A Biblical Study on the Role of Women in the Church
by
Samuele Bacchiocchi PhD
FOREWORDS by Prof. Wayne Grudem and Prof. James B. Hurley
TWO ESSAYS by Rosalie Haffner Lee and William A. Fagal
Biblical Perspectives
FOREWORD
by Prof. Wayne Grudem
This is an extremely valuable book for anyone interested in the
current debate over women's roles in the church. I think it will
clear up much of the confusion people feel over this issue today.
The entire book is a model of clarity and fairness. In each section
Dr.Bacchiocchi first sets out the various positions taken on some
passage of Scripture (with footnotes to a wealth of recent literature
from all perspectives). Then he takes the reader back to the Biblical
text to show reasons from Scripture to support his position.
Time and again I found myself saying, "Yes, yes!" as I read this
book.
Dr.Bacchiocchi has a balanced discussion of the relationship
between equality and subordination in human relationships. He has a
very positive discussion of the important roles women played in the Old
Testament, in the ministry of Jesus, and in the New Testament church.
His discussion of Genesis 1?3 is sober and persuasive, as is his
discussion of Galatians 3:28. He rightly points out that the idea of
"mutual submission" which so many people see in Ephesians 5:21 cannot
be supported from the text.
Dr.Bacchiocchi also has a very sensitive treatment of the nuances of
headship and submission in marriage as taught in Paul's epistles.
His discussion of the "head covering" passage in 1 Corinthians 11 should
clarify the teaching of this passage for everyone who has puzzled
over it before. His discussion of 1 Timothy 2:11?15 is very helpful and
deals fairly with all opposing views. While some may think the passage
prohibits more than Dr. Bacchiocchi says, few should see it as prohibiting
anything less. Moreover, he consistently shows a sensitivity to God's
overall design for men and women throughout the flow of Biblical history,
and a maturity of judgment in coming to correct conclusions on the meaning
of Scripture. Finally, he sounds a needed warning about the serious harm
to the family and the church which inevitably follows when the Biblical
teachings on male headship in the family and the church are abandoned.
This is a critical issue for Christians today, and many people simply
don't know what they should believe. Over the past fifteen years, dozens
of feminist books and articles have challenged the plain meaning of Scripture.
We have been told that "submit" does not mean submit, that "have authority
over men" does not mean have authority over men, that "not permit" does not
mean not permit, that "head" does not mean leader or authority, that "teach"
does not mean teach, and so forth. Yet all these arguments, as Dr.Bacchiocchi
so plainly shows, have failed to be persuasive.
But this book never gets lost in academic technicalities. While the views of
other scholars are extensively cited for examples and illustrations, their
opinions are not used as proof for Dr.Bacchiocchi's own position, nor does
he appeal to obscure data accessible only to specialized scholars. His approach
rather does something far better and far more persuasive??it takes the ordinary
reader back to look more closely at the actual words of Scripture, so that
readers might check for themselves whether the Scripture supports what
Dr.Bacchiocchi is saying.
The value of this approach is that it encourages readers to be like the Bereans,
who "examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true" (Acts 17:11).
In a day when scholarly "experts" can be found on all sides of this question,
the only solution is for every Christian to return once again to Scripture itself,
to read it carefully, to ask God's help in understanding it, and to believe that God
has caused Scripture to be written in such a way that it can be understood by ordinary
believers, so that they can come to a right decision. This is what God's people had
to do long ago, when the Pharisees?? he Biblical "experts" of the 1st century??publicly
disagreed with Jesus, and later with Paul. The advantage of Dr.Bacchiocchi's book is
that it provides a very careful discussion of the issues but ultimately encourages
Christians to look again at the Scriptures and decide for themselves.
I am confident that many Christians who read this book will decide that it is time to
say to those holding a feminist viewpoint, "We have heard your evidence, we have
understood your arguments, and we have searched Scripture for ourselves to see if
these things were true. While we see many areas where we want to encourage greater
participation by women in the life of the church, nevertheless, we, like Dr.Bacchiocchi,
must conclude that when you say women can be elders and pastors, what you are saying
is simply not faithful to Scripture; it is not what Scripture teaches."
If this book brings many people to the point where they are willing to reach such
a conclusion??as I expect the book will do??then it will have performed a very valuable
function for the building up of the church in faithfulness to Scripture, all to the
glory of God.
......
Wayne Grudem, Ph. D. Professor of New Testament Trinity Evangelical Divinity
School Deerfield, Illinois
FOREWORD
by Prof. James B. Hurley
The last few decades have witnessed a growing debate over the roles and
relationship of men and women in society and also in the church. The topic
is important for a variety of reasons. At a broad level, it deals with the
meaning and dignity of half of the world's population. Individually, it
touches our emotional life deeply and in ways which we barely understand.
From the point of view of the church, it raises some profound questions about
the relation of the Bible and culture which have impact far beyond our
questions about the role of women in the church.
The Christian church has historically taken the position that the Bible is
inspired revelation from God and is the rule for faith and practice. This
commitment has consequences. Human culture changes, attitudes and life
contexts are constantly being modified. Each generation must re?evaluate
traditional applications of Scripture's teaching to see if they are inadequate
in new social structures. The struggle of each generation is to remain
faithful to that which the Scripture teaches without treating interpretations and
applications which the church has made as though they were biblical teaching.
The question of the role of women in the church is a difficult area. The church
must be prepared to give answer to a hostile world for its views. Christians must
question in detail how much of our practice is what the Scripture requires and how
much is an application made in a previous historical context. If we are reactionary
and refuse to change, we may bind the church's conscience with the commandments
of men. If we move too far the other way we are in danger of setting aside the
commandments of God. The task is an important one. Dr.Samuele Bacchiocchi has earned
an international reputation for competent biblical scholarship. The high esteem
which many outside his own tradition have for his work is an eloquent testimony
to the quality of that work. In this book on the role of women in the church
Dr.Bacchiocchi offers his readers the fruit of his own biblical expertise and
the benefit of his thorough examination of recent works on the subject. Readers
without a theological training will benefit from the clarity of his presentation.
Readers with professional training will enjoy his insights into various passages
and will no doubt make use of the leads offered in the many footnotes included
in the text.
I am personally delighted to see this contribution to the current debate.
Its consistent effort to be fair and to be faithful to the biblical text should
earn it wide readership and an influential position even among those who do not
share its author's views.
......
James B. Hurley, Ph.D.
Professor of New Testament and of Marriage and Family Therapy Reformed Theological
Seminary, Jackson, Mississippi
PREFACE
At the beginning of 1986 I would never have imagined that I would have spent much of
that year researching and writing a book on the role of women in the church.
Besides teaching, I was already deeply involved in a major research project which I
was hoping to publish later that year. What then caused me to rearrange my priorities
and devote much of 1986 to researching and writing this book? Six major reasons
precipitated this decision.
REASONS FOR WRITING THIS BOOK
Deeply Felt Issue.
A first reason was my discovery of how deeply felt was the issue of women's ordination
not only outside but also inside the Seventh?day Adventist Church. I was made forcefully
aware of this fact through the publication of my article "Ministry or Ordination of Women?"
which appeared first on the March 12 issue of the Student Movement of Andrews University and
subsequently on the October issue of Ministry.
The flare of responses generated by this article revealed to me how deeply felt and divisive
was this issue even within the ranks of my own Seventh?day Adventist Church. This realization
convinced me that there was an urgent need for a comprehensive Biblical study that could
help the members of my church as well as the Christians of other faiths better understand
the unique role God intends women to fulfill in the church.
Prevailing Misconceptions.
A second reason that precipitated my decision to write this book was a felt need to rectify
what I perceive to be some of the prevailing misconceptions in much of the literature I
have read. A common misconception, for example, is that the ordination of women as elders/pastors
is more of a cultural than a theological issue. In other words, it has to do more with the
cultural perception of the role of women in any given age than with Scriptural teachings.
Many argue that whatever the Bible teaches on this subject is irrelevant for today because
its teachings are hopelessly conditioned by the patriarchal mentality of the time.
Consequently, any decision on this matter must be derived not from Biblical teachings and
examples, but from the enlightened cultural values of our times. This perception is
reflected in the Symposium on the Role of Women in the Church, prepared and published
(1984) by the Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference of Seventh?day Adventists.
Of the 196 pages of this symposium only 15 pages are devoted to a most succinct analysis of
the three crucial Pauline passages (1 Tim 2:11?15; 1 Cor 11:3?16; 14:33?36).1
Another misconception which I felt needed to be rectified has to do with the nature of
church and the role of the pastor. Some view the church more as a functional, service
organization than as a community of believers, the family of God. Consequently, they
see the role of the pastor as being more of a functional administrator than of a "shepherd"
of the congregation. Since women can manage business and institutions as effectively as
men can, their appointment to the pastoral office is seen as a matter of justice in order
to bring the administration of the church in line with the equal employment opportunities
of secular institutions.
This view, I felt, needed to be corrected because, as this study will show, the New
Testament views elders and pastors, not merely as administrators, but as shepherds of
the flock, appointed to represent Christ to the people and the people to Christ. This dual
representative role requires, as we shall see in chapter 7, that the person appointed
to serve as elder or pastor be a man with specific moral and spiritual qualities.
Danger of Role Interchangeability.
A third reason which crystallized my decision to undertake this research was the felt
need to expose the dangers implicit in the role interchangeability model upon which
the ordination of women largely rests. According to this model there are no creational
role distinction between men and women and thus women can legitimately fulfill such
male roles as that of fathers in the home and of spiritual fathers, shepherds in
the church. The dangers of this model are both theological and practical.
Theologically, the role interchangeability model, which is strongly advocated by liberal
and evangelical feminists, encourages the blurring or elimination of the creational role
distinctions God assigned to men and women. This trend should be of special concern to
Seventh?day Adventists who are deeply committed to uphold the integrity of the doctrine
and order of creation.
Contrary to some churches which interpret the creation story as a mythological or allegorical
expression of an evolutionary process which extended over millions of years, the Seventy?day
Adventist Church accepts as factual the account of the six days of creation. The observance
of the seventh?day Sabbath is viewed as a perpetual memorial to the perfection of God's
original creation.
If Seventh?day Adventists were to adopt the role interchangeability model, which violates
the creational role distinctions between men and women, I believe this would gradually erode
confidence in the validity of the doctrine of creation and of the Sabbath commandment itself.
Practically, the blurring or elimination of the creational role distinctions between men
and women accelerates the rate of divorce, the breakdown of the family, and the acceptance of
lesbianism or homosexuality as a legitimate optional life?style. It is noteworthy that some
of the denominations which decided years ago to ordain women have now set up study?groups to
explore the feasibility of ordaining homosexuals. 2 Ellen White warns against the danger of
seeking a "sphere" different from that assigned by God at creation. Referring to Eve she writes:
She was perfectly happy in her Eden home by her husband's side; but like restless modern Eves,
she was flattered that there was a higher spere than that which God had assigned her. But
in attempting to climb higher than her original position, she fell far below it. This will
most assuredly be the result with the Eves of the present generation if they neglect to
cheerfully take up their daily duties in accordance with God's plan....
A neglect on the part of woman to follow God's plan in her creation, an effort to reach for
important positions which He has not qualified her to fill, leaves vacant the position
that she could fill to acceptance. In getting out of her sphere, she loses true womanly
dignity and nobility. 3
The Larger Question.
A fourth reason that gave a sense of urgency to this research was the awareness that
the question of women's ordination is symptomatic of a much larger question: it reflects
not only upon the different and yet complementary roles men and women are called to fulfill
in the home and in the church, but also upon the authority of Scripture as a whole for
defining beliefs and practices.
If the Biblical texts and teachings on the role of women in the church are, as some claim,
time?bound, culturally conditioned, androcentric (male?centered) in nature, and rabbinic in
origin, the same could be true of those Biblical texts and teachings regarding creation, the
incarnation, the Second Advent, the Lord's Supper, Sabbathkeeping, etc. Ultimately what is
at stake is the authority of Scripture. If any part presents false teachings, then its
normative authority is discredited.
Larger Role for Women.
A fifth reason that motivated me to give priority to this research was the recognition
of the urgent need for a larger participation of women in the supportive ministries of
the church. While Scripture, as this study will show, precludes the ordination of women
to serve as priests in the Old Testament and pastors or elders in the New Testament, it
provides ample support for their participation in the prophetic, liturgical and social
ministries of the church. The question is not, Should women be appointed to minister in
the church? but, To which ministry should women be appointed?
The Seventh?day Adventist Church has been greatly blessed through the years by the
outstanding contribution of many dedicated women who have served the church in many
capacities. In recent years, however, the number of women serving, for example, as
Bible Instructors has decreased considerably. Currently women represent less than 10% of
the ministerial personnel of most conferences in the North American Division of Seventh?day
Adventists. In fact, some conferences do not have a single woman among their ministerial
personnel. 4 This decrease should be of concern because the need for the ministry of
women in the Adventist Church is increasingly urgent today, for two major reasons.
First, the recent trend in church growth through a small?group, seminar?type of evangelism,
requires more than ever before professionally trained women who can lead out in discussion
groups and train lay persons on how to share Bible truths with others. Second, the growing
number of broken homes, single parents, drug?addicted young people, and abused children calls
for the special healing ministry that can best be given by trained and dedicated women.
An important purpose of this study is not only to ascertain the Biblical teachings on the
role of women in the church, but also to urge the implementation of such teachings by opening
up to women new forms of meaningful church ministry.
Prevent Divisions.
A sixth reason that precipitated my decision to write this book is the sincere desire to help
prevent in the Seventhday Adventist Church the kind of polarization, division and turmoil being
experienced at present by most of the churches which have adopted the policy of ordaining women.
In view of the impending decision on women's ordination to be taken at the 1990 General Conference,
I felt compelled to proceed immediately with a Biblical investigation of this sensitive subject.
I have reasons to hope that the Seventh?day Adventist Church will resist the pressure to ordain
women as pastors, while at the same time encouraging their larger participation in the supportive
ministries of the church. My hope rests especially on an awareness that the Adventist Church is
deeply committed to the normative authority of Scripture for defining her beliefs and practices.
When given the opportunity to understand the vital Biblical teachings on the distinctive and yet
complementary roles God assigned to men and women to fulfill in the home and in the church,
the vast majority of Adventists will vote in favor of the ministry of women in the church but
against their ordination as elders or pastors.
This conviction is based on the responses I received during this past year when invited to share
the highlights of this research at campmeetings, workers' meetings (pastors' meetings) and churches.
Everywhere there has been an overwhelming support for the Biblical principles presented in this study.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is a most difficult task for me to acknowledge my indebtedness to the many persons who have
directly or indirectly contributed to the realization of this book. Indirectly, I feel indebted
to the many evangelical authors who have written on this subject, even though in some instances
I could not agree with their views. The reading of their books and articles has stimulated my
thinking and broaden my understanding of the subject.
Directly, I want to express my heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Daniel Augsburger, Dr.Richard Davidson,
Dr.C.Raymond Holmes, Mrs.Hedwig Jemison, and Dr.C.Mervyn Maxwell, each of whom went beyond the call
of duty by reading, correcting and reacting constructively to my manuscript.
Very special thanks go to Dr. Bert Beverly Beach, my former teacher in Italy who through the years
has been a kind of a spiritual father to our family. His willingness to take time in his most busy
schedule to improve the text and to make valuable suggestions, will long be remembered.
I also want to express my deep gratitude to Elder William Fagal, director of the White Estate
Branch Office at Andrews University, my neighbor and esteemed friend. Besides his helpful
reading of my manuscript, Elder Fagal has greatly enhanced the value of this book by contributing
the tenth chapter, "Ellen White and the Role of Women in the Church." His objective and critical
analysis of those E.G.White statements often cited regarding the ordination of women should put
to rest many misconceptions.
Particular thanks go to Rosalie Haffner Lee not only for reading and correcting the manuscript
but also for contributing the ninth chapter, "Is Ordination Needed to Women's Ministry?" I felt
that it would add some balance to this study on the role of women in the church, if at least one
chapter was written by a woman who is currently serving in the ministry of the Seventh?day
Adventist Church. Mrs. Lee was my first choice, not only because she is currently serving on the
pastoral staff of one of our largest churches, the Hinsdale Seventh?day Adventist Church in
Illinois, but also because she is an author and a parttime instructor at the North American
Evangelism Institute in Chicago. Her willingness to share her convictions??developed over many
years of dedicated and successful church ministry??is greatly appreciated.
Special acknowledgement is also due to my family??my wife Anna, and our three children, Loretta,
Daniel and Gianluca. Often they have expressed the hope that this might be my last book to write.
Without their love, patience and encouragement, this book would never have seen the light of day.
Author's of Forewords.
It may surprise the reader to see two forewords to this book. A word of explanation may be helpful.
Among the hundreds of authors I have read in the preparation of this book, two stand out as the
ones who have made the greatest contribution to the development of my thoughts, namely, Prof.Wayne
Grudem of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Prof.James B. Hurley of Reformed Theological
Seminary. Both of them are outstanding New Testament scholars who have earned their Ph.D. degrees
in New Testament at Cambridge University in England and both of them have written their doctoral
dissertations and several articles on subjects related to the role of women in the church.
Prof.Grudem's dissertation has been published in an expanded form by the University Press of
America as The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians (1982). In this work he also examines at great
length the two crucial passages, 1 Corinthians 11:2?16 and 14:33?36, providing a most perceptive
exegesis. Another outstanding piece of research is Prof. Grudem's article "Does Kephale Mean
'Source' or 'Authority Over' in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples," published both
in Trinity Journal (Spring 1985) and as an appendix in George W. Knight III's, The Role
Relationship of Men and Women. The importance of this study is indicated by the fact that
it was discussed at Breath length at a plenary session of the thirty?eighth annual meeting
of the Evangelical Theological Society, November 20?22, 1986, Tucker, Georgia. In that session
Prof. Grudem cogently and compellingly exposed the fallacies of those who wish to negate the
meaning of "authority over" in the "headship" texts of the New Testament.
Prof. James Hurley's dissertation has been published in a revised form by Zondervan as
Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (1981). This book represents in my view one of the
clearest presentations of the Biblical teachings on the role relationships between men and women.
What I greatly admire about both Prof. Grudem and Prof. Hurley is not only their outstanding
scholarship, but also their commitment to respect the integrity of the Biblical text and the
normative authority of Scripture for defining Christian beliefs and practices.
In view of the great admiration I hold for both Prof.Grudem and Prof.Hurley, I sent a typeset
copy of this study to both of them on December 10, 1986 with the 'unreasonable' request for
them to read the manuscript and to write a foreword by January 10, 1987, that is, within
less than a month. Frankly, I did not hold much hope that on such a short notice and in
the midst of the Christmas season, either of the two professors would be able to fulfill
this request. Secretly, I was still hoping that at least one of them might be able to read
sufficiently of the manuscript to write a foreword to it.
What a pleasant surprise it was for me to receive by January 10 two most gracious forewords,
one from Prof.Grudem and the other from Prof.Hurley. Their willingness to take time away from
their families in the midst of their holiday celebrations to offer me this service, gives me
reasons to be eternally grateful to them.
These pages have been written with the earnest desire to help my Seventh?day Adventist fellow
believers and Christians of all faiths to better understand what Scripture teaches about the
distinct and yet complementary roles God has called men and women to fulfill in the home and
in the church. At a time when humanistic ideologies are promoting the blurring or elimination
of the creational gender role distinctions by advocating "unisex" and role interchangeability
instead, it is imperative for Christians to resist these pressures by upholding the Scriptural
principles which God has revealed for the well?being of our homes and churches. It is my fervent
hope that this book will inspire such a commitment through a fuller understanding and acceptance
of the Biblical teachings on the role of women in the church.
NOTES ON PREFACE
1. Symposium on the Role of Women in the Church, distributed by the Biblical Research Institute
Committee, General Conference of Seventh?day Adventists (Washington, D. C., 1984), pp.97?106
and pp.129?135.
2. For references see p.107, note 27.
3. Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church (Mountain View, California: 1948), vol.3, pp.483?484.
4. I learned this fact on January 12, 1987 while speaking at the pastors of the Kentucky?Tennessee
Conference of Seventh?day Adventists. I was told that in their conference, as in several others
there are no women serving as ministerial personnel.
......
INTRODUCTION
Few theological subjects have stirred up as much controversy in recent years as that of
the ordination of women to the office of elder, pastor or priest. There is hardly a
church which has not been affected by this controversy.
Churches which have adopted the policy of ordaining women are experiencing considerable
polarization within their ranks. In the Anglican Church, for example, the issue has been
so divisive that a new denomination has been born, the Anglican Catholic Church. The same
polarization is present in the American branch of the Anglican Church, namely, the
Episcopal Church. Rev. James Brice Clark sadly acknowledges that women's ordination
"has hurt the Episcopal Church. We have gained no new converts because of it. We have
lost conservative members. We have suffered schisms, with at least six new dissident
Episcopal Churches being formed." 1
In the Swedish Lutheran Church, notes Rev. Kerstin Berglund, herself a woman priest,
"the opposition [to women's ordination] has consolidated its stance. It is one of the
facts of life in the Church of Sweden." 2 Though the church still holds together,
she writes, "there is a wound, a pain, felt deeply by some, and hence felt by all
of us." 3 In the United Presbyterian Church conflicts over the ordination of women
"stretch Presbyterian unity to the breaking point." 4 The opponents have organized
themselves under the name of "Concerned United Prebyterians" and are threatening "to
withdraw from their denomination unless requested constitutional changes are made." 5
In the Southern Baptist Church their "SBC Women in Ministry" organization has broken
its silence, challenging the alledged discrimination of their church against ordained
women. 6
The extent and intensity of the controversy is revealed especially through the flood of
books and articles which have recently been published on this issue. A selected bibliography,
compiled by Alan F. Johnson, Professor of New Testament at Wheaton College, lists over
430 entries. 7 The same author cites three additional and extensive bibliographies on the
same subject .8
FACTORS INFLUENCING CHANGE
Changing Lives of Women. The impetus to re?examine the role of women in the church
has come largely from two major factors: 1) the awareness of the changing lifespan
and social roles of women, 2) the influence of the feminist movement.
The average life expectancy of American women has changed rom about 45 years in
1900 to about 80 in 1986. This increased life span gives to a traditional wife and
mother another 30 to 40 years of life expectancy beyond child rearing years. What
is a woman to do with her time, her energy and her gifts? Some women are rightfully
seeking to serve within the church.
Moreover, in most Western countries more and more women are now working alongside
of men as company executives, doctors, lawyers, judges, and even professors of theology.
It is therefore understandable that the question has been raised: Why shouldn't women
function also as elders, pastors or priests within the church?
Influence of Feminist Movement
The encouragement for women to seek ordination has come especially from the Christian
feminist movement, which arose after the women's liberation movement had come to the
fore in the late 1960s. The connection between the two is recognized by Christian
feminists themselves. Sara Maitland, for example, writes: "The women's liberation
has authorized this personal voice in a particular and liberating way."9 Similarly,
Susannah Herzel notes: "Much of the rhetoric used in the debate on women's ordination
to the priesthood has been influenced by feminism and the psychological pressures which
that movement exerted."l0
In seeking for a Biblical answer to the question of women's ordination, many church
leaders and writers, whether they are aware of it or not, have been influenced by secular
feminist pressure. There has been a clear tendency to reinterpret the Bible in a way
consistent with the prevailing feminist views of the role of women in our society. 11
A fitting example is the change in the position of Swedish New Testament scholars.
In 1951, all but one of the New Testament teachers holding academic positions in Swedish
universities signed the following statement, in response to the efforts of the Swedish
government to introduce the ordination of women into the Church of Sweden:
We,the undersigned professors and lecturers in the field of New Testament exegesis at our
two universities, hereby declare as our definite opinion, based on careful investigation,
that ordination of women would be incompatible with New Testament thought and would
constitute disobedience to the Holy Scriptures. Both Jesus' choice of apostles and
Paul's words concerning the position of women in the congregation have significance of
principle, and are independent of circumstances and opinions conditioned by any
particular time in history. The current proposal that women should be admitted to
priesthood in the Church of Sweden must therefore be said to meet with grave exegetical
obstacles. 12
Thirty five years later, it would be difficult to find one New Testament professor in
Sweden who would endorse this statement. The explanation for this change is not
the discovery of new Biblical evidence, but rather, as Stephen B. Clark points out,
"the climate of opinion [which] has changed, influencing exegetes to come up with
opinions that are acceptable nowadays." 13
This is not by any means the only historical example of accommodations of Biblical
teachings to contemporary trends. There are plenty of examples in the past as well
as in the present. In early Christianity, for example, Hellenistic philosophy influenced
many Christians to adopt a dualistic view of the nature of man which, among other things,
led them to reject the incarnation of Christ (1 John 4:13). In recent years socio?political
ideologies have influenced such Christian accommodations as the theologies of revolution,
the justification for draft dodging, the christianization of Nazism, the social gospel
movement, and the evolutionist criticism of the Bible.
It is regrettable that all too often Christians have come to terms with current trends
by claiming them to be Christian, rather than by judging them by the authority of the
Word of God. There is a constant danger of slipping into the former course, but for those
who take the Bible as normative for their faith and practice there can be only one permissible
approach: to be guided by the principles revealed in the Scriptures.
THREE APPROACHES TO THE PROBLEM
A survey of the voluminous literature on the role of women in the church reveals three
major approaches to the subject, each of which is largely determined by its interpretation
of the Biblical material. I shall designate the three approaches as: (1) Liberal Feminist,
(2) Evangelical Feminist, (3) Biblical Feminist. 14
A brief description of each of these approaches will offer to the reader an overview of
the problem.
"Liberal Feminists."
Perhaps the best word to characterize "Liberal Feminists" is the term rejection. The heart
of their rejection is the authority or the applicability of the Scriptures or both. While
they continue to work with the Bible as a religious document they reject the Bible as the
only normative rule of faith and practice.
Most Liberal Feminists concede that Scripture teaches a different functional role between
men and women, but they argue that there is no need to take such teaching seriously.
Different authors offer different reasons for holding such a view. Biblical texts and
teachings are regarded as time?bound, culturally conditioned, androcentric (malecentered),
Liberal Feminists employ the historical?critical method for determining which texts can be
rightly used for developing a theology of female ordination and which texts are unacceptable.
In the final analysis Liberal Feminists find their ultimate authority in their own
interpretation rather than in the teachings of Scripture. By so doing they themselves
become victims of their own culturally conditioned interpretation.
Among the writers representing this stance are Rosemary Radford Ruether, Elisabath
Schiissler Fiorenza, Adela Yabro Collins, Mary Daly, Josephine Ford, Albertus Magnus
McGrath, Phyllis Trible and George Tavard. No attempt will be made in this study to
interact with Liberal Feminists since their rejection of the authority and applicability
of Scriptures offers no basis for any fruitful dialogue.
"Evangelical Feminists."
The second approach to the ordination of women is represented by "Evangelical Feminists."
The key term that best characterizes their approach is reinterpretation. For the most part
Evangelical Feminists writers respect the authority of Scripture, but they protest against
what they view as a misinterpretation of Bible texts by "Biblical Feminists." They believe
that the Bible does not teach that the male headship role at home carries over to the church.
For Evangelical Feminists the true Biblical picture is one of perfect equality between
male and female in all spheres of life. There are no "leaders," or "heads," and thus no church
offices from which a woman can be legitimately excluded. All ministries in the church are
equally open to men and women.
To sustain this equality position, Evangelical Feminists reinterpret those texts which speak
of a functional hierarchy between men and women and which exclude women from the office of
teaching as pastor or elder. For example they insist that the word "head" in 1 Corinthians 11:3
and Ephesians 5:23 means "source" or "origin" and thus it does not indicate any headship role
on the part of man or any subordination on the part of the woman. The purpose of Ephesians
5:21?33 is not to exhort the wife to be subordinate to her husband but rather to exhort
the husband to care for his wife.
The head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 are simply a symbol of woman's authority and not of
her subordination. Paul's injunctions that "women should keep silence in the churches"
(1 Cor 14:34) and that they are not "to teach or have authority over men" (1 Tim 2:12),
are interpreted as "non?Pauline" interpolations, or as culturally conditioned, or as
representing the early stage of Paul's thought ("Paul in process") before he had worked
out the "equality theology" expressed in Galatians 3:28. The resounding affirmation of
the latter text, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there
is neither male nor female" (Gal 3:28), is seen as the great breakthrough, designed to
abolish all role differences, thus opening the way for the ordination of women.
Some of the representatives of the Evangelical Feminist approach are Gilbert
Bilezikian, Mary J. Evans, Letha Scanzomi and Nancy Hardesty, Paul K. Jewett,
Patricia Gundry, Virginia Mollenkott, and Aida Besancon Spencer. To these can be
added many other evangelical writers, including a few Seventh?day Adventist teachers.
Their major arguments will be examined at length in the course of this study.
"Biblical Feminists."
The third approach to the ordination of women is represented by "Biblical Feminists."
Whereas the key term used to characterize Liberal Feminists was rejection, and the term
for Evangelical Feminists was reinterpretation, the term that best describes Biblical
Feminists is reaffirmation.. 13
Biblical Feminists reaffirm the teachings of the Bible regarding a divinely established
functional hierarchy that exists both in the home and in the church. They insist that
there are different functional roles between men and women. Such differences do not
imply superiority or inferiority but complementarity. Women are called to minister in
the church in a variety of roles, but are not eligible to function as elders/pastors
of the congregation. The reasons for their exclusion from such offices are not cultural
and time?bound but theological and timeless.
Among the large number of writers supporting this position, the followings may be
selected as representatives: Stephen Clark, Susan T. Foh, James B. Hurley, George W. Knight,
Wayne Grudem, Douglas J. Moo, and Charles Caldwell Ryrie.
METHOD AND OBJECTIVES
Method.
This book is written from a Biblical Feminist's perspective. I accept the Bible as
normative for defining Christian beliefs and practices. Because the words of the Bible
contain a divine message written by human authors who lived in specific historical
situations, every effort must be made to understand their meaning in their historical
context. My conviction is that an understanding of both the, historical and literary
context of relevant Biblical texts, is indispensable in establishing both their original
meaning and their present relevance. This conviction has influenced my examination of
texts and the discussion of the roles of women in the church.
Objectives.
This book has both a general and a specific objective. The general objective is to
ascertain the Biblical understanding of the role of women in the church. To accomplish
this a brief survey has been made in the first two chapters of the major roles women
have filled in the religious life of ancient Israel and of early Christianity. The final
chapter considers some of the vital ministries women can fulfill within the church today.
The specific objective is to examine the major reasons suggested by Scripture
for the exclusion of women from serving as priests in the Old Testament and as
pastors/elders/bishops in the New Testament. In spite of the voluminous literature
on this subject, there is no book which, to my knowledge, presents in a clear and orderly
fashion the arguments pro and con for the ordination of women. Most of the books I
have read fall broadly into two categories: either they deal with very specific exegetical,
historical and social questions, or they examine the general roles of men and women in
the various cultures of the ancient world during Bible times.
In this book I have attempted to deal primarily with the question of the ordination of women,
by limiting my analysis to the religious roles of women in the Bible. For the sake of
clarity I have presented each of the arguments for the exclusion of women from ordination
in a separate chapter, beginning with chapter 3. In these chapters the proordination
arguments of feminist authors are examined, not for the sake of polemic, but because
they seriously obscure important truths.
My concern is not to oppose the feminist pro?ordination program, whether inside or outside
the Seventh?day Adventist Church, but rather to make a positive statement concerning what
I perceive to be a vital Biblical principle, namely: men and women are equal before God by
virtue of creation and redemption. Yet God assigned distinctive and complementary roles
for men and women to fill in ther relation to each other. These roles are not nullified
but clarified by Christ's redemption and should be reflected in the church.
Target Audience
This book is written first of all for Seventhday Adventist lay?members, pastors,
church administrators, and theologians who are currently seeking for a fuller understanding
of the teaching of Scripture regarding the role of women in the church. The impetus for
this new investigation has come from the decision taken at the 1975 Spring meeting of the
General Conference to allow local churches to elect and ordain women as local elders.
This decision has paved the way for the ordination of women as pastors, a question scheduled
to be addressed at the 1990 General Conference.
In view of this impending resolution I felt compelled to reexamine the witness of Scripture
on this sensitive subject. It is my fervent hope that the findings of this research will
help my fellow Adventist members in formulating Biblical convictions and decisions
on this matter.
This book is also written with an ecumenical audience in mind. Many questions regarding
the ordination of women are approached differently in various churches. Catholics and
Orthodox, for example, focus a great deal on the sacramental and canonical aspects of
the priesthood. Yet many of the same arguments are used in every church. Moreover the
methods of Scriptural interpretation are not significantly different in the many churches.
Thus, much of the material in this book should be of interest to Christians of many
persuasions.
It is my sincere hope that this book will be received in the same spirit of Christian
love and respect in which it is offered. May the Spirit of God, whose ministry is to guide
us into all truth (John 16:13), make all who read these pages receptive and responsive
to the revealed will of God regarding the role of women in the church.
NOTES AND INTRODUCTION
1. James Brice Clark, "Women's Ordination," The Christian Century (September 26, 1986):
1078; Similarly, Rev. Richard J. Anderson, Director for Development and Stewardship of
the Anglican Church, notes that the situation "is to a large extent polarization,
confusion and turmoil" ("Where Do We Go from Here: Prospects for the 1976 Convention,"
in The Ordination of Women: Pro and Con, ed. Michael P. Hamilton and Nancy S. Montgomery
[New York, 1975], p.154).
2. Kerstin Berglund, "The Swedish Lutheran Church," in The Ordination of Women:
Pro and Con (n. 1), p.105.
3. Ibid., p.110.
4. John Maust, "Conflicts Stretch Presbyterian Unity to the Breaking Point,"
Christianity Today (September 2, 1979): 58.
5. Ibid., p.58
6. Susan Lockwood Wright, "SBC Women Ministers Break Their Silence," The Christian
Century (November 12, 1986): 998?999.
7. The bibliography compiled by Prof. Alan F. Johnson is published in Gilbert
Bilezikian's Beyond Sex Roles (Grand Rapids, 1985), pp.271?291.
8. C.E.Cerling, Jr., "An Annotated Bibliography of the New Testament
Teaching About Women," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 19 (1976):
210?215; David M. Scholer. Introductory Reading List for the Study of the Role
and Status of Women in the New Testament (David Scholer, 1981), pp.14; Kathleen
Storrie, "Contemporary Feminist Theology: A Selective Bibliography,"
TSF Bulletin 7 (May?June 1984): 13?15.
9. Sara Maitland, A Map of the New Country, Women and Christianity
(London, 1983), p.xi.
10. Susannah Herzel, "The Body is the Book," in Man, Woman and Priesthood,
ed. P. Moore (London, 1978), p.103.
11. A brief but perceptive analysis of the influence of the Women Liberation
Movement on the ordination of women is provided by Gervase E. Duffield,
"Feminism and the Church," in Why Not? Priesthood and the Ministry of Women, (n. 1),
pp.9?25.
12. Cited in Krister Stendahl, The Bible and the Role of Women
(Philadelphia, 1966), p.8.
13. Stephen B. Clark, Man and Woman in Christ (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1980),
p.230.
14. I am endebted for the use of these three terms to Prof. Carl B. Hoch's paper
"A Survey of Current Approaches to the Role of Women in the Church," presented at
The Midwest Section of the Evangelical Theological Society, on April 12, 1986.
.......................
To be continued
2. Women's Role in the Church
Ministry in the Old Testament
by the late
Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi
CHAPTER I
Ministry of Women in the Old Testament
What role should women fill in the church today? To provide
a Biblical answer to this question it is necessary to examine
first of all the religious roles of women in the Bible. Such an
examination is more complex than it might first appear. First,
the Bible covers a broad canvas of time: almost two millennia
separate the nomadic culture of Abraham's time from the urban
culture of Paul's time. Second, both the civil and religious
roles of women seem to be paradoxical: at times women filled
important public civil and religious positions such as judges or
prophetesses, while at other times they functioned primarily
within the home.
Objective.
This chapter aims to give the reader a brief overview of the
religious roles women have filled during the Old Testament times.
Since women's roles in religious life cannot be divorced from
their roles in social life, some consideration will also be given
to the latter.
PART I
MAN AND WOMAN AT CREATION
To appreciate the social and religious roles of women in Old
Testament times, it is important to understand the different
functional roles between men and women. The foundational
information on this subject is found in the opening chapters of
Genesis, which will be examined at length in chapter 3. As it
will be shown, the relationship between man and woman in the
creation story is presented as being one of both equality and
subordination.
Equality in Being
The account of the creation of man and woman is first given
in Genesis 1:27-28 and then expanded in Genesis 2:18-24. Genesis
1 speaks of the creation of mankind in these words: "So God
created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them" (v. 27). The concern of this
text is not just with the creation of the first human being but
of the whole human race.
The English word "man" is a translation of the Hebrew 'adam
which can be translated equally well as "human being" or
"mankind." In other words Genesis 1:27 tells us that God created
mankind in two sexes, as male and female, and both of them
equally reflect His image. This means that there is an essential
equality in being between men and women. It also means that
sexual differentiations are good because they are part of God's
original purpose for the human race.
Subordination.
Genesis 2 complements the account of chapter 1 by explaining
how God created Eve out of Adam's rib to be "a helper fit for
him" (v. 18). The fact that God created Eve out of Adam's body
("rib") suggests both equality and subordination. The woman is
equal to man because she is made of the same substance of Adam's
body and is taken from his side to be his equal. Yet the woman is
subordinate to man because she is created second and from and for
man. The priority of Adam's formation and the derivation of woman
from man, as we shall see in chapter 6, are seen in Scripture (1
Tim 2:13; 1 Cor 11:8-9) as typifying the headship role God called
man to fulfill in the home and in the church. Woman's
subordination, however, does not imply inferiority but
complementarity. Contrary to the patriarchal system, the woman is
seen in Genesis 2 as the helpmate of man and not as his property.
As Susan T. Foh perceptively points out:
The man and the woman knew each other as equals, both in the
image of God, and thus each with a personal relationship to
God. Neither doubted the worth of the other nor of
him/herself. Each performed his/her task in a different way;
the man as the head and the woman as his helper. They
operated as truly one flesh, one person. In one body does
the rib rebel against or envy the head? 1
The happy relationship of equality in being and
subordination in function which existed in Eden was largely
disrupted as a result of the Fall. The rule of love was replaced
by domination, tyranny, manipu lation and struggle. Some of the
Old Testament legislations, such as the one regulating divorce
(Deut 24:1-4), must be seen as temporary accommodation to the
sinful realities of the time. Yet, in spite of cultural
accommodations, it is still possible to see the outworking of the
original principle of equality and submission in the social and
religious roles of women in Old Testament times. The following
examples will illustrate this point.
PART II
WOMEN AND PRIVATE WORSHIP
Members of the Covenant
There is no question that women played a less conspicuous
role than men in the worship of the covenant community of Israel.
Not only could women not receive the sign of the covenant,
circumcision, but also they could not function as leaders of the
household in most cultic acts. This fact has led some like L.
Koehler to conclude that the old covenant discriminated against
women: "It is a covenant with those who are competent to enter
into such a thing; that is to say with men; they represent the
people ... woman has no place in this revelation, therefore she
is a constant danger to the worship of Yahweh." 2
This conclusion is obviously wrong because, as Walther
Eichrodt points out, "The congregation of Yahweh includes the
family ... neither age or sex bestow any special privileges." 3
Women not only shared with men in the blessings and
responsibilities of the covenant, but they were also vital to the
fulfillment of its blessings, which included long life,
prosperity, children and land (Deut 5:29-33). Women shared
equally with men in the blessings of worship by resting on the
Sabbath (Ex 20:10), listening to the reading of the law (Deut
31:9-13) and rejoicing before the Lord.
Headship of Man
Women's lack of circumcision is not seen as excluding them
from the covenant, because they are never despised as
"uncircumcised." In fact, the introduction of circumcision as a
covenant sign in Genesis 17:10-14 is followed immediately by the
special blessing upon Sarah as "a mother of nations" (vv. 15-21).
The reason for women's exclusion from circumcision, aside from
physical differences, could be that the rite was seen as the sign
of the functional headship role which marked out the men as the
ones who would represent their families before God. 4 As Calvin
says, "Although God promised alike to males and females what he
afterwards sanctioned by circumcision, he nevertheless
consecrated, in one sex, the whole people to himself." 5
The same reason may explain why a mother was ceremonially
unclean for seven days after the birth of a son and fourteen days
after the birth of a daughter. "The difference in time," as Susan
T. Foh explains, "may be to mark the difference between the sexes
from birth. In connection with the headship of man, the boy is
received into the covenant community before the girl (as Adam was
created first), and this time difference affects the mother's
ceremonial cleanness." 6 Examples such as these suggest that the
socio-religious role of women in ancient Israel was governed by
the creation principle of equality and subordination discussed
above.
Learning and Keeping the Law
The Israelite woman was equally responsible with the man for
learning and keeping God's law. Moses commanded all the
Israelites to attend the public worship gatherings in which God's
law was taught: "Assemble the people, men, women, and little
ones, and the sojourner within your towns, that they may hear and
learn to fear the Lord your God, and be careful to do all the
words of this law" (Deut 31:12).
At the time of Nehemiah when the people gathered to hear the
law, women too were in attendance: "And Ezra the priest brought
the law before the assembly, both men and women and all who could
hear with understanding" (Neh 8:2). Women had a natural place in
the worship assembly of God's people which heard His word and was
expected to obey it (Deut 13:6-11; 17:2, 5; 29:18; 2 Chron
15:1213).
Prayer
The participation of women in the religious life of Israel
extended beyond the hearing and obeying of the law. They were
free to approach God in prayer in just the same way as the men.
Several women such as Hannah, Rebekah, and Sarah, are mentioned
as praying (1 Sam 1:10; Gen 25:22; 30:6, 22; 21:6-7). A
Shunammite woman told her husband to set up a guest room for
Elisha and later on to arrange for a servant to escort her to the
house of the prophet (2 Kings 4:9-10, 20-23). Women such as
Rebekah (Gen 25:22), Hagar (Gen 21:17), Jeroboam's wife (1 Kings
14:1-4), and Hannah (1 Sam 1:9-11) inquired of God independently
of their husbands.
Home Teacher
The greatest religious influence of the Hebrew mother was
undoubtedly in the home. Proverbs admonishes children to heed the
instruction of both father and mother: "Hear, my son, your
father's instruction, and reject not your mother's teaching"
(Prov 1:8). "The home," writes a Jewish scholar, "is the real
temple of woman, the education of her children is her divine
service, and her family is her congregation." 7
It is noteworthy that in the history of the kings of Israel
and Judah the name of each king's mother is mentioned, presumably
to the shame of those mothers who reared evil men and to the
praise of those who instilled principles of righteousness in
their sons who became great kings. It is equally significant that
Scripture gives us the mother's name of such great spiritual
leaders as Moses, Samuel, Jesus, John the Baptist, Timothy,
undoubtedly because these godly women made a significant
contribution to the success of their sons ministry.
Vows
A widow could make her vows without any interference (Num
30:9). A married woman, however, came under the authority of her
husband and a betrothed woman of her father. Their vows could be
revoked by their husbands or fathers within 24 hours. Otherwise
the vows would stand. As Susan T. Foh rightly explains,
The authority to nullify vows is an expression of the headship of
the husband and makes sense if we consider how the wife's vows
might affect her husband. He might have to pay for his wife's
extravagance in money or goods or have to suffer from deprivation
of his conjugal rights for a time. It is not women per se who
cannot make their own vows. It is only if their position is under
the God-established authority of husband or father. 8
Noteworthy is the fact that women like men, could take the
Nazirite vows which involved a high degree of devotedness (Num
6:221). Clarence J. Vos points out that because of the cleansing
regulations, "the Nazirite vow ... brought one in some respect to
the level of consecration of a high priest." 9 It is very
significant therefore that both men and women were equally
eligible to take this vow.
PART III
WOMEN AND PUBLIC WORSHIP
Festivals and sacrifices. Women participated not only in
individual and family worship but also in several forms of public
worship. The Mosaic law expected women to be present at the great
festivals of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles (Deut 12:7;
16:1114; 1 Sam 1 :lf.). Their attendance, however, was not
obligatory, presumably because of their responsibilities at home.
The majority of sacrifices were brought by men as
representative of their household, but there are indications that
women also in certain instances were expected to act
independently in bringing their own sacrifices (Lev 12:6; 15:29).
Manoah and his wife are described as participating together in
offering a sacrifice to the angel of the Lord (Judges 13:15-20).
Hannah, in spite of the presence of her husband, Elkanah, plays a
major role in bringing a sacrifice to the house of the Lord at
Shiloh, in presenting the child to Eli, and in praying a psalm of
praise (1 Sam 1:24-27; 2:1-10).
In his book Woman in Old Testament Worship, Clarence J. Vos
offers this insightful comment regarding the story of Hannah:
It is evident that Hannah was at the sanctuary and near
enough to the priest to have her seemingly unusual conduct
be observed by him. There is therefore, no hint that women
were supposed to be kept at a distance from the sanctuary.
Finally we should note that after Eli has rebuked her it
does not seem improper that she, a woman, defend herself;
and her defence is immediately accepted. In all this we
receive the impression that Hannah, the woman, moved as one
who enjoys a large margin of cultic freedom and respect. 11
Ministry at the Sanctuary
Women contributed to the sanctuary in two ways: through
their gifts and their services. They brought their gifts for the
building of the tabernacle, not through their fathers or
husbands, but individually and personally (Ex 35:22). Special
mention is made of the things women made with their hands (Ex
35:25-26) and of the laver of bronze which was made "from the
mirrors of the ministering women who ministered at the door of
the tent of meeting" (Ex 38:8).
Reference to "the women who served at the entrance to the
tent of meeting" is also found in 1 Samuel 2:22. There is
scholarly debate regarding the nature of the service rendered by
these women at the entrance of the tabernacle. 12 Whatever the
nature of their service these women did have a recognized
function at the tabernacle.
We have also several examples of women participating in the
worship of the temple by singing. Ezra speaks of "two hundred
male and female singers" (Ezra 2:65; 1 Chron 25:5-6; 2 Chron
35:25). The Psalmist suggests that women played a vital role in
the choir of the tabernacle: "Thy solemn processions are seen, O
God, the processions of my God, my King, into the sanctuary--the
singers in front, the minstrels last, between them maidens
playing timbrels" (Ps 68:24-25).
Women also rendered a significant service in national
religious songs and dances. Exodus reports that "Miriam, the
prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and
all the women went out after her with timbrels and dancing" (Ex
15:20).
Women in Office
The fact that the Old Testament assigns to women a
subordinate role in the religious and social life--in accordance
with the functional subordination established by God at
creation,--did not prevent some women from serving as prophetess
(2 Kings 22:14; Neh 6:14), judge (Judges 4:4), and even queen
(though a wicked usurper, 2 Kings 11:3).
The case of Deborah stands out because, though a woman, she
functioned as both a judge and prophet in Israel. The book of
Judges introduces her in an impressive way:
Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was
judging Israel at that time. She used to sit under the palm
of Deborah ... and the people of Israel came up to her for
judgement. She sent and summoned Barak the son of Abinoam
... and said to him, "The Lord, the God of Israel, commands
you, 'Go, gather your men at Mount Tabor...." (Judges
4:4-6).
There is no indication in this story that the people of
Israel or the commander of the army, Barak, resented the
spiritual and civil leadership of Deborah because she was a
woman. The Old Testament does not exclude women from leadership
positions in general but only from the role of priests. The
reason for this exclusion, as it will be shown later, was not
cultural but theological.
A Woman Prophet
The story of Huldah, the prophetess, exemplifies even more
explicitly the important ministry that women fulfilled within the
religious life of ancient Israel. Desiring to know the fate of
his nation, King Josiah sent the high priest and several of his
notables to the prophetess Huldah to "inquire of the Lord for me,
and for the people and for all Judah" concerning the newly found
book of the law (2 Kings 22:13-14). The fact that King Josiah
sent these men, not to Jeremiah or Zephaniah who were
contemporary prophets, but to the prophetess Huldah, strongly
indicates that in Old Testament times there was little if any
prejudice against the spiritual leadership and ministry of women.
The very existence of female prophets points to the considerable
religious influence women could legitimately exercise. This is
also corroborated by the fact that Joel predicted a future
widespread manifestation of the gift of prophecy among both men
and women (Joel 2:28-29).
No Priestesses
In view of the important religious leadership roles women
like Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, exercised in the Israelite society,
it is important to ask: "Why women were excluded from the
priesthood?" Two major reasons are generally given and both of
them are incorrect.
The first reason is the alleged frequent ritual impurity of
women. Elisabeth M. Tetlow clearly states: "A major reason why
women were excluded from the priesthood and from full
participation in the temple cult was their frequent ritual
impurity." 13
This reason lacks both Biblical and practical support.
Biblically there is absolutely no suggestion that women were
excluded from the priesthood because of their monthly menstrual
flow which rendered them ceremonially unclean for seven days (Lev
15:19-24). The truth of the matter is that men were also
frequently ritually unclean. In fact every time a man had a
discharge of semen during sexual intercourse, he was unclean
until the evening (Lev 15:1-12). This would obviously happen not
just once a month, as in the case of the woman's menstrual cycle.
Margaret Howe, a leading feminist and a British scholar,
acknowledges the validity of this observation:
The emission of semen by the male was also a defilement and
disqualified him from officiating in the holy place. As a
result, it became customary for priests to abstain from
sexual intercourse for the duration of their priestly
service. However, it was recognized that an emission of
semen could take places at times other than copulation, and
this was equally a defilement (Lev 15:16-18). Indeed, the
male emission of semen can occur with more frequency and
less predictability than the menstrual flow in a woman. As
priestly service was, in any case, intermittent, it is not
clear why menstruation in itself would disqualify a woman
from priesthood. 14
It is noteworthy that "an unnatural discharge from male
organs made the man unclean for seven days after the discharge
had ceased (Lev 15:1-15)." 15 A man was unclean for seven days
also when he had sexual intercourse with a woman during her
menstrual period (Lev 15:24). If all these frequent ritual
uncleanness did not disqualify men from serving as priests why
should it disqualify women? Could not women serve at the temple
like men on a rotating basis (1 Chron 24; Luke 1:5, 9), according
to their ritual status?
Practically, the argument is discredited by the fact that
women did serve in a limited role at the tabernacle. If ritual
impurity were the factor for the exclusion of women from the
priesthood, why then were they not excluded also from ministering
at the entrance of the tabernacle (Ex 38:8; 1 Sam 2:22)?
Considerations such as these indicate that the argument about
ritual impurity is a fabrication of those who are bent on
believing that the Old Testament is sexist and biased against
women.
Danger of Sacred Prostitution
The second major reason given for the exclusion of women
from the Old Testament priesthood, is the need that existed "to
avoid the dangers of the fertility cults and sacred
prostitution." 16 It is argued that "the sacred prostitution of
old Canaanite cults was still too vivid a memory for the
intervention of a woman in the celebration of sacred rites not to
appear immediately ambiguous and suspect." 17 This argument
falls short on at least two counts.
First, the fact that some of the pagan priestesses served as
prostitutes cannot be a valid reason for God to exclude Israelite
women to function as exemplary priestesses at the sanctuary. A
legitimate practice cannot be prohibited because of its
perversion. The sons of Eli "lay with the women who served at the
entrance to the tent of meeting" (1 Sam 2:22). There is no
indication, however, that these prostitutional acts resulted in
the abolition of the priesthood in general or of the ministry of
women at the entrance of the sanctuary in particular. If the
argument were valid, then not even men should have functioned as
priests because of the danger of male prostitution which the
Bible views as more abominable than female prostitution, by
calling the male cult prostitutes "dogs" (Deut 23:18; Rev 22:15).
Second, there are indications that many, if not most, of the
pagan priestesses in the ancient world, lived celibate and
devoted lives. Some of the Babylonian priestesses lived in
cloisters. 18 The women priest who officiated, for example at
the temples of Vesta, Apollo, Athena, Polias, Dionysius, as well
as in the various mystery religions, were in most cases either
celibate or very continent in their lifestyles. 19
In the light of the foregoing considerations we conclude
that the reason for the exclusion of women from the priesthood
was not because of their frequent ritual impurity or the danger
of sacred prostitution. Rather, the true reason is to be found in
the unique Biblical view of the role the priest fulfilled as
representative of the people to God.
The Representative Role of the Priest
The priesthood developed through several stages in the Old
Testament. During patriarchal times the head of the household or
of the tribe fulfilled the priestly function of representing his
household to God. Thus Noah (Gen 8:20), Abraham (Gen 22:13),
Jacob (Gen 35:3), and Job (Job 1:5) each served as representative
priest of his family.
With the establishment of the theocracy at Sinai and the
erection of the tabernacle, God appointed the tribe of Levi to
serve as priests in place of the first-born or head of each
family (Num 3:6-13). While God called all the people of Israel,
male and female, to be "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation"
(Ex 19:5-6; cf. Is 61:6), as a result of the Sinai's apostasy the
Levites were chosen to serve as representative for the whole
nation, because of their allegiance to God (Ex 32:26-29). When
the priests ministered they acted as the representatives of the
people.
It was because of this representative role which the priest
fulfilled as the head of the household of Israel, that women were
excluded from the priesthood. A woman could minister as prophet
because a prophet was primarily a communicator of God's will, but
she could not function as a priest because a priest was appointed
to act as the representative of the people to God and of God to
the people. As James B. Hurley rightly observes, "The Mosaic
provision [for an exclusively male priesthood] stands in a
historical continuum and continues the practice of having
representative males serve to officiate in public worship
functions." 20
"The fact that most pagan religions of the time did have
priestesses, as well as priests," notes John Meyendorff, "shows
that a male priesthood was the sign of a specifically biblical,
i.e. Jewish and Christian identity." 21 This unique,
counter-cultural Jewish and Christian identity stems not from the
religious genius of Judaism or Christianity but from divine
revelation which established a functional headship role which man
is to fulfill in the home and in the household of faith.
CONCLUSION
Our survey of the religious roles of women in the Old
Testament shows that women played a most vital role both in the
private and public religious life of ancient Israel. As full
members of the covenant community, women participated in the
study and teaching of the law to their children, in offering
prayers and vows to God, in ministering at the entrance of the
sanctuary, in singing and in the prophetic ministry of
exhortation and guidance.
The religious roles of women, however, were different from
those of men, in accordance with the principle of equality of
being and subordination in function which is implicit in the
creation story. The principle of appointive male leadership in
the home and in public worship was threatened then as it is
today, and would have been easily lost had it not been for many
of the Old Testament laws which were designed to distinguish
between the roles that God has called men and women to fulfill in
the socio-religious life. Clarence J. Vos, though himself an
Evangelical feminist, reaches essentially the same conclusion:
Although it is clear from the Old Testament that woman takes a
different role in Israel's worship than man, there is no evidence
to consider her an inferior creature. As a member of the
religious community we can view her as taking an equal place
among the people of God. It was not her task to lead the family
or tribe in worship; normally this was done by the patriarch or
the eldest male member. That a male was appointed to this
function no doubt rested on the idea that the male was considered
the "first-born" of the human family--a motif discernable in the
creation story of Genesis 2. 22
The implications of our conclusion regarding the ministry of
women in the Old Testament for the ministry of women today will
be discussed after our examination of the witness of the New
Testament. At this point it suffices to note that the religious
roles of women in the Old Testament were different and yet
complementary to that of men, in accordance with the Biblical
principle of equality in being and subordination in function.
NOTES ON CHAPTER I
1. Susan T. Foh, Women and the Word of God (Phillipsburg, New
Jersey, 1979), p.62.
2. L. Koehler, Old Testament Theology (Lutterworth, London,
1957), p.69
3. Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (SCM, London,
1961), p.131.
4. For a discussion of circumcision as a sign of the functional
role of men, see Clarence J. Vos, Woman in Old Testament Worship
(Delft, England, 1968), pp.51-59.
5. John Calvin, Corpus Reformatorum LI, p.453.
6. Susan T. Foh (n.1), p.81.
7. The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, 1948 ed., s.v. "Woman," by
Hirschel Revel, vol. 10, p.565.
8. Susan T. Foh (n. 1), p.73.
9. Clarence J. Vos (n. 4), p.201.
10. See J. B. Payne, The Theology of the Older Testament (Grand
Rapids, Michigan, 1962), p.229.
11. Clarence J. Vos (n. 4), pp.153-154.
12. See Ismar J. Peritz, "Women in the Ancient Hebrew Cult,"
Journal of Biblical Literature 17 (1898):145.
13. Elisabeth Meier Tetlow, Women and Ministry in the New
Testament: Called to Serve (Lanham, Maryland, 1980), p.22. In a
similar vein Roger Gryson writes: "Since she was subject to
multiple legal impurities, it was inconceivable that she would
have access to a the priesthood or that she would be part of the
personnel attached to the sanctuary" (The Ministry of Women in
the Early Church [Collegeville, Minnesota, 1976], p. 1); also
Clarence J. Vos (n. 4), p.193.
14. E. Margaret Howe, Women and Church Leadership (Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 1982), p.100.
15. L.E.Toombs, "Clean and Unclean," The Interpreter's Dictionary
of the Bible (Nashville, 1962), vol. 1, p.644.
16. Mary J. Evans, Women in the Bible (Downers Grove, Illinois,
1983), p.30
17. Roger Gryson (n. 13), p.1.
18. G.R.Driver and J. C. Miles, The Babylonian Laws (Oxford,
1952), pp.359-360.
