| << | Contents | >> |
Freedom in God's Divine Order for Women
Some authors claim that the Biblical exclusion of women from teaching is a result of cultural pressures in New Testament times. William Weinrich[61] disagrees with this assumption. He states there is no evidence that “suggests that the church’s exclusion of women from the preaching and teaching ‘office’ was an unevangelical accommodation to social and cultural pressures. In fact, the social and cultural context of Christianity at times favored the church’s admitting women to the teaching ‘office.’ In first-and-second-century Asia Minor, for example, the social position of women was well developed. There were female physicians, and Ephesus had its female philosophers among the Stoics, Epicureans, and Pythagoreans, who were known to teach, perhaps publicly. Likewise, female leadership and priesthood were well known in the local religious cults (Cybele, Isis, Demeter, Atremis).” Even feminist Elaine Pagels[62] questions the cultural pressure for a patriarchal church when she comments that, “the absence of feminine symbolism of God marks Judaism and Christianity in striking contrast to the world’s other religious traditions, whether in Egypt, Babylonia, Greece, or Rome...”
Others claim that this exclusion of women was because Paul didn’t want to go against Jewish traditions. But that argument doesn’t hold water. Paul wasn’t shy about challenging Jewish tradition when he stood against the circumcision party in Galatians 2:11-12. He even publicly confronted Peter’s hypocrisy when he withdrew from eating with Gentile believers for fear what certain Jewish believers might think. Hebrews 8-9 challenges the efficacy of the Old Covenant priests and the Old Covenant relative to Jesus’ priesthood and the New Covenant, definitely not pharisee pleasing comments.
Women were a very important part of the ministries of Jesus and the apostles. They were essential to the functioning of the early church. From experience, I know that a pastor who ministers to a woman, without his wife present, lacks the perspectives and insights of another woman. He also puts himself and the counselee in a potentially dangerous situation because of sexual and emotional temptations. My wife not only ministers with me whenever I counsel women (including the counseling of couples), but she has taught, counseled, and pastored women on her own. It is easy to believe that there must have been very similar needs in the early church. Women were unquestionably a necessary and significant part of ministry then too, especially considering that many women followed Jesus in His earthly ministry and many more were added to the early church. Paul revealed the significance of women’s influence in the church when he wrote about Priscilla, Phoebe, and others. I don’t believe that these passages were meant to show women in eldership roles in the church as some propose. (God could have very easily and clearly included women in the definition of elders in 1 Timothy 3 if that were His intent.) He encouraged women, and taught against the practice of demeaning them. He also encouraged future generations to see the vital role women should have in the church. However, in spite of the clarity of the apostolic record, men down through the centuries have continued discrimination. Their ignorance doesn’t mean that Scriptures need to be retranslated to correct the oppression. Complete freedom exists for women when God’s word is considered as a whole. Study of Scripture can reveal significant ministries for women without trying to extend their spheres to include the government of the church. I believe that the freedom for women to exercise their God-given ministries can thrive in an environment like that of a “New Testament Church” described earlier in this book.
In addition to questioning the translation of certain words and the social pressures to limit women’s place in the church, proponents of women in eldership justify their theological position by using examples of specific women in the Bible who they believe functioned in places of authority. Let us examine some of these examples and consider what they propose.
The following passage has been used by some to prove there was at least one female apostle:
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
Salute Andronicus and Junia, kinsmen, my and fellow prisoners, my who are of note among the apostles, who also before me were in Christ...
(Romans 16:7, ITB[63])
Some commentaries state that Junia(s) could be a man. In fact, of the 12 Bible translations listed in the references at the end of this paper, only the KJ, NKJ, and NRSV list the person as Junia (feminine). All the rest have Junias (masculine). The NRSV footnotes Junia with, “or Junias; other ancient authorities read Julia.” Piper and Grudem [64] say, “there is no way to be dogmatic about what the form of the name signifies. It could be feminine or masculine. Certainly no one can claim that Junia was a common name in the Greek speaking world, since there are only ... three known examples in all of Greek literature.” However, even if Junia were a woman, the verse still doesn’t prove that she was an apostle. In fact, it could very well be speaking of Andronicus and Junia(s) as well known to the apostles (and therefore, as people of note). They could have been well known to the apostles for significant contributions in support of their ministries, not that they were apostles. If they had been apostles who excelled, it probably would have read, “apostles of note.” No other place in Scripture are they referred to as apostles or is any woman specifically identified as an apostle. In fact, neither Junia(s) nor Andronicus are even mentioned again in the Bible. Does it not seem likely that they would have been spoken of again if they had been “apostles of note?”
