For years, I’ve wrestled with Paul’s letters to Timothy—especially 1 Timothy—to better understand the cultural and religious landscape of first-century Ephesus and Asia Minor, where Paul and Timothy ministered. In the past 7–8 years, I’ve discovered several aspects that were rarely discussed (or at least not widely accessible) in conversations about women in the church until recently. I encourage you to be like the Bereans: test everything and do your own research (Acts 17:11). I hope to expand each of these points into a full article to share in the future. Here is a partial list of key contextual pieces I’ve uncovered:
PAGAN INFLUENCE AND SYNCRETISM
Ephesus was a major religious center, home to over 50 gods and goddesses. The dominant deity was Artemis of the Ephesians, whose grand temple was one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (as noted by Philo of Byzantium in the 3rd century BC and other ancient sources). When many Ephesians turned to Christ (as described in Acts 19), it sparked a riot from Artemis’s devoted followers. But Artemis was far from the only deity worshipped there. (References: Clinton Arnold, Talbot School of Theology president and NT professor, via his books and personal correspondence; ancient accounts of the Seven Wonders. ); Seven Wonders of the Ancient World )
PAGAN PRACTICES, INCLUDING WITCHCRAFT
Other prominent deities in Ephesus included Aphrodite, Hecate, Cybele, Dionysus, and Isis. Each deserves its own exploration. Archaeological evidence reveals altars to Hecate in the courtyard of Artemis’s temple. Ancient sources describe Hecate as a triple goddess (maiden, mother, crone) associated with witchcraft, often called “the old woman”—using the same rare Greek term (graōdeis) that Paul employs in 1 Timothy 4:7 (“old-womanish myths”).
Dionysus (god of wine, ecstasy, and erotic pleasure; recall the 2024 Paris Olympics opening ceremonies) and Aphrodite (goddess of eros love) were frequently paired in Ephesian artifacts. Ephesians 5 may serve as Paul’s direct correction to their pagan practices, contrasting their sexual immorality (v3-13), drunken debauchery (18), erotic festivals (19) and eros love with a Christ-centered lifestyle and agape love (2x2, 25x2, 28x3, 33) in marriage. Aphrodite in Ephesos?
RARE AND UNUSUAL GREEK WORDS
Paul, a brilliant rhetorician trained in Tarsus (“no mean city,” Acts 21:39—a classical allusion to Euripides’ civic pride in his play Ion) and under Gamaliel in Jerusalem, frequently uses rare or unique words. He quotes the Septuagint nearly 100 times and draws from various ancient sources. Governor Festus even remarked that Paul’s learning was driving him mad (Acts 26:24). The Pastoral Epistles, especially 1 & 2 Timothy, are packed with over 100 hapax legomena (words appearing only once in the NT) or near-hapax terms, some possibly coined by Paul himself. HAPAX LEGOMENON Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
PAGAN MYTHICAL GENEALOGIES
Paul warns against “myths and endless genealogies” (mythois kai genealogiais) in 1 Timothy 1:4. Early church fathers linked this to proto-Gnostic aeons, while many commentators see Jewish mythical angel genealogies and/or their physical genealogies. However, Paul explicitly pairs mythos (myths) with genealogia (genealogies). This echoes Hecataeus of Miletus (c. 500 BC), who wrote a four-book series titled Genealogia recording Greek human and mythical lineages. Only 30–40 fragments survive, but its famous opening states: “Hecataeus of Miletus thus speaks: I write what I deem true; for the stories of the Greeks are manifold and seem to me ridiculous.” Paul, educated in rhetoric (which included debating such genealogies), likely knew of this work through references in other authors, oral tradition, or his travels (including nearby Miletus). Under the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, he creates a phrase that powerfully encapsulates and engages the surrounding culture.
Anchoring Genealogy in: Mnemosyne Volume 77 Issue 2 (2024)
KIN-MURDER, SACRIFICE, AND VIOLENCE
A particularly rare word in 1 Timothy 2:12 is authentein (a hapax legomenon in the NT). The authent- word family appears in classical Greek tragedies (which Paul references elsewhere), often describing murderers (authentai) tried at Athens’ Areopagus court—the same hill where Paul spoke in Acts 17. Aeschylus’s Eumenides (a tragedy likely familiar to educated Ephesians via the Great Theatre’s 25,000 seats) features kin-murder trials. The Septuagint’s Wisdom of Solomon 12:6 uses a related term for kin-murder/sacrifice, mirroring aspects of Ephesian pagan idolatry.
