Center for Biblical Theology and Eschatology
A Woman's Right To Preach
Is It Biblical?
by Dennis McBride
June, 1995 - Revised, January, 1998
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Click on topic to advance to that
section.) 1. Introduction 4. Conclusion 6. Bibliography A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO PREACH: IS
IT BIBLICAL? Dennis
McBride - June, 1995 - Revised January, 1998 INTRODUCTION The role of women
with respect to teaching and preaching in the local church has
long been a topic of discussion and debate, with views ranging
from her full involvement to total prohibition. The contemporary
trend is toward equal ministry roles for men and women, as
evidenced by the ever-increasing number of women attending
seminaries and being ordained to the pastorate. We believe that
women's ministries in general, when conducted within biblical
parameters, are vital to the overall spiritual health of the
church. Further, we believe that church leaders should encourage
women to minister their spiritual gifts, and should provide
opportunities for them to do so. More specifically,
we believe that Scripture permits women to pray or prophesy
within biblical guidelines and with a proper attitude of
submission (1 Cor. 11:3-4; Acts 21:9), to witness to women or men
in public, to pray with believers or non-believers in a
non-leadership role, and to teach children and other women (Titus
2:3-4; 1 Tim. 5:16). However, we also
believe that Scripture does not permit women to preach or teach
in the corporate gathering of the local assembly, to hold
authoritative leadership roles in the church (e.g., Pastor or
elder), or in any other way to exercise authority over men. This
paper is a response to the most common arguments from those who
believe otherwise. As a matter of
procedure, for each argument we give a brief summary, its main
points, our responses, and the key principles. In most cases we
also include documented representative quotes. We provide a
complete bibliography at the end of the study, These are the
primary texts used to support a woman's right to preach. We will
consider each text as it appears in the various arguments below. ARGUMENT
FROM NATURAL QUALIFICATIONS a. Summary of the
argument By Gods design,
women are naturally well-suited for public speaking in general,
and pulpit preaching in particular. Therefore, they should not be
prevented from or criticized for ministering in those capacities. b. Representative
quote "The first
and most common objection urged against the public exercises of
women is that they are unnatural and unfeminine. . . . [However]
we cannot discover anything either unnatural or immodest in a
Christian woman, becomingly attired, appearing on a platform or
in a pulpit. By nature she seems fitted to grace either. God has
given to woman a graceful form and attitude, winning manners,
persuasive speech, and, above all, a finely-toned emotional
nature, all of which appear to us eminent natural qualifications
for public speaking" (Catherine Booth, Female Ministry:
Woman's Right to Preach the Gospel, p. 5). (Note: Catherine
Booth was the wife of General William Booth, founder of The
Salvation Army. She was theologically astute, articulate, and one
of the primary voices for omen's ministries in her day. We quote
extensively from her book because for more than 100 years it has
stood as the definitive word on female ministry for millions of
Salvationists and others committed to equal ministry roles for
men and women.) c. Our responses 1) In the quote
cited above, Mrs. Booth is addressing not only the role of women
in the pulpit, but also women in public speaking roles in
general, which was a significant issue in her day. Her rationale
for both roles is the same. 2) If a woman's
right to preach were simply a matter of natural abilities such as
form, attitude, manners, persuasive speech, or a finely-toned
emotional nature, this argument would carry weight. But the issue
is one of biblical role distinctions and spiritual
qualifications, not natural abilities or physical appearance.
Despite the many wonderful graces and abilities God has given to
women, our only concern here is whether or not He has given her
the right to preach. 3) Mrs. Booth's
comment that "we cannot discover anything either unnatural
or immodest in a Christian woman, becomingly attired, appearing
on a platform or in a pulpit" misses the point. The question
is whether or not the practice is biblical, not whether it's
natural or modest. 4) Even among men,
natural abilities do not determine the right to preach. Key Principle: ARGUMENT
FROM SUPERIOR ABILITY a. Summary of the
argument Some female
preachers are more effective communicators than some of their
male counterparts. Therefore, it makes no sense to silence the
more effective for the sake of the less. b. Our response While it may be
true that the communication skills f some women preachers are
superior to some male preachers, the right to preach isn't
determined by superior performance. God can use weak and
faltering messengers like Moses (Ex. 4:10-16), as well as
eloquent messengers like Apollos (Acts 18:24). The Hly Spirit's
power and blessing are the keys to truly effective preaching, not
superior communication skills. Key Principles: ARGUMENT
FROM INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL PURSUITS a. Summary of the
argument "Why should
woman be confined exclusively to the kitchen and [to other
domestic duties], any more than man to he field and workshop? Did
not God, and has not nature, assigned to man his sphere of
labour, 'to til the ground and to dress it?' And, if exemption is
claimed from this kind of toil for a portion of the male sex, on
the ground of their possessing ability for intellectual and moral
pursuits, [women] must be allowed to claim the same privilege for
some; nor can we see the exception more unnatural in the one case
than in the other, or why God in this solitary instance has
endowed a being with powers which e never intended her to
employ" (Booth, Female Ministry, p. 5). b. Main points and
responses 1) Women should
not be restricted to domestic duties any more than men should be
restricted to the field or workshop. Response: Writing more than
100 years ago, Mrs. Booth addressed a social climate in which
women's roles were considerably more narrow than today.
Therefore, her comments about women being confined exclusively to
domestic tasks, or being restricted in their intellectual and
moral pursuits, do no necessarily apply to our modern culture. However, even in
Scripture women aren't confined exclusively to domestic duties.
The Bible portrays domestic duties as woman's primary role, but
not her only role. It gives examples of godly women whose pursuit
went beyond the home--in some cases augmenting her domestic
duties (e.g., the Proverbs 31 woman); in others no direct
correlation between her work outside the home and her domestic
duties is evident (e.g., Deborah: a judge, Lydia: a business
woman). Similarly, Scripture gives examples of a variety of roles
for men beyond farming or shop work (e.g., educators, pastors,
fishermen, businessmen). 2) Whether a woman
works inside or outside the home, God expects her to develop
their natural capabilities fully Response: We wholeheartedly
agree. We're simply clarifying the parameters within which those
capabilities are to function within the local church. 3) Intellectual
and moral pursuits are as appropriate for women as for men. Response: Mrs. Booth's
contention that women, like some of their male counterparts, have
the right to break out of their original sphere of labor and
pursue intellectual and moral interests, relates more to a
woman's role in society than to the pulpit. Many intelligent and
morally refined men aren't gifted, qualified, or called to
preach. The freedom for intellectual and moral pursuits is a
separate issue from the right to preach. 4) Why would God
give women the intelligence and ability to preach if He never
intended her to do so? Responses: a) Mrs. Booth's
question of "why God in this solitary instance has endowed a
being with powers which He never intended her to employ"
implies that preaching is the only expression available to a
woman for the intelligence and communication kills God has given
to her. Clearly that is not the case. Many opportunities are
available for godly women to minister their spiritual gifts and
natural abilities. b) It is not a
woman's communication skills that God limits, but only the
context in which she can exercise them. c) Having the
ability to do something doesn't guarantee the right to do it. Similarly, a woman
may have the ability and opportunity to pursue a public preaching
ministry, but that doesn't guarantee her God's permission or
authority to do so. God gives every good and perfect gift and has
the right to govern them as He pleases. That's why His Word, not
natural abilities or opportunities, must be the final authority
in this matter. Key Principles: ARGUMENT
FROM HISTORICAL PRECEDENCE a. Summary of the
argument "Who would
dare to charge the sainted Madame Guyon, Lady Maxwell, the
talented mother of the Wesley's Mrs. Fletcher, Mrs. Elizabeth
Fry, Mrs. Smith, Mrs. Whiteman, or Miss Marsh with being
unwomanly or ambitious. . . . Yet these were all more or less
public women, every one of them expounding and exhorting from the
Scriptures to mixed companies of men an women. "If the Word
of God forbids female ministry, we would ask how it happens that
so many of the most devoted handmaidens of the Lord have felt
themselves constrained by the Holy Ghost to exercise it? Surely
there must be some mistake somewhere, for the Word and the Spirit
cannot contradict each other. Either the Word does not condemn
women preaching, or these confessedly holy women have been
deceived. Will anyone venture to assert that such women . . .
have been deceived with respect to their cal to deliver the
Gospel messages to their fellow-creatures?" (Booth, Female
Ministry, pp. 6, 17-18). "When the
true light shines and God's words take the place of man's
traditions, the doctor of divinity who shall teach that Paul
commands women to be silent when God's Spirit urges her to speak,
will be regarded as we should regard an astronomer who should
teach that the sun is the earth's satellite" (Booth, Female
Ministry, p. 4). b. Main points and
responses 1) Surely all the
godly women who have preached over the years can't be mistaken
about their calling. Response: We disagree. They
most certainly can be mistaken. And if our conclusions are
correct, they are mistaken. For example, a man may feel
"urged" or "called" by the Holy Spirit to be
an elder in a church. Further, he may desire to serve in that
capacity. Although it is a good thing he desires to do (1 Tim.
3:1), he must also meet the objective qualifications listed in 1
Timothy 3:2-7 and Titus 1:6-9. If he doesn't meet those
qualification, God has not called him to be an elder, no matter
how strongly he may desire to serve. Similarly, if Scripture
doesn't permit women to preach, the Holy Spirit will never urge
them to do so, regardless of how strongly a woman may feel called
to that ministry. 2) If God's Word
forbids women to preach, how is it that the Holy Spirit prompts
them to do so? Are the Spirit and the Word somehow at odds on
this issue? Responses: a) The answer to
both questions is no. The Holy Spirit never prompts a Christian
to behave contrary to God's Word, and the Spirit is never at odds
with the Word. However, being "urged by the Holy
Spirit" is very subjective, so if there is a conflict
between His apparent urging and what Scripture teaches, those
involved must search the Scriptures more diligently to understand
God's will more clearly. And Scripture, which is God's objective
and authoritative counsel, must have the final say in the matter. b) One of the
challenges in resolving this issue is that some of the Bible
passages addressing it are not easy to interpret. But it is every
Christian's responsibility to be a diligent student of the Word
and to yield to its authority as he or she gains more
understanding. That is especially true of anyone desiring to be a
preacher or teacher (James 3:1). c) However, we
should not assume that every woman who preaches does so from
convictions shaped by a careful study of the applicable Bible
passages. Often their reasons are far more subjective (e.g.,
"God has called me to preach.". Sometimes, as in The
Salvation Army, the organization's policy that its women officers
must preach may be the primary factor. 3) Many godly
woman have preached the Word with apparent success, which is
clear evidence of God's blessing and approval. Go does not bless
disobedience. Responses: a) This appears to
be a strong argument because some women apparently have been used
mightily of God in public preaching ministries. However, the
apparent success of a preaching ministry is not the key issue
her. Ministering within biblical parameters is the issue, and
therein is true success. Even when the Lord
is pleased to honor His Word through preaching, that doesn't mean
He is pleased with the preacher, or that He is honoring
disobedience. That's clear from Philippians 1:15-18, which speaks
of men who preached simply to cause the Apostle Paul grief, yet
Paul rejoiced because the gospel was being proclaimed. If God can
honor His Word through sinful men with impure motives, surely He
can honor it through godly women with pure motives. But it is
always best to minister within biblical parameters, and never to
presume upon God's grace. b) A woman's right
to preach isn't determined on the basis of how many women do it,
or who those women are. Equally godly and
gifted women as those listed by Mrs. Booth disagree with her
position and would never minister from the pulpit. However, God's
will in this matter isn't determined by majority vote, personal
experience, or subjective call (i.e., feeling "compelled b
the Holy Spirit" to preach). It's determined by divine
revelation alone. c) Questioning the
behavior of sincere women who feel called to preach can seem
judgmental or divisive. However, Christians doing something
doesn't automatically make it a scriptural thing to do. Even
godly Peter was rebuked by Paul for inappropriate behavior (Gal.
