| << | Contents | >> |
Freedom in God's Divine Order for Women
<page 34><page 35>Before looking at some exceptions to God’s order as it is presented in Scripture, consider a question raised by two statements in Pawson’s book[29] relating to the Fatherhood of God. Is the divine Fatherhood of God a reflection of the patriarchal society of Israel or is their patriarchal society a reflection of His divine Fatherhood? It seems that many people who take exception to male leadership in the church and home at least tacitly assume that society is the defining force. Isn’t this assumption really saying that God didn’t bother to prevent culture from distorting His word, including the defining of His own nature? Some who believe this propose that “God must be understood and addressed as our Father-Mother.”
If they are incorrect, then male leadership in Israel, the church, and the family are natural outcomes of the Fatherhood of God. It is a consistent thread throughout the Bible. But societies (sadly, including some Jewish and Christian groups) have distorted God’s vision for male leadership so much that it has often lost most of its godly character. One extremely important element of the New Covenant was to bring God’s heart anew to male leadership. That role could no longer be honestly considered as a hierarchical relationship based on office, pride, dominance, or abuse, as it was in many cultures, even at times in Israel. Now it was to be based on love, humility, and God’s call in the lives of men. I believe that we wouldn’t take books like Trombley’s[30] and others seriously if elders and fathers in the church had followed both God’s pattern and His heart. While there would probably still be a strong movement of radical feminism because of domineering male attitudes toward women in society and while Satan would continue to attack God’s design for the Church and the family, these influences would have lost their appeal in the Church. This Satanic assault is described by Elisabeth Elliot in her foreword to Pawson’s book[31] as follows: “The issue of so-called equality of men and women touches the very foundations of Christian faith, for it goes deep into the nature of God and the great mystery of which the much-maligned apostle Paul writes in his letter to the Ephesians. For years I have watched with increasing dismay the destruction the feminist movement has wrought in the world, in the church, in Christian homes and marriages, and in personalities.”<page 36>
This chapter will examine the approaches used to justify changing Scripture to fit a theology of equal rights for women relative to their place in church government. Some writers refer to this approach as egalitarianism. The opposing theology, complementarianism, supports the traditional view of Scripture that men and women are equal, but have different and complementary roles.
Egalitarians don’t like what they read in certain passages in the Bible that limit the role of women in the church. But the Bible wasn’t written to reflect our likes and dislikes, just God’s. What slave-owner enjoyed reading Paul’s letter to Philemon and discovering the humanity of Onesimus? What Muslim male likes reading that in Christ there is no male or female, and that elders are to be the husbands of one wife? But God has a purpose for every part of His word, and if we remove or alter “offensive” passages, we place ourselves above Him.
In an attempt to explain the reason God exempted women from eldership, a position paper by the General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church stated the following, “It is interesting to note that it is often acknowledged (by feminists and non-feminist’s alike) that women are more rational and nurturing in their behavior, and that relationships are, in general, more important to women than to men. It is not surprising then, that Paul would exclude women from a church office where a primary responsibility is the exclusion of error (and those propagating it) from the church.”[32] This may be true, but we don’t have to explain God. He’s right whether we agree with Him or not.
Some egalitarians believe that society was the defining force of patriarchal Israel, the male leadership model in the New Testament, and references to God as He. Out of this assumption they essentially created a neutered or feminine god in their own image rather than accepting the fact that they were made in His. We don’t define the rules of the game, God does. One major step in their creative efforts was redefining Galatians 3:28. They use their interpretation of this verse to question the translation of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, 1 Timothy 2:11-12, and the place of women as deacons in church government. We will examine this approach in this chapter as we consider Scriptures from both egalitarian and complementarian perspectives.<page 37>
Some authors who seek to redefine those Scriptures that limit a woman’s role in church government begin with Galatians 3:28. They claim that this verse eliminates all differences between men and women and, therefore, any passages that restrict a woman’s ministry relative to a man’s must have been misinterpreted or mistranslated:
Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “and to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “and to your Seed,” who is Christ. And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise... For (NT:1063) you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For (NT:1063) as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for (NT:1063) you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Does this passage remove all distinctions between men and women? It obviously has not eliminated their physical or psychological differences, e.g., men are not able to bear children, and men and women have many differing emotional needs. The terms “feminine” and “masculine” continue to have meaning both in the church and in the world. One example of a popular secular book that identifies and examines extensive emotional and cognitive differences between the sexes is “Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus.”[33] Additionally, scientific measurements of brain waves have shown that men and women use different parts of their brains in solving problems. Masculine and feminine natures are not only externally and emotionally different, but their brains are not connected the same way and they function differently.
Not only could the New Covenant not alter the physical characteristics and distinctions between men and women, it also did not change the cultural differences between Jews and Greeks. In addition, the new covenant never even confronted the institution of slavery within the Roman Empire. It did, however, define how believing slaves and masters were to relate to each other (See 1 Corinthians 7:20-21,<page 38> Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 4:1, and 1 Timothy 6:1-2). Clearly, each believer has unique, but not necessarily equal, talents; we are all called to minister, but not all in the same ways. If racial, economic, and gender distinction were not changed by this passage, then what was it addressing?
The context of Galatians 3:28 should define its meaning. Consider the Greek word gar (NT:1063) that is translated “for” in these verses. The definition in Appendix I states that gar means “assigning a reason” and shows that it can be accurately translated “because.” Whether it is translated “for” or “because,” the inclusiveness presented in the passage is the result of our becoming one in Christ. This oneness is, in part, an answer to Jesus’ prayer in John 17:22 that His disciples “may all be one, even as We are one.” Jesus’ oneness with the Father did not alter His equality with the Father nor did it change the Father’s authority or the Son’s willing submission to Him during Jesus’ life on earth. The richness of oneness, a major thrust of Galatians 3:28, obviously did not deny the role distinctions between Jesus and the Father during Jesus’ earthly ministry nor is it reasonable to assume it did so for the church.
