WOMEN LEADERSHIP IN THE CHURCH
by Ralph Johnson
1Tim 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not
a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13
For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the
woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be
saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with
sobriety.
11 Let the woman learn in
silence with all subjection.
“Silence” is a translation
of the Greek word, hesuchia (Strong’s #2271) found four times in the New Testament, in the King
James Translation is the three other times rendered “quietness.”
Thayer’s Lexicon defines it
as,
1)quietness
1a) description of the life of one who
stays at home doing his own work, and does not officiously meddle with the affairs of others
2)
silence.
Here
it is placed in contrast to being a teacher over men. It does not necessarily mean she must be totally mute. Some versons translate it, “in quietness.”
…12 But I suffer not a woman
to teach…the man…
Paul’s
statement “I permit not...” suggests
this is in the church over which he would exercise such control.
1Tim 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God,
which is the church of the living
God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Again,
regulation of adornment (1Tim 2:9) indicates a public situation. Similarities
between this and 1Cor 14:34-35, which specifies “in the church,” would further confirm the same.
The
church situation may also be indicated by “teach”
(Greek: “laleo”) which is in the
present infinitive, indicating a speaker.
Dana and Mantey Grammar (p. 199) says “the
present infinitive indicates a condition or process, while the aorist
infinitive indicates that which is eventual or particular.” It gives the example that in the aorist, the
word pisteusai is to exercise faith
on a given occasion, while in the present, pisteuein
is a believer. However, he concludes “These distinctions are typical and basal,
though plastic in actual usage.”
The
fact that in Acts 18:26, Priscilla, along with her husband, Aquila, taught
Apollos, may further indicate that outside the assembly it was not improper for
women to participate in teaching men.
… nor to usurp authority over
the man, but to be in silence.
“Usurp authority” is the King James
Translation’s rendering of the Greek word, “authenteo”
which is used only once in the N.T.. Thayer’s Lexicon says it means:
1) one who with his own hands
kills another or himself
2) one who acts on his own
authority, autocratic
3) an absolute master
4) to govern, exercise
dominion over one
Various translations of the word are:
“Usurp authority over” (KJV,
WEB, RWB)
“Dictate” (REV, Moffatt)
“Domineer” (Goodspeed)
“Tell men what to do” (CEV)
“Have dominion over” (ASV)
“Have authority over” (NIV,
NIB, RSV, NRS, NKJ, NAB, NLT, NJB)
“Exercise authority over”
(NAS, NAU, DBY)
“Use authority over” (DRA)
“Have rule over” (BBE, YLT)
Because
this word may be used in a dictatorial sense it has been argued that if they
are not being dictatorial, women may have authority over men. However, in view of the associated
statements, it is clear that this is excluding women from any authority over
men in the church. They are “not to teach..” but to “learn in quietness with all subjection.”
This is further reinforced by the explanation in verses 13-15.
1Cor 14:13 For Adam was first
formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived
was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in
childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
This removes the issue from
the realm of contemporary cultural considerations, which is commonly claimed to
limit it only to the attitudes of the day.
Paul bases his position on the order and purpose of woman’s creation,
and woman’s role in the fall at the beginning.
The consequence of her offense was declared by God:
Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply
thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and
thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he
shall rule over thee.
The real issue being bucked
against by those who deny these passages restrict women from leadership in the
church is whether women should be in subjection to men.
To challenge this it is
common to attempt to make the passage seem absurd by portraying it to mean that
women must have children in order to be saved.
Actually, it intended to reassure
women that they did not need to become teachers to please God. They will be saved in their roles as wives
and mothers, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. Salvation was not dependent upon having children. Paul even commends remaining unmarried (1Cor
7:8, 34-35).
The woman’s role is in
teaching younger women (Tit 2:4) and ruling, over their households (1Tim 5:14).
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted
unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith
the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at
home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 36 What? came the
word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37 If any man think himself
to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write
unto you are the commandments of the
Lord. 38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
“What saith the Scriptures?” It does not seem possible in human language
to be more explicit. As Barnes says, “No rule in the New Testament is more
positive than this; and however plausible may be the reasons which may be urged
for disregarding it, and for suffering women to take part in conducting public
worship, yet the authority of the apostle Paul is positive, and his meaning
cannot be mistaken.” (Barnes Notes on 1Cor 14:34).
