The role of women in the church continues to provoke discussion among the churches. For instance, the United Presbyterian Church is demanding that women be represented on every session (church governing board). Evangelicals in particular are discussing the role of women. Consider the numerous books and articles on the subject in recent years.
I believe the New Testament makes a two-fold declaration: first, men and women stand equal in Christ (Gal. 3:28), and second, women are not to lead and teach either the church corporate or men in the church (1 Tim. 2:11–14; 1 Cor. 14:35ff.).
Men and women in their humanity are equally image bearers of God and, in their redemption, joint heirs of the grace of Christ. So they participate equally in all the aspects of the priesthood of believers in church life. But God has also created us male and female, and arranged that we reflect these different aspects of our humanity in the matter of leadership in the church and in marriage.
Does the Bible really teach this? Let’s look at some important passages. The New Testament seems to forbid “a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man” (1 Tim. 2:12) in the life of the church. When Paul says, “I do not permit,” he issues as much of an imperative as one can have in the first person singular, “I” form. Also, the present tense does not mean he limits the prohibition to that time only. Rather, it indicates the kind of action, so he means “I am continually not permitting.” Further, the word translated “permit” in the King James Version and is quite strong as used in the Greek world, and in the New Testament. Paul employs it in 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 16:7. It is especially strong with the negative.
The phrase “exercise authority” is sometimes wrongly interpreted to mean “domineer.” Some argue, therefore, that such action is not forbidden to women only; it would be inappropriate for any Christian to act domineeringly toward another person. When we examine the word, however, we find it will not permit this stronger and universally objectionable meaning.
The Greek word authenteō, rendered “exercise authority,” occurs only here in the New Testament. In “Authenteō in Reference to Women in 1 Timothy 2:12,” an article to appear in the journal, New Testament Studies, I have examined the occurrences of the word elsewhere. I conclude that its meaning here is “to have authority” or “to exercise authority” in a positive or neutral sense, and that the meanings “domineer” or “to bring pressure in a sexual sense” are inappropriate and especially in 1 Timothy 2:12.
The context of 1 Timothy 2:11–12 bears this out. The words and concepts used in verse 12 are the converse of verse 11 and flow out of it; learn (verse 11) but do not teach a man (verse 12); learn with submissiveness (verse 11) but do not exercise authority (verse 12) over a man. Both the teaching and the exercising of authority that Paul does not allow relate to men in the church corporate, because “a man” is the object of both verbs.
This follows not only from the context, in which Paul is addressing the question from the male/female relationship exclusively. It is also evident from parallel passages where Paul, who does not contradict himself, permits women to teach other women (Titus 2:3–5). The prohibition of 1 Timothy 2:12 is made in connection with general instructions for order in the church. Compare chapter 2 in its entirety and then chapter 3, especially verse 15: “I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living god, the pillar and support of the truth.” There are four possible ways to take 1 Timothy 2:12–15. Is this prohibition a Pauline error? Or is it a part of the culture that Paul supports simply to maintain good order? Or is there something unique about the situation in Ephesus (1 Timothy) and Corinth (I Corinthians) that causes Paul to write instructions applying only under that unique situation? Or, last, in appealing to the order God instituted and established at Creation, the creation order, does Paul show he understands his instructions to have the most fundamental basis—that is, the creation and our continued sexuality, male and female? If this last explanation is the case, the prohibition is permanent and universal.
Marriage
In choosing among these alternatives, we can get help by considering the New Testament’s teaching about roles in marriage. We find that uniformly it teaches that there are to be different roles for husband and wife (Eph. 5:22–33; Col. 3:18–19; Tit. 2:4–5; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). Those roles are assigned simply because one is the husband and one is the wife. The basis is their maleness or femaleness, even though both husband and wife are joint heirs of the grace of life (1 Pet. 3:7). In each passage, the role is described either directly or indirectly in terms of the husband as the “head” or leader of the marriage, and the wife as one who, though equal, is asked to submit herself as an equal to the headship of her husband.
Significantly, each spouse is required to exercise his or her role with just the appropriate attitude and conduct that will offset a misuse of that role. For example, husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church, and as they love their own bodies (Eph. 5:25, 28; Col. 3:18). This is grace’s antidote to the tyranny with which sin poisons leadership. So the apostles reject not the role of leadership, but its abuse.
