ADDRESSING THE
QUESTION RAISED BY THIS month’s
“tough text” gives me a little insight into how a bomb
squad technician must feel: “One wrong move and this
thing will blow up in my face.” To set the stage,
therefore, I want to say right up front that the
ministry of women is of incalculable value. To be
honest, in fact, words truly fail to adequately express
such worth.
First, and foremost, a woman is to be a
“help-meet” to her husband (Gen. 2:18, 20), that is, “a
fitting help,” one who is tailor-made by God to meet
every need of her husband and support and aid him in
ministry. Second, a woman is to be a homemaker (1
Tim. 5:14; Titus 2:5), one who makes a warm nest for her
family. Third, she is to teach her children and
younger women how to serve the Lord (Titus 2:3–5). How
can you put a price on all that? Such a woman’s value
is, indeed, “far above rubies” (Prov. 31:10; cf. 11–31).
If I may interject, I have personally had the joy of
being married to such a woman for 35 years, as of this very month.
That is the role
of women as set forth in the Word of God. Sadly,
however, such incalculable worth is not good enough for
modern thinking. Feminism has infiltrated the church,
creating what can safely be dubbed “Christian Feminism,”
the attitude that women can do whatever they choose,
they can “have it all,” and other such humanistic
nonsense.
Nowhere is
this more evident, in fact, than in the area of
preaching, teaching, and leading in the church. While we
briefly mentioned this in a previous TOTT
(#21, April 2007, “What About the
Deacon and Deaconess?”), there is today a need for
further clarity. Never in Church History do we find as
many women adopting these roles than today, in spite of
the fact of how unmistakably clear it is in Scripture
that they should not. This has arisen, of course, from
the Egalitarian View that
permeates our society, and which has infiltrated our
churches, schools, and seminaries. This view, held not
only by liberals but by several noted
evangelicals,[i] maintains that
men and women are equal in essence and function and no
role distinctions can be made between them.
Adherents to
this view often see Paul as either contradicting himself
or at least being confused when he wrote to Timothy:
Let the woman learn in silence with
all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor
to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Some hold that his attitudes were molded more from
rabbinical teachers of his day than from Divine
inspiration (a blatantly blasphemous idea to start
with). Their “proof text” is Galatians 3:28, “There is
neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free,
there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in
Christ Jesus,” which they say teaches that
because we are all one in Christ, therefore most, if not
all, order and authority structure in the church should
be eliminated. Just reading the verse and its context,
however, demonstrates that they have absolutely nothing
to do with roles, rather spiritual position, possessions, and
privileges.
Others try a more
scholarly approach by saying that the word authority
actually means “domination,” which means that Paul was
simply telling the women not to domineer, or run over
the men in the church, not that they could not lead them
at all. On this point, one modern commentator
graphically demonstrates the modern trend of
reinterpreting this passage:
As is true
in all of his letters, Paul is addressing specific
people and specific situations. Rarely do we have access
to the actual problems. But is it not safe to assume
that some of these newly liberated women in Christ had
become overly aggressive in the meetings of the
congregation? . . . What the interpreter must decide,
then, is the scope of application. Were these only local
situations that needed the drastic remedy that Paul
prescribed, or was Paul setting forth a universal rule
to be applied in all churches, in all places? I prefer
the former
. . . . Paul is clearly
referring to his personal practice. It seems to me that
this practice is to be limited rather than universal in
the church.[ii]
While our desire
is always to speak the truth in love, such comments are
truly appalling. The statement, “Rarely do we have
access to the actual problems,” is a subtle attack on
biblical sufficiency, obviously implying that “since we
don’t have all the facts, we can’t say for sure.”
Further, the words “it seems to me” are irrelevant. What
matters is what the text says. Was Paul simply giving
his opinion and dealing only with a local abuse? Such
ideas are preposterous, as his going back to the Old
Testament precedent in verses 13–14 proves beyond doubt.
In fact, Paul goes back to this precedent in the other
major texts that deal with this issue (1 Cor. 11:7–9;
14:34). In all these Paul points out the authority
structure that God created in the beginning.
We say
again, like most of today’s trends, such
reinterpretation is a wholly modern
invention. In contrast to the
above, note another commentator’s exposition, this one
by the incomparable John Gill, who ministered in London
100 years before Spurgeon and who Spurgeon quoted often.
