WOMEN IN THE CHURCH

By Dr. David H. McClain, B.S., M.Div., D.Min.

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE ISSUE

The roles and functions of women in the New Testament are numerous.  Each one is vital to the church.  Without women the church would not be able to exist.  One cannot nor should not minimize their importance to the church.  Women are never presented or implied to be second class in the New Testament. 

Yet it does appear that there are several restrictions on the role of the women in the church. The restrictions that the New Testament speaks of restrict a woman from being a teacher over men or having authority over men.  These role restrictions do not diminish women's' importance but they certainly pose several difficult questions, especially in light of our present culture. 

The issue of the role of women in the church requires honest, open-minded evaluation.  What was once considered a somewhat clear-cut issue has now become complex.  In the last two decades this issue has come to the foreground as an involved and often divisive issue. Many deny that these restrictions are even applicable for today. 

THE PURPOSE OF THIS PAPER

This paper will attempt to sift through the cultural influences and jungle of interpretations to provide a response to those who disagree with the present day relevance of these restrictions.  No response will satisfy everybody and anything short of a long book will fail to answer all of the questions the issue presents.  But, none the less, an attempt must be made.  Numerous books and articles have been written on the subject and can be referred to for further study.

THE NEED FOR A SOUND POSITION

The following issues demonstrate the need for a well-defined position.  They also reveal why the issue is so emotion laden and difficult to resolve.

    Imagine a woman who has an important executive position in a large company.  She has a lot of experience in her profession and has demonstrated excellent leadership skills and business skills.  Imagine that same woman coming to the church, and becomes a believer.

QUESTIONS FROM THE EVANGELICAL FEMINIST

The evangelical feminist would ask some important questions in light of this situation.

     a.  Does the Bible exclude her from holding such a position at work.  Could she run for a high government office and be in the will of God?

     b.  Does the Bible exclude her from holding a leadership position in the church? For instance could she be a deacon or elder in a church?

     c.  Are women who are spiritually gifted and trained in the Word of God limited from teaching or preaching the Word in a mixed group?

     d.  Is the cry of "Women's' Rights" groups regarding "sexism" like the cry of the Civil Rights Movement concerning racism?  Has the church knowingly or unknowingly discriminated against women by excluding them from certain roles in the church?

QUESTIONS FROM THE TRADITIONALIST

To side with the feminist may resolve some of these important questions but poses a whole new set of questions from the traditionalist side. 

    a.  Can one ignore the weight of history in regard to male and female roles in society, the home and the church.  Are these traditional values simply the biased dictates of a suppressive male dominated society or is there a sound basis for these values?  The weight of history cannot and should not be lightly discarded.

    b.  Can or should the Bible be interpreted simply so that it is more relevant to the positions of modern society? Has the Bible really been that misunderstood in these areas for so long? Could men of God in the past have been so close minded as to twist the Bible to support their position if it had no solid basis? Are men today really more insightful than those of the past?

     c.  It would seem the Holy Spirit participated in this "suppression" if we reject the churches historical position in these areas in that it was based on a biblical foundation.  The passages that speak to this issue clearly seem to indicate a limitation on the authority and teaching of women. 

As deacons at First Baptist Church we believe we must, as a church, develop a policy that accurately evaluates scripture as it relates to these and other questions.

THE APPROACH FOR THIS PAPER

We will look at these questions from three separate positions.  First we will look at related issues that are important to understanding the issue of male and female roles in the church.  Second we will look at passages that speak specifically to the matter of the restrictions of the woman in the church.  To do this we will look at these restrictions on women in leadership and then we will look at the issue of women being a teacher of men.  Finally we will look at some conclusions based on our understanding of these passages.  We will close the paper with some comments as to how these verses should be applied in our church’s’ context.

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

First let us take a look at some important issues and considerations that are important to a proper understanding of these verses of scripture.

1.        The Question of Culture

    One of the key objections to the traditional view of the role of women in the church is a cultural objection. For that reason we must seek to understand the relation between culture and the Bible.  Once understood, the Bible and not culture must be the basis by which we determine our position.

    The New Testament was written in a culture unlike our own. That being the case much of what is written in the New Testament runs the risk of being misinterpreted and misapplied simply because the cultural issues are not considered. 

     As a man Paul was influenced by his cultural training in the Roman and Rabbinical schools.  But when he writes under the divine guidance of the Holy Spirit it involves more than personal opinion.  At that point it becomes Holy Scripture and becomes authoritative to the church. 

There are two questions that must be asked in relation to determining a culturally discerning interpretation.  The first question to ask of a passage is, "Is this a statement or command restricted to the culture of those being spoken too (is it limited to space and time)?"  The second question to ask is, "Is this a timeless or universal principle that transcends the culture of those being spoken too (does it cross space and time)?" In looking at these two questions we are seeking to distinguish between culturally limited principles verses culturally transcendent principles.

Dangers are inherent in trying to answer these questions.  When one misinterprets a passage because he failed to evaluate cultural considerations, he may also misapply that passage.  He would be in error on his position.  The dangers of such errors have been clearly demonstrated in history.  Following are several of these dangers.

    a.  The first danger is that of accepting something as a timeless principle that is in fact a cultural practice.  In some groups women wear coverings on their head.  They do it because of their belief that I Cor. 11: 5,6 call it a disgrace if she does not.  This of course means most women are in disgrace if their interpretation is true.