2:11-14). Additionally,
questioning a woman's right to preach doesn't automatically
impugn the motives of women preachers. Certainly motives are
important, but our discussion concerns methods, not motives.
Sometimes Christians with the best of motives will do something
unwise or unstudied. Questioning their behavior doesn't
necessarily question their motives. We hasten to add,
however, that motives and overall doctrinal integrity are key
factors in evaluating whether or not a preacher's ministry is of
the Lord. For example, some of today's most well-known television
preachers (both male and female) proclaim Christ but represent
theological systems that are novel or clearly unbiblical.
Therefore, even though their audiences may number in the
millions, they should not be preaching. Key Principles: ARGUMENT
FROM GALATIANS 3:28 Galatians 3:28 -
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor
free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one
in Christ Jesus." a. Summary of the
argument Since there is no
distinction between male and female in Christ, neither should
there be any distinction in the pulpit (or any other ministry for
that matter). To prohibit women from preaching is to elevate men
over women, thereby violating their equality in Christ. b. Representative
quote "In Galatians
3:26-28 Paul reminds us that we have all been baptized into
Christ and there is no longer 'Jew nor Greek, slave nor free,
male nor female'; for we are 'all one in Christ Jesus.' Paul is
speaking of three different dominant-submissive categories, all
of which have been nullified by our being baptized into and
clothed with Christ. "The baptized
Greek, clothed with the all-sufficiency of Christ, is as much a
son of God as is the previously preferred Jew. Similarly, the
emancipated slave of early America, once clothed with Christ, met
all qualifications for any church office--contrary to the
convictions of many church teachers of that era. Any dissection
of this passage that offers less to women than other categories
would suggest a prejudiced exegesis. The passage goes on to
affirm the purpose of Christ's coming: 'to redeem those under the
law [Greek, slave, female] that we [all] might receive the full
rights of sons' (v. 5)" (Austin H. Stouffer, "The
Ordination of Women:YES", Christianity Today, February 20,
1981, p. 13). c. Responses 1) In Galatians
3:28 Paul illustrates unity in Christ by contrasting it with
three prominent points of diversity of his day (i.e., Jew &
Greek = nationality/religion; slave & free = social status;
male & female = gender). 2) Paul's point is
the spiritual equality of believers, not their functional
equality. (The right to
preach and teach is a matter of function, not spiritual equality
or inequality.) a) The context of
this verse is salvation, not spiritual gifts or spiritual
ministries. "You are all
sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who
were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor fee
man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in
Christ Jesus. and if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's
offspring, heirs according to promise" (vv. 26-29). b) All who are in
Christ came to Him through faith and are spiritual equals.
However, not everyone functions the same within the Body of
Christ because the Holy Spirit distributes gifts and
responsibilities according to His sovereign will (cf. 1 Cor.
12:11). Everyone's role is important, but everyone's role isn't
the same. That's the principle Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 12. c) That point is
commonly misunderstood. For example, in the representative quote
above, Mr. Stouffer rightly says that Christ came to redeem those
who are under the law that all who believe might receive the full
rights of sonship (Gal. 4:5). But then he confuses freedom from
the Law and equal rights as sons (which is the point of the
passage) with equal roles in society and the church (which is not
the point of the passage). Mr. Stouffer's
comments (that "the baptized Greek, clothed with the
all-sufficiency of Christ, is as much a son of God as is the
previously preferred Jew. Similarly, the emancipated slave of
early America, once clothed with Christ, met all qualifications
for any church office--contrary to the convictions of many church
teachers of that era. Any dissection of this passage that offers
less to women than other categories would suggest a prejudiced
exegesis") would be correct and more consistent with Paul's
point if they read "The baptized Greek, clothed with the
all-sufficiency of Christ, is as much a son of God as is the
previously preferred Jew. Similarly, the emancipated slave of
early America, once clothed with Christ, is as much a son of God
as is his Christian master. An dissection of this passage that
offers less to women than other categories would suggest a
prejudiced exegesis." 3) A brief
discussion of biblical authority and submission is appropriate at
this point because God applies it even to spiritual equals. a)Authority and
submission doesn't imply personal superiority or inferiority.
It's a functional distinction intended to maintain harmony and
order within human institutions such as society and the family.
The church is no exception: Hebrews 13:17 -
"Obey your leaders, and submit to them; for they keep watch
over your souls, as those who will give an account. Let them do
this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable
for you." 1 Peter 5:1-2 -
"Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, s your fellow
elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker
also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of
God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but
voluntarily, according to the will of God." b) Jesus Himself
submitted to the Father without diminishing His nature,
character, or personal value in any way (cf. 1 Cor. 11:3; Phil.
2:5-11). Therefore, God does not violate spiritual equality or
diminish His high calling for woman when He places her under ma's
authority in the church. On the contrary, He shelters her by
providing an environment in which she can achieve her highest
spiritual potential without undue vulnerability. Key Principles: ARGUMENTS
FROM JOEL 2:28-29 & ACTS 2:17-18 Joel 2:28-29 -
"It will come about after this that I will pour out My
Spirit on all mankind; and your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.
And even on the male and female servants I will pour out My
Spirit in those days." Acts 2:17-18 -
"'And it shall be in the last days,' God says, 'That I will
pour forth of My Spirit upon all mankind; and your sons and your
daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams; even upon My bondslaves,
both man and women, I will in those days pour forth of My Spirit
and they shall prophesy.'" a. Summary of the
arguments According to the
Apostle Peter, Acts 2:17-18 is the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-29,
which says that women as well as men will prophesy (i.e.,
preach). Women did, in fact, prophesy at Pentecost, and Scripture
indicates that they will continue to do so throughout the church
age. b. Representative
quotes 1) "God ad
promised in the last days to pour out His Spirit upon all flesh,
and that the daughters, as well as the sons of mankind, should
prophesy. And Peter says most emphatically, respecting the
outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, 'This is that
which is spoken of by the prophet Joel,' etc. (Acts 2:16-18).
Words more explicit, and an application of prophecy more direct
than this, does not occur within the range of the New
Testament" (Booth, Female Ministry, p. 10). 2) "It seems
truly astonishing hat Bible students, with the second chapter of
the Acts before them, should not see that an imperative decree
has gone forth from God, the execution of which women cannot
escape; whether they like or not, they 'shall' prophesy
throughout the whole course f this dispensation; and they have
been doing so, though they and their blessed labours are not much
noticed" (Booth, Female Ministry, p. 8). c. Main points and
responses 1) In Acts 2:17-18
Peter quotes from Joel to explain the phenomena that occurred o
the Day of Pentecost, and declares that the Day of Pentecost was
the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy (cf. Joel 2:28-29). Response: b. Some aspects of
Joel's extended prophecy were not fulfilled on the Day of
Pentecost (e.g., verse 30, which speaks of blood, fire, pillars
of smoke, the sun turning dark, and the moon turning to blood).
Therefore, we believe that Pentecost was only a partial
fulfillment of Joel's prophecy, which will be completed after
Israel's future repentance and restoration in connection with the
Second Coming of Christ (Zech. 12:10; 13:1). a. Pentecost was a
prefillment of Joel's prophecy rather than its fulfillment. The
Holy Spirit was poured out upon some of the "sons and
daughters" of Israel at that time, but a time is coming when
He will be poured out upon all of Israel. 2) Joel says that
women as well as men would prophesy, and women as well as men did
prophesy. Response: We agree that
according to Joel's prophecy women as well as men were to
prophesy, and that some women did, in fact, prophesy in the early
church (that's clear from 1 Corinthians 11:4-5, which we'll
examine later). 3) The phrase
"last days" (Acts 2:17) doesn't refer to Pentecost only
but to the entire present age. Therefore women as well as men
will prophesy throughout the church age. Responses: a) We disagree
that women will prophesy throughout the church age (see our
response to "4)" below. b) We agree that
"last days" isn't limited to Pentecost, and that it
could refer to the entire church age. However, we do not think
that is the case in this context. We agree with those who teach
that Joel's prophecy refers to a time "immediately preceding
the return of Christ, when all the particulars (e.g., v. 20 and
Rev. 6:12) of the prophecy will come to pass. Peter reminded his
hearers that, knowing Joel's prophecy, they should have
recognized what they were seeing as a work of the Spirit, not a
result of drunkenness" (Dr. Charles Ryrie, Ryrie Study
Bible, pp. 1646-47). c) Pentecost was a
foretaste of what is to come--a partial fulfillment of Joel's
prophecy, which will be completed "after Israel's future
repentance and restoration (Zech. 12:10; 13:1) in connection with
the second advent of Christ. . . . The Holy Spirit will then be
poured out on all classes in Israel who belong to the believing
remnant (Joel 2:32)" (Ryrie Study Bible, p. 1355). 4) To prophesy is
to preach. A
"prophet" need not be a foreteller of future events,
but is "a person gifted for the exposition of divine
truth" (Harper's Greek Lexicon). "The
scriptural idea of the terms preach and prophesy, stands so
inseparably connected as one and the same thing, that we should
find it difficult to get aside from the fact that women did
preach, or, in other words, prophesy, in the early ages of
Christianity, and have continued to do so down to the present
time to just the degree that the spirit of the Christian
dispensation had been recognized" (Booth, pp. 11-12, citing
Phoebe Palmer). Response: We disagree that
"prophesy" in Joel 2:28 and Acts :17 is synonymous with
preaching. a) Joel mentions
prophesy in connection with dreams and visions, which implies
that it had a revelatory element to it (i.e., God was revealing
something directly to the prophet). That's the character Paul
gives prophecy in 1 Corinthians 14:29-33: "Let two or
three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a
revelation is made to another who is seated, let the first keep
silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may
learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are
subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of
peace" (emphasis added). b) The Greek word
translated "prophecy" is prophemi, which literally
means "forth" (pro) to speak (phemi), or "to speak
forth. It comprised a predictive element (to speak forth in
relation to time--prior to an event) and a preaching element (to
speak forth to a group of people, to preach, to proclaim, etc.).
It was God speaking through individuals for the purpose of
edification, exhortation, and consolation (1 Cor. 14:3). c) New Testament
prophets didn't always speak predictively; they often reiterated
and applied prior revelation. But New Testament prophets always
had a predictive element to their ministries even though ever
prophecy they delivered wasn't necessarily predictive. For example: d) he revelatory
and predictive elements of New Testament prophecies are what
distinguish them from teaching and preaching. Prophets received
direct revelation from God; teachers reiterate what has already
been revealed. "In such
passages as 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 2:20, the 'prophets' are placed
after the 'Apostles,' since not the prophets of Israel are
intended, but the 'gifts' of the ascended Lord, Eph. 4:8, 11; cf.
Acts 13:1; . . .; the purpose of their ministry was to edify, to
comfort, and to encourage the believers, 1 Cor. 14:3, while its
effect upon unbelievers was to show that the secrets of a man's
heart are known to God, to convict of sin, and to constrain to
worship, vv. 24, 25. "With the
completion of the canon of Scripture prophecy apparently passe
away, 1 Cor. 13:8, 9. In his measure the teacher has taken the
place of the prophet, cf. the significant change in 2 Pet. 2:1.