If God wanted women to be apostles, why didn’t He choose one to be in the original 12? Some people say that He would have, but He didn’t want to go against the oral law that “forbade women witnesses in both civil and religious matters.” That might be believable if Jesus never went counter to Jewish oral law or culture. He healed on the Sabbath, severely chastised the Pharisees, chased the money changers from the temple, and so offended the leaders of Israel that they tried on several occasions to have Him killed. Much of their problem with Him was that He openly went against the oral law and traditions that hindered the Kingdom of God. Why would He stop there? If women were to be apostles, why didn’t God identify women as clearly as He did men with that call? God could even have chosen one of the many capable women who were among His followers at that time to replace Judas. He did not.
Finally, it is not good scholarship to use Junia, whose gender is questionable, to question a straight forward passage like 1 Timothy 2:11-12.
The following verses are used by some to prove there were women prophets in the New Testament:
On the next day we who were Paul’s companions departed and came to Caesarea, and entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him. Now this man had four virgin daughters who prophesied (NT:4395).
Luke uses propheteuo (NT:4395), (which could mean to prophesy or to function in the calling of a prophet), instead of prophetes (NT:4396). If he had used prophetes, the daughters would have been clearly identified as prophets. Propheteuo is used a total of 28 times in the New Testament. It is always translated as the verbs prophesy, prophesying, or prophesied. It never is used to specifically identify a prophet. Prophetes appears 150 times in the New Testament, is always translated prophet, and is never used for a woman. All that can be said with certainty is that the four daughters prophesied.
Deborah was an Old Testament prophetess (Judges 4:4). Miriam (Exodus 15:20), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14), Noadiah (Nehemiah 6:14), Isaiah’s wife (Isaiah 8:3), and Anna (Luke 2:36) are also mentioned as prophetesses. Although no one is clearly identified as a New Testament prophetess (NT:4398), God did not say He would not raise up such ministries in the church. If He does, I believe He would define their sphere in accordance with 1 Corinthians 11:2-9, 1 Corinthians 14:32-35, and 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Many women have been given gifts of teaching, pastoring, evangelizing, and prophesying. But their anointed function should not lead us to believe that God has called them to a governmental authority in the church. Anyone can speak words that are from God. Such words will have His authority. But gifting alone is never the primary qualification for eldership in Scripture. Governing authority is defined by God’s order and call.
In addition to being a prophetess, and most likely because she was a prophetess, Deborah was also a judge (OT:8199) in Israel. This position involved civil authority (see Deuteronomy 16:18-20) in a nation that had both civil and spiritual leadership. It is obvious that her prophetic gift didn’t cease when she was judging. Her decisions probably involved spiritual direction for some of the people who came to her, just as it would have for any prophet(ess). Nevertheless, the authority of a judge was a different realm than the governmental authority in God’s house. While Deborah functioned prophetically within the realm of civil leadership, it is doubtful she had authority over the priests who were the governing authority in God’s house.
Thomas R. Schreiner[65] had the following to say about Deborah’s ministry, “Deborah did not prophesy in public. Instead, her prophetic role seems to be limited to private and individual instruction. Judges 4:5 says, ‘And she used to sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the sons of Israel came to her for judgment (NASB).’ Note that Deborah did not go out and publicly proclaim the word of the Lord. Instead individuals came to her in private for a word from the Lord. The one difference between Deborah’s prophetic ministry and that of the Old Testament prophets is clear. She did not exercise her prophetic ministry in a public forum as they did.”