19. For documentation and discussion, see Elisabeth Meier Tetlow
(n. 13), pp.7-20.
20. James B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand
Rapids, Michigan, 1981), p.52.
21. John Meyendorff, "The Orthodox Churches," in The Ordination
of Women: Pro and Con, ed. Michael P. Hamilton and Nancy S.
Montgomery (New York, 1975), p.130.
22. Clarence J. Vos (n. 4), p. 207.
.........................
To be continued
3. Women's Role in the Church
Ministry in the New Testament
by the late Samuele Bacchiocchi PhD
CHAPTER II
Ministry of Women in the
New Testament
What impact did the coming of Christ make on the social
status and religious roles of women? Was Jesus' treatment of
women as human persons to whom and for whom He had come and His
inclusion of some of them among His inner circle of companions,
designed to pave the way for their full access to the pastoral
ministry? Does the New Testament respect or reject the social and
religious role distinctions between men and women which we have
found in the Old Testament?
Two Opposing Views
Two opposing answers are generally given to these questions.
Some Bible students argue that the New Testament abolished "the
distinction between priest and laity"' by granting to women equal
and full access to all the forms of ministry open to men. 2
Elizabeth Meier Tetlow, for example, concludes her book Women and
Ministry in the New Testament, by saying:
There is nothing inherent in the character of Christian
ministry as it is presented in the writings of the New
Testament which would give reason for the exclusion of
women. On the contrary, the New Testament portrays Jesus
treating women as equal human persons. It also portrays
women and men serving side by side in the various ministries
of the early church ... According to the evidence of the New
Testament, the exclusion of women from ecclesiastical
ministry is neither in accord with the teaching or practice
of Jesus nor with that of the first century Church. 3
Other Bible students disagree with this conclusion,
maintaining instead that the New Testament upholds the Old
Testament role distinctions between men and women in the home and
in the church. For example, the Commission on Theology and Church
Relations of the Lutheran Church??Missouri Synod, states in its
report issued in September 1985:
This analysis of the order of creation and redemption leads
to the formulation of a second principle, derived from the
Holy Scriptures, for clarifying the function of women in the
church today: Distinctive identites for man and woman in
their relation to each other were assigned by God at
creation. These identities are not nullified by Christ's
redemption, and they should be reflected in the church. 4
A similar conclusion is presented in the 1984 report issued
by the commission appointed by the Christian Reformed Church. The
report declares: "'The headship principle,' which means that the
man should exercise primary leadership and direction?setting in
the home, in the church, and in society in general, is a
creational norm recognized in both the Old and New Testament." 5
A Reason for Opposing Views
How can evangelical Christians, committed to the authority
of the Word of God, reach two opposing conclusions regarding the
New Testament teaching on the role of women in the church? A
major reason is the seemingly contradictory data found in the New
(and Old) Testament regarding the social status and religious
roles of women. Some statements and examples suggest that women
shared equally with men in the various ministries of the church,
while others indicate that women were excluded from the
appointive representative roles of apostles, pastors, and
elders/bishops.
Jesus, for example, on the one hand elevated women to a
position of equal worth with men, admitting some of them to His
inner circle of companions, and commissioning them to witness for
Him (Matt 12:49 50; 27:55?56; 28:7; Luke 8:1?3; John 4:26?30;
20:17?18). Yet on the other hand Jesus did not include any women
among His twelve apostles nor did He commission any to "feed my
sheep" (John 21:17).
Similarly, Paul, on the one hand, speaks of women as "fellow
workers" (Rom 16:1?3,6,12; Phil 4:2?3), prophets (1 Cor 11:5),
persons who "have labored side by side with me in the gospel"
(Phil 4:3) and as being equal to men and one in Christ ("neither
male nor female"??Gal 3:28). Yet, on the other hand the Apostle
teaches the submission of wives to their husbands (Eph 5:22?24;
Col 3:18) and the exclusion of women from the authoritative
teaching role of pastor or elder (1 Tim 2:11?12; 1 Cor 14:34?35).
The existence of these apparently contradictory teachings
can easily give rise to conflicting views. This happens when one
chooses to maximize those statements or examples which favor
one's view and to minimize opposing statements by ignoring,
reinterpreting or rejecting them. This is not a new phenomenon in
Biblical interpretation. A classic example is the two opposing
views regarding Paul's seemingly contradictory statements about
the law. Antinomians appeal to those Pauline statements which
speak of Christ abolishing the law (Eph 2:15; cf. Rom 3:28; 7:6)
to negate the value of the law in the process of salvation.
Legalists make use of those Pauline texts which speak of Christ
establishing the law (Rom 3:31; cf. Rom 7:12; 1 Cor 7:19) to
teach law?keeping as the basis of salvation.
Method
A responsible interpretation of seemingly contradictory
Biblical teachings, must first recognize the existing tension and
then seek for a resolution by trying to understand its causes. In
the case of Paul's contradictory statements about the law, I have
shown elsewhere 6 that the contradiction can be explained by
simply recognizing the different contexts in which Paul speaks
about the law. In the context of salvation (justification??right
standing before God), Paul clearly affirms that law?keeping is of
no avail (Rom 3:20). But, in the context of Christian conduct
(sanctification??right living before God), Paul maintains the
value and validity of God's law (Rom 7:12; 13:8?10; 1 Cor 7:19).
The same methodology will be used in the present study.
First, we shall endeavor to deliniate the seemingly contradictory
teachings of the New Testament regarding the role of women in the
church and then we shall seek to resolve the apparent
contradiction by trying to understand its causes.
Objective
This chapter is divided into two parts. The first part
examines the role of women in the ministry of Jesus. The second
part focuses on the ministry of women in the apostolic church.
The concern is not merely to survey the various forms of women's
ministries but primarily to understand the Biblical rationale for
the inclusion of women in certain ministries and their exclusion
from others. The latter question will be investigated more fully
in the subsequent chapters.
PART I
WOMEN IN THE MINISTRY OF JESUS
1. Jesus' Attitude toward Women
Radical Break
Most scholars acknowledge that Jesus' treatment of women
represents a radical break with the Jewish cultural tradition of
His time. Joachim Jeremias, for example, writes: "Jesus knowingly
overthrew custom when he allowed women to follow him." He calls
the presence of women in the inner circle of Jesus' followers "an
unprecedented happening in the history of that time." 7
To appreciate the revolutionary attitude of Jesus toward
women it is important to note that in the centuries following the
close of the Old Testament canon, the subordinate role of women
was hardened to a considerable degree. Women became relegated to
a position of marked inferiority. In the religious life, contrary
to the Old Testament practice, women were largely excluded from
participation in public worship, being considered unfit to learn
and inappropriate to teach.
The prevailing rabbinic attitude toward the role of women in
the temple or synagogue is well reflected in Rabbi Eliezer ben
Azariah's comment, "The men come to learn, the women come to
hear" (bHag. 3a). The women could listen to the reading of
Scripture but were not expected to gain any deep understanding.
On account of this perception women were almost totally excluded
from any formal religious education. Rabbi Eliezer said: "if a
man gives his daughter a knowledge of the Law, it is as though he
taught her lechery" (mSot. 4:3). The depreciation of women was
such that men, especially rabbis, would not speak to them in
public. Against this background Jesus' attitude toward women is
"without precedent in contemporary Judaism." 8
Women as Persons
Central to Jesus' attitude toward women is His view of them
as persons for whom He had come. He viewed them not in terms of
sex, age or marital status, but in terms of their relation to
God. "Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother,
and sister, and mother" (Matt 12:50). Here Jesus identifies as
disciples and members of His family, any person, male or female,
who does the will of God. This sentiment is echoed in Paul's
great proclamation: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is
neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you
are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28).
The value Jesus placed on women as persons stands out in His
teaching on divorce. Women are not objects that can be dismissed
at will "for any cause." Rather they are persons who by God's
design can enter into a sacred marital relationship which no man
has the right to "put asunder" (Matt 19:3, 6).
The description of the crippled woman as a "daughter of
Abraham" (Luke 13:16) is also indicative of the value Jesus gave
to women. The title "son of Abraham" was commonly used to
emphasize the worth of a man as a member of the covenant
community. But the title "daughter of Abraham" was virtually
unknown, because women were seen not as citizens of the nation
but as members of their family. By the use of this title Jesus
intended to bring out the value he placed on the crippled woman
in particular and on women in general.
Women's Intelligence and Faith
The encounters of Jesus with women illustrate not only His
respect for them as persons but also His appreciation for their
intelligence and faith. His conversation with the Samaritan woman
(John 4:7?30) shows His willingness to dismiss the cultural
conventions of His time. According to rabbinic thinking Jesus
should not have talked with her for three reasons: she was a
Samaritan, a woman, and immoral. Jesus refused to be restricted
by such cultural conventions in revealing to her His Messiahship.
The conversation indicates that Jesus considered this woman as
capable of grasping profound theological concepts such as t the
"living water" (John 4:10), the correct place of worship (4:21),
and the spiritual nature of God (4:24). It is instructive to note
that this woman is the first person to whom Jesus, in John's
Gospel, reveals Himself as Messiah. She not only accepted Jesus
as the expected Messiah but was also the first messenger to
witness for Him to the Samaritans. The success of her witness is
emphasized by John who says that "Many Samaritans from that city
believed in him because of the woman's testimony" (4:39).
Jesus' encounter with a Canaanite woman provides another
example of His appreciation for women's intellectual and
spiritual capabilities (Matt 15:21?28; Mark 7:24?30). Seeking
healing for her daughter, this woman followed Jesus until the
disciples became so irritated that they begged Jesus to send her
away. Jesus' attitude was different. He refused to send her away.
Instead, He chose to talk with her and test her faith. She
understood that Jesus' first responsibility was to Israel, but
she also believed that He could bestow upon her "the crumbs" of
His blessings. Jesus commended her "great faith" (Matt 15:28) and
granted her request. What is significant here is that Jesus
recognized the woman's intelligence and faith by talking with her
and deliberately bringing out her intellectual and spiritual
capacities. She receives a place in sacred history as the first
Gentile convert.
Other encounters of Jesus with women further demonstrate His
appreciation for their faith and love (Mark 5:25?34; Luke
7:36?50). The encounter with the repentant woman at the home of
Simon is most revealing of a woman's faith and love in action
(Luke 7:36?50). While Simon would have never permitted such a
"sinner" to touch him, Jesus accepted the public demonstration of
her love and gratitude as an example of godly faith in action.
Once again Jesus shows respect for women as persons, without
reference to their sex. He received them as full?fledged
participants in the blessings of God's people.
Women in the Parables
The parables further illustrate Jesus' acceptance of women
as treasured members of the human family. The parables present
women in ordinary activities which dramatically illustrate the
lessons Jesus wanted to teach. A woman mixing leaven in flour
illustrates the hidden but pervasive nature of God's kingdom
(Matt 13:33). A woman looking for a lost coin exemplifies God's
concern for lost sinners (Luke 15:8?10). The wise and foolish
bridesmaids illustrate the need of constant readiness for the
unexpected moment of Christ's return (Matt 25:1?13).
A persistent woman confronting an unscrupulous judge teaches
the need of perseverance in prayer and of not losing heart (Luke
18:1?8). A poor widow who gives her last penny illustrates that
God measures our devotion not by the size of our gift but by the
commitment of our hearts (Mark 12:38?44). Thus, contrary to
rabbinic customs which generally avoided mentioning women in
their teachings, Jesus often refers to them, and always in
positive ways, to illustrate the principles of His kingdom.
Women as Learners
Jesus taught women not only in those casual encounters
mentioned above, but also in formal settings. The best example is
that of Jesus teaching in the home of Lazarus where Mary "sat at
the Lord's feet and listened to his teachings" (Luke 10:39). Here
we have the typical picture of a Rabbi instructing his students.
What is uncommon, however, is the fact that the student is a
woman. Contrary to the view of Rabbi Eliezer, who would rather
burn the Scriptures than teach their truth to women, Jesus not
only takes time to teach Mary but also praises her for having
laid aside all other concerns in order to listen to Him (Luke
10:41).
Martha too was taught by Jesus. In connection with the death
of Lazarus, Jesus took time to teach her and to lead her to
accept Him as her Messiah and the source of the resurrection from
the dead (John 11:25?27). It is interesting to note that Martha's
confession, "You are the Christ, the Son of God" (John 11:27), is
the nearest equivalent to Peters confession of Christ (Matt
16:16)
The above examples suffice to show that Jesus' attitude
toward women was in many ways revolutionary. He rejected the
prevailing prejudices against women by treating them as human
persons of equal worth to men, by appreciating their intellectual
and spiritual capacities, by admitting them into His fellowship,
and by taking time to teach them the truths of the kingdom of
God. Was Christ's recognition of the human worth of women and His
appreciation for their spiritual, intellectual, and moral
capacities, intended to open the way for women to function as
pastors/elders in the church? In the rest of this chapter we
shall begin to answer this question by examining first the
participation of women in the ministry of Christ, and then in the
apostolic church.
2. Women in the Ministry of Jesus
Unique Role
The role that some women filled in the ministry of Christ is
absolutely unique. It is remarkable that while Christ ministered
to men, women are shown as ministering to Him. Whenever the
Gospels speak of ministry being rendered directly to Jesus, it is
the ministry of either angels or women. (This does not imply that
all women are angels.) After the temptation "angels came and
ministered to him" (Matt 4:11; cf. Mark 1:13). All the other
instances speak of the ministry of women. After Jesus healed
Peter's mother?in?law, "she arose, and ministered unto them"
(Matt 8:15, KJV). Mention is made of a band of women who followed
Christ constantly and who "ministered unto him of their
substance" (Luke 8:3, KJV). On two occasions it is recorded that
Martha served Jesus (Luke 10:40; John 12:2).
The Greek verb used in all the above examples is diakoneo, which
is translated "to serve" or "to minister." This verb "has the
special quality of indicating very personally the service
rendered to another." 9 It is from the root of this verb that
the English word "deacon" is derived. The personal and dedicated
service that women offered to Christ included the preparing and
serving of food, especially since the original meaning of
diakoneo was "to wait at table." 10
Travelling Companions
Perhaps the most amazing aspect of Christ's relationship
with women is the small band of women who followed Him together
with the disciples. Luke provides this insightful description:
Soon afterward he went on through cities and villages,
preaching and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God.
And the twelve were with him, and also some women who had
been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called
Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna,
the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many
others, who provided for them out of their means (Luke
8:1?3).
This is the only passage in the Gospels which tells us how
Jesus and His disciples lived when they were not entertained by
hospitable people. It is noteworthy that the travelling party of
Jesus included a group of women besides the twelve disciples.
Each of the synoptic writers records that there were many other
women besides those which are mentioned by name (Matt 27:55; Mark
15:41; Luke 8:3)
At a time when women appeared in public only when absolutely
necessary, it must have been a matter of considerable gossip to
see a group of women travelling with Jesus. It was not uncommon
for a rabbi to travel with a band of followers, but it was most
unusual for women to be among them. The fact that Jesus accepted
both the presence and the service of these devoted women clearly
shows that His actions were not conditioned by the custom of the
day.
Women at the Crucifixion and Resurrection
Some of the women who followed Christ during His ministry
assumed a prominent role at the time of the crucifixion and
resurrection. At the risk of their lives they followed Christ to
the Cross and then they followed His body to the burial place.
They wanted to show their tender love for Him by returning later
to embalm His body with spices and ointment (Luke 23:55?56; Matt
27:59?61; Mark 15:47?16:1).
When the women returned to the tomb after the Sabbath to
anoint Christ's body, they were honored with the news of the
resurrection. Their loyalty and devotion to Christ were rewarded
by their being the first to encounter the risen Savior (Matt
28:9; Mark 16:9; John 20:14) and to be commissioned to break the
news of the resurrection to the disciples (Mark 16:7; Matt 28:7,
10). In the Passion narratives the women clearly show a greater
loyalty, courage and faith than the twelve disciples.
The same women who ministered to Jesus during His travels
and at His death were also present among the disciples in the
period between the resurrection and Pentecost. Presumably they
were also among those upon whom the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost
(Acts 1:12?14; 2:14, 14?47).
3. No Women Apostles
The foregoing considerations have shown that women had a
special place in the life of Christ. He affirmed their
personhood, related to them with love and respect, appreciated
their intellectual and spiritual capacities, taught and healed
them, accepted them in His inner circle of travelling companions
and honored them with the first announcement of His resurrection.
In the light of these facts we may ask, Why did Jesus call
no woman to be part of the twelve apostles? Furthermore, Why
didn't the apostles and "the women" (Acts 1:14) who deliberated
over the replacement of Judas, at least also propose the name of
a woman as a possible candidate? Obviously it was not a question
of qualifications, since several women fulfilled the conditions
for apostleship, namely, someone who had accompanied Jesus and
had witnessed His resurrection (Acts 1:21?22).
Cultural Reason
Two reasons are often given for Christ's omission of women
from the apostles: the first is cultural and the second is
theological. Culturally, it is argued that in that "particular
cultural setting only males would have been acceptable both as
the closest companions of Jesus and as leaders of the community
which was to be formed." 11 This explanation is unacceptable for
three major reasons.
First, if Jesus broke radically with the customs of the time
by admitting women into the inner circle of followers, why should
He have felt constrained by customs not to commission women to
preach or teach publicly? It is unconvincing that Jesus radically
rejected the conventions of His time in His treatment of women,
but conceded to them by not allowing women to be apostles.
Second, as Susan T. Foh points out, "to argue that Jesus'
choice of apostles was determined by culture is to ignore the
fact that God chose the culture and time in which his Son was to
be born. No detail escapes God's consideration." 12
Third, in the Roman?Hellenistic culture of the time, as we
shall see, women played leading priestly roles in the religious
life. Thus, if Jesus had been conditioned by the culture of His
time, he could have appointed some women among the apostles, in
view of the fact that they would have been readily accepted in
the Gentile world where the Gospel was to be preached.
Theological Reason
Some reason that Jesus did not appoint women as apostles
because He believed that "the end of time was coming soon" and
consequently He "was not concerned to legislate for His church
for all time." 13 If this reasoning were true, then Jesus should
not have bothered to appoint twelve apostles as the
representatives of the new spiritual Israel, and to commission
them to preach the Gospel to the whole world. It is true that
Jesus did not define the distinct functional roles men and women
are to fulfill within the church, but He did choose and train
twelve men to feed His sheep and to make disciples of all nations
(John 21:15?17; Matt 28:19?20; Acts 1:8).
Jesus' choice of twelve male apostles was not conditioned by
the social conventions of the time, but rather was consistent
with the Old Testament headship role man is called to fulfill in
the home and in the community of faith. This role structure, as
we shall now see, was retained and respected in the life and
order of the church which the apostles raised up under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit.
PART II
WOMEN IN THE MINISTRY OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH
1. The Participation of Women
Visible and Active
Women were visible and active not only in the ministry of
Jesus, but also in the life of the apostolic church. Immediately
after Christ's ascension the disciples gathered in the upper room
"together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with
his brothers" (Acts 1:14). These women were there not to cook for
the men, but to pray with them and to seek divine guidance over
who should be Judas' successor. The women who had filled a
significant role in the ministry of Christ now continue their
service within the life of the community.
On the day of Pentecost women were in the upper room
together with the disciples when the Holy Spirit was poured out
and all of them began speaking in tongues (Acts 2:1?4). Peter
explained the event to the skeptical crowd by quoting Joel: "Your
sons and your daughters shall prophesy, . . . and on my
menservants and my maidservants in those days I will pour out my
Spirit" (Acts 2:17?18). The specific reference to "daughters" and
"maidservants" presumably served to justify why the women also
had received the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Women in the Expanding Church
Women joined the expanding church in large numbers. Luke
notes that "more than ever believers were added to the Lord,
multitudes both of men and women" (Acts 5:14). When Philip
preached the Gospel in Samaria, the result was the same: many
"were baptized, both men and women" (Acts 8:12).
One of the early converts in Jerusalem was Mary, the mother
of John Mark. She offered her house as a meeting place for
believers in that part of the city. It must have been an
important meeting place, since Peter went there immediately after
his release from prison (Acts 12:12). Some scholars believe that
the upper room was in her house. 14
When the Gospel reached Europe, women again were prominent.
The first European convert was a woman named Lydia, "from the
city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods" (Acts 16:14).
The next convert mentioned by Luke was also a woman, a
formerly demon?possessed slave??an example of how the Gospel
reached all classes (Acts 16:16).
The rest of the book of Acts is replete with examples of
women who responded to Paul's proclamation of the Gospel by
becoming active participants in the life of the church. In
Thessalonica and Berea among the many who believed there were
"not a few Greek women of high standing" (Acts 17:4, 12). In
Athens one woman, Damaris, is specifically mentioned among the
few who believed (Acts 17:34). In Corinth Priscilla took an
active role, together with her husband Aquila, in instructing the
learned Apollos (Acts 18:2,26).
Paul, who sometimes has been unjustly accused of being an
antifeminist, repeatedly mentions in his letters many women as
worthy of commendation for the special work they were doing in
the church (Rom 16; Phil 4:2?3; 1 Cor 16:19). There is no doubt
that the apostolic church followed Christ's example by including
women in the ministry of the church. The question, however, is:
what specific roles did women fill within the apostolic church?
To this question we must now address ourselves.
2. The Roles of Women
Charitable Service
A major need in the primitive church was the caring for the
needy, the sick, the widows, the orphans and the visitors. The
apostles were made forcefully aware of such a need soon after
Pentecost by the murmuring of the Hellenists over the apparent
neglect of their widows (Acts 6:1). To remedy the problem "seven
men of good repute" were appointed at that time (Acts 6:3). Soon
women, especially widows, became active in the charitable
services of the church, communicating Christian love by deeds of
mercy and hospitality (1 Tim 5:9?10).
Acts reports the story of a woman, Tabitha (Dorcas), who
"was full of good works and acts of charity" (Acts 9:36). Her
works of charity consisted in making clothes for the poor (v.
39). The fact that "All the widows stood beside ... weeping" (v.
39) after her death, suggests that she herself was probably one
of the widows in the local church. There is no indication in the
story that at this point the widows were organized as a group or
order within the church.
By the time Paul wrote 1 Timothy widows were recognized as a
special group within the church, since the apostle writes: "Let a
widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age....
But refuse to enroll younger widows" (1 Tim 5:9, 11). Some have
argued that the enrolling represented an official appointment to
certain offices in the church. 15 However, as James B. Hurley
points out, "A close look at the text indicates that the roll is
a welfare roll rather than an employment roll." 16
The ministry performed by these widows apparently consisted
of prayer and supplication for the church (1 Tim 5:5), as well as
"doing good in every way" (v.10). There is no indication that
their service was perceived as an official order of ministry in
the church. As Charles C. Ryrie puts it:
Official support was part of the enrolling; official duties
were not. The catalogue was instituted to correct and
systematize financial matters, and no doubt it paved the way
for the development of orders of ministry among women, but
at this point in history matters are still undefined. 17
"Deaconesses"
Closely related to the ministry of widows is that of women
who became known as "deaconesses." This ministry is highlighted
by Paul's reference to Phoebe, "a deaconess of the church
of Cenchreae ... she has been a helper of many and of myself as
well" (Rom 16:1?2). The word "deaconess" is a translation of the
Greek diakonos, a masculine noun which was used both for men and
women with two distinct meanings.
In the vast majority of its occurrances in the New
Testament, the term diakonos simply means "servant" or "one who
ministers" to another. Paul, for example, speaks of himself and
of his co?workers as diakonoi (servants, ministers) of Christ, of
the Gospel and of the new covenant (1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6; Eph
3:7; 1 Thess 3:2). He also speaks of his apostolic work as a
diakonia (Rom 11:13)
In few cases the term diakonos is used to describe the
church office of "deacons" (Phill:l; 1 Tim 3:8?13). Usually the
context gives the clue to whether diakonos is used in the general
sense of ministering or in the restricted sense of an established
diaconate. The question then is to determine whether Paul is
commending Phoebe as a member of the church at Cenchreae who has
served others, or as a deacon in that church. Scholarly opinion
is almost equally divided on this matter. Personally I tend to
think that diakonos is used by Paul in a technical sense to
describe the official deaconess role of Phoebe in the church. The
main reasons are three.
First, the use of the participle "being" (ousan) in Greek
and the connection with the church??"Phoebe, being a deacon of
the church in Cenchreae"??reads like an official title. Paul may
have chosen to introduce Phoebe to the Romans by her official
role in her home church, especially if she was the carrier of his
letter, as is generally believed.
Second, the characterization of Phoebe as a "helper of many"
(Rom 16:2), suggests that she played a vital role in the
Cenchreaean church by offering assistance to many, including Paul
himself. Such a service was associated especially with the office
of the deacon.
Third, in 1 Timothy 3:11 Paul describes the qualifications
of a group of women serving in the church??qualifications which
are point for point parallel to that of the deacons given
immediately before (1 Tim 3:8?10). "The parallel lists of
qualifications strongly suggests," as James B. Hurley observes,
"that the function of these women was parallel to that of the
deacons." 18
The reason why Paul does not call these women deaconesses
(diakonissa) is simply because such a term did not yet exist. The
term first appears in the Syriac Didascalia (ch. 16), a document
written in the early part of the third century. The masculine
form of "deacon?diakonos" was used for both men and women as in
the case of Phoebe (Rom 16:1). In 1 Timothy 3:11 Paul uses the
word "women??gynaikas" instead of "deacons??diakonoi" presumably
to avoid confusion, since he had already used diakonos to
introduce the men in 1 Timothy 3:8. Thus, it would seem best to
understand the "women" of 1 Timothy 3 as a group of persons who
served in the church in a similar capacity to that of the
deacons. The example of Phoebe, identified as diakonos, lends
positive support to this conclusion.
Female deacons were needed in the early centuries when the
sexes could not mingle freely. According to the Didascalia they
performed a great variety of services in the care of women,
including assistance at the baptism and burial of women, the
catechizing of women and the caring for sick women at home. 19
They never functioned, however, as heads of the community, but
served in a role auxiliary to that of the pastors, elders and
bishops.
Women as "Fellow workers"
Women distinguished themselves in the apostolic church not
only at the level of local churches but also in the wider
missionary outreach of the church. Much of the missionary
activity reported in the New Testament focuses on Paul and his
co?workers, many of whom were women.
In Romans 16 Paul greets several women whose missionary
endeavors contributed significantly to the life and growth of the
church. Outstanding among them is Prisca (a diminutive of
Priscilla) and her husband, Aquila. Of them Paul says: "Greet
Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked
their necks for my life, to whom not only I but also all the
churches of the Gentiles give thanks; greet also the church in
their house" (Rom 16:3?5).
This couple lived in Rome until about A.D. 49 when they were
forced to move to Corinth after Claudius expelled the Jews from
Rome (Acts 18:1?3). From Corinth they moved their tentmaking
business first to Ephesus (Acts 18:18?26; 1 Cor 16:19) and then
back to Rome. It is noteworthy that both Paul and Luke mention
Prisca almost always before her husband, Aquila, presumably
because she was the more prominent in missionary endeavors. In
Acts she is engaged with her husband, Aquila, in teaching the
great orator Apollos (Acts 18:26). Prisca must have been,
therefore, well?grounded in the Christian faith and a most
capable instructor.
Paul refers to this couple as "fellow?workers." The term was
often used by Paul to characterize those persons who worked with
him, including Titus and Timothy (Rom 16:9, 21; 1 Cor 3:9; 2 Cor
1:24; 8:23; Phil 2:25; 4:3; Col 4:11; 1 Thess 3:2).
Other women greeted by Paul are: Mary, Tryphaena, Tryphosa,
and Persis, all of whom "worked hard" in the Lord (vv. 6, 12).
The term Paul uses here is descriptive of the toil in proclaiming
the Gospel (cf. 1 Cor 4:12; 15:10; Phil 2:16; 1 Tim 4:10). In
Philippians 4:2,3 Paul mentions two other women, Euodia and
Syntyche, as persons who "have labored side by side with me in
the Gospel."
Paul: a Chauvinist?
The fact that Paul commends such a significant number of
women for working hard with him in the missionary enterprise of
the church, suggests two things. First, the characterization of
Paul as "anti?feminist" is based on prejudice. Paul appreciated
women and admired their contribution to the mission of the
church. Thus, his insistence on the role differentiation between
men and women in the home and in the church, which we shall
examine in later chapters, must be seen as an indication not of
Paul's chauvinism but rather of his respect for the role
distinctions established by God at creation.
Second, women as well as men can participate legitimately in
the ministry of the church. The question, however, is: In what
roles? As appointive leaders of the church or as "fellow?workers"
ministering to the needs of believers and unbelievers? This
question will be addressed in the following chapters where we
shall examine those texts which address specifically the roles of
women within the congregational structures of the New Testament
church.
Women as Prophets
Women as well as men also participated in the prophetic
ministry of the apostolic church. Two specific New Testament
passages refer to women functioning as prophets. Acts 21:9 speaks
of the four daughters of Philip, "who prophesied." In 1
Corinthians 11 Paul recognizes the presence of women who
prophesied in the worship services: "Any woman who prays or
prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head" (1 Cor
11:5).
The prophetic ministry of women in the apostolic church
confirms the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy quoted by Peter on
the day of Pentecost: "And in the last days it shall be, God
declares, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh, and your
sons and your daughters shall prophesy; ... yea, and on my
menservants and my maidservants in those days I will pour out my
Spirit; and they shall prophesy" (Acts 2:1718). It is possible
that Peter quoted this prophecy to explain to the surprised crowd
of onlookers why the gift of prophecy had been bestowed upon
women also. The prophetic ministry of women in the New Testament
stands parallel to that of prophetesses in the Old Testament.
The high regard for the prophetic ministry in the New
Testament is indicated by Paul's listing of spiritual gifts where
"prophets" are mentioned immediately after "apostles" and before
"teachers" or "evangelists," and "pastors" (Eph 4:11, 1 Cor
12:28). This order suggests that the prophetic ministry, which
women exercised in the church, was in no way seen as inferior to
that of the pastor/teacher.
The exact nature of the prophetic ministry is not clearly
defined in the New Testament. Its primary function appears to
have been to serve the Christian community through edification,
encouragement, coun seling and consolation. The chapter most
descriptive of the prophetic ministry is found in 1 Corinthians
14. Here Paul explains that the person "who prophesies speaks to
men for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. . . .
He who prophesies edifies the church" (1 Cor 14:3?4; cf. Acts
15:21).
Some wish to see in the prophetic ministry of women in the
apostolic church an indication that women functioned as leaders
in the church. This view is obviously wrong because prophets
functioned not as the appointed leaders of the congregation, but
as private believers with a God?given message of exhortation for
the congregation. The office of prophet was not restricted to
anyone but was open in a sense to everyone. Paul clearly says:
"For you all can prophecy one by one, so that all may learn and
all be encouraged" (1 Cor 14:31). While women shared in the
prophetic ministry of encouraging, guiding, and exhorting the
Christian communities, there are no indications that they were
ever appointed to serve as the representative leaders
(pastors/elders). The reason for this, as it will be shown in the
following chapters, is the New Testament acceptance of the Old
Testament role structure for men and women.
A Woman "Apostle"?
Appeal is often made to Paul's reference to Junias (Rom
16:7) to defend the alleged leadership role women fulfilled in
the apostolic communities. The text reads: "Greet Andronicus and
Junias, my kinsmen and fellow prisoners; they are men of note
among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me" (Rom
16:7). Among a long list of fellow workers, Paul here
acknowledges two Jews who shared in his imprisonment. Their
service makes them noteworthy "among the apostles." Is Paul here
characterizing a woman, Junias, as an "apostle"? If so, in what
sense?
Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty view the case of Junias as
a major example of the fact that "from the beginning women
participated fully and equally with men"2o in the leadership of
the church. They write:
One woman "apostle" is even mentioned in the Bible! Junia,
saluted by Paul in Romans 16:7 (KJV), is a common Roman name
for a woman, but since she is identified as an "apostle,"
many translators have assumed the name to be a contraction
for a much common male one 21
This categorical conclusion is discredited by three
important considerations. First, the name Jounian in the Greek
text grammatically could be the name of either a man or a woman.
Thus, the grammatical form does not permit a categorical
conclusion in either direction.
Second, it is possible that the passage does not identify
Andronicus and Junias as apostles at all, because the grammatical
form of "men of note among the apostles" can be translated
equally well as "They are noted by the apostles." The latter
appears more plausible because, as John Murray explains, "they
were Christians before Paul and, no doubt, were associated with
the circle of apostles in Judea if not in Jerusalem." 22
Third, the term "apostle" is used in the New Testament in
both a narrow and broad sense. In a narrow sense it designates
"the twelve," as when Matthias "was enrolled with the eleven
apostles" (Acts 1:26) to replace Judas. Because of this
exclusiveness, Paul had to labor to prove the legitimacy of his
apostleship (1 Cor 15:9?11; 2 Cor 12:11?13; Gal 1:1,11; 2:9). In
a broad sense the term "apostle" means a "messenger," someone
sent out for a specific mission (cf. 2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25). If
Andronicus and Junias were apostles, most probably it would be in
the latter sense, since nowhere else are their names associated
with the inner circle of the apostles.
In the light of the foregoing considerations we conclude
that Paul's reference to Junias lends no support to the view that
she was a woman apostle. The name can refer equally well to a
man, and whether the person is a man or a woman, she/he was not
an apostle in the narrow sense of the word.
CONCLUSION
Several conclusions emerge from our study of the ministry of
women in the New Testament. These can be summarized in the
following points:
Jesus' treatment of women was in many ways revolutionary. He
rejected the prevailing prejudices against women, by treating
them as human persons of equal worth to men, by respecting their
intellectual and spiritual capacities, by admitting them into His
fellowship and by teaching them the truths of God's kingdom.
Women played a very prominent role in the ministry of Jesus.
They ministered to His physical needs, a group of them traveled
with Him and His disciples, and some of them followed Jesus to
the Cross at the risk of their lives. Their loyalty and devotion
to Christ stand out in the passion narratives as more exemplary
than that of the apostles. Women were the first to encounter the
risen Lord and to be commissioned to break the news of the
resurrection to the disciples.
In spite of His revolutionary treatment of women, Jesus did
not choose women as apostles nor did He commission them to preach
the Gospel. Such an omission was not a matter of concession to
the social conventions of His time, but rather of compliance with
the role distinction for men and women established at creation.
The apostolic churches followed the pattern established by Christ
by including women as integral members in the life and mission of
the church. Women joined the church in large numbers, attended
worship services, organized charitable service for the needy,
learned of the faith and shared it with others, performed a
variety of services in the care of women, worked hard as
"fellow?workers" alongside numerous men in the missionary
outreach of the church, shared in the prophetic ministry of
edification, encouragement and consolation.
Though women ministered in the church in a variety of vital
roles, including that of prophets, there are no indications in
Scripture that they were ever ordained to serve as priests in the
Old Testament and as pastors/elders/bishops in the New Testament.
Why were women able to participate equally with men in
various ministries of the apostolic church, and yet were excluded
from the appointive roles of apostles/pastors/elders? The
Scriptures suggest several reasons which we shall now consider in
the following chapters.
NOTES ON CHAPTER II
1. Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty, All We're Meant to Be: A
Biblical Approach to Women's Liberation (Waco, Texas, 1975), p.
208. The same authors write: "From the beginning women
participated fully and equally with men" (p.60).
2. See, for example, Gilbert Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles (Grand
Rapids, Michigan, 1985), pp. 118, 206; Paul K. Jewett, The
Ordination of Women (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1980), p.135.
3. Elizabeth Meier Tetlow, Women and Ministry in the New
Testament: Called to Serve (Lanham, Maryland, 1980), p.131.
4. Women in the Church: Scriptural Principles and Ecclesial
Practice, A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church
Relations of the Lutheran Church??Missouri Synod, September 1975,
p.27.
5. Quoted by Nicholas Wolterstorff, "On Keeping Women Out of
Office: The CRC Committe on Headship," The Reformed Journal 34
(May 1984): 8.
6. Samuele Bacchiocchi, The Sabbath in the New Testament (Berrien
Springs, Michigan, 1985), pp.108?120.
7. Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An
Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New
Testament Period (Philadelphia, 1969), p.376.
8. W. Forster, Palestinian Judaism in New Testament Times
(Edinburgh, 1964), p.127.
9. Hermann W. Beyer, "Diakoneo," Theological Dictionary of the
New Testament, eds., Gerhard Kittel and Geoffrey W. Bromiley
(Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1974), p.81.
10. Ibid., p.84.
11. Mary J. Evans, Woman in the Bible (Downers Grove, Illinois,
1983), p.50
12. Susan T. Foh, Women and the Word of God (Phillipsbury, New
Jersey, 1979), p.93.
13. Reginald H. Fuller, "Pro and Con: The Ordination of Women in
the New Testament," in Toward a New Theology of Ordination:
Essays on the Ordination of Women (Somerville, Massachusetts,
1976), p.2.
14. See W. Sunday, Sacred Sites of the Gospels (Oxford, 1903),p.
83.
15. See E. F. Scott, The Pastoral Epistles, Moffat New Testament
Commentary (London, 1936), p.26.
16. James B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand
Rapids, Michigan, 1981), p.121.
17. Charles Calwell Ryrie, The Role of Women in the Church
(Chicago, 1958), p.84.
18. James B. Hurley (n. 16), p 231. Hurley provides a very
cogent interpretation of who were the "women" in 1 Timothy 3:11
(see pp.229?233).
19. R. Hugh?Connolly, ed. Didascalia Apostolorum (Oxford, 1929),
ch.16, p.146?148.
20. Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty (n. 1), p.60.
21. Ibid., p. 63.
22. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International
Commentary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1982),
p.230.
..........................
To be continued
4. Women's Role in the Church
Creation Roles
by the late Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi PhD
CHAPTER 3 OF SAM'S BOOK
THE ORDER OF CREATION
The survey of the ministry of women in the Old and New
Testaments presented in chapter 2, has shown that women played a
vital role in both the private and public religious life of God's
people. In the apostolic church they participated actively not
only in the charitable services of the church but also in the
missionary program of spreading the Gospel. Some women
distinguished themselves as "fellow workers" of the apostles and
others as prophets who encouraged and edified the churches.
The recognition of the important spiritual ministry performed by
women in Bible times, must not obscure an equally evident
Biblical fact, namely, that women were precluded from serving as
priests in the Old Testament and as apostles/pastors/elders/
bishops in the New Testament. We have already indicated that, in
our view, the reason for their exclusion from these appointive
roles, was not adaptation to the cultural conventions of the
time, but rather respect for the role distinctions of men and
women established by God at creation.
Objectives.
This chapter takes a closer look at the significance of the
original order established by God at creation concerning the role
relationship between men and women. Our aim is to ascertain if
the principle of equality in personhood and subordination in
certain functional roles--to which we have alluded in the
previous chapters--is legitimately derived from God's purpose in
the creation of mankind or is the result of the Fall.
The chapter is divided in three parts, each of which
examines one of the first three chapters of Genesis. We will
focus especially on the information these chapters provide on the
role relationship of men and women. Brief consideration will be
given at the end of each part to Paul's use of Genesis 1, 2, 3 in
his teachings on the role of women in the church.
Importance of Creation.
Both Jesus and Paul appeal to the account of creation to
explain God's original intent for human relationships (Matt
19:3-9; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 1 Tim 2:11-151. This indicates the
foundational importance Scripture attaches to the creation
account for understanding the subject of the role relationship of
men and women. Thus, in order to understand the New Testament
teaching on the role of women in the church, it is important to
begin, like Jesus, at "the beginning" (Matt 19:8) by examining
God's original purpose for male/female relationship as revealed
in His creation of mankind.
The three passages of Genesis which are central for our
understanding of the relationship between man and woman are: (1)
Genesis 1:26-31, which gives the account of the creation of the
human race; (2) Genesis 2:18-25, which describes the creation of
woman; (3) Genesis 3:1-24, which relates the story of the Fall
and its consequences. Let us briefly examine what each of these
passages teaches regarding the relationship between men and
women.
PART I
GENESIS 1: MALE AND FEMALE
1. Equal, yet Different
Genesis 1:26-31 is primarily concerned with the place of the
human race in God's creation of this universe. Three key
statements are contained in this passage: (1) God created mankind
in His own image and likeness; (2) God created mankind as male
and female; (3) God gave to mankind dominion over all the living
things and power to increase and multiply, that is, to become a
race. These three statements embody two vital concepts: equality
in being and differentiation in sex.
Equality.
Equality is suggested by the fact that both man and woman
are created in the image of God. Genesis 1:26 states:
"Then God said:'Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea
..."
"Man" here refers inclusively to men and women. This is
indicated first by the Hebrew word for "man" ('adam) which can be
translated equally well as "mankind, humanity": "Let us make
mankind in our own image." The second indication is the plural
"them," which points to "man" here is a plurality consisting of
both man and woman. The fact that Genesis 1:2628 moves back and
forth three times between the singular "man" and the plural
"them," clearly indicates that the term "man" ('adam) is used
collectively to refer to both man and woman.
This conclusion is corroborated by Genesis 1:27 where the
statement "So God created man in his own image, in the image of
God he created him" is clarified by the following statement "male
and female he created them." Thus, both man and woman were
created equally in the image of God and both were blessed by God
and told to multiply and subdue the earth. The idea that the
image of God in woman is second hand, derived from that of man,
is clearly discredited by the account of creation in Genesis 1.1
Different.
Equality, however, must not obscure the sexual
differentiation which is equally clear in the passage: "male and
female he created them" (Gen 1:27). The two sexes are part of
God's original purpose for the human race and both are good. Both
men and women are essential to the proper functioning of the
human race. Denial or perversion of sexual differentiation is a
rejection of the order established at creation.
Genesis 1 does not say much about the roles of men and
women. It simply affirms that man and woman are equally created
in the image of God, but they are sexually different. This notion
of man and woman being equal and yet different is fundamental for
all further consideration of the roles of men and women.
2. Image of God in Man
Maleness and Femaleness.
There has been considerable discussion over what is the
image of God in man. Recently Paul Jewett adopted and developed
Karl Barth's understanding of the image of God in man as being
the combination of the human maleness and femaleness. Jewett
affirms:
I do insist that Man's creation in the divine image is so
related to his creation as male and female that the latter
may be looked upon as an exposition of the former. His
sexuality is not simply a mechanism for procreaction which
Man has in common with the animal world; it is rather a part
of what it means to be like the Creator. 2
This interpretation is used by Jewett and many others as the
basis for their rejection of any functional subordination on the
part of women and for their espousal of male-female equal
partnership in every respect, including the office of
pastor/elder. The basis of this interpretation is primarily the
proximity of the phrase "male and female he created them" to the
phrase "in the image of God he created him" (Gen 1:27). As Jewett
explains it: "the text of Genesis 1:27 makes no direct comment on
Man in the image of God save to observe that he exists as male
and female." 3
There is undoubtedly some theological truth in the notion
that the image of God is reflected in the male-female fellowship
as equals. The problem with this interpretation is that it makes
too much of too little. First it reduces the image of God
exclusively to the male-female fellowship of equal and then it
uses this unilateral interpretation to reject as biased those
Biblical passages which speak of a functional subordination of
women in the home and in the church.
Dominion, Rationality.
In our view, there are four major reasons why the image of
God includes more than the male-female fellowship. First, in
Genesis 1:26 the image of God in man is associated not with Man
as male and female, but rather with dominion over the earth. The
chapter appears to be saying that while the sun rules the day,
the moon the night, the fishes the sea, mankind images God by
having dominion over all the realms.
Second, the structure of Genesis 1:27 (synthetic
parallelism) 4 suggests that "male and female" elucidates what is
meant by the plural "them" already used but not explained in v.
26.
Third, in the New Testament the image of God in humanity is
never associated with malefemale fellowship, but rather with
moral and rational capacities: "put on the new nature, which is
being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator" (Col
3:10; cf. Eph 4:24). Similarly conformity to the image of Christ
(Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49) is generally understood in terms of
righteousness and holiness rather than male-female fellowship.
Fourth, Galatians 3:28 indicates that the male-female
relationship does not have the significance assigned to it by
those who associate it with the image of God. The phrase "male
and female" in Galatians 3:28 is identical to that used in the
Septuagint to translate Genesis 1:27 ("male and female he created
them"). This suggests that Paul's statement that in Christ "there
is neither male nor female," as Susan T. Foh points out,
"abolishes the distinction upon which Jewett's whole theology
rests." 5
In the light of these reasons we conclude that the image of
God is not reflected specifically in the male-female
relationship. The phrase "male and female he created them" (Gen
1:27) specifies the extent of the image of God, namely, that it
includes both man and woman. Those who try to interpret a
male-female image of God in Genesis 1:27 as the basis for
rejecting role distinctions or the subordination of woman to man
are reading into the passage what is not there. What the passage
simply says is that God created mankind as male and female and
both of them are in His image. This suggests that men and women
are equal in their relationship to God and yet they are different
in their sexuality: men are male and women are female. The
implications of the sexual differentiation for role relationship
are to be found not in Genesis 1 but in Genesis 2 in conjunction
with the creation of the woman.
2. Paul's Use of Genesis 1
Woman: Second-hand Image?
Pauls uses the terms "image" and "glory" in 1 Corinthians
11:7 in his discussion of the manner in which men and women ought
to participate in public worship. He writes: "For a man ought not
to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but
woman is the glory of man" (1 Cor 11:7). Some commentators
interpret this verse as implying that woman reflects the image of
God to a lesser degree than man. Rousas J. Rushdoony, for
example, writes: "Paul declares in Corinthians that even as man
was created in the image of God, so woman was created in the
image of man - so that the image of God in woman is a reflected
image, a second-hand image, as it were." 6
This conclusion is unwarranted for two major reasons.
First, in 1 Corinthians 11:7 Paul neither asserts nor denies
that woman is created in God's image. The focus of his discussion
is not the personal dignity or worth (ontological value) of men
and women which is mentioned in Genesis 1:26-28, but rather the
headship of man in marriage and worship, which is implied in
Genesis 2:18-23, to which Paul specifically refers (1 Cor
11:8-9). It is in this context that man images God and that woman
does not. It is obvious that women bear God's image in other
senses, as Paul himself recognizes in Colossians 3:10-11 where he
speaks of all believers being renewed according to God's image.
Glory of Man.
Second, Paul is careful in 1 Corinthians 11:7 not to say
that the woman is man's image. Rather he says that "woman is the
glory of man." The language of Genesis 1:26-27 in the Septuagint
is "image" (eikon) and "likeness" (homoioma) and not image and
glory (doxa). Thus Paul's use of the term "glory" is significant.
To understand its meaning it is important to note that Paul uses
"glory" in the context of the relation of man to God and of woman
to man. Man images God and gives Him glory by being submissive to
Him and by being a loving, self-sacrificing head (Eph 5:25-29).
The wife is the glory of her husband in the way she honors his
headship by her life and attitude. This meaning is well expressed
in the Septuagint version of Proverbs 11:16 which says, "A
gracious wife brings glory to her husband" (cf. Prov.12:4).
We conclude, therefore, that Paul's use of "image" and
"glory" is not an abuse of Genesis 1:26-29. Indeed, he appeals
primarily not to Genesis 1 but to Genesis 2 to explain why the
woman is the glory of man, namely, because she was created from
and for man and not viceversa (1 Cor 11:8-9).
PART II
GENESIS 2: EQUALITY AND SUBORDINATION
1. Complementary Information
Creation of Mankind.
Genesis 2 contains a considerable expansion of the creation
of mankind covered in Genesis 1:26-31. While Genesis 1 affirms
that God created mankind as male and female in His own image,
Genesis 2 elaborates on how the two sexes were created and on the
relationship between them. God created man from the dust and
breathed into him the breath of life. He placed man in the garden
of Eden, giving him permission to eat of every tree except of the
tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Adam names the animals brought to him by God, but he could
not find among them "a helper fit for him" (v.20). God, who had
already planned to create for Adam such a "helper fit for him"
(v.18) even before He brought the animals to Adam, now proceeds
to create the woman from the rib of man. The latter constitutes
the central action of Genesis 2.
Equality and Oneness.
Why did God create the woman from Adam's body instead of
making her a separate creation from the dust like Adam? Four
reasons stand out.
First, the creation of woman from man's rib suggests the
sameness of nature between man and woman. As Adam acknowledges,
the woman is the very bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh
(Gen 2:23). The actual selection of man's rib from which to
create the woman suggests that "she was not to control him as the
head, nor to be trampled under his feet as an inferior, but to
stand by his side as an equal, to be loved and protected by him."
7
Second, the human race, including the first woman, derives
from the same source, Adam, who is the head and representative of
humanity (Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:22).
Third, the creation of woman from man establishes the basis
for the one-flesh principle in marriage (Gen 2:24; 1 Cor 7:4).
This principle rests on a real biological and historical
foundation.
Functional Subordination.
Fourth, the woman's creation from man and for him ("a helper
fit for him"--Gen 2:18) suggests a functional dependency and
subordination. As von Rad points out, Genesis describes the woman
not in romantic terms as a companion to man, but in pragmatic
terms as a "helper" to him. 8 Bible writers speak of human
relationships with a certain practicality.
Many resent and reject the notion of a functional
subordination of woman to man in Genesis 2. They argue that in
Eden before the Fall there was a perfect 50-50 partnership
between husband and wife. The notion of the headship of man and
the subordination of woman is seen as a consequence of the curse.
In their view Christ lifted this subordination (Gal 3:28) and
consequently Christians must work to eradicate any form of
subordination in the relations between man and woman.
This view stems from a negative evaluation of all forms of
subordination and especially of the subordination of woman. This
conviction has led many either to interpret all the Scriptural
references to subordination as reflecting the post-Fall condition
or to treat Scriptures as sexist or male-chauvinistic.
The strongest objection to this view is that subordination
is present in Genesis 2, that is, before the Fall described in
Genesis 3. Moreover, the New Testament, as we shall see, urges
the subordination of woman to man not on the basis of the curse,
but of the purpose of God in creation.
2. Subordination in Genesis 2
Although the focus of Genesis 2 is on the sameness of nature
and partnership between man and woman, there exists within that
equality and partnership an overall sense of woman's
subordination to man. The term "subordination" is used here not
in its negative connotation of oppression, domination or
inferiority, but in its positive sense of depending upon another
person for direction. Its purpose is to ensure unity and harmony.
Central Role of Man.
Subordination is suggested in Genesis 2 first of all by the
central role of man in the account of the creation of woman. Man
is created first and is provided by God with a garden, an
occupation, and finally a wife to be "a helper fit for him" (Gen
2:18). Feminist authors argue that the Hebrew word 'ezer (helper)
does not imply subordination, because, as Clarence J. Vos points
out, in 15 out of the 19 times the word is used in the Old
Testament to refer to God as the "helper" of the needy. 9
It is true that the word "helper" by itself, whether in
Hebrew or in English, does not necessarily imply subordination.
But the meaning of a word cannot be determined without
consideration of its context. In this case the word occurs within
the phrase which says that God created woman to be a helper fit
for man. "If one human being is created to be the helper of
another human being," rightly notes George W. Knight, "the one
who receives such a helper has a certain authority over the
helper." 10 This does not mean that woman exists solely for the
sake of helping man, but rather that she is a helper who
corresponds to man because she is of the same nature.
Name of Humanity.
Second, subordination is suggested in Genesis 2 by the fact
that man bears the name "Man" or "Human" which designates the
whole human race. In spite of the objections from feminists
today, the name for the human race in Genesis is the proper name
of the man, because he is seen as the embodiment of the race. Eve
is seen as the mother of all human beings, but not as the
embodiment of the race. She is the wife to the man who is the
embodiment of the race.
Priority of Creation.
Third, subordination is suggested by the temporal priority
of the creation of man. Paul refers to this fact to support the
exclusion of women from the pastoral teaching role in the church
(1 Tim 2:8-15). Some object to this argument, saying: "If beings
created first are to have precedence, then the animals are
clearly our betters!" 11 This objection is discredited first by
the fact that in the story of the creation of man and woman,
priority of creation is associated with derivation, as 1
Corinthians 11:8-9 shows. The animals were created before man but
man does not derive from animals. The objection is further
discredited by the meaning the Bible attaches to primogeniture.
The first son inherited twice as much as his brothers and became
the head of his father's house and the leader of its worship upon
the father's death (Deut 21:15-17). It is because of this meaning
that Christ Himself is called "the first-born of all creation"
(Col 1:15). The prior formation of Adam is seen by Paul as
typifying the leadership role man is called to play in the home
and in the church. This typological underderstanding of the
priority of Adam's formation may appear irrational from an
empirical standpoint, but, as we shall see in chapter 6, it is
rational from a Biblical standpoint, because it reveals a divine
design for the role of men and women.
Naming of Animals and Woman.
There are other indications of the subordination of woman to
man. Man names not only the animals, but also the woman herself,
both before and after the Fall (Gen 2:23; 3:20). In Hebrew
thought name-giving is the prerogative of a superior. God
exercises this prerogative by naming the things He created and
later on by giving a new name to Abraham and to Jacob (Gen 17:5;
35:10).
Man demonstrates his God-given headship when he names first
the animals and then the woman God brought to him. Man is also
instructed by God regarding the forbidden tree and is apparently
held responsible for passing on the information to his wife (Gen
2:16-17). After the Fall, God holds man accountable for the
original transgression (Gen 3:9). Indications such as these make
it abundantly clear that woman, though equal in being, is
subordinated to man before the Fall.
3. Objections to Subordination
Cleaving to his Wife.
Feminist writers seek to deny the presence of any
subordination of woman to man in Genesis 2 by appealing to two
elements of the chapter. The first is the phrase that man
"cleaves to his wife" (Gen 2:24), which is seen as denoting
subordination of man to woman. As Clarence J. Vos puts it: "It is
the man who cleaves to the woman, and usually with regard to
persons the lesser cleaves to the greater." 12 This argument is
discredited by the fact that in its context the phrase suggests
not subordination of man to woman but the formation of a
committed marital relationship.
Last in Creation.
The second element to which feminist writers appeal is the
placement of woman as last in the creation, a fact which is
interpreted as making woman rather than man the climax of
creation. 13 This view ignores the different literary structure
of Genesis 1 and 2. While in Genesis 1 the creation of the human
race as last represents the climax of creation, in Genesis 2 the
creation of woman as last represents the consummation of man's
search for a fitting partner. As Cassuto points out, the model
for the creation of the woman appears to be that of a father
finding a wife for his son. When the partner who is truly fitting
for him is found, she is brought to the man. 14 Her place as last
represents the fulfillment of mans search for a fitting companion
and not woman's superiority to man.
There are feminist writers who acknowledge the presence of
the subordination of woman to man in Genesis 2, but they try to
negate its legitimacy as a permanent principle by appealing to
Genesis 1, which affirms the equality of man and woman. According
to this view, the creation account of Genesis 1:1-2:4, where man
and woman are presented as equals, is more credible than the
second account of Genesis 2:4b-25, where the woman is
subordinated to man.
Dichotomy between Genesis I and 2.
This view creates an unwarranted dichotomy between Genesis 1
and 2, by assuming that there is a fundamental incompatibility
between the two chapters. Is this true? Apparently the author who
put the two chapters together did not think so. He must have seen
them as complementary rather than contradictory, otherwise he
would not have put them together. As Stephen B. Clark remarks,
"We ought to credit the author with some understanding of the
central meaning of the material he was putting together." 15
The resolution to the apparent tension between Genesis 1 and 2 is
found, not by discrediting the latter, but rather by recognizing
the different context of the two chapters. In Genesis 1 the
context is man and woman in relation to God. In such context they
are equal. In Genesis 2 the context is man and woman in relation
to one another. In such context woman is functionally
subordinated to man. We have already shown that the recognition
of this principle of equality in being and subordination in
function adequately explains why women in the Bible are both
equal to men in personhood and yet subordinate to men in certain
roles.
Those who accept the authority of Scripture as it has been
written down and canonized cannot accept any interpretation which
views any part of the Bible as less credible than other parts (2
Tim 3:16). Biblical principles have to be established on the
basis not of subjectively selected texts, but on the cumulative
witness of the Bible.
4. Nature of Subordination
Contradiction in Terms.
Is is difficult to appreciate the principle of equality in
personhood and subordination in function which is present in
Genesis 2 because this principle is becoming increasingly foreign
to our modern Western society. An example of this difficulty may
be seen in the following comment by Scanzoni and Hardesty: "Many
Christians thus speak of a wife's being equal to her husband in
personhood, but subordinate in function. However, this is just
playing word games and is a contradiction in terms. Equality and
subordination are contradictions." 16
Example of Christ.
To claim that equality and subordination are an unacceptable
contradiction, means to fail to recognize that such an apparent
contradiction coexists in our Savior Himself. On the one hand
Christ says: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) and "He who
has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9), and, on the other
hand, He states "I can do nothing on my own authority; ... I seek
not my own will but the will of him who sent me" (John 5:30) and
"the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). Christ is fully God
(John 1:1; Col 1:15-20) and yet "the head of Christ is God" (1
Cor 11:3; cf. 15:28).
Equality and Subordination.
In our idealistic understanding of equality, "subordination"
connotes inferiority, limitation and humiliation. "In its
original sense, however," as Fritz Zerbst explains, "'to be in
subjection' means to 'be placed in an order' to be under definite
tagmata (arrangement of things in order, as in ranks, rows, or
classes)." 17 To accept one's role within God's order established
at creation means to find the fulfillment for which we were
created.