The difference is that, whereas the message of the prophet was a
direct revelation of the mind of God for the occasion, the
massage of the teacher is gathered from the completed revelation
contained in the Scriptures" (W.E. Vine, Vine's Complete
Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, p. 492). e) However we
define prophesy in Joel and Acts, we must remember that Acts is a
book of transitions. In chapter two Peter explains the initial
prophetic utterances prompted by the coming of the Holy Spirit in
partial fulfillment of Joel's prophecy, but he does not give
guidelines for prophetic utterances in the church. Those are
given in the epistles, which are not transitional, but normative
and instructional for the church. For example: 1] In 1 Peter
4:10-11, Peter says, "As each one has received a special
gift, employ it in serving one another, as good stewards of the
manifold grace of God. Whoever speaks, let him speak, as it were,
the utterances of God." "Utterances of God" refers
to Scripture (cf. Acts 7:38; Rom. 3:2). Nowhere are Christians
instructed to expect, seek, or teach new revelations. 2] In the Pastoral
Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy & Titus) great emphasis is placed
on elders knowing, teaching, and guarding the "faithful Word
which is in accordance with the teaching" (Titus 1:9).
However, nothing is said of prophecy or additional revelations. 3] We believe
there are no prophets and no gift of prophecy today. Key Principles: ARGUMENTS
FROM 1 CORINTHIANS 11:4-5 1 Corinthians
11:4-5 - "Every man who has something on his head while
praying or prophesying, disgraces his head. But ever woman who
has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying, disgraces
her head; for she is one and the same with her whose head is
shaved." a. Our
interpretive task 1) The Bible is
God's Word and therefore will never contradict itself when
rightly interpreted. Therefore, if there is an apparent
contradiction, we must explore the biblical data more carefully
and allow the clearer statements of Scripture to shed light on
the more obscure statements. 2) Regarding a
woman's right to preach, we face an apparent contradiction
between Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:4-5 (a woman should
cover her head when praying or prophesying), 1 Corinthians
14:34-35 (women are not permitted to speak in the church), and 1
Timothy 2:12-13 (women are not permitted to teach or exercise
authority over a man, but to remain quiet). 3) Obviously, if
praying and prophesying involve verbal communication, a woman
can't do it and remain silent at the same time. Resolving this
apparent contradiction is the key to understanding whether or not
a woman has the right to preach, and any conclusions we draw must
harmonize all three passages. 4) Toward that end
we must determine whether 1 Corinthians 11:4-5 is the key to
understanding the other two passages, or if they are the key to
understanding this passage. The differences of opinion among
commentators will be evident as we discuss each passage. 5) Our conclusion
is that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:12-13 are the
clearer statements and therefore shed light on 1 Corinthians
11:4-5. b. Main points,
representative quotes, and our responses 1) First
Corinthians 11:4-5 "seems to prove beyond the possibility of
dispute that in the early times women were permitted to speak
[i.e., prophesy] to the 'edification and comfort' o Christians,
and that the Lord graciously endowed them with grace and gifts
for this service. What He did then, may He not be doing
now?" (Booth, Female Ministry, p. 8). Response: We agree that in
the early church women were permitted to speak to the edification
and comfort of Christians within certain parameters. We disagree
that they were permitted to do so from the pulpit or pew in the
corporate assembly (as we discuss below). 2) This passage
shows the equality of men and women when praying or prophesying
in the public assembly. Whatever kind of praying or prophesying
men did, women did the same. And Paul never forbade the practice;
he merely gave guidelines for its proper exercise. a) "Verses 4
and 5 are parallel and reveal the equality of men and women in
the church. In the Old Testament era, not the woman but the man
received the sign of the covenant (e.g., Gen. 17). He served as
representative for the woman. But in the New Testament era, male
and female are one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28). That is, both man
and woman are equal before the Lord. "This becomes
evident when Paul ascribes the religious functions of praying and
prophesying to both man and woman. Both men and women know that
their prophesying consists of teaching and preaching God's
revelation or exhorting and counseling others from the
Scriptures" (Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary:
1 Corinthians, p. 369). b) "Whatever
may be the meaning of praying and prophesying in respect to the
man, they have precisely the same meaning in respect to the
woman. . . . The only difference marked by the Apostle was that
the man had his head uncovered, because he was representative of
Christ; the woman had hers covered because she was placed by the
order of God in subjection to the man; and because it was the
custom both among Greeks and Romans, and among the Jews in
express law that no woman should be seen abroad without a veil. "This was and
is the custom through all the East, and none but public
prostitutes go without veils; if a woman should appear in public
without a veil, she would dishonour her head--her husband. And
she must appear like those woman who have their hair shaven off
as the punishment of adultery" (Dr. Adam Clarke, cited in
Female Ministry, p. 7). Responses: a) We have already
seen that Galatians 3:28 speaks of spiritual equality, not
functional equality. b) We agree that
whatever praying or prophesying means for men in 1 Corinthians
11:4-5, it means the same for women. c) We also agree
that Paul did not prohibit praying and prophesying, but merely
regulated it. d) However, we
disagree that the context of 1 Corinthians 11:3-4 is the local
assembly. 1] It is not
conclusive that Paul had the public assembly in mind. His point
is that whenever and wherever it is appropriate for men and/or
women to pray or prophesy, they should do so with the proper
symbols of submission so the male/female distinctions aren't
blurred. In chapter 14 he gives guidelines for the appropriate
use of tongues and prophecy when the church gathers for worship,
and there forbids women to participate (see also 1 Tim. 2:12). 2] "Paul does
not establish the setting as the official service of worship in
the church. It is likely he was referring to praying or
prophesying in places other than the church gathering. That would
certainly fit with the very clear directives in 1 Corinthians
14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:12. . . . "The New
Testament places no restrictions on a woman's witnessing in
public to others, even to a man. Nor does it prohibit omen from
taking non-leadership roles of praying with believers or for
unbelievers. Likewise there are no prohibitions against teaching
children and other women (cf. Titus 2:3-4; 1 Tim. 5:16). Women
may have the gift of prophecy, as did Philip's four daughters
(Acts 21:9), but they are not to prophesy in the meetings of the
church where men are present." (MacArthur, Different by
Design, p. 39). 3] "It is
only necessary to combine the relevant passages to get the
composite truth. Women may pray and prophesy within the
boundaries of God's revelation, and with a proper sense of
submission. And it is critical that their deportment in so doing
reflects God's order. Certainly they must not appear rebellious
against God's will" (John MacArthur, The MacArthur New
Testament Commentary: 1 Corinthians, p. 257). 4] "This
verse assumes that women will pray and prophesy in the presence
of others but that would not have to be the public assembly. For
women to lead the public assembly would violate other passages
which Paul wrote" (Betty Price, Women, Current Events and
the Word of God, Logos Bible Institute class syllabus, p. 31). 5] "The fact
that the work of the prophets was for the benefit of the churches
does not imply that their prophetic utterances were mad or should
be made only in the churches. On the contrary, the Scripture
teaches other possibilities. . . . Of special importance is Acts
21:11f., where the activities of Agabus are not pictured as
taking place in a meeting of the congregation. This lead us to
the conclusion that Paul in ch. 11 speaks of a praying and a
prophesying (of women) in public rather than in the meetings of
the congregation" (F.W. Grosheide, The New International
Commentary: Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians,
pp 251-52). 6] "It is
quite essential to note that no modifier is attached to the
participles to denote a place where [praying and prophesying]
were exercised. So we on our part should not introduce one. . .
By omitting reference to a place Paul says this: 'Wherever and
whenever it is proper and right for a man or for a woman to pray
or to prophesy, the difference of sex should be marked as I
indicate' . . . . "An issue has
been made of the point that Paul speaks of a woman as prophesying
as though it were a matter of course that she should prophesy
just as she also prays, and just as the man, too, prays and
prophesies. Paul is said to contradict himself when he forbids
the woman to prophesy in 14:34-36. The matter becomes clear when
we observe that from 11:17 onward until the end of chapter 14
Paul deals with the gatherings of the congregation for public
worship and with regulations pertaining to public assemblies. "The
transition is decidedly marked: 'that ye come together,' i.e.,
for public worship, v. 17; 'when ye come together in church'
(ecclesia, no article), v. 18; and again: 'when ye assemble
together,' i.e., for public worship, v. 20. In these public
assemblies Paul forbids the women, not only to prophesy, but to
speak at all, 14:34-36 and assigns the reason for this
prohibition just as he does in 1 Tim. 2:11, etc." (R.C.H.
Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul's First and Second
Epistles to the Corinthians, pp. 436-37). d. Additional
considerations 1) We disagree
with those who maintain hat Paul is addressing a specific
cultural situation in Corinth that doesn't apply to the church in
general. The woman's head
covering may have been a cultural symbol of her submission to
male headship, but the principle of authority and submission that
t symbolizes is universal. "The
principle of women's subordination to men, not the particular
mark or symbol of that subordination, was Paul's focus here.
While covering the head appears to have been a customary symbol
of subordination in Corinthian society, the principle of male
headship is not a custom but an established fact of God's order
and creation, and it should never be compromised"
(MacArthur, Different by Design, p. 41). 2) Some
commentators maintain that the context of 1 Corinthians 11:4-5 s
the public assembly, and prophesying refers to the broad sense of
speaking forth for God, which could simply be a word of praise or
a song, not preaching or teaching (1 Chron. 25:1; Ps. 68:24-26;
Luke 2:36-38). But that position is weak because Paul addresses
men as well as women, and there is no reason to suppose that
prophesying on the part of men was restricted to praise or song. 3) Some, like Dr.
Charles Ryrie, believe that "in the light of what he says in
14:34-35, it is doubtful that Paul approve of those activities by
the women at Corinth. He simply acknowledges that these were
unauthorized practices" (Ryrie Study Bible, p. 1741). But if
that were the case, it seems that Paul would have stopped the
practice all together rather than merely regulating it. 4) One additional
view that attempts to harmonize Paul's instructions in 1
Corinthians and 1 Timothy teaches that he permitted women to pray
and prophecy in public services as long as they did so with the
appropriate symbol of submission, but did not permit them to
teach or exercise authority over a man. That view recognizes a
difference between prophecy and preaching or teaching (see our
discussion on pages 10-12 above). a) Commenting on 1
Timothy 2:12, Susan Foh says, "Teaching does not include
praying and prophesying (1 Cor. 11:2-16). The teaching forbidden
to women is habitual teaching, as suggested by the infinitive in
the present tense [lit., "I do not permit a woman to be a
teacher"]" (Women & the Word of God: A Response to
Biblical Feminism, p. 124). b) If our
conclusions are correct that women are not to be teachers in the
public assembly of the church, and that the gift of prophecy has
ceased (as we discussed earlier in this study), neither women nor
men have a prophetic ministry today. Therefore, the only thing
remaining to determine is to what extent women may pray in public
worship services. In that regard Paul assigns the leadership role
to men (cf. 1 Tim. 2:1-8), but there is New Testament precedence
for women participating in prayer meetings (e.g., Acts 1:13-14
records a prayer meeting where women and men were present
[including the apostles] and "all with one mind were
continually devoting themselves to prayer" - v. 14). Key Principles: ARGUMENTS
FROM 1 CORINTHIANS 14:34-35 1 Corinthians
14:34-35 - "Let the women keep silent in the churches; for
they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves,
just as the Law also says. And 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." a. Note The poits listed
below represent various views of this passage as it relates to a
woman's role in the church. They are not listed in any particular
order and may not directly relate to each other. b. Main points,
representative quotes, and our responses 1) Whatever the
specific issue is in this passage, Paul isn't prohibiting women
from every form of speaking in the church service. That would
contradict 1 Corinthians 11:4-5, where he permits them to pray
and prophesy within certain guidelines. Responses: ) We agree that
Paul doesn't preclude women from ever speaking in the assembly.
