In this article I want to look at the role of women in the church. It really is a shame that this should even be an item for discussion, but the fact is that for reasons they understand as biblical, much of the Church has restricted the role of women to a greater or lesser degree.
As I write this, there will be some who have known me in my role as a Church Leader who will say “why did you not say any of this when you were leading?” The truth is that in my early days I accepted the line that was commonly taught, that the New Testament laid down restrictions on the role of women in the church. In later years, as I took the time and trouble to dig into this properly and look a little more closely at not just a few verses but the whole context of scripture, I realised that my understanding had been flawed. However, in the regional part the particular Church Stream that I was in, this stuff was not up for discussion at all. I am now free of such constraints! It may be that as you read this you find me saying things you disagree with. That’s fine. Just be careful to read the whole article and be sure that you look at the argument based on the whole of scripture, rather than just on one or two verses which on the face of them might support a different view from the one I explain here.
I am in no way making an argument that the church needs to “get with the times” and give women a higher profile in order to reflect society better. The church is not meant to ‘keep up’ with society. It may be that parts of society have recognised the wrongness of how women have been treated effectively as second class citizens at times – well and good. Just because church and society find themselves walking the same path on certain issues doesn’t establish that Church is on the wrong path, it could well be that Society is on the right path. The point is this. Church needs to choose its path based on a careful and proper understanding of scripture, being careful not to be deflected by societal norms either of the current day or norms from years long ago.
As you read this, one or two of the later sections might appear to get more in depth, and to make this easily accessible to everyone I will put a summary of the main points at the end of those sections.
I have been working on the wiring of an old motorcycle recently. Some parts of it had been played about with and altered over the years, so that it was impossible to get it to do all that it was supposed to do. Eventually I had to get a copy of the wiring diagram in the original manual and start from the beginning. As we look at this topic, we need to go back to the original manual, and start at the beginning – Genesis.
THE EVIDENCE FROM GENESIS
In Genesis Ch 2 we have the first mention of the first woman, Eve. There are some things to notice here. Adam had been given the task of naming all the living creatures, and in the process Adam realised that there was no suitable companion there for him. This was a need that Adam had, a need for companionship. Having a dog or a pet rabbit wasn’t going to cut it for him. So God set about the next stage of His plan, the creation of woman. It is important to note that although Adam was formed from the dust of the earth, Eve was created out of a part of Adam. She is not separate in origin, but intimately connected. Eve was not an afterthought to correct an oversight on God’s part. She was the final piece in God’s creative (and eventually redemptive) plan. Gen 2 v 20 refers to Eve as fulfilling the role of “helper”. This has been wrongly taken to imply a subordinate role, as if Man is in charge and has Woman as a less qualified assistant, restricted in what she should be allowed to do. The word ‘helper’ is in Hebrew ‘ezer’, which in its other 29 usages is translated as God. This raises Eve to at least the same level as Adam. Woman was not created to be man’s gofer, a runner of errands, just as God is not our divine gofer to run our errands.
Some (men) would like to infer that since Eve was created after Adam, she was secondary. Adam was first so he must therefore be superior to Eve. On that basis, the animals trees and mountains are superior to Adam because they came first! If we go to Genesis 1 v 26, God says “let us (trinity, Father Son and Holy Spirit) make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule….” The word we translate as ‘man’ here is ‘adam’ which means humanity, mankind, man and woman. There is no suggestion of division here, no suggestion that female might be in some way inferior to male or have any lesser role in the original plan of creation. In fact they are jointly instructed to be fruitful and fill the earth, subdue it and rule over it. For some peculiar reason the church, or should I say men in the church, have often concluded that they are very happy to have women’s participation in the being fruitful bit, but the rest – the subduing and ruling bit – is definitely just a job for the boys! That’s not how God saw it in the original plan. Genesis tells us that “God saw all that He had made, and it was very good.” That includes His instructions to Man and Woman jointly to multiply, subdue the earth and rule over it. The church has oftentimes given the impression that Man should multiply, subdue Woman and rule over her. It is interesting to note that the Man was never told to rule over the Woman at any time before the Fall. That was not in God’s perfect plan.
