The Role of Women in Leadership

Are we Biblically justified in owning slaves?

This may seem like an irrelevant question to ask in a discussion about the role of women in leadership, but bear with me.  Keeping women out of ministry positions is NOT EQUIVALENT to slavery, however, I believe that the exegetical issues surrounding the Biblical ethic are the same.  Let me explain.

For most of human history slavery has been a practice that has been condoned and accepted as legitimate.  By the time Moses was given leadership of Israel and used by God to establish God’s law over His people, slavery was an accepted practice.  There were usually two forms of it: (1) Peoples conquered in battle were considered legitimate subjects to be enslaved.  (2) People within one’s own community who were facing poverty and indebtedness could make themselves slaves to others in the community or be forced into slavery to pay off debts.  Depending on the integrity of the slave owner there was the possibility of abuse of slaves or genuine love for slaves, but as Jesus commented, even a slave who was well cared for would never expect to be served by his master (Luke 17:10).

Of great interest, however, is the way the Law of Moses dealt with slavery.  There were several provisions in the Law for slaves that ran counter to the prevailing culture.  For example, Hebrew slaves were allowed to rest on the Sabbath along with their owners (Exodus 20:10), were to be released after 6 years or in the year of Jubilee (Exodus 21:2; Leviticus 25:39-42, 47-53), were to be provided for lavishly upon release from slavery (Deuteronomy 15:13,14), could not be beaten to death (Exodus 21:20), if female, could not have sexual relations with male owners unless they were made wives (Exodus 21:7-11; Deuteronomy 21:14), and were granted protection in cities of refuge if they ran from abusive masters (this was also allowed for foreign slaves, Numbers 35:14).  Would we have liked to see some improvements in the way even the Old Testament law treated slaves?  Yes, we would want to say that slaves couldn’t be beaten at all or that female slaves had the right to say no to marriages with masters.  But the Law was a definite movement away from the practices of the day.

The New Testament dealing with slavery moves even further from the accepted practices of slavery.  In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul taught that slavery was a condition to get oneself freed from if possible and that slavery could not suspend one’s freedom in Christ.  In Ephesians and Colossians he taught that slaves should obey their masters as if obeying Christ, but that masters should respect and treat their slaves with justice.  In his letter to Philemon, Paul asked Philemon to receive back his now-converted slave Onesimus as a brother and as Paul himself.  Would you not be inclined to release Paul from being your slave?  Paul’s teaching in Galatians 3:28 that in Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” seemed to pave the way for a new paradigm for looking at slavery.  Instead of slaves being viewed as less than free men and women, they were viewed as equal to free men and women in Christ.

During our own Civil War this issue was fought over and debated with Scripture.  Today, it is the consensus among Americans that slavery is wrong in and of itself.  It is believed that God did not create any human to be the property of another.  If the church sought to reinstitute slavery because the Scriptures allow it and nowhere specifically condemn it, we would bring great disrespect to the gospel.  We recognize that the intent of Scripture was to lead us away from ownership of humans.

Women

As you may suspect, I believe the same line of reasoning applied to the biblical teaching on slavery may equally be applied to the biblical teaching about women.  They do indeed follow a similar trajectory.

Women, in the culture as it was from time immemorial up to the time of Jesus and beyond, were considered inferior to men, not worthy of instructing or schooling, were legitimately thought to be dealt with through beating or other violence when they were deemed disobedient, and in many societies were considered property just like slaves.  A man could have many wives, but women could only have one husband.

The Law of Moses, however, was counter-cultural here, as well, and the practice of Israel was very different from the practice of the nations around her.

Exodus 21

For example, in Exodus 21:7-11 we read,

If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.  If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her.  If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter.  If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.  If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

Though there is much in this passage that reflects the culture around Israel, there is also unusual protection afforded this woman.  Her father has absolute rights over her life, even to sell her into slavery.  In this situation he is apparently selling her as a concubine (lesser or secondary wife) to a man.  The Law prohibits her being from being released after 6 years or in the Jubilee because she is bonded through marriage.  But if her new husband decides he doesn’t like her, he cannot sell her.  He must allow her to be redeemed (purchased back) by her relatives, because he has “broken faith” with her, having promised to be her husband and now potentially leaving her unprotected.

If this woman is selected as a wife for the master’s son, the master must now treat her as his daughter, not as a slave.  If the son takes another wife as well he cannot fail to provide for this one, both financially and with regard to marital relations.  If he refuses to do so the woman is free to return to her family and the price paid for her does not need to be returned.

This kind of counter-cultural treatment was laying a groundwork for the New Testament teaching about women and for a freedom for women that exists in our day that is unparalleled in past civilizations.

Numbers 27

Again, in a situation brought to Moses by the daughters of Zelophedad, the question was raised about a man who had no sons to whom he might bequeath his property.  This was a big question because each tribe of Israel had land allotted to them by God that was meant to stay in their families.  God specifically told Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter’” (Numbers 27:8).  This broke all cultural expectations and yet was accepted because it was a direct command from God and because it was eminently fair and practical.

Though it was not considered in the original revelation God gave to Moses, when it was raised as an issue and the justice of it was made clear, God said, “What Zelophehad’s daughters are saying is right,” and gave Moses further instruction.  Can the present situation in America be a cause to acknowledge that what women are asking for today is right in God’s eyes, completely in accord with where the trend of God’s countercultural teachings would lead us?

Judges 4-5

An even more startling example of Israel’s departure from cultural norms is the leadership of Deborah.  In Judges 4 we read:

After Ehud died, the Israelites once again did evil in the eyes of the LORD. So the LORD sold them into the hands of Jabin, a king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor. The commander of his army was Sisera, who lived in Harosheth Haggoyim. Because he had nine hundred iron chariots and had cruelly oppressed the Israelites for twenty years, they cried to the LORD for help.

Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time. She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites came to her to have their disputes decided. She sent for Barak son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali and said to him, “The LORD, the God of Israel, commands you: ‘Go, take with you ten thousand men of Naphtali and Zebulun and lead the way to Mount Tabor. I will lure Sisera, the commander of Jabin’s army, with his chariots and his troops to the Kishon River and give him into your hands.’ “

Barak said to her, “If you go with me, I will go; but if you don’t go with me, I won’t go.”

“Very well,” Deborah said, “I will go with you. But because of the way you are going about this, the honor will not be yours, for the LORD will hand Sisera over to a woman.” So Deborah went with Barak to Kedesh, where he summoned Zebulun and Naphtali. Ten thousand men followed him, and Deborah also went with him.

