The Woman's Role In the Church
A Position Paper by Johnie S. Terry
May not be reproduced without permission of the author
Introduction
Chapter 1: The Role of Hermeneutics in the Debate on Women's Ministry
Chapter 2: An Examination of the Key Passages in the Debate
1 Timothy 2:8-15
1 Corinthians 11:2-16 & 14:34-36
Galatians 3:28
The world today is experiencing sweeping changes both politically and culturally. The political transformations have been so sudden that it is difficult for the church to "keep up" with the new situations and the implications of these changes. Along side of this, the whole cultural mindset of the western world has been undergoing radical changes in its social mores. This is especially true in the role of men and women. In society, women have been given more freedom in the political and economic structures. Though their "emancipation" into complete equality with men is not yet a reality, women have made great strides in overcoming the inequities.
As a result of these cultural changes, the church has been forced to re-examine its commitment to male leadership. Radical feminism, as well as biblical feminism, has called into question the patriarchal nature of the church. As a result, the attitudes and the practices of many religious groups, both evangelical and liberal, have been altered to reflect a more open stance in the area of women's ministry. For example, according to Gary Ward
In 1986 there were an estimated 20,730 female clergy in the United States, an increase of almost 100 percent just since 1977, and amounting to 7.9 percent of the total clergy in those denominations that ordain women. During that same time, the number of women enrolled in ordination programs in seminaries increased 110 percent... a 1986 survey of 221 religious groups in the United States showed that 84 did ordain women, 82 did not, there was uncertainty about 49, and six had no clergy.
As far as evangelicals are concerned, the issue is still hotly debated with no consensus in sight. There are two basic positions. On the one side are the egalitarians. They insist on full equality in both the status and function of women in the church. They feel that every function in the church is open to both male and female and that no restrictions should be placed upon women because they are women. The foundation stone of their beliefs is Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male or female; for ye are all one in Christ."
This is the egalitarians' biblical constitution. All other verses must be interpreted in light of this verse. The normative principle is that men and women are equal, there are no distinctions, therefore every function of the church is open to women. In the new creation affected by Christ at redemption, the old hierarchy of male over female has been obliterated. The ideal for the new creation is mutual submission, not male domination. How they work this out in their exegesis of such passages as 1 Timothy 2:8-15, 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 will be discussed later.
Opposing the egalitarian position is what has been called the traditional position. Traditionalists feel that the Bible does place some restrictions on the sphere of women's ministry in the church. While they may disagree as to the degree and extent of these restrictions, they all agree that there are some restrictions.
Traditionalists appeal primarily to 1 Tim. 2:8-15 and 1 Cor. 14:34-36 for support of their position. They see these passages as espousing timeless principles as they relate to the woman's role in the church. They see these verses as normative because the arguments in these verses are tied to the created order In Genesis 1 and 2. Thus, there are limitations placed upon the woman as it relates to the extent to which she can function in a leadership role in the church.
This is not a liberal versus evangelical issue. Evangelicals are sharply divided over the above two views. Many prominent evangelicals, such as F. F. Bruce, Anthony Compolo, Gordon Fee, and Arthur Holmes, have espoused the egalitarian viewpoint. While traditionalists may question the egalitarians' commitment to biblical authority, most egalitarians are convinced that their position is true to the Scripture. Feminist ideas in society may have forced them to re-examine the Scriptures, but it did not force them to adopt feminist positions. They adopted this position because they felt it was biblical.
The traditionalist has both history and Scripture on his side. The traditionalist feels that the egalitarian has twisted hermeneutic principles and "culturalized" every passage that deals with submission or authority. When proper hermeneutics are used on such passages as 1 Timothy 2:8-15, the only acceptable interpretation is that restrictions are placed upon the ministry of women.
In this paper I want to address the issue of "Women in the Ministry" taking a traditionalist viewpoint. By this, I am referring to ministry in a strict sense (holding the pastoral office), not a broad sense (servant in general). In doing so, I will first examine the question of hermeneutics and the role it plays in the debate. Second, I will address some key passages and the various interpretations given by both sides.
Before embarking on the crux of the paper, a few cautions are in order. First, though some have tried to frame the debate In terms of biblical authority, this is not the question. Both egalitarians and traditionalists are committed to inerrancy. They differ on interpretation, not inspiration. Second, traditionalists do not see hierarchy as synonymous with inferiority. Women are not inferior to men. They just occupy different roles in God's economy. This will be elaborated on more fully in section two.
Finally, there is much agreement between the two positions. To quote Hoch,
there is wide agreement between evangelical egalitarians and hierarchialists in regard to a woman's place in society, home, and church. Both affirm women as made in the image of God. Neither teaches an ontological hierarchy of male and female. Both agree that a woman's role in the home and in the church is to a large degree culturally defined. Both acknowledge the significant contributions women have made in biblical history and in the modern world. Both take note of the place of women in the life of Christ as recorded in the Gospels and of the high esteem Jesus Christ placed on women.