We all know what followed the creation of Man and Woman with their divinely appointed mission on earth; it was the Fall. We need to understand the significance of this. Having read the story of the creation, the garden that God planted called Eden and the placing of Man and Woman in the garden, you might have assumed that all was well with the world; that peace and order reigned. Not so. Outside the garden there was extreme disorder. Let me explain.
Genesis 1 v 1 tells us that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Verse 2 tells us that the earth was formless and void – coming from two Hebrew words ‘tohu’ and ‘bohu’ meaning a place of chaos, a chaotic wasteland in darkness. Since we know from elsewhere that God is the God of order, not chaos, that He is not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14 v33) what is going on here? The answer is that there is a time gap between Genesis 1 v 1 and v 2. What happened in between was Satan’s rebellion. This is referenced elsewhere in scripture.
I think the picture we have here in Genesis is of a world created by God (1 v 1) plunged into disorder and chaos by Satan’s rebellion (1 v 2) with the Holy Spirit waiting to spring into action and begin the Godheads’ process of restoration/re-creation (v 2). (This has been a fundamental part of Holy Spirits ministry ever since).
So, God sets about bringing order out of chaos, creates a whole new habitat, complete with living beings and then He creates His final answer to Satan’s rebellion – Man and Woman and places them safely in a garden. From there they are to expand outwards and roll back Satan’s influence. God’s plan to defeat Satan was by means of created beings who had choice and voluntarily loved God, followed Him and worked in partnership with Him. Satan’s nature was rebellious and his methods coercive. God was going to defeat him using with beings who were motivated by loyalty and free choice. He chose Man and Woman together for this role. Satan has a new enemy, Man and Woman. The first thing he must attempt is to divide them. So we come to the Fall and it’s effect.
Just before we talk about that however, I want to mention one thing in passing. Genesis 3 tells us that in the cool of the day the Lord God was walking in the garden, and He called out to Adam, “where are you?” Based on this verse, we have often heard a pretty picture described of how God would walk in the garden with Adam at the cool of each day and how they would discuss what the plans were for jobs to be done in this garden. How twee. No doubt Eve would find out the next day when Adam told her the bits she needed to know!
That gives the impression that the whole creation event was about tranquil life in a garden, and I don’t think that’s anything like the whole story. More serious conversations were on the agenda, like how to subdue and rule over a world where evil spiritual forces were at large – how to establish kingdom rule. These were conversations to be had with the Man and the Woman.
We need to remember that at this point they were both as God had created them, “in our image, in our likeness.” They were fully human but fully able to operate in the spiritual realm too, with their God given authority. Believers in Jesus walk in the same authority and ability to operate in the spiritual realm.
It is worth pointing out that the conversations God was having with Adam and Eve were probably remarkably similar to the conversations Jesus had after His resurrection with the Eleven and those with them – which would include the women – in Luke 24. This was. when He explained the scriptures about Himself to them, including a fleshing out of all that He had taught about His Kingdom which they were now to establish.
Now to the actual effects of the Fall. Much has been made of the apparent subordination of women to men following their sin (it was a joint effort). Because of the curse imposed, Eve was told that her husband would “rule over her”. The fact is that the Cross breaks the curse, and so that is not how the man/woman or husband/wife relationship should be any longer.
Summary: Adam and Eve were created as equals although physiologically different. They were to share the role of subduing the earth and establishing God’s Kingdom rule. Life before the Fall informs us about what life should be like for us who live in the Grace of God, having had the effects of the Fall cancelled out. Before the Fall, woman was not subordinate to man but equal to him and together they were given the mission of subduing the earth and ruling over it – which included ruling over Satan and all his works. We have exactly the same mandate now as we establish the authority of the Kingdom of God on the earth – bringing heaven to earth (‘your will be done on earth as in heaven’). The terms of the mandate are the same as the original one given to Adam and Eve before the Fall – Man and Woman share this mandate equally because ‘it is not good for man to be alone’. God’s perfect plan is seen before the Fall, when He commissioned Adam and Eve. He commissioned them jointly and equally with no sense of Eve being subject to Adam. No hierarchy was commanded or mentioned. The original design was and still is the best design. The period from the Fall to the Cross dislocated that plan, but the Cross re-instated it. At no point ever before the Fall, did God give the slightest indication of a hierarchy with Man at the top and Woman under Man’s authority.
