Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

May women teach in the church?

6 views

Skip to first unread message

Dale & Yvonne Ogilvie

unread,

Feb 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/6/98

Hello all, I wrote this for my pastor and thought I might get some help
from you all. Any constructive thoughts for me?

- Dale Ogilvie (yvo...@clear.net.nz)

I am writing this in a spirit, I hope, of finding the truth of God in
what I realise is a rather difficult area. I hope the reader will bear
with me as I write.

Biblical truth is extremely important to me, and the foundation of
Christian life. It is the belt put on first of all in the armour of God.
My concern is to see God’s truth taught and followed, and most
importantly in the pulpit of the Church of God. One area of our own
church’s practice has bothered me for some time, but I have been content
to follow leadership because I myself could not dedicate time to examine
the subject for myself. Lately however, this disturbance in my spirit
has been enough of a concern to awaken a more Berean attitude. It would
have been harmful to my Christian walk to harbour niggling doubts which
must effect my practice of Christian living.

The Scripture which I find hard to reconcile with current church
practice is (1 Tim 2:11-14):

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.

Now, I am fully aware that one can’t just take a couple of lines of text
from the Bible and blindly follow the letter. I have endeavoured to
search the Scripture for corroboration of this text, or for other
Scripture which might soften the implications of the bold text.

Firstly the text itself. These words are written by Paul, apostle to the
Gentiles, human author of a great part of the New Testament teachings.
The passage is not written by an obscure old testament minor prophet and
the language is not figurative.

The main oddity with the Greek used is the word authenteo translated
‘have authority’ in the NIV, which does not occur anywhere else in the
New Testament. Various other bible translations render this word: usurp
authority (KJV), exercise authority (NASB), tell men what to do (CEV).
But otherwise, translator’s largely agree on the English rendering, even
if interpretations of the translation vary widely. All translations are
both unanimous and unambiguous on one point, that Paul says: ‘I do not
permit women to teach men’.

Secondly context. The text occurs in a letter to Timothy, bishop of the
church at Ephesus. Paul says (1 Tim 1:18-19):

18Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the
prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight
the good fight, 19 holding on to faith and a good conscience.

Paul then goes on to list a number of instructions for ordering the
Church, in chapters 2 and 3 specifically. Our text in question is
roughly in the middle of these instructions. I am not aware of any other
passage in the unity of chapters 2 and 3 which would be set aside as
unworthy of strict obedience. Indeed as a deacon I consider the latter
verses of chapter 3 as critical to my ministry. Later, Paul says in
reference to these instructions: ( 1 Tim 3:14-15)

14 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these
instructions so that, 15 if I am delayed, you will know how people
ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of
the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Here, I must pause to clearly portray the meaning that I receive from
the text. Women should not participate in a church ministry whose aim is
to teach or lead men. Does the reader get a different meaning, from this
text alone? This is a hard teaching, which goes against the direction of
our culture and indeed of current church practice. We are fortunate that
Paul gave us two reasons for this unappealing ban (1 Tim 2:13-14):

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.

Paul for his explanation goes back to the book of Genesis, the very root
and foundation of Scripture. The first reason is based on the order of
creation instituted by God. The second reason, also from Genesis, is
that it was the woman who was deceived. This is not to suggest that Adam
did not sin, he most certainly did, but it must be stressed that he
followed the lead of Eve. Paul’s latter reason is most worrying for me
in the context of a teaching ministry. The implication for me is that
women are more apt to be led by a strange spirit, not of God.

Teaching is clarified when it is repeated. Is this ban found elsewhere
in Scripture? Paul speaks once again in the context of the order of
church practice (1 Cor 14:33-34):

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.

On the face of it this is a much broader ban than our main text, but the
sense is very similar and the reasoning ‘as the Law says’ is also
broader but inclusive of the more specific reasoning from Genesis of 1
Tim 2:13-14. Some argue that the Old Testament does not contain a
command for women to be in submission, and that the ‘Law’ therefore
represents Rabbinical law. I submit that Paul would scarcely use
elements of Rabbinical law for his reasoning. Firstly, he was writing to
a gentile church who would hardly be impressed. Secondly, would the
author of Galatians appeal to the Rabbis? I suggest Paul is referring to
Scripture which enjoins submission in wives:(Genesis 3:16b)
16b Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

I read 1 Timothy 2:11-14 as a clarification of this passage, and would
not deny women the right of prophecy upheld elsewhere in Scripture. Note
that the prophet is a different role to that of the teacher or pastor.
Also women are actively encouraged by Paul to teach other younger women
(Titus 2:3-5) and children.