With these cautions in mind, let us examine the issue.
The Role of Hermeneutics in the Debate
on Women's Ministry
Underlying the whole debate on women's ministry is the issue of hermeneutics--that is, how do we interpret and apply Scripture. Both sides are committed to biblical authority. They differ, however, on how to apply the authoritative word. This hermeneutical question was recognized in Sweden as early as 1958 when 8tendahl wrote,
It further became apparent in the Swedish debate [concerning women's ordination] that the real problem had to do with an oft-overlooked area, that of "hermeneutics"--i.e., how one interprets the Bible, not only as to what the text meant "back there then" when it was written, but also as to what it means "here and now." Experts may, for example, be agreed as to what a verse from Paul meant back in Corinth, but how--if at all--does it speak relevantly to us today?
More recently Robert Johnston has echoed this thought when he wrote,
If evangelicals are to move beyond their current impasse, a clarification concerning method of understanding Scripture must be made. For behind the apparent differences in approach and opinion regarding the women's issue are opposing principles for interpreting Scripture--i.e., different hermeneutics. Here is the real issue facing evangelical theology as it seeks to answer the women's question.
The question arises, How do you differentiate between timeless principles and culturally specific situations? Egalitarians see passages such as 1 Timothy 2:8-15 as culturally specific. It was for the specific situation at Ephesus. Therefore, the injunction "I do not allow a women to teach or exercise authority over a man" is not normative for us today. It was written for an occasional ad hoc situation.
On the other hand, traditionalists see the above passage as a timeless principle rooted in the created order of Genesis 1 and 2. They see nothing in the passage itself that would limit it to a particular culture. In fact, Paul's whole argumentation seems dependent on timeless principles interwoven into the very fabric of creation. Therefore, traditionalists see the passage as normative for today.
Which hermeneutical approach is correct? How do we determine what is historically descriptive and what is eternally prescriptive? The Mickelsens , avowed egalitarians, give the following three principles that they use to determine which commands are normative and which are not.
1. Any regulation that seems [italics mine] to make one group of Christians of lesser rank than another group (whether because of race, sex, age, or economic status) must be examined in the light of Christ's absolute command to treat others the way we want to be treated.
2. Regulations that diminish spiritual growth and opportunities for service are suspect because they go against John I0:10 and the fulness [sic] God desires us to have.
3. In Matthew 9:17 the gospel of Christ is "new wine" that must not be poured into the old wineskins of Judaism, or of paganism, or of accepted cultural patterns.
These three hermeneutical principles (actually, they are more philosophical than hermeneutical) seem farfetched. The first principle is inadequate on two accounts. To begin, it ignores passages that do show some type of rank (i..e., Heb. 13:17; Eph. 5:22-6:4). Second, it sounds dangerously similar to Joseph Fletcher's Situation Ethics where he makes "love" the all encompassing criteria for judging right from wrong. The Mickelsens make the Golden Rule the all-abiding principle for every situation, which it is not.
The second principle assumes that "fulness" in the Christian life comes from total equality. Fulness, however, is the result of obedience, not the result of equality. If God commands subjection, then fulness comes when we are in subjection. In fact, if God has ordained different roles for men and women, then no man or woman can be fulfilled unless they are living in harmony with those prescribed roles.
The third principle fails in that they claim too much for the parable. Yes, Christianity in some ways is different from Judaism, paganism, and accepted cultural patterns. On the other hand, there are some Judaistic, paganistic, and cultural truths that are identical to truths found in Christianity. Just because Christianity is different does not mean that you can throw out everything that Judaism, paganism, or culture has to offer. You must show that the issue in question (here, women's leadership in the church) contradicts given Christian principles.
So, the question remains, How do we interpret Scripture and decipher the prescriptive from the descriptive? Robert Johnston, another egalitarian, posits eleven principles for interpreting Scripture. While his principles are valid, I would question the way in which he applies them. After giving his principles, however, he adds a word of caution about the subjectivity of interpretation.
Evangelicals, in their desire to escape the supposed relativity of such reader-oriented perspectives, have too often attempted to hide themselves behind the veneer of objectivity. They have failed to take seriously biblical hermeneutics' "second horizon." The horizon of the reader is as crucial as the horizon of the author, if an adequate biblical interpretation is to be forthcoming.
In essence, he is saying that the cultural conditioning of the reader makes objectivity of interpretation virtually impossible (except for egalitarians). David Scholer echoes this thought when he states, "The concept of genuinely objective biblical interpretation is a myth. All interpretation is socially located, individually skewed, and ecclesiastically and theologically conditioned."