Paul’s use of authentein predates later Gnostic applications (2nd century AD). Jerome’s Vulgate (c. 400 AD) rendered authentein as dominare (“to dominate”), Erasmus (1516) as “usurp authority” (implying illegitimate power), and modern translations as “exercise authority” or just “authority”. Over time, the original negative, forceful connotation (possibly evoking violence or domineering control) faded and was forgotten.
So, was murder really on Paul’s mind? Paul includes three hapax references to murder in 1 Timothy 1:9.
The Trial That Saved Athens: Orestes at the Areopagus | Spoken Past
The meaning of authentein with a brief history of authent– words - Marg Mowczko
These rare words that have been through multiple translations, along with the broader Ephesian context that has literally been buried for centuries with Artemis’ temple, may help clarify some of these most challenging passages.
What was Paul’s heart for women in the church? What is God’s heart for women in His church? These pieces might offer a pathway toward greater understanding and I hope this can foster a respectful discussion to help move forward on passages that have deeply impacted women and the Church.
If you’re interested, I’ve shared more on this in the comments of: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office | CRC Network
Feel free to share your thoughts, insights, or questions—I’d love to continue the discussion!
Comments
Hi Bev,
Thanks for posting this thought provoking piece. When we dig into the cultural context of Ephesus it seems there are two options: 1) Paul is giving instructions to Timothy that are time bound and only apply in 1st century Ephesus. Or: 2) Paul is giving instructions to Timothy that are timeless - because they apply to the 1st century context of Ephesus. It seems to me that those who highlight the 1st century context assume that the context must mean option 1. But that necessitates an unspoken presupposition that it couldn't possibly be option 2. Which would also mean God left his church without clarity on something as significant as his will for women in the church for thousands of years until the cultural context could be unearthed. This also leaves us in the awkward position of saying Paul's admonition only meant that to them, then. A hermeneutical move I find difficult to square with the way the church has historically read Paul.
Additionally, when it comes to the definition of authentien, the scholarship is controversial to say the least. As you probably know Andreas Kostenberger makes a compelling case that in this context it means “to have authority” or “to exercise authority” in a neutral or positive sense. Regardless, one cannot avoid the fact that Paul is not permitting women to do something - and that something is grounded in creation order (vv.13-14).
This is why I remain unconvinced of the egalitarian position. While your questions are thought provoking, the mountain of exegetical evidence seems too much to overcome the plain reading of the text, especially given that Paul grounds this text in creation order.
I do want to leave you (and whoever else may read this) with a question that I think is at least worth considering. Could it be that this passage is not a burden to be explained away but a gift to be received? Maybe this is God's good and wise plan for His church? Maybe He's inviting us to trust Him to step out in faith?
Thanks for posting. Blessings.
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Patrick, for taking the time to read, ask questions and share your thoughts. For now, here is a short response, I will post a more complete response later this week... but some of the response is already included in articles that will be posted in the future as each concern is a discussion on its own. (I'm letting the CRC network moderate that!)
I want the hard questions! I pray we can wrestle through these together in community for His glory, for His beautiful and profound principles that are for our good. God warns us to test everything, to examine and search His Scriptures and I really appreciate that you are testing what I share.
A brief history of my journey, I didn't go looking for this particular debate, it was barely even on my radar, until someone (non CRC) asked me very specifically in 2008. I gave them my standard answer at that time which was let the men be the leaders because I don't want them to abdicate their responsibilities, and I had very little interest in any of whatever it was that happened with council, classis or synod or whatever committee, yet felt prompted to take some time to research the various views as I had never done my own research on it, but was vaguely aware the CRC had a dual position on this. I researched, wrestled, prayed and processed for about 3 months and came to the same conclusion as the 1995 CRC Synod. I prayed "God, You will have to make it clear, because I can see both sides and how the CRC came to the same dilemma..." was my conclusion after wrestling with the information I had available at that time! After that, this issue was not part of my focus for almost 10 years. Although the question remained in the background, I was not actively pursuing it. That changed in late 2017-early 2018 when a very specific and significant piece of the pagan culture came to my attention and I started researching again. I am now sharing various pieces, that as far as I have found so far, were not part (or at least a significant part) of the discussion back in the 1990's, were not easily accessible in 2008, and have since become more accessible through the internet.
Patrick, I understand your concern that some say this passage applies only to 1st century Ephesus. That is not my view, I believe there are universal principles here because it is part of God's word. But the cultural pagan context is a significant lens that needs to be included in this discussion and for the most part has not been for various reasons until fairly recently. Dr. Clinton Arnold (starting in the 1990's- current) was one of the first theologians to re-acknowledge Artemis and the pagan cults after centuries of it being off the Ephesians & Timothy context radar, but this aspect didn't really get much attention until the last 5-10 years, and it still is not a commonly considered context or if it's considered, often quickly dismissed by one side.