        Later we will show we do not follow this interpretation because the headcovering (a cultural symbol) was a sign of woman’s' submission to her husband (a universal principle). As the headcovering no longer symbolizes this principle we feel it is culturally restricted.

    b.  The second danger that is inherent is “what if I call an argument cultural that is in fact a universal principle (thus independent of culture). It is the position of this paper that this is the error of the evangelical feminist. This position has lead too, and will most likely lead to, more division.

    c.  Cultural interpretation has another inherent danger.  Cultural interpretation is a two edged sword.  Culture may be used to evaluate or judge a biblical passage. That evaluation may then reject a position because it is judged to be culturally or historically irrelevant or outdated.  The danger of course arises from the fact that one is judging that passage from ones own culture. 

       If one judges another culture from ones own cultural bias who is to say which culture is the correct, or at least more appropriate, cultural position?  How are we even to judge what is culturally relative? Without some kind of objective standard by which both cultures can be judged it becomes an effort in futility. If the Bible cannot be that objective standard, because it is viewed as culturally suspect, the church has no where else to go.

THE PROBLEM OF CULTURAL RELATIVITY

Our own culture is one that is immersed in cultural and moral relativity.  This means that we are a culture that in general rejects absolutes.  We look at other cultures and either measure them by our own culture or worse yet we simply say, "Well, that's just how that culture thinks."  We disapprove of people who describe in a black and white sense of right and wrong. 

       Paul was a man who understood the need to distinguish between something that was culturally relative and something that was a divine absolute. In I Cor. 9:19ff. he says, "Though I am free and belong to no man, I make my self a slave to everyone to win as many as possible.  To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews.  To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law...To the weak I became weak, to win the weak.  I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some."

In this and other passages Paul could see that cultures could vary in many areas, but the gospel and the Word of God were a constant.  When Paul writes to the churches and speaks to them concerning the roles of male and females in the church he speaks as one who is well aware of cultural differences.  Yet, in regard to male and female roles in the church, at no point does he suggest these roles are culturally based.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that our culture is any better or its values any more sensible, than that of the New Testament culture.  Our corrupt and immoral culture will some day be judged by God and will certainly be found wanting in his sight.  The only thing we have to measure our present culture is the Word of God.  If, as some have done, we reject those truths then we have lost our basis for measuring our, or any other, culture.

2.  The Question of Bias

     Another issue involved in the discussion of women’s' roles in the church relates to bias.  If one approaches the subject from either side with a predetermined bias we risk the danger of that bias directing our conclusion.

    We must be careful that our approach to women’s roles in the church is not, "I will do all I can to prove my point."  We need, instead, to approach with the attitude, "Based on careful study and honest evaluation what appears to be the clearest explanation of the Bibles position on this matter."

    No man can make a claim to complete objectivity.  Everyone has biases that influence his conclusions.  With this being the case it becomes important that both sides try to evaluate the issue with an open mind.  Certainly one can "prove" anything if he has made up his mind.  But it is better if someone approaches a subject asking, "How am I to understand what this author is saying, and how am I to apply it?"  Another important question is, "What purpose did the author have in giving this command or statement?"

For objective reasons a person must first, identify his bias, second, evaluate how they affect his conclusions, and third, ask if they keep him from seeing the objective interpretation of this passage. It is certainly best to approach the subject with no preconceived notions or no points to prove.  But if one has started with preconceived notions he must be willing to let the evidence lead where it may.

2.        The Question of Conflicting Interpretations. 

    Several errors often arise when people encounter conflicting interpretations of the same passage.

    a.  One error is to say, "that's your interpretation."

What they often mean by this statement is “I have my interpretation and you have yours, I like mine better, (even if I can't prove it). But I really don't want to hear yours."

The danger of this is that when a New Testament author made a statement he had only one thing in mind.  It is the goal of the interpreter to try to determine the authors’ one intended meaning. 

If there are two interpretations there are only two possibilities.  One possibility is that both are wrong.  The other possibility is that one is wrong and the other right.  In either case the person must defend why he believes his interpretation is correct and why the other is wrong.

There can only be one true interpretation. In this paper we will look at several interpretations that seek to determine the one true interpretation. We will ask, " what was the author really trying to say?"  It is the application of a passage that may vary but not its interpretation.

    b.  Another error is to become confused or overwhelmed. 

This error often arises when two or more conflicting interpretations arise then we take the easiest position or minimize the importance of taking a position at all.  Even worse is to get frustrated and give up trying to come to a position altogether. Disobedience that results from this problem is still disobedience.

Sometimes several conflicting interpretations may seem to make perfectly good sense.  The person evaluating them then says, "These competent scholars can't agree on this issue therefore I will take the position that has the least conflict.” Or, “I will take the most popular interpretation."

Every complex issue has conflicting interpretations.  Only one can be right.  One must look at the basis for an interpretation -not at its popularity or easiness.

    c.  A third error is to follow the interpretation of ones favorite position.