However, Deborah did speak God’s words prophetically. Her words had authority. As a judge in Israel she also had a position of responsibility. People looked to her for decisions that put her in a place of authority in the country. But can her position be used as justification for allowing women to govern in the church today? I don’t believe that it can because of the civil nature of the duties of a judge, her prophetic gift notwithstanding. (But I do believe that the example of Deborah as a civil judge does open positions of authority in secular society and governments to Christain women.) If God had wanted to establish a precedent for women in leadership in the church, he would have called her as a priest. However, because of the importance of her position, let’s look further to see why God might have chosen a woman, whom He had gifted prophetically, to fill a calling that was otherwise reserved for men. (Since the Bible doesn’t specifically say, I will be trying to read between the lines, a popular activity among egalitarians. Let’s see if a reasonable case can be built for God’s choice.)
The Book of Judges stands in stark contrast to Joshua. In Joshua an obedient people conquered the land through trust in the power of God. In Judges, however, a disobedient and idolatrous people are defeated time after time because of their rebellion against God. Some believe this book could be appropriately titled “The Failures.” It was a time of great failure in the character of the nation. Judges, then, were given to a rebellious people. In this environment God chose a woman to be a judge. In doing so, did He intend that Deborah would be an example of feminine leadership in the church of future generations? Or could it be that our present situation in the Church (with an increasing number of women prophets, pastors, and teachers functioning in governmental roles) is an indication that we are more a reflection of the Book of Judges than we are of the Book of Joshua?
Piper and Grudem[66] describe the time of the judges in this way: “The period of the judges is an especially precarious foundation for building a vision of godly leadership. In those days God was not averse to bringing about a state of affairs that did not conform to His revealed will in order to achieve some wise purpose, cf. Judges 4:1-4.”
In Judges 2 we find God’s plan for judges and it was to deliver Israel from their enemies.
Nevertheless, the LORD raised up judges who delivered them out of the hand of those who plundered them.
In Judges 3 we find Othniel who went to war and delivered them. Ehud followed Othniel as a deliverer but is not mentioned as a judge.
In Judges 4 Deborah, a prophetess, judged Israel. Why was a woman chosen? The commander of the army was Barak. It appears he was the one God wanted to deliver Israel. Shouldn’t he have been made a judge? But Barak did not seem sure of himself. God brought Deborah to him and used her gift of prophecy and her position as a judge to convince Barak that he was to go to war to deliver the nation (Judges 4:6). God then had to remind him through Deborah that it was time to fight and that He would go before him (Judges 4:14). In fact Deborah’s attitude in bringing the word to Barak was more submissive than directive (“Has not the Lord commanded...”). That still wasn’t enough for Barak. He told Deborah that she had to accompany him or he wouldn’t go (Judges 4:8). It appears he doubted that God would be with him. She submitted to Barak and went; and he was victorious. Again, why did God choose Deborah and not Barak to be judge? It might have been Barak’s timidity or uncertainty. These character flaws might have kept him from his call. God could have changed his heart, but just like Moses, He provided a helper (God gave Aaron to Moses when Moses said he couldn’t do all God wanted of him). Barak seemed to need someone in whom he could have confidence to hear God. Deborah had been recognized by many in Israel for her prophetic gifting, boldness, and character. God may have chosen Deborah because the man He wanted to use simply would not rise to the challenge. But Deborah was someone Barak would listen to. Notice that she didn’t lead the army. Rather, God chose Barak to be the deliverer, a defining function of judges (Judges 2:16).
When Deborah first brought the word of the Lord to Barak about defeating Sisera she said, “Has not the Lord God of Israel commanded, saying I will deliver him into your hand?” But after Barak insisted that Deborah go with him, the word of the Lord was, “there will be no glory for you in the journey you are taking, for the LORD will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” (See Judges 4:4-9) Why? Was it because God wanted Barak alone to be the deliverer? If Barak had fulfilled this call on his own, would there have been a transition from a woman judging the nation to a man doing so? Was there any man other than Barak who could have qualified as a judge to deliver Israel? The Scripture does not identify any such person.