Commenting on 1 Corinthians 11:5 (and also citing
14:34–35), he wrote: “Not that a woman was allowed to
pray publicly in the congregation, and much less to
preach or explain the word, for these things were not
permitted them.” On our text, Gill further comments:
They may teach in
private, in their own houses and families; they are to
be teachers of good things, Titus. 2:3. . . . but then
women are not to teach in the church. . . . one part of
rule is to feed the church with knowledge and
understanding; and for a woman to take upon her to do
this, is to usurp an authority over the man: this
therefore she ought not to do.[iii]
Gill is not an
isolated example. Unlike our day, when words can mean
whatever each individual chooses them to mean, most
expositors and theologians of yesterday knew Scripture
and were not swayed by modern thought. We could cite one
quotation after another. Commenting on 1 Corinthians
14:33–39, as well as our text, B. B. Warfield, wrote:
“It would be impossible for the apostle to speak more
directly or more emphatically than he has done here. He
requires women to be silent at the church-meetings. . .
. Neither the teaching nor the ruling function is
permitted to woman.”[iv] Calvin adds that
Paul “forbids them to speak in public, either for the
purpose of teaching or of
prophesying.”[v] And the
examples go on. If I may be so bold, is it that we are
more enlightened today, or are we just
defiant?
So, does
authority actually mean “to
domineer” as insisted today? Not precisely. While the
Greek authenteo (English, “authority,” etc.),
which appears only here in the New Testament, includes
the idea of domination, its primary meaning is more
basic. As one Greek scholar states, “The kindred noun
authentes, ‘one who does a
thing with his own hand,’ [appears in Classical Greek]
in Herodotus, Euripides, and
Thucydides.”[vi] All this is
derived from autos (“himself”) and
entea (“arms or armor”),
indicating “a self-appointed killer with one’s own hand,
one acting by his own authority or
power.”[vii] Further, Paul
goes on to narrow the idea by saying a woman is not to
teach, that is, not in the public assembly. The point
could not be clearer.
The words
silence and silent are also reinterpreted nowadays. The
Greek in both instances (hesuchia)
unmistakably means “silence,” but some argue that it can
mean “a meek and quiet spirit,” therefore,
permitting women to preach or teach as long as they do
it with the proper attitude. Not only is this reading
something into the word that isn’t there, but if there
were any doubt to the meaning, the word subjection would
erase it. The Greek hupotage literally
means “to line up under” showing subordination and
submission. As if that’s not enough, God prefixes
subjection with the
words with all, emphasizing
the complete subjection
called for. In the context of all public meetings, women
are to be silent and content in the role of the learner.
If I may lovingly say, today’s playing of word games and
careless exegesis simply ignore the plain truth of
Scripture.
Are we
saying women are inferior? Absolutely not! That
is precisely why Paul said, Let the woman learn. While
it’s obvious to us that women should be taught God’s
Word—they are spiritually equal in Christ and the
commands of the New Testament are to all (1 Peter
2:1–2)—it was not at all obvious to those who came from
a Jewish background. First-century Judaism did not hold
women in high esteem. While not barred from attending
synagogue, neither were they encouraged to learn. In
fact, most rabbis refused to teach women, and some
likened it to throwing pearls to pigs. Nor was the
status of women in both Greek and Roman society any
better. They could not hold public office or even go
into any public assembly.
What we see
here, then, is the exact opposite of what Paul is
accused of by our modern “liberated society.” Far from
being a “male chauvinist,” what he said to Timothy, and
by extension the Ephesian believers, was shockingly
revolutionary. He didn’t suggest that women be
taught, rather commanded them
to be taught. With that one statement, Paul did more for
women than anyone else in his day or
ours.
But, while this
was new to contemporary Jewish tradition, it wasn’t new
to men of God at all. The Old Testament clearly declared
the spiritual equality of women to men. The Mosaic Law
was given to all Israel, both men and women (Deut. 1:1).
Both were to teach it to their children (Deut. 6:4–7;
Prov. 6:20). Both were equally protected by the Law (Ex.
21:28–32). Both had inheritance rights (Num. 36:1–12).
Both participated in the Jewish religious feasts (Ex.
12:3; Deut. 16:9–15). Both could take the Nazarite vow
(Num. 6:2). And both were involved in spiritual service
(Ex. 38:8; Neh. 7:67). We also see that God at times
dealt directly with women (Gen. 3:13: 16:7–13; Judg.
13:3).
The same is true
in the New Testament. Jesus revealed His messiahship
first to a woman (Jn. 4:25–26). He also not only healed
women (Mk. 5:25–34; Lk. 13:11–13) but crossed the
tradition of the rabbis by teaching women (Lk.
