3) Woman was made after man (1 Tim 2:13)
The argument here is used to prohibit a woman from teaching or exercising authority. The concept of primogeniture is found throughout the O.T.
One further argument can perhaps be deduced from the passage
Man names the woman - naming is associated with authority in the Bible.
When the N.T. commentary is taken into account the conclusion is inescapable that male authority is taught. Does this relate only to a marriage context? Again the N.T. commentary makes clear that a more general subordination is implied.
GENESIS 3 - the fall
3 points from this chapter are of significance:
1) The fact that it was Eve rather than Adam that sinned first.
The N.T. highlights this fact as of theological significance.
1 Tim 2:14 'Adam was not the one deceived ... it was the woman'.
See the discussion on the N.T. verse for a full treatment of this.
2) The overall responsibility of Adam for the fall. (Rom 5:12 ff)
Again showing that their roles were not equal
3) Gen 3:16 - 'he will rule over you'
The consequence of the fall. This verse is a judgement on woman, and a description of what the post-fall pattern of life will be, rather than a prescription of how man should act. It predicts an undesirable condition of the subjugation of women, and cannot itself be used as a justification for male authority.
However it can be said:
A) In the light of evidence previously considered, this judgement damages an existing differentiation, rather than introducing something entirely new, and so cannot be used to argue that all male authority is a consequence of the fall.
B) It may also be that an added degree of subordination between the sexes has been introduced as part of the fall, which is to be normative, even within God's restored people. Not all the effects of the fall are removed for Christians this side of heaven.
There is an alternative interpretation of Gen 3:16 that treats the "desire" on the part of the woman as "desire for mastery over". This does not seem well attested.
Old Testament Authority Structures
The Patriarchs, Judges, Kings, Priests and Prophets were almost all male, and the rule of women was a sign of God's judgement (Isaiah 3:12).
There are a handful of exceptions. Among the Judges there was Deborah. Huldah was an O.T. prophetess (2 Kings 22:14-20). There is some dispute as to how far any of these ladies exercised authority. Did Deborah actually lead? Does a prophetic ministry in which a message is received direct from God involve any authority? On balance it is reasonable to say that some authority was exercised in exceptional cases, but either way a picture of male authority dominates.
Women were nevertheless prominent (e.g. Hagar , Abigail) and exercised ministry (e.g. singers). The virtual exclusion of women from religious life by the time of Christ is a perversion of God's pattern rather than the O.T. norm.
One further point to bring out from the O.T. is that the analogy for divine - human relationships is overwhelmingly male - female, and not vice-versa. God is Father not Mother. When contrasted with the gods of the nations around Israel, it is seen that this is not a cultural thing.
The issue here is the significance of the O.T. for today.
Clearly not everything in the O.T. applies today. Some rules were:
1) Ceremonial or typical - fulfilled (and abolished) with Christ, e.g. the sacrificial system.
2) Concessionary - to a fallen world, e.g. Mosaic laws on divorce, Kingship.
3) National or cultural - relating to Israel as a nation in the cultural context in which it was placed, e.g. laws on punishments.
Male authority could be argued to belong to one of these categories. The male priest can be said to typical of Christ, but this only raises the further question of why Christ was male. Patriarchy may be treated as cultural, but there was a strong female influence in the culture and religion of many of the surrounding nations.
There is certainly a presumption created in favour of male authority. One would expect some explicit teaching or precedent in favour of EA in the N.T. IF this is to be the new order. Is this the case?
The Life of Jesus
Some of the main facts relating to women are:
1) Jesus made no reference to female rights apart from on divorce
2) He, as representing God, was a man.
3) Considering the Jewish background of the time, the great extent to which he ministered to, and received ministry from, women is remarkable. Judaism, for example, even debarred a woman from listening to God's word. Contrast the attitude of Jesus to Mary.
4) Nevertheless, with respect to teaching and authority, the 12 disciples, as well as the 70, were all men.
From now on, the full involvement of women in ministry in the gospel age is not in doubt, yet in terms of authority, the O.T. pattern has not been broken.