Yes, on Kostenberger (and our own CRC Dr. Albert Wolters)... That they believe 'it means “to have authority” or “to exercise authority” in a neutral or positive sense"' is included in one of the articles that will be posted in the future. I also bring up created order and 1 Tim 2:13-14 in a subsequent article not yet posted. (Due to the nature and amount of material, this is a series of articles in shorter segments (700-1,500 words each) so it is not an overwhelming firehose and TLDR! This post is just the introduction.)
I believe the meaning was clear and plain to Timothy, and to others that might have heard or read this letter from Paul. Unfortunately, the plain reading has been muddled over the ages through translations, traditions, and confusing uses by the Gnostics, starting shortly after Paul & Timothy's time. Mike Winger's 11+ hours long video on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 alone that took him a year to research and record tells us there is a lot of confusion and controversy here, let alone all the other writing that has been done on especially 1 Tim 2:12. ALL The Debates Over 1 Tim 2:11-15: Women in Ministry part 12 (it took me a year to make this)
I leave you with the same question expanded a bit... is it possible this verse/passage is not a burden, but something more beautiful that God intended for both men and women in His family... when we understand it more fully in the context that Paul and Timothy were ministering in in Ephesus? That possibility/potential is what I hope to share through this series and I pray the conclusion is an increased awareness of a powerful and profound Biblical principle that has been somehow lost &/or minimized for far too long!
This response was meant to be brief. Again, thank you and look forward to continuing to test and wrestle together. My heart is for God's Church/people to be the family and witness God intended and share some things that we might have misunderstood because we were missing some significant pieces.
Dear Bev,
I imagine the evidence you're referring to is along the lines of what is mentioned in this article. At the end of the day this evidence only proves my point that egalitarians assume this evidence must mean Paul is addressing a local issue with time-bound instructions rather than a local issue with time-less instructions. Cultural context is helpful when it brings out the meaning of the text. For example, the hot springs that become lukewarm by the time they arrive in Laodicea (Rev. 3:14-22).
When cultural context upends the clear meaning of the text it sows seeds of confusion, reduces confidence in God's Word, and creates a lack of confidence in the laity (how could I possibly understand God's word if I need all this education and scholarship to be able to understand it). I do believe your heart is to honor God but pray that you can see how this way of treating Scripture produces exactly the kind of deception Paul warns about in 1 Tim. 2:14.
This passage clearly shows Paul is providing universal truths to address whatever local problems there are. His instructions are to be applied "in every place" (2:8). He grounds his instructions in creation order (v13) and the consequences of what happens when creation order is upended (v.14). These instructions are so Timothy and the church in Ephesus will know, "how one ought to behave in the household of God" (v.3:14).
While I share the desire for women to flourish within God's design, I would beg you to reconsider your presuppositions and heed the simple teaching of God's Word. Paul calls women to persevere in faith, love, holiness, and self-control, trusting God’s good and wise ordering (1 Tim. 2:15).
In Christ,
Patrick Anthony
.
thanks again for responding in a respectful way, Patrick. I really appreciate your heart for God's Church, for His people, both men and women to fulfill His purposes for us, for His glory and our good. I believe God is calling men to persevere in these 2:15 ways as well, as Paul uses she, then "they" possibly referring to the woman and man in 2:12. However, commentaries are mixed on who the "they" refers to. I will share about God's wise ordering in a future post.
The article you share confirms some of what I have found but the author only addresses Artemis, at least here.
There are things I disagree with on both the comp and the egalitarian sides, and as I shared earlier, I do not agree that this verse/passage is strictly for the 1st century Ephesians and agree with the comps that whatever Paul meant has a universal principle. Although, if you read some of the author's other posts, you will see, even if you don't agree with it, she shares application for today.
The clear meaning when Paul specifically chose a unique Greek word authentein for the NT, instead of the far more common exousia for authority indicates to me that we need to look deeper into this rare word, which I did, and will present the history and timeline in a future article from multiple sources. Did Paul mean murder? maybe, maybe not... does it matter if most of the evidence until Paul's time suggests a harmful, negative action that Paul was calling out? Murder is a possibility based on how the authente family is used elsewhere pre Paul, especially its usage in the Septuagint, and obviously murder is not ok by anyone! But we cannot ignore that murder/suicide was part of the understanding that Paul would have been aware of a. according to earlier usage, one who with his own hand kills either others or himself. (Thayer's Greek Lexicon)
So far, I have not found a good answer from the comp side for why Paul uses authentein instead of exousia if he meant a neutral or positive authority. I've read some of Dr. Wolter's work, some from Kostenberger, and other articles here and there. Numerous egals have wrestled with it, and pretty much all of them indicate it is a negative meaning. The importance for me is not whether Paul meant murder even though I share that this was part of authentein's violent history as evidence of a negative meaning, but whether this word is negative, neutral or positive in Paul's usage.