10:38–42). Women reciprocated this attitude by
ministering to Jesus and His disciples (Lk. 8:2–3). The
first person Jesus appeared to after His resurrection
was a woman (Mk. 16:9; Jn. 20:11–18). Both women and men
were involved in the prayer services of the early church
(Acts 1:13–14). Peter reminds men that women are to be
“[given] honor . . . as the weaker vessel and as being
heirs together of the grace of life” (1 Pet. 3:7). The
fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:21–22) is for both men and
women. In short, all the promises, commands, and
blessings of the New Testament apply equally to women
and men.
The other
side of this issue, however, is that spiritual
equality does not cancel out differing
roles. In the Old Testament,
there were no “queens” in either Israel or Judah
(Athaliah was a usurper; 2 Kings 11:1–16; 2 Chr.
22:10—23:15). Many people react to this by saying, “Oh,
but Deborah served as a judge (Judg. 4:1—5:31) and
proves that women can lead.” Her case, however, was
unique. Dr. Robert L. Saucy comments,
There may be
instances when the regular pattern of God’s order may
have to be set aside due to unusual circumstances. When,
for example, the husband and father is absent, the woman
of the house assumes the headship of the family. So it
would appear, there may be unusual circumstances when
male leadership is unavailable for one reason or
another. At such times God may use women to accomplish
his purposes even as he used Deborah.[viii]
Indeed, all the
men in Israel were paralyzed with fear at Jabin, the
king of Canaan (4:2–3), so there was no one who would
stand except one woman. She then encouraged Barak to
pursue God’s plan. It’s significant, however, and often
ignored, that Deborah declined to lead the military
campaign against the Canaanites, deferring instead to a
man, Barak.
Additionally, not a single woman ever served as a
priest, was an Old Testament author, or had an ongoing
proclamation or teaching ministry like that of Elijah,
Elisha, or the other prophets. While it is true that
Miriam (Ex. 15:20), Deborah (Judg. 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings
22:14), and Isaiah’s wife (Isa. 8:3) are called
“prophetesses,” not one of them had a permanent calling
to that office. Even more significant, in not a
single one of those instances is there even the
slightest indication of this being done in a public
setting. Additionally, in fact,
Isaiah’s wife did not prophesy at all—she was called a
prophetess only because she gave birth to a child whose
name had prophetic meaning—and the other three
prophesied only once each.
So while many
today are desperate for any biblical justification they
can conjure up to support women teachers, it is a futile
exercise. One writer puts it well in his comment about
Huldah:
Though Huldah was
a prophetess, the solitary record of her prophesying
involved some men going to her where they communed
privately. . . . It is impossible to find public
preaching here.[ix]
Finally,
Noadiah is the only other “prophetess” named, but she
was a false prophetess (Neh. 6:14). So while there were
instances when God spoke through women, it was rare and
extremely limited. Not one had a permanent role of
preaching or teaching and not one did it in public. Each
served, as the Latin says, exceptio probat
regulum (the exception
establishes the rule[x]).
Undeterred, modern
reinterpreters zealously turn to the New Testament to
try to prop up their sagging argument, but we find the
same pattern there as we do in the Old. Totally ignored
is the plain and simple fact that we find not a single
woman pastor-teacher, evangelist, bishop, or
elder.[xi] Also like the Old
Testament, no New Testament author was a woman, nor do
we find a record of even one sermon or teaching by a
woman.
Luke 2:36–38 is
cited as evidence of women teachers because Anna was a
prophetess who served in the Temple.
But if one just reads the passage, he immediately sees
that it clarifies that she “served God with fastings and
prayers night and day.” There is not the slightest
intimation that she was involved in public teaching. In
fact, as the 1st Century Jewish historian
Josephus makes clear, on one side of Herod’s Temple
“there was a partition built for the women . . . as the
proper place wherein they were to worship” and “when
they went through their own gate could they go beyond
their own wall.”[xii] Because of such
separation from the men, public instruction was
impossible.
Priscilla is also
repeatedly appealed to as “proof” of women teachers
because of her aid in the instruction of Apollos (Acts
18:26). But it should also be noted that Aquilla is
mentioned first and was undoubtedly in charge, and the
instruction was in private.
