Without doubt, the issue of women preaching in a local congregation has proved most contentious in the churches in recent decades. Kathy Keller, who at one stage of her life was preparing for ordination in the United Presbyterian Church (now the PCUSA), records her experience at Redeemer Presbyterian Church: 'Over the years sexuality and gender, as well as personal choices in these areas, have been at the top of our list of topics that provoke outrage, tears, shouting, and disappointment.' In fact, 'One woman told me tearfully when she learned Redeemer did not ordain women as elders or pastors, "It was like finding out that your fiancé is a child molester!"'1 The subject has certainly made for drama and melodrama.
Our Motives
For so-called pastoral reasons, many congregational and denominational leaders are not keen to raise this issue at all. It is true that the Church is rarely reformed in a day; not everything can be done at once (see 1 Cor.11:34). Nevertheless, it is the utilitarian who asks: 'How can I maximise happiness and minimise pain?' The Christian, on the other hand, asks: 'What does God say?'
In April 1521 Luther appeared at the Diet of Worms before the emperor Charles V. He stood firm: 'Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other.' Thomas Carlyle called it the greatest day in the history of the world. We Protestants are supposed to respond warmly and favourably to that – here was one man holding fast to the Word of God, no matter what all the powers of the world might say and do.
The Obvious Text: 1 Timothy 2:11-15
One could begin with a general treatment on the biblical view of gender relationships and roles, but it may be worth reversing that approach, and turning to 1 Timothy 2:11-15. This appears to deal specifically with the issue at hand, and so is the obvious place to start. James Hübner does his best to set out what he calls the 'notorious difficulties of the text', but Scripture appears to be clearer than he wishes it to be.2 Indeed, it is one of those passages which some feminists have categorised as 'the texts of terror'.
The prohibition (vv.11-12)
With full apostolic authority, Paul writes to Timothy at Ephesus: Let a woman learn quietly in all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet (vv.11-12; ESV; the RSV is wrong to have the plural, 'men', but the generic sense is surely correct). Whatever else Paul says, he certainly says that women are to learn – contrary to some rabbinic teaching which forbade women from learning the torah. Paul is not writing about inferiority and superiority. Women and men are both created in the image of God (Gen.1:27), and in Christ are equally redeemed (Gal.3:28). 'To be subject to' does not mean 'to be inferior to'. Christ was subject to Joseph and Mary (Luke2:51), but He was certainly not inferior to them. Paul is writing about function, not status.
The silence is not absolute, as 1 Peter 3:4and 2 Thessalonians 3:12 show, so it is not to be interpreted in a wooden or heavy-handed way. Women can sing, for example. The silence relates to the two functions at hand. Paul declares that women are forbidden to perform two – and only two – functions in the Church: they are not to teach men or to rule over men. Women can teach children (Prov. 1:8; note Timothy himself in 2 Tim.1:5; 3:15) and other women (Tit.2:3-4); they are to manage their households (1 Tim.5:14); they can become deacons (Rom.16:1-2); and they can teach men in informal situations (Acts 18:24-26). In both Testaments the extraordinary prophetic office is open to women (Ex. 15:20; 2 Kings 22:14-15; Isa.8:3; Acts 2:36; Acts 21:9). But the ordinary ruling and teaching office of the presbyter is not open to women. Paul specifically says that he was writing so that Timothy would know how people 'ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God' (1 Tim.3:15).
'Evangelical' Responses
Before we look at those who might call themselves evangelicals, it is worth noting first that the liberal simply rejects what Paul is saying. A. T. Hanson says this is Paul at his worst, and adds: 'Christians are under no obligation to accept his teaching on women.'3William Klassen too acknowledges that 1 Timothy 2:9-15 means what it says, but thinks that Paul did not write it, and laments: 'It is hard to measure the damage it has done in the history of the church.'4 The Roman Catholic Wilfrid Harrington calls it 'a sad passage'.5 These are clear and obvious rejections of the authority of Scripture, yet professing evangelicals have often been no better.
