Many egalitarians say that this verse was addressing a specific problem that existed only at that time and only in the Ephesian church; thus Paul was giving a temporary solution to a temporary, local problem. The problem was that certain liberated but as-yet-uneducated women in the church at Ephesus were teaching false doctrine and usurping authority over men in the process. Thus Paul’s concern in 1 Tim 2:12 was not that women were teaching and exercising authority over men, but that they were teaching false doctrine in a presumptuous manner. The problem, however, is that this alleged background situation has been fabricated basically out of nothing, for the sole purpose of allowing this verse to be interpreted in a way that is consistent with egalitarianism. That this passage actually has a straightforward complementarian meaning will now be shown, as the verse is explained phrase by phrase.
“But” (de). This first word, the conjunction “but,” may seem inconsequential; but it is important because it shows that the content of verse 12 stands in some kind of contrast with verse 11, which says, “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.” Since the two main words in verse 12 are “to teach” and “to exercise authority,” it seems obvious that these ideas are meant to contrast with “receive instruction” and “entire submissiveness” in verse 11.
Thus Paul is saying that women must study and learn Christian doctrine and have an understanding of the contents of the Bible, but they are not permitted to use their knowledge to teach men or to have authority over men. This knowledge may be used in many other ways, but not this way.
“I do not allow” (ouk epitrepo). This prohibition is very straightforward; it says unequivocally, “I do not allow.” This is not just the unbinding opinion of some ordinary male chauvinist; these words are spoken by an apostle of our Lord Jesus Christ, one who was appointed to preach and teach in faith and truth (v. 7). As an apostle, Paul speaks with the very authority of the One who appointed him.
Some try to say that this command is not applicable today because epitrepo is in the present tense, which (they claim) means that the prohibition was intended to apply only to the time at which it was spoken, and not to the ongoing church. The present tense, they say, limited the application of the prohibition to that specific era. As one egalitarian says, Paul is simply saying, “I am not presently allowing a woman to teach” (Spencer, 85). Another says, “The present tense … has the force of ‘I do not permit now a woman to teach’ ” (Bilezikian, 180). (This is part of the view that the temporary problem at Ephesus was uneducated women teaching false doctrine.)
The fact, however, is this: what these egalitarians are saying about the meaning of the present tense of the Greek verb is exactly the opposite of the usual and ordinary way this tense is explained. The present tense actually indicates ongoing activity, not limited, temporary activity. Action described in the present tense is temporally open-ended, as in Heb 10:26 (“go on sinning”) and 1 John 3:9 (“continue to sin,” “go on sinning,” NIV). It is no different in 1 Tim 2:12.
“A woman … a man” (gynaiki … andros). Depending upon the context, the Greek terms used here (gyne and aner) can mean either “woman” and “man,” or “wife” and “husband.” Almost every NT translation takes them to mean “woman” and “man” in 1 Tim 2:12, but some contend that they refer to the husband/wife relationship. Paul is simply forbidding wives to teach and have authority over their husbands, they say. The implication is that this verse would not apply to roles within the church as such; it applies only within the home.
How can we decide what these words mean in this text? Since the words as such can have either meaning, the context is the key. In my judgment the context requires the meaning “woman” and “man.” In verses 8,9 the same words are used and surely mean “man” and “woman” in general. The same is true of gyne in verse 11. Also, in verses 13,14 Adam and Eve are cited to support the prohibition in verse 12. It is true that Adam and Eve were husband and wife, but when first created they were just “the man” and “the woman.” Adam represented all mankind (in the narrow sense of “man”), not just married men; and Eve represented all womankind, not just married women. As Gen 1:27 says, “Male and female He created them,” not “Husband and wife He created them.”
We should note also that verse 14 refers to Adam and “the gyne” (with the definite article), not Adam and “his gyne” (with a possessive pronoun). We would expect the latter if Paul were thinking of Adam and Eve as husband and wife, i.e., “Adam and his wife.” But he does not say this; he says “the gyne,” i.e., the woman. (We can say this confidently because elsewhere in the NT, unless it is clear from the context, possessive modifiers are used with gyne and aner to specify the meanings “wife” and “husband.” See Titus 3:5; 1 Cor 7:2; 14:35; Eph 5:22. But here no such modifiers are used.)
Another main contextual consideration confirms this conclusion, and that is the general context of the entire epistle. In 3:15 Paul informs Timothy that he is writing this letter “so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.” In other words, he states specifically that his intention is to discuss church life, not home life. The fact that the instruction concerning women and men in 2:8–15 is followed immediately by instruction concerning church offices is indicative of this more general focus of the entire letter.
“To teach” (didaskein). The word “teach,” from the Greek didasko, is in contrast with “receive instruction” in verse 11. It is best to understand the word “a man” to be the common object of both verbs, “teach” and “exercise authority over.” Thus “I do not allow a woman to teach a man” is a complete thought that is separate from “I do not allow a woman to exercise authority over a man,” as shown below.
What exactly is meant by “teach”? Rengstorf (135) says the Greeks used this word to mean “teaching” or “instructing” in the widest sense, including the imparting of information, the passing on of knowledge, and the acquiring of skills. There is also a nuance of authority, in the sense that the teacher is telling his students what they ought to believe or ought to do. This is quite different from other kinds of verbal presentations, such as personal testimonies and reports from mission fields.
Since 1 Tim 3:15 specifies that Paul is giving instructions about church life, we conclude that this prohibition applies only within the context of the church. Paul thus forbids women to teach Christian men in all functions of the church sanctioned by the elders, including but not limited to public worship. He is not forbidding such things as Christian mothers teaching their sons, or Christian women school teachers having male pupils. Since church life is in view, we also conclude that the prohibition is limited to teaching Christian doctrine, or teaching about the meaning and application of the Bible. That is, Paul is forbidding women to give authoritative instruction concerning biblical doctrine to Christian men in any kind of church function.