Here was a woman who was acting as Israel’s leader (judge) and daily meeting with those in disputes to apply the wisdom of the Law to their particular issues.  Not only that, but she was exercising the gift and office of prophet, as did Moses.  This was a role of tremendous responsibility and influence.  Moses was the prime exemplar of any prophet and predicted to Israel, “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him” (Deuteronomy 18:15).  This applied to all prophets of Yahweh who followed Moses, but ultimately to Jesus, the supreme fulfillment of that prophetic word.  Deborah also followed in the steps of another prophet, Miriam, Moses’ sister (Exodus 15).  Interestingly, one of the prophetic gifts that Moses, Miriam and Deborah each shared was prophesying in the form of a song (Exodus 15; Deuteronomy 5; Judges 5).  Though we often don’t think of song as a teaching format, it is one of the most prominent teaching formats of the Bible (the Psalms, Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16; an example of a New Testament teaching song is Philippians 2:5-11).

We must recognize that it is God who gave Deborah this position and these gifts.  It was God who raised her up and put her in a position to rule over men and teach men.  It was God who gave Deborah victory over Israel’s enemies through an admittedly timid man, Barak.  There is seen a hint of how unusual this was in Deborah’s prophecy that a woman would get the glory for this victory instead of Barak.  She was attempting to let Barak take the lead and not appear to be directed by a woman, providing a way for him to save face in his culture, by encouraging him to go to battle without her.  But nevertheless, she had already provided leadership for him in the fact that she called him to this task and commanded him as to how to conduct the campaign.  And she did not hesitate to go with him and lead Israel’s armies to victory.

We need to camp here for a moment.  Did God change His mind between Judges and the time of Deborah’s leadership to the time of Paul and the letter to Timothy?  Was God simply allowing Deborah to do something that He did not endorse?  It could be argued that Deborah’s own statement that Barak was allowing a woman to lead him was recognition that Barak should have been the leader and that she was out of God’s will in this matter.  But if she believed that, she should not have given him direction.  It could be argued that Deborah was only filling in where a man should have, but why then did God give Deborah the ability and gifting to accomplish this role, rather than give it to a male?  The fact of the matter is that Deborah was a great leader.  If the reason for present day limiting of women’s roles in leadership is based on ability, there is no basis for that argument in this part of Scripture.  If it is argued that Adam’s priority over Eve prohibits Deborah from having authority over Barak, that argument finds no basis here.  God put Deborah in this position of authority.  Did Deborah submit to her husband?  We are not told, but nothing is suggested in the text that she had other than a normal marriage.  Could she submit to her husband in the marriage and command men in her leadership role?  It would seem so.

Joel 2:28,29

There is a prophetic word that speaks to the unconventional approach God took to women’s place in Israelite culture.  In Joel 2:28 and 29 we read:

I will pour out my Spirit on all people.  Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.  Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days.

We have already seen that God was not averse to using women prophets to prophesy to men and to use women leaders to lead men.  But here He is promising to broaden that possibility by pouring out His Spirit on all of His people in the kingdom.  When He envisions for His people how the kingdom will look, the vision includes prophesying women.  What is our vision for the future?  Should it not approximate God’s vision?

When we come to the New Testament we see even further advancements made in regard to women.

Luke 10:39 and others

When we observe the practice of Jesus during his earthly ministry, we see him giving great place to women disciples.  We read about “Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said,” (Luke 10:39).  No other rabbis that we know of gave women a chance to learn from them like this, though a few encouraged fathers to teach their daughters as commanded in Deuteronomy 6.  Sitting at the feet of a rabbi was the posture of a disciple and Mary putting herself there would have shocked most men in her day.  But Jesus defended her doing that (v.42).

Priscilla

With the resurrection and ascension of Jesus the book of Acts and the epistles depict for us how it worked in practice for female disciples to serve Christ.  Here are the relevant passages regarding Priscilla:  Acts 18:1-4, 18-19, 24-26; Romans 16:3-5; 1 Corinthians 16:19; 2 Timothy 4:19.

When Paul met Aquila and Priscilla in Corinth after their expulsion along with other Jews from Rome, we don’t know if they were already disciples of Jesus or not.  They had the tent making profession in common with Paul and, of course, their Jewish heritage, and they worked together every day, so there was ample opportunity for evangelism and further instruction in the Christian faith.  But by the time Paul left Corinth, Aquila and Priscilla went with him to Ephesus as ministry partners.  When Paul left to visit some of his other work, Aquila and Priscilla stayed in Ephesus, and we read this about them (Acts 18:24-26):

Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

Some have downplayed the significance of Priscilla’s name being mentioned first but that is a mistake given the cultural norms of the day.  Luke is undoubtedly signaling by this the importance of Priscilla (without clarity as to how she is important), just as he did when he switched from referencing “Barnabas and Saul” (Acts 13:2,7) to “Paul and his companions” or “Paul and Barnabas” when Paul’s ascendency on the team became obvious (Acts 13:13,42,50; 14:1, et al).

Calvin’s commentary on the passage about Priscilla and Aquila’s interaction with Apollos is instructive:

Again, this was no small modesty which was in Apollos, in that he doth suffer himself to be taught and instructed not only by an handy-craftsman, but also by a woman.  He was mighty in the Scripture, and did surpass them; but as touching the accomplishment of the kingdom of Christ, those do polish and trim him who might seem to be scarce fit ministers.  Also, we see that at that time women were not so ignorant of the word of God as the Papists will have them; forasmuch as we see that one of the chief teachers of the Church was instructed by a woman.  Notwithstanding, we must remember that Priscilla did execute this function of teaching at home in her own house, that she might not overthrow the order prescribed by God and nature.

Calvin’s last comment is fascinating in that our passage in Romans 16:3-5 concerning Priscilla and Aquila (same counter-cultural order for the names) mentions the church in their home:

Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus. They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. Greet also the church that meets at their house.

If Priscilla executed this function of teaching at home in an informal way with Apollos, is this any less exercising authority over him or teaching him than if she had done it in a formal way as part of the church meeting in their home?  It is not any less teaching or having authority but it is mitigated by two factors:  (1) her husband was with her, and (2) by teaching in a formal way in her home-church she would or could have been teaching Apollos in a way that did not single him out as the only one learning.  Nevertheless, the congregation that met in her house could not have but known that she had great skill and knowledge for teaching and they doubtless accepted Paul’s mentioning her name first because of the power they saw in her character and competency.

We learn from 1 Corinthians 16:19 that “Aquila and Priscilla” had a church in their house in Ephesus as well.  Fee comments that normally the names appear in reverse order “indicating the considerable prominence of Priscilla.”  In Paul’s final greetings to the church in Ephesus before his death (2 Timothy 4:19) the order of Priscilla first returns.

