The Full Stature of Women as Servants of Christ in His Church

The Full Stature of Women as Servants of Christ in His Church

An Introductory Discussion of Relevant New Testament Passages

by David R. Leigh, M.A.

A great deal of confusion exists today on the question of women in ministry. Although there are numerous examples in Scripture of women who were leaders and ministers, many Bible-believing Christians today allow a few controversial and easily misunderstood statements by Paul to prevent them from helping women come to full maturity as servants of Christ (cf 2Pe 3:15-16). This essay will seek to alleviate some of this confusion and the consequent resistance to women in ministry on the part of Bible believers by considering alternate explanations and interpretations of key biblical passages. At no time will I call into question the authority of the Bible itself, only the interpretations some people have attached to it.

Behold: A Search Committee Went Forth to Search ...

Let's begin by picturing an imaginary pulpit committee looking for a pastor, or a nominating committee looking to name leaders for its church. Though there is a scarcity of male applicants, "the women who proclaim the good tidings (gospel) are a great host" (Ps 68:11, NASB). Our search committee is faced with this list of applicants:

NAME: EXPERIENCE: REFERENCES

Miriam Prophetess Nu 12, Mi 6:4

Huldah Prophetess 2Ki 22:14-20

Deborah Judge/Prophetess Jg 4:4-5

Esther Established a holy festival Es 9:29-32

Anna Prophetess in Temple Lk 2:36-38

Samaritan Woman Evangelist Jn 4:28-30,39-42

Mary Magdalene Evangelist* Mt 28

Mary, James' Mother Evangelist* Mt 28

Phoebe Deacon/minister, patron/elder (prostatus) Ro 16:1-2

Priscilla Apostolic coworker & teacher Ro 16:3; Ac 18:2,18,26

Mary of Rome Hard worker Ro 16:6,12,15

Junia Outstanding Apostle Ro 16:7

Euodia Coworker of Paul Php 4:2-3

Syntyche Coworker of Paul Php 4:2-3

* The first people Christ entrusted with the message of the resurrection.

The search committee reviews the list and is suitably impressed. However, someone points out, all these applicants are women! And we all know what the New Testament (NT) teaches about women in church leadership! But do we? Let's take a look.

I. A FUNDAMENTAL NT ASSUMPTION ABOUT WOMEN AND MEN IN CHRIST

It was Martin Luther who pointed out that one great mark of the New Covenant is its radical shift of the holy priesthood from a select elite to all who believe in the covenant Lord (cf 1Pe 2:9; Re 1:5b-6). The shift to what Luther called "the priesthood of all believers" does more than make men who were not Levites now into priests; it also opens the door to Paul's great declaration:

For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Ga 3:27-28, emphasis added).

The priesthood of all believers opens the door for all who would call upon the name of the Lord to be clothed in Christ, and therefore to become Christ's representatives, preaching, baptizing, discipling, and interceding as he did on earth among us. As Luther said, "Everyone who has been baptized may claim already to be consecrated a priest, bishop or pope" ("An Appeal to the Ruling Class," 1520). Although Luther himself came short of making this application to women's ordination, Luther scholar Paul Avis clarifies that Luther's inconsistency is rooted not theological reasons but "purely in terms of social expediency" and asserts that today a consistent application of Luther's doctrine would require the opposite conclusion ("Luther's Theology of the Church," Churchman 97, no. 2 [1983], p. 111).

Many traditionalist, when considering Galatians 3:27-28, conclude that though women may be equal to men, according to this passage, that this still does not mandate equal or same roles. When we consider, however, how the early church and Paul himself, applied the principles stated here regarding the other categories mentioned (namely, Jew/Greek and slave/free), we see that in each of those cases equality did mean sameness of roles and sameness of opportunities. Therefore, there is no exegetical basis to be found in this passage for asserting that Paul did not mean the same application to be made for women.

In Old Testament (OT) times, while under the Law, God's people were still under the curse of Genesis 3:16 and men regarded women to be "second-class citizens." In the NT, because those in Christ are no longer under that curse, there is now no question that women too are fully Abraham's offspring and equal coheirs (Ga 3:29). Peter goes so far as to say that any man who fails to honor his wife as a full "partner" and "fellow heir" of God's grace is in danger of having his prayers hindered (1Pe 3:7b, NASB).

Paul shows us how the New Covenant clarifies women's equality by noting how Jesus changed the covenantal sign. The Old Covenant sign was circumcision, which was obviously limited to males. The New Covenant sign, baptism, does not have this limitation. The link between baptism and the priesthood of all believers is clearly in Paul's mind when in Galatians 3:27-28 (quoted above) he singles out baptism as what eliminates the status differences between races, classes and sexes.

There is no lack of examples in either testament of women who were godly leaders of God's people. The sample list of "applicants" (above) is a case in point. Women were the first bearers of the good news of Christ's resurrection, sent by Christ himself to those he'd sent to be apostles. (For this reason some early theologians called these women "apostles to the apostles.") Can you imagine what would have happened if Jesus had told these women to sit down and wait for some men to arrive?

Paul repeatedly mentions and sends greetings to women who were involved in the work of ministry. He calls Junia (whom John Chrysostom confirms was indeed a woman) "outstanding among the apostles" (Ro 16:7). In the same passage (Ro 16:1) Paul refers to Phoebe as a deacon (deakonon), which can also be translated "minister." It is significant to note that the NT nowhere uses a feminine form of this word. In fact, the word Paul uses to call Phoebe a deacon is the same one (to the letter) that he uses to call Jesus a minister to the Jews (Ro 15:8).

Paul also instructs the Corinthian church on how women are to lead in worship activities, such as prophecy (a kind of authoritative speaking on God's behalf) and in leading out in prayer (1Co 11:5).

II. FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES RELEVANT TO THE STATUS OF WOMEN IN CHRIST'S CHURCH

Two key elements required to understand the equal status of women with men are often missed by those who interpret the Bible to exclude women from ministry and church leadership. They are: 1. The nature of authority in the church, and 2. The nature of headship.

1. The nature of authority in the church

The first mistake many of us make is to assume that leadership positions in the church are positions that hold authority by virtue of their office. The truth is that leadership and authority are always earned. Spiritual authority is something that comes as one's leadership abilities, wisdom and character come to be recognized by others. As for authoritarian leadership, Jesus rejected it outright. Recall:

Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant.... (Mt 20:25-26, italics added).

The Greek word used for authority here is a form of exousia. W.E. Vine calls it "the right to exercise power," "the power of rule or government," and "the power of one whose will must be obeyed." As it appears in this text, it means to use such power over others. Gentiles may practice leadership in that way, but, Jesus says, "Not so with you." The kind of leadership Jesus endorsed depends not on titles but on the power of one's godly, servantlike example.

As for following the direction or position espoused by a leader, Bible-believing Christians will always ask whether or not a position or proposal has the authority of Scripture behind it. We Protestants reject the idea of apostolic succession because we understand that the only apostolic authority for today exists in the apostolic teachings canonized in Scripture. Consequently, we also reject the idea that any individual or office today holds inherent divine authority (apostolic or otherwise). If a pastor or teacher cannot demonstrate a position from Scripture, their title or position will not persuade us!