In verses 16-18, Paul discusses God’s promises to Abraham and in verse 26, our call to sonship. Then in verse 29, Paul declares that all who are Christ’s are “Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” It seems clear that, in addition to oneness, our sonship and our inheritance of God’s promises are all being addressed by Galatians 3:28. No one receives sonship or God’s promises because he is Jewish, male, and free, but because he is in Christ. They are not based on gender, nationality, or freedom from slavery in the New Covenant; they are based solely on one’s faith response to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
A careful study of Galatians will reveal that Paul does not address, much less mention, the qualifications for teaching or eldership anywhere in this epistle. To apply Galatians 3:28 to the subject of a woman’s place in church government is to read into this passage subject matter that was not on the apostle’s mind when he wrote the letter, or God’s for that matter. Those who want to apply it to God’s order for the home will find that Paul did not discuss marriage in Galatians either. Piper and Grudem[34] have the following to say about how some try to apply this verse: “This text, like some others, has become a hermeneutical skeleton key by which we may go through any door we choose. More often than not, Galatians 3:28 has become a piece of plastic that people have molded to their preconceived ideas.”<page 39>
Using this plastic key to unlock new meanings in straight forward passages such as 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is not a sound approach to understanding the truths in the Bible.Questions of roles and functions in the church should be answered instead by passages that address them specifically. If we attempt to redefine these passages by misusing Galatians 3:28, we will not only corrupt the other passages, but also dilute the triumphant message of the Galatians passage that salvation is available to all who believe in Jesus regardless of gender, nationality, or their economic status. Trying to make Scriptures fit a predetermined theology will only put us on a slippery slope of rationalization.
The slippery slope created by the distortion of Galatians 3:28 shows up in two areas. The first, its effect on gender identification, is clearly presented by Piper and Grudem in the following quote[35]. “The tendency today is to stress the equality of men and women by minimizing the unique significance of our maleness and femaleness. But this depreciation of male and personhood is a great loss. It is taking a tremendous toll on generations of young men and women who do not know what it means to be a man or a woman. Confusion over the meaning of sexual personhood today is epidemic. The consequence of this confusion is not a free and happy harmony among gender-free persons relating on the basis of abstract competencies. The consequence rather is more divorce, more homosexuality, more sexual abuse, more promiscuity, more social awkwardness, and more emotional distress and suicide with the loss of God-given identity.”
The second area is revealed by the lengths some churches have gone in further misusing Galatians 3:28. They assert that this verse also justifies homosexuality, same sex marriages, sex changes, and even the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals. A case in point is an editorial that appeared in The Detroit Times on June 22, 2001. Deb Price was quoting Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church USA (the top position in the PCUSA). “I believe if we read the Bible in the same way we learned to read it in order to accept the equality of...women, we will be forced to the conclusion that gay and lesbian people are also to be accepted as equal.” (Roger’s ideas of “equal” here, I believe, include the acceptability of homosexuality as normal and righteous behavior). Later, Price quotes Rogers again, “What I want them (members of PCUSA churches) to realize is that to remove the ban on ordaining homosexuals is not abandoning the Bible but reading the Bible in a different way.” (Italics are mine)<page 40>
When any truth in the Bible is compromised, the result can only be error upon which more error will eventually be built. Subsequent to the above comments by Rogers, World Magazine[36] reported that the PCUSA’s General Assembly in 2001 “voted by a 3 to 2 margin to remove a ‘fidelity-in-marriage, chastity-in-singleness’ ordination standard from the constitution and to nullify a 23-year ban on ordination of practicing homosexuals. More than 3/4 of the Hudson River delegation voted in favor of the changes.”
Many approaches have been taken to discredit the reference to silence and submission of women in the following two passages (verses 29, 33, and 35 are divided into two parts to facilitate later analysis):
26 How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.
27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret.
28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent (NT:4601) in church, and let him speak to himself and to God.
29a Let two or three prophets speak,
29b And let the others judge.
30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent (NT:4601).
31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged.
32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33a For God is not the author of confusion but of peace,
33b as in all the churches of the saints.
34 Let your women keep silent (NT:4601) in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak (NT:2980); but they are to be submissive (NT:5293), as the law also says.
35a And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home;
35b for it is shameful for women to speak (NT:2980) in church.<page 41> 36 Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached?
37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.
38 But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.
39a Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy,
39b and do not forbid to speak with tongues.
40 Let all things be done decently and in order.
Let a woman learn in silence (NT:2271) with all submission (NT:5292). And I do not permit a woman to teach (NT:1321) or to have authority (NT:831) over a man, but to be in silence (NT:2271).
Let’s start with the passage above from Corinthians. Some critics say that Paul was addressing specific problems in Corinth and, therefore, the passage shouldn’t be taken universally. Of course, it is possible there was a specific problem in Corinth. But if we throw out the requirements for silence of women because of that, then where does one stop? Do we throw out addressing the physical relationship between husbands and wives in 1 Corinthians 7:1-7 because there were problems in marriages? Do we throw out the admonishment about communion in 11:7-30, the order of worship in 14:26, the restrictions placed on tongues in 14:27-28, or the restrictions on prophetic people in 14:29-33 because they were only meant to be applied to problems in Corinth? Following this reasoning we could probably gut most of Paul’s letters.
There is at least one person who would be content to do this. He is the pastor I mentioned on page 29, who laughed when he read 1 Timothy 2:10-13 while preaching sermon the next week. This time he said, “You are probably aren’t going to read the Bible anyway, but if you do, don’t read Paul’s letters. Just read the words of Jesus.” He not only disagreed with Paul, but most likely would have preferred that Paul’s letters did not exist or were not part of the Canon because he could not realistically address some of Paul’s theology. How many people deal with the passages about women in this manner, never really knowing God’s heart for women, even in the few limitations that<page 42> He places on them? Lack of understanding can make us susceptible to the deceptive arguments of egalitarians.
Interestingly, the phrase, “as in all the churches of the saints” in 1 Corinthians 14:33b is handled differently in the NIV, ASV, RSV and NRSV Bibles. They read, “As in all the churches of the saints, let your women keep silent in the churches.” If these versions of the Bible are accurate, then limiting the problem to the Corinthian church doesn’t work. Since the original Greek had all capital letters and no punctuation, it is difficult to tell to which sentence the phrase belongs. However, as we will see below regarding sources of confusion, this phrase may very well apply to the sentences that come after it as well as those that come before it.