    This approach accepts only the information that supports a favored position.  When tough questions or conflicting information arise, that information is discarded.  Certainly one can "prove" a position without having to deal with troublesome conflicting information.

4.  The Question of Overstating the Case.

    There is a danger of overstating the case of the restriction of women’s roles in the church.  Women are not an inferior sex and it should not be stated or implied in any way that they are.  We will identify and expound on certain biblical passages that limit women in the areas of teaching and having authority over men.  This should not be confused with a position that claims that these restrictions are due to a second class nature of women.     

    Another risk in overstating the case is failure to recognize the need to hold men accountable to their responsibility.  If they have neglected to provide loving, caring visionary leadership then we must challenge them to be trained and spiritually motivated.

5.  The Question of an Alternative or Middle view.

    Clearly the church in the past has, at times, been guilty of suppressing the role of women in the church.  History gives us some clear examples.  The traditional interpretations of the biblical passages we will look have often been mistakenly used as a basis to support an oppressive view.  For this reason we find fault with some of the historical views of women.  Yet the passages we will look at, if seen in their proper context, are neither oppressive nor unreasonable.

    It is not the purpose of this paper to ignore or minimize the abuses of the church in the past on women. It is the position that in spite of these abuses the basic traditional view has a sound basis in scripture.

A STUDY OF THE BIBLICAL PASSAGES

     Now let us look at the biblical passages that present the relationship of male and female in both the home and the church.

OLD TESTAMENT TEACHINGS ON MALE/FEMALE ROLES

Genesis 1:27

This is the first passage that establishes the equality of male and female.  Both are created by God.  Both are created in the image of God.  Man, as male and female, is commanded to be fruitful and multiply, to subdue the earth and fill it.

Genesis 2:18-25

We refer to this passage because this presents us with a specific breakdown of the creation of man and woman.  It is this passage that Paul refers to frequently.  It is this passage that explains Pauls basis for the relationship between male and female, both at home and in the church.

In this passage we see that the Bible does not define male/female roles as a power struggle.  They are defined as a loving complimentary relationship between equals.  Each sex has its distinct roles and responsibilities.

A.  God Creates a Responsibility for Man (l8-20)

    In these verses we see mans creation and the first major responsibility he is given is as "Lord" of creation.

    1.  God Evaluates Mans Aloneness (18)

a.        This is the only time God said, "It is not good."  All else was

    called good.  When God saw man was alone he said his aloneness was

    not good.

b.        In order of chronology we see man was created first.  Whereas the

previous passage tells us only that man and female were created, this tells us the order.  This order seems to give slight priority of male over female according to I Tim. 2, Eph. 5, and I Cor. ll.

    2.  Adam Identifies his Aloneness (l9-20).

a.        Man was given the responsibility to name to the animals.  This is

his first role as "king."  God brought them to Adam and then He sets back and sees what Adam will name them.

b.        Naming the animals shows his Lordship.  In the Hebrew  culture nam-

ing a person or thing was to give the person or thing character.  It was quite an honorable task.  P. Van Imschoot shows us why naming was so important to the Hebrews.

   "In the eyes of the ancients the name was not a simple label distinguishing one individual from this kinsmen.  It is an integrating part of the person; what has no name is, so to speak, non-existent... Moreover, the name is supposed to correspond to the essence of the object, and consequently reveals it."

c.        Adam was Lord, but he was a lonely Lord.  Nothing corresponding to

him could be found- no suitable helper was there.  Adam would have seen male and female counterparts of hundreds of animals, for him there was no female.  Yet he was looking

d.        Adams role of naming the animals pointed out to him his loneliness.

It seems companionship is a vital role that the woman plays in the spectrum and purpose of Gods creation of woman.

   B.  God creates a Woman for Man (21-22)

       The man alone is in a condition that is not good.  God now intends to

 fashion a helper corresponding exactly to him and completing him in

 every way.

       1.  Woman is taken from man.  Her origin is in man (21-22). 

       2.  Woman was made for man (20)

a.        She was made for man for companionship.

b.        She is described as a suitable helper for man.  The term "helper" is not a demeaning term.  The term is elsewhere used of God (Ps. 10:14, 54:4).  The work the male was to do in response to God's commission was not a work he was to do alone.

       3.  Woman was given a high calling

a.        All of chapter two is building to this event.  The creation of

Woman was a wonder.  When God made the stars, we might have expected all music in heaven blaring out- yet we only see the statement; "God made the stars."

b.        In contrast the creation of woman is built by suspense, wonder

and surprise.

     c.  The creation of woman is presented as a glorious event.  It does

not degrade woman.  God's creation of her is the high point of the chapter.  Woman’s' role of being a helper suitable for man is a high calling filled with dignity and honor.

C.        God creates Marriage for Man (23-25)

 1.  Man names "Woman"- a role as her Lord.

When the man named woman he was fully conscious that although he was formed first, and although he was recognizing his role of leadership, in naming her he saw she was like him.  She was his equal.  Ronald Allen in his book, "Liberated Traditionaism," provides an excellent translation of this passage.

            "This one! This time!

               (That is, At last! -here is one who corresponds directly and

truly to me!)