The context of chapter 14 is tongues and prophecy in the public
worship service, which he forbade women to practice, along with
asking inappropriate questions (as we'll discus in more detail
later). b) Even if Paul
were requiring complete silence from women, this passage would
not contradict 1 Corinthians 11:4-5. 1] We've already
seen that the context of 1 Corinthians 11:4-5 may not be the
public church service. If that's he case, Paul can prohibit women
from speaking in the church in this passage without contradicting
other passages. 2] Also,
interpreting this passage on the basis of 1 Corinthians 11:4-5
violates the principle of allowing a clearer or more specific
passage of Scripture to shed light on a vague or more general
passage. In this passage the context of the public church service
is clear; that is not the case in the early verses of chapter 11. 2) Similar to the
subject of veils in chapter 11, Paul is addressing a cultural
issue unique to the early church, and his solution isn't intended
to apply throughout the entire church age. That's why he
specifically says "Let your women keep silence in the
churches" (KJV, emphasis added). "It is
believed that these rigorous strictures were occasioned by the
fact that many in the Corinthian church were recent converts from
paganism, and that the new freedom which they enjoyed in Christ
had led to certain extravagances which were unseemly and
irreverent. It is at least possible that a similar reason
afforded occasion for these admonitions to Timothy [1 Tim.
2:11-15], who pastored a church hewn out of the heathenism of
Ephesus. We cannot accept the idea that even at Corinth the
stipulations [Paul gives] were to be applied in every case"
(J. Glenn Gould, Beacon Bible Commentary: 1 Timothy, p. 576). Responses: We disagree that
Paul is addressing a cultural issue unique to the early church,
with no long-term application intended. a) The King James
Version translates verse34, "Let your women keep silence in
the churches" (emphasis added), which some see as referring
to the Corinthian women only. But newer translations rightly
render it, "Let the women keep silent in the churches"
(emphasis added). b) That Paul meant
all omen in all churches is clear from the plural
"churches" in verse 33 ("As in all the churches of
the saints"). c) Additionally,
verses 33-34, which in the NASB read: "For God is
not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of
the saint. Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they
are not permitted to speak." Are better
rendered: "For God is
not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the congregations
of the saints, let the women remain silent in the churches"
(NIV). d Also, Paul bases
the role of women on God's Law (1 Cor. 14:34) and the order of
creation (1 Cor. 11:1-16; 1 Tim. 2:12-14), not cultural
considerations. "'Law' in
verse 34 points to the first five Old Testament books instead of
the whole Old Testament as in v. 21). The apparent reference of
Paul's statement is to Genesis 3:16. 'He shall rule over you' was
God's pronouncement of Adam's authority over Eve, and
consequently the same order has prevailed between the sexes since
that time. Such decorum is the only one that accords with the
will of God. Subordination with equality is what He has
prescribed (cf. 1 Cor. 11:3)" (Robert L. Thomas,
Understanding Spiritual Gifts, p. 159). e) Obviously the
role of women in the church was an issue in the Corinthian
culture, but Paul's solution went far beyond that culture, giving
God's standard for all churches in every culture. 3) Paul's
prohibition in this passage is against wives passing judgment on
their husbands' prophecies. "Obviously,
Paul is not restricting women from speaking when they worship
God. Rather he is saying that they should respect their husbands
in accordance with the Law. . . . The Corinthian women at worship
are not told to be silent in respect to praying, prophesying, and
singing psalms and hymns. They are, however, forbidden to speak
when the prophecies of their husbands are discussed (v. 29). They
are asked to observe the creation order recorded in the Law and
to honor their husbands. Telling the women three times to be
silent, Paul instructs them to respect their husbands at public
worship and to reserve their questions for the privacy of the
home. . . . "In the
privacy of one's home, the wife may learn from her husband. But
in the worship service, a wife who questions her husband bout
spiritual truths runs the risk of dishonoring him in the presence
of the rest of the congregation. To the point, no pastor wishes
to be publicly criticized by his wife in a worship service; if
she does, she undermines his ministry and is a disgrace o him.
Paul wants the women to honor and respect their husbands in
harmony with the Scriptures" (Simon J. Kistemaker, New
Testament Commentary: 1 Corinthians, pp. 512-13). Response: a) We disagree
that Paul is instructing wives not to pass judgment on heir
husbands' prophecies. b) "This
[argument] has against it (i) the extreme difficulty of being so
far removed from v. 29 that one wonders how the Corinthians
themselves could have so understood it; (ii) the fact that
nothing in the passage itself even remotely hints of such a
thing; and (iii) the form of v. 35, 'if they wish to learn
anything,' which implies not 'judging' their husbands' prophecies
but failing to understand what is going on at all" (Gordon
D. Fee, New International Commentary on the New Testament: The
First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 704). 4) Paul may be
restricting only women who chatter or ask inappropriate questions
during the worship service, which says nothing about women
exercising their spiritual gifts. Paul's solution was for those
who were out of line to ask their husbands (or other men in their
extended family) at home rather than disrupting the service. a) The heart of
this passage is the Greek verb lalein, which is translated
"to speak" but may mean something different from mere
speaking. That being the case, using this word in a prohibition
does not imply that absolute silence is enjoined, but rather an
improper kind of speaking. b) "The Greek
verb (lalein) is used nearly three hundred times in the [New
Testament]. It's meaning often is modified by the context--as in
this passage. Schleusner's Lexicon lists many meanings, among
which are: 'I answer, I return a reason, I give rule or precept,
I order, decree.' Greenfield gives, with others, these meanings:
'to pratle--be loquacious as a child; to speak in answer--to
answer, as in John 19:10; harangue, plead, Acts 9:29. To direct,
command, Acts 3:22.' Liddel and Scott's Lexicon says, 'to
chatter, babble; of birds, to twitter, chirp; strictly, to make
an inarticulate sound, opposed to articulate speech: but also
generally to talk, say.' "Parkhurst .
. . tells us that . . . 'lalein' . . . is not the word used in
Greek to signify to speak with premeditation and prudence, but .
. . to speak imprudently and without consideration, and is that
applied to one who lets his tongue run but does not speak to the
purpose, but says nothing. Now unless Parkhurst is utterly wrong
in his Greek . . . Paul's fulmination is not launched against
speech with premeditation and prudence,but against speech devoid
of those qualities. It would be well if all speakers of the male
as well as the female sex were obedient to this rule. "[The
context] shows that it was not silence which was imposed upon
women in the Church, but only . . . such questionings, dogmatic
assertions, and disputations which would bring them into
collision with the men, ruffle their tempers, and occasion an
unamiable volubility of speech" (Booth, Female Ministry, pp.
9-10). Responses: We disagree that
the Greek word lalein, translated "to speak" in verses
34 and 35, refers to imprudent and thoughtless speech. a) We agree that
lalein has various shades of meaning depending on its context,
and that its precise meaning in 1 Corinthians 14 must be
consistent with Paul's development of thought. b) The definitions
cited by Mrs. Booth favor the meaning she wishes to assign to
lalein, but don't favor the context. 1] For example,
Mrs. Booth cites Parkhurst's claim that lalein means to speak
"imprudently and without consideration, and [applies] to one
who lets his tongue run but does not speak to the purpose, but
says nothing" (p. 10). Deferring to Parkhurst's credibility
as a lexicographer, she applies his definition to the text,
apparently unaware that within the immediate context of chapter
14 Paul uses lalein with reference to: 2] If all those
uses of lalein fall into the category of speaking
"imprudently and without consideration, and apply to one who
lets his tongue run but does not speak to the purpose, but says
nothing," Parkhurst is correct. However, if that is the
case, Paul's logic disintegrates and the entire chapter becomes
meaningless. If, however, Parkhurst is incorrect (as he clearly
is in this instance), Mrs. Booth's conclusion that his definition
of lalein must apply in verses 34 and 35 is equally unfounded. 3] W.E. Vine
summarizes: "The command prohibiting women from speaking in
a church gathering, vv. 34, 35, is regarded by some as an
injunction against chattering, a meaning which is absent from the
use of the verb everywhere else in the New Testament;it is to be
understood in the same sense as in verses 2-6, 9, 11, 19-19, 21,
23, 27-29, 39" (Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old
and New Testament Words, p. 590). 4] A better choice
is that verse 34 prohibits women from speaking in tongues and
prophesying in the corporate worship service. Verse 35 prohibits
them from asking inappropriate or disruptive questions (as some
apparently were doing). Rather than simply
rebuking them, Paul gives the appropriate alternative: "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."
That corrects the problem and places on husbands the
responsibility of knowing God's Word and instructing their wives
as God intended. c) Commentator
Gordon Fee adds: "The most
commonly held view [of vv. 34-35] is that which sees the problem
as some form of disruptive speech. Support is found in v. 35,
that if the women wish to learn anything, they should ask their
own husbands at home. Various scenario are proposed: that the
setting was something like the Jewish synagogue, with women on
one side and men on the other and the women shouting out
disruptive questions about what was being said in a prophecy or
tongue; or that they were asking questions of men other than
their own husbands; or that they were simply 'chattering' so
loudly that it had a disruptive effect. "The biggest
difficulty with this view is that it assumes a 'church service'
of a more 'orderly' sort than the rest of this argument
presupposes. If the basic problem is with their 'all speaking in
tongues' in some way . . . in such disarray how can mere
'chatter' have a disruptive effect? The suggestion that the early
house churches assumed a synagogue pattern is pure speculation;
it seems emote at best" (The First Epistle to the
Corinthians, p. 703). 5) Here Paul does
not refer to the same speaking as in 1 Corinthians 11:4-5. "Taking the
simple and common-sense view of the two passages, viz., that one
[1 Cor. 11:4-5] refers to the devotional and religious exercises
in the Church, and the other [1 Cor. 14:34-35] to inconvenient
asking of questions, and imprudent or ignorant talking, there is
no contradiction or discrepancy, no straining or twisting of
either. If, on the other hand, we assume that the Apostle refers
in both instances to the same thing, we make him in one page give
the most explicit directions of how a thing shall be performed,
which in a page or two further on, and writing to the same
Church, he expressly forbids being performed at all" (Booth,
Female Ministry, p. 8). Response: We disagree that
Paul has two kinds of speaking in mind (in the sense that Mrs.
Booth outlines above). He is, however, referring to two different
settings (this passage refers to the local assembly, whereas 1
Cor. 11:4-5 does not). 6) Those who would
disallow women preaching in the assembly should be as diligent to
adhere to the rest of chapter 14, but that isn't always the case. "If any one
still insists on a literal application of this text, e beg to ask
how he disposes of the preceding part of the chapter where it
occurs. Surely, if one verse be so authoritative and binding, the
whole chapter is equally so; and therefore, those who insist on a
literal application of the words of Paul, under all circumstances
and through all time, will be careful to observe the Apostle's
order of worship in their own congregations. "But, we ask,
where is the minister who lets his whole Church prophesy one by
one, and he himself sits still and listens while they are
speaking, so that all things may be done decently and in order?
But Paul as expressly lays down this order as he does the rule
for woman, and he adds, 'The things that I write unto you are the
commandments of the Lord' (v. 37)" (Booth, Female Ministry,
p. 12). Responses: We agree that
those who insist on a literal application of the prohibitions
against women should also apply the rest of the chapter. However,
even if some church leaders aren't consistent in their
application of the text, that has no bearing on its meaning. a) The entire
chapter is just as authoritative and binding as verses 34-35, and
we believe that a literal application of every passage is
necessary unless Scripture itself indicates otherwise. In the
case of tongues and prophecy however (the issues addressed by
Paul in chapter 14), we believe that both gifts were temporary
and ceased with the passing of the apostolic era. Therefore,
modern application isn't an issue. (As we have
already explained, we believe that "prophecy as used by Paul
throughout 1 Corinthians had a revelatory element to it [cf. 1
Cor. 14:30] and therefore shouldn't be limited to preaching only.