Priscilla stands as an amazing example of a woman filling a leadership role with great competency and grace.  Paul’s commendation of her should be repeated over and over for the many women who have followed in Priscilla’s ways.  The question is, could this new perspective on women be filled out in practice much the way the slavery teachings of the New Testament led to the abolition of slavery?  Could women being extended new levels of leadership be a logical extension of the original intent of the Lord?

Romans 16:1 and 1 Timothy 3

Paul’s concluding remarks in Romans 16, mostly greetings to and from believers in Rome, reveal a church that is used to honoring women as leaders.  This does not mean that they were in leadership over men, per se, though as we have seen, Priscilla did give such leadership.  But the passage highlights the new role given to women among the Christ followers.

“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea,” Paul writes in verse 1.  Though this word “servant” (diakonos, from which we get “deacon”) can have a general meaning of one who serves in any capacity, it is most often used in a context like this of one who serves God in a ministerial role, that is, of one doing spiritual duties.  Paul describes himself as a servant of the church by God’s commission, Col 1:25.  He describes teachers, pastors and missionaries in the church, himself included, as servants (1 Corinthians 3:5; 2 Corinthians 3:6; 6:4; 11:23; Galatians 2:17; Ephesians 3:7; Col 1:7,23; 4:7; 1 Thessalonians 3:2).

Keener (The Bible Background Commentary-New Testament) notes that the only way Paul could send a letter to Rome was through someone who was already traveling there or who made that their specific purpose.  Paul is here commending Phoebe because she is the bearer of the letter.  As Keener says, “Paul no doubt emphasizes Phoebe’s spiritual qualifications for two reasons: Jewish and Greco-Roman circles did not usually have high regard for women’s religious wisdom; and she will need to minister to them, explaining to them by word of mouth anything in Paul’s letter that the hearers would not understand.”  Paul uses the word “servant” (diakonos) of Phoebe in Keener’s estimation because it was usually applied to “ministers of God’s word, like Paul and his colleagues” and she needed this identification because women were not normally allowed to teach the law publicly to men.

The other possibility is that Paul is using this term “servant” in a technical sense.  The word “servant” is the same word translated “deacon” in 1 Timothy 3:8,10,12 (see also Philippians 1:1).  The Timothy passage is helpful to look at because it strongly indicates the possibility that Paul acknowledged the role of women deacons.  In 1 Timothy 3:1-7 Paul discusses the requirements for “overseers” or elders/pastors (these three terms are used synonymously throughout the New Testament to discuss the same leadership office).  In verses 8-10 he begins discussing the requirements for deacons.  He interrupts himself to discuss “the women” in verse 11.  The text reads, “In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything” according to the New International Version (NIV), which also includes a note offering another translation for wives, i.e., “deaconesses.”  Because the same Greek word here can mean either “wives” or “women” in general terms, and because Paul does not state any qualifications for the “wives” of elders, it has been suggested that he is here speaking about deaconesses.  It does not make sense that he would require that deacons wives be qualified but not that elders wives be qualified.

If it is the case that Paul is endorsing women as deacons here, we would expect that there would be historical examples of women deacons, at least in some churches.  There is evidence of this.  Pliny, a Roman procurator of Asia Minor, reported in a letter around AD 111 to the Emperor that he had arrested a number of Christians and their leaders.  He wrote, “All the more it seemed necessary to me to find out the truth, even by applying torture, from these two slave women, who were called ‘ministrae’.”  This Latin term would be the equivalent of “servant” but Pliny is here recognizing a technical use of that term.

Clement of Alexandria (150-215), a leader in the church, wrote:

The apostles, giving themselves without respite to the work of evangelism as befitted their ministry, took with them women, not as wives but as sisters, so that they might serve as their co-ministers (sundiakonous, fellow deacons), serving women living at home.  By their agency the teaching of the Lord reached the women’s quarters without arousing suspicion.  We are also aware of all the things Paul prescribed on the subject of women deacons in one of two letters to Timothy. (from Stromata 3,6,section 53)

Origen (c.185-254), a Christian scholar and teacher in Alexandria Egypt, wrote:

The text [he is referring to 1 Timothy 3:11] teaches with the authority of the Apostle that even women are established as deacons in the church.  This was the function that was exercised in the community of Cenchreae by Phoebe….This pious Phoebe, while offering help and service to all, deserved to assist and serve the Apostle himself.  And thus this text teaches at the same time two things:  that there are, as I have said, women deacons in the Church, and that women, who have given assistance to so many people and who by their good works deserve to be praised by the Apostle, ought to be accepted in the diaconate.” (from Commentary on Romans 10:17)

It is evident from this comment by Origen, however, that it was not universally accepted that women could serve in this way, or he would not have felt the need to defend it.  And one historian on this subject summarizes by saying, “Women deacons have not been a constant or universal phenomenon in the history of the Church.  They served in the eastern half of the Christian world during the first millennium.  Then they slowly disappeared from the scene.” (Women Deacons in the Early Church, John Wijngaards)

It is not certain that Phoebe is an example of a deaconess, but she was without a doubt being given a great responsibility by Paul in carrying his letter to Rome, and this was quite counter-cultural for the day.

Other Women in Romans 16

We have already discussed Priscilla, who is the woman mentioned next in Paul’s greetings at the end of his letter.  But Paul then mentions several women and gives some description of them that shows how differently the church was willing to embrace women as ministers of the gospel.

Junia
He mentions Mary “who worked very hard for you” in verse 6.  Then he mentions Andronicus and Junia, “my relatives who have been in prison with me” and who are “outstanding among the apostles.”  Some controversy has arisen as to whether “Junia” is a male or female name (Junias would be the masculine form, Junia, the female form.  The Greek does not make this clear.).  F. F. Bruce, the eminent New Testament scholar, says “It is impossible to decide whether the second of these names is feminine…or masculine” (Tyndale commentary on Romans), but others are adamant that it is possible.  Keener writes, “Against attempts to make ‘Junia’ a contraction of the masculine ‘Junianus,’ this form is not attested in Rome; ancient Christian readers [emphasis mine] recognized that Junia was a woman” (Bible Background Commentary, p447).  If the masculine form of this name is not attested, the burden of proof lies with those who assert this.  It is not kosher to assert that it cannot be feminine because a woman would not be termed an apostle, because that is begging the question.  That is the very thing we are investigating to see if it is so.