Let us begin by considering
the setting. The problem in chapters
12-14 was that some in the Corinthian church were disputing about spiritual
gifts, putting the emphasis on tongues as being greatest (much like we see in
Charismatic churches today). In chapter
12, Paul points out that all of the gifts came from the same Spirit and all
were important to the Body. In 13 he
shows that Love is the greatest gift and will supercede the miraculous
gifts. In 14 he shows that because
tongues without interpretation cannot edify, prophecy is greater in the
church. Then he lays down some rules to
ensure that the church will be edified, which included restricting women from
speaking.
Some of the women were using
tongues and prophecy as an excuse to disregard their God-ordained role of
submission (as we also see today in Charismatic churches). The solution given was, “be silent.” The excuse that they needed to speak to “learn” was answered by, “let
them ask their husbands at home.”
“Women,” translated from
the Greek word, gunaikees (Strong’s
#1135) which Thayer’s Lexicon defines as, “A woman of any age whether a virgin,
or married or a widow.”
“Your” (humoon 5216) is of doubtful origin but
would not be restricted to wives. “Your women” could just as well refer to
all women of the church. If married women are expected keep silent, unmarried
women would surely also be restricted.
“Churches” (ekkleesia 1577). Has reference to any
group “called out” (cf. “assembly”
Ac. 19:39, 41), but here refers to the body of Christians (1Cor 12:12-14). The plural has reference to the individual
gatherings, or congregations. This
should not be confused with private discussions such as Priscilla and Aquila
teaching Apollos (Acts 18:24-26).
“Silent” (sigao 4601). This word is used nine times in the New Testament. (Luke 9:30; 20:26; Acts 12:17; 15:12-13;
Rom. 16:25; 1Cor. 14:28, 30, 34) and is the strongest Greek word for
silence. The present imperative
connected with “in the churches”
indicates that in that place or situation, they were to keep silent. The same word is used in verse 28 of those
speaking in tongues to be silent in the absence of an interpreter, and in verse
30 concerning prophets when another is speaking. Here it restricts women from speaking “in the church.”
OBJECTION: Silence of
tongues does not require total silence with regard to other things, therefore
the command for women to be silent so far as asking questions does not require
them to be silent from speaking to the church.
ANSWER:
First, the admonition against asking questions
(14:35) is not the primary point. The primary
point is in 1Corinthians 14:34, let the women keep silence in the churches:
for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as
also saith the law.
Secondly, 1Tim 2:11-12, also
speaking of behavior in the church, firmly closes any imagined loophole by its
statement that women are not to teach men.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor
to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
“Speak” (laleo 2980). As we have noted above, Dana and Mantey Grammar (p.199)
says, “the present infinitive indicates a condition or process, while the
aorist infinitive indicates that which is eventual or particular.” It gives the example that in the aorist, the
word pisteusai is to exercise faith
on a given occasion, while in the present, pisteuein
is a believer. Thus, women are certainly excluded from being speakers in
church.
Because Paul was speaking of
a continuing situation rather than a one-time incident, the present infinitive
was the natural choice, even if it covered total silence. This applied to the
women as a group and was to be observed “in
all the churches.”
However, Dana and Mantey
conclude: “These distinctions are typical
and basal, though plastic in actual usage.”
This may indicate the exclusion of women may be extended to all public
statements.
Winer’s Greek Grammar says, “Hence in parallel passages we sometimes find the infinitive aorist and
infinitive present employed in the same
relation; ...It appears, on the
whole, that where the infinitive present and the infinitive aorist may be used indiscriminately, the latter is the
more common...” (6th Ed. p.
333*?).
“Obedience” (hupotasso 5293). This is formed of two words which together
mean, “under authority” and carries the idea of keeping themselves in a state
of submission.
Rather than mere cultural
factors “the Law” (writings of Moses)
is cited for authority (see Gen. 3:16.
cf. 1Tim. 2:11-14). “Silence” is identified as equivalent to
“submission,” while “speaking,” in
this circumstance, is regarded as lack of submission.