But even if we do limit it in that way, Paul's prohibition
against women prophesying in the public assembly till stands.) b) However, the
broader principles of exercising spiritual gifts appropriately
and maintaining order in worship services still apply because
they transcend tongues, prophesy, and the specific Corinthian
situation. c) Also, the role
of women in the church still applies because Paul bases it on
God's Law (1 Cor. 14:34) and the order of creation (1 Cor.
11:1-16; 1 Tim. 2:12-14), not cultural considerations. d) Admittedly
there are many today who believe that tongues and prophecy still
existing the church. We would expect those people to adhere
closely to all of Paul's instructions in chapter 14. But,
ironically, most denominations promoting modern tongues and
prophecy also promote women in the pulpit, in blatant
contradiction of Paul's instructions for them to remain silent. Key Principles: ARGUMENTS
FROM 1 TIMOTHY 2:11-15 Timothy 2:11-15 -
"Let a woman 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 it was Adam who
was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam ho was
deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into
transgression. But women shall be preserved through the bearing
of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with
self-restraint." a. Note: The points listed
below represent various views of this passage as it relates to a
woman's role in the church. They are not listed in any particular
order and may not directly relate to each other. b. Main points,
representative quotes, and our responses 1) The context of
this passage i the home, not the church. Therefore it has nothing
whatsoever to do with women speaking in public services. a) "[This
passage] is primarily an injunction respecting her personal
behaviour at home. It stands in connection with precepts
respecting her apparel and her domestic position; especially her
relation to her husband" (Rev. J.H. Robinson, cited in
Female Ministry, p. 12). b) "This
prohibition refers exclusively to the private life and domestic
character of women, and simply means that an ignorant or unruly
woman is not to force her opinions on the man whether he will or
no. It has no reference whatever to good women living in
obedience to God and their husbands, or to women sent out to
preach the Gospel by the call of the Holy Spirit" (Booth,
Female Ministry, p. 13). Responses: We disagree with
those who teach that the context of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is the
home, not the church, and that Paul's instructions simply govern
a woman's domestic position, especially in relation to her
husband, but have nothing to do with her role in the church. a) The language of
the text indicates that Paul has men and women in mind, not just
husbands and wives. Admittedly, the
Greek words translated "men" and "women" in
this passage are the same words used elsewhere b Paul and others
for "husband" and "wife." But no English
translation we've seen translates them as such in this passage
because the context gives no indication that Paul is limiting his
comments to husbands and wives. On the contrary,
in verse eight Pal instructs men to pray, and he uses the Greek
word that refers to men in contrast to women, not men in the
generic sense, or husbands only (aner for males, not anthropos
for mankind). In verse nine he
begins a series of instructions for women, which h contrasts to
men by use of "likewise" (i.e., "Just as I've
instructed men to pray, likewise I instruct women to adorn
themselves properly, etc."). Paul changes subjects as he
moves from verse eight to verse nine (i.e., men to women; prayer
to proper adornment), but he doesn't change contexts (church to
home or vice versa). Therefore, if
Paul's instructions to women in verses 9-12 refer exclusively to
the home, his instructions to men in verse eight must also apply
exclusively to the home. But Paul doesn't restrict prayer to the
home or to husbands only--neither does he restrict proper
clothing and quiet submission to the home or to wives only. b) The language of
the chapter indicates that Paul has the local assembly in mind. 1] "The Greek
phrase translated 'in every place' [1 Tim. 2:8] refers to an
official assembly of the church (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 2:14; 1
Thess. 1:8)" (MacArthur, Different by Design, p. 112). 2] "The
discussions in this chapter refer to the general worship service,
as indicated b the references to teaching as well as
praying" (Homer A. Kent, Jr., The Pastoral Epistles, p.
102). 3] "It must
be remembered that the first-century church had no special
buildings for meeting, and consequently met in various homes of
Christians. But regardless of the meeting place, [these
directives were] to be followed" (Kent, The Pastoral
Epistles, p. 103). c) Even if the
context of this passage were the home, the principle of woman's
submission is based on creation, and confirmed by the Fall (vv.
1-14), not on domestic, cultural, or even ecclesiastical
considerations. Therefore, the principle transcends the home and
most certainly applies in the church as well. We know that's the
case from Paul's parallel teaching in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35,
where clearly the church service is in view. "The Fall
resulted not only from direct disobedience of God's command, but
also from a violation of the divinely appointed role of the
sexes. Eve acted independently and assumed the role of
leadership; Adam abdicated his leadership and followed Eve's
lead. That does not mean Adam was less culpable than Eve, or that
she was more defective--both were wrong. We're all vulnerable in
different ways. . . "Christians
affirm the leadership of men in the church because it is
established by Creation and confirmed by the Fall. The headship
of man, then, was part of God's design from the beginning. The
tragic experience of the Fall confirmed the wisdom of that
design. No daughter of Eve should follow her path and enter the
forbidden territory of rulership intended for men"
(MacArthur, Different by Design, p. 142). 2) The context is
the church, but Paul is addressing a cultural issue unique to his
day. He does not intend for the prohibition to extend to every
church in every age. a) Paul's
prohibition against women teaching was appropriate because most
women of that day were inferior to men in education and
understanding. If such women "publicly raised questions
regarding doctrines and cases of conscience and disputed thee
points with the men who led the worship services, it would not
only be indecorous but also hinder the spirit of worship. Their
discussions on such matters with their husbands would be in order
in their own homes (cf. 1 Cor. 14:35)" (Roy S. Nicholson,
The Wesleyan Bible Commentary: 1 Timothy, p. 585). b) Paul's refusal
to let women teach in public services may have been due to the
frequency with which contemporary women were falling under the
influence of false teachers (Donald Guthrie, cited in Wesleyan
Bible Commentary: 1 Timothy, p. 585). Response: We disagree that
Paul is addressing a cultural issue only (see our response to
main point "2)" under our discussion of 1 Cor. 14:34-35
above). 3) The context is
the church, but if taken literally and applied to the entire
church age, women would never be permitted to speak in a church
service. What then of those churches that forbid women to preach
but permit them to pray, testify, and/or sing in public services?
How can they condemn the first while condoning the second? Response: We agree that Paul
does not require absolute silence from women in church services,
but we disagree that permitting women to pray, testify, or sing
violates this passage. a) Paul didn't
forbid all talking in the church. Verse 12 explains what Paul
meant by women remaining silent in the church: "I do not
allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man." In
1 Corinthians 14:35 he also prohibits inappropriate or disruptive
questions. b) "The Greek
word translated 'allow' (epitrepo) is always used in the New
Testament to speak of permitting someone to do what they want.
Paul's choice of words implies that some women in Ephesus desired
to teach and have authority. . . . "Paul's use
of the present infinitive didaskein translated 'to teach' could
better be translated 'to be a teacher.' By using the present
infinitive instead of the aorist, Paul does not forbid women to
teach under any circumstances, but to fill the office of a
teacher" (MacArthur, Different by Design, p 138). 4) The context is
the church, but Paul doesn't forbid all teaching by women, but
only teaching that usurps the authority of a man. a) The Greek word
translated "authority" refers only to abusive or
destructive authority. Therefore women can teach and exercise
authority over men as long as it isn't abusive or destructive
(Aida Besancon Spencer, Beyond the Curse, pp. 87-88). b) "This
passage should be rendered 'I suffer not a woman to teach by
usurping authority over the man.' This rendering removes all the
difficulties and contradictions involved in the ordinary reading,
and evidently gives the meaning of the Apostle'" (Rev. Dr.
Taft, cited in Female Ministry, p. 13). c) "No one
will suppose that the Apostle forbids a woman to 'teach'
absolutely and universally. Even objectors would allow her to
teach her own sex in private; they would let her teach her . . .
children, and, perhaps, her husband too. If he were ignorant of
the Saviour, might she not teach him the way to Christ? She might
indeed . . . "The
'teaching,' therefore which is forbidden by the Apostle, is not
every kind of teaching . . . but it is such teaching as is
domineering, and as involves the usurpation of authority over the
man. This is the only teaching forbidden by St. Paul in the
passage under consideration" (Rev. J.H. Robinson, cited in
Female Ministry, p. 12). Responses: We disagree that
Paul forbids only teaching that usurps the authority of a man, or
authority that is abusive or destructive. a) According to
Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Dr. Taft's conclusion (i.e., that the
phrase "I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise
authority over a man" should be rendered "I suffer not
a woman to teach by usurping authority over the man") is
incorrect. The Greek word translated or" means "not
even" or "nor", but not "by." b) The phrase
"exercise authority over" translates the Greek word
authentein, which appears only here in the New Testament, so
there are no other passages from which to formulate a precise
definition. However, in
extra-biblical usage (usage outside the Bible) it's common
meaning is "to have authority over" (cf. Dr. George
Knight, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text
[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992], pp. 141-42). It doesn't designate
a particular kind of authority (i.e., abusive or destructive),
but is more general in nature. Paul uses it to forbid women to
exercise any type of authority over men in the church, including
teaching. c) As we've
already seen, Paul gave similar instructions to he Corinthians:
"As in all the churches of the saints, women should remain
silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must
be in submission, as the Law says . . . it is disgraceful for a
woman to speak in church" (1 Cor. 11:33-35, NIV). 5) The context is
the church, but the Greek word translated "authority"
simply means "author" or "originator."
Therefore Paul is simply saying he doesn't allow a woman to
proclaim herself author of man (R.C. Kroeger and C.C. Kroeger, I
Suffer Not a Woman p. 192). Responses: a) We disagree
that Paul is simply forbidding a woman to proclaim herself author
of man. (This view is answered with our definition of authority
above.) b) This view is
foreign to the context. 6) The context is
the church, but Pal isn't requiring any more of women than any
teacher would require of any pupil (male or female). And, the
present tense of verse 12 indicates that Paul did not have a
permanent prohibition in mind. "In verse 11
most people wrongly assume that Paul's emphasis is on silence and
submission. Actually, Paul is emphatically commanding that women
be taught (manthaneto is imperative). The quietness and 'full
submission' (again, to the church body or teacher) is what any
teacher would ask of his pupils. Verse12 is not stated
imperatively; rather Paul returns to the indicative mood in the
present tense. "A legitimate
rendering of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 thus would be: 'I command that
women learn [be taught] in quietness and full submission [to the
teaching authority]' (v. 11). 'I am [presently] not permitting a
woman to teach and she is not to exert evil influence over a man'
(v. 12)" (Austin H. Stouffer, "The Ordination of Women:
YES", Christianity Today, February 20, 1981, p. 14). Response: We disagree that
Paul is simply requiring the same of women as any teacher would
require of any pupil (male or female). a) In verse 11
Paul commands that women be taught, which elevated their status
over Judaism, but he also emphasizes the manner in which they are
to receive instruction. "Quietly . . . with entire
submissiveness" modifies "receive instruction."
The entire statement is an imperative. b) Stouffer and
others stress that the present tense of verse 12 isn't
necessarily a general principle for all time, and ca be
translated "I am not presently permitting a woman to teach
or to have authority over men." However, others
disagree: 1] "['I do
not permit'] is a present, active, indicative [form of the verb]
to allow, to permit. The present tense emphasizes the continual
action and points to an abiding attitude" (Fritz Rienecker
and Cleon Rogers, Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, p.