One ancient reader that Keener refers to on this matter is John Chrysostom (347-407), archbishop of Constantinople, who wrote:

Andronicus and Junia…who are outstanding among the apostles!  To be an apostle is something great.  But to be outstanding among the apostles – just think what a wonderful song of praise that is!  They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions.  Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle! (Epistle to the Romans)

What is doubly amazing about this citation is that Chrysostom, a native Greek speaker, interprets the phrase “outstanding among the apostles” as an indication that they were given the title apostle.  The normal translation of the Greek preposition here (en) would be “among.”  The alternative interpretation has been to understand the words “among the apostles” as meaning “in the estimation of the apostles,” a load too heavy for these words to bear, it would seem.  Chrysostom does not indicate what the title apostle signified to him.

An argument against Junia being a feminine name has been that surely no woman would be called an apostle in the sense that Peter or John were apostles.  But that there was fluidity in the use of this term apostle is evident from Acts 14:14 where both Paul and Barnabas are termed “apostles.”  Though none would doubt that this term could be applied to Paul on equal standing with Peter and John, such has never been the case with Barnabas.  But if one understands that “apostle” means one sent with authority to accomplish a task, Barnabas fits this definition.  Along with Paul he had been commissioned by the Holy Spirit and the church at Antioch to do this missionary, church planting work.  Could not Andronicus and Junia have been so commissioned? There is evidence from the Didache, a mid to late first century Christian document, that the term came to refer generally to missionaries who proclaimed the faith from place to place.  This is the role Priscilla and Aquila had, another couple who might therefore be termed “apostles.”

Were Andronicus and Junia husband and wife?  Brother and sister?  Though it might seem to argue against their being husband and wife because Paul says they are his relatives, this does not make this relationship less likely than brother or sister.  The term for “relative” here is very broad in application, broader at times than blood relative.  But it would even be possible for Andronicus and Junia to be husband and wife and be blood relatives of Paul.  Of course, we don’t know.  But early attestation by Jerome and Chrysostom would indicate that this Junia was a woman.  Again, this is more evidence of the counter-cultural nature of Christian treatment of women. [For an excellent article on this particular passage, see http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx201.htm.]

Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis

Though there are other women mentioned in this chapter, these women are commended for “working hard in the Lord.”  Of course, this does not mean that they were teaching or preaching, like Priscilla and most likely Junia did, but it indicates that the apostle Paul viewed them as fellow servants in Christ, in the ministry, something that again was counter to the culture of the day.  It is hard for us to appreciate what an advance this was on the typical role of women for that day.  Prophetesses, as we have seen, teachers like Priscilla and others, were not often accorded this kind of public reference by men in front of other men or groups of men and women.  Does this give us a reason to suspect that God’s intention for women is that they share an equal role in leadership and teaching to men that has been more prevented by various cultural restrictions than by God’s restrictions?  A key to answering this question is a look at several passages that seem to either allow more freedom or restrict it.

1 Corinthians 11:3-16

3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

11 In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

Though on the one hand Paul describes the authority man has over woman, he also demonstrates that there is an interdependence between men and women that most cultures did not acknowledge.  What is of greatest interest here is that Paul mentions the way women can prophesy, that is, with their heads covered, but does not prohibit their prophesying in the congregational meeting (the context tells us that this is the setting Paul is speaking to) in front of men.  In essence, they are speaking the Word of God to all present, men and women alike.  If there is a place to quell the public role of women teaching men, it is here.  Paul does not do it.  This raises questions about his remarks in chapter 14, which will be examined below.

1 Corinthians 14:33-35

As in all the congregations of the saints, 34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

This passage is problematic from several standpoints:

(1) Though it seems on the surface of it that Paul is prohibiting all speech by women during the meeting of the church, he has already given instructions in chapter 11:5 on how women are to pray and prophesy in the meeting of the church (with a veil on their heads to demonstrate their submission).  Prophecy does not do much good if it is silent.  Paul would not be merely describing how in a better or less wrong way (with covered heads for the women) the Corinthians should practice something he deems wrong.  If it is wrong for them to speak in public he would have said so, just as he corrected another facet of the public meeting that they were doing wrong – communion (11:17-34).  Additionally, in this same chapter Paul speaks of “everyone” speaking in tongues (14:23,24) and says, “You can all prophesy in turn” (14:31), without a gender limitation.

(2) Where does it say in the law that women should be silent and learn at home?  It doesn’t.

(3) A few manuscripts have placed these verses at the very end of the chapter (i.e., after verse 40).  This is a very odd thing, and has suggested to some that these verses were added in the margin originally by Paul (highly unlikely) or very early on in the transcribing of the text and some scribes did not know where to include them.  The earliest manuscript to include them where we have them in our Bible dates to around 200 A.D.  So we do not know the full history of transmission up to that point.  Some have concluded that the most logical explanation is they were not part of the original text of Paul but were an early addition that scribes of different traditions placed in different places in the text.  The reasons suggested would have been either to check the rising feminist movement of that period in church history by using the wording of Paul from 1 Timothy 2 or simply to harmonize what Paul seems to allow here (women prophesying) with 1 Timothy 2.

If the verses are genuine, however, what do they mean?  Four different kinds of explanation have been given:

1. Paul is not prohibiting all speech by women but rather intends to prohibit some form of disruptive speech that his readers were aware of in the congregation.  Some have supposed that with the women sitting on one side of the room and men on the other, the women were shouting out disruptive questions about what was being prophesied or spoken in tongues.  Others suggest they may have been asking questions of men other than their husbands.  Still others suggest they may have been chattering so loudly that it was disruptive.
2. Paul was prohibiting some form of inspired speech other than prophecy.  Some suggest that this was a ban on discerning of prophecies by women.  Women would be allowed to prophesy but not challenge the prophecies of others, thus putting them in a position of authority over men.  Some suggest that Paul is banning women from speaking in tongues because it could be that certain women in the church had been responsible for this form of gift abuse at Corinth.
3. Paul is not stating his own view here but is quoting some within the church who were imposing undue restrictions on women, which he then corrects in verses 36-38.  Paul does this in chapter 6.
4. Paul is countering some who are pressuring the women to prophesy and speak in tongues when they don’t want to because it seems a disgrace to them to do so.  In other words, he is safeguarding the conscience of women who don’t feel as free as the rest to prophesy and speak in tongues like the other women.  The translation would read, “Let the women remain silent…let them not be allowed to speak…it is disgraceful to them to speak in the church.”

There are significant problems with each of these interpretations, though the first seems to avoid the most problems.  In this case, the situation is a local one and needs a specific directive for this church, but is not intended universally for all churches.  The phrase “in the churches” in this case would likely mean the various congregations in Corinth viewed as house churches within the larger church at Corinth.  The phrase “as in all the churches (NIV, congregations) of the saints” would go with what precedes rather than with this paragraph about women.  This interpretation also prevents what seems to be a contradiction with Paul’s earlier instructions that seem to allow and even encourage women prophesying and speaking in tongues in the congregation.