 Bone-from my bones!

 And flesh- from my flesh!

 This one shall be called woman

 For from man this one was taken."

2. Mans name for woman showed her likeness.

The word "ish" is man.  The word "isha" is woman.  His name for her was a happy joke.  Verse 23 is a verse of joy and elation.

Mans headship is over his equal.

The man has a certain priority over the woman because he was created first (see also Eph. 5:22-23).  But she is his equal.  We cannot make the mistake of the evangelical feminist by saying, "Equality equals Interchangeability."

      They find support for this position in Galatians 3:26-28

Gal. 3:26 “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, [27] for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. [28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

They observe that just as slavery is removed, by default, once we are recognized as equals, so should the distinctions between male and female.  The problem with this view is that it fails to recognize that the context is speaking of our relationship with God and each other.  We all come to Christ the same way and our position in Him is not based on ethnicity, status in life, gender or otherwise.  Their interpretation also fails to give account of the numerous passages that support the distinction between male and female.

  4. The Bonding of Marriage

The passage says they were united- like super glue.  The two became one flesh (independent of children they are one flesh).  This passage shows the headship of man. It also shows the equality of the woman.  It indicates that headship is not incompatible with equality.  Equality does not equal interchangeable.

THE NEW TESTAMENT TEACHINGS ON MALE/FEMALE ROLES

     The New Testament clearly teaches a relationship of male headship and female submission in both marriage and the church.  That the man is the head of the home is presented Eph. 5:22ff. That men are to head the church is present in three New Testament passages.  These Passages are I Cor. ll:1-16, I Cor. 14 33b-38, and I Tim. 2:ll-15.  We will take a look at these passages independently first and then see their relationships to each other. We will look at I Tim. 2:ll-15 last because it deals separately with the subject of teaching.  We will close this section with a brief comments of Gal. 3:28.

I Cor. ll: 1-16

     In this passage Paul addresses a problem of the Corinthian church.  The women were abandoning the order that God has ordained and expresses in nature. Paul argues that our freedom in Jesus Christ does not allow us to overturn this order and the particular expression of it in Corinth.  The visible sign of their abandoning this order was their failure to wear a covering on their head.

     In this passage we find both a cultural command for a woman to wear a covering to demonstrate her modesty and submission.  But we also find two universal commands, 1. For the woman to be submissive to her husband, and 2. For the woman to demonstrate submission in the church.

I.                The Hierarchy of Headships

    Paul begins his argument about the role relationship of men and women by placing it in the hierarchy of headships (v. 3). 

    a.  First he establishes the appropriateness of headship by demonstrating that the head of man is Christ.

    b.  He then demonstrates that the head of woman is man. By placing this more questionable phrase between two unquestionable phrases he strengthens the point of his argument.

    c.  He closes the hierarchy by demonstrating that the head of Christ is God.  It is interesting this point is made for in so doing Paul is not demeaning Christ.  Christ as incarnate deity is clearly the same in essence as the Father.  Christ is still God, thus equal with the Father, in essence.  But within the Godhead there is order.  Christ is not a second-class person in the Godhead (because of this order) neither is woman a second class person because of her position.

THE MEANING OF HEAD (Kephale)

This passage has posed a problem for the evangelical feminist.  To deal with this problem the Greek word "kephale" (head) is taken by them to mean "source" instead of the generally held meaning of "authority."

In defense of this explanation they demonstrate that “kephale” is widely used in Greek literature to mean "author" or "source," "origin" or "starting point."  They refer to I Cor. 8:9-12 saying that man and woman are interdependent and both find their source in God.  I Cor. ll:3, then, does not set up a fourfold hierarchy or chain of command, but presents three analogous relationships.

In response to this position we make the following observations. 

     a.  In virtually all lexicons the word "kephale" has the idea of "authority over." 

     b.  In the context of this and other New Testament passages it can have no other meaning.  In Eph. 5:23,23 the husband/wife relationship is compared to that of the Christ/Church relationship.  It states, "as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives to their husbands in everything.  The word "kephale" is being used in relation to authority and subjection.

     c.  To take "kephale" as source in this I Cor. ll passage is to say that the passage teaches that God is the source of Christ as Adam is the source of Eve and Christ is the source of man, but this clearly in not a scriptural doctrine.

     d.  The woman’s' covering is later described as "a symbol of authority" in this same passages.

THE CONTRAST OF THE MALE AND FEMALE GLORY

Paul continues his argument in I Cor. ll. by showing the contrasts of the glory of the male, of the female and of Christ. The Greek word for glory (doxa) literally means, "to seem."  It carries with it the idea of an image or reflection.  The reflection points to the object it reflects.  The reflection shows off the qualities of the object.

a.        The man is the glory of God.

b.        The woman is the glory of man.

c.        Verse 8ff. indicate that this evaluation is based on the more immediate creation of Adam by God.  He goes on to refer to Gen. 2:18-25 to show the reason for woman's creation.  

To summarize the argument we see that man was not created to be the helper of woman, but woman was created to be the helper of man.  This order is not based on the fall or the curse, but on the order of God's creation.