First, there are those who say that Paul was either being inconsistent or wrong in 1 Timothy 2. It is especially played off against Galatians 3:28 ('in Christ there is neither male nor female'), which has been referred to, for example, by Paul Jewett as 'the Magna Carta of Humanity'.6 Krister Stendahl sees this as the 'breakthrough' text,7 while William Webb thinks in terms of 'seed ideas' that are not static but which point to a higher, more dynamic and progressive social ethic.8 Others to come to similar conclusions include Ward Gasque and I. Howard Marshall.
The method seems to be: make Paul refer to office in the Church in Galatians 3:28, and then filter every other text through that grid. However, in Galatians 3:28 Paul is not dealing with offices in the church but with the availability of salvation; whereas in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 Paul is dealing with offices in the church.
A second approach is that of David Steinmetz who has written: 'Calling and not sex is the test of authentic ministry; the church has been called to prove the spirits, not determine the gender.'9 This statement – which Don Carson labels as 'cute, emotive, slightly sardonic – and worthless as a rational argument' – sets out to cloud what God has made clear. Alas for Steinmetz, the Church is called to perform both tasks – test the spirits and determine the gender, at least so far as the eldership is concerned.
Thirdly, it has been suggested by Richard and Catherine Kroeger that 'to have authority' or 'to exercise authority' (authentein) could mean 'to domineer' or even 'to murder'.10 Ben Witherington III is another to favour 'to domineer'. Authentein is a hapax legomena(i.e. it only occurs once in the New Testament), but there are 1,934 words in the New Testament that fall into this category.11 To make much of this is a precarious exercise. H. Scott Baldwin has studied 82 references to authentein in the ancient world, and finds that the meanings are 'based on the idea of the possession or exercise of authority.'12
In any case, the context shows that the meaning of authentein in verse 12 cannot be 'to domineer' or even the KJV's 'to usurp authority'. The Greek word for or (oude in v. 12) usually joins two concepts that are either both viewed positively or both viewed negatively. The 'neither verb A nor verb B' pattern is found 53 times in the New Testament. They join activities that belong together as in Matthew 6:28 ('neither toil nor spin') or Matthew 6:20('break in and steal'). The context in 1 Timothy 2 is thus very much against its joining to teach (a positive activity) with to domineer (a negative activity). Presbyters must be able to teach (3:2) and govern the church (3:4-5) – both positive activities and these are the very activities which are not open to women in any official presbyterial capacity.
Their approach to authentein virtually forces the Kroegers to claim that 'to teach' (didaskein) means 'to teach heresy'.13 To the Kroegers, Paul is saying: 'I do not allow a woman to teach nor to proclaim herself author of man.'14 Craig Keener also says that women were spreading false teaching at Ephesus. Gordon Fee too says that 1 Timothy is not a church manual but an ad hoc document which responds to the situation at Ephesus where elders have been straying.15 However, Paul is objecting to women who, as presbyters, teach men in an official capacity. It is not so much the content of their teaching but the very fact that they are teaching. So far as we can tell, it was males who were spreading false teaching at Ephesus (Acts 20:30; 1 Tim.1:19-20; 2 Tim.2:17-18). But Paul does not ban men from preaching.
A fourth – and very common – approach is to point out the disconnect between modern Western culture and the ancient world of the Bible, and then work out ways to discard those parts of the Bible where the disconnect might be regarded as most embarrassing or inconvenient. R. T. France, for example, notes the fact that we do not keep Old Testament sacrifices in the modern church; we ought not to obey governments unreservedly (Rom.13:1-7); and we are usually not keen to proclaim that it is necessary that women wear head coverings (1 Cor.11:2-16).16 This muddles a number of things in together in order to create the impression that obeying Scripture today may be very different to obeying it in the first century.
