WOMEN IN MINISTRY: A BIBLICAL VISION

Wesleyan theological tradition historically has held a “high view” of Scripture; that is a part of the ethos of our community. In a church tradition (with its community) that claims the integrity and authority of Scripture, questions of practice are taken seriously. The question of whether God ordains and blesses women in the practice of ministry (both in function and in office) is crucial to women because their personal and relational lives and their participation in the church have been defined and regulated by the interpretation of Scripture (as the lives of all of us should be). It is also a critical question for the church on many levels-if the church is serious about determining God’s will, and then, by the grace of God, doing it!

In the church, answers given to the question of God’s will concerning women seem to fall into three categories. Each of the three categories may be defined by their approach (perspective and procedures) to Biblical material. These distinctive approaches may be observed in the questions asked of Scripture, the principles exercised in the selection and evaluation (valuing) of biblical texts, the method applied in theological synthesis, and the subsequent proposed applications of conclusions. It may be further observed that the conclusions are significantly shaped by the “window” through which biblical texts are viewed.

One of these three approaches to the issue of women in ministry begins with a disclaimer. It either is inappropriate to address this question to the Biblical materials, argues this position, or these materials are inadequate for the task. The question of women in institutionalized ministry is seen as foreign to Scripture, and/or the instruction of Scripture is determined to be of limited value in the debate (irrelevant or impossibly culture bound). The “window” through which Scripture is observed is a presupposition about the value of Scripture itself, or about the hermeneutic that governs the way Scripture is used. In this category, theologians may proceed with general perspectives such as the equality of women and men in creation or broad principles of social justice and equality. Such an approach is focused on appeals to reason or general revelation (natural theology) or limited to a reductional existentialism. Those in the Wesleyan tradition may critique this approach as weak in that it abandons the special revelation Scripture does offer. The presupposition of this category of thought may be defined as a pluralist[1] view of the authority of Scripture; Scripture is only one of several authorities which may be appealed to as equally valid in the discussion.

The second and third approaches to the issue of the place of women in the church share the conviction that Scripture is a source of special revelation (revealed theology). Of these two approaches, one may be identified by the value it attaches to biblical statements of propriety and convention, such as those in the station codes and statements of restriction of female participation in the church (-1 Car. 14; 1 Tim. 2). These texts are made the starting place or “window” through which other biblical materials are perceived and interpreted. While this category appeals to the authority of Scripture (and so is committed to a self-consciously “high view” of Scripture), its approach is limited by a “mechanical literalism.”

Methodologically, this category is inadequate in contextual investigation (literary and historical). Theologically, this approach is weakened by a restricted understanding of revelation as propositional statements. The presupposition of this category may be identified as a positivist view of Scripture (not logical positivism) in that it would interpret sola scriptura to mean that Scripture is the exclusive authority for theology.[2] In this paper, biblical positivism is defined as a position which takes the Bible itself to be the “given,” the data or the evidence-and limited to that evidence alone as authority. In hermeneutical terms, this approach might be called monism and stands in contrast to the pluralism of the first approach.

The third category of approaches to the issue of women in ministry, precisely out of its commitment to Scriptural authority, attempts to incorporate the broad range of biblical evidence. The data considered to be important to the discussion includes such material as the biblical stories of the experience of the Jesus community and the early church. These stories are seen as reflections of the circumstances and the theologies of that church. The truly revolutionary practices of Jesus in relation to women, the participation of women alongside the apostle Paul in ministry, and the evidence of women’s participation (leadership) in worship services are all accepted as contributing factors in the dialogue. The rationale for such a program is that this evidence reflects the theological perspectives of the biblical writers. For example, the Lucan and Pauline writings present theologies of a new aeon in which social and religious barriers are superseded. Texts such as Acts 2:16-21, Galatians 3:28, and Ephesians 2 (which helps define the Galatians passage) are the “window” through which the biblical materials are perceived.

This third category is also committed to standard research into broader references which are used as sources by biblical writers. So, creation accounts and the station codes are investigated for the purpose of identifying God’s will as presented in the “whole council of Scripture.” This category is not only serious about inductive study of Scripture as primary authority, it is sensitive to experience, reason (analysis), and church tradition, norms which are reflected in the biblical materials themselves. The presupposition that governs this approach may be described as the primacist view of Scripture in the question of authority, which also allows the evidence of reason, the appeal of experience, and the instruction of tradition. This position has been defined in Wesleyan circles as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.[3]

The second and third categories reflect the tension inherent in Scripture, the tension drawn between eschatological vision (Joel) and arguments of social propriety.[4] Arguments of hierarchy and dominance/subordination stand alongside stories of revolutionary attitudes and practice in Jesus’ ministry and in the participation of women in the ministry of the early church. The following presentation on the issue of women in ministry is necessarily brief, but demonstrates the method of the third approach to Scripture.[5] The synthesis derived from this work reflects the conviction that Scripture is relevant and does lend guidance and inspiration to practice in the church, in this case to the issue of women in ministry. The significance of this method is that it reflects the integrity of a Wesleyan approach to Scripture and a particular vision of the means of faithfulness to its authority.

All serious (and even not so serious) Bible students interpret Scripture according to some set of principles, even if they are tacit. When any question is asked of Scripture, certain principles are exercised in the selection, evaluation (valuing), theological synthesis, and proposed application of conclusions. All who read Scripture make choices between the instructions received therein. All decide what portion of the Scripture is timeless and always applicable and which passages are only cultural expressions of some larger question. For example, though many have read the stated requirement that women wear a head covering in public worship (1 Cor. 11:2-16), there is no concern expressed in our churches that this injunction is be obeyed by women today. It has been dismissed as circumstance-bound instruction that no longer applies (although the principle which governed the instruction should be interpreted and does apply). The question, then, is not whether to make such distinctions, which are in fact demanded by the nature of many of the texts in the New Testament — occasional letters — but where to draw the line in that process.

In making such a choice, two almost automatic instincts govern this writer. First, we are allowed to define an expression as limited to a particular circumstance (with a corresponding application) where we have a clear statement of such limits from that text or another. Second, an old dictum applies: Where the text speaks, we speak (without reservation). Where Scripture is silent, we speak only with a great deal of humility.

Another consideration in this discussion is that some of the questions we address to Scripture are foreign to it. These may be worked out only by implication. The question of women in ministry is not foreign to the New Testament, but is not answered explicitly therein. While it is clear that women participated in the ministry of the New Testament church, definition of the parameters of that participation is disputed. But, it must be remembered that interpreters all are working from the same limited evidence, and more, that the so-called “clear statements” limiting the participation of women are not clear at all. If they were, there would be no discussion.[6]

The method of this particular study is to begin by reviewing the information on women in general in the New Testament. That information was written, selected, and preserved in androcentric (man-centered) societies. It is remarkable that given the patriarchal world view of the societies in which these documents were written, women were included in the story at all. There is enough evidence available in the various accounts of women in the New Testament to indicate that women were an integral part of the life and ministry of the early church. The story of the church could not be told without including the stories of women.

It is shortsighted to consider the place of women in the church without recalling Jesus’ attitude and actions toward the women around him. Women as well as men were attracted to Jesus in his three short years of ministry. Among Jesus’ rugged band of followers were a number of women. Jeremias calls this event, the fact of women following a teacher or rabbi, “an unprecedented happening in history of that time” (374). We know about these women from a few short references (Mark 15:40, 41; Luke 8:1-3). These women supported Jesus and his disciples financially. They were women with means and so probably came from an upper echelon of society. The Marcan account paints the poignant picture of these women, along with other women from Jerusalem, at the scene of Jesus’ crucifixion. The three women named in that portrait visit the burial site after Sabbath to anoint their Lord’s body for burial. And then, in a society where a woman’s word was not allowed in court, they were commissioned by Jesus to be the first to proclaim the resurrection. Nothing was more natural than their being among the 120 who waited in the Upper Room for the power that would give fire to their lives and witness. The church from its inception included women.

Who were the women who sought Jesus out and became a part of the Gospel story because of his impact on their lives? They are the three who became known as leaders among the group of women (Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of Jesus, and Salome). They are Mary and Martha, who, contrary to social rules, invited Jesus into their home. They include the woman unclean with her feminine infirmity and the despised Samaritan woman at the well who was the first commissioned by Jesus to “spread the Word.” They are the Syro-Phoenician (Gentile) woman who asked him for “the crumbs” for her demon-possessed daughter and the woman who, in a prophetic act, anointed Jesus.

A significant aspect of every story is that it was ever recorded and preserved. In a culture where women were property.[7] and had no rights or privileges to call their own, these stories themselves would have opened the door of the church to criticism and even contempt. But what is most significant about these stories is that, in every case, Jesus crossed all lines of propriety-religious and social. His very actions were a challenge to the cherished traditions of his own people. He went so far as to commend women as examples of faith and spiritual vitality, women who no rabbi would teach, women who were not counted in the number of a synagogue, who were isolated to a separate court at the temple, and whose religious vows could be overturned by their husbands.