1 Corinthians 14:33 is not the only passage where Paul’s teaching applies to all churches. The passage below states that Paul instructed Timothy about truths he taught “everywhere in every church.” I believe this adds credence to the position that his instructions in 1 Corinthians 14:32-35 were also for all churches, not just the church in Corinth.
I do not write these things to shame you, but as my beloved children I warn you. For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Therefore I urge you, imitate me. For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.
Some say that 1 Corinthians 14:34 can’t mean total silence for women because everyone is allowed to prophesy and exhort. There are three possible explanations given below for what seems like a conflict. The first has to do with confusion in a meeting.
In 1 Corinthians 14:26-33 all are encouraged to participate in meetings. Although gender restrictions are not addressed in these verses, causes of confusion are. Two examples would be tongues without interpretation in verse 28 and prophecies spoken simultaneously in verse 30. Paul highlights his point about confusion by his statement in verse 33 that “God is not the author of confusion ...” It appears likely, for two reasons, that Paul is still addressing confusion when he states in verse 34 that women are to be silent in the churches. The first reason is that the same root word for silence, sigao (NT:4601), is used in this verse as in verses 28 and 30. In a time of confusion, no matter what a<page 43> woman’s gifting, she should be silent. If she has questions, she should not bring them up then, but wait to speak outside the meeting with her husband. If she is single, she would speak to her father if she lives with her parents, or an elder in the church if not.
The second explanation involves the analysis of the original Greek words for speaking which can further substantiate tying women’s silence to confusion. The brief definitions below are taken from the list of comparative definitions from Strong’s in Appendix I under lego (NT:3004):
NT:3004 – lego – to “lay” forth, usually of systematic or set discourse
NT:2036 – epo and NT:5346 – phemi – generally refer to an individual expression or speech
NT:4483 – rheo – to break silence
NT:2980 – laleo – an extended or random harangue.
Although the specific definitions are secondary for these words, they do offer a consistent explanation. Depending on which of these words Paul selected, the 1 Corinthians 14 passage could convey different kinds of speaking (or not speaking in this case). If a woman had been giving systematic discourses, he could have picked lego; if she had been expressing her opinion, epo or phemi; if she had merely interrupted a silent period, rheo. But he chose “laleo”. Why? It certainly could warrant restricting women if they were involved in an “extended or random harangue” and could help explain the “contradiction.” Such behavior would add to the confusion addressed above or create its own. The addition of, “but they are to be submissive (NT:5293)” after “they are not permitted to speak (NT:2980)” also seems to address not so much an absolute silence, but a quiet heart that submits to those in authority. Waiting to ask questions after a meeting would certainly express this kind of heart. It is this idea of quietness “with all submission” that I believe is the central theme of this part of the passage. We will again see this same heart attitude applied to women in 1 Timothy 2:11-13 and 1 Peter 3:1-6. These passages are discussed later in the book in the sections entitled “Silence and Authority” on page 51 and “Mutual Submission” on page 98 respectively.
Grudem[37] offers a third explanation for the silence of women in 1 Corinthians 14. He sees “Let your women keep silent (NT:4601) in the churches (vs. 34), for they are not permitted to speak...” not as “relating to the first half of verse 29 (‘Let two or three prophets speak’), <page 44> but as relating to the second half (‘and let the others weigh what is said’ or ‘let the others judge’). Paul would then be saying, ‘Let others (that is, the rest of the congregation, hoi alloi, not just hoi loipoi, ‘the rest,’ which Paul would have said if he had meant the rest of the prophets) weigh what is said (by the prophets)...but the women should keep silence in the churches.’ In other words, women were not to give spoken criticisms of the prophecies made during a church service, though they could prophesy. This rule would not prevent them from silently evaluating the prophecies in their own minds (in fact, verse 29b implies that they should do so), but it would mean that they would not voice those evaluations in the assembled congregation.
“Structurally, this is in fact the most attractive solution available. It means that Paul followed a very logical procedure. First he gave a general statement: ‘Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said’ (verse 29).’ Then in verses 30-33a he gave additional instructions about the first half of verse 29, and then in verses 33b-35 he gave additional instructions about the second half of the verse.
“This structure for the passage is not clear at first glance because the comments in verses 30-33a grew quite long as Paul wrote. But the comments on verse 29a are a unified whole, no part of which can be removed. So there was no earlier opportunity for Paul to introduce this section about women. If this interpretation is correct, then ‘the women should keep silence’ meant to Paul and his readers: ‘Let them keep silent when you are evaluating a prophecy.’
“This interpretation is consistent with the strong contrast in verse 34: ‘For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate.’ ‘But’ represent, alla, indicating a strong contrast between speaking and being subordinate. Thus the kind of speaking Paul has in mind is specifically utterances that involves insubordination. Not every type of speech would fit this description, but evaluating prophecies aloud certainly would. It would involve assuming the possession of superior authority in matters of doctrinal or ethical instruction especially when it included criticism of the prophecy.
“If this is the correct meaning of verse 34, then verse 35 is understandable. Suppose that some women in Corinth had wanted to evade the force of Paul’s directive. The easy way to do this would be to say, ‘We’ll do just as Paul says. We won’t speak up and criticize prophecies. But surely no one would mind if we asked a few questions. We just want to learn more about what these prophets are saying.’ Then such questioning could be used as a platform for expressing in none-too-veiled<page 45> form the very criticism Paul forbids. Paul anticipates this possible evasion and writes: ‘If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak (that is, question prophecy) in church.’”
This is not hard to believe. There was a man in our church who was asked not to speak at meetings because he brought an errant theology. He subsequently began to pray aloud the error he wanted to propagate.
This may seem to be a rather involved analysis, but compared with the Cunningham/Hamilton approach below, it is relatively easy to follow.
Any of these three approaches show that the silence that Paul exhorts for women in 1 Corinthians concerns the specific times when confusion arises in the meetings or when prophecy is being evaluated and is not a blanket limitation. It does not conflict with the general encouragement of Scripture for everyone to exercise the gifts of the Spirit in meetings.
Cunningham and Hamilton[38] have another approach for revising 1 Corinthians 14. They altered the translation of verses 26-40 and came up with some novel conclusions relating to women speaking in church. Their changes centered on verses 35 and 36:
35a And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; 35b for it is shameful for women to speak in church.
