Summary

The issue of women in Christian Ministry has been much debated for as long as the Church existed. At all times, various positions where held, based on various interpretations of scripture. The main conservative evangelical view today is that woman should not be allowed to take on any leadership role in church, neither should they exercise authority or teach.

Most of the arguments center around a handful scriptures from the Apostle Paul. But what seems to be very clear at a first look is not that clear when doing some more digging into the scriptures. This paper takes a second look at the critical passages in 1. Cor and 1. Tim.

Download text as [1]

Contents

[2] 1. Introduction

[3] 2. The underlying question of interpreting the scriptures

• General issues in regard to bible study
• Issues in Regards to bible study in this specific area of women in ministry

[4] 3. The main difficult passages about women in ministry

• 1 Cor 11:2-16
• 1 Cor 14:26-40
• 1 Tm 2:1-15

[5] 4. Conclusion

[6] 5. Bibliography

 

 

Introduction

The issue of women in Christian Ministry has been much debated for as long as the Church existed. At all times, various positions where held, based on various interpretations of scripture. Among those many different views, three main positions can be identified:

1. woman are strictly forbidden from any teaching ministry
2. women may be ministers, but not exercise the office of an elder, pastors or overseer
3. no restrictionsfor women, meaning full equality in terms of spiritual ministry

Of course, in reality, different opinions exist in regards to the degree of freedom or restriction. This is closely connected to the definition of related subjects, like:

• What exactly is an elder, pastor or overseer ?
• Is a restrictions limited to official church gatherings, or also relevant in non-church settings ?
• Is a restriction only towards teaching certain people (e.g. men), or also other women and children ?

Is teaching meant only teaching of the Word of God and spiritual truths, or does it extent to any sort of teaching ?

These questions make us aware that there is no easy answer on what is right or wrong. In addition to that, the scripture is far from addressing all related issues, and on the surface, it looks like there are very contradicting views to be found in the Old and New Testament.

When looking at the Church throughout history, we see a very div. picture of not only in terms of teachings and doctrines, but also in how it was lived out in practice. Literary studies on women as officeholders in early Christianity show that "women were regarded as apostles and evangelists in the tradition of the ancient Church and the early Middle Ages".[1] In the Catholic church today, women can not hold an official position as a pastor. On the other hand, in terms of actual ministry, women like Mother Teresa are doing what bishops and apostles would do, just without having the official title or designation.

Chapter 2

The underlying question of interpreting the scriptures

General issues in regard to bible study

One of the main problems and challenges of formulating a position or even doctrine on women in ministry is one’s understanding of the scripture and sound hermeneutics and exegesis. But even with careful consideration and a balanced scholarly approach, there might be more than one conclusion, and no obvious right or wrong.

To make things simple, there are three important issues to consider when it comes to the study of scripture.

Issues of translation

The very first step in studying the scripture would be to determine, in what form one wants to study the scripture. Ideally, one would be capable of reading and understanding primary and secondary resources in their original language, mostly in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and Latin.

Since this is not a viable option for everyone, bible translations into our modern languages come into play. Translation are offered on a spectrum from ‘literal’ translations (KJV, NASB), to ‘dynamic equivalent’ translations (NIV, NAB, GNB…) to free or ‘paraphrased’ translations (LB, The Message). Dynamic equivalent translations are often preferred over the other two, but the best approach would be to chose several bible translation form the whole spectrum, and use them alongside commentaries to work out the possible meanings of the text.

One important issue relating to our study is the matter of gender-neutrality.[2] In many cases, the bible uses a generic ‘he’ or ‘man / men’ when it actually makes statements pertaining to men and women. Partially, this problem exists because the Hebrew and Greek language and grammar is different from some of our modern languages, which provide better means to distinguish between or include both sexes. Although there is no simple solution to the problem, taking every ‘he’ and ‘men’ literally for male people would twist the meaning of the scripture, often to the total opposite. "In fact, the "problem" with generic "he" is not with a single occurrence but with the pattern of thought in the Bible, a pattern that more often than not uses male examples as a starting point to express or illustrate truths that apply to both, men and women."[3]

Issues of interpretation

When it comes to interpretation, a variety of approaches are offered. One approach still popular today is to take the bible as literally as possible. This is approach opts for no interpretation at all, and rarely yields sound and balanced results.

A second approach is known under the term exegesis. Its goal is to find the original intent and meaning of the words in the scripture. This recognizes that the context and circumstances of the original audience matter and have to be taken into account. The results of this exegesis will then be considered when it comes to the meaning today. One course of action here is to apply it in 100% the same way as it was meant back then. This is better than taking the bible literally, but still contains a lot of potential dangers and problems.

A more balanced approach is a combination of exegesis and hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the translation of the meanings found through exegesis into the here and now of today. Applied with care, it yields good interpretation and application regarding today’s problems and challenges.