Along with stories of women who accompanied Jesus and his disciples is the story of Mary and Martha. Jesus teaches Mary as he would teach any man who would follow him-an unheard of breach of religious leadership. “Better to burn the Torah than to teach it to a woman.[8] Women were not educated in the Synagogue school nor at home. “He who teaches his daughter the law, teaches her lechery.”[9] As if that were not enough, Jesus is recorded as having chided Martha for fulfilling her socially prescribed role instead of joining Mary (Luke 10:38-42).

The cumulative effect of such stories makes clear that Jesus broke custom in his championing of women as equally worthy of his concern and ministry. His evaluation of them far outstripped the most expansive and tolerant in his day and continually surprised even those who knew him well. The tone of his ministry was not to accept the status quo, but rather to model a new life and relationships to and for women. He challenged the sexist standards of his world-the lustful glance of an adulterous heart (Matthew 5:27-28.), the casual divorce, a male prerogative (Matthew 19:3-9),[10] and the threat of capital punishment applied unfairly — only to the adulterous woman (John 8:1-11). The popular attitude of the day was that women were responsible for all sexual temptation (and therefore sexual sin). None of these stories would be approved, much less applauded outside of the early church that preserved them. Yet, somehow, the gospel could not be told without them. Such events were so integral to the reality of the Jesus community that they comprised a part of the gospel itself.

An anticipated response to the above review of evidence regarding women in ministry is the popular objection that none of the women following Jesus became one of his twelve disciples/apostles. None were accorded equality. It is not necessary to argue cultural expediency here. It is enough to respond that no Gentile or slave was allowed that privilege either, but that was not and is not used to exclude these disadvantaged groups from the leadership and offices of the church.

Clearly, women were an integral part of the Jesus community that awaited the empowerment of the Spirit (Acts 1:14-15). And just as clearly, these women were among those who received the Spirit in fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy. The emphasis of Peter’s sermon is the universality of the Spirit’s work; those who previously were not candidates to share in proclamation-the young, the woman, the slave-were now anointed to prophesy as witnesses of the work of the Messiah (Acts 1:8, 2:1-4; Luke 24:44-49). It was incredible that women were included in the Gospel accounts; it is also a wonder that the participation of women in the early church was recorded in Acts and the Epistles. Against cultural expediency and propriety, these stories continued to be told. A brief perusal of the evidence of this participation can be listed in two categories: (1) brief references included in such incidental fashion as lists of women; and (2) epistolary discussions of women’s participation in ministry. We also will note (3) the household codes, (4) the argument from creation accounts, and (5) the relevance of emphasis on the eschatological age of the Spirit.

1. Lists of Women. The incidental and therefore brief references to women identified as participating in various aspects of the ministry of the church are powerful evidence of apostolic recognition of women in ministry. Why? Because at least one agenda for listing these women was to elicit recognition and support of their ministry in the church. Furthermore, these texts not only assume the role of such women, they exhort support of those women, and precisely in their roles as ministers.

In the book of Acts Philip the evangelist is noted with a reference to his four daughters who had the gift of prophesy (21:9). The Apostle Paul places this spiritual gift at the top of his list as the most valuable gift for edification of the church (1 Cor. 14:1). Mentioned in several epistles in the New Testament, another character, Priscilla, evidently bore quite a reputation (Acts 18:2, 18, 26; 1 Cor. 16:19; Rom. 16:3-4; 2 Tim. 4:19). How many others were referred to as often or in such a variety of texts? Her distinction for the purposes of this study is that she, along with Aquila, taught Apollos (Acts 18:26). Against Rabbinic tradition that identified women as “the wife” of the man who is named, the Apostle Paul recognized Priscilla as prominent enough not only to be listed along with her husband, but also to be referred to first in the pair more often than not (four of six times, one of these occurring in 1 Timothy, which indicates her prominence as teacher in the pair). By calling Priscilla a “fellow worker” in Christ Jesus, the Apostle Paul accorded Priscilla an equal place among other such workers as Timothy (Romans 16:21), Titus (2 Cor. 8:23), Luke (Philemon 24), Apollos, Paul (1 Cor. 3:9), and others.

This term applied to Priscilla, “fellow worker,” was also applied to Euodia and Syntyche, leaders at Philippi. Phoebe is explicitly called a “minister” (a term historically translated as “servant” only in the case of Phoebe). The same term was applied to the leaders Apollos (1 Cor. 3:5), Timothy (1 Tim. 4:6), and Paul (1 Cor. 3:5). Along with the references to Phoebe and Prisca (Priscilla) in Paul’s closing instructions to the Romans, four other women are listed as having “worked very hard” in the Lord: Mary, Tryophena, Tryphosa, and Persis. The Apostle Paul applied this same description to the ministry of other leaders in the church (1 Cor. 16:15-16; 1 Thess. 5:12; 1 Tim. 5:17). Finally, one of the two who Paul called “outstanding among the apostles” was a woman (Rom. 16:7). The name mentioned is Junias. David Scholer’s review of the evidence is most helpful:

Junias is a male name in English translations, but there is no evidence that such a male name existed in the first century A.D. Junia, a female name, was common, however. The Greek grammar of the sentence ... means that the male and female forms of this name would be spelled identically. . . . Since Junia is the name attested in the first century and since the great church father ... of the fourth century, John Chrysostom (no friend of women in history), understood the reference to be to a woman Junia, we ought to see it that way as well. In fact, it was not until the thirteenth century that she was changed to Junias (12-13).

It is obvious from these informal, uncontrived lists, that women played a significant role in the early church as leaders. Their function in ministry is defined in these places by the same terms applied to the ministry of men, and no gender distinction is made in role or function in the lists. Yet, despite the power of this evidence, it is clear that the record of women in ministry was more limited than that of men. The heroes of the biblical records are almost always men. It is probable that opportunity for participation in ministry was more limited for women.

2. Evidence of Participation. One of the strongest evidences for the participation of women in the worshipping community comes from the brief discussion of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. This text makes explicit reference to women prophesying and praying in services of worship. The reference is incidental; the practice is not commented on. That makes a strong case for inclusion of women in these ministries in services of worship. Such participation by women is evidently assumed under the wide rubric of spiritual gifts and ministries which have been designated to all (regardless of religious, social, or gender distinctions) for “the common good” (12:7). Several arguments are made in this text; a brief perusal is all that the confines of this study will allow.

First Corinthians 11:2-16 has been debated at length. The breadth of the arguments are best explained as arising out of what appears to be a contradiction in the text between vv. 4-7 and vv. 10-12.[11] Verses 4-7 require that women submit to the norms of their culture regarding head covering: “every woman who prays or prophesies with her kephale (head) uncovered (the word “veil” does not occur in this text) dishonors her head ... let her keep her head covered.”[12] Verses 10-12 are Paul’s corrective; women may wear a covering over their heads or may not: “For this reason the woman ought to have exousia (power, right or freedom of choice, the ability to, do something) over (covering) her head” (v. 10; cf. John 10:18, Acts 9:14, and Rev. 16:9 for the use of exousia with echo, and 1 Cor. 9 for exousia).[13] The Greek term authority should be translated as it is-that women should have “authority” over their heads. It should not to be translated as sign of authority or veil.[14]

In this context, exousia not only symbolizes woman’s (wife’s) glorification (vs. shame) of man (husband), but also her authority to play an active role in worship. “That is, her veil (sic.) represents the new authority given to women under the new dispensation to do things which formerly had not been permitted” (Barrett 255). Following this line of reasoning, such an interpretation is substantiated by the two verses following his statement. Having argued for natural differences between man and woman, Paul now lays down a new principle of mutuality and interdependence based also on creation (cf. 1 Cor. 7:3-5).

Prior to the argument of verses 4-7, a basic assertion is made which often is raised in the discussion of women in ministry: “Now, I want you to realize that the kephale of every man is Christ, and the kephale of the woman is man, and the kephale of Christ is God.” The normal meaning of kephale, or head, in the New Testament is source of being or origin; the rarer meaning is authority or dominion. While it seems obvious that the argument is an appeal to some sort of order, the meaning and application of the statement is much less obvious. This statement is made in service of the argument about what women do with their heads in their exercise of ministry (public prayer and prophesy); to do so without a covering brings shame upon their heads.[15] Whatever Paul’s statement does mean, it in no way functions in this text to limit the participation or leadership of women in public worship.

The translation origin or source of being, rather than authority or ‘-minion makes quite a different statement; when translated as authority /dominion, and so lord, this passage has been used to promote a sort of idolatry of men by women; women owe men what men owe Christ. But, while the text appeals to the order of creation from Genesis 2:18-23, it does not go so far as a straight parallel would allow. It does not claim that woman :.. the “image” as well as glory of man (11:7). Woman shares the image of God (and therefore is not more removed from God than man); this is a concession to Genesis 1:27 and 5:2 (Barrett 248, 249). Verse 8 restates the concept of origin or source in the order of creation.[16]

A question is raised when we are encountered by the words of 1 Cor. 14:33b-36, which some have read only as a limitation of the role of women in worship-only three chapters after women are casually recognized for their participation and leadership. The apparent discontinuity between these two passages also has been explained in a variety of ways.[17] Here, the governing perspective offered is that chapter 14 is instruction to three groups of people: (1) the tongues-speakers (vv. 2, 5, 9-19, 27 ff.); (2) the prophets (vv. 3, 24, 29-32; and (3) the women (34f.). The regulations for each group are similar, including the explicit command to “be silent,” and the basic corrective requirement of “order” (Fiorenza 230).