It can be argued whether these events have any bearing on authority in the church. The fact that the disciples were being trained as the future leaders of the new church shows there is a bearing.
Was Jesus constrained by his culture, or even legal requirement (only the testimony of men was valid)? Against this, it must be said that Jesus was not afraid of going against convention when this was contrary to God's teaching. Using fisherman as preachers to the educated Jerusalemites was hardly conventional. The presumption remains.
MATTHEW 20:25-27
One teaching of Jesus does deserve specific mention: that on servanthood. It is argued that Jesus taught a leadership of servanthood and self-giving, not power and authority, therefore all concepts of authority and subjection are mis-placed.
This is a false dichotomy. References to oversight, those who rule, those who are over others, are numerous, e.g. Phil 1:1, 1 Tim 5:7, 1 Thess 5:12, Heb 13:7.
The Role of Women in the Early Church - Narrative Evidence
As with the life of Jesus, there are 2 significant considerations:
1) The remarkable involvement of women in the work of the gospel, contrasted with their involvement in Judaism, continues. Women take part in prayer and prophecy (Acts 1:14, 2:17-18, 21:9, 1 Cor 11:5, 14:26 - though see later discussion on prayer).
Priscilla is seen as a co-worker with Aquila, even in respect of teaching in their home. The epistles make frequent mention of the work of women (Rom 16:1,3,6,7(?),12). Rom 16:7 is a matter of dispute. Is it Junias (he) or Junia (she). If the latter, there is the suggestion that she is an apostle in the wider sense of a missionary worker.
2) Yet the apostles and named preachers are all men. There is no record of a woman preaching, teaching or holding formal authority, e.g. as elder.
The factual evidence here is more open to dispute. Proponents of EA often hold a developmental approach to the creation of church authority structures, and say that we cannot neatly divide up N.T. ministry into authoritative or not. It is said
1) We cannot distinguish clearly between prophecy and teaching.
On the contrary it is plausible to regard prophecy as delivering a message given by God, and as such not exercising authority.
2) We cannot distinguish between the informal teaching of Priscilla and the formal teaching in a church.
In fact the element of public teaching is very significant. Paul frequently lays down rules of conduct for within the church meeting, e.g. 1 Cor 11, 14. There are no such rules for the home.
3) The work of the women cited in Rom 16, for example, is not in any way restricted.
Certainly it cannot be restricted to serving teas, but neither can it be shown to include exercise of authority.
The question of women serving as elders or deacons will be considered when looking at 1 Tim 3.
ACTS 2:17-18 - ... both men and women ... they shall prophesy
This whole quotation from Joel can be taken in 2 ways. Is it simply describing the N.T. profusion of blessing in O.T. language - the prophet being the symbol of closeness to God? Or is it pointing to actual prophecy as a gift? The former is to be favoured, unless visions and dreams become the hallmark of N.T. Christianity. However if the latter view is allowed, it must be asked firstly whether prophecy was a public gift. If so, the point must again be made that prophecy cannot be equated with teaching.
1 COR 11:2-16 - male headship and head coverings
This passage is about seemliness and orderliness in the public assemblies of the church. It is argued that women should wear head coverings in church, because not to do so is to reject male headship.
The precise interpretation of every verse is not essential to understand this general argument. Nor is it necessary for our purposes to decide whether the APPLICATION of the principle of male headship (women should cover their heads) is applicable today. It is the principle which is important.
The principle of male headship is clearly taught in v.3,7. It should be noted from the reference to God being the head of Christ that headship does not imply inequality or inferiority - it is subordination to fulfil a God given role. The principle is backed by 2 arguments:
1. Woman came from man (not vice-versa). Note that v.12 does not negate this point, but rather qualifies the implications of headship.
2. Woman was made for man.
Conduct in the church must be such as to respect this headship and not overthrow it. If Paul considered that the issue of head coverings overthrow male headship then, it seems inconceivable that a woman leading / teaching men can be acceptable today.