Issues of implication and application

The third important question is how to apply God’s word today and what implication it has for us Christians in the 21st century. The approaches taken are very much dependent of one’s view on the first and second issue. The other important factor here is one’s theological pre-disposition. Recommendations regarding application will vary depending one’s beliefs lie on a spectrum from conservative to liberal.

Issues in Regards to bible study in this specific area of women in ministry

Depending on what approach and pre-supposition one has in the field of exegesis and hermeneutics, the methodology to tackle the following three issues will be different. In light of our subject of women in ministry, three important questions have to be answered before proceeding with biblical observation and interpretation:

• absolute truth versus relative statement: to what extent is the Bible to be taken literally, i.e. absolute truth, and what parts are relative statements ?
• context sensitivity: what importance and meaning does one assign to the context and its Sitz im Leben
• descriptive versus prescriptive: what passages were meant to be descriptive, and which were meant to be prescriptive or normative?

 

I want to go into more details about these three questions and show what approach I will take when evaluating the three main critical passages of 1 Cor 11:2-16, 1 Cor 14:26-40 and 1 Tm 2:1-5 in regards to women in ministry.

Absolute truth versus relative statement

The bible contains many statements that truly absolute true statements. Most of these describe God’s character, his ideas and works as it relates to our world. To put it simply: absolute truths are used when the bible deals with theology. In a different manner, the bible also makes statements that pertain to people, their culture and their dealings with God. These statements often sound very absolute as well, but one has to be very careful to what degree one should extend those statements and apply them to any situation, people and culture, regardless of the context. In fact, often these declarations are not absolute truths, but "relative statements – that is, teaching given to a particular time, place, and situation."[4] (Cunningham and Hamilton, 2000). The timeless and absolute truths about God are not to be confused with human culture, which is ever changing and eventually fading away.

Context sensitivity

As a result of the fact that many statements in the bible are only relative to time, people and circumstances, we have to be very careful in our studies, so we give appropriate consideration to the context and draw sound conclusions from it. The ministry of the Apostle Paul give us great clues about dealing with very opposite cultures, sometimes even in the same congregation. Since Paul knew that the problems were unique to the background and prevalent beliefs of the people, he dealt with Judaizers differently than believers from a non-judeo background. When dealing with dietary laws and the question of food sacrificed to idols, Paul did not give absolute commands with defining exactly, what food is ok and which is not. He relied on a contingency approach that would be guided by one’s conscience and the love for the weaker member in the church. Although Paul sometimes stated rules for specific situations, his overall approach was to be led by the Spirit and rebuke he urge of legalism and the yoke of the law.

Descriptive versus prescriptive

A third area of great importance relates to a similar problem as we have seen in the question of absolute truth versus relative statements. Based on the context of a given scripture, one has to carefully determine whether a certain passage merely gives a historic account of what has happened, or if a passage intends to give instruction on how to behave in similar situation at later times.

The issue at hand is the question of authorial intent: did the author want to give a report of what has happened, or was his intend to teach normative principles, i.e. absolute truth for all times.

Chapter 3

The main difficult passages about women in ministry

The three main difficult passages that I want to focus on are from letters of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthian church and his protégée, Timothy. In my opinion, many people’s lack of understanding of the cultural and historical background in which Paul wrote his letters is one of the reasons why these passages were so often misunderstood. With a proper understanding of the context, the contrast and greatness of Paul’s advice and teaching shines through much brighter, instead of looking dim as compared to today’s standards.

In general, one has to understand the role and view of women in the first century AD, and even earlier, as it greatly influenced the thinking and acting of the Hellenized world. In the Greek world, women were of very low value. The Greek mythology describes how women were first created: as a curse to men. Hesiod’s poem "The Theogony" tells the story of Prometheus stealing fire from the Olympian gods. In return, Zeus creates the first woman, Pandora, as the "forever curse, inescapable bane of men"[5]. Generations of Greek philosophers, poets, playwrights, and even physicians were instructed and inspired by this. Women were described as inherently evil, dishonest and corrupt. Pythagoras exclaimed "Three things are greatly to be feared: fire, water and woman".[6] Women were regarded as infertile men by Aristotle, and her reproductive role limited to providing soil for male seed. Hamilton summarizes: "A double standard had been established that excluded woman from the public places reserved for man. She was marginalized from the world of business and education. She was segregated into the roles of sexual chattel."[7]

This is the backdrop to which we have to compare and contrast Paul’s teachings. Any study of the culture and beliefs of the Greco-Roman world will reveal how revolutionary the role and view of women was in the Christian world right from the beginning. Jesus included women as disciples, treated them equally, taught and trained them, entrusted them first with the good news of his resurrection. In the NT church we find women among the first to become Christians, opening their houses, teaching new converts, being entrusted with official ministries and active participants in Paul’s church planting ministry. In addition to that, we find specific teachings that include women public worship[8] and effectively break down any differences between the genders.[9] The teachings in the NT even go so far that almost all instructions pertain to both genders, since most statements are in a gender-inclusive form that relates to men and women.