The subordination in Genesis 2 is similar to the one that
exists in the Godhead between Father and Son. In fact Paul
appeals to the latter model to explain in what sense a husband is
the head of a wife, namely, as God is the head of Christ (1 Cor
11:3). This is a unique kind of subordination that makes one
person out of two. Man was the head of a relationship that was
"one flesh." Thus, subordination in the Scripture does not
connote subservience, as commonly understood, but willing
response and loving assistance. As Susan T. Foh aptly remarks,
We know only the arbitrariness, the domination, the arrogance
that even the best boss/underling relationship has. But in Eden,
it was different. It really was. The man and the woman knew each
other as equals, both in the image of God, and thus each with a
personal relationship to God. Neither doubted the worth of the
other nor of him/herself. Each was to perform his/her task in a
different way, the man as the head and the woman as his helper.
They operated as truly one flesh, one person. In one body does
the rib rebel against or envy the head? 18
Unity-Subordination.
The subordination God intended to exist in His original
creation is a unity-subordination. It is the subordination in
which some are subordinate to others for the sake of a greater
unity. It is a subordination in which the head governs out of
genuine love and the subordinate responds out of a desire to
serve common goals.
Genesis 2 deals primarily with the husband-wife relation,
but its underlying principle of equality and subordination has a
broader social application. In Scripture, as we shall see, the
marriage relationship is the foundational model of the broader
relationship between men and women. The pattern in the larger
household of faith is an extension and reflection of the pattern
in the home.
5. Paul's Use of Genesis 2
It is from Genesis 2 that Paul draws most of his arguments
to explain why women should be subordinate to the headship of man
in the home and in the church. He develops three specific
arguments out of Genesis 2: (1) Adam was formed first (1 Tim
2:13; Gen 2:20-22); (2) Eve was taken out of man (1 Cor 11:8; Gen
2:21-22); (3) she was made for his sake (1 Cor 11:9; Gen
2:20-22). These arguments will be examined more fully in chapter
5. At this juncture it suffices to note the importance Paul
attaches to Genesis 2 for determining the role of women in the
church
Adam Was Formed First.
In 1 Timothy 2:13 Paul appeals to the prior formation of
Adam to support his teaching that women should not be permitted
"to teach or to have authority over men" (1 Tim 2:12). We have
seen that in the Old Testament the first-born son not only
inherited not only a "double portion" of his father's goods, but
also the responsibility of acting as the leader of worship upon
his father's death.
Paul sees Adam's priority of formation as representing the
leadership role of the first-born that man is called to play in
the home and in the church. This meaning is only implicitly
expressed in Genesis 2 which speaks only of the prior formation
of Adam and of the creation of woman out of Adam to be his
helper. Paul offers here an explicit interpretation of this
historical fact. We have no reason to reject this interpretation
if we believe that Scripture must be allowed to interpret
Scripture.
Eve Was Taken out of Man.
In 1 Corinthians 11:8 Paul defends the headship of man by
appealing to the fact that the woman was taken out of (Greek: ek)
man (cf. Gen 2:21-22). In Biblical thought origin and authority
are interrelated (cf. Col 1:15-18). A child must respect the
authority of his parents because he derives from them. In Adam's
historical situation Eve derived from him in the sense that God
formed her from his body. Thus, Adam was her "source," and to him
was due appropriate respect.
This line of reasoning, though present in Hebrew minds, is
not explict in Genesis 2. What is explicit in the text is the
fact that Adam exercises his God-given headship by naming first
the animals and then the woman herself, both before and after the
Fall. By this act, as we noted earlier, Adam exercised the
leadership role assigned him by God. In the light of this fact,
Paul's cryptic remark that the woman was taken "out of" the man
represents a faithful interpretation of Genesis 2, which implies
the headship of man over the woman, especially though man's
naming of his wife (and of the animals).
Eve Created for Sake of Man.
In 1 Corinthians 11:9 Paul draws the final conclusion from
Genesis 2, namely, that woman was created for the sake of man.
This fact is evident in Genesis 2 where God formed the woman out
of man because no appropriate companion or helper was found for
him. This text and its interpretation in 1 Corinthians 11:9 do
not say that woman was made to be man's slave or plaything, but
rather to meet man's need for a fitting companion and
fellow-worker. When men view their wives as less than a God-given
help, they are unfaithful not only to the teaching of Genesis but
also to the example of Christ's headship, which is the model for
husband-wife relationships (Eph 5:23-30).
The foregoing considerations show the fundamental importance
attached by Paul to the order of creation of man and woman found
in Genesis 2. This order constitutes for Paul the theological
justification for the exclusion of women from the leadership role
in the worship service. Such a role would not be in accord with
the subordinate, helping role envisaged for women in creation. To
accuse Paul of reading into Genesis 2 his own rabbinic thinking,
19 means to fail to grasp the theological significance of the
order of creation for the relationship of men and women and to
reject what Paul under inspiration presents as a divinely
established principle. The headship of men in the home and in the
church is not designed to rob women of their equality and purpose
in life, but rather to provide the basis for an harmonious
relationship based on complementary roles.
PART III
GENESIS 3: SIN AND SUBORDINATION
1. Distortion of Creation
The first two chapters of Genesis present God's creation as
He originally intended it to be. The third chapter describes the
disruption and distortion of the order of creation brought about
by the Fall. The first part of the chapter relates the temptation
of Eve and the immediate consequences of the Fall made evident in
the hiding of the man and his wife from God (Gen 3:1-8). In verse
9 God calls upon man to answer for the pair, presumably because
he is seen as the head of the family.
Curse on Serpent.
After the interrogation of the first human couple, God
states the consequences of their actions to the serpent, the
woman, and the man. These consequences have been generally
referred to as "curses." The curse upon the serpent affects not
only the serpent as an animal (Gen 3:14), but also the relation
between Satan and mankind, characterized by "enmity" and
hostility which will be eventually terminated by the destruction
of Satan himself (Gen 3:15).
Curse on Man.
The consequence of the disobedience for man is the immediate
distortion of his relation to the ground and the ultimate
experience of death. Whereas previously man had control over the
ground which yielded its fruit peaceably, henceforth the ground
would resist his efforts and cause him pain by raising up thorns
and thistles (Gen 3:17-18). Worst of all, the possibility of
eternal life has now become the reality of death (v.19). We have
here a painful distortion of an existing situation.
Curse on the Woman.
Against this background we need to examine the curse upon
the woman in Genesis 3:16. This curse is of central concern for
our study, both because it deals directly with the husband-wife
relationship and because it raises the question of the role of
the Fall in the relationship between men and women.
The curse upon the woman has two aspects. The first relates
to childbearing and the second to her relation to her husband.
Childbearing, which was part of the pre-Fall divine design for
the filling of the earth (Gen 1:28), will now become a very
painful process (3:16). (Not understood by very many. There is a
study on this website regarding the truth of Gen.3:16 - Keith
Hunt) The husband-wife relationship will also now experience a
painful distortion: "your desire shall be for your husband, and
he shall rule over you" (3:16).
2. Institution of Subordination ?
Curse upon Woman.
Some view the curse upon the woman as marking the beginning
of her subordination to man and consequently as an undesirable
consequence of sin which has been lifted by Christ (Gal 3:28).
Thus, Christians must work for the eradication of all forms of
subordination because their origin is satanic. Kenneth S. Kantzer
emphatically states this conviction in a special issue of
"Christianity Today" dedicated to the role of women in the
church. He writes: "We believe the subservience of women is part
of the curse (Gen 3:16) from which the gospel seeks to free us."
20 In a similar vein Gilbert Bilezikian writes: "Male rulership
was precipitated by the Fall as an element of the curse.... It
was not part of God's design for relationships between men and
women." 21
This view, that the subordination of the woman to man is the
result of sin and consequently satanic, derives from a strong
negative view of subordination. It leads to the conclusion that
much of the Old Testament and certain Pauline passages are
misogynistic, male chauvinistic or, as Bilezikian puts it, "a
partial accomodation to sinful realities as a way of achieving
their resolution in the new covenant." 22
Subordination in Genesis 2.
The strongest objection to this view is the fact that
subordination begins, as we have seen, not in Genesis 3 but in
Genesis 2 with the creation of woman. As George W. Knight
cogently points out:
Genesis 3 presumes the reality of childbearing (Gen 1:28),
in which the woman will now experience the effects of the
Fall and sin (3:16). It presumes the reality of work (Gen
1:28; 2:15), in which the man will now experience the effect
of the Fall and sin (3:17ff.). And it presumes the reality
of the role relationship between wife and husband
established by God's creation order in Genesis 2:18ff., a
relationship that will now experience the effects of the
Fall and sin (3:16). "He shall rule over you" expresses the
effect of sin corrupting the relationship of husband (the
head) and wife. Just as childbearing and work were
established before the Fall and were corrupted by it, so
this relationship existed before the Fall and was corrupted
by it. Neither childbearing, nor work, nor the role
relationship of wife and husband is being introduced in
Genesis 3; all are previously existing realities that have
been affected by the Fall. 23
Subordination in the New Testament.
Another important objection is that when the New Testament
talks about the importance of the subordination of woman to man,
it appeals to the order of creation in Genesis 2 (see Eph 5:31;
1 Cor 11:8-9; 1 Tim 2:13-14) and not to the curse of the woman
in Genesis 3:16. The foundation of the New Testament teaching on
Christian subordination is found in the purpose of God's creation
and not the consequence of the curse.
3. Genesis 3: Origin of Oppressive Subordination
Curse: Distortion of Subordination.
A number of considerations suggest that the curse on the
woman marks not the institution but rather the distortion of
subordination, as the latter degenerated into oppressive
domination by sinful man. First, we have found that subordination
is already present in Genesis 2.
Second, the analogy between the curse on mans work,
childbearing, and the curse on marital the relationship suggests
that as a result of the Fall the rulership of man, like work and
childbearing, became corrupted and painful.
The Verb "to Rule."
Third, the meaning of the verb "to rule" ("he shall rule
over you"--Gen 3:16) both in Hebrew (mashal) and in the
Septuagint (kyrieuo) commonly denotes domination. A fitting
example is found in Genesis 4:7 where the Lord says to Cain: "And
if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is
for you, but you must master (mashal) it." If we permit this
meaning to determine the meaning of "rule" in Genesis 3:16, then,
as Clarence Vos notes, "we can hardly escape the impression that
there is a connotation of suppression involved." 24
Genesis 3:16: Not Basis of Subordination.
Fourth, the New Testament, as noted earlier, never bases the
subordination of women to men in marriage upon the effects of sin
manifested in Genesis 3:16, but rather on the pre-Fall order of
creation. Genesis 3:16 contains not a new commandment but a
prediction of a how man would pervert his leadership role. As
Russell Prohl keenly observes:
God is not here issuing a special commandment, "Be thou
ruled by him!" or, "Thou shall not rule!" But here in
Genesis 3:16 we have a statement, a prediction, a prophecy,
of how man, degenerated by sin, would take advantage of his
headship as a husband to dominate, lord it over, his wife.
Nowhere in the Bible is Genesis 3:16 quoted or referred to
as establishing a general subordination of woman to man 25
The above considerations lead us to the conclusion that the
curse on the woman (Gen 3:16) allows for the possibility of an
oppressive, dominating form of subordination. This must be seen
as a painful distortion of an already-existing hierarchical
relationship, the existence of which we have already found in
Genesis 2. The purpose of redemption, as we shall see in chapter
4, is to remove a husband's oppressive rule over his wife, but
not his headship over her.
4. Paul's Use of Genesis 3
We have considered earlier in this chapter Paul's use of
Genesis 1 and 2. We have seen that he faithfully reflects the
implication of these chapters in his teaching on the headship
role men are called to play in the home and in the church. We
must now turn our attention to Paul's use of Genesis 3. His main
reference to Genesis 3 is found in 1 Timothy 2:14 which says:
"and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became
a transgressor." This is the second of the two reasons offered by
Paul to support his teaching that women ought not "to teach or to
have authority over men" (1 Tim 2:12), the first reason being the
priority in the formation of Adam (1 Tim 2:13).
Dangerous Interpretations.
The second reason has produced many dangerous
interpretations. Some have assumed that this verse teaches that
women are disqualified to act as leaders in the church because
they are more gullible than men. Paul "may have in mind the
greater aptitude of the weaker sex to be led astray." 26 A
variation of this interpretation is that women "are inferior in
their gifts so far as the teaching office is concerned." 27
These interpretations are untenable because nowhere does the
Scripture suggest that women are more prone to err than men or
that their teaching gifts are inferior. If the latter were true,
how could Paul admonish women to teach their children and other
women (Titus 2:3-5; 2 Tim 3:15)? How could he praise women
fellow-workers for their roles in the missionary outreach of the
church (Rom 16:1,3,12; Phil 4:3)?
Connection between Two Reasons.
To understand the meaning of 1 Timothy 2:14 it is important
to note that this verse is linked to the preceding one by the
conjuntion "and" (kai), which is often used by Paul as an
explanatory connective (see 1 Tim 4:4; 5:4-5). In this case the
connective "and" suggests that the typological meaning of the
priority of Adam's formation mentioned in verse 13, is connected
with the typological meaning of Eve's deception mentioned in
verse 14.
What Paul appears to be saying is that both Adam's formation
and Eve's deception typologically represent woman's subordination
to man. The first reason appeals to the order of creation and the
second reason to the Fall to show what happens when the order of
creation is disregarded. When Eve asserted her indipendence from
Adam she was deceived.
The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary supports this
interpretation: "The apostle's second argument for the
submissiveness of women is that when Eve tried to assert
leadership she was beguiled." 28 On a similar vein George W.
Knight writes: "In 1 Timothy 2:14 Paul also refers to the Fall
after citing the creation order ... to show the dire consequences
of reversing the creation order on this most historic and
significant occasion." 29
This interpretation brings Paul's reasons in line with his
other uses of Genesis, discussed earlier. It provides yet another
example of Paul's concern to re-establish the creational
relationship of equality in personhood and subordination in
function. It shows that Paul bases his teachings concerning the
role distinction of men and women not on the consequences of the
Fall described in Genesis 3, but on the pre-Fall order of
creation found in Genesis 1 and 2.
CONCLUSION
Our study of the first three chapters of Genesis has shown
their fundamental importance for determining the role
relationship of men and women in the home and in the church.
Genesis 1 simply affirms that man and woman are equally
created in the image of God, but they are sexually different.
Genesis 2 clarifies the equality and difference of Genesis 1
in terms of sameness and subordination. Man and woman are the
same because they share the same human flesh and bones and
because they have been created to complement one another. Yet
woman is subordinated to man, as indicated by: her role as a
fitting helper for man, the priority of the creation of man, mans
bearing of the name of humanity, and man's naming of the animals
and of the woman herself before and after the Fall. The headship
of man is implied also in chapter 3 where God calls upon man to
answer for the pair.
Genesis 3 describes the distortion of the order of creation
brought about by the Fall. This affected not only the serpent,
the land, work and childbearing, but also the subordination of
woman to man. Sinful man would now take advantage of his headship
to dominate and oppress his wife. Contrary to what many believe,
the curse on the woman marks not the institution of subordination
but rather its distortion into oppressive domination.
Paul attaches fundamental importance to the teachings of the
first three chapters of Genesis. He appeals to the pre-Fall order
of creation to defend the subordination of women to the
leadership of man both in marriage and in the church. Paul's
appeal to the order of creation is in line with Christ's teaching
that calls for a restoration of the creational relationship (Matt
19:8) by the members of His kingdom.
Contrary to prevailing thinking, we found that Paul bases
his teaching concerning the role of women in the church, not on
the consequences of Fall described in Genesis 3, but on the
pre-Fall order of creation presented in Genesis 1 and 2. The
foundation of his teaching is not the "curse" of the Fall, but
the original purpose of God in creation.
What are the implications of the order of redemption for the
roles men and women are called to fill in the home and in the
church? To this question we must now turn our attention.
NOTES ON CHAPTER III
1. Rousas J. Rushdoony, "The Doctrine of Marriage," in Toward
Christian Marriage: a Chalcedon Study, Elizabeth Fellersen, ed.,
(Nutley, New Jersey, 1972), p.14.
2. Paul K. Jewett, Man as Male and Female (Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 1975), pp.13-14.
3. Ibid., p.36.
4. For a structural analysis of Genesis 1:27, see Susan T. Foh,
Women and the Word of God (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 1979), pp.
54-56.
5. Ibid., p.57.
6. Rousas J. Rushdoony (n. 1), p.14.
7. E. G. White, The Story of Patriarchs and Prophets (Mountain
View, California, 1958), p.46.
8. G. von Rad, Genesis, trans. J. H. Marks (Philadelphia, 1961),
p.80.
9. Clarence J. Vos, Woman in the Old Testament Worship (Delft,
Holland, 1968), p.16.
10. George W. Knight, The Role Relationship of Men and Women
(Chicago, 1985), p.31.
11. Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty, All We're Meant to Be: A
Biblical Approach to Women's Liberation (Waco, Texas, 1974), p.
28; cf. Paul K. Jewett (n. 2), pp.126-127.
12. Clarence J. Vos (n. 9), p.18; cf. Paul K. Jewett (n. 2), pp.
127-128.
13. Ibid., p.18, n. 25; John A. Bailey, "Initiation and Primal
Woman in Gilgamesh and Genesis 2-3," Journal of Biblical
Literature (June 1970): 143.
14. V. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, part 1, ed.
Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem, 1961), p.135.
15. Stephen B. Clark, Man and Woman in Christ (Ann Arbor,
Michigan, 1980), p.15.
16. Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty (n. 11), p.110.
17. Fritz Zerbst, The Office of Woman in the Church (St. Louis,
Missouri, 1955), p.69.
18. Susan T. Foh (n. 4), p.62.
19. See, for example, Paul K. Jewett (n. 2), p.119
20. Kenneth S. Kantzer, "Proceed with Care," Christianity Today
(October 3,1986): 15-1.
21. Gilbert Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles: A Guide for the Study
of Female Roles in the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1985), pp.
55-56.
22. Ibid., p.68.
23. George W. Knight (n. 10), p.31.
24. Clarence J. Vos (n. 9), p.25.
25. Russell Prohl, Woman in the Church: A Study of Woman's Place
in Building the Kingdom (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1957), p.39.
26. Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles: an Introduction and
Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1957), p.77. See also H. P.
Liddon, Explanatory Analysis of St.Paul's First Epistle to
Timothy (Minneapolis, 1978), p.19.
27. Paul K. Jewett (n. 2), p.60.
28. The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, D.C.,
1957), vol. 7, p.296.
29. George W. Knight (n. 10), p.32. The same view is expressed by
Douglas J. Moo: "In vv. 13-14, then, Paul substantiates his
teaching in vv. 11-12 by arguing that the created order
establishes a relationship of subordination of woman to man,
which order, if bypassed, leads to disaster" ("1 Timothy 2:11-15:
Maning and Significance," Trinity Journal 1/1 [1980]: 70).
..........................
To be continued
5. Women's Role in the Church
The Order of Redemption
by the late Dr.Samuele Bacchiocchi PhD
CHAPTER IV
ORDER OF REDEMPTION
A victorious proclamation rings through the New Testament
like a clarion call: "If any one is in Christ, he is a new
creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come" (2
Cor 5:17). What are the implications of the "new creation"
inaugurated by Christ's coming for the role relationship between
men and women? Does the order of redemption abrogate the role
distinctions of the order of creation, thus making it possible
for women to function as head in the home and in the church?
Much of the current debate on the role of women in the
church revolves around these questions. The perception on the
part of many is that creation and redemption stand in antithesis
as far as the role distinctions between men and women are
concerned. The order of creation is seen as establishing the
subordination of women to men and consequently their exclusion
from the headship role of priest/pastor/ elder. The order of
redemption is seen as inaugurating equality and mutuality and
consequently the inclusion of women in this headship role.
Richard Longenecker aptly states this prevailing perception:
At the heart of the problem as it exists in the church is
the question of how we correlate the theological categories
of creation and redemption. When the former is stressed,
subordination and submission are usually emphasized ...
where the latter is stressed, freedom, mutuality and
equality are usually emphasized. 1
Objectives.
The aim of this chapter is to examine the relationship
between the order of creation and redemption as far as the role
distinctions of men and women are concerned. Specifically, we
shall ask: Does the "new creation" inaugurated by Christ change
or abrogate the original creational relationship between men and
women?
To find an answer to this question, first we shall review
briefly the teachings of Jesus, already examined in chapter 2,
and then we shall consider the teachings of Paul, especially the
implications of Galatians 3:28. The study of the Galatian text
will be the central focus of this chapter, since this text is
viewed by many as the great "breakthrough" which paved the way
for the abolition of national (Jew/Greek), social (slave/free),
and sexual (male/female) barriers, and ultimately for the
inclusion of women to the appointive function of priest/pastor/
elder in the church.
PART I
JESUS AND THE ROLE OF MEN AND WOMEN
Limited Treatment.
A striking fact about Jesus' teaching in the Gospels is its
limited treatment of the role relation of men and women in the
new kingdom of God. We noted in chapter 2 that much coverage is
given in the Gospels to the attitude of Jesus toward women, which
we have found to be revolutionary in many ways. He rejected the
prevailing prejudices by treating women as human persons of equal
worth to men, by appreciating their intellectual and spiritual
capacities and by admitting them into the inner circle of His
followers.
Was Jesus equally revolutionary in calling into question the
Old Testament pattern of roles for men and women? The few
passages on sex, marriage, and divorce which are relevant to this
question offer no support to this prevailing contention. Rather,
these passages show that Christ's concern was to expose the
perversion which had taken place in the creational design for the
relation of men and women.
Adultery.
Regarding adultery (Matt 5:27-30) "Jesus condemned the
iniquity and resolved the inequity." 2 The iniquity resulted from
the violation of the "one-flesh" creation principle. Jesus went
to the root of the problem by denouncing not only the act but
also the lustful attitude of predatory men who looked at women as
playthings rather than persons, as objects for sexual
gratification rather than subjects to be respected.
The inequity consisted in the double standard which condoned
men committing adultery while mercilessly condemning women found
guilty of it. Jesus cut across human perversion and casuistry by
requiring a radical change of heart that will make it possible
for men to treat women as God intended at creation: not as
disposable playthings but as worthy partners. Such a radical
change of mentality may be as demanding as plucking out an eye or
cutting off a hand (Matt 5:29-30).
By focusing on the thoughts of men rather than on the
seductive presence of women, Jesus differed from the rabbinic
thought of His time. While the rabbis taught their disciples to
avoid women, Jesus taught His followers to discipline their
thoughts. This attitude of Jesus "made possible the free
participation of women in the apostolic church, a participation
which would have been unthinkable in Judaism." 3
Marriage and Divorce.
Christ's concern to restore the relation of men and women to
the creational design is evident especially in His teaching on
marriage and divorce (Matt 19:3-12; 5:31-32). In an attempt to
discredit the authority of Jesus, some Pharisees posed Him this
testing question: "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any
cause?" (Matt 19:3). The question suggests that the Pharisees
looked at marriage from the perspective of the Fall. Since man
was seen as the ruler (Gen 3:16), he had the right to determine
not only who should be his wife but also whether and why to
dismiss her.
In His answer Jesus removes the discussion from the level of
the destruction of marriage which resulted from the Fall to that
of God's original order of creation:
Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning
made them male and female; and said, "For this reason a man
shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh"? So they are no longer
two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together,
let not man put asunder (Matt 19:4-6).
In this answer Jesus bases His definition of marriage
squarely in the "one flesh" creation ideal (Gen 2:24). His
opponents sought to challenge this ideal by arguing that, after
all, Moses did "command one to give a certificate of divorce, and
to put her away" (Matt 19:7). Jesus responded by simply pointing
out that Moses did not command divorce, but permitted it "for
your hardness of heart ... but from the beginning it was not so"
(Matt 19:8). This implies that divorce is not only a rebellious
act but it is also an act against the creational design.
The bottom line of the whole exchange between Jesus, the
Pharisees, and the disciples is that in the age of redemption the
relations between men and women are to be restored to their
creational pattern. Thus, any attempt to interpret the teachings
of Jesus as representing an abolition of the role relationships
established at creation is negated by the very fact that Jesus
appealed to the creational design to define such relationships.
Signs for the New Age.
Some interpret the actions and teachings of Jesus about
women as the signs for the new age in which the church was to
ordain women to the priesthood. One wonders, which "new age"? The
"new age" of the New Testament or the "new age" of the
contemporary Women's Liberation movement? All the Gospels tell us
is that Jesus greatly respected women and restored to them human
dignity and worth. However, there is no indication in the Gospels
that this had theological implication for the ordination of women
as pastors of the flock.
If the actions and teachings of Jesus are to be regarded as
"signs" for the attitude the church today must adopt toward the
ordination of women, why is not Christ's exclusive choice of men
to be apostles to be equally regarded as a "sign" for the church
today? A responsible interpretation of Christ's actions and
teachings cannot be based on the selective principle of choosing
only what is supportive of one's predetermined convictions.
Respect for Jewish Culture.
Some argue that Jesus would have liked to do away with the
role distinctions for men and women, but He chose to keep silent
out of respect for Jewish culture. If this were true, then He
certainly would have been less confrontational in his teaching
about Sabbathkeeping, ritual purity, tax-collectors, and the
hypocrisy of the Scribes and Pharisees. There is no indication
that Jesus restrained His convictions out of respect for the
prevailing cultural values of the Jewish people.
The fact that Jesus was revolutionary in His attitude toward
women, treating them as full-fledged citizens of God's kingdom,
suggests that He would not have hesitated to condemn the role
differentiation between men and women, if He had viewed such a
differentiation as a perversion of God's creational design.
Christ came not to abolish the law but to restore its rightful
understanding and one aspect of that restoration was the change
in the role of women from second class citizens in Israel to
first class in the kingdom of God. Though Jesus was revolutionary
in advocating the equal spiritual status of men and women in His
kingdom, He was not revolutionary with regard to the roles of men
and women. His revolution lay rather in the area of what
constituted true righteousness.
The consequence of Jesus' teaching was a significant change
in the spiritual and social status of women--a change that made
it possible for women to be treated with the same "brotherly
love" as men and to participate actively in the life and mission
of the church. There is no indication, however, that Jesus'
proclamation of the spiritual and moral equality of men and women
in the kingdom of God was intended to be understood as a
theological justification for the ordination of women. Those who
argue for the latter, do so on the basis of a selective
principle, settled in advance but seldom expressed.
PART II PAUL AND THE ROLE OF MEN AND WOMEN
1. A Comparison between Jesus and Paul
Contrasting Attitudes toward Women? Some find the attitude
of Paul toward women to be in stark contrast to that of Jesus.
recent author expresses the contrast in this way: "Actually,
Jesus' attitude toward women was completely unlike Paul's." 4
While Jesus was "woman's best friend" who treated women as
"persons" of equal worth to men, 5 Paul was an anti-feminist who
viewed women as inferior to men and thus excluded them from
leadership roles within the church. This view is based primarily
on the fact that most of the scriptural passages which enjoin the
subordination of woman to man in marriage and their exclusion
from the "pastoral" teaching role in the church are found in
Paul's epistles.
This contemporary prejudice against Paul cannot be supported
legitimately supported from his writings. First, Paul
categorically affirms the equality in Christ of men and women in
the now well-known statement: "there is neither male nor female;
for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28). Second, Paul's
appreciation for women is similar to that of Jesus. We noticed in
chapter 2 that Paul commends a significant number of women for
working hard with him in the missionary enterprise of the church.
Third, Paul appears to have worked more actively with women than
did Jesus. While there are no indications that Jesus used women
in His preaching in the way He made use of the twelve or of the
seventy, there are ample indications that Paul used women as
"fellow-workers" and "deaconesses" in his missionary outreach
(Rom 16:1-3, 6,12,13.15; Phil 4:2-3). Indications such as these
suffice to show howunfounded is the popular prejudice against
Paul. Both Jesus and Paul loved and respected women.
Two Different Environments.
The key difference between Jesus and Paul lies in the fact
that while Paul explicitly explains the distinction between the
roles of men and women in the home and in the church, Jesus does
not. The explanation for this difference lies in the two
different social environments in which Jesus and Paul were called
to minister.
Jesus lived and taught in the social and cultural
environment of Palestinian Judaism. In such an environment it was
not necessary for Jesus to teach that adultery and homosexuality
are sinful practices or that women should be subordinate to men
in the home and in the church. Such teachings were well-accepted
norms. The father was the undisputed head of the family and women
held no position of leardership in the synagogue.
Christianity soon moved beyond the Palestinian Jewish
environment into regions that were predominantly pagan. In the
pagan environment the sexual ethics and the role distinctions of
men and women were different from those of Palestinian Judaism.
Priestesses officiated at pagan temples. Women were occupying new
roles in the Greco-Roman society, different from those held by
women in Palestinian Judaism or in the earlier Greco-Roman
society. 6
Paul had to face the influence of the pagan culture within
the Christian communities he had founded, especially in the areas
of sexual immorality and the roles of men and women. Thus, Paul's
teachings on the latter arise from the challenge that Christian
churches were facing in a new pagan environment where Biblical
values were disputed.
Significance of Paul's Teachings.
Paul's teaching on the role of women in the church is, then,
most significant because it represents the explanation of
Christian standards to new converts who, because of
their pagan background, were not familiar with the Biblical
principles. To these believers Paul had to teach many things
which Jesus did not have to teach, not because Paul was
developing new teachings, but because many of these converts came
from a radically different religious and social environment. As
Stephen B. Clark rightly observes:
Had Jesus preached and taught in the same environment as
Paul, he undoubtedly would have had to say many of the same
things. The fact that the New Testament teaching on roles is
Pauline and not explicitly from Jesus is no reason to call
into question its authentic Christianity. One could just as
logically reconsider the circumcision question because only
Paul left explicit teaching on the subject. 7
In view of the fact that Paul developed his teaching on the
role of women in the church in response to the problems that
arose in the context of his mission to the Gentiles and the Jews
who lived among them, the relevance of his teaching, as in the
case of circumcision, extends beyond the cultural setting of his
time.
Our immediate concern in this chapter is not to examine
those Pauline texts which speak explicitly about the role of
women in the church (1 Tim 2:11-15; 1 Cor 11:5; 14:34-36).
Rather, we shall direct our attention to Galatians 3:28 because
many "have found this text to be a rallying cry in the movement
for women's rights and the recovery of the New Testament practice
of women in ministry." 8 Moreover, this passage does provide an
important background to the other texts to be examined in the
following chapters. It also gives us an opportunity to reflect
upon the impact of redemption on the role distinction between men
and women.
2. The Context and Significance of Galations 3:28
Context.
The overall issue addressed by Paul in Galatians is the
tension between salvation based primarily upon human works and
salvation by grace. In the immediate context of Galatians 3:26-28
Paul argues that faith, and not works, provides the basis of
salvation. Any person irrespective of race, social status, and
sex, can be saved only by faith and consequently all persons
stand on an equal footing before God. In this context Paul makes
the memorable statement:
for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on
Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither
slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you
are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:26-28).
The specific issue that provoked this statement is the role
of circumcision and of the law in the salvation of the
individual.
Paul's opponents ("the circumcision party"--Gal 2:12) argued
that Gentiles should be circumcised and keep the law in order to
enter into the Abrahamc covenant with its attendant blessings
(Gal 2:3,7-9; 5:2-3,6,11-12; 6:12-13,15). In other words, they
wanted the Gentile Christians to become full Jewish proselytes by
being circumcised.
Paul opposes vehemently this false teaching, by asserting
that baptism provides the same benefits as circumcision in one's
relationship with God. Baptized Gentiles, as long as they are in
Christ, "are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise"
(Gal 3:29), that is, they receive all the blessings that a
circumcised Israelite is entitled to.
Significance.
In the light of this context, the phrase "neither
male nor female" takes on special significance because women
could not be circumcised. Women participated in the covenant of
Israel through the circumcised male Israelites. Paul emphasizes
that through baptism into Christ a new value system begins in
which religious (Jews/Greek), social (slave/free), and sexual
(male/female) differences play no part in one's status before
God. The woman comes into a covenant relation with God's people,
not through circumcised men, but through her own faith and
baptism.
Galatians 3:26-28 centers on the new status of "one in
Christ" offered to all believers by faith. Paul's key statements
are contained in the sentences: "for in Christ Jesus you are all
sons of God, through faith ... for you are all one in Christ
Jesus" (vv.26,28).
Restoration of Creation Order.
The notion of becoming one person in Christ is possibly a
reference to the original creation of humanity in the image of
God. This is suggested especially by the phrase "male and female"
which in Greek (arsen kai thelu) is identical to the phrase used
in the Septuagint to translate Genesis 1:27 ("male and female he
created them"). 9 In other words, as there was no distinction of
status between "male and female" in God's original creation
because they were both created in the same image of God, so there
is no distinction between "male and female" in God's redemption
because both of them are re-created in the image of Christ.
This interpretation is supported especially by the parallel
passage of Colossians 3:9-11. After exhorting the Colossians to
put away sinful practices, Paul says that they, "have put on the
new nature, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image
of its creator. Here there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcised
and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free man, but
Christ is all, and in all" (cf. 1 Cor 12:12,13).
Here Paul emphasizes the same point as in Galatians 3:28,
namely, that all Christians share equally in the restoration of
the image of God in and through Christ, despite national,
religious and social status. The human race is restored through
Christ to "the image of its creator" and thus to the relationship
it had with God when it was first created. This means that the
order of redemption does not abolish the order of creation. On
the contrary, redemption is intended to restore the creational
order of the human race, that is, the oneness of men and women
with God and among themselves.
Klyne R. Snodgrass expresses the same conviction in his
perceptive article on Galatians 3:28. He writes: "I do not see an
intended contrast between the order of creation and the order of
redemption. Paul does not set the one against the other anywhere
else; rather, redemption includes creation within its scope.
Paul's poiint is not that gender distinctions are obliterated."
10
Parallels to Galatians 3:28.
One intriguing aspect of Galatians 3:28 is the number of
texts in the ancient world which are similar, yet different, to
it. The most pertinent of these is a male thanksgiving that is
found both in Hellenistic and Jewish literature. The Hellenistic
parallel is variously attributed to Socrates, Plato and Thales.
In this the speaker gives thanks "that I was born a human being
and not an animal, that I was born a man and not a women, and
that I was born a Greek and not a barbarian." 11
The Jewish version of this thanksgiving is found in a Jewish
prayer attributed to Rabbi Jehuda, which may go back to Paul's
time:
Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who
hast not made me a Gentile (heathen) Blessed art thou, O
Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast not made me a
slave Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the
universe, who hast not made me a woman. 12
The significance of this prayer for the understanding of
Galatians 3:28, is shown in a comment from the Tosefta by a rabbi
who lived in the second century A.D.:
Blessed be God that he had not made me a Gentile:
"because all Gentiles are nothing before him" (Jer 40:17).
Blessed be God that he has not made me a woman:
because woman is not obligated to fulfill the commandments.
Blessed be God that he has not made me a boor:
because a boor is not ashamed to sin. 13
This comment indicates that the issue for all the three
pairs was one of religious status. The law, as interpreted by the
rabbis, made distinctions in the status before God in all three
categories. As StrackBillerbeck explains:
This thought (Gal 3:28) could not be realized in the
synagogue, because it was precisely those natural
differences which significantly determined the
relationship of the individual to the law: the born Jew had
a different relationship to the law than the proselyte, the
man a different relationship than the woman, the free man a
different relationship than the slave. 14
Against this background Galatians 3:28 gains added
significance.
What Paul is saying is that the distinctions that the law
made, especially as interpreted by the rabbis, no longer applied
among Christians. Through faith in Christ, all the differences in
religious status between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and
female, disappear. All become "Abraham's offspring, heirs
according to promise" (Gal 3:29).
3. Galatians 3:28 and Social Roles
How then does the message of Galatians 3:28 relate to the
roles of men and women in the home and in the church? Does Paul
intend by this message to eliminate all role distinctions and
thus to open the way for women to function as pastors/elders in
the church? Or is he referring only to the spiritual relationship
of men and women to God, thus leaving untouched their, social
roles?
Three major interpretations have been given and each of them
will now be briefly considered.
Abolition of All Differences?
Many interpreters view Galatians 3:28 as the great
breakthrough, designed to abolish all role differences between
men and women, thus opening the way for women to be ordained as
pastors/elders. Virginia Mollenkott, for example, believes that
this text expresses Paul's vision "of a classless, non-racist,
non-sexist society." 15
According to this view, Galatians 3:28 is incompatible with
those New Testament texts which enjoin the subordination of woman
to man. This contradiction is explained in various ways. Some,
like Paul K. Jewett, argue that Paul is merely inconsistent.
Galatians 3:28 reflects Paul's best thought, while texts such as
1 Timothy 2:12-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 hark back to his
rabbinic training which prevented him from seeing the full
implications of redemption. 16
Other scholars such as Richard Longenecker, Krister Stendahl
and Scott Bartchy regard Galatians 3:28 as the normative text,
while the other texts they see as descriptive or conditioned by
the problem sof his time. 17 Thus all the texts dealing with the
role of men and women in the church must be interpreted in the
light of Galatians 3:28.
Culturally Conditioned?
The argument for cultural conditioning and rabbinic
reasoning has no support in the texts themselves where Paul
appeals not to sociological but to theological reasons. Moreover,
such argumention fails to recognize that it is the interpretation
of the texts rather than the texts themselves that is culturally
conditioned, if the interpreter evaluates the text in the light
of twentieth century social patterns. The underlying belief that
the modern social pattern of role interchangeability is more true
than the ancient Biblical pattern of role distinctions is a
gratuitous assumption. In matters of faith and morals what is new
is not necessarily better than what is old.
Biblical history gives ample evidence of moral and social
decline rather than progress. There is no evolutionary process of
moral and spiritual progress. To equate modernity with social
enlightment means to commit the fallacy of attributing to our
modern culture greater authority than to divine revelation. This
does not mean that every social pattern contained in Scripture is
permanent and nonnative for all time. A distinction must be made
between permissive rules regarding, for example, slavery,
divorce, and polygamy, and permanent norms which are grounded in
the creation order and clarified in the redemption order. This
means, for example, that monogamous, heterosexual, and
patriarchal (husband's loving headship) marriages are normative
for Christians, and not merely a matter of social convention. On
the contrary, slavery has no abiding validity because it
represents a distortion of creation structures.
Paul's Inconsistency?
The view that Paul was inconsistent not only negates the
inspiration of all Scriptures, but also assumes that an
intelligent man like Paul was sometimes incoherent. It
makes more sense to assume that Paul saw no tension between
oneness and equality in Christ (Gal 3:28) and functional
subordination of women in the church (1 Tim 2:12-15; 1 Cor
11:2-16; 14:33-35).
Madeleine Boucher, though an Evangelical Feminist herself.
candidly concludes:
Then, the ideas of equality before God and inferiority in
the social order are in harmony in the NT. To be precise,
the tension did not exist in century thought, and it is not
present in the texts themselves. The tension arises
from modern man's inability to hold these two ideas
together. 18
Religious, not Social Issue?
The solution to the apparent incompatibility between
Galatians 3:28 and the other Pauline passages, is to be found in
the recognition of the real thrust of Galatians 3:28. This
passage does not eliminate the different social roles for men and
women established at creation, but does erase the distinctions in
religious status related to the keeping of the law and introduced
after creation during the period of immaturity or hardness of
heart.
The phrase "male and female" refers to human beings in their
sexual differentiation and not in their social roles, as the
words "man and woman" would convey. This means that if the
abolition view were correct, Galatians 3:28 would be teaching the
abolition of male-female sexual differences and the realization
of an androgynous person, that is, a person having male and
female characteristics. This interpretation, though upheld by
some scholars, 19 is unwarranted because Paul was passionate in
maintaining the role distinctions of men and women (1 Cor
11:3-15; Eph 5:22), while rejecting any value judgment based on
them.
Different Concerns.
The real issue in Galatians 3:28 is religious and not social
status, though, as we shall see, the former has profound
implications for the latter. To understand this point it is
essential to see the difference between the concern of Paul's
contemporaries and that of Christians today.
The great concern of first century Jews and Christians was
the religious status, that is, the status of men and women before
God which determined the structure of social life. The concern of
people today, including many Christians, is the social status,
that is, the social equality of men and women. The religious
question is often of little interest, except insofar as it
impacts the social question.
The prevailing perception is that true equality of worth can
only be accomplished by abolishing all role distinctions between
men and women and instituting what sociologists call "role
interchange-ability." 20 Both spouses are supposed to be able to
fulfill the roles of father, mother, breadwinner, housekeeper,
pastor, elder, etc. Role distinctions according to sex are
supposed to disappear.
Perversion of Creational Order.
This view that equality means role-interchangeability,
though popular, is nothing else than a perversion of God's
creational order. In Scripture equality does not mean
role-interchangeability. This fact is clearly recognized by
various evangelical feminist scholars. For example, John
Jefferson Davis writes:
It should be observed, as we examine this concept of
equality, that in the New Testament documents it is not
assumed that equality in the sight of God implies either
role interchangeability among Christians or egalitarian
authority patterns. And as we have already noted, the
religious equality of Christian husbands and wives does not,
in the apostolic teaching, involve egalitarian and
interchangeable authority patterns 21
Klyne R. Snodgrass expresses the same conviction:
Paul obviously did not give up the idea of hierarchy, and I
would argue that equality and hierarchy are not necessarily
antithetical ideas. Nevertheless, what did change for Paul
and must change for every Christian is the understanding of
hierarchy. Christianity redefines hierarchy in terms of
love, servanthood and mutual submission. 22
Summing up, the evidence submitted does not support the view
that Galatians 3:28 abolishes all role distinctions among
Christian people. The text simply asserts the fundamental truth
that in Christ every person, whether Jew or Greek, slave or free,
male or female, enjoys the status of being the son or daughter of
God.
Only Spiritual Relationships?
The second interpretation, known as the traditional
position, views Galations 3:28 as being solely a soteriological
statement (pertaining to salvation) which applies only to
people's spiritual relationship with God (their standing before
God - coram Deum), and does not affect social relationships. 23
What applies in the "religious" sphere does not apply to the
social sphere. James Hurley, for example, concludes that
Galatians 3:28 deals not with "relations within the body of
Christ," but exclusively with the question, "Who may become a son
of God and on what basis?" 24
This view is correct in what it affirms but incorrect in
what it denies. It is correct in emphasizing that Galatians 3:28
deals with the equal religious standing of all people before God,
irrespective of religious, social, and sexual differences, but it
is incorrect in denying the social implications of such a
religious standing. We noted earlier that in Paul's time
religious differences were the basis of social differences.
The abolition of differences in the religious status within the
Christian community affected the social relations. Jewish and
Gentile Christians could now eat together at community meals (Gal
2:11-14; Acts 10:9-29). Women were baptized like men, became
direct members of God's people, equally received the gifts of the
Spirit, and played significant roles in both private and public
worship. The equal standing before God emphasized in Galatians
3:28 had important social consequences as religious (Jew and
Greek), social (slave and free) and sexual (male and female)
relationships were transformed through the presence of genuine
Christian love.
Both Spiritual and Social Relationships.
This leads us to consider the third interpretation. This
views Galatians 3:28 as being a soteriological statement which
affects both spiritual and social relationships, without
abolishing the creational role distinctions of men and women? 25
To deny the social implication of Galatians 3:28 means to fail to
recognize that in the Christian faith nothing can be labelled as
exclusively religious or spiritual ("merely coram Deum--in the
eyes of God").
The social implications of Galatians 3:28 are evident in the
New Testament. An example is the active roles that women
exercised within the church. They exercised the spiritual gifts
for the benefit of the whole church, they engaged as
fellow-workers in pioneer evangelism and took full responsibility
for their own spiritual development. In short, the oneness in
Christ of every person proclaimed in Galatians 3:28 changed the
role of women from mere spectators in the synagogue to active
participants in the church.
Another example can be seen in 1 Corinthians 7, where Paul
ten times carefully balances his statements so that what he says
about one sex is repeated explicitly of the other. He says, for
example, that both husband and wife must honor the conjugal
rights of the other (v.3) and that each of them must view the
other as the ruler of his or her body (v.4). The statement that
"the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does"
(v.4) is startling, especially in the light of the contemporary
view of the prerogatives of the male.
Example of Slavery.
Slavery provides another example of how Paul envisions the
social implications of the oneness in Christ of slaves and
masters. In Ephesians 6:5-9 Paul gives the following instruction
to both slaves and masters:
Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters,
with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to
Christ; ... knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will
receive the same again from the Lord, whether he is a slave
or free. Masters, do the same to them, and forbear
threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and
yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with
him.
The same ideas are expressed by Paul in 1 Timothy 6:1-2 and
in Philemon. All these passages illustrate the transformation in
social relationships brought about by the new life and oneness in
Christ. This transformation consists not in the abrogation of the
distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free and male and
female, but in a new attitude of brotherly love toward one
another.
Abolition of Slavery.
Some argue that if the message expressed in Galatians 3:28
eventually led to the abolition of Jew-Gentile and slave/free
differences, the same truth should lead to the elimination of the
man-woman differences, and thus, to the ordination of women. The
initial plausibility of this view is discredited by four
important observations.
First, Paul compares the relationships among Jew-Greek,
slave-free and male-female only in one common area: the status
distinction these created in one's relationship with God.
Second, in other areas Paul recognizes that the distinctions
among the three relationships still exist. Being in Christ did
not change a Jew into a Gentile, a slave into a freeman and a man
into a woman; rather it changed the way each of these related to
the other. Paul still took pride in being a Jew and acknowledged
the advantages of being Jew, but he did not grant Jews any
special standing before God (Rom 2:25-3:9; Phil 3:4-11).
Third, there is an important difference between Paul's view
of the man-woman relationship and of the slave-freeman
relationship. For Paul the subordination involved in the
man-woman relationship is based on the order of creation and it
represents God's purpose for human beings after the redemption in
Christ which restores humanity to the original creational intent.
Paul, however, never teaches that slavery is a divine
institution, part of God's order of creation, and thus to be
perpetuated. On the contrary, he encourages the slave offered the
opportunity of manumission to take advantage of it (1 Cor 7:21),
and classifies slavekidnappers among the "unholy and profane" (1
Tim 1:9-10). He admonishes slaves to obey their masters, not
because slavery is part of God's purpose, but because they are
now freed men in Christ (1 Cor 7:22; cf. 1 Pet 2:16).
Abolition of Sexual Differentiations?
Fourth, the possible influence of Galatians 3:28 on the
abolition of slavery cannot serve as a model for the elimination
of role distinctions of men and women, because, as noted earlier,
the text speaks of sexual differentiation ("male and female") and
not of social roles as would be implied by the words "man and
woman." While slavery is a temporary human institution resulting
from the Fall, male-female differences are unchangeable
biological features originating at creation.
Evangelical feminists recognize that Galatians 3:28 does not
intend to remove biological distinctions between male and female.
A warning must be sounded, however, against the unisex trend of
our society. Susan Foh correctly observes:
There are trends in society moving in the direction of
unisex. The visibility of homosexuals and their campaign to
legitimize homosexuality is one step toward removing
biological differences (by removing the significance of
biological differences) between male and female. This trend
is contrary to the plain command of Scripture (1 Cor 6:9-10;
1 Tim 1:9-11; Jude 5,7; Rom 1:2427). We should also note
that some gays use the biblical feminists' hermeneutic and
claim that Paul was culturally conditioned when he
prohibited homosexuality. 26
It is noteworthy that some of the denominations which
decided years ago to ordain women have now set up study-groups to
explore the feasibility of ordaining homosexuals. 27 It should
come as no surprise to anyone if in the near future some of these
churches will approve the ordination of homosexuals, by
explaining away as time-bound and culturally conditioned the
Biblical condemnation of homosexuality. This trend to reinterpret
Scripture in the light of contemporary humanistic/secularistic
cultural values should concern every Bible-believing Christian.
If allowed to prevail, this trend will ultimately destroy both
the normative authority of Scripture and the moral fabric of
Christianity.
CONCLUSION
This chapter has shown that the order of redemption
inaugurated by Christ's coming has greatly affected the social
relationship of men and women, but has not changed or eliminated
role differences.
Jesus was revolutionary in advocating the equal spiritual
status of men and women in His kingdom, but He was not
revolutionary in abrogating the role distinctions of men and
women. The consequence of Jesus' teachings was a significant
change in the social status of women. This change made it
possible for women to be treated with the same "brotherly love"
as men and to participate actively in the life and mission of the
church. There is no indication, however, that Jesus' proclamation
of the human dignity and worth of women was ever intended to pave
the way for their ordination as pastors of the flock. Christ's
exclusive choice of men as apostles shows His respect for the
role differences between men and women established at creation.
Paul, like Jesus, was revolutionary in proclaiming the oneness
and equality in Christ of all believers (Gal 3:28; Col 3:9-11; 1
Cor 12:1213). Our study of Galatians 3:28 has shown that the
message of this text has significant social implications, but
does not abolish role differences. The passage envisions one body
into which all believers through baptism have been incorporated
as living members. This is the body of Christ in which racial,
social, and sexual distinctions have no validity.
However, we have found that the oneness of male and female
in Christ does not eliminate the role differences established at
creation. Galatians 3:28 does not teach that the individual
characteristics of believers are abolished by the order of
redemption. Being one in Christ does not change a Jew into a
Gentile, a slave into a freeman, a man into a woman, rather it
changes the way each of these relate to each other. Equality
before God does not imply role-interchangeability. Galatians 3:28
speaks of the equality of all believers before God, but it does
not speak to issues pertaining to order in the church and to the
specific roles of women in the congregation. These issues are
addressed by Paul in other passages which will be examined in the
following chapters.
The analysis of the order of creation and redemption
conducted in the last two chapters lead us to the formulation of
the following principle: In Scripture men and women are equal
before God by virtue of creation and redemption. Yet God assigned
both distinctive and complementary roles to men and women in
their relation to each other. These roles are not nullified, but
clarified by Christ's redemption and thus they should be
reflected in the church.
......
NOTES ON CHAPTER IV
l. Richard N. Longenecker, New Testament Social Ethics for Today
(Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1984), p 92. For a brief but perceptive
presentation of how the orders of creation and redemption
determine respectively the stance pro or con the ordination of
women, see Roberta Hestenes, "Women in Leadership: Finding Ways
to Serve the Church," Christianity Today (October 3, 1986): 4-1
to 10-I.
2. Gilbert Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles: A Guide for the Study
of Female Roles in the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1985), p.
88.
3. James B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand
Rapids, Michigan, 1981), p.110.
4. Arlene Swidler, Woman in a Man's Church (New York, 1972), p.
36.
5. Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty, All We're Meant to Be. A
Biblical Approach to Women's Liberation (Waco, Texas, 1975), p.
54.
6. For information on the status of women in ancient Greece and
Rome, see Mary Lefkowitz and Maureen Fant, Women in Greece and
Rome (Toronto, 1977); J. P. V. D. Balsdon, Roman Women (London,
1962); Sarah B. Pomeroy, Goddesses, Whores, Wifes and Slaves (New
York, 1975); Charles Seltmann, Women in Antiquity (London, 1956).
For a brief treatment see Elisabeth Meier Tetlow, Women and
Ministry in the New Testament: Called to Serve (Lanham, Maryland,
1980), pp.7-20.
7. Stephen B. Clark, Man and Woman in Christ (Ann Arbor,
Michigan, 1980), p.254.
8. Susie C. Stanley, "Response to Klyne R. Snodgrass 'Galatians
3:28: Conundrum or Solution?'" in Women, Authority and the Bible,
ed. Alvera Mickelsen (Downers Grove, Illinois, 1986), p.187.
9. For a helpful discussion on the connection between Galatians
3:28 and the creation narrative, see Krister Stendahl, The Bible
and the Role of Women (Philadelphia, 1966), p.32; and David
Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (New York, 1973),
p.442.
10. Klyne R. Snodgrass, "Galatians 3:28: Conundrum or Solution?"
in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen (Downers
Grove, Illinois, 1986), p.177.
11. Diogenes Laertius 1, 33; also in Lactanctius, The Divine
Institutes 3, 19; Plutarch, Lives, Caius Marius 46. 1, but
without the thanksgiving for having been born a man and not a
woman. For a brief survey and discussion of parallel texts, see
Klyne R. Snodgrass (n. 10), p.171.
12. Quoted in S. Singer, Authorized Daily Prayer Book (London,
1939), pp.5
13. Quoted in Stephen B. Clark (n. 7), p.146.
14. Quoted in Stephen B. Clark (n. 7), p.147.
15. Virginia Mollenkott, "Women and the Bible," Sojourners 5
(1976): 23; among those holding a similar view are Krister
Stendahl (n. 9), pp.32-37; Paul K. Jewett, Man as Male and
Female (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1975), p.112; C. Parvey, "The
Theology and Leadership of Women in the New Testament," in
Religion and Sexism, ed. R. R. Ruether (New York, 1974), pp.
132-134; Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty (n. 5), p.18; Ralph
Langley, "The Role of Women in the Church," Southwestern Journal
of Theology 19 (1977): 69; David and Vera Mace, "Women and the
Family in the Bible," in Christian Freedom for Women and Other
Human Beings (Nashville, 1975), p.18.
16. Paul K. Jewett (n. 15), p.112; cf. R. Scroggs, "Woman in the
N.T.," The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary
Volume (Nashville, 1976), p.967.
17. Richard N. Longenecker (n. 1), pp.84-86; Krister Stendahl
(n. 9), pp.3435; Scott Bartchy, "Power, Submission, and Sexual
Identity among the Early Christians," in Essays on New Testament
Christianity, ed. C. Robert Wetzel (Cincinnati, 1978), pp.58-59;
Thomas R. W. Longstaff, "The Ordination of Women: A Biblical
Perspective," Anglican Theological Review 57 (1975): 322327; F.
F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians (Grand Rapids, Michigan,
1982), p.190.
18. Madeleine Boucher, "Some Unexplored Parallels to 1
Corinthians 11:1112 and Galatians 3:28: The NT on the Role of
Women," The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 31 (January 1969): 57.
19. Bernard Hungerford Brinsmead, Galatians--Dialogical Response
to Opponents (Chico, California, 1982), pp.150-151; Hans Dieter
Betz, Galatians (Philadelphia, 1979), p.195-200; Wayne A. Meeks,
"The Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest
Christiantiy," History of Religions 13 (19731974): 185-186;
Robert Jewett, "The Sexual Liberation of the Apostle Paul,"
Journal of the American Academy of Religion (suppl. 1979): 65-69.
20. Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty (n. 5), p.110.
21. John Jefferson Davis, "Some Reflections on Galatians 3:28,
Sexual Roles, and Biblical Hermeneutics," Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 19, 3 (Summer 1976): 203.
22. Klyne R. Snodgrass (n. 10), p.175.
23. See, for example, Fritz Zerbst, The Office of Woman in the
Church, trans. Albert G. Merkens (St. Louis, 1955), p.35;
Madeleine Boucher (n. 18), pp.57-58; Susan T. Foh, Women and the
Word of God (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 1979), pp.140-141.
24. James B. Hurley (n. 3), pp.126-127.
25. Stephen B. Clark (n. 7), pp.151-155; John Jefferson Davis
(n. 21), pp.202-203; Hans C. Cavallin, "Demythologizing the
Liberal Illusion," in Why Not? Priesthood and the Ministry of
Women, eds. Michael Bruce and G. E. Duffield (Appleford, England,
1972), pp.81-94.
26. Susan T. Foh (n. 23), p.141.
27. John Hogman, "Homosexuality, Sexual Ethics and Ordination,"
Touchstone 3 (May 1985): 4-14; Leslie K. Tarr, "United Church of
Canada Task Force Recommends Ordaining Gays," Christianity Today
28 (May 18, 1984): 100; Jean Caffey Lyles, "Pain and the
Presbyterians," Christian Century 99 (October 6, 1982): 988-993;
John Maust, "The Episcopalians' Great Debate on Ordination of
Homosexuals," Christianity Today 23 (October 19, 1979): 38-40;
David A. Scott, "Ordaining a Homosexual Person: a Policy
Proposal," St. Luke's Journal of Theology 22 (June 1979):
185-196.
......................
To be continued
6. Women's Role in the Church
Headship and Subordination #1
by the late Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi PhD
CHAPTER V
Is the principle of male headship in the home and in the
church derived legitimately from Scripture or illegitimately from
men's efforts to dominate women? 'The answer to this question has
fundamental implications for the role of women in the church. If
the male headship in marriage and in the church is a Biblical
principle, then the ordination of women as pastors/elders is an
unbiblical practice. On the other hand, if the Scriptures teach
that the headship role can be equally exercised by men and women,
then the ordination of women as pastors/elders, must be accepted
as a Biblically-sanctioned practice.
Both liberal and evangelical feminists have long recognized
the negative implications of the male-headship principle for the
ordination of women. Consequently they have made a strenuous
effort to reinterpret the male "headship texts" of the New
Testament (Eph 5:23; 1 Cor 11:3-16), in accordance with the
"partnership paradigm" upon which the ordination of women is
based.1
The New Testament texts which say that "the husband is the
head of the wife" (Eph 5:23), and "the head of a woman is her
husband" (1 Cor 11:3) historically have been understood to mean
that husbands have "authority over" their wives. Recently this
interpretation has been challenged, especially by liberal and
evangelical feminists who contend that the word "head" in such
passages means "source" or "origin" rather than designating
"authority over."
