THEOLOGIES OF SEPARATION

The role of women in the church has been debated from the conception of the church. The Apostle Paul, along with his companion Timothy, spent time correcting and influencing the wrong views that were being promoted within the church at Ephesus. Paul also spent a number of paragraphs discussing the problems concerning the role of women in the Corinthian church. These discussions found within the epistles, although enlightening, is not totally conclusive. The Apostle Paul and the other writers of the epistles did not formulate within Scripture a complete outline of the woman’s role in the church. The epistles are “occasional documents” meaning that they were written with the intention of answering or correcting disputed ideas, philosophies, and practices in the church; because of the nature of these “occasional documents” the ideas and problems behind the solutions are not always given.[1] Therefore, a careful study of the passages as well as the cultural context is necessary if one is to adequately interpret these difficult passages. The intention of this paper is to prove that these passages teach certain universal, cross-cultural truths that define and limit the role of women in the church throughout the whole of the church age.

Due to the large number of passages that deal with the discussion of this topic only a select few will be thoroughly examined in this paper. These passages include: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16; 1 Corinthians 14: 34, 35; and 1Timothy 2:11-15. The author also assumes that the reader holds a fundamental viewpoint of the subjects of prophecy, tongues, and the inerrancy of Scripture.

The Context of the Debate

Two important aspects that must be studied to adequately understand the role of women in the church are the aspects of the historical and modern contexts. One must understand what Paul and his contemporaries thought of the ideas of women in leadership roles. An understanding of the modern context and the feminism that pervades it is also an important aspect if one is to draw proper conclusions from Scripture. The emphasis of this study will obviously lend itself to the historical and scriptural context, but the current cultural context cannot be ignored if an adequate argument is to be formulated.

The Historical Context

The historical context in which these passages are found presents the reader with the uniqueness of the Christian viewpoint. H. Wayne House points out that the majority of the community surrounding the Corinthian and Ephesian church was a community with a very low view of women. House points out that almost all extra-biblical literature during Paul’s time period presents women as inferior to men.[2] House mentions that Epiphanius and Tertullian, contemporaries of Paul, both believed that women lacked wisdom and that they were easily seduced.[3]

When one compares the extra-biblical literature with the literature of Paul and the other apostles one might find some similarities between the supposed ideas and propositions of the literature of both the biblical and extra-biblical authors. However, these similarities are similarities of coincidence not fact.

The Judaist perspective often held a low view of women in that the Israelite men often thanked God that they were not born women and that the women were excluded from synagogue services. In contrast, the church and the authors of Scripture held an entirely different viewpoint of women. Women were invited and even welcomed into the fellowship of the church, and women were granted special privileges of service, only excluding the roles of teaching and authoritative positions.[4]

The viewpoint that Jesus took is also a unique view of women not held to by Christ’s contemporaries. Jesus openly accepted women as spiritual agents alongside of men. Jesus interacted with women in a way which was notable in His time. Jesus’ viewpoint was “unusual, and it was representative of a higher view of women than was allowed by some (if not the majority) of rabbinic authorities.”[5] Jesus expected that both women and men share and proclaim the testimony of the Lord in passages like Matthew 28:1-7 and in the account of the Samaritan women in John 4:28-42.

It is also important to note that in Scripture women were appointed to roles as young women, older women, and as widows. Some early churches also placed women in the position of a deaconess, although this is not clearly mandated in Scripture. Women were given duties of ministering to women, assisting in baptisms, and other aspects of hospitality as members of a local church.[6] Clearly the role of women in the church was presented and practiced in a much different way than was presented by the culture surrounding the early churches.

The Modern Context

The society in which one lives often greatly affects the way in which someone views Scripture. The human tendency to interpret Scripture based on present cultural circumstances is a dangerous hermeneutic. One must carefully examine the Scripture to adequately solve the debate concerning the woman’s role in the church. It is, however, important to take note of the various viewpoints that individuals take concerning this debate if we are to adequately defend a Scriptural viewpoint.

Evangelical Christianity essentially holds to three viewpoints of the woman’s role in the church. These views include what the author of this paper will call the egalitarian viewpoint, the strict restriction viewpoint, and the limited restriction viewpoint. The egalitarian viewpoint holds that men and women are equal in all aspects of Christianity including equality in role and function. The strict restriction viewpoint holds that women are to be restricted from most roles within the church including a limitation from being involved in the pastorate, deaconship, Christian education, and most other forms of leadership. The limited restriction viewpoint holds that women are merely restricted from the pastorate and the deaconship and would not be allowed to hold a position in which they would rebuke men.