In light of that, we have to look at the following scriptures as something that presents rather the exception, than the norm. Any case that is being made for these scriptures to be normative and absolute truths must then be explained in light of the overall witness of the scripture, which describes women as co-participants, heirs and beneficiaries of the same rights and promises as men.

1 Cor 11:2-16

The first important issue to clarify in regards to women in ministry is the issue of authority and participation in public worship. The key scripture is found in 1 Cor 11:1-16. Commonly, two views are derived from this scripture:

1) Men are in authority over women, and women have to be in submission to men.

2) Women’s participation in church is more restricted than men’s.

Examining [7] 1 Cor 11:1-16 more closely, we find that Paul uses the literary relationship of interchange to convey two ideas:

Verses	General	Topic A: Attitude	Topic B: Attire
1-2	Introduction
3		right attitude
4-7			right attire
8-12		right attitude
13-15			right attire
16	Conclusion

The issue of right attitude centers on around the word head, Greek kephale. The question here is, what idea Paul wanted to convey when using this word. The one prominent translation and interpretation for head is that of denoting authority, leadership or supremacy. The consequential idea is that Paul was teaching about the right attitude of women, which is being in submission to the leadership and authority of men. But is this the idea that Paul wanted to convey, and is this the understanding that Paul’s original audience would have derived from it ?

Cunningham and Hamilton state that "Liddell and Scott list forty-eight English meanings for kephale in their dictionary, and not one of them means "leader," "authority," "first," or "supreme." On the other hand, Bauer’s lexicon gives "superior rank" as one of its meanings."[10] In general, most lexicons and studies of Greek language until the 20th century attest fairly well the use of kephale meaning source or origin, and only limited instances of kephale denoting leadership or authority. The major defender of kephale denoting authority or leadership is Wayne Grudem. "The search of 2,336 examples turned up forty-nine texts where kephale had the meaning ‘person of superior authority or rank’, or ‘ruler,’ ‘ruling part’; therefore, this was an acceptable and understandable sense for kephale at the time of the New Testament."[11]. According to his reasoning, these 2.1% are enough for Grudem to apply it to most of the NT meanings of kephale. Grudem continues: "Even if it were demonstrated that head does mean ’source’ in a few passages, it never bears that meaning in the Septuagint, and that is the relevant piece of literature with which Paul would have been most familiar."[12]. This argument sounds logical at first, but is flawed. The translators of the LXX used other Greek words, like arche, to denote source or origin, and restricted kephale to the use for physical head. The underlying Hebrew word for head, ro’sh, conveys the meaning of physical head as well as the metaphorical meaning of authority or leadership. As David Hamilton has convincingly shown, the "Septuagint translators chose kephale to render ro’sh when it refers to a physical head in 226 of its 239 occurrences"[13]. On the other hand, the Septuagint translators chose kephale in only eight times out of 180 when ro’sh clearly meant the metaphorical sense of authority or leadership. So in most cases, kephale was used with the meaning of physical head, and only in 4% of the times in the meaning of leadership or authority. After studying Grudem’s arguments and refutation against other scholars, it becomes clear that Grudem’s main arguments always stem from his presupposition, which is that kephale denotes leadership or authority in most NT uses. Hence, Grudem’s arguments are circular logic at best. Cervin refutes Grudem’s view on kephale and shows that "[t]he metaphor ‘leader’ for head is alien to Greek language until the Byzantine or Medieval period."[14]

Pertaining to our passage of 1 Cor 11:2-16, the meaning of leadership or authority does not match the context and general idea of the passage. Paul never uses the word submission, and the word authority is used only once in v.10. It is interesting this single occurrence of authority speaks about authority that a woman has over her own head. In v.11, Paul talks about mutual dependence, and the theme of mutuality is re-enforced in v.12. So interpreting kephale in v.3 as leader or authority, establishing a authority hierarchy, violates Paul’s train of thought and intention in this passage.

The alternative, kephale meaning source or origin in 1 Cor 11:2-16, yields a far more convincing meaning of the text. The idea of source or origin is touched upon several times.[15] Rendering v.3 with kephale = source / origin reveals a far better meaning of this scripture than authority / leader:

(a) But I want you to understand that Christ is the source / origin of every man,
(b) and the man is the source / origin of a woman,
(c) and God is the source / origin of Christ.