This interpretation is used by feminists to reject any form
of women's subordination to their husbands and to argue for
sexual equality and role-interchangeability. For example,
Scanzoni and Hardesty write: "If we think of the term "head" in
the sense of arche (beginning, origin, source), we are again
reminded of the interdependence of the sexes, each drawing life
from the other." 2 This interdependence supposedly allows both
spouses to fill the roles of father, mother, breadwinner,
housekeeper, pastor, elder, etc. 3
Objectives.
The purpose of this chapter is threefold. First, we shall
ascertain the meaning of "head" as used in Ephesians 5:23 and I
Corinthians 11:3. Second, we shall examine the principle of
headship and subordination in marriage. Third, we shall consider
the principle of headship and subordination in the church. The
chapter is divided in three distinct parts, each of which
examines one of the three cited objectives.
PART I
THE MEANING OF HEADSHIP
1. Head as "Source"
What did Paul mean when he wrote that "the head of a woman
is her husband" (1 Cor 11:3) and that "the husband is the head of
the wife" (Eph 5:23)? Numerous recent authors have argued that in
these texts "head" does not mean authority but rather "origin" or
"source." 4 The implication of this definition is that Paul was
not teaching that man "has authority over" (= head over) his
wife, but rather that he is her "source" and consequently he must
be especially concerned for her.
Modern Authors.
The first to propound that "head" (kephale) in 1 Corinthians
11:3 should 'be understood as "origin" or "source" seems to have
been Stephen Bedale in an article published in 1954. 5 Since
then, numerous writers have expressed the same view. 6 Among
them, the most influencial have been Berkeley and Alvera
Mickelsen. In several articles they have argued that Paul used in
1 Corinthians 11:3 the term "head" not in the sense of "authority
or hierarchy" but rather in the sense of "source, base,
derivation," and in Ephesians 5:23 in the sense of "one who
brings to completion." 7 The implication of this interpretation
is that the "head texts" do not preclude women from being
ordained to serve as pastors/elders in the church.
Arguments for "Source."
The various arguments advanced for interpreting "head" as
"source" or "origin" rather than as "ruler or authority" have
been examined and compellingly refuted by Wayne Grudem. 8 The
reader is referred to Grudem's exhaustive analysis for a fuller
treatment of this question. Briefly stated the main arguments for
this view fall into four categories:
(1) Linguistic.
In classical and contemporary Greek "head" (kephale) does
not normally mean "ruler" or "authority over." 9 The
Mickelsens support this claim by appealing to the Liddell-Scott
lexicon where the meaning of "authority over" is not listed.
Instead, this lexicon cites two examples (Herodotus 4, 91 and
Orphic Fragments 21 a) where "head" is used with the meaning of
"source." 10 The latter meaning of the "head" as the ruling part
of the organism "would be unintelligible to St. Paul or his
readers." 11
(2) Cultural.
The ancient world did not view the head as the seat of
thinking and the executive part of the body. "In St. Paul's day,
according to popular psychology, both Greek and Hebrew, a man
reasoned and purposed, not 'with his head, but 'in his heart." 12
Consequently, the metaphor of is supposedly present in the "head
texts" (1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:23).
(3) Septuagint.
The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament)
supposedly shows that "head" (kephale) can mean "source." The
main support for this conclusion is that when the Hebrew word
ro'sh ("head") means "ruler" or "chief," it was translated by
either kephale ("head") or arche ("beginning" or "ruler"). Since
arche sometimes means "source," then kephale in Paul's writings
may mean "source" as well. 13
(4) Parallelism.
The word "head" (kephale) is supposedly used by Paul in
Colossians 2:19 and Ephesians 4:15 with the meaning of "source of
life." Christians are exhorted in Colossians 2:19 to hold fast
"to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit
together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth
that is from God." The Mickelsens argue that in this passage
Christ is the "head" in the sense that He is "the source of
life," and not of "superior rank." 14 They believe that the same
meaning applies to 1 Corinthians 11:3, since in verses 8 and 12
of the same chapter Paul says that "woman was made from man."
Analysis of Linguistic Argument. The first argument is based on
an unproven assumption. Wayne Grudem has discredited this
assumption by finding and quoting thirty-two examples in which
kephale ("head") is used to mean "authority over" or "ruler" in
Greek writings outside the New Testament (seventeen are from
Greek translations of the Old Testament and fifteen are from
other literature). 15
The absence in the Liddell-Scott lexicon of "authority over"
as a meaning for "head" is not conclusive evidence for the
non-existence of such a meaning. The reason is, as Wayne Grudem
rightly explains:
Liddell-Scott is the standard lexicon for all of Greek
literature from about 700 B.C. to about A.D. 600 with
emphasis on classical Greek authors in the seven centuries
prior to the New Testament. Liddell-Scott is the tool one
would use when studying Plato or Aristotle, for example; but
it is not the standard lexicon that scholars use for the
study of the New Testament. (The standard lexicon for that
is Bauer-Amdt-Gingrich-Danker). 16
Analysis of Cultural Argument.
While it is true that in the ancient world "the heart"
rather than "the head" was generally viewed as the seat of
thinking (Prov 14:33; 22:17, in Hebrew and KJV; Luke 5:22), there
is also significant evidence that the "head" was regarded as the
thinking and ruling part of the body. Plutarch (A.D.46-120), a
prominent Greek author contemporary to the New Testament period,
explains why the words "soul" (psyche) and "head" (kephale) can
be used to refer to the whole person: "We affectionately call a
person 'soul' or'head' from his ruling parts." 17
Similarly the Jewish philosopher Philo (c. 30 B.C.--c. A.D.
45) writes: "The mind is the head and the ruler of the
sense-perception in us."1g Also he says: "As the head in the
living body is the ruling place, so Ptolemy became head among
kings." 19 Examples such as these discredit the claim that the
metaphor of the head ruling the body would have been
"unintelligible to St. Paul or his readers."
Analysis of Septuagint Argument.
The argument that "head" in the Septuagint sometimes means
"source" is a gratuitous assumption, devoid of any textual
support. The reader will search in vain for examples in the
articles by Stephen Bedale and the Mickelsens showing that "head"
(kephale) was ever used with the meaning of "source" in the
Septuagint. The fact that kephale is sometimes used in the
Septuagint interchangeably with arche, which can mean "source,"
or "beginning," does not per se demonstrate that kephale
generally means "source." 20
Wayne Grudem explains this inconsistency by using a fitting
example from the English language:
A parallel to Bedale's argument in English would be if I
were to argue (1) that "jump" and "spring" could both be
used to translate some foreign word when it referred to a
"leap in the air," and (2) that therefore there is a
"virtual equation of 'jump' and 'spring' in English." I
would then go on to argue that "jump" also can mean "a
fountain of water," or "a coil of metal," or "a pleasant
season of the year when flowers begin to bloom." 21
Analysis of Parallelism Argument.
The imagery of Christ as "the Head" of the church, which is
compared to the word "body" in Colossians 2:19 and Ephesians
4:15, does allow for "Head" to mean "source," but it certainly
does not exclude the meaning of "authority over." The context of
Colossians 2:19 indicates that Paul encourages his readers to
abandon the worship of angels and serve only Christ as the true
"Head." In this context of allegiance to Christ instead of to
angels, the reference to Christ as the "Head" best implies
"authority over" the church. Moreover, even if it meant "the
source" of the church, it would still imply "authority over" the
church by virtue of the very fact that the church derives her
origin and sustenance from Christ.
Similarly, the context (vv.8,10-12) of Ephesians 4:15 shows
that Christ is "the Head" of the church in the sense that He is
the sovereign Lord who rules the church and nourishes her growth.
The fact that Christ as "the Head" is the source of growth of the
church, presupposes that He is also the leader of the church.
This brief analysis of the four arguments used to interpret
"head" in 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23 as meaning
"source" rather than "authority over," suffices to show that this
interpretation lacks textual, contexual and historical support.
2. Head as "Authority Over"
Are we correct in understanding "head" in 1 Corinthians 11:3
and Ephesians 5:23 as meaning "authority over"? When we read that
"the head of a woman is her husband" (1 Cor 11:3) and "the
husband is the head of the wife" (Eph 5:23), are we right to
think that these mean that the husband is in a position of
authority with respect to his wife? We believe that this
understanding is correct. The main evidences supporting this
conclusion fall into five major categories, each of which will be
briefly stated here.
(1) New Testament Lexicons.
All the standard lexicons and dictionaries for the New
Testament do list "authority over," "ruler," or "superior rank"
as meanings for "head" (kephale). The Bauer-Amdt
Gingrich lexicon gives the following definition under the word
kephale: "in the case of living beings, to denote superior rank."
22 Thirteen examples are then listed of such usage, including 1
Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23.
The same meaning is given by Heinrich Schlier in the
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Referring to the use
of kephale in the Septuagint, he writes:
"kephale is used for the head or ruler of a society." 23
Again, with reference to 1 Corinthians 11:3, Schlier says:
"kephale implies one who stands over another in the sense of
being the ground of his being." 24
Similar definitions are given by The New International
Dictionary of New Testament Theology and by the older New
Testament lexicons by Thayer and Cremer.
(2) Textual Evidences.
There are ample textual evidences from ancient Greek
literature attesting to the use of "head" (kephale) with the
meaning of "authority over." Wayne Grudem conducted a painstaking
survey of 2,336 examples, by utilizing a computerized database of
the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae at the University of
California-Irvine. This listing included the major classical
Greek authors, in addition to the Septuagint, Philo, Josephus,
the Apostolic Fathers, the New Testament and others.
The results of the survey are very significant. In the vast
majority of instances kephale refers to an actual physical head
of a man or animal (87%). 25 Of the 302 instances where kephale
is used metaphorically, 49 times it is used to denote a "ruler"
or a "person of superior authority or rank." "The other
interesting conclusion from this study is that no instances were
discovered in which kephale had the meaning 'source, origin." 26
This data openly contradicts the Mickelsens' statement that "a
more common meaning [of "head"] was source, or origin, as we use
it in the 'head of the Mississippi river." 27
A sampling of a few instances in which "head" (kephale)
refers to a ruler or a person of superior authority will suffice
to substantiate this usage. One of the 13 examples from the
Septuagint is Judges 11:11: "So Jephthah went with the elder of
Gilead, and all the people made him head and leader over them"
(cf. Judges 11:8,9; Is 7:8,9; 9:14-16, [LXX 13-15]). Philo, in
addition to the two examples already quoted, writes: "The
virtuous one, whether single man or people, will be the head of
the human race and all others will be like the parts of the body
which are animated by the powers in the head and at the top." 28
Referring to an army, Plutarch writes: "the light-armed troops
are like the hands, the cavalry like the feet, the line of
men-at-arms itself like the chest and breastplate, and the
general is like the head." 29
These and other examples listed by Wayne Grudem amply show
that the meaning "ruler, authority over" has sufficient
attestation to establish it as a legitimate sense in those New
Testament texts which speak of man as the "head" of a woman and
the husband as the "head" of the wife.
(3) Patristic Testimonies.
The early Christian writers who referred to 1 Corinthians
11:3 and Ephesians 5:23 understood the word "head" used in these
texts to mean "authority, superior rank." The testimonies of such
writers as Clement and Tertullian, who lived about a century away
from the time of the New Testament, deserve consideration. Ruth
A. Tucker has examined the references of these and other
patristic writers to the "head" in 1 Corinthians 11:3 and
Ephesians 5:23. She concludes her survey, saying:
It [kephalel was generally interpreted by the church fathers
and by Calvin to mean authority, superior rank or
pre-eminence. These findings bring into question some of the
Mickelsens' assumptions--particularly that the "superior
rank" meaning of kephale is not "one of the ordinary Greek
meanings" but rather a "meaning associated with the English
word head." ... it seems clear that the fathers used this
so-called English meaning long before they could have in any
way been influenced by the English language. 30
(4) Contextual Evidences.
The context of both 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23
excludes "source" as a possible meaning of "head." In 1
Corinthians 11:3 Paul presents three sets of parallels:
Christ/man, man/woman, God/Christ: "But I want you to understand
that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her
husband, and the head of Christ is God." If "head" is taken to
mean "source," as James Hurley convincingly shows, "there is no
way to construct a satisfactory set of parallels." 31
Adam could be the source of Eve in the sense that she was
physically taken out of him, but Christ cannot be the source of
Adam in the sense that Adam was physically taken out of Him. Nor
can God be the source of Christ in the sense that Christ was
physically created from a piece taken out of God. The latter is
not only incompatible with other Pauline teachings, but was also
specifically rejected at the time of the Arian controversy.
On the other hand, if "head" means "authority or head over" a
consistent set of parallels can be established. The husband is
the head over his wife in the sense that she is "subject" to him
(Eph 5:22). Christ is head over every man in the sense that every
man must model his behavior after that of Christ (Eph 5:25). God
is head over Christ in the sense that the incarnate Son of God
was obedient to God's authority (headship), even to the point of
death (Phil 2:8).
Support for this set of parallels is provided also by the
meaning of the head covering discussed in 1 Corinthians 11. This,
as we shall see, was seen as the sign of a woman's relation to
her husband's authority. Thus, reading "head" as "authority or
head over" in 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23 is consistent
with the central issue in the chapter.
The meaning of "source or origin" is excluded also by the
context of Ephesians 5:23, where Paul calls upon wives to be
subject to their husbands "for the husband is the head of the
wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is
himself its Savior" (Eph 5:22-23). In this context, the language
of headship and subjection precludes the notion of "origin or
source" for three major reasons.
First, the idea of subjection to an authority ("head") is
implied by the very verb "be subject" (hypotasso)--a verb which
implies a relation to authority (cf. Eph 1:22).
Second, while Adam was in a sense the source of Eve,
husbands in the New Testament were not the physical source of
their wives.
Third, even if the husband was the actual source of his
wife, that would make his authority, more rather than less,
complete, contrary to what some wish to argue.
(5) Unnecessary Opposition.
The attempt to interpret the meaning of "head" as "source"
to the exclusion of "authority, head over," creates an
unnecessary, opposition between the two meanings. This fact is
recognized even by Stephen Bedale, who is often quoted by those
who do not see the meaning of "authority" in Paul's use of "head"
in Ephesians 5:23 and 1 Corinthians 11:3. Having argued that Paul
saw man as kephale ("head") of the woman in the sense of being
her arche ("source, beginning"), Bedale goes on to say:
In St. Paul's view, the female in consequence is
"subordinate" (cf. Eph 5:23). But this principle of
subordination ... rests upon the order of creation. ... That
is to say, while the word kephale (and arche also, for that
matter) unquestionably carries with it the idea of
"authority," such authority in social relationships derives
from relative priority (causal rather than merely temporal)
in the order of being. 32
It is obvious that Bedale offers no support to those who
quote his article to prove that authority is not inherent in
Paul's use of kephale ("head"). Even if it could be proven that
Paul uses "head" with the meaning of "source," such a conclusion
would still carry with it the idea of man's "authority,
leadership" role in marriage and in the church.
Conclusion.
The foregoing considerations indicate that "head" is used by
Paul in Ephesians 5:23 and 1 Corinthians 11:3, to mean
"authority, head over" rather than "source, origin." We must now
examine the implications of this meaning for the role
relationship of men and women in marriage and in the church.
PART II HEADSHIP AND SUBORDINATION IN MARRIAGE
The preceding discussion has established that Paul uses
"head" in Ephesians 5:23 and 1 Corinthians 11:3 with the meaning
of "authority over." At this junction two questions need to be
addressed: (1) In what sense is the husband to exercise authority
over his wife? To put it differently, What is the nature of the
headship role a husband is called to fulfill in marriage? (2) In
what sense is the wife to be submissive to her husband? Or, What
is the nature of the subordination role a wife is called upon to
fulfill in marriage? The clearest discussion of these two
questions is found in Ephesians 5:21-33. Thus, we shall examine
this passage to ascertain Paul's teachings, first regarding the
subordination of the wife and then about the headship of the
husband.
1. Subordination in Marriage
Context.
Ephesians 5:21-33 forms part of a section of the epistle
commonly described as a "household code." This consists of a
series of exhortations, which are similar to those found in
Colossians 3:18-19 and 1 Peter 3:1-7, and are given to wives and
husbands, children and parents, and slaves and masters. These
exhortations are part of a longer instruction on how the members
of the body of Christ should love one another as brothers and
sisters in the Lord.
The "household code" in Ephesians deals not with all the
aspects of marital relationships, but with a specific one,
namely, the aspect of order characterized by the wife's
subordination and the husband's headship. Regarding the former
Paul writes:
Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the
husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the
church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church
is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in
everything to their husbands (Eph 5:21-24).
Mutual Submission?
The opening statement, "Be subject to one another out of
reverence for Christ" (v.21), is taken by many to be the key that
interprets the whole passage in terms of mutual submission. 33 In
other words, Paul is calling upon husbands and wives to be
mutually submissive by serving one another in love. This
interpretation obviously excludes the notion of the husband's
headship over the wife. Though the idea of mutual submission is
not foreign to the intent of the passage, in our view it does not
represent the main teaching of the passage. Verse 21 can best be
understood as a general heading for the whole section which deals
with the role relations of wives/husbands, children/parents,
slaves/masters (Eph 5:21--6:9). Objections to the mutual
submission interpretation of the passage are basically four:
Structure of the Passage. First, the whole passage (Eph 5:21-6:9)
consists of a series of three exhortations in which wives,
children, and slaves are urged to submit to or obey respectively
husbands, parents and masters. These exhortations negate the
notion of mutual submission, especially in the case of
children/parents and slaves/masters. They can best be understood
as explanations of what is meant by being subject to one another.
Exhortation to Subordinate. Second, the exhortation to be
submissive or to obey is given to the subordinate partner, not to
both. The corresponding exhortations to husbands/parents/masters
are not for them to be submissive, but to respect and love their
subordinates. Thus both the structure and context of the passage
recognize a distinction of roles. This view is also strengthened
by the absence of the corresponding exhortation for masters and
husbands in the parallel passage of 1 Peter 2:18--3:2.
Meaning of Verb.
Third, the New Testament use of the verb hypotasso,
translated "to make subject" in the active and "to be subject" in
the passive, consistently expresses the idea of exercising or
yielding to authority. 34 "Each of the more than forty New
Testament uses of the verb carries an overtone of authority and
subjection or submission to it." 5 The meaning of the verb "to be
subject" then, contains the idea of an order where one person
subordinates himself or herself to the leadership of another.
Meaning of "to one another."
Fourth, the phrase "to one another," which is the basis for
the idea of mutual submission, does not always require
reciprocity. An example of this is found in James 5:16 where the
same phrase occurs: "confess your sins to one another." This
instruction is given in the context of a sick person confessing
his or her sins to an elder as part of the healing process. There
is no indication in the context of a reciprocal confession of
sin, that is, of the elder also confessing his sins to the sick
person. In the same way the exhortation "Be subject to one
another" does not necessarily require the idea of reciprocity. In
the light of the above structural, contexual, and verbal
considerations, the phrase "Be subject to one another" can simply
mean. "Let each one be subject to his or her respective authority
(head)."
2. The Nature of Subordination
Reasons for Submission.
What is the meaning of the exhortation, "Wives, be subject
to your husbands, as to the Lord" + (Eph 5:22)? In what sense are
wives to be subject or submissive to their husbands? There are
different kinds of submission and for different motivations.
There is the calculating kind of submission designed to achieve
the fulfillment of secret desires through the practice of
"feminine wiles." There is the submission of conciliation which
I's accepted for the sake of peace. There is the submission of
resignation t to bitter necessity. There is the submission to the
superior wisdom of another person.
Paul rejects the worldly patterns of submission,
substituting for them a new definition: "as to the Lord." This
does not mean that a wife's submission to her husband must have
the unconditional ultimacy of her commitment to Christ. This
would be an idolatrous form of submission. The phrase suggests
two possible meanings. First. the manner of a wife's submission
to her husband should be similar in quality to her devotion to
the Lord. This meaning is supported by the parallel text,
Colossians 3:18, which states: "Wives, be subject to your
husbands, as is fitting in the Lord."
Second, the reason for a wife's submission is "because the
Lord wants it." This meaning is suggested by the preceding and
following verses. In the preceding verse (v.21) the reason given
for being submissive is "out of reverence for Christ."
"Reverence" is a soft translation of the Greek phobos which means
"fear." The KJV retains the literal meaning: "in the fear of
God."
In Scripture the "fear of the Lord" is the response which
produces obedience to His commandments. Thus, submission "in the
fear of Christ" means to accept the authority of another (in this
case, the husband) out of obedience to Christ who has delegated
that authority. This interpretation is supported by the following
verse (v.23) which says, "For the husband is the head of the
wife," that is to say, because the Lord has appointed the husband
to function as the head. The recognition of this fact leads Paul
to conclude his exhortation by urging wives again to fear their
husbands: "Let the wife see that she respects [literally "fears"-
-phobetai] her husband" (Eph 5:33).
Theological, not Cultural Reasons.
The main conclusion relevant here is that a wife's
submission to her husband rests not on cultural but on
theological reasons. Wives are asked to submit not for the sake
of social conventions or the superior wisdom of their husbands,
but for the sake of Christ. Paul grounds his injunction not on a
particular culture, but on the unique relationship of loving
mutuality and willing subordination existing between Christ and
the church.
The submission of a wife to her husband is not merely a
cultural convention, but a divine principle. As stated in the
"Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the
Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod," "The woman is reminded, always
in the context of an appeal to the grace of God revealed in Jesus
Christ, that she has been subordinated to man by the Creator and
that it is for this reason that she should willingly accept this
divine arrangement." 36
Christ has appointed the husband to function as the "head,"
so that when the wife subordinates herself to him, she is obeying
Christ. This does not mean that a wife is to relate to her
husband as if he were Christ. Paul's exhortation is "Wives, be
subject to your husbands, as to the Lord," and not "because they
are the Lord." Husbands are human beings, but are appointed by
the Lord to act as "heads" in the marital relationship. Thus,
Paul takes what could be a natural subordination and places it
within a spiritual order, an order that Christ stands behind.
The wife's submission to her husband is not based on the
husband's superiority or the wife's inferiority, but, as we have
seen, on the husband's headship role established by God at
creation (1 Cor 11:8-9). This order has been established because
it affords greater harmony and effectiveness in the marital
relationship. The authority to which a wife bows is not so much
that of her husband as that of the creational order to which both
of them are subject.
Voluntary Submission.
A wife's submission to her husband is not imposed but
consciously chosen. It is a free, willing and loving
subordination. It is not subservience but loving assistance. The
voluntary nature of her submission is indicated by two facts.
First, by the command to the husband to love his wife rather than
to make her obey. Second, by the model of the submission of the
church to Christ which Paul gives as an example for the wife's
submission to her husband. This means that as the church
willingly chooses to obey Christ in response to His creative and
redeeming love, so the wife willingly chooses to obey the husband
as a response to his caring and selfsacrificing love. This form
of active obedience is not self-demeaning but self-fulfilling and
upbuilding.
This kind of submission stems from the underlying unity that
should exist between husband and wife, as illustrated by the
comparison with Christ and the church (Eph 5:25-27) and the head
and the body (vv.28-30). The purpose of this submission is not to
suppress the individuality of the wife, but to ensure a deeper
and more solid oneness between husband and wife as they function
together in the household. Elisabeth Elliot perceptively points
out that:
To say that submission is synonymous with the stunting of
growth, with dullness and colorlessness, spiritlessness,
passivity, immaturity, servility, or even the "suicide of
personality," as one feminist who calls herself an
evangelical has suggested, is totally to miscontrue the
biblical doctrine of authority. 37
In the Christian faith, authentic self-realization for men
and women is found in willing submission to the divinely -
established structures which are grounded in creation and
clarified by Christ's redemption. This liberating dynamic is
exemplified in the life of the Trinity and expressed in the
Scriptures.
Rejection of Subordination.
Most liberal and evangelical feminists reject the notion of
a woman's subordinate role in the home or in the church. They
view the so-called "hierarchical paradigm" as an immoral legacy
of the patriarchal society. Instead, they promote the
"partnership paradigm," in which there are no headship or
submission roles, but only role-interchangeability. The latter
must be regarded as a clear repudiation of the Biblical paradigm
of a wife's submission to the headship of her husband. Ellen
White urges respect for this Biblical model:
The husband is the head of the family, as Christ is the head
of the church; and any course which the wife may pursue to
lessen his influence and lead him to come down from that
dignified, responsible position is displeasing to God. It is
the duty of the wife to yield her wishes and will to her
husband. Both should be yielding, but the word of God gives
preference to the judgment of the husband. And it will not
detract from the dignity of the wife to yield to him whom
she has chosen to be her counselor, adviser, and protector.
38
Danger of Insubordination.
The outcome of the prevailing rejection of this Biblical
model of authority is evident today in the everincreasing
marital conflicts, broken marriages and divorces. In the
efforts to assert their independence from their husbands,
more and more women are willing to sacrifice their sacred
calling to serve their families. Ellen White underscores the
danger of this trend:
Eve had been perfectly happy by her husband's side in her
Eden home; but, like restless modern Eves, she was flattered with
the hope of entering a higher sphere than that which God had
assigned her. In attempting to rise above her original position,
she fell far below it. A similar result will be reached by all
who are unwilling to take up cheerfully their life duties in
accordance with God's plan. In their efforts to reach positions
for which He has not fitted them, many are leaving vacant the
place where they might be a blessing. In their desire for a
higher sphere, many have sacrificed true womanly dignity and
nobility of character, and have left undone the very work that
Heaven appointed them. 39
Susan Foh describes the current women's striving for
independence and role interchangeabily as "the forbidden fruit"
of our times:
Today, there is a forbidden fruit, just as there was in the
garden. That fruit is role interchangeability in marriage
and the church. Christian women, like Eve, are being tempted
with half truths (such as subordination implies
inferiority) and are being told that God (or the Bible or
the church) is depriving them of something quite
arbitrarily. (We forget that God's commandments are for our
own good.) In some instances Christian women are deceived
into thinking that God's word forbids more than it does;
they think they must not even touch the tree with the
forbidden fruit. And like Eve, Christian women are guilty of
sinning against their creator by discussing with other
creatures whether or not God's law is fair. 40
3. Headship in Marriage
Headship Acknowledged.
It is noteworthy that Paul speaks of the headship role of
the husband only when exhorting wives and not when addressing the
husbands themselves. In other words, the wives are reminded that
"the husband is the head of the wife" (Eph 5:23), but that
husbands are not exhorted to exercise their headship role by
keeping their wives in submission. Instead, Paul chose to
confront husbands with the headship model of Christ's sacrificial
love (Eph 5:25-27).
Paul's approach reveals his sensitivity to human abuse of
power. He was aware of some men's over-concern to assert their
authority. Consequently, he chose to emphasize not the husband's
right to be the head, but rather his obligation to exercise his
headship through care for his wife. Paul acknowledges the
headship role of the husband in the marital relationship as an
indisputable principle: "the husband is the head of the wife"
(Eph 5:23). There was no need to restate this principle when
addressing the husbands. What husbands needed to hear was what it
means to be the head of their wives.
Headship Clarified.
Paul clarifies the meaning of headship by calling upon
husbands to imitate the sacrificial leadership of Christ Himself:
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave
himself for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her
by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the
church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any
such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish (Eph
5:25-27).
Paul here goes into great detail to explain how Christ
exercises His headship role over the church, namely, through the
sacrificial giving of Himself for her redemption and restoration.
In the same way the husband's authority is to be expressed in
self-giving love for the wellbeing of his wife. The husband who
follows Christ's leadership will exercise his headship, not by
forcing his wife into a mold that stifles her initiative, her
gifts, her personhood, but rather by encouraging her to develop
her mental and spiritual potential.
Paul further clarifies the meaning of headship by shifting
back to the head/body analogy (vv.28-30). The husband should care
for his wife as he does for his own body. This means that a
husband must be dedicated to his wife's welfare by providing for
all her needs. This kind of loving and sacrificial leadership
eliminates all the evils associated with hierarchical marriage
and enables the two to "become one flesh" (Eph 5:31).
Biblical headship is for the sake of building others and not for
one's own benefit. Headship means that the husband assumes a
responsability for the family in a way different from that of the
wife. The husband serves as the provider and the wife as the
home-builder. The two are not equivalent but complementary. Each
supplements the special gifts and responsabilities of the other.
Headship and Submission. The model of Christ's sacrificial love
for the church provides a most eloquent example of how headship
and submission can be compatible in marital relationships.
Christ's headship over the church is not diminished by His
self-sacrificing love for her. By the same token, the church's
submission to Christ does not diminish the possibilities for her
fullest development, but rather enhances them.
The comparison between Christ-the church and husband-wife
points to the ultimacy of the authority structure in marriage.
The latter, however, must always mirror the relation of Christ to
the church. Neither headship nor subordination must crush or
distort the possibilities for self-growth or personal
fulfillment. Effective leadership in any organization must
encourage the fullest development of the abilities of those under
authority. This requires that a leader be aware of the concerns
of those under him and that the subordinates respect the wishes
of the leader. As Christians we need to maintain the delicate
balance between the exercise of authority (headship) and the
response to authority (submission).
Conclusion.
Our examination of Ephesians 5 has shown that Paul views the
headship of the husband and the subordination of the wife as an
order established by God to ensure unity and harmony in the home.
We have seen that Paul define and defends headship and
subordination in marriage not on the basis of cultural customs
but on the basis of theological reasons. By utilizing the model
of Christ and the church, Paul effectively clarifies the meaning
of headship and subordination in marriage. The purpose of this
clarification, however, was not to do away with role distinctions
in marriage, but rather to ensure their proper expression in
accordance with God's intended purpose. Our study of headship and
subordination in marriage provides an essential backdrop for the
study which follows regarding headship and subordination in the
church.
...........................
To be continued
7. Women's Role in the Church
Headship and Subordination #2
by the late Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi PhD
CHAPTER V
PART III
HEADSHIP AND SUBORDINATION IN THE CHURCH
How is the principle of headship and subordination in
marriage related to the role relations of men and women in the
church? Are the role differences of husband and wife in marriage
the paradigm for the role differences of men and women in the
church? To find an answer to these questions, we shall examine 1
Corinthians 11:2-16, where Paul speaks about headship in
conjunction with his ruling about appropriate head coverings in
church services.
1. Headship and Head Coverings
Background.
In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Paul discusses the appropriate
headdress for men and women during the worship service. The basic
rule for church order that Paul gives in this passage is that in
worship services men should leave their heads uncovered, while
women should cover their heads. Since more of the passage
discusses the head covering for women when they pray or prophesy
in the public assembly, it seems probable that Paul was
responding to a report received about some Corinthian women who
were either refusing to cover their heads or were questioning
such practice. Possibly some women saw the abandoning of their
head coverings as an expression of their liberty and equality in
Christ.
The importance of this passage lies not so much in what Paul
says about head coverings as such, but rather in the significance
that he attaches to head coverings as a symbol of the role
distinctions that men and women must preserve in the church.
These distinctions, as we shall see, are for Paul not
grounded on cultural conventions but on a male headship role
established by God at creation.
The Order of "Heads."
Paul opens his discussion by commending the Corinthians for
holding to his teachings (1 Cor 11:2). He then proceeds to set
forth his basic teaching that there exists a hierarchy of
headship authority, consisting of God, Christ, Man, Woman: "But I
want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the
head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1
Cor 11:3). This is a foundational statement that provides for
Paul the basis for his ruling on head coverings.
In the first part of this chapter we established that the
word "head" (kephale) is used by Paul in this text and in
Ephesians 5:23 with the meaning of "authority, head over." This
meaning is evident especially in 1 Corinthians 11 where the
central issue is the relation of head coverings to authority (cf.
v.10). Thus, Paul affirms the existence of an order of "headship"
that must be respected in the home (Eph 5:21-30) and in the
church (1 Cor 11:3-16).
Some reject the hierarchical interpretation of 1 Corinthians
11:3, because Paul, "begins with Christ/man, which in a
hierarchical structure should be in second position; he goes on
with man/woman, which in a hierarchical structure should be in
third position; and he ends with God/Christ, which is an
hierarchical structure should be in first position." 41
The fact that the headship of man is sandwiched between the
headship of Christ and of God can hardly represent a negation of
a hierarchical order. Instead, this irregular sequential
arrangement could well reflect Paul's intent to place the
headship of man within the context of the headship of Christ and
God, since such Christological and theological model must govern
our understanding of the meaning of the headship of man.
Headship and Equality.
Some find the notion of a hierarchical order in the Godhead,
and in the human family, to stand in open contradiction of the
principle of equality 42 How can a woman be equal to a man when
she is expected to be subordinate to his headship in the home and
in the church? This apparent contradiction can be resolved, as
pointed out already in chapter 3, by recognizing that the
hierarchical distinctions are functional and not ontological,
that is, they have to do with roles and not with essential worth
or dignity of being.
As Walter Kaiser points out, "Such a ranking speaks not of
their relative dignity or worth (Is Christ any less than God? Or
is a woman any less created in the image of God than man?), but
only of their job relationships, responsibilities to each other
and ultimately to God." 43 The headship of God the Father in
relation to the incarnate Son in no way diminishes the dignity of
Christ's person or His full equality in the Godhead (John 10:30;
14:9; Col 1:15-20). In the same way the functional headship of
man in the home and in the church in no way detracts from, or is
detrimental to, the dignity and equality of woman in personhood.
The model of the headship of God in relation to Christ
should dispel any notion of superiority or inferiority. George
Knight states this point most clearly:
The headship of God with reference to Christ can be readily
seen and affirmed with no threat to Christ's identity. This
chain of subordination with its implications is apparently
given to help answer the objection some bring to the
headship of man in reference to woman. Just as Christ is not
a second-class person or deity because the Father is His
head, so the woman is not a secondclass person or human
being because man is her head. 44
2. Headship and Head Coverings
The Teaching about Head Coverings.
To preserve and to symbolize the order of hierarchical
relationships, Paul now teaches that "Any man who prays or
prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any
woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors
her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven" (1 Cor
11:4-5).
Noteworthy is the fact that Paul assumes that some women at
Corinth were praying and prophesying along with men in the
worship assembly (cf. Acts 21:9). The gifts of the Spirit are
given to the church without regard to sexual differences (Joel
2:28; 1 Cor 12:7-11). Paul does not oppose the participation of
women in the worship service. What he opposes is the behavior of
those women who had disregarded their subordinate position by
praying and giving prophetic exhorations to the congregation with
uncovered head, like the men.
Reason for Head Coverings.
The reason why Paul opposes this practice is because "any
woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors
her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven" (v.5). The
"head" being dishonored is presumably her husband since Paul
states in verse 3 that "the head of a woman is her husband." Why
would a woman dishonor her head, the husband, when praying and
prophesying in public with her head uncovered? Simply because the
head covering, whatever its nature, was seen as the sign of her
being under the "head" or authority of a man (cf. 1 Cor 11:10).
Thus, the removal of such a sign constituted a repudiation of her
husband's authority or headship.
It is not difficult to see how a wife would dishonor her
"head," the husband, when she repudiated publicly the symbol of
his authority by removing her head covering. By that act she
would make a public statement that she viewed herself free from
her vow of loyalty and submission to her husband.
Apparently some of the Corinthian women had concluded that,
having been raised with Christ (1 Cor 4:6-9), they were now
released from wearing a sign of submission to their husbands and
thus they were free to participate in the worship by praying and
prophesying with their head uncovered. Paul defends their right
to pray and prophesy, but opposes their rejection of the symbol
of their marital submission.
Symbol of Submission and Honor.
Paul argues that if a woman chose to reject the symbol of
her marital submission, "then she should cut off her hair; but if
it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear
a veil" (1 Cor 11:6). To understand the meaning of this
statement, we need to note that in New Testament times the Jews
could no longer execute an adulteress (Lev 20:10). Instead, they
punished her by shearing off her hair and expelling her from the
synagogue. 45 Apparently a similar practice existed in Roman
society because, according to Tacitus, the husband of an
adulterous wife cut off her hair and drove her from her house. 46
The clipped or shaven hair was thus a highly visible sign of a
woman's shame resulting from her repudiation of her husband's
authority. On the contrary the long hair was for a wife the
symbol of her dignity (v.15) and submission to her husband. As
Stephen Clark points out:
This sign brought her honor and respect, because her
position as a wife and as a woman was honorable. In fact,
for her not to have the appropriate expression of her
position as a wife and woman would be degrading. A woman
without a veil and a woman without long hair would be
disgraced. 47
This reasoning appears strange to us who live in a Western
society which is loosing its awareness of how certain symbols of
status and subordination can be honorable. The situation was much
different in Paul's time. Fritz Zerbst correctly observes:
The people of Paul's day felt much more keenly than do
people of our day that the outward demeanor of a person is
an expression of his inner life, specifically, of his
religious convictions and moral attitude. The arguments of
Paul will be rightly understood and appreciated only when
the attempts of Corinthian women to lay aside the headcloth
are recognized as an attack in general upon the relations
between man and woman as established in creation. This
attack Paul strives to counter with a meaningful custom. 48
The concern of Paul is not merely to promote the outward
maintenance of a custom, but rather to protect the creational
principle of the role distinctions men and women must respect in
the home and in the church. To defend this principle Paul appeals
not merely to cultural customs (head coverings, head shaven, and
hair length), but especially to theological reasons derived from
the order and manner of the creation of Adam and Eve. Before
examining the latter, two clarifications are in order: (1) Is
Paul addressing exclusively wives or inclusively all women? and
(2) What is the head covering that Paul wanted on women's head?
Wives or Women?
The statement "the head of a woman is her husband" (1 Cor
11:3), is ambiguous because the words used in Greek (aner and
gune) can refer either to husband and wife or man and woman. The
fact that Paul uses the same words in Ephesians 5:23 when
speaking of the headship of the husband over his wife has led
some to conclude that Paul's ruling here regards exclusively
husbands and wives and not inclusively all men and women.
In spite of this evidence, this interpretation is
unacceptable. especially because verses 3 and 5 speak inclusively
of "every man" and "every women' respectively. The qualifying
word "pas," "every" suggests that the ruling about head coverings
applies to all men and women and not just husbands and wives.
Some of the other reasons for this inclusive interpretation are
cogently given by Ralph Alexander:
Verses 7-11 are concerned with creation as a basis for the
regulations given. This, in turn, would tend to stress men
and women in general rather than just husbands and wives.
Verses 11-12 speak of the mutual interdependence of the
sexes in the process of procreation. If husband and wife
were meant, these verses would be illogical, for the husband
does not come into being through the wife nor is the wife
the source of the husband. Verses 13-16 argue from nature,
which would give greater support that man and woman in
general is being discussed, rather than just husbands and
wives. 49
The ambiguity which is caused by the double meaning of
"gune." namely, wife and woman, can be clarified when we bear in
mind that for Paul the husband-wife relationship in marriage is
the paradigm for the man-woman relationship in the church. The
role of a married woman is for Paul a model for women in general.
This means that though 1 Corinthians 11 focuses on husbands and
wives, the principle of headship and subordination is applicable
to the broader relations of men and women in the church. Thus, we
would conclude with Fritz Zerbst that, the Apostle had husband
and wives in mind when he wrote this passage. However, Paul in
this passage at the same time speaks also generally of man and
woman. In order to understand Paul we must bear in mind that the
relationship between the sexes always has its center in
marriage.50
What is the Head Covering?
Perhaps the most debated question is, What is the head
covering that Paul wanted on women's heads? The traditional
understanding has been that the covering is some sort of shawl or
veil over the head. It should be noted, however, that Paul does
not mention any "veil" as such except in verse 15 where he says:
"For her hair is given ato her for (anti, instead of) a
covering."
On the basis of this text and of Numbers 5:18, James Hurley
argues rather convincingly that the covering is not a veil or a
shawl, but rather long hair which a woman was to wear in a bun or
up when praying or prophesying. Such a hair style is supposedly
viewed by Paul as a head covering. 51 Support for this conclusion
is provided also by 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3, where women
are instructed not to have goldbraided hair. Such an instruction
would seem redundant if women covered their heads with a shawl.
(Bacchiocchi is WRONG concerning 1 Tim.2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3. As a
Seventh Day Adventist he would naturally make this mistake about
those two passages as the teaching of the SDA is against the use
of Jewelry and Makeup. The read is asked to study my studies on
those two subjects (Jewelry and Make-up) for the truth of the
matter on 1 Tim.2:9 and 1 Pter 3:3 - Keith Hunt)
In spite of these valid observations, it seems reasonable to
suppose that Paul refers to a covering consisting of a veil or a
shawl.
(No, Paul was NOT referring to either a veil or a shawl - Paul
CLEARLY tells us in the CONTEXT what he is referring to - HAIR! -
to read into the context anything else is doing injustice to the
clear context and to the Bible interpreting the Bible. As Dr.Sam
has pointed out James Hurley has convincingly proved the context
is about HAIR. Huelry's study can be found on this website -
Keith Hunt)
Support for this conclusion comes primarily from the custom
of Jewish women in Paul's time to cover their heads when in
public. Josephus, for example, bears witness to head veiling when
he writes in his Antiquities about the bitter-water ceremony to
which a wife suspected of adultery was subjected. The relevant
text reads: "One of the priests set the woman at the gates that
are turned toward the temple, and took the veil from her head,
and wrote the name of God on parchment, and enjoined her to swear
that she had not at all injured her husband." 52
After sifting through written and graphic sources, Hans Conzelman
concludes: "For a Jewess to go out with her head uncovered is a
disgrace (3 Macc 4:6) and grounds for divorce . . . ; it can also
be assumed that respectable Greek women wore a head covering in
public." 53 Similarly Morna Hooker, Lady Margaret Professor of
Divinity at Cambridge University, writes: "According to Jewish
custom a bride went bareheaded until her marriage, as a symbol of
her freedom; when married, she wore a veil as a sign that she was
under the authority of her husband." 54
The veiling of the head by women appears to have been a
predominant Jewish custom. Tertullian (c. A.D. 160-225) notes
that Jewish women could be recognized on the street of North
Africa by the veils they wore on their heads: "Among the Jews, so
usual is it for their women to have the head veiled, that they
may thereby be recognized." 55
"The Jew regarded it as typical of Gentile women that they should
go about unveiled (Nu. r., 9 on 5:18, Str.-B., III, 429)." 56
Thus, it appears that Paul was introducing into Greek
congregations a custom which corresponded to especially Jewish
(oriental) sensibility rather than Greek.
(What became a "custom" with SOME Jewish women does not alter the
fact that the context of this passage is interpreted by Paul
himself as being HAIR and nothing other than HAIR - Keith Hunt)
Although there is disagreement on whether the head covering
was a veil or long hair worn up as a bun, there is no doubt that
Paul saw such a covering as a fitting cultural expression of a
woman's acknowledgment of the headship of man. The head covering
was a custom (vv.13-15) subservient to the principle "the head of
a woman is the man" (v.3-literal translation). While the
principle is permanent, its application will vary in different
cultures
(The CONTEXT is the key to this passage as also is letting the
Bible interpret the Bible. Paul INTERPRETS HIMSELF - and that
interpretation is given as HAIR - nothing more and nothing less -
Keith Hunt)
3. Theological Justification
Glory of Man.
To defend the principle of the headship of man expressed in
the rule about head covering, Paul appeals especially to the way
in which man and woman were created in relationship to one
another. First, he says: "For a man ought not to cover his head,
since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of
man" (1 Cor 11:7).
Our analysis of this text in chapter 3 indicated that Paul
uses the terms "image and glory," not with reference to personal
dignity and worth, but in the context of the relation of man to
God and of woman to man. In this context man images God's
dominion and gives Him glory by exercising his headship role in a
loving and self-sacrificing way (Eph 5:25-29). On the other hand,
a woman is the glory of man in the way she honors his headship by
her life and attitude (Prov 12:4; Eph 5:2124). Another
possibility, suggested by F. W. Grosheide, is that a woman is the
glory of man in the way she "reveals how beautiful a being God
could create from a man." 57
Woman for the Sake of Man?
Paul continues in verses 8 and 9 to explain the reason why a
man is the glory of God and a woman is the glory of man, namely,
because ("for") the woman was taken out of (ek) of man (v.8; cf.
Gen 2:21-22) and because woman was created for the sake of man
(v.9; Gen 2:18). These two facts, namely, the derivative origin
of the woman and her creation to be man's helper, constitute for
Paul the fundamental theological justification for the headship
of man, expressed culturally through the head covering on the
part of women.
The significance of the order of creation for the role
distinctions of men and women in the church will receive further
consideration in the next chapter in conjunction with our
analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, where Paul refers to the same
creation texts. At this juncture it suffices to note that "Paul
makes everything a question of creation." 58 He bases his
argument for headship and subordination not on the cultural
conventions of his time, but on the created relationship between
man and woman.
Authority on the Head.
Paul concludes his theological defense of the need for women
to maintain a subordinate role in the worship service by wearing
a head cover, saying in verse 10: "For this reason, and because
of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her
head" (NIV). This cryptic remark has been the subject of much
discussion. The problem centers on the meaning of "authority"
(exousia) and on the role of angels.
Most commentators agree that "authority" is a metonym (the
name of one thing referring to another) for the covering on the
head. On the basis of this view the RSV translates "exousia" by
the word "veil." The question is, In what sense is a woman's head
cover the sign of authority? To put it differently, What is the
function of the veil? For some, the veil is the symbol of the
authority given to the woman to participate in public worship by
praying and prophesying. 59 The support for this interpretation
derives primarily from the fact that the word "exousia" is
generally used in the New Testament not in the passive sense of
"being under authority," but in the active sense of "having
authority."
This interpretation, though appealing, can at best be
accepted as a secondary application of "exousia." First, such an
interpretation provides not a reason for ("for this reason") but
a negation of the preceding argument on the need of women to show
their subordination to man in the worship service by covering
their heads. Second, it ignores the connection, assumed in verses
5-6, between the use of the head cover in the church and its
cultural meaning. Therefore, it is preferable to interpret the
"exousia" over the head as being primarily a head covering which
was seen as the sign of a woman's subordination to man's
headship, and secondarily, a sign which gives to a woman the
authority or right to participate in the worship service. Bruce
K. Waltke puts it this way, "By wearing a covering she preserves
the order of creation while exercising her ... spiritual right."
Respect for the Angels.
An additional reason given by Paul why a woman ought to have
a sign of her being under man's authority, is "because of the
angels" (v.10). The latter phrase has been interpreted in two
major ways: (1) the woman ought to have a sign of a man's
authority on her head so that the angels who are present at
church gatherings will not be sexually aroused by women; (2) the
woman ought to have a sign of man's authority out of respect for
the angels who are the guardians of the "creation order."
The first interpretation, though rooted in ancient Jewish
speculations about the "sons of God" of Genesis 6:2 who were
supposed to have been evil angels who took to themselves the
daughter of men, must be regarded as an odious fantasy, foreign
to Biblical thought. Christian women need not fear sexual
assaulted by evil angels. Christ has defeated Satan and his host
and the angels present at the gathering of God's people are
obedient to God (Heb 12:22, Rev 5:11).
(I should say so! The first idea is a theology supportted by some
Jewish "scholars" including Josephus the Pharisee historian of
the first centgury - in stating fallen angels came and reproduced
through physucal human women - Genesis 6. This has given rise in
our days to the teaching of the "serpent's seed" and is one of
the most damnable perverse heresies from planet Pluto teaching to
come to earth. The reader will find studies on this website that
fully expose and blast back to Pluto this heresy doctrine - Keith
Hunt)
The second interpretation deserves acceptance because
Scripture speaks of the angels as the witnesses not only of the
creation of this world (Job 38:7), but also of the activities of
God's people (1 Cor 4:8-9; 1 Tim 5:21; Heb 1:14). The angels are
seen as the custodians of God's created order. Consequently, what
Paul is saying is that a woman must cover her head not only out
of respect for the headship of man, but also out of respect for
the angels who are the guardians of God's order and discipline 61
(It is the angels - the righteous ones - that are given to serve
God's people [and others as allowed by God] and so the role of
women, maintaining that role in the home and in the church, are
going to be blessed and favored by God, they will be serving the
commandments of the Lord regarding their role in life, and hence
the angels will not be hindered in any manner in fulfilling their
service towards women. So also will they serve man as planned and
desired by the Lord when man is fulfilling his role in the home
and in the church. It all means harmony as each - man and women -
live and act and speak as within their intended roles ordained by
the Lord from the beginning - Keith Hunt)
Subordinate but Equal.
Aware of the possibility that his argument could be
misconstrued to mean that women are inferior to men, Paul quickly
adds in verses 11 and 12 a clarifying statement on the equality
and natural interdependence of man and woman: "Nevertheless, in
the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as
woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all
things are from God" (1 Cor 11:11-12).
The opening word "nevertheless" (plen) indicates Paul's
concern to set the record straight. "In spite of what I have just
said, I want you to know," Paul seems to be saying "that in the
Lord man and woman are interdependent and equal." One senses how
the apostle is fighting on two fronts. On one side he had to put
the liberated Corinthian women in their place by telling them to
respect the headship of man in the church service by covering
their heads. On the other side he had to prevent men from
considering and treating women as inferior by reminding them of
their derivation from women and their mutual dependence in the
Lord. This passage provides a fine example of how Paul respected
and applied the Biblical principle of equality in being and
subordination in function, at a time when the role distinctions
between men and women were being challenged. The existence of a
similar situation in our time makes Paul's approach particularly
relevant to us today.
Nature and Church Custom.
In his closing remarks (vv. 1316) Paul returns to his
central teaching by adding two final reasons for the veil: the
order of nature (vv.13-15) and the prevailing custom of the
congregations. Paul appeals to the good judgment of the
Corinthians ("Judge for yourselves"), on the assumption that they
will agree with him that it is not "proper for a woman to pray to
God with her head uncovered" (v.13). To help them formulate the
right judgment, Paul appeals to nature: "Does not nature itself
teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him,
but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is
given to her for a covering" (vv.14-15).
(And so Paul has interpreted himself in these verses. The context
then being HAIR - nothing more and nothing less. How simple is
the Bible when we let the Bible interpret itself. Not allowing
this to be so, has brought hundreds of false teachings into the
world of Christianity. A MAJOR KEY to Bible understanding is
letting the Bible interpret itself - Keith Hunt)
"Nature" (phusis) here apparently refers both to God's
revelation in the world (Rom 1:20) and in one's heart (Rom 2:15).
On the basis of natural revelation and their own consciences, the
Corinthians can conclude for themselves that short hair is
honorable for men but long hair is honorable for women. In giving
long hair to woman as a covering, nature hints that she should
not uncover her head.
(Looking at the pictures and sculptures of the Roman world in the
first century, it is clear that both Jews and the Romans had
relatively short hair for men and long hair for women. And
certainly the Jewish world from the time of Moses, the men had
short hair and the women longer hair than men - the exception
being when a man was under the nazorite vow [Number 6] - Keith
Hunt)
As a final argument against anyone wishing to be
contentious, Paul states categorically: "we recognize no other
practice, nor do the churches of God" (v.16). This final appeal
to his own authority and to the authority of the existing
practice in the churches of God is intended to make it clear that
the practice of women covering their heads during worship
service, was not open to debate.
Overall Significance.
In spite of all the difficulties in its interpretation, 1
Corinthians 11:2-16 provides one of the clearest statements on
the fundamental significance of the role differences which must
exist between men and women, not only in the home but also in the
church. The lengthy discussion about head covering can mislead a
person to think that in this passage Paul is majoring in minors,
that is, he deals with incidental and culturally conditioned
matters such as hair length and head covering.
The truth of the matter, however, is that the lengthy
discussion on head coverings is only secondary and subservient to
the fundamental principle of the headship of man ("the head of
the woman is man" v.3, NIV) and of the subordination of the woman
(vv.5-10) which must be respected not only in the home but also
in the church. This principle was being challenged by emancipated
Corinthian women who had concluded that their new position in
Christ (1 Cor 4:6-9), granted them freedom to stop wearing a sign
of submission to their husbands, especially at times of prayer
and charismatic expression in the church service. To counteract
this trend, which would have resulted in the violation of
creational role distinctions, Paul emphasizes at length the
importance of respecting the custom of head covering as a way or
honoring the creation order. James Hurley succintly puts it, "If
the leadership of the congregation was divinely placed in the
hands of men, a rejection of sexual differentiation was a
rejection of the divine pattern." 62
The concern of Paul, however, is not to legislate on hair
styles or head coverings. In fact, no specific guidelines are
given on the length of hair or type of head coverings. Rather,
the concern of Paul, as stated by F. W. Grosheide, is "to teach
that women are wrong if they in any respect neglect their
difference from men, a difference which remains also in the
church." 63
What is the relevance for today of Paul's instruction on
head coverings? Paul urges respect of a custom such as hair
length and head cover because in his time these fittingly
expressed sexual differentiation and role distinctions. Applied
to our culture, this means that if certain styles of hair and
clothing are distinctively male or female, their gender
association must be respected in order to maintain the clear
distinction between the sexes enjoined in Scripture. This
principle is particularly relevant to our time when some promote
the blurring of sexual differentiations (unisex), while others
are adopting the dress and sometimes the behavior of the opposite
sex.
("style" is NOT the subject here - the subject is strictly HAIR
and its length - men have short hair while women have long hair -
the long hair for women is given for her glory - unless a women
has some kind of desease she never goes bald as often is the case
with men. And God has made it so, that it is a sign of functions
between men and women in the home [family life] and in the
congregational church - men are to lead out both in the home and
in the church. It is all to do with FUNCTION - all to do with
ROLE function in the home and in the church. It has nothing to do
with styles of clothing or hair. In the world of the "Western
horse" or "English horse" men and women both wear similar styles
of boots, pants, shirts, and hats. The same holds true for many
other sports such as ice hockey, soccer etc. In Jesus' day men
and women wore similar clothing so from a distance you would not
know if the person was male or female. Certainly at other times
and other events the two sexes today can look very DIS-SIMILAR in
dress. Dr. Sam being a SDA minister would naturally desire to
draw comments as above about "styles of hair and clothing" as
that is part of their theology - Keith Hunt)
CONCLUSION
We asked at the beginning of this chapter, Is the principle
of male headship in the home and in the church derived
legitimately from the Scriptures or illegitimately from men's
efforts to dominate women? Our examination of Ephesians 5:21-33
and 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 has shown that the male headship roles
in marriage and in the church stand or fall together. We have
reached this conclusion first by ascertaining the meaning of
"head," and then by examining Paul's application of the principle
of male headship in marriage (Eph 5:21-33) and in the church (1
Cor 11:2-16).
We have seen that Paul uses the term "head" with the
meaning, not of "source, origin," but of "authority, head over."
The headship of man in marriage is established and clarified by
Paul in Ephesians 5:21-33, not on the basis of cultural customs,
but of theological reasons. By utilizing the model of Christ and
the church, Paul effectively clarifies the meaning of the
husband's headship as loving and sacrificial leadership and the
meaning of the wife's submission as willing response to a caring
husband.
In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 the headship of man and the
subordination of women in the church are grounded by Paul on the
creational distinctions between man and woman, distinctions which
must be respected within the church.
How is the principle of headship and subordination to be
applied in the context of church office? What roles are women to
fulfill in the church? To these important questions we will now
address ourselves in the following chapter.
......
NOTES ON CHAPTER V
1. Roberta Hestenes mentions briefly the reinterpretation of the
"proponents of the partnership paradigm" in her article, "Women
in Leadership: Finding Ways to Serve the Church," Christianity
Today (October 3, 1986): 8-1.
2. Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty, All We're Meant to Be: A
Biblical Approach to Women's Liberation (Waco, Texas, 1975), p.
100.
3. Ibid., p.110.
4. Philip Barton Payne, "Response to Berkeley and Alvera
Mickelsen Chapter What Does Kephale mean in the New Testament?"'
in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen (Downers
Grove, Illinois, 1986), pp. 118-132; Richard and Joyce Boldrey,
Chauvinist or Feminist? Paul's View of Women (Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 1976), p.34; Margaret Howe, Women and Church Leadership
(Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1982), p.60; F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2
Corinthians (London, 1971), p.248; Letha Scanzoni and Nancy
Hardesty (n. 2), pp.30-31, 100.
5. Stephen Bedale, "The Meaning of Kephale in the Pauline
Epistles," Journal of Theological Studies 5 (1954): 211-215.
6. See above n. 4.
7. Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen, "What Does Kephale Mean in the
New Testament?" in Women, Authority and the Bible (n. 4), pp.
106-109; also by the same authors, "Does Male Dominance Tarnish
Our Translations?" Christianity Today (October 1979): 23-29; "The
'Head' of the Epistles," Christianity Today (February 20,1981):
20-23.
8. Wayne Grudem, "Does Kephale ('head') Mean 'Source' or
'Authority Over' in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336
Examples," appendix 1, in George W. Knight III, The Role
Relationship of Men and Women (Chicago, 1985), pp.49-80.
9. Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen, "Does Male Dominance Tarnish
Our Translations?" Christianity Today (October 5, 1979): 23, 25;
Stephen Bedale (n. 5), p.211.
10. H. G. Liddell and Robert Scott, eds., A Greek-English
Lexicon, 9th ed., with Supplement (Oxford, 1968), vol. 1, p 944.
11. Stephen Bedale (n. 5), p.212.
12. Ibid.
13. Stephen Bedale (n. 5), p.213.
14. Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen, "What Does Kephale Mean in the
New Testament?" (n. 4), pp.105-106.
15. For the listing and quotation of each passage, see Wayne
Grudem (n. 8), pp.72-76.
16. Wayne Grudem (n. 8), p. 62.
17. Plutarch, Table-Talk 692, D, 11.
18. Philo, Life of Moses 2, 82.
19. Philo, Life of Moses 2, 30. For other examples see Wayne
Grudem (n.8), pp.73-74.