When we recognize how authority is supposed to function biblically, we realize that many women already wield tremendous influence in churches that would never acknowledge them as formal leaders or officers. Because of their godliness and their grasp of the Scriptures these women are respected and listened to, even if in an "unofficial" way (e.g., through their husbands). One problem with this arrangement, though, just to be practical, is that it allows for a kind of hidden leadership to operate in a church. This is dangerous, since it can undermine the efforts of the recognized leadership and does not include them where their gifts and abilities are most useful and needed. Ungifted people can therefore end up with titles and responsibilities while the true leaders (gifted by the Holy Spirit to lead) are excluded. Practically speaking, it's simply more effective to allow those who truly are leaders to work together freely, openly and with accountability. To do less fails to give God our best.

What's more, if we were to ask which of the two sexes historically has been most identified with the kind of meek and humble servanthood that Jesus taught, the record of female Christians would win hands down! If the greatest among us is the most servantlike, why then do we hesitate to recognize the greatness and leadership of women?

Therefore, when someone denies women ordination, leadership titles, or the freedom to teach men on the grounds that this would grant them authority, they act from a false assumption about authority. In the Church of Jesus Christ no one is to exercise authority over another person. Therefore, no such authority exists in connection with any person's office, position or role! Jesus denied it even to the apostles. Yet, when it comes to the kind of spiritual authority that does exist (the kind founded in character, biblical knowledge, wisdom, and servanthood), this kind of authority is already being exerted by women, regardless of their titles and positions. This ability to influence others needs to be harnessed properly so it can be used freely, effectively and in a context that allows for the most accountability. Otherwise it can become dangerous and subversive.

Understanding Ordination in Light of a Biblical Perspective of Authority

Where the bumper often meets the road on the women's issue (crash!), is on the question of ordination. Ironically, the Bible says relatively little about ordination. Some scholars, especially those who take the priesthood of all believers seriously, challenge the whole idea and practice of ordination, at least as it's often applied in creating a division between "clergy" and "laity."

But ordination does have biblical roots. It was definitely practiced in the Aaronic priesthood of the OT (cf Ex 28,29; Lev 7, 8). In the NT we see evidence of it in the church of Acts. In Acts 13, for example, Paul and Barnabas are set apart by the Holy Spirit through the Antioch church for the purpose of being missionaries. Several passages that may allude to ordination seem to associate it with the practice of "laying on of hands." Furthermore, Paul clearly tells Titus he has left him at Crete for the purpose of appointing elders (Ti 1:5), which could be understood as ordaining them. Acts 6 shows us how the early church went about appointing deacons.

If we accept these NT examples as occurrences of ordination, then we see that ordination really is just a way of acknowledging God's calling in an individual's life. It is a time to ask God for the anointing needed to assist called individuals in the task God has for them, and to set them apart for the work of ministry. But the idea that ordination bestows on a person authority or calling or power that isn't already there by virtue of God's choice is foreign to the NT. Ordination has more to do with officially recognizing God's calling on a person than it has to do with imparting authority. This is one reason we heirs of the Radical Reformation tend to reject clericalism and hierarchical church structures. In most Baptist churches, for example, a pastor gets just one vote like every other member, and usually shares any administrative authority with a board or a church chairperson.

On the most pragmatic level, anyone struggling with the question of ordaining women should ask themselves what in actual practice ordination accomplishes. Does it really bestow authority on a person? Ask any pastor who thought he was called to a church in part, at least, because of his many qualifications. Churches usually require their pastor to be highly educated with the right degrees from the right schools. Often they ask for a minimum of years of experience and a good track record. And yet not long after a pastor comes to a church he will find his ideas and plans can be stopped by a "lay person" or group of "lay people" with no education, degrees, or ordination at all. "We've never done it that way before" and "We've always done it this way" can make a pastor's ordination and expertise seem practically irrelevant. It turns out even ordained, multiple-degreed pastors must earn their leadership in any congregation and their ideas must compete on the same level as anyone else's for the respect and acceptance needed to become action and reality.

As for women being ordained, then, the matter has little to do with authority and much to do with recognizing God's calling on women whom God has chosen to serve his people. If, as we will see, Paul could recognize women of his day as apostles, elders, deacons, prophets, and teachers, who are we to deny God's calling on his women servants today?

2. The nature of headship

If Jesus taught that we, his disciples, are not to exercise authority over one another (Mt 20:25-26), and if there is no longer male or female in Christ as far as status, then there is a serious problem with any interpretation that gives men status or authority over women in the church based on gender differences.

1 Corinthians 11

A passage very often cited to support this form of sex-based hierarchy and authoritarianism is:

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God (1Co 11:3).

Although this verse establishes the basis that Paul builds upon to explain head coverings, it is significant that most modern interpreters who want to make this verse deny women equality and authority fail to be as rigid about Paul's applications. The women in most of their churches do not wear veils! It appears there is some kind of selective literalism going on that lets the gender-based interpreters off the hook when it comes to head coverings but allows them to excommunicate anyone who applies the practice implicitly advocated in this text -- women praying and prophesying (preaching) in church.

As we grapple with 1 Corinthians 11:3, we should note that while the Bible does refer to headship in the husband-wife relationship, it never refers to pastors, elders or leaders as having headship. One of the great errors of the popularized "headship" doctrine is that after it wrongly reads authority and submission into this passage, it then goes on to apply it's authoritarian thinking to church leadership. There simply is no reference in the Bible to even suggest that Paul's view of headship can be transferred to church leadership. So, whatever headship is, there is no biblical support for seeing it as anything other than a marriage principle.

Second, while so-called "complementarians" often misuse this passage to establish a hierarchic chain of command (God, Christ, man, woman, dog, cat, mouse, etc.), this passage does not list relationships in this order or manner. What it literally says is "the head of every man (andros = man/person) is Christ; the head of a woman (gynakos = woman/wife) is the husband (aner = man/husband), and the head of Christ is God." In other words, Paul does not provide a hierarchic list but a set of inter-connected relationships that can be charted like this:

Christ | husband | God

every person | wife | Christ

Or we might diagram it like this:

Christ - Every Person

Husband - Wife

God - Christ

In no sense can this order be viewed as a hierarchy or chain of command. If so, Christ would be above God or below the wife, depending on which side of the diagram we look at. What is more evident is that each pair represents an intimate coupling in a network of relationships that begins and ends with Christ.

The critical question to ask about this text is, "What does Paul mean by 'head' (kephale)?" If he means that a kephale relationship involves a superior and inferior in terms of authority, then we have a problem with our belief that Jesus is equal to the Father in deity and authority.

The idea of subordination within the Trinity is a controversy with roots in the early church and the writings of the church fathers. Yet very early it was rejected as unorthodox during the great Christological and Trinitarian debates. This rejection was articulated in some of the great ecumenical creeds before any schism occurred in the Church. Augustine and Athanasius strongly opposed any form of subordinationism, as did later confessions of the Protestant Reformation.