The majority of liberal Christianity, as well as many evangelicals, holds to the egalitarian viewpoint. The egalitarian insists that either the common interpretation of the Pauline Epistles is incorrect or that the Bible contains errors as it relates to God’s viewpoint of women in the church. This paper will deal only briefly on the latter and deal more extensively on the former.

The Scriptural Content

As mentioned above there are three passages which are of particular importance to this argument, these being: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16; 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35; and 1Timothy 2:11-15. A proper viewpoint and understanding of these passages is of utmost importance if one is to adhere to the biblical model of the church.

1 Corinthians 11:2-16

One of the most debated passages among evangelicals in the Pauline literature on the role of women in the church is 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. The debate concerning this passage is a legitimate area of concern if one is to properly understand God’s idea of the role of women in the church. 1 Corinthians 11:5 states that “every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head.” This passage seems to be somewhat contradictory to what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1Timothy 2:11 where Paul concludes that women should “keep silent in the church” and that women should not “teach, nor usurp authority.”

Two Interpretations of ekklesia

1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is often interpreted in two different ways: the first being that it is referring to informal gatherings of the church and the second being that this is a particular allowance for the women to participate in worship in a specific way. The “informal gathering” interpretation is held due to the way in which the word ekklesia or “church” is interpreted. This view holds that the word ekklesia is often used in two different ways. One way in which the word ekklesia is used is in referring to a group of believers in a particular city or cities. The second way in which the word ekklesia is used is in reference to the local group or the local church.[7] Thus, those who hold this view would believe that Paul is simply implying that women can prophesy or pray only in informal gatherings of the church since he is directing this command to the broader group or city of believers rather than to the local church.[8] This view, however, does not seem to fit the context of this passage.

The most likely interpretation of this passage holds that this is allowing women to participate in certain Holy Spirit led utterances if they are showing proper submission to the authority of male headship. This is made clear by the context of the sections surrounding the passage as well as by the wording that is used immediately within the passage. The sections immediately surrounding this passage involve an exhortation regarding the proper decorum of the people in public worship and the proper decorum of the people in the participation of the Lord’s Supper.[9] Paul also gives little indication that he was going to be turning the subject from public to non-public worship. This would make the most likely interpretation of the word ekklesia to be referring to the gathering of the local church.

Exegesis of the Passage

Paul begins his exhortation concerning women in the church with the common Pauline device of “I praise” then “I praise not.”[10] Paul then establishes the idea of headship by giving the threefold hierarchy of Christ over man, man over women, and God over Christ. The order of this hierarchy indicates that Paul was most presently concerned with the middle of the three headships.[11] Paul felt that he needed to correct an abuse of the God ordained hierarchy that some of the women of the Corinthian church had begun to deny by action.[12]

Some feministic authors dismiss the idea of a God ordained hierarchy stating that the word kefalhj or head refers to “source” rather than authority. This, as pointed out by Grudem, is beyond even the most remote stretch of the word. Grudem points out that in a study of over 2,336 examples of the word kefalhj only two gave crude credence to this idea. The use of the word head, as in authority, not only fits the context of the passage, but it also is used in this way forty-nine times in extra-biblical literature.[13]

The misinterpretation of the role of women in the church by liberal and evangelical feminists is misinterpreted in much the same way that the Corinthian women were misunderstanding the God ordained hierarchy. The Corinthian women felt that, because they had a new position in Christ as spiritual equals with men, they were also equal in role and authority. This wrong viewpoint led the Corinthian women to reject the wearing of head coverings.

The use of the head covering is not necessarily a cross cultural mandate that should be placed upon women today. The mandate of the head covering was not even the point that Paul wished to communicate to the Corinthian women. It is important to note that during Paul’s time “no other church had women who prophesied uncovered,” and only the pagan religious exercises rejected the head covering on women.[14] The use of the head covering in the culture in and surrounding the Corinthian church was for the purpose of showing male headship. The lack of the head covering would have been disrespectful and offensive to those both inside and outside of the church because it symbolized a rejection of male headship.[15] Paul was here pointing out that the women were rejecting the symbol of their God ordained authority because they did not properly view their God ordained authority. This is an example of Paul advocating that proper practical theology will stem from a proper exegesis and understanding of the Bible.

