Specific Assignment:
Women in ministry from a theological perspective — A study of the implications of the character of God as they relate to women’s subordination, their place in the body of Christ, and divine order in the church, exegeting 1 Timothy 2: 9-15 and 3: 1-13.
Compiled by Rev. Jean Halvorson on March 15, 1991 for the E.M.F. Research Committee
INTRODUCTION
In view of the fact that the Bible is the revelation of God’s nature and plan for mankind, it is appropriate to approach this study not from the perspective of human thought or tradition, but to see the unfolding of God’s plan for woman as being an extension of a greater awareness of Himself.
We call this progressive revelation, in that Scripture records incidents of God’s higher plan being wrought, even when it is not understood by man (Isaiah 55: 8-9). God included woman in every part of His plan: creation, human government, prophetic office, early church work, and so forth. They have only been excluded at such points where decorum was set (i.e., exclusion from the priesthood of the Old order – and even then Gentile men were not allowed – and no women were among the twelve disciples of the New order, but that was due to propriety on the part of Jesus, as He journeyed, ate, and essentially lived with them for those few years. It was inappropriate for Jesus to include women in that close way, but He did have women followers.).
Progressive revelation allows for God to give a seed in the Old Testament and flourish it in the New Testament. We see this as we study in careful detail the original creation of woman and the fulfillment of the promise to her through the development of the “seed of the woman”. This seed will come to life in the New Testament and will reveal the liberation of women. This paper will cover, accordingly, areas of domestic agenda and ministerial service, though the latter is not officially mandated for all women, nor is it for all men either.
The intention of this author is two-fold:
First, to avoid the extremist positions on both sides: a) traditional values that find no place for the ministerial duties of women, and, b) liberal attitudes that tend to forsake the laws of family life and order in the church in propagating their views;
Secondly, to reconcile these seemingly divergent viewpoints through an exegetical study of vital Biblical texts: 1 Timothy 2: 9-15 and 3: 1-13.
The final question, of course, will be whether or not these texts reject women’s ministry because they outline structure for the body of Christ. Because “the Bible never flatly says, ‘Thou shalt not ordain women’,”(1) we will look at God’s intent through His purpose for woman and His placement of them throughout the Canon.
DEFINITIONS AND TERMS
The following terms have been introduced here in order to lay down a foundation of thought. Throughout the course of this paper we will clarify these terms. The terms and their definitions are from the American College Dictionary:
Subordination – 1) placed in or belonging to a lower rank or order; 2) of inferior importance; 3) subject to or under the authority of a superior. (2)
Submission – 1) to yield in surrender, compliance or obedience: 2) to subject (especially oneself) to conditions imposed, treatment, etc. (3)
From an initial reading, we must first reject the following: inferior importance, lower rank. Man and woman were created as co-owners and proprietors of the garden. Also, true submission does not allow for levels of importance, nor does it beset itself with valuations, for “God is no respecter of persons” (Romans 2: 11).
Next, all Bible quotations are taken from Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible and are, thus, in the King James Version. All Hebrew and Greek words are studied from the original and the respective interlinears and lexicons are used. Consequently, each word and its definition will not be footnoted.
So, with these thoughts in mind, let us build a “house of order”, as 1 Corinthians 14: 40 says, “Let everything be done decently and in order.”
We begin by seeing God’s reflection through the creation of woman. A more detailed study was done here because this is the time frame of God’s intent, and it deserves full Biblical clarity.
Note first, that man was in an incomplete state. There was found no suitable helper among the animal kingdom. She was, then, his fulfillment (Genesis 2:18). The Hebrew word “ezer” is used for helpmeet. It means: “one who helps, succours”. This helper would be equal to Adam, for the term “suitable” is the Hebrew word “neged” and means “corresponding to him, equal and adequate to himself”. She was, not, therefore, created superior or inferior to him, but equal. This is a vital thought as this term “ezer” is used of God Himself in regards to His relationship to Israel. We see this in Hosea 13: 9: “. . . but in Me is thine help.” We see here how the creation of the helper reflects the Creator coming to the aid of His people. The same understanding is found in Hebrews 2: 18, referring to Jesus: “For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to…help them that are tempted.” Also, in 2 Corinthians 6: 2 we see the relation of our co-working with God (verse 1): “. . . and in the day of salvation have I…helped thee . . .”