Some say that the
restriction only had reference to speaking in tongues and prophesying. However, “learn” clearly
goes beyond that. This anticipates
attempts to circumvent the admonition by claiming that they needed to speak to
get their questions answered.
The primary problem was (and
is) women’s lack of submission to men.
So, various schemes have been contrived to circumvent the meaning. One way is to speculate special modifying
circumstances. Thus, some hypothesize
that this was said because the women sat on one side of the isle and the men on
the other and women were hollering questions across to their husbands.
Such claims seem contrived
to evade the obvious intent of the passage. One can only wonder why it would be
any more proper for husbands to create disorder by shouting across to their
wives!
One problem with such claims
is that the previous verse (34) does not make any reference to questions as the
focus of concern.
1Cor 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for
it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under
obedience, as also saith the law.
The reason given for her
silence is that it would violate her proper role of subjection.
Secondly, verse 35 begins
with, “and if they will learn
anything…” “And” indicates an additional or supplementary consideration. The additional focus is on the question of
how women could “learn” anything if
they are not permitted to speak.
Nothing is said about women
publicly questioning their husbands.
The picture is their raising questions in the congregation. If it was o.k. for women to publicly teach
it seems strange that distinction was not more clearly made. As it is stated, the ordinary reader
throughout the centuries has been left with the impression that women are not
to speak publicly.
Another attempt to discredit
the injunction is to imagine that Paul is only prohibiting ignorant questions.
Is an ignorant question by a man any more or less acceptable than by a
woman? Who shall say that it is
speaking of foolish questions since Paul did not? He simply specified that this
applied if a woman desired to “learn anything.”
A third attempt is by an
appeal to the Greek word, “eperontatosan”
(3 person, plural, present, imperative, active of operontao), translated “ask.”
It is argued that the prefix, “ep”
intensifies the word, “erotao” and
therefore means to question or interrogate intensively, “grill,” or be
argumentative.
While eperatao can mean to “grill” it is not at all confined to intensive
or repeated questioning (Mark 7:17; 8:5, 23, 27; 9:11; 10:17).
The intensification of the
word is from the very mild word, erotao
which means to make an entreaty, being 35 times translated with some form of
“beseech,” “prayed,” or “desired.” in the A.V.. The intensification in eperotao
moves it from a simple request to a direct question. Much like our word, “ask” it may be used either as a request for
knowledge or as a demand for an answer.
However, it is a fact that in actual usage the two words have
overlapping areas (cf. Matt. 16:13 “erotao”
with Mark 8:27, “eperotao,” Matt.
21:24 & Luke. 20:3 with Mark 11:29; Luke 9:45 with Mark 9:32).
The extent of intensity must
be determined by the context. It seems
unlikely that this would be telling the women to DEMAND answers of their
husbands at home. It was just as wrong
for a man as a woman to get quarrelsome at church, and it would be just as
improper at home.
Notice that following his
response to the question of how she could “learn
anything,” he returns to the reason for her to ask her husband at home --”for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.” He
does not say, “for it is shameful to demand answers in church.”
Others have contended that
the admonition is only respecting a transitory cultural view. One wonders whether their concern is a mere
cultural consideration or whether the present culture is simply arguing this to
justify its practice. By reading an
assumption into a passage almost any statement may be made to mean something
else. The problem with a “cultural”
explanation is that it is purely speculative with no clear scriptural support.
Paul says it is a “shame” for a woman to speak in the
church. The “shame” could refer to the
cultural attitudes of the day. However
in Eph. 5:12, sinful things were also said to be “shameful.”
He also says that the things
he wrote were the “commandments of the
Lord” and that this was the practice of “all the churches.” In view
of this, we need to be very cautious about restricting it to a narrow cultural
limitation.
The absolutely clear and
fundamental point is that from the beginning God’s law required women to be in
subjection (Gen 3:16; 1Cor 11:3, 7, 9, 10; 14:34; 1Tim 2:11-14; 1Pet 3:1, 5-6;
Col. 3:18; Eph 5:22-24;). It was based
on what “the law” said,[1]
which clearly refers back to Genesis 2:18 that woman was created to be a “help meet” for the man and Gen. 3:16, “thy
desire shall be to thy husband, and he
shall rule over thee”
(Gen. 3:16).