It is worth considering at this point the question: 'Can women legitimately pray in public'? (Prophecy raises additional issues today.) This passage appears to assume that women can do these things (v5). Calvin and many commentators following argue that this verse does not give permission to pray, but rather delays censure of that fault to another passage (Ch 14). This would also tie in with 1 Tim 2:8 which refers to the men praying. A different view takes this passage at face value, treating 1 Tim 2 as pointing to the leading role of the elders in prayer.
1 COR 14:33-38 - the command for women to keep silence
v34 states 'Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak'. Is this an absolute prohibition on any form of utterance, or should it be taken in context?
1) See the discussion on prayer above. One passage or other cannot be given its most natural meaning. Even v.26 of this chapter seems to allow everyone, male and female, to take part in worship.
2) The pattern of this section is that 3 times there are references to speaking and silence: tongues (27,28); prophets themselves (29,30), then women. The 1st two are specific prohibitions on speaking. It may be that the third is also, a reply to a specific question sent to Paul perhaps?
The prohibition is probably directly concerned with entering into dialogue with the teachers. It could refer to judging prophecy. The view that it refers to women shouting across to their husbands some question is not plausible - v33 speaks of a general principle for all churches.
Whatever the precise explanation, the principle is that women are to be in submission.
What does the phrase 'as the law says' mean? The lack of a readily identifiable specific reference has led some writers to regard this as relating to rabbinical law. This hardly squares with a high view of scripture. The reference could be to Gen 3:16, but is more likely to the whole tenor of the law, perhaps especially Gen 2 & 3.
GAL 3:28 - 'neither ... male nor female'
The context of this verse is one's standing before God - justification. It undoubtedly does have social implications, but it can't be absolutised out of context, so as to imply that ALL differentiation is necessarily abolished. That is not the subject of this passage.
EPH 5:21-33 - headship in marriage
The theme is marriage not the church, so it is necessary only to note that a unilateral submission is mentioned in v.22, and the concept of male headship is stated. There is considerable debate as to the meaning of headship, 'KEPHALE'. Does it mean head as in head of a river i.e. source, or head as in 'heads of families'? It may well combine several meanings, but to eliminate all reference to authority is untenable. It is not just the word but the context which is important to determine meaning.
Implications for our theme are ...
1) The principle of male headship is again clearly established
2) If man has a position of authority in the home, is it not natural that male authority should be seen in the church?
See also 1 Pet 3:1-7 on this subject. Note the strong reference to Sarah 'obeying' Abraham.
1 Tim 2:11-15 - teaching and authority
In v12 Paul states 'I do nor permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man'. This statement, together with the arguments used to defend it, is the most powerful evidence for male authority, and has not suprisingly occasioned the most discussion.
2 very clear contrasts are drawn: between learning(11) and teaching(12), and between submission and authority(12).
Opponents of male authority struggle here to uphold scripture. It is easy to dismiss this as a result of Paul's personal outlook, the old rabbinic infuence re-asserting itself.
On biblical grounds, the claim has to be made that this prohibition relates to a local situation. Perhaps :-
a) Women had become unruly in these churches
Although 5:13 may offer some support for this, men are also criticised in the letter specifically in regard to teaching.
b) Their liberated attitudes were becoming a stumbling block to the gospel in the society of the time
It is argued that social attitudes meant that Paul was forced to backtrack on the earlier freedoms given to women for the sake of the gospel, e.g only men are mentioned as praying in v8.
c) Women were generally uneducated and ill-fitted to teach.
See Pawson, p.72, for a number of possible replies to this claim.
The most powerful argument against all these claims that v12 relates to a local situation is that Paul's command is supported by 2 universal arguments from Genesis.
1. Woman was made after man (v13)
2. Woman was deceived and not man (v14)
What is the precise import of this second argument? Possibilities are:
a) Women are inherently more open to deception than men, and therefore should not be entrusted with an authoritative teaching role, e.g. Bengel.
b) It was a punishment upon womankind that having seduced man in the beginning, she should henceforth be under his rule. Here there is no indication that woman today is inferior in comprehension to man.
c) It gives a warning that women should not step outside God's authority structure, i.e. Eve acted in independence from Adam.
