faith. This, as mentioned in other places “was at variance with Jewish and Greek customs” (Dr. Eddie L. Hyatt; pg. 69).

As mentioned in previous installments of this series, ANE women were typically educated in matters of the home. Period (again, unless the woman was a member of the pagan-temple-cult prostitution systems of such Greek cities as Ephesus and Corinth).

Thus, it must be understood that Paul’s insistence that women be educated in the Faith was revolutionary for that time. Recall, if you will, last installment where I mentioned Paul’s writings were in response to an issue or cause (ie., cause and effect—something prompted Paul to write what he wrote). Thus, it can only be presumed that there may have been some misogynistic issues related to educating women in the Faith—specifically in Ephesus–that Paul and Timothy needed to deal with. This very issue, therefore, would be at the very heart of the push for women of Faith being accepted as equal partners in the Body of Messiah.

As much as this was a new concept—women learning—to the men of the assemblies, it was equally new to the women, who would not be “used to listening to lectures or thinking about theological concepts, or studying at all” (John Temple Bristow; What Paul Really Said About Women; pg. 70). These were as mentioned “normally bound to the solitude of home or limited in social contact to their own husbands and children” (ibn; pg. 70). Now, under this new paradigm of both men and women learning together the things of the Faith, women were given “an opportunity to visit with one another in classroom settings” (ibn; pg. 70). But what may sound fantastic conceptually doesn’t always work out as easily when put in practice.

Fortunately, Paul would not be hindered in his quest for gender equality in the Faith, and it would be, through Timothy, that Torah and the Gospel would be accessible to any who would desire to be a true member of the Body of Messiah. 

Women Under Subjection

There were obvious problems associated with the newly found freedoms women were experiencing in the realm of biblical education. Thus Paul purposed to establish ground rules for their learning. The first part of the rules was they they were to learn “in silence with all subjection” (1 Tim. 2:11).

Now, we’ve already expounded in depth on the issue of the Ephesian woman or women learning in silence, focusing on the Greek term ”hesuchia.” Thus, we must now turn our attention to the English term “subjection” as it relates to women’s learning.

Hupotassomai

The English term “subjection” in the ancient Greek is “hupotassomai.” Hupotassomai denotes “the voluntary willingness to be responsive to the needs of others. Thus, in the case of the Ephesian female student’s learning, hupotassomai is directly connected with the needs of others (ie., other students) to listen; to the needs of themselves, to hear; and of the needs of their teachers, to communicate without noisy competition” (Bristow; pg. 70). Please recall, if you will, that this same term in its root form was used—presumably by Paul—in his letter to the Corinthian assembly, where he also addressed women interactions in the assemblies (1 Corinthians 14:34). Paul wrote:

“Let your women keep silence (Greek—”sigao”) in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience (ie., Greek—hupotasso), as also saith the law” (KJV).

We concluded, after a rather detailed examination of this verse, that Paul was essentially instructing the women of the Corinthian assemblies to stop chattering or talking in the middle of worship services and to respect and allow the service leader(s) to lead the services/proceedings/teachings unhindered by their rude chattering.

In both cases, Paul in a sense instructs the men to afford the same learning and teaching opportunities as they themselves enjoyed and embraced. However, he turns to the woman or the women, in a sense, and instructs them to enter into their learning with total respect and love that defines a true student of the Faith.

And let us not overlook the fact that this form of learning—be it male or female learning–was essentially the same type/same form of learning that Paul experienced attending Pharisee college in Jerusalem while in his late teens, in and through his twenties. Those same principles, minus the prohibition against women rabbinic education, Paul seemed intent on applying to the Corinthian, Ephesian and Cretan assemblies. 

Verse 12—I Suffer a Woman Not to Teach

“I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent” (vs. 12; HCSB).

Here Paul places teaching restrictions on either women (either across all assemblies or specific to Ephesus) or on a specific woman as Dr. Eddie Hyatt contends. The usurping authority over men is a most perplexing phrase that causes a ton of confusion both within and without the Body of Messiah. We will get much deeper into this as we move further along in our study.

Paul’s Prohibition Against Women Teaching—A True Prohibition?

Let us not forget that prior to Timothy’s oversight of the Ephesian assemblies, it was Priscilla and Aquila—”equal partnered husband and wife team”—that, through Paul’s assistance and guidance, were responsible for “establishing, growing and maintaining the “church” there” (Donna Howell; pg. 130).