The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology defines subordinationism as "A doctrine that assigns an inferiority of being, status, or role to the Son or Holy Spirit within the Trinity." This doctrine was "condemned by numerous church councils," though it "has continued in one form or another throughout the history of the church."

During the last century subordinationism has resurfaced, especially in discussions regarding the status of women. Ironically, proponents of the error of hierarchalism have revived this earlier error of subordinationism to build their case, arguing on the basis of 1 Corinthians 11:3, especially, that women are subordinate to men as Jesus is subordinate to the Father. But the orthodox position of the historic Church is that Jesus and the Father are completely equal; there is no subordination within the Trinity. Therefore, it will not do to use this passage as a basis for excluding women from equal participation with men in church roles.

The basis for opposing subordinationism is grounded in a truth expressed by the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, that Jesus Christ is "from the essence of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not created, of the same essence as the Father." The council was adamant that "same" means "same," to the degree that the Nicene Creed anathematizes "those who say ... the Son of God is of a different nature or essence," allowing for no variation. Later councils clarified and explained that this sameness of nature means both the Father and the Son are equal in all respects and that there is no subordination within the Trinity. Consider:

"Such as the Father is, such is the Son, such also the Holy Spirit. The Father is uncreated, the Son uncreated, the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father is infinite, the Son infinite, the Holy Spirit infinite. The Father is eternal, the Son eternal, the Holy Spirit eternal.... And in this Trinity there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal with each other and coequal. Thus in all things, as has been stated above, both Trinity and unity and unity in Trinity must be worshipped. So he who desires to be saved should think thus of the Trinity." -- Athanasian Creed, c. 500

"Thus there are not three gods, but three persons, consubstantial, coeternal; distinct with respect to hypostases, and with respect to order, the one preceding the other yet without any inequality. For according to the nature or essence they are so joined together that they are one God, and the divine nature is common to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (5.017)

"HERESIES. Therefore we condemn ... all heresies and heretics who teach ... that there is something created and subservient, or subordinate to another in the Trinity, and that there is something unequal in it, a greater or a less...." (5.019) -- The Second Helvetic Confession (16th Century Reformed)

"The Son of God, the second Person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance, and equal with the Father...." -- The Westminster Confession, VIII, 2 (A.D. 1647, Presbyterian)

And more recently the denomination to which I belong adopted this statement:

We believe that there is one living and true God, eternally existing in three persons, that these are equal in every divine perfection.... -- An Affirmation of Faith, Article 2 (Adopted by the Baptist General Conference in 1951)

A question naturally arises due to statements in the gospels that indicate that Jesus was in submission to the Father (cf Mt 11:27, Jn 5:26-27; 6:38; 8:28; 14:28). But such statements must be understood first as within the temporal context of Jesus' mission and his voluntary choice to humble and empty himself of divine rights in order to save humanity. In his exaltation, Jesus returned to the equality he'd known in eternity (cf Jn 1:1, 5:17-23; 10:15, 30; Tit 2:13; Ro 9:5; 1Jn 5:7). In Philippians 2:6-7 Paul marvels that although Jesus was equal to and the same as God, he voluntarily chose to submit himself to servitude.

Second, passages that seem to indicate that Jesus was subordinate to the Father must be understood in the context of Jesus setting us an example to submit to one another. When Jesus knelt down and washed his disciples' feet he urged them to imitate him in serving and submitting to each other (Jn 13:13-17).

Third, we cannot forget that the Father also submitted to the Son, as when Jesus says in John 11:42 that God always hears him -- in the sense of granting his requests (cf 1Jn 5:15). So sure is Jesus of the Father's loyalty that he even promises his followers can pray in his name and the Father will grant the request (Jn 16:23-24). Likewise, we're told that the Father has committed all he has to the service of the Son (Mt 11:27). So complete was their mutual submission to one another that in John 17:10 Jesus describes his relationship to the Father by telling him, "All I have is yours, and all you have is mine."

It does not follow that because Jesus temporarily and voluntarily submitted to the Father that this means a whole category of people must permanently and manditorily submit to another class of people. And if the Father also submits to the Son, then it does not follow that submission between husband and wife, or man and woman should be less then mutual.

The orthodox view of the Trinity challenges us to understand submission in a new way. Biblical submission is demonstrated for us by One who is equal to the One to whom he submitted (cf Phil 2:6-7). His example explains how it is we are to submit to one another (Eph 5:21) while none of us is authorized to exercise authority over another (Mt 20:25-26; 1Pe 5:1-3).

The priority or order within the Trinity compares roughly to the fact that there was a priority of order in the creation of man and woman. Christ is begotten of the Father. Woman is created from man. Yet, since the equality of the Trinity is unaffected by its order, this suggests the equality of man and woman remains unaffected by the order or chronology in which they were created. Perhaps this is why Paul concludes as he does in 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 that "In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God." In other words, in Christ there is an essential equality between man and woman (Gal 3:28). Therefore, as there is in the Trinity, so there is to be in marriage a mutual submission between husband and wife (1Co 7:4, Eph 5:21), who though two are said to be one (Ge 2:24; Eph 5:31).

It should also be noted in regards to 1 Corinthians 11:3 that while Paul draws a parallel between the Christ's generation from the Father and the woman's source in the man, yet nowhere in the New Testament does Paul compare the woman's role in marriage to Christ's submission to the Father. Instead, when discussing marriage it is the men are told to imitate Christ's submission (e.g., Eph 5:21-33). Women are told to imitate the church.

Just as orthodox Christians reject the idea of hierarchy within the Trinity, so too we should reject the idea of hierarchy within marriage, between the sexes, or within the church. In the church, women and men are to share in the priesthood of all believers (Gal 3:26-29; 1Pe 2:5,9; Re 1:5). This is demonstrated by Paul's association with women as coworkers (e.g. Ro 16:1-7 ff) and by the New Testament's affirmation of women both as equal participants with men in the Christian endeavor and as prophets and leaders (e.g. Ac 2:16-18; 21:9; 1Co 11:4,10; Tit 2:3).

Passages that seem to indicate otherwise must be treated in the same way as passages that seem to indicate subordination within the Trinity. That is, they should be interpreted and understood within the broader context of Scripture and in light of its clear doctrines. To do otherwise is to flirt with unorthodoxy and to break with the historic stance of the Church on a doctrine as essential as the Trinity.

How then should we understand Paul's use of kephale in 1 Corinthians 11? If Paul by the term "head" Paul means to say that men have an authority over women that excludes women from equal participation in the church or in their marriages, this would raise many other troubling questions about other statements by Paul. First, if this is what he meant, how then could he conclude that women do and should therefore have authority (exousia) on their heads, like the angels (v. 10)? For the text clearly says they are to prophesy with authority -- not with a sign of submission -- on their heads. And if kephale means authority of a husband over a wife, then why bring that up in the context of worship?

Second, if Paul thinks male headship means male authority over women, then why would he say in 1 Corinthians 7:4 that a wife has "exousia" (authority) over her husband's body, and that he does not have authority over his own body but must yield to his wife? This passage is a clear case of Paul teaching that husbands and wives are to practice mutual submission (7:5). This is not consistent with the notion that male headship grants men non-reciprocal authority over women.