36 Or (NT:2228) did the word of God come originally from you? Or (NT:2228) was it you only that it reached?
They proposed: (1) that verse 35b should be a separate verse from 35a, (2) that 35b should be a quotation, and (3) that the highlighted “or’s” in verse 36 should be retranslated. As part of their argument, the authors note that 1 Corinthians 14:26-40 (see page 40) may involve two literary forms, particularization and chiasm. (Particularization is a literary form in which a series of general statements are made. These statements are then followed by several specific examples of the general statements in the same order. A chiasm is a similar literary form in that a series of statements are made followed by examples. However, in the case of a chiasm, the specific examples are given<page 46> in reverse order to the statements.) It is a novel and creative approach. The authors use these forms so that they can isolate verse 35b and make it a stand alone sentence. They apply the literary form chiasm to 1 Corinthians 14:26-40 by noting the following (see pages 40-41):
| FIRST ORDER | REVERSE ORDER |
|---|---|
| Verses 27-28: Subject is tongues | Verse 39b: Subject is tongues |
| Verse 29-31: Subject is prophecy | Verse 39a: Subject is prophecy |
| Verses 34-35a: Subject is women | Verses 35b-38: Subject is women |
This division seems rather arbitrary, especially since verses 34-38 all address women, but if one assumes it is a reasonable thing to do, then step one is complete. Verse 35b is now handily isolated from verse 35a so that it can be examined by itself. But I believe this is unwarranted separation and is only the beginning of a series of such changes proposed by the authors. (We will see in a moment why they needed to do this.) They still had to add quotation marks to verse 35b and change the translation of the Greek word ee (NT:2228) in verse 36 to make it fit their theology.
How did they justify making 35b a quotation? To change the punctuation of “for it is shameful for women to speak in church,” they must show that it should be a quotation. The authors try to justify this by noting that there are several other quotations in 1 Corinthians. Could there have been another one that was missed in translation? They believe that there was and that it was verse 35b. Is this likely? Let’s look at the other verses they list to see if they establish a pattern that justifies their change: (The NIV is used because it is the version picked by the authors, probably because the NIV has more quotes than most translations.)
But if anyone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it.
Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.
So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”
<page 47>Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos.”
For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men?
“Everything is permissible for me” – but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me” – but I will not be mastered by anything.
“Everything is permissible” – but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible” – but not everything is constructive.
But someone may ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?”
With the exception of 1 Corinthians 6:12 and 10:23, quotations are obviously needed because of the introductory words I have highlighted. No quotation marks are used with the 1 Corinthians 6 or the 1 Corinthians 10 passages in any of the 12 translations listed in the references at the end of this paper except the NIV, RSV, and the NRSV. (The quotation marks in these versions for the 1 Corinthian 6 and 10 references may have been included simply because almost identical phrasing is used in both passages. Similarly, in 1 Peter 5:5 the sentence, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble,” is in quotes in the NKJ, NIV, RSV, and NRSV, probably because it and James 4:6 are restatements of Psalm 138:6 and Proverbs 3:34)
The use of quotation marks in the passages listed above hardly justifies adding them to 1 Corinthians 14:35b. I could find no Bible translation that identifies this passage as a quotation, including the NIV, RSV, and the NRSV. There is nothing in the passage that even hints at a quote. The only reason I can see for this change is to make the passage agree with their theory. Establishing the use of a chiasm facilitates this change, but the chiasm alone does not lead to the conclusion sought by the authors.
Now let’s look at their third proposal. It is presented in a section of their book entitled, “A Tiny Greek Word Makes All the Difference.”[39] The contested verses in the NKJV, with the author’s quotes inserted in isolated verse 35b, become:
... “For it is shameful for women to speak in church.” Or (NT:2228) did the word of God come originally from you? Or (NT:2228) was it you only that it reached?
<page 48>The authors believe that NT:2228 should be translated “nonsense” and “what” respectively in this passage rather than “or.” Putting the quote and word changes together, the authors arrive at the following translation of 1 Corinthians 14:35-36 in the NIV:
If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their husbands. “For it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” Nonsense (NT:2228)! Did the word of God originate with you? What (NT:2228)! Are you the only people it has reached?
In the Interlinear Transliterated Bible[40] the passage is:
Verse 35b
| aischron |
| 149 |
| a shame |
| gar |
| NT:1063 |
| for |
| stin |
| 2076 |
| it is |
| gunaiki |
| NT:1135 |
| for women |
| lalein |
| NT:2980 |
| to speak |
| en |
| 1722 |
| in |
| – |
| 9999 |
| the |
| ekkleesia |
| 1577 |
| church |
Verse 36
| Eé |
| NT:2228 |
| What? |
| af |
| 575 |
| Out |
| Humoón |
| 5216 |
| from you? |
| ho |
| 3588 |
| The |
| lógos |
| 3056 |
| word |
| toú |
| 3588 |
| of |
| Theoú |
| 2316 |
| God |
| exeélthen |
| 1831 |
| came |
| eé |
| NT:2228 |
| or |
| eis |
| 1519 |
| unto |
| humás |
| 5209 |
| you |
| mónous |
| 3441 |
| only? |
| kateénteesen |
| 2658 |
| came it |
Strong’s[41] defines the highlighted word as follows:
NT:2228 – ee’ – a primary particle of distinction between two connected terms; disjunctive, or; comparative, than: KJV and, but (either), (n-) either, except it be, (n-) or (else), rather, save, than, that, what, yea. Often used in connection with other particles.
This “Tiny Greek Word” is found 359 times in the New Testament. It is translated as follows according to the Englishmen’s Concordance[42]. (The numbers are the approximate number of times NT:2228 is translated as the indicated word.):<page 49> or – 277, than – 40, either – 9, neither – 3, and – 7, before – 4, or else – 4, nor – 3, what – 3, is – 2, but, rather, more than, save, but either, except, and yea – 1 each, nonsense – 0.
This critical “Tiny Greek Word” is translated as follows in 1 Corinthians 14:36 in several translations (NKJV, NIV, NAS Updated, KJV, RSV, NAS, ASV in this order):
Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached?
Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?
Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?
What? Came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?
Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?