It is important to recognize Paul’s use of the verb lalein, “speak,” in 1 Corinthians 14:34. It should be translated inspired speech or argumentative and distracting debate or questioning. The term used is not Paul’s usual term for preaching or prophesying, so there is no contradict-on with the reference to women praying and prophesying in the eleventh chapter. No matter what final conclusion one places upon the instruction to be silent, it cannot be that women are not allowed to pray or prophesy in public worship. Ralph Martin’s argument is basic: “Paul remains committed to social egalitarianism in the gospel (Gal. 3:28), and there is the undeniable evidence of the role he accorded women colleagues (Phoebe, Prisca [Priscilla], the women of Philippi [Phil. 4:3] and the several coworkers in Rom. 16). It is “prima facie” unlikely he should state categorically “Let your women keep silent” in worship (85).

One of the proposed pictures drawn to explain this text and the larger context of this epistle is that of women who aspired to be charismatic teachers, claiming special revelations in inspired speech which were above the usual corrections of the congregation and apostolic teaching. Their claims were so inflated that the Apostle is led to sarcasm: Did the word of God originate with you? Are you the only people it has reached? In this scenario, the heretical teaching going on in the Corinthian congregation was a gnostic sort of teaching (cf. chapters 7 and 15).[18] Whatever sociological history this text is mirroring, Paul’s correctives were not aimed at the total restriction of women’s participation and ministry in Corinth anymore than he forbade tongues (14:39) or the ministry of prophesy in general. Women functioned with the gift to which Paul accorded highest (and corrective) value in that community (14:1). The Corinthian evidence displays a community in which women were participating in leadership in the community, some of whom required correction, not of that function, but for abuse of the function.

The above discussions of the participation of women in public worship and lists of women who led in the early church all bear evidence to the fact that women did function in ministry in the early church. While there is no claim to “office” here, there is no question but that “function” occurred. Use of the lists of women in this discussion is an appeal to at least some of the tradition and experience of the early church. Such information should be considered alongside what are considered to be propositional instructions.

3. The Use of Household Codes. One significant aspect of the argument against women in ministry is the appeal to the household codes located in the New Testament. These household codes, with their hierarchical order, were not created by the New Testament authors but rather are quoted from the Graeco-Roman culture of that day.[19] The Greek philosopher Aristotle, who predated Christ by three and a half centuries, was the source of the formal arrangement of pairings based on this dominant/subordinate hierarchical model:

The primary and smallest parts of the household are “master” and “slave,” “husband” and “wife,” “father” and “children” . . . Authority and subordination are conditions not only inevitable but also expedient.... There is always found a ruling and a subject factor ... between the sexes, the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female subject.[20]

Aristotle expanded this household code to the realm of political life because in his thinking, “the household was a microcosm of the state.”[21] He taught the authority/subordination model in the pairing of ruler/people. He promoted his social order as necessary to stability, harmony, and political security. Any threat to this Aristotelian value system was considered by the Roman Empire to be a threat-to such stability and security. So, the Roman emperor Octavian instructed his soldiers to “allow no woman to make herself equal to a man” (Cassius 50.25.3, 28.3). What was the occasion for such an instruction? Antony and Cleopatra. David Balch reviews the problem as follows:

If democratic equality between husband and wife as it existed in Egypt were allowed to influence Roman households, the government would degenerate into a democracy; and the Romans believed this changed form of government would be morally worse than the aristocracy or monarchy which had brought them to power. The Egyptian Cleopatra’s goddess Isis, who “gave women the same power as men,” was perceived as a threat to continued Roman rule (USQR 162-3).

The rights of the one in authority were assumed. Tyranny was not criticized as an expression of that authority in the dominant culture as directed by Aristotle’s words: “For there is no such thing as injustice in the absolute sense towards what is one’s own.”[22] In the same writing Aristotle assumes that since the one owned is “as it were a part of oneself and no one chooses to harm himself; hence there can be no injustice towards them and nothing just or unjust in the political sense.” He was advocating a benign tyranny based on inferior/superior natures. Yet, the Roman Stoic, Seneca, critiqued Roman treatment of slaves as “excessively haughty, cruel and insulting” (47.1 and 1).

This lengthy look back is necessary for us to recover the impact of the household codes as used in the New Testament. The impact is that the Roman household codes were not simply adopted. They were adapted, that is, qualified in the earlier New Testament texts (in chronological order-Col. 3:18-4:1; Eph. 5:21-6:9, 1 Pet. 2:13-3:7). They were not accepted as absolutes, but critiqued even as they were appealed to. For example, in Colossians 3:18-4:1, the traditional pairings are each followed by an unthinkable modification, which in fact, points to a higher code of ethics than the one encapsulated in the original codes:

The injunctions of the code in Ephesians are filled with new meaning as they appear under the revolutionary paragraph heading “submit to one another,” which is applied to all of the following discussion. The reason given there for submission is not an appeal to the superior or inferior nature of the other, but rather, reverence to Christ. It is impossible for the twentieth century student of the Bible to appreciate fully the newness of the relationship commanded of husbands and wives in Ephesians. Likewise, the command to Christian masters was full of the seeds of change: “treat your slaves in the same way” (i.e., by the same set of attitudes and conduct required of Christian slaves towards their masters). Such radical qualifications of the household codes are a class apart from any parallel in Greek philosophy, Stoicism, or Roman household codes (Balch 161). And the seeds of such thinking produced the fruit of the story of Paul, Onesimus, and Philemon.

First Peter also sets conditions on the household codes. In a setting of crisis, submission to human authority is for the Lord’s sake. Christians were suffering “unjustly” at the hands of tyrannical masters (2:19-20), husbands (3:6), and local government officials (2:14, 3:14,17). The purpose of the code in 1 Peter is not to insist on conformity to traditional values, but pragmatically to steer a prudent line. The appeal is for Christian commitment even when it involves suffering.[24] There was no question of an “inferior nature” being advanced here, for all are called to live as “servants of God” (2:16). Christ as the “Suffering Servant of God’ is the model to follow (2:21-24). In the specific address to slaves in chapter two, the terms used elsewhere in the codes for servant (doulos) and master (kurios) are not used here. Rather, the terms household servants (oiketai) and despots (despotai) are used. The reason for the shift from the traditional use of the code language is that the author has already used the term servant to refer to every Christian (2:16) and master (or Lord) for God (2:15).

Roman rulers might not judge “justly” as God has ordained that they should (2:13-14) and as God himself does (2:21-23), but are to be submitted to for the Lord’s sake. Christian wives are to submit to pagan husbands for the purpose of evangelism (3:1-2) and are not to fear them (3:6). Christian husbands are called to a relationship with their wives quite different from the cultural norm. In fact, a most revolutionary concept appears here: the husband’s spiritual vitality is dependent upon the way he treats his wife.

The most significant critique of the husband-wife pair of the household code in 1 Peter would be immediately obvious to the original hearers of that epistle. And yet, without historical and cultural background, readers today would all but miss it. The Christian women addressed in 1 Peter 3 were married to pagan husbands. And yet, despite the norms of the Roman (and, in fact, Jewish) culture of that time, these women were allowed the freedom of religious choice by 1 Peter. That instruction went against the typical Roman perspective such as is expressed by Plutarch:

A wife should have no friends but those of her husband; and as the gods are the first of friends it is becoming for a wife to worship and know only the gods that her husband believes in, and to shut the door tight upon all queer rituals and outlandish superstitions. For with no god do stealthy and secret rites performed by a woman find favor (Plutarch 140D, 140DE).

Even while addressing women in this text by appealing to the social code of the day, 1 Peter assumes their religious independence from their pagan husbands (cf. 1:18, 4:3, 4). These women were encouraged to keep their faith and not to fear their husbands, who likely had been expressing extreme displeasure and concern at their wives’ conversions. So, when those women heard this epistle in a service of worship, they heard a proclamation of freedom, religious responsibility, and increased value. Had their pagan husbands heard that same text, they would have heard insubordination and anarchy. And how would they have heard the words addressed to their wives, “Do not give way to fear”? Oh, how differently this text is read today!

Many scholars have recognized the difference in the way the household codes are used in the Pastoral Epistles. The predominant attitudes of the culture of that day seem to be expressed in the way the codes are used in these letters.[25] Here there is no leveling instruction to the dominant members of the pairs such as is found in the Colossians or Ephesians texts. And yet, the motivation for use of the code is telling. Why should women and slaves be subject? So that the church may win the acceptance of society. But, this is still not the Roman appeal to an inborn nature which is superior or inferior. It is a pragmatic appeal like the exhortation to prayer in 1 Timothy 2:1-3. The purpose for the instruction is “that we may live peaceful and quiet lives” which will provide the opportunity for the salvation of all.

First Timothy 2:11-15 is the text most often quoted by those who believe that Scripture teaches the restriction of women’s ministry. In fact, it has been used by some as the defining text of the discussion of women’s place in the church. It seems that the reason the passage is given such priority is that it is judged by some to be a clear statement of instruction. Yet, the complexity and difficulty of the passage is mirrored in the disagreement it evokes among even conservative scholars. The presupposition one begins with radically affects the way this text is valued and investigated. If the text is adopted as a propositional statement, as Paul’s definitive (eternal and everywhere) word on restriction of the participation of women, then it follows that “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man” (2:12) is taken as “clear instruction.” However, the first level,of investigation adopted here, literary and historical analysis, raises a number of serious challenges: the text is not at all “clear” in its meaning.