621). 2] "When Paul
says, 'I do not permit,' he issues as much of an imperative as
one can have in the first person singular 'I' form. Also, the
present tense does not mean he limits the prohibition to that
time only. Rather, it indicates the kind of action, so he means
'I am continually not permitting.' "Further, the
word translated 'permit' in the King James Version is quite
strong as used in the Greek world, and in the New Testament Paul
employs it in 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 16:7. It is especially
strong with the negative" (George Knight, "The
Ordination of Women: NO", p. 16). 7) Women who
prophesy (i.e., preach) in assemblies assume no personal
authority over others and therefore do not violate this passage. "Women who
speak in assemblies for worship under the influence of the Holy
Spirit, assume thereby no personal authority over others; they
simply deliver the messages of the Gospel, which imply obedience,
subjection, and responsibility, rather than authority and
power" (Booth, p 6). Responses: We disagree that
women who preach in public worship services assume no personal
authority over others. a) No church
leader or minister of the gospel assumes personal authority over
others. However, Scripture is clear that all who minister the
Word do so with great authority--delegated by Christ Himself.
Additionally, Scripture itself is inherently authoritative, and
those who teach and preach it must apply its authority in calling
their hearers to obedience. Therefore, it is inconsistent to
argue for a woman's right to preach while maintaining that she
would do so without exercising authority in the church. Ministers of he
Word are to "preach the word; be ready in season and out of
season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and
instruction" (2 Tim. 4:2); "[hold] fast the faithful
word which is in accordance with the teaching, that [they] may be
able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who
contradict" (Titus 1:9); and "speak and exhort and
reprove with all authority", letting no one disregard them
(Titus 2:15). b) "The
public teacher of God's people does not only tell others what
they need to now, but in the capacity of such a teacher he stands
before his audience to rule and govern it with the Word"
(R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles to the
Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to
Philemon, p. 564). c) Despite any
disclaimers by Mrs. Booth or others, woman preachers historically
have exercised significant authority in their respective
churches. For example, in Mrs. Booth's own organization, The
Salvation Army, women officers who oversee a Salvation Army
church or installation are called "commanding officers"
because they do just that: they command! And they do so with
authority. Case in point:
Currently the General and international leader of The Salvation
Army is a woman, and every Salvation Army officer in the world
(both male and female) is under her authority. 8) The context is
the church, but women who preach or teach with their elders'
permission do not violate this passage because they are under the
authority of men, not exercising authority over men. Responses: a) That scenario
is foreign to the context, which speaks of receiving instruction
with submission, not giving it with submission. b) If Scripture
forbids women to preach, elders do not have the authority to
disregard its teaching. 1 Corinthians
14:37 - "If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let
him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's
commandment." c) The responses
to "7)" above apply here as well. All who minister the
Word do so with authority. 9) The context is
the church, but Paul is simply prohibiting women who were not
properly instructed from teaching. "It has been
pointed out that the sentence, 'I do not permit a woman to teach
or to have authority over a man,' appears timeless in English, as
if he were saying, 'I would never allow a woman to teach . . .'
(1 Timothy 2:12). However, in the Greek there is a present active
verb here which can be translated, 'I am not presently permitting
a woman to teach or to have authority over men.' Paul was
apparently prohibiting those who were not properly instructed
from teaching. The teacher must first be taught. But the verb
tense cannot necessarily be made into a general principle for all
time" (J. Oswald Sanders, Paul the Leader, p. 165). Response: We disagree that
Paul is simply prohibiting women who weren't properly instructed
from teaching. That view isn't consistent with the context. a) Why would Paul
single out women when presumably there were plenty of improperly
instructed men as well? b) The context is
much broader than a certain class of women. It addresses all
women, as verses 13-15 clearly indicate. c) Regarding the
verb tense of "permit", see "6) b)" above. 10) The context is
the church, but we don't know why Paul imposed these restrictions
on the church at Ephesus. "But I suffer
not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to
be in silence, must be regarded as a demand imposed upon the
church at Ephesus for reasons unknown to us. No universal
teaching which would bind the Church for all time can be properly
based upon it" (J. Glenn Gould, Beacon Bible Commentary: 1
Timothy, p. 576-77). Response: a) We disagree
that we don't know why Paul imposed these restrictions on the
church at Ephesus. (This study presents what we believe are his
reasons.) b) If Mr. Gould is
correct and we don't know Paul's reasons for imposing these
restrictions, how can he know that they are not universal? 11) The context is
the church, and perhaps Paul is eliminating women from
consideration for the office of elder. Commenting on 1
Timothy 2:12, Susan Foh says, "Teaching does not include
praying and prophesying (1 Cor. 11:2-16). The teaching forbidden
to women is habitual teaching, as suggested by the infinitive in
the present tense [lit., "I do not permit a woman to be a
teacher"]. "Teaching and
exercising authority over men may describe one function, that of
an elder. Several commentators propose such an interpretation.
Lenski defines teaching as the public teaching of Scripture with
the capacity to rule and govern one's listeners with that word.
Paul's use of [teach] gives some support to this claim (Col.
1:28; I Tim. 4:11; 6:2b; II Tim. 2:2). "The
qualifications for elders, one of which is aptness to teach,
follow immediately in chapter 3. Paul may intend to eliminate
women from consideration for the office of elder before listing
the requirements for that office" (Women & the Word of
God: A Response to Biblical Feminism, pp. 124-25). Response: We agree that in
this context Paul may be distinguishing the role of women from
the role of elders and thereby eliminating women from
consideration as elders. However, Paul's prohibitions apply to
all women, not simply to those who would aspire to eldership. Key Principles: ARGUMENT
FROM SLAVERY AS A MODEL FOR THE ROLE OF WOMEN a. Summary of the
argument The passages of
Scripture instructing slaves to be subject to their masters
(e.g., 1 Pet. 2:13-14) are adaptations of the principle of
authority and submission to the existence of slavery in that
culture. They are not intended to condone, mandate, or perpetuate
slavery, but simply to apply Christian principles to an
institution of the time. As the ignorance and prejudice that kept
men and women in bondage to others disappeared, the need for
those principles disappeared as well. The relationship
between slaves and masters parallels that of wives and husband.
In fact, some of the passages addressing slaves and masters also
address wives and husbands. As with slavery, those passages are
simply cultural adaptations of authority and submission to
accommodate the role expectations of that day. They are not
intended to condone or perpetuate the subservience of women, or
restrict them from leadership in the church indefinitely. To the
extent that women's roles change and their contributions to
society and the church are recognized and appreciated, the need
for hose principles diminishes. b. Representative
quotes 1) "There are
several comparable elements that suggest [a parallel between male
and female and master and slave relationships]. We have seen, in
Galatians 3:28, the distinctions between slave and free and male
and female, although they continue to exist, are superseded by
equality in Christ in the church. "The
instructions in Paul's letters prominently modify the relations
between slaves and masters, and between husbands and wives, as in
Ephesians5:22-33. Similarly Paul places restrictions on both
slaves and women by instructing slaves to obey their masters and
women to be subservient to their husbands and to refrain from
exercising equality in the authoritative offices of the
congregation. "What is of
great significance is the parallelism between the grounds on
which the apostle supports his instructions to both slave and
women. In 1 Timothy 6:1 he urges slaves to respect their masters
'so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered' In
Titus 2:5 he requires women to be subject to their husbands 'so
that no one will malign the word of God'" (Clarence Boomsma,
Male and Female, One in Christ, p. 48). 2) "Paul,
ever careful not to upset the delicate cultural fabric of his
day, encouraged women to continue to submit. What is new is how
they are to submit: as to the Lord" (Austin H. Stouffer,
"The Ordination of Women: YES", Christianity Today,
February 20, 1981, p. 13). 3) "Those who
today will admit slavery is wrong but still maintain that
husbands must have authority over their wives are inconsistent.
If they were consistent with their method of interpretation,
which does not take enough account of cultural differences, it is
likely that, had they lived one hundred fifty years ago, hey
would have had to have opposed the abolitionists as subverters of
the moral order--as many Bible-quoting white slave owners and
their allies did. Many of the traditions which today use
Scripture to subordinate women once did the same for slavery
before that idea was anathema in our culture" (Craig Keener,
Paul, Women and Wives, p. 207-8). 4) "Submit
yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted
among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to
governors, who are sent by him . . . Slaves, submit yourselves to
your masters with all respect . . . Wives, in the same way be
submissive to your husbands . . . Husbands, in the same way be
considerate as you live with your wives" (1 Peter 2:13-14,
18; 3:1, 7). "[In that
passage] Peter makes an interesting point about the position of
women. He argues that we as Christians should submit ourselves to
every man-made institution, and goes on to list several of those
authorities 'instituted among men'--kings, governors, masters.
Then i 1 Peter 3:1 he states that in the same way wives should
submit to their husbands, because--it is implied--female
submission is 'instituted among men.' "In other
words, Christians are expected to operate within the parameters
placed around them by society. If slavery is an unchangeable part
of the society, then servants are expected to obey their
masters--until slavery is no longer 'instituted among man.' As we
earnestly seek a true biblical role for women, God forbid that we
withhold any gift he desire her to exercise for even one day
longer than society requires!" (Stouffer, "The
Ordination of Women: YES", p. 14). c. Responses 1) We disagree
that all distinctions between male and female have been
superseded by equality in Christ (Gal. 3:28). Galatians 3:28
speaks of spiritual equality, not equality of function (see our
more detailed discussion above). 2) We disagree
that it is inconsistent to admit slavery is wrong while
maintaining that husbands have authority over their wives. a) Marriage was
instituted by God, slavery was not. 1] Genesis 2:24;
3:16 - "For this cause a man shall leave his father and his
mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one
flesh. . . . Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall
rule over you." 2] Although there
are some scriptural similarities between the male/female and
master/slave relationships, one significant difference is that
"the existence of slavery is not rooted in any creation
ordnance, but the existence of marriage is" (John Piper and
Wayne Grudem, "An Overview of Central Concerns: Questions
and Answers," in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood,
p. 65). b) Those who used
the master/slave passages in the New Testament to oppose
abolitionists were wrong, but that doesn't constitute
guilt-by-association for those who appeal to the same passages in
support of authority and submission within marriage. Nor does it
mean that God's will is for submission within marriage to go the
way of slavery. Boomsma and others
place great significance on the parallelism between the grounds
on which Paul supports his instructions to both slaves and women
(i.e., that God's name and Word would not be slandered - 1 Tim.
6:1; Titus 2:5). However, "It
is necessary to ask whether Paul groups together regulations for
members of the household not because the relationships are
parallel, but for mere convenience since all deal with the
membership of many households of that day. As a matter of fact,
it would appear that these relationships have quite different
bases. Paul is quite willing for the slave's status to change to
one of freedom (compare Philemon and also 1 Cor. 7:21). He never
insists that slavery is instituted by God and therefore to be
perpetuated. Paul is simply giving directions on how slaves and
masters should live if they are in that situation" (Knight,
"The Ordination of Women: NO", p. 17). c) The basis for
Paul's teaching is different for women and children than for
slaves. "We face a
different situation concerning children. Paul grounds his word to
children in the permanent word of the Ten Commandments (Eph.
6:1-3). And, likewise, when we ask about the basis for the
uniform teaching on the role relationship of husband and wife in
marriage, we find it is God's activity in Creation [a evidenced
by Paul quoting Genesis 2:24 in Ephesians 5:31, and the specific
correlation of Genesis 2 with headship in 1 Corinthians 11]"
(Knight "The Ordination of Women: NO", p. 17). d) Regarding a
woman's role in the church, the basis for Paul's teaching isn't
that God may not be slandered (although that certainly is
implied), but that the Law, the order of creation, and the fall
require it (cf. 1 Cor. 14:34; 1 Tim. 2:13-14). 3) We agree that
Christians are expected to operate within the parameters placed
around them by society (e.g., if slavery is an unchangeable part
of the society, then servants are expected to obey their
masters--until slavery is no longer 'instituted among man'). But Paul's
instructions regarding a woman's submission in marriage and in
the church aren't simply concessions to the role expectations of
his society, and therefore subject to change as society changes. a) Regarding
authority and submission in the church, we have discussed that
point in the sections on 1 Corinthians 114-5, 14:34-35, and 1
Timothy 2:11-15 above. b) Regarding
authority and submission in slavery, as long as slavery exists in
a society, Christian slaves are to be submissive to their masters
as God commands (and masters are to treat their slaves with
fairness and respect). If slavery is done away with, the
principles are no longer applicable. c) Regarding
authority and submission in marriage, as long as marriage exists
in a society, Christian wives are to be submissive to their own
husbands as God command (and husbands are to love their wives as
Christ loved the church). However, unlike
slavery, marriage and its corresponding authority and submission,
was instituted by God, and therefore cannot be done away with.