20. Stephen Bedale speaks of a "virtual equation of kephale with
arche" without giving one text to prove it (n. 5), p.213.
21. Wayne Grudem (n. 8), p.56.
22. Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament,
trans. and eds. William F. Arndt and F. Wilber Gingrich (Chicago,
1979), s. v. "kephale," p.430.
23. Heinrich Schlier, "Kephale," Theological Dictionary of the
New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1974),
vol. 3, p.675.
24. Ibid., p.679.
25. Wayne Grudem (n. 8), p.67.
26. Ibid., p. 68. Grudem questions the meaning of "source" in the
two instances given by Liddell-Scott (Herodotus 4, 91 and Orphic
Fragments 21 a). See his reasoning on pp.57-61.
27. Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen, "Does Male Dominance Tarnish
Our Translations?" (n. 7), p.23.
28. Philo, On Rewards and Punishments 1, 25; cf. Moses 2,30; 2,
82; On Dreams 2, 207.
29. Plutarch, Pelopidas 2, 1, 3. For other examples from Plutarch
and other authors, see Wayne Grudem (n. 8), pp.72-78.
30. Ruth A. Tucker, "Response to Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen's
article What Does Kephale Mean in the New Testament?"' in Women,
Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen (Downers Grove,
Illinois, 1986), p.117.
31. James B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand
Rapids, Michigan, 1981), p.166.
32. Stephen Bedale (n. 5), p.214 (emphasis supplied).
33. See, for example, Gilbert Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles (Grand
Rapids, Michigan, 1985), pp.153-162; Letha Scanzoni and Nancy
Hardesty (n. 2), p.30; J. Sampley, And the Two Shall Become One
Flesh (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 116-117; Marcus Barth, Ephesians:
4-6, The Anchor Bible (New York, 1974), pp.609-610.
34. For a general discussion of the use of the term, see Gerhard
Delling, "Hypotassso," Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, eds., Gerhard Kittel and Hergard Friedrich (Grand
Rapids, Michigan, 1974), vol. 8, pp.41-46.
35. James B. Hurley (n. 31), p.142.
36. Women in the Church: Scriptural Principles and Ecclesial
Practice, A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church
Relations of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, September 1985,
p.31.
37. Elisabeth Elliot, "Why I Oppose the Ordination of Women,"
Christianity Today 19 (June 6, 1975): 14.
38. Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church (Mountain View,
California, 1948), vol. 1, p.307-308.
39. Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets (Mountain View,
California, 1958), p.59.
40. Susan T. Foh, Women and the Word of God (Phillipsburg, New
Jersey, 1979), p.261.
41. Gilbert Bilezikian (n.33), pp.153-162; cf. Letha Scanzoni and
Nancy Hardesty (n. 2), p.30.
42. See, for example, Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty (n. 2),
p.110.
43. Walter Kaiser, "Paul, Women, and the Church," Worldwide
Challenge (September 1976): 12.
44. George W. Knight (n. 8), p.21.
45. For discussion and documentation on cutting the hair of an
adulteress, see James B. Hurley (n. 31), pp.169-171. F. W.
Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians
(Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1983), p.254; Leonard
Swindler, Women in Judaism: The Status of Women in Formative
Judaism (Metuchen, New Jersey, 1976), pp.121-122.
46. See C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the
Corinthians (New York, 1968), p.251.
47. Stephen B. Clark, Man and Woman in Christ (Ann Arbor,
Michigan, 1980), p.171.
48. Fritz Zerbst, The Office of Woman in the Church (St. Louis,
Missouri, 1955), p.40.
49. Ralph H. Alexander, "An Exegetical Presentation on 1
Corinthians 11:2-16 and 1 Timothy 2:8-15," Paper presented at the
Seminar on Women in Ministry, Western Baptist Seminary, November
1976, pp.5-6.
50. Fritz Zerbst (n. 48), p.33.
51. James B. Hurley (n. 31), pp.168-171; also Mary J. Evans,
Woman in the Bible (Downers Grove, Illinois, 1983), pp.87-91.
52. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 3, 11, 6, trans. William
Whiston (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1960), p. 81; emphasis supplied.
53. Hans Conzelmann, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the
Corinthians (Philadelphia, 1975), p.185.
54. M. D. Hooker, "Authority on Her Head: An Examination of 1
Corinthians 11:10," New Testament Studies 10 (1963-64): 413.
55. Tertullian, De Corona 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, eds.
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids, Michigan,
1973), vol. 3, p.95.
56. Albrecht Oepke, "Katakalupto," Theological Dictionary of the
New Testament, eds. Gerhard Kittel and Geoffrey W. Bromiley
(Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1974), vol. 3, p.562.
57. F. W. Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the
Corinthians , The New International Commentary of the New
Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1953), p.256.
58. Ibid.
59. See, Susan T. Fohn (n. 40), p. 113; F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2
Corinthians, New Century Bible (Greenwood, North Carolina, 1976),
p.106; M. D. Hooker (n. 53), p.413; Leroy Bimey, The Role of
Women in the New Testament Church (Pinner, England, 1971), p.9.
60. Bruce K. Waltke, "l Corinthians 11:2-16: An Interpretation,"
Bibliotheca Sacra 135 (January-March 1978): 53.
61. Among those who support this view are Bruce K. Wartke (n.
60), p.54; James Moffatt, The First Epistle of Paul to the
Corinthians (London, 1947), p. 152; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Essays on
the Semitic Background of the New Testament (Missoula, Montana,
1974), p.204; Fritz Zerbst (n. 48), p.43.
62. James B. Hurley (n. 31), p.181.
63. F. W. Grosheide (n. 57), p.262.
........................
To be continued
8. Women's Role in the Church
Women and Church Office #1
by the late Dr.Samuele Bacchiocchi
CHAPTER VI
WOMEN'S AND CHURCH OFFICE
How does the headship-subordination principle, examined in
our previous chapter, relate to the role of women in the church?
Does this principle allow women to function as pastors or elders
of the congregation? These questions receive only a limited
treatment in the New Testament, presumably because only in a few
instances did the question arise about the role women should fill
in Christian congregations. The two major passages which relate
to these questions are 1 Timothy 2:9-15 and 1 Corinthians
14:33b-36. In view of their fundamental importance, much
investigation has been conducted recently into their meaning and
relevance for today.
Objectives.
This chapter represents a fresh attempt to re-examine the
meaning and contemporary relevance of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 and 1
Corinthians 14:33b-36 in the light of contemporary research. No
attempt will be made to interact directly with all the current
literature, although those familiar with it will recognize my
responses to major positions.
The specific aim is to ascertain the teaching of these two
crucial texts within the context of Paul's thought and of the
customs of his day. This study will form the basis for
considering the relevance of these passages for our contemporary
situation. Obviously the conclusions will not please everyone.
The most that can be hoped is that most readers will recognize
the effort not to violate the integrity and authority of these
two passages of Scripture.
PART I
1 TIMOTHY 2:9-15: WOMEN AND LEADERSHIP
IN THE CHURCH
1. Importance and Applicability of the Passage
Importance of Passage.
In the contemporary debate over the role of women in the
church, one passage has polarized interpreters more than any
others. This passage is 1 Timothy 2:11-15, which says:
Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I
permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she
is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and
Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became
a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing
children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness,
with modesty.
The significance of this passage lies in the fact that it
addresses specifically the question of the role of women within
the church. Thus, it is not surprising that this passage has been
examined at great length by evangelicals who oppose or limits 1
or support the full participation of women in the ministry of the
church. 2 Usually, the view taken by an author on this passage
reflects his or her views on the role of women in the church and
vice versa.
The Purpose of 1 Timothy.
Before examining the specific instructions given by Paul in
this passage, it is appropriate to consider whether such
instructions were intended exclusively for the local situation
existing at Ephesus or inclusively for the church at large. To
answer this question we must look first of all at the overall
purpose of the epistle.
It is generally agreed that 1 Timothy was written to counter
the sinister influence of certain false teachers upon the church
of Ephesus. The exact nature of the erroneous teaching is not
defined by Paul, but apparently it included speculations about
"genealogies" (1:4), prohibition of marriage and abstention from
certain foods (4:3). The result of such a teaching was that some
of the members had "wandered away into vain discussion" (1:6).
Concerned over the disruptive influence of these false teachings
in the life of the church, Paul wrote to Timothy, his delegated
representative, giving him instructions on how to order and
direct the life of a Christian congregation:
I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these
instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know
how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is
the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the
truth (3:14-15).
The precise wording used here by Paul indicates that he
considered his instructions to be normative beyond the local
situation of the Ephesus church. The impersonal verb "dei" ("one
ought") generally emphasizes a strong necessity, usually deriving
from a divinely established moral obligation. 3 Similarly the
present infinitive form "anastrephesthai" ("to behave"), which
takes no person or number, suggests a general rather than a
restricted application.
James Hurley rightly points out that "Paul did not say,
'Timothy, here is how you personally ought to behave.' He
deliberately said that he wished Timothy to know 'how one ought
to conduct himself in God's household." 4 Paul's use of this
generic language indicates a general application of the
instructions contained in 1 Timothy. This conclusion is also
supported by the fact that Paul's explicit purpose is to give
advice on how to order and direct not merely the church at
Ephesus, but "the church of the living God, the pillar and
bulwark of the truth" (3:15). The implication is clear. Whatever
is said about church order in the epistle applies to the
universal church.
Only Local Applicability?
In spite of the obviously general stated purpose, numerous
recent writers have argued that the instructions given in 1
Timothy, especially those regarding women, ought to be understood
as relevant only to that particular time and occasion. David
Scholer, for example, concludes:
Therefore, 1 Timothy should be understood as an occasional
ad hoc letter directed specifically toward enabling Timothy
and the church to avoid and combat the false teachers and
teaching in Ephesus. This false teaching appealed strongly
to women and led them so astray that traditional values of
marriage and the home were seriously violated.... 1 Timothy
2;9-15 should be understood as a unified paragraph on the
place of women in the church in Ephesus. It provided
instructions for and was limited to a particular situation
of false teachings. 5
The efforts expended to detect local circumstances behind
Paul's instructions, especially regarding the proper demeanor of
Christian women in the worship service, are motivated by the
assumption that if the presence of local circumstances can be
demonstrated, then the instructions in question are not
universally applicable. This assumption is obviously faulty. The
fact that a particular teaching was occasioned by local
circumstances does not per se negate the normative nature of such
a teaching. Paul's teaching that "a man is not justified by the
works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ" (Gal 2:16) is
not regarded as lacking universal validity because it was
occasioned by a specific Judaizing heresy which attracted the
Galatians. The general applicability of virtually any Biblical
command could be negated simply by arguing that there are
possible local circumstances behind it.
Four Helpful Criteria.
To determine the extent of applicability of a Biblical
teaching or command, four major criteria are helpful: 6
(1) Are the circumstances which occasioned the instruction apt to
recur? In the case of the passage in question, we may ask, Is
there a temptation for some "emancipated" women today, as in
Paul's time, to forsake "domestic roles such as raising children
in order to assume such prominent roles in congregational life as
teaching"? 7
(2) Is the basis for a command or teaching a local, temporary
situation or a general principle? In the case of 1 Timothy
2:11-15, did Paul base his command on the local problems caused
by emancipated women or on the order of creation?
(3) Is the same teaching or command given in other situations? If
so, one can safely infer that such a teaching is meant to have a
broader application. In the case of 1 Timothy 2:11-15, similar
instructions can be found in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 and 14:34-35.
(4) Does the author indicate a general or limited applicability
of his teaching? In the passage in question Paul does not
restrict the prohibition of exercising improper roles in the
church only to certain libertarian women, but to women in
general. As Susan T. Foh observes: "There is no mention of false
teaching, no word of correction in 1 Timothy 2:9-15. Paul says
that women should not teach or exercise authority over men,
period. There are no conditions attached which would allow
exceptions to Paul's command." 8
General Applicability.
Even a cursory reading of 1 Timothy suffices to see that the
instructions given by Paul were meant not merely for the local
church at Ephesus, but for the Christian church at large. While
the epistle was occasioned by the disruptive influence of certain
false teachers (1:3-6; 6:3-5), Paul's concern is not to launch a
detailed rebuttal of their false teaching, but rather to explain
to the congregation, its leaders, and to Timothy himself, how
Christians ought to live godly lives in the face of unhealthy
teachings and a depraved pagan environment.
The general applicability of 1 Timothy is evident especially
in the nature of the subjects discussed. The opening chapter
discusses the perverted use of the law by false teachers, the
proper use of the law to develop character, the work of Christ
and the challenge to Timothy to exercise competent leadership.
The second deals with prayers for rulers and worship procedures
for men and women. The third and fourth chapters discuss the
qualifications for church leaders and practical suggestions for a
more earnest ministry. The fifth and sixth chapters explain how
Timothy should function in relation to old and young members,
widows, elected elders, false teachers, and worldly riches
The topics discussed are not culturally relative, although they
are addressed within the context of the culture of Paul's time.
Any attempt to reduce the instructions of 1 Timothy to local and
temporary applicability cannot be legitimately supported from the
intent of the letter itself.
2. Modesty and Submissiveness
Prayer and Modesty.
The first part of 1 Timothy 2 deals with prayer and modesty.
After urging that prayers be made "for all men," especially "for
kings and all who are in high positions" (2:1-2), Paul turns to
discuss how "men should pray," namely, by "lifting holy hands
without anger or quarrelling" (2:8). This comment reminds us of
Psalm 24:3-4 where David affirms that only "he who has clean
hands and a pure heart" shall stand in the holy place. Paul was
concerned that men would not mar their prayers by "anger and
quarrelling."
Paul then expresses his concern for women, saying: "I desire
also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in
seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearl or costly
attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion"
(2:8-10).
Paul's call for a high standard of modesty in dress and hair
adornment is obviously not culturally relative. What may be
culturally are some of the examples given: "braided hair or gold
or pearls or costly attire" (2:9). It is noteworthy that numerous
Jewish and pagan texts also favor modesty and reject extravagant
external adornment, arguing that the real adornment of a women
should be her inner beauty. 9
(Now Dr.Sam would like to believe the "braided hair, gold, pearls
and costly clothes" was a local culture; Dr.Sam was a SDA
minister, and the SDA church teaches such things to wear is wrong
- not godly. The truth of "women's adornment" and the truth of
this passage is expound in detail on this website. Also to
remember is that God's word is not understood by the teachings of
Jewish writing or pagan writing or practices. God's word stand on
its own feet - Keith Hunt)
Adornment and Insubordination.
Ostentatious external adornment apparently expressed a
woman's independence from her husband. David Scholer concludes
his analysis of numerous texts regarding women's adornment and
dress in the Jewish and GrecoRom cultures, by saying:
More important, in virtually all the Jewish and pagan texts,
the rejection of external adornment was part of a woman's
submission to her husband and a recognition of her place
among men in general. Using external adornments such as
pearls, gold, jewelry, hair styling and expensive,
provocative clothing indicated two undesirable
characteristics -- material extravagance and sexual
infidelity. 10
(Again, this is from Jewish and pagan texts, which have nothing
to do with proving what the truth of God's word says on the
subject. The truth of the matter on outward adornment you will
find in studies on this website - Keith Hunt)
The connection between a woman's modest adornment and her
submission to her husband is also suggested by Peter's double
exhortation that wives be submissive to their husbands and that
they be modest in their adornment (1 Pet 3:1-4).
(The truth of 1 Peter 3:1-4 is found in my studies on "Women's
Adornment" on this website - Keith Hunt)
Some argue that there is a progression of thought from
Paul's concern for women's immodest dress (vv.9-10), which
expressed insubordination, to his injunction that women be
submissive and silent in public worship (vv.11-12). The
conclusion drawn from this is that it was not women in general
that Paul prohibited to teach in the church, but only those women
in the church in Ephesus who were indecently dressed. As Philip
Payne puts it, "For such indecently clad women to teach in the
church would bring the gospel into contempt." 11
(The problem with all this reasoning is that it is founded on a
false premise - ladies wearing costly attire, gold, pearls,
braided hair etc. is SIN, and is WRONG for a Christian woman to
so do, so some teach, which teaching is incorrect - Keith Hunt)
This argument may be right in suggesting the existence of an
underlying unity between Paul's admonition against women's
immodest dress and their improper roles in the church.
Presumably, both of them expressed insubordination. But the
argument is wrong in maintaining that a "contributing factor to
Paul's restriction on women in the church in Ephesus was indecent
dress." 12 First, the problem appears to have been one of
overdressing rather than of underdressing, as indicated by the
emphasis upon not dressing lavishly (cf. 1 Pet 3:35). Second, the
reason given by Paul for his prohibition of v.12 is not indecent
dress but the order of creation of Adam and Eve (v.13). Thus, the
attempt to relativize Paul's prohibition by appealing to the
alleged indecent dress of the Ephesian women must be rejected as
devoid of contextual support.
(And the first argument indeed does need to be thrown out of the
judgment court room, for the fact is that many godly women in the
Bible dressed at times in costly physical attire, all clearly
shown to you in the studies on this website under "Women's
Adornment" etc. - Keith Hunt)
Quiet Learning.
From modesty in dress Paul proceeds to discuss in verses 11
and 12 the learning and teaching aspects of the lives of "women
who profess to worship God" (2:10, NIV): "A woman should learn in
quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach
or to have authority over a man; she must be silent" (2:11-12,
NIV). These two verses should be taken as a unit, because they
form an inverted parallelism. What is stated positively in verse
11, is restated and amplified negatively in verse 12. Quiet
learning is paralleled by the command not to teach, and the
attitude of submission is paralleled by the command not to
exercise authority.
The first injunction is significant because it contains
Paul's positive command (manthaneto--an imperative verb): "Let a
woman learn." This command shows that Paul assumed that women can
and must learn the truths of the Gospel. His view of women, then,
is not rabbinic - but "quite radical for his time." 13
The manner in which women are to learn is qualified by two
phrases: "in quietness (hesychia) and full submission (hypotage).
"The word 'hesychia' does not require total silence as the word
'sigao' used in 1 Corinthians 14:34, but rather "quietness,
peacefulness." 14 As James Hurley points out, "Paul is not just
calling for 'buttoned lips' but for a quiet receptivity and a
submission to authority in his description of the manner of
women's learning." 15
To appreciate the relevance of Paul's injunction it is
important to remember that a New Testament church service was
rather different from ours. The difference is well explained by
N. J. Hommes:
The peculiar and most striking difference between the church
services then and now lies in the fact that the sermon, the
word spoken, was being discussed among the worshippers, and
there was more than one preacher in the service. We can see
this clearly n 1 Corinthians 14:26ff. It is true that Paul
is here bringing the order of the worship service in line
with the charisma of prophecy, but such mutual discussion
was, in apostolic time, always part of the worship service.
16
Submissive Learning.
Learning "in quietness" is recommended by Paul, presumably
not only because much of the talking that went on in conjunction
with the "discussion type" of worship service was not always
conducive to effective learning, but also because some women
through their speaking may have expressed insubordination to
their husbands or to the officials of the church. The latter is
suggested by the second qualifying phrase "with all
submissiveness" (RSV). The concept of "submission" (hypotasso)
recurs regularly in the discussion of women in relation to men
(Eph 5:21-24; 1 Pet 3:1-5). "Submission" appears to be the
pivotal concept that unites the learning of women in verse 11
with the issue of their teaching in verse 12. 17
3. Teaching and Exercise of Authority
Authoritative Teaching.
After calling for women to learn "in quietness and full
submission," Paul moves to forbid the contrary: "I do not permit
a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be
silent" (2:12, NIV). We noted earlier that this verse forms with
the preceding one an inverted parallelism. Therefore, it is
important to look at the two verses together, to grasp what Paul
is emphasizing. The thrust of the parallelism is well explained
by James Hurley:
Verse 11 calls for quiet and submissive learning. Verse 12
forbids teaching or exercising authority over men. The two
are visibly parallel. Quiet learning inversely parallels
(verbal) teaching and full submission inversely
parallels exercising authority. Both verses have the same
situation in mind, one in which women are not to teach
authoritatively but are to learn quietly. The closing remark
of verse 12 makes this clear by summing up both verses with
a single short statement: 'she must be silent.' We conclude,
therefore, that Paul intended that women should not be
authoritative teachers in the church. 18
Local or Universal Prohibition?
Before attempting to define what constitutes authoritative
teaching, it is important to establish whether Paul's prohibition
is of a local or universal nature. Some writers argue that Paul's
command is neither universal nor permanent (transtemporal),
because he uses the first person present indicative active form
of the verb: "I do not permit...." This form of the verb,
according to Philip B. Payne, "is Paul's typical way of
expressing his own personal opinion." To support this contention
Payne appeals to the fact that the verb "to permit" (epitrepo)
"in the NT only rarely occurs with reference to a continuing
state" and that "Paul in 1 Tim 2:12 does not claim that this
restriction on women is from the Lord or to be observed in all
the churches." 19
The argument that the first person present, active
indicative is generally used by Paul to express his own personal
opinion rather than a universally valid principle cannot be
supported. Though this form is relatively rare in Paul's writing
there are instances in which the apostle uses the first person
singular indicative to communicate what he believed to be the
will of God. For example, in Romans 12:1, Paul makes this appeal:
"I urge you, brothers.... to offer your bodies as living
sacrifices." (NIV; cf. 1 Cor 4:16; 11:2; 12:3; Gal 5:2,3; Eph
4:1; 1 Thess 4:1; 5:12,14). No one would interpret this
exhortation as being Paul's personal, presumptive opinion because
he uses the first person singular indicative without a universal
qualifier.
The rare occurrence of the verb "to permit" (epitrepo) to
express a continuing state, is per se irrelevant because the verb
in itself has no temporal connotation. Similarly, the fact that
Paul "does not claim that this restriction on women is from the
Lord or to be observed in all the churches," does not negate its
universal applicability. Paul had just established the ground of
his authority in verse 7: "I was appointed a preacher and
apostle."
Only rarely Paul clarifies whether his instruction is
personal advice or a command from the Lord. This clarification is
usually given only in few uncertain situations, as with regard to
Paul's counsel to the married and unmarried (1 Cor 7:6,10,12,25,
40). When in these instances Paul expresses his own personal
view, he explicitly says: "I say, not the Lord" (1 Cor 7:12; cf.
vv.6,40). Thus, the absence of any qualifier in the prohibition
of 1 Timothy 2:12, suggests that Paul had no doubt as to the
normative nature of his instructions. This conclusion is
supported by the fact that the similar instruction given in 1
Corinthians 14:34-35 is followed by Paul's statement: "What I am
writing to you is a command of the Lord" (1 Cor 14:37).
(Very well explained and argued by Dr.Sam. And if this was only
for a local church for a governed time, Paul would have made this
clear to Timothy, as he was writing to help him govern the church
of God - instructions that apply for any individual church as
well as any time frame. If not Paul would have made it clear by
saying something like, "Now concerning women who are dressing way
too glamorous, and desire to teach in the church, for that
situation this is my directive......"
The instruction here in Timothy goes hand in hand with Paul's
instruction in 1 Corinthians 14 - Keith Hunt)
Female False Teacher
What is the meaning of Paul's injunction: "I do not permit a
woman to teach or to have authority over a man" (2:12)? Obviously
Paul's intent here is not to prohibit all forms of women's
teaching and speaking in the church. We noted in chapter 5 that
in 1 Corinthians 11:5 Paul assumes that some women were praying
and prophesying along with men in the worship service.
(Another often mistake here - the first section of 1 Cor.11 has
nothing to do with any "church service" - people coming together
in a church congregation is not brought into the teaching of Paul
until verse 17. What goes before is a general instruction on the
issue of long hair or short hair for either men or women. Verse
17 starts another topic, as when the church comes together -
Keith Hunt)
Moreover, Paul explicitly enjoins older women "to teach what is
good and so train the young women" (Titus 2:3-4).
Some authors argue that Paul's injunction is only "directed
against women involved in false teaching who have abused the
proper exercise of authority in the church (not denied by Paul
elsewhere to women) by usurpation and domination of the male
leaders and teachers in the church at Ephesus." 20 This
conclusion rests largely on two faulty assumptions: (1) Paul's
injunction was occasioned by and directed (exclusively) to "the
false teaching plaguing the church in Ephesus." 21 (2) The verb
authentein usually translated "to have authority over" seems
"rather clearly to carry the negative sense of 'domineer' or
'usurp authority.'" 22 Thus, Paul is only forbidding teaching to
women who were false teachers and who were usurping the authority
of male leaders. Had the women been orthodox teachers and
respectful of church leaders, Paul would have had no objection to
their teaching.
The first assumption is discredited by the fact that, as we
have shown earlier, though the writing of 1 Timothy was
occasioned by the disruptive influence of certain false teachers
(1:3-6; 6:3-5), Paul chose to counteract such an influence not by
addressing specifically the false teachers, but rather by
offering guidelines on how Christians should live in the world
and in the church in the face of unhealthy teachings and a
depraved pagan environment.
If Paul intended to prohibit only the teaching done by
certain female false teachers, he would have surely alluded to
it, as he does refer to young widows who got "into the habit of
being idle and going about from house to house.... saying things
they ought not to" (5:13, NIV). Moreover the reason given by Paul
for his prohibition is not the sinister effect of certain women's
false teaching, but the priority of the creation of Adam and the
deception of Eve, both of which are unrelated to the problem of
false teaching.
(Yes indeed if the issue had been over "false women" teachers as
Dr. Sam says Paul would have made it clear, or stated as he often
did, "Now concerning false women teachers among you...." - Keith
Hunt)
"Authority over" or "Domineer"?
The second assumption that the verb "authenteo" should be
translated "to domineer, to usurp authority," instead of "to have
authority," is faulty for two major reasons. First, the recent
study by George Knight of all the major lexical occurrences of
"authenteo" (published in New Testament Studies, January 1984),
has shown that "the recognized meaning for the first century BC
and AD documents ... is 'to have authority over.' The nuance is
positive, or at least neutral, but in any case there is no
inherent negative overtone such as is suggested by the word
'domineer.'" 23
Second, the meaning "to have authority over" fits better in
the text with verb "to teach" (didasko) with which it is joined,
since the latter has no negative implications. Moreover, we have
seen that authority and teaching in verse 12 are parallel to
subordination and quietness in verse 11. This suggests that the
converse of "authenteo" is to be found in the phrase "full
submission." The concept of "submission," as we have seen from
our study of Ephesians 5, does not carry with it the meaning of
"cringing servility under a domineering person but of a willing
submission to a recognized authority." 24 What Paul disallows,
therefore, is not the abuse or usurpation of authority, but
simply the exercise of authority by women over men in the church.
Uneducated Women?
Some maintain that the reason Paul prohibited women to teach
and to exercise authority over men in the church is because women
were uneducated. Since this is no longer true today, then Paul's
prohibition is no longer relevant. If the lack of education had
been the reason for Paul's prohibition, then he would have
forbidden both men and women to teach, if they were uneducated.
Moreover, women as well as men could have been trained to become
good teachers. Deaconesses and workers in apostolic times must
have received some training.
The real situation in Ephesus may have been just the
opposite. Some of the women may have been more educated than many
of the men, and consequently they may have felt justified to act
as the teachers and leaders of the congregation. Prisilla was
well enough educated in the Christian faith to be able to
instruct an intellectual like Apollos when he went to Ephesus
(Acts 18:26). Paul, as we have seen in chapter 2. commends
several women for their outstanding contribution to the life and
growth of the church. All of this suggests that the reason for
Paul's injunction was not that women were uneducated.
The Nature of Teaching.
What is the nature of the teaching forbidden to women? This
question has been debated at great length. Some have assumed that
Paul prohibits women from participating in any kind of teaching
or speaking, including teaching in public schools and having a
job in which a woman exercises authority over man. Such a view is
obviously unwarranted because, as we have seen in chapter 2, in
Paul's ministry women prayed, prophesied and exercised a teaching
ministry (1 Cor 11:5; Acts 18:26; Phil 4:3; Rom 16:12).
The nature of teaching forbidden to women in 1 Timothy 2:12
is undoubtedly the authoritative teaching restricted to the
pastor or elder/overseer of the congregation. This conclusion is
supported not only by the meaning of the inverted parallelism
discussed earlier but also by the use of the verb "to teach" and
the noun "teaching" in the pastoral epistles. The teaching
ministry is presented, especially in the pastoral epistles, as a
governing function performed by Paul, Timothy or appointed
elders/overseers of the congregation. Paul speaks of himself as
"a teacher of the Gentiles" (1 Tim 2:7; cf. 2 Tim 1:11). He
charges Timothy to "Command and teach" (1 Tim 4:11), "Take heed
to yourself and to your teaching" (1 Tim 4:16), "teach and urge
these duties" (1 Tim 6:2), "preach the word ... in teaching" (2
Tim 4:2).
The restrictive meaning of the teaching ministry is
especially evident in 2 Timothy 2:2 where Paul gives this solemn
charge to Timothy: "what you have heard from me before many
witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach
others also." The "faithful men" are presumably the
elder/overseers of the congregation. A qualification for such an
office was "an apt teacher" (1 Tim 3:2). Paul urges that special
recognition be given to "the elders who rule well ... especially
those who labor in preaching and teaching" (1 Tim 5:17).
The importance attached to sound teaching in 1 Timothy and
the other pastoral epistles is illustrated by the fact that of
the 21 occurrences of the word "teaching, doctrine" (didaskalia)
in the New Testament, 15 appear in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. 25
The teaching by appointed church leaders was most important
because it involved the careful transmission of the teachings of
Jesus Christ (cf. Gal 1:12) and their significance for the life
of the church. Before the existence and general availability of
the writings of the New Testament, the teacher (pastor, elder,
overseer) served the congregation as a kind of living Bible. He
was the guardian of the body of teachings which had been received
by the churches and to which they were to remain true (Rom 16:17;
Eph 4:21; Col 2:7; 2 Thess 2:15).
In the light of the restrictive use of the words "to teach"
and "teaching" in the pastoral epistles, it is reasonable to
conclude that the teaching forbidden to women is the
authoritative teaching done by "Leaders of the congregation" 26
such as Paul, Timothy, Titus, elder/overseers. "Although women
are allowed an audible participation in the gatherings of the
church, they are not to aspire to the role of leadership as
superintendents of the local congregation." 27 The teaching role
of these leaders is emphasized especially in the pastoral
epistles, where destructive and demonic teaching (1 Tim 4:1)
necessitated leaders who would uphold "sound teaching" (2 Tim
4:3).
Paul forbids women to teach as the leaders of the church
because this would place them in a headship role of authority
over men. This role is inappropriate for women, not because they
are any less capable or competent than men, but because of_ the
creational order for men and women established by God (1 Tim
2:13). These theological reasons given by Paul will now be
examined.
(The main reply arguments by Dr. Sam to the above, I find true
and logical, especially in the context of the whole New Testament
- Keith Hunt)
4. Theological Reasons
Reason or Illustration?
To justify his ruling about the exclusion of women from
teaching '(as leaders) and exercising authority over men in the
church, Paul submits two reasons: "For Adam was formed first,
then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived
and became a transgressor" (1 Tim 2:13-14). Before examining
these two reasons, attention must be given to the conjunction
"for" (gar). Some argue that "for" is illustrative and not
illative, that is to say, it is designed to introduce an example
and not a reason for Paul's ruling 28
To defend this view they appeal to grammar and context.
Grammatically, the illustrative use of gar ("for") is a lexical
possibility. Contextually, they see Paul's reference to Eve as a
historical example of what once happened when, in a situation
similar to that at Ephesus, a deceived woman taught a man. Thus,
Paul's statement does not offer reasons for the general exclusion
of women from teaching or exercising authority over men in the
church, but merely a historical example relevant only to the
local situation in the Ephesian church.
This interpretation of "gar" ("for"), as Douglas Moo has
cogently shown, founders both on grammar and context 29
Grammatically, the "illustrative" use of "gar" ("for") is
rare. All the major lexicons and grammars give the causal meaning
as the first and most common one. Contextually, the illustrative
use of "gar" ("for") fails to explain how, for example, the
priority of Adam's creation can illustrate what happens when
women false teachers teach and exercise authority over men in the
church. Reasons such as these indicate that the conjunction "for"
is used to introduce not an illustration but a reason for the
ruling of verses 11-12.
(It is used as tying what was said before to the explaining of
what is said now to explain the previous, i.e it is not going to
rain, do not take your rain-coat, FOR there are no clouds in the
sky and the weather man is telling us no clouds are expect. -
Keith Hunt)
Priority of Adam's Creation.
The first reason given by Paul to justify his ruling is the
priority of Adam's creation: "For Adam was formed first, then
Eve" (1 Tim 2:13). The meaning of this statement is clearly
expressed by Paul Jewett: "The plain meaning of Paul's argument
is that the subordination of woman to the man is an essential
part of the hierarchy which God himself established to insure a
proper order in the relationships of life." 30
According to several writers, Paul's argument from creation
is faulty on two counts. First, it is based on the wrong creation
account. Instead of using the creation account of Genesis 1 which
accurately speaks of the simultaneous creation of man and woman,
Paul made the unfortunate mistake to use the second, "poetic,"
account of creation. 31 Second, it attaches hierarchical
significance to the fact that man was created before woman. "If
beings created first are to have precedence, then the animals are
clearly our betters." 32 Paul allegedly fell back on his rabbinic
eisegesis, which caused him to argue for a wrong doctrine from a
wrong text. 33 Therefore, the argument from creation offers no
valid support to Paul's ruling in verses 11-12.
Authority of Scripture.
The charges that have been levelled against Paul on this
issue are not inconsequential. If Paul made a mistake in
interpreting the meaning of Genesis for the role relations of
men and women, he could have been equally in error in
interpreting the meaning of the life and death of Christ, of the
resurrection, of the Second Advent, or of the relation between
faith and works in the process of salvation. Ultimately what is
at stake is the authority of Scripture. If any part of
Scripture presents false teachings through faulty exegesis or
reasoning, then its normative authority is discredited.
Paul stated very clearly his own understanding of the
authority of his own teaching and of those who would challenge
it: "If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he
should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of
the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not
recognized" (1 Cor 14:37-38). Strikingly, Paul made this claim in
the very context of his teaching about the role of men and women
in the church. Therefore, it behooves us to accept his inter-
pretation of Scripture.
(What many fail to understand is the accounts of Genesis creation
of male and female are given in different settings. One, the
first chapter 1:26 is an "overall view" - it is not concerned
with the details. It is an overall view for it has an over all
context, namely they were to reproduce and also to have authority
over all things on the earth, in the sea, air, and land. And then
God gave THEM some laws of eating what the Lord had created for
them to eat. It is an overall setting. But Genesis 2 goes into
detailed specifics: it also moves back in time, and tells us the
details of how God created two beings. It gives us the details
that at first only man was created. For our benefit (not God's as
He knew what He was going to do from the beginning) that of all
that the Lord had created there was NOTHING to compliment him,
man was indeed on a human level ALONE. So hence then we are told
God does not like that situation, did not like it, did not plan
it [God knew what He'd planned anyway] for any length of time,
only for a relative short time, in which time man himself would
know he was alone, and nothing in creation could approach him
that he would feel was his equal, and as we might say today, his
"soul mate." Then God takes a rib from Adam and makes woman -
from out of man. So there is an important meaning as to why
Genesis 1 and 2 are written the way we find them written. And
Paul takes the detailed explanation of the creating of man and
woman, and correctly gives us under inspiration [if Paul was not
inspired to write what he wrote then the New Testament means
really nothing, for anyone can then take whatever parts of it as
inspired or not inspired] another lesson from God as to a lesson
we must learn from Genesis 2, namely man was created first, and
second woman was created to compliment man, but certainly the
role of man being the head of the woman as Paul was inspired to
tell us in 1 Cor.11; as Christ is head of the church; as the
Father is head of Christ - Keith Hunt)
Priority of Creation and Subordination.
Why does Paul appeal to the prior formation of Adam to
justify his injunction that women should not be permitted "to
teach or to have authority over men" (1 Tim 2:12)? Primarily
because Paul saw in the priority of Adam's creation the symbol of
the leadership role God intended man to fulfil in the home and
in the church.
From an empirical standpoint, it seems arbitrary and
irrational that leadership should be assigned on the basis of
priority of creation. From a Biblical standpoint, however, the
arbitrariness and irrationality disappear because the priority of
creation is seen not as an accident but as a divine design,
intended to typify the leadership and headship role man was
created to fulfil. The sanctification of the seventh day
provides another example. From an empirical standpoint, it seems
arbitrary that God should choose to bless and sanctify the
seventh day instead of the first day or any other day. After all
the seven days, each consisting of the same 24 hours, seemed
identical to one another. From a Biblical stand-point, however,
it is not arbitrary that God should choose the seventh day as a
symbol of creation and sanctification (Gen 2:2-3; Ex 31:13,17;
Ezek 2 :20).
In the same way Paul sees the priority of Adam's formation
and the derivation of woman from man (1 Cor 11:8), as typifying
the role distinctions of men and women. This typological
understanding of the priority of Adam's formation is reflected in
the meaning both the Old and New Testaments attach to
primogeniture (being first-born). The first-born son inherited
not only a "double portion" of his father's goods, but also the
responsibility of acting as the leader of worship upon his
father's death.
Christ the "First-Born."
The typological meaning of the firstborn is used by Paul
also with reference to Christ in Colossians 1:15-18: "He is the
image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation; for
in him all things were created.... He is the head of the body,
the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead,
that in everything he might be pre-eminent." The rich imagery
used in this passage presents Christ as (1) the Image of God, (2)
the First-born, (3) the Source of Creation, (4) the Head of the
church. All of these are drawn together to establish the
pre-eminent authority of Christ over everything.
It is noteworthy that the headship and authority of Christ
are tied in with His being the "First-born." Our earlier study of
Ephesians 5 has shown how Paul used the headship and authority of
Christ as the model for the headship role a husband is to
exercise for the sake of his wife. His use of the "first-born"
typology to express the headship and authority of Christ suggests
that he may have attached the same meaning to Adam's being "first
formed." In the light of the Old Testament background, Paul may
have seen in the priority of the formation of Adam a type of the
headship role God called man to fulfil, and thus, a reason why
men, rather than women, should exercise teaching leadership
authority in the church.
(Indeed that is exactly what Paul saw, as being divinely
inspired. And that is even what I saw as a child of 8,9,10 etc.
going to a Church School and reading the Bible for our first half
hour of the day. It should not have to take some rocket scientist
mind to see the clear lesson from Genesis 2. It would have been
as easy as eating pie for God to have created BOTH male and
female at the SAME time. He did not because He had a reason for
NOT doing so. Man was to be the first leader in the home, the
woman a help fitting for him. And Paul was inspired to carry this
lesson into the very Church of Christ - the man was to lead in
church services - Keith Hunt)
Priority of Animals.
The above observations help to show the weakness of the
argument that Paul's reasoning leads to the conclusion that
animals should rule mankind by right of their temporal priority
in creation. Proponents of this argument fail to realize that no
typological significance is attached in Scripture to the temporal
priority of the animals. Moreover, Paul clearly associates in 1
Corinthians 11:8-9 the priority y of Adam's formation with Eve's
derivation out of man. The animals were created before mankind,
but mankind does not derive from animals.
(The hills and mountains, insects and birds, the fish of the sea,
came before man, but to think that was some kind of lesson or
teaching from God that THOSE creatures were "head of man" is just
utterly silly, if not darn right stupid reasoning, but some will
try to make up stupid ideas to try and uphold other stupid ideas.
The account of Genesis 1 is overall, and so people would not come
up with stupid ideas God tells us there that He created mankind
- male and female did He create them and the job THEY [both] were
given - the rule the physical earth. Genesis 2 is the detailed
fill in of how God created male and female - it goes back to fill
in the details and it should be obvious to those who can see and
have minds not influenced by "the feminist movement" what God is
teaching us in the way He created male and then female - Keith
Hunt)
The significance that Paul attaches to Adam's priority of
formation is compatible with the central role of man in Genesis
2. We have shown in chapter 3 that the leadership role of man is
implied in Genesis 2, not merely by the priority of his creation,
but also by the fact that God provided him with a garden, an
occupation, and a wife to be "a helper fit for him" (v.18).
Moreover God called man ha-'adam ("the man," "the human"),
the collective name of mankind, and charged him with the
responsibility of naming first the animals and then the woman.
Paul offers in 1 Timothy 2:13 an explicit interpretation of these
historical facts, applying them to the role of women in the
worship service, which should be in accordance with the
subordinate, helping role envisaged for them in creation.
The Deception of Eve.
The second reason given by Paul to support his ruling is
derived from the deception of Eve: "and Adam was not deceived,
but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor" (1 Tim
2:14). This argument is less developed by Paul, and it has
produced many dangerous interpretations. Some have assumed that
this verse teaches that women are not qualified to teach
religious doctrine in the church, because they do not have the
same critical acumen as men and thus are more susceptible to
external pressures 34
This view is without warrant, because the text does not say
that "the man is deceivable," but simply that "the woman was
deceived." If it were true that women are more susceptible to
deception, it would ultimately make God responsible for having
created women less perfect than men. (If Paul believed that women
are more prone to err than men, he would not have admonished them
to teach what is good to children and other women (Titus 2:3-4;
cf. 2 Tim 1:5; 3:15).
(Let me say here that just as many men can make theological
mistakes as women - wow indeed so; look at all the men
"ministers" in the Roman Catholic and Protestant world who are
blinded and deceived about what they teach is Christianity. There
are hundreds of thousands of male teachers and preachers of
theology that are out in left field, who have missed the boat,
who are trying to canoe up stream without a paddle. Now I will
also say God did create women to be more "emotional" in the
overall scheme of life than most men, that could have adverse
effects in some situations within a congregation. Yet men can
learn to be more emotional and women can learn to be less
emotional, as both can learn to harness emotions and govern them
correctly. It is not a strong argument so do not pin too much on
my presentation of it - Keith Hunt)
Typological Role of Eve.
The best way to understand the statement "the woman was
deceived" is to look at it not empirically, that is, by asking
how Eve's deception affects the subordination of women; but
rather typologically, that is, by asking what Eve's deception
represents for Paul. Stephen B. Clark perceptively points out
that we tend to think empirically, that is, in terms of
observable causes, while Bible writers are "more inclined to
think typologically," 35 that is, in terms of the symbolic
meaning of an event. "Typological thinking," explains Clark,
"focuses on the concrete event--the 'type' which reveals the
general purpose or intention of God. Empirical generalizations
focus on verifiable facts and observed regularities." 36
Typological thought assumes that if Adam was formed first,
then Scripture must be indicating something about he role of man.
Similarly, if the woman was deceived and not man, then Scripture
must be indicating something about the role of women. As Adam is
a 'type' man (Rom 5:12,18), so Eve is a 'type' woman, and her
being deceived points to what women should do or not do.
How could Paul view Eye's deception as a type of woman's
subordination to man? The text does not tell us. We can rep-
presume that Paul understood Eve's deception to be the result of
her attempt to assert her independence from man. The Seventh-day
Adventist Bible Commentary supports this interpretation: "The
apostle's second argument for the submissiveness of women is that
when Eve tried to assert leadership she was beguiled." 37. What
happened Eve at that historic and significant occasion becomes
then a type of what happen when the order of creation is
reversed. "In verses 13-14, as Douglas Moo observes, "Paul
substantiates his teaching in verses 12 by arguing that the
created order establishes a relationship subordination of woman
to man, which order, if bypassed, leads to disaster." 38
Subordination and the Fall.
Some contend that the argument from the deception of the
woman is untenable because it bases subordination of the woman to
man on the results of the Fall. If Paul's ruling about the
subordination of women in the church is based on "curses" which
resulted from the Fall, then such ruling has reversed by the work
of Christ. 39 The weakness of this reasoning is twofold. First,
it ignores fact that Paul's primary appeal is to the priority of
Adam's format: Second, it fails to distinguish between the cause
of the Fall and results of the Fall. Eve's deception was the
cause of the Fall occurred before the human race faced the
judgment of God and suffering its consequences. Paul does not
ground the subordination women on the Fall but on creation. Thee
point of his argument is that "Adam was formed first and "the
woman was deceived."
These two events, which occurred bore the human race faced
the judgment of God, typify for Paul the headship role of man and
the subordinate role of women.
Saved through Childbirth?
To counteract any possible misunderstanding derived from his
negative statements in verses 11-14. Paul concludes his a
argument with a positive statement: "Yet woman will be saved
through bearing children, if she continues in faith
love and holiness, with modesty" (v.15). This verse is
clearly connected with the preceding by the preposition de
("yet") and forms the climactic conclusion to the whole argument
introduced in verse 9 with the phrase "likewise women."
Therefore, an understanding of this closing statement can further
clarify the meaning of the whole passage.
The interpretation of this verse poses some linguistic
problems.
The major one has to do with the verb "sothesetai," which
can mean either "she will be saved" or "she will be kept safe
through childbirth." The second option has been adopted by the
New International Version. According to this translation what
Paul is saying is that woman will survive childbirth if she is
pious. This interpretation is not only irrelevant to the context
but also empirically untrue. Godly Christian women have died
bearing children. The first translation is in harmony with the
usage of the verb "to save" in Paul's writings where it virtually
refers to salvation from sin. The question is, in what sense will
a woman be saved through childbirth? Some believe that it means
that Christian women will be saved through good works,
figuratively represented by childbearing. 41 This would be a flat
contradiction of Paul's view of salvation by faith in Christ.
Others believe that it means that Christian women will be saved
through the childbirth, that is, the coming of the Messiah. 42
This interpretation finds support especially in the presence of
the article "the childbirth" (tes teknogonia), which could
suggest a particular childbirth, namely, that of Christ. Such a
view, however, is discredited first of all by the most likely
lexical meaning of "teknogonia" - "childbearing" or
"childrearing" which denotes the woman's role in giving birth,
not the birth as such (cf. 1 Tim 5:14). Second, this
interpretation does not fit the context. How can Mary's role in
the birth of Jesus be the means of the salvation of women?
(The definite article "the" is in the Greek hence "THE
childbearing." How can Mary's role in the birth of Jesus be the
means of salvation of women, is what Dr.Sam asked. Surely it
should be a logical answer to such a question. All women can be
saved through Christ as all men can be. Paul has just talked
about the woman being in the transgression (verse 14) and
immediately Paul gives the hope to all women, who have sinned as
all men have sinned, that no matter their role or function in
life as wife, mother, single, widowed, or role in the church, she
shall have salvation the same way ALL people will have salvation
through the One that was born of a woman - Christ Jesus. Not all
women will give birth to children; not all women will be wives;
there will be many functions women will perform in life, but
being an Elder in the church was NOT to be one of them. But
nevertheless, one great glory for women was the fact that the
Savior was born of a woman, and as the Savior of the world came
through a woman, so women could also be saved in the exact same
way men can be saved. And then Paul adds to that basic fact the
fact for all people, male or female, "if they continue in FAITH
and CHARITY, and HOLINESS with sobriety." Surely once more
showing women as like men, that we are not saved by the law, but
being saved by grace through faith, we keep the law. Here Paul
breaks that simple truth down as "faith, love (charity),
holiness" - a state of mind that encompasses the truths of
Gal.2:20; 1 John 5:3; 1 Cor.13; Mat.5:48.
Some like Albert Barnes and here Dr.Sam have fancy complicated
understanding of this verse, but with what I have said above, I
believe the verse is simple - regardless of the function of what
a woman can do or can not do within the church (in this case NOT
teaching and leading as an elder/pastor), the underlying truth is
in her functional role in the church (which Dr.Sam has in previous
chapters shown to be quite large) she will be saved through
THE childbirth that came from a women - the coming of Christ
Jesus to save everyone who will, the exact same way for all - men
or women - Keith Hunt)
Faithfulness to Proper Role.
The interpretation which best fits the vocabulary and the
contextual location of verse 15--the concluding statement to the
whole discussion on the role of women in the church--is the
following: Women will be saved, not by aspiring to the leadership
role of teacher-superintendent of the local congregation, but
through faithfulness to their maternal and domestic roles,
providing they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with
modesty. 43
(But we must add that to "faithfulness to their maternal and
domestic roles" must be noted and remembered that does not mean
strictly being a house-wife, mother, and teacher of children or
the other women teaching the younger women [as Paul elsewhere
admonished for them]. Because we have seen women were part of the
message of the teaching and proclaiming of the Gospel OUTSIDE OF
the synagogue service, and some Paul claimed were co-workers with
him in the Gospel, as has already been mentioned by Dr.Sam in an
earlier chapter - Keith Hunt)
This interpretation admirably suits the immediate context of
verses 9-14, where the concern of Paul is to emphasize the proper
sphere of women's activities. It also finds support in the larger
context of the pastoral epistles where a recurring motif is the
need for Christian women to devote themselves to their maternal
and domestic roles (1 Tim 5:9-14; Titus 2:3-5).
(Maybe in another situation where Paul was not strictly
addressing the role of women in church services, but in the role
of maternal and domestic service - each teaching of Paul had a
context, and that context we should bear in mind at all times -
Keith Hunt)
This admonition was apparently needed to counteract the
sinister influence of false teachers, who counselled women to
abstain from marriage (1 Tim 4:3) and to seek fulfilment outside
the home (1 Tim 5:13-15), by assuming leadership roles in the
church (1 Tim 2:12). To counteract this teaching, Paul urges
Christian women to maintain their "modesty" (sophrosyne)--a term
he uses twice (vv.9,15), at the beginning and at the end of his
admonition. Christian women were to show their modesty and
propriety by dressing sensibly, by learning submissively, by
refraining from aspiring to the role of teacher (leader) of the
congregation and by fulfilling their maternal-domestic roles.
(I find part of this as somewhat of a forced meaning. For the
problem with the "dressing sensibly" part as that meaning for
Dr.Sam and the SDA church is dressing with no jewelry and make-up
- the understanding of that passage they do not have correct
within the whole context of the Bible, as I prove in my studies
on "Jewelry" and "Makeup." The rest of Dr.Sam's comment on false
teachers and aspiring to the role of teacher (leader) of the
congregation I would agree with - Keith Hunt)
Salvation through Childbearing?
Our interpretation poses a problem: Did Paul mean in verse
15 that all women should get married and bear children in order
to be saved? Obviously not. We know from 1 Corinthians 7 that
Paul considered both celibacy and marriage a divine calling.
Moreover, this view would reduce salvation to a human
relationship and biological process, rather than to a
divine gift of grace (Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16).
It is, therefore, more likely that Paul mentions
childbearing as a typical, but not exclusive aspect, of a woman's
role. This is supported by 1 Timothy 5:14 where Paul expresses
the wish that younger widows "marry" and "bear children"
(teknogonein). It is obvious that Paul did not expect all young
women to marry. Rather, he expected them to maintain their proper
domestic roles.
To remove any possibility of attributing meritorious value
to childbearing, Paul adds the essential Christian virtues women
must maintain: "faith and love and holiness, with modesty" (v.
15). Verse 15 ends by emphasizing "modesty." the very quality
mentioned at the beginning of the passage v.9. This quality is
emphasized by Paul because it expresses the chief virtue of a
Christian woman, manifested not in aspiring to be the
teacher-leader of the congregation, but in maintaining a
submissive and domestic role, which is in accordance with the
role for women established by God at creation.
(The word "sobriety" in the KJV means according to Strong's
Concordance: propriety, appropriateness, reasonableness, mental
soundness, soberness. All which goes nicely with faith, love, and
holiness. It means living your life in the righteous way that you
were called to function as a woman in the church of God - Keith
Hunt)
In its immediate and larger context, then, 1 Timothy 2:15
helps to clarify why Paul forbids women "to teach or to have
authority over men" in the church, namely, because he sees such a
role as a violation of the proper domestic and subordinate role
God has established for women at creation. By maintaining this
proper role in faith, love and holiness, women, become recipients
of the gift of eternal life.
(This remember is within "the church" or as functioning within
the church service, outside of the church service, as it has been
shown women could do teaching [of both sexes - i.e. Presilla and
Aquila who were Paul's helper/co-workers with him in the Gospel
of Christ Jesus - Romans 16:3 - who also taught Appolos more of
the truths of the Gospel - Acts 18:24-26] - Keith Hunt)
Contemporary Relevance.
How relevant for us today is Paul's teaching about the role
of women in the home and in the church?
Some argue that it is totally irrelevant because today many
married women find their fulfilment not in rearing a family, but
in pursuing a professional career. They argue that had Paul lived
in our age, he would have taken a much different stand.
Consequently, to be faithful to the "central thrust" or "greater
vision" of Paul, we must reject his restrictions and allow women
to function as leaders not only in the secular world, but also in
the church where they ought to be ordained as pastors/elders of
the congregation. This reasoning is unacceptable for three major
reasons.
First. Paul's conviction on the role of women in the church
and in the home derives not from cultural perceptions, but from
his understanding of the special role God has called women to
fulfil. Rearing a family and being subordinate were for Paul
central elements of the Biblical definition of womanhood and of
her fulfilment of God's calling to mankind. Therefore, if Paul
lived today he would still admonish women to be true to their
divinely established roles.
A second reason why Paul's teachings on the role of women
are relevant today is because in some ways the contemporary
emancipation of women may be strikingly similar to that of his
time 44 If, numerous writers argue, Paul's opponents in the
pastoral epistles included "women [who] were in the forefront of
the libertarian trend," 45 as evidenced by their extravagant
dress, (which is really a none issue as the verses mentioned on
that subject are not understood correctly by Dr.Sam - Keith
Hunt), "forsaking of domestic roles such as raising children in
order to assume such a prominent role in congregational life--as
teaching," 46 then Paul was addressing a situation rather similar
to the one existing today.
The existence of a "women's liberation" movement in early
Christianity is implied not only by Paul's strictness (1 Tim
2:11-12; 5:13; 2 Tim 3:6; 1 Cor 11:5-10; 14:34), but also by
such post-New Testament documents as the apocryphal Acts of Paul
(about A.D.185). In the latter, Paul commissions a woman,
Thecla, to be a preacher and teacher of the word of God: "Go and
teach the word of God." Thecla obeyed by going away to Iconium.
There she "went into the house of Onesiphorus ... and taught the
oracles of God." 47
The attempt of this apocryphal document to present Paul, not
as forbidding, but as commissioning a woman to be an official
teacher of the Word of God in the church, offers an additional
indication of the possible existence of a feminist movement
already in Paul's time. 48 If such a movement existed at that
time, then Paul's instruction on the role of women in the church
would be particularly relevant to our time, when a feminist
movement within the church is gaining strength.
(Actually the example brought forth by Dr. Sam is NOT against what
he has been arguing against - the ordination of women to
Eldership and governing a church of God. For a woman to teach
privately to anyone, the oracles of God is an entirely different
matter than being an ordained minister ruling and guiding a
church of God - Keith Hunt)
The Witness of the Text.
A third reason for accepting Paul's teaching in 1 Timothy
2:11-15 as relevant for today is the fact that the text contains
no cultural elements that should be modified in the light of our
new historical situation. If Paul had said "I do not permit a
woman to teach as the leader of the church or to have authority
over man because women are uneducated and culturally unacceptable
as leaders in the church," then there would be a legitimate
reason for rejecting his injunction as culturally relative.
Paul, however, grounds his ruling not on cultural factors,
but on the events of the opening chapters of Genesis. He makes no
reference whatsoever to cultural factors such as lack of
education and any possible cultural offense which might result
if women were allowed to teach as the leaders of the
congregation. His argument precludes the introduction of "new
cultural factors" which would cause him to take a different stand
today on the role of women in the church.
Conclusion.
The conclusion of our examination of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 is
that the intent of this passage, in the light of its immediate
and wider context of the pastoral epistles, is not to
prohibit women from participating in the general teaching
ministry of the church ("they [women] are to teach what is
good"--Titus 2:3), but rather to restrain women from aspiring to
the restricted teaching role of the leader of the congregation.
The reason for Paul's ruling is that for a woman to exercise such
a leadership role is incompatible with the subordinate role which
God at the beginning assigned to women in the home and in the
church. Essentially the same view is expressed by Paul in 1
Corinthians 14:33b-36, a passage which we shall now examine.
......................
To be continued
9. Women's Role in the Church
Women and Church Office #2
PART II
1 CORINTHIANS 14:33b-36:
WOMEN AND SPEAKING IN THE CHURCH
1. Content and Interpretations of the Passage
The Injunction.
In 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 Paul gives a brief instruction
regarding the role of women in church, somewhat similar to the
advice found in 1 Timothy 2:9-15. The passage reads as follows:
As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep
silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to
speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If
there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their
husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in
church. What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are
you the only ones it has reached? (1 Cor 14:33b-36).
This statement occurs in the context of the discussion of
how to maintain order in the worship assemblies. Beginning with
verse 26 Paul gives specific instructions on how speaking in
tongues and prophesying should be regulated in the church, so
that good order might prevail. In this contex Paul gives his
instruction regarding the silence of women in the assembly. This
passage has been the subject of considerable controversy,
especially because it appears to stand in stark contrast to 1
Corinthians 11:5 where we have seen, Paul assumes that women will
pray and prophesy in the church.
(This is a false assumption, for nothing in the context talks
about "in the church" - a good lesson is here, for many false
teaching arise from the foundation of a false premise or
assumption. Women pray and can speak any time outside of church
services. Paul is only in that section giving instruction on
"hair" length for men and women as they live their daily lives
- Keith Hunt)
Four Interpretations.
Four major interpretations have been proposed to resolve the
apparent contradiction between 1 Corinthians 11:5 and 14:34.