The first major challenge is that the interpretation of verse 12 depends on how one translates the verb authentein which is an hapax legomenon in the New Testament. The translator must rely on other sources to determine possible meanings; there are four and each one radically affects the sense of the whole passage.[26] This difficulty is increased by the fact that the verb didaskein in 1 Timothy is always used in conjunction with another verb which qualifies its meaning (e.g., 1:3-4, 4:11, 6:2-3). Therefore, in verse 12, authentein qualifies the teaching; it refers to-the negative content of the teaching and not to the activity of teaching itself. The Kroegers have concluded:

If the context of 1 Timothy 2:12 is neutral and refers only to the activity of teaching rather than to its positive or negative content, then it is the only time that didaskein is so used in the Pastorals.... It is in keeping with the other uses of didaskein to find in this directive a condemnation of their heterodoxy (81).

This interpretation is strengthened by recognition that the grammar of the sentence allows at least two interpretations. One of these is that it is an indirect statement with a repeated negative, in which case the emphasis of the sentence would be on the content of the teaching and not on the function of teaching.

Further difficulties are presented in the verses surrounding verse 12. In verse 11, the term for silence is not the term used in 1 Corinthians 14 and has five possible meanings, none of which is as strong as the term used in that letter. The best interpretation of the term is quietness or in a quiet demeanor (Fee 72). That is its sense also in the instruction just verses earlier in 1 Timothy which exhorts prayers “so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life . . .” (1 Tim. 2:2; cf. 2 Thess. 3:12 and 1 Thess. 4:11). The term does not mean verbal silence but an attitude of reverence or a state of peacefulness. The phrase “I do not permit” is better understood if translated “I am not permitting,” which suggests specific instruction for a particular circumstance (Fee 72).

For some, another problem in these verses is that Paul’s usual term for “man” is not used in 2:8-15. In the Pauline letters, aner or man occurs fifty times, and gyne or woman occurs fifty-four times in eleven texts. In each case, the terms refer to husbands and wives, and not male and female. This complicates the interpretation of “full submission”; to whom exactly are women to be in full submission? Their husbands? Men in general? True Christian teachers? -The grammer of the sentence does not make the answer easy. Once again, the passage is not “clear.” Nevertheless, the best interpretation for the unit seems to be that these are general instructions directed to men and women. The conclusion selected here as best fitting the overall context is that women are to learn teaching quietly from true Christian teachers such as Timothy.

Finally, the relationship of verse 15 to the total passage is a puzzle; there is no consensus about the meaning of “she will be saved.” Contextual and historical studies identify the passage as one of the several responses of the letter to the false teachers at Ephesus. The content of the false teaching included misunderstanding of the Old Testament, speculative Jewish myths (genealogies) and asceticism. That false teaching was particularly attractive to women and to younger widows who avoided remarriage and had opened their homes to those who taught false doctrines (2:9-15, 5:11-15, 2 Tim. 3:6-7). Such teaching has been identified as a “precursor to Gnosticism”[27] and as doctrines based upon “perversions of the Adam and Eve saga,” with Eve as creator and spiritual illuminator of Adam and the serpent as offering “gnosis” to the world.[28] The influence of local goddess religions also is manifested in such teaching. All in all, the difficulties of this passage in 1 Timothy are best explained when the instruction is recognized as correction of false teaching and teachers at Ephesus.

Given just the few difficulties mentioned briefly above, it is remarkable and indefensible that verse 12, a difficult verse, and a single verse, would be given the status it has been given by some in the church. Even more, it is incredible that one single verse would be made the basis for any doctrine, especially one so critical in its impact on the church. Particularly if one counts the epistle as Pauline, these words must be weighed in light of the evidence that Paul allowed women in ministry, and further that he required submission to their leadership.[29]

The second level of investigation which affects the interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is to study the passage in the broad context of the appeals for submission in the station codes as used in the New Testament. The major difference between 1 Timothy 2 and the earlier appeals to the codes is that there is no reciprocity in this instruction.[30] And yet, even here in the most conservative expression of the code in the New Testament, the reason given for submission is not the nature of the creation, but rather the story of the Fall. This appeal to woman’s greater culpability in the Fall cannot be taken as a theological absolute. The Genesis account itself (Genesis 3) does not assign such a meaning to the woman’s succumbing first to temptation (only the man who is defending himself appeals to any “priority” of guilt!); punishment is equally assigned. And the Apostle Paul, when referring to the Fall, talks about Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12-14). In fact, the claim made in 1 Timothy 2:14 that “Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner” cannot be equated with the Genesis or Romans references to this event. It is much more like the rabbinical speculations of that time as expressed, for example, by Philo, the Apostle Paul’s older contemporary:

. . . the woman, being imperfect and deprived “by nature,” made the beginning of sinning; but man, as being the more excellent and perfect nature, was the first to set the example of blushing and being ashamed, and indeed of every good feeling and action.[31]

Long ago, Adolph von Hamack presented his theory to explain the changes in social attitudes from Jesus’ followers and the earliest expression of the church to Christianity as represented by the Pastoral epistles (1 Timothy and Titus). He observed the following progression: (1) the radical perspectives of Jesus, (2) unconventional freedom for women in the earliest congregations, (3) conditional appeals to the cultural norms by use of the household codes, and (4) uncritical acceptance of Graeco-Roman values. He called this progression an Hellenization process.[32] While Harnack’s theory may be rightly critiqued for not allowing for the different trajectories in a complex early history, his observation may be redirected in recognition of the appeals to accommodation for the sake of evangelism or, in the case of the Pastorals, social conservatism in reaction to heresy.

This process of accommodation may be observed in an historical glance at a comparable social issue, slavery. In the Old Testament some laws reflected the concern that Jews were never to forget that they were once slaves. In fact, the central story of the Torah (first five books of the Old Testament) is the Exodus. God freed the Hebrew slaves from their Egyptian lords. Therefore, slavery was conditioned with many protections in Israel. Slaves were to be freed after six years of service, were to be sent off with blessings and liberal provisions for livelihood (Exodus 21:1-6, Deuteronomy 15:12-18). Slavery was not to become a perpetual institution. There was no elitism involved. This was quite a different expression from Aristotle’s concept of a natural hierarchy. Such an historical and literary history surely influenced the thinking of the early church, but the attitudes and values of the church through time have often followed (or, even led) arguments for cultural expediency and orthopraxy (or in the case of segregation of the church along racial lines, arguments for the effectiveness of evangelism).[33]

Careful study of the household or station codes reveals a very different usage in the New Testament than is claimed in some popular teaching of today. While the codes may be expressing a “reversion to convention”[34] the motivation demonstrated in the New Testament was pragmatic concern and was not based upon some concept of natural order by creation. The popular interpretation of these codes today is more Aristotelian than Christian and ignores the impact of the spiritual qualifications placed upon them by the New Testament writers and the motivation for their use.

4. Argument from Creation Accounts. In the above examination, arguments from the creation accounts have been referred to briefly. The creation account of Genesis 1 presents a creation in which male and female are together created in the image of God (cf. 5:1-2). The second creation account, which Paul appealed to (Gen. 2), includes two aspects which have been used to promote a hierarchical model of authority/submission. First, woman is created after man and from his rib. While it might be argued that 1 Corinthians 11 suggests an order of priority on the basis of this text, the original text does not support the development of a model of dominance/subordination. The “rib” is the symbol of correspondence between man and woman. The man and the woman belong to each other in a qualitatively different way than they belong to the animals: “The unique closeness of her relationship to the man is underlined above all through the fact that she is created, not from the earth but out of the rib from man himself’ (Wolff 94). If anything, the woman is distinguished from the animals who are not suitable for relationship with the man, who are subordinate to him. The woman’s superiority over the animals, not her inferiority in relationship to the man, is the point of the story.

The second aspect of the text used to support the dominance of man is that woman was created to be a helper for man (Genesis 2:20). Yet, this term helper is the same term used of God in his relationship with man (e.g., Exod. 18:4; Isa. 30:5; Psa. 146:5). With some humor, one might argue that since this term is used of the helping one who is superior (God), the woman who helps man, is the superior party. At the very least, there is no connotation of subordination with the use of the term; only that of correspondence. The term has been misapplied when it is interpreted to mean that woman was created to be servile to man.

The concept of subordination is only first referred to in Genesis 3:16 as a consequence of the Fall. Domination/subordination is presented as a new reality brought into being by sin and is represented as a part of what is broken in the marriage trust. Speculation on this text which envisages women as inferior or as properly subordinate is a late development in Judaism, occurring first in the second century before Christ. “The Old Testament [itself] does not emphasize the subordination of wives” (Balch 1986, 97). If the consequence of the Fall is the subordination of women, should that subordination be lifted up as the ideal? It seems obvious that it is a part of the fallen creation, the old order, which in the Apostle Paul’s mind is passing away.