While the above caution is needed, it goes too far. To begin, if it is true, it applies to both egalitarians as well as traditionalists. Egalitarians are just as culturally conditioned (possibly more so with the strength of feminism in our society) as traditionalists. The question then becomes, Who is the most culturally conditioned? Another problem is that total objectivity is not necessary in order to understand the explicit meaning of a passage. For example, I have no problem understanding normal conversation even though I bring my own "cultural baggage" into every conversation. It is possible that my "cultural baggage" may hinder my interpretation, and I must be careful about this, but this is not necessarily so.
Again, we return to the question, How do we determine the transcultural from the culturally specific? Along with Johnston's eleven principles I would add the following principles. First, does the context itself limit the situation to Just the recipient(s)? Second, does subsequent revelation limit the application of the principle in question? Third, realize that an occasional ad hoc situation may be used to convey an eternal principle. Fourth, determine if the command is the result of creation or of situational expediency.
For example, if the context does not specifically limit a principle then it is best to see it as prescriptive. Second, if the immediate context does not limit a principle, but another portion of Scripture does, then the principle should be seen as descriptive. Third, the occasional nature of the epistles does not require that every injunction be culturally specific. If this were the case then there would be no prescriptive commands at all. Finally, if the line of argumentation stems from creation, the command should be seen as prescriptive.
From this, it is obvious that the hermeneutical question is a thorny one. The difficulty is in determining the cultural from the transcultural. Though this is difficult, it is not impossible if proper principles are followed that control one's interpretation.
CHAPTER 2
An Examination of the Key Passages in the Debate
In the debate over the role of women in the church there are a few crucial passages that must be examined. I will briefly survey the key passages that serve as the battleground for the debate. They are 1 Timothy 2:8-15, 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, 1 Corinthians 14:34-36, and Galatians 3:28.
Egalitarians will try to show that the events in the first three passages are occasional ad hoc situations, thereby making the injunctions valid only for the immediate recipients. Also, they will use Galatians 3:28 as their controlling text and interpret all other texts through it. In essence, the Galatian passage is seen as absolute while the other passages are seen as culturally specific.
Conversely, traditionalists will try to show that the first three passages contain timeless principles intended for all generations. They see 1 Timothy 2:8-15 as the controlling text. As for the Galatian passage, they affirm that it teaches a oneness in Christ, but not necessarily a sameness in Christ.
This is the most difficult passage for the egalitarians and the favorite passage of the traditionalists. Upon examination, there are several key issues that will be addressed. First and foremost, is the passage transcultural or cultural, descriptive or prescriptive? To answer this question we must first begin with the context. David Scholer rightly argues that traditionalists are wrong in seeing 1 Timothy as primarily a minister's manual. He states, "Scholars such as George Knight and James Hurley [traditionalists] understand 1 Timothy 3:14-15 as the purpose of 1 Timothy and infer from it that Paul is giving a suprasituational ‘church manual.’" Later he adds, "I Timothy should be understood as an occasional ad hoc letter directed specifically toward enabling Timothy and the church to avoid and combat the false teachers and teaching In Ephesus."
Scholer is correct in his understanding of the overall context, but the implications that he draws are wrong. Yes, the letter is occasional. But so are all of the other New Testament epistles. The occasional nature of the epistle does not necessarily negate the fact that normative teaching is given via occasional situations. If Scholer is to prove that 1 Timothy 2:8-15 is merely descriptive, he needs more than just the fact that the epistle itself is occasional. He needs to find something within the text itself that shows the occasional nature of the specific passage in question.
Within the passage itself, there is no evidence that it should be taken as merely descriptive. In order to support their view, egalitarians have had to concoct some fantastic historical constructions to fit their view of this passage. For example, Richard and Catherine Kroeger go into great detail describing several cultic groups whose theology centered around feminine superiority.
The Priscillianians or Quintillianians carried feminine superiority a step further. According to Hippolytus they maintained that they had learned more from their prophetesses "than from the law, and prophets, and the Gospels. But they magnify these wretched women above the Apostles and every gift of Grace, so that some of them presume to assert that there is in them a [sic] something superior to Christ. . ."
These Quintillianians were by no means the only sect to revere Eve as the mediatrix who brought divine enlightenment to humankind. Tertullian reports that several groups, known as Ophitic sects (honoring the Snake), centered their theology on the secret gnosis given to Eve by the serpent.
What is the point to all of this? After theorizing that Timothy may have been combating one of these false cults, they conclude that the way to fight such a heresy would be to teach that
Adam was created first rather than Eve; and Eve, far from being an instrument of light, was grossly deceived. In her delusion she fancied that she bore a spiritual knowledge that would make her and Adam like gods, but in reality her misguided efforts conveyed error rather than truth and thereby occasioned the fall. And, of course, it is precisely this argument that we find in 1 Timothy 2:13-14.
There are two points worth noting. First, without any internal evidence to show that this passage is dealing with a particular heresy at Ephesus, the Kroeger's assume that this passage is included because Paul thought these temporary injunctions would silence the heretics. In reality, even though the purpose of the whole epistle may be to help Timothy combat error, this passage does not deal directly with combating error. In its more immediate context it is referring to public worship and how it should be carried out.