What? Was it from you that the word of God went forth? Or came it unto you alone?
None of the 12 translations of the Bible referenced in the appendix of this book use “nonsense” for this word. However, there are at least three Greek words that are translated “nonsense” (or an equivalent word) in the New Testament. The passages that include these words are shown below, along with the translations using them and the definitions of the words:
But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense (NT:3026).
(Luke 24:11 NIV, NASU, NAS)
NT:3026 – leros – a primary word; twaddle, i.e. an incredible story: KJV – idle tale.
So what about these wise men, these scholars, these brilliant debaters of this world’s great affairs? God has made them all look foolish and shown their wisdom to be useless nonsense (NT:3471).
(1 Corinthians 1:20 TLB)
<page 50>NT:3471 – moraino – to become insipid; figuratively, to make (passively, act) as a simpleton: KJV – become fool, make foolish, lose savor.
So when we preach about Christ dying to save them, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense (NT:3472).
(1 Corinthians 1:23 TLB)
NT:3472 – moria – silliness, i.e. absurdity: KJV – foolishness.
When you consider the definitions and the translations of NT:2228 in all the other versions of the Bible, the ideas offered by the authors appear to be incorrect. If God had wanted to use the word “nonsense,” He could have had Paul use leros or moria. But He didn’t. Any one of the three changes the authors made would be suspect by itself. Putting together the three proposals raises questions about their objectivity.
I believe that Scripture allows women to prophesy, exhort, and share Scriptures. This section of the book has addressed the seeming contradiction between the apostolic instruction that women are to keep silent in church and yet are to be equipped to minister. In fact there are many ways women can minister within the constraints of being “silent.” These will be addressed later in the book.
Some authors go to great lengths to explain away the passages about a woman’s place in the church. One has suggested that Paul was quoting Judaizers in 1 Corinthians 14:34 when he writes, “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.” His assumption that Paul was quoting Judaizers, who were strongly against women speaking in church and not preserving God’s order, is far fetched! The problem is he simply does not agree with the passage as it stands. As we have seen, there is nothing in the text that even suggests that Paul is quoting another person. Paul isn’t shy about quoting those in error and identifying their fallacy, (cf, 1 Corinthians 1:12; 3:4; 15:32; 2 Corinthians 10:10; Colossians 5:3.) Many times he quotes Scripture, identifying his source when he does. Why didn’t he identify the source in 1 Corinthians 14:34? Wouldn’t this be especially important if a woman’s place in her home and in the church was to become such a serious point of contention? (God certainly knew the problems of that day and also of the future. To argue that Paul was careless in not identifying the passage as a quote implies that God was careless also.) God had Paul identify the circumcision party in Galatians 2:11-12. Why not identify the<page 51> Judaizers here? Paul strongly corrected Cephas and other Jews in Antioch for withdrawing from uncircumcised believers. Why didn’t he strongly correct Corinth for “subjugating” women?
In this letter, Paul speaks about the silence of women and their submission to authority in the church. Does it mean what it seems to say and, if so, how does it fit with passages that encourage everyone, including women, to prophesy and exhort in church meetings?
Let a woman learn in silence (NT:2271) with all submission (NT:5292). And I do not permit a woman to teach (NT:1321) or to have authority (NT:831) over a man, but to be in silence (NT:2271). For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
The word for “silence,” hesuchia (NT:2271), is different than the Greek word sigao (NT:4601) which is used in 1 Corinthians 14:34. In evaluating this passage, I considered the “desistance from bustle” flavor that is part of the Strong’s definition of hesuchia (NT:2271) in Appendix I along with Thayer’s definition and the only other verses using this Greek word, all of which are shown below:
Strong’s definition:[43] stillness, i.e. desistance (or abstinence) from bustle (action, commotion, confusion, disorder, excitement, fuss) or language.
Thayer’s definition:[44] 1. quietness: descriptive of the life of one who stays at home doing his own work, and does not officiously meddle with the affairs of others, 2 Thess 3:12. 2. silence: Acts 22:2; 1 Tim 2:11ff.
When he reached the stairs, he had to be carried by the soldiers because of the violence of the mob. For the multitude of the people followed after, crying out, “Away with him!” Then as Paul was about to be led into the barracks, he said to the commander, “May I speak to you?” He replied, “Can you speak Greek? Are you not the Egyptian who some time ago stirred up a rebellion and led the four thousand assassins out into the wilderness?” But Paul said, “I am a Jew from Tarsus, in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city; and I implore you, permit me to speak to the peo<page 52>ple.” So when he had given him permission, Paul stood on the stairs and motioned with his hand to the people. And when there was a great silence (NT:2271), he spoke to them in the Hebrew language, saying, “Brethren and fathers, hear my defense before you now.” And when they heard that he spoke to them in the Hebrew language, they kept all the more silent (NT:2271).
For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are “busybodies.” Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness (NT:2271) and eat their own bread.
In the Acts reference we find people, who were crying out “Away with him!”, becoming silent (NT:2271) and listening and in 2 Thessalonians “busybodies” are commanded and exhorted to work in quietness (NT:2271). These two passages speak of quietness for people who were out of order. Thayer’s “meddling with the affairs of others” and Strong’s “desistance from bustle” seem to apply to all these verses.
From this study I have concluded again that “silence with all submission” doesn’t mean complete silence, but a heart of quietness under authority. (In fact, in the context of 1 Timothy 2:11-12, silence relates only to teaching or having authority over men rather than a general silence in church meetings.) There can be a lot of freedom in this kind of “silence.” Women can exhort, prophesy, read Scripture, share from personal experiences and passages of Scripture from which God spoke into their lives. Thus, women are only limited concerning activities that would have them exercising authority over men. Some say, “But what about women of unusual gifts that function with a high degree of visibility?” Gifts alone do not define one’s sphere. This comes from God’s call and order. God can give His word to a woman, but how and where she brings it can determine if she expresses God’s order or not. The issue really is one of the heart. (This also applies to men.) I will answer the question about women especially gifted in preaching more completely later in the book.