One view maintains that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is a
post-Pauline interpolation. 49 There is no textual evidence for
such a view, though a few manuscripts tend to edit the text by
placing the passage after verse 40. 50 Except for the difficulty
of the text, there is no reason to view it as an interpolation.
(I fully agree - Keith Hunt)
A second view holds that Paul was simply inconsistent in his
application of the Gospel. 51 It is hard to believe that a man of
Paul's caliber would not have recognized his inconsistency on a
practical matter, within the space of three chapters. Such a view
undermines confidence inspiration of Scripture.
(I fully agree with Dr. Sam - Keith Hunt)
A third view assumes that Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 did not
give permission or women to pray or prophesy publicly but only
privately. Consequently, in 1 Corinthians 14 we have "an absolute
prohibition against women's speaking in the services." 52 The
weakness of this view is that there is little warrant for
believing that the praying and prophesying mentioned in 1
Corinthians 11:5 was to be done privately alone at home. Paul
saw prophecy as a gift for public use. 53 Moreover, it is hard to
believe that Paul would prohibit women from praying with their
heads uncovered in the privacy of their homes. By the same token,
it is hardly conceivable that Paul would forbid a man to pray
with his head covered when alone outdoors in the cold weather.
(Here Dr.Sam is way off beam, as he apparently never comes to
realize what Paul is teaching in the first section of 1 Cor.11.
This section has nothing to do with "church services" as does the
section section. Paul is merely teaching about length of hair for
women and men - that there is to be a difference. Long hair for
women is a glory - long hair for men is not - such was the
nteaching of common society and especially the society of Jews
who mfrom the time of Moses knew that only men under a nazarite
vow were allowed to not cut their hair. Praying and speaking the
words of God outside of a "church service" was open for women as
well as men - local in house Bible studies, or studies in a park
or by the lake etc. were open for women to partake in as much as
men. Paul in the first section in only giving judgment on the
length on hair for women and men as they serve the Lord in
praying and speaking during everyday life, outside of church
services. He then, starting in verse 17 talks about issues in
"church services" then he drops the "come together" for chapters
12 and 13 and picks it up again in chapter 14, which once more is
to do with things "come together in one place (v.23). This
understanding then has no contradiction or bearing on chapter 14
and the role of women in church services - Keith Hunt)
A fourth view maintains that chapter 14 does not contradict
chapter 11, but only restricts certain forms of talking on the
part of women, such as wives asking questions publicly of their
husbands, or women engaging in a disorderly form of speech. 54
A basic weakness of this view is that it ignores the fact
that Paul instructs women to be silent in the church not because
they are disorderly, but because they are women.
If the problem were disorderly speech, it is difficult to
see why Paul would single out women (or wives) when in the
immediate context he speaks of the confusion created by people in
general who were speaking simultaneously in tongues or as
prophets. If the problem had been one of disorder, as with
tongues or prophecy, then Paul would have simply prescribed order
(cf. vv. 27,29,31), not the silence of women. Surely not all the
people behaving in a disorderly way were women.
Second, Paul says that the same rule is followed in all the
churches of the saints. It is unlikely that the problem of noisy
women had arisen in all the churches. Finally, Paul clearly says
that "it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church" (v.35).
What is shameful is not her disorderly speech but her "speaking"
as a woman. Thus the reason for the unction must be sought not in
some kind of disorderly speech, but in the type of speaking that
would have been inappropriate for a woman in the assembly.
(I fully agree with the reasoning of Dr. Sam here - Keith Hunt)
2. Prohibition of Authoritative Speaking
The Key Phrase.
The sentence which may provide the key to understand the
meaning of the injunction is the phrase "For they are not
permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even
the law says" (1 Cor 14:34). The phrase "should be subordinate"
is often overlooked in determinin the meaning of the passage,
yet it contains an important qualification. The strong contrast
implied by the preposition "but" (alla) suggests that the
speaking that Paul has in mind is that which involves not being
subordinate. Women are forbidden a specific type of speech,
namely, that which constituted some sort of exercise of authority
and was therefore inconsistent with the subordinate role which
Paul believd women should fulfill in the church. The speech then
denied to women is a speech that is inappropriate to their
position as women or wives.
What kind of speaking by women in the church represented for
Paul a violation of the principle of women's submission to men?
Three major views have been expressed.
(We must bear in mind that this is all to do with "when you all
come together in the church" - "the whole church come together
into one place" - 1 Cor 11:18; 14:23. Outside of the official
church service women have as much right and freedon as men to
proclaim the Gospel of Christ - this I have proved in other
studies under "Church Government" on my website - Keith Hunt)
(1) Teaching.
Some maintain that Paul must be referring to teaching
because "teaching is by nature an exercise of authority
and would violate the principle of submission of women to men."
55
This view is plausible, because as George W. Knight
explains:
"the correlation of speaking and silence found here is
paralleled
in 1 Timothy 2:11-14, where what is prohibited is women
teaching men. Such an understanding seems most appropriate
for 1 Corinthians 14." 56
On the other hand, it must be admitted that there is nothing
specific in the context of 1 Corinthians 14:34 which indicates
that Paul is referring exclusively to teaching.
(2) Evaluation of Prophets.
On the basis of a rather convincing structural analysis of 1
Corinthians 14:29-36, both James Hurley and Wayne Grudem conclude
that what Paul prohibited is the participation of women in the
evaluation of the prophets. 57 The specific issue addressed in
verses 29 to 33a is the regulation of the speaking of the
prophets. The number of speakers is restricted to two or three
and the words of the prophets are to be "weighed" (literally,
"judged," or "assessed," diakrino) to ensure conformity to
apostolic teaching.
The following three verses 33b to 36 are seen as an
additional instruction regarding the evaluation by women of the
message of the prophet. In the light of this, what Paul would be
saying is "Let the women keep silent in the churches during the
evaluation of prophecies." The reason why women would be
prohibited to publicly evaluate the message of a prophet is
because this would be seen as exercising a leadership role
inappropriate for women.
(I find this to be a forced meaning, for if Paul was referring to
being silent in regards to "prophet" evaluation, he surely would
have made it very clear by saying something like: "Now concerning
the evaluation of the prophet, let the women keep silent." Paul
goes on further to talk about "learning" and women are to ask
their husbands at home. So there is in Paul's inspired view a lot
more to this keeping silent that just not evaluating the prophet.
I have covered this fully and in depth in my studies on "Church
Government" on this website - Keith Hunt)
(3) Words Spoken. A
A slight variation of this view is offered by Walter
L. Liefeld who feels that the "judging" need not be restricted to
the message of prophets, but could refer to the words spoken in
general by any leader of the congregation. He finds support for
this interpretation in Paul's reference to the "law:" "as even
the law says" (v.34). He suggests that an example of such a
"law" could be Numbers 12:1-15 where Miriam and Aaron complained
against Moses. Liefeld draws the following conclusion from this
example:
Miriam was a prophetess (like Deborah, Judges 4:4, and
Huldah, 2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chronicles 34:22), but when she
countered the authority of Moses, she transgressed. She was
a leader (Mic 6:4) but should not have "judged" the prophet
Moses (Deut 18:15). So, Paul's argument might run, women in
the church can prophesy, but should not judge the words of
others. They should be "in submission" just as Miriam should
have been to the leadership of Moses. This fits well but
does not require that the limitation placed on women in
chapter 14 was with regard to the "judging" of the prophets.
58
(This I also find as a forced meaning to the entire passage, and
the example of Miriam was OUTSIDE of a church coming together
service, which Paul is addressing and which is his whole context.
And it also does not take into account that women are to ask
their husbands at home, which of course is taking into account
they have a husband. Once more I turn the reader to my in-depth
studies on "church government" for a full explanation of all this
- Keith Hunt)
Authoritative Speaking.
All the above attempts to define the nature of the speaking
prohibited to women in 1 Corinthians 14:34 in terms of official
teaching, evaluation of the prophets or of the words spoken by
others, appear to contain an element of truth. (Maybe an element,
but a mighty small element it is - Keith Hunt) The notion that
some kind of "judging" may be involved is suggested by the
immediate context which speaks about weighing the words of
prophets (v.29). On the other hand, the lack of an explicit_
connection between the regulation about prophets (vv. 9-33a) and
that about women (vv.33b-36) suggests that the speaking
prohibited to women includes any form of speech inappropriate to
the subordinate role of women.
(Now Dr. Sam is getting at the bulls-eye of it all - Keith Hunt)
The key phrase that qualifies the kind of speaking by women
Paul had in mind, is "but should be subordinate" (v.34). This
phrase suggests that the speech denied to women is a kind of
speech that was seen as inappropriate to them as women or wives.
Such speech could include women speaking up in the church as
authoritative teachers of the congregation, or as judges of the
words spoken by prophets, elders, or even by their own husbands.,
It cauld also include any form of questioning that was seen as
challenging the leadership of the church. In the light of these
observations, it is preferable to understand Paul's prohibition
in broader terms, that is, inclusive of any form of speaking by
women that was seen as reflecting lack of subordination to their
husband and/or church leaders.
(Now Dr. Sam is on the button here and has come to see the
aforementioned ideas are lacking and are forced understandings to
the whole context and question of women speaking in church
services - Keith Hunt)
Speech and Authority.
To appreciate the significance of Paul's ruling, it is
important to note that in most cultures, including the Jewish
culture of Paul's time, people were expected to speak in a manner
appropriate to their position and status. For example, as Stephen
B. Clark points out, "a trained disciple in first century
Palestine would be very reluctant to voice an opinion in the
presence of his rabbi or any other rabbi; he would even be
reluctant to intervene in a discussion when his rabbi was
present." 59 I discovered to my surprise that the same custom
still held true in most of the classes I took at the Pontifical
Gregorian University in Rome. Questions were to be asked not
publicly in the class but privately to the teacher after class.
Refraining from asking questions in class was seen as a sign of
respect for the authority of the teacher.
Disciples, wives and children were expected to hold their
speech in a public gathering where teachers or the heads of the
households were discussing issues of concern to the community.
These men represented in public the concerns of their household
members to whom they would later explain or expand any question
discussed. 60 Presumably this is why Paul urges women to ask
their questions not publicly in the assembly; but privately to
their husbands at home (v.35). By so doing they were showing
respect for the headship role of their husbands. On the con-
trary, if a woman insisted on presenting her own viewpoint,
irrespective of the presence of her husband or church
leaders, that, according to Paul, was "shameful" (v.35), because
it violate the "law" (v.34) regarding the subordination of women.
(Amen - that is the truth of the nitty-gritty of it all - Keith
Hunt)
3. Basis and Scope of Paul's Ruling
Cultural or Biblical Law?
To validate the authority of his ruling, Paul appeals to
"the law:" "For they are not permitted to speak, but should be
subordinate, as even the law says" (v.34).
To which "law" is Paul referring? Some argue that Paul is
referring to cultural Jewish and Gentile laws that restricted the
public participation of women." 61 This view is discredited by
the fact that the term "law" (nomos) is never used in Paul's
writings with reference to cultural customs. Moreover, as we have
seen in our analysis of 1 Timothy 2:13 and 1 Corinthians 11:8-9,
Paul grounds his rulings regarding women not on cultural customs,
but on Biblical revelation.
The problem is to figure out which Old Testament "law" Paul
had in mind. Obviously he could not be thinking of an Old
Testament law requiring women to be silent at all times in
worship, because such a law does NOT exist. The Old Testament
shows the opposite to be true (Ex 15:20-21; 2 Sam 6:15, 19; Ps
148:12). The "the law" Paul had in mind is most likely the Old
Testament principle of leadship and subordination which we
discussed in chapter 1. Some commentators think that Paul was
thinking of Genesis 3:16 ("Your husband ... shall rule over you")
when he spoke of the "law." 62
This is most unlikely because the New Testament never
appeals to the "curses" of the Fall as a basis for Christian
conduct or teaching. We have seen that in those other passages
where Paul gives instructions on the roles of women, he
consistently appeals to the relation of Adam and Eve before and
not after the Fall, that is, to Genesis 2 and not Genesis 3 (cf.
1 Tim 2:13; 1 Cor 11:8-9).
(Indeed to give emphasis to Dr. Sam's thought, there is NO
SPECIFIC LAW in the OT to which Paul is sending his readers, it
is just NOT there. Hence it can only be as Dr.Sam points out, the
principle of the overall law of the OT regarding headship of the
family before the fall of mankind into sin - Keith Hunt)
Headship-Subordination Principle.
Since the law to which Paul appeals in the parallel or
analogous passages (1 Cor 11:8-9; 1 Tim 2:13) is the order of
creation of Genesis 2, we can safely presume that the latter is
what Paul has in view in his reference to the "law" in 1 Corin-
thians 14:34. This means Paul's appeal to "the law" need not
have any particular text in mind. It is sufficient for him to
remind women of the headship ordination principle that God had
established in the Old Testament, a principle still applicable to
the participation of women in the worship service (1 Cor 11:5).
At this point it is necessary to distinguish between a
permanent Biblical principle and its cultural, time-bound
application.
Refraining from asking questions in the assembly was the
customary way for women to show subordination to their husbands
and/or church leaders. Thus, "not asking questions in the
assembly" was a custom subservient to the principle "[women]
should be subordinate" (1 Cor 14:34). While the principle is
permanent, its application is culturally conditioned. Yet in
every culture the principle is to be expressed in the home and in
the church through appropriate customs.
This interpretation is consistent with Paul's concern to
maintain an authority structure in the home and in the church,
where men are called to exercise responsible and sacrificial
leadership, and women to respond supportively. We have seen in
the course of our study that Paul repeatedly emphasizes the
importance of respecting the headship-subordination principle:
"the head of a woman is her husband" (1 Cor 11:3); "Wives, be
subject to your husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22; cf. Col
3:18); "Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I
permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men" (1 Tim
2:1112); "train the young women ... to be submissive to the
husbands" (Titus 2:4-5).
Harmony Between 1 Corinthians 11:5 and 14:34.
In the light of the headship-subordination principle, it is
understandable why Paul would deny to women an authoritative
speech function in 1 Corinthians 14:33b-34. To allow the latter
would have undermined the above principle. On the other hand,
Paul readily allowed women to pray and prophecy in 1 Corinthians
11:5, because these activities did not involve the assumption of
a position of authority over men. (And it is important to add, in
the setting of an official "church coming together service."
Outside of that situation women had every freedom as men to teach
and proclaim the Gospel of Christ in local Bible studies in homes
etc. and also in the written word, which is more applied for
today than in any age of the past, with the invention of the
printing press and now the Internet - Keith Hunt)
Prophesying at Corinth was apparently understood in the
broad sense of communicating to the congregation a message of
exhortation from God. This ministry did not involve assuming the
leadership role of the church for a least two reasons.
First, Paul suggests that the prophetic ministry of
"upbuilding and encouragement and consolation" (1 Cor 14:3) was
open to all: "For you can all prophesy one by one Cor 14:31).
Second, each member of the congregation could question and
challenge the speech of the prophets: "Let two or three prophets
speak, and let the others weigh what is said" (1 Cor 14:29).
The implication of the Greek word "diakrino," here translated
"weigh what is said," is that members were to listen critically,
sifting the good from the bad. It is hard to imagine that an Old
Testament prophet like Isaiah would have invited the people to
critically evaluate his message and to accept only what they
viewed as sound. This suggests, as Wayne A. Grudem notes, "that
prophets at Corinth were not thought by Paul to speak with a
divine authority of actual words." 63
This conclusion is supported by verse 36: "What! Did the
word of God orginate from you, or are you the only ones it has
reached?"
This statement implies that the word of God had come forth
from Paul and the other apostles, thus even prophets in the local
churches were to be subject to apostolic directives. In the light
of this observation there is no contradiction between the
prophetic speaking of women in 1 Corinthians 11:5 and the
prohibition of their speaking authoritatively in 1 Corinthians
14:34, since the former did not involve the latter.
(The main point is, and I'm not sure if Dr.Sam is really getting
it. 1 Cor.11:5 had nothing to do with "official church services"
on the other had 1 Cor 11:17-34 and chapter 14 have EVERYTHING to
do with official church services. There is no contradition
because the two teachings of Paul are not the same context - one
is outside church services the other is inside church services -
Keith Hunt)
Wives or Women?
Is Paul's directive in 1 Corinthians 14:34 intended for all
women or only for wives? Verse 35 refers explicitly to wives: "If
there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their
husbands at home." This statement has led some to conclude that
Paul's ruling applies exclusively to wives and not inclusively to
all women 64. In discussion of 1 Corinthians 11:3 we have shown
that for Paul the husband-wife relationship is the paradigm for
the man-woman relationship in general. Married women, which made
up the majority of women in the congregation, served as a model
for women in general. Stephen B. Clark illustrates this point
with a fitting analogy:
If Paul had forbidden children to speak in public as an
expression of their subordination to their parents, no one
would hesitate to apply the rule to orphans as well as to
children with parents. The parent-child relationship
would be the normal case, but the rule would also apply to
children with surrogate parents. Similarly, unmarried women
would be expected to adhere to a rule for married women. 65
Women and Spiritual Gifts.
Note should be taken of the fact that Paul's ruling
concerning women in the church in l Corinthians 14 is given in
the context of a chapter dealing with spiritual gifts.
Apparently some people claimed then, as now, that if a
person has received a spiritual gift, then he or she can freely
use it in the church without restrictions. A question often asked
is, who has the right to deny to a woman the opportunity of
serving as a pastor/teacher of a congregation if the Holy Spirit
has given her such a gift?
In this chapter on spiritual gifts, Paul shows, first of
all, that an unrestricted use of gifts results in confusion and
disorder. The latter is contrary to God's will, "for God is not a
God of confusion but of peace" (1 Cor 14:33).
Second; the apostle refutes the apparent contention that
unless women are allowed to speak as the authoritative leaders of
the congregation, then the church may be opposing God and His
Spirit. Paul responds that that such an exercise of that
spiritual gift is contrary to God's law, that is, to the
principle which is grounded in the order of creation. Therefore,
spiritual gifts are gifts are given to be used, not contrary to,
but in harmony withhe revealed will of God. In other places Paul
explains how women can use their spiritual gifts with propriety
by praying and prophes the church (1 Cor 11:5) and by teaching
women and children (Titus 2:3-5; 1 Tim 5:14).
(Again 1 Cor.11:5 is using what God has given you via the Holy
Spirit outside the official church service - hence an open field
to teach and via the mouth or the written word the Gospel of
Christ, as well as an important function as to teaching other
women and children. And in a society where a woman could be at
home, and not having to be in the outside work force, as the man
and husband would be, this gives her even more time than the man
to teach and proclaim the Gospel. So ladies, do not feel bad
about having to keep silent for maybe 1 and 1/2 hours a week in a
church service - Keith Hunt)
No Independent Norms.
Paul closes his instructions about the "speaking" of women
in the church, saying: "What! Did the word of God originate with
you, or are you the only ones it has reached?" (1 Cor 14:36).
These words are directed not merely to women but to both men
and women, as the masculine plural form of monous ("only ones")
indicates. In this closing statement Paul challenges the right of
the Corinthian church to establish norms for church worship which
are contrary to the ones he has laid down, namely, that women
should, in a qualified sense, keep silent in the churches.
Paul's direct challenge ("What! Did the word of God
originate with you?") suggests that the Corinthian church had
adopted the practice of allowing women to speak and teach
authoritatively as the leaders of the congregation. The apostle
challenges their course of action by reminding them that they
were not the source and definition of Christian principles and
practices. On the contrary, they should coform to what was done
"in all the churches of the saints" (v.33).
To strengthen the authority of his instructions given in the
whole chapter, Paul appeals to any one who regards himself as "a
prophet, or spiritual" to acknowledge that what he has written
"is a command of the Lord" (v.37). This forceful statement makes
it clear that Paul viewed the teachings of the whole chapter,
including those concerning women, as applying not only to the
local situation of the Corinthian church but to Christian
churches in general. This means that Paul's teachings on the role
of women in the church are to be accepted as an integral part
of God's revelation found in Scripture.
(And that is an AMEN! So is the will of God, and as Paul
elsewhere said, "Have the mind of Christ in you." - Keith Hunt)
CONCLUSION
We asked at the beginning of this chapter: How does the
principle of headship and subordination relate to the role of
women in the church? Our examination of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 and 1
Corinthians 14:33b-36 has shown that the application of this
principle in the church requires that women not be appointed "to
teach" (1 Tim 2:12) or "to speak" (1 Cor 14:34) authoritatively
as the leader of the congregation. We have found that this
Pauline instruction derives, not from the cultural conventions of
his time which restricted the participation of women in public
gatherings, but rather from Paul's understanding of the
distinctive roles for men and women which God established at
creation.
Paul felt that the creational pattern of male headship and
female subordination in the home and in the church, requires that
women should not exercise spiritual oversight for the flock. He
rounded his view on the relationship of man and woman before,
and after, the results of the Fall. He did not appeal to local
or cultura factors such as the dorderly conduct of some women,
their relative lack of education or the negative impact on
outsiders of the appointment of women as leaders in the church.
The nature of Paul's arguments leaves no room to make his
instructions of only local and time-bound application.
The exclusion of women from the teaching and leadership
office in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 must not
be construed to mean that Paul excludes women from active
participation in the ministry of the church. We have seen in
chapter 2 that Paul commends a significant number of women for
working hard with him in the missionary outreach of the church.
However, women ministered in the church, not as appointive
leaders, but in supportive roles such as "fellow-workers,"
deaconesses, and prophets who edified and encouraged the
congregation.
To better appreciate why only certain men and no women were
appointed in the apostolic church to serve as pastors/elders/
overseers of the congregation, we shall consider in the next
chapter the New Testament understanding of the role of the
pastor.
......
NOTES ON CHAPTER VI
1. Some of the studies which view 1 Timothy 2:9-15 as limiting or
prohibiting the full participation of women in the ministry of
the church, are: George. W. Knight III, "Authenteo in Reference
to Women in 1 Timothy 2:12," New Testament Studies 30 (1984):
143-157; Douglas J. Moo, "The Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:1115:
A Rejoinder," Trinity Journal 2 (1981): 198-222; Carroll D.
Osburn, "Authenteo (1 Timothy 2:12)," Restoration Quarterly 25
(1983): 1-12; A. J. Panning, "Authentein--A Word Study,"
Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 78 (1981): 185-191; B. W. Powers,
"Women in the Church: The Application of 1 Timothy 2:8-15,"
Interchange 17 (1975): 55-59; Susan T. Foh, Women and the Word of
God (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 1979), pp.122-128; James B.
Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 1981), pp.193-228.
2. Some of the studies which view 1 Timothy 2:9-15 as
supporting the full participation of women in the ministry of the
church, are: J. J. Davis, "Ordination of Women Reconsidered:
Discussion of 1 Timothy 2:8-15," Presbyterian Communique 12
(November/December 1979): 1-15; N. J. Hommes, "Let Women Be
Silent in the Church: A Message Concerning the Worship Service
and the Decorum to Be Observed by Women," Calvin Theological
Journal 4 (1969): 5-22; Catherine C. Kroeger, "Ancient Heresies
and a Strange Greek Verb," Reformed Journal 29 (March 1979):
12-15; "1 Timothy 2:12--A Classicist's View," in Women, Authority
and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen (Downers Grove, Illinois,
1986), pp.225-244; Philip B. Payne, "Libertarian Women in
Ephesus: A Response to Douglas J. Moo's Article: '1 Timothy
2:11-15: Meaning and Significance,"' Trinity Journal 2 (1981):
169-197; David M. Scholer, "Exegesis: 1 Timothy 2:8-15,"
Daughters of Sarah 1 (May 1975): 7-8; also "l Timothy 2:9-15 and
the Place of Women in the Church's Ministry" in Women, Authority
and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen (Downers Grove, Illinois
1986), pp. 193-224; Aida D. B. Spencer, "Eve at Ephesus (Should
Women Be Ordained As Pastors According to the First Letter to
Timothy 2:11-15?)," Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 17 (1974): 215-222.
3. See, for example, Rom 1:27; 1 Cor 15:25, 53; 2 Cor 5:10; 1
Thess 4:1; 1 Tim 3:2; 2 Tim 2:6, 24; Titus 1:7, 11).
4. James B. Hurley (n. 1), p.196.
5. David M. Scholer, "1 Timothy 2:9-15 and the Place of Women in
the Church's Ministry" (n. 2), pp.200, 218. The same view is
strongly defended by Philip B. Payne (n. 2), pp. 190-194;
Catherine C. Kroeger, "1 Timothy 2:12 -- A Classicist's View,"
(n. 2), pp.225-244.
6. I am indebted for some of the criteria to Douglas J. Moo, "The
Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15: A Rejoinder" (n. 1), pp.
220-221.
7. Carroll D. Osburn (n. 1), p.11.
8. Susan T. Foh (n. 1), p.123.
9. For an extensive documentation of this point, see David M.
Scholer, "Women's Adornment: Some Historical and Hermeneutical
Observations on the New Testament Passages," Daughters of Sarah
6, (January/February 1980):3-6.
10. David M. Scholer, "l Timothy 2:9-15 and the Place of Women in
the Church's Ministry" (n. 2), pp. 201-202; see also n. 9.
11. Philip B. Payne (n. 2), p. 191; see also David M. Scholer, "1
Timothy 2:9-15 and the Place of Women in the Church's Ministry,"
(n. 2), p.202.
12. Philip B. Payne (n. 2), p.192.
13. Aida Spencer, "Eve at Ephesus," The Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 17 (1974): 217.
14. Philip B. Payne offers very compelling reasons for
translating hesychia as "quiet" and not "silence" (n. 2), pp.
169-170.
15. James B. Hurley (n. 1), p.200.
16. N. J. Hommes, "Let Women Be Silent in Church," Calvin
Theological Journal 4 (April 1969): 7.
17. Douglas J. Moo sees in verses 11 and 12 a chiastic structure
(inverted parallelism) with the word "submission" (hypotage)
functioning as the pivotal point of the verses ("l Timothy
2:11-15: Meaning and Significance," Trinity Journal 1 [1980]:
64).
18. James B. Hurley (n. 1), p.201.
19. Philip B. Payne (n. 2), p. 172; see also Grant Osborne,
"Hermeneutics and Women in the Church," Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 20 (1977):347.
20. David M. Scholer (n. 10), p. 205; also Grant Osborne (n. 18),
p. 346; Richard and Joice Boldrey, Chauvinist or Feminist? Paul's
View of Women (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976), p. 62; Philip B.
Payne (n. 2), pp. 173-175; Catherine C. Kroeger (n. 2), pp.
225-232.
21. David M. Scholer (n. 10), p.203.
22. Ibid., p.205; the same view is defended by Philip B. Payne
(n. 2), p.175. A somewhat similar conclusion is reached by
Catherine Clark Kroeger who interprets 1 Timothy 2:12 as follows:
"I do not allow a woman to teach nor to represent herself as the
originator or source of man" ("I Timothy 2:12 -- A Classicist's
View" [n. 2], p.232).
23. George W. Knight III, "Authenteo in Reference to Women in 1
Timothy 2:12," New Testament Studies 30 (January 1984): 152. The
same view is expressed by Fritz Zerbst, The Office of Woman in
the Church (St. Louis, Missouri, 1953), p.53 (Zerbst gives an
extensive list of other authors who hold the same view); J. N.
D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (London, 1963),
p.68; James B. Hurley (n. 1), p. 202; Stephen B. Clark, Man and
Woman in Christ (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1980), pp.197-198.
24. George W. Knight III (n. 23), p.152.
25. See 1 Tim 4:6, 13, 16; 2 Tim 3:14-17; 4:1-4; Titus 1:9; 2:1,
7.
26. Karl H. Rengstorf, "Didasko," Theological Dictionary of the
New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1974),
vol. 2, p. 147; also Douglas J. Moo, "l Timothy 2:11-15: Meaning
and Significance" (n. 1), pp.
65-66; "The Interpretation of Timothy 2:11-15: A Rejoinder" (n.
1), pp.200-202; R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul's
Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to
Titus, and to Philemon (Minneapolis, 1937), p.564; David P.
Scaer, "May Women Be Ordained as Pastors?" The Springfielder 36-2
(September, 1972): 104; Susan T. Foh (n. 1), p.125.
27. J. Keir Howard, "Neither Male nor Female: An Examination of
the Status of Women in the New Testament," The Evangelical
Quarterly 55, 1 (January, 1983): 41.
28. Aida Spencer, (n. 2), p. 219; Philip B. Payne (n. 2), pp.
175-177.
29. Douglas J. Moo provides a most compelling critical refutation
of this interpretation in ("The Interpretation of 1 Timothy
2:11-15: A Rejoinder," Trinity Journal 2 (1981): 202-204.
30. Paul K. Jewett, Man as Male and Female (Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 1975), p.57.
31. Virginia Mollenkott, Women, Men and the Bible (Nashville,
1977), p.99; Arlene Swidler, Woman in a Man's Church (New York,
1972), pp.34-35; Karl Schelkle, The Spirit and the Bride
(Collegeville, Minnesota, 1979), p.90.
32. Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty, All We're Meant to Be: A
Biblical Approach to Women's Liberation (Waco, Texas, 1974), p.
28; see also Paul K. Jewett (30), pp. 126-127; Karen Hoover,
"Creative Tension in 1 Timothy 2:11-15," Brethren Life 22 (1977):
164; Margaret Howe, Women and Church Leadership (Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 1982), pp.46-47.
33. Elizabeth Fiorenza, in The Liberating Word: A Guide to
Nonsexist Interpretation of Scripture, ed. Letty Russel
(Philadelphia, 1976), p.49.
34. Paul K. Jewett (n. 30), p.61; Francis Cleary, "Women in the
New Testament," Biblical Theology Bulletin 10 (1980): 81; Donald
Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles: an Introduction and Commentary
(Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1957), p.77; H. P. Liddon, Explanatory
Analysis of St. Paul's First Epistle to Timothy (Minneapolis,
1978), p.19.
35. Stephen B. Clark, Man and Woman in Christ (Ann Arbor,
Michigan, 1980), p.204.
36. Ibid.
37. The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, D.
C., 1957), vol. 7, p.296; see also George W. Knight III, The
Role Relationship of Men and Women (Chicago, 1985), p.32.
38. Douglas J. Moo (n. 17), p.70.
39. See, for example, Ida Ramig, Exclusion of Women from the
Priesthood: Divine Law or Sex Discrimination? (Metuchen, 1976),
pp.111-116; Sister Albertus Magnus McGrath, O. P., What a Modern
Catholic Believes about Women (Chicago, 1972), pp.36-37.
40. This translation has been adopted also by Moffat and NASB.
41. See C. Spicq, Lees Epitres Pastorales (Paris, 1969), p.380.
42. Philip B. Payne (n. 2), p.; Aida Spencer (n. 2), pp.219-220;
H. P. Liddon (n. 34), pp.38,39; Walter Lock, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Edinburgh, 1924),
p.33; Pace Don Williams, The Apostle Paul and Women in the
Church (Van Nuys, California, 1977), p.113.
43. This view is expressed by Douglas J. Moo (n. 17), pp.71-72;
Robert Falconer, "1 Timothy 2:14-15. Interpretative Notes,"
Journal of Biblical Literature 66 (1941): 376-378; J. N. D.
Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles
(London, 1963), p.69; C. Spicq (n. 41), pp.382-383; Herman
Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids,
Michigan 1975), p.309.
44. For information on the improved social status of women in the
Roman world in New Testament times, see Mary Lefkowitz and
Maureen Fant, Women in Greece and Rome (Toronto, 1977); J. P. V.
D. Balsolon, Roman Women (London, 1962). For a brief treatment,
see Elisabeth Meier Tetlow, Women and Ministry in the New
Testament: Called to Serve (Lanham, Maryland, 1980), pp.14-20.
45. Philip B. Payne (n. 2), p. 190; see also David M. Scholer (n.
10), pp. 195-205; Catherine Clark Kroeger (n. 22), pp.226-232.
46. Carroll D. Osborn (n. 1), p.11.
47. Acts of Paul 41, 42, in New Testament Apocrypha, eds. Edgar
Hennecke and Wilhelm Schneemelcher (Philadelphia, 1965), vol. 2,
p.364; Tertullian challenges the use that some made of Thecla's
example to defend the right of women to teach and to baptize, by
pointing out that the presbyter who fabricated the story was
convicted and removed from office (On Baptism 17).
48. The suggestion is made by Martin Dibelius and Hans
Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, Hermeneia (Philadelphia,
1972), p.48.
49. See, William O. Walker, Jr., "The 'Theology of Women's
Place' and the 'Paulinist' Tradition," Semeia 28 (1983): 101-112;
E. Schweizer, "The Service of Worship: An Exposition of 1
Corinthians 14," Interpretation 13 (1959): 402ú; Arnold
Bittlinger, Gifts and Graces: A Commentary on 1
Corinthians 12-14 (London, 1967), p.110f.; Hans Conzelmann, 1
Corinthians, Hermeneia (Philadelphia, 1975), p.246.
50. For a discussion see Wayne A. Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy
in 1 Corinthians (Washington, D. C., 1982), p.241.
51. Paul K. Jewett (n. 30), p. 115; Hans Conzelman (n. 49), p.
246.
52. F. W. Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the
Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1983), p. 342; cf. George
Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 1974), p.528.
53. For a discussion of prophecy as a gift for public use, see
Wayne A. Grudem (n. 50), p.181.
54. Among those who believe that the issue is disorderly speech
are R. Banks, "Paul and Women's Liberation," Interchange 18
(1976): 94; Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty (n. 32), pp.68-69;
D. Pape, In Search of God's Ideal Woman (Downers Grove, Illinois,
1975), p.138.
55. L. Birney, The Role of Women in the New Testament Church
(Pinner, 1971), p.15.
56. George W. Knight III (n. 37), pp.24-35.
57. James B. Hurley (n. 1), pp.188-193; Wayne A. Grudem (n.
50), pp.249.
58. Walter L. Liefeld, "Women, Submission and Ministry in 1
Corinthians," in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera
Mickelsen (Downers Grove, Illinois, 1986), p.150.
59. Stephen B. Clark (n. 35), p.187.
60. See discussion in Stephen B. Clark (n. 35), pp.186-187.
61. See Walter L. Liefeld (n. 58), p.149.
62. See C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the
Corinthians (London, 1968), p.330; Leon Morris, The First
Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (London, 1958), p.201.
63. Wayne A. Grudem (n. 50), p.73. See Grudem's analysis of the
prophetic speech at Corinth on pp.58-73.
64. See, for example, E. Earle Ellis, "The Silenced Wives of
Corinth," in New Testament Textual Criticism, eds. Eldon Jay Epp
and Gordon D. Fee (Oxford, 1981), p.217; Gilbert Bilezikian,
Beyond Sex Roles (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1985), p.149.
65. Stephen B. Clark (n. 35), p.187.
.........................
To be continued
10. Women's Role in the Church
The Role of Pastor #1
THE ROLE OF THE PASTOR
by the late Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi
CHAPTER VII
Are women any less capable than men of piety, zeal,
learning, leadership, counseling, preaching or whatever it takes
to serve as the pastor or elder of a congregation? If not, why
should women not be appointed to serve as pastors or elders?
These questions have elicited the deepest concerns of
evangelical feminists. Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty ask:
"Ordination is relevant to women who feel called to the
official ministry, and many women in all branches of the
church do feel this call of God upon their lives. Can the
church continue to deny them the opportunity to respond to
this call?" 1
These are serious questions that demand our attention. The
answers are largely determined by one's understanding of the
nature of the church and of the role of the pastor. If the church
is viewed as being primarily a religious institution which
provides religious services to society, then its leaders will be
seen as administrators chosen on the basis of competence. This
understanding of the nature of the church would demand that women
be given equal access to the pastoral office in accordance with
the equal employment opportunitites that govern all service
institutions.
On the other hand, if the church is a spiritual family of
believers united to God and to one another by a common bond of
faith, then the pastor is a spiritual father of the "household of
God" (1 Tim 3:15: cf. 1 Cor 4:15) and the shepherd of the flock
(1 Pet 5:2). This understanding of the church, as an extended
family of believers, has important implications for the role of
women within the church.
Objectives.
This chapter aims at defining the New Testament
understanding of the nature of the church and of the role of the
pastor within it, in order to determine if women can legitimately
fulfill such a role. For the sake of clarity this chapter is
divided in two parts: the first examines the role of the pastor
as representative of the congregation, the second considers his
role as a representative of Christ. Special attention will be
given in the second part of the chapter to the implications of
the male imagery of God for the appointment of women as
pastors/elders in the church.
PART I THE PASTOR AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CONGREGATION
1. Models of Pastoral Roles
The understanding of the nature of the pastor's role within
the church determines to a large extent one's position on whether
or not a woman should serve as pastor/elder of the congregation.
Four major models of pastoral roles are generally held among
Christians and each of them has quite different implications.
Sacramental Role.
A first pastoral model may be called the sacramental role.
According to this model, which is held by the Eastern Orthodox,
the Roman Catholic and to a lesser degree the Anglican church,
the pastor is seen primarily as a priest (sacerdos) whose central
function in the worship service is to preside at the eucharistic
(Lord's Supper) celebration. This view developed early in the
history of Christianity as the Lord's Supper came to be
understood as being essentially a sacramental reenactment of the
atoning death of Christ. This development led to the view that
the person presiding at the eucharistic sacrifice functioned as a
priest, acting not only on behalf of the congregation, but of the
very person of Christ.
This is the line of reasoning present in the Vatican 2
declaration, "Inter Insignores," which argues that at the
consecration of the eucharist the priest acts "in persona
Christi, taking the role of Christ to the point of being his very
image." 2 Since the priest becomes the very image of Jesus Christ
to the congregation, then it is only fitting that he should be a
man and not a woman, for Jesus was a man and not a woman.
According to these church traditions women cannot be
ordained as priests because by their very nature they are
incapable of receiving the "indelible character," that is, the
permanent divine grace conferred through the sacrament of
ordination.
This sacramental view of the priesthood founders on three
counts.
First, the New Testament makes it unequivocally clear that
there is no longer a special class of priests as the was in Old
Testament times. Christ has fulfilled and done away with the Old
Testament priesthood (Heb 5:4-6; 7:27; 9:24-28; 10:9-14). By His
sacrificial death Christ has opened to all direct access to God's
throne of grace (Rom 5:2; Eph 3:12; Heb 10:19-22). Baptized and
believing Christians need no human mediator because they are all
"a holy priesthood" capable of offering "spiritual sacrifices
acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (1 Pet 2:5).
Second, the Lord's Supper is never regarded in the New
Testament as a sacrifice in itself or as a reenactment of
Christ's atoning death. It is simply presented as a memorial of
Christ's sacrificial death (1 Cor 11:26). No special class of
priests is needed to preside over its celebration.
Lastly, if the priest represents the person of Christ and
not His masculinity, then the resemblance between Christ and the
priest need not be sexual but spiritual and consequently women
could represent equally well the person of Christ to the
congregation.
Functional Role.
A second pastoral model may be called the functional role.
In this model the pastor is seen primarily as an administrator of
an institution known as the church. His appointment to the
pastoral office is determined by his functional effectiveness and
capacity for leadership. Churches that view themselves as
religious institutions that provide religious and social services
to the community are naturally apt to ordain women as pastors.
They see their pastor not as the "head" or "shepherd" of the
congregation, but as an effective and functional administrator.
Since women can manage businesses and institutions as effectively
as can men, their appointment to the pastoral office is seen as a
matter of necessity in order to bring the administration of the
church in line with the equal employment opportunitites of
secular institutions.
The problem with this functional model is that it reduces
the church from a community of believers to a service institution
and the pastor from a spiritual "head" and "shepherd" of the
flock to an administrator or policy setter. Administrative
competence can undoubtedly enhance the leadership role of a
pastor, but, as we shall see, it is not the fundamental Biblical
criterion for ordaining a person as pastor.
The church is meant to be not merely a functional
organization but a community of believers, the family of God. Its
pastors are not merely officials recruited without regard to
sexual distinctions as in secular institutions. Instead, they are
shepherds of the flock, appointed to represent Christ to the
people and the people to Christ. The pastor however, represents
Christ not sacramentally but functionally, that is not by
becoming the "very image" of Christ to the congregation, but by
representing the shepherding role of Christ, the chief Shepherd
(1 Pet 5:4). This double representative role requires, as we
shall see, that the person appointed to serve as pastor be a man
with specific spiritual and moral qualities.
Charismatic Role.
A third pastoral model may be called the charismatic role.
In this model any person can be ordained as pastor if he or she
demonstrates having received from God some specific charisma,
that is, spiritual gift, such as prophecy, healing, faith,
wisdom, tongues, or preaching. In many ways the charismatic
pastoral role is a spiritual version of the functional pastoral
role described above. The main difference between the two is that
the competency required in the charismatic model is spiritual
rather than practical. Pentecostal and Holiness churches that
emphasize the charismatic role of the pastor have been ordaining
women as pastors since the 1890's, obviously because for them the
main prerequisite for ordination to the ministry is the
possession of some charisma.
There is no question that ordination to the office of
pastor/elder is not a right to be asked or fought for but a
matter of divine grace (1 Tim 4:14). One of God's gifts to the
church is the charisma of spiritual leadership: "And his gifts
were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some
evangelists, some pastors and teachers" (Eph 4:11; cf. 1 Cor
12:28-30). However, a person who has received a gift for
spiritual leadership is not automatically a candidate for
ordination to the ministry. Paul explains, for example, that a
man aspiring to serve as an overseer/elder in the church "must be
well thought of by outsiders" and by church members (1 Tim
3:6-7). This means that a man must prove himself before he can be
considered by the church to serve as pastor/elder.
Moreover, the stated requirements for such an office are the
evidence of moral integrity and exemplary leadership in the home
(1 Tim 3:2-5; Titus 1:6-9). No reference is made to the presence
of specific spiritual gifts. This does not mean that spiritual
gifts are irrelevant, but rather that they are secondary to those
qualities that would allow a man to exercise the same kind of
leadership in the church that he exercises in the home.
The Scriptures nowhere indicate that the gifts of the spirit
are "for men only." We have seen, for example, that both the Old
and the New Testaments speak of women ministering as prophets
(Judges 4:4; Acts 21:9; 1 Cor 11:5), a ministry which is
mentioned by Paul before that of evangelists, pastors and
teachers (Eph 4:11; 1 Cor 12:28-30). It is difficult, however, to
imagine that the Holy Spirit would normally call a woman to serve
as a pastor when, as we have seen in the previous chapter, the
same Spirit inspired Paul to instruct the church not to allow
women to serve as representative and authoritative leaders of the
church (1 Tim 2:12; 1 Cor 14:34).
If, as we have seen repeatedly in the course of this study,
God has established functional role differences for men and women
to fulfill in the home and in the church, then it is
inconceivable that the same God would normally call men or women
to serve in roles which are contrary to His creational order.
Paul devotes several chapters of his letter to the
Corinthian church - a church that resisted the idea of
hierarchy--to explain that the church, like the human body, needs
different functioning units, persons with different gifts, each
of which is essential to the proper functioning of the body. In
fact, Paul emphasizes that "the parts of the body which seem to
be weaker are indispensable ... God has so composed the body,
giving the greater honor to the inferior part, that there may be
no discord in the body, but that the members may have the same
care for one another" (1 Cor 12:22, 24-25).
Representative Role.
A fourth pastoral model may be called the representative
role. This model differs significantly from those described
above. In this model the pastor fulfills a dual representative
function. On the one hand he functions as the representative head
of his members, and on the other hand, he serves as Christ's
representative to his members. This role of a pastor in the
"household of God" (1 Tim 3:15) is to a large extent similar to
the role of a father in the home. Like a father he cares for his
members personally, directing and correcting them as necessary.
The primary requirement for this kind of pastoral leadership are
those spiritual and natural qualities which lead the members to
respect the pastor as their personal spiritual leader. Leadership
skills and charisma are important but secondary requirements.
What is essential are the qualities of moral and spiritual
integrity which enable the pastor to serve as a worthy
representative of God and of the members.
The early Christians, as we shall see, adopted the
representative model of the pastor by appointing local elders to
serve as the heads of their congregations. Women were not
appointed as elders because this office involved oversight of the
congregation, "the household of God" (1 Tim 3:15): a role similar
to that a father is called to fulfill in the home. To explore
this reason more fully, consideration will now be given to the
role of the pastor in the New Testament.
2. The Origin of Elders/Pastors
Origin of Elders.
During His ministry on earth Jesus did not establish a
structure of church organization. He called, trained, appointed
and commissioned twelve men to witness for Him to all nations
(Mark 3:14; 16:15-16; Acts 1:8). It was after the resurrection
and ascension that Christ's followers began to develop a form of
church organization. The book of Acts gives indications of an
emerging structure, built on the pattern of the synagogue.
Initially, the church of Jerusalem must have been seen as one of
the several hundred synagogues that existed in the city (see,
e.g. Acts 6:9).
The minimum requirement for the existence of a synagogue was
a group of ten men to constitute the board of elders. 3 In most
cases the elders of the synagogue were also the representative
heads of their households. The twelve apostles appointed by
Christ functioned as the original board of elders (Acts 1:20,
Greek "episkope--oversight" ). Peter and John designate
themselves as elders (presbyteros --1 Pet 5:1; 2 John 1; 3 John
1). The vacancy caused by the defection of Judas was filled by
the election of Matthias: "His office ("oversight"--episkope) let
another take" (Acts 1:20). The apostles, as the elders of the
first congregation, supervised the worship and instruction of the
members, exercised discipline and administered the distribution
of alms.
The dispersion of the Jerusalem church, caused by "a great
persecution" (Acts 8:1), resulted in the establishment of
daughter churches in Palestine/Syria. The eldership model of the
Jerusalem church was soon adopted by the new churches, as
indicated by the fact that Paul and Barnabas appointed "elders"
(presbyteroi) in every church they founded, committing them to
the Lord (Acts 14:23). The language of Acts suggests that the
elders (presbyteroi) could also be called overseers or bishops
(episkopoi--Acts 20:17,28). The same interchangeable use of the
two terms occurs in Titus 1:5-7.
It appears that initially the term "elder" designated the
status and the term "bishop/overseer" characterized the
responsibility of the elders, namely, to supervise and shepherd
the congregation (1 Pet 5:1-4). 4 By the beginning of the second
century, however, the term "bishop" came to be applied to the
sole leader of the congregation (monarchical bishop) who took
precedence over the presbyters and deacons. Initially, however,
the terms "elders" and "bishops" were modest words, used to
describe the representative and supervising function of what
today we call the pastor. Other terms were presumably also used
since other passages the in New Testament refer simply to "those
who are over you in the Lord" (1 Thess 5:12) or "your leaders"
(Heb 13:7).
The Use of the Term "Pastor."
The term "pastors" (pointer: which means "shepherds," is
used only once in the New Testament, namely, in the list of
offices given in Ephesians 4:11: "And his gift were that some
should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelist, some pastors
and teachers." The absence of the article in Greek before
"teachers," suggests that "pastor-teacher is a single office
embodying twofold function: that of shepherding or overseeing the
flock, and of teaching." 5
The limited use of the term "shepherd/pastor" indicates that
a: not a well-established title for the leaders of the
congregation who were better known as elders, overseers or simply
as leaders. Such leaders, however, were clearly seen as
"shepherds" as indicated by the metaphorical use of the verb
poimainein "shepherd the flock" to describe the work of the
elders (1 Pet 5:2; Acts 20:28: John 21:16). 6
What all of this means is that in the New Testament the
local elders/leaders functioned as the pastors of the
congregation. The term "pastor" may be seen as descriptive of the
shepherding function of the elders. Thus, the New Testament role
of the local "elder/overseer" corresponds essentially to the role
of today's pastor. In view of this fact the present policy of the
Seventh-day Adventist church to allow for the ordination of women
as local elders but not as pastors is based on an artificial
distinction between the two offices, a distinction which does not
exist in the New Testament.
The only legitimate distinction that can be made in the New
Testament is between the "local elders" and what could be called
the "elders at large" such as the apostles, Timothy, and Titus.
Both of them, however, then as now, functioned as "shepherds/
pastors" of the congregations. This means that the prerequisites
for the appointment of local elders and pastors are essentially
the same because both fulfill the same representative shepherding
function.
(Here in Dr.Sam's last paragraphs he disagrees with his SDA
church in ordaining women as "local elders."To which I add mu
support - Keith Hunt)
Plurality of Elders.
Another important element, often ignored, is that in the New
Testament each church had several elders. This is indicated by
the fact that they are always referred to in the plural in
relation to any particular church. Paul and Bamabas "appointed
elders" in every church they founded in Asia (Acts 14:23). The
elders of the Jerusalem church are always referred to in the
plural (Acts 11:30; 15:2,4,5,22,23; 16:4; 21:18). Paul called the
"elders" of the church at Ephesus to come to him (Acts 20:17).
Titus is to "appoint elders in every town" (Titus 1:5). The sick
person is to "call for the elders of the church" (James 5:14). As
in the Jewish synagogue so in Christian churches one of the
elders was apparently appointed to serve as a presiding elder.
James served in such a role in the Jerusalem church (Acts
15:13-21), Timothy in the church of Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3) and Titus
in Crete (Titus 1:5).
The specific number of elders appointed in every church is
never mentioned. We can presume that the number was determined by
the size of the congregation and the number of men who were
suitably qualified (see 1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). The
qualifications suggest, as we shall see, that the elders were
mostly fathers who had proven their moral integrity and spiritual
leadership in their own household. This indicates that the church
was seen as an extended family where some of the qualified heads
of households were appointed to serve as heads of the larger
family of believers, "the household of God" (1 Tim 3:15).
Extended Family.
A major factor which contributed to viewing the church as an
extended family is the fact that by accepting Jesus Christ as
their Savior, believers "receive adoption as sons" (Gal 4:5). As
adopted children they can call God "Abba! Father!" (Gal 4:6) and
relate to one another as "brother and sister" (James 2:14-15; 1
Cor 8:11; 1 Thess 4:6; Rom 12:1). Within this spiritual family
Christ Himself is called "the first-born among many brethren"
(Rom 8:29).
The pastor/elder functions as a spiritual father within the
church family because of his role in bringing new converts into
the church and nurturing them subsequently. For example, Paul
refers to the Corinthian believers as his children and to himself
as their father: "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to
admonish you as my beloved children ... For I became your father
in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor 4:14,16; cf. Eph 5:1;
Gal 3:26). Furthermore, church members are referred to as
"beloved children" (Eph 5:1), "sons and daughters" (2 Cor 6:18),
"brethren" (1 Cor 1:10,11,26; 2:1), "sisters" (Rom 16:1; 1 Cor
7:15), all terms indicative of a family relationship.
This understanding of the church as an extended family of
believers, led by elders who functioned as spiritual fathers and
shepherds explains why women were not appointed as elders/
pastors, namely because their role was seen as being that of
mothers and not fathers. This point will be further clarified
below.
3. Functions and Qualifications of Elders
Shepherding the Flock.
The main function of the elders was that of shepherding the
flock. The flock is to be directed and protected so that it may
be nourished and grow. Paul charged the elders of Ephesus to
remember their important shepherding calling: "Take heed to
yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has
made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he
obtained with the blood of his own Son" (Acts 20:28).
The task of shepherding the flock included guiding and
directing the congregation ordering its worship services,
correcting abuses, refuting errors, and regulating the
relationship of its members. Preaching and teaching were also
among the main functions of the elders (Titus 1:9; 1 Tim 3:2).
This is indicated by Paul's instruction: "Let the elders who
rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those
who labor in preaching and teaching" (1 Tim 5:17). The manner in
which this pastoral responsibility was to be exercised is
described in 1 Peter 5:1-4:
So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a
witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in
the glory that is to be revealed. Tend the flock of God that
is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for
shameful gain but eagerly, not as domineering over those in
your charge but being examples to the flock. And when the
chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading
crown of glory.
Respect for the Elders.
In view of the important role the elders fulfilled as
representative fathers and shepherds of the flock, members are
admonished to respect and obey them. Peter, for example,
immediately after describing how elders should exercise their
leadership, goes on to indicate the respect elders should
receive: "Likewise you that are younger be subject to the elders"
(1 Pet 5:5). Similarly Paul urges the Thessalonians "to respect
those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and
admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of
their work" (1 Thess 5:12,13).
A similar admonition is given in the book of Hebrews: "Obey
your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over
your souls, as men who will have to give account" (Heb 13:17).
Here submission is enjoined to the leaders of the church
(elders/pastors) because of the solemn responsibility entrusted
to them to be accountable for the spiritual welfare of the
congregation.
Qualifications of Elders.
The qualifications of elders/pastors are directly related to
the functions they are called to fulfill within the church. A
list of the main qualifications are given by Paul in 1 Timothy
3:1-7:
The saying is sure: If anyone aspires to the office of
bishop, he desires a noble task. Now a bishop must be above
reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible,
dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, no drunkard, not
violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money.
He must manage his own household well, keeping his children
submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does
not know how to manage his own household, how can he care
for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may
be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of
the devil; moreover he must be well thought of by outsiders,
or he may fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
This and similar descriptions (Titus 1:5-9; 1 Pet 5:1-3;
Acts 20:28-30) indicate that any potential elder/overseer/pastor
of the church must have moral integrity, ability in management,
knowledge of the Word of God, aptitude to teach and a genuine
pastoral concern. Particular emphasis is placed upon the
Christian character of the elder, exemplified by his temperate
life-style, loyalty to his wife, and leadership in the home.
Possession of these qualifications must be recognizable before a
man can be appointed as leader of the congregation.
4. The Appointment of Elders
Restricted to Men.
Four major lines of evidence indicate that in the New
Testament the appointment of elders was restricted to men:
(1) Male Elders. The initial group of elders, as we have noted,
were the apostles themselves, who were all men. When the Gospel
proclamation reached beyond Jerusalem, the same pattern was
followed to appoint male elders in each congregation. The reason
is that Christian elders, as in the Jewish synagogue, were seen
as the spiritual fathers of an extended family. Jerome D. Quinn
observes:
The extended family of the ancient world is presumed and
proposed as the model and parable of a church that is bound
in faith and loyalty to the living Father who has bestowed
life on those who are now his sons and daughters. In that
family some of the sons are presbyter-bishops and so
"householders" (oikonomi, cf. Titus 1:7), men who visibly
represent and answer to the Father. The tried virtues of
Christian family life are the criteria proposed for choosing
these men to share in Pauline ministry (Titus 1:6). A father
who has not presided well over his own household ought not
to preside over a church (1 Tim 3:4-5). 7
(2) Specification of "Man."
In the descriptions of qualifications of an elder in 1
Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-7, specific reference is made to
"man--aner" as distinct from "woman." The importance of this fact
is brought out by B. W. Powers:
An elder is to be a 'one-woman man,' that is, a person who
is loyal to a wife and does not become involved with other
women; but the point is also made that he is to be a man.
This is further reinforced by the fact that an elder
is required to be able to manage his own household as well
as a qualification for the role of ruling as an elder. This
could never be said of a woman. 8
(3) Structure of Passage.
This conclusion is further supported by the structure of the
passage in 1 Timothy where the qualifications for the office of
elder (3:1-7) are given immediately after the prohibition
of women teaching as leaders in the church (2:11-15). The
collocation of this prohibition immediately before the
qualifications for eldership, suggests that the two are closely
related. Having explained why women should not serve as
teaching-leaders of the congregation, Paul then proceeds
immediately to spell out what kind of men are suitable for such
an office. The connection between the two has been recognized by
some scholars. 9
(4) Authority Role.
The discussion of the role of women in the New Testament
indicates that they could not have exercised the role of
elders/pastors, because the two roles were viewed as mutually
exclusive. A woman, as we have seen in chapter 6, was not to
teach as the leader in the church or to exercise authority over
men (1 Tim 2:12: 1 Cor 14:34), whereas the function of the elder
was to exercise fatherly authority within the congregation (1 Tim
5:17; 3:4-5) over both men and women.
Appointment of Elders.
The process followed by the apostolic church to elect and
ordain their church leaders is not clearly explained in the New
Testament. Three major factors seem to have contributed to their
election: qualifications, calling, and recognition by the church
and/or church leaders. In addition to the qualifications for the
office of elder discussed above, there was required a recognition
on the part of the church that the person aspiring to serve as
elder had been called by God. The church recognized that the Holy
Spirit had called Bamabas and Saul for their particular work
(Acts 13:2). Paul seems to refer to the recognition by the church
of Timothy's calling when he speaks of "the prophetic utterances
which pointed to you" 1 Tim 1:18). It is also reasonable to
assume that the person aspiring to the office of overseer (1 Tim
3:1) could testify that he believed himself to be called of God
to serve in such a role.
The qualifications and the calling were to be recognized
presumably both by the congregation (Acts 13:3; 1 Tim 3:7; 5:22)
and by church leaders (Acts 14:23; 1 Tim 5:22; Titus 1:5). This
recognition resulted in a special appointment to the office of
elder through the rite of laying on of hands. The performance of
this rite is suggested by Paul's admonition to Timothy not to
neglect the gift which he had received "when the council of
elders laid their hands upon [him]" (1 Tim 4:14; cf. 2 Tim 1:6).
An additional indication is provided by Paul's advice to Timothy:
"Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands" (1 Tim 5:22). Since
his advice is given in the context of the treatment of elders
(vv.17-19), it undoubtedly refers to their official appointment
to the office of elder.
In the light of the foregoing considerations we may say that
in the New Testament, the act of laying on of hands, which became
known as the rite of ordination, represents the church's
recognition of qualifications and divine calling of the man being
officially appointed to serve as shepherd and father of the
spiritual family of believers (1 Pet 5:2-4; Acts 20:28). The
notion of ordination as a sacramental act which conveys the
"indelible character" of the priesthood is foreign to the New
Testament. Instead, the essential function of the ceremony is to
invest a person, who had proven his moral and spiritual
worthiness, with the right to serve officially as a
representative spiritual father and shepherd of the congregation,
"the household of God" (1 Tim 3:15).