Matthew Henry in his commentary on first Timothy takes nothing other
than the plain meaning from our text. Further, he has this to say in
treating with first Corinthians chapter 11:

It is indeed an apostolical canon, that the women should keep silence in
the churches (ch. 14:34; 1 Tim. 2:12), which some understand without
limitation, as if a woman under inspiration also must keep silence,
which seems very well to agree with the connection of the apostle’s
discourse, ch. 14. Others with a limitation: though a woman might not
from her own abilities pretend to teach, or so much as question and
debate any thing in the church yet when under inspiration the case was
altered, she had liberty to speak. Or, though she might not preach even
by inspiration (because teaching is the business of a superior) yet she
might pray or utter hymns by inspiration, even in the public assembly.

Commentary which takes other than the plain meaning from our text uses
two general approaches. The first approach involves the setting aside of
the 1 Timothy 2:11-14 as a cultural artifact inapplicable to the modern
church. This approach cannot be used in my opinion, as it relegates
Biblical authority beneath our understanding of life in bible times,
which I would suggest is inconsistent with a view of the Bible as the
eternal revelation of God’s will for man.

For example, some commentators suggest that Paul’s ban should be
understood to refer to the particular women of the Timothy’s Ephesian
church. However, Paul does not introduce the ban ‘because your women are
currently teaching heresy’, rather his reasons are rooted in the
unchangeable word of God. There are no grounds to believe that Paul is
referring to a particular heretical teaching here. If Paul had heretical
teaching by women in mind when he wrote this ban, it would have been
foolish to ban all women for the error of a few. If this was the case,
why did he not simply name the error? This would have allowed Timothy to
condemn it in all teachers, male or female.

The Bible Background Commentary has this to say on 1 Tim 2-11-14:

Many try to avoid the implications of these difficult verses by
suggesting that Paul writes out of sensitivity to the then existing role
of women, and that this passage therefore does not really speak to the
modern church. However the next verses make it abundantly clear that
Paul cites a theological base for his judgment. It seems most likely
that Paul does here restrict women, not from participation in church
meetings, or even from prophesying ( 1 Cor 11:5) but from a role that
involves authoritative teaching in the church.

Others take the words ‘I do not permit’ and suggest that because this is
Paul’s view, it is not the Lord’s view. Remember, the author of all
Scripture is the Spirit of God (2 Tim 3:16-17):

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may
be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Also it cannot be said that Paul’s ban should be limited to the time of
writing. Surely a statement remains true as long as it’s foundational
logic remains true. Paul’s references to the order and history of
creation are immutable.

The other method used to set aside 1 Tim 2:11-14 is the identification
of other Scripture which suggests the plain meaning to be incorrect.
This second approach is valid, and a true Berean approach to
interpretation. Only Scripture may interpret Scripture and Scripture is
a unity which contains no real contradictions. I emphasise real here
because Scripture does contain apparent contradictions, for which we
must search for a resolution. As Scripture says (Proverbs 25:2):

2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter;
to search out a matter is the glory of kings.

One Scripture I have heard used as a justification for setting aside our
text is Galatians 3:26-28:

26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of
you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for
you are all one in Christ Jesus.

We cannot take a blanket scripture such as this and simply ignore other
scripture which restricts it’s meaning. One cannot affirm the first
blanket command and set aside the second restrictive: (Genesis 2:16-17)

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any
tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Galations 3:28 is not, I believe, a removal of all natural distinctions
elsewhere set forth in Scripture. Instead, it is a restatement of the
truth spelt out below (1 Cor 12:12-13):

12 The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though
all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. 13
For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or
Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Indeed, Paul instructs Christians to maintain these very distinctions (1
Cor 7:17-21):

17 Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord
assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay
down in all the churches. 18 Was a man already circumcised when he was
called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when
he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing
and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.
20 Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God
called him. 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 continues to affirm the distinction of differing roles for
differing parts of the body of Christ. (1 Cor 12:17-20):

17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be?
If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18
But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them,
just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would
the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

I would suggest that male is to female as the eye to the ear, (or the
ear to the eye if you prefer). Essential parts of the whole with equal
duty to the head, but with different roles and strengths due to nature
ordered by God. The distinction between man and women is an important
one, as is evidenced in the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality.

Another argument against the plain understanding of our text is taken
from Scriptures which are said to imply a woman in a role of teaching or
authority over men. One example of this is the case of Priscilla and
Aquila, where Priscilla being named first, together with the fact that a
church met in their house (Romans 16:5) is recognised as being
suggestive of her authority. Elsewhere, Priscilla and Aquila are noted
as teaching Apollos in the way of Christ (Acts 18:26). To this I would
say that a man and wife teaching a fellow Christian in private hardly
violates a ban on a woman teaching in church.