However, there is the
possibility that while subjection of women was fundamental, the application of the principal in the
matter of silence in the church may have been in respect to the cultural norms
of the day.
The issue has been clouded
by questions about whether this only applies to wives, and how women without
husbands, or who have unbelieving husbands, can learn; whether this excludes
them from the singing and prayers; whether they can answer questions put to them; and even whether she can holler “FIRE!” if
the place is burning down.
In any case, God’s will
cannot be nullified by foolish questions, whether or not it is convenient or
desirable to us. Ridicule and appeals
to prejudice are not a sound basis for discounting what the Bible says, and an
exceptional situation does not nullify God’s rule.
The problem of how
single women can learn is easily resolved through the older women teaching
them, through listening to public teaching, and through access to the Bible and
biblical publications, or to asking men.
The problem is not that they cannot learn without publicly asking
questions, but that this is being used as a justification for women to become
preachers.
From my perspective, I have
no problem with women participating in class discussions, prayer, sharing in
song, or even sharing a thought with the congregation. There has rarely been any problem in the
assembly that I would consider a violation of submission, though I have
wondered sometimes whether we might be overstepping things. I have found that it works well to simply
present what the scriptures teach and let women decide for themselves how they
will account to God. Generally, I find
them not abusive of that trust.
However, outside the assembly, there have been a few instances where
women (and men) have become aggressive in trying to control others which I have
considered overstepping the boundaries of due respect, and have had to firmly
withstand.
All of the attempts to get
around the text to the contrary, the precedent of Jesus was that He chose men
to preach. The twelve apostles were men.
Qualifications for elders to rule over the church were clearly intended
for men (1Tim 3:1-7; Tit 1:5-9).
Likewise the qualifications for the office of deacon were exclusively
designed for men (1Tim. 3:8-13)
Even the seven chosen and
ordained to care for the daily ministration to the widows in Acts 6, distinguished from the “ministry of the word” as being “the
ministry (diakonia) of tables,” were men.
Why were men, rather than women, chosen to care for the widows?
Throughout the Bible, it is
God’s clear design that men were to function as leaders. There were some limited exceptions, which is
God’s right, but this was the general rule.
Isa. 3:12. As for my people, children are their
oppressors, and women rule over them. O my
people, they that lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy
paths.
OBJECTION: Based on the fact that some manuscripts have verses 34 and 35 of 1Cor 14 after verse 40, many
modern critics claim that the passage was not in the original.
ANSWER:
The
manuscripts cited are from the fifth century and following. The earlier and majority of the manuscripts
have 34-35 where we find them. The fact
is that even in reversed order, they are there. It is obvious that the real problem is the reluctance of liberal
scholars to accept the Scriptural teaching about women.
ARGUMENT: Ex.
15:20.
Miriam prophesied publicly.
ANSWER:
That was in the Old
Testament, not in the church, and she did so leading women, not men.
ARGUMENT: Acts 2:17-18. “Your daughters shall prophesy”
ANSWER: It does not say they would prophesy to men in
the church.
ARGUMENT:
1Cor. 11:5, 13
indicates that the women were prophesying in the church.
ANSWER:
The passage is dealing with
the fact that some of the women’s dress was inconsistent with their role of
subjection. It does not say they were
praying and prophesying publicly in the presence of men. Even if we view this as inferred, it does
not say it was approved. 1Cor 14:34-36 and 1Tim 2:11-12 clearly restricts them
from teaching and speaking in the assembly.
How
eager some are to milk a supposed inference from 1Cor 11 to support women
speaking publicly but how they ignore what it says about women wearing long
hair and covering their heads as a sign of subjection to their husbands. As I said previously, the real issue is the
subordinate role God ordained for women.
ARGUMENT: 1Cor. 14:31 indicates women were to prophesy
in the church.
“For
ye may ALL prophesy one by one…”
ANSWER:
“All” is contextually
limited. It is limited to only three
who may prophecy (14:29). It is limited
to those who had something revealed (14:30).
And it is limited by the specific exclusion of (14:34-35). Indeed,
everyone in the church did not have the gift of prophecy (1Cor 12:10; 29) so it
is certainly not saying that all, without exception, could prophesy.