Part (a) is a continuation of Paul’s thought in 1 Cor 8:6, where he says that all things were created and are sustained by Jesus Christ. Part (b) speaks about one man (definite article, singular). In regards to source or origin, the one man who was the source or origin of a, i.e. one woman is Adam. Part (c) refers to God being the source or origin from which Jesus was sent to earth, as Paul talks about in Gal. 4:4-5. Rendering the passage with authority or leader yields inconsistent meanings: Jesus is presently not the leader or authority over every man, and even if he was, why would Paul use the gender-inclusive aner for men and factually eliminate Jesus’ leadership and authority over women? In addition, the interpretation that God is the authority and leader over Jesus violates the scriptural view of the Trinity.

The second issue, which deals with right attire, has caused a lot of confusion. I do not want to go into details, but without a doubt, Paul’s reasoning is hard for us to understand today because we don’t know the exact situation and issues at hand of the Corinthian Church. David Hamilton shows in his research that the prevalent hair styles in Jewish, Greek and Roman culture at the NT time were quite contrary. So Paul’s statement could not have been a general, normative imperative for all times and places, but rather a cultural-situational statement. As Catherine Kroeger points out: "careful reading of 1 Corinthians 11 demonstrates that the instruction is equally explicit about proper attire and hairstyle for men".[16] There are no grounds of focusing solely on women’s part of attitude and attire.

My conclusion is that 1 Cor 11:2-16 does not restrict women to a certain outward attire beyond time and culture, and that a doctrine of headship and general male authority can not be justly constructed based on the meaning of kephale.

1 Cor 14:26-40

This passage has been the prime scripture to prohibit women from teaching and preaching in church. The famous v.34 states "Let your women keep silence in the churches."(KJV). Two main questions have to be answered before coming to a conclusion about what this passage means for women today. Question one is whether this scripture should be taken literally, as it stands, with all its implications. Question two is whether this scripture is a normative statement of Paul for all churches at all times, or if this passages requires a careful balancing out of the context, the prevalent situation in Corinth and the culture at the time of writing.

As for question one, I do not want to spend too much time defending a position that obviously violates fundamental laws of proper hermeneutics and interpretation. If ’silence’ really were taken literally, then women should not allowed to make any noise in church. Certainly they would not be allowed to join in vocal worship, prayer, greetings etc. Even sneezing or coughing had to be banned. Same would apply to the person speaking in tongues in 1 Cor 14:27-28. It would prohibit that person from making any noise at all, if there was no interpreter. Paul encourages us to "live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty".[17] Treating this in the same manner would mean that we should be quiet, all life long. Obviously, this view of the scripture leads to nonsense and absurd practices. We shall conclude that silence does not necessarily mean literal noiselessness.

The second question needs far more attention because we have to deal with church context and situation, literary issues, Paul’s intention.

Church context and situation

From Paul’s letters and extra biblical sources we get a quite good picture of the ancient Corinth. I want to list some of the unique features as they pertain to our study of 1 Cor. 14.

Corinth was known to be "sin city"[18] with great riches in economy, arts and culture. It is not too far of a stretch to think of it as the ancient Las Vegas. Corinth was "a byword for evil living. The verb korinthiazesthai, to live like a Corinthian, had become a part of the Greek language, and meant to live with drunken and immoral debauchery […] in reckless and riotous living."[19] Corinth was also known for its lax morals and sexual pleasures. Prostitutes were so common that Plato even used the expression of ‘Corinthian girl’ as a synonym for prostitutes.

The Corinthian church comprised of people from diverse backgrounds and all segments of Corinthian society. In 1 Cor we find Paul describing rich and poor, educated and uneducated, Jews and Gentiles, slaves and frees. Paul makes it clear that the congregation included former idolaters, fornicators, prostitutes, thieves, robbers, drunkards etc.[20] Of course, the religious scene in Corinth was as flamboyant and bizarre as everyone else in Corinth. "Except for the worship of Aphrodite and "a number of mystery cults… most of the official Greek cults were closed to women"."[21] Mystery cults including women were the worship of Dionysus, Isis and Demeter. "Female worshipers of Dionysus were know as maenads, meaning "mad ones"."[22] During worship they were "smitten by the god’s mania […] to dance and rave and celebrate"[23] Therefore, it is hardly surprising that Paul had to deal with all kinds of issues with the Corinthians, including the issue of orderliness.