Phoebe is described as a deacon (Romans 16:1). To this I would answer
that the role of the deacon as instituted in the early church (Acts 6)
is scarcely consistent with a teaching role. The role of deacon does not
automatically qualify one for teaching ministry.

In Romans 16:7 Paul says

7 Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison
with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in
Christ before I was.

Some, and we may include early Church fathers and such worthies as
Luther and Calvin here, see Junias as a woman (Junia). In fact the Greek
name Iounias is ambiguous and although the feminine is the preferred
translation, the name could be either a female or male name. Also, some
read ‘outstanding among the apostles’ to say that both Andronicus and
Junias were outstanding apostles, which would then give us Junia, a
female apostle. Others take the Greek to mean these were thought of as
outstanding by the apostles. Now this, in my opinion, is a debatable
passage.

Another Scripture held up as an example of a woman in a leadership role
is Judges 4. In this chapter we hear of Deborah, a prophetess who "was
leading Israel at that time" (Judges 4:4). While the historical fact of
Deborah’s office as judge is unchallengeable, an unqualified history is
dangerous ground on which to build doctrine. A few interesting points to
note, none of which make a cast iron argument. Firstly, other male
judges (for example Othniel, Ehud, and Gideon) are specifically noted as
being sent by the Lord to save Israel. Secondly, Barak specifically asks
Deborah to join him in the fight with Midian (Judges 4:8) ,which
suggests she was not leading Israel’s men, and he is actually punished
for this (Judges 4:9). Thirdly, Deborah is not mentioned again outside
of the history of Judges 4, whereas Barak is noted as sent by the Lord
in 1 Samuel 12:11, and in the roll of the faithful in Hebrews 11 (verse
32).

The implications, and these are far from certain, of these Scriptures
might well be suggestive, but they do not weigh heavily for me against a
passage found in an instruction on the ordering of the Church sent by an
apostle to a bishop! To counterbalance these Scriptures I can suggest
two facts of Scripture. Firstly, Jesus called twelve disciples, all
male. Secondly, the canon of New Testament Scripture is written, in its
entirety, by male authors.
To sum up, I find it very difficult to modify the plain meaning of our
text using the one tool sufficient for the task, Scripture itself.
Limiting the Scripture by appealing to a cultural situation unspecified
by Scripture is a very weak argument. No clear Scripture is available
contradicting 1 Timothy 2:11-14, and the contrary opinion can only be
reinforced by the implications of Scripture directed to other purposes.
Even if the commentator can locate Scripture which seems to support
women in either a teaching or authority role over men in the church,
only half the task is complete. If one believes that Scripture cannot be
broken, one must discover another meaning in 1 Timothy 2:11-14. I
believe the Lord has given us clear instruction which limits the role of
Christian women in but one aspect, in teaching and authority in the
Church. Of course I would greatly appreciate correction if my belief is
contrary to God’s truth. One last word from Scripture (Genesis 3:2-6):

2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the
garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that
is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will
die.’"
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God
knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be
like God, knowing good and evil."
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and
pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took
some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her,
and he ate it.

J Holland

unread,

Feb 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/9/98

Dale & Yvonne Ogilvie <yvo...@clear.net.nz> wrote:

>One Scripture I have heard used as a justification for setting aside our
>text is Galatians 3:26-28:
>
>26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of
>you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
>28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for
>you are all one in Christ Jesus.
>
>We cannot take a blanket scripture such as this and simply ignore other
>scripture which restricts it’s meaning. One cannot affirm the first
>blanket command and set aside the second restrictive: (Genesis 2:16-17)
>
>16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any
>tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the
>knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
>
>Galations 3:28 is not, I believe, a removal of all natural distinctions
>elsewhere set forth in Scripture. Instead, it is a restatement of the
>truth spelt out below (1 Cor 12:12-13):
>

Gal 3:26-28 shows me that all believers are of equal standing before
God. I do not read it as referring to practice. As such I don't see
any particular connection with the body (where there are differences
between the members - some are more comely than others &c.). The body
shows me practice.

Timothy and Corinthians show me practice when gathered in assembly -
how to conduct oneself/the company generally in a formal meeting.
Outside these formal meetings, there are differences. Philip's
daughters prophesied &c.

The rest of your remarks I quite agree with.

John Holland.

Clayton Austin