You mention that in 1 Tim 2:8 God's instructions are to be applied in every place, yet, ironically, I don't see men lifting their hands in prayer everywhere, including the CRC. I'm wrestling with that inconsistency as well as a number of other inconsistencies based on this part of Paul's letter. Any ideas on raising hands in prayer? These are the types of questions that I cannot ignore.
My presupposition had been essentially the comp view for most of my life.
Thanks for bringing up the practice of raising hands in prayer based on this text. I came across this challenge 3 or 4 years ago, and felt convicted to change my practice. So now in worship, during all public prayers I'm leading, I do lift my hands (and would encourage/teach others to do so as well).
Thanks, Lloyd. While I do believe a distinction can be made between principle (reverent prayers in worship) and cultural practice (raising hands), if there is a question, I would much rather raise hands in worship than subvert Paul's clear prohibition against women teaching or exercising authority in this passage. I respect your conviction in this matter. In the same vein, I would advocate literal head coverings before I would upend creation order. That being said, in 1 Tim. 2, once Paul gets to men/women in the church, the principle (women ought not to teach/exercise authority over men) is the practice (women ought not to teach/exercise authority over men). Thus, we are dealing apples and oranges.
Thanks for sharing this, Lloyd! May you enjoy rich worship, celebrating Who He is and what He has done, together with the Family of God!
Hi Bev,
I think in the interest of "getting the whole picture" we will do well to place this particular word of interest not just in its cultural context but consider it as it appears with the text around it. In verse 11, immediately preceding the use of authenteo in verse 12 we see Paul instructing women to learn in quiet submission. In verse 12 itself Paul restricts women from teaching (didasko) as well as exercising authority. And he ends verse 12 with a reiteration of his call for women to remain quiet.
None of the surrounding framing and restrictions indicate a theme of Paul thinking of murder or wanting to merely restrict violent or domineering control. It would also make no sense to simply restrict women from exercising violent or domineering control. Why would Paul direct that only to women? Should we conclude that Paul was ok with men exercising authority in such a way? And as Patrick points out, this reading would not justify the "for" language that Paul uses as he immediately grounds his instruction in the created order. You shall not exercise violent or domineering authority because (for) Adam was created first? What does that mean for women as those created from man? Such a reading would actually lead one to potentially conclude that Paul was ok with men exercising violent or domineering authority because women were not created first. Perish the thought! It seems to me that your reading or suggestion makes the text in its context have all sorts of problems or contradictions that need not be there.
Thank you, Eric, for taking the time to read and respond, I appreciate your thoughts and insights. Yes, I have articles that will be posted in the future that will share more about those very concerns. This post was the intro! Here's the short version of some thoughts with scriptural support for now... Please continue to do your own research and test everything that I share!
Paul specifically includes 3 types of murder (see 1 Tim 1:9 - 2 of the Greek words Paul used would have been very shocking to Timothy and anyone else who read or heard them because of Plato) just a few sentences/paragraphs in his letter before he uses "authentein", another word that historically had significant shock value back then related to murder. Horrible types of murder (yes, murder is always horrible, but these were considered the worst of the worst... along with other deeds of darkness, such as demonic teachings and deceiving spirits per 1 Tim 4:1), were on Paul's mind with this letter. I share more on this in a future article.
I have looked at the context of Paul's entire letter addressing false teachings, myths and genealogies in the beginning of chapter 1 to what is falsely called knowledge/gnosis at the end of Chapter 6. I also take 2 Timothy and Acts 19 into consideration for context, along with Paul's letter to the Ephesians to get a more complete picture.
Paul is writing to Timothy about "certain people"/ "some" per the Greek (not just men as the NIV's imply1 Timothy 1:3 As I urged you on my departure to Macedonia, you should stay on at Ephesus to instruct certain men not to teach false doctrines ) that are causing problems, especially with teaching and when we don't limit this to only men as the Greek is gender inclusive/neutral, it can include a specific unnamed "woman" Paul refers to in 1 Tim 2:11-12, similar to Hymenaeus and Alexander that are obviously part of the problem and Paul specifically names in 1 Tim 1:20 with pretty strong language. For the men, Paul handed them over to satan, for the woman he has a different response: Paul commands Timothy to help her learn with a calm and quiet attitude! I share more on this as well...