Galatians 3:26-29

Undoubtedly this passage has been abused in terms of application to the role of women.  The main thrust of the passage is that in Christ there is an equality of relationship to God and an equality in receiving the benefits of the promise made to Abraham.  What seemed to be barriers in the past to participating in God’s blessings, being a Gentile (“Greek”), or a slave, or a woman, are now no longer barriers in Christ.  Everyone who believes in Christ has clothed him or herself with Christ.  Everything that one so clothed experiences is through the life of Jesus Christ.  When one comes before the Father in prayer, one comes with the merit and access of Christ.

But are there implications or ramifications for the way these formerly segregated and demeaned people are to be related to now that they are in the body of Christ?  Well of course they should be treated with the utmost respect, honored above ourselves, loved sincerely, accepted in the beloved and valued as unique and gifted members of this new living organism.  Does this mean that Jews should give up their cultural practices?  No, they are free to live as Jews but they are not free to make their cultural practices a law for Gentiles.  Does this mean Gentiles and slaves should be allowed to hold Christian office?  Absolutely, if they otherwise meet the qualifications!  If there were reasons to see women as meeting those qualifications, should they be restricted from holding office?

Do slaves have the right to seek their liberty?  “Yes,” Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:21, “Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.”  Paul is not advocating an uprising.  There were legal means to gain one’s freedom.  But when he appeals to Philemon to treat his slave Onesimus as a brother and even as if he were Paul himself (Philemon 16,17), could we imagine that Philemon would have retained Paul as a slave?

Does a woman cease to be a woman?  Are there no longer distinctions between the two genders?  You cannot erase the distinctions and it is not desirable to do so.  And there still must be a line of authority in the home, the husband being charged with leadership as a model of Christ and the church.  But are there ways in which the gender distinctions can be retained and still allow for more of a role for women in the leadership and instruction of the church?  That is the question and the passages of note that seem to speak to this question are 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15.

1 Timothy 2:11-15

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

This is perhaps one of the most difficult passages in all of Scripture to understand.  Paul’s remarks about the formation of Adam first and how that impacts this issue, and the remarks about the women being saved through childbearing, have spawned seemingly innumerable interpretations.  This should tell us that there is something going on in the situation of the day at Ephesus that we do not fully understand.

The traditional view of this passage is that Paul is prohibiting women for all time from teaching or having authority over men because unlike Adam, Eve, as representative of all women, was not the first one formed, and so is in a subordinate position to Adam, and she was deceived by the serpent, and so is more likely to be an unacceptable teacher.  But several other views have been offered for consideration.

When we put a passage like this (and perhaps 1 Corinthians 14) together with all the other testimony of Scripture to the powerful roles women have played and can play in ministry (think Deborah or Priscilla), this passage seems to stand in stark contrast to them and seems to put limitations on women that are hard to explain.  But if the passage demands such limitations on women, we must find the harmony in that with other passages, given a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture.

We must make several key exegetical decisions:

(1) Is Paul here addressing men and women in worship, or husbands and wives in family relationship?

– The “men and women in worship” view:

1. The call to prayer in 2:1-8 seems to suggest a context of worship, especially with the addition in verse 8 of the phrase “in every place” (NIV translates, “everywhere”).  The Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament made around 200 B.C.) used the word “place” to refer to the temple (1 Kings 8:29,30,35,42; Psalm 75:3; 131:5,7; 2 Maccabees 5:19,20; 3:2,18,38; 3:23) and “place” in John 11:48 could mean the temple, as well (though it could possibly mean “Jerusalem”).  It definitely means the temple in Matthew 24:15; Acts 6:14; 21:28.  It also came to be a designation for the synagogue.  There was the same inscription on two different synagogues according to Jewish writings that used the word “place” this way:  “May peace be in this place and in all the places of his people, Israel.”  And there was a Greek inscription from a Samaritan synagogue that read, “Blessing and peace to Israel and to this place. Amen.”  Malachi 1:11 speaks of “every place” where incense and pure sacrifice will be offered in Yahweh’s name, and this became a favorite reference in early Christian literature for the meeting of the church at the Lord’s Supper.  It may have served this function in Paul’s writings at 1 Corinthians 1:2 and 1 Thessalonians 1:8 to refer to local meeting places of the church within a given city.
2. It would seem unusual for Paul to regulate whether a wife could teach her husband (though 1 Peter 3:1 might be viewed as that very thing), but it makes a lot of sense to have some regulation in a church meeting in this regard.
3. Movement from this subject directly into the subject of chapter 3 suggests that the context is still that of the gathered church and how it is to be conducted.

– The “husbands and wives in family relationship” view:

1. 1 Peter 3 has topical and linguistic similarities to this text and it is universally agreed that it is dealing with husbands and wives, not the public worship.
2. The phrase “in every place” could have a general meaning “everywhere” rather than the meaning “in every place the church gathers” (i.e., in every house church).
3. When Paul illustrates why his view should be upheld he appeals to Adam and Eve, a husband and wife relationship.
4. Most of Paul’s references to man (Greek aner) and woman (Greek gune), when juxtaposed this way, clearly mean husband and wife, not men and women in general (see Romans 7:2,3; 1 Corinthians 7:2-4,10-14,16,27,29,33-34,39; 14:34,35 [this one has been debated]; Ephesians 5:22-25,28,31,33; Colossians 3:18,19; 1 Timothy 3:2; 5:9; Titus 1:6).

Conclusion:  The contextual evidence points toward a worship gathering of the church rather than a husband/wife relationship.  However, what applies to the church in general might also apply to husbands and wives.  Issues surrounding the nature of the false teaching Paul is referring to in this letter might have implications for decisions in this area, as well.

(2)What is the nature of the false teaching Paul is referring to in this letter?

1. In 1:3-11,18-20 Paul addresses certain false teachers and their teaching.  He specifies “false doctrines” and attention to “myths and endless genealogies” as well as mentioning the proper use of the Law and the blasphemy of Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom he has handed over to Satan.  In chapter 4 he mentions those who “forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods” as well again “godless myths and old wives’ tales”.  In chapter 6 he mentions again “false doctrines” that do not agree with the sound teaching of the Lord Jesus or with godly teaching,” an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words,” and “godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge.”  This has led many to suppose that the false teaching endangering Ephesus is a mixture of Jewish heresy and incipient Gnosticism.  This would produce an improper focus on the Law as well as a dualistic opposition between flesh and spirit, with anything physical being viewed as evil and anything spiritual being viewed as good.  Hence the prohibitions against marriage and certain foods.  Many of the dualistic philosophies of the day were known for their elaborate mythologies.  Some such form of false teaching seems to have been plaguing the church at Ephesus.
2. The question that arises is how much of a role the women in the church were playing in the furthering of the false teaching.  Some have suggested that the prohibition of marriage may have particularly felt like an empowerment for the women, though it could equally be argued that this was a way of robbing women of power.  Paul does not seem to reflect this empowerment of women idea when he speaks in chapter 5 of young widows saying they will be single but then wanting to marry.  Some have postulated that the women of the church in Ephesus were enamored by the false teachers and were thus arguing against their husbands and their male leadership in support of these teachers.  This could very well have been happening, but we cannot demonstrate this conclusively from the text of 1 Timothy.