Authors go to great lengths and use various means to change the meaning of the Greek word authenteo (NT:831) in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.<page 53> It has been translated “authority over” or equivalent terms in all translations of the Bible listed in the Reference Section of this paper. Trombley[45] tries to identify authentia, a related Greek word, with everything from murder to immodest dress, sexual license and even sexual orgies through the study of Greek dramatists. However, this same author in discussing the meaning of authentein during the apostolic age, includes, “self-willed, arbitrary, interfering in what was not properly one’s own domain.” He also states that the word can mean “to thrust oneself.” Examination of Strong’s definition in Appendix I and a quote from Vincent’s Word Studies of the New Testament[46] for authentein below to me are consistent with the later definitions:
“authentein (a variation of authenteo) – Occurs only here in the New Testament. Not occurring in the Septuagint. Not occurring in Classical writers. It occurs in late ecclesiastical writers. The kindred noun [authentees], ‘one who does a thing with his own hand,’ Wisd. 12:, and also in Herodotus, Euripides, and Thucydides. [Authentia] ‘right,’ 3 Macc. 2:29. The verb means ‘to do a thing oneself;’ hence, ‘to exercise authority.’ The King JamesVersion usurp authority’ is a mistake. Render it as: ‘to have or exercise dominion over.’”
Because of the meaning of the noun authentees, the verb can carry the idea of “self-authentication.” In other words, a woman in eldership in the church puts herself in that role rather than letting God define her place of service.
Trombley[47] also ties authentein (NT:831) to gnosticism, as he does with didaskein (NT:1248 – teach), which we will see in the next section. If Paul had been dealing with gnostics or specific problem women, would he not have qualified his restrictions? Wouldn’t he have identified “women who were false teachers,” “women who seduced others,” or women who shared “hidden knowledge?” (These are descriptions the author attributes to the gnostic women.) Paul does not do so.
I had a discussion about authenteo with Dr. Douglas Kook, a good friend who has a Masters Degree from Fuller Theological Seminary and a Ph.D. from New York University in the Greek and Hebrew languages. He agreed that it is difficult to determine the usage of authenteo because it only appears in Scripture once. However, looking at the principles of sound Biblical interpretation, he believes that “to have or exercise dominion over” is a consistent translation. He also reinforced my thought that giving the gnostics such a predominant place<page 54> in defining the context of Paul’s letters is unwarranted and probably distorts the true meaning of the passages.
After referring in verse 1 Timothy 2:12 to silence and authority, Paul adds in verse 13, “For (NT:1063) Adam was formed first, then Eve.” With the use of gar (NT:1063) Paul seems to be pointing to the order of creation as significant to a woman’s place relative to authority in the church. Some say that sequence doesn’t have to mean leadership priority. But what then does the sequence mean? Piper and Grudem[48] answer this question as follows: “Why didn’t God create man and woman simultaneously out of the same dust? ...We think the most natural implication of God’s decision to bring Adam onto the scene ahead of Eve is that he is called to bear the responsibility of leadership.” This connection reinforces the translation of authenteo with as self-authentication.
Now let’s look at the significance of the relationship between authority and teaching in 1 Timothy 2:12. How do writers try to alter this passage to free women to teach men?
Let a woman learn in silence (NT:2271) with all submission (NT:5292). And I do not permit a woman to teach (NT:1321) or to have authority (NT:831) over a man, but to be in silence (NT:2271).
Recently I read a paper from a local church that took exception to the generally accepted translation of 1 Timothy 2:10-13. According to the author, women should be released to teach in the church because “...didaskein itself…is NOT a word for teaching in general but a word that is used in ALL other instances of its use in the New Testament ONLY AS A MODIFIER (another verb) TO ADVISE US OF WHAT IS AND IS NOT TAUGHT.” To this the paper adds “... in every instance of its use throughout the entire New Testament EXCEPT 1 Timothy 2:12 the word ‘teach’ is NOT used without a word to explain or modify what is, or is not taught, or a word explaining the positive or negative content of that teaching.” (Capitalizations are the author’s.) The paper then went on to say that “authentein”(NT:831) in this passage is the word modified by didaskein [see didasko (NT:1321)]. The author then picked an alternate definition for authentein, i.e. originator. This process then makes the assumed translation of 1 Timothy 2:12<page 55> become, “I do not allow women to teach nor proclaim herself the originator of man, but to be in harmony.” The author of the paper seemed very confident in this line of reasoning. However, didaskein is used in at least several Scripture passages as a standalone verb. That is, no other word is used with it to explain or modify what is, or is not taught. Everything the critic presented in the paper had been built on the shaky ground of a wrong assumption. The following passages are examples of unmodified usage of the subject word:
Now it came to pass, when Jesus finished commanding His twelve disciples, that He departed from there to teach and to preach in their cities.
And again He began to teach by the sea. And a great multitude was gathered to Him, so that He got into a boat and sat in it on the sea; and the whole multitude was on the land facing the sea. Then He taught them many things by parables, and said to them in His teaching...
Now it happened on another Sabbath, also, that He entered the synagogue and taught.
(Luke 6:6)
Then the Jews said among themselves, “Where does He intend to go that we shall not find Him? Does He intend to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks and teach the Greeks?
Trombley[49] tries to justify changing the application of didaskein in 1 Timothy 2:11-13, as he did authentein, by stating that Paul’s motive for writing the letter was to address gnostic heresy in Ephesus. He observed that some gnostic ideas were similar to problems Paul was addressing in the letter. He then states that the controversial verses were addressed to the gnostics, and only to them. From this he proposed that gnostic women may have been bringing false teaching to other women. That being the case, he concluded that the prohibition of teaching can’t be for all women, but must be only for the unlearned gnostic women. In addition, he thinks that the passage concerning a woman learning in submissive silence must be specifically addressed only to them as well. However, most, if not all, of the errors Paul addresses are common to many philosophies. Greeks were known to discuss and debate many abstract theories (See Acts 17:1-28). Homing in on gnosticism as being the sole object of Paul’s letter is a questionable approach. While it is probably true that gnosticism was a problem in Ephesus, I think it is likely that Paul was addressing certain issues<page 56> knowing that a number of Jews were present in the Ephesian church (1 Timothy 1:6-11). I believe that he did so for two reasons. He was reinforcing the correct concept (seen in the Old Testament) of men in authority in God’s house, as a prelude to articulating in the next chapter the qualifications for determining which men were to be elders. He was also emphasizing that women were to learn along with men, rejecting the prevalent Jewish practice of withholding teaching from women.
