Cultural conditioning?
Both Jesus and Paul were radically
counter-cultural when it came to women. Indeed, some have described their
teaching as proto-feminist. Within Judaism women were considered spiritually
second class and so not worth teaching or talking to on spiritual matters.
Moreover, they were not considered reliable witnesses in law. Yet Jesus
commended Mary for sitting at his feet as a disciple to her Rabbi and chose her
to be the first witness to his resurrection. Paul also spoke of there being
neither male or female in the kingdom of God
These men were not therefore prone to
accepting the status quo. Given that, it is surprising and noteworthy that, as
we will see, Jesus did not choose any women to be apostolic witnesses of the resurrection and that Paul persistently
reserved the role of authoritative leadership in the home and church for men.
Of course some still claim that they and
the wider scriptures were too influenced to see past cultural presuppositions
and so cannot be relied upon on this matter. Now we must always ask whether
scripture itself acknowledges a particular teaching is just for a particular
culture. But it is quite another thing to suggest that what it portrays as
applying to every age was actually the wrong and even oppressive view of its
day.
We must realize how serious this suggestion
is. You see, if that was the case on the subject of women, how do we know that
scripture is not in error on other subjects, such as the nature of God or the
way of salvation? If Jesus cannot be trusted in his own teaching and in his
affirmation of the Old Testament and apostles as Spirit-inspired and reliable,
then Christianity really does implode and our faith has no warrant at all.
Moreover, these assertions implicitly question the integrity and power of God,
for they suggest that having so affirmed the centrality of scripture and the
apostolic teachings through Jesus, he has not ensured that they are reliable in
what they assert. We must recognize that such a suggestion also removes any
grounds for appealing to the Bible’s radical challenge to the inferiority and
abuse of women in the first century too.
In truth, it is the scriptures that are
intended to correct our cultural assumptions and preferred ideas (2 Timothy
3v16-4v5). So it is that we must honestly consider whether our current views on
this question are justified from scripture or driven by the assertions of
absolute equality and rights that mark contemporary society and that have
inevitably shaped our instincts.
Here it is worth clarifying that neither of
the two positions on women’s ministry denies that men and women are created
equal in personhood, though they do differ in their understanding of gender
roles: The egalitarian view is that “there are no biblically mandated timeless
distinctions between men and women in the church.” They stress “the
equality of men and women, not merely for salvation or in essential personhood,
but in opportunities to hold every office and play every role that exists in
church life.” By contrast, the complimentarian
view favours “certain timeless
restrictions on women’s roles in the church.” They stress that “in certain
contexts there are relationships of
authority and submission in which gender roles may not be reversed.”[1]
In assessing these views, three substantial
arguments need consideration: the sweep of scripture, the model of Christ and
the teaching of the apostles.
(1) The sweep of scripture
Throughout,
scripture affirms a principle of male headship in which a particular authority
and responsibility is ascribed to men and applied both in the home and in the
religious life of God’s people. The evidence for this really is undeniable.
Consider just a selection:
1. The structure of Genesis 2 as
understood in Hebrew culture affirms the primacy of Adam by order of birth, by
the naming of the animals and by the presentation of Eve to him.
2. This is confirmed by the fact
that although Adam and Eve both sin, Adam is primarily held to be responsible
(Romans 5v11-32).
3. It is also confirmed by God
consistently using the image of groom and bride to describe his leadership and
care of his people. The image implies that he exercises a loving authority like
that of the perfect husband.
4. Throughout Israel’s history,
a principle of primogeniture was also affirmed by which inheritance would usually go to the firstborn male and
they would hold the ultimate authority for the family.
5. Furthermore, Israel’s history
is marked by the principle of the household headed up by the father. We see
this with Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the nation from that point on.
6. For this reason, elders in
Israel were only male as they were the more prominent household heads.
7. The Priesthood within Israel
was also reserved for men only.
8. Priests and those who served
as elders in the synagogues of Jesus’ day were therefore men too.
9. Commentators agree that the
structure of the early churches was based on the synagogue with elders taking
the equivalent role of the Jewish elders.
10. Whatever its application
might be today, the principle of the firstborn son being given authority is
reaffirmed in the NT by scripture speaking of Christ as the firstborn over
creation.