Even if we were to assume
that prophecy was exempted from the restriction, they would still be restricted
from speaking publicly in the church or teaching or exercising authority over
men (1Tim. 2:11-12). Prophesying is a
message directly from God through inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2Pet.
1:19-21). It is not the same as
preaching.
This was not just a local cultural choice.
1Cor 14:33. “…as
in all the churches of the saints”
1Cor 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or
spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
ARGUMENT:
Philip had four virgin
daughters that prophesied (Acts 21:8-9).
ANSWER:
Nothing is said about
them doing so in the in the presence of men at church.
ARGUMENT:
God ordained that prophecy
should edify the church. Thus, women
who prophesied were to do so to the church.
ANSWER:
Prophecy was not limited to the church. It could also be done elsewhere and edify
one’s self or other women, just like tongues (1Cor 14:28).
ARGUMENT: 1Tim 3:11 gives qualifications for women deacons.
“Even so must the women be grave, not
slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.”
The word, “gune” (1135) translated “wives” in the
King James Version is the general word, “women.” Context determines how it
should be translated. Thus, it could
refer to women deacons.
If it referred to the wives
of deacons, why is nothing said about the need for good qualifications of wives
of elders? Would not elders need
faithful wives as much or even more than deacons?
ANSWER:
At one time in my early ministry
I thought this might be correct.
However, subsequent investigation indicated it was without warrant.
1.
First, the women are not called “deacons” in the
passage.
2.
Secondly, there is nothing in the passage that would not
fit wives.
3.
The word for “wives” in verse 11 (“gune”) is identical to that in verse 12
where it says that deacons should be the “husband
of one wife.”
4.
“Husband of one wife,” was specified as a
qualification of deacons. The
qualifications for the women in verse 11 does not include being the “wife of one husband” (as in the case of
widows –1Tim. 5:9). If both were
deacons, would not a parallel qualification of being the wife of one man have
been included for women?
5.
There
are clearer ways to have indicated he was speaking of both men and women
deacons. For example, he could have
simply called both “deacons.”
6.
If
“deacons” meant both men and women, there would have been no need to restate
for women some of the qualifications given for deacons.
7. Why are the proto-type deacons in Acts 6
all men? Caring for the widows would
seem to be an especially proper place for women to be included.
OBJECTION: Why does it mention
wives of deacons, but not of elders?
ANSWER:
Note
that it does not say, “wives of deacons.”
It simply says, “wives must be…”
The reason for leaving it open appears to be that this refers to both. There was no need to repeat it for both
elders and deacons. It would seem
appropriate that there should be some standards that must be met by the wives
of elders and deacons. Success of
husbands very much depends on behavior of wives.
Some
suggest that deacon’s wives shared the office of deacons, and thus, in their
ministration would need these qualifications.
That certainly is an appealing concept, and wives of deacons would in
many ways share in their husband’s efforts, but we see no example of wives of
deacons being ordained with them.
In any
case, since deacons were not required to be “apt to teach” (1Tim 3:2) the whole issue of women deacons is
irrelevant to the issue of women teaching in the church.
ARGUMENT:
The “aged women” (presbutis #4247)
in Titus 2:3 is the feminine form of the same word in the masculine “presbutees” (#4246) translated “aged
men” in Titus 2:2.
ANSWER:
That
is correct but neither of these words is used for the office of an elder –“presbuteros” (#4245), a similar word in
adjective form.
In any
case, the context of Titus 2:3-5 clearly represents this as the normal sense of
“older women” rather than an office
in the church. The older women were to
teach the “young women.” It says nothing of older women teaching men
in the church.
ARGUMENT: If women have the gift of being able to
speak, they should use it for God.
ANSWER:
They
should use the gifts God gave them, in the way God directed. God specifically excluded women from
speaking in the church. They were to
teach the younger women.
ARGUMENT:
Deborah
was a Judge of Israel.
ANSWER:
This was in the Old
Testament, not in the New Testament. It
was in Israel, not in the church.
Even then, it was clearly an
exceptional situation, similar to other exceptions within God’s province. God has the right to make exceptions. We do not. Exceptions made by Him do not
nullify His rules. For example, due to necessity, God held David guiltless for
eating the shewbread in the tabernacle, which otherwise would have required his
death (Mat 12:3-4).