Literary issues

There is a distinct literary issue that has to be dealt with before going into a more detailed study of this passage. The original Greek manuscripts did not contain any punctuation at all. In regards to punctuation marks, the translators have to decide where a sentence ends and the next sentence begins. In case of 1 Cor. 11:33,34, punctuation makes a big difference in the meaning of the text. The two possible readings are:

v.33: For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
v.34: Let your women keep silence in the churches… (KJV, NASB, MSG, NLT, NLV, NKJV, KJ21, YLT, Darby, WYC, Rheims)

v.33: For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
As in all the congregations of the saints,
v.34: women should remain silent in the churches. (NIV, AMP, ESV, ASV, NIRV, NRSV)

Although both readings are being used today, there a number of good reasons for placing the punctuation mark after the end of v.33. First, this is the traditional understanding, reflected in the change from v.33 to v.34. Second, vv. 34-35 are transposed in several ancient manuscripts, where they appear after v.40. Third, as we shall later see, the literary structure of 1 Cor 14:26-40 strongly supports vv. 33 and 34 being separate sentences.

The second issue of punctuation is found in v.35. There are two basic readings possible:

(35) And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. (KJV)

(35) If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. "For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church".

The second reading assumes that Paul was quoting an opinion of the Corinthians. Throughout 1 Cor, Paul quotes other authors and opinions in many cases. "He quotes Old Testament Scripture[24] and the words of Jesus[25]. He refers to the words of the Greek dramatist Menander[26] and a proverb that is probably of rabbinic origin[27]. In like manner, Paul quotes the words of both unbelievers[28] and believers[29] in Corinth."[30] This becomes even more obvious when looking at v.36. Hamilton explains:

"It is often difficult to ascertain with precision where Paul begins or ends a quotation, because there are no quotation marks in the Greek language. […] However, there are a few linguistic clues that may help us along the way. One of them is related to Paul’s use of the disjunctive particle () (2228). This small Greek word is used by Paul 49 times in 1 Corinthians. Though it is used as a conjunction in various ways, at times Paul uses it at the beginning of a phrase as en emotional rebuttal to express disapproval of existing situations. […] In these verses the particle connotes a sense of shock and could be translated [… as] ‘nonsense!’ expressing disapproval and rejection of an unacceptable situation."[31]

Hamilton proposes the following reading of 35b-38:

(35b) "For it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

(36) Nonsense! () Did the word of God originate with you ? What! () Are you the only people it has reached?

(37) If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.

(38) If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.

We shall see soon how this reading perfectly fits in the literary internal structure that Paul used to convey his message to the Corinthians.

Paul’s intention

Most important for interpreting 1 Cor 14 right is to look at the context in 1 Cor and see what Paul’s general theme was. Breaking down this passage by main themes reveals that Paul constructed a seven part series spanning from [8] 1. Cor 11:2 to 1 Cor. 14:40. The general theme is instruction on public worship, meaning worship within a church setting. Broken down in the seven parts, we get the following structure:

1. Cor 11:2-16	Gender issues
1. Cor 11:17-34	Lord’s supper
1. Cor 12:1-11	Diversity of spiritual gifts
1. Cor 12:12-31a	Unity of the body of Christ
1. Cor 12:31b -13:13	Love as the ultimate model for ministry
1. Cor 14:1-25	The gifts of prophecy and tongues
1. Cor 14:26-40	Order in corporate worship

All our assessment of the passage in question has to be made with Paul’s general theme in mind. Paul was concerned with orderliness of public worship. His instructions on the different issues all center in restoring order, where there seems to be chaos and disorder. Reflecting on the background of this church, one is not shocked; after all, Paul was dealing with people that were diametrically opposed to one another — rich and poor, educated and uneducated, Jews and Gentiles, slaves and frees. Paul’s general approach is to set things straight by introducing guidelines for orderly application of gifts, leaving enough freedom for the Holy Spirit to emerge.

The most pressing question is: Could Paul really have meant to exclude women from any sort of oral participation? The answer to this question has to be a clear NO! In 1 Cor 11:2-16, Paul deals with gender issues. As we have seen above that Paul is concerned with right attitude and right attire. In midst of this, he gives in v.5 a strong affirmation of women ministering side by side with men. For Paul, women were of course allowed to pray and prophecy alongside with men, IF it was done orderly. 1 Cor 12 goes into details of exercising spiritual gifts. Paul starts this by addressing brothers and sisters, using the gender-inclusive word adelphoi. So both, men and women are encouraged to exercise the spiritual gifts, in an orderly fashion. In 1 Cor 12:27,28 Paul emphasizes that his audience is the body of Christ, and links to this the list of spiritual ministry gifts, including apostles, prophets, teachers, pastors etc. In the same manner, Paul encourages men and women to use and perfect the gifts of tongues and prophecy. This leads to our main passage of 1 Cor 14:26-40.

Key to understanding these paragraphs is Paul’s utilization of two literary relationship: particularization and chiasm. Only then it becomes clear that Paul is guiding and exhorting the Corinthians to worship in an orderly way, and that it is not his intention to restrict or ban anyone’s participation. Paul’s instruction is framed by three general principles of worshipping in an orderly manner (vv. 26, 33, 40), and then using particularization to give examples in the area of speaking in tongues (A), prophesying (B) and participation of women (C).