When it was Gideon’s turn to deliver Israel, God didn’t send a prophet, a prophetess, or a judge to call him to his task. He sent an angel. Why? Again, the Bible doesn’t say. But in Gideon’s case, He chose a man who wasn’t a soldier, a man who seems to have been even more uncertain of himself than Barak. (I think God would want us all to be in a place to hear Him directly, and to have confidence in Him to do what He says. But because of our failings, He often uses others to help us respond to Him.) An angel would probably get someone’s attention quicker than a prophet or prophetess. Again, God had to do something out of the ordinary to get Gideon to act. Interestingly, even though Gideon was the deliverer and his story is told in the book entitled “The Book of Judges,” he is never specifically referred to as a judge. Did his timidity, like Barak’s also keep him from a certain measure of God’s honor and recognition as a judge? Scripture does not say. The rest of the judges, except for Samson, only have a few lines concerning how long each served. We can’t tell much about their terms of service, except that no other women were identified as judges.
It is interesting to note God’s list of the faithful in Hebrews 11. Barak is included along with Gideon, Samson, and Jephthah; but Deborah is not (vs 32). It is not as though women are excluded from the list. Sarah is mentioned in verse 11. Rahab is mentioned in verse 31.Why didn’t God have the author of Hebrews add Deborah to the list? Assuming the role of prophetess and judge probably took a lot of faith, especially since she no doubt knew Israel was a patriarchal society. Being listed with the others would have emphasized her faith as an example for women over the years. Could the reason be that some would use it to justify allowing women to assume positions in church government against God’s design in later generations?
It seems quite possible that God made an exception in Deborah to His pattern of male judges to inspire Barak to deliver Israel. If so, it would not be the only exception He made to His design in Scripture. When men haven’t responded to God in the way He desires, He has at times chosen to let people circumvent His order. God’s exceptions don’t necessarily mean He has changed His mind concerning His divine pattern. The following show two examples:
They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.” But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the LORD. And the LORD said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them.”
In both of these Scriptures God’s desired order for Israel hadn’t changed; He simply made exceptions to accommodate the weaknesses of men.
Satan is revealed in Scripture as a subtle serpent who often appeals to our selfish desires to lead us from God’s design for our lives. He succeeded with Eve. By distorting God’s motives and appealing to her pride, he was able to deceive her and lead her to disobedience. Satan is smart enough to try to use God’s exceptions to change people’s ideas of His order. David had many wives. The Scriptures don’t specifically say that bigamy was an exception to God’s pattern for marriage, but from the beginning, God gave one woman to Adam, not several. David’s bigamy may well have been the source of some Mormon’s belief that bigamy today is acceptable. In following this they have changed God’s order.
It is interesting to see the extremes to which some authors will go to prove their point. Here is one example[67]. “Priscilla...exercised her teaching gift and ministry freely.” But the Scripture nowhere declares her a teacher. Nor does it support the following statement of proponents of female eldership: “Aquilla was a ready and zealous patron rather than a teacher. Priscilla had the gift and her husband gave her support,” and “..Roman women were elevated to full and equal status (with men). We can assume that Priscilla...continued in the same freedom she had in Pontus.” (The Bible doesn’t say that Priscilla was Roman, only that Aquilla and Pricilla recently had come from Italy. It also doesn’t say that Priscilla was ever in Pontus.) These statements are an argument from silence. Examining the six Scriptures below concerning Priscilla, it is obvious that such conclusions either came from very loose assumptions or from extra-biblical sources.
Some use the fact that Paul listed Priscilla’s name first as an indication that she was the dominant force in the marriage. In fact, they each are listed first three times in the NKJV. James Garrett states[68] that, “Normally in the First Century culture, the husband’s name would have been listed first, except when the wife is of higher social status or the couple had no concern for status. The natural assumption is that Priscilla was of higher social status than Aquilla.” It is also possible that listing her first may have been God’s way of addressing prevailing negative attitudes about women in some elements of both the Greek and Hebrew cultures. He wanted people to realize that men were not more important than women.
The six Scriptures below are the only ones involving Priscilla:
After these things Paul departed from Athens and went to Corinth. And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla (because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome); and he came to them. So, because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and worked; for by occupation they were tentmakers. And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks. When Silas and Timothy had come from Macedonia, Paul was compelled by the Spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ.
So Paul still remained a good while. Then he took leave of the brethren and sailed for Syria, and Priscilla and Aquila were with him. He had his hair cut off at Cenchrea, for he had taken a vow. And he came to Ephesus, and left them there; but he himself entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews.