THE EVIDENCE FROM THE LIFE AND MINISTRY OF JESUS
As we look at the life and ministry of Jesus it helps to realise that this is a time of transition between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Jesus came to announce the coming Kingdom of God, the end of the Old Covenant, the advent of a new way of doing things when God would “write His instructions on our hearts”. His death would break the power of Sin and pave the way for a new race of people on the earth, a people no longer in bondage to Satan, but free and choosing to follow God. These were to be men and women filled with the Spirit and able to operate in the natural and the supernatural realm. They would have a mandate to fill the earth and subdue it, not in any authoritarian way, but by being servants of the King of Love. They would pick up the mantle and the mandate of Adam and Eve which was dropped at the Fall. This is the theme of Redemption which is woven through the pages of the Bible. This thread is also woven skilfully through each of our lives. We are not individuals who have ‘found God’. He has found us, and we are called into something very big, literally cosmic in its scope. This is what Jesus life and ministry is leading to and pointing to. It was coming but not quite here yet. Jesus had to die first.
Jesus’ attitude to women was quite different from the social norm. Women followed Him (Luke 8 v 1 – 3) and although only 3 are named here Luke adds (v3) that there were many others. In Matthew 12 v 46 – 50 while Jesus was talking to the crowd (not just a few people), someone told Him that His mother and brothers ‘wanted a word’. They probably wanted to advise Him to calm down a bit and be less radical. Jesus’ response is very telling. The text says that he points to His disciples, meaning the crowd – not just 12 guys. He says “here are my mother and my brothers” …..”whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my sister, brother and mother”. In Middle Eastern patriarchal culture, you would not point at a group of men and describe them as your sister, mother and brother. Not without causing deep offence. This shows that He considered His disciples to include women, both young and not so young. This is radical in a patriarchal society. Some of these women defied cultural norms and followed Him from town to town if you read the texts. Unattached women (which really means a woman without a male guardian of some sort) would not travel, stay overnight in different towns etc. In some parts of the Middle East they still don’t.
Jesus happily broke the social norm by sitting alone with a woman He didn’t know, at the well. When His (male) disciples returned they were shocked and found the whole situation awkward. Jesus didn’t care. He was happily about His Father’s business. Revival came to that town because Jesus could see past the traditional norms of keeping women ‘in their place’.
In Luke Ch 10, Mary was sitting at Jesus’ feet, whilst Martha was working in the kitchen. Martha was unhappy about that – we all know the story. This is what is really interesting about this event. Mary was sitting at Jesus feet with the men. The women would traditionally be in the kitchen. There may have been other women in the room with Jesus too. We don’t know. But we do know that it was not culturally normal, and yet Jesus encouraged it. The second thing to note is that Mary was being taught – by a man. Again defying the cultural norm. The third thing is that she is described as ‘sitting at His feet’. The phrase doesn’t necessarily mean literally at His feet. We can have the picture of her sitting there spellbound, gazing up into His eyes. That is not what is going on. In Acts 22 v 3 the same phrase is used to describe Paul’s education “at the feet” of Gamaliel. Paul trained under Gamaliel to be as qualified as him. Mary is training under Jesus to become like Him, to go out and teach and minister like Him. Jesus described Mary’s choice as the best choice.
At the crucifixion the male disciples were nowhere to be seen, apart from John it seems. Although only a few women are named, Mark and Luke tell us that many women were there. What happens after the crucifixion is really telling about our Fathers’ attitude to women. Let’s go to the resurrection.
