When considering the verses below, we must keep a few things in mind. First, to inquire about the true meaning of a verse is not to deny biblical authority. Like it or not, there are many ambiguous or unclear verses in the Bible (and many different interpretations of such verses). Sometimes, when we feel strongly about a particular verse, we have a tendency to simply accuse anyone who disagrees with us of disagreeing with the Bible (or with God). But we must never confuse a questioning of our preferred interpretation with a questioning of the Bible itself. both complementarians and egalitarians accept the authority of the Bible; the point of disagreement is whether deeper study is necessary in order to understand a particular verse or command.
Second, we must avoid treating the Bible as if it were a magic book that fell out of the sky one day and was written directly to us, in English, in the 21st century; as if every sentence were a specific command that is directly applicable to our specific situations without any attempt to look deeper and understand the underlying principles being communicated. In reality, we must study the Bible, not simply read it. We must understand everything in the context not only of the entirety of the Bible, but also of the time and place (and to whom) it was written. Of course, there ARE some portions that are simple and direct; my point simply is that we cannot assume this universally or in the cases we prefer without justification.
Third, we must keep in mind that it is possible for a particular command to be specifically applicable only in a limited sense (based on cultural context, to whom it was written, etc.). This does not mean that these verses are useless to us, because they still communicate an underlying principle that does have a universal application. But if we refuse to look deeper and instead insist on the “plain meaning”, we’ll miss the actual point of the verse. One example is the command to “greet one another with a holy kiss” in Romans 16:16. When was the last time you went around church kissing everyone? If we took this literalistically as a command for all time to always greet each other with a kiss, we would be following an empty ritual but entirely missing the real point, which seems to be that we should be warm and friendly toward one another. If we do this in a way that is more applicable to our particular time and culture (such as shaking hands or hugging), we would certainly be fulfilling this command (more than we would if we did not make the effort to fully understand it).
With that, let us turn to the verses that have convinced so many that women should not be pastors, teach, or have authority over men in the church.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
“The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.”
When Paul says women must be silent, he could not have meant complete silence, since three chapters earlier, in chapter 11, he was talking about regulations for both men and women speaking and prophesying in the public assembly (1 Cor. 11:4-5). So what did he mean? As it turns out, the same word used to refer to women’s silence in this verse is used in reference to those who spoke in tongues without an interpreter present (in 1 Corinthians 14:27-28). Here Paul was stressing the need for order during the church service; if an interpreter was not present, no one should speak in tongues to the entire congregation (since it would not be edifying to them). But this was not a command not to speak at all.
In the same way, Paul’s concern here seems to have been order in the churches. At that time, most women were lacking in religious education and were apparently interrupting the preacher to ask questions (a common practice at the time). Paul’s point was not that there is something spiritually offensive to God about anyone of the female gender speaking inside of a church building, but that it was better for the women to learn from their husbands at home (again, not because men are inherently better at understanding and interpreting the word of God, but because at that time only men had access to religious teaching). Interestingly, Paul’s commands were radical for the time, since it was not customary for women to receive such instruction at all. Paul is actually providing a way for the women to receive religious instruction and answers to their questions so they could catch up and be as equipped and knowledgeable as the men.
Therefore, this verse is best interpreted as specific instructions that apply directly only to the situation and people to which it was originally written, but with an underlying principle that is universally applicable (the importance of maintaining order in the church). Since Paul’s concern is only disruptive interruptions from people lacking in religious education, there certainly is no basis for using this verse as a universal prohibition of women speaking or teaching in church.
1 Timothy 2:11-12
“A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.”
The points I made above regarding 1 Corinthians 14 apply here as well. Additionally, however, the word for “quiet” is the same word used to instruct the entire church in 1 Timothy 2:1-2, which says: “I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people - for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.” Once again, clearly it does not mean absolute silence, but respectful attention or a quiet demeanor. And this is required of all believers, not just women.
It’s interesting to note that, in the Ephesian church in which Timothy served, there was an idea being circulated that Eve was created before Adam and that somehow this meant she was superior to him. This explains why Paul emphasized the creation order in verses 13 and 14. He was not, however, grounding a universal prohibition against women teaching on the creation order, as is often assumed, but is countering false teaching.
Additionally, when Paul says women can’t have “authority” over men, the Greek word he uses is authentein, which is never used to indicate legitimate authority, but rather a negative, domineering, even violent exercise of authority. The Greek word for general, legitimate authority was exousia. So it seems Paul was not forbidding authority in general, but overbearing authority, which, of course, would be forbidden for all believers (not just women). Again, there was false teaching being spread in the Ephesian church about the supposed superiority of women, so his comments were written specifically to counter this. This was not intended to be a universal prohibition for all time against women having authority over men.