The "headship means authority-over" interpretation further conflicts with Paul's conclusion in 1 Corinthians 11:11-12, which he derives from the meaning of headship in verse 3. Note:

In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God (1Co 11:11-12).

No, the idea that headship means authority in 1 Corinthians 11 does not fit theologically or contextually. The truth is that verses 11 and 12 actually complete and illustrate Paul's comments about kephale headship. In verses 7 to12 Paul develops the idea of man being the source of the woman in creation and of women being the source of men in reproduction ("nature"). Yet Paul concludes that in the Lord man and woman are interdependent. In other words, the Order of Creation may lead us to assume one type of priority and that the cyclic Order of Nature in reproduction would lead us to assume another, but the deciding factor for Paul is not found in Creation or in Nature but "in the Lord" (v. 11). We can diagram this thus:

CREATION Man => Woman

NATURE/REPRODUCTION Woman => Man

IN THE LORD Woman = Man

It is in the context of speaking of man and woman as each other's source that Paul speaks of the man as the woman's kephale. Paul evidently does this because he understands the word kephale to refer to an origin or source (like a fountainhead) that sustains and supplies its body with life and nourishment through an organic kind of connectedness. This is consistent with other NT references containing the same word and with extrabiblical references of the same time period. Had he wanted to speak of a head in the sense of an authoritative head, a more fitting and more likely Greek word would have been archon. Both the context of Paul's kephale remarks and our knowledge of how the Greek word kephale was used in Paul's day, therefore, point to an interpretation of kephale as meaning "head" in much the way we speak today of the head of a river.

To say then that Christ is the kephale-source of all persons, that a man is the kephale-source of his wife, and that God is the kephale-source of Christ, is to state the intimacy of the relationships involved and the responsibility one has in nurturing and caring for the other. Christ is connected to us by his humanity, making him equal to us, and yet is also connected to the Father by his divine nature, making him equal to God. So also man and woman are organically connected as equals and become mystically united as one in holy matrimony. We could add to our first diagram of headship, then, the following:

Christ | husband | God

every person | wife | Christ

| |

(Affirms Jesus' unity and | (Affirms unity and equality | (Affirms Jesus' unity and

equality with humanity) | of marital partners) | equality with the Father)

We conclude, then, that instead of establishing a hierarchy or chain of command, 1 Corinthians 11:3 actually argues for unity and equality. This is why Paul can speak in the same chapter of women praying publicly and prophesying authoritatively.

Ephesians 5

In the other key passage where kephale headship is mentioned, the same principles are beautifully illustrated:

For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior (Eph 5:23).

Because the context of this verse mentions submission, some interpreters are quick to infer that headship involves an authority relationship. A careful examination of the full context, however, reveals that this simply is not so. First of all, Ephesians 5:21 begins the discussion by calling all believers to submit to one another! This serves as the governing principal behind the rest of Paul's remarks in this passage on the family.

Second, Paul does not say, "Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Ruler or Master," but, "of which he is the Savior." While it certainly is true that Jesus is the Ruler and Master of the church, this is not the parallel Paul makes when speaking of him as kephale-head. Instead, the parallel for kephale is Jesus' role as Savior of the body -- a word that carries far more nurturing connotations than authoritarian ones. Paul's ensuing discussion demonstrates that this is no accident.

Since kephale implies an organically connected source that provides life or nourishment (as a fountainhead feeds the life of a body of water), the next logical step for Paul is to give us a practical example of how kephale-headship works. Rather than illustrate kephale-headship with an example of lordship or authority, Paul goes on to call men to imitate what is certainly the greatest act of submission and service the world has ever seen -- the submission unto death that Jesus rendered for his bride! While wives are called to imitate the church's relation to Christ, men are told:

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church -- 30 for we are members of his body (Eph 5:25-30).

Here we see plainly what Paul understands the role and meaning of a kephale to be and there is no hint of authoritarian structure or hierarchy. Rather, notice by the words I've highlighted how nurturing and life-giving and supportive the kephale is. Submission, as stated in verse 21, is to be mutual. Subservience is to be the kephale's distinctive hallmark.

III. THE SPEAKING ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE NT CHURCHES

Our search committee will ask then, why does Paul elsewhere instruct women to remain silent in 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 and 1 Timothy 2:11? There are a number of possibilities.

One possibility we rule out immediately is that Paul is contradicting himself. Paul could not have endorsed women publicly praying and prophesying with angelic-like authority while at the same time ordering them to be silent. A second possibility we will not consider is that someone added these passages to Paul's writings, though in the case of 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 scholars no less reputable than F.F. Bruce and Gordon Fee have argued that there is textual evidence for such a claim. For the purposes of this paper, we will accept this passage too as canonical and therefore authoritative. We will now consider each of these passages in turn.

The Clamor at Corinth

34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. 36 Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? (1Co 14:34-36)

Whatever Paul means here, it is not necessary to view this passage as demanding total and permanent silence from women. After all, this is still the letter in which Paul instructs women in how to prophesy and pray in the Corinthians' pubic worship services. It is possible that Paul's remarks were intended as temporary measures or that he is addressing a kind of problem not obvious to us because we can only hear half the conversation. We hear Paul's answer, but not the Corinthians' question.

Due to the tremendous confusion in the Corinthian church, Paul may have felt a good first step would be for the women involved to back off until his next planned visit. Part of the problem may have come from a seating arrangement inherited from the synagogue, in which men and women sat in separate sections of the meeting room. Women who were uneducated or even abusive of their new freedoms in Christ may have been interrupting meetings with questions (1Co 14:35), either calling out or murmuring among themselves. In this context, along with general confusion associated with the charismatic gifts, Paul's injunction takes new meaning. Rather than intending women not speak at all (as in prophecy and prayer), Paul may be telling them to cease their distractive behavior. This principle is no different from what Paul expected of men.

Beyond the apparent inconsistency that a total silence interpretation creates with Paul's other statements affirming women's roles in the church, another element of this passage also seems inconsistent. Namely, why does Paul appeal to the Law to establish this position? To what Law is he referring? And since when is the Law to be imposed on Gentile Christians, like those at Corinth? The very non-Pauline, pro-Law nature of this passage is one of several textual reasons why scholars like Fee, Bruce and Barrett have questioned its authorship. But it is possible to see this as coming from Paul's pen without seeing it as expressing Paul's position. For example, it is possible that 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 actually contains a dialogue between Paul and the Judaizers of Corinth, and that we do in fact have both sides of the conversation. According to this theory, verses 34 and 35 are Paul quoting the position of one of the Corinthian factions (perhaps from a letter sent to him by the Corinthians). Verse 36, then, is Paul's rebuttal. Consider the remarkable difference a simple set of quotation marks can make:

"... 34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." 36 Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? (1Co 14:34-36)

The Greek would even allow verse 36 to be rendered like this:

What!? Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?