You are absolutely right that no one, men or women, should be exercising domineering, violent, abusive or lording it over authority (or murdering anyone)! Jesus already made that clear in Matthew 20... which I share more on this too...
and yes, one of the articles that will be posted in the future, shares more about the concerns you share on 1 Tim 2:13-14, created order, Eve's deception, etc.
My prayer is the confusion, controversy, contradictions can be significantly cleared up as we wrestle through this together with information that for various reasons, was not on the table for the most part in 1995 and since then has not been easily accessible until the internet and even then, it has taken time to be more accessible.
Hi Bev,
Your explanation concerning murder if unconvincing. The fact that Paul mentions murderers in Chapter 1 does not lead to the conclusions you have made about what he is speaking about in Chapter 2. Paul is no longer addressing the presence of false teachers in Chapter 2 and there is no indication in the text that Paul is addressing a singular woman false teacher in Chapter 2.
I reject that idea that the historic church was somehow without special knowledge now widely available via the internet and was therefore somehow held back from realizing the full cultural context and the true meaning of this passage. That starts to sound gnostic in its insinuation of secret or special knowledge.
I would echo Patrick's call above while also affirming my appreciation for your desire to discuss.
In Christian love,
Eric
Eric, I really do appreciate the concerns you share. Thank you! that's ok if I don't convince you (or others) that murder is what Paul meant, but can you see the possibility that murder seems to be a primary meaning of the hapax authentein / authente word family before Paul? I've maybe become a bit numb to what a big & shocking stretch this might be from general authority, it didn't go over well with comp scholars and theologians in the 80's when this meaning was re-introduced.
This isn't secret or special knowledge. I'm very thankful there is tangible evidence to support what I share, whether people agree with it or not. That's what some people do, examine and research and dig, especially when there are questions that don't make sense or don't add up. Biblically, this was considered a noble task and we are still called to do that. I am making a case based on what I have found.
I love the word metanoia, recognizing being off track, going the wrong way, and changing in a new direction with deep conviction. Sadly and harmfully, metanoia was translated as "do penance" by Jerome's Vulgate, which got the Church off track for over 1000 years with indulgences, etc. In 1516 Erasmus translated it as repentance instead which inspired Luther's 95 thesis as part of the reformation! Why did this take over a 1000 years?
There are some things that in various ways got lost over the ages through traditions of man/elders (God/Jesus literally warns us that this can happen per Matt 15 and Mark 7, which is still applicable for today), through translations, through literally being buried, and other means. This was part of the story of the historian Josephus. He wrote a lot about this amazing city Caesarea that Herod built, but it was buried under silt over the centuries so modern theologians dismissed Josephus as a unreliable historian as there was no evidence of this luxurious city... until Caesarea was discovered by archeologists, and even then it took decades for Josephus to be commonly accepted as a reliable historian, which most do now.
For whatever reason, these are fascinating stories for me. Another one Justinian von Welz (1600s)... love this guy!!! He literally gave up his titles as a nobleman bc only Jesus deserves to be called "Lord"... but he was literally condemned as an agent of satan by the church for wanting to follow the great commission and share the gospel in other countries. He died in Surinam and was mostly forgotten for 20-30 years. How did the Matt 28 Great Commission get lost over time? Baron Justinian Von Welz :: Gospel Fellowship Association Missions
I also love Zinzendorf and the Moravians and how they restored the Great Commission in 1732 using Von Welz ideas 50-60 years later! William Carey's attempts to start a missionary society, inspired by the Moravians, was originally rebuffed by the church leaders as well with "sit down young man, God is sovereign and He doesn't need your help or mine". A significant improvement from 100 years before when Von Welz was called an agent of satan by the church leaders.
These were some of the significant gaps in the church over the ages that God allowed for a time, and some for even a 1000+ years.
I don't know Eric. There are other pretty significant examples that I'm aware of, where key spiritual principles, etc. somehow were forgotten for centuries. These are honest wrestlings with information I cannot ignore that are not special revelation or secret knowledge. The irony is I'm literally including the proto gnostic influence as part of the problem that Paul and Timothy are dealing with along with the other pagan cults.
I'm going to keep wrestling, keep asking, keep seeking, keep researching, keep testing, keep sharing, etc.... pray, ponder, process... I believe this journey actually strengthens faith in God, His word, His principles, because His profound ways will stand up to serious scrutiny!
A reminder that the Network does "not verify the accuracy of user-submitted content."
There are rhetorical questions, assertions, and linked source material in this piece which do not conform to basic hermeneutics, Greek lexical analysis, or the plainness and continuity with which God has revealed his precepts.