11. The principle of headship is
also reaffirmed in speaking of Christ as head of his bride and family, the
church
12. The
apostles therefore affirm the headship of husbands on the grounds of
creation and the pattern of Christ’s relationship with the church. Both
grounds transcend culture and so teach that the principle of headship does
too. It is portrayed as bound up with God’s order of things (1 Corinthians
11v2-16, Ephesians 5v22-33, 1 Peter 3v1-7).
We see here that there is a link between
the idea of headship within the home and the role of elder as church leader. As
Israel and the church comprise families and are considered “the household of
God,” the one idea impacts both spheres. This means that texts teaching male
headship in the home also give indirect support to the idea of male headship or
leadership in the church – not forgetting that Jesus is the ultimate head.
Some suggest the idea of “head” is simply
that of source. There is truth here. Christ is the source of gifts and life for
his church. However a closer look shows that this does not exclude ideas of
authority. It is not hard to see that husbands, fathers and heirs throughout
the Old Testament held an authority that was to be willingly submitted to by
adults and obeyed by children. This was also the case with priests and elders.
Moreover, both Paul and Peter explicitly pick up ideas of authority and
submission in the three passages noted under point 12.
It is difficult indeed to dismiss this
abundant testimony. At the very least it means that the onus is on those who
would say that this idea of male headship has been abrogated to prove their
point with clear texts from the New Testament. But rather than see this, we
actually see both Jesus and the apostles affirm and appeal to the idea.
(2) The model of Christ
Jesus does not teach explicitly on our
subject because the point was assumed by those around him. Given the fact that
he was so ready to challenge prevailing views in other areas, the fact that he
doesn’t challenge this one is a teaching point in itself. We must also note
that despite the radically high spiritual status he ascribes women he chose not
to commission any as his apostles.[2] Moreover
in Matthew 19v1-12 he grounds his sexual ethics in the narrative of Genesis 2
which he states is “the Creator” speaking. By doing so, he affirms the
principle of headship bound up with that narrative that is stated above and was
assumed by his hearers.
(3) The teaching of the apostles
It is Paul who tackles our subject when it
does begin to be challenged. However it is significant that the wider NT
writings assume male leadership of the home and church, and they are absolutely
free from any encouragement for women to take on these roles. Because of the
high religious status Jesus gave women and the fact that there is evidence
women were seeking to take a lead in churches (1 Timothy 2v11-15), once again,
this assumption itself teaches something.
However we need to consider Paul’s teaching in particular, and we
can only do so on the grounds that he writes as an apostle and therefore as one
of Christ’s inspired spokesmen to the church. It is beyond the realm of this
paper to fully argue the case for trusting his writings to therefore be taken
as God’s Word, however some reasons are given in appendix A. In the light of
them, let’s consider the primary text: 1 Timothy 2v11-15:
11) Let a woman learn quietly with all
submissiveness.
12) I do not permit a woman to teach or to
exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.[3]
13) For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
14) and Adam was not deceived, but the
woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
15) Yet she will be saved through
childbearing--if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with
self-control. (ESV)
Does the prohibition still apply?
Given
Paul’s apostleship and so inspiration, the argument given against the
application of these verses to the church today is that Paul was writing just
for the particular situation in Ephesus where Timothy was ministering. To
consider these arguments more fully, see appendix B. For now we need just note
that Paul actually gives a reason for his prohibition in verse 13. And he does
not cite any local issue, but the transcultural truth of man’s primacy (though
not superiority) over woman in creation. Paul assumes his point to be
self-evident, although it is less so to non-Jewish minds. The concept is that
of primogeniture, where authority over a household would pass to the firstborn.
Verse
14 may also give a second transcultural reason. The exact meaning of the verse
is unclear. Paul would never suggest that only Eve was guilty of the first sin
(see Romans 5v12-21). He is simply stating that there is something about her
deception that justifies women being kept from teaching and exercising
authority. It cannot be one of gullibility as he doesn't prohibit women from
teaching other women or children, and those teaching falsehood in the churches
seem to have been men (2 Timothy 3v8). Most likely Paul’s point is that just as
Eve was deceived into grasping after the role of being “like God” in Genesis 3,
so the women in this church should not be deceived into seeking after another
role that is not by nature theirs.