5. The Appointment of Women as Elders/Pastors?
Women as Spiritual Fathers? Can a woman be officially
appointed by the church through the laying on of hands to serve
as a representative spiritual father and shepherd of the
congregation? The answer of the New Testament is NO. The reason
is not because women are any less capable than men of piety,
zeal, learning, leadership, preaching or whatever it takes to
serve as pastor, but simply because such role is perceived in the
New Testament as being that of a spiritual father and not of a
spiritual mother. In chapters 5 and 6 we have shown that the New
Testament emphasizes the importance of respecting the functional
role distinctions of men and women established by God at
creation. These role distinctions, we have noted, do not imply
superiority or inferiority, but rather reflect a divine design
and concern for well-ordered and harmonious relations within the
home and the church.
Men and women were created not superior and inferior, but
rather different from and complementary to one another. What God
made woman to be and what He intends her to do, makes her
different from but not inferior to man. This difference is
reflected in the different roles men and women are called to
fulfill in life. The woman is to be wife and mother while the man
is to be husband and father. As father, man is called to be a
caring head and guardian of the home, a divinely established role
in the natural family which must be reflected in the church,
because the church is, as we have shown, the extended family of
God. This means that to appoint a woman to serve as elder/pastor
would be analogous to assigning her the role of fatherhood in the
family.
The Larger Question.
The question of women's ordination must be seen as part of
the larger question of the distinctive and different roles men
and women are called to fulfill in the home and in the church.
David Scaer emphasizes the need to consider the wider scope of
the problem:
The problem of women pastors cannot be handled in isolation,
but must be viewed in conjunction with the other sexual
misunderstandings of which it is both a part and a result.
Only citing the simple prohibition against the women
pastors, without viewing the wider horizon of which the
prohibition is a part, leaves unsolved the real and basic
problem of understanding the divine established relationship
of male and female. 10
The elder/pastor serves as the shepherd of the flock, the
father of the extended family of believers, which is the church.
Such representative role implies a spiritual authority which by
divine appointment belongs to man and not to woman. Essentially
this is the theological reason given by Paul in those crucial
passages (1 Tim 2:1115; 1 Cor 11:3-15; 14:33-36) where he
explains why women are not to serve as representative leaders of
the church, namely, because they "should be subordinate" (1 Cor
14:34).
We have shown in chapter 5 that the Pauline (Biblical)
understanding of subordination is not demeaning but elevating. It
signifies not servile dependence, but willing and loving response
to the caring leadership of a husband (Eph 5:26-29). It is
patterned after the subordination of the church to Christ. Some
reject the analogy between the Christ-church model and the
husband-wife model because, to quote Rosemary Reuther, it is a
"hierarchical, dominance-submission model of marriage." 11 What
she fails to realize is that in the Christ-church model, the
husband too is called to be subordinate, first to Christ and then
to his wife by loving and caring for her sacrificially. The
Biblical (Christological) model calls for a male-female
partnership under the Lordship of Christ and the loving,
sacrificial leadership of man.
The Danger of the Partnership Paradigm.
The Biblical model of different and yet complementary roles
of men and women in the home and in the church may well be a
scandal to liberal and evangelical feminists bent on promoting
the egalitarian, partnership paradigm. Nonetheless, Christians
committed to the authority and wisdom of the Scriptures, cannot
ignore or reject a most fundamental Biblical principle. To
encourage the blurring or elimination of role distinctions God
assigned to men and women in the home and in the church means not
only to act contrary to His creational design, but also to
accelerate the breakdown of the family and church structure.
Donald G. Bloesch, a well-known evangelical theologian
inclined toward the ordination of women, acknowledges: "It cannot
be denied that the women's liberation movement, for all its solid
gains, has done much to blur the distinctions between the sexes
and that many women who have entered the ministry appear
committed to the eradication of these distinctions." 12 This
trend, as Bloesch observes, "is in no small way responsible for
accelerating divorce and the breakdown of the family." 13
Feminist ideologies are generally opposed to the sanctity of
the family and to the worthiness of the call to motherhood. The
reason is because such ideologies, as Michael Novak keenly
observes, "thrive best where individuals stand innocent of the
concrete demands of loyalty, responsibility, and common sense
into which family life densely thrusts them." 14
To realize freedom from the constraints of motherhood, many
evangelical feminists, like their liberal counterparts, denigrate
the role of women as homemaker and advocate abortion on demand.
Donald Bloesch warns that "The fact that some clergywomen today
in the mainline Protestant denominations are championing the
cause of lesbianism (and a few are even practicing a lesbian
life-style) should give the church pause in its rush to promote
women's liberation [and ordination]." 15
An indication of the promotion of lesbianism as a legitimate
"Christian life-style" is provided by the consultation on lesbian
theology at the 1986 joint annual meeting of the prestigious
American Academy of Religion and Society of Biblical Literature,
held in Atlanta, November 22-25. Several papers were presented
designed to articulate a theological rationale for the legitimacy
of a lesbian life-style. In view of this alarming trend, today
more than ever before, Christians are called to uphold the sexual
role distinctions divinely ordained for men and women to fulfill
in the home and in the church. The preservation of such
distinctions provides a most needed bastion of common sense and
an inoculation against all sort of nonsense ideologies which are
intent on perverting and destroying God's design for the
harmonious relations of men and women in the home and in the
church.
6. Practical Considerations
The first and fundamental reason for restricting the role of
elder/pastor to men is theological and not biological or
cultural. Our preceding discussion has shown that from a Biblical
perspective a woman cannot assume the representative role of
spiritual father/shepherd of a congregation because that is a
male and not a female role. The Scriptures give no right to blur
or eliminate male and female role distinctions in the home and in
the church. In addition, we believe that practical considerations
support the Biblical instructions. These we shall now consider,
though briefly, because they constitute secondary reasons. For a
fuller treatment of these the reader is referred to Rosalie
Haffner Lee's essay "Is Ordination Necessary to Women's
Ministry?", published in this book as chapter 9.
Marriage and Pastoral Vows.
Many of the women who seek ordination are married or
planning to marry a man in another profession. This situation may
invite tension in the church and discord in the home. In the home
a woman pastor may find it difficult, if not impossible, to honor
her marriage vows to serve her husband as wife and mother while
the church demands so much of her time and attention. In the
church, members may question the quality of pastoral care they
receive from a female pastor who first must honor her commitment
to nurture her own family.
In her book "Women and Church Leadership," Margaret Howe, a
supporter of women's ordination, shares some of the responses she
received from a questionnaire she sent out to a number of woman
pastors. One of the respondents who was contemplating marriage,
wrote: "I wonder how I can marry and maintain my current
60-64hour week at my career." 16 Another wrote: "We are ready to
start our family, and I have had some anxieties about the
congregation's reactions. It's really none of their business, but
that's easier to say than feel." 17 Still another, "There seem to
be more crucifixion than resurrection experiences. I don't know
if I can sustain this." 18
Being a wife, mother and pastor at the same time raises many
questions. How can she handle pregnancy and subsequent child care
over an extended period of time? Should the church look for a
substitute pastor while its female pastor is homebound? What
model of parenthood does a woman project when she leaves her
children in a daycare center in order to minister to her members?
Should not her first obligation be to minister to her immediate
family members? What if her husband is transferred to work in
another part of the country? Should she let her husband go on his
own? Would not this be a violation of her marriage vows to remain
with him as long as both shall live?
Role Reversals.
Another important consideration is the negative impact of
the headship role of a female pastor both in her own family and
on the families of the congregations. As Bishop Kirk points out,
if the headship of the man in the congregation is rejected, his
headship in the family will be gravely imperilled. 19 The
headship of a husband in his own family can hardly remain
unaffected if his own wife serves as the head of the congregation
to which he belongs. What impact will this role reversal have
also on the families of the congregations? Will not this tempt at
least some of the congregation to arrogate to themselves a
position of headship in the family similar to the headship over
her husband exercised in the church by their female pastor?
Even more crucial is the impact of the role modeling of a
female pastor especially upon the children of divided families
who have either no father or a non-Christian father. To these
children the pastor becomes a father figure and sometimes the
only positive male role model in their lives. A female pastor
would deprive these children of an appropriate father role model.
Single Woman Pastor.
The problem of role modeling for a woman pastor becomes even
more critical when she is young and single. Male elders who are
her seniors will have great difficulty to accept a single young
lady in her twenties as their spiritual father and shepherd of
the congregation. A male elder of a small Seventh-day Adventist
church of about ninety members, where a young lady just out of
seminary had been ordained as local elder, told me: "Our church
has become a women's club. The few male members of our church now
seldom attend because with a female elder preaching most of the
time, they feel out of place in church."
Women also may have difficulty accepting a young female
pastor as their spiritual shepherd. Two of the respondents to the
questionnaire Margaret Howe sent out to female pastors offer an
example: "One respondent reported that a woman in her
congregation 'said that it made her physically ill to see and
hear a woman in the pulpit'! Another commented, 'I also work with
youth, and I find that many of the mothers wanted a 'good-looking
male' minister for their kids." 20 Howe continues citing examples
of members who could not bring themselves to give to their female
pastor her correct title.
It must be most painful for a young female pastor to feel
unaccepted as pastor by some of the members of the congregation
she is endeavoring to minister to. If she lacks the support of a
family, she may find it hard, if not impossible, to bear such a
heavy burden in addition to her loneliness and vulnerability as a
young female. This explains the reason for the Biblical
instruction that an elder must be a mature man who manages well
his own household (1 Tim 3:4).
Ministry of Women Today.
The intent of the foregoing considerations is not to
restrict or deny women opportunities to minister within the
church, but rather to encourage respect for the different but
complementary roles God has called men and women to fulfill in
the home and in the church. God has given to women unique and
invaluable gifts and ministries which are essential to the
healthy growth of both the private family and the church family.
The church that restricts the role of women to cleaning and
cooking greatly impoverishes its own spiritual life by depriving
herself of the warmth and love that only women can give.
The question ought not to be: Is it legitimate to ordain
women to the ministry?, but rather: To which ministry is it
legitimate to appoint women? In the concluding chapter I shall
point out that there is an urgent need to open up new forms of
ministries to professionally trained women who are willing to
serve not only in the traditional roles of Bible Instructors,
choir directors, children's Sabbath School teachers, and
deaconesses, but also in new roles such as health educators,
pastoral counselors, instructors of new converts, and directors
of family services. Such ministries are urgently needed in view
of the growing number of broken homes, single parents, alienated
and abused children, elderly members and drug-addicted young
people.
The recognition of the Biblical validity and necessity of
the ministry of women must not obscure the equally important
Biblical truth of the role distinctions of men and women in the
home and in the church. Such distinctions calls for men serve as
heads of the family and for some of them as representive heads of
the extended family, the church.
The church must be structured in a way that supports the
structure of the family and the family must be structured in a
way that supports the pattern of church order. To appoint a woman
to serve as the representative spiritual father and shepherd of a
congregation would be analogous to assigning her the role of
fatherhood in a family. Both instances represent a violation of
God's design for the well-functioning of our homes and churches.
PART 2
THE PASTOR AS REPRESENTATIVE OF CHRIST
1. The Symbolic Role of the Pastor
Christ's Representative.
The pastor serves not only as representative of the
congregation, but also as Christ's representative to the
congregation. In the Old Testament the priests functioned as the
typological representatives of the redemptive ministry of Christ.
The book of Hebrews explains at great length the typological
correspondence between the ministry of the priests in the earthly
sanctuary and that of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 8,9,
10). By offering His own blood once, for ever and for all, Christ
fulfilled and terminated the typological sacrificial ministry of
Old Testament priests which pointed to His redemptive ministry
(Heb 9:11-14; 10:1-14). Yet there is still a ministry of
intercession and reconciliation which Christ, the heavenly High
Priest, continues to perform on behalf of believers (Heb 7:25).
The pastor, in a similar and yet different way from the Old
Testament priests, serves as Christ's representative to the
church.
.......................
To be continued
Note:
Dr. Sam here has given some very sound Biblical and logical points
on why it is men and not women who are to be ordained as
Pastor/Elders of the local churches of God.
As I have in detail proved in my studies on "church government"
women have all the freedom to teach the Gospel of Christ outside
of say a 2 hour church service once a week. And with the
instruction for them to teach younger women, teach and train
children, there is no need whatsoever to feel a woman cannot
serve the Gospel of God in a mighty big way. And I will state
again that Paul was NOT against women, as some believe and teach;
on the contrary, Paul acknowledged the work of women in the
Gospel ministry, even saying that some were his co-workers. All
of that and more is covered under my studies on church government.
Keith Hunt
11. Women's Role in the Church
The Role of Pastor #2
Continued from previous page:
The Protestant understanding of the representative role of
the pastor differs from the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox
view. According to the latter, the priest does not merely
represent, but actually "presents the priesthood of Jesus Christ
to the rest of the community" 21 by reenacting through the
eucharistic celebration the very sacrifice offered by Christ on
the Cross. According to the Protestant tradition, however, the
pastor does not present the priesthood and the sacrifice of
Christ to the congregation, but rather represents Christ by
serving symbolically as Christ's ambassador and shepherd to the
congregation.
We have shown earlier that the sacramental view of the
priest is devoid of Biblical support. The role of the leader of
the congregation (elder/overseer/pastor) is seen in the New
Testament as being not an impersonification of Christ's
priesthood and sacrifice, but a representation of Christ, the
true Father, Shepherd, and Head of the church.
Indications of Representative Role.
The representative role of the pastor is suggested, first of
all, by Christ's calling, training, and commissioning of the
twelve apostles to be His "witnesses" (Acts 1:8; Matt 28:18-20;
Mark 3:14). As Christ is "the apostle and high priest of our
confession" (Heb 3:1), that is, the one sent to represent the
Father, so pastors are sent (apostello) to represent the Father
and the Son to believers and unbelievers: "As thou didst send me
into the world, so I have sent them into the world" (John 17:18).
Paul underscores the representative commission given to
church leaders when he writes: "And he [God] has committed to us
the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's
ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We
implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God" (2 Cor
5:19-20, NIV).
There is no question in Paul's mind that he was Christ's
ambassador to believers and unbelievers. To the Galatians he
wrote: "You welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I
were Christ Jesus himself' (Gal 4:14).
Representative Shepherd.
While every believer is Christ's ambassador and belongs to
the "royal priesthood" (1 Pet 2:9; Ex 19:6; Deut 26:19), the
pastor fulfills in a special sense the role of Christ's
representative, as the under-shepherd of Christ's flock. Christ
describes Himself as "the good shepherd" and His mission as
gathering the sheep that are not of His fold, so that "there
shall be one flock, one shepherd" (John 10:11,14-16). To
accomplish this mission, Christ commissioned Peter (and in a
sense all those who function in the same role as church leaders)
to feed the lambs and the sheep (John 21:15-17). Christ's
commission to His disciples to be the under-shepherds of His
flock represents the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies
regarding the future appointment of faithful shepherds: "I will
set shepherds over them who will care for them, and they shall
fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall any be missing, says
the Lord" (Jer 23:4). "And I will give you shepherds after my
own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding"
(Jer 3:15; cf. Ezek 34:1-31).
The promise of true shepherds to come who would faithfully
tend God's flock (not as hirelings--John 10:13) is fulfilled
through the ministry of the apostles, elders, and overseers who
serve as shepherds of Christ's flock (Acts 20:17, 28). Peter
clearly describes the function of elders as shepherds of God's
flock, representing the chief Shepherd:
So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a
witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in
the glory that is to be revealed. Tend the flock of God that
is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for
shameful gain but eagerly, not as domineering over those in
your charge but being examples to the flock. And when the
chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading
crown of glory (1 Pet 5:1-4).
Heavenly Worship.
In the worship service the pastor acts as representative not
only of the congregation but also of Christ. As believers we hear
the word, we are baptized and participate in the Lord's Supper,
not in an abstract, impersonal way, but rather in a personal way
as the pastor ministers to us in Christ's name. The vision of the
heavenly worship in Revelation 4 and 5 reflects the inner reality
of the worship of the church. In that vision the central position
is occupied by the Father and the Lamb who are surrounded by
twentyfour elders, representing the twelve patriarchs of ancient
Israel and the twelve apostles of the new Israel. This imagery
implies that the pastor, as the leader of the worshiping
community on earth, fulfills a representative role similar to
that of the twenty-four elders in the heavenly worship.
The unique symbolic role a pastor is called to fulfill as
representative of the heavenly Father, Shepherd, High Priest, and
Head of the church cannot legitimately be fulfilled by a woman
pastor, because her Scriptural role is not that of a father,
shepherd, priest or head of the church. We have seen that these
functional roles are associated in the Scriptures with the
distinctive roles God has assigned men to fulfill. To appoint
women to serve as elders/pastors means not only to violate a
divine design, but also to adulterate the pastor's symbolic
representation of God.
Danger of Changing Symbols.
C. S. Lewis rightly warns that "We have no authority to take
the living and seminal figures which God has painted on the
canvas of our nature and shift them about as if they were mere
geometrical figures." 22 The sexual role distinctions, Lewis
notes, go beyond physical appearance. They serve "to symbolize
the hidden things of God." 23 Lewis warns that when we are in the
church, "we are dealing with male and female not merely as facts
of nature but as the live and awful shadows of realities utterly
beyond our control and largely beyond our direct knowledge" 24
What this means is that the male role of father in the home
and of the pastor as spiritual father in the household of faith
(1 Cor 4:15) points to a much greater reality, "largely beyond
our direct knowledge," namely, to that of the heavenly Father,
the original and ultimate "Father" of the home, the church, and
the human family. Paul clearly expresses this connection in
Ephesians 3:14-15: "For this reason I kneel before the Father,
from whom all fatherhood (patria) in heaven and on earth derives
its name"(NIV, margin). The text suggests that all earthly
fathers, whether biological fathers in the home or spiritual
fathers in the church, reflect the image of the heavenly
"Father," albeit in a human, creaturely way.
It is in no way derogatory to the female sex to affirm that
an elder/pastor exercises fatherhood and not motherhood for God's
family, because as E. L. Mascall observes, "his office is a
participation in God's own relationship to his people and God is
our Father in heaven and not our Mother." 25 The female sex has
its own distinctive dignity and function, but it can hardly
represent the Fatherhood of God to His people, a theme which is
dominant in both the Old and the New Testaments. The reason is
quite simple. The sexual and symbolic role of a woman is that of
mother and not of father. To change the nature of the symbol
means to distort the apprehension of the reality to which the
symbol points. To put it simply, a woman who stands for
motherhood cannot appropriately represent the Fatherhood of God
in the home or in the extended family of faith, the church. To
appreciate this point more fully, we need to consider the
implications of the male imagery of God for the symbolic role of
the pastor.
2. Male Imagery of the Godhead
Male Imagery.
It is an accepted fact that God has revealed Himself in the
Scriptures and through Jesus Christ predominantly in male terms
and imagery. Obviously God transcends human sexual distinctions,
yet He has chosen to reveal Himself predominantly and unmis-
takable through male terms and imagery.
God has revealed Himself as Father and not as Mother. He
sent His Son and not His Daughter. Jesus spoke of the Fatherhood
and not of the Motherhood of God. He appointed twelve men and not
twelve women to act as His representatives. We pray "Our Father"
and not "Our Mother" who art in heaven. Christ is the new Adam
and not the new Eve. He is the Bridegroom and not the Bride of the
Church.
To these can be added other Biblical expressions which
depict Christ as Lord (Acts 2:36; Phil 2:11), Head (Eph 5:23),
King (Luke 19:38), Lamb (Rev 5:12), Judge (Rev 19:11), Servant
(Luke 22:27), all of which are unmistakably masculine. The reason
why God has chosen this predominantly male imagery to reveal
Himself is presumably because, as discussed earlier, the male
role within the family and the church best represents the role
that God Himself sustains toward us. We found a fitting example
in Ephesians 3:14-15 where Paul indicates that all forms of human
fatherhood derive from and reflect the Fatherhood of God.
Resymbolizations of Godhead.
Both liberal and evangelical feminists have long recognized
the enormous significance of the correlation between the male
imagery of the Godhead and the male role of the pastor/elder in
the church, the latter being a reflection of the former. To them
this correlation rightly constitutes a formidable stumbling block
to the ordination of women. Consequently, with unshaken
determination they are clamoring for a resymbolization of the
Godhead, based on impersonal or feminine categories. This is seen
as the first indispensable step to clear the path for a female
priesthood.
To bring about a resymbolization of the Godhead, feminist
theologians are employing several methods. Some are proposing
dropping the personal terms for God, adopting instead nonpersonal
or suprapersonal ones, such as "Fire, Light, Almighty, Divine
Providence, Heavenly Parent, Cosmic Benefactor, Source of
Sustenance." Others advocate using terms denoting actions, such
as "Savior, Creator, Comforter." Others recommend addressing God
as "Mother" or "Father-Mother," and Christ as "Daughter" or
"SonDaughter." 26
A growing number of feminists are urging that Christ be no
longer thought of as "Son of the Father, but rather as "Child of
God." 27
Moreover, as noted by Donald Bloesch, "They object to
calling Christ 'Lord' and 'Master,' since these terms reflect a
patriarchal vision. They offer instead the alternatives
'Companion' and 'Friend,' which denote a relationship of mutual
fellowship and equality rather than superordination arid
subordination." 28
Depersonalization of God.
The results of the resymbolizations of God are,
unintentionally perhaps, leading in two directions. On
the one hand, God is reduced to an impersonal abstraction,
light-years removed in transcendence. On the other hand, God is
made into an androgynous Being with male-female characteristics:
God/Goddess, Creator/Creatrix, Father/Mother. The latter augurs a
return to fertility worship. The ultimate results of such efforts
is not merely switching labels on the same product, but rather
introducing new labels for an entirely different product.
Feminists who advocate changing the personal names of God
from Father, King, and Lord, to impersonal abstractions as "Womb
of Being," "Immanent Mother," "Life Force," "Divine Generatrix,"
or "Ground of Being," are ending up with a God who is a far cry
from the Biblical, personal God. To characterize God with
nonpersonal, abstract terms means not only to deny the personal
aspect of the three members of the Trinity, (the three members of
the "trinity" is a false doctrine that Dr.Sam help being as it is
a SDA teaching - Keith Hunt) but also to destroy the basis for a
meaningful, personal relationship between God and human beings.
Martin Buber points out that:
The great achievement of Israel is not to have taught the
one true God, who is the only God, the source and end of all
that is; it is to have shown that it was possible in reality
to speak to Him, to say, "Thou" to Him, to stand upright
before His face.... It was Israel who first understood
and--much more--lived life as a dialogue between man and
God. 29
Ultimately, the tendency of feminist theologians to reduce
God to impersonal abstractions leads to a depersonalized image of
God to whom it is impossible to pray personally. As Deborah
Belonic states it, "To exchange a personal God for imagery of
qualities of God leads to inadequate conceptions of God and
depersonalization of both God and humanity." 30 In a discouraging
report of the Evangelical Women's Caucus which met in Saratoga
Springs, New York (June 1980), Deborah Barackman complains about
the cavalier way the revealed names of God were treated in the
desire to eliminate gender-specific language. There seemed little
awareness that excision of titles such as "Father," "Son," and
"King" does violence to his personal, Trinitarian, authoritative,
and majestic nature. Though God "is spirit and not a man," to
shift gender titles also confuses the relationships in such
overarching scriptural metaphors as Israel as God's wife. 31
Feminization of God.
Equally dangerous is the effort of some feminist theologians
to make God into a female deity or to exalt Mary to a creative
and redemptive role. Elizabeth Stanton, an early feminist (1895),
argues that "the first step in the elevation of woman to her true
position is ... the recognition by the rising generation of an
ideal Heavenly Mother, to whom their prayers should be addressed,
as well as to a Father." 32 To achieve this objective Durwood
Foster believe that Christians can receive much help from Eastern
thought, specifically "from the mood and intuition of Sri
Aurobindo Ghose in his meditation on God as the Mother." He
continues saying, "It is still an open question as to whether the
figure of Mary may not have a more exalted role in the Christian
vision--not only as co-redemptivx but also as cocreatrix." 33
This unbiblical and heretical exaltation of Mary as
co-redeemer and co-creator is developed more fully by Mary Daly
in her book "Beyond God the Father." She views Mary's virginity
as the symbol of woman's completeness and autonomy from man and
favors Mary over Jesus as the redemptive symbol for women. 34 The
desire to promote the sexual equality of women and their
ordination to the priesthood leads Mary Daly to deny the deity of
Christ and to offer a female counterpart in the person of Mary,
both of which are heresy. Susan Foh correctly observes that
authors such as Mary Daly (Stanton, Foster, Reuther, Soelle)
"began with the presupposition that the Bible is an important but
not the final authority and that women must be made equal to men
in every respect, no matter what." 35
An Androgynous God?
Equally alarming is the effort to make God into an
androgynous Being, consisting of a male and a female counterpart
or half male and half female (Father-Mother). This view is
totally foreign to the revelation that God has given of Himself
in Scripture. Elaine Pagel correctly points out that: "Unlike
many of his contemporaries among the deities of the ancient Near
East, the God of Israel shares his power with no female divinity,
nor is he the divine Husband or Lover of any. He scarcely can be
characterized in any but masculine epithets: King, Lord, Master,
Judge, and Father. 36
Biblical faith envisions God not as the Mother Goddess of
mythological religion or the Earth Mother of animistic cults but
as the Sovereign Lord and Almighty Father who admits of no female
counterpart. "The Judeo-Christian tradition," writes James R.
Edwards, "knows nothing of an androgynous Godhead; that is, God
does not need a female counterpart to complete his identity. When
a female counterpart is present, fertility worship, or
neo-Baalism, lurks beneath" 37
3. God as Father and Son
God the Father.
In Scripture God is presented not only in male imagery, but
also female. In a few Biblical passages, for example, God is
pictured in maternal terms. 38 Perhaps the most moving passage
of all is found in Isaiah 49:15: "Can a woman forget her sucking
child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb?
Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you" (cf. Matt
23:37). The fact that in Scripture "God is like a father who
pities his children (Ps 103:13) and a mother who cannot forget
her sucking child (Is 49:15)" 39 has led some to conclude that
God can be appropriately addressed as Father and/or Mother. 40
Paul Jewett is right in emphasizing that both paternal and
maternal references to God are analogical in character, but is
wrong in concluding that "both analogies are equally revelatory"
of the inner being of God. 41 There is a difference between God's
saying, "I am a father to Israel" (Jer 31:9) or Christ's saying,
"call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who
is in heaven" (Matt 23:9) and God's saying, "I will cry out like
a woman in travail" (Is 42:14) or "Can a woman forget her sucking
child? ... yet I will not forget you" (Is 49:15). The first set
of statements describes the person of God (God is our Father)
while the second set of statements makes a comparison based on an
action of God (God is like a crying or compassionate woman). The
former identifies the person of God, the latter compares an
action of God to an action performed by mothers.
God is the Father.
The term "Father" is used in Scripture not only in a
"figurative" sense to describe what God is like, but also in a
"literal" sense to describe what God really is. As Hendrikus
Berkhof points out, "God is not 'as it were' a Father; he is the
Father from whom all fatherhood on earth is derived." 42
Similarly Karl Barth observes:
No human father, but God alone, is properly, truly and
primarily Father. No human father is the creator of his
child, the controller of its destiny, or its savior from
sin, guilt and death. No human father is by his word the
source of its temporal and eternal life. In this proper,
true and primary sense God--and He alone--is Father. 43
The self-revelation of God as Father stands out especially
in the teaching of Jesus. Joachim Jeremias, in his massive study
of the Aramaic "Abba" ("Father") used consistently by Christ,
shows that there is no evidence in the extensive Jewish
literature of the term "Father" being used by itself by an
individual to address God 44 In startling contrast to the
prevailing custom of avoiding whenever possible the name of God
out of reverence, Jesus not only called God "Father" but "Abba"
(Mark 14:36), an Aramaic diminutive equivalent to our "daddy."
Such a familiarity with the Almighty and Holy One was
sacrilegious for the Jews. "Jesus, however, not only addressed
God with the warmth and security of a child addressing its
father, but he taught his disciples to do the same (Gal 4:6)." 45
Implications of God's Fatherhood.
Why has God revealed Himself, especially through Jesus
Christ, as our Father and not as our Mother? Some feminist
theologians believe that the answer is to be found in the
patriarchal culture of the time where the father was the head and
ruler of the household. God would have adopted this culturally
accepted analogy to reveal Himself. Since we no longer subscribe
to such a patriarchal social structure and world-view, the
analogy of God as "Mother," they claim would be equally
appropriate today.
This reasoning is not correct because although God has used
the patriarchal imagery of a Father to reveal Himself, He
transcends this imagery radically. As Karl Barth aptly puts it,
"when Scripture calls God our Father, it adopts an analogy only
to transcend it at once." 46 Jesus' revelation of God as "Abba"
was not only counter-cultural, but also determinative for His
self-understanding as the Son of God and for the self-
understanding of His followers as sons and daughters of God.
God has used the language of fatherhood to reveal Himself because
such language contains an abiding truth about Himself which
cannot lightly be dismissed. Fatherhood preserves the Biblical
principle of headship and subordination. As our Father, God is
the creator and controller of our lives and we are His
subordinate children (James 1:17-18). If God were our Mother we
would think of Her not as our Creator but as our Generatrix, that
is, not as the one who created us out of nothing (ex nihilo), but
as the one who generated us out of Herself. This shows, as
Kallistos Ware states it, that "if we were to substitute a Mother
Goddess for God the Father, we would not simply be altering a
piece of incidental imagery, but we would be replacing
Christianity with a new kind of religion." 47
It is important to remember that the symbol of the
Fatherhood of God was not created by the prophets or apostles out
of their patriarchal culture, but was revealed and given to us by
God Himself. "God as Father is God's own witness to himself, not
a mere human witness to God" 48
Headship Role.
To appreciate the implication of the Fatherhood of God, it
is important to note the difference between fatherhood
and motherhood. In Scripture both are similar in terms of
compassion for his/her child (Is 49:15; Ps 103:13). The only
difference is to be seen, as Susan Foh points out, in "their
relationship to one another. The father is the head of the
household; consequently, his wife must submit herself to him and
reverence him (Eph 5:22-24,33). It is the husband's headship and
the wife's submission that makes it necessary to address God as
Father, not Mother." 49
The same principle applies, as we have shown, to the
headship role that a pastor/elder fulfills in the extended family
of God, the church. If one erases the Biblical distinction
between the roles men and women are called to fulfill in the home
and in the church, as many feminist theologians are seeking to
do, then there is no longer any reason for maintaining the
Fatherhood of God.
Feminists have well understood the connection between the
Fatherhood of God and the male headship role in the home and in
the church. Consequently, it is not surprising that some of them
are endeavoring to remove the Fatherhood of God, calling it a
cultural vestige of a patriarchal age. To do so, however, means
to reject not only the revelation which God has given of Himself,
but also His creational design for harmonious human relation-
ships.
God the Son.
Why did God become a man rather than a woman? As in
the case of the Fatherhood of God, some feminists seek to account
for the maleness of Christ primarily on the basis of culturally
conditioned reasons. Scanzoni and Hardesty, for example, argue:
Given the setting of patriarchal Judaism, Jesus had to be male
... Jewish women were kept in subjection and sometimes even
seclusion. A female Messiah would have had little scriptural
knowledge (according to the Talmud, the Torah should rather be
burned than transmitted to a woman), and would not have been
allowed to teach publicly in the synagogue, or have been believed
if she had. And with her monthly "uncleanness" making her
ritually impure for a fourth of the time, a female Messiah would
have taken at least an extra year to complete God's mission. 50
Paul Jewett expresses concisely the same view: "the
incarnation in the form of male humanity, though historically and
culturally necessary, was not theologically necessary." 51 Is
this true? Was Christ's incarnation as a man determined primarily
by cultural necessities? Would a female Christ have equally
fulfilled the role of the second Adam, the head of the redeemed
humanity (Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22,45)? Would a female Christ have
equally fulfilled such male messianic typologies as a prophet
like Moses (Dent 18:15,18), a King like David (2 Sam 7:12,16), an
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace (Is 9:6), a suffering servant
(Is 53), and a heavenly Son of Man (Dan 7:1314)? It is hard to
see how a female Christ could have fulfilled these male messianic
typologies and become the new Adam, head of the Redeemed
humanity.
Reasons for the Maleness of Christ.
The typological correspondence between Adam and Christ can
help us understand a major theological reason for the maleness of
the incarnate Christ. Both Adam and Christ stand in Scripture as
representative of fallen and redeemed humanity respectively: "For
as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners, so by one
mans obedience many will be made righteous" (Rom 5:19). "Just as
we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear
the image of the man of heaven" (1 Cor 15:49).
The reason why Adam rather than Eve functions as the head
and representative of the human race is not because of any moral
or spiritual superiority, but simply because, as we have seen,
God by creating man first established him as the head of humanity
(1 Tim 2:13; 1 Cor 11:8).
The reason why God chose the man and not the woman to
function as the head of humanity, of the home, and of the church,
is not given in the Scriptures. We have argued repeatedly that it
is not a question of superiority or inferiority but of com-
lementary functional roles men and women have been equipped by
God to fulfill. Man was created to serve as father and head of
the family and woman was created to serve as mother and nurturer
of the family. Being made a representative of humanity, Adam
became "a type (typos) of the one who was to come" (Rom 5:14).
Since God has assigned this representative, headship role to the
male, Christ had to become incarnate as a man to be able to
function as the representative and the head of the church (Eph
5:23). The male headship of Christ in the church becomes in turn
the model for the headship of the husband in the home and the
headship of male pastor/elder in the church.
In a sense the incarnation of God as a man reveals the
importance that God attaches to the creational role distinctions
assigned to men and women. It is only by blurring or eliminating
such distinctions that one can deny the necessity of the
fatherhood of God and of the maleness of Christ. Susan Foh
expresses the same conviction very clearly:
Those who deny the theological necessity of God incarnate as
a man also reject those passages which teach any differences
between men and women as culturally determined. As in the
case of the fatherhood of God, these theologians first
eliminate the distinctions Scripture makes between men and
women; then they say there is no ultimate reason Christ came
to earth as a male. If one believes, "I permit no woman to
teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent"
and its theological justification, "For Adam was formed
first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman
was deceived and became a transgressor" (1 Tim 2:12-14), to
be true, then there is one obvious reason why Christ could
not have been a woman. 52
In the light of the foregoing considerations we conclude
that while God's mode of personal existence transcends male and
female categories, through Jesus Christ He has revealed Himself
supremely as Father, and He chose to incarnate Himself as a man.
The male category used by God to reveal Himself as Father and as
a male person through the incarnation of His Son, has great
significance because it expresses the role that He sustains
toward His creatures: Creator, Sustainer, and Savior. This role
is the foundational analogy which serves as a model for the role
men are called to fulfill as fathers in the home and as
pastors/elders in the household of God: "For this reason I kneel
before the Father, from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on
earth derives its name" (Eph 3:14-15; NIV, margin).
CONCLUSION
This chapter has shown that the New Testament envisions the
church as an extended family of believers in which the
elder/pastor serves in dual representative roles: on the one hand
as representative of the church members to God and on the other
hand as God's representative to the church members.
Women cannot legitimately serve in such dual representative
roles, not because they are any less capable than men of piety,
zeal, learning, leadership or other aptitudes required to serve
as a pastor, but simply because such roles are perceived in
Scripture as being those of a spiritual father and not of a
spiritual mother. To blur or eliminate the role distinctions God
assigned to men and women in the home and in the church, means
not only to act contrary to His creational design, but also to
accelerate the breakdown of the family and church structure.
The pastor fulfills a unique symbolic role in the church as
representative of the heavenly Father, Shepherd, High Priest, and
Head of the church. A woman pastor cannot appropriately fulfill
such a symbolic role because her Scriptural role is not that of a
father, shepherd, priest or head of the church. Thus, to ordain
women to serve as pastors/elders means not only to violate a
divine design, but also to adulterate the pastor's symbolic
representation of God.
The efforts of liberal and evangelical feminists to clear
the path for a female priesthood by revising the language of God
through the introduction of impersonal or feminine names for God
is a most dangerous trend which, if allowed to prevail, will
result in a new religion widely at variance with the Christian
faith.
God has revealed Himself supremely as Father through His
Son, Jesus Christ, who became a man and not a woman. We have seen
that God's choice of these male categories to reveal Himself is
most important. It tells us something about the role which He
sustains toward us His children, namely, the role of an almighty,
just, compassionate and caring Father. This role of the Heavenly
Father functions as the foundational model for all forms of human
fatherhood (Eph 3:14-15), whether it be that of the husband in
the home or of the pastor in the church.
Christian fulfillment in the home and in the church is to be
found not by blurring, eliminating or reversing gender roles, but
by willingly respecting the distinctive roles assigned by the
Creator to men and women. Elizabeth Elliot's fitting expression
of this conviction will serve as an apt conclusion of this
chapter:
Supreme authority in both the Church and the home has been
divinely vested in the male as the representative of Christ,
who is the Head of the Church. It is in willing and glad
submission rather than grudging capitulation that the woman
in the Church (whether married or single) and the wife in
the home find their fulfillment. 53
......
NOTES ON CHAPTER VII
1. Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty, All We're Meant to Be
(Waco, Texas, 1975), p.177.
2. The Order of Priesthood. Nine Commentaries on the Vatican
Decree Inter Insignores (Huntington, Indiana, 1978), p.12.
3. Pirqe Aboth 3,7.
4. This view is expressed by Hermann W. Beyer, "Episcopos,"
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel
(Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1974), vol. 2, pp.616-617; see also
Raymond Brown, Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections (New York,
1970), pp.77-78.
5. George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand
Rapids, Michigan, 1974), p.533.
6. Joachim Jeremias, "Poimen," Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, ed. Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1973),
vol. 6, p.498.
7. Jerome D. Quinn, "Ordination in the Pastoral Epistles,"
Communio 8 (Winter 1981): 368.
8. B. W. Powers, "Patterns of New Testament Ministry--1. Elders,"
The Churchman 87, 3 (Autumn 1973): 175; see also Ed Glasscock,
"'The Husband of One Wife' Requirements," Bibliotheca Sacra 140
(July-September 1983): 250.
9. See James B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective
(Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1981), p. 229; Susan T. Foh, Women and
the Word of God (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 1979), p.128.
10. David P. Scaer, "C. S. Lewis on Women Priests," Concordia
Theological Quarterly 44, 1 (January 1980): 58.
11. Rosemary Reuther, "The Other Side of Marriage," A. D.
Magazine 8, 6 (June 1979): 8-9.
12. Donald G. Bloesch, Is the Bible Sexist? (Westchester,
Illinois, 1982), p.56
13. Ibid.
14. Michael Novak, "Man and Woman He Made Them," Communio 8
(Spring 1981) 248.
15. Donald G. Bloesch (n. 12), p.56.
16. E. Margaret Howe, Women and Church Leadership (Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 1982), p.205.
17. Ibid. 18. Ibid. 19. Bishop Kirk, Beauty and Bands (London,
1955), pp.179,186.
20. E. Margaret Howe (n. 16), p.201.
21. Deborah Belonick, "The Spirit of the Female Priesthood," in
Women and the Priesthood, ed. Thomas Hopko (New York, 1983), p.
166. The author emphasizes that to be ordained a priest "means,
by the mystery of the Spirit, to bear the presence of, not to
represent, the priesthood of Jesus Christ at the altar and in all
the sacraments of the Church" (Ibid.).
22. C. S. Lewis, "Priestesses in the Church," in God in the Dock,
ed. Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1970), p.238.
23. Ibid.
24. Cited in W. Andrew Hoffecker and John Timmerman, "Watchmen in
the City: C. S. Lewis's View of Male and Female," The Cresset 41,
4 (February, 1978): 18.
25. E. L. Mascall, "Women and the Priesthood of the Church," in
Why Not? Priesthood and the Ministry of Women, eds. Michael Bruce
and G. E. Duffield (Appleford, England, 1972), pp.111-112.
26. For a discussion of the resymbolization of the Godhead, see,
Mary Daly, Beyond God the Father: Toward the Philosophy of
Women's Liberation (Boston, 1973), pp.69-70; Ruth Tiffany
Bamhouse, "An Examination of the Ordination of Women to the
Priesthood in Terms of the Symbolism of the Eucharist," in Women
and Orders, ed. Robert J. Heyer (New York, 1974), pp.20-25 Alla
BozartCampbell, Womanpriest : A Personal Odyssey (New York,
1978), pp. 214 ff.; Rosemary Radford Reuther, New Woman/New
Earth: Sexist Ideologies and Human Liberation (New York, 1975),
p.65; Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty (n. 1), p.21. The United
Church of Christ has published a booklet recommending the
adoption of alternative impersonal names for God, instead of the
traditional trinitarian language. See Inclusive Language
Guidelines for Use and Study in the United Church of Christ (St.
Louis, 1980). For an incisive critique of feminist attempts to
revise the language about God, see Erik Routley, "Sexist
Language: A View from a Distance," Worship 53 (January 1979):
2-11; Donald G. Bloesch (n. 12), pp.61-83; also, Carol P. Christ,
"The New Feminist Theology: A Review of the Literature,"
Religious Studies Review 3 (October 1977): 203ff. 212
27. A task-force report to the National Council of Churches
recommends that Christ be called not "Son of God" but "Child of
God." The same report urges avoiding the use of personal pronouns
when referring to God. See Newsweek 95, 25 (June 23, 1980): 87;
The Christian Century 97, 23 (July 2-9, 1980) 696.
28. Donald G. Bloesch (n. 12), p.62.
29. Cited in Vladimir Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God
(Crestwood, New York, 1974), p.129.
30. Deborah Belonick (n. 21), p.156.
31. Deborah H. Barackman, "Evangelical Women's Caucus:
Joumeyings, Eternity 31,11 (December 1980): 35.
32. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, The Original Feminist Attack on the
Bible (the Woman's Bible) (New York, 1974), part 1, p.14.
33. A. Durwood Foster, "God and Women: Some Theses on Theology,
Ethics, and Women's Lib," Religion in Life 42, (1973): 56.
34. Mary Daly (n. 26), pp.69.
35. Susan T. Foh (n. 9), p.149.
36. Elaine H. Pagel, "What Became of God the Mother?" in Carol P.
Christ and Judith Plaskow, eds., Womanspirit Rising (San
Francisco, 1979), p.107.
37. James R. Edwards, "Does God Really Want to be Called
'Father'?" Christianity Today (February 21, 1986): 29.
38. See Deut 32:18; Is 42:14; 46:3; 49:15; 66:11-13; Ps. 131:2;
Luke 15:810; Matt 23:37.
39. Paul K. Jewett, The Ordination of Women (Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 1980), p.41.
40. Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty (n. 1), p. 20; Virginia
Mollenkott, "A Challenge to Male Interpretation: Women and the
Bible," The Sojourners 5, 2 (February 1976): 23-25; Paul K.
Jewett (n. 39), p. 41; also Paul K. Jewett, Man as Male and
Female (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1975), p.167.
41. Paul K. Jewett (n. 39), p.41.
42. Hendrikus Berkhof, Christian Faith, tr. Sierd Woudstra (Grand
Rapids, Michigan, 1979), p.69.
43. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics: Index Volume with Aids for
Preachers, eds. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance (Edinburgh,
1977), p.495.
44. See discussion in Gottlob Schrenk, "eater," Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Friedrich (Grand
Rapids, Michigan, 1967), vol. 5, p.985.
45. James R. Edwards (n. 37), p.29.
46. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics I, 1 (Edinburgh, 1963), p.447.
47. Kallistos Ware, "Man, Woman, and the Priesthood of Christ,"
in Peter Moore, ed., Man, Woman, and Priesthood (London, 1978),
p.84. 1975), p.168.
48. Donald G. Bloesch (n. 12), p.77.
49. Susan T. Foh (n. 9), p.153.
50. Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty (n. 1), pp.55-56.
51. Paul K Jewett, Man as Male and Female (Grand Rapids,
Michigan).
52. Susan T. Foh (n. 9), pp.158-159.
53. Elisabeth Elliot, "Why I Oppose the Ordination of Women,"
Christianity Today 19 (June 6, 1975): 14.
............................
To be continued
12. Women's Role in the Church
Retrospect and Prospect
by the late Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi
CHAPTER VIII
The preceding chapters have surveyed the religious role of women
in the Old and New Testaments. We shall now review some of the
major conclusions reached and then consider their implications
for the role of women in the church today. Thus, the chapter
divides into two parts: retrospect and prospect.
PART I
RETROSPECT
The underlying assumption of much of the literature surveyed
seems to be that the only way a woman can realistically minister
within the church is by being officially ordained as elder or
pastor. This mistaken, unbiblical assumption must be regarded as
the bitter fruit of the medieval clericalization of the church,
which has traditionally limited the ministry within the church
almost exclusively to ordained priests.
To correct this reprehensible situation, it is necessary to
recover the Biblical vision of the church as the "body of
Christ," consisting of different members, each fulfilling
different but essential ministries!: (1 Cor 12:12-31; Eph
4:11-16). Our investigation has shown that while Scripture
precludes the ordination of women to serve as priests in the Old
Testament and as elders/pastors in the New Testament, it does
provide ample support for their participation in the prophetic.
liturgical, and social ministries of the church.
1. The Ministry of Women
Old Testament.
We observed in chapter 1 that women played a vital
role in the private and public religious life of ancient Israel.
As full members of the covenant community, women participated in
the study and teaching of the law to their children, in offering
prayers and vows to God, in ministering at the entrance of the
sanctuary, in singing, and in the prophetic ministry of
exhortation and guidance. The roles of Miriam, Deborah, and
Huldah exemplify the important ministry that women fulfilled
within the religious life of ancient Israel.
The religious roles of women, however, were different from
those of men, since women were excluded from the priesthood. The
reason for this exclusion was not, as is widely held, their
frequent ritual impurity caused by their monthly menstrual flow.
We have seen that the emission of semen defiled men with more
frequency and with less predictability than the menstrual flow in
women.
Instead, the reason is to be found in the recognition of the
headship role which man, as the "first-born" of the human family,
was appointed by God to fulfill in the home and in public
worship. This principle is implied in the creation story of
Genesis 2 and is upheld in both the Old and New Testaments.
New Testament
We noted in chapter 2 that the apostolic church
stands in marked contrast to the restrictions imposed on women by
Jewish culture. Contrary to prevailing prejudices against them,
Jesus admitted women into His fellowship and taught them the
truths of God's kingdom. On their part, women responded
positively to Christ. A group of them ministered to Christ's
physical needs, and followed Him during much of His travels even
to the very place of His crucifixion. Their devotion to Christ
was rewarded by the risen Lord who first appeared to them and
commissioned them to break the news of His resurrection to the
disciples.
In spite of His revolutionary treatment of women, Jesus did
not choose women as apostles nor did He commission them to preach
the gospel. We have shown that the reason for this omission was
not a concession on the part of Christ to the social conventions
of His time, but rather compliance with the role distinctions for
men and women established at creation.
(Well though overall true, today with the Internet women can have
the freedom to teach and preach the Gospel of Christ, and such a
tool is NOT in any way being ordained as functioning as one of
the leaders of a local or grouping congregational churches -
Keith Hunt)
The apostolic church followed the pattern established by
Christ by including women as integral members in the life and
expanding mission of the church. Women served with distinction
within the church by organizing charitable service for the needy,
by sharing their faith with others, by working as
"fellow-workers" alongside the apostles and by sharing in the
prophetic ministry of edification, encouragement and consolation.
In spite of the various vital ministries women performed in the
church, there are no indications in the New Testament that they
were ever ordained to serve as elders/overseers/pastors.
2. The Ordination of Women
Why were women able to participate equally with men in
various religious ministries and yet were excluded from the
appointive roles of priests in the Old Testament and of
elders/bishops/pastors in the New Testament? Our investigation
has shown that the reasons were not sociocultural but rather
theological. For the sake of clarity we shall briefly summarize
seven major reasons that have emerged in the course of our study
for the exclusion of women from the priesthood or pastoral
office.
Order of Creation.
A first and fundamental reason is suggested by the order and
manner of the creation of Adam and Eve which in Scripture are
seen as typifying the distinctive, but complementary roles God
assigned to men and women. We observed in chapter 3 that though
man and woman are equally created in the image of God (Gen 1:27),
they are sexually different: male and female. The equality and
difference is clarified in Genesis 2 in terms of sameness and
subordination. Man and woman are essentially the same because
they share the same human flesh and complement one another. Yet
woman is functionally subordinated to man as indicated by the
typological significance of the priority of Adam's formation, the
woman's creation from and for man, the bearing by man of the name
of mankind, and the naming by man of the animals and of the woman
herself.
The headship role of man in the creation account of Genesis
2 is in no way intended to support a chauvinistic view of male
superiority. Its intent is rather to explain that there is a
basic difference between male and female which derives from the
very order of creation. This difference is not merely sexual, but
extends to the differing, though complementary, roles men and
women are called to fulfill in the family and in the church. Thus
the difference is functional, not ontological; that is, it is a
matter of different roles and not of inferiority or superiority.
We have seen that Paul attaches fundamental importance to the
order and manner of the creation of Adam and Eve to defend the
functional submission of woman to the leadership of man both in
the home and in the church (1 Tim 2:13; 1 Cor 11:8-9). He bases
his instructions concerning the role of women in the church, not
on the consequences of the Fall described in Genesis 3, but on
the pre-Fall order of creation presented in Genesis 1 and 2.
Order of Redemption.
A second reason for viewing the ordination of women as
unbiblical is the implications of the order of redemption
examined in chapter 4. We observed that Christ's coming has
greatly affected the social relationship of men and women, but
has not changed or eliminated role differences between them.
Jesus' teachings and attitude toward women brought about a
significant change in their social status. This change made it
possible for women to be treated with the same "brotherly love"
as men and to participate actively in the life and mission of the
church. There is no indication, however, that Jesus' elevation of
the human dignity and worth of women was ever intended to pave
the way for their ordination as pastors of the flock. Christ's
exclusive choice of men as apostles indicates His respect for the
role differences between men and women established at creation.
Like Christ, Paul was revolutionary in proclaiming the oneness
and equality in Christ of all believers (Gal 3:28; Col 3:9-11; 1
Cor 12:1213). Yet, like Christ, Paul did not eliminate the role
distinctions of men and women established at creation. Our study
of Galatians 3:28 has shown that Paul envisions all believers as
being one in Christ in whom all racial, social and gender
distinctions no longer have any validity.
However, being one in Christ does not change a Jew into a
Gentile or a man into a woman; rather it changes the way each of
these relate to each other. Equality and oneness in Christ do not
imply role-interchangeability, but rather mutual respect and
support for the distinctive but complementary roles God has
assigned to men and women. These roles are not nullified but
clarified by Christ's redemption and thus they should be
reflected in the church. The order of redemption does not
nullify, but sanctify the order of creation.
Headship and Subordination.
A third reason for excluding women from serving as
elders/pastors is the principle of headship and subordination
which we examined in chapter 5. Ephesians 5:21-33
and 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 show that the principle of male
headship in the home and in the church derives, not from
illegitimate male efforts to dominate women, but from a
legitimate order established by God. We have reached this
conclusion first by ascertaining the meaning of "head," and then
by examining Paul's application of the principle of male headship
in marriage (Eph 5:21-33) and in the church (1 Cor 11:216).
We have seen that Paul uses the term "head" with the meaning of
"authority, head over" and not of "source, origin." In Ephesians
5:21-33 Paul affirms the headship of man in marriage by appealing
not to cultural customs, but to the Christological model of the
relationship between Christ and the church. By utilizing this
model, Paul effectively clarifies the meaning of the husband's
headship as loving and sacrificial leadership and the meaning of
the wife's submission as willing response to a caring husband.
For Paul, headship and subordination do not connote superiority
or inferiority, but order-in-service. The authority to which a
woman subordinates herself is not so much that of her husband as
that of the divine order to which both are subject.
In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Paul grounds the headship of man
and the subordination of woman in the church on the creational
distinctions between men and women, distinctions which must be
respected within the church. These distinctions were being
challenged by emancipated Corinthian women who had concluded that
their new position in Christ (1 Cor 4:8-10) granted them freedom
to stop wearing a sign of submission to their husbands (head
covering), especially at times of prayer and charismatic
expression in the church service. Paul counteracts this trend by
emphasizing the importance of respecting a custom which in his
time helped to maintain the creational role distinctions.
The headship between man and woman is correlated by Paul in
1 Corinthians 11 to the headship between God and Christ: "The
head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband,
and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3). The latter refutes
the charge that submission means inferiority because in the
Trinity there is a headship among equals. Christ's submission to
the authority and headship of His Father did not stifle His
personality, but was the secret of His wisdom, power, and
success. Similarly, a woman who accepts the leadership of a
mature and caring man in the family or in the church will not
feel unfulfilled, but rather will find the needed protection and
support to exercise her God-given ministries.
The Role of Women in the Church.
A fourth reason why women should not be appointed to serve
as elders/pastors is the clear Pauline instruction on the matter
found in 1 Timothy 2:9-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36. Our
examination of these two passages in chapter 6 has shown that the
application of the headship-subordination principle in the church
requires that women not be appointed "to teach" (1 Tim 2:12) or
"to speak" (1 Cor 14:34) authoritatively as the leader of the
congregation. We have found that this Pauline instruction
derives, not from the cultural conventions of his time which
restricted the participation of women in public gathering, but
rather from Paul's understanding of the creational order of male
headship and female subordination.
For Paul this creational order requires that women not be
appointed to serve as representative shepherds of the flock. His
reasons are not the women's relative lack of education or their
disorderly conduct, but rather the need to respect the
distinctive roles for men and women established by God at
creation. The theological nature of Paul's arguments leaves no
room to make his instructions of only local and time-bound
application.
The exclusion of women from teaching or speaking as the
leader of the church in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians
14:33b-36 must not be construed to mean that Paul prohibited
women from actively participating in the public worship and
mission of the church. On the contrary, we have seen in chapter 2
that Paul commends a significant number of women for their
outstanding ministry in and for the church. For Paul (and for the
rest of Scripture) the question is not, Should women be appointed
to minister in the church?, but rather, To which ministry should
women be appointed?
The answer given by Paul and the rest of Scripture is: women
should be appointed to any and all ministries which do not
violate the creational role distinctions for men and women.
(Let me add once more: within the church setting of an official
church service, which is about and only 2 hours a week for most
churches; women outside a church service and as "pastor" have
open range to teach the Gospel of Christ, and my female co-
workers in the Lord like the late Jesse and Tara Chapman, have
and are doing just that - Keith Hunt)
The Symbolic Role of the Pastor.
A fifth reason why only some men and no women should be
ordained to serve as elders or pastors is the dual representative
role that a pastor fulfills in the church. We have shown in
chapter 7 that the New Testament envisions the church as an
extended family of believers in which the elder/pastor represents
both church members to God and God to church members.
Women cannot legitimately serve in such dual representative
roles, not because they are any less capable than men of piety,
zeal, learning, leadership or any other qualities needed to serve
as a pastor, but simply because such roles are perceived in
Scripture as being that of a spiritual father and not of a
spiritual mother.
We have seen in chapter 7 that a pastor fulfills a unique
symbolic role in the church as representative of the heavenly
Father, Shepherd, High Priest, and Head of the Church. A woman
pastor cannot appro priately fulfill such a symbolic role because
her Scriptural role is not that of a father, shepherd, priest or
head of the church. Thus, to ordain women to serve as
elders/pastors means not only to violate a divine design, but
also to adulterate the pastor's symbolic representation of God.
Male Imagery of God.
A sixth reason for viewing the ordination of women as
unbiblical and unwise is the predominant male imagery used in
Scripture to reveal God. Obviously, God transcends human
sexual distinctions, yet He has chosen to reveal Himself in
Scripture and through Jesus Christ in predominantly and
unmistakably male terms and imagery.
We have seen in chapter 7 that contrary to the prevailing
custom, which out of reverence avoided mentioning the name of
God, Jesus taught His disciples to address God not only "Father,"
but also "Abba," an Aramaic family term equivalent to our
"daddy." The reason why God revealed Himself, especially and
consistently through Jesus Christ, as our Father and not as our
Mother, is primarily because Fatherhood preserves the Biblical
principle of headship and subordination and thus best represents
the role that God Himself sustains toward us His children,
namely, the role of an almighty, just, and caring Father. This
role functions as the foundational model for all fonns of human
fatherhood (Eph 3:14-15), whether it be that of the husband in
the home or of the pastor in the church.
Feminist theologians have long recognized the enormous
significance of the connection between the Fatherhood of God and
the male headship role in the home and in the church. For them
this connection rightly represents a formidable stumbling block
to the ordination of women. Consequently, they have been actively
engaged in revising the language of God through the introduction
of impersonal or feminine names for God. However, to worship God
as "Fire, Light. Divine Providence," or as "Mother, Daughter,
Father-Mother, Son-Daughter," means not only to destroy the
personal relationship provided by the revelation of God as our
"Father," but also to fabricate a God who is totally different
from the One of Biblical revelation.
No Principle, Precept or Example.