The startling thing here is that it was to women that Jesus first appeared. In Luke 24 it says “the women” went to the tomb. An angel appeared and said to them “He is not here …… remember how He told you” [that he would rise from the dead]. Then the text says, “they remembered His words”. We are told again and again that Jesus only told His disciples what would happen to Him. These women were obviously included as His disciples because they were present when He talked of His death and resurrection. They were included with the male disciples. To clarify, it seems obvious that there was a core group of 12 disciples and then a wider group of male and female disciples who followed Jesus. (It was from this wider group that the 72 who Jesus sent out to minister, were drawn from – Luke 10).
But there’s more! The first witnesses to the resurrection were women (Matthew 28 v 9). And yet, the testimony of a woman was worthless. It was not acceptable in court. It was not counted as evidence. So why was it women who saw Him first? Was it an accident, just ‘how it happened’? Absolutely not! This event (the resurrection) was planned in meticulous detail before the beginning of time. Revelation 13 v 8 tells us that “the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the earth”. This was all planned from long ago – for you and for me. So, there had been a conversation between Father, Son and Holy Spirit that went a bit like this:
“Right, thats the angel sorted to roll the stone away; Now, who’s going to see you first Jesus? Someone really important that everyone will believe? Not necessary. One of the better disciples? – how about John? Don’t think so. Then, together as one voice they said, “We’ll have two women. The men are not going to hog this show. The restoration of Woman begins here; in fact the restoration of all things begins here”.
Summary: Jesus’ ministry marked the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. The way that Jesus treated women, and honoured women was a marked departure from the norms of His day. He respected women, He taught women, He made time for women, He had women disciples who followed Him from town to town staying away from their homes, He ignored normal social practice in order to minister to women. He elevated women where they had been marginalised. He chose to be born of a woman, and after His resurrection He chose to make His first appearance to women. He never treated women as second class citizens.
WOMEN IN ACTS
The book of Acts erupts with the raw power of Holy Spirit unleashed on the world, and yet because we often read it through staid 20th century churchy eyes we can miss so much. One thing that should stick out like the most enormous sore thumb is the sudden place that women have in this new organic movement called church. It is the most massive change from all that has gone before. Prior to the day of Pentecost, women were restricted in how they could publicly profess their faith. In the Outer court of the temple there was a raised gallery where they were allowed to watch but not participate in worship. Priests and leaders were all male. Enter the Church! What happens next turns everything upside down – well actually right way up:
Women had a voice
Women were at the centre of events
Women prophesied
Women were taught
Women taught
Women were imprisoned
Women were disciples
Women were Apostles!
Women had a voice. Throughout the book of Acts we find that women had a voice. At the beginning of the book we are reminded of Joel’s prophecy now fulfilled, that God will pour out His Spirit without discrimination on men and women alike. Women were a part of the 120 believers who were meeting for prayer together in the days leading up to Pentecost. The women were part of the process for choosing a disciple to replace Judas – read Acts Ch 1. Women were taught, following the example that Jesus had already set, and women also taught. Priscilla and her husband Aquila taught Apollos. He is described in Acts 18 as having a thorough knowledge of the scriptures and being a good public speaker. He had not however been taught fully about baptism (and the end to Sin, and the completely radical nature of the new birth). Priscilla and Aquila took him into their home and taught him – together. Priscilla’s name is mentioned first three times when this couple is spoken of. She is not an attachment to Aquila – not the “beautiful assistant”! She ministers and has value in ministry in her own right. She is there because of what she carries, not because she is married to a gifted man. She was qualified to teach the very knowledgeable Apollos along with her husband. She certainly wasn’t there just to nod supportively and put the kettle on!
Women were imprisoned by Paul (when he was called Saul) before his conversion. This points up an interesting contrast with the time of the crucifixion. On that day, the male disciples were in hiding for for fear of their lives (apart from John). The women, lots of them, were at the crucifixion unchallenged because they were not seen as a threat. However, in Acts, we find that the women were as equal a threat as the men as the church exploded in every direction. That’s why Saul (Paul) had them dragged off with the men. They were functioning on the same level as the men, women like Lydia, who were responsible for the inception of the Church in Philippi.