Paul concludes this section by saying this order ought to be in evidence "because of the angels" (v 10).  He is apparently referring to the supernatural beings who desire to see God's order preserved and His glory displayed.

THE EQUALITY AND INTERDEPENDENCE OF MAN AND WOMAN

In order not to be misunderstood Paul demonstrates that man is dependent on woman, as is woman on man (I Cor. 11:11-16).  The role of woman is not lowly or insignificant.  He seems to be trying to warn us of the inherent danger of concluding that because there is an order in the male/female relationship then man is superior too or independent of the woman.

It should be noted that the words used in these verses in I Cor. ll are not descriptive solely of the husband and wife relationship.  The words and their context are used to describe the broad relationship of male and female. Ralph Alexander has done a study of the use of the words for man and woman and demonstrates clearly that they are to be used in a broad sense.  This indicates that the relationship of male and female is to be defined broadly within the church.  In other words, male leadership is clearly the order of the church.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HEADCOVERING

Paul’s argument that the headcovering is to be worn appears to be for cultural reasons.  Ironsides points out in Jewish, Roman and Greek culture that how the woman’s' hair was worn demonstrated her standing in society.  A woman with loose hair was considered a woman in "loose" or questionable standing. Because a woman’s' covering no longer demonstrates this standing then the wearing of a covering to show submission is not applicable.  The woman’s' relationship to her husband on the other hand remains unchanged.

I Cor. 14: 33b-38

THE CONTEXT FOR THIS PASSAGE

     These verses come in the context of spiritual gifts.  In Chapters 12-14 of this book Paul is informing the Corinthians so they would not be ignorant concerning the practice of spiritual gifts (12:1).  In chapter twelve he informs the church that all believers have a gift but the spirit distributes those gifts as he desires.  He proceeds to say that some gifts are greater than others.  In chapter 13 Paul shows that these gifts are not the lasting essence of the Christian faith.  The lasting things are faith, hope and love.  These gifts must be practiced in love for God and his body.

     In chapter 14 Paul begins to clarify the use of two gifts ,the gifts of tongues and prophecy.  Apparently the church services were becoming rather chaotic because there was no order and people were speaking simultaneously and at random.  What was happening then was that both males and females were disrupting the service so that Gods Word was not being treated properly.

     Paul, starting at verse 23, proceeds to give a system of order for the church.  To those who speak in tongues he commands them to limit it only to two or three who are to speak in turn, and then only if there is an interpreter present.  If no interpreter is present they are to remain silent.  To those who have a prophecy they too are to speak in turn and only two or three are to speak.  The others are to remain silent. 

     It is in this setting, in which Paul deals with when to speak and when to keep silent, that he introduces the issue of women speaking in the church.  He uses the very same words (laleo, and sigato) to describe speaking and silence that he used in the above command. While speaking and keeping silence may have a broader application for the woman be must begin to evaluate it in its context.

THE PROHIBITION OF WOMEN SPEAKING IN THE CHURCH

The prohibition of women speaking in the church (v. 34) must be understood in light of two factors.

1.  The word for speaking apparently refers to public communication.  In the previous usage of the word Paul spoke of speaking in regards to tongues or prophecy (27,29).  The immediate context helps us understand how Paul is using the word.  More details on this passage and its context will be evaluated later.

2.  The correlation of speaking and silence here is also evident in I Tim. 2:ll-14.  We see also in verse 34 that Paul appeals to submission as the basis for his command.  This is the same pattern he uses in Timothy.

THE PROHIBITION AGAINST WOMEN TEACHING

Of the whole controversy of the roles of men and women in the church the prohibition of women teaching in the church is clearly the most controversial. For even among the more conservative groups of evangelicals there are differences concerning this subject.  While many would share with this paper the conclusions regarding male female roles in the church it is on the matter of women teaching men that many part ways.

For this reason this paper will provide a more careful analysis of the passage in I Tim. 3:ll-15.  While I Cor. 14 stated the matter in regard to tongues and prophesy this one specifies teaching men as a specific prohibition.

The teaching issue, and this passage specifically, relate to the broader topic of male female roles.  It would be foolish for Paul even to suggest the idea of women not teaching if the other areas we have look at were not true.  For this reason we must understand this passage in light of the broader issue.

THE CONTEXT FOR THE COMMAND

Paul wrote the book of Timothy to the young quiet Timothy while he was an elder at Ephesus.  In this section, starting at verse 9, he speaks of the woman’s' outer appearance.  He indicates that her appearance should reflect the godly character of the woman.  Following this section Paul will speak of the qualifications for an overseer.  The ability to teach is one of these qualifications.  The whole passage on overseers has clear reference to men. Because of this context this is the clearest statement that women are to be involved in ministry but not to fill the office of elder.

I.  The Statement of the Command (ll-12)  

    A.  After a general statement which requests women to learn in quietness and submission (the same word for the husband/wife relationship-Eph 5: I Pet 3), Paul then makes that aspect of submission more explicit by a definite negative. " But I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

         1.  That which is prohibited is teaching (disdaskein) and having authority (authentein).  It is not that a woman may not teach anyone (cf. Titus 2:3-4) but that within the church she must not teach and have authority over a man (andros).