Second, and again without any evidence that the above heresies were actually present at Ephesus, the Kroeger's have devised a well-constructed scenario that has no support from the text itself. Their arguments rest not on the text of Scripture but on the historical background that they have so carefully orchestrated to fit their preconceived conception of the passage. This is not exegesis, it is imagination run wild bordering on fabrication!
Evelyn Jensen is another egalitarian who builds a historical situation to fit the verse, albeit a more plausible one than the Kroeger's. She states that
the study of this epistle must be done in the light of its historical-cultural background. Paul wrote this very intimate letter to Timothy, who was living in Ephesus. At that time a mother goddess cult was very strong in Asia Minor, and especially in the city of Ephesus. The name of the goddess worshiped in Ephesus was Artemis (or Diana). At the temples were sacred priestesses who frequently took on the role of sacred prostitutes. Also at the same time Gnostic teachings were beginning to take root. . . Some even said that Eve was created before Adam and that she had a special source of knowledge and wisdom. Apparently there were high-class, well-educated Greek women who were teachers of wealthy, high-class Greek men. Their services included not only teaching but also sexual companionship and liaisons. . .Now, in light of this background it is easier to understand many of the exhortations that Paul had for Timothy. . .The exhortations for women to dress modestly and to be quiet In the place of worship are understandable. It is also understandable that Paul states emphatically that Adam was created before Eve and reaffirms motherhood as a worthy calling for women. We can understand why Paul would not want women teaching men when in the social milieu the relationship between women teachers and their male students was not anything like the teachings of the gospel.
Though all of those things may be understandable to Ms. Jensen, her understanding did not come from the text itself but from her historical reconstruction. Again it must be emphasized that proper hermeneutics requires that cultural limitations come from the text itself, not from historical reconstructions of the text.
David Scholer, rather than building a specific historical setting for I Timothy, tries to argue from the context of 1 and 2 Timothy. He pieces together the various texts that refer to false teaching (l Tim. 4:3; 5:13-15; 2 Tim. 3:1-9; Tit. 2:3-5) and concludes that "the opposition (heresy) that Paul and Timothy faced in Ephesus constituted an assault on marriage and what were considered appropriate models for women in that society [italics mine]." So far, other than the italics, he is within the parameters of the text. He then goes on to state that
The statements of 2:11-12 are thus ad hoc instructions intended for a particular situation in Ephesus of false teaching focused on women. These statements are not to be understood as universal principles encoded in a suprasituational "church order manual" that limit women in ministry in all times and places.
There are two problems with this viewpoint. First, it is not sound hermeneutics to piece together verses from 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus in order to construct the historical situation at Ephesus. Timothy was in Macedonia at the writing of 2 Timothy. Titus was on Crete when he received his letter. Thus, each was written to a different place and for a different occasion. Therefore, it is wrong to construct a single historical situation in Ephesus from descriptions from three different places.
Second, even if there were heretical women teachers at Ephesus, this still does not adequately explain the injunction in 2:11-12. The injunction in 2:11-12 is for all women in general, not just heretical women. As Walter Liefeld, another egalitarian queries
However, in the only passage in the Pastoral Epistles that combines a clear reference both to heretical teachings and to women, women are not the promulgators but the victims of false teaching (2 Tim. 3:6-7). The question still remains, therefore, why Paul does not leave matters with the general prohibition against false teaching in 1 Timothy 1:3-4, but adds a paragraph directed specifically against women teachers. He thus restricts the recipients, rather than the originators, of the false doctrine.
Along with this it might be asked, If the problem was heretical women teachers, why did Paul restrict all women in general? Shouldn't he have only restricted the false women teachers, not all women teachers?
A second key consideration in the text is the meaning of didasko (teaching). Egalitarians have tried to equate the gift of teaching with the gift of prophecy. Since women did prophesy in the early church while men were present (Acts 21:9, 1 Co. 11), then teaching would be open to them also. If this were true, then the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 would be cultural.
Yet, this is an improper understanding of the word "teaching." To begin, there is a difference between teaching and the gift of prophecy. They are not used synonymously in the Mew Testament. For example, "Timothy was not to prophesy Paul's instructions; he was to teach them. Paul did not prophesy his ways in every church; he taught them." While interpreters may disagree as to what constitutes the difference between the two, they are at least agreed that there is a difference.
Teaching in the New Testament was "not the explanation of biblical texts, since the Bible was not yet complete or widely disseminated." Because of this, many egalitarians make a distinction between teaching in the New Testament and teaching today. Thus, it is said that since teaching today is primarily a conveyance of facts and difference from the teaching in the New Testament, then it is allowable for women to teach men today.
Though this view sounds attractive, it fails on two counts. First, if this view were true, then the gift of teaching, as it was practiced in the New Testament, is a gift that is no longer in operation, even though everyone argues it is for today (Eph. 4:11-12; Jam. 3:1).