Women were disciples, but more than that, they were Prophets, Deacons and Apostles too. Phillip the evangelist had four daughters who prophesied. The strong implication here is of a ministry that they had (Acts 21 v 7). Tabitha, also known as Dorcas, the lady who spent her life looking after the poor and whom Peter raised from the dead, is described in Acts 9 as a Disciple. Phoebe in Romans 16 is described as a Deacon (not deaconess) although the NIV chooses to translate the word diakonos as ‘servant’ in this case. That leads us to think of someone who made the tea, did the washing up and took the tea-towels home to wash. We need to remember that Stephen was a Deacon (diakonos) and is described in Acts 6 as “a man full of God’s power [who] did great wonders and miraculous signs” a man of great wisdom with an amazing grasp of all of scripture – read his speech in Acts 7. No tea-towel washer here!
So now we come to Junia who is mentioned in Romans 16 by Paul. Romans 16 contains a list of people that Paul commends who have been instrumental in establishing the Church. I count 26 people named as well as two households. Out of the 26 people named, 9 are women – one third. Junia is mentioned in verse 7 as being “outstanding among the apostles”. The other apostles mentioned by name were Paul, Silas, Barnabas, Apollos, Andronicus and Timothy. The NIV, along with a number of other versions, have Junias instead of Junia. The original manuscripts have it as Junia – a female name. About 1512 it was changed to a Male form, Junias, and then Luther translated it that way in his bible translation. The thinking was that it couldn’t (or shouldn’t) be a woman so it must be a “mistake” so let’s correct it and make her a man! The interesting thing is that in ancient documents we have over 250 uses of Junia as a female name and no uses at all of Junias. Junias is not known at all as a man’s name.. The early Church Fathers, Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome and Abelard in all their writings referred to Junia as a women. It seems that this is a step too far for some men and so they translated it with a made up version of the name to obscure the fact that women were, and are, apostles.
Summary: Women feature very prominently throughout the book of Acts. Women were prophets, were deacons, were apostles and were teachers. They were an integral part of the developing church with little or no restrictions on their roles.
THE BIBLE PASSAGES THAT SEEM TO PLACE RESTRICTIONS ON WOMEN
We now need to look at a few verses in the New Testament that on the face of them might seem to be at odds with everything else that has gone before. There are two points to be made before we start.
1) A text cannot mean now what it didn’t mean then.
2) Scripture is a developing revelation.
Starting at Genesis chapter 1, the revelation of God, His character and His relationship to us is gradually revealed. Later texts or passages may throw light on earlier passages – one simple example is Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 which contains chronological details to do with the time preceding the exodus that are not revealed in the Old Testament account. However, one thing that a later text or passage cannot do is change the meaning, intent or direction of earlier revelation. When we come to passages that seem to imply that women are somehow to have restrictions placed on what they can do compared to men, then we need to stop and think, because this seems to contradict the whole flow of revelation so far. We need to look carefully at those verses and make sure that our interpretation fits into the overall flow of biblical revelation. I suspect that one of the problems with interpretation of these passages has been that it is mostly men doing the interpreting- and men often have an inbuilt bias toward wanting to be in control.
So let’s start with 1 Corinthians 14 v 34.
“women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak but must be in submission as the Law says”.
On the face of it, this seems to be totally at odds with all that we have seen so far. What we must not do is wipe out all that we have understood so far and replace it with a blanket order that from now on women should no longer be allowed to speak in church. We need to look a little deeper in order to resolve the problem. I have a wonderful book called ‘Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible’. Inside its 500 pages, John Haley set himself the task of examining all the alleged discrepancies that he could find. Instead of saying, ‘see, the bible is full of discrepancies’, he set himself to dig until he found the answers that resolved the alleged discrepancies. When we come to something awkward in scripture, it is time to dig.