Even if a society were to outlaw marriage, Christians in that
society would have to obey God rather than man. 4) Using slavery
as a model for the role of women has a domino effect on other
relationships. For example, if we abolish submission of wives to
their husbands because it parallels slavery, to be consistent we
must also abolish submission of children to their parents,
because it is taught in the same passages. a) Ephesians
5:22-6:9 - "Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to
the Lord. . . . Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also
loved the church. . . . Children, obey your parents in the Lord.
. . . Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters to the
flesh . . . as to Christ. . . . And, masters, do the same to
[your slaves]" (emphasis added). b) Colossians
3:18-4:1 - Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in
the Lord. Husbands, love your wives . . . Children, be obedient
to your parents in all things, for this is well-pleasing to the
Lord. . . . Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters
on earth. . . . Masters, grant to your slaves justice and
fairness" (emphasis added). Key Principles: ARGUMENT
FROM BIBLICAL PRECEDENCE a. Summary of the
argument Whatever else Paul
may have had in mind when he penned the restrictions in 1
Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2, he wasn't forbidding women to
lead and preach in the church. We know that because elsewhere he
not only acknowledges that certain women did, in fact, minister
in those capacities, but he also commends them for dong so. b. Examples 1) The example of
Phoebe Romans 16:1-2 -
"I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the
church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in the Lord in
a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever
matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a
helper of many, and of myself as well." a) Mrs. Booth
comments: "I would draw attention to the fact that Phoebe, a
Christian woman whom we find in our version of the Scripture
(Romans 16:1) spoken of only as any common servant attached to a
congregation, was nothing less than one of those gifted by the
Holy Spirit for publishing the glad tidings, or preaching the
Gospel. The manner in which the Apostle (whose only care was the
propagation of evangelical truth) speaks of her, shows that she
was what he in Greek styled her, a deacon or preacher of the
Word" (Female Ministry, p.10). b) The phrase
"a helper of many" (v. 2) refers to one who is a leader
in the congregation. "In verse 2,
the word translated 'help' further elucidates [Phoebe's]
function. Cognate terms from the same root are applied to those
who exercised leadership in the churches, for example, 'those . .
. who are over you in the Lord' (1 Thessalonians 5:12). In Romans
12:8 the same word is rendered 'leader,' and in 1 Timothy 5:17 it
is applied to 'the elders who direct the affairs of the church.'
Thus the term used by Paul could indicate that Phoebe not only
fulfilled the function of a deacon but also had some
administrative roll" (Sanders, Paul the Leader, pp. 168-69). Responses: a) Without doubt
Phoebe was a very special lady whom Paul commended in a special
way. 1] The Revised
Standard Version says, "I commend to you our sister Phoebe,
a deaconess of the Church at Cenchrea,that you may receive her in
the Lord as befits the saints" (emphasis added). 2] If Paul had
called Phoebe an overseer or elder, or commended her for
faithfully preaching the Word, that would be a different story.
But he commended her in a more general way, using the same term
that is commonly used of every faithful servant of the Lord,
regardless of their specific ministry. 3] The Greek word
translated "deaconess" in the RSV is diakonos, the same
word translated "deacon" elsewhere (cf. 1 Tim. 3:8-12).
Paul commended Phoebe as a woman who served the Cenchrean
church--perhaps as a deaconess--and specifically calls her a
deacon (because diakonos has no female form in the Greek
language). However, the
nature of her ministry is speculative since Paul isn't specific.
To argue from diakonos that she was a preacher of the Word in a
local assembly, or perhaps in several churches, not only
stretches the text, but also reads an implication into the word
that isn't necessarily there. 4] "Even if
for argument's sake we say that Phoebe is a 'deacon,' the
apostle's prohibition is not overturned. The very distinction in
the New Testament between the official deacon and elder (or
bishop) is that an elder holds the teaching or ruling office,
while the deacon is in the serving office, one not inherently
involving teaching or ruling. Thus even if we grant that Phoebe
is a church deacon, the New Testament has still not placed her in
the ruling or teaching office" (Knight, "The Ordination
of Women: NO", p. 19). 5] Admittedly Paul
sometimes uses diakonos with reference to himself and others who
did preach and teach in local assemblies (1 Cor. 3:5), but he
also uses it of those for whom we have no record of any such
ministry (cf. Eph. 6:21; Col. 4:7; 1 Tim. 3:11). c) We disagree
that "a helper of many" (v. 2) refers to a leader in
the congregation. George Knight
comments: "An appeal to the usage of the feminine word
prostatis (NASB and RSV: 'a helper of many') is often made to
attempt to establish Phoebe as a leader in the congregation. "The argument
often proceeds from this word to a verb with the same root
(proistemi) and the similar masculine noun (prostates). It
usually insists that since the masculine noun and the verb are
directly associated with leadership, the feminine noun must be
also. As a matter of fact, New Testament Greek lexicons and
classical Greek lexicons consistently indicate that this is not
the case, and that the feminine noun indicates one who is a
'helper' or 'patroness' but not a leader. "Paul Jewett,
although contending that the word means more than that she was
only a deaconess, candidly admits that 'in this passage,
prostatis, literally 'a woman set over others,' should hardly be
taken to mean that Phoebe was a woman 'ruler.' Rather the meaning
would seem to be that she was one who cared for the affairs of
others by aiding them with her resources'" (cited in
"The Ordination of Women: NO", pp. 18-19). d) Since Romans
16:1 is general in nature, we can't know the specific nature of
Phoebe's ministry. We do know that Paul trusted her explicitly,
knowing she would never make inappropriate requests. Certainly
she would have understood any parameters Paul may have placed on
women in ministry (e.g., 1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-15). To
argue for the absence of parameters based on Paul's gracious
commendation of her faithful service is to go beyond what the
text actually says. 2) The example of
Priscilla Romans 16:3-4 -
"Greet Prisca [Priscilla] and Aquila, my fellow workers in
Christ Jesus, who for my life risked their own necks, to whom not
only do I give thanks, but also all the churches of the
Gentiles." a) Both Priscilla
and her husband Aquila were fellow workers with Paul, and,
according to Acts 18:26, both instructed Apollos in the gospel
("They took him aside and explained to him the way of God
more accurately"). b) "Priscilla
(verse 3) appears to have been more dynamic than her husband
Aquila, but together they functioned as a husband-wife pastoral
team, conducting a church in their hoes at Corinth and Rome. "That she
exercised a teaching ministry is explicitly cited in Scripture
(Acts 18:26), for she and her husband took the eloquent Apollos
to their home and thoroughly explained the way of God. There is
no suggestion that in doing so Priscilla was acting contrary to
Paul's teaching. She shared with Aquila the title and task of
'fellow worker.' Paul described the indebtedness of 'all the
churches of the Gentiles' to their joint ministry (verse 4)"
(Sanders, Paul the Leader, p. 16). Responses: a) We agree that
Priscilla shared ministry responsibilities with her husband
Aquila, although the precise nature and extent of her ministries
are not known. b) We agree that
she exercised a teaching ministry of some sort because on one
occasion she assisted her husband in thoroughly explaining the
way of God to Apollos (Acts 18:26). However, that meeting took
place in private and therefore did not violate Paul's prohibition
against women teaching or exercising authority over a man in the
public meeting of the assembly (1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-15). c) We do not see
any biblical support for Sanders' view that she appears to have
been more dynamic than her husband. But even if that were true,
it would have no bearing on the issue at had. d) Sharing the
title of "fellow worker" with her husband does not mean
she functioned in the same role as Aquila, but that they both
were outstanding in whatever roles they filled. 3) The example of
Junias Romans 16:7 -
"Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my
fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the Apostles; who also
were in Christ before me" (KJV). The NASB reads,
"Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen, and my fellow
prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were
i Christ before me" (emphasis added). a) Junias was a
woman, and was also an exemplary apostle. b) "Ancient
commentators concluded that Andronicus and Junias were a married
couple. Junias is not found elsewhere as a man's name. Of Junias,
Chrysostom wrote, 'Indeed to be apostles at all is a great thing.
But to be even among these of note just consider what a great
encomium this is. But they were of note owing to their works, to
their achievements. Oh! how great is the devotion of this woman,
that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of
apostle'" (Sanders, Paul the Leader, p. 169). Responses: a) This is a
difficult passage to interpret precisely because Junias could
have been either a male or female name, and the phrase
"outstanding among the apostles" is ambiguous. b) R.C.H. Lenski
concludes: "This is
Junias, a man, not Junia (Julia), a woman, wife or sister of
Andronicus. . . . Chrysostom may exclaim in admiration because of
a woman apostle: such an apostle would be strange indeed. So also
there is no difficulty regarding 'my kinsmen,' which Paul applies
to Jews in general in 9:3, and certainly uses in this sense here
in v. 10 and 21. . . . "These two
men of Paul's own nationality at one time suffered with Paul as
true soldiers of the Lord in his great campaign. Of course, when,
where, how we do not know. In fact, they stand out as men of note
not only in Paul's estimation but in the estimation of all the
apostles ['Outstanding among the apostles (or, "in the
sphere of the twelve in Jerusalem")]" (The
Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, p. 905-07). c) William
Hendriksen agrees that both are men, but understands them to have
been apostles in the looser sense of the word (i.e., messengers,
which is the literal meaning of "apostle"). "Extend
greetings to Andronicus and Junias, fellow-countrymen of mine . .
. men who are apostles, and as such, of note, and who were
Christians even before I was" (New Testament Commentary:
Romans Chapters 9-16, p. 505). d) John MacArthur
and others view Junias as the wife of Andronicus and explain
"outstanding among the apostles" in this way: "It seems
likely that the meaning here is that Andronicus and Junias
performed outstanding service in the Lord's work while working
among, and possibly under, some of the ordained apostles, such as
Paul and Peter. That interpretation is supported by Paul's remark
that those two believers were in Christ before me, that is, were
converted to Christ before he was. "At the time
of Paul's conversion most converts were still living in or near
Jerusalem, where several of the Twelve were leaders in the
church. If, therefore, Paul's two kinsmen were converted before
he was, it is likely that they lived in Jerusalem and performed
their outstanding service among the apostles in that city"
(The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Romans 9-16, p. 365). e) John Murray
doesn't comment on the gender of Junias, but shares MacArthur's
conclusion regarding their supposed apostleship: "'Of note
among the apostle' may mean that they were apostles themselves.