There is no doubt that the Jewish culture was patriarchal, especially in Jesus’ day. Yet, women were generally accorded more value in the Jewish culture than in the Roman world. It is certain that misogynism (extreme devaluation of women) was a late rabbinical development which was adopted by some of the church “fathers” of the second and third centuries. Such attitudes are not careful reflections on the creation accounts of Scripture, but are adaptations of the Biblical message revealing the influence of Graeco-Roman culture.

5. The Eschatological Age of the Spirit. Another line of reasoning in the discussion of women in ministry is that which is developed along the lines of Peter’s use of Joel’s prophesy on the day of Pentecost as presented by Luke (Acts 2). The uniqueness of that event is explained as the universality of the pouring out of God’s Spirit; the surprise of the crowd was that they all heard the gospel in their native languages. This prophesy proclaims the means behind the method in the book of Acts; the gospel will be proclaimed across many barriers (1:8) because the Spirit will be poured out “.on all flesh,” across all categories of the church: (1) age — young as well as old, (2) gender-female as well as male, (3) status — slave as well as free.[35] The sentiment of this prophecy is presented by the Apostle Paul in his teaching of the church (Gal. 3:28), the new creation, the new Adam (Romans 5), and a new Israel-all eschatological (end times) categories. In the line of such thinking, the Apostle Paul preaches a new time in which “we are no longer under the law.” It is the time now in which “faith has come” (Gal. 3:25). In the same discussion, Paul speaks of the inception of that faith and baptism into Christ; in Christ (here in the corporate sense of the church): “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).

The threefold distinctions excluded in Paul’s pronouncement “you are all one in Christ Jesus” correspond to popular formulas which maintained such distinctions. The morning prayer of the Jewish male included the thanksgiving that he was not created a Gentile, a slave, or a woman.[36] Against the Roman expression of distinction and division in the household codes and Jewish man’s prayer, the Apostle Paul proclaims the positive dissolution of all such realities. The fact that Paul is presenting more than a visionary and “spiritual” ideal is proven in that it was precisely the human structures of these distinctions which were addressed in the life and practice of the early church.

For example, the vision of Peter in Acts 10 is lived out in Caesarea and then was the motivation for inclusion of the Gentiles in Acts 11. The unity Paul preaches is to be a reality in the social experience of the church (Eph. 2). Not only does Paul insist that the church live out such a vision, but he also attempts to model it himself. This vision is the basis of his confrontation with Peter. Paul also appeals to Philemon for the sake of Onesimus out of such convictions. And, his practice of including Christian women as partners in his ministry was the culminating expression of his conviction that “In Christ, all things are made new” (2 Cor. 5:17). Nevertheless, “whereas Paul’s ban on discrimination on racial or social grounds has been fairly widely accepted ... there has been a tendency to restrict the degree to which ‘there is no male and female’” (Bruce 189). In the text of Galatians, the context may be limited to a discussion of baptism which is open to all (as opposed to circumcision which was the old sign of the law). “But the denial of discrimination which is sacramentally affirmed in baptism holds good for the new existence ‘in Christ’ in its entirety” (Bruce 190). F. R Bruce’s conclusion seems to be the best, given both content and context:

No more restriction is implied in Paul’s equalizing of the status of male and female in Christ than in his equalizing status of Jew and Gentile, of slave and free person. If in ordinary life existence in Christ is manifested openly in church fellowship then, if a Gentile may exercise spiritual leadership in church as freely as a Jew, or a slave as freely as a citizen, why not a woman as freely as a man? (190).

The evidence selected and analyzed above creates an argument which is cumulative in force; women should be included, not only in the life of the church, but also in the function of ministry (with appropriate office) in the church. The visionary expression of Jesus’ life and ministry with women infers it. The practice and expressions of mutuality of the Apostle Paul indicate the same. The household codes are best thought of as cultural expressions appealed to for pragmatic concerns and in their very qualification indicate an open future. The appeals to “creation order” are not so conclusive as many would like us to believe and at any rate will not support the exclusion of women in ministry. Finally, the idealism of the eschatological age, the age of the Spirit, was certainly understood to have come into being at Pentecost. The implications of the “new creation” were gradually recognized and affirmed in the life and practice of the church. The record of the New Testament is the story of that process.

The question of degrees of implementation which the evidence implies has been argued by some along the lines of function versus office. This line of thinking is that women may function in ministry, but are not to be allowed the formal legitimacy of office. A derivation of this idea is that women be allowed in an office only where they would not be “over men.” In this case, a woman always functions under the authority (and so supervision) of a man. Such a distinction seems artificial, especially given the history of distinctions between clergy and laity. Even the Catholic Biblical Association’s committee on the Role of Women in Early Christianity makes the following observation:

In the primitive Church ... ministries were complex and in flux, and the different services later incorporated into the priestly ministry were performed by various members of the community. . . . Thus, while Paul could speak of charisms as varying in importance ... the New Testament evidence does not indicate that one group controlled or exercised all ministries in the earliest Church. Rather the responsibility for ministry, or service, was shared.... The Christian priesthood as we know it began to be established no earlier than the end of the first or the beginning of the second century.

Therefore, the committee recognized that all of the members of the body were understood to have been gifted for up-building ministries (Eph. 4:12; cf. vv. 15-16; 1 Cor. 12:7, 12-31; Rom. 12:4-5). Women did perform ministry and exercise functions that were later defined by offices of ministry. Therefore, the committee concluded, against their own church tradition, that “the New Testament evidence, while not decisive by itself, points toward the admission of women to priestly ministry.”[37]

It has already been noted that nowhere does the New Testament speak explicitly of women in church office. Only three discussions in the New Testament even touch on the participation of women in worship services. The basic concern of these texts is for proper conduct. First Corinthians 14 cannot mean that women are not to pray and prophesy (preach) in public assembly (cf. 1 Cor. 11:3-6). The prohibition in 1 Timothy (2:11-15) is unclear and the use of the household codes in 1 Timothy and Titus is the most conservative expression of the codes and runs counter to evidence of some other texts in the Scripture.

The household codes cannot be appealed to for the general supervision of all women functioning in ministry in the church. In their contexts they are applied most often to husbands and wives and are discussions of proper interpersonal relations in the family (and perhaps to that particular family in their experience in worship). If the Apostle Paul were applying his use of the household codes to ministerial function in the church, he never would have mentioned Priscilla’s name first in the lists. He was already breaking tradition to mention her name at all, and more to list her as a teacher of Apollos.

While some New Testament texts portray (and react to) new-found freedom for women in Christian communities, other texts apparently restricted women in others along societal conventions. The impetus for change regarding the status of women was lively in the church just as it was for Gentiles and slaves. Participation of women in services of worship and their inclusion in ministry are evidence of that. Some of the early motivation given for teaching acceptance of one’s present societal role or status was the conviction that Jesus was returning immediately (e.g., 1 Corinthians 7). In later texts, that motivation was replaced by the need for the tolerance of society and harmony in mixed-religion homes with the instruction about submission.

Despite the variety in the record of the experience of early Christian communities, there is much that leads us to see the early church, when it recognized women in ministry, as self-consciously wrestling with the new realities called into being in the kingdom of God, the messianic kingdom, the age of the Spirit. The best understanding of Scripture invites us to be so visionary today.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aburdene, Patricia and Naisbitt, John Megatrends for Women. New York: Villard Books, Random House, Inc., 1992.

Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics 5. Translated by H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University, 1956.

. Politics I. Translated by H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Library. New York: G. P Putnam’s Sons, 1932.

Balch, David L. “Early Christian Criticism of Patriarchal Authority: 1 Peter 2:11-3:12,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 39/3 (1984): 161-173.

____. “Hellenization/ Acculturation in 1 Peter.” In Perspectives on First Peter. Edited by Charles H. Talbert. Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1986.

____. Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter. The Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series, no. 26. Chicago: Scholars Press, 1981.

Barrett, C. K. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Harpers New Testament Commentaries. New York: Harper & Row, Publ., 1968.

Bruce, R F The Epistle to the Galatians. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1982.

Cassius, Dio. Roman History 50. Translated by Earnest Cary. Loeb Classical Library. New York: G. P Putnam’s Sons, 1917.

Catholic Biblical Association’s Committee on the Role of Women in Early Christianity, “Women and Priestly Ministry: The New Testament Evidence.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41 (1979).

Elliott, John H. A Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981.

____. “l Peter, Its Situation and Strategy: A Discussion with David Balch.” In Perspectives on First Peter, Edited by Charles H. Talbert. Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1986.

Fee, Gordon D. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus in the New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1988. Harkness, Georgia. Women in Church and Society. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972.

Harrrnack, Adolph von. History of Dogma. Translated by Neil Buchanan. New York: Russell & Russell, 1958.

____. The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries. Translated by James Moffatt. New York: G. P Putnam’s Sons, enq

Jeremias, Joachim. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1949.

Jewett, Paul K. Man as Male and Female. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975.

____. The Ordination of Women. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980.

Kroeger, Richard Clark and Catherine Clark. 1 Suffer Not a Woman. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1992.

Leonard, Juanita Evans, ed., Called to Minister, Empowered to Serve. Anderson, Indiana: Warner Press, Inc., 1989.

Martin, Ralph P The Spirit and the Congregation. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1984.