It stands to reason that most, if not all, the veteran Ephesian Assembly members would have recalled Priscilla as “their pastoral figure in the beginning” (Howell.; pg. 131)! This was and remains established historical fact in the annals of the Ephesian Assembly.

So to think that Paul was against women teachers, especially in Ephesus, is problematic to say the least.

Granted, as we’ve previously discussed, some in churchianity and in various sects of the Messianic community will assert that Priscilla’s, along with other noted female leaders of the first-century Way Movement, were aberrational instances of female leadership in the Faith. But we can never abandon context and scriptural consistency when studying Scripture; especially when studying many of Paul’s difficult to decipher passages. To say that Paul did an “about-face” on the issue of women teachers and preachers, smack in the midst of his oversight of the assemblies of YHVH, is problematic to say the least. Because, if it turns out that Paul actually flip-flopped on his position regarding women leaders-teachers-preachers-prophets-worship leaders-apostles, then it begs the question: what else did he flip-flop on. And if he is indeed a flip-flopper on this crucial element of our Faith, what other crucial elements of our Faith did he flip-flop on. Which would then bring into question his legitimacy as a true apostle of the Faith.

Needless to say, I in no way believe Paul “flip-flopped” or did an “about-face” on women being teachers and preachers in the Body of Messiah. The problem we have here, again, is one of understanding Paul’s difficult to understand writing style which included Paul’s habit of leaving important bits of information out of some of his writings; lousy English renderings of the Greek texts; and the challenge of overcoming various religious, cultural and historic worldviews that often obscure the true meaning of biblical texts. And I contend even further, when one opens themselves to the leading and teaching of the Holy Spirit, all of these impediments to understanding Paul’s challenging writings are greatly reduced. Thus, with the right tools and resources, the truth of scripture is available to anyone who dares seek the Truth.

Men Versus Women Teachers and Preachers

John Bristow, in his book “What Paul Really Said About Women,” contends that Paul was essentially asserting that teachers at first had to be men of the assemblies as the men were the only ones educated in the Faith at the time. I don’t necessarily buy into that thinking at all. The tenets of the Faith were Torah and Messiah based, and most of the Gentiles coming into Faith in Ephesus were not all that familiar with Judaism or the Hebraic Roots of Faith. Bristow is assuming that the Ephesians were former Jews, thus they would be used to the Jewish paradigm of women being excluded from learning the things of Judaism. And in previous installments we spent a great amount of time discussing the misogyny that was part and parcel of Judaism. So I can see why Bristow may think this to be the case, but to me that would presume that the men of the Ephesian Assembly were already trained in Judaism. Let us not forget that Priscilla and Aquila headed the first assemblies in Ephesus, and certainly Priscilla was no man.

The Prohibition Against Women Teachers and Preachers—1 Timothy 2:12

When we examine the Greek text directly in the order in which it was written, we end up with roughly the following:

“To teach (didaskein), on the contrary, to a woman I do not grant permission, and not authentein—take authority over men–but to be in silence” (Richard and Catherine Kroeger; I Suffer a Women Not to Teach; pg.79).

The authors look at the term “to teach” and question whether the term is suggestive of the content of the woman’s or women’s teaching. We know that in Thyatira, for instance, it was reported that a woman (aka Jezebel, a so-called prophetess) was teaching the deep things of hasatan; teaching the members of the assemblies to fornicate and eat things sacrificed to idols (Rev. 2:20). Thus, it is proposed that this one Greek term—didaskein–may be defining that which “the woman (gune)” must not teach here in 1 Timothy 2:12.

Now, at first I disagreed with the Kroeger’s assertion that Paul was referring to “didaskein” from the perspective of delivering doctrine—in this case delivering false doctrine–as opposed to the perspective of the general act of teaching or instructing. But after continuing to dig and explore further the the term “didaskein,” I believe the Kroegers may be correct. 

To Teach–didaskein

The function of teaching is here emphasized in the Greek term “didaskein.” The teaching itself is defined in the Greek as “didaskalia” and “didache.” And the actual teacher is defined in the Greek as “didaskalos.” “Didache” defines the “terms of the Truth which the teaching bears” (ibn; 80; 2 Tim. 4:2; Tit. 1:9).