(3) What does Paul mean when he says, “Let a woman learn in quietness and full submission” (2:11)?

1. The encouragement of women to learn was a truly Christian contribution to society that began with Jesus, as we have seen.  This undoubtedly encouraged some of the sects and cults of the day, that also were more liberal in their view of women’s roles, to jump on the Christian bandwagon and look to Christians as a platform for their heresies.  This may have been what was occurring at Ephesus and what Paul was thinking of when he wrote this command, but we cannot say for sure.  He calls for quiet and submissive learning.  The word “quietness” could refer to a peaceable demeanor or to actual silence.  If 1 Cor 14:34-35 is Paul’s and not an addition by a scribe, he could be repeating his advice here.  But the word is the same one used above in 2:2 of the way Christians in general desire to lead their lives and so should be motivated to pray for kings and those in authority to permit this.  The emphasis is not on silence, but on a peacefulness of spirit.
2. To whom is full submission to be given?  It could be to the women’s husbands, to the men of the congregation, or to the church leadership and especially Timothy as he played a temporary role there.  Because potential conflict could arise if one of the women’s husbands was a false teacher, it is probably the latter that is most in mind here.  Should a woman submit to her husband if he is teaching heresy?  May it never be!

(4) What does Paul mean when he says, “To teach I am not permitting a woman, nor to have authority over a man, but to be in quietness” (my own stilted translation of 2:12 to show the approximate structure of the Greek)?

1. The present tense is being used here in this command.  It can either describe present progressive action (as I translated it) to describe what is occurring at the time of speaking, or it can describe customary or timeless action (I do not ever permit a woman to teach).  If it is the latter, then Paul does not ever see an appropriate time for a woman to do teaching.  Would this include the prophesying of 1 Corinthians 11?  If, as I argue, the context of 1 Corinthians 11 is the public worship, how could a woman prophesying not be considered to be teaching men?  This seems to be a contradiction.  If Paul is speaking more to the present situation that needs correcting, then this dictum is intended not as a permanent prohibition but as a temporary one until the women learn true doctrine and submit to it.  There is no conflict in this case with 1 Corinthians 11, nor with Priscilla teaching Apollos, nor with Deborah leading Israel.
2. Bowman, a woman commentating on this passage, asserts that when Paul says “teach” here he uses the word that almost exclusively refers to public instruction or teaching of groups.  Saucy emphasizes that teaching in Christianity was not just to impart information but to change lives.  This suggests authority of some sort, though Saucy notes that the authority associated with teaching in the New Testament varied from the authority of Jesus as a rabbi to that of any Christian who brought a teaching to the congregation (see 1 Corinthians 14:26 and informal teaching like that in Colossians 3:16).  In the pastoral epistles, the kind of teaching most referred to is the presentation and transmission of the Christian tradition.  Saucy argues that this is the kind of teaching Paul is restricting the women from doing.  Howard argues, in addition, that this includes a prohibition on women seeking the church office of overseer, which he supposes that some women deaconesses were doing.  He derives this from the prohibition on women having authority over men.
3. There has been debate over whether the phrase “have authority over” is neutral or means more pejoratively “to domineer.”  Still others (Wilshire) reject both these meanings for the older sense of this word, “to instigate violence.”  They argue it could be used either figuratively of the harsh way the women being singled out by Paul were entering into the fray over doctrine, or it could be used literally of the actual physical violence that resulted from the heated discussions.  For them in particular, the proper response would be to learn in quietness and submission.  This would make the prohibition stated here by Paul more parallel to the one he gives the men in verse 8 (praying “without anger or disputing”).  Those who see Paul’s remarks as centered around the false doctrine and false teachers in Ephesus suppose that the women tempted to such violence could be either those seduced by the false teachers or the women who opposed them.

Perhaps the most helpful insight comes from Fee who notes that the three concerns of verse 11 (women learning, in quietness, in full submission) are answered or paralleled in verse 12 (they should not teach men, should not have authority over men, and should be silent or quiet in spirit).  This does not answer the question of whether the term for submission is neutral or pejorative, but probably makes it lean toward neutral since that more closely parallels the sense of verse 11.

(5) What does Paul mean when he says, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve.  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, when she was quite deceived, became a transgressor”?

Is this reference designed to give a theological explanation for the continual and timeless principle of subordination of women to men, or is it meant as an illustration to remind the particular women of this congregation of the trouble they can get into, or is it a polemic to counter the false views of the heretics on the roles of men and women?

The theological explanation must not be construed as teaching that women by nature are more susceptible to error or mishandling of authority.  This would contradict the testimony of Scripture and experience that men have been by far the greater proponents of falsehood and abusers of authority.  Bowman’s explanation of this view is the most acceptable.  She argues that Paul cites two references from Genesis 2 and 3 to bring to mind the entire passage, suggesting first that Adam’s priority in creation implies some degree of authority (not superiority), and second, that Eve’s offer to Adam to eat the fruit and Adam’s acceptance was a reversal of roles that had devastating results.  The implication as she sees it is that the creation order should be followed, not that women are more susceptible to error or abuse of power.

Hugenberger follows the theological explanation but sees it as limited in application to husbands and wives.  For him this seemingly leaves open the question about whether women can teach men in the congregation.  But if a husband should not be taught by his wife in the home, why would he be any more willing to be taught by her in public?  It might be responded that in the public setting he is not being singled out and there is accountability from the rest of the congregation.  In 1 Peter 3:1-6  Peter may be suggesting limitations on women teaching men when he encourages the women to witness to their husbands without words, but rather with their behavior.  This suggests that men might generally be resistant to their wives preaching to them and might be resistant to any woman preaching to them, even in the congregational setting.  This, however, is not a universal truth or experience.  Many men have no problem with being instructed by women.