Deborah did not take this
authority upon herself. She was
appointed by God, not by men.
Furthermore, we know nothing of whether she ever spoke to any public
gathering of the Israelites. She served
as judge, not as priest in the temple.
The priests were all males.
Barak seems to have been
called to act as Deborah’s spokesman in leading Israel, and she only went with
him at his insistence. In any case,
that is a far cry from speaking to the church, and cannot nullify the
prohibition in 1Corinthians 14.
The Oxford Companion to the Bible, edited by Bruce M Metzger
and Michael D. Coogan in an article written by Valerie Abrahamsen says,
“The New Testament and early church fathers
provide preliminary data on women. The
earliest evidence, from Paul’s letters, suggests that women functioned as
dynamic leaders of the movement (Philippians 4:2,3, Romans 16), deacons (Romans
16:1,2), apostles (Romans 16:7), and missionaries (I Cor 16:19; Romans 16:3,4).”
ANSWER:
Women
certainly played an important role in the progress of the early church but that
hardly indicates they were preachers.
Check the passages cited.
She then argues:
“The gospels relate that Jesus had women
followers as well as men (Mark 15:40-41; Mt 27:55; Luke 8:1-3) and treated
women as equals (cf. John 4:9,27; Luke 10:38-42); it was also women who were
the first to bear witness to his resurrection.
The Acts of the Apostles mention the four daughters of Philip who
prophesied (21:9); Lydia from Thyatira, a merchant and the head of her
household (16:14,15); the missionary couple, Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18);
house-church leaders (12:12); and prominent converts (17:4,12).”
ANSWER:
How does
a reference to women ministering to Jesus (Mark 15:40-41; Mt 27:55-56; Luke
8:1-3) prove they were “dynamic leaders
of the movement”? The fact that no women were appointed among the twelve
apostles stands in bold contrast to such assumptions. Women attended to the needs of Jesus, but nothing is said of his
sending them out to preach.
John 4:9, 27. How does asking for a drink of a Samaritan
woman indicate Jesus considered her an “equal,”
much less a preacher in the church? He
was kindly, but the discussion that followed certainly indicated they were
not “equals.” She was not even a
Christian.
Luke 10:38-42. How does the fact that Jesus stayed at
Martha’s house with Mary and Lazarus, indicate Jesus considered them his “equals”? Jesus told Martha that Mary, who sat at his feet and listened,
had chosen “the better part.”
Listening to Jesus does not make one an official in the church.
She
cites the fact that women were the first to “bear witness to his resurrection.”
So? Was it done in the church? Did that automatically give them an office
to preach in the public assemblies?
Abrahamsen:
“The Acts of the Apostles mention the
four daughters of Philip who prophesied (21:9).”
ANSWER:
So? Where does it say they did so in the church?
Abrahamsen:
“Lydia from Thyatira, a merchant and the
head of her household” (Acts 16:14-15).”
ANSWER:
So? Was she head of the church? At the time she wasn’t even a Christian.
Abrahamsen:
“…the missionary couple, Priscilla and
Aquila” (Acts 18).
ANSWER:
Where
does it say that Priscilla spoke in the church? Aquila and Priscilla had a church in their house (1Cor. 16:19)
but nothing is said of Priscilla preaching.
Abrahamsen:
“…house-church leaders” (Acts
12:12).
ANSWER:
Some
of the church was praying in the house of Mary. It says nothing about her being a “leader” or speaking
publicly.
Abrahamsen:
“…and prominent converts” (Acts 17:4,
12).
ANSWER:
So, a
lot of prominent women were converted.
How does that translate into them preaching in the church?
Abrahamsen:
“Thus, in pre-Pauline and Pauline
Christian communities, women appear to have functioned almost identically to
men.”
ANSWER:
If
they functioned “identically to men”
why were none of the apostles women?
Where do we see Jesus sending women out to preach? Why were only men in
Acts 6 chosen to care for the widows?
Abrahamsen:
“…In fact, it is possible that more women
than men were house-church leaders, hosting vital prayer meetings that became
the kernel of the movement.”
ANSWER:
Where
does it say they were “house church
leaders,” and why should hosting a prayer meeting indicate they were
preachers in the church?