         2.  Both words (teaching and authority) are present infinitives.  The fact that these are present infinitives and not aorist infinitives say a lot about Paul’s meaning in this passage.  Greek scholars Dana and Mantey in their "Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament" (p. 199) have this to say on the subject: "The aorist infinitive denotes that which is eventual or particular, while, the present infinitive indicates a condition or process.  Thus 'pisteusai' (aorist) is to exercises faith on a given occasion, while 'pisteuein' (present) is to be a believer; douleusai (aorist) is to render a service, while douleuein (present) is to be a slave; hamartein (aorist) is to commit a sin, while 'hamartein (aorist) is to be a sinner."

          Kenneth Wuest, another Greek scholar, says specifically of disdaskein (translated "to teach"), "Thus, didaxai (aorist) is to teach, while didskein (present 2:12) is to be a teacher.  Paul therefore, says, 'I do not permit a woman to be a teacher."  

The word used here for authority is also an interesting word.  It is somewhat unique. It is used only twice in the New Testament.  For instance, in I Tim. 2:2 we find the more common word for authority, this is a different word than the one under discussion.  But outside the New Testament it is found frequently.  It means, "to have full power or authority over, perpetrator, author.”  It can have the idea of warranted, authentic or may speak of one who initiates or takes authority into his own hands.  It is a word that speaks of one who commits murder or suicide.

It might also be noted that these two infinitives are linked by the Greek negative particle, "oude." This usually shows there is some relationship between the words connected.  It seems there is a relationship between teaching and authority.  The relationship does not remove the distinction of the two prohibitions but it implies that the teaching is prohibited because of the authoritative nature of teaching.

THE NATURE OF TEACHING IN THE BIBLE

Some would argue that this passage may allow for a woman to teach if her teaching does not place her in an authoritative role.  This paper will support a variation of that position but it has some inherent risks because teaching, by nature, is authoritative. When one teaches on a statement like, "the Bible is the Word of God," He is placing myself in a position of authority on that statement.  Teaching is designed to influence the thinking of the learner.  It seeks to somehow change that one who is the student.  That is authority.  Teaching and speaking is one of several channels that a person in authority uses to challenge his people to follow him.

Homer Kent, in his commentary on I Timothy says in this regard.

"The role of teacher, especially in the New Testament, has always been an authoritative office.  In the New Testament the teacher was the declarer of doctrine.  Another name for teacher was "rabbi" (John 1:38).  Christ Himself was recognized as having this office (John 3:23).  Consequently, teachers were among the early officials in the church, exercising their function of declaring the Word of God (Acts 13:1, Eph. 45:1).

Because of the powerful nature of teaching in effecting peoples lives the Bible places limitations on who should teach.  This restriction does not apply just to women.

For instance in Hebrews 5:12 we find that a degree of spiritual maturity and understanding are a prerequisite to teaching.  Paul says to the Hebrews, "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.  For everyone that useth milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness; for he is a babe."   This indicates teaching is not for the new believer or for the spiritually carnal or immature.

In the New Testament KJV the word for that which is taught is the word, "doctrine."  In the Greek the noun for teacher is "didaskalos," the verb is "didasko" and the adjective is "didasche," (translated doctrine).  The word doctrine is the same as our word for teaching.  Doctrine has the idea of something that is authoritative for the believer to guide his life by. A "teacher" (didaskolos) teaches (didasdo) teachings (doctrine-didasche).

The noun "didaskolos" is often translated "Master."  The headship implied in this word is evident in many verses.  In Matt. 10:24 (and Luke 6:40), "The disciple is not above his master...the disciple that he be as his Master." The master or teacher was in a position that he could rebuke his disciples, "...Master, rebuke thy disciples."  It is this word that is equivalent with the Hebrew "rabbi," in John 20:16, "Rabbi, which is to say master." (a rabbi was a position of authority in the Jewish synagogue).  Romans 2:18-24 shows the authoritative nature of teaching.

In James 3:1 we find a severe warning given to those who are teachers. Because of the authoritative and influential nature of teacher we find that James encourages the "diaspora" (see verse 1:1) to be not many teachers (KJV "masters").  The reason for his command is given in the following verses.  He states that we shall receive greater condemnation.  This position bears great responsibility.  The following verses also draw our attention to the authoritative nature of teaching.  He speaks of teaching and the tongue as being like  a bridle that leads a horse, a rudder that steers a ship and a "match" that starts a great fire.  In fact this whole chapter should be studied and mastered by every person who seeks to teach.

The Apostle Paul consistently warns against the influence of misguided teachers.  In II Tim. 4:2-4 he warns us about following those false teachers.  "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth and be turned unto fables."  Because of the influential and authoritative nature of teaching this apostasy shall take place.  

Conclusion: The nature of biblical teaching is authoritative. Women are not the only ones restricted. Only mature men, who are responsible, knowledgeable of the Word, and spiritually directed, should assume this role.

II.  The Basis for the Command (13-14).

     It must be noted that now that Paul has given the twofold prohibition he gives us his reason.  The reason he gives is not cultural.  He appeals to the very order of creation itself.