Regarding the three examples that France cites, it should be pointed out that the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that the Old Testament sacrifices were only ever designed to be a shadow for the New Testament sacrifice of Christ (see Hebrews 5-10). Obeying human governments was never meant to be an absolute – Elijah, for example, confronted King Ahab over his idolatry and lawlessness. Finally, the issue of head coverings may not be a picture of clarity, but the principle behind whatever is being said is that God is the head of Christ in something of the same way that man is the head of woman (1 Cor.11:3). This surely points to a difference in function, not being or worth.
Kevin Giles takes this approach even further, and plays what he thinks is the trump card of slavery. Giles launches into his attack by asserting that 'No Christian theologian living today would support slavery.'17 He then claims that 'the Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments, endorses slavery.'18 This discredits, in Giles' view, any following of the letter of Scripture. To oppose women preachers is to support African slavery! His conclusion is the precarious one that 'The Bible is authoritative in matters of faith and conduct but not necessarily in science, or on how to order social relations.'19 This presumably means the Bible is not necessarily authoritative when it tells us to love our neighbour as ourselves.
Giles' case is driven by the guilt that exists over slavery, especially as it existed in the southern states of the USA. However, it was a long way from the slavery for which God legislates in the Old Testament. A Hebrew slave could normally obtain his freedom after six years: 'When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing' (Ex.21:2; see Deut.15:1-18). Furthermore, Old Testament slavery was normally linked to punishment for stealing. Stealing was usually punished by means of restitution plus compensation, but if the thief could not repay, he could become a debt slave (e.g. Exodus 22:1-3).
One might add that the Bible condemns kidnapping as a capital crime (Ex.21:16; Deut. 24:7). This is repeated in the New Testament (1 Tim.1:8-11). The NIV has 'slave traders', the ESV has 'enslavers', while the NKJV has 'kidnappers'. All of this makes Giles' emotive linking of women preaching and slavery less than convincing. It is 'guilt exegesis', driven by a false association.
This takes us to the contention of A. B. Spencer who says that 'I do not permit' is a temporary command because it is in the present tense. His view is that 'at this time Paul wanted to restrain the women at Ephesus from teaching the men until they themselves were well instructed.'20 The contention is that Paul is only saying 'I am not presently allowing'. But there are many commands in the present tense e.g. in Romans 12:1; 1 Corinthians 4:16; Ephesians 4:1; 1 Timothy 2:1; Titus 3:8. They do not appear to have a shelf life attached to them.
A popular view amongst many evangelicals is that Paul is forbidding not two functions -– teaching and governing – but one, namely, authoritative teaching. Verse 12 is thus viewed as a hendiadys which usually links two nouns via a conjunction in order to express a modification of the first idea rather than two separate ideas. James Hurley, Susan Foh, and Kathy Keller all adopt this reading of 1 Timothy 2:12, although they still oppose the ordination of women to the eldership. Kathy Keller sees it as parallel in some ways to 'It's good and cold outside today' or 'The baby was snuggled up nice and cozy in the crib.'21
Edmund Clowney considers that it allows women to teach men 'provided that the teaching not be of the authoritative sort.'22John Dickson says that women can give sermons but not teach.23 One can only wonder what non-authoritative preaching from the pulpit might sound like, or why anyone should want to listen to it. John Stott argued that women can become Anglican priests but not bishops24 – an argument that proved unsurprisingly ineffective in Anglican debates in England over the ordination of women.
More substantially, the infinitive authentein is not adverbial to didaskein. Clowney virtually reads the text as though the conjunction oudewere not there. In the New Testament there are only three places where there is a construction along the lines of an infinitive, then a conjunction, then another infinitive. 1 Timothy 2:12 is one. Another is Acts 16:21, 'they advocate customs that are not lawful for us, as Romans, to receive or practise'. The other is Revelation 5:3, 'And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it'. In each case there are two ideas that are related but not identical. To assert that there is anything different in 1 Timothy 2:12 is a rather desperate ploy, without Scriptural warrant. Paul is forbidding two activities, not one activity done in a certain way. If Paul had wanted to forbid one activity (teaching) done in a certain way (with authority), he could have forbidden women to teach ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων which is the expression that is used of Jesus in Matthew 7:29.