What about the common egalitarian contention that the teaching Paul is forbidding here is false teaching only? There is nothing at all in this verse or in this word to suggest that this is what Paul had in mind. Also, such an idea raises some obvious questions. If Paul’s main concern here is false teaching, why does he limit his prohibition only to women teaching men? It is just as wrong to teach false doctrine to women as to men. Also, if the main concern is false teaching, why does he prohibit only women from such teaching? It is just as wrong for men to teach false doctrine as for women to do it.
Thus this prohibition has nothing to do with whether the content of the teaching is true or false. Paul forbids a woman to teach a man (as defined above), period.
“To exercise authority over” (authentein). The meaning of authenteo (used only here in the NT) is very controversial. One idea prevalent among egalitarians is that this word in itself has a negative connotation, i.e., that it refers to a kind of authority which in itself is sinful or wrongly seized. This view is perpetuated in some translations, including the KJV, which says “usurp authority.” Other versions use the word “domineer” (Berkeley, Williams, NEB), a practice that of course is objectionable by definition. As one egalitarian says, it means to seize autocratic, dictatorial control (Webb, 2:7).
This conclusion is drawn mainly from one of the meanings of the related noun, authentes, which in ancient Greece was sometimes applied to individuals in the negative senses of “autocrat” and even “murderer.” Thus, it is concluded, if an authentes is “a murderer,” then the verb authenteo must mean “to commit murder,” or at least to exercise violent and dictatorial control over someone. Thus Paul is forbidding women to exercise absolute power over men in a destructive manner; he is not forbidding the exercise of ordinary authority over men.
Others, however, have concluded that the verb authenteo does not have this negative connotation, but simply means “exercise authority over” (NASB, ESV) or “have authority over” (NKJV, NRSV, NIV), as most translations render it. In other words, it is not a kind of authority that is objectionable in itself, nor is it necessarily seized (“usurped”) in an unlawful manner.
One way to decide the meaning of this word is to examine all the times authenteo was used in Greek literature of any kind near the time of the NT. This has been done H. Scott Baldwin. He has identified, examined, listed, and analyzed all the 82 relevant uses of this verb from the first century B.C. to the twelfth century A.D. (see Baldwin, “Word” and “authenteo”). He concludes that in every case but two, authenteo was used to mean legitimate authority without any kind of destructive connotation such as “domineer.” The two exceptions are one use by Chrysostom in A.D. 390, where it means something akin to “usurp authority.” The other negative sense comes from the tenth century A.D., where it was used in the sense of “murder.” But these examples are too late to help us understand what the word meant closer to the first century. The fact is that every known use of the word in NT times and for several hundred years thereafter refers not to sinful authority but to a valid, positive kind of authority.
If authenteo in itself meant a sinful kind of authority, why would Paul again limit his prohibition to women? It would be just as wrong for men to usurp such authority as it is for women. Also, if this were the meaning, why does Paul forbid such domineering only over men? Would it not be wrong to domineer over women also?
The only sound conclusion is that Paul is prohibiting women in the church to hold positions of authority over men. The apostleship was such a position; this is a reason why no woman was chosen to the office of apostle. The eldership is such a position; thus 1 Tim 2:12 prohibits women from serving as elders in the church.
“Or” (oude). This simple conjunction linking “teach” and “exercise authority” may seem insignificant, but in fact it is very important for our understanding of the verse as a whole. This is so because some think oude links these two verbs together in such a way that they represent just one activity, not two. The idea is that Paul is saying that it is wrong for a woman to teach men in such a way that she usurps authority over them. That is, as long as she is not usurping authority, it is all right for her to teach men. Thus if the elders sanction it, a woman can legitimately teach a mixed adult Bible class or even preach from the pulpit.
This view assumes two things. First, it assumes that the word authenteo means “usurp authority,” which we have already seen is entirely false. Second, it assumes that the very force of the word oude is to link two actions together in such a way that they are inseparable, or in such a way that the one defines the other. One egalitarian has said that its English equivalent is ’n’, as in such familiar phrases as “nice ’n’ easy,” “hot ’n’ bothered, “eat’ n’ run.” Thus what Paul is saying is that a woman must not “teach’ n’ domineer” over a man, i.e., she must not teach men in a domineering manner.
Is this the proper meaning of oude? The answer is no. Köstenberger’s study of oude (“Sentence”) shows that it never connects a positive activity with a negative activity, but always connects either two positive activities or two negative ones. This in itself rules out the suggestion that the two verbs, didasko and authenteo, form a single idea meaning “teach (positive) so as to usurp authority (negative).” Also, though this conjunction does connect two things or activities that are related, they always remain distinct. It is usually like our combination “neither … nor,” and sometimes it is equivalent to “not even.” Its precise force in 1 Tim 2:12 is probably this: “I permit a woman neither to teach a man, nor to have authority over a man.”
“But to remain quiet” (all’ einai en hesuchia). Hesuchia does not mean “be silent” (as the NIV translates it), but to have a quiet demeanor or attitude. Apparently this was an important point for Paul, because he gives the same instruction in verse 11, “Let a woman quietly receive instruction.” Thus Paul opens and closes this two-verse instruction to women with an emphasis on a quiet spirit. This suggests that the Ephesian women did have a problem that Paul is addressing here, namely, that they were dutifully learning Christian doctrine but were not doing so in quietness and submission (v. 11). Rather, they were seeking to use their knowledge in an improper way, i.e., in teaching and having authority over men. This would explain Paul’s emphasis on a quiet, submissive attitude.
Jack Cottrell, The Faith Once for All: Bible Doctrine for Today (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub., 2002), 434–438.