The creation of woman also provided the completed intent of the Trinity, where in Genesis 1: 26 it is said, “Let US make MAN in OUR image . . .” Verse 27 gives us the fulfillment and we read it here from the Hebrew: “Elohim created mankind in His image; in the image of Elohim created He him; male and female created He them.” Elohim is the divine name for the creative God, with declaration of plurality (note “im” at the end denotes plurality); hence, the Trinity. “Betzelem” is a Hebrew word meaning “image or likeness” and it also expresses the abstract of “something cut out”. This is clearer as we see God’s character revealed through the process. To form a “character” means to “press or stamp” an image on to something . Without woman, the complete character of God is not seen; together, they reflect the Trinity. How do we know this? The word “man” (“Ha Adam”) is translated “mankind” when used alone. The name Eve was not given until after the fall (Genesis 3: 20), therefore, she was known as “adam” or man until that time.
Wherever the Trinity is expressed in Scripture, there is revealed a oneness and equality among them; that though they are three distinct persons and fulfill certain roles in and of themselves, they are yet one in power, presence and purpose. This is the sense we get from man and woman. They are equal, yet distinct persons. They fulfill certain roles in this system.
So, the creation of woman makes her equal in terms of value before God. How about in terms of ministry? Well, contingent in our understanding of this, we need to see the victory and freedom of all womanhood as we study 1 Timothy 2. This chapter deals with order in the assembly of God’s house. It is not dealing with domestic issues. We must see, then, at the onset, that order was initiated to include women, not exclude them.
This chapter begins with the order of prayer for leaders and then turns to specific situations that evidentially were present, as many of the New Testament letters were written in response to questions, problems, crisis, and so on. Paul is dealing with both men and women here, so the objective is for each respective group to pay close attention to their directives.
For equal time we begin with the man, as does the text. Verse 8 adjures the men in the assembly to pray with the proper attitude; no anger present, no arguments given. The Greek word “dialogimou” is used and means “reasoning, doubt, argument.” Evidentially much dialogue brought about argument instead of prayer.
He then addresses women in regard to attire (modesty – not distracting) in verse 9. He adds that the woman should be allowed to learn (verse 11) in quietness (ref: 1 Peter 3: 1-6). This idea alone, is an elevation for women, since the “. . .fact that women were not even qualified to be learners in the assembly is verified in Talmudic literature.” (4) The word “learn” is “manplaneto”, “to allow to learn”.
The term “hesuchios” means “quiet”. The inference here is to have a respectful, quietness in learning, “. . .a contented stillness of spirit, undisturbed by strife and discord.” (5) It does not mean “silence”, in terms of no speech. The same word quiet is used in 1 Timothy 2: 2 regarding all petitioners, and in 1 Corinthians 14: 28-35 referring to the order in church (men are to be silent when no interpretation of tongues is present, and women are to be quiet as they learn in the assembly – verses 28 and 35). So, this term “quiet” cannot be a blanket statement prohibiting the preaching or teaching of women; but rather, the requested attitude of the listener and petitioner to be respectful, whether male or female. Note also, that in the 1 Corinthians 14 text, the prohibition is never endorsed as Paul’s own. “The sanction for the authority is established practice rather than apostolic directive.” (6) Scripture notes various practices and rules of man (1 Corinthians 7:17; 11:16; 16: 1). “The point of the passage is not gender roles but worship protocol.” (7)
1 Timothy 2 then deals with the woman’s position, when it uses the term “subjection”, as in verse 11. The Greek word “hupotage” means subordination in the passive voice and denotes an attitude of voluntary yielding. Ephesians 5: 21 the term “hupotasso” is used for the general assembly meaning “subjection, to place or rank under, voluntarily”. These terms are not uniquely used only for women. It should be an attitude of all.