There is also floating around evangelical circles the view that 1 Timothy 2 was simply designed not to give offense in the ancient world, and is not applicable in modern Western society. In fact, the same motive of not giving offense would lead to the opposite conclusion in modern Western society, and open the door for women preachers. However, the Archierus of the Imperial Cult in Proconsular Asia was often a woman, so the ancient world was not unfamiliar with the notion of female religious authority. In any case, Paul's reasoning in verses 13-14 is not along the lines of 'Women are not allowed to teach or rule over men because that would offend society's norms.'
Finally, Gordon Hugenberger says that the passage is referring to the husband-wife marital relationship, not male-female relationships within the church.25 The Greek word for 'man' (ανδρός) is also the word for husband, and the Greek word for 'woman' (γυνὴ) is also the word for 'wife'. Hugenberger links it to 1 Peter 3:1-7. But Paul is dealing with how the church is to be conducted (1 Tim.3:15).
If there is a convincing case for women presbyters, I have yet to read it. Christians believe that God has spoken and spoken clearly. The Bible is like a lamp shining in a dark place (2 Peter 1:19).
Reasons for the Prohibition (vv.13-14)
Two reasons are given for this prohibition, and they are introduced by the Greek word 'gar': For Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor (vv.13-14). Paul does not present an argument based on culture or a lack of female education. There are cultural applications in Scripture such as the reference to washing one another's feet in John 13:14. But Paul argues from Scripture in 1 Timothy 2. He points out firstly that Adam was created before Eve. One feminist has replied: 'So what, pigs were made before both of them. Is the pig greater than the man?' That is quite witty for a feminist, but it is also an attack on Scripture. There is a creation order, even before the Fall (see 1 Cor.11:8-9). Redemption in Christ does not abolish the creation order on polygamy or homosexuality (Matt. 19:4-6; Rom. 1:26-27) – nor does it do so on the issue of women presbyters.
Secondly, this creation order is reinforced by the fall. Adam, of course, was guilty (Rom.5:12), but Eve was deceived (Paul uses a strong word in 1 Timothy 2:14). Glenn Davies writes: 'Eve was deceived to play the role of head.'26 J. A. Bengel also tries to show the difference: 'The serpent deceived the woman; the woman did not deceive the man, but persuaded him.' Eve took the lead in Genesis 3, and the results were disastrous – which is not to say that Adam was not culpable too. Sin entered the world through Adam, our representative head (Rom.5:12-14; 1 Cor.15:22).
Paul was not simply writing about a specific problem with the women at Ephesus, as so many scholars claim27. Paul was not aiming at unlearned women or heretical female teachers or bossy, domineering women. So far as we can tell from the evidence, the false teachers mentioned in the Pastoral Epistles were all men (1 Tim.1:20; 2 Tim.2:17-18), and women are mentioned because they were influenced by heresy rather than the purveyors of it (1 Tim.5:11-15; 2 Tim.3:6-9). No doubt, Paul was responding to a specific situation at Ephesus but he was doing so in general terms. As an inspired writer of God's Word, Paul was setting out basic principles for role-relations within the Church. The fact that Adam was created first and Eve sinned first thus has ramifications today in the Church and in the home.
The Role of Mothers (v.15)
Finally, Paul asserts: Yet she will be saved through childbearing – if they continue in faith and love and holiness with self-control (v.15). This has proved something of a problematic verse. It could mean that:
a. women will be preserved through child-bearing;
b. women will be saved through the birth of the Child, Christ Jesus (John Stott);
c. but the idea seems to be that most women will become mothers.
Motherhood is increasingly regarded as a demeaning occupation in Western societies but it is not so regarded in Scripture (cf. 1 Tim. 4:1-3). The influence of a godly mother has been crucial in the lives of so many Christians – John and Charles Wesley, John Newton, and Augustine of Hippo, to name just a few. Paul seems to be saying that Christian women will be saved by bearing children, i.e. By adhering to their God-ordained role.