But some may object that these passages are only expressions of the apostles’ ordering of society along the lines that then existed. After all, most of these passages speak of slaves and masters in close connection with husbands and wives. Are the apostles teaching only that when masters had slaves and husbands had wives, both were to submit? Was this the Christian way of living only in that time and situation? Before we accept such a domino theory we need to recognize that children and parents are also mentioned here, and their relationship becomes another domino that may be toppled.
It is necessary to ask whether Paul groups together regulations for members of the household not because the relationships are parallel, but for mere convenience since all deal with the membership of many households of that day. As a matter of fact, it would appear that these relationships have quite different bases. Paul is quite willing for the slave’s status to change to one of freedom (compare Philemon and also 1 Cor. 7:21). He never insists that slavery is instituted by God and therefore to be perpetuated. Paul is simply giving directions on how slaves and masters should live if they are in that situation, just as Moses gave directions as to how a person should put away his wife if he divorced her (Deut. 24). But Jesus indicates that Moses’ instruction about divorce does not indicate God’s desire about marriage (Matt. 19:8); so neither do Paul’s instructions about slaves and masters indicate God’s desire for the way people are to relate in this area.
We face a different situation concerning children. Paul grounds his word to children in the permanent word of the Ten Commandments (Eph. 6:1–3). And, likewise, when we ask about the basis for the uniform teaching on the role relationship of husband and wife in marriage, we find it is God’s activity in Creation (just as Jesus appealed to that activity to answer the question about divorce and marriage). He also appeals to the analogy of Christ as the head to the church, but this too is related to the bridegroom-bride, husband-wife imagery of both Old and New Testaments.
The evidence that the apostles root the uniform teaching about headship and submission for husband and wife in the creation order of God surfaces in the quote from Genesis 2:24 in Ephesians 5:31. It is made explicit in Paul’s full use of Genesis 2 to establish the roles relating to headship in 1 Corinthians 11. We must admit that Genesis 2:24 seems to surface only in Ephesians 5:31. But consider also the nomenclature and development of thought in Ephesians 5 and the specific correlation of Genesis 2 with headship in 1 Corinthians 11. Clearly the Genesis 2 truths are the basis for the apostles’ consistent teaching about headship and submission.
Paul is quite specific on what Genesis 2 teaches about how men and women are to relate to one another in terms of headship. His exegesis and application of Genesis 2:21–23 is given in 1 Corinthians 11:8–9: “For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.” This understanding undergirds his early statement covering headship: “Christ is the head of every man and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:3). Here headship is unfolded not only between man and woman, but also between God and Christ.
The headship in view must not be restricted to origin, for the headship referred to in marriage concerns the wife’s submission (this is not the question of her personal origin, but of leadership). Likewise, the reference to the relationship of God the Father to Christ his incarnate Son concerns relationship, not to origin of being.
Here we have the most perfect example to encourage women and provide them with a model. In marriage and in the church they are, as equals, to submit to the headship of men. The example? Christ has submitted to God as his head!
This removes once and for all the charge that submission means inferiority and denies equality. At the same time it shows that Paul is zealous to make this point of headship. Not only does he appeal to the creation order which continues in the face of our masculinity and femininity. He also appeals to Christ’s act of submitting to the Father. He does not write later in the chapter on the equality of men and women and their mutual dependence on one another (1 Cor. 11:11–12) in order to set aside his earlier teaching on the headship of men. Rather these verses are to remind all that it is a headship among equals and to remove any tendency to arrogance by men or to servility by women. Likewise Peter refers to men and women as fellow heirs (1 Pet. 3:7) in his statement on the roles of headship and submission in marriage (1 Pet. 3:1–7).
Marriage And The Church
The significance of this look at marriage is, first of all, that we find here the same features in marriage that we find in the larger family, the church. In both, with similar terminology, headship or leadership is required of the man, and submission to that headship or leadership is required of the woman. Also, either indirectly or directly, women are denied that headship. In both marriage and church the appeal is to God’s order of Genesis 2.