There are, of course, no quotation marks in Greek, but there is evidence of Paul carrying on this kind of dialogue in unrelated passages of the same letter (see for example 1Co 10:23-24). Recognizing 14:36 as a refutation of the statement in 14:34-35 not only harmonizes this passage with Paul's actual treatment of women but it reconciles his point with his earlier statement that all can prophesy one by one (14:31). It also explains the curious reference to the Law in verse 34. If there is such a law in the OT, surely those who oppose women's leadership would have found it by now! And if such a law did exist in the OT, surely Paul would never make it binding on Christians. It seems more likely that Paul is referring to and rebuking a Rabbinic law or a position that may have represented the position of Judaizers at Corinth.

The Issue at Ephesus and the Infamous 1 Timothy 2:11-14

In the case of 1 Timothy 2:11, where Paul says a woman should learn in silence, the word used for silence, hesuchia, more literally means "quietness." When Paul instructs women to learn with quietness and submission, he is simply telling them to be cooperative. Some scholars point out that just by commanding women to be taught, Paul was advocating a significant liberating advance for that culture from the perspective of both Jews and Greeks. It is as though he said, "Let the women go to seminary and get their M.Div. degrees." It may be that the women Paul refers to did not even know how to behave in such a context.

Why then, our search committee asks, does Paul explicitly say in 1 Timothy 2:12-14 that women may not teach or hold authority over men?

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent [hesuchia: quiet]. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. (1Tm 2:12-14).

This seems to contradict all we have been saying -- and all the NT is saying -- about women and their total equality with believing men as priests. We shall now see just how explicit Paul is in this matter.

Hermeneutical Hurdles In a Noteworthy Context:

Most, if not all, of Paul's remarks in this chapter as a whole create a number of problems for the average Bible-believing interpreter trying to build or maintain a systematic theology -- if they are taken at face value accordinng to most current translations. So, first let's admit that 1 Timothy 2 as a whole is a chapter riddled from the start with difficult statements that amount to hermeneutical hurdles.

For instance, in this same chapter, Paul indicates that God desires all men to be saved (v. 4). Taken at face value this implies all men will be saved, for who resists God's will? To be consistent with the overall teaching of Scripture, however, Calvinist and Arminian alike must explain why the desire of the Almighty God does not come to pass. Or does it come to pass? Should we be universalists? In order to avoid that, we all use legitimate tools of interpretation to understand this statement in a way that denies its prima facie meaning.

The next riddle in the chapter comes when Paul describes Jesus as paying a ransom for all (v. 6). Ransoms, as a rule, are paid to captors. Was Jesus' death a payment to our captor, the devil? Taken at face value, this would have to be our conclusion, as it was the conclusion of several church fathers in the early centuries of Christianity. Most of us, however, cannot accept such this idea. Therefore we again manage to interpret this verse in a way that denies the face-value meaning of the text.

The third difficulty comes for many literalists when Paul says men everywhere should pray with raised hands (v. 8). Many literalists today would ask a person to leave their congregation if they persisted in such a practice! (And certainly no one "requires" men to pray in this way or treats this command with the same rigidness we see applied to women regardng verse 12. Isn't selective literalism wonderful?

The fourth hermeneutical hurdle comes when Paul tells women they should not braid their hair, wear gold, pearls or costly clothing (v. 9). Again most of us either ignore this or we find a way to re-interpret Paul's meaning. We generally do not follow the face-value application of these instructions. (If we did, how would a single televangelist's wife manage to look presentable on television?)

Fifth, Paul seems to indicate -- according to the face value of verse 14 -- that women are unsuited to teach due to a tendency to be deceived like Eve. Certainly if women cannot teach men for this reason, they should not be trusted to teach anyone. We ignore this implication, however, when we allow women to teach one another and our children. And, by the way, it appears Paul did also, since he directed women to teach what is good in Titus 2:3.

Lastly, Paul says women "shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety" (v. 15). Taken at face value this seems to say women are saved by being godly mothers -- or by good works. Some translations, recognizing this problem, change the phrasing to imply God will "preserve" godly women through the birthing process -- a rendering that neither bears up to experience nor does it fit with a consistent doctrine of sole gratia (grace alone) as our basis of acceptance by God in daily life. Because we are faithful to the clear and consistent teachings of Scripture, we again find ways to reinterpret this passage.

Now notice, it is in the midst of this problematic chapter that we find the passage so often used to prevent women from taking part in full leadership and ministry in the church. Here it is where those who have interpreted their way around the face-value meaning of every other verse suddenly demand that we follow a rigid, literalist, face-value method when we come to the verses about woman teaching! How can we explain this sudden respect for the letter that turns words by the teacher of grace into law, if not by pointing out that this change of heart is clearly motivated by male chauvinism?

Is it just an ironic coincidence that literalists who generally do not require men to raise hands in prayer now want to require women to be silent? Is there some magic formula that allows us to permit pearls and gold but guard our pulpits from those who wear them? Can we deny both the universalism that seems implied early in this chapter and the salvation by works apparent at its end, and yet be rigid, dogmatic, and literalistic about the words in between?

If we recognize there are times we cannot take Paul's statements at face value, but that a consistent and legitimate hermeneutic must be employed to get at a passage's intended meaning, then what possible justification can there be for not following the same rules of interpretation when it comes to Paul's words about women? This is shear inconsistency on a point that flies in the face of the Scripture's clear teachings about women. Paul's teaching and example, along with the clear teachings of the entire NT, affirm that women are to be coheirs, coworkers, and coministers with men in Christ.

Ephesus, where Timothy was ministering, turns out to be the very place where Priscilla, who was not an Ephesian, taught and ministered. It was Priscilla who with the assistance of Aquila put the missionary Apollos on the right theological track (Ac 18:19-26). Obviously Paul is not concerned about women in general teaching, although the same may not be the case for Ephesian women.

But how then, our search committee asks, do we explain Paul's statement in 1 Timothy 2:11-14?

Various Interpretations Proposed

Several interpretations have been offered. One is that this was an instruction only to be carried out "until I come" (see 1Tm 4:13) and that Paul intended this as a temporary measure suited for a specific situation, perhaps necessary only until the women of Ephesus matured in their faith and could then, and only then, imitate the likes of Junia and Priscilla. Paul's phrase, "I do not allow," can also be rendered more literally, "I am not allowing," which would certainly fit the idea of temporality.

A second interpretation notes how remarkable it was, given his cultural context, that Paul endorsed women studying. The Greek word Paul uses here (manthaneto, derived from mathetes) implies discipleship. This was progressive thinking for his day, completely counter to the pagan and rabbinic thought likely to be found in Ephesus. According to this interpretation these Ephesian women's need to be taught was comparable to Eve's naiveté concerning God's command in the garden. The Genesis record seems to say the command not to eat of the tree was given prior to Eve's creation and that it was therefore up to Adam to communicate it to her. Paul uses a similar line of reasoning concerning the whole Corinthian church in 2 Corinthians 11:3. Given what we know about the proto-gnostic myths concerning Eve, some of the Ephesians' errors may well have been based on ideas about Eve that Paul's words here serve to correct or rebuke. Since Paul's argument regarding Eve cannot be taken as justification against women teaching -- or else Paul could not have allowed them to teach each other or their children -- it seems more likely that Paul meant to show the need for these Ephesian women to be taught the true faith and for them to be cooperative with the men of their community as fellow disciples. Paul's directives for quiet (not silence) and compliance (not subjugation) are merely practical instructions to the uneducated who are unaccustomed to being taught.