The nuance that is applied here in 1 Timothy 2:12 as it applies to teaching Truth is that “those who are “didaktikos,” that is those who are capable of teaching, must be well prepared to instruct those who oppose Truth (1 Tim. 3:2; 2 Tim. 2:24).

The teachings (ie., the didaskalia) of the Ephesian opponents is one of demons (1 Tim. 4:1), which of course was in variance with the Truth (1 Tim. 6:2,3; 2 Tim. 4:3). Nevertheless, Paul counseled that all who would stick with the Truth—that is those that taught Truth—they would be saved (1 Tim. 4:16).

We find that women were actively involved in the false teachings (1 Tim. 4:7; 5:11-13; 2 Tim. 3:6-7; Tit. 1:11). Thus, Paul condemned their “didaskein” which was heretical. The Kroegers propose that the verb “didaskein” as used in this context is a strict prohibition against the women of the Ephesian Assembly engaging in false teachings (cf. 1 Tim. 1:3,4; Tit. 1:9-14; ibn; pg. 81).

Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that given the context and taking into account all that we’ve uncovered in this study, that this focus passage is not an indictment against women teaching in the Body of Messiah. For, as I will discuss more fully later on in this post, Paul in Titus 2:3-5 fully supports—dare I say fully endorses–women teachers and preachers operating in the Body of Messiah.

Paul writes in 2 Timothy 2:2:

“Take the things you heard me say in front of many other witnesses and pass them on to faithful people (”anthropos—men and women”) who are capable of teaching others” (CEB).

We know through the ministry of Paul that women played a crucial role in teaching the Faith (2 Tim. 1:5; 3:14). And of course there are numerous other passages of the New Testament that certified women to preach, teach and prophesy (cf. Col. 3:16; 1 Cor. 14:26, 31; 11:5; etc.).

Therefore, from a contextual standpoint, to teach or to didaskein—here in 1 Timothy 2:12 actually referring to the act of a woman or women “delivering false doctrine” in and to the Ephesian assemblies makes a lot of sense; more so than the convention whereby Paul is outright prohibiting women from being teachers and or preachers in the assemblies altogether.

Epitrepo—”But I Suffer”

Stepping back to the very beginning of verse 12, we find recorded “…I suffer not…” The two Greek words supposedly used by Paul here is “ouk epitrepo,” which means “I do not allow” or “I do not permit,” which as used here in our focus passage, addresses, according to the Kroegers, a “particular circumstance rather than laying down a widespread interdiction against the leadership activities of women” (ibn; 82).

Unlike the other Greek aspects of this verse, “ouk epitrepo” is very cut and dry. Paul is simply saying: “I will/I do not allow”…someone to do something (Louw Nida Lexicon). And that something which Paul is not allowing to take place seems to be the false teachings that either the woman or women were spreading in the Ephesian assembly. As well as it could mean that Paul was putting a stop to the false teachings that this woman or these women were formerly teaching in the various home fellowships on weekly Sabbaths. 

Putting It Together Thus Far

So when we put the first part of 1 Timothy 2:12 together, as we’ve come to understand each component part thus far, we arrive at the following:

“But I absolutely will not permit the false teachings of the woman in question or the women in question to persist in the Ephesian assemblies.”

Folks, do you see the ramifications of this? Do you recognize that such an interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12 completely blows out of the water the centuries’ old doctrine that women cannot teach nor preach in the assemblies of Messiah? This is absolutely ground breaking.

But as I mentioned in my rather sad attempt at drama at the outset of this post, now that we have this information, what are we going to do with it? What should we do with it?

Look, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: this is content you will not read nor hear on other Messianic-based ministry platforms. We do not have a denomination nor a religion we answer to. Our only concern is getting to the Truth of biblical matters, and I hope that this, and all the other installments to this series on Paul and Hebrew Roots, if anything, will motivate you to conduct your own indepth studies on Paul’s writings. Don’t take as gospel truth the content I’m putting forth to you here. I appreciate you accepting these teachings in the spirit that it’s given. But as President Ronald Reagan said of the Russians regarding their keeping of SALT: trust but verify.

However, we’re not quite done with this verse. We still have to deal with the remaining portion of verse 12 that speaks to women or the woman “usurping authority over the man” and those women once again being told to “be silent” in the assemblies. 