Padgett, Alan. “The Pauline Rationale for Submission: Biblical Feminism and the Hina Clauses of Titus 2:1-10,” Evangelical Quarterly 59 (1987).

____. “Wealthy Women at Ephesus: 1 Timothy 2:8-15 in Social Context” in Interpretation 41(1989):19-31.

Pagels, Elaine H. “Paul and Women: A Response to Recent Discussion.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 42 (September, 1974): 538-549.

Plutarch. Advice to Bride and Groom. Translated by Frank Cole Babbitt. Loeb Classical Library. New York: G. P Putnam’s Sons, 1928. Scholer, David M. “Women in Ministry.” The Covenant Companion (December 1983, Febuary 1984).

Senaca. Moral Epistles 47. Translated by Richard M. Gummere. Loeb Classical Library. New York: G. P Putnam’s Sons, 1917.

Stendahl, Krister. The Bible and the Role of Women. Translated by Emilie T. Sander. Facet Books, Biblical Series 15. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966.

Thorsen, Donald. The Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1990.

Williams, Donald. The Apostle Paul & Women in the Church. Regal Books. Ventura, California: GL Publications, 1977.

Wolff, Hans Walter. Anthropology of the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] ‘This article is dedicated to Dr. Marie Strong, my mentor and model, who passed into eternity January 18, 1995, and is now enjoying her reward. As a minister of the gospel for sixty years and as a Bible professor for over thirty years at Church of God (Anderson) colleges, “mother” Marie lived out her ministry in a church body (Church of God) that has sought to be an expression of the vision this article represents. I also take this opportunity to I thank Alan Padgett and Susie Stanley. Alan, in his insight, creativity, and kindness, helped to create the three “P” terms I use here. In the process, he helped me to sharpen my statements. Susie Stanley gave her time, intelligence, and heart in an initial discussion which helped to direct my focus.

[2] I am working from Hepburn’s discussion of positivism and particularly from a specific statement made there: “The word ‘positive’ (probably deriving from a usage of Francis Bacon) is here contrasted with the conjectured: it is associated with the ‘given’, the data of the sciences” (The Dictionary of Christian Theology, 1969 ed., s.v. “Positivism” by R. W. Hepburn).

[3] The argument for the primacy of Scripture does not allow for any negation of Scripture as authority. Thorsen’s summary is helpful in establishing this point: “Neither Wesley nor the quadrilateral controverts the primacy of scriptural authority. Those who use the Wesleyan quadrilateral to diminish the primary authority of Scripture misinterpret Wesley’s belief and Outlet’s intention in coining the term `quadrilateral.’ But, while Scripture is viewed as primary, it should not be considered exclusive. Such an understanding would be inappropriate for Wesley as well as for Christian antiquity and the Protestant Reformation” (Don Thorsen, The Wesleyan Quadrilateral, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990, 241).

[4] Those arguments are not simply for the sake of “propriety” however. In each case the purpose for the instruction has to do with a particular situation being addressed. See the following section on house or station codes.

[5] This presentation is a revision of my work “Biblical Precedents for Women in Ministry” in Called to Minister, Empowered to Serve, ed. Juanita Evans Leonard (Anderson, Indiana: Warner Press, Inc., 1989), 13-33.

[6] Some, voicing a “positivist” view of Scripture, would claim that no discussion is necessary, not only from the vantage point of Scripture, but also by appealing to church history. I was recently made aware that some think of the issue of women in ministry as a recent concern arising out of the social impulse to radicalism beginning in the 1960s. A knowledge of Church history would correct such a misunderstanding, especially a history of the last 150 years. It is ironic that the issue arose primarily as a “low church” phenomenon in America, and as part of a reformation reaction to institutionalized and nominalized religion (“high church”) from the 1860s through the turn of the century (with the Church of God, Anderson, Indiana, coming to the strongest practical expression of that phenomenon; in 1925 — 32% of its pastors were women). As these “low church” denominations gained identity and later a certain respectability, radical reform was less a concern, and institutional survival more important. What made such movements (pentecostal, holiness, etc.) suspect to established denominations was precisely such practices as women in ministry, racial integration of worship services, and other “social justice” expressions. But today it is the older denominations which ordain women, and many with a fundament/evangelical perspective seek to distance themselves from such “liberal” practices. On the history of this in the Church of God movement, see “Women in Ministry” in Centering on Ministry, (Winter 1980, 5:2)1-2, published by the Center for Pastoral Studies of Anderson University.

[7] Women were listed as property along with cattle. See Georgia Harkness, Women in Church and Society (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972), 42-52. In general, women did not have the right to personal property; it belonged to husband or father. Exceptions to such mores would have been restricted to the elite. Samuel Terrien, Till the Heart Sings (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 123.

[8] Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanos, as quoted in Jeremias’ Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, 373.

[10] “The right to divorce was exclusively the husband’s” (Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, 370). Jeremias adds that public stigma and the requirement that the financial agreement in the marriage contract be honored (that money be returned) acted as a deterrent for hasty divorce. Therefore, the Hillelite provision for capricious divorce was not necessarily fulfilled. This evidence does expose the attitudes of the day, however.

[11] Alan Padgett provides a logical presentation of the contradiction and offers the conclusion that vv. 3-7b are Paul’s “description” of the Corinthian position, and vv. 7c-16 are Paul’s correctives (“Paul on Women in the Church: The Contradictions of Coiffure in 1 Corinthians 11: 2-16” in JSNT 20 [1984]: 69-86hereafter cited as “Women in the Church”). This follows a pattern common in Paul’s writings and certainly occurring in 1 Corinthians 6:12-17 and 8:4-13. Overviews of the debate on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 are presented by Linda Mercandante in her From Hierarchy to Equality: A Comparison of Past and Present Interpretations of 1 Cor. 11:2-16 (Vancouver: Regent College, G-M-H Books, 1978) and by Ralph N. Schutt in his “A History of the Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16” (MA Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1978).

[12] Ibid. Veil or kalymma does not occur at all in this passage. See Padgett’s summary of the evidence in “Women in the Church.” Padgett points his readers to the original work in Jerome Murphy-O’Conner, “Sex and Logic 1 Corinthians 11:2-16,” CBQ 42 (1980): 483f. He also refers his readers to James B. Hurley, “Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women?,” WJT 35 (1972-73):190-220; Abel Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple (Lund: Gleerup, 1965),161-66; W. J. Martin, “1 Corinthians 11:2-16: An Interpretation,” in W. W Gasque and R. P. Martin (eds.), Apostolic History and the Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 233.

[13] Padgett, loc. cit., 71-2. The translation “sign”/“symbol” of authority is disallowed syntactically and semantically, and does not fit the context, which makes an egalitarian appeal. See Padgett’s article for in-depth and orderly discussion of this text and possible translations. The phrase dia tous angelous is more problematic, but could mean human messengers such as Pricilla who may have visited the church in Corinth. Padgett offers this suggestion with the judgment that “this interpretation ... [is] at least as plausible as others,” 81-82. Exousia was a watchword at Corinth. In response to the misguided grasping for “power” of the Corinthians (or at least of some significant group in the community), as is revealed throughout this correspondence, Paul makes the statement of his own modus operandi—his personal example in 1 Cor. 9.

[14] As many commentators have recognized, the tern is Paul’s normal word for “authority” and includes the sense of active exercise (and not passive reception of it as some have claimed). See Scholer, “Women in Ministry,” 17. See also Barren, The First Epistle to The Corinthians, 253-4 and M. D. Hooker, New Testament Studies, x, 410-416.

[15] Head may be a reference to the husband of the woman here. David W. J. Gill proposes that sociological factors of status and dress (including head coverings) are behind this text (“The Importance of Roman Portraiture for Head-coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16,” Tyndale Bulletin 41.2 [1990]: 245-260). See also R. Oster “When men wore veils to worship: the historical context of 1 Corinthians 11:4” NTS 34 (1988): 481-505 and C. L. Thompson “Hairstyles, Headcoverings, and St. Paul: Portraits from Roman Corinth,” Biblical Archaeologist 51:2 (1989): 99-115.

[16] Padgett argues that the headship statement is a reference to the position of the Corinthians Paul is attempting to correct: “Thus the debate between Paul and the Corinthians can be seen as a debate over the meaning of ‘head’” (“Women in the Church,” 78-81). This fits the context; vv. 10-12 are egalitarian statements.

[17] The summary and critique by Ralph P. Martin of a number of these attempts to explain the apparent inconsistency is helpful. See The Spirit and the Congregation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Co., 1984), 84-88. But some insist that the text is an interpolation and so need not be explained as Paul’s instruction. It seems best to begin with the text as it appears and evaluate all possible options for making sense of the text before speculating about its insertion into the letter.