A seventh reason for objecting to women's ordination is the
fact that Scripture, the church's guide, provides no general
principles, no specific precepts, and no examples that can
support such a practice. All the Biblical examples of ordination
involve males. Scripture's specific instructions, as we have seen
in chapter 7, unmistakably require that the overseer, elder, or
priest be not merely a person but a man (Greek: aner--1 Tim 3:2;
cf. Titus 1:6; Ex 29:8,9). And as noted in the course of our
investigation, the Bible's general principles preclude the
ordination of women to serve as elders or pastors. Thus, the
absence of biblical examples, precepts and principles for women's
ordination, should warn the church from venturing into this
uncharted terrain.
Those who favor women's ordination argue that women are just
as competent and capable as men in the ministry. Few will dispute
this assertion. But the issue, as we have seen, is not one of
abilities or training, but one of God's will as revealed in
Scripture. Sometimes a woman might fulfill certain "fatherly"
roles better than a particular man fulfills them, yet this does
not change the fact that God has called women to be mothers and
men to be fathers.
The real issue is not whether women are equally capable as
men, but whether God has called women to serve as pastors, that
is, as indicated by the meaning of the word, shepherds of a
spiritual flock. The answer of Scripture, according to our
investigation, is No, because the pastor's role is perceived in
the New Testament as being that of a spiritual father and not of
a spiritual mother. This does not mean that the church does not
need spiritual mothers. The contrary is true. As a home without a
mother lacks that tender, loving care that only mothers can give,
so a church without spiritual mothers lacks that warmth, care,
and compassion that spiritual mothers can best give. The
conclusion, then, is that men and women are equally called by God
to minister in the home and in the church, but in different and
yet complementary roles. We shall now consider some of the
ministries women are uniquely qualified to fulfill within the
church.
PART II
PROSPECT
1. Pastor's Headship Role
No Job Description.
How should the principles delineated in the course of this
study be applied to the concrete tasks men and women are to
perform in the church? In seeking to formulate an answer note
should be taken of the fact that the New Testament offers no
detailed listing of what constitutes appropriate "men's
work" or "women's work" within marriage or within the church.
Instead, we have found that the New Testament emphasizes the
importance of respecting the principle of male headship and
female subordination in the home and in the church. This
principle is derived from the order and manner of the creation of
man and woman which typify the distinctive and yet complementary
roles God has assigned to men and women.
We have noted that the New Testament defines the
headship/subordination principle in terms of the relationship
between Christ and the church. This model does not spell out the
specific tasks that headship and subordination entail. It only
suggests that male headship entails sacrificial, caring
leadership and female subordination willing response. The
specific tasks associated with each role in the home and in the
church will vary in different cultures. Consequently, we must be
wary of "canonizing" certain job descriptions as exclusively male
or female when Scripture does not do so. The most we can attempt
to do is to submit some general guidelines.
Exercise of Headship.
Before considering the supportive roles of women in the
church, brief attention should be given to what the headship role
of a pastor entails. We observed in chapter 5 that the biblical
understanding of headship is leadership for the sake of building
up others and not for self-advancement. Christ defines leadership
as willingness to serve others (Matt 20:27).
This model of leadership as servanthood has profound
implications for the role of a pastor. It means, for example,
that a pastor best exercises his leadership authority by
delegating authority and responsibilities to men and women
willing and competent to serve in any needed area.
Pastoral headship modelled after Christ will take into
account the abilities of those who are called with the pastor to
minister to the different physical, emotional, social, and
spiritual needs of the congregation. This means that if a pastor
is fortunate enough to have on his staff women--whether employed
by the church or on a voluntary basis--able and willing to serve
as health educators, Bible instructors, family counselors,
treasurers, and directors of the various departments of the
church (choir, Sabbath school, personal ministries, youth,
community services, deaconess work, church school boards), he
will foster their full and free use of their gifts. This should
be seen not as abdication of a pastor's responsibilities but an
effective fulfillment of his headship role in the church. In the
body of Christ, the head motivates and activates all the members
of the body (Eph 4:16).
2. Application of Women's Passages
Two Extremes.
There is considerable confusion about what women can and
cannot do in the church. The confusion is largely the result of
two extreme interpretations and applications of those biblical
passages which refer to the role of women in the church
(1 Cor 11:216; 14:33-36; 1 Tim 2:11-14). On the one hand, some
churches interpret these passages in the most restrictive way,
making them forbid more than what they actually do. The result
is, as Susan Foh brings out, that some denomination have no
female directors of Christian education or choir directors; and
some individuals maintain that women cannot teach in colleges or
hold any position, ecclesiastical or secular, where men obey
their orders. Most of these churches have not compared women's
silence in the church with singing in the choir; if it is brought
to their attention, they may forbid women to sing. 1
On the other hand, there are churches, as we have observed
in the course of our study, which explain away these same
passages as culturally conditioned and time-bound, thus
appointing women to serve in any capacity within the church,
including the office of priest, elder or pastor.
Balanced Application.
What is needed is a balanced understanding and application
of the relavant passages (1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:3336; 1 Tim 2:11-14),
in the context of the overall teaching of Scripture on the role
of women in the church. Our study has shown that the intent of
these passages is not to exclude women from active participation
in the public worship and mission of the church, but only from
the representative and authoritative role of leader
(elder/overseer/pastor) of the congregation. Paul derives this
restriction, not from the cultural conventions of his time, but
from the distinctive roles for men and women established by God
at creation. This restriction must not obscure the fact that Paul
commends a considerable number of women who "labored side by side
with [him] in the gospel" (Phil 4:3; cf. Rom 16:1-2-6,12).
As in the apostolic church, so today women are called to
serve within the church in many supportive roles which do not
violate the creational role distinction. These supportive roles
are vital to the healthy growth of the church and to the
successful fulfillment of its mission. The few examples we shall
now consider should be seen as illustrative rather than
exhaustive.
3. Women's Supportive Roles
Bible Instructors.
The primary mission of the church is to communicate the
Gospel in order to bring men and women into a saving relationship
with Jesus Christ (Mark 16:15-16). From the inception of
Christianity countless women through the centuries have shared in
the mission of the church by laboring side by side with pastors
"in the gospel" (Phil 4:3; cf. Rom 16:12). Like Priscilla, they
have expounded on a personal basis the truths of the Gospel to
earnest people (Acts 18:26). Only the records of heaven will one
day tell the whole story of what a contribution dedicated women
have made to the church through their gospel ministry.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church has been especially blessed
by women who have answered God's call by devoting their lives to
impart the knowledge of Scripture to groups, families and single
persons, both at home and overseas. These women were called
"Bible workers" until 1942 and since then "Bible Instructors." 2
Much of the credit for the outstanding contribution that female
Bible workers have made in the Adventist church goes to Ellen
White, a woman who over a period of seventy years of prophetic
ministry guided the growth, administration, and mission of the
church. Her vision for the ministry of women as Bible workers was
revolutionary. Repeatedly she challenged women to dedicate
themselves to the gospel ministry, by teaching the truths of
Scripture to women and in families where the visit of men could
give the appearance of evil. She writes, for example:
There are women who should labor in the gospel ministry. In
many respects they would do more goad than the ministers who
neglect to visit the flock of God.... In many respects a
woman can impart knowledge to her sisters that a man cannot.
The cause would suffer great loss without this kind of
labor.... 3
There are women who are especially adapted for the work of
giving Bible readings, and they are very successful in
presenting the Word of God in its simplicity to others....
Women also should be chosen who can present the truth in a
clear, intelligent, straightforward manners
Right to Be Paid.
Ellen White not only inspired women to serve as Bible
workers, but also championed their right to be paid out of
the tithe like ministers: "The tithe should go to those who labor
in word and doctrine, be they men or women.... This question is
not for men to settle. The Lord has settled it." 6
Apparently this question was not easily settled in the mind
of church administrators, since Ellen White renewed her plea
years later.7 When her plea was unheeded, as in the case of some
ministers' wives who received nothing for their full time service
as Bible workers, she made the following statement: "These women
give their whole time, and we are told that they receive nothing
for their labors because their husbands receive wages.... I will
feel it my duty to create a fund from my tithe money to pay these
women who are accomplishing just as essential work as the
ministers are doing." 8
The challenge, counsel and example given by Ellen White have
resulted in hundreds of women, who like Mary Walsh, Louise
Kleuser and Ellen Curran, making an outstanding contribution to
the growth of the church at home and abroad. None of these women,
including Ellen White herself, were ever ordained as pastors. In
fact, though Ellen White championed the right of women gospel
workers to be paid by the church, she never championed their
right to be ordained as pastors. 9
Urgent Need Today
In spite of the outstanding contribution that female Bible
Instructors have made to the growth of the Seventhday Adventist
church, their number has decreased in recent years. Currently,
they represent less than 10% of the ministerial personnel of most
conferences.10 Some of the causes for this decrease are examined
by Rosalie Lee in chapter 9. This trend should be of concern to
church administrators responsible for the hiring of ministerial
personnel, for three reasons. First, most pastors welcome a woman
assistant who can help them both in the visitation of church
members and in the preparation of new converts for baptism.
Second, with the increasing number of divorces, women can
minister better than men in homes with women as a single parent.
Third, the recent trend in church growth through
small-groups, workshops, and a seminar-type of evangelism,
requires professionally trained women more than ever before. They
can lead out in discussion groups, in developing ideas for
personal, spiritual growth and problem solving, and in training
lay persons on how to conduct a seminar or to share Bible truths
with others.
Women who serve in this capacity, such as Bible Instructors
or Associates of Pastoral Care in the Seventh-day Adventist
church, do not violate the male headship principle delineated
above, since they serve in a supportive role and not as the
representative head, the pastor of the church.
Counseling Ministry Another vital supportive ministry which
women can legitimately and effectively fulfill within the church
may be called "counseling ministry." The increasing numbers of
divorced women, unwed mothers, abused children, drug-addicted
teenagers, and emotionally distressed persons, are challenging
the church to offer a healing ministry through competent
counselors. In some cases a woman trained in counseling skills
can offer such counseling ministry. There are cases, however,
which require specialized help. In such instances, women who have
been professionally trained both theologically and
psychologically can offer an invaluable ministry to the hurting
people within and without the church.
Already in her time, before the added social problems caused
by the sexual and drug revolution of our generation, Ellen White
deeply felt the need for trained women counselors. She wrote: "I
have so longed for women who could be educated to help our
sisters rise from their discouragement and feel that they could
do a work for the Lord." 11
Women have been especially gifted by God with a greater
sensitivity to human pain. A hurting child will more readily call
for mother than for father. Blessed is the church that can count
upon the supportive counseling ministry of a competent and mature
spiritual mother who has ears to listen and a heart to feel the
hurt of its members, and who ministers to them the healing balm
of the grace of Christ.
Teaching Ministry One of the most important supportive ministries
in which women have served and are serving with distinction in
the Seventh-day Adventist church is the teaching ministry. This
ministry assumes many forms, from teaching cradle roll Sabbath
School classes in a small local church, to teaching graduate
classes at the university. All forms of Christian teaching,
whether done in Sabbath School classes or university classes,
should be seen as part of the ministry of the church to restore
the image of God in human beings.
Though women have served and are serving with distinction in
the various phases of the teaching ministry of the Adventist
Church, there is an urgent need today for some women to enter
into a specialized teaching ministry within the church. Such
widespread problems today as stress, marital tensions, chemical
dependency, eating disorders, and neglected children, require the
special teaching ministry of qualified women who can teach how to
live a healthy, happy and balanced life by God's grace. Since
only very few large churches can hire professionally trained
Christian health educators, marriage counselors, or dietitians,
in most cases churches must rely on the voluntary service of the
local talent.
It may not appear prestigious for a competent and mature
woman to visit and help a young mother who is having problems
training her children, or relating to her husband, or cooking
nutritious meals, or simply keeping her home in order. Yet this
teaching ministry by dedicated Christian women is not only
urgently needed, but is of as great a value in the sight of God
as the delivery of a sermon. Ellen White emphasizes the need for
this kind of ministry:
We greatly need consecrated women who, as messengers of
mercy, shall visit the mothers and the children in their
homes, and help them in the everyday household duties, if
need be, before beginning to talk to them regarding the
truth for this time. You will find that by this method you
will have souls as the result of your ministry. 12
4. Women in the Worship Service
Lord's Supper and Baptism.
The New Testament presents no detailed instructions
regarding the conduct of public worship. We observed that the
only information it provides is that women participated
in the worship assembly by praying and prophesying (1 Cor 11:4-5;
Acts 21:9), but were excluded from serving as the representative
head teachers and leaders of the congregation (1 Tim 2:11-14; 1
Cor 14:33-36). The headship function of the pastoral office
involves the shepherding of the flock through the proclamation of
the Word ("preach the word"--2 Tim 4:2; cf. 1 Tim 5:17) and the
administration of baptism and the Lord's Supper (Matt 28: 19-20;
Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24).
Most Christian churches have acted on the principle that the
proclamation of the Word and the administration of baptism and
the Lord's Supper belong together and consequently, as a general
rule, they should be performed only by an ordained elder or
pastor. 13 The Seventh-day Adventist Church has upheld the same
view. Referring to the elders of the apostolic church, Ellen
White writes: "Having received the commission from God and having
the approbation of the church, they went forth baptizing in the
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and administering the
ordinances of the Lord's house." 14
The Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual clearly establishes
that both baptism and "the communion services must always be
conducted by an ordained minister or by the elder himself. Only
ordained ministers or ordained elders holding office are
qualified to do this." 15 The reason for this policy, though not
stated in the Church Manual, is that the administration of
baptism and the Lord's Supper are seen as pertaining to the
distinctive functions of the elder/pastor's office.
(BAPTISM actually does not have to be done by an official Elder/Pastor; as seen from the baptism of Saul/Paul, being baptized by a man simply called a disciple - Acts 9. So much for the ideas of men. Someone already baptized and having the Spirit of God is qualified to baptize another human being. Philip was ordained as deacon - Acts 6 - not Elder or Pastor. He was used by God to baptize the Etheopian eunuch - Acts 8 - Keith Hunt)
Women and Church Ordinances.
Should a woman administer the ordinance of baptism and of
the Lord's Supper? Until recently the answer in the Seventh-day
Adventist church has been No, because women could not be ordained
as local elders or pastors. However, the situation has changed as
a result of the action taken in 1975 by the General Conference
Committee which allows local churches to ordain women as local
elders. This action, which authorised women ordained as local
elders to preside at the Lord's Supper celebration, has been
interpreted as supporting also the performance of baptism. In
actual fact only in a few instances have ordained women performed
baptisms.
About a year and a half after the first such baptisms
occurred, the North American Division Committee adopted a new
policy which specifically excludes baptizing and solemnizing
marriages from the category of "authorized ministerial functions"
for women in pastoral positions. 16 That same year (1985), the
General Conference Annual Council voted to counsel the North
American Division to await a process of study and review,
scheduled to culminate at the 1990 General Conference Session,
before introducing any significant changes in policies affecting
ministerial functions which relate to women. 17 This policy has
been respected by Seventh-day Adventist churches, with the
exception of one isolated case. 18
In the light of this investigation we must regretfully admit
that the 1975 General Conference action to allow for the
ordination of women as local elders--notwithstanding its
well-meaning intent--represents a clear violation of the Biblical
principle which permits the appointment to the eldership of a
church only to some men and to no women. We have found that this
principle is grounded not on cultural conventions but on the
creational role distinctions for men and women. No church or
Christian committed to the normative authority of Scripture has
the right to blur, or eliminate or reverse such role
distinctions. As no church has the right to ordain a woman to be
a father instead of a mother in a family, so she has no right to
ordain a woman to be an elder, that is, a spiritual father in the
extended family of believers, the household of God (1 Tim 3:15).
(But like many other things the SDA church has ignored the word of God and now has ordained women in the ministry - Keith Hunt) Reasons for Hope.
Three factors give the present writer reason to
hope that the Seventh-day Adventist church will eventually
rescind the action taken at the 1975 Spring Meeting of the
General Conference Committee, pertaining to the ordination of
women as local elders.
First, such an action was based on an inadequate
understanding of crucial Biblical passages and principles. Recent
studies produced since 1975 by such evangelical scholars as James
B. Hurley, Wayne Grudem, Susan Foh, Stephen Clark and Douglas
Moo, in addition to the present one, provide a basis for a fuller
Biblical understanding of the role of women in the church.
Second, the Biblical Research Institute, upon request of the
General Conference, has commissioned a number of Adventist
scholars to prepare papers on crucial aspects of this subject.
This new investigation promises to help the Adventist church come
to a clearer understanding of the Scriptural principles that
should determine the role of women in the church.
Third, the Seventh-day Adventist Church is deeply committed
to the normative authority of Scripture for defining beliefs and
practices. Contrary to some churches which interpret the creation
story as a mythological or allegorical expression of a creative
process which extended over millions of years, the Seventh-day
Adventist Church accepts as factual the account of the six days
of creation. The observance of the Sabbath commandment is seen as
a perpetual memorial to the perfection of God's original creation
which included the formation of man and woman as equal in being
and subordinate in function.
Since the ordination of women rests largely on the so-called
"partnership paradigm" or "role interchangeability model" which
negates the creational role distinctions of men and women, it is
hard for the present writer to imagine that the Seventh-day
Adventist Church would knowingly abandon her fundamental
commitment to the integrity of the order of creation. The action
taken in 1975 to allow local Adventist churches to ordain women
as elders was influenced more by sociological than theological
considerations, as indicated by the papers prepared for and
published by the Biblical Research Institute under the title
"Symposium on the Role of Women in the Church." Only 15 of the
190 pages of this symposium are devoted to an analysis of the
Pauline passages 19 and of the 15 only 5 pages deal summarily
with 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 2 Corinthians 14:33-36.20 The new
ongoing investigation promises to give greater attention to these
crucial passages.
Scripture Reading, Praying, Singing.
While Scripture excludes women from the office of
elder/pastor which entails the responsibility for the
proclamation of the Word and the administration of church
ordinances, it does not exclude them from praying, reading, or
singing in public worship. We have seen that Paul presumes that
women participated in public worship by praying and offering
prophetic exhortations (1 Cor 11:5).
(This is again taking this passage in 1 Cor 11:5 into a context
it is not within - the context is everyday life as worshipping
and serving the Lord; it is not a context of the "church coming
together into one place" as the rest of the chapter entails.
Reading is not teaching nor is singing in a church service.
Prayer on the other hand is addressed by Paul in 1 Tim 2:8, and
as I've fully expounded in my studies on "church government" as
the Greek means "men" and never "women" and as prayer of course
is part of every Christian's life, this verse within the context
must be in connection with church services. Again the
Elders/Pastors would be functioning as the leaders of the family
of the flock of God in church services - Keith Hunt)
The reading of the Scriptures belongs to the priesthood of
every believer, men and women. If women could prophesy in public
worship, they should also have been able to read the message of
the prophets. (Dr. Sam again misunderstands the first section of
1 Cor 11, which has nothing to do with women "prophecy" in church
services; reading any part of the Scriptures in a church service
does not intrude on "teaching" - Keith Hunt)
Moreover, since believers are exhorted to "admonish one
another in all wisdom, and sing psalms and hymns and spiritual
songs" (Col 3:16), we can presume that both men and women
participated in the worship service not only by praying and
reading but also by singing. It is important to remember that
singing the psalms was a form of reading them in the apostolic
church. Since praying, reading the Scriptures and singing belongs
not to the office of the elder/pastor but to the priesthood of
every believer, women can legitimately perform these activities
in public worship. (That is "reading" and "singing" as they do
not transpose into "teaching" per se - but "prayer" in church
services I have mentioned above and dealt with in detail in my
studies on "church government" - Keith Hunt)
Addressing the Congregation.
Should a woman be allowed to preach or lecture to the
congregation on a particular subject in which she is an expert?
The answer to this question, on the basis of our interpretation
of the Pauline passages, is Yes, as long as the preaching or
speaking in question does not place the woman in the office of
the pastor. We have shown that Paul does not forbid all speaking
or teaching by women, but only such teaching that would place a
woman in a position of leader-teacher of the congregation. (And I
will add, not in an official church service, as then being looked
upon as the "sermon" of the day. There are all kinds of other
hours in the whole week when women can forthgive their expert
education on whatever subject they are qualified in - Keith Hunt)
There are women in the church who through their fine
education and rich spiritual experience have much to contribute
to the upbuilding of the church. They should be encouraged on
appropriate occasions to present a message of guidance,
encouragement, and exhortation to the congregation. Care should
be taken, however, not to give the impression that a woman who
speaks on some occasions from the pulpit is functioning as the
appointive and representative pastor of the congregation. If this
should happen, then she would be assuming a role which, as we
have shown, is not in harmony with Scripture. (Such instruction
should not be from the pulpit as the sermon of the day in a
church service, as that would take over from the role of an Elder
or Pastor, who should be teaching the family of God during that
period of the church service - Keith Hunt)
Teaching Adult Sabbath School Class.
The same principle applies to the question of whether a
woman should teach a regular adult Sabbath School class which
includes men. In this case the role of the teacher, whether male
or female, should be seen not as that of an official pastor, but
rather as that of a leader or coodinator of a study group where
believers are engaged in a mutual sharing and teaching (Col
3:16). Directing and participating in a Bible study group falls
within the bounds of the priesthood of all believers. (And such
is a "Bible study" that can be done on any other day of the week
in any location, home, park, by the river etc. So the "Bible
study" on the Sabbath is not part of the official Sabbath service
- Keith Hunt)
The major difference between what the Sabbath School teacher
does and what the pastor does is the authority behind it. The
pastor stands before the congregation as the one ordained to
serve as the representative head and shepherd of the
congregation; the Sabbath School teacher stands before the class
as the one elected to lead out in the study and discussion of the
lesson. To argue that the teaching done by a Sabbath School
teacher in a class is the same as the preaching done by a pastor
from the pulpit means to fail to recognize that the pastor, as we
observed in chapter 7, speaks officially as the appointed
representative of the church and of God to the church, while the
Sabbath School teacher speaks unofficially as a believer to
believers. On account of this difference a woman can legitimately
serve as a Sabbath School teacher but not as a pastor.
(Yes, for we find in the book of Acts the principle that a woman
can participate in "teaching" men outside of the official church
service and official role as Pastor - Aquila and Priscilla of
Acts 18: 24-28 - Keith Hunt)
5. Final Recommendations
The conclusion of this investigation is that Scripture provides
ample examples and indications both for the participation of
women in the various vital ministries of the church and for their
exclusion from the appointive, representative role of
elder/pastor. The reason for this exclusion is based not on
cultural conventions but on the theological truth that at
creation God assigned distinctive and yet complementary roles to
men and women in their relation to each other. These roles are
not nullified but clarified by Christ's redemption and thus they
should be reflected in the home and in the church. In the light
of this conclusion, we wish to respectfully submit for
consideration the following seven recommendations:
(1) Moratorium on Ordination of Women Elders.
The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists should
suspend temporarily the present policy which allows for the
ordination of women as local church elders until the 1990 General
Conference session at which time the entire issue will be
reviewed and decided upon. The longer the present policy is
allowed to remain in effect, the more difficult it will be to
rectify it.
(2) Training of Bible Instructors.
The Religion Departments of Seventh-day Adventist Colleges
should develop a program particularly suited for the training of
women as Bible Instructors since there is a most urgent need
today for their ministry. 21 The primary objective of such a
program should be to develop skills on how to impart the
knowledge of the Word of God to individuals or groups and how to
counsel persons with problems. Those women who wish to develop
more fully their Bible teaching and counseling skills by
attending the Theological Seminaries should be encouraged to do
so. On its part Adventist Theological Seminaries should develop a
program that can adequately meet this very objective.
(3) Hiring of Bible Instructors.
Seventh-day Adventist conference administrators should
budget each year for the hiring of a representative number of
women Bible Instructors. Their personal ministry of Bible
teaching and counseling in homes can be a key factor in the
growth and nurture of the church. If the present failure of
conferences to hire a representative number of Bible
Instructors persists, the result will be a greater push for
women's ordination as the only way for them to enter into the
professional ministry of the church.
(4) Recognition of Ministry of Women.
The church must recognize and encourage the vital ministries
which women are fulfilling in the church as Sabbath School
teachers, deaconesses, treasurers, welfare and youth leaders,
Bible Instructors, musicians, missionaires, health educators, and
counselors. All too often these and other vital ministries women
render to the church are taken for granted. The only ministry
that seems to count at times is that of the pastor. This mistaken
perception needs to be corrected by encouraging a greater
recognition of and appreciation for the various and vital
ministries of women within the church.
(5) Uphold Role Distinctions.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church should be committed to
upholding the creational role distinctions for men and women not
only in the church and in the home, but also in the social order.
Underlying the issue of the ordination of women are efforts to
radically change the structure of male and female relationships
in the home, the church, and society at large. Adventists as well
as Christians in general must be aware of the greater
implications of the issue discussed. Eliminating role
distinctions in the church means to encourage a restructuring of
family life and of society according to an unbiblical, humanistic
model, since the church illuminates society with its moral
influence and principles. Stephen Clark emphasizes the wider
implications of the ordination of women:
A given rule, like that for the ordination of women, is part
of a wider pattern of interlocking elements that have to do
with how marriages are contracted, how families are formed,
how boys and girls are taught to be men and women, how
careers are pursued, and many other things. Changing one
element in the pattern, such as sex roles, affects other
elements in an adverse way because of the interlocking
relationship among the elements 22
(6) Encourage Jobs that Affirm Role Distinctions.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church should encourage its
members to look for jobs that affirm their roles as men and
women. The tendency of our technological society is to assign
jobs according to functional specifications rather than according
to gender distinctions. For example, if a woman has good physical
strength, she can be hired to load and unload baggage in airports
(a common sight in the USA) or to dump garbage containers in a
garbage truck. While circumstances may sometimes force a woman to
take a job that requires her to compete with men in physical
strength, in principle Christian women should seek occupations
that affirm their femininity and womanly roles. This does not
mean that Christians should become heavily involved in promoting
menwomen differences in the job market, but rather to encourage
in a quiet way (1 Thess 4:11) whatever appropriate role
differences can be maintained within our indiscriminating
technological society.
(7) Resist Secular Pressures.
Seventh-day Adventists must retain their commitment to the
normative authority of Scripture by resisting those secular
pressures which tend to undermine and eliminate Biblical
principles and structures, such as the role relationship between
men and women. To do otherwise can only lead to a gradual erosion
of confidence in the authority of Scripture and in the unique
mission of the church.
CONCLUSION
This chapter has reviewed the findings of our study of the
Biblical teachings on the role of women in the church and has
considered the application of our conclusions to the present role
of women, especially within the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Seven specific recommendations have been submitted for
consideration by Adventist scholars, administrators and church
members. While the applications and recommendations were
addressed to the specific concerns of the Seventh-day Adventist
Church, it is our hope that Christians of other churches may find
some of these applicable to their own communions.
The nature of the subject has required that considerable
attention be given to the principle of headship-subordination in
the man/woman relationship. This important principle should not
be seen as an end in itself, but rather as a divine plan designed
to ensure unity in diversity: "For just as the body is one and
has many members, and all the members of the body, though many,
are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit we were all
baptized into one body" (1 Cor 12:12-13). The reason why God gave
different gifts and functions to men and women is not so that we
may spend our time arguing about who is the greatest in the
kingdom. Rather, the reason is that men and women, as joint heirs
of the gift of eternal life, may use their different gifts to
build up the body of Christ and bring human beings with their
many differences into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ.
This book has been written with the fervent hope and prayer that
a clearer understanding of the Biblical teachings on the
distinctive and yet complementary roles God has assigned to men
and women will help not only Seventh-day Adventists, but all
Christians committed to the authority of the Word of God, to
become effective workers in the service of Christ who calls Jews
and Gentiles, slave and free, male and female to be one in His
service.
..........
NOTES ON CHAPTER VIII
1. Susan T. Foh, Women and the Word of God (Phillipsburg, New
Jersey, 1979), p.247.
2. This clarification is found in a note on page 456 of
Evangelism by Ellen G. White (Washington, D.C., 1946).
3. Ellen G. White, Manuscript 43a, 1898, (Manuscript Release
#330).
4. Ellen G. White (n.2), p. 469. 5. Ibid., p.472.
6. Ibid., pp.492-493.
7. Ibid., p.492. See also the discussions by Rosalie H. Lee and
William Fagal in chapters 9 and 10.
8. Ellen G. White, Letter 137, 1898 (Manuscript Release #959, pp.
1-2.
9. For a penetrating analysis of those statements adduced by some
to argue for Ellen White's endorsement of women's ordination, see
William Fagal, "Ellen White and the Role of Women in the Church,"
in chapter 10 of this book.
10. The 1985 statistical report of the Lake Union Conference,
which includes Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois and Lake
Region Conferences, lists only 32 Bible Instructors.
11. Ellen G. White (n. 2), p.461.
12. Ibid., (n. 2), p.459.
13. See L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan,
1974), p.631.
14. Ellen G. White, Early Writings (Washington, D.C., 1945), p.
101.
15. Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, issued by the General
Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Revised 1986, p.59.
16. 1985 Annual Meeting, Actions Pertaining to the North American
Division (Washington, D.C., October 13-17, 1985), p.72.
17. Ibid., p.26.
18. The case involves two persons bapstized on December 20, 1986
at the Loma Linda University Church by Margaret Hempe, Associate
of Pastoral Care. The report which appeared in The Sun (December
27) quotes the pastoral staff as saying that the act was not
intended to be "a radical challenge" to the policy of the
Adventist church. Whatever the intent may have been, the fact
remains that the act does represent a clear violation of an
existing policy in the Adventist church. For the report see,
Steve Cooper, "First Baptism Brings Fulfillment to Woman Pastor,"
The Sun (December 27, 1986).
19. Symposium on the Role of Women in the Church, distributed by
the Biblical Research Institute Committee, General Conference of
Seventh-day Adventists (Washington, D.C., 1984), pp.97-106 and
pp.129-135.
20. Ibid., pp.129-134.
21. The program for Bible Instructors developed and offered at
Atlantic Union College might serve as a model for other colleges.
22. Stephen B. Clark, "Social Order and Women's Ordination,"
America 134, 2 (January 17, 1976): 33.
........................
To be continued
13. The Role of Women in the Church
Do they need to be ordained?
Is Ordination Needed to Women's Ministry?
by Rosalie Haffner Lee
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Rosalie Haffner Lee is currently serving on the pastoral staff of
the Hinsdale Seventh-day Adventist Church in Illinois. Since 1980
she has been teaching also part time at the North American
Evangelism Institute in Chicago. She conducts numerous training
programs and workshops for local churches and conferences.
Mrs. Lee has the distinction of being the first woman in the
Seventh-day Adventist Church to author an adult Sabbath School
quarterly, Songs of Experience (lessons from the Psalms), studied
during the third quarter of 1983. She also authored the
accompanying lesson helps book, "Let Me Tell You About My God."
She has contributed articles to Ministry, Adventist Review and
for eleven years edited Bible Instructor Exchange, a newsletter
for women in church ministry.
After graduating from Union College in Lincoln, Nebraska, with a
major in Religion, Mrs. Lee did graduate work at the University
of Nebraska and later at Andrews University. She has served the
Seventh-day Adventist Church with distinction as a Bible
Instructor in the Northern California Conference, as dean of
girls at Monterey Bay Academy in Central California and at Platte
Valley Academy in Nebraska. Subsequently she served as Pastoral
Assistant at the College View Seventh-day Adventist Church in
Lincoln, Nebraska, and at the Battle Creek Tabernacle in
Michigan.
She is married to Kenneth L. Lee who has served as a pastor in
the Chesapeake, Ohio and Michigan conferences. In 1984 she was
honored as Alumna of the Year by her alma mater, Southwestern
Adventist College.
IS ORDINATION NEEDED FOR WOMEN'S MINISTRY?
Much of the current discussion regarding the ordination of
women seems to assume that women cannot effectively serve their
church unless the hands of ordination have been laid upon them.
Is this assumption correct? The purpose of this essay is to
answer this question in the light of my own personal convictions,
which I have developed over a period of thirty years while
serving as a woman in the ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist
Church.
1. Personal Experience
My own ministry has been rich and fulfilling. I share my
testimony to the joys and rewards I have known in the ministry of
the church as a voice to represent many women of faith who have
made significant contributions to the upbuilding of God's kingdom
by serving in vital supportive roles.
My Calling to the Ministry.
My inclination to ministry began at the tender age of four
when, with an old trailer bed as my pulpit, I preached to the
chickens (and whoever else cared to listen) on my grandparents'
farm. Actually, my parents had dedicated me to serve the Lord as
a minister before I was born. If they were disappointed that
their firstborn was not a son, I never knew it. But the sense of
mission in and for the church followed me through childhood and
youth.
At age twenty the call to church ministry became more
urgent. But how could I, a female, become part of it? I could not
be a minister's wife without an invitation, and no such prospects
loomed on my horizon at that time. I waited for the Lord to
reveal to me how I could fulfill His calling to church ministry.
I also sought guidance from my counselors and leaders in the
church. I did not feel that I had a sole right to interpret God's
call, nor did I expect the church to change its policies to
accommodate me. Gradually the Lord opened to my mind the
challenging possibilities for women in church ministry-
possibilities no less important than those offered to male
ministers, yet distinct from the representative role of a male
pastor.
2. Ellen White and Women's Ministry
Guidelines for Women's Ministry.
In the book "Evangelism" by Ellen White I found the
guidelines for women's ministry in the church. The author is a
woman who dedicated her energies to the mission and growth of the
Seventh-day Adventist Church. Though never ordained by human
hands during her 70 years of service, her vision for the ministry
of women in the church reached far beyond the cultural
conventions of her time.
In all her counsel, which sometimes chided those who tended
to neglect women's ministry in the church, Ellen White never once
suggested or hinted that women should be ordained as elders or
pastors of the church. On the contrary, she clearly outlined for
women a personal ministry to families and individuals,
complementary to, but different from the shepherding role of a
male pastor. Repeatedly she urged her church to recognize and
utilize the indispensable ministry of women in the church. She
wrote, for example: "The Lord has a work for women as well as
men. They may take their places in His work at this crisis, and
He will work through them. They can come close to the hearts of
those whom men cannot reach. Their labor is needed." 1
Ellen White envisioned husband-wife teams working together
in ministry:
When it is possible, let the minister and his wife go forth
together. The wife can often labor by the side of her
husband, accomplishing a noble work. She can visit the homes
of the people and help the women in these families in away
that her husband cannot. And let none feel that these women,
who understand the Word, and who have ability to teach,
should not receive remuneration for their labors. They
should be paid as verily as are their husbands. 2
Women to Be Paid.
Evidently some Adventist church leaders were happy to get
two workers for the price of one. Ellen White did not hesitate to
challenge this unfairness by championing the right of pastor's
wives to be paid out of the tithe. She wrote:
The tithe should go to those who labor in word and doctrine,
be they men or women. If a women puts her housework in the
hands of a faithful, prudent helper, and leaves her children
in good care, while she engages in the work, the conference
should have wisdom to understand the justice of her
receiving wages. This question is not for men to settle. The
Lord has settled it. 3
Apparently the matter was not settled in the mind of church
administrators, for thirteen years later she wrote again:
Injustice has sometimes been done to women who labor just as
devotedly as their husbands, and who are recognized by God
as being necessary to the work of ministry. The method of
paying men laborers, and not paying their wives who
share their labors with them, is a plan not according to the
Lord's order, and if carried out in our conferences, is
liable to discourage our sisters from qualifying themselves
for the work they should engage in. God is a God of justice,
and if the ministers receive a salary for their work, their
wives who devote themselves just as disinterestedly to the
work, should be paid in addition to the wages their husbands
receive, even though they may not ask for this. 4
3. Too Few Women in Church Minsitry
What might have been the results had the Seventh-day
Adventist church consistently heeded the counsel to include women
in church ministry? How much more quickly might the good news of
salvation have spread, and the kingdom of God been established?
Why has the Adventist church been so slow to use women in church
ministry, in spite of Ellen White's counsel "that there should be
twenty women where now there is one"5 who make Gospel ministry
their calling?
Pastors Prefer Women Assistants.
The reason has not been the unwillingness on the part of
pastors to have a woman on the pastoral staff. Most of the
pastors for whom I worked were delighted to have a woman on the
staff. In fact, most pastors agree that if given the choice, they
would prefer to have a woman assistant rather than a man. The
reason is simply because women can minister to the unique
problems of other women in ways which men either cannot address
or should avoid.
If pastors favor women assistants, why are there so few of
them in church ministry? Over the years I found Adventist church
administrators reluctant to hire women for ministry for two basic
reasons: budgetary considerations and marriage problems.
Budgetary Considerations. When asked why they do not hire more
women to serve as Bible instructors (a term used in the
Seventhday Adventist church to designate a personal church
ministry which includes imparting the knowledge of Scripture to
individuals or families), most Adventist administrators simply
say that they do not have a big enough budget. Interestingly,
those conferences which hire Bible Instructors usually have a
higher rate of accessions to the church. 6 This suggests that the
problem is more a matter of priorities than of budget.
Ellen White spoke to this issue by suggesting that capable
women or men serving in personal ministry would contribute
substantially to church growth, thus increasing the tithe income?
When this happens, the personal ministry of women can be a
benefit rather than a liability to the treasury of the church.
Would the ordination of women as pastors change the attitude of
administrators and budgetary considerations in hiring them? In
all probability it would make the issue more complex. Conference
administrators who would be obliged to hire a comparatively small
quota of seminary women trained to serve as pastors will most
likely be less inclined to consider hiring other women trained
for a supportive church ministry. Thus the ordination of women as
pastors could ultimately be counter-productive by reducing the
number of women who should serve in the larger ministry of the
church.
The very discussion of women's ordination tends to
discourage some administrators and pastors from hiring women
assistants because they do not wish to become embroiled in a
controversy by having an ordination-seeking woman on their staff.
On the positive side, some conferences are now making provision
to pay pastor's wives for their part in team ministry.
Marriage Problems.
A second major reason traditionally given by church
administrators for not hiring women is the limitation or
interruption of their ministry if or when they decide to get
married. Administrators seem reluctant to invest heavily in a
young woman, no matter how well qualified or trained, for fear
that the investment might be lost, should she decide to give up
her employment in the church in order to become a full-time wife
and mother. This attitude is understandable and certainly not
without foundation. This may explain why some church
administrators prefer older or mature women. whose life plans are
more settled, for the role of Bible Instructor or pastoral
assistant.
Ordination for women would not change their human need and
desire for marriage, but it would most certainly complicate the
abovestated considerations for administrators in their hiring
practices. For example, what about the possible conflict between
the husband's job that calls for a given location and the wife's
pastorate that requires her to serve in another location? Whose
job gets priority?
Marriage Vows Versus Ordination Vows.
This brings us to the crucial question: Is it possible for a
woman to fulfill ordination vows and marriage vows at the same
time? Are the two compatible? I submit that they are hardly so.
The Seventh-day Adventist Manual for Ministers describes
ordination as the "setting apart of a person to a sacred calling"
which entails being "subject to the direction of the church in
regard to the type of ministry and [the place] of service." 8
This means that an ordained person has a solemn
responsibility first and foremost to serve the church. Can an
ordained woman honor this sacred commitment to her church while
at the same time respecting her marriage vows to give priority to
her husband and her family?
After twelve years in full time church ministry I was
confronted with the decision whether to marry and become a
pastors wife, or to remain single and continue my own career.
Ordination would have laid upon me a responsibility to continue
carrying out the official duties for the church inherent in those
vows. However, having not taken those vows, I had the freedom to
make a choice that enriched my ministry, though changing it
considerably. Sometimes it involved full time work when the
opportunity availed; other times it meant ministering
unofficially in my role as a pastor's wife. But my marriage vows
mandated that I make my husband and his ministry my priorities.
Celibacy?
Does this mean that a woman serving the church should remain
celibate? No, what Scripture teaches is not celibacy but role
distinctions between men and women. The wife is to be subject to
the husband: "As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives
also be subject in everything to their husbands" (Eph 5:24; cf. 1
Cor 14:34; 1 Pet 3:1).
The wife and mother, though equal to her husband, has
functional responsibilities that, according to Scripture, must
take precedence over everything else because of their very sacred
and important nature. Ellen White emphasizes this truth, saying:
We may safely say that the distinctive duties of woman are
more sacred, more holy, than those of man.... The king upon
his throne has no higher work than has the mother.... An
angel could not ask for a higher mission." 9
The vows of ordination demand total commitment and the use
of one's full energies in the ministry of the church. How can a
woman fulfill her marriage vows to be a loyal wife and mother and
ordination vows at the same time? I maintain that it is virtually
tackling the impossible to attempt to do so.10
4. Role Modeling
First Family Model.
The pastor as shepherd of the flock serves as a role model
to his congregation. The pastor s wife serves an equally vital
role. The pastor's family become "the first family" in each
church to model and inspire other families. In a society where
often roles have been reversed and confused, the pastor's family
role modeling cannot be safely ignored.
What happens when the shepherd of the flock is a woman and
her husband must defer his plans to her? What impact will this
have on the families of the congregation? What kind of message
will this convey to them regarding the Biblical model for the
family? Even more crucial, who will act the role of pastor's
wife? Will the husband, who undoubtedly has his own job and
interests, be able to support her ministry in the same way that a
wife would her husband's?
While this role modeling is important to the Christian
families within the congregation, it is even more crucial to
divided families. Children who have no father at all or a
non-Christian father look to the pastor as a father figure. In
many cases he may well be the only positive male role model in a
child's life.
Danger of Weakening Father's Role.
Some of the most serious ills in our society today have
resulted, at least partly, from a weakened father's role or the
complete absence of male models in the home. In her scholarly
work entitled Sex and Power in History, Amaury de Riencourt
argues that a successful society depends on a delicate balancing
of different male and female factors, and that the women's
liberation movement, which advocates role interchangeability,
contains with it "a social and cultural death wish and the end of
the civilization that endorses it." 11
De Riencourt traces the various types of women in history,
and presents compelling indications suggesting that the
"liberated" Roman matron, counterpart of today's feminist,
"helped bring about the fall of Rome through her unnatural
emulation of masculine qualities, which resulted in a large-scale
breakdown of the family and ultimately of the empire." 12
To counteract the breakdown of the family structure today
the church must uphold the Biblical model of the home where
father and mother fulfill different and yet complementary roles.
The role modeling of the pastors family, which serves as the
ideal of the Christian family, is essential to preserve and
promote the Biblical model of the home.
5. Single Women in Church Ministry
Role Modeling.
So far we have addressed the question of married women in
ministry. What about single women? Though most Protestant
clergymen are married, a few remain single, so why not single
women pastors? There are without doubt capable single women
without home or family responsibilities that could serve as
pastors. But if, as noted earlier, an important aspect of the
work of a pastor is his role modeling to families of the church,
could a single woman be as effective a role model as a male
pastor? Would her singleness be an asset or a liability?
Based on years of experience and observation in church ministry,
I can attest that being single in public life has its
liabilities. Loneliness. Vulnerability. Limitations because of
one's status. How will the single woman pastor relate to her male
elders, especially when they are her seniors? Or how will they
relate to her? How successfully can she minister to her male
peers?
These questions do not imply that women are less capable or
talented than men. They do not suggest that women are inferior to
their male counterparts in any way. But they do help us to
understand the underlying reason for the Biblical instruction
that elders and bishops ordained to govern the church are to be
mature men, heads of families who know how to rule their own
household (1 Tim 3:5).
Supportive Ministry.
The pastoral ministry is different from almost every other
profession. The demands upon the person's public life make it
imperative that his own family situation be strong and
supportive. Therefore, the single woman as a shepherd or leader
of the flock works with a distinct disadvantage. At the same
time, those liabilities are less marked in a supportive ministry,
where the emphasis is on personal ministry, working with other
women, the teaching ministry, nurturing new Christians, outreach
ministry, etc., rather than on administrative and leadership
roles. The innovative woman will have no trouble finding her
niche in service, shaped by her own unique abilities.
In supportive ministry, a woman, either single or married, may
serve effectively, making a significant contribution to the
church program without her personal status becoming a major
factor in her professional life. With flexibility to remain
single or to become a wife and mother she may minister to those
who most need her specialized abilities. She may fill a vital
role that men simply cannot fulfill.
Working with our Strength.
I have often thanked the Lord that He gave me a work to do
that fits both my assets and limitations. It is estimated that
women have about 60% of the physical strength of men. On the
other hand, women have strengths that men do not possess, and a
supportive ministry utilizes those resources. Having worked with
pastors of large congregations and then being married to a pastor
for twenty years, I say with all sincerity that I would not trade
jobs with any of them!
Ellen White warned women in church ministry to guard their
health from overwork. The idea that women can do the same work as
men, and that there are basically no biological differences
between men and women is a fabrication of the propaganda from the
women's movement. The truth of the matter is - that women are
different from men, sexually, psychologically and spiritually. A
woman will find fulfillment not by proving that she can function
as a man, but by working within her own strengths. Jepsen aptly
observes:
Women have been gifted with a greater sensitivity to
spiritual things. If women were to deny their special
qualities, their true gifts as women, trying to model
themselves after men, all of society would be distorted.
Sensitive,loyal, faithful, brave, committed women willing to
be used of God to speak His truth boldly would be sadly
absent. 13
6. Ministries of Women in the Church
The Biblical model for some men to serve as the
representative leaders of the church and for women to minister in
supportive roles is not a discrimination against women. Rightly
understood, this divine design ensures the recognition of women's
natural endowments to minister in special ways.
Home Visitation.
A type of church ministry women can effectively perform
relates to visiting and counseling mothers and children n in
their homes. Ellen White emphasizes the need for such vital
ministry, saying: "We greatly need consecrated women, who, as
messengers of mercy, shall visit the mothers and the children in
their homes." "There is need of coming close to the people by
personal effort." 14
Home visitation may not be the most popular form of church
ministry, but it certainly is one of the most effective ways of
reaching people for Christ. Men work at a distinct disadvantage
when it comes to home visitation. For one thing, doors open more
readily to a woman than to a man. Also it is difficult, if not
inappropriate, for a man to visit a woman alone in her home.
But even more important than the risks are the advantages of a
woman's maternal instincts and sensitivity which enable her to
reach into people's lives in a way few men can. A woman with
spiritual perception, trained in counseling skills, and free of
the duties and responsibilities of administration, can devote her
undivided energies to this kind of much-needed ministry.
Nurturing Abilities.
Ruth Senter, editor of Partnership, a journal for wives in
ministry, suggests that "The need to nurture is much stronger in
most women than it is in men." 15 What a blessing can come to
churches when the nurturing ability of dedicated women can be
used to minister to hurting, broken, and hungry hearts. Ellen
White emphasizes the importance of such a ministry, saying:
[Women] can do in families a work that men cannot do, a work
that reaches the inner life. They can come close to the
hearts of those whom men cannot reach. Their labor is
needed. 16 I have so longed for women who could be educated
to help our sisters rise from their discouragement and feel
that they could do a work for the Lord. 17
Teaching Ministry.
One of the greatest needs in the church today is for more
people to become involved in a Bible teaching ministry. This old
fashioned method of bringing people to a knowledge of God's will
for their lives still works as effectively now as it did in the
apostolic church and in the pioneering days of the Seventh-day
Adventist Church.
The Bible teaching ministry forms the basis for a
challenging supportive ministry. Theologically trained women with
gifts of teaching may devote their full time to doing that which
the pastors with their heavy responsibilities seldom have time to
do on a large scale, namely, to impart knowledge of the
Scriptures on a personal basis, especially to new converts.
"There are women," Ellen White writes, "who are especially
adapted for the work of giving Bible readings." Again and again
the Lord has shown me that women teachers are just as greatly
needed to do the work to which He has appointed them as are
men."18
Varied Ministries.
The possibilities for women's ministry are almost limitless.
Women with sanctified imagination and initiative will find as
many opportunities for service as there are needs. Leading out in
workshops and seminars, developing ideas for spiritual and
personal growth and problem solving, training in witnessing, to
name but a few. Women's ministry in a supportive role will prove
to be an indispensable part of church growth in any congregation.
Church ministry today, as never before, involves meeting people
at the level of their needs. Families ripped apart by humanistic
philosophies and the inroads of moral decay and degeneracy on
every hand cry out for healing and help. Divorced women, unwed
mothers, teenagers with their multiple problems--the list is
endless. Many of these situations desperately need a woman's
touch. Pastors simply cannot fill all these needs, nor should
they. How many tragedies in ministry might have been avoided had
another woman counseled a woman in trouble?
Women with ears to listen and hearts to feel and spirits to
respond can administer the healing balm of the gospel of Christ
to the hurting, the emotionally wounded, and those battered and
scarred by sin and guilt. Women with their powerful influence for
good, with their sanctified maternal instincts for nurturing and
comforting can perform a ministry that is even more important
than the traditional preaching and shepherding ministries. A
pastor who witnessed the results of such a supportive ministry by
women told me, "I never want to be without this kind of help on
my pastoral staff again."
7. Women's Movement and Women's Ministry
Women's Ministry Demeaned.
If women's distinctive ministry is as important as noted
above, why has it suffered such neglect? We commented earlier on
some of the reasons w by church administrators seem reluctant to
hire women for church ministry. Another reason is to be found in
the consequences of the role interchangeability of the sexes
promoted by the women's movement.
Militants in the women's movement, determined to force us
into a gender-free socitey, have spread their humanistic view of
motherhood, womanhood and the family, until like a hidden poison
it has permeated every aspect of our lives. Young people growing
up in today's society have been so saturated with these ideas
that they hardly recognize them for what they are. The Biblical
values of the Judeo-Christian tradition regarding the family are
to many "idle tales," old-fashioned and obsolete. How has all
this affected the ministry of women in the church? One can see
the effects especially in the influence of the women's movement
on young women in seminary training who have been encouraged to
fight for their right to work as ordained pastors in the church.
The objectives of the women's movement are to change the status
of women in every area of life, including the area of church
ministry. While the Supreme Court has not been very sympathetic
to their litigation to force seminaries to admit women in equal
numbers, their attempts to influence public opinion on the issue
of ordination of women have been much more successful. There has
been a widespread attempt on the part of many authors to change
centuries-old standards and practices by explaining away as
culturally conditioned and timebound the Biblical emphasis on the
role distinctions of men and women in the home and in the church.
The arguments of such authors have been examined at great length
elsewhere in this book.
Fighting for Prestige?
Some young women in seminary training have told me
unabashedly that they had no interest in a specialized supportive
ministry for women. Why? Because, by their own testimony, they
wanted the "status and prestige" of the pastor's role. One young
woman, campaigning for women's rights within the Adventist
church, with whom I shared my joys in church ministry (without
ordination), said to me in bewilderment, "Well, then, what do you
think we should be fighting for?" Fighting? Is that the way into
the ministry? Are status and prestige the motives that should
impel us to answer the call of God? Will such a fabric of
character endure the acid test of wholehearted devotion to God
and unselfish service to our fellow human beings?
Is it possible that the enemy of souls, knowing the positive
and vibrant influence that women can exert, especially in church
ministry, desires to neutralize that influence by subversion?
Could it be that the ugly monsters of pride and envy have invaded
even Christian circles with their poisonous propaganda? Ellen
White warns against the danger of this age-old problem. She
writes:
Eve had been perfectly happy by her husband's side in her
Eden home; but like restless modern Eves, she was flattered
with the hope of entering a higher sphere than that which
God had assigned her. In attempting to rise above her
original position, she fell far below it. A similar result
will be reached by all who are unwilling to take up
cheerfully their life duties in accordance with God's plan.
In their efforts to reach positions for which he has not
fitted them, many are leaving vacant the place where they
might be a blessing. In their desire for a higher sphere,
many have sacrificed true womanly dignity and nobility of
character, and have left undone the very work that Heaven
appointed them. 19
The Secret of Self-fulfillment.
Our human tendency to see greener grass on the other side of
the fence often gets us off course in our thinking. How well I
remember visiting a young woman in my early ministry, who envied
my single status and career. while grossly neglecting her three
precious children. Like so many women. she saw motherhood as
drudgery and imprisonment instead of the highest privilege.
Position, prestige, titles, ordination, none of these per se
bring true happiness. Women and men must find their true
happiness by understanding and fulfilling their true worth and
calling in life. The superficial values of the current mindset
which seeks for happiness through position, fame, prestige are
symptomatic of inner insecurity emptiness and deeper problems.
The real problem often is that people seek to establish their
identity by pursuing external roles rather than cultivating
internal attitudes. Dee Jepsen perceptively observes:
God is more concerned about "who" we are, than "what" we do.
I believe God is more concerned about our moral attitudes
than our roles. As we find our identity in Him, He will then
lead us into our life roles. Women have: been given certain
biological functions and characteristics that are unique.
However in calling us to these roles, He will not violate
our very nature and ignore unique gifts He has given to us.
20
The same author, concerned for the preservation of those
Christian values that have made America great, makes a moving
appeal to the ministers of this country:
Don't let us complacently live beneath our spiritual
heritage. Don't let us buy into the world's system, for it
will leave us empty and still hurting after we've tried it.
Don't let us, or the world, intimidate you. Don't let us
accept the world's distortion of who we are. Instead, call
to America's women and introduce us to the true Liberator,
Jesus Christ! Affirm us in our full womanhood, which we will
only find in Him, His love, and His plan for our lives 21
Christ's Call to Women.
Voices on every hand call women today to new challenges.
Some of the loudest voices call for liberation, for competitive
roles, for assertiveness, and for militant action. But another
voice, a still small voice, calls women of faith to servitude, to
humility, to self-denial: "Whoever would be first among you must
be your slave; even as the Son of man came not to be served but
to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Matt
20:27-28; cf. Luke 14:11; 9:23-24).
Christ's call is to lay aside the "envy and self-seeking"
that lead to "confusion and every evil thing" (James 3:14,16,
NKJV). It is a call to surrender our proud hearts and to seek
instead His humility, which was manifested in His willingness to
empty Himself of His majesty and glory to become a suffering and
redeeming servant (Phil 2:5-7). It is the call to every woman and
every man to "come," take up the "yoke" of service, and "learn
from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart" (Matt 11:28-29).
Christ's call is urgent, persistent. He needs you in His
service. The hour is late, there is not time for bickering about
credit, prestige, titles and position, or for wound-licking over
past injustices. A world is dying out there for the help that
devoted women can give.
Dedication, commitment, humility, and a self-sacrificing
spirit are some of the key ingredients to successful church
ministry. The reward to women of faith who minister in their
God-appointed roles will far outweigh any supposed benefits from
ordination or the desire to compete with men for their roles in
ministry.
Closing Appeal.
Listen to the chorus of the women of faith who have
experienced first hand the joys of serving Christ in supportive
church ministries; who praise God for the privilege of being
women; who praise Him for their unique feminine qualities; who
praise Him for the opportunity and privilege of serving their
Master with their whole heart and being.
NOTES ON CHAPTER IX
1. Ellen G. White, Evangelism (Washington, D.C., 1946), p. 465.
Again she writes on page 472 of the same book: "There are women
who should labor in the gospel ministry. In many respects they
would do more good than the ministers who neglect to visit the
flock of God."
2. Ibid., p. 491.
3. Ibid., p.492-3.
4. Ibid., p.492.
5. Ibid., p.472.
6. Black conferences in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which
hire comparatively more Bible Instructors than other conferences,
are experiencing a considerably higher growth rate. Other factors
certaintly contribute to it, but the role of Bible Instructors
can hardly be ignored.
7. Ellen G. White (n. 1), p.492.
8. Seventh-day Adventist Manual for Ministers (Washington, D.C.,
1977), p.16.
9. Ellen G. White, The Adventist Home (Nashville, 1952), p.231.
10. An excellent discussion of how Christian women handle their
careers may be found in Beyond Equal Rights, by Dee Jepsen (Waco,
Texas, 1984), pp.107-116.
11. Amaury de Riencourt, Sex and Power in History (New York,
1974), p.56
12. Ibid.
13. Dee Jepsen (n. 10), pp.228-229.
14. Ellen G. White (n. 1), p.459.
15. Cited in Moody Monthly (February, 1983): 14.
16. Ellen G. White (n. 1), pp.464-465.
17. Ibid., p. 461.
18. Ibid., pp. 469, 493.
19. Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets (Mountain View,
California, 1958), p.59.
20. Dee Jepsen (n. 10), p.113.
21. Ibid., p.179.
.............................
NOTE:
So ends our study on the role of women in the church.
As I have proved in my in-depth studies on Church Govewrnment on
this website, women can do as much for Christ and the Gospel (in
some ways even more) outside of a two hour congregational
official service, as men can.
We have seen in depth in this study that women should not act in
reverse role models that God created when He made man and women.
The importance of women remaining true to their intended role in
life while still serving their Lord and Master is brought out
throughout the Bible. The stories of Ruth and Esther, are but a
few of ther examples. The women in the life of Christ's ministry
and in the life of the apostle Paul should make it clear to those
who really desire the truth of the matter on this subject.
I personally have been blessed with first of all Jesse in my life
and as much as she was able to serve with me in the Gospel,
before her untimely death from cancer. Her insight, her bright
mind, her ability with words of the English language far
outstretched my ability in that language, I tending to be a meat
and gravy speaker in my writings (which is not at all wrong just
as Jesse's use of words is not at all wrong) - but then the two
compliment each other.
I am presently blessed with having Tara Chapman in my life and
serving with me in the ministry of the Lord. Her writings are of
great importance to all who call themselves Christian. And if
this age is allowed to be prolonged by the Father for another 20,
30, 40 years etc. and Tara is given a full life, the Church of
God will be richly blessed. Tara's website is: www.endtimecog.net
Keith Hunt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