The literary structure, adapted from Hamilton[32], looks like this:

1 Cor 14:26	Principle
1 Cor 14:27-28		Example A1	those who speak in tongues	Paul
1 Cor 14:29-32		Example B1	those who prophecy	corrects
1 Cor 14:33	Principle			chaos
1 Cor 14:34-35a		Example C1	the women in the church

 

1 Cor 14:35b-38		Example C2	the women in the church	Paul
1 Cor 14:39a		Example B2	those who prophecy	prohibits
1 Cor 14:39b		Example A2	those who speak in tongues	prohibition
1 Cor 14:40	Principle

I should be noted that in all three cases, tongues, prophecies and women, Paul uses the same Greek word sigao for silent. The two other possible words for silent, phimoo and hesuchia are not used, so Paul seems not to be concerned with making a contrast. In the case of speaking in tongues and prophesying, nobody would argue for taking sigao as an all-time absolute. Its meaning in this context is rather one of taking turns, allowing order. In the same way, Paul did not intend sigao in v.35 to be "an "absolutely-forever-under-every-circumstance-and-at-all-times" imperative."[33] Paul deliberately chose the chiastic structure of particularization to show that in all three cases, he intends orderly execution of oral ministry.

A common argument in light of 1 Cor 14 is that Paul did not mean women to be completely silent, but that his command was that women were not allowed to teach men and exercise authority over men. Grudem explains that "[t]he gift of prophecy in the NT Church had less authority than Scripture or apostolic teaching."[34] No one will argue about scripture having a higher authority than prophecy, but Grudem fails to produce convincing arguments why teaching in general carries higher authority than prophecy. Contrary, based on the scripture one could object that 1 Cor 12:28 clearly ranks prophets higher than teachers. Likewise, D. A. Carson comes to the conclusion that "[w]omen, of course, may participate in such prophesying; [… but] may not participate in the oral weighing of such prophecies."[35] With ‘oral weighing’, Carson alludes to any teaching and preaching ministry, but provides no evidence or convincing argument for his thesis other than that this fits in his personal believes.

My conclusion is that 1 Cor 14:26-40 has nothing to do with the general prohibition of women’s oral involvement in public worship. Paul’s intention and common concern is that of restoring order and encouraging the church to minister in a edifying manner. This becomes clear not only from the literal structure, but also from the context of 1 Cor 11-14.

1 Tm 2:1-15

The third much debated passage is found in 1 Tm 2:1-15. On the surface, Paul’s recommendation to Timothy to prohibit women from teaching stands very strong. It is even being used as a main backup argument when defending the same interpretation in 1 Cor 11 and 13, which otherwise by itself would not have considerable weight. As in our study of 1 Cor 14, the background and the literary structure will give important clues on Paul’s intention.

Important about the Ephesian background is Paul’s continuous struggle with heresies and false teachers. We find Paul speaking against Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Tm 1:20, 2 Tm 2:17; 4:14-15), Philetus (2 Tm 2:17), and others, who like Demas (2 Tm 4:10) turned away or against Paul (2 Tm 1:15). David Hamilton’s study on 1 and 2 Tm shows that more than one third of all 196 verses are directly or indirectly connected to the issue of false teachers versus sound doctrine and teaching.[36]

In terms of literary structure, Paul utilizes a similar pattern as in 1 Cor 14. We find particularization coupled with chiasm. The structure of [9] 1 Tm 2:1-15, adapted from Hamilton[37], is as follows:

2:1-7	General principle		All (men and women)
2:8	Example 1		Men
2:9-10	Example 2	A1	Women (plural)
2:11-15a		B	A Woman (singular)
2:15b		A2	Women (plural)

Unfortunately, the exact form of gender and number is hidden in many translations. In vv. 1, 4 and 5, Paul uses the gender-inclusive Greek word anthropos, denoting humans or people. He even he refers to the ‘anthropos Jesus Christ’.[38] Paul speaks of men and women joining together in prayer, intercession and giving thanks. He continues with two particularizations that expand on specific demeanor for men (v.8) and women (vv. 9-10) while praying and worshiping. It is noteworthy that in v.10, Paul endorses oral ministry of women in a worship setting.

"This word "profess" […] is an interesting one, for "the word eppanggelomai (profess) has within it the concept of proclamation, profession, and expertise." In fact, it is one of 8 Greek verbs in the New Testament that is formed by adding a prefix to the word angelos […]. All these verbs have to do with some form of communication."[39]

Here we find again that Paul is concerned with orderliness, and not prohibition.