With this passage people have dug, and most of us are aware of the resolution. This passage was written to a specific church with a specific problem at a specific point in time. The problem being addressed in the Corinthian churches was disorder in their meetings. There are four chapters devoted to it and three groups of people are urged to show restraint. Those who speak in tongues are told to exercise self control, those who prophesy are told to exercise self control, and the women who are being noisy are told likewise. Their problem was not understanding all that was being said and instead of having lots of conversations starting up in the middle of a meeting, they are told to be quiet and wait till they get home and can ask their husbands to explain. This is a simple practicality to resolve a problem of the moment, not an all time instruction that all women in all churches should forever remain silent. Now that we understand that, we can see that we have not disturbed the harmony of scripture.
The next passage that we need to look at is 1 Timothy 2 verses 9 to 15. Again context is important. This was written to a specific church with a specific problem at a specific time. The church was in Ephesus and the underlying problem was the influence of the Ephesian religion of Artemis on the life and practice of the Ephesian church. Artemis was a goddess with a massive seven storey high temple built in her honour in Ephesus, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. The temple was run by women and males were allowed to share leadership only if they were castrated first. There were also thousands of priestess-slaves akin to temple prostitutes. This was not some back alley cult. This temple and its religion dominated every part of Ephesian life, and was famous throughout the known world.
Artemis was supposed to be a goddess of the outdoors and hunting as well as being regarded as the source of all life. She was responsible for protecting women through childbirth. The temple in Ephesus was burnt down in a fire and subsequently it emerged that the fire happened on the same night that Alexander the Great was born in Pella in northern Greece. The conclusion drawn was that the temple had burnt down since she wasn’t there to guard it, because she was busy in Pella watching over the safe delivery of the infant Alexander. Artemis also was known for her ability to kill mothers in childbirth, so it paid to keep on the right side of her. There is a statue of her in the museum at Selcuk (pronounced Seljuk) in western Turkey. She is covered in what are assumed to be either multiple breasts, or multiple bull’s testes which were offered to her as sacrifices. She also has a mass of very intricately plaited hair.
This is the specific situation that Paul was speaking into as he wrote to Timothy to help him correct some of the wrong practices that had crept into the Ephesian churches, practices which had their roots in the religion of Artemis. So, starting at verse 9 of 1Timothy Chapter 2, let’s look at this verse by verse.
I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided
(Greek ‘plaited’) hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God (vs 9 & 10).
In other words, don’t dress like Artemis (braided hair), or like the temple rulers (gold, pearls, expensive clothes) or like the Priestess-slaves (immodestly, indecently and lacking propriety). It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad, that some (male run) churches, particularly in the States, interpreted this as meaning women should not wear lipstick! Not to church anyway.
A woman should learn in quietness and submission (v 11)
The whole thrust of this is to get away from the cultural norms of the cult of Artemis. In the temple, women ran the show. Paul is not saying ‘here it’s different, here men run the show’. What he is saying is that yes, Church is different, but to get to enjoy the fullness of that difference where men and women work together, we first need to call a halt to the imbalance that has come into the church from the temple. To start with, some of the women need to learn this new different way, and learn peaceably, in quietness (not silence as some translators have had it). So what is it that makes Church different? Paul explains in Galatians 3 v 28 that we are all now in Christ. “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female”. So, if being in Christ removes hierarchy and “a Gentile can exercise spiritual leadership as freely as a Jew, a slave as freely as a citizen, then why not a woman as freely as a man” (quote from F F Bruce). But for the Ephesians in their particular situation at the moment, the answer is “Yes, but not yet”. There are things that need to be learnt first, behaviour and attitudes need to change. This is not saying that all women in all churches are to be relegated to sitting passively and meekly as they are properly instructed, either by men or by women who have been suitably instructed by men first.