[18] These women could be sharing in a claim of “special knowledge” which included speculations that there was no actual resurrection of the body but that a spiritual “resurrection” had already occurred at baptism. Such teaching could have prompted Paul’s extended reply, beginning with his question, “How can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the body?” (15:12). Their denial of the resurrection lay in the claim that they were raised in baptism-they were “angelic beings” (13:1) after a misapplication of the words of Jesus recorded in Luke 20:35-36. It is also apparent that Paul was responding to a belief in sacramental efficacy (11:17-34; 10:1-22). Such a concept lead to a confusion in the home; as resurrected beings they no longer participated in marriage obligations — they were attempting to live in a state of celibacy in marriage (7:3-5). These heretical teachers (women glossolalics) were to be kept “under control” as the “law” required (nomos, meaning principle and here referring to Paul’s teaching; cf. vs. 37). The meaning of “asking their husbands at home” is a response to the challenge these women presented to their husbands in public assembly. The verb eperotan, inquire after, is used in the sense of interrogation, in the same way as they challenged apostolic authority. This interpretation, offered by Martin, fits the larger portrait drawn of the Corinthian church and is supported by a parallel circumstance in 1 Timothy 2:8-15 where arrogant women aspired to be teachers of “things they know not” (teaching gnostic perspectives and presuming the right understanding of the faith) (The Spirit and the Congregation, 84-88).

[19] The information about household codes is collected in the following two texts: John H. Elliott, A Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981) and David L. Balch Let Wives be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter (The Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series, 26, Chicago: Scholars Press, 1981). The articles most helpful for the argument developed here are by these same two scholars: John H. Elliott, “1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy: A Discussion with David Balch” in Perspectives on First Peter, ed. Charles H. Talbert (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1986), 61-78, and David L. Balch, “Hellenization/Acculturation in 1 Peter” in the same text, 79-102. I agree with Balch on the meaning of the “household codes” in the text of 1 Peter as I have presented it in this paper. Much of the following discussion comes from information collected by Balch in his article “Early Christian Criticism of Patriarchal Authority: 1 Peter 2:11-3:12,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 39/3 (1984): 161-173.

[20] Emphasis added. Aristotle, Politics I, 1253b 7-8; 1254a 22-23, 29-31; 1254b 13-21, trans. H. Rackham (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1932).

[21] See the discussion of Aristotelian political philosophy in David Balch’s “Early Christian Criticism of Patriarchal Authority: 1 Peter 2:11-3:12” in Union Seminary Quarterly Review, 39:3 (1984): 161-3.

[22] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Y, 1134b 9-18, trans. H. Rackham (LCL, Cambridge: Harvard University), 1956.

[23] This is David Balch’s table expressing the household codes. This layout of the passage also reveals the qualification of each aspect of the code. See Balch, “Early Christian Criticism of Patriarchal Authority,” 161.

[24] “Household codes” are better defined as “station codes” in 1 Peter. Submission to government is also enjoined.

[25] It was not too much later that misogynism developed in full form both in Jewish and Christian literature. Plato’s low evaluation of women is well documented and the Greek culture certainly influenced these times. The Jewish Law that a woman was unclean during menstruation (Leviticus 15:19ff.) and the rabbinical speculations on the special culpability of woman in the Fall were developed into negative doctrines and attitudes by some early Church Fathers.

[26] The technical study of the use of this verb is meticulously presented in I Suffer Not a Woman by Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1992), 79-104.

[27] Alan Padgett presents a compelling presentation for typology as the interpretive approach governing verses 11-15. Both Eve and the Ephesian women are deceived and “saved through childbirth” recalls Genesis 3:15. Eve bears the seed that is at enmity with the se-pent. Eve then is made both positive and negative type: “She is an example of deception in verses 13-14 and an example of salvation through childbirth in verse 15,” (“Wealthy Women at Ephesus,” in Interpretation 41:1989, 19-31).

[28] Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger present a lengthy study of the cultural and historical influences behind the false teaching which included pagan goddess religions and Jewish mythologies and genealogies or origins as gnostic developments. They then read this passage along with Padgett and others, as a refutation of false teaching (I Suffer Not a Woman, 19-23, 62-66, 88-98, 103-177). See also Samuel Terrien, Till the Heart Sings, 191- 193.

[29] For example, Phoebe is called a prostatis (overseer, guardian, Rom. 16:12) which is the term used to indicate elders who preside (1 Tim. 5:17), rule (Rom. 12:8) or hold authority over (1 Thess. 5:12), and which occurs in short instructions to respect and honor leaders or elders.

[30] The same is true of Titus 2:1-10. David Schroeder, “Die Haustafeln des Neuen Testament”‘ (Diss., U. Hamburg, 1959) as summarized by Alan Padgett in “The Pauline Rationale for Submission: Biblical Feminism and the hina Clauses of Titus 2:1-10,” Evangelical Quarterly 59(1987): 44. Padgett refers to the codes in the pastorals as “church codes” because they focus on relationships in the church (not the home).

[32] I am indebted also to Balch’s summary of Hamack’s work in “Early Christian Criticism” (Adolph von Hamack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, trans. James Moffatt (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1908, l, 19, 31, 77, 314, and History of Dogma, trans. Neil Buchanan, New York: Russell and Russell, 1958, 1, 45-57, 116-128; II, 169, 174).

[33] It was not so long ago that Paul’s words in Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 3:22, and 1 Timothy 6:1-2 were used to support the institution of slavery in the United States of America and elsewhere, and that further, some church teaching included an Aristotelian philosophy of the natural inferiority of some peoples. Subordination to government has also been required by appeal to the station code texts. Martin Luther based his teaching on “Orders of Creation.” This theory was behind the Lutheran support of the German state until the fall of the Hohenzollems. As the Nazis gained power, German Christians justified the Nazi concept of the State by the same means. Karl Barth and other church leaders of the day critiqued such a use of Scripture to define a social order. See summary statement by Adam Miller in The Role of Women in Today’s World (Anderson, IN: Commission on Social Concerns, 1978), 3-6.

[34] This language, created by Elaine H. Pagels, is an attempt to recognize the motivations for various teachings on women. See her article “Paul and Women: A Response to Recent Discussion,” 546. This article comes from her talk at the AAR annual meeting in Chicago in 1973.

[35] Jews were more likely to have been disturbed by the inclusion of slaves as prophets than women. The Old Testament includes no stories of slaves as God’s prophets. In contrast, there was a strong tradition of women as prophets (Miriam — Ex. 15:20; Deborah — Jg. 4:4; Huldah — 2 Kg. 22:14; the wife of Isaiah — Is. 8:3. Rabbinical tradition refers to seven prophetesses — Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, Huldah, and Esther. This point is made by Knofel Staton in the paper he presented to the Open Forum of the Church of God and Christian Church (Independent) in Lexington, Kentucky on April 3, 1991, titled “The Teaching in Acts 2:17, 18 and Its Implications for Christian Unity ,” 7.

[36] The earliest record of this prayer identified thus far is in the work of Rabbi Judah ben Elai, c. A.D. 150. However, the formula itself can be traced back to the Greek Thales who was grateful that he was a man and not a beast, a man and not a woman and a Greek and not a barbarian (Diog. Laert., Vit. Phil. 1.33). Socrates and Plato said substantially the same thing and Aristotle adopts their thinking. As noted earlier, Aristotle’s teachings where spread (process of Hellenization ) by Alexander the Great in the 300s B. C. His empire covered much of what would later become the Roman empire. See expanded argument in F. F. Bruce, 188-191. It may be noted that the Jewish thanksgiving remains part of the orthodox Jewish expression. It occurs in the popular volume Daily Prayers, ed. Rabbi M. Stern (New York: Hebrew Publishing Co., 1928).

[37] “Women and Priestly Ministry: The New Testament Evidence,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41 (1979):609, 613. The whole issue of church tradition must be reviewed given the explicit and astounding new evidence of participation of women in not only ministry, but also office. Against the standard presentations of the Catholic church, Mary Ann Rossi, translating the work of Giorgio Otranto, offers summaries of archaeological findings which portray women functioning as priests and bishops in the early catholic church: (1) fresco of a woman blessing the Eucharist in the Priscilla catacomb in Rome — possibly Priscilla; (2) inscriptions identifying four women by name as priests; (3) a Roman mosaic picturing one of four bishops as a woman, Theodora; and (4) ninth-century correspondence from Bishop Atto confirming that women served the early Church as priests and bishops, but were banned in the fourth century. Evidence such as this raises the question of official suppression of historical evidence of women’s leadership in the church. Such evidence has been used for a popular argument against the Catholic hierarchy by its appearance in Megatrends for Women by Patricia Aburdene and John Naisbitt (New York: Villard Books, Random House, Inc., 1992), 126.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes, provided the notice below the horizontal line is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact webadmin@wesley.nnu.edu for permission or to report errors.

I do not disagree that men should be pastors or overseers.

I have no problem with men be pastors or overseers either. I also understand the biblical reasons that many disqualify women from those roles.

I object when certain scriptures are used to do that. I especially object to the passages about deacons and elders being the husband of one wife getting used to demonstrate that women are ineligible for the role of pastor.

The logic is that "elders are to be the husband of one wife." Therefore, since women cannot be "husbands," then elders can only be men.

1. If "husband" is used to eliminate women from the office of elder, then "husband" can also be used to eliminate unmarried men from the role of elder.

2. Likewise, since the elder is told that he must have his children under control, then married but childless men are not eligible to be elders. It's obvious, I believe, that the verse is saying that elders cannot be polygamists, having more than one wife.

Along this line, it would make more sense to use the verse to say that previously divorced men are ineligible to be elders. While I don't believe it myself, I do admit that a reasonable, and logical, case can be made that divorced men have been the husband of more than one wife.