Aquila and Priscilla may have gone with Paul to Syria in support of his tent making rather than specifically for teaching. This assumption could explain why they are not mentioned as having “reasoned with Paul in the synagogue every Sabbath” in Corinth (see Acts 18:4) and why Paul left them in Ephesus when he “entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews” in Acts 18:19. If Priscilla was as excellent and gifted a teacher as some claim (see page 56), why didn’t Paul take her with him?
Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught (NT:1321) accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained (NT:1620) to him the way of God more accurately.
Note that Apollos was, “eloquent ...mighty in the Scriptures...had been instructed in the way of the Lord...taught accurately the things of God,” except that, “he knew only the baptism of John.” It seems likely that what Aquilla and Priscilla explained to Apollos, when they took him aside, was the truth of baptism into the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. (The Bible doesn’t say who did the sharing. Aquilla could have done most, or even all, of it.) This is hardly evidence of extensive teaching or even less the discipling attributed to her by some writers (see italics in the quote from Cunningham and Hamiliton on page 56). In fact, how much teaching would they give a man who is described by so many superlatives relative to his knowledge of the Scriptures?
Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their own necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Likewise greet the church that is in their house.
The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you heartily in the Lord, with the church that is in their house. All the brethren greet you. Greet one another with a holy kiss.
Greet Prisca (probably an abbreviation for Priscilla) and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus.
None of these passages state that Priscilla was a teacher or that she ever taught in a church, even in the church in their home. In fact the word teach (NT:1321) is never used in any verse about Aquila and Priscilla, but is used in reference to Apollos. At the most, their explaining to Apollos “the way of God” making him “a teacher brought to completion” was really only a discussion on baptism. There is no indication that she had “spent much time...correcting the early errors of Apollos, discipling him for leadership” or that Priscilla was ever in Rome, as claimed by Cunningham and Hamilton[69]. These observations cast serious doubts on their further assertions that Priscilla “played a crucial role, helping to establish churches in Corinth, Ephesus, and Rome” (see pages 56-57)”
The following is the only passage referring to Phoebe. Despite this, some authors say that she taught men. If she did so, it isn’t revealed in Scripture:
I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant (NT:1249) of the church in Cenchrea, that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper (NT:4368) of many and of myself also.
From the definitions and the context, all one can say with certainty is that Paul commended her for serving and helping. She could have provided housing, arranged for food, been generous financially, ministered to the sick, taught women, evangelized, prophesied, or exercised the ministries of helps. She no doubt was a gifted helper who assisted many. Did she do more than this?
Some have said[70] “Phoebe was a deacon, whom Paul called a ruler (Greek prostatis – NT:4368) of many.” They also question what Paul meant by “assist her” and calling her a servant (diakonos – NT:1249).
To address their questioning the use of diakonos, I have included some passages below where diakonos can be translated simply as a normal servant over and against the church function of “deacon.” (Interestingly, diakonos is only translated in the KJV as “deacon” three times, versus “servant” six times.) Phoebe may or may not have been a “deacon.”
His mother said to the servants (NT:1249), “Whatever He says to you, do it.”
(John 2:5)
“The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, and sent out his servants (NT:1249) to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come.”
Some claim that the phrase, “assist her in whatever business she has need of you,” means that she was a recognized leader on an important mission for whom the red carpet was to be put out. Garrett[71] responds to these kinds of statements with an analysis of the Greek word for “assist.” He says that assist, “is in the subjective mood. It is not in the form that would be hortatory subjective (exhortation to do it.) The subjective conveys the idea of potential; it is not a command. By this language, Paul courteously is asking the Romans to extend assistance to Phoebe while she is in Rome.” Paul would no doubt ask for this kind of treatment for any Christian traveling to Rome.
Prostatis (NT:4368) can easily be translated patroness (see Appendix I), an important function, but not necessarily a leader. One writer[72] states, “The King James Version used the word ‘succorer,’ but the word ‘prostatis’ isn’t translated that way anywhere else in the Greek Scriptures.” He is right, but not because it is translated differently elsewhere. It isn’t used anywhere else. Note that the passage states that Phoebe is to be received “in a manner worthy of the saints,” that is, worthy of any believer.