     A.  The first statement is that the order in which God created man and woman (Adam and Eve) expresses and determines the relationship God intended and the order of authority.  The one formed first is to have dominion, the one formed after and from him is to be in submission.  Paul develops this argument and its implications in I Cor. ll as we have already seen. 

     B.  The second statement is related to the fall and the fact that Eve (woman) was deceived.  Paul does not expand and develop this argument, and we must be content with his brief statement of it.  One may only conjecture that the apostle cites this foundational incident to indicate that when the roles established by God in creation were reversed by Eve, it manifestly had a disastrous effect.  It is noteworthy that no cultural reason is given. 

INTERPRETATIONS PROMOTING WOMEN TEACHING MEN

Some, like Homer Kent, argue that this prohibition does not prevent women from teaching Sunday School classes in which men are present.  He argues that such teachers must be under the doctrinal authority of "the teacher," that is, the pastor of the congregation.  A danger with such a position is that it does not make a clear enough distinction between the two prohibitions, that of teaching and that of authority. Yet, with the “oude” as the connecting word we must acknowledge the relationship between the two.

There is a parallelism in I Tim. 2:11 and 12.  There is a positive statement that women are to learn in silence and submission in verse ll.  We then find a negative statement that parallels this in the following verse.  The negative statement that women are "not to teach' parallels the positive "that women are to learn in silence."  The positive statement “to be submissive” parallels the negative statement “not have authority”.

A RESPONSE TO THE OBJECTIONS

Needless to say this position on male leadership has many objections directed at it.  We need to take a look at some of these objections.

A.  The Objection of Chronology

    Statement: This objection states that I Tim. 2:13 is not significant for the role relationship of men and women. "If beings created first are to have precedence, then the animals are clearly our betters (Hardesty and Scanzoni).

     Response: Paul’s reason for his restriction is not merely a statement of chronology but one of derivation and relationship (I Cor. 11:8-9)-man is not made from an animal.  Paul is concerned here with origin of the woman.  In fact in Genesis 2:23 this origin of woman is the basis for male and female becoming one flesh.

B. The Objection of Inaccuracy

    Statement: Pauls exegesis of Gen. 2:18ff is inaccurate as presented in I Cor. ll:1-10. His rabbinic training directed his interpretation of this passage (Paul Jewett).

    Response: This falls on dangerous territory when one rejects an interpretation of a biblical author.  It denies the inerrancy of scripture and places mans subjective cultural biases and influences as the judge and interpreter of scripture.  Beyond this fact Jewett himself provides a faulty interpretation of Genesis.

C.  Objection of the Fall

    Statement: The role relation of men and women in marriage and the church is based solely upon the effects of sin and the fall.

     Response: Sin corrupted these relationships but these relationships were established prior to the fall.  Man should remove his loveless oppressive rule but not his headship.  The Bible never builds its case for male headship upon the affects of the fall.  

D.  The Objection of Contradiction

    Statement:  In I Cor. ll:5, Paul either contradicts himself (women keep silence in the church) or I Cor. ll:6 must govern our interpretation of I Cor. 14:34 and I Tim. 2:ll-12

     Response: The opposite would in fact be true.  The last two passages are the teaching passages.  Paul is concerned about authority and headship and order in all of these passages.

E.  Objection of Exclusion

    Statement:  The traditional interpretation excludes or rules out women and their gifts from service in the life of the church.

     Response: The Bible outlines many functions that women performed in the church including older women teaching younger women and women teaching children.  The only exclusions appear to be the ruling and teaching offices that involve men.

F.  Objection of Inequality

    Statement: Subordination of women is intrinsically opposed to equality and implies inferiority.

     Response: Equality does not equal interchangeability.  This objection suggests that order in home, business, church, etc, means the one in submission is somehow a second class or inferior citizen or person.  This position is a denial of the biblical teachings on submission.

THE NATURE AND RELATIONSHIPS OF BIBLICAL SUBMISSION.

Submission has taken on a negative connotation in our culture.  Society stresses equality and advancement.  Submission is viewed as being contrary to these things and is therefore viewed as a weakness.  The Bible in contrast stresses submission.  It indicates that ones value is not determined by how much authority he wields, or how much financial or personal success he has obtained.  Instead, the Bible shows that ones greatness is determined by how well he serves others (Mark 9:33-37).  Submission then is a positive attribute to be demonstrated by all who are believers.

 I.  The Nature of Submission

A.  The word submission in the Bible speaks of relationships.  It is        encouraged as the basis for all relationships (Eph 5:21) and is specified as the basis for societal and institutional relationships.

     B.  Submission relates to two issues.

1.        The issue of authority.  This deals with the question of who you

 submit too.

2.        The issue of position.  It determines what position one plays in

 specific roles in life.

II.  The Relationships of Submission

     The Bible presents the context for submission in three different categories.

     A.  Submission in Relation to God.

         1.  Obedience to God is the highest priority  (Ecc.12:13-14).

         2.  Love for God is the greatest commandment (Matt. 22:37)

         3.  The source of peace (James 4:1-10)

     B.  Submission in Relation to Others

         The Bible presents submission to others as being an outworking of ones

   submission to God.        

         1.  Love for others is the second greatest commandment

             (Matt. 5:43-46, 22:37).