Why am i visualising the woman's sewing circle...a.k.a. "Stitch n B!tch", that all Presbyterian Churches seem to have?

LOL, Sounds like the last place I would want to be.

In all seriousness, i believe that you may be over reacting a bit, and perhaps buying into a dichotomy that is false. That Dichotomy is that there is Scriptural instruction, and then there is Practical instruction.

No, I am looking at principle and application. Titus 2:3-5, "the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things--that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.

This kind of instruction seems like a more "hands on" personal kind of teaching.

Women need to know doctrine as well as any man, and they need to be able to communicate that doctrine.

I agree and there are plenty of church services, Sunday school classes, bible classes, etc. led by pastors and elders for women to attend. In the first place, though, wouldn't it be a novel idea if a woman's husband taught her doctrine?

However, it does mean that Christ Himself could not have been an elder, nor Apostles who were single.

In merely human terms, correct. In terms of Divinity, the Church is the bride of Christ. Paul was probably divorced. A single man could not have risen so far within Judiasm as did Saul of Tarsus. While i'm not aware of a rule against it, the tradition of the Pharisees would be a very loud voice against such a thing.

I am unaware of polygamy being practiced among Christians of that time, so I think the reference does mean (from my understanding) an undivorced man.

Correct. Polygamy was not practised, but among both Jews and Romans, Serial Monogamy certainly was. There was a majour controversy between Rabbi Shammea, and Rabbi Hilliel over divorce and the reasons for it. The question that a certain man asked Jesus in the gospels about divorce and remarriage wasn't simply yet another ploy to trap Jesus by his words. It was a sincere question about a majour controversy among the Pharisees at the time. Jesus of course endoursed the position of Rabbi Shammea over that of Hilliel.

i am perhaps a bit liberal on this question. While i accept that a remarried man is disqualified for office, a divorced and unremarried man would still be considered the Husband of one wife, and would in theory be elligible.

That all said, the reference (Ti 1:6) in many translations reads "but one wife." (NASB) It may be conceivable that this means "up to one wife"--equating to a never married man. My problem with that more liberal take is the other items mentioned that can practically only be had by having been married.

Regrettably, i'm pretty sure that the language of that passage prohibits the interpretation that is given here. Here is the reading of the original (don't wory, i'll translate the Greek, LITERALLY, since it bears on the question before us).

2) dei' ou\n to;n ejpivskopon ajnepivlhmpton ei\nai, mia'" gunaiko;" a[ndra...

TRANSLATION:
Therefore it is necessary for a bishop to be above reproach, [A] ONE WOMAN MAN...

This may be a idiom for monogamous, but i doubt it. i believe that the single man is disqualified here. i know that a man married more than once certainly is prohibited from office.

Women’s Role Within the Church by Gerard A. Scolamiero (Revised December 31, 2004) When focusing on the topic of the role of women within the Church we must of necessity deal with the issue of the ordination of women. Ordination is the act whereby the church publicly affirms God’s call to ministry in the life of an individual.

While gaining in popularity within many denominations, the ordination of women is unscriptural.

From the founding of the church up until the early 20th century, few Christian denominations or groups allowed women to be ordained. Since that time, most of the liberal denominations have accepted female ministers and pastors and many mainline denominations are following suit.

Those supporting and promoting the ordination of women cite Gal. 3:28 as the core or “heart” of the New Testament instruction to the church regarding the subject. They uphold it as the proof text concerning the ordination of women and the functional roles of Christian men and women within the church. However, a thorough exegesis of Galatians 3:28 and the surrounding passages reveals the fact that this section does not refer to a new social structure nor do these verses support or even enter into a discussion of the idea of gender impartiality. This text instead clearly focuses on justification. In context, Paul is talking about those who are saved, not those who hold an office within the church. He affirms that God accepts all through faith in Jesus Christ, without any discrimination. Thus, the nature of salvation (salvation is totally of God without regard to the status of those saved) and one’s spiritual standing before God (united/one and equally blessed in Christ, joint-heirship of men and women in Christ)--not the role of women within the church—is the topic in view.

While women are equal to men in the eyes of God, they are different. According to His will as revealed in scripture, women may serve in a multitude of roles within the church, ministering to women, children, etc. However, God’s Word is clear that they are not allowed to assume positions of authority over men, they are not allowed to serve in the role of pastor/teacher for the following reasons.

Christ gave His church the public, pastoral ministry of Word (Mt. 28:19; Eph 4:11 -12; Rom 10:15; 1 Cor. 4:1; 2 Cor. 4:1). The church is to entrust this ministry to faithful and able MEN (1 Tim 3:2 and Ti 1:7-9). This teaching is reinforced, in both passages in which the qualifications of a bishop or elder are listed, (1 Timothy 3:1-2, Titus 1:5-6). The candidate must be "the husband of one wife." These offices are clearly open to men only given that a woman obviously cannot fulfill this most basic qualification.

According to 1 Cor. 14:34b-35 women are to keep silent and to be in submission when in church. If they want to clarify some theological point, they are instructed to wait and approach their husband at home. These statements totally exclude women from becoming ministers or pastors.

Paul's declaration in 1 Tim. 2:11-15 that he would not "permit a woman to teach or to usurp authority over a man" is NOT based upon societal or cultural norms, rather it is directly tied in verses 13-14, i.e., to both the order of creation and the historic fall of our first parents Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

"For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression." (1 Tim. 2:13-14)

Simply stated; God's Word says women are prohibited from teaching or to usurping authority over men because God, sovereignly made man before He made woman and secondly because the woman was deceived. This later statement implies that part of the reason God does not allow women to function in this role is because there is something inherent within women that makes them more susceptible to deception then men. Again, neither of the two reasons Paul cites for this prohibition have anything whatsoever to do with societal or cultural norms of his day or ours.

Those supporting the ordination of women or women serving as pastors willfully overlook the two biblical reasons why God does not permit women to serve as pastor/teachers. Neither of Paul’s reasons are grounded in culture or societal development and neither of these reasons can be overturned by time, society or culture. Therefore, the ordination of women is unscriptural.

While women are given significant tasks and responsibilities for service within the church (Rom. 16:1; Tit. 2:3 – 5, 2Tim. 1:5; 3:14 – 15), God's word says they are not allowed to assume responsibility for public pastoral teaching and preaching in the church. To allow otherwise is to dangerously depart from the revealed will of God as clearly presented in Scripture.

One more thing, I forgot to mention previously. I found it both telling and intellectually dishonest that Ms. Sharon Clark Pearson in her lengthy exposition “Women in Ministry a Biblical View” conveniently excluded Paul's declaration in 1 Tim. 2:13-14 which clearly cites the two reasons why God’s Word says women are prohibited from serving as pastors/teachers, who both teach and exercise authority over men. She, omitted dealing with these verses because the order of creation and the woman’s role in the historic fall of our first parents Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden form the crux of God’s prohibition and these two reasons for His ban are insurmountable because they have nothing to do with society, culture or changing times or norms.

"For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression." (1 Tim. 2:13-14)

God does not contradict Himself; the two reasons for this prohibition stated in 1 Timothy 2:13-14 stand to this very day and nothing can change them. Therefore, it is clear that it is not God’s will; He does not permit women to serve in this capacity.

First Corinthians 11:2-16 has been debated at length. The breadth of the arguments are best explained as arising out of what appears to be a contradiction in the text between vv. 4-7 and vv. 10-12.[11] Verses 4-7 require that women submit to the norms of their culture regarding head covering: "every woman who prays or prophesies with her kephale (head) uncovered (the word "veil" does not occur in this text) dishonors her head ... let her keep her head covered."[12] Verses 10-12 are Paul's corrective; women may wear a covering over their heads or may not: "For this reason the woman ought to have exousia (power, right or freedom of choice, the ability to, do something) over (covering) her head" (v. 10; cf. John 10:18, Acts 9:14, and Rev. 16:9 for the use of exousia with echo, and 1 Cor. 9 for exousia).[13] The Greek term authority should be translated as it is-that women should have "authority" over their heads. It should not to be translated as sign of authority or veil.[14]

Would you please clarify the translating of verse 10? Some common translations follow, that are in disagreement with the author's exegesis.

The NKJV renders verse 10, "For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

The NIV, "For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head."

KJV, "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."

My sense was as I reread that passage that the author was simply making the point that covered or uncovered Paul was allowing the woman to pray in church.

A proper translation is important because the author goes on to say that her interpretation leads her to the following conclusion: In this context, exousia not only symbolizes woman's glorification of man, but also her authority to play an active role in worship.

All the stuff about the head covering has clearly been decided by most in our era as not applying to women today, but as being purely a cultural issue for that era. I hate to use that argument, btw, because it can be so abused when people try to apply it willy-nilly to every tough issue that arises in the New Testament. I hesitate even to use it here. Perhaps women should have their heads covered "because of angels."

The whole head covering teaching in these passages is difficult. I have heard the argument from some women that they (admitting to sinfulness) are not in submission to their husbands, so they don't think they should cover their heads. They don't want to be hypocrites but it doesn't seem to bother them that they are not being submissive. 8)

I do not believe that the teaching is cultural for the same reason you just cited, "because of angels".

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.