Second, the New Testament does not seem to distinguish between teaching oral tradition and teaching inscripturated revelation. In other words, a teacher, whether he was teaching from written revelation or from oral tradition, was nevertheless conveying facts. The only difference is the source of his facts.
In the early church, teaching was simply the explanation or application of authoritative truth. This authoritative truth may have come in several different forms--Old Testament Scripture, apostolic instructions, or even what eventually came to be recognized as New Testament Scripture. At any rate, teachers taught from the above sources; they did not prophesy from them. Ann Bowman gives an excellent definition of teaching when she states that,
In the New Testament a teacher is one who systematically teaches or expounds the Word of God and who gives instruction in the Old Testament and apostolic teaching (1 Co. 4:17; 2 Tim. 2:2). The spiritual gift of teaching enables individuals to grasp revelation that already has been given and to communicate this truth effectively to others.
Along with the above, Paul Barnett argues quite effectively that
It appears "to teach" refers to the teaching office in the congregation as exercised by one or more elders who were duly recognised [sic] as episkopos. Our passage does not permit a wife/woman to exercise this ministry. The passage immediately following asserts that the episkopos/didaktikos is a man. . . the negative prohibition against a wife/woman followed by the positive description relating to a man appear to be strong grounds for a wife/woman not occupying the office of teacher to the church.
In a nutshell, teaching cannot be equated with prophecy. They are distinct gifts. Therefore, the fact that women prophesied in the public worship services (1Cor. 11) does not necessarily allow for them to teach.
A third key consideration in this passage is the word authentein, translated in the KJV "to usurp authority." This is the only occurrence of this word in the New Testament and it is very rare in extant Greek literature. In the 1980's two key word studies have been done on the word. The first was done by George Knight using the major lexicons then available. He researched approximately one dozen occurrences of the word and concluded that "the broad concept of ‘authority’ is present everywhere."
The second major study was done by L. E. Wilshire using the new Thesaurus Linguae Graecae database at the University of California. Wilshire was able to examine over 300 uses of the word authentein. His findings are summarized and evaluated by Barnett who writes,
Wilshire finds against Knight that ‘there is no recognised [sic] meaning at this term. Indeed, it is a time of a multiplicity of meanings. . . several meanings of the word are in circulation’ (pp. 124, 130). In the epoch roughly contemporaneous with Paul authentein is used by some authors to mean "murder/murderer" and by others to mean "to have authority." He notes that Christian writers Eusebius and Chrysostom always use the word to denote "authority over." What, then, is Wilshire's conclusion? With due caution this scholar suggests that Paul's meaning should be determined by the word's use in context in 1 Tim. 2. That is, it is the notion of "authority" which is in the apostle's mind. In other words, Wilshire, while rejecting Knight's generalizations based on the small sampling available to him, nonetheless appears to have reached the same conclusion.
Thus, the woman is prohibited in "exercising authority over the man."
A fourth key consideration of this passage is the use of gar ("for") in 1 Timothy 2:13¾ is it causal or explanatory? Egalitarians consider it explanatory, thus making the reference to creation illustrative and not necessarily normative. Traditionalists consider gar to be causal. Thus, the reason for the prohibition is because Adam was formed first. Bowman gives two reasons why gar should be considered causal.
Though it is grammatically possible for gar ("for") which begins verse 13 to be either explanatory or causal, the latter sense is preferable for two reasons. First, the explanatory use of gar is rare, and definite contextual evidence would be needed to argue for an explanatory sense. Second, it is usual in Paul's letters for gar to be causal when it follows a verb or idea of command or prohibition.
One final consideration is the use of oude in 1 Tim. 2:12. The question is, Does oude separate didasko and authentetn making them two separate commands or does it link them together into one prohibition? Egalitarians argue for the latter view. Thus, the prohibition would read, "I do not allow a women to teach a man in a domineering way."
On the other hand, traditionalists take oude as a separator. Thus, there are two prohibitions--not to teach nor to usurp authority.
Both Bowman and House argue for the idea of separation. House supports his view with research from an unpublished paper by Thomas Edgar. House states,
Edgar identifies 144 occurrences of oude in the New Testament, and suggests that it carries the idea of "more than a negative," often being translated "not even." When used with correlative ideas the relationship is not adjectival (a hendiadys), but is used for "reinforcement or intensification of a concept to which both elements relate."
Edgar concludes, "the evidence is amazingly one-sided. There is not one instance of the 143 occurrences. . . which functions as a hendiadys."
From the above evidence I have tried to show that 1 Timothy 2:8-15 is in favor of the traditionalist viewpoint for several reasons. First, the context of the passage argues against it being occasional. Second, the definitions of the words used (didasko and authentein) argue for the traditionalist viewpoint. Third, the syntax (the use of gar and oude) supports the traditionalist position.