Second, notice how Genesis 2—the differentiation and role relationship established by God at Creation—is the connecting link for both and at the same time their foundation. Paul establishes the principle of headship for man in 1 Corinthians 11 (note especially vv. 3, 8, 9). In 1 Timothy 2:13, when Paul gives the reason why a woman may not teach or exercise authority over a man, he also cites the significance of the order of creation in Genesis 2. Likewise, when Paul prohibits a woman speaking in church he also appeals to the Law (1 Cor. 14:34). This cannot include a prohibition against praying or prophesying (he has already approved them in 1 Corinthians 11), so we must liken it to teaching, the function in view in the parallel passage, 1 Timothy 2. Since the Law to which he has appealed in the parallel or analogous passages (1 Cor. 1:8–9; 1 Tim. 2:13) has been the order of creation in Genesis 2, we shall also presume what is in view here is that same emphasis in Genesis 2 and not, as some say, the judgment upon sin in Genesis 3:16.
What is the meaning of Genesis 3:16? It is saying how sin will affect the previously established relationship; it is not saying how that relationship is to be conducted, and it is certainly not the basis for the principle of headship and submission. The reference in 1 Timothy 2:14 to the deception and transgression of Eve gives an illustration of the effects of reversing the leadership role, not an additional basis for it.
We see, therefore, that the role relationship for men and women in marriage and in the church is the same, and that the basis given for both is the same: God’s creation order determines for the sexes once and for all how they are to relate in the area of leadership in marriage and in the church. New Testament teachings on the role relationship of men and women in marriage and in the church stand or fall together.
Let us take as proven that Paul’s appeal for the headship of man in marriage and in the church is to God’s creation order differentiating male from female. If this is true, then prohibiting women from headship in marriage or from teaching and authority in the church corporate must be the permanent and universal teaching of the Word of God. Paul further indicates this character of his teaching by asserting in 1 Corinthians 14 that what he is teaching is the commandment of God (v. 37) and that this is to be observed in the churches (plural, v. 34, compare v. 33).
It may be objected that there are things difficult to understand in these contexts, such as veils (1 Cor. 11), the asking of questions by women (1 Cor. 14), and jewelry and hair style (1 Tim. 2; 1 Pet. 3). Many of these are indeed only concrete applications of a principle to a specific cultural setting. For instance, this is true of the veil and the significance of the hair style and use of jewelry as an indication of immodesty and ostentation in the apostles’ day. (Compare 1 Tim. 2:9 “modestly and discreetly, not with …”)
But the difficulty of these contextual matters or even their local cultural character does not topple the teaching of the role relationship. We should understand these other matters as applications of a principle, whereas the role relationship in marriage and the church is itself a principle.
According to the CHRISTIANITY TODAY-Gallup Poll, clergymen favor the ordination of women by 49 to 43 percent; 8 percent have no opinion. As might be expected, 60 percent of the Catholic clergymen oppose such ordination, while 40 percent of the Protestant clergy are negative.
However, the highest percentage of opposition comes from Southern Baptists (74 percent), while the Methodists are far and away the most in favor (83 percent).
Middle-aged clergy (30 to 39) are most in favor, but only slightly more so than older clergy. Younger clergy (18 to 29) are most opposed.
Among evangelical clergymen, those who identified themselves as “liberal” (referring generally to social and political views rather than to theology) were strongest in favor of ordaining women, while those calling themselves “conservative” were strongest against it. “Middle-of-the-roaders” gave a 65 to 25 percent edge to ordination of women.
Women As Deacons?
Nor can appeal to the extensive involvement of women in the ministry of Jesus and Paul overturn this teaching. Such examples are analogous to the involvement of wives in marriage. Yes, women are also in the broad ministry of the church just as wives are in the marriage, but not in a leadership role. A careful examination of every case will make it plain that no example sets aside the prohibition of women from a leadership role in the church. Passages often cited include Phoebe in Romans 16:1–2; Prisca in Romans 16:3; Euodia and Syntyche in Philippians 4:3.
Consider Phoebe’s role (Rom. 16:1–2). An appeal to the usage of the feminine word prostatis (NASB and RSV: “a helper of many”) is often made to attempt to establish Phoebe as a leader in the congregation. The argument often proceeds from this word to a verb with the same root (proistēmi) and the similar masculine noun (prostatēs). It usually insists that since the masculine noun and the verb are directly associated with leadership, the feminine noun must be also. As a matter of fact, New Testament Greek lexicons and classical Greek lexicons consistently indicate that this is not the case, and that the feminine noun indicates one who is a “helper” or “patroness” but not a leader. Paul Jewett, although contending that the word means more than that she was only a deaconess, candidly admits that “in this passage, prostatis, literally ‘a woman set over others,’ should hardly be taken to mean that Phoebe was a woman ‘ruler.’ Rather the meaning would seem to be that she was one who cared for the affairs of others by aiding them with her resources” (Man as Male and Female).