Abrahamsen:
“At least one woman deacon, Phoebe, is
recorded in the New Testament (Romans 16:1,2), and she functioned as an official
teacher and missionary in the church at Cenchreae.”
ANSWER:
Absolutely
incredible, what some people will read into a few simple words when they have
an agenda to accomplish. As Mcaulay has well said, “The
law of gravitation would still be controverted, if it interfered with vested
interests.”
Romans 16:1. I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which
is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: 2 that ye receive her in the
Lord, worthily of the saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever matter she
may have need of you: for she herself also hath been a helper of many, and of
mine own self.
This
says not one word about her teaching or being a missionary. All it says is that she needed help with her
business and had cared for many. How
does that translate into public preaching?
As for
her being called a “servant (Greek: “diakonos”) of the church,” there is nothing conclusive to show that she was
ordained to the office of deacon. Names
for offices are common words normally used to describe a function. Just because a word is used does not
indicate it is an office. The same is
true of other words such as “apostle,” and “elder.” We can only identify these as offices when something, such as
specification that the person was “appointed” (ordained), qualifications were
required, or when they are grouped with other offices.
For
example, we know 1Tim 3:8-13 speaks of the office of a deacon, because
qualifications are specified, and this is given in conjunction with
elders/bishops. The qualifications for
both offices are clearly designed for men (1Tim. 3:1, 4, 5, 11, 12). Furthermore, while the elders were required
to be “apt to teach” nothing in the
qualifications of deacons suggests any teaching ministry. In fact, if the prototype deacons of Acts 6
are any indication, a clear line of distinction is made between those who
“ministered” in the word (Acts 6:2, 4), and those who “ministered” to tables
(Acts 6:2). It may further be noted
that all seven of those appointed were men.
If any place, this would have been the ideal point to include
women.
Against
this, it may be argued that Stephen and Philip preached. True, but nothing in their office called for
it, and the fact that they taught publicly would not override specific
restrictions against women doing so (1Cor 14:34-37; 1Tim. 2:11-15).
Perhaps
Phebe was a desolate widow. (1Tim 5:3-16)
There was official recognition of “widows” who were supported by the
church, if they met some very tight restrictions on qualifications (60 years or
older, brought up children but had no children or grandchildren to care for
them). However, nothing in the passage
indicates they ever spoke to the church or directed men.
Abrahamsen:
“Euodia and Syntyche from Philippi (Phil.
4:2, 3) were prominent leaders of that community…”
ANSWER:
Phil. 4:2 I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche,
that they be of the same mind in the Lord. 3 And I intreat thee also, true
yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement
also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.
This
says they laboured with Paul and others in the gospel. In what role? Did they preach? Or did
they teach women and children (Tit. 2:3-4), or perhaps work as helpers in other
ways? This says nothing about them
preaching in the church and certainly cannot nullify what Paul said in 1Cor
14:34-36 and 1Tim 2:11-15.
Abrahamsen cites Romans 16:7
as indicating Andronicus and Junia were apostles.
ANSWER:
The
text does not say they were apostles.
It says that they were “of note
among the apostles.”
Abrahamsen:
“The most prominent woman in the New
Testament is Priscilla, who worked alongside her husband and was probably the
more renowned of the pair (ICor 16:19; Rom 16:3,4, Acts 18).”
ANSWER:
This
claim is based on Acts 18:18, 26 and Rom. 16:3, where, in the Greek, her name
is given first. However in Acts 18:2 and Rom. 16:19, Aquila’s name is
first. Mentioning her name first at
times, may mean nothing more than that she was well known and affectionately
recognized for being caring, like Phoebe.
Even if she took a more aggressive role at times, there is no evidence
she spoke in the church. She only
shared with her husband in privately teaching Apollos.
Having
a church in her house does not make her the preacher. In fact, 1Cor. 16:19, where this is mentioned, gives Aquila’s
name first. These kinds of arguments,
on their very face are greatly strained, and only serve to spotlight the
weakness of the claim. If they had
stronger evidence they would not have to rely on things that are so
speculative.
Abrahamsen:
“The women Mary, Tryphaena, Tryphosa and
Persis in Romans 16 are described as having labored (kopian) for the Lord, the
same term Paul used to describe his own evangelizing and teaching activities”
ANSWER:
Rom. 16:12 just
says, “Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa, who
labour in the Lord. Salute the beloved Persis, which laboured much in the Lord.”