We now turn to Paul’s non-allowance of women to teach (“didaskeiu”). Again, with the understanding that this text is about propriety in public prayer, teaching would be inappropriate here. Paul allows it elsewhere (1Corinthians 11: 5-6), but promotes order and dignity there as well. This verse does not, therefore, warrant the rejection of women teachers. The thrust is for women to learn through prayer.
Evidentially there were domineering, unyielding women present, for that is the reference in verse 12: “. . . or to exercise authority over a man.” The word “authento” is being used here, and this is the only place it is used. “Paul does not use the common time-honored word for authority . . .”(8) The Greek word means “have authority, domineer”. It has a sense of taking by force. We know this to be unacceptable for any person. Since it is only used once in Scripture, we must be careful.
In order to see the full Biblical panorama, recall that in 1 Peter 5: 1-3 (especially verse 3), when referring to elders, they are instructed to avoid domination: “. . . neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples (word “tupos” means “a pattern”) to the flock. In Luke 22: 24-28 Jesus is giving the real meaning of authority to His disciples. “Being a leader does not mean having status and authority over others, as much as it means being a servant to others. Leaders are not meant to give orders, but to give of themselves.” (9) Again, these references are for all peoples, and cannot be mandated to women only.
Consequently, for a woman to try to teach in that assembly would be for her to force a position not given, and to go beyond the boundaries of the meeting. “The N.A.S. said, ‘exercise authority’; the K.J.V. said ‘usurp authority’. Not a great difference, but yet very significant, because if the English men (K.J.V.) were right, a woman is allowed to exercise authority over men if she is given the authority legitimately. . .” (10) It would be beneficial to study the term “man” (“andros”) here. In the Greek, the term can mean man or husband, and in the lexicon it says, “especially husband”, with notation to this verse (verse 12). (11) The generic word for man “anthropos” is not used here.
Is the interpretation to be rendered as “she shall not take domination, force beyond her husband”, as elsewhere she is instructed to clarify these things at home (1 Corinthians 14: 35)? Since the term husband is used here, and this text is not referring to domestic relationships particularly, but rather, order in any given assembly, there is no rule stating that any generic man should rule over any woman, unless they hold office in civil, church or whatever. She yields to an office, not a gender.
Whatever the meaning, it does not preclude women from leadership. Even the extended portion covering the creation (verses 13-14) ratify the liberated position of women in church matters. The position of woman in relation to man was affected at the fall. The Bible says here, though, that “. . .she is saved through the childbearing”. The word “the” is important as it shows the definite article, signifying a very special birth. The word “saved” here is “sothesetai” and it means “be saved, obtain salvation through something.” Certainly pro-creation is not the issue here, or barren women would be exempt, nor is it about the reception of salvation by grace, or men would be excluded. The “they” referred to here is womanhood in general. It is saying that womanhood was exonerated through the birth of a special child (reference to THE child bearing, as equal to THE Son). The seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15) is fully developed in the New Testament, and brings woman to a new place. Even the name of Eve speaks to this, as she is given a name meaning “living”, to contrast the death ushered in through sin. Through the woman’s seed will come life. John 1: 4 gives us a name for this new life: Jesus, the seed (Galatians 4: 4).
Woman was also released from the domination of man. When the Genesis account says that she will long for him and he will rule over her, this is a part of the fall. The Hebrew word for rule is “mashal” and it means “to rule, have dominion, reign”. The Hebrew word “teshuqah” or “shuq” is a fallen state of grace, and means “drive”. (12) This same term for “long” or “desire” is used also in Genesis 4:7 regarding the story of Cain and Abel. It says that sin is desiring Cain, and it is a result of the fall. We are not to understand this as being a healthy part of God’s intended relationship for man and woman. Certainly history documents the dominance of the man and woman’s desire for the position of her husband, or men in general. The thought here is more of a prophetic tone than a standard of relationship. Both of these responses have further put a chasm in God’s order, but they are redeemed at the cross with the Second Adam, Galatians 3: 28-29, especially: “. . .neither male or female. . .heirs according to the promise.”