Nor to Usurp Authority Over the Man…

Editor and Creator of the Aramaic English New Testament.

However, when we cross-reference this passage with its companion verses in Titus, we learn that women were indeed privy to publicly teach (or even preach) under Paul’s general oversight of the assemblies of Messiah:

“And so also the elder women that they be in behavior as is becoming to the Fear of Elohim; and not to be slanderers; and not to be addicted to much wine; and to be teachers of beautiful things, making the younger women to be modest, to love their husbands and their children, to be chaste and Set Apart and to take good care of their households and to be obedient to their husbands, so that no one may reproach the Word of Elohim” (Tit. 2:3-6; AENT).

Here in Titus, Paul focuses on the teaching ministry of the elder women of the assembly who, as Paul suggests, should set Godly examples for the younger women.

I want to point out that the inserted punctuation the English translators imposed upon the text has the potential of leading most to conclude that Paul was restricting the elder Cretan women’s teachings, exclusively to the younger women of the assemblies. But I, along with a great many others, assert that such a contention is not contextually consistent with what we know of Paul and his view and treatment of women leaders in the Faith. Let us never forget: the Greek texts CONTAIN NO PUNCTUATION MARKS. So for English translators to insert punctuation into their translations, as we see demonstrated here in Titus 2:3-6, is rather presumptive on their part. So we must guard against such things as we study these challenging passages, and not be given over to misled understandings that are based upon improperly imposed English punctuation.

Thus, a more contextually accurate way to understand what Paul is saying regarding the elder Cretan women teachers is that they TEACH THE TRUTH! And in their rightly dividing the Word of Truth, the teaching—preaching women would be compelled to be Godly examples to the young Cretan women who were loving, supportive and biblically submissive to their husbands and responsible caretakers of their homes. This would of course stand to reason that these elder preaching-teaching women would themselves perfectly typify these same traits in their respective lives.

And oh by the way, there was no command from Paul that woman could teach only other women (maybe of similar age), younger women and children. This line of thinking obviously comes from a forced reading of passages like Titus 2 where inserted punctuation and a failure to employ context—and let’s also throw in a refusal to establish scriptural integrity into Paul’s writings—that have led to such contrived and error-ridden doctrinal thinking in many of the assemblies of Messiah. Again, the church took the bait that was dangled before them by the Jewish synagogal and ancient Greek social mindset that marginalized women and ostracized them to strictly domestic endeavors. This thinking and practice in the Body of Messiah is contrary to the instructions and teachings of our Master Yahoshua Messiah who did not, in any, restrict women in Faith. In fact, He set women free to not only live their life in material and spiritual abundance, but also to serve the Kingdom as they are so led by the Holy Spirit. 

Usurp Authority Over The Man—Mysterious Case of the Greek Term “Authentein”

The Greek word supposedly used by Paul here for our English phrase “usurp authority” is “authentein.” Interestingly, “authentein” is not found anywhere else in the whole of the Bible. Thus, when we apply the essential concept of “internal consistency” to our studies here, understanding exactly what Paul means in verse 12 gets really challenging.

“By the New Testament period, “authentes” also at times implied one who took his own life” (Richard and Catherine Kroeger; pg. 86).

The KJV rendering of “authentein” is that of some form of a “usurpation of power.” According to the writers, the most interesting usage along these lines occurs in legal documents from Egypt (ibn; 88) and the legal right to property and to the disposal thereof” (ibn; 88). The thinking in this document was that one individual wrongly “usurped that in which they (the pair) rightfully had a share” (ibn; 88).

In such uses of “authentein” in ancient legal documents, one party is laying claim to property to which others feel they are entitled; while other parties believe the other party wrongly took possession of something that belonged to them (that being a wrongful usurpation) (ibn; 89).

Still in the first century C.E., the term was used to denote criminal behavior that included murder. But by the 2nd century C.E., the term seemed to more imply a dominance of some sort.

The so-called church fathers utilized “authentein” to mean “rule or bear authority” (ibn; 90). But these also used the term in other ways such as the wielding of power and authority over someone (John Chrysostom Homily on the Gospel of St. Matthew 44:1 (Migne pg. 7.467c)); deferring a matter over to someone who had precedence over themselves (John Chrysostom’s Homily on the Gospel of St. John 66.2 (Migne pg. 8.396D)); when instructing believers not to tyrannize one’s spouse (John Chrysostom Homily on Colossians 10.1; 11.2; (Migne pg. 11.396c; 11.406E)).