What exactly is prohibited?
What exactly is prohibited?
It
seems that Paul therefore sees his prohibition as something that should apply
in some way to all churches for all time. We must ask next what exactly the
prohibition entailed. Much could be said here. Many see it as prohibiting women
from exercising all forms of authority or teaching with respect to men in the
church. I am not convinced by this because elsewhere women are encouraged to
prophesy, which was to declare a revelation from God with authority and
included the very truths the church was founded on (Ephesians 2v20, 4v11, see
also Luke 2v36-38). Moreover, the Bible commends women who manage large
households (as in Proverbs 31), which would have inevitably entailed some
exercising of authority over male servants, or other men when churches were
hosted in their homes.
The
context suggests that what is actually being prohibited is the exercising of
elder-like authority, ie. that of church leaders who were called to oversee the
churches, challenge or correct wrong teaching or living, and in their own
teaching, teach with authority in affirming truth and rebuking error (Titus
2v15, 2 Timothy 4v1-5). This is confirmed firstly by the rare Greek word
translated “exercise authority.” It has this sort of corrective force. This
reading is also confirmed by the fact that Paul immediately moves to the
subject of elders or overseers, assuming they are men and “able to teach” (1
Timothy 3v1-7), and later describes their role as ruling and teaching (1
Timothy 5v17 ESV) which parallels “teach and have authority over.” Moreover,
when he deals with deacons whose role does not entail teaching or exercising
this sort of authority, he takes no issue with there being deaconesses (1
Timothy 3v8-15, noting verse 11 is best translated not “wives” but
“deaconesses” – see the NIV footnote).
Now
in the modern day asking questions is not generally considered the province of
church leaders nor an exercising of authority as it was in Paul’s day. So we
might accept that when Paul prohibits this (1 Corinthians 14v34-35), this does
not necessarily apply in the same way today. However, the role of elder (and
its equivalent of pastor, vicar or church leader) is always to be an
authoritative one in the ways described above (1 Timothy 5v17, Hebrews 13v17).
For this reason we must conclude that it is reserved for men, as must be any
role where a minister is called to oversee a number of ministers or churches in
a region, such as the anglican “bishop.”
The issue of authority
Of
course many of us flinch at these sort of teachings. In my experience we do so
for three reasons. One is because they are so counter-cultural. We have
cautioned against such instinctive reaction already. There is something rather
arrogant in just presuming our culture understands things correctly. The second
reason is that we assume these teachings imply women are inferior, and the
third is because we are aware of how authority can be abused.
In
response we must note that even within the trinity there is a difference of
authority. The titles of Father and Son are framed to teach the primacy of the
Father and the obedience of the Son. Moreover as the Nicene Creed states, the
Spirit proceeds from (ie. is sent by) both Father and Son. Yet none of us would
say that the Son and Spirit are inferior to the Father. They are absolutely
equal in that they share the divine essence, but different (or ‘unequal’) when
it comes to their particular roles. In the same way there is no sense of
inferiority to say that men and women are equal in sharing human nature but
different (or ‘unequal’) when it comes to the roles ascribed to each. Otherwise
we must say that the employee is inferior to their boss, for there is an
inequality of authority there too. Discussion of issues of equality requires
much more subtlety and nuance than is given by our government or media today.
We
should note also that Jesus demonstrated how true authority is to be expressed.
It is not an excuse for abuse. It is only to take the lead in areas prescribed
by God. So it should not produce the equivalent of legalism where those led
must adhere to the leader’s every whim. Rather it is to lead with a concern to
love and serve others. It does not therefore “Lord it over” them, but gives
sacrificially for their good, encouraging them, helping them to flourish, and
only ever being firm or confrontational when it is essential to protecting or
promoting their good. This sort of authority is something to thank God for and
encourage both in the church and the home.
The issue of calling
The issue of calling
How
then are we to view a woman who has a sense of being called to overall church
leadership and seems to have gifts in leading and teaching? Any sense of
calling is by its nature uncertain. And in testing such a calling by the
teachings of the Bible outlined above, we must discern that it has to some
extent been misunderstood. This is not to mean that the gifts have not been
given; rather, that they are for expression elsewhere – perhaps by running some
work within a church, leading or teaching in a less regular and
non-authoritative manner, being a women’s minister or other such thing.