One of the main questions pertaining to women in ministry is whether the next paragraph of 1 Tm 2:11-12 is descriptive and has to be understood within the context and situation of Timothy and the church in Ephesus, or if this statement is prescriptive, a once-and-for-all absolute statement. Key to understanding the next paragraph is to note that Paul shifts from women (plural) to a woman (singular). There are several clues that this passage does indeed not make a declaration of absolute and all-time truth.

First, Paul switches to the singular form, talking about ‘a woman’. He does not make a general statement about all women, but has a certain woman in mind. In several cases, Paul wrote to Timothy about false teachers. As we have seen, he mentioned some of them by name, but others he just referred to anonymously, like anyone, some, certain ones.[40] Apparently, Paul warned Timothy about that one woman.

Second, regarding Paul’s statement in v.12, the "issue is whether Paul was issuing a command or just stating a personal practice. The idea is that the present indicative, ouk epitrepo, ‘I do not permit,’ rather than an imperative, ‘Do not permit,’ suggests the latter – that is, a personal practice."[41]

Third, the nature of the word silent, Greek hesuchia, has the meaning of distance from bustle or language. It is closely related to hesuchios, meaning tranquility arising from within, in 1 Pet 3:4 even associated with meek, to characterize the spirit or disposition. The same word is used in 1 Tm 2:2, where Paul encouraged Christians to "live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty". "There is nothing in this passage to support the silencing of godly women, or forbidding their teaching in church, their call to any form of Christian service, or the use of all the gifts the triune God has bestowed upon them."[42]

Fourth, Paul provided a wonderful solution for this woman. He did no condemn her, or hand her over to Satan as he did with Hymenaeus and Alexander.[43] Paul used the only imperative in this whole passage: "a woman must learn" (emphasize mine). The word learn, Greek manthano, means to learn as a disciple. In Jewish culture at Paul’s time, the understanding of someone learning as a disciple was to later become a teacher of the knowledge oneself.

Concluding this part on 1 Tm 2:1-15, I find no reason to take Paul’s advise to Timothy as an absolute, prescriptive statement that prohibits all women at all times to teach or even actively participate in oral ministry. If this passage "is to be understood as a rule to be applied to every man and every woman, everywhere, then women should not be teachers in any public school, nor instructors of any discipline, anywhere."[44] This interpretation does not hold in light of other scriptures that talk about women teaching and instructing, like Priscilla teaching Apollos.[45]

Chapter 4

Conclusion

For hundreds of years, many women were excluded from official ministry activities and positions on the basis of a handful scriptures. Too often, Paul’s words were taken out of context and taken literally, without doing sound study on the context and situation, and without taking into consideration Paul’s general message and witness to the New Testament church. We have seen that a careful application of exegesis and hermeneutics is necessary to discover the core and true meaning of Paul’s statements. Unfortunately, in the past some very weird explanations were formed to bring absolute prohibition of women in any teaching and authority position in balance with contradicting scripture. It is sad that even many bible translations, consciously or not, are biased towards exclusion of women. Why is Phoebe called a ‘helper’ or ’servant’, but many men ‘deacons’, while the Greek word behind it is in all cases diakonos? Why do some people belittle women leaders like Lydia, and demean their ministry and house-church as being only a prayer group for women? What we also see is a double standard in interpreting scripture. "It is of more than passing interest that most of those in today’s church who argue that women should keep silent in church on the basis of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 at the same time deny the validity of speaking in tongues and prophecy, the very context in which the ’silence’ passage occurs."[46]

One question remains: what is the nature of biblical authority and how is it connected to leadership positions? Walter Liefeld makes an excellent observation:

"Jesus made it powerfully clear that ministry is servanthood. […] The idea that the ministry is a power base giving an incumbent authority over the church is a common though happily diminishing assumption."[47]

Should we exclude women also from servanthood positions, because of the dangers of them gaining authority by becoming servant-leaders? Liefeld also shows that women have been traditionally excluded from de jure authority, but still maintained considerable amounts of de facto and de senso authority. Since the latter rests on personality, personal qualities and charisma, it can not be easily controlled by rules of dos and donts.

We know how God raised powerful and godly women throughout the centuries. At no point in time the Church was truly able to afford shutting women in the closet and leaving the majority of ministry completely up to men. Today, still, there is too much unfinished business. Without the mutual and equal support of women, men are far from being perfectly capable of fulfilling all the mandates God has given to the Church. As much as men need women to complement them, the Church needs men and women, side by side, to build the Kingdom of God.