Donna Howell’s The Handmaiden’s Conspiracy highlights the erroneous understanding many have of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, resulting in the silencing of women of Faith.

Howell does cite New Testament scholar Scott Bartchy’s (New Testament scholar) study of the term:

“The verb “authentein” clearly bears the nuance of using such absolute power in a destructive manner, describing the activity of a person who acts for his or her own advantage apart from any consideration of the needs or interests of anyone else” (”Power, Submission, and Sexual Identity among the Early Christians,” Essays on New Testament Christianity—Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing, 1978, 71-72)

Howell references researchers that have linked ancient fertility practices that placed Eve as the originator of man, to the mysterious Greek term “authentein” (”The Meaning of Authenteo,” Bible Discussion Forum, July 25, 2017, http://www.thechristadelphians.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=14052). So if you’re trying to understand what ancient fertility practices have to do with women usurping authority over males, I assure you there is a subtle connection to be had.

The connection actually plays into ancient gnostic teachings that somehow merged with Artemis/Diana (ie., the matron goddess of Ephesus) cult teachings. This mash-up of Gnostic and pagan-cult teachings asserted the goddess’ claims (ie., Artemis/Diana) to be the source through whom all life began. Thus this mash-up of teachings hangs on the concept of authorship or originator. And the pagans were perpetrating false teachings that diametrically contradicted the Torah account of the origins of mankind.

Now, does such a concept contextually fit 1 Timothy 2:12 and Paul’s refusal to allow women to exercise authority over the man or over men? Well, it sort of does. For Timothy’s mission was to overturn the false teachers and their false teachings. And because the next verse, 13, gets into the whole Adam and Eve discussion, one could reasonably conclude that maybe “authentein” really does have something to do with what Howell postulates in her book: which is a hijacking of the creation story by certain Ephesian false teachers (ie., either Hyatt’s unnamed woman or meddlesome women operating door-to-door, passing along false teachings related to the creation story as documented in Torah.)

Richard and Catherine Kroeger happened to be one of a handful of researchers who believe in this authentein—Gnostic—pagan connection. They defend their position with the following points:

1. Ephesus was a central hub for erotic pagan religions that “placed women equal to, and often above, men in aggressive and sexual positions of authority.”

2. There is some historical evidence that suggests women in and around Ephesus “collectively usurped the authority of men in religious settings, especially those related to the temple of Artemis/Diana in Ephesus.”

3. The term “authentein,” along with the noun form authentes, denote a “form of extremely aggressive behavior.”

4. The terms “authentein” and “authentes” were not interpreted to mean “having power or authority” until the 2nd-century C.E. (Howell; pgs. 142,143).

Howell also cites Dr. Cynthia Long Westfall, exegesis professor at McMaster Divinity College, regarding authenteo:

“In the Greek corpus, the verb “authenteo” refers to a range of actions that are not restricted to murder or violence. However, 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” (”1 Timothy 2:12 in Context (Part 4),” Marag Mowczko, July 25, 2017, http://margmowczko/1-timothy-212-in-context-4/).

Thus, according to Dr. Westfall, “authenteo” is suggestive of “someone’s self-interest being overridden” (Howell; pg. 144). Howell continues to make a reasonable point on the heels of Westfall’s statement:

“Such circumstances do not have to be murderous or violent for them to also be inappropriate, and in the moment that a subject’s will is imposed by another to the point that he or she is entirely overridden, a usurpation has most definitely occurred” (Howell; pg. 144).

Howell aptly points out that Tyndale’s New Testament proceeded the KJV, which of course was published in 1611. Tyndale’s Bible, according to Wikipedia, “is credited with being the first English translation to work directly from Hebrew and Greek texts” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/tyndale_bible). Interestingly enough, Tyndale translated the Greek term as “have authority over.” She further points out that going even earlier in history, we find “authentein” in the Latin Vulgate (4th-c. C.E.) translated as “domineer.”

Beyond biblical literature, the term seemed to denote “master,” such that it would mean “I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to master over the man” (Howell; pg. 144). Howell points out that the concepts of “master” and “usurping authority over” are NOT synonymous. For “mastering over suggests a more aggressive takeover than, say, a diplomatic disagreement between a man and a woman over theology (or some equivalent)” (Howell; pg. 144).