         2.  Role Relationships for Submission

             a.  Government (Rom. 13:1-4, I Peter 2:14)

             b.  Work (Eph. 6:5-9, Titus 2:10)

             c.  Home

                 1).  Husband-Wife (I Peter 3:7, Eph 5:22-33)

                 2). Parent-Child (Duet. 6:6-7, Eph. 6:1-4)

             d.  Church

                 1).  Pastor-Flock (Hebrews 13:17, 7:24, I Thes. 5:12)

                 2).  People-Pastor (I Tim. 5:20, I Timm. 5:19)

                 3).  Men-Women (I Tim. 3:1, I Tim. 2:12, Rom. 12:1-2)

     C.  Submission in Relation to Ones Self

1.            You cannot love others unless you love yourself (Eph. 5:28-32,

  Gal. 5:13, Matt. 22:39).

2.  Have a right opinion of oneself (Rom. 12:3)

         3.  Bring your body under submission (Col. 3:5-ll).

Conclusion: The matter of biblical submission is vital.  Christ indicated the greatest in the kingdom is the least of those on earth. This is reaffirmed throughout the New Testament.  Submitting is not a second class act or the person who does it a second class person.  It is a position involving dignity.  Submission is required equally for men and women.

THE NATURE OF BIBLICAL AUTHORITY

Another part of the problem in this whole issue is our societies view of authority.  The bumper sticker states what may be an unwritten model of our times.  It says, "QUESTION AUTHORITY."  Such a view has no basis in the Bible. We are told to respect, pray for, and obey those who are in authority.  The person in authority is cited as being a servant of God.  This is true in regard to government (Rom. 13), in regard to marriage (Eph5:22ff), in regard to church male/ female roles(I Cor. ll).

Paul wrote these passages in a time when government was corrupt and unrestricted.  Yet his command to respect and obey authority still stands.  This was certainly a culture that should bring into question this biblical principle of obedience to authority.  With the corrupt leadership of Paul’s day we would assume that if the value of authority and submission were to be questioned or challenged, then this was the time.

IS THERE ANY BASIS FOR A WOMAN TO TEACH?

It seems the I Tim 2 passage may allow contexts in which a woman can teach men without diminishing the requirement of the passage. But, when these occasions occur the intent and purpose of this passage must be carefully considered.

A REVIEW OF THE ISSUES

The argument regarding the restrictions regarding the role of women in the church rides on the words: 1. to teach (didaskelein) and, 2. to have authority over (authentein).  The use of “oude” clearly indicates a close relationship between the two words.  We have already stated that Paul’s prohibition to keep silence in the church must be understood in the context of the abuse of tongues and prophecies.

The relationship seems wrapped up in the idea of authority.  Didaskolos (teacher) and its related uses was a position of authority often translated “Master” or “Rabbi.”  Athenteo (authority) conveys the idea of self-originating authority or as Liddell and Scott say in their classical Greek Lexicon, “To have full power or authority over.”  They also point out it has secondary meaning as “authoritative” as, “one who speaks with authority.”  Arndt and Gringrich add the word, “to dominate.” 

The word authenteo can be contrasted to the more common words for authority- words that Paul does not use in I Tim. 2.  The word “edzouzia” has the idea of legal authority or legal right that is given to him/her through legal means.  This implies that a woman can be granted some authority by one(s) who have the legal means to do it. 

The second word most commonly translated authority is the word “dunamas” from which we get our word dynamite.  It is most often translated “power or strength” and refers to the ability or capability of a person. This implies that a woman may have the full ability to do something but is limited by the authority to do something.

THE IMPLICATIONS TO THE CHURCH

Not all speaking in front of men is teaching (didaskolos) and not all leadership is authenteo (self-originating authority). Therefore, there may be times when a woman can speak in front of men without violating the intent of I Tim. 2. 

For instance, a pastor or elder who has “athenteo” authority asks a woman to lead a class in which she is sharing information and ideas that he has overseen.  A woman could, for instance, lead a class on basic Bible truths in which a person in authority put the material together with her (or without her) and she is sharing information with the students that has been approved. Her role is not to influence others by her own authority but by the authority of those who granted her the responsibility to teach.

The present infinitive, which indicates continuous action, seems to imply a woman could teach periodically for small controlled segments of time.  Woman missionaries in this case would be allowed to teach on the urgency of missions or report on progress being made. Even in Acts 21:9 we find the four daughters of Phillip who prophesied when Paul was present.  Their prophecy appears to be accepted. 

This could also pertain to leading a choir or worship service if the authority for leadership is clearly that of the pastor or one who can legally grant that leadership. But, the source of her authority must be clear.  She is limited from shaping and molding it under her own authority.

CONCLUSION

In the coming years the issue of women in the church will continue to be divisive.  There are those who want to reinterpret or ignore passages that reduce a woman’s role in the church.  To them there are no distinctions between male and female in regard to leadership issues.  On the other hand there are those apply these verses beyond what Paul seems to intend.  Paul, when addressing the question of elders in the church, is essentially indicating that women may not be elders nor share the teaching and leading responsibilities that go with that role.  Beyond that we must be careful in how far we go to limit the role of women in our church.