Bibliography

Barclay, William. 1975. The Daily Bible Study Series: The Letters to the Corinthians. rev. ed. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press.
Carson, D. A. "“Silent In The Churches”: On The Role Of Women In 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36", in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. 1991. eds. Piper, John and Grudem, Wayne. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books.
Cervin, Richard S. 1989. "Does Kephale Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority’ in Greek Literature? A Rebuttal." Trinity Journal, 10 NS, 1989.
Cunningham, Loren and Hamilton, David Joel. 2000. Why Not Women. Seattle, WA: Youth With A Mission Publishing.
Eisen, Ute E. 2000. Women Officeholders in Early Christianity. Collegeville, MI: Liturgical Press.
Esparza, Graciela. "Let’s Question the Ministry of Women" Pneuma, Vol. 13, No. 2 , Fall 1991.
Fee, Gordon D. and Stuart, Douglas. 1993. How to read the Bible for All Its Worth. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Grudem, Wayne. 1987. "Prophecy – Yes, But Teaching – No: Paul’s consistent advocacy of women’s participation without governing authority." Journal of the Evangelical Society, No 30/1, March 1987.
Hamilton, David Joel. 1995. I Commend to You Our Sister. M.A. thesis, University of the Nations, 1996.
Kroeger, Catherine. 1987. "The Apostle Paul and the Greco-Roman Cults of Women". Journal of the Evangelical Society. No 30/1, March 1987.
Liefeld, Walter L. 1987. "Women and the Nature of Ministry". Journal of the Evangelical Society. No 30/1, March 1987.
Mickelsen, Berkeley. 1988. "Who are the Women in I Timothy 2:1-15? (Part II)". Priscilla Papers, 2.2, Spring 1988, 6.
Piper, John and Grudem, Wayne. eds. 1991. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books.
Poythress, Vern and Grudem, Wayne. 2000. The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God’s Word. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman and Holman Publishers.

Footnotes

[1] Ute E. Eisen,. Women Officeholders in Early Christianity (Collegeville, MI: Liturgical Press, 2000), 55.
[2] A lengthy discussion of the problem is offered by Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem, The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God’s Word (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2000)
[3] Ibid., 223.
[4] Loren Cunningham and David Joel Hamilton, Why Not Women (Seattle, WA: Youth With A Mission Publishing, 2000), 37.
[5] David Joel Hamilton, "I Commend to You Our Sister" (M.A. thesis, University of the Nations, 1996), 32.
[6] Ibid., 35.
[7] Ibid., 58.
[8] 1 Cor 11:5-7
[9] Gal 3:28
[10] Cunningham and Hamilton, 162.
[11] John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1991), 425.
[12] Ibid., 119.
[13] Hamilton, 188.
[14] Richard S. Cervin, "Does Kephale Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority’ in Greek Literature? A Rebuttal," Trinity Journal 10 NS 1989, 112.
[15] 1 Cor 11:8,9,12
[16] Catherine Kroeger, "The Apostle Paul and the Greco-Roman Cults of Women". Journal of the Evangelical Society. No 30/1, March 1987, 37.
[17] 1 Tm 2:2
[18] Cunningham and Hamilton, 141.
[19] William Barclay, The Daily Bible Study Series: The Letters to the Corinthians, rev. ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1975)
[20] 1 Cor 6:10,11
[21] Hamilton, 163.
[22] Kroeger, 33.
[23] Ibid., 33.
[24] 1 Cor 1:19,31; 2:9,16; 3:19.20; 5:13; 6:16; 9:9; 10:7,26; 14:21; 15:27.,32,45,54,55
[25] 1 Cor 11:24-25
[26] 1 Cor 15:33
[27] 1 Cor 4:6
[28] 1 Cor 10:28; 12:2; 14:25
[29] 1 Cor 1:12; 3:4; 6:12,13; 10:23; 15:35
[30] Hamilton, 220.
[31] Ibid., 221.
[32] Ibid., 226.
[33] Ibid., 228.
[34] Wayne Grudem, "Prophecy – Yes, But Teaching – No: Paul’s consistent advocacy of women’s participation without governing authority" Journal of the Evangelical Society. No 30/1 March 1987, 11.
[35] D. A. Carson, " “Silent In The Churches”: On The Role Of Women In 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36", in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. eds. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1991), 142.
[36] Hamilton, 252-258.
[37] Ibid., 261.
[38] 1 Tm 2:5
[39] Hamilton, 269.
[40] 1 Tm 1:3,6,21; 6:3; 4:1
[41] Walter L. Liefeld, "Women and the Nature of Ministry" Journal of the Evangelical Society. No 30/1, March 1987, 49.
[42] Berkeley Mickelsen, "Who are the Women in I Timothy 2:1-15? (Part II)", Priscilla Papers, 2.2 (Spring 1988), 6.
[43] 1 Tit 1:20
[44] Graciela Esparza, "Let’s Question the Ministry of Women", Pneuma Vol. 13, No. 2 (Fall 1991), 159.
[45] Acts 18:26
[46] Gordon D Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to read the Bible for All Its Worth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993), 15.
[47] Liefeld, 53-4.

 

(c) 2004 by Dominik Reinmund