One final issue for discussion is the meaning of the Greek word used for authority, 'authentein'. Why was this word used rather than the normal word for authority, exousiazo?
It is said that this actually means a domineering authority rather than authority per se. In reply it can be said that firstly, as in most questions involving the Greek, the precise meaning of the Greek word is disputed. Second, it is unclear how the whole passage can be made sense of if the prohibition is not against women holding authority or teaching, but only doing so in a domineering way. Third, this word is probably used because Paul is arguing that for a woman to hold authority it is to usurp authority.
1 TIM 3 - Elders and Deacons
It is noteworthy that the qualifications for elder are described in exclusively male terms. Was that simply the appropriate thing for that time and for those churches? This can always be argued, but not by those who believe that God has laid out a clear pattern of church structures in the scriptures.
On the question of deacons, I believe that there is strong evidence for supposing that v11 refers to women deacons, rather than the wives of deacons. The term used for women can well be translated deaconess. The qualifications are the same as for deacons (though shorter). And if this paragraph does refer to deacons wives, it becomes very odd that there is no corresponding reference to elders wives, whose qualifications would surely be more important. There is also the reference in Rom 16:1 to Phoebe which can well be translated deaconess. The concept of female deacons would be thoroughly consistent with the view that what is exclusively a male prerogative is the possession of authority.
2 JOHN 1:1 - the chosen lady
Does this refer to a person who is the leader of the church, or is the reference to the church itself? Most commentators refer it to the church.
GENERAL ARGUMENTS
This section considers some further arguments which do not relate to any one specific scripture.
1. The cultural relativity argument
The key argument against the specific prohibitions on women in the N.T. is that they apply only to the culture of the N.T. But how can this be squared with the fact that they are backed by statements of principle regarding male headship?
It is argued by EA that yes, the principle of man's headship is taught. But the essential lesson is not that women cannot do this or that, e.g. teach, but rather that they cannot do anything which will violate this principle, so that they domineer over and humiliate the man. So "How culture viewed a role or activity appears to have determined whether or not it constituted insubordination".
In that society, to teach would have this effect. But today, with our more emancipated views, a man no longer feels threatened by a woman teaching, so there is no longer a problem.
This view is supported by N.T. evidence.
1) 1 Cor 11 is cited as an example of the distinction between a principle and the application of that principle.
2) 1 Cor 14:40 and other verses refer to what is 'fitting' and 'orderly'. Does this not vary according to culture?
3) There are many other N.T. commands which we accept as cultural. Greet each other with a holy kiss. Don't eat strangled animals. Only support widows over 60.
But there are powerful arguments against concluding that all restrictions on women are cultural.
1) Is it true that in that culture men (Christian husbands, unbelieving outsiders) took offence at women speaking or having authority? One EA argument advanced with reference to 1 Tim 2 is that cultured women commonly engaged in teaching (WIM-213). Another argument is that there was an early woman apostle called Thecla (WIM-175). Didn't she offend the men?
Paul states that his commands regarding women applied to all the churches (1 COR 11:16, 14:33). Was the cultural situation the same in every N.T. church?
2) More fundamentally, there is a subtle shift from the objective principle of male headship to the subjective question of male feelings of shame and dishonour. The contradiction cannot be avoided between male authority and sitting under authority, however content the men may feel about the situation.
Here it is disputed by EA whether teaching does involve authority. Is not authority in the Word itself, rather than in the person who delivers it? Certainly a teacher does not have the right to ask people to do or believe things simply because he says so, yet for an elder, it is not possible to divorce his authority and his teaching role, e.g. he chooses the manner and content of the preaching.
It can further be asked, would EA proponents be arguing against women teaching if the cultural climate today made that unacceptable?