Was Phoebe a ruler of many as some say? It is hard to draw conclusions about her ministry from the verse other than from the definition of prostatis. Additionally, if the phrase “helper of many” is translated “ruler of many,” as some claim it should be, then the phrase “and myself also” that directly follows it creates a problem. Was she also a ruler of Paul? That does not make sense. Helper, though, makes complete sense in the context of the passage.
Is the elect (NT:1588) lady in 2 John 1 an elder as some claim? Strong’s definition[73] (see Appendix I) does not have any leadership characteristics in the word.
The elder, to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth, and not only I, but also all those who have known the truth, because of the truth which abides in us and will be with us forever:
I searched the seven commentaries listed in the Reference Section of this book. Not one mentioned leadership being involved with this usage of eklektos (NT:1588). Most referred to a person chosen by God for salvation. Eklektos is used in more than 30 passages in the New Testament. Its translation is fully represented by the following two passages. There is no passage where the word could be construed as elder or leader:
Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect?
Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, long-suffering; bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do.
Trombley[74] presents Revelation 2:20-23 (the only New Testament reference to Jezebel) as a good example of a woman teaching in church and one who influenced the leaders:
Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts.
There is no question that this woman was teaching in the church and that she had no business doing so. This is one example of what Paul was warning against concerning women in authority in 1 Timothy 2:11-12. She shouldn’t even have been allowed to attend the church if she didn’t repent for her sin. After all, the fruit of her teaching was immorality and seduction, and she herself was involved in sexual immorality. God told the church that what He had against them was that they “allow that woman Jezebel... to teach and seduce My servants.” Scripture does not endorse her ministry and it clearly says that she should not have been allowed to teach. It has been asked[75] why God pointed to her immorality instead of her teaching as the thing for which she should have repented. Why should God have reprimanded her for teaching? He had already chastised the elders and the whole church for allowing that. The elders should have known better and were responsible for allowing her teach. Her sin was immorality and that is what she was judged for. To use this passage to imply that the church was to be commended for allowing a woman to teach is highly questionable. As to whether she was accepted as both a prophetess and teacher as some claim,[76] all the Scripture says is that she calls herself a prophetess. It does not say that God had called her to that ministry.
Her acceptance by elders, rather than being an endorsement of women prophesying and teaching, is an indictment of the leaders. Leaders who would allow anyone who is a false prophet and heretical teacher to “teach and seduce” others should be disqualified from leadership. Apparently they didn’t care who taught, were too lazy to check what was being taught, were afraid of her, or supported her heresies and immorality. Whatever the reason, they were unfaithful elders. Using their acceptance of Jezebel as proof that women should be allowed to teach in church is unreasonable. If anything, it is an example of what not to do. (It is interesting to note that Jezebel is the only Biblical example of a woman allowed to teach in a church. Might not the absence in Scripture of any other woman teaching in a church support the limitations on women? If God really wanted women in this capacity, wouldn’t He have picked someone who met the character requirements of 1 Timothy 3:1-15 for elders and deacons shown on page 6?)
Authors, who struggle with Paul’s clear statements concerning women, talk about textual difficulties and discrepancies in certain passages of 1 Corinthians. But if Paul’s words about women are read in context and within the overarching themes of Scripture, there aren’t any contradictions or discrepancies. (On the contrary, I believe, if one begins with the assumption that women should be allowed in eldership, then there are obvious textual difficulties.) Paul did say, “do not forbid speaking in tongues” very clearly. Why didn’t Paul just as clearly say, “do not forbid women teaching or being in authority in the church?” Would God have Paul write something so vaguely that we need a history lesson to understand it and then add, “What I am writing to you is a command of the Lord?” It is highly doubtful.
I have found no credible evidence that any women in the Bible, including Priscilla and Phoebe, were in the government of a church. Their ministries, although significant and anointed, were not indicative of people in church eldership. Rather, they were representative of the call for all Christians to be a part of the ministry in and of the church.
In addition to addressing a woman’s place in the church, some authors take exception to the Biblical definition of a woman’s role in her marriage. The next section will address what is meant by the husband being the “head” of his wife.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0070 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page