1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 14:34-36
In these passages there are four points that I want to discuss. First, what is the relationship between these passages? Second, is there a difference between a woman prophesying and a woman teaching? Third, is 1 Cot. 14:34-36 cultural or transcultural? Fourth, what is meant by the term kephale in 11:3?
To begin, it is important to understand the various ways in which interpreters have tried to harmonize 1 Co. 11 and 14. In the latter passage Paul says that "Women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak." While in the former, Paul allows women to prophesy as long as they do it "with a symbol of authority on their head" (v. 10).
There are several ways people have tried to harmonize the two passages. First, some have considered 1 Co. 14 an interpolation. For those of us who hold to a high view of inspiration, this view is unacceptable.
Second, some see 1 Co. 14 as referring to an official church setting, while 1 Co. 11 is referring to an unofficial church setting. The problem with this view is that the New Testament does not seem to make a distinction between official and unofficial church settings.
Third, some argue that Paul did not approve of the women prophesying at Corinth. However, since they were doing it, he uses that as an illustration to teach proper etiquette in the worship service. This view neglects the fact that women prophesied elsewhere in Scripture without any hint of disapproval (Acts 21:9).
Fourth, several interpreters try to harmonize the passages by placing qualifications on the word laleo ("to speak") in 1 Co. 14:33-36. Wayne House gives five different ways in which this is done.
1. I Co. 14 is prohibiting inspired speaking (i.e., prophecy or tongues).
2. 1 Cor. 14 is prohibiting disruptive talk in the services (chattering or asking questions).
3. 1Cor. 14 is prohibiting the women from exerting authority over their husbands by contradicting them.
4. 1Cor. 14 is prohibiting women from judging prophetic utterances after they were spoken. Prophesies were to be Judged to see if they were true. Women were forbidden from participating in this Judging activity.
5. 1 Co. 14 prohibits all speaking in general.
The first view above is untenable because in 1 Cor. 11 and Acts 21 women are allowed to prophesy.
The second view fails for three reasons. First, it would be an unusual usage for laleo. Although the Kroeger's state that "lalein refers primarily to utterance rather than to meaningful communication," they have failed to examine its usage in the New Testament. In fact, nowhere in the New Testament is it ever translated as "chatter" nor could it be. It always refers to intelligible conversation.
Second, as Grudem points out,
there simply is no evidence in vv. 35b-35, or in the rest of the letter, or in any writing inside or outside the Bible, that indicates that disorder among women was a problem specifically in the Corinthian church. Some people assume there were noisy women in the church, but no evidence has turned up to prove this assumption.
Third, the prohibition is not to disorderly women in particular, but to all women in general "in all the churches" (14:33-34).
The third view above restricts laleo to contradictory speech. This, too, is reading too much into the text.
The fourth view is an attractive possibility, although I do not agree with it. This view states that in 1 Co. 11 "the women were speaking divine utterances, whereas in 14:33b-36 they were not. Those who spoke under divine control were not expressing their own authority and so were not in violation of the Law." The problem with this interpretation is that the New Testament gift of prophecy did not always have absolute divine authority. For example, in 14:29 Paul says, "Let two or three prophets speak and let the others weigh what is said." If these prophetic utterances were absolute, then there would have been no need to "weigh what was said." Consider also that Paul, whether rightly or wrongly, went against the prophetic advice not to go up to Jerusalem (Acts 21:10-14). Thus, prophetic utterances were not absolutely binding.
Grudem, though overstating the case, summarizes the objection above by saying that
prophecies given in local NT churches should be considered merely human words, not God's words and not equal to God's words in authority. It is certainly a mistake to equate NT church prophets with the divinely authoritative prophets of the OT.
The fifth view above fails because women were at least allowed to pray and prophesy publicly (1 Co. 11).
So, the question remains, How do we harmonize 1 Corinthians 11 and 14? The best answer comes from a proper understanding of the terms "prophesy" and "to speak." Prophecy should be understood "as a contingently inspired utterance that may or may not lack biblical authority." By this, I mean that the utterance had to be weighed to see if it was correct (contingent). Next, even if it were true, it still may not have carried the same authority as biblically inspired truth. For example, Agabus’ prophesy of Paul's bonds, though true, was not biblically authoritative. Therefore, women were allowed to prophesy.
As for laleo, it is a common word in the New Testament and was used in several ways. One of these ways was in reference to "teaching" (Matt. 13:3, Acts 11:19, Acts 14:25, Titus 2:15). If in 1 Cor. 14 we take laleo as referring to teaching, then this passage would concur with 1 Tim. 2:11-12. In this case, 1 Co. 14 would be forbidding the same activities as the Timothy passage.
We have just examined the relationship between the two passages and considered whether there was a difference in women prophesying and teaching. We now want to consider whether 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 is cultural or transcultural.
To begin, the context argues for the passage being transcultural. In this context Paul is giving instructions for orderly church worship. Then, in 14:33 he appeals to the fact that his instructions are followed by "all the churches of the saints." Therefore, this is not something just for the Corinthian situation. It is followed in all the churches.