The same author[50] proposes that 1 Timothy 1:6-11 is also addressed to only gnostic women. In particular, he suggests that the references to meddlers in the law, myths, speculation, and special revelation (probably characteristics of gnostics) justify this approach because they fit his concept of Gnostic women. However, women are not specifically identified in this passage. Second, he doesn’t relate the rest of the problems (i.e. murderers of fathers and mothers, manslayers, and kidnappers, etc.) to women. Why choose only some of Paul’s words to support his thesis? Is it because the other sins are mostly committed by men, and if he tried to apply them to women his case would be weakened?
In response to claims that gnostics were the object of Paul’s instructions, James Garrett[51] writes, “The information that some gnostic teachers were women comes from post-Biblical writers. However, the gnostic teachers of note were men. Why would Paul bar women from teaching just because some gnostic teachers were women, when the most prominent gnostic teachers were male?” It would be more reasonable to assume that Paul would target male gnostic teachers (or even both).
Cunningham and Hamilton[52] take a different approach by trying to show that the limitation of women teaching and being in authority over men presented in 1 Timothy 2 was directed at a specific woman, not women in general. They believed that, if they could establish that a woman was already in recognized leadership and teaching men in Scripture, they would have grounds for this assumption. Priscilla was their woman. To this end, they claim that “Priscilla had been a founding leader” of the church in Ephesus, “A church where she had spent much time along with her husband, Aquila, correcting the early errors of Apollos, discipling him for leadership.” The authors had laid the ground work for this definition of Priscilla’s position in Ephesus with the following statements:[53]<page 57>
Quoting John Chrysostom – “[Priscilla] took Apollos, an eloquent man and powerful in the Scriptures...she instructed him in the way of the Lord and made him a teacher brought to completion.”
“Luke clearly said that Priscilla, with her husband’s help, taught Apollos the ways of God.”
Quote from an unacknowledged author – “One must not overlook the key fact that Apollos accepted Priscilla’s instruction without reservation... Priscilla was known as an excellent teacher.”
“[Priscilla] was undoubtedly a gifted teacher, Apollos and Paul respected her. This anointed woman played a crucial role, helping to establish churches in Corinth, Ephesus, and Rome.”
The passages and comments involving Aquilla and Priscilla (and Apollos) presented in the section of this book entitled “Priscilla” (see pages 70-73) make it very clear that all of the above quotes reflect a highly imaginative reading of things into the Scriptures rather than the proper exegesis of Scripture, hardly a sound procedure for establishing Biblical doctrine.
With Priscilla’s leadership “established,” they questioned how 1 Timothy 2:12 could possibly be read to limit women in ministry. They were ready to hunt for anything that could challenge the current translations of this verse. They noted that in verses 9 and 10 (see below) Paul used plural Greek words gunaikas and gunaixin (which translate women) while in verses 11, 12, and 14 he used the singular Greek words gunaiki and gunee (which translate woman). Their conclusion from this observation is that the switch from plural to singular was made because Paul was changing from talking about women in verses 9 and 10 to identifying a specific problem woman in the church in verses 11, 12, and 14. Therefore, the limitation on women teaching or having authority over men in this passage is not a general one, but one relating to a specific unnamed woman who was creating problems in the church in Ephesus.
...the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not de<page 58>ceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
Is this a valid conclusion? Paul wasn’t shy about naming names. In the previous chapter of 1 Timothy, Paul picked out Hymenaeus and Alexander as men who made shipwreck of their faith. Why would he not identify the woman, if it were a specific person, especially when they opined that she might have been the leader of a heretical group? Why would Paul have left such a false teacher unidentified?
However, the “missing name” is not the only problem with the logic they used. Let’s examine the Interlinear Greek[54] version of 1 Timothy 2:12-14:
Verse 12
| didáskein |
| NT:1321 |
| to teach |
| dé |
| NT:1161 |
| But |
| gunaikí |
| NT:1135 |
| a woman |
| ouk |
| 3756 |
| not |
| epitrépoo |
| 2010 |
| I suffer |
| oudé |
| 3761 |
| nor |
| authenteín |
| NT:831 |
| to usurp authority over |
| – |
| 999 |
| the |
| andrós |
| NT:435 |
| man, |
| all |
| 235 |
| but |
| eínai |
| 1511 |
| to be |
| en |
| 1722 |
| in |
| heesuchía |
| NT:2271 |
| silence |
Verse 13
| Adám |
| 76 |
| Adam |
| gár |
| NT:1063 |
| For |
| proótos |
| 4413 |
| first |
| eplásthee |
| 4111 |
| was formed |
| eíta |
| 1534 |
| then |
| Heúa |
| 2096 |
| Eve |
Verse 14
| Kaí |
| 2532 |
| And |
| Adám |
| 76 |
| Adam |
| ouk |
| 3756 |
| not |
| eepateéthee |
| 538 |
| was deceived, |
| hee |
| 3588 |
| the |
| dé |
| NT:1161 |
| but |
| guneé |
| NT:1135 |
| woman |
| exapateetheísa |
| <1818> |
| being deceived |
| en |
| 1722 |
| in |
| – |
| 9999 |
| the |
| parabásei |
| 3847 |
| transgression |
| gégonen |
| 1096 |
| was |
Note that the use of the singular “woman” in verse 12 is preceded by an “a” (included in the definition of the Greek word itself) and the singular “woman” in verse 14 is unquestionably preceded by a “the” (a separate word). There is no denying that verse 14 is referring to the specific woman, Eve. But the “a” in verse 12 in not as definitive and, therefore, can only be considered to apply to any woman. If God had wanted to point to a specific woman, He most likely would have named her or at least used “hee gunee” (the woman) not “gunaiki” in verse 12 also. He did not. It is much more reasonable logically and grammatically to conclude that verse 12 applies to any woman. Again, the authors failed to make their case.
To further build their case for women teaching men, the authors[55] use the following passages to claim that Timothy’s mother and grandmother were his teachers:
...when I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also.