The church should not bow to prejudice, but Paul does seem to teach in Titus 2:5 that the way women subject themselves to their husbands could prevent the Word of God from being maligned, at least in the time Paul was writing.  This raises the issue of just how much the church held back on allowing women roles normally allowed only to men simply because it would not have been culturally acceptable and would have made it difficult for people to focus on the gospel when such a culturally dissonant note was being sounded in the area of male/female relationships.  The same kind of issue could be what prompted church leaders to urge slaves to submit to their masters rather than instructing Christian masters to work toward releasing their slaves.  It is implied that the principles of Christianity would have slowly changed cultural expectations in these areas so that one day slavery could be abolished and women given equal status in leadership.  It is interesting that slavery has been abolished, mostly because of Christians who have worked to accomplish that.  It is intriguing that the culture around us basically accepts that women can fill any role a man can, so that failure to do so in the church actually is now what the world finds offensive.

The illustration view has a couple of variations.  Padgett believes Paul is using Adam and Eve typologically in a cautionary way to warn the Ephesians against impropriety.  Eve is a type of those women at Ephesus who have been deceived by the serpent, i.e., the false teachers who are the mouthpieces of Satan.  Adam is a type of the men of the congregation, especially the male leaders and teachers, who were, figuratively, formed first, being older in the faith and having sound understanding (as did Adam).  Timothy supremely represents Adam as the one who is not deceived and to whose teaching the women should submit.

Pierce expresses it somewhat differently.  Seeing Adam and Eve applied with “practical logic” to the Ephesian situation, he feels Paul was reminding the women at Ephesus of Eve’s secondary place in creation and of her deception by the serpent “to evoke a response of humility,” especially as they were moving with increased freedom in Christ to more equality of roles, and to urge them to patience in waiting for full equality of function in the body.  He would take the present tense of verse 12 as progressive, not normative, meaning Paul is not now permitting a woman to teach or have authority over a man but to be in submission until the way is more clear for her equality to become expressed.

The polemic view is easily the most speculative, since any attempts to reconstruct the specifics of the Ephesian heresy with regard to womanhood suffer from a lack of confirmation by the text itself.  Of course, those who see a second century setting for this letter posit a much more developed Gnosticism than we believe was actually being experienced in Paul’s day.  Attempts have also been made to establish the influence of eastern style religions in the first century, but so far it is inconclusive that this is what Paul was responding to.

Hugenberger cites Kroeger and Kroeger as seeing Paul’s allusion as a refutation of protognostic glorifications of Eve as a celestial power.  Thus by noting that Adam was formed first and Eve was deceived Paul contradicts her prominence.  He cites Payne, however, as seeing Paul’s polemic as being against the Judaizers at Ephesus, much more familiar opponents of Paul’s teaching, who argued that Adam was superior because Eve was nowhere said to be formed and because Adam was not deceived.  Paul’s statements would then be a contradiction of theirs by emphasizing that Adam was formed first, but “then Eve,” and despite her being deceived she was made bearer of the child, Christ, who brings salvation.

Barron sees a gnostic influence with the false teachers and posits that they had an elevated view of women that specifically made Eve the heroine of Genesis 3, who enlightened her husband by giving him the fruit and showed herself chronologically and intellectually superior to him.  Paul then is seen as affirming Adam’s priority and lack of need for her enlightenment, especially since her intellect was deceived.  He views this as an expansion of the Kroegers’ view.

The polemic view may indeed be the correct view, but we cannot validate that without more historical background on the particular cult Paul was facing in Ephesus.  It is hard to imagine Judaizers as the culprits unless their thinking has been radically affected by the eastern dualism so prominent in the Hellenistic culture of the day.  Even if one accepts the “theological” view of Bowman or the “illustration” view of Pierce (his seems most feasible), it is most likely that Paul is enacting temporary restrictions on the Ephesians since Paul’s teaching and example elsewhere seem to confirm the functional equality of men and women, if not the office-holding equality.

But that of course is the big question.  Did Jesus and the church only give males leadership authority because the culture would have rejected Christianity out of hand?  Padgett argues forcibly that Paul’s stated reason for upholding female submission, in a passage like Titus 2:5, is out of “apologetic concern for the impression of pagans,” not “a compromise with the world,” nor to suppress “an infantile liberation movement,” or even to work out a “creation order.”  In Titus 2:5 Paul specifically says the older women are to teach the younger “to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.”

Padgett further argues that the “church codes” of the pastorals uphold a Greek and Roman ideal in form and content because movements like Christianity were subject to the criticism that they “produced immorality and sedition, especially among women” that could lead to strong persecution, especially as wives, slaves and children who were converted would refuse to worship the household gods.  The “church codes” in 1 Timothy 2 and Titus 2:1-5 focus on “being serious and self-controlled” because “the gospel of Jesus Christ is at stake” and Paul’s “missionary concern” moves him to subordinate his egalitarian view of men and women, slaves and masters, to the need for the church and its witness to survive.

Paul was willing to submit his own freedom for the sake of the gospel and, it might be argued, so should women and slaves.  In some sense equality was less essential than the “health and safety of his churches.”  “Individual women had to suffer, so that Christians could be safe, and non-Christians could be saved.”  As Padgett also argues, however, this principle applied in our culture would lead to “quite the reverse of Paul’s day.”  The church today “is slandered because it continues to insist on the submission of women” and “any attempt to work out our salvation today must,” she believes, “include the equality of men and women in home and church.”

Though I do believe that the husband has been given the authority in the home to provide loving leadership, I do not believe that this leads inevitably to men being the only leaders in the church.  Certainly there is room, as in the home there is room, for women to make their voices heard and to be viewed as leaders under the leadership of their authorities.  I have not seen any slander come our way because we have allowed women to take leadership roles in our church.  Quite the opposite!  It has been accepted and not maligned by the culture.  Our culture is indeed primed for a full expression of the teaching of the New Testament that women are fully accepted as leaders with gifting equal to men and with education equal to men.

It seems to me that the theological view stated above by Bowman is also the best explanation of Paul’s allusion to Adam and Eve.  But it is provisional in its application to the cultural development of greater freedom and respect for the equality of women, something the church has played a huge role in producing.  In the home there is still an authority structure with the husband as head.  This does not, of course, reduce the woman’s equality with her husband.  In the church, however, there is a need for greater recognition of women’s leadership and teaching abilities.  I believe God is calling us to apply His desire for the equality of men and women to be played out in greater ways.  It is time to let our Deborah’s and Priscilla’s use their gifts to the fullest without discrimination because of their gender.

(6) What does Paul mean when he says, “But she will be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety,” (2:15)?