These women may also have been accustomed to "running things" by means of manipulating men. In systems of hierarchy where "superiors" dominate "subordinates," subordinates tend to react this way out of a need to create some kind of equality. Since the gospel is supposed to create equality, a continued pattern of manipulation would cause a domination reversal, instead of establishing equilibrium. The result would be a "usurping" of existing legitimate order, which is always wrong, regardless of whether a man or a woman does the usurping. "Usurp" is one possible way to render authentein (commonly rendered in this passage as: "exercise authority"). Control in the hands of ignorant or manipulative people, regardless of gender, is always dangerous. Paul may be saying they should stop this, not because the men have authority but because any leader needs to be trained and established leaders need to be respected.

The severely inadequate education of the Ephesian women, in comparison to Ephesian men, is pointed out by David M. Scholer (JETS 30/4, Dec 1987, p. 416):

In general, the ancient Greco-Roman Mediterranean society was structured basically as follows. The average age of a man at marriage was thirty, but the average age of a woman was eighteen or less at marriage. When a man married he was already a man of the world who knew how to ... function socially and economically. When a woman married she was still a girl who had never been allowed to answer a knock at the front door of her home. A typical woman bore a child about every two years or thirty months through her childbearing years. She was always "barefoot and pregnant" and at home.... Further, women generally had no education beyond the domestic arts.

Certainly, Paul's desire that women be taught (or discipled), and his indication elsewhere that some of Timothy's work was to prepare Ephesus for Paul's arrival (e.g. 1Tm 4:13), is indication that Paul's real desire was to quiet ignorance and to calm disorder (as is evidenced throughout this letter, e.g. 1Tm 2:8) until more could be done. These particular women's behavior happened to be part of an overall problem, just as older people criticizing Timothy's youthfulness were also part of the problem (1Tm 4:12).

The fact that Paul greeted, worked with, and commended women workers and ministers elsewhere should be ample indication that he was not here negatively singling out women as women, but that he was singling out a specific group in a specific church with specific problems. Paul's association with and approval of women should also alert us to his goal in encouraging women to be taught or discipled. In other words, the purpose of training these women was to enable them to serve as leaders, but all in due time. This was also Paul's approach to new believers and to young men (e.g., 1Tm 3:3).

From an Obscure Word to an Interpretation that Illumines the Whole Chapter

All of these proposed interpretations make sense and show that an anti-woman rendering of this passage is unnecessary. But there is another scenario that not only explains Paul's meaning in this verse but also brings the whole chapter together into a meaningful whole. In light of what we know about the Ephesian temple cult that existed where Timothy served, there are some other factors to consider.

First, we know that in the ancient pagan temples priestesses were really prostitutes. It was believed that intercourse with these "priestesses" was a way to obtain mystical wisdom (sophia) and knowledge (gnosis). These priestesses would braid their hair with gold and pearls and dress in seductive costumes (cf 1Tm 2:9-10) to identify themselves as having cultic power and authority.

Scholars point out that the word authentein (1Tm 2:12), which is usually rendered "have authority," is used nowhere else in the Bible. Where it occurred in extrabiblical literature, it never meant "to be an official" or "to be authorized," but generally held negative rather than neutral or positive connotations. The fact that Paul uses an unusual word with pejorative connotations implies that whatever he did not want the women to do, it also would not have been good for men to do it either.

Some scholars note that authentein may have had connotations associated with the Ephesian cult. They say the word, as used in other Greek literature, never bore the meaning of having authority (unless this is the sole instance) until the fourth century. Its classical meaning was to "thrust oneself," having definite sexual overtones. The second-century Greek grammarian Moeris advised his students not to use this word because he considered it vulgar. In its religious context, they say, it was always associated with sexual orgies masquerading as religiously sponsored fertility rites. The apologist Clement of Alexandria even refers to a group of orgiastic heretics as authentia, the cognate of authentein.

Rather than suggesting that women should not teach the Bible, therefore, Paul seems to be saying the women of Ephesus needed to be careful not to be identified with or to confuse themselves with the women of the local cult. They especially should not carry over ideas or practices from that cult to their new religion. Instead, they (like their male counterparts) needed time to be thoroughly taught so that they could distinguish themselves and Christ's teaching from their pagan roots.

One reason why authentein ought not be taken to mean that women cannot teach with authority over men becomes apparent when we realize that not only did Paul allow women to prophesy (1Co 11:5 ff.), but the NT heartily endorses the practice of women prophesying (cf Lk 2:36-38; Ac 2:17-18). One could argue that since the church is built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20) and since the gift of prophesy is usually placed before all other gifts but apostleship in Paul's gift lists, that to prophesy is to exercise greater authority than to teach (cf 1Co 12:28). Furthermore, even the most conservative Bible commentators have defined the role of a NT prophet as a kind of authoritative teaching and preaching. Consider this definition by John Calvin of what Paul means by "prophet" in 1 Corinthians 12:28:

Let us by Prophets in this passage understand, first of all, eminent interpreters of Scripture, and farther, persons who are endowed with no common wisdom and dexterity in taking a right view of the present necessity of the church, that they may speak suitably to it, and in this way be, in a manner, ambassadors to communicate the divine will.

Calvin goes on to associate them with pastors and teachers, noting their similarities, and describing the prophet as one who is especially gifted at confronting the whole church with God's promises and threats, and at helping the church make sound application of God's word.

The Amplified Bible describes the role of the NT prophet in 1 Corinthian 14:3 in this way:

... the one who prophesies -- who interprets the divine will and purpose in inspired preaching and teaching -- speaks to men for their upbuilding and constructive spiritual progress and encouragement and consolation.

In the March 1984 issue of the Standard, Alvera and Berkeley Mickelson, pointed out that:

Prophecy as defined in 1 Corinthians 14 includes upbuilding, encouragement, edification (vv. 3-4), evangelism (vv. 22-25), careful evaluation (v. 29), teaching (v. 31) -- all the things that make a church an organism of spiritual power.

In other words, if we truly understand what prophets are and do, and we realize that God includes women in that role, then it becomes incongruent to think women should be excluded from other roles based on the idea that teaching or authority may be involved.

But if teaching really were authoritative, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. If teaching were an exercise of authority, then you would have to accept my belief in woman's ordination -- not because I've convinced you but because I would have authority by virtue of my position as a pastor and teacher. In reality, I have no such inherent authority, and neither does any other teacher. Every teacher, male or female, is judged by the church to speak authoritatively only if and when his/her words have the backing of the Scriptures behind them. In the church, anyone who can demonstrate that the Scriptures support or teach what s/he claims is deemed to speak with God's authority. But note, the authority is not in the person; it is in the content of what the person says. The folly of limiting this kind of teaching to men only, therefore, should be obvious!