"For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth." Psalm 33:4
"... holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." II Peter 1:21
"God, from a special care which He has for us and our salvation, commanded His servants, the prophets and apostles, to commit His revealed Word to writing." (Belgic Confession Art. III).
Thanks for the reminder, Aaron, God warns us we need to test everything and I welcome that testing!
Could you share some specific examples you identified that fit the categories of concerns you mention. I don't always agree with everything in the links I share either, so we always test and discern. I specifically include links as examples to support what I am sharing. Are they perfect, no, but they can help anyone interested to go deeper and get a better idea of why these verses and passages are controversial, difficult, and not clear and "plain", and to be part of the process, researching, testing and discerning together if anyone so chooses.
I don't believe that you are maliciously employing the techniques of higher criticism. That does not excuse publishing those methods at a venue funded by a church claiming to be orthodox but hamstrung by modern "community guidelines" prioritized to a place as to allow the very things their own synods painstakingly refuted over a hundred years ago. See the minutes of Synod 1922 re: higher criticism. Compare your methods and rhetoric to the enlightenment interpretive innovations of Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Schleiermacher, and Karl Barth.
Clearly your main jihad is with the historic understanding of αὐθεντέω, the demonstrated substance of the wrestling described in the first sentence of the essay. Yet, instead of engaging the lexical consensus contained in faithful resources like BDAG, Abbott-Smith, or some other credible source, the Network allows you to link to a self-published, feminist liberationist who is widely refuted for her impressive quotient of exegetical fallacies. That phrase of course coming from the title of a book which is required reading for every first semester seminarian.
Is God's word directed at one single culture? Or, is it sufficient for life and godliness in all times and places? (II Peter 1:3-4). To call God's word "controversial, difficult, and not clear" is to set one's self up as arbiter of what He has declared, and is contrary to His declaration in Psalm 19:7 that "the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple." This is what higher criticism is. A mere man, claiming that human reason, technology, the passage of time, or any other, reveals something which was previously hidden from the church for millenia rather than submitting to the plain wording.
The word of Jehovah of hosts should make the interpreter (II Peter 1:20) tremble.
Blessings Aaron, have an amazing day of worship, celebration, fellowship and rest... DV, I will respond Monday or Tuesday. I don't say the DV lightly because I was hit by a car when I was in a crosswalk Friday evening and PTL, He protected me, and I walked away!
Bev, thanks for all your work on this topic. I look forward to reading the rest of your posts as you work through the pieces you've "teased" in this introduction. I am eager to see what you've discovered from the research on αὐθεντεῖν, since as Aaron has observed it seems to be a key element of the "Whole Picture." In my (admittedly brief) research on the term, it seems that it was actually during the era of higher criticism that their techniques and methods led to the way the word is translated in most English versions today with the neutral "exercise/have authority."
So there's some irony in calling out the use of higher criticism techniques AND claiming some kind of "historic understanding of αὐθεντέω" when the "plain reading" of the current translation is relatively recent and based on the work of higher criticism in considering the 1st century social setting of Ephesus / Paul.
All the way back to the Vulgate, the "historical understanding of αὐθεντέω" had a negative force: non permitto neque dominari in virum. In the time of the Reformation, the primary English translations consistently translated this with a negative force:
The "neutral" kind of authority doesn't appear in translation until the mid-to-late 19th century with translations like the Webster Bible (1833) and the British Revised Version / English Revised Version (1881–1885). The Tyndale NT (1526) had "I suffre not a woman to teache nether to have auctoricie over a man," but it was quickly replaced and overshadowed by these other translations. But it was with the rise of higher criticism in the 19th century, that the translation shifted away from the usurping/domineering to the more neutral descriptive exercise/have authority.
I find that Abbott-Smith's first entry, (also Thayer's b, and Liddell-Scott) "to act on one’s own authority" has reasonable explanatory power for why Paul used this word here and only here rather than the more common ἐξουσιάζω that would express legitimate authority like that of elders, pastors, or government officials and have the broader application that so many read from (or into?) this verse.
And I'm sorry Bev, you were hit by that car in the crosswalk. May the Lord grant you healing and strength.
Thanks, Jeff, for taking time to read the post, comments and then responding! I read your bio and noted your time @ TCC... I attended there a long time ago ;).
Also, thanks for your concerns re the accident. I call it my "wild ride"! PTL, He protected me! I am doing amazingly fine after that accident, a little sore and achy from when I landed on the ground. There was some of God's miraculous intervention, because it could have been very serious and, instead, I walked away praising the Lord with my coffee cup still in my hand after being on the hood of the car, then rolling/sliding off as they stopped. I don't even have bruises on my legs where the car should have hit me, because in that split second between when my friend yelled to warn me & I turned and saw the car about 5 feet away this went through my head "you don't have time to get out of the way, get on the hood", and it seems like there was Divine assistance that got me on the hood in that split second. Being wired with curiosity, as I was on the hood for several seconds, I was thinking pay attention to what this feels like, and realized I was calm, at peace, and actually felt comfortable. That's a God story!