1. The view that women will be physically rescued from death during childbirth if they are godly – Not only does experience contradict this, but the word sozo (save) with the preposition dia (through) always means “saved through the efficient cause of” not saved in the experience of.
2. The view that women will be saved eternally through The Childbearing (i.e., the birth of Christ) – Teknogonia (childbearing) does have the definite article (“the” childbearing) in Paul’s text, which could make it a definite or specific childbearing act. In this case we would have to assume that Paul understood the seed of the woman of Genesis 3:15 to be referring to Christ, which I believe it does, and that in this passage “the childbearing” is a metonymy of cause for effect (Christ’s birth does not save us, but brings about the eventual substitutionary death of Christ, which does save us). Of course, not just Woman (note the singular “she”) will be saved this way, but men as well, and only individual women who continue in “faith, love and holiness” will actually be saved (a nod to the biblical view that true believers always give evidence of salvation).  Paul may be countering the false teachers forbidding of marriage at its root and arguing that rather than it being a curse to bear children and bring more imprisoned spirits into this world, childbearing brought about salvation.  But why would Paul use such a vague way of saying this?
3. The view that women will be eternally saved by fulfilling the childbearing role – Some see this as a call to women to be obedient to God by fulfilling the role He gave them as an evidence of their genuine saving faith, which would thus lead to eternal salvation. Fee sees this as a word of encouragement after Paul has referred to Eve’s being deceived and becoming a transgressor. Padgett contends that Paul is continuing his typological interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3 by describing Eve’s salvation from the serpent, and thus eternal salvation, coming from bearing the seed that God said would crush the head of the serpent.  Likewise, the Ephesian women can be saved from the serpent-like false teachers by returning to their God-given role as child bearers rather that by viewing it as tainted.  “To effect salvation, woman has to bear the seed.  To be saved these women should also bear children, which means they must forsake the snake-like false teachers.”  Of course, eternal salvation includes salvation from sin as well, which comes only by faith, as Paul mentions.  “Thus salvation as a product (i.e., end-time salvation) is only through faith; yet salvation as a process (i.e., salvation history) is accomplished in part by childbearing.”  There would be “an oblique reference” in Paul’s words to Mary, Jesus’ mother, as well.  Kimberly adds that the false teachers may, again, have left the women feeling condemned if they bore children, whereas Paul says they’ll be saved if they continue in faith, love and holiness, because childbearing is a valid vocation for women.
4. The view that women will be saved from the restriction from teaching, due to man’s creation preeminence over her, by bearing children and gaining a natural preeminence over men – The gist of this argument is that if man is given authority because of his priority in creation and because he is the source of Eve, by childbirth God has given women the place of being man’s source. Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 11:11,12 that this makes men and women mutually dependent on each other, equal without blurring male/female distinctiveness.  In this view it does erase the authority difference.  Further, because childbearing results in bruising the serpent’s head, the women avenge themselves of the serpent’s deception (corporately they do this to Satan, on an individual basis they do it to the false teachers who are forbidding marriage).  But the right to teach is nevertheless dependent on each woman continuing in faith, love and holiness with propriety.  No individual woman needs to bear children in order to teach.  That right is hers by virtue of being a woman.  But she must meet the qualifications of being a teacher.  Paul’s restriction in verse 12 is temporary until the women of the Ephesian congregation demonstrate maturity of faith.
5. The view that women will be saved from usurping the male role by bearing children – By focusing on their God-given role they will not fall into the trap of being drawn into a male role, i.e., teaching. This view, like the one before it, takes sozo to be other than spiritual salvation, which is possible but less likely in this context (see Paul’s usage throughout the letter at 2:4; 4:16 and also 1:1; 2:3; 4:10 using the word “savior” and 4:8; 6:12,19 using “eternal life”).

Again, the correct view is hard to determine given our lack of specific knowledge about the heretical faction or factions at Ephesus.  Most likely, views b, c or d are within the bounds of valid interpretations.  Neither of these contradicts the ordination of women to ministry and one or more could encourage it.  Though there is a valid place for male authority in the home, as there is a need for decision-making authority in any organization, this does not transfer in the same way to the church role for women.  Christ is our head there and whomever He calls to leadership under Him is His choice.  Men and women are certainly different in terms of personality characteristics, but those very differences are what make the contributions of each, even in the realm of teaching, so valuable.  Several of the commentators referred to above are women who demonstrate excellent scholarship.  There is nothing less valuable or inherently more dangerous in what these women wrote than the men.  In fact, Ms. Bowman supports the more traditional view that excludes women from leadership and teaching over men (is her commentary a contradiction of her own view?).

I view 1 Timothy 2:11-15 as speaking to a local situation that needed correction and not as a universal dictum against women teaching men or having authority over them in a congregational setting.  Because of cultural norms and the danger of the gospel being rejected simply because there was a strong resentment against women in authority, the church could not fully implement the female equality inherently contained within God’s prescriptions for women and men without fomenting rebellion.  But in our present culture it would make complete sense to uphold female equality without blurring male/female gender differences, and allow women to teach and have authority if they qualify for such places of service.  If the passage in Timothy is taken as a universal dictum it seems to sit in contradiction of other Scriptures that allow women to teach in the congregational setting (1 Corinthians 11 for example).

As to whether the passage distinguishes the body gathered for worship or small group gatherings, the very question is culturally conditioned.  Romans 16 and other passages suggest that the church in one city was made up of multiple “congregations” of house churches.  Depending on the size of the domicile, a house church might have been no larger than some of our small groups.  But even if the passage only spoke to “large” gatherings of the body, why would it be okay for a woman to teach in a small group but not a large group?  If it is because that would be more culturally acceptable in those days, we might argue that it would be more culturally acceptable to allow women to lead and teach in large groups today.  Either the passage prohibits women universally from any teaching of, or authority over, men in any given situation, or it doesn’t.

 

The only two passages that would seem to prohibit women from teaching and having authority along with men are passages that admit of great difficulty of interpretation and seem to contradict a body of other passages.  Even before I came to this view personally, I had faced, while teaching at a local Christian college, a large number of women who were there for training as pastors.  Most of them were African-Americans.  It became apparent to me that many African-American churches did not have the same restrictions on women in ministry that we do.

I was surprised, too, that a man of such evangelical eminence as John R. W. Stott also supported this view.  When I was asked to teach the pastoral epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus) and had to wrestle with the exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:11-15, I realized that solidly evangelical interpreters were capable of holding quite divergent views.  I realized that one’s view on this subject should not be a determiner of one’s orthodoxy.  It was not until I read William Webb’s brilliant Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis that I saw a clear path to my present viewpoint.  This is ultimately a hermeneutical issue, not an issue of one’s commitment to Scriptural authority or inerrancy.  [As a side note, Webb notes that the trajectory of the Bible in dealing with homosexuality is completely opposite to that of slaves and women, only strengthening the prohibition of homosexuality.]