2. The argument from expediency
The discussion has so far been confined to scriptural arguments. There is a further argument from expediency, expressed in terms of :-
a) situation - 'but the only people in such and such a missionary situation were women'.
b) experience - 'we had a woman exercise such and such a role and it worked fine'
Expediency can never override biblical principles. The question of whether it is occasionally right for a woman to exercise authority in a 'lesser of two evils' situation is not considered in this paper.
3. The argument from natural differences
This argument is used on both sides. MA proponents say that the differences between the sexes, women being the weaker sex, mental differences, show that a woman is not fitted to be in authority. EA writers argue to the converse that there are no natural differences which have any bearing on this issue. Which all goes to show that we must rest on what scripture has to say on this issue.
4. The argument from spiritual gifts
It is said that God gifts women for leadership and teaching roles, How can we refuse those whom God has gifted? The fallacy here is to say that because a woman has these kinds of gifts, that they should necessarily be used in an authority role over men. There will be other outlets. It is not always possible to use all our gifts to the full.
CLOSING OBSERVATIONS
1. The key issues in the debate over the role of women in ministry are whether it is permissible for a woman to teach or to exercise authority. The scriptures have little to say on who can administer the Lord's supper, therefore the Anglican debate on the ordination of women clouds the real issue.
2. The diverse views on this issue raise the question of the authority of scripture. I do not wish to question the sincerity of biblical belief in an EA advocate, but it does appear to me that:
a) There is a lot of 'wriggling' in places on the part of EA writers. The key question is not whether we believe in the inerrancy of scripture, but whether we submit to the authority of scripture. It is easy to do the former but not the latter.
b) EA writers are often prone to use principles of biblical interpretation that owe much to the infuence of liberal theology, e.g. a refusal to let the N.T. interpret the old; a readiness to dismiss the importance of the O.T.; a preference for Jesus over Paul; a readiness to culturally contextualise hard to accept passages.
3. R. Clouse includes a useful potted survey of historical attitudes within the Church to women and authority in WIM.
4. What does this discussion have to say about the role of women in society at large? Biblically, spiritual authority is the most important kind of authority, so the question of women and society is of lesser importance. I hesitate to make pronouncements on what an individual Christian woman should do. I cannot however regard a female dominated society as God's norm in the light of the functional subordination of woman.
5. In arguing for a 'male authority' view it is vital to remember, at the same time, the very important role played by women in the N.T, and to recognise that churches have often erred in giving women too little room for ministry. It is important, given the frequent preponderance of women in churches, to open up as many legitimate avenues of service as possible.
A woman can validly ... pray, though I believe men should probably have a larger role in public prayer; teach men in private, instruct other women, and also children. The basic prohibition is against being an elder (incl. pastor / teacher) who teaches and exercises authority.
A woman can be a deaconess also. What about an evangelist? Is an evangelist more of a roving elder, or a glorified witness? If there is a public teaching role I would say no. Other activities must be judged in relation to the authority issue, e.g. writing articles, teaching in a Bible College, leading a discussion group. Some recent writers argue that in the context of a team ministry, a woman can play a full leading role. I see no biblical justification for this claim that because a woamn is under authority, she is therefore entitled to exercise authority.
Men must be prepared to take on the responsibility of leadership. Elders must be prepared to lead. I agree with the remark that pure Congregationalism is unbiblical because it so often equates to the rule of women. If women are to become Deaconesses, the role of deacon vis-a-vis elder will need much re-thinking in many churches where deacons have a strong leadership role.
6. The issue of the role of women is important. No biblical teaching can be ignored without serious consequences. But it is a secondary matter nevertheless. Let Calvin have the closing comment.
"What? ... Is (a woman's) silence fixed by a decree which cannot be violated without the greatest wickedness?" (Institutes 4.10.31).
Words: 5355
Bibliography
David Pawson Leadership is Male
Shirley Lees(ed) The Role of Women (IVP 'When Christians Disagree'
series). Articles by James Hurley, Daphne Key, Joyce
Baldwin, I. Howard Marshall
R & B Clouse(ed) Women in Ministry - Four Views (IVP). Articles by
Robert Culver, Susan Foh, Walter Liefield, Alvera
Mickelsen