The
use of “kopiaoo” (#2872) as evidence
that these women were publicly teaching in the church is baseless. The word is in no way confined to public
teaching or evangelizing. Many people
labor in the Lord without speaking publicly.
As
“scholars” often do when they want something to be their way, Abrahamsen then
goes on to quote historical sources. She
argues that women being subservient developed after apostolic times.
“Bishop Atto of Vercelli (c. 885-961) wrote in
several tracts that women were ordained just like men in the ancient church,
were leaders of communities, were called elders (presbyters), and fulfilled the
duties of preaching, directing and teaching.”
“Female celibacy and other acts of
independence led male leaders to disseminate counter-treatises in which they
prescribed strict behavior for all women and attempted to bring the entire Christian
movement more in line with the overall culture’s ideal of the patriarchal
family and household. The New Testament
“household codes” (Eph. Col. I Peter) were written by followers of Paul, not
Paul himself, and clearly urged women’s subordination to men. The so-called Pastoral letters (Tim and Tit)
are also early works accepted into the NT canon. I Tim 2:11,12 forbade women from speaking in church and Tit 1:7-9
assumed that only men would be bishops.”
She
then argued:
“Significantly, despite attempts by the hierarchy through the ages to
conceal the evidence, there is attestation for women priests into the Byzantine
ear. An epistle of Pope Gelasius I
(492-496) to bishops in Italy and Sicily mentions in annoyance that women were
officiating at the sacred altars and taking part in ecclesiastical affairs
imputed only to men. An inscription
from Bruttium dating to the end of the 5th century mentions the presbytera
Leta, and another from Salona in Dalmatia (425 AD) mentions the presbytera
Flavia Vitalia. While these
attestations are rare, they confirm that women functioned sacerdotally--and
that male bishops occasionally ordained them.”
Other Historical Citations
given:
Around 100 AD, Pliny the Younger writes that he
found it necessary to torture two female ministers (ministrae) in order to gain
more information about the activities of the Christians. (Letters of Pliny X.96) [see
also Barnes Notes, Rom 16:1 –R.J.] Was Pliny simply unable to capture two men
ministers? Or, were these two women the
best source for Pliny? If so, they must
have been exercising a leadership role in the church.
The Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) set down
requirements for the ordination of deaconesses, and the Apostolic Constitutions
includes their ordination prayer.
[The Apostolical Constitutions
(300 AD?), book iii, section 2, says, “Ordain also a deaconess who is faithful and holy, for the ministries toward the women.”]
Canon 11 of the council of
Laodicea (in the 300s) forbade the appointment of eldresses, indicating that
some Christians had been doing this.
Dionysius of Alexandria, who died in 264, described as a martyr “the
most holy eldress Mercuria” and another as “a most remarkable virgin eldress
Apollonia.”
“Further, the church order book the
Didascalia (crc 250 AD) specifically allows for the ordination of women
deacons. Deaconesses assisted in the
baptism of women and anointing them with oil, and in giving instructions to
newer women in the faith. They could
give communion to women who were sick and unable to meet with the entire
church. The ministry of widows was
largely that of prayer, fasting, and the laying on of hands on the sick, as
specified by the Didascalia and the Apostolic Constitutions.”
The Didascalia was written around 250 AD. It says, “When she sees anything that is
hateful, or hears it, let her be as though she saw and heard it not.” In other words, woman are forbidden to
correct sin and error in the church.
The text further states that, when a widow is
asked any questions about the faith, she should not answer, but send the
questioner to the leader of the congregation.
She is explicitly forbidden to answer questions about idolatry,
monotheism and the nature and scope of Christ’s kingdom.
The text claims that if women teach, when the heathen
hear it and reject it, the Christian woman who taught is held blameworthy.
The Didascalia insisted that neither the bishop
nor a presbyter, nor a deacon, nor a widow should utter a curse, because widows
had been appointed to bless. The
Didascalia further forbids widows to speak with other Christians.
So, it seems that women had been preaching and teaching. If not, there would have been no reason for
the Didascalia to forbid this. (One
only forbids what is happening or likely to happen, and which one does not
want.)”