Well then, what about Paul's arguments in 1 Timothy 2:13-14 that he allegedly uses to support his statements against women having authority and teaching? Does he not state that women should not teach because man was created first and woman was first deceived? Even Calvin and Luther commented that they didn't think these were very good reasons for preventing a woman to teach! After all, if this is the case, then women shouldn't be allowed to teach anyone! (Yet cf Ti 2:3.)

Couldn't it also be that Paul is using this argument not so much to keep women from teaching as he is trying to further build his case for allowing women to learn? In other words, isn't there an analogy here? Just as Eve was created second (after God gave Adam instructions about the tree), and just as she fell into deception, so now aren't the Ephesian women -- who have not yet learned the word of God fully -- aren't they in the same vulnerable position? In order to protect them and the community, shouldn't they be taught before becoming leaders with the men?

Perhaps the solution lies in understanding these statements about Eve in the context of Paul's later confusing remarks about women and childbearing. A literal translation of 1 Timothy 2:14-15 reads like this:

14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But she will be saved through the childbearing, if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Notice, the "she" in verse 15 is "the woman" (Eve) of verse 14. And it is "she," "the woman," Eve, who will be saved -- i.e., redeemed or restored (see NIV text note). From what? If we say salvation from hell, this suggests salvation is conditioned on obedience and character, a salvation by merit or works. But Paul could mean she is saved from her deception and from that which demands her silence. This would open the possibility that in her restoration she will be able to teach. By what means will she be so restored? Through "the childbearing;" not just any childbearing, but by the bearing of The Child, or seed, that Eve was promised (Ge 3:15). Not only is it the case, as we saw when discussing 1 Corinthians 11, that through childbearing woman counterbalances man, but in the promised childbearing Woman produces the 'seed' of her redemption, which bruises the serpent's head, namely Jesus Christ. There is, however, an important proviso. Woman will be restored, provided that individual women (note the plural "they" in verse 15) continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety (modesty). In other words, womanhood is saved, restored, redeemed through Christ's coming into the world. But this only becomes effectual when individual women faithfully demonstrate the maturity of faith demanded of any Christian teacher!

It is very reasonable, then, to conclude that 1 Timothy 2 is actually a case for the redemption of woman/womanhood and the restoration of women as teachers, provided that the women in question are properly taught and are examples of sound Christian character. It's arguable then, that 1 Timothy 2:8-15, would communicate Paul's intent better if it were paraphrased like this:

I want all men everywhere (even literalists) to pray in every place lifting up holy hands, without anger or arguing. In the same way, I want women to pray, wearing modest clothing, with decency and propriety, not acting like pagan priestesses who braid their hair with gold and pearls, and who wear expensive, seductive clothes. Instead, they should dress themselves in good deeds, appropriate for women who desire to be godly worshipers.

Let a woman be discipled, learning in quietness with all cooperation (without loud disputes as some Ephesians are known to do, cf 2:8). I am not permitting a woman to teach or to have the kind of disruptive sexual religious authority over a man that the Ephesian priestesses have.

For Adam was made first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a sinner. Yet Woman will be restored, i.e., saved from that which demands her silence, and will be able to teach, because of the childbearing she was promised after she sinned. Woman not only counterbalances the created priority of Man in nature (cf 1Co 11:11-12), but she produces the promised "seed," which bruised the serpent's head, namely Jesus Christ. Therefore, Woman will be restored when individual women genuinely embrace faith and love in holiness, with modesty, thereby demonstrating the maturity of faith demanded of any Christian teacher, regardless of gender.*

*Note: This paraphrase is adapted from one by my friend, Dr. Hal Miller of Boston. I am also indebted to him for other elements and ideas in the preceding discussion.

IV. WOMEN ELDERS AND OUR MALE-BIASED TRANSLATIONS

If we consider Paul's instructions for choosing elders/overseers (synonymous with "pastors") in the very next chapter, 1 Timothy 3, and in Titus 1:5-2:5, a case can be made that Paul not only saw women as vital participating church members, but that he actually had both genders in mind for the job.

After asserting in 1 Timothy 2 that women will be restored by faith and faithfulness, he goes on in chapter three to say, literally, "If anyone (not any man) aspires to do the work of an overseer," it is a fine work that person desires. He then gives a list of qualifications of elders and deacons. An examination of the Greek in this passage reveals a remarkable fact obscured by most modern translations. Namely, that each trait Paul lists for elders can apply to women as well as to men. Philip Payne's illuminating research on the Pauline use of pronouns reaches a revolutionary conclusion: "The Greek ... has not even one masculine pronoun or possessive, nor any other grammatical specification that Paul had men and not women in mind" (Trinity Journal, 2NS, 1981, p. 195). This should not surprise us since elders are called to be examples to the flock (1Pe 5:3). What they are, each us should aspire to become, whether male or female.

Yet, the obvious gender inclusiveness of Paul's speech would never be known if all we had was our modern translations! In fact, the only thing that might suggest that Paul had men in mind in this chapter comes from his reference to the elders having wives. But there is no good reason to insist that this is anything other than a requirement of monogamy in marriage. Certainly Paul, a single man, would not rule himself out as an elder for not being married. Why should he rule out a woman who has a monogamous marriage just because she is the equal partner of the other sex? It should be noted that Paul uses the same standard for the order of widows in 1 Timothy 5:9.

In fact, we can prove that Paul did not mean to exclude women in 1 Timothy 3 when he issued these lists of elder and deacon qualifications. Consider first that the requirements for deacon are almost identical to that of elder. Second, consider that in Romans 16:1 Paul calls Phoebe (a woman) a deacon (using the masculine form of the word). In other words, even if it were true that the 1 Timothy and Titus elder/deacon qualification lists are masculine in form, we still cannot say this excludes women. For it is a fact that Paul commends Phoebe, a woman, as one who satisfied the very requirements of these lists and who therefore bears the appropriate title. Further, since Paul, when speaking of a woman, used the masculine form of the word deacon, this shows that we cannot argue on the basis of masculine wording that he means to exclude women when he uses masculine speech. Women were, as shown here, included by Paul's own practice! Any masculine orientation in these lists, then, should be viewed as being due more to the unintentional limitations of language than to an intentional language of limitation.

In addition, Paul also calls Phoebe in the same passage "prostatus" (Ro 16:2). The word means one who protects, presides, or sponsors as a patron. It is used of elders elsewhere (1Tm 3:4-5;5:17). If Phoebe were male, we can be sure many translators would not hesitate to translate this word -- and justifiably so -- as elder, minister, pastor, or even as presiding elder. Paul calls her a prostatus to many, including himself.