I appreciate any and all feedback as this particular debate between comps and egals can become very passionate and often generated more heat than light.
I love that you have spent some time researching authentein as well. Thanks for sharing that. As far as I can tell, Erasmus is the one who first used usurp authority with his 1516 Greek-Latin translationl. There's a bit of unraveling the history of this word! But I love that we can research the rare words used in Scripture, literally reading the sources incl the translation into English. Erasmus probably had to travel from monastery to university to wherever these old documents were kept as he studied the Greek and worked on his translations...
Question for you Jeff, have you used the TLG (TLG - Home)? I cried when I found this site several years ago (thanks to Dr. Leland Wilshire's use of it) and read their story of how it was inspired, began and expanded since 1971. TLG - History
Yes, I used TLG back in the late 90s when it was first moved from CD-ROMs to a more easily searchable database. It has significantly expanded since then. It's an incredible resource. I completely agree with trying to figure out Paul's use/sense of the word in Paul's time in the context of first century Ephesus.
My interest has been in translations and interpretations from the middle ages to post-Reformation. They obviously didn't have TLG and had inherited centuries of language and application. Erasmus is a major turning point in that whole picture and this is another one of those verses and words where he altered what had been received for generations from the Vulgate.
Notably Wycliffe 100+ years earlier translated it "not haue lordschip on the hosebonde" (a pretty significant departure from the Latin). My main point in the comment was to reinforce that there actually hasn't been a singular "historical understanding" of just this word, let alone the whole verse and the broader literary context.
This shouldn’t be too surprising, but this will not be a short response, some of it will be addressed/included at some point in future posts, but here’s a bit of a preview…
I completely agree, God’s Holy Word, as He intended, is universal, eternal and directed for all people in all times and places (translational integrity is another discussion recognizing God’s sovereignty works through the various versions, keeping in mind we are warned specifically about being deceived and traditions of man/elders, so we still need to test). If I have ever indicated anything else, that is not my intention. I have already responded earlier to that same concern shared by someone else and hopefully it was clear that my view is not limiting this passage or any other to one single culture. I believe God gives us a responsibility to use the resources / gifts / talents we have available to us to study His word and test (pray, ponder, process) what we find when something seems off and not to avoid/bury/ignore something out of fear like the man with one talent, instead a fear of the Lord is part of what compels us to be obedient to His calling in our lives.
I am testing (via prayer, ponder, process) what man did to His word. God warns us 30+ times in NT alone not to be deceived and He warns us that His word can be nullified by traditions of men/elders. The potential nullification of God’s word through traditions of man such as gnosticism, astrology, etc., can and does still happen and some of it has been around for a long, long time.
I do not have a problem with the historic understanding of authentein pre-Paul (500BC-100AD) and I believe the meaning was very clear, not confusing or controversial to Timothy and anyone he shared Paul’s letter with at that time.
I do have a problem with the shift of the historic understanding of authentein post Paul (starting for the most part around100AD & ff). Unfortunately, when the meaning was shifting over the next several hundred years at such a critical juncture in time shortly after Paul and the Apostles, this has caused much confusion since the early church that is still concerning. That demonically compromised astrology/zodiac experts, along with similarly compromised gnostics (who were involved in not only astrology, but also sorcery, secret knowledge, mystery religions, etc.) co-opting this specific authente word family to refer to planets and the gnostics supreme deity (not YHWH) over the next century after Paul’s usage in his letter to Timothy, makes their sources a red flag to put us on the alert that the enemy is probably sowing confusion through those who are following deceiving spirits and things taught by demons! When I research uses of authentein from 500 BC until several hundred years after Paul, I noted whether the source is Gnostic/astrological, and the dates being pre or post Paul. I have a worked on compiling a chart of uses to show the historical understanding before Paul and after Paul and will share more on this in a future post.
Something that I came across were some scholars who researched the use of authentein between 200 BC and 200AD. Makes sense, get a couple of hundred years before and after Paul right? Except in this case, the Gnostic & astrological traditions co-opted it in the second century post Paul and the astrological and Gnostic usage became the predominant choice for what it meant instead of what it meant pre-Paul. The early Latin, Syriac, Coptic and Arabic translations give evidence of that but also still give authentein a negative connotation as well, while dropping the violent part of the meaning. I do not have a problem with the historic understanding if we only consider the primary meaning when Paul would have known how it was used compared to uses after his life that he could not have known. So athentein went from negative/violent (pre Paul), to a mix of negative/domineering (various translations) and neutral positive (in gnostic re their deities and astrological texts re the planets) (100ish-1500AD), to neutral authority taken in a negative way/usurped (1500s), to a positive general authority (current understanding) over time.