God also restored marriage at the cross. Though the New Testament continues with the theme that the wife should be yielded in respect to her husband, it does not speak of the husband exerting dominance over her. He is to protect, love and cherish her and be a covering or “head” for her. Love replaces rulership. He leads by love and devotion, not by order and supremacy. This brings husband and wife back to the original intent for them outlined by God; namely, to have domination together over the animal kingdom and to work together on an equal basis.
We continue our study with 1Timothy 3. This section refers to the order of the qualifications of elders and bishops. The Greek words for “If a man desire an office . . .” are interesting. First of all, the term “tis” is used (King James says “man”), and it is an indefinite pronoun meaning “any person”. This Greek pronoun is not equivalent to man or maleness. The verse, therefore, says: “If any (person) desires the office of a bishop, elder, overseer.” Further down in the text the King James says “. . .wives must therefore be grave. . .”, but in the original it says, “the women must likewise shall be grave.” The qualifications listed in this chapter, therefore, rest on the office of the bishop, deacon, and not on the spouse of the officeholder.
Is Paul against women in official office? No! Romans 12: 1 speaks of Phoebe, a deacon. The King James says “a servant”, but the Greek term is “diakonos”. “The word is always translated
“minister, deacon” and refers to an office.” (13) “In 1 Timothy 5: 2, where it speaks of a presbyter, elder, it is using the feminine form of the noun “presbuteros”, as contrasted to “presbutis”, meaning elderly woman, as in Titus 2: 3.” (14)
So, we must be careful in interpreting Pauline epistles, for in this third chapter, if accepted legalistically, single men and women would be excluded and thus, both Paul and Jesus our Lord would be unacceptable. Paul, elsewhere, seemed to desire workers to be single (1 Corinthians 7: 32-35), so we must carefully extract his own wishes and opinions from declarative fact. Widowers and widows would also be left out, for an elder is to be the husband of one wife. “Is it a requirement, therefore, that all elders and deacons should be male and married?” (15) “We clearly must take the whole of Scriptural thought . . .how necessary it is to interpret all related teachings on a given subject comprehensively rather than to proof-text one passage as if it were the sole teaching on the subject. . .requirements in 1 Timothy 3 are not exhaustive.” (16)
These portions of Scripture are addressing the qualifications of said office, not the marital status or gender of the officeholder. Does God prohibit women from active authority and office? Ask Deborah, Priscilla, Esther, Phillip’s daughters, and so forth. They were chosen because of their hearts, not their gender.
We would do well to also take a peek at 1 Peter 4:11, where in the King James it says, “If any man speak, let him speak as an oracle of God. . .” The original rendering, again, is the word “’tis”, meaning anyone, and the word “man” is “anthropos” and refers to any member of the human race. “If the writer would have wanted to stress maleness, he would have used the word aner.” (17)
This, again, reminds us of God’s intent to mold His image into each, both man and woman, and that all can be oracles of His Majesty (Joel 2: 28-29).
Finally, if women are not given official function in the church, how will the full personality of Elohim be revealed? What about His tenderness and nurturing qualities (Numbers 11: 12; Isaiah 66: 11-13, especially verse 13: “As One whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you . . .”)? When God revealed His person and purpose to Israel, He used extensive imagery (note the word “image”). Israel was both a son and wife to God. We, also, are known as His sons (Galatians 3: 26), in terms of heirship, and His wife (Ephesians 5:32), in terms of intimacy. Separately, these images are not sufficient, just as Adam was not complete without Eve.
One of God’s divine names alludes to this also. The name El Shaddai is broken down to this: “El” is the oldest form for “mighty God”. “Shad” is the breast; hence plural means “breasted one”. Out of the nurturer and supplier, we see the God who is mighty in battle, yet gentle in protection and supply. Should not both man and woman be used to reveal this to those seeking Him?
It would be beneficial to point out that much of the important inaugurations of the New Testament were entrusted to women: first resurrection, first evangelist-woman at the well, first Gentile convert-Lydia. Also, four women were included in a usually male-only lineage with respect to our Lord and Savior.
The women God used never negated their love for family or husband, but the choice for their usability was beyond the domestic front. We can see, then, that Scripture does not outright forbid or encourage women in official function, but it is understood as occurring throughout holy canon. The stories clearly reveal this.