But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Using these Scriptures they wrote the following, “If Paul didn’t approve of women teaching the Bible, he certainly missed a golden opportunity to correct Timothy here! Instead, he put the spotlight on these two women for the important role they played, teaching this future leader.” They then responded to the hypothetical question, “But he was a child” with, “...if the words in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 were absolute prohibitions against women teachers, nothing was said about making exceptions on the basis of age.”
First, the Bible doesn’t say that Lois and Eunice taught him the Scriptures, but that they were a source of his faith. His father, the apostles, or men in the church could have been his teachers. Personally, I assume these women did teach him. Second, the Scripture relating to women teaching, as well as having authority over, only refers to men [”aner” (NT:435)] not children. Third, the passage doesn’t forbid women from all teaching, but only teaching or having authority over men. This is obvious in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 (Paul actually encourages women to teach younger women in Titus):
Let a woman learn in silence (NT:2271) with all submission (NT:5292). And I do not permit a woman to teach (NT:1321) or to<page 60> have authority (NT:831) over a man, but to be in silence (NT:2271).
James Garrett[56] discusses the issue of expediency in regard to 1 Timothy 2:12. Allowing a woman to teach would be acceptable in such a case as a new group of Christians with no church government in place and no male teacher available. It would be an expedient thing to do until leadership is established. He notes that “the present tense of a Greek verb implies ongoing action. All three verbs in this verse are present tense (in 1 Timothy 2:12). Thus, a literal translation would be rendered:
But I continually do not permit a woman to continually teach nor to continually exercise authority over a man.
“The present tense of the first verb indicates that Paul is giving an ongoing instruction, not a temporary one. The present tense of the next two verbs indicate that what Paul is prohibiting is a continual action, not an isolated or temporary action.” These observations disallow the proposition that these verses were directed at a specific case, such as Trombley’s imaginary Gnostic women or Cunningham and Hamilton’s mysterious, unidentified woman.
“Trombley[57] also notes that the Greek verb is in the present tense because he wants the restrictions of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 to apply only in Paul’s time. However, he gets himself into a problem when he ties sexual connotations to the definition of authentein at the same time. His paraphrase of 1 Timothy 2:11 is as follows: “Presently, I’m not permitting a woman to teach anyone or exercise her sexual wiles to control a man, but to be reverent and peaceful.” The obvious response to this paraphrase is, “When will it be permissible for a woman to teach and exercise her sexual wiles to control a man and not be reverent and peaceful?”
The authors[58] try to build a case for women being deacons and, therefore, in the government of the church. They assume that deacons were church leaders. They try unsuccessfully to use the literary forms particularization and chiasm again as a basis for their claim. But, are deacons in the government of the church and are women to be deacons as they contend? Let us consider these questions.
The question of whether deacons rule and lead others often arises. The first example of deacons in the New Testament is found in<page 61> Acts 6:1-4. Men were appointed to assist or serve the twelve apostles in order to free them for their leadership roles. In other words, as they served tables, they did so under the oversight of the men who served in ministering the word.
Now in those days...there arose a murmuring against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve (diakoneo) tables. Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry (diakonia) of the word.”
The apostles delegated authority to the deacons to wait on tables and resolve murmurings between the Hebrew and the Greek women relating to the distribution of food. They were given some delegated authority by the apostles. But, the role of deacon was not governmental in the New Testament Church. Obviously, women could also have been involved in this kind of practical ministry under oversight. Deacons could be leaders in the area of their delegated authority and could lead others by the example of their Christian walks. (Deacons may be considered to be part of the government in some churches today, but we are considering the church in the first century.) Thomas R. Schreiner[59] notes that, “Two qualities demanded of elders–being apt to teach (1 Timothy 3:2) and governing of the church (1 Timothy 3:5)–are not part of the responsibilities of deacons (cf. Also 1 Timothy 5:17, Titus 1:9, Acts 20:17, 28ff.). The deacon’s task consisted mainly in practical service to the needs of the congregation.” This service obviously can include resolving personal conflicts in the church.
Women may have served as deaconesses in the New Testament, but Scripture does not specifically say so. The phrase, “Likewise, women,” in 1 Timothy 3:11 could refer to women who were deacons. Personally though, I believe it refers to the wives of deacons. If the phrase “Likewise, women” does refer to deaconesses, note that the same wording is not made about women when defining episkopos or overseers, a call which definitely involves governmental authority. Then, if you try to apply, “Likewise, women,” back to Paul’s reference in verse one concerning overseers, you have to ignore context. Paul follows the phrase in question with the statement, “Let deacons be the husband of one wife.” Since it is not at the end of the whole passage,<page 62> there simply is no case for applying “Likewise, women” to both elders and deacons.
If there were deaconesses, they might have received delegated authority from the elders for their assigned tasks just like deacons. Some may even have delegated authority themselves to other women, such as might occur in providing food for the needy or running a home for widows.
David Huston and Jim McKinley[60] captured how members in Christ’s body are to relate when they wrote in their paper, “The word ‘deacons’ literally means ‘those who serve’ (diakonoi). In the local assembly in Phillipi there were the saints, who constituted the general body of believers, the overseers, who shepherded the people; and the servers, who ministered to the practical needs of the congregation…What we are to recognize is functions: some function as overseers, some function as servers, some function as teachers, some function as helpers, and so on. Everyone in the body functions as a saint, and every saint is gifted for specific God-ordained functions.”
Delegated authority from the elders is probably involved in deaconing, but deacons were not overseers. In reading 1 Timothy 3:1-15 it is obvious that, by definition, women were not part of the eldership. But it is unclear whether or not women were to be deacons (it depends whether the Greek word gune (NT:1135) in verse 11 is translated as women or wives). Either way, it is clear that Scripture does not include women in the government of the church, not because they are second class citizens, but because it is God’s order for His church.
I believe that the arguments presented by the egalitarian authors are not acceptable alternatives to the historic translations of the Bible relative to women in church government. Clearly, the changes they propose can only be accomplished by reading ideas into the Bible that are not there (eisegesis).
But, this is still far from clear to egalitarians, who would ask as a response to these statements, “If what you are saying is true, then how do you explain the ministries of Priscilla and Phoebe and the choice of Deborah to be a judge in Israel?” The next chapter will examine several prominent women in the Bible and the significance of their activities.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0043 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page