Though Paul's list in Titus is similar to 1 Timothy 3, a discussion takes place in Titus regarding "old men" and "old women" that does not have a parallel in 1 Timothy. What our modern translations don't tell us is that the word for "older men" (presbutas) in Titus 2:2 comes from the same word for "elders" (presbuterous), which Paul told Titus to appoint in 1:5. The word presbutidas ("older women") in 2:3 is simply the feminine form of presbutas. Louis Berkhof comments in his Systematic Theology (1938, Eerdmans, p. 585), "The term presbuteroi is used in Scripture to denote old men, and to designate a class of officers somewhat similar to those who functioned in the synagogue." In other words, "older men" and "older women" could easily be rendered "elder men" and "elder women," respectively. Translators fail to do this partly because of traditional biases and partly because they note that the words in 1:5 and 2:2 for "elders" are different. This difference is easily explained, however, if we consider that in 2:2 Paul was speaking of males only (which is clear from the context) but in 1:5 he had both genders in mind! Likewise, just because in some contexts Paul contrasts these older men and women with young men or women, this need not suggest Paul is not still referring to elders. Berkhof, for example, suggests that presbuteroi were distinguished from hoi neoteroi as early as Acts 5. He says the term hoi neoteroi, meaning the young men, may have referred not only to young people but to disciples preparing for leadership roles. They may even have been forerunners to those who were later called deacons (Berkhof, p. 586).

To summarize, then, between Romans 16, 1 Timothy 3, and Titus 1-2 we have evidence for arguing that Paul meant to include, and did include in practice, qualified women as deacons and elders.

CONCLUSION: What's a Search Committee to Do?

What then should our search committee conclude? Some on the committee may argue that the women on their list were exceptions rather than the rule. Yet the Scripture presents none of them as exceptions. It presents them instead as exceptional role models for women and men of faith to emulate. And, we could argue, even if they were exceptions, then exceptions must be allowable and acceptable to God. On what basis then can we exclude women whom God may want to add to his list of exceptions? How do we know that in this generation the prophet Joel's vision, quoted by Peter on Pentecost as initiating the NT era, might not have special magnitude for the church in these the last days, as God's sons and daughters are to prophesy?

No less a theologian than James I. Packer, who has opposed the ordination of women, had to admit that after reviewing the biblical data and the practice of the early church, "the New Testament papers in particular make it evident that the burden of proof regarding the exclusion of women from the office of teaching and ruling within the congregation now lies on those who maintain the exclusion rather than on those who challenge it." (J.I. Packer, "Understanding the Differences," in Women, Authority and the Bible, Alvera Mickelson, ed., IVP 1986, p. 296).

Perhaps our search committee should take a cue from how the early church handled the question of circumcising Gentiles in Acts 15. Though many prominent believers argued from Scripture for the necessity of circumcising Gentiles before their conversions could be seen as of God, the deciding factor came down to one thing: God had already poured out his Spirit on the Gentiles in question, as evidenced by their exhibiting spiritual gifts. James, therefore, argued for an interpretation of Scripture that fit the facts, rather than trying to deny the facts with a traditional interpretation.

If our search committee would consider the giftedness and abilities of the women in question, dealing with each as individual cases instead of judging them categorically, the choices might seem less confusing. The gifts of the Spirit are given without respect of gender. Why not allow for their use in the same way? If God in his wisdom and grace distributes them to women, who are we to oppose women who want to be faithful in using what God has entrusted to them to their fullest potential? If God called Deborah to lead Israel, and there were no objections, who are we to object when a New Covenant Deborah rises to God's call?

The purpose of this essay has been to raise overlooked possibilities for understanding the full stature of women as coworkers for the gospel according to the biblical perspective and for reunderstanding passages traditionally seen as obstacles to women in leadership. If there is a multiplicity of equally plausible interpretations, then to make only one of them the standard for orthodoxy is both unfair and arbitrary. But, if out of a multiplicity of competing interpretations a less or least plausible one becomes the standard for orthodoxy, then wisdom and understanding have given way to prejudice.

We have seen that the so-called "traditionalist" objections to women's ordination fail to take into account the overall picture that emerges from Paul's dealings with women. They are also out of kilter with the NT teaching on the priesthood of all believers. These objections focus on passages tightly connected to other biblical texts that the same "traditionalists" openly reinterpret or ignore. This highly selective "literalism" therefore, constitutes only one (highly inconsistent) interpretation, among many possible ways of understanding these texts. It is my opinion that the alternatives raised in this paper represent a superior and far more consistent way of understanding the NT's statements about women. They especially explain how Paul can speak of so many women as ministers, deacons, leaders, apostles, prophets, worship leaders, and equal colaborers for the gospel.

Those of us who advocate ministry by and ordination of women in the church are often falsely accused of being liberals. It is assumed that if we believe women can be ministers then we must not believe the Bible. I hope the reader can see now just how seriously wrong that is. It now appears that maybe the reverse is the case and that to be committed to the Scriptures actually requires a commitment to endorsing the practice women in ministry. Nowhere in this paper has it been suggested that a single word of the Bible should be ignored or doubted when understood as originally intended.

Perhaps the question of liberalism should now be turned around and presented to the so-called traditionalists (who really advocate a modern tradition unknown to the early church). Who is the real liberal? The one whose beliefs are consistent with there being women leaders and teachers in the Bible or the one who considers them anomalous and out of place in the Bible's theological system? If you cannot reconcile Paul's statements and his actions concerning women, or if you cannot reconcile any part of the Bible with its other parts, then it is you who must acknowledge that either there are contradictions in the Bible or that you are unqualified to make assertions about its contents. Of course, to admit to contradictions in the Bible would be to allow for errors in it, which is to deny that the Bible is God's infallible Word.

So, who is the liberal? The one who selectively decides to be a literalist at the expense of the Bible's unity, or the one who consistently applies balance, common sense and scholarly study to understand every passage of Scripture in its original context? And who is the real literalist? The one who treats women like second class creatures unequal to men? Or the one who can explain how and why the Bible empowers women like Junia, Priscilla and Phoebe to serve their Savior to the fullest of their abilities as equal coworkers with men?

The more I study the Scriptures the more convinced I become that in Christ gender is not an issue with him when it comes to who may serve and how. Instead, we will see God's image more beautifully and faithfully displayed as both men and women serve God by giving him all that they are as leaders, pastors, prophets, evangelists, deacons, and so on.

Paul Yonggi Cho, pastor of the largest church in the world (60,000), was once asked what the secret of his church's growth was. He said it was two things: effective small groups and women leaders. If we are faithful to this biblical inclusion of the sexes, imagine the benefits we can reap with time! Imagine the blessings that can come when we find ourselves serving God alongside of a Priscilla, a Junia, a Phoebe! May that day come soon. As Amos 5:24 says, "Let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream."

Two questions now remain: What will our search committee decide? And will they have the courage to pull down any dam that restrains that river of justice? The answer depends on you. For as you guessed, you are that search committee.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND APPENDIX

Sources & Recommended Reading:

Del Birkey, The House Church: A Model for Renewing the Church (1988, Herald Press). Chapter 5: "Servant Leadership and the Ministry of Women" is especially informative.

Mary J. Evans, Woman in the Bible (1983, InterVarsity Press). An excellent survey of biblical passages relating to women's issues.

Stanley Grenz, Women in the Church (1995, InterVarsity Press). In my opinion, this is the book to start with.

Hal Miller, Biblical Feminism: Study Guide (1987, VOICES in the Wilderness, Inc., P.O. Box 4486, Salem, MA 01970). I have drawn heavily from this work and am indebted to Dr. Miller for his insights.

All Bible passages are from the New International Version unless otherwise stated.

Revised 1/21/99