Other Texts
L. E. Maxwell, whom the Kroegers call 'a thoroughgoing fundamentalist', declares that over 100 passages affirm women in leadership and fewer than half a dozen do not.28 That is tenuous in the extreme. What we have seen in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 fits in with the rest of Scripture.
In the home, for example, headship is entrusted to the husband, not the wife (Eph.5:22-24; Col.3:18; Tit.2:5; 1 Pet.3:1). In general terms: 'the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man' (1 Cor.11:3). Authority and honour are not the same. The football coach has more authority than the players, but the players have more honour. There is within the being of God both equality and authority, and there is in the relationship between men and women something similar – equality of worth and authority in function (1 Cor.11:3). Stanley Grenz and Millard Erickson try to argue that there is mutual submission within the Trinity, but this is not so (Ps.40:8; John 6:38; 8:29; Heb.10:7). The Father, for example, always sends the Son – never vice versa.
The headship in the household is loving but it is still headship – not a figurehead than a head. Old Testament elders and priests were all male (Ex.18:21,25; 29:1-37; Num.11:16-30). Finally, Jesus' twelve apostles are all male. Jesus did not choose six men and six women. Gilbert Bilezikian asserts that 'Pragmatic considerations of accommodation determined the composition of the first apostolic group.'29There is no evidence for that. Christ Jesus did not come into the world to portray pragmatism in the flesh.
The above interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 does not stand out as 'odd' when compared to the rest of Scripture. One can only conclude that the view that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 allows women to be presbyters is not so much an interpretation of Scripture as an assault on it.
Implications and Consequences
How serious is this issue? We are obliged to be gracious in all circumstances, but we need to ask how this issue fits into the general scheme of things. Is this a matter of adiaphora? Does it rank with debates over baptism and the millennium? A number of issues are at stake:
1. The Bible's authority is undermined;
2. Authority in our homes will be dislocated;
3. Our churches will be governed by people whom God has not called;
4. Gender inter-changeability will lead to homosexuality and other aberrations driven by the view that equality must entail identical functions;
5. Our perception of God will be radically changed.
C. S. Lewis predicted this back in 1948, and it has been amply demonstrated by William Oddie in What Will Happen to God?30 (SPCK, 1984) As Mary Daly put it: 'Since "God" is Male, the male is God.' We already have calls for non-sexist Bibles and for liturgies which do not address God exclusively as Father. The National Conference on Women in the Uniting Church in 1990 declared: 'Within our hearts is Spirit/ And She makes clear our part.'31
The demonising of the straightforward reading of Scripture on the gender issue has led to the view that women are liberated if they are allowed to serve in the front line of battle. Gender equality is the solution – supposedly – of much of society's ills. Margaret Bendroth has trotted out the oft-repeated view that different gender roles lies behind domestic violence: 'Modern studies have found the highest incidences of spousal and child abuse in families that are socially isolated and characterized by rigid sex-role stereotypes, poor communication, and extreme inequities in the distribution of power between family members.'32 Thankfully, W. Bradford Wilcox, a Professor of Sociology at the University of Virginia, has written Soft Patriarchs, New Men: How Christianity Shapes Fathers and Husbands33 which shows that maintaining a distinction in roles and functions is not the explanation for domestic violence.
John Knox's First Trumpet Blast Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women caused Calvin some grief, but it was more overdone than erroneous. Just before he died in 1921, B. B. Warfield dealt with this issue. He considered that Paul's words were 'precise, absolute, and all inclusive': 'We may like what Paul says, or we may not like it, but there is no room for doubt in what he says.'34 All in all, we can understand why Wayne Grudem regards so-called evangelical feminism as 'a new path into liberalism'35. After all this, however, it might be fruitful to finish on a more positive note, by citing J. I. Packer's summary that 'God made humanity in two genders. Both males and females bear his image and in personal dignity are equal in every way, but God has set them in a non-reversible relation to each other.'36