That is why I am making a case for how authentein particularly has become confusing, controversial, difficult and not clear anymore after Paul's time/use.
One of the questions I have wrestled with is what did Paul / Holy Spirit have in mind when using authentein and not exousia, a word Paul uses around 30x in other places. I believe that a high view of scripture requires us to look into this as it is inspired and intentional! So far what I have seen via research of a number of lexicons incl BDAG, etc. seems to be a heavy leaning on meanings post Paul (potential anachronism) based on Gnostic/astrological texts and dismissing or ignoring a source where evidence supports that Paul seems to have known that source fairly well, the Septuagint, which is written pre Paul which he cites, quotes, alludes to, echoes from the Septuagint around 100-250+ times. Interestingly, there seems to be some notable echoes/parallels between Paul’s letter to the Romans and the Wisdom of Solomon. Coincidence? This would fit with his strategy to engage in what was commonly known in that cultural context.
I have been specifically going back to study (including using the BDAG & other lexicons) some of the many rare Greek words (often hapax legomenon), that Paul liked to use, especially in his letters to Timothy, and how they were used around Paul’s time, in his culture and context. Authentein is probably the most controversial estimating the amount of energy, ink and time spent on it. You can consider it higher criticism, I consider it testing, discerning, examining and searching the Scriptures. It has been a fascinating study of Paul and how the Holy Spirit inspired and used Paul’s gifts, education, and intelligence for his ministry and writing in a way that connected and related to the common culture of that time. It’s a bit like a treasure hunt!
And the link to MM’s article on authentein… I do not agree with her in several more recent matters, but I thought this article from 2017 gives a reasonable, fairly extensive yet somewhat brief history on authentein with original sources cited and how it has been used historically both pre and post Paul along with noting the various possibilities by other scholars and theologians, without me writing up something similar to that extent. There has been much written, especially in the last 50 or so years on this one rare Greek word.
I am not interpreting, I am analyzing by going back to the historic understandings/sources and making a distinction between pre Paul and post Paul, especially pointing out the Gnostic & astrological influence with this word family, including in lexicons.
Our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against the spiritual forces of darkness. That was written first for the Ephesians! I am making a case that the enemy is the one sowing confusion, especially through gnostic and astrological texts, and it started around 100-200 AD regarding this particular Greek word. Sadly, the tradition of man that women are inferior to men (not just different) allowed it to perpetuate over the ages. Thankfully that view has shifted (although not in some cultures/religions), even though the shift seems mostly in about the last 50 years.
Funny story: Jesus rose from the dead and instructed Mary Magdalene to tell the good news to his disciples. But the Eleven sat Mary down and gently explained to her that she was not permitted to preach the gospel, on the grounds that a woman is not permitted to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
Bev, I hope you are not discouraged or deterred from your inquiry! No doubt well-meaning brothers will reply to this comment and explain to us why the clear and unequivocal precedent Jesus set in calling a woman to be the first preacher of the gospel doesn't really mean anything for this discussion (it wasn't technically preaching, she wasn't ordained to office, it wasn't in a church, it was an exception based on extenuating circumstances, etc.). Sometimes the "plain meaning" of the text is more convenient than at other times. All those CRC women who are called by Christ to preach the gospel will have to take a page out of Peter and John's book, and answer, "Whether it is right in God's sight to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot keep from speaking about what we have seen and heard."
And as you keep striving to see the whole picture, keep this in mind: we have an Enemy who hates the gospel and does not want it preached, anywhere, ever. It would be a clever strategy indeed, to deceive well-meaning people of faith into sincerely believing that half the population can't possibly be authorized to step into a pulpit and proclaim it!
But let's not be outwitted, Bev. Keep up the good work. I admire your tenacity and patience.
Thank you for your encouragement Chris, and taking time to read through this post along with the comments. You also confirm the thought that has been running through my mind that I cannot unsee and cannot ignore this journey over the last 7-8 years.
Stay tuned...I'm making a case that includes, but goes beyond, a blend of comp and egal beliefs, agreeing with some and refuting others, based on the Bible, God's principles, the Greek and the cultural context, presenting different aspects that have not gotten much attention in the past, for various reasons.
Let's Discuss
We love your comments! Thank you for helping us uphold the Community Guidelines to make this an encouraging and respectful community for everyone.