1 Timothy 3:2
“An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.”
It is really grasping at straws to try to use this verse to prohibit women from leadership positions. Complementarians point out that it says “the husband of one wife,” and since women can’t be husbands, this must mean elders should be men! But this is missing the point. The concern here is that elders not be polygamists and be faithful to their spouse. Paul could easily have said “an overseer must be a man,” but he didn’t. While complementarians generally insist on accepting the “plain reading” of the text, here they suddenly abandon that position.
In a later verse, Paul says that an elder must have obedient children. If we were to read this in the same way the complementarian reads the above passage, we would take this as an implicit command that all elders have children. But, of course, no one understands it in this way (as far as I know!), therefore revealing the inconsistency with which complementarians approach such verses. And let’s not forget that Paul himself was not married, and therefore, under the simplistically literal interpretation of these verses he himself would have been disqualified from being an elder!
But perhaps the most obvious evidence that these few verses were never meant to universally prohibit women from leadership and teaching roles is that there were, in fact, so many women in such positions, both in the Old and New Testaments:
• Miriam was a prophetess (Exodus. 15:20).
• Huldah was a prophetess (2 Kings 22:14-20; 2 Chron. 34:11-33).
• Noadiah was a prophetess (Nehemiah. 6:14).
• Isaiah’s wife was a prophetess (Isaiah 8:3).
• Deborah was a judge and prophetess (Judg. 4-5).
It’s interesting to note that all of the examples thus far are from the Old Testament. To suggest that women were allowed such positions at this time but then the standards changed when the church was established is to say that there are MORE restrictions on women under the new covenant than under old!
There are also many examples of women in leadership and teaching positions in the New Testament:
• Anna was a prophetess (Luke 2:36).
• Phoebe was a deacon (some translations say “servant” or “leader”) at the church in Cenchrea (Romans 16:1-2).
• Junia was an apostle (Romans 16:7). Some translations actually change her name to the male form, “Junias,” even though there is no evidence of “Junias” being used as a man’s name at this time, while “Junia” as a female name was quite common. This alteration was first made in the 13th century in an attempt to avoid acknowledging that at least one of the apostles was a woman.
• Euodia and Syntyche (Phil. 4:2-3), Chloe 1 Cor. 1:11), Lydia (Acts 16:40), and Nympha (Col. 4:15) all are mentioned as Paul’s co-workers in ministry. It is likely they were church overseers.
• Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned seven times in the New Testament, and Priscilla’s name appears first five of those times. This is a clear indicator that she was the leader of the church that met in their home (it was conventional to list the leader’s name first).
If there were something permanent and universally true about women that compelled God to forbid them from being in such positions, why would He have made so many “exceptions”?
An additional interesting point is that in Titus 2:3, in which older women are instructed to teach younger women (a favorite verse among complementarians, as we’ll see in part 4), the Greek word for “older women” is presbutis.” If this sounds familiar, that is because it’s the feminine version of presbyteros, from which we derive the word “Presbyterian” in English. In Greek this word meant either “aged man” or “aged woman” (depending on whether masculine or feminine form was used), but in either case, it was generally used in the New Testament to indicate an elder in the church. This means that Titus 2 most likely is not merely referring to older women, but to female elders!
If the few verses that initially seem to forbid women from teaching and holding leadership positions in the church are understood as universal commands, we would be forced to conclude that the Bible contradicts itself each time it mentions (and commends) women who held exactly these types of positions. Shall we ignore the evidence and arguments throughout the Bible that indicate full equality for women, and instead hold onto our traditions based on only a few verses read simplistically and without the attempt of further study? Or will we recognize the cultural and contextual nuances present in these few verses and accept the overall message of the Bible?
Given all of this, I must conclude that there is no biblical basis for keeping women from teaching and having authority in the church. And, of course, this is great news: women who may have been held back by others or their own hesitation based on such verses can be free to pursue God’s call on their lives, without having to worry that the abilities with which He has blessed them have to be ignored because of their gender. And the entire church will benefit from all that these women have to offer in ministry, as well as from the freedom of letting go of petty squabbles over who is permitted to serve God freely and who is forbidden from the same, on the basis of gender alone. For anyone who would continue to maintain that women should not hold such positions, I must ask: what exactly is the basis of view?
In part 4, I will conclude by considering each of the verses traditionally used to impose a hierarchical order within the family.
(Note: If you would like to know more about this topic, I highly recommend the book Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis. It is a well-researched, well-argued case for complete equality for women and men in the family and in the church. I relied on it heavily for this blog series, particularly when discussing cultural backgrounds and the original Greek and Hebrew.)
No comments:
Post a Comment