If so then the word 'apostles' would be used in a more general
sense of messenger (cf. II Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25). Since,
however, the term has usually in Paul the more restricted sense,
it is more probable hat the sense is that these persons were well
known to the apostles and were distinguished for their faith and
service. "The
explanation is ready at hand; they were Christians before Paul
and, no doubt, were associated with the circle of apostles in
Judea if not in Jerusalem" (The New International Commentary
on the New Testament: The Epistle to the Romans, pp. 229-30). f) We conclude
that there seems to be no compelling reason from the verse itself
to regard Junias as a female apostle, despite Chrysostom's
comment to the contrary. 4) The example of
Philip's daughters Acts 21:9 -
"Now [Philip the evangelist] had four virgin daughters who
were prophetesses." Clearly, these
women prophesied. Responses: a) We agree that
these women prophesied. But we have no record of the context in
which they exercised their prophetic gifts. b) Our only
interest here is in whether or not they preached or prophesied in
the public assembly, and there is no clear indication that they
did. 5) The example of
Euodia an Syntyche Philippians 4:2-3
- "I urge Euodia and I urge Syntyche to live in harmony in
the Lord. Indeed, true comrade, I ask you also to help these
women who have shared my struggle in the cause of the gospel,
together with Clement also, and the rest o my fellow workers,
whose names are in the book of life." "Euodia and
Syntyche . . . apparently held positions of leadership so
influential in the church that their disagreement endangered its
unity. Although not condoning their estrangement, Paul commended
them most warmly. They 'contended at [Paul's] side in the cause
of the gospel,' sharing the common task and ministry. He
identified them with Clement and the other fellow workers in the
proclamation of the gospel" (Sanders, Paul the Leader, p.
170). Responses: a) We agree that
these ladies ministered in significant ways and were apparently
held in high esteem by Paul and others in the church at Philippi. b) To have shared
Paul's struggle in the cause of the gospel speaks very highly of
their loyalty and commitment, but does not necessarily mean they
taught, preached, or held positions of authority over men in the
church. 1] Many of those
who affirm a woman's right to preach assume that when Paul
commends a woman as a fellow-worker, he is indicating that she
did the same things he did (i.e., evangelize, preach, teach, and
administrate in the local church). But Christian ministry is very
broad, and Paul was concerned with more than preaching the gospel
(He taught the whole counsel of God, and his epistles cover
virtually every aspect of ministry and church life). 2] If Paul is
specific about a person's ministry (e.g., 2 Tim. 4:1ff), we can
draw specific conclusions. But when he uses more general terms,
we must be careful not to read more into hi words than he
intended to convey. c) Paul's
commendation of Euodia and Syntyche is gracious but general, and
indicates that "they exerted themselves and eagerly
co-operated in the interests of the gospel with the apostle, and
also with Clement and the other fellow labourers whom Paul had at
Philippi" (Jac. J. Muller, The New International Commentary
on the New Testament: The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, p.
139). Beyond that, we should not speculate. 6) The example of
the women gathered wit the apostles on the Day of Pentecost Acts 1:14; 2:1, 4
- "These all with one mind were continually devoting
themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother
of Jesus, and with His brothers." "We are in
the first of these passages expressly told that the women were
assembled with the disciples on the day of Pentecost; and in the
second, that the cloven tongues sat upon them each, and the Holy
Ghost filled them all, and they spake as the Spirit gave them
utterance. . . . The tongues were only emblematical of the office
which the Spirit was henceforth to sustain to His people. The
Spirit was given alike to the female as to the male
disciple" (Booth, Female Ministry, p. 16). Responses: a) We agree that
the gift of the Holy Spirit is given o every believer--male and
female alike (cf. Rom. 8:9). b) We agree that
women did prophesy in the early years of the church. c) Further, it is
likely that women spoke in tongues in the early years of the
church, although Paul forbade them to do so in public worship
services (cf. our conclusions regarding 1 Cor. 14:34-35 above). d) However, a
careful study of Acts 1:14 and 2:1,4 will not support the
conclusion that women were with the disciples on the Day of
Pentecost, that they spoke in tongues and prophesied along with
the disciples, and that they thereby officially initiated their
own prophetic office. For example: 1] Acts 1:14
doesn't expressly say that the women were assembled with the
disciples on the Day of Pentecost. It says they were among the
120 people gathered together with the disciples in an upper room
sometime prior to the Day of Pentecost (cf. vv. 12-26). 2] Chapter two
begins, "And when the day of Pentecost had come, they [the
twelve disciples, not the 120 - cf. 1:26] were all together in
one place." Also, it was the disciples whom Jesus said would
be "baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from
now" (Acts 1:5). 3] Verse 2 adds
that "suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a
violent, rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they
were sitting." Perhaps the disciples were gathered in the
temple area rather than in a private house--the language of the
text allows for either. It had to be someplace where the crowd
could hear the noise and assemble (v. 6). Note also Luke 24:53,
which says that the disciples were continually in the temple
after Jesus' departure. 4] When some
mockers accused the tongues-speakers of being drunk (v. 13),
Peter took his stand with the eleven (again indicating that it
was only the disciples speaking in tongues) and said, "Men
of Judea, and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to
you, and give heed to my words. For these men are not drunk, as
you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day" (vv.
14-15, emphasis added. 5] Whether or not
women spoke in tongues and prophesied on the Day of Pentecost
perhaps isn't as significant to this discussion as some of the
other points we've explored, but careful exegesis is always
important. Conclusions drawn from inaccurate or incomplete
interpretive procedures simply add confusion to the issue. Key principle: ARGUMENT
FROM THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS a. Summary of the
argument 1) The writings of
some of the Church Fathers tell of dynamic women who prophesied
(preached) in the early church. 2) or example: a) Justin Martyr "Justin
Martyr, who lived till about A.D. 150, says, in his dialogue with
Trypho, the Jew, that 'both men and women were seen among them
who had the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit of God, according
as the prophet Joel had foretold, by which he endeavored to
convince the Jews that the latter days were come" (cited by
Booth, p. 11). b) Irenaeus "Dodwell, in
his dissertations of Irenaeus says, 'that the gift of the spirit
of prophecy was given to others besides the Apostle: and that not
only in first and second, but in the third century--even to the
time of Constantine--all sorts and ranks of men had these gifts;
yea, and women too'" (cited by Booth, p. 11). c) Eusebius "Eusebius
speaks of Potomania Ammias, a prophetess,in Philadelphia, and
others, 'who were equally distinguished for their love and zeal
in the cause of Christ'" (cited by Booth, p. 11). b. Response Like the argument
from biblical precedence, this argument appeals to the record of
godly women who served he Lord with distinction. However, none of
the sources cited relate the context in which these women
ministered, and therefore do not directly support the view that
women preached and/or held leadership positions in the early
church. Key principle: Of necessity we
have dwelt on the few prohibitions Scripture places on women in
ministry, and have concluded that women are not to preach or
teach in the corporate gathering of the local assembly, or hold
authoritative leadership roles in the church (e.g., Pastor or
elder), or in any other way to exercise authority over men. Those prohibitions
must be taken seriously, but they should never overshadow the
myriad of other ministries available to women, and in which godly
women have served faithfully throughout church history
(including, but not limited to, praying or prophesying within
biblical guidelines and with a proper attitude of submission [1
Cor. 11:3-4; Acts 21:9], witnessing to women or men in public,
praying with believers or non-believers in a non-leadership role,
and teaching God's Word to children and other women [Titus
2:3-4;1 Tim. 5:16]). It is our sincere
prayer that every Christian woman will experience the joy and
satisfaction that comes with ministering her spiritual gifts
within biblical guidelines to the glory of Christ and for the
edification of His church. 1.
Argument from Natural Qualifications: 2.
Argument from Superior Ability: 3.
Argument from Intellectual and Moral Pursuits 4.
Argument from Historical Precedence: 5.
Argument from Galatians 3:28 6.
Argument from Joel 2:28-29 & Acts 2:17-18: 7.
Argument from 1 Corinthians 11:4-5: 8.
Argument from 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: 9.
Argument from 1 Timothy 2:11-15: 10.
Argument from slavery as a Model for the Role of Women: 11.
Argument from Biblical Precedence: 12.
Argument from Early Church Fathers: Boomsma, Clarence
Male and Female, One in Christ. Grand Rapids, Baker, 1993. Booth, Catherine
Female Ministry: Woman's Right to Preach the Gospel. New York, Th
Salvation Army Supplies Printing and Publishing Department, 1975. Clarke, Adam
Clarke's Commentary: Vol. VI, Romans to Revelation. New York,
Abingdon-Cokesbury Press. Fee, Gordon D. New
International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle
to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1987. Felix, Paul W.,
Sr. "The Hermeneutics of Evangelical Feminism" in The
Master's Seminary Journal (5/2, Fall 1994). Panorama City. Foh, Susan Women
& the Word of God: A Response to Biblical Feminism. Grand
Rapids, Baker Book House, 1980. Gould, J. Glenn
Beacon Bible Commentary, 1 Timothy. Kansas City, Beacon Hill
Press, 1965. Grosheide, F.W.
The New International Commentary: Commentary on the First Epistle
to the Corinthians. m. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1953. Hendriksen,
William New Testament Commentary: Romans Chapters 9-16. Grand
Rapids, Baker Books, 1981. Howe, E.M.
"Ordination of Women" in Evangelical Dictionary of
Theology. Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1984. Keene, Craig Paul,
Women and Wives. Peabody, Hendrickson, 1992. Kent, Homer A. Jr.
The Pastoral Epistles. Chicago, Moody Press, 1982. Kistemaker, Simon
J. New Testament Commentary: 1 Corinthians. Grand Rapids, Baker
Books, 1993. Knight, George W.
III, "The Ordination of Women: NO" in Christianity
Today. February 20, 1981. Knight, George The
Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids,
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992. Kroeger, R.C. and
C.C. Kroeger I Suffer Not a Woman. Grand Rapids, Baker, 1992. Lenski, R.C.H. The
Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians, to the
Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon. Minneapolis,
Augsburg Publishing House, 1961. The Interpretation
of St. Paul's First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians.
Minneapolis, Augsburg Publishing House, 1963. The Interpretation
of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Minneapolis, Augsburg
Publishing House, 1961. MacArthur, John
Jr. Different By Design: Discovering God's Will for Today's Man
and Woman. Wheaton, Victor Books, 1994. The MacArthur New
Testament Commentary: 1 Corinthians. Chicago, Moody Press, 1984. The MacArthur New
Testament Commentary: Romans 9-16. Chicago, Moody Press, 1994. Marshall, Alfred
The NASB Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. Grand Rapids,
Zondervan Publishing House, 1984. Metz, Donald S.
Beacon Bible Commentary: 1 Corinthians. Kansas City, Beacon Hill
Press, 1968. Muller, Jac. J.
The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The
Epistle of Paul to the Philippians. Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1988. Murray, John The
New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistle to
the Romans. Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979. Nicholson, Roy S.
The Wesleyan Bible Commentary: 1 Timothy. Grand Rapids, Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971. Piper, John and
Wayne Grudem "An Overview of Central Concerns: Questions and
Answers" in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
Westchester, Crossway, 1991. Price, Betty Women
Current Events and the Word of God. Panorama City, Logos Bible
Institute class syllabus. Rienecker, Fritz
and Cleon Rogers Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament. Grand
Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House, 1982. Ryrie, Charles The
Role of Women in the Church. Chicago, Moody Press, 1970. Ryrie Study Bible.
Chicago, Moody Press, 1978. Sanders, J. Oswald
Paul the Leader. Colorado Springs, NAVPRESS, 1984. Spencer, Aida
Besancon Beyond the Curse. Peabody, Hendrickson, 1989. Stouffer, Austin
H. "The Ordination of Women: YES" in Christianity
Today. February 20, 1981. Summers, Ray
Essentials of New Testament Greek. Nashville, Broadman Press,
1950. Thomas, Robert L.
Understanding Spiritual Gifts. Chicago, Moody Press, 1978. Vine, W.E.,
Merrill F. Unger,William White, Jr. Vine's Complete Expository
Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Nashville, Thomas
Nelson Publishers, 1985. Women and Their
Role in the Church. Springfield, Immanuel Bible Church Elder
Position Paper.