Consider also that v. 34 says, "Let the women keep silent in all the churches." Notice that "churches" is plural. This means that Paul is either addressing several churches in Corinth or that his instruction includes all churches everywhere. If it is the latter, then the passage is obviously more than occasional in nature. If it is the former, it would be strange that every church in Corinth would have the same problem and need the same culturally specific solution.
One last argument that shows the passage to be normative is the use of the term "Law" in v. 34. There are four possibilities as to the meaning of "the Law." First, some consider it as a reference to Gen. 3:16. Second, some see it as a reference to the creation narratives in Genesis 1 and 2. Third, some see it as a reference to the Torah. Fourth, some see it as a reference to present-day political laws which prohibited women from speaking in public.
The first two possibilities might be true if 1 Timothy 2:11-12 was taken into account. Since, however, the Corinthians would not have had that option, this seems unlikely. The fourth view, though possible, is not probable. As Liefeld states in the above footnote, times were changing. We have no way of knowing if political law prohibited women from speaking in public at Corinth or not. If it did, it seems that Paul would not have allowed them to prophesy publicly either.
It seems best to take "the Law" as referring to the Torah. This is how it is used in 1 Co. 14:21. As Osborne states,
while this is possible [the rabbinical or political use of "the Law"] the major difficulty lies in the articular ho nomos, which in the gospels refers directly to the Pentateuch rather than even the whole OT.
Some may argue that if it does refer to the Mosaic Law, then that law was made inoperative by the cross of Christ. The problem with this objection is that if it was a part of what was made inoperative, then Paul would not have appealed to it. Since, however, he does appeal to it, then it must be valid for today.
From these arguments it is evident that 1 Co. 14:33-36 is not culturally specific, but rather, a didactic passage that is normative for today.
There is one last issue that needs to be considered. What is meant by the word kephale ('head') in 1 Co. 11:3? The traditional viewpoint is that it means "authority." However, an article in 1954 by Stephen Bedale cast serious doubt on this meaning when he stated that "in normal Greek usage, classical or contemporary, kephale does not signify 'head' in the sense of ruler, or chieftain, of a community." This article touched off what has been a continuing debate over the meaning of kephale.
Egalitarians used Bedale's article as a springboard to begin debate over the true meaning of the word and its implications for such passages as 1 Co. 11:3 and Eph. 5:23. Berkeley and A1vera Mickelsen suggested that kephale meant "exalted originator and completer; source, base, derivation; enabler (one who brings to completion); source of life; top of crown."
With this as ammunition, egalitarians argued that man is not the authority over the woman, but that he is the source of the woman since Eve was created from Adam. Therefore, any exegesis that attempts to deny women the right to teach on the basis of authority is wrong.
Traditionalists, however, did not concur with Bedale's research. Probably the most extensive research done on kephale was attempted by Wayne Grudem. He examined 2,336 occurrences of kephale and found that there was no clear example of kephale ever meaning "source." Consider also that in the Septuagint, although kephale is not the normal term used to translate the word "authority," it is translated that way eight times. It is also used of a chief individual or ruler (Judg. 11:11; 2 Kings 22:44).
As for the meaning of kephale House reminds us that
The general meaning of a particular word is known as the normal or natural meaning. It is a general meaning because it is the most common use of the term. This general meaning is also known as the unmarked meaning, that is, it is the meaning one would assume apart from contextual indicators of another meaning besides the general meaning. In reference to kephale, the common or unmarked meaning is physical head. The idea of source or origin simply has no clear example in the time of the New Testament, even though feminists have gone to great pains to seek to find such usage.
The key indicator to its meaning is the context itself. In all of the biblical passages using kephale the word "authority" can be substituted and the passage will still make sense. "Source," however, cannot be substituted. For example, in 1 Co. 11:3, "source" cannot be used because God is not the source of Christ.
In this section I have tried to show that these two passages are best harmonized when one understands the differences between "prophesying" and "teaching." Second, I have endeavored to show that 1 Co. 14:33-36 is more than an occasional ad hoc situation because of its context and because of the use of the term "the Law." Finally, I have tried to show that the term kephale in 1 Co. 11:3 argues for the traditional viewpoint.
This verse has been called the Magna Carta of biblical feminists. In this verse they see complete emancipation for women. They interpret every other verse "through" this verse making it their controlling text. In summary, egalitarians teach that originally Adam and Eve were totally equal. The fall, however, resulted in the rulership of Adam over Eve. In the new creation (redemption), however, we are all made one again in Christ and the old distinctions are passed away. Thus, women are as free as men to exercise spiritual gifts and to participate in any ministry function of the church.
The problem with the egalitarian view of Galatians 3:28 is that it mistakes "oneness" for "sameness." Yes, in Jesus Christ we are all made one, but we do not all become one. We still retain our distinctive roles.