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be
silent (v 12)
We need to look a little more closely at the text to understand it. We have to do that here because again we have a verse seems to run counter to the whole flow of scripture. The first thing to note is that ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are in the singular here and it is possible Paul is talking about two individuals. Maybe, maybe not, but it’s possible. Secondly, in the Greek the phrase ‘I do not permit’ literally means “I am not allowing”. That sounds clumsy and ‘I do not permit’ is easier on the ear. But, the present continuous tense is there for a purpose. The sense is actually, “in this case I am not allowing” or “for the moment I am not allowing…..” ie ‘until we get things sorted out, and you all have a proper understanding….’
Thirdly, the word for teach is “teach with authority” in order to grammatically inflect or harmonise with the following word ‘authentein’ which is used for ‘have authority’. It is not saying ‘there are times when a woman can teach, but only so long as it’s not authoritative’. As we read this it is helpful to remember that Priscilla taught Apollos, one of the apostles, and she certainly did that authoritatively. She wasn’t suggesting things to Apollos. She was telling him – nicely I’m sure.
So lets look at this word ‘authentein’ which means ‘have authority’ ….”I do not permit a woman……to have authority over a man”. This particular word for authority is only used once by Paul, and there are other words he could have used, so why this one?
Authentein carries a sense of harm with it. Authority with harm. Domineering authority. It means to have full authority over, to have full power over; authority not properly granted, to author a person – to write their life. When used by a woman over a man, to emasculate him. Shades of the temple here, men allowed if they are castrated first. This is what Paul was writing to correct. As a footnote, if it is not right for a woman to use authority over a man in this way, neither is it right for a man to use authority over a woman in this way. This verse has been misused in many ways to disbar women from functioning in some churches. Women have been not allowed to preach, or not allowed to prophesy, or not allowed to lead groups, or not allowed to lead meetings because it might constitute ‘having authority over a man’. Sometimes women have been allowed to do some of these things on condition that there was a man there to “cover her”. (Maybe that’s another topic to deal with sometime!)
For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was
it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner (v 13 – 14)
A reminder here that Artemis was not the source of life, and that woman is not the mother of all life either, so women could not claim authority over men on that basis. The truth is that Adam was formed first and then Eve [was formed]. It was God who formed both. Adam did not form Eve, so he has no rights of authority over her. God is the one who has right of authority here. It is possible that a heretical version of Genesis was being taught to bolster the women’s authority. There was a mix with Gnostic teaching that exalted Eve because she sought after knowledge. Verse 14 is making it plain that Eve was not spotless in the whole debacle. By the way, nor was Adam. He stood idly by while Eve dealt with the serpent – he was complicit from start to finish. This verse is to do with correcting the Artemis influence. It is not a statement that since Adam appeared first, Eve was subject to him, and therefore all women are under the authority of all men
But women will be saved through childbearing- if they continue in faith, love and
holiness with propriety (v 15)
‘Women’ at the start of this verse is ‘she’ in the Greek and could connect to verse 11 and 12 being possibly about individuals, or it could be translated as woman or women. Either way, the point Paul is making is this; ‘you are no longer in sway to Artemis. She has no power over you or your childbearing. It is God who will keep you safe through childbirth if you continue to walk with Him’. It is not saying that a Christian woman’s place is in the home having babies!
The final passage is 1Timothy 3 vs 1 to 13 and concerns the appointment of overseers/elders and deacons. The argument that is often based on these verses is that they specifically exclude women from these roles. So, I’ll make three observations to start with. Firstly this passage occurs, as we have already seen, in Paul’s letter to Timothy to help him establish proper order and structure in the Ephesian church which has become infected to a certain extent by the Cult of Artemis. Secondly, having said all that he has said about correcting that influence, particularly where women were domineering over men, Paul is hardly likely to say “Oh, and by the way, appoint women elders and deacons”. And finally we know from elsewhere that the church had female deacons, and Paul speaks highly of one, Phoebe described a a Deacon (diakonos Gk). So he can’t be saying here no women is to be a Deacon. What he is saying, is that at the moment I am not permitting women to be deacons (remember “I am not allowing” in Ch 2 v 12 above).