The issue of fairness
The issue of fairness
This
is a final objection. When all is done, many simply feel it is unfair for there
to be a role that women are not allowed to engage in. In the parlance of modern
society we are told that this is discriminatory and to make women second class.
So the whole issue is said to be one of justice. However, this is still to
think according to the world’s ideas of authority rather than Christ’s. It is
to see the issue as one of greatness and superiority rather than of order and
responsibility. Moreover, the text we have looked at ends with an affirmation
that there is actually a noble role for women that men are excluded from – that
of childbearing. The meaning of 1 Timothy 2v15 is much debated, but it is
probably an affirmation that the particular role God has given women is this
one, and that true faith will be shown in women embracing and devoting
themselves to it. If we are to use the language, we must therefore say that
here it is men who are unjustly discriminated against and made second class!
Of
course we do not say this, and the reason is that it is obvious that God has
given men and women different roles with respect to childbearing. However the
principle of complimentarily is the same. Yet the sad fact is that suggesting
this applies to the issue of church leadership immediately raises our heckles.
But why? It may be because not all women are able to bear children. But neither
are all men able by their gifts to be church leaders. Or are we tempted to say
that men have the better deal because childbearing is so hard? If so, we should
pause to reflect on what a privilege childbearing is and on how church
leadership should also mean constant sacrifice for one’s spiritual children -
even martyrdom in some countries. Indeed, Paul shows just how highly he views
motherhood by using the image of the breastfeeding mother to illustrate the
sort of commitment Church leadership involves (1 Thess 2v7).
Conclusion
A
key lesson to be learnt in all this is that it is God, not us, who has the
ultimate right to determine our role in life, just as he determined that only
men from one particular clan of one particular tribe could be priests in
Israel. No doubt many others longed to be. But for his own reasons, God had not
permitted it. In a similar vein, we have established that God has ordered the
creation so that there are particular roles for men and women. He created them
equal but different, to complement rather than compete with one-another, and
one aspect of this is that he has reserved the role of head or leader in the
church and home for men. It is significant that our culture’s recent assumption
that both genders are essentially the same has already to some degree passed.
Now there seems to be far more recognition of complimentarity in some quarters,
and a total blurring of gender in others. In an age when men are increasingly
unsure of their role, marriages break down due to a lack of responsibility in
husbands, the dignity and self-sacrifice of motherhood is often belittled, and
children are confused about what it is to be male or female, this teaching and
its wider implications could not be more relevant or important to uphold.
Appendix A: The authority of Paul
In John 14-16 Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would lead his apostles
into “all truth.” But does this apply to Paul?
(1) There
is no way of explaining Paul’s radical conversion and service of Christ to
the point of death, other than that the risen Christ did appear to and
commission him as an apostle. People will die for what they believe to be
true but not for what they know to be false. And Paul claimed to have been
personally made an apostle by the risen Jesus himself.
(2) The
apostles commissioned during Jesus’ lifetime themselves affirmed Paul’s
apostleship so that it was accepted throughout the early church (Gal
3:1-10).
(3) 2
Peter reflects an acceptance of Paul’s writings as “scripture” within the
early church (2 Pet 3:15-16). This term categorizes them with the Jewish Scriptures
which were held to be the unbreakable and so entirely trustworthy word of
God (John 10v35).
Appendix B: Is the prohibition of 1 Timothy 2v11-15 simply concerned with a local issue in Paul's day?
Five reasons are given to suggest that we should read these verses
in this way:
(1) Under
the influence of the Ephesian cult of Artemis, women were considering
themselves superior to men.[4]
(2) They
were teaching in a domineering manner.[5]
(3) They
were simply uneducated.[6]
(4) They
were influenced by the heretical teachers Paul mentions in the letter.[7]
(5) Women
were not permitted to teach or exercise authority over men in the
Greco-Roman culture, and so Paul temporarily limited the freedom of women
in order for there to be no barrier to the gospel.[8]
(1) The idea that the source of the problem lay in the cult of Artemis is one of pure speculation. We must ask if this was so, why Paul nowhere even mentions it, why he addresses issues of authority and submission rather than superiority and inferiority, and why he doesn’t stress that there is no superiority either way with men or women, as he does elsewhere (1 Cor 11:11-12, Gal 3:27-29)?