CONCLUSION
Woman was created to reflect the glory of God and to be a representative of that glory. She was created to be a co-worshipper of God and was redeemed through Christ to fulfill that purpose. The involvement of woman in this plan is essential in creating a composite picture of God Almighty.
It is understood that this brings difficulty to some people’s minds. “Charles Wesley, one of the great preachers in our history, was initially very opposed to the concept of women preaching, but when he realized the value of their contributions, his convictions slowly began to change. In 1771, a decade before she married Fletcher (John Fletcher), Wesley wrote to Mary to affirm her in her work. ‘I think the strength of the cause rests there, on your having an extraordinary call.’ He went on to argue that the whole work of God termed Methodism is an extraordinary dispensation, and therefore, it did not fall under the ordinary rule of discipline.” (18)
The Scriptures we have studied structure a “house or order”, but in that house God always leaves an open door for those who do not fit the usual pattern (David, Paul). The burden of proof remains on those who must provide concrete insights into the personage of God, that this woman cannot display the image of God through ministry.
Anne Graham Lotz, the daughter of Dr. Billy Graham, was speaking to a North Carolina seminary group when she said, “The issue is whether those in ministry, women or men, have been called by God to be there.” (19) She rightly placed the emphasis on the call, not on the gender.
So does God!
Footnotes
David N. Wentz, “Should Women Be Ordained?” from Ministries Magazine (Carol Stream, Ill: Christianity Today), Summer 1984, p. 95
(2) C.L. Barnhart, Editor-in-Chief, American College Dictionary (New York: Random House) 1968, p. 1206
(3) Ibid
(4) Gilbert Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House) 1985, p. 149
(5) Jack Hayford, “A Balanced View to Women in Ministry”, Ministries Magazine (Carol Stream, Ill: Christianity Today) Winter, 1984, p. 38
(6) Gilbert Bilezikian, p. 148
(7) Ibid, p. 142
(8) Ibid, p. 174
(9) Elaine Storkey, “A Christian and A Woman”, Decision Magazine (Minneapolis, MN: Billy Graham Evangelistic Association), January 1991, p. 11
(10) David N. Wentz, p. 98
(11) W. F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press), 1979, p. 66
(12) Jack Hayford, p. 35
(13) E. Margaret Howe, Women and Church Leadership (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan) 1982, p. 31
(14) Jack Hayford
(15) Gilbert Bilezikian, p. 185
(16) Ibid, pp. 188-189
(17) Florence Bulle, God Wants You Rich/And Other Enticing Doctrines (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House) 1983, p. 81
(18) Ruth A. Tucker, First Ladies of the Parish (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan) 1988, p. 66
(19) St. Petersburg, Florida Newspaper, 1990
Bibliography
Arndt, Wm. F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Chicago, Ill, University of Chicago Press, 1979.
Barnhard, C.L., Editor-in-Chief, American College Dictionary, New York, Random House, 1968.
Berry, George Ricker, The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 1977.
Bilezikian, Gilbert, Beyond Sex Roles, Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Book House, 1985.
Brown, Francis D.D., D. Litt., Editor, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Wm. Gesenius, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1978.
Bulle, Florence, God Wants You Rich/And Other Enticing Doctrines, Minneapolis, MN, Bethany House, 1983.
Dake, Finis Jennings, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible, Lawrenceville, GA, Dake Bible Sales, Inc., 1963.
Green, Jay, Editor, The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek English Bible – Volume 1, Wilmington, DE, Associated Publishers and Authors, 1976.
Hayford, Jack, “A Balanced View to Women in Ministry”, Ministries Magazine, Carol Stream, Ill, Christianity Today, Winter, 1984.
Howe, E. Margaret, Women and Church Leadership, Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 1982.
St. Petersburg Newspaper, St. Petersburg, FL 1990.
Storkey, Elaine, “A Christian and A Woman”, Decision Magazine, Minneapolis, MN, Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, January 1991.
Tucker, Ruth A., First Ladies of the Parish, Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 1988.
Wentz, David N., “Should Women Be Ordained?”, Ministries Magazine, Carol Stream, Ill, Christianity Today, Summer 1984.