Furthermore, the argument often appeals to the word diakonos to indicate that Phoebe is a “deacon” of the church and thus an officer. We must make three observations about this. First, diakonos is not always used as a technical term for a “minister” or “deacon” in the New Testament because its most basic general meaning is that of “servant.” It is rendered this way in other places in the New Testament as well as here.
Second, the fullest treatment of deacons in the New Testament, 1 Timothy 3:8–13, describes deacons as men, and refers to women in that context in distinction from the men deacons. It does not apply the term diakonos to them in that technical sense. This explains why so many translations have not used “deacon” in Romans 16:1; they are aware that the more definitive Pauline usage in 1 Timothy 3:8–13 does not apply the term in a technical way to women.
Third, even if for argument’s sake we say that Phoebe is a “deacon,” the apostle’s prohibition is not overturned. The very distinction in the New Testament between the official deacon and elder (or bishop) is that an elder holds the teaching or ruling office, while the deacon is in the serving office, one not inherently involving teaching or ruling. Thus even if we grant that Phoebe is a church deacon, the New Testament has still not placed her in the ruling or teaching office. Many churches who hold to the apostolic prohibition on teachers and rulers have ordained women as deaconesses.
Furthermore, according to a principle of biblical interpretation, we should understand practical examples in light of broad teaching, not pit them against such teaching. We can at least grant that Paul practices what he preaches.
We also see another set of parallels. Denial of headship to the woman does not change her equality or her full involvement in the ministry of marriage. Likewise, in the church the denial of the leadership roles does not deny her equality as a human being or as a joint heir in the body of Christ. Nor does it deny her full involvement in all aspects of ministry to which Scripture welcomes the whole priesthood of believers. Nor are women excluded from teaching per se, for they are encouraged to teach women (Tit. 2:3–5). And they are to be involved in the full range of worship activities and diaconal service where these do not involve leadership offices or functions (compare, for example, 1 Timothy 3:11 and 5:10).
Gifts
But finally, some may object that this denies freedom to God’s Spirit to impart gifts to women, predicted by Joel (2:18) and reaffirmed by Peter (Acts 2:17–18). That same kind of objection could be raised against men as being the only heads of marriage, for does not God equip some women in the natural realm to be better heads of marriage than men? But there are other solutions to this seeming dilemma. May not the gifts be used both in marriage and the church in a way that does not violate the principle of male headship? In Titus 2, for instance, Paul urges some women to teach other women and exercise leadership with them. In 1 Timothy 2:12 he prohibits women only from teaching men and the church corporate, not from the act of teaching itself.
Is not this question of spiritual gifts versus God’s order raised in the context of the entire fourteenth chapter of I Corinthians? And is not this why it deals with the question of women speaking in church, that is, because some were claiming that spiritual gifts would now enable women to speak? The apostle Paul insists that such an appeal cannot set aside the creation order taught by the Law (verse 34), recognized in all the churches, and now taught by him as an apostle giving the Lord’s commandment. In summary, Paul is saying that the grace of redemption and the work of the Spirit do not overturn God’s creation order, just as he said that God’s order in general may not be ignored or overturned by the activity of spiritual gifts (compare vv. 27–33, and v. 40).
Considerate Leadership
Does this mean that the church is the last bastion for male dominance, the sanctified domain of male bigots and chauvinists? God forbid! Jesus’ word about leadership is the final word in working out and applying God’s creation order: “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all” (Mark 10:42–44). What God requires of male headship in marriage he also requires of male headship in the church—men must be loving, considerate, humble to all over whom they exercise oversight, whether male or female. He equally requires all people under that oversight to be submissive, respectful, and supportive, whether they are male or female.
We are not engaged in a political or sexist power struggle; we are engaged in deciding the biblical prescriptions for marriage and the church. These prescriptions balance two insights: the God-given equality of the sexes, and the God-given differences.