Yet Howell goes on to point out that Paul likely did not use the word “authentein” to denote a usurpation of authority in his day. Regardless, we have to somehow deal with the “usurpation” issue as being antagonistic or hostile because of the etymological and historical roots of the word. And this is why it is not too far fetched of an idea that Paul was directly addressing a potential “aggressive or antagonistic takeover” of the Assembly by a priestess/prostitute of Artemis/Diana “whose pagan theology was misleading the believers in Ephesus” (Howell; pg. 145).

Howell makes a credible point that demure, unlearned Ephesian Assembly women weren’t “stealing or seizing and holding in possession by force” the teaching ministries of the assembly ministers and leaders. It just doesn’t make any sense. And unfortunately, this is the very reasoning that certain religious leaders hold to a plain read of this passage to shore up their doctrines and traditions to prohibit women from teaching and preaching in their congregations. And let’s face it, is it reasonable to conclude that such a thing was indeed happening in the Ephesian Assemblies of the first-century C.E.?

I agree with Howell and the Kroegers in their assertions that what seems to be the case through a plain reading of the text would not reasonably be a normative or absolute prohibition against women teachers of the Faith. More so, that this was “an isolated, cultural/local issue and “relative” or “restrictive” regulation pertaining to the church at Ephesus” (Howell; pg. 147). Assuming this is the case, as it relates to us today, we must be careful to apply Paul’s instructions as it relates to the specific issues he was addressing with Timothy regarding women teaching in the Ephesian assemblies.

Encouragement

I recognize that all this talk about “authentein” may be a bit mind-numbing, and I’m sympathetic to this. But I promise you, if you stick with me for just a little longer, your patience and attention will pay off in the end.

An Alternate Understanding of Authentein

By the 2nd century C.E., “authentes” was being used to “denote an originator or instigator” (Kroegers; pg. 99). By this point in history, the term was used by both Jewish and Greek writers to denote or designate the “real perpetrator of a crime;” “the author of a crime;” and “the perpetrator of evils” (Josephus Wars 1.582; Diodorus of Sicily 16.61; 17.5; 35.25; Appian Mithridates 90.1).

Stay with me. This is definitely leading to a final understanding of what Paul was trying to convey to Timothy in 1 Timothy 2:12.

In the “similitudes of Hermas 9.5.6,” an early Christian writing, YHVH is referred to as “the architect and builder” (ie., “authentes”) of a tower. We find in a second century C.E. Christian novel where “authentes” was used to describe YHVH as “the sole creator” (Clementine Homilies 12, Ante-Nicene Fathers). And we find scattered throughout early Christian writings where Mashiyach is described as the author (ie., “authentes”) and introducer of a new law of salvation; and leader of the work of the gospel; the teacher and “authentes” (prime mover) of laws and teachings whereby the power of our Savior is revealed (Eusebius De Ecclesiastica Theologia 3.5; Migne pg 24.0103A).

Researchers have found that the noun form of “authentes,” which is “authentia,” is suggestive of primal cause and power. As we see it used in 3 Maccabees 2:29, it implies “original status.”

Bringing Authentein Into a Final Understanding of 1 Timothy 2:11 and 12

So bringing all that we’ve discussed in this installment together regarding 1 Timothy 2: 11 and 12, we have two competing interpretations in which to draw from. Fortunately, neither interpretation excludes the other. That is, both interpretations address false teaching and the need for the woman or women in the Ephesian assemblies to be properly educated in Torah and the Gospel.

The first interpretation is pretty cut and dry. Paul is instructing Timothy to prohibit the Ephesian assembly women from teaching (or preaching if you will) until such time that they are properly trained in Torah and the Gospel and the false teachings have been expunged from the assemblies.

Donna Howell seems to favor this “temporary” prohibition against Ephesian assembly women teaching. I respect this interpretation. However, I see it as a very safe interpretation that fails to distinguish between the women teachers and fellowship leaders who were firmly grounded in the Truth and those who were spreading false doctrine in the assemblies. It seems from this safe interpretation that Paul is penalizing the “good” along with the “bad.” I just don’t buy into this interpretation.