Egalitarians argue that if we retain role distinctions, then we must also retain master/slave distinctions. This, however, is poor reasoning on their part. To begin, this verse is a general summary stating that we are all one in Christ no matter what our personal situation. This verse is not making any pronouncements on gender roles, slavery, or Jew/Gentile relationships. Those pronouncements are made elsewhere.
Consider also 1 Peter 3:7. Here the husband and wife are called "fellow-heirs of the grace of life." Knight makes the astute observation that
the noteworthy factor in Peter's treatment for our question is that he affirms this spiritual equality in the midst of a passage which speaks of a distinct role relationship of wives and husbands, i.e., of wives that they must be in subjection to their own husbands (3:1) and of husbands that they must give honor unto the woman as unto the weaker vessel.
Thus, our "oneness" in Christ does not erase our distinctive roles that were present at creation.
Egalitarians equate "authority" with the ideas of superiority and inferiority. The one who has authority is seen as superior to the one who is under authority. While it is true that many evangelicals have this concept, it is not necessarily true. It is possible to have an ontological equality while maintaining a functional difference.
In the Bible, the leader's authority stems from his loving service, not from his autocratic disposition. Jesus said that "He who will be greatest among you shall be servant of all" (Mt. 20:26). Peter reminded pastors that they were "not to lord it over the flock." Husbands are not to bring their wives into submission, but rather, love them as Christ loved the church (Eph. 5:25). Thus, the biblical leader leads by loving example.
The Mickelsen's have rightly argued that many evangelicals have ignored the concept of the leader servant. They state that "this teaching runs contrary to the concept of hierarchy as it is commonly understood and practiced in our world and even in some of our churches." The problem with this statement is that it wrongly implies that hierarchy is synonymous with superiority/inferiority.
On the basis of Gal. 3:28 some egalitarians have promulgated the idea that there is no such thing as the office of pastor. We are all called at conversion and spiritually gifted. New Testament ministry is service, not dominion. Therefore, all Christians, male and female are qualified for ministry.
This view seems to totally ignore the pastoral epistles and such verses as Hebrews 13:17. These passages definitely speak of both an office and of subjection ("Obey your leaders, and submit to them"). There is no way of getting around the fact of "authority."
Authority is not a dirty word--abusive authority is. Authority in and of itself does not necessitate superiority/inferiority. God, the Father, is the head of Christ, but He is not superior to Him. Authority is necessary to prevent anarchy and to maintain order.
In summary, Galatians 3:28 cannot be used to support equality of function as it relates to gender roles. While men and women may be one in Christ, they are not the same and still retain their distinctive roles. Also, the concept of the servant/leader, although biblical, cannot be used to support total equality. This concept does not nullify the office of leadership. Rather, it qualifies how the Christian leader is supposed to lead. It deals with method of leadership, not abrogation of leadership.
Conclusion seems an unusual word to be using at this point because the women's issue among evangelicals is far from settled. At this point, I would like to summarize the position that I have argued for in this paper and to elaborate on the proper role of women in the church.
To begin, I see both 1 Tim. 2:8-15 and 1 Co. 14:34-36 as normative passages. There is nothing in the context of either passage that would limit their application to a temporary situation.
Next, the restriction that these passages place on women is not all-encompassing. The prohibition is against the women engaging in the authoritative teaching of the church as the pastor or over men. All other teaching positions are open to them.
Third, though I did not address this issue, I feel that there is a legitimate office of deaconess. Though some feel that the term "deaconess" is descriptive of the ministry these women performed, I have no problem with it describing an office. In fact, the evidence seems to be in favor of this position. Having the office does not necessarily imply that this person has the authority over any one else, especially when you consider the nature of the office of deacon or deaconess.
Fourth, we must be careful not to place the emphasis on what women can't do. Instead, we should focus on the wide range of ministries that are available to them.
Finally, we must realize that in ministry today we face some issues in which there are no parallels in the New Testament. For example, is teaching the Bible in a Christian school or college the same as teaching it in the church? What place do women have in para-church ministries? What about husband/wife team-teaching? Can a woman conduct a seminar on women's ministry if men are present? Can we ordain a woman to some ministry other than the pastorate?
Needless to say, some questions are difficult. In conclusion, I would posit that all ministries are open to women except teaching as the pastor of a church. As for the ordination of women, the issue boils down to one's concept of ordination. If by ordination you are commissioning someone for pastoral service, then the ordination of women is not biblical. If, however, you see ordination as a recognition of spiritual gifts for the use in some ministry other than the pastoral one, then ordination might be proper. Personally, however, I take the former view of ordination.
In closing, the door to women's ministry needs to be opened further than it is in most churches. But in opening the door we must be careful not to let it swing off its biblical hinges. The cultural pressures to change the church will only increase in the future. We must be careful not to succumb to cultural coercion by making sure that our views are based on sound exegesis, not cultural expediency.