Appeal is
also made to Acts 2:17–18 and 21:9, both of which say
there were prophetess in the 1st Century
church. But
again, in neither case is either the occasion or the
message included, so there is no justification in
assuming that they taught
during the public worship, much less that they had an
ongoing preaching ministry. The book of Acts, in fact,
nowhere records a woman teaching men in public. The same
is true of Euodias and Syntyche. While they “laboured
with [Paul] in the gospel” (Phil. 4:2–3), there is no
indication that their aid was public preaching or
teaching.
In addition to all
that irrefutable evidence, presbuteros
(“elder”) is masculine. If women could be elders, the
Bible would somewhere say so by using the Greek word presbutera, but we never find
that term in the Bible as speaking of a female elder.
While presbuteras does appear in 1
Timothy 5:2, it is used only to refer to older women not
women elders.
Likewise, the
requirements for leadership in 1 Timothy 3:1–7 speak
specifically of “a man” desiring the office (v. 1) and
the necessity of him being “the husband of one wife” (v.
2). With no sarcasm intended, I know of no way that a
woman can be the husband of one
wife.
To
repeat a comment from the aforementioned
TOTT
#21, in the meeting and ministry of the Church, a
woman is neither to teach nor have a position of
leadership. Men are to lead, and women are to follow. In
short, women are to be learners, not
leaders. Even Acts 6 clearly
indicates that only men filled the office of deacon. (As
demonstrated in TOTT
#21, “deaconess” is not a New Testament
office.)
Does all
this mean that women are inferior to men? As mentioned
earlier, NO, NO, a thousand times NO. God simply
commands differing roles as being in line with His
design for the weaker vessel. The issue is not
superiority, rather authority, which in
turn results in responsibility and
accountability. That is why God said through
James, “Be not many [teachers], knowing that we shall
receive the greater condemnation” (Jas. 3:1). Countless
Christians today, both men and women, have no idea how
foolish they are being to take on the responsibility of
teaching, which they are not called to,
qualified for, or trained in.
Alas, in spite of all the
clear, indisputable evidence, the practice of women
preaching, teaching, and leading has never been so
rampant. From church worship, to “revivals,” to
seminars, to Bible colleges, and every other venue, this
trend permeates today’s church. With extremely rare
exceptions, this practice has been virtually nonexistent
in the Church until the 20th Century, and
according to the clear teaching of the Word of God, it
is wrong, regardless of the famous women who practice it
and the popular teachers (both women and men) who defend
it.
For the sake of
unity, we will not list the many who are practicing this
today, but sadly the list is a long one. If I may
say from my burdened heart, it is a sad commentary on
the Church today that a principle so crystal clear, an
issue so beyond even the minutest dash of doubt, that it
can still be readjusted, or even totally ignored, for
the sole purpose of conforming to modern
thought.
Dr. J. D.
Watson
Pastor-Teacher
NOTES
[i]
Examples: former professor at Moody Bible Institute,
Stanley Gundry; Mennonite theologian Myron S.
Augsburger; textual scholar F.F. Bruce; popular speaker
and writer Tony Campolo; commentators Gordon Fee, Walter
Liefeld, and Lloyd J. Ogilvie; and noted pastor of
Willow Creek Community Church, Bill Hybels.
[ii] Lloyd J. Ogilvie, The
Preacher's Commentary (Thomas Nelson, 1982-1992),
electronic edition. The similar reading of personal
opinion into the text appears in the Life Application
Study Bible (Tyndale).
[iii] John Gill's
Exposition of the Entire Bible (electronic
edition)
[v] Commentaries (1
Cor. 14:34).
[vi] M. R. Vincent ,
Vincent’s Word Studies, electronic
edition.
[vii] Spiros Zodhiates, The
Complete Word Study Dictionary (AMG Publishers,
1993),
electronic edition,
#831.
[viii] “The Negative Case
Against the Ordination of Women,” in Kenneth S. Kantzer
and Stanley N. Gundry, eds., Perspectives on
Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), p.
285.
[x] The often used
expression “the exception proves the rule” is imprecise,
“leading the unwary to think that any self-respecting
rules must have an exception. What is meant is that the
existence of an exception to a rule provides an
opportunity to test the validity of a rule: Finding an
exception to a rule enables us to define the rule more
precisely, confirming its applicability to those items
truly covered by the rule” (Eugene Ehrlich, Amo,
Amas, Amat and More [Harper and Row, Hudson Group,
1985], p. 121).
[xi] See TOTT # 19 & 20,
(Feb./Mar., 2007), “Pastor, Bishop, and Elder,” for a
study of these critical terms.
[xii] The Wars of the
Jews, Book 5, Chapter 5, Section
2.