Paul, having given an exhortation to women to prophesy with their heads covered, goes on to an explanation of why the women were to cover their heads. In verses 4-9 Paul’s use of the phrase “dishonoureth his/her head” most likely indicates the dishonoring of two heads: their personal head and their authoritative head. When Paul states that the man who wears a head covering is dishonoring his own head it is most likely saying that he dishonors himself and he dishonors Christ. Likewise, when a woman dishonors her head she is dishonoring both herself and she is dishonoring her male authority. This is evidenced by the fact that Paul uses the illustration of the shaving of the woman’s head. Paul is not advocating that one shave the head of a rebelling woman but rather that the woman is dishonoring her head as if it were shaven. Paul also indicates that this dishonoring is a dishonoring of the authoritative head in that he shows in verses 7-9 that the woman is the glory of the man, and the man is “in the image and glory of God.”[16]

Paul also indicates that the head covering was to be worn by women when praying and prophesying.[17] The term praying could be used in two ways according to scholars: the first interpretation would be that this is a specific type of prophetic prayer; the second interpretation holds that this is a type of prayer which is still experienced today. No matter which interpretation one takes, one cannot make an immediate application of this passage today based on the presupposition that sign gifts are not presently in use in the church today. However, the timeless truth that the God ordained hierarchy must not be rejected by either men or women can be applied cross culturally.

I Corinthians 14: 34, 35

Reconciling the I Corinthians 11 passage to this passage is key to understanding and possessing a biblical view of the role of women in the church. As noted above, Paul advocated that women cover their heads in chapter 11, but in chapter 14 he appears to contradict himself by stating that women are to keep silent in the church.[18] This apparent contradiction is easily reconciled when one takes into consideration the context which surrounds these two verses.

The Greek word lalew used here as a prohibition to keep women from speaking in the church is a considerable point of argumentation. The prohibition is commonly interpreted in one of the following ways: a prohibition against inspired speaking by women; a prohibition of disruptive speaking by women; a prohibition given by a sexist, namely Paul; a prohibition against the judging of prophets by women; or a prohibition against all forms of speaking by women in the church.[19] All of these viewpoints, except one, have considerable agreement problems with the surrounding context and the overarching themes found in all of Pauline literature.

The surrounding context of this passage is speaking about the proper use and correction of prophecy given during gatherings of the local church. The context within this passage would support the idea that Paul was prohibiting women from correcting prophecy that was given during a gathering of the local church. This interpretation of the prohibition is a likely interpretation when viewed in relationship to what was discussed in 1 Corinthians 11 as well as what is discussed in 1Timothy 2. Paul recognized that when women prophesied in the church they were not exercising their own authority, but the prophecy was under the authority of the Holy Spirit.[20]

The judging or discerning of prophecy required an aspect of teaching and would definitely by a symbol of authority if the woman corrected the prophecy of a man. The judging and correcting of a prophecy required that a teaching and an admonition be given in regards to the spoken prophecy. This judging of prophecy would therefore be a rejection of the God ordained hierarchy. Although, as mentioned above, prophecy is no longer being used of God in the local church, the timeless principle that women are not to teach or exercise authority over a man during the gathering of the local church is presented in this passage.

I Timothy 2:11-15

The 1 Timothy 2 passage is perhaps the least obscure passage regarding the role of women in the church. Unfortunately many evangelical feminists use faulty hermeneutics in interpreting this passage, leading to conflicting viewpoints. There are three interpretations commonly given concerning this passage: women are not allowed to teach or give exhortation over a man, Paul was only dealing with a specific Ephesian problem, or that Paul was only against women teaching men in an authoritative way.

The interpretation that holds that women are not to teach men in a domineering way is perhaps the easiest to dismiss. The nature of teaching, preaching, and admonishing lends itself to the need to exercise authority over the one being taught. If teaching was not given authoritatively the teaching would not be acceptable to the learner. One must argue from authority if they are to teach anyone. The Jewish concept of teaching bears an even greater emphasis upon the authority of the teacher.[21] This interpretation most importantly should not be taken because the Bible shows that teaching and reproof are positions of authority in 1 Timothy 4:16-5:2 and 2 Timothy 4:1-4.