The issue about women as elders is at first sight less clear, and I wonder if we have come at it from the wrong angle. Have we been looking at it through our lens of current church style and practice? In our current church culture, an elder is generally one of a team of elders, functioning under a ‘Pastor’ or ‘Senior Leader’. The New Testament church doesn’t seem to be structured like that at all and the terms ‘Pastor’ as a church leader, or ‘Senior Leader’ would not be recognised. Churches were small, meeting often in homes. By the time you appointed a ‘Senior Leader’ and a team of elders, there would be hardly any room round the dinner table for anyone else. It is, I suggest, time to let go of our unbiblical notion of church and church structure, constantly trying to ‘grow’ church, counting the numbers and trying to get bigger. Elders in the New Testament and early church were simply a Father and Mother to the church family that met in their home. One Father and Mother is enough for a family; there is no need for a team of them.
On that basis it would be odd to have a single male elder, or a single female elder as the head of a family, and even less likely to have two male elders – or two female elders.
The ideal for each church family is to have a Mum and a Dad, a husband and wife serving together, alongside each other with equal authority and submission. Just as the Father is the head of the household and is the one ultimately who bears responsibility for what does or doesn’t happen in the family, so it is the man who is listed first in the qualification as elder. There is no implication of superiority here, the elder and wife work together in raising the church family – to the point where the kids leave home and plant new families. The female part of this team is not some supine figure who stands behind the man nodding appropriately as he always takes centre stage, perhaps reading a psalm if she’s lucky. She is as much an elder as he is, but the term elder doesn’t carry the “governmental” role that we have given it. It is about parenting God’s flock. It’s not about being an authority figure governing a large church, elevated and wielding authority over the other ‘members’ (definitely not a biblical term!). To want to be an elder is to desire a noble task as Paul says, because by its very definition, you are desiring to raise and nurture a family of God, winning new people to Jesus and nurturing them to maturity in your own family. A lot of present day ‘Elders’ are too busy being Spiritual Management in the Church, to have time to father and mother their own personal family of believers.
Summary: As we looked at the ‘awkward’ passages of scripture we had to dig a little deeper to get at the meaning. At first sight they seemed to be at odds with the rest of the biblical narrative and so we had to do a little more work. The first two passages were written as correctives to a specific church with a specific problem at a specific time. The solution given is to meet these specific issues. In 1 Corinthians 14 v 34 the issue was disorder in the meetings and the cure was for the women who were disturbing the flow, to keep all their (valid) questions for after the meeting. There is not a general injunction for all women to be silent in all meetings,
In 1 Timothy 2 v 9 – 15 the corrective is being applied to a church that has been infiltrated by the influence of a demonic cult. For the time being those in error (who happen to be women) need to be taught rather than doing the teaching. Relationships need to be established on a proper basis. Domination, control and coercion must go. Therefore this is not a permanent command that for all time in every church, no woman can teach or function in leadership of any kind.
In the third passage, I suggest that we have been trying to make it mean now what it didn’t mean then. We have been trying to apply it to Eldership as we practice it, (capital E with the connotations of importance and status and Management as well as spiritual authority) rather than understanding it as about eldership (small e) with the connotation of serving and parenting. Therefore husband and wife together serve as Father and Mother, elders of the Church family that meets in their home.
CLOSING REMARKS.
In the beginning of human history, God created man and woman and tasked them together with the job of reversing Satan’s rebellion. Satan temporarily derailed that plan but the Cross put it back on track. Satan knows that he will survive longer if he can divide man and woman. As long as the Church insists on letting men run the church with women very much in a second class role, we are fighting with one arm behind our backs. Men and women are equally in this together. That does not mean just the married men and women, often the church has not released single women as it ought. We have misread a few texts and misapplied them and effectively shot ourselves in the foot. It is time for change. It is time to change how we structure church. It is time to recover the challenge of the original calling given to Adam and Eve and reiterated by Jesus, to multiply and subdue. It is time to stand together, men and women, male and female, to fight together and to win together.
Church is out there 