(2) Contrary to what some claim, the Greek word translated “exercise authority” has “no inherent negative sense of grasping or usurping authority or of exercising it in a harsh or authoritative way.”[9] This is confirmed by the fact that if the problem were domineering, uneducated or heretical women, we must ask why Paul prohibits all women from teaching or exercising authority, and why just with respect to men? We know for a fact that Priscilla was in the church, and she is well proved to be godly, educated and sound (2 Tim 4:19 cf. Acts 18:26). Yet even if she had succumbed to authoritarianism or error, to essentially say that these things matter in the teaching of men but not in teaching other women or children in no way fits Paul’s concern that the true faith is passed onto both. And why is there no prohibition for domineering, uneducated or heretical men? There would undoubtedly have been some present, as there are in every church. Indeed, the letter itself testifies that the false teachers were probably men not women (2 Tim 3:13).
(3) In terms of uneducated or heretical teaching, Paul has already charged Timothy to stop the teaching of “different doctrine” (1 Tim 1:3). So if error in whatever form was his concern, it would have been covered in this instruction anyway, making the prohibition of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 unnecessary. Furthermore, if he had wanted to, Paul could have said “I do not permit a woman to teach different doctrines” (cf. 1 Tim 6:3), but instead simply uses the positive “teach” – a word he always qualifies in context if he intends it to be read as erroneous teaching.
(4) We have already seen that some form of submission of women to men is affirmed throughout scripture as an abiding principle, not as something temporarily instituted to rectify local problems or facilitate evangelism.
(5) In 1 Timothy 2:13, Paul actually gives a reason for his prohibition. And he does not cite any of the suggested reasons tackled above, but the transcultural truth of man’s primacy (though not superiority) over woman in creation. Paul assumes his point to be self-evident here, although it is less so to minds not so absorbed in the Jewish mindset. The concept is that of primogeniture mentioned above.[10]
(6) Verse 14 may give a second transcultural reason behind the prohibition. The exactly meaning of the verse is unclear. Paul would never suggest that only Eve was guilty of the first sin, he is simply stating that there is something about her deception that justifies women being kept from teaching and exercising authority. It cannot be one of gullibility for the reasons outlined under point 2 above. Most likely Paul’s point is that just as Eve was deceived into grasping after the role of being “like God” in Genesis 3, so the women in this church should not be deceived into seeking after another role that is not by nature theirs.
[1] These definitions are taken from
Beck, James R
and Blomberg, Craig
L. “Introduction” in
Two views on women in ministry, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2001), p.16-17. If you want
to read further on these issues, this is a
good place to
start.
[2] When
Junia is said
to be “outstanding amongst the apostles” in Romans 16v7,
this should not
be taken as
meaning she was
one of the
founding leaders of
the church. The
greek “apostolos” means
“sent one” and
could describe a
simple emissary or
missionary. Alternatively, it
could be meant
that Junia had
a high reputation amongst the apostles.
[3] Although the Greek for
“woman” and “man”
can refer to
“wife” and “husband,” as Bible translations show,
there is general agreement that they
do not in
this context, as
women and men
more generally are
in mind in
Paul’s train
of thought (v8-9).
[4] Belville, “Women in ministry” in Two views on women in ministry, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2001), p.128
[6] Keener, Craig L. “Women
in ministry” in
Two views on women in ministry, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2001), p.55
[7] Fee,
Gordon D. New International Biblical Commentary: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, (Peabody, Hendrickson, 1984),
p.73
[9] Knight, George W. The New International Greek Testament Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, (Carlisle, Paternoster, 1999),
p.141
[10] Gen 19:30ff, 27:1ff, 29:26f, 35:23, 36:15, 43:33, 48:14f, 49:3, Ex 4:22, 13:2, Jer 31:9, Rom 8:29, Col 1:15, 18, Heb 1:6, Rev 1:5