Which brings us to the other interpretation, which I believe best fits, contextually speaking, with the situation on the ground at the time Paul wrote his letter to Timothy, and that addresses specifically the woman (or women) responsible for spreading and teaching their heretical doctrine.

Catherine and Richard Kroeger support this second, albeit rather controversial, interpretation. Since they’ve devoted so much research to our focus passage and they have the expertise of the context, history, religion and culture of Ephesus, I’ll be referring to their work to best illustrate this interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12.

“Authentein,” when used with the genitive, as it is written in 1 Timothy 2:12, possibly implies a claim of sovereignty and or ownership (Richard & Catherine Kroeger; pg. 102). The Kroegers go to some length to express the idea that some form of authorship or ownership is behind Paul’s use of “authentein” in our focus passage.

They offer the following interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12:

“I do not allow a woman to teach nor to proclaim herself author of man.”

Such gnostic teaching strongly enforced the belief that a woman (conceivably Eve) was responsible for the creation of man (ibn; pg. 102). They support their contention by highlighting Paul’s mention of genealogies (1 Tim. 1:4), which had the inevitable tendency to get into matters of origins which the Apostle said promoted speculations (ie., debates or controversies), dissensions and quarrels about Torah and are worthless and futile (Tit. 3:9).

The Kroegers go further and expand their interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12 with the following:

“I do not permit a woman to teach nor to represent herself as originator of man, but she is to be in conformity with the scriptures or with Torah, or that she keeps it a secret. For Adam was created first, then Eve”—referring to 1 Timothy 2:13 (ibn; pg. 103).

Thus, in keeping within context of the discussion in this verse, for the woman in question to be in silence would imply that she “to keep something a secret;” or rather, that she not speak such abominations in the Assemblies of Messiah (ibn; 103). In other words, Paul may have simply been saying that this woman needed to sit down, shut up, and learn the Truth. Period.

This of course is part and parcel of the mystery religions and it formed the basis of much of gnostic teachings, where Eve was exalted and venerated as the creator of Adam. This was “secret knowledge” that was only available to the adherents of the religion. And in many cases, this was knowledge that was passed along by the so-called female mediators—in some cases temple prostitutes and priestesses–of pagan cults like Artemis/Diana.

The Kroegers suggests that Paul, in his letter to Timothy, was actually opposing a doctrine which acclaimed motherhood as the ultimate reality. This heretical understanding and teaching sought to uproot and replace the Truth of Torah in the Ephesian assemblies. This is what hasatan does. He seeks to subvert the Word of Truth and lead God’s people astray.

Our bible maintain that God, who far transcends all limitations of gender, created the heavens and the earth, and that all things are of God” (ibn; 112).

The writers give credence to their claims here regarding the whole motherhood mindset of the ancients by pointing to the very next verse whereby Paul goes into the whole Adam and Eve saga (1 Tim. 2:13). Of course we know that Paul asserts that Adam was created before Eve and that Eve did not bring gnosis to humanity but transgression. And we will get into verses 13-15 and bring this study of our focus passage to a conclusion in Part 15 of this series.

Conclusion

Our focus passage of 1 Timothy 2:11 and 12 is not a prohibition against women leadership (ie., teaching and preaching) in the Body of Messiah, but a “refutation of a widespread heresy” that was ongoing in the Ephesian Assemblies of Messiah (Richard and Catherine Kroeger; pg. 117). Paul’s refutation was directed at Jewish Gnosticism or proto-Gnosticism, which featured the whole motherhood mystery teaching and religion that had threatened to destroy the Ephesian assembly if he—Paul—failed to put an abrupt stop to it.

Contextually speaking, Paul was not picking on women or the woman. He had already addressed the men who were responsible for spreading heretical doctrine in the assemblies—Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Tim. 1:20). In our focus passage, however, he turned his attention to the unfortunate woman (or women) who were also behind the proliferation of this heretical and damaging doctrine.

Folks, I hope that this study of 1 Timothy 2:11 and 12 helps us to realize once and for all that Paul did not in any way prohibit women from teaching and preaching Torah and or the Gospels And it’s high time that we give ear and attention to proper and deep study of the Word of Truth so that we may truly hear what Father has to say to us and walk out our Faith in Spirit and Truth. Now is the time that women be finally freed from the bondage that religion has imposed upon them and that has prevented them from exercising their gifts and callings in the Body of Messiah.

Faithfully