The interpretation which holds that Paul was only referring to a specific Ephesian problem or to temporary prohibition of teaching by women is also an incorrect interpretation. Wallace points out that interpreting the word epitrepw as a descriptive present, implying the temporary prohibition of “I do not presently permit,” rather than a gnomic present has four interpretative problems: that the text would not suddenly indicate a descriptive present; this specific use of the descriptive present can not be applied universally without “ludicrous” ramifications; this use does not fit the grammar of the sentence structure; and the context does not support this interpretation.[22]

The context, grammar, and the whole of Pauline literature all make clear that the correct interpretation of this passage is that women ought not to teach or exercise authority over a man in any church setting regardless of culture. The exhortation given by Paul requiring women to remain silent in the church would be better translated as referring to women learning in quietness and in all submissiveness. The interpretation of the phrase en hsucia could refer to both silence or to quietness; however the overarching context of attitudes in worship requires the later.[23]

One could thus conclude from this passage that Paul was not requiring that women hold absolute silence because absolute silence is not necessary to remain under subjection; rather, silence and a refrain from teaching was required. The timeless role of women is to learn and to remain in godly submissiveness to their God ordained authority.

Conclusion

Certain conclusions can be drawn from the three timeless truths that God’s word presents regarding the role of women in the church: that the God ordained hierarchy must not be rejected by either men or women; that women are not to teach or exercise authority over a man during the gathering of the local church; and that the role of women in the church is to learn and to remain in godly submissiveness to their God ordained authority.

Obviously the passages interpreted above give certain universal, cross-cultural truths that define and limit the role of women in the church throughout the whole of the church age. These truths indicate that women are not to operate outside of their God ordained roles in any church throughout the church age. These principles exclude the women from participating in the majority of church leadership roles including the pastorate, deaconship, or any biblical teaching position over a man. The timeless truths, that Paul presents, would also require that women not challenge teachers or preachers concerning doctrinal or biblical teachings in public settings. The biblical teaching on the role of women in the church would also limit the role of women in worship services based upon specific contexts. The current cultural context may disallow a woman from being involved in public Scripture reading, song leading, choir directing, Christian school administration, etc[24]; however, these cultural restraints are neither endorsed nor prohibited in Scripture. It is important to keep in mind that the congregation’s view on what is being presented by the above positions may lend to there being differences in the universality of these applications. The important aspect of both Paul’s argument and the argument of the author of this paper is that God’s ordained hierarchy must not be rejected.

[1] Ann L. Bowman, “Women in Ministry: An Exegetical Study of 1 Timothy 2:11-15,” Bibliotheca Sacra 149 (April 1992): 193-194.

[2] H. Wayne House, The Role of Women in Ministry Today (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 62.

[4] Merrill F. Unger, “Archaeology and Paul’s Campaign at Philippi,” Bibliotheca Sacra 119 (April 1962): 155.

[7] Harold R. Holmyard III, “Does 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Refer to Women Praying and Prophesying in the Church?” Bibliotheca Sacra 154 (October 1997): 465.

[9] Kenneth T. Wilson, “Should Women Wear Headcoverings,” Bibliotheca Sacra 148 (October 1991): 442.

[13] Wayne Grudem, “The Meaning of Kefalhj (‘Head’): A Response to Recent Studies,” Trinity Journal 11 (Spring 1990): 3-4.

[17] It is important that the exercise of prophecy is not equated, as some feminist would, with the idea of preaching. It is clear, based on Paul’s exhortation on preaching and prophesying in 1 Corinthians 11-14, that what Paul is discussing as prophecy in chapter 11 is different from that of preaching. Paul points out that the preaching of the Word is more honorable and authoritative than prophecy and is thus reserved for men. House, 126-131.

[18] Some authors conclude that 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 is not part of the original text. “These objections while interesting, are not persuasive. Not one shred of manuscript evidence exists that indicate the verses are not original, though Fee is correct in observing that they do not occupy the same position in all of the manuscripts.” House, 34, 153.

[22] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 511.

[24] The following article is beneficial in describing some of the common roles of leadership within the church. A careful examination of each of these roles would be beneficial in determining one’s own stance on this subject. Wayne Grudem